Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[berybert]

Was the 'reason' for the specific body placement another one of Mr. Terry's FACTS?

The staging was factual. The interpretation is best suited to a criminal psychologist, who could also suggest that Berybert's surmise (and mine) is within the realms of possible motives. Hopefully, the defence have that one covered.

And you know for a fact that it was staged?

Could it have been staged ? Was she dead before the hoe attack ?

Tell me if someone was about to cave your head in with a sharp hoe blade, what would you do ?

A. Put your arms up to try and cover your face.

B. Put your knees up.

In fact Hannah didn't try to protect her face at all. Well I don't know that for sure and it may be another CT but she would surely have had hoe blade marks all over her hands and arms if they were put up to protect, which is the natural thing to do.

So yes I expect she was dead well before the hoe attack.

[Jai Dee]

Some off-topic and baiting posts have been removed from this thread.

[JLCrab]

Was the 'reason' for the specific body placement another one of Mr. Terry's FACTS?

The staging was factual. The interpretation is best suited to a criminal psychologist, who could also suggest that Berybert's surmise (and mine) is within the realms of possible motives. Hopefully, the defence have that one covered.

And you know for a fact that it was staged?

Could it have been staged ? Was she dead before the hoe attack ?

Tell me if someone was about to cave your head in with a sharp hoe blade, what would you do ?

A. Put your arms up to try and cover your face.

B. Put your knees up.

In fact Hannah didn't try to protect her face at all. Well I don't know that for sure and it may be another CT but she would surely have had hoe blade marks all over her hands and arms if they were put up to protect, which is the natural thing to do.

So yes I expect she was dead well before the hoe attack.

So if you and Mr. Terry want to say that based on your evaluation of the available evidence that it is your opinion that the body or bodies were found in a staged manner, that's fine. That don't make it a fact.

[berybert]

Could it have been staged ? Was she dead before the hoe attack ?

Tell me if someone was about to cave your head in with a sharp hoe blade, what would you do ?

A. Put your arms up to try and cover your face.

B. Put your knees up.

In fact Hannah didn't try to protect her face at all. Well I don't know that for sure and it may be another CT but she would surely have had hoe blade marks all over her hands and arms if they were put up to protect, which is the natural thing to do.

So yes I expect she was dead well before the hoe attack.

So if you and Mr. Terry want to say that based on your evaluation of the available evidence that it is your opinion that the body or bodies were found in a staged manner, that's fine. That don't make it a fact.

And if the judge decides they were staged then is that just based on his opinion, or does it then become fact ? Or will you be telling him you don't agree.

And can we assume you believe David was killed with a hoe as you have got to believe the reenactment was genuine.

[JLCrab]

Could it have been staged ? Was she dead before the hoe attack ?

Tell me if someone was about to cave your head in with a sharp hoe blade, what would you do ?

A. Put your arms up to try and cover your face.

B. Put your knees up.

In fact Hannah didn't try to protect her face at all. Well I don't know that for sure and it may be another CT but she would surely have had hoe blade marks all over her hands and arms if they were put up to protect, which is the natural thing to do.

So yes I expect she was dead well before the hoe attack.

So if you and Mr. Terry want to say that based on your evaluation of the available evidence that it is your opinion that the body or bodies were found in a staged manner, that's fine. That don't make it a fact.

And if the judge decides they were staged then is that just based on his opinion, or does it then become fact ? Or will you be telling him you don't agree.

And can we assume you believe David was killed with a hoe as you have got to believe the reenactment was genuine.

The Judge is a Judge assigned to the case by the Royal Thai Judiciary. You are -- in the words of Hitchcock's screenplay -- a 'gifted amateur'. .. and I believe nothing.

[greenchair]

I know it's late in the day to be asking this.

I understand why mon was accused by police. Because shaun fingered him so naturally the police investigated him.

2 questions.

Why did they not investigate the cop as well.

How did nomsod name ever come into it.

What is the reason the police began mentioning him in Bkk since shaun had not said anything about him.

Be grateful for an answer.

As far as I can tell, he came into it after people in CSI LA pointed a finger at him based on this:

"Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"

They didn't like the things he said about the issue and decided that it was him on the CCTV video even though no facial features are visible.

In short, vindictive rumor mongering.

I think the csi reference to nomsod was after the police had already said they were looking for a guy in Bkk. At that initial stage , when mon was arrested nomsod name had not been published. It was a few days after mon arrest that nomsod name was released.

Again my question.

What caused the police to initialy suspect nomsod.

[AleG]

I know it's late in the day to be asking this.

I understand why mon was accused by police. Because shaun fingered him so naturally the police investigated him.

2 questions.

Why did they not investigate the cop as well.

How did nomsod name ever come into it.

What is the reason the police began mentioning him in Bkk since shaun had not said anything about him.

Be grateful for an answer.

As far as I can tell, he came into it after people in CSI LA pointed a finger at him based on this:

"Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"

They didn't like the things he said about the issue and decided that it was him on the CCTV video even though no facial features are visible.

In short, vindictive rumor mongering.

I think the csi reference to nomsod was after the police had already said they were looking for a guy in Bkk. At that initial stage , when mon was arrested nomsod name had not been published. It was a few days after mon arrest that nomsod name was released.

Again my question.

What caused the police to initialy suspect nomsod.

"I think the csi reference to nomsod was after the police had already said they were looking for a guy in Bkk"

No, it was not.

Firstly the time given "during the time that Sean leaked out a statement" was before the police announced they were looking for him; secondly according to that statement, it was them that made the connection "we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod", no mention of going with what the police said (again it's worth noting that it's impossible to actually distinguish facial features in the footage)

Lastly, the police explicitly blamed erroneous tip-offs from social media for the whole thing:

"Pol Gen Somyot acknowledged that the investigation did not move as quickly as people had hoped, but blamed delays on social media, saying officers were forced to respond to demands to investigate Koh Tao's influential "mafia" figures. Valuable time, he said, was wasted on responding to "misunderstandings" on social media that, if ignored, would have made police look guilty of a cover-up."

However it has become a meme, an idea with a life of its own; facts, the order of events, logic and whatnot has no impact on the believers:

"Beliefs can survive potent logical or empirical challenges. They can survive and even be bolstered by evidence that most uncommitted observers would agree logically demands some weakening of such beliefs. They can even survive the total destruction of their original evidential bases."

—Lee Ross and Craig Anderson in "Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments"

[stephenterry]

Was the 'reason' for the specific body placement another one of Mr. Terry's FACTS?

The staging was factual. The interpretation is best suited to a criminal psychologist, who could also suggest that Berybert's surmise (and mine) is within the realms of possible motives. Hopefully, the defence have that one covered.

And you know for a fact that it was staged?

Read my post carefully. There is a word called 'interpretation'. I would suggest that the unnatural death pose would enlighten you.

[JLCrab]

It is your opinion that the bodies were left in a staged manner. You are entitled to your opinion just like anyone else. As the old-time New Yorkers used to say (before there were computer fare cards): Your opinion and a subway token gets you a ride.

[stephenterry]

It is your opinion that the bodies were left in a staged manner. You are entitled to your opinion just like anyone else. As the old-time New Yorkers used to say (before there were computer fare cards): Your opinion and a subway token gets you a ride.

The picture data are the facts. This supports my conclusion that the body was staged. If other people agree with my conclusion, then they will accept my statement. This would be closer to the more conventional definition of fact.

That's why I mentioned a criminal psychologist, who could or should be prepared to provide an insight into the motivation behind the killing. IMO, it wasn't lust but revenge, as can be corroborated by the extreme brutality inflicted on the female victim, i.e. two pieces of evidence (staging and brutality) to support/prove each essential 'fact' (the body position).

Where I'm coming from is that if it accepted the death of the female was a crime of revenge, it is not the RTP's scenario as to the B2's motivation. Whether anyone agrees or not, as you said, it's my opinion.

[berybert]

I know it's late in the day to be asking this.

I understand why mon was accused by police. Because shaun fingered him so naturally the police investigated him.

2 questions.

Why did they not investigate the cop as well.

How did nomsod name ever come into it.

What is the reason the police began mentioning him in Bkk since shaun had not said anything about him.

Be grateful for an answer.

As far as I can tell, he came into it after people in CSI LA pointed a finger at him based on this:

"Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"

They didn't like the things he said about the issue and decided that it was him on the CCTV video even though no facial features are visible.

In short, vindictive rumor mongering.

I think the csi reference to nomsod was after the police had already said they were looking for a guy in Bkk. At that initial stage , when mon was arrested nomsod name had not been published. It was a few days after mon arrest that nomsod name was released.

Again my question.

What caused the police to initialy suspect nomsod.

"I think the csi reference to nomsod was after the police had already said they were looking for a guy in Bkk"

No, it was not.

Firstly the time given "during the time that Sean leaked out a statement" was before the police announced they were looking for him; secondly according to that statement, it was them that made the connection "we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod", no mention of going with what the police said (again it's worth noting that it's impossible to actually distinguish facial features in the footage)

Lastly, the police explicitly blamed erroneous tip-offs from social media for the whole thing:

"Pol Gen Somyot acknowledged that the investigation did not move as quickly as people had hoped, but blamed delays on social media, saying officers were forced to respond to demands to investigate Koh Tao's influential "mafia" figures. Valuable time, he said, was wasted on responding to "misunderstandings" on social media that, if ignored, would have made police look guilty of a cover-up."

However it has become a meme, an idea with a life of its own; facts, the order of events, logic and whatnot has no impact on the believers:

"Beliefs can survive potent logical or empirical challenges. They can survive and even be bolstered by evidence that most uncommitted observers would agree logically demands some weakening of such beliefs. They can even survive the total destruction of their original evidential bases."

—Lee Ross and Craig Anderson in "Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments"

The idea of CCTV is to help with crime protection. When you see a person commit a crime who has one leg, you look for people with one leg.

When you see someone in question with a gimpy arm, you look for someone with a gimpy arm.

Now do either of the Burmese have gimpy arms ? There is only one person who had a gimpy arm in CCTV on the night of the murders. He was wearing a number 9 shirt. Has anyone ever looked for number 9 ?

[JLCrab]

So when the trial starts and it can be demonstrated by the defense that, based upon the photographic evidence, the body or bodies were staged in a manner to reflect the revenge of the perpetrator against the unfortunate victim, then the conclusion of the Judge to declare that the 2 accused are innocent of the charges as they had no basis for revenge against one or both of the victims, will indeed be a fact. Anything else -- whether from you or anyone else -- is an opinion.

However in the course of proving the above, it may be helpful to prove that the person who is not charged with the crime and supposedly exacted the revenge ever even met the victim or victims, but that is just my opinion.

If this whole trial is a hoax in that the principal prosecution team members know that the 2 accused are not complicit in these crimes, I don't think the folks down on Samui are god enough to be able to pull that one off with the international community paying close attention to the trial. But that's also just my opinion.

Edited April 6, 2015 by JLCrab

[greenchair]

I think you are wrong aleg. I think the police announced the guy in Bkk. At that time csi investigated, who that someone might be. Then csi found the name of the runner the police were talking about. And then matched it to the video.

[stephenterry]

So when the trial starts and it can be demonstrated by the defense that, based upon the photographic evidence, the body or bodies were staged in a manner to reflect the revenge of the perpetrator against the unfortunate victim, then the conclusion of the Judge to declare that the 2 accused are innocent of the charges as they had no basis for revenge against one or both of the victims, will indeed be a fact. Anything else -- whether from you or anyone else -- is an opinion.

However in the course of proving the above, it may be helpful to prove that the person who is not charged with the crime and supposedly exacted the revenge ever even met the victim or victims, but that is just my opinion.

If this whole trial is a hoax in that the principal prosecution team members know that the 2 accused are not complicit in these crimes, I don't think the folks down on Samui are god enough to be able to pull that one off with the international community paying close attention to the trial. But that's also just my opinion.

Nah, I'm not buying in to your opinions. Photographic evidence is factual (in this instance), whether you agree or not. It's the interpretation of what it could mean is crucial. The judge will have to decide whether the defence's case on this aspect has any merit. It would be his opinion, too, BTW. The outcome would then become a fact.

The other two paras have been debated at length with no-one on here knowing the truth.

[JLCrab]

So when the trial starts and it can be demonstrated by the defense that, based upon the photographic evidence, the body or bodies were staged in a manner to reflect the revenge of the perpetrator against the unfortunate victim, then the conclusion of the Judge to declare that the 2 accused are innocent of the charges as they had no basis for revenge against one or both of the victims, will indeed be a fact. Anything else -- whether from you or anyone else -- is an opinion.

However in the course of proving the above, it may be helpful to prove that the person who is not charged with the crime and supposedly exacted the revenge ever even met the victim or victims, but that is just my opinion.

If this whole trial is a hoax in that the principal prosecution team members know that the 2 accused are not complicit in these crimes, I don't think the folks down on Samui are god enough to be able to pull that one off with the international community paying close attention to the trial. But that's also just my opinion.

Nah, I'm not buying in to your opinions. Photographic evidence is factual (in this instance), whether you agree or not. It's the interpretation of what it could mean is crucial. The judge will have to decide whether the defence's case on this aspect has any merit. It would be his opinion, too, BTW. The outcome would then become a fact.

The other two paras have been debated at length with no-one on here knowing the truth.

The judge will have to decide whether the defence's case on this aspect has any merit. That is if the defense decides to even introduce any evidence related to the positioning of the body or bodies as a means of exacting revenge.

[JLCrab]

So when the trial starts and it can be demonstrated by the defense that, based upon the photographic evidence, the body or bodies were staged in a manner to reflect the revenge of the perpetrator against the unfortunate victim, then the conclusion of the Judge to declare that the 2 accused are innocent of the charges as they had no basis for revenge against one or both of the victims, will indeed be a fact. Anything else -- whether from you or anyone else -- is an opinion.

However in the course of proving the above, it may be helpful to prove that the person who is not charged with the crime and supposedly exacted the revenge ever even met the victim or victims, but that is just my opinion.

If this whole trial is a hoax in that the principal prosecution team members know that the 2 accused are not complicit in these crimes, I don't think the folks down on Samui are god enough to be able to pull that one off with the international community paying close attention to the trial. But that's also just my opinion.

Nah, I'm not buying in to your opinions. Photographic evidence is factual (in this instance), whether you agree or not. It's the interpretation of what it could mean is crucial. The judge will have to decide whether the defence's case on this aspect has any merit. It would be his opinion, too, BTW. The outcome would then become a fact.

The other two paras have been debated at length with no-one on here knowing the truth.

The judge will have to decide whether the defence's case on this aspect has any merit. That is if the defense decides to even introduce any evidence related to the positioning of the body or bodies as a means of exacting revenge.

I don't really care if you're not buying because I'm not selling. You're the one who came on here almost a month ago and said: "(Ms. Witheridge's) murder was one of revenge not lust, ..." and proceeded for the next almost month on that presumption.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/804973-capital-punishment-concerns-raised-over-thai-backpackers-murder-case/page-19#entry9192703

Edited April 6, 2015 by JLCrab

[stephenterry]

So when the trial starts and it can be demonstrated by the defense that, based upon the photographic evidence, the body or bodies were staged in a manner to reflect the revenge of the perpetrator against the unfortunate victim, then the conclusion of the Judge to declare that the 2 accused are innocent of the charges as they had no basis for revenge against one or both of the victims, will indeed be a fact. Anything else -- whether from you or anyone else -- is an opinion.

However in the course of proving the above, it may be helpful to prove that the person who is not charged with the crime and supposedly exacted the revenge ever even met the victim or victims, but that is just my opinion.

If this whole trial is a hoax in that the principal prosecution team members know that the 2 accused are not complicit in these crimes, I don't think the folks down on Samui are god enough to be able to pull that one off with the international community paying close attention to the trial. But that's also just my opinion.

Nah, I'm not buying in to your opinions. Photographic evidence is factual (in this instance), whether you agree or not. It's the interpretation of what it could mean is crucial. The judge will have to decide whether the defence's case on this aspect has any merit. It would be his opinion, too, BTW. The outcome would then become a fact.

The other two paras have been debated at length with no-one on here knowing the truth.

The judge will have to decide whether the defence's case on this aspect has any merit. That is if the defense decides to even introduce any evidence related to the positioning of the body or bodies as a means of exacting revenge.

I don't really care if you're not buying because I'm not selling. You're the one who came on here almost a month ago and said: "(Ms. Witheridge's) murder was one of revenge not lust, ..." and proceeded for the next almost month on that presumption.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/804973-capital-punishment-concerns-raised-over-thai-backpackers-murder-case/page-19#entry9192703

I agree I have been consistent, and still hold that view - because nothing of any note has arisen to change my mind, or even cast the merest shadow of a doubt. It would be a shame if the defence doesn't note its possible significance to proving the innocence of the B2. And they don't have to identify anyone else - it's their sole job to get the B2 off the hook.

[rockingrobin]

It was the RTP who mentioned revenge

http://bangkok.coconuts.co/2014/09/17/police-blame-jealous-friend-david-and-hannah-murders-koh-tao

[JLCrab]

I have enough faith in the defense team that if this is all a hoax they would be able to deconstruct the Prosecution's case. But your scenario of revenge over spurned advances would seem to be dangerous ground if the defense cannot show that he who was spurned ever even met the late Ms. Witheridge which even you agreed a day or 2 back is the current state of affairs.

[boomerangutang]

I put my doubts in the form of questions. You offered an answer that may or may not be useful. But then you couldn't help but digress to rudeness as is your wont. you're the only person who mentioned; 'he got a haircut along the way'. What a silly attempt at diversion. Nomsod had a week to get a haircut, and get his sideburns shaped toward his ears - in order to try and distance himself from the incriminating CCTV. I still would like to see if there is someone who could make the trip from Ko Tao to Bangkok in a hurry, and see how long it takes. I don't believe the CCTV from the U dorm is when it's purported to be, and I don't think Nomsod was in class that morning. If I was heading the investigation, I would investigate such things, and a whole lot more. Such things are not being investigated, and the reasons (why there was zero investigation of Nomsod and his alibi after he was suddenly dropped as a prime suspect) are plain as day. So, if my hunch proves true, it wouldn't have mattered if Nomsod showed up in Bkk at noon or later. What matters is if there is proof that he was one of the perps of the crime. This summer could prove to be interesting, as people speak up at the trial. No one will be surprised if the judge puts a lid on any mention of evidence which could incriminate any of the H's people.

What does it matter how long it takes to go from Koh Tao to Bangkok or when you fantasize he had a haircut if you simply declare the CCTV footage a forgery done afterwards? Keep your make believe scenarios consistent.

I know this will bother AleG to no end, but we actually agree that it doesn't much matter how quickly a desperate man with money can get from the island to Bangkok. What's more important is whether it can proved that Nomsod lied and/or skewed the CCTV from the U to try to show he could not have been on the island at the time of the crime. Then it would prove whether he is a liar and has something serious to hide. More important than that, is to gauge whether or not it is Nomsod shown in the CCTV from the island. Yet even more important that those things, is to get a 2nd 'outside' finding on whether his DNA matches the DNA found in/on Hannah. Some of us were hoping the Brit experts would help in that endeavor, but Thai officials have announced they won't share DNA findings with the British Coroner's Office. It's all part of the Thai master plan to keep the British experts as far from evidence (and doing any investigating) as possible.

[boomerangutang]

The month in the time stamp in that screen capture has obviously been changed. There is no proof that Nomsod was in Bangkok at the time of the murders. None whatsoever.

Why do you feel the need to defend this guy?

This is false:

"There is no proof that Nomsod was in Bangkok at the time of the murders. None whatsoever."

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

"police questioned Mr. Warot and established that he was not on the island when the murder took place, deputy police chief Pol.Gen. Ake Angsananond said yesterday"

He was cleared, he provided a solid alibi, end of story.

What there is no evidence whatsoever is that he was on the island at the time or that he had any role in the murders; none, zero.

Why do you feel the need to attack him?

It's not just most of the posters on this topic who have grave doubts about Nomsod and his flaky alibi. Also many Thais. An earlier post mentioned, "if you ask Thais who follow this crime investigation who they think did it, they will say 'fresh milk'" Granted, popular opinion doesn't, in itself, make something true - but it is indicative of popular perception. You could also ask any adult Thai how believable a Thai cop is (in general) and whether a Thai cop can be subjective about a murder investigation and, if they understand the questions, you'll probably get a laugh.

As for alibi: it wasn't solid by any stretch. As for the CCTV on the island near the time of murder: it looks very much like Nomsod. I'm curious to know if any of those images will be allowed to be shown at the trial, or whether they will all be scratched from the venue as being 'immaterial' as they don't show either of the B2. Getting a U professor to say the boy was in class is not difficult. U professors rarely take roll call, and there could be strong incentives for a teacher to say what powers-that-be want him to say. The missing CCTV from the island could speak volumes, but for that reason, it's very likely been destroyed.

[AleG]

The month in the time stamp in that screen capture has obviously been changed. There is no proof that Nomsod was in Bangkok at the time of the murders. None whatsoever.

Why do you feel the need to defend this guy?

This is false:

"There is no proof that Nomsod was in Bangkok at the time of the murders. None whatsoever."

"Mr. Warot's lawyer, Attakorn Onart, presented reporters with a still photograph from CCTV footage that showed Mr. Warot at his university and residence in Bangkok on 13-15 September.

Mr. Warot also attended classes during that period of time, Mr. Attakorn said.

"There are university documents that confirmed his class attendance and examination," the lawyer told reporters."

"police questioned Mr. Warot and established that he was not on the island when the murder took place, deputy police chief Pol.Gen. Ake Angsananond said yesterday"

He was cleared, he provided a solid alibi, end of story.

What there is no evidence whatsoever is that he was on the island at the time or that he had any role in the murders; none, zero.

Why do you feel the need to attack him?

It's not just most of the posters on this topic who have grave doubts about Nomsod and his flaky alibi. Also many Thais. An earlier post mentioned, "if you ask Thais who follow this crime investigation who they think did it, they will say 'fresh milk'" Granted, popular opinion doesn't, in itself, make something true - but it is indicative of popular perception. You could also ask any adult Thai how believable a Thai cop is (in general) and whether a Thai cop can be subjective about a murder investigation and, if they understand the questions, you'll probably get a laugh.

As for alibi: it wasn't solid by any stretch. As for the CCTV on the island near the time of murder: it looks very much like Nomsod. I'm curious to know if any of those images will be allowed to be shown at the trial, or whether they will all be scratched from the venue as being 'immaterial' as they don't show either of the B2. Getting a U professor to say the boy was in class is not difficult. U professors rarely take roll call, and there could be strong incentives for a teacher to say what powers-that-be want him to say. The missing CCTV from the island could speak volumes, but for that reason, it's very likely been destroyed.

It didn't seem to sink in the first time around:

[seahorse]

I know it's late in the day to be asking this.

I understand why mon was accused by police. Because shaun fingered him so naturally the police investigated him.

2 questions.

Why did they not investigate the cop as well.

How did nomsod name ever come into it.

What is the reason the police began mentioning him in Bkk since shaun had not said anything about him.

Be grateful for an answer.

As far as I can tell, he came into it after people in CSI LA pointed a finger at him based on this:

"Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"

They didn't like the things he said about the issue and decided that it was him on the CCTV video even though no facial features are visible.

In short, vindictive rumor mongering.

I think the csi reference to nomsod was after the police had already said they were looking for a guy in Bkk. At that initial stage , when mon was arrested nomsod name had not been published. It was a few days after mon arrest that nomsod name was released.

Again my question.

What caused the police to initialy suspect nomsod.

Pol Lt Gen Panya said a second suspect, who fled the resort island to Bangkok, will likely be taken into custody soon.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/koh-tao-murder-suspect-arrested-another-on-the-run.html

24th September.

[boomerangutang]

As I responded before, Randi is one of my heroes. If you want to apply Randi's philosophy to the investigation, it fits perfectly: Randi would love to be able to scrutinize the RTP's mis-handling of it. So would I, but people like me or Randi are anathema to RTP investigators, because we could reveal a cover-up. That's why Thai officialdom is doing all they can to stay hidden. They wouldn't allow the Brits to do any investigating. They won't allow the Brits to see DNA typing on Nomsod (and probably other 'people of interest'). The RTP didn't insist on getting CCTV from bar owners. The RTP not only accepted Nomsod's silly alibi ruse in a Bkk minute, they immediately excused Nomsod and Mon from any further scrutiny - as if all prior suspicions by the police and the general public evaporated as quick as 170 million baht can evaporate from a rich person's bank account without anyone noticing.

[seahorse]

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

23rd September.

Edited April 6, 2015 by seahorse

[seahorse]

Was the 'reason' for the specific body placement another one of Mr. Terry's FACTS?

The staging was factual. The interpretation is best suited to a criminal psychologist, who could also suggest that Berybert's surmise (and mine) is within the realms of possible motives. Hopefully, the defence have that one covered.

The data indicate that sexual

posing is a highly personal action on the part of the offender, which oftentimes involves extreme

emotion, anger and rage. The most prevalent motive is fantasy driven behavior (71%). In these

instances the offender subconsciously acted-out a sexually significant behavioral pattern to

obtain sexual satisfaction. The second most frequent motivation was anger/retaliation (22%). In

those cases the offender uses sex as a weapon to punish and degrade the victim; the body is

posed out of anger, to retaliate against the victim for some real or apparent slight of the offender.

It is fortunate that the least often seen offender motivation for sexual posing is to misdirect the

investigation, occurring in 7% of the cases. The rarity of such events, of course, does not suggest

that they deserve any less attention in the training regimen of investigators.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.practicalhomicide.com%2FResearch%2FISJjuly2010.pdf&ei=P7y0VMaXEND8ugSdnoDABQ&usg=AFQjCNH1B2cnPbGwnnviXCXtuR4Jmo5MwQ&bvm=bv.83339334,d.c2E

[berybert]

i must admit I didn't realize until a few weeks ago Mon admitted to being the person on the running man video. To cover for his son ?

But it has since been proven it wasn't Mon because Mon doesn't have a tattoo. So Mon covered for Nom and when it was proved he was lying, Nom was no longer a suspect.

I can understand in the mind of a 2 year old why that conclusion might be acceptable. but this is meant to be a grown up website.

[AleG]

As I responded before, Randi is one of my heroes. If you want to apply Randi's philosophy to the investigation, it fits perfectly: Randi would love to be able to scrutinize the RTP's mis-handling of it. So would I, but people like me or Randi are anathema to RTP investigators, because we could reveal a cover-up. That's why Thai officialdom is doing all they can to stay hidden. They wouldn't allow the Brits to do any investigating. They won't allow the Brits to see DNA typing on Nomsod (and probably other 'people of interest'). The RTP didn't insist on getting CCTV from bar owners. The RTP not only accepted Nomsod's silly alibi ruse in a Bkk minute, they immediately excused Nomsod and Mon from any further scrutiny - as if all prior suspicions by the police and the general public evaporated as quick as 170 million baht can evaporate from a rich person's bank account without anyone noticing.

"If you want to apply Randi's philosophy to the investigation"

By the investigation you are referring to your "investigation"

The only thing you do is throw unsubstantiated accusations around without bothering to ground anything in reality.

For example:

"as if all prior suspicions by the police and the general public evaporated as quick as 170 million baht can evaporate from a rich person's bank account without anyone noticing."

You noticed 170 million Baht going somewhere? Really, how you managed that? ESP?

It's amazing the amount of things you know yet are completely incapable of substantiating.

[AleG]

As far as I can tell, he came into it after people in CSI LA pointed a finger at him based on this:

"Well, the reason is because "Nom Sod" and his friends had posted comments on CSI during the time that Sean leaked out a statement that he was being threatened and bullied by the mafia. In many ways, this allowed Admin and people on CSI LA page to see the suspicious behavior and we were able to recognize the close similarity in the physical features of the suspect betweem the CCTV video and "Nom Sod"

They didn't like the things he said about the issue and decided that it was him on the CCTV video even though no facial features are visible.

In short, vindictive rumor mongering.

I think the csi reference to nomsod was after the police had already said they were looking for a guy in Bkk. At that initial stage , when mon was arrested nomsod name had not been published. It was a few days after mon arrest that nomsod name was released.

Again my question.

What caused the police to initialy suspect nomsod.

Pol Lt Gen Panya said a second suspect, who fled the resort island to Bangkok, will likely be taken into custody soon.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/koh-tao-murder-suspect-arrested-another-on-the-run.html

24th September.

Last time I checked a calendar the 22nd of September (the time Sean McAnna's incident hit the news) comes before the 24th or 23rd.

Suspects mean suspects, the evidence didn't pan out, they were cleared, end of story; happens in all crime investigations, the difference is that in this case the police made too many details public during the course of the investigation.

[berybert]

Pol Lt Gen Panya said a second suspect, who fled the resort island to Bangkok, will likely be taken into custody soon.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/koh-tao-murder-suspect-arrested-another-on-the-run.html

24th September.

Last time I checked a calendar the 22nd of September (the time Sean McAnna's incident hit the news) comes before the 24th or 23rd.

Suspects mean suspects, the evidence didn't pan out, they were cleared, end of story; happens in all crime investigations, the difference is that in this case the police made too many details public during the course of the investigation.

Last time I checked the calendar I also found the 22nd came before the 23rd and 24th.

Other than that what is the point of said post ?

Meaningless copy and pastes with meaningless dates added to them.

Why ?