Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[boomerangutang]

Thanks to whomever put together that comparison video and loaded it on YouTube. That, and hundreds of other possibly useful items (which might help solve the crime) are the sorts of things RTP are NOT doing.

Here's something else RTP won't do: They won't stage a reenactment at that site as viewed by the same CCTV. Here's how it could be done: pick a night when the lighting is similar. Clear all non-participants away (suggest: 30 meters). Have the people of interest (former and current suspects) take turns, one by one, dressed the same as original video, and see how it looks. Have them do it several times, running and walking, left and right, so it would be less easy to play-act (to try and avoid looking similar to original).

Trouble is, even if there were a reenactment, police couldn't keep themselves from micro-managing it - even to the extent of physically holding the suspects (sometimes one cop on either side), and police couldn't help but make it into a big loud media event. ....because that's the only way they know how to do reenactments.

addendum: To get a more accurate comparison, have an outside person stage the reenactment - perhaps a film-maker (familiar with lighting, etc) who can be truly objective, and who is not beholden to police or army. Thai or farang.

I can't think of a better example to the extent of the cognitive dissonance at work here than wanting to use footage that proves Nomsod couldn't be on Koh Tao at the time the other CCTV footage was recorded as proof that they are the same person on both videos.

As for your reenactment idea, all the person on the original footage has to do is to walk differently and drats, foiled again!

Any other brilliant ideas?

As usual, you miss the gist of what was proposed. Comparing the two videos does not relate to whether the alibi video is solid. It relates to comparing the gait of the young man. One (at the U) is known to be him. the other is assumed to be him by most observers. Comparing the two CCTV's should clear up most doubts. Though, like I said earlier, nothing at all is going to implicate Nomsod in the minds of people who are fixated on shielding him from any scrutiny.

Yes, I broached the possibility of 'persons of interest' walking/running differently in a reenactment. That doesn't completely preclude the usefulness of a reenactment, except for people who seek to shield Nomsod. If you read my post, you'll see that the reenactment could be done by an outside person familiar with video, because that person would more likely be objective. If police tried to do it, it probably would be a similar fiasco as the reenactment at the beach. If nothing else, a reenactment at the walkway would give a better idea of relative heights of suspects and their walking/running gait. Also, the positions of their heads relative to their bodies, and their relative body types - all related to the CCTV. No one without a shirt can change the profile shape of their body (for more than a few seconds), can they?

[boomerangutang]

Yesswirree and when they want to know how to go about conducting good detective work they now know just where to turn, you betcha.

Thanks. I'm not a professional detective, but I could indeed show Thai cops a few things to improve their detective skills.

For starters, I would tell them to insist on items which could prove to be evidence - instead of sheepishly asking, and then with the first hint of a person (usually of a higher social rank) saying 'no' - then just grinning, waiing, and saying 'sorry for asking.'

Or, not even thinking of looking/asking for things which could prove useful.

There are a slew of other things a good detective could do. Thai detective, despite not being independent (they work for authorities) are indelibly conscious of everyone's social status, so that affects how they deal with people. And that's just one of many drawbacks to them being able to conduct an objective professional and thorough crime investigation.

[JLCrab]

Thanks. I'm not a professional detective, but I could indeed show Thai cops a few things to improve their detective skills. ... and just where did you learn a few things to improve their detective skills?

From The Big Sleep -- Humphrey Bogart as Marlowe:

Vivian: What will your first step be?

Philip Marlowe: The usual one.

Vivian: I didn't know there was a usual one.

Philip Marlowe: Well sure there is, it comes complete with diagrams on page 47 of how to be a detective in 10 easy lessons correspondent school textbook ..

[IslandLover]

In those videos of the young man in shorts walking/running, he's often shown with his right arm straight (often swung high) and his left arm bent at the elbow. All people have a particular 'gait' and that peculiarity is particular to the young man in shorts. When those videos are shown side by side, as in this comparison:

...the similarity is striking to all but die-hard Nomsod shielders.

The walking style is also similar to the man in the No. 9 football shirt who shook hands with David Miller (did he know him?) in the street in the early hours of the morning on 15th September 2014 and was one of the last people to see David alive. Like the couple in the CCTV footage of running man, this person has never been identified.

Edited April 3, 2015 by IslandLover

[catsanddogs]

In those videos of the young man in shorts walking/running, he's often shown with his right arm straight (often swung high) and his left arm bent at the elbow. All people have a particular 'gait' and that peculiarity is particular to the young man in shorts. When those videos are shown side by side, as in this comparison:

...the similarity is striking to all but die-hard Nomsod shielders.

The walking style is also similar to the man in the No. 9 football shirt who shook hands with David Miller (did he know him?) in the street in the early hours of the morning on 15th September 2014 and was one of the last people to see David alive. Like the couple in the CCTV footage of running man, this person has never been identified.

I still think Number 9 could be Nomsod.

[IslandLover]

In those videos of the young man in shorts walking/running, he's often shown with his right arm straight (often swung high) and his left arm bent at the elbow. All people have a particular 'gait' and that peculiarity is particular to the young man in shorts. When those videos are shown side by side, as in this comparison:

...the similarity is striking to all but die-hard Nomsod shielders.

The walking style is also similar to the man in the No. 9 football shirt who shook hands with David Miller (did he know him?) in the street in the early hours of the morning on 15th September 2014 and was one of the last people to see David alive. Like the couple in the CCTV footage of running man, this person has never been identified.

I still think Number 9 could be Nomsod.

Number 9 and the running man look very similar indeed in more ways than one.

[AleG]

I can't think of a better example to the extent of the cognitive dissonance at work here than wanting to use footage that proves Nomsod couldn't be on Koh Tao at the time the other CCTV footage was recorded as proof that they are the same person on both videos.

As for your reenactment idea, all the person on the original footage has to do is to walk differently and drats, foiled again!

Any other brilliant ideas?

As usual, you miss the gist of what was proposed. Comparing the two videos does not relate to whether the alibi video is solid. It relates to comparing the gait of the young man. One (at the U) is known to be him. the other is assumed to be him by most observers. Comparing the two CCTV's should clear up most doubts. Though, like I said earlier, nothing at all is going to implicate Nomsod in the minds of people who are fixated on shielding him from any scrutiny.

Yes, I broached the possibility of 'persons of interest' walking/running differently in a reenactment. That doesn't completely preclude the usefulness of a reenactment, except for people who seek to shield Nomsod. If you read my post, you'll see that the reenactment could be done by an outside person familiar with video, because that person would more likely be objective. If police tried to do it, it probably would be a similar fiasco as the reenactment at the beach. If nothing else, a reenactment at the walkway would give a better idea of relative heights of suspects and their walking/running gait. Also, the positions of their heads relative to their bodies, and their relative body types - all related to the CCTV. No one without a shirt can change the profile shape of their body (for more than a few seconds), can they?

"One (at the U) is known to be him. the other is assumed to be him by most observers"

No, you simply declare that "most observers" agree with you, and ain't that convenient; but since you have amply demonstrated to have no credibility by repeatedly peddling demonstrably false "facts". "factoids" and opinions, what you say carries no value whatsoever.

I'm not fixated on shielding anyone, I'm just exposing your never ending stream of baloney. Not that the nth time that is being said to you would make any impact since you are fixated on your own detached reality.

[berybert]

Nom has proof that he was in Bangkok at the time of the crime. Well not at the time of the crime but there or there abouts.

Why has nobody come forward to say that Now wasn't at the uni at the time of the crime, well there or there abouts.

Nom has a guy who is paid lord knows how much to say he was at school( His solicitor). Now forget all that, how many of Noms class mates have said he was in school the day after the murder ?

I can not recall any of them saying that. Can you ?

AleG/jdinasia you defend Nom 24/7 whilst telling us you don't even know the guy. Why are you so passionate about him ?

[catsanddogs]

I can't think of a better example to the extent of the cognitive dissonance at work here than wanting to use footage that proves Nomsod couldn't be on Koh Tao at the time the other CCTV footage was recorded as proof that they are the same person on both videos.

As for your reenactment idea, all the person on the original footage has to do is to walk differently and drats, foiled again!

Any other brilliant ideas?

As usual, you miss the gist of what was proposed. Comparing the two videos does not relate to whether the alibi video is solid. It relates to comparing the gait of the young man. One (at the U) is known to be him. the other is assumed to be him by most observers. Comparing the two CCTV's should clear up most doubts. Though, like I said earlier, nothing at all is going to implicate Nomsod in the minds of people who are fixated on shielding him from any scrutiny.

Yes, I broached the possibility of 'persons of interest' walking/running differently in a reenactment. That doesn't completely preclude the usefulness of a reenactment, except for people who seek to shield Nomsod. If you read my post, you'll see that the reenactment could be done by an outside person familiar with video, because that person would more likely be objective. If police tried to do it, it probably would be a similar fiasco as the reenactment at the beach. If nothing else, a reenactment at the walkway would give a better idea of relative heights of suspects and their walking/running gait. Also, the positions of their heads relative to their bodies, and their relative body types - all related to the CCTV. No one without a shirt can change the profile shape of their body (for more than a few seconds), can they?

"One (at the U) is known to be him. the other is assumed to be him by most observers"

No, you simply declare that "most observers" agree with you, and ain't that convenient; but since you have amply demonstrated to have no credibility by repeatedly peddling demonstrably false "facts". "factoids" and opinions, what you say carries no value whatsoever.

I'm not fixated on shielding anyone, I'm just exposing your never ending stream of baloney. Not that the nth time that is being said to you would make any impact since you are fixated on your own detached reality.

Hardly a detached reality when most of the posters on here concur. Happy to be in that boat,

[jdinasia]

I can't think of a better example to the extent of the cognitive dissonance at work here than wanting to use footage that proves Nomsod couldn't be on Koh Tao at the time the other CCTV footage was recorded as proof that they are the same person on both videos.

As for your reenactment idea, all the person on the original footage has to do is to walk differently and drats, foiled again!

Any other brilliant ideas?

As usual, you miss the gist of what was proposed. Comparing the two videos does not relate to whether the alibi video is solid. It relates to comparing the gait of the young man. One (at the U) is known to be him. the other is assumed to be him by most observers. Comparing the two CCTV's should clear up most doubts. Though, like I said earlier, nothing at all is going to implicate Nomsod in the minds of people who are fixated on shielding him from any scrutiny.

Yes, I broached the possibility of 'persons of interest' walking/running differently in a reenactment. That doesn't completely preclude the usefulness of a reenactment, except for people who seek to shield Nomsod. If you read my post, you'll see that the reenactment could be done by an outside person familiar with video, because that person would more likely be objective. If police tried to do it, it probably would be a similar fiasco as the reenactment at the beach. If nothing else, a reenactment at the walkway would give a better idea of relative heights of suspects and their walking/running gait. Also, the positions of their heads relative to their bodies, and their relative body types - all related to the CCTV. No one without a shirt can change the profile shape of their body (for more than a few seconds), can they?

"One (at the U) is known to be him. the other is assumed to be him by most observers"

No, you simply declare that "most observers" agree with you, and ain't that convenient; but since you have amply demonstrated to have no credibility by repeatedly peddling demonstrably false "facts". "factoids" and opinions, what you say carries no value whatsoever.

I'm not fixated on shielding anyone, I'm just exposing your never ending stream of baloney. Not that the nth time that is being said to you would make any impact since you are fixated on your own detached reality.

Hardly a detached reality when most of the posters on here concur. Happy to be in that boat,

"Most posters on here concur?"

Shaky reasoning. You have a small group of conspiracy theorists and an even smaller group that thinks the trial should go forward.

What is missing from the conspiracy theorist version is why absolutely no evidence of the people that they want to blame is there. Not even any evidence that the one person most fixated upon wasn't in BKK.

Not one photo. No evidence that furniture in one part of the alibi had been removed prior. Not one person saying that he ever met the deceased. Nothing.

On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there. The defendants saying that they were drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours. The DNA. Multiple confessions (at least 2 of which will likely be admissible in court) other migrants placing the phone with the defendants. Etc....

[berybert]

And still no one has come forward to say they were with Nom in Bangkok on the day of the murder. Of course not forgetting his cousin. The one who said she was indeed with him

in Bangkok whilst texting from Pattaya.

And you are 100% against this Portip woman (is that her name) having anything to do with the DNA altho she is the countries leading expert. Because she paid for something that dint work. That's a bit like sacking a drummer because he cant play guitar.

[fritzzz25]

Make sure nobody asks JD any questions. Pointing out quotes he says and asking him to answer questions becomes deleted..............

[metisdead]

A post in which the quoted post had been altered has been removed:

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[fritzzz25]

"Most posters on here concur?"

Shaky reasoning. You have a small group of conspiracy theorists and an even smaller group that thinks the trial should go forward.

What is missing from the conspiracy theorist version is why absolutely no evidence of the people that they want to blame is there. Not even any evidence that the one person most fixated upon wasn't in BKK.

Not one photo. No evidence that furniture in one part of the alibi had been removed prior. Not one person saying that he ever met the deceased. Nothing.

On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there. The defendants saying that they were drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours. The DNA. Multiple confessions (at least 2 of which will likely be admissible in court) other migrants placing the phone with the defendants. Etc....

In order to not "misquote" what was said, and risk deletion AGAIN, I draw your attention to the statement made by the above noted poster.

"On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there." (The original post is above, which does NOT alter the post, it asks for clarification) Who is the WE that is referred to? I am asking for the clarification on the context of the post.

There is also a constant stream of "conspiracy theory" being thrown out against numerous posters here. I would like to bring the definition of this to the attention of the forum:

-A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.^[4][5][6][7] The problem is this results in possibly-rational conspiracy theories getting lost in the midst of the noise of newsworthy but disingenuous ideas such as New World Order or the Moon landing hoax.

-A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation.

Edited April 4, 2015 by fritzzz25

[JLCrab]

And still no one has come forward to say they were with Nom in Bangkok on the day of the murder. Of course not forgetting his cousin. The one who said she was indeed with him

in Bangkok whilst texting from Pattaya.

And you are 100% against this Portip woman (is that her name) having anything to do with the DNA altho she is the countries leading expert. Because she paid for something that dint work. That's a bit like sacking a drummer because he cant play guitar.

OK, I'll bite: Who has come forward to say they were with him on Koh Tao on t 14-15 SEP 2014?

[berybert]

And still no one has come forward to say they were with Nom in Bangkok on the day of the murder. Of course not forgetting his cousin. The one who said she was indeed with him

in Bangkok whilst texting from Pattaya.

And you are 100% against this Portip woman (is that her name) having anything to do with the DNA altho she is the countries leading expert. Because she paid for something that dint work. That's a bit like sacking a drummer because he cant play guitar.

OK, I'll bite: Who has come forward to say they were with him on Koh Tao on t 14-15 SEP 2014?

It would be very easy to prove he wasn't on the island at the time of the murders. Show the world the CCTV footage.

There is a short clip of someone that looks/walks like he does.

Sadly for reasons best known to who ever the police decided against looking at any other CCTV because they didn't want to upset people.

Forget the fact two people got hacked/stabbed to death. Lets not upset people by asking to look at their CCTV footage.

[thailandchilli]

Hardly a detached reality when most of the posters on here concur. Happy to be in that boat,

"Most posters on here concur?"

Shaky reasoning. You have a small group of conspiracy theorists and an even smaller group that thinks the trial should go forward.

What is missing from the conspiracy theorist version is why absolutely no evidence of the people that they want to blame is there. Not even any evidence that the one person most fixated upon wasn't in BKK.

Not one photo. No evidence that furniture in one part of the alibi had been removed prior. Not one person saying that he ever met the deceased. Nothing.

On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there. The defendants saying that they were drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours. The DNA. Multiple confessions (at least 2 of which will likely be admissible in court) other migrants placing the phone with the defendants. Etc....

You seem to revel in the supposed fact they they drank 3 bottles of beer spread out over a few hours and were drunk. I've seen you mention that at least 3 times in separate posts on this topic.

I will indeed agree there are conflicting statements made by the B2/3 but why is it you seem to believe this particular one and yet dismiss the others or call them liars? I would also like to see where it states that this was spread out over a few hours? I've seen no official report stating when they left the beach or at what time? You may also want to check all the reports as you missed the ones stating that Maung Maung went to get some more alcohol.

Edited April 4, 2015 by thailandchilli

[jdinasia]

And still no one has come forward to say they were with Nom in Bangkok on the day of the murder. Of course not forgetting his cousin. The one who said she was indeed with him

in Bangkok whilst texting from Pattaya.

And you are 100% against this Portip woman (is that her name) having anything to do with the DNA altho she is the countries leading expert. Because she paid for something that dint work. That's a bit like sacking a drummer because he cant play guitar.

OK, I'll bite: Who has come forward to say they were with him on Koh Tao on t 14-15 SEP 2014?

It would be very easy to prove he wasn't on the island at the time of the murders. Show the world the CCTV footage.

There is a short clip of someone that looks/walks like he does.

Sadly for reasons best known to who ever the police decided against looking at any other CCTV because they didn't want to upset people.

Forget the fact two people got hacked/stabbed to death. Lets not upset people by asking to look at their CCTV footage.

logical fallacy

[jdinasia]

Hardly a detached reality when most of the posters on here concur. Happy to be in that boat,

"Most posters on here concur?"

Shaky reasoning. You have a small group of conspiracy theorists and an even smaller group that thinks the trial should go forward.

What is missing from the conspiracy theorist version is why absolutely no evidence of the people that they want to blame is there. Not even any evidence that the one person most fixated upon wasn't in BKK.

Not one photo. No evidence that furniture in one part of the alibi had been removed prior. Not one person saying that he ever met the deceased. Nothing.

On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there. The defendants saying that they were drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours. The DNA. Multiple confessions (at least 2 of which will likely be admissible in court) other migrants placing the phone with the defendants. Etc....

You seem to revel in the supposed fact they they drank 3 bottles of beer spread out over a few hours and were drunk. I've seen you mention that at least 3 times in separate posts on this topic.

I will indeed agree there are conflicting statements made by the B2/3 but why is it you seem to believe this particular one and yet dismiss the others or call them liars? I would also like to see where it states that this was spread out over a few hours? I've seen no official report stating when they left the beach or at what time? You may also want to check all the reports as you missed the ones stating that Maung Maung went to get some more alcohol.

My reasoning is not limited to the inconsistent statements of the defendants, but have they changed the statements that they only shared 3 beers over several hours and were so drunk that they don't remember?

[thailandchilli]

Hardly a detached reality when most of the posters on here concur. Happy to be in that boat,

"Most posters on here concur?"

Shaky reasoning. You have a small group of conspiracy theorists and an even smaller group that thinks the trial should go forward.

What is missing from the conspiracy theorist version is why absolutely no evidence of the people that they want to blame is there. Not even any evidence that the one person most fixated upon wasn't in BKK.

Not one photo. No evidence that furniture in one part of the alibi had been removed prior. Not one person saying that he ever met the deceased. Nothing.

On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there. The defendants saying that they were drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours. The DNA. Multiple confessions (at least 2 of which will likely be admissible in court) other migrants placing the phone with the defendants. Etc....

You seem to revel in the supposed fact they they drank 3 bottles of beer spread out over a few hours and were drunk. I've seen you mention that at least 3 times in separate posts on this topic.

I will indeed agree there are conflicting statements made by the B2/3 but why is it you seem to believe this particular one and yet dismiss the others or call them liars? I would also like to see where it states that this was spread out over a few hours? I've seen no official report stating when they left the beach or at what time? You may also want to check all the reports as you missed the ones stating that Maung Maung went to get some more alcohol.

My reasoning is not limited to the inconsistent statements of the defendants, but have they changed the statements that they only shared 3 beers over several hours and were so drunk that they don't remember?

":After finishing the beer and cigarettes, Maung Maung said he told his two friends he was leaving, but they insisted on having more to drink, so he went back to the room and got an extra bottle of alcohol and took it to them. That was all around 1am"

Above taken from DVB and BP, I've also seen no mention of the several hours you keep mentioning?

[boomerangutang]

Nom has proof that he was in Bangkok at the time of the crime. Well not at the time of the crime but there or there abouts.

Why has nobody come forward to say that Now wasn't at the uni at the time of the crime, well there or there abouts.

Nom has a guy who is paid lord knows how much to say he was at school( His solicitor). Now forget all that, how many of Noms class mates have said he was in school the day after the murder ?

I can not recall any of them saying that. Can you ?

AleG/jdinasia you defend Nom 24/7 whilst telling us you don't even know the guy. Why are you so passionate about him ?

Even if Nomsod was in Bangkok after 9 am on Monday, that doesn't preclude him from being at the island 4+ hours earlier. If a desperate person with money and connections wanted to get to Bangkok from the island as quick as possible, how long would it take? More than 4 to 5 hours in the early morning? Perhaps someone in that region could do that experiment. And even if it were proved that Nomsod was on the island at the time of the crime (by witnesses and/or DNA and/or CCTV...), RTP echoers would say that doesn't implicate him. Even if it were shown to the small % of those who doubt he's 'running man' that he was indeed running man, RTP echoers could still claim that doesn't implicate him - it only shows that he was jogging around in light colored shorts on that walkway near the crime scene. I admit, there needs to be firmer evidence for Nomsod to be nailed. Unfortunately, RTP, by all appearances (Since the 2nd week of the investigation), seem fixated on trying to shield Nomsod and Mon from any further scrutiny. Why would that be? Most of us don't need to stretch too far to find answers to 'why Nomsod and Mon were dropped so suddenly and thoroughly from being prime suspects.' The writing is on the wall, in large luminous font.

[berybert]

Hardly a detached reality when most of the posters on here concur. Happy to be in that boat,

"Most posters on here concur?"

Shaky reasoning. You have a small group of conspiracy theorists and an even smaller group that thinks the trial should go forward.

What is missing from the conspiracy theorist version is why absolutely no evidence of the people that they want to blame is there. Not even any evidence that the one person most fixated upon wasn't in BKK.

Not one photo. No evidence that furniture in one part of the alibi had been removed prior. Not one person saying that he ever met the deceased. Nothing.

On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there. The defendants saying that they were drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours. The DNA. Multiple confessions (at least 2 of which will likely be admissible in court) other migrants placing the phone with the defendants. Etc....

You seem to revel in the supposed fact they they drank 3 bottles of beer spread out over a few hours and were drunk. I've seen you mention that at least 3 times in separate posts on this topic.

I will indeed agree there are conflicting statements made by the B2/3 but why is it you seem to believe this particular one and yet dismiss the others or call them liars? I would also like to see where it states that this was spread out over a few hours? I've seen no official report stating when they left the beach or at what time? You may also want to check all the reports as you missed the ones stating that Maung Maung went to get some more alcohol.

Funny how the Burmese cant be trusted because they said they were drunk on 3 beers. Yet when Noms father says his son left on the morning of the murders its all CT. Prove the father said it. Yeah OK prove the Burmese said they were out of it on 3 beers.

Forget you have a corrupt police force on your front and give us some real proof.

[metisdead]

Some nonsense posts have been removed.

[JLCrab]

Nom has proof that he was in Bangkok at the time of the crime. Well not at the time of the crime but there or there abouts.

Why has nobody come forward to say that Now wasn't at the uni at the time of the crime, well there or there abouts.

Nom has a guy who is paid lord knows how much to say he was at school( His solicitor). Now forget all that, how many of Noms class mates have said he was in school the day after the murder ?

I can not recall any of them saying that. Can you ?

AleG/jdinasia you defend Nom 24/7 whilst telling us you don't even know the guy. Why are you so passionate about him ?

Even if Nomsod was in Bangkok after 9 am on Monday, that doesn't preclude him from being at the island 4+ hours earlier. If a desperate person with money and connections wanted to get to Bangkok from the island as quick as possible, how long would it take? More than 4 to 5 hours in the early morning? Perhaps someone in that region could do that experiment. And even if it were proved that Nomsod was on the island at the time of the crime (by witnesses and/or DNA and/or CCTV...), RTP echoers would say that doesn't implicate him. Even if it were shown to the small % of those who doubt he's 'running man' that he was indeed running man, RTP echoers could still claim that doesn't implicate him - it only shows that he was jogging around in light colored shorts on that walkway near the crime scene. I admit, there needs to be firmer evidence for Nomsod to be nailed. Unfortunately, RTP, by all appearances (Since the 2nd week of the investigation), seem fixated on trying to shield Nomsod and Mon from any further scrutiny. Why would that be? Most of us don't need to stretch too far to find answers to 'why Nomsod and Mon were dropped so suddenly and thoroughly from being prime suspects.' The writing is on the wall, in large luminous font.

I admit, there needs to be firmer evidence for Nomsod to be nailed. Is there any corroborable evidence?

[boomerangutang]

Even if Nomsod was in Bangkok after 9 am on Monday, that doesn't preclude him from being at the island 4+ hours earlier. If a desperate person with money and connections wanted to get to Bangkok from the island as quick as possible, how long would it take? More than 4 to 5 hours in the early morning? Perhaps someone in that region could do that experiment. And even if it were proved that Nomsod was on the island at the time of the crime (by witnesses and/or DNA and/or CCTV...), RTP echoers would say that doesn't implicate him. Even if it were shown to the small % of those who doubt he's 'running man' that he was indeed running man, RTP echoers could still claim that doesn't implicate him - it only shows that he was jogging around in light colored shorts on that walkway near the crime scene. I admit, there needs to be firmer evidence for Nomsod to be nailed. Unfortunately, RTP, by all appearances (Since the 2nd week of the investigation), seem fixated on trying to shield Nomsod and Mon from any further scrutiny. Why would that be? Most of us don't need to stretch too far to find answers to 'why Nomsod and Mon were dropped so suddenly and thoroughly from being prime suspects.' The writing is on the wall, in large luminous font.

I admit, there needs to be firmer evidence for Nomsod to be nailed. Is there any corroborable evidence?

The CCTV from the island is 'corroborable evidence' (to use your term). The Police said as much when they were looking for Nomsod, while claiming they thought it was him in the several videos. I don't think the police have ever claimed, even since then, that it was NOT Nomsod in those videos. They've inferred that, yes, by dropping him as a prime suspect, ....but do they actually claim it's not him? Source?

The man shown in the CCTV is not either of the B2.

If the investigation were being handled by objective, professional, skilled investigators, all pertinent clues would be considered. That's obviously not the case, certainly not since early October, and that's a big reason why there are so many posts expressing annoyance with RTP's gross mishandling of the investigation.

Those of us seeking truth and justice were hopeful when we heard the British were going to use their expertise (to investigate), but then were quickly disabused of that hope when it was shown; not only were the Brits NOT ALLOWED to investigate, they have also chosen to reveal as little as humanly possible about evidence. There wouldn't be any pressure from the top echelons of Thai political/military monolith to do that, would there? If you say 'no' that question, then you must be living April Fools Day, every day.

[JLCrab]

I other words, there is no corroborable evidence that persons other than those accused were involved in these crimes. There may also be no corroborable evidence that the 2 accused were in fact involved in these crimes, but that is a matter to be determined at trial in a few months.

[AleG]

"Most posters on here concur?"

Shaky reasoning. You have a small group of conspiracy theorists and an even smaller group that thinks the trial should go forward.

What is missing from the conspiracy theorist version is why absolutely no evidence of the people that they want to blame is there. Not even any evidence that the one person most fixated upon wasn't in BKK.

Not one photo. No evidence that furniture in one part of the alibi had been removed prior. Not one person saying that he ever met the deceased. Nothing.

On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there. The defendants saying that they were drunk on 3 bottles of beer spread out over hours. The DNA. Multiple confessions (at least 2 of which will likely be admissible in court) other migrants placing the phone with the defendants. Etc....

In order to not "misquote" what was said, and risk deletion AGAIN, I draw your attention to the statement made by the above noted poster.

"On the other hand. We have the defendants saying that they were there." (The original post is above, which does NOT alter the post, it asks for clarification) Who is the WE that is referred to? I am asking for the clarification on the context of the post.

There is also a constant stream of "conspiracy theory" being thrown out against numerous posters here. I would like to bring the definition of this to the attention of the forum:

-A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.^{%5B4%5D%5B5%5D%5B6%5D%5B7%5D} The problem is this results in possibly-rational conspiracy theories getting lost in the midst of the noise of newsworthy but disingenuous ideas such as New World Order or the Moon landing hoax.

-A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation.

You are only drawing attention to the pervasive state of "ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational" thinking among you.

He said WE, he must be part of THEM!!!.

Edited April 5, 2015 by AleG

[AleG]

Nom has proof that he was in Bangkok at the time of the crime. Well not at the time of the crime but there or there abouts.

Why has nobody come forward to say that Now wasn't at the uni at the time of the crime, well there or there abouts.

Nom has a guy who is paid lord knows how much to say he was at school( His solicitor). Now forget all that, how many of Noms class mates have said he was in school the day after the murder ?

I can not recall any of them saying that. Can you ?

AleG/jdinasia you defend Nom 24/7 whilst telling us you don't even know the guy. Why are you so passionate about him ?

Even if Nomsod was in Bangkok after 9 am on Monday, that doesn't preclude him from being at the island 4+ hours earlier. If a desperate person with money and connections wanted to get to Bangkok from the island as quick as possible, how long would it take? More than 4 to 5 hours in the early morning? Perhaps someone in that region could do that experiment. And even if it were proved that Nomsod was on the island at the time of the crime (by witnesses and/or DNA and/or CCTV...), RTP echoers would say that doesn't implicate him. Even if it were shown to the small % of those who doubt he's 'running man' that he was indeed running man, RTP echoers could still claim that doesn't implicate him - it only shows that he was jogging around in light colored shorts on that walkway near the crime scene. I admit, there needs to be firmer evidence for Nomsod to be nailed. Unfortunately, RTP, by all appearances (Since the 2nd week of the investigation), seem fixated on trying to shield Nomsod and Mon from any further scrutiny. Why would that be? Most of us don't need to stretch too far to find answers to 'why Nomsod and Mon were dropped so suddenly and thoroughly from being prime suspects.' The writing is on the wall, in large luminous font.

Last time I drove from Koh Tao to Bangkok it took about 9 hours including fast boat transfer and that was doing up to 140km/h where the road allowed; it may be possible to make it in 7 but the road is not in the best conditions, there are usually several police checkpoints along the way and in my case I didn't hit the early morning traffic jam that would be present on a Monday morning. You see, that's the difference between someone that knows stuff and someone that makes stuff up as he goes, the person who knows doesn't have to resort to theories.

By the way, according to your theories, he also got a haircut along the way.

Then of course there's the complete lack of any evidence that actually happened, but why let the lack of facts get on the way of a good story?

[balo]

Everyone is talking about nomsod on every page in this thread, If B2 are innocent I think the focus should be on other suspects , but to solve a case like this is difficult if nobody comes forward and talk. The killer could still be on the island or maybe he left early. He could be an immigrant or a Thai or just a visitor. All we have is DNA tests and CCTV images. Not enough to solve the crime if B2 didnt do it.

[stephenterry]

Nom has proof that he was in Bangkok at the time of the crime. Well not at the time of the crime but there or there abouts.

Why has nobody come forward to say that Now wasn't at the uni at the time of the crime, well there or there abouts.

Nom has a guy who is paid lord knows how much to say he was at school( His solicitor). Now forget all that, how many of Noms class mates have said he was in school the day after the murder ?

I can not recall any of them saying that. Can you ?

AleG/jdinasia you defend Nom 24/7 whilst telling us you don't even know the guy. Why are you so passionate about him ?

Even if Nomsod was in Bangkok after 9 am on Monday, that doesn't preclude him from being at the island 4+ hours earlier. If a desperate person with money and connections wanted to get to Bangkok from the island as quick as possible, how long would it take? More than 4 to 5 hours in the early morning? Perhaps someone in that region could do that experiment. And even if it were proved that Nomsod was on the island at the time of the crime (by witnesses and/or DNA and/or CCTV...), RTP echoers would say that doesn't implicate him. Even if it were shown to the small % of those who doubt he's 'running man' that he was indeed running man, RTP echoers could still claim that doesn't implicate him - it only shows that he was jogging around in light colored shorts on that walkway near the crime scene. I admit, there needs to be firmer evidence for Nomsod to be nailed. Unfortunately, RTP, by all appearances (Since the 2nd week of the investigation), seem fixated on trying to shield Nomsod and Mon from any further scrutiny. Why would that be? Most of us don't need to stretch too far to find answers to 'why Nomsod and Mon were dropped so suddenly and thoroughly from being prime suspects.' The writing is on the wall, in large luminous font.

Last time I drove from Koh Tao to Bangkok it took about 9 hours including fast boat transfer and that was doing up to 140km/h where the road allowed; it may be possible to make it in 7 but the road is not in the best conditions, there are usually several police checkpoints along the way and in my case I didn't hit the early morning traffic jam that would be present on a Monday morning. You see, that's the difference between someone that knows stuff and someone that makes stuff up as he goes, the person who knows doesn't have to resort to theories.

By the way, according to your theories, he also got a haircut along the way.

Then of course there's the complete lack of any evidence that actually happened, but why let the lack of facts get on the way of a good story?

FACT: The father’s statement originally was that Nomsod had to hurry back to Uni in Bangkok for exams. A week later, when they were put under further scrutiny his statement changed to: ‘He hasn’t been home (to Koh Tao) for a few months, I haven’t seen him’. This was untrue however as he had been photographed on the island a month earlier.

FACT: On September 24th it was announced that Nomsod was a person of interest. A press conference was quickly launched at his embassy where his lawyer (a close family friend) brought out CCTV stills of Nomsod at his university residence. The timestamp was 09:16 sept 15th. Early flights from Koh Samui and Surat Thani would have given him enough time to get back to BKK and jump in a taxi. Logic dictates that if he had been at his residence the previous night there would also have been footage to prove that. Recently doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the time stamps, as furniture seen in the residence had been moved a few months before hand yet was back in it’s old position in these cctv captures.