Thai court grants Koh Tao evidence review for pair accused of Brit murders

[AleG]

Taking the shirt of the dead body, washing it up until there is absolutely no incriminating evidence, drying it up, bringing it back to the crime scene and laying in there in the space of two or three hours without leaving a trace or being seen by anyone all for... reasons, is not weird beheaviour, it's baseless, absurd nonsense.

"How else to you explain a man's clothing being spotless, after being brutally attacked and cut all over his torso, and bashed on the head?"

Because he was not wearing it at the time he was in a secluded spot with an attractive woman... oh wait, what was I thinking that is implausible according to you.

words added by AleG, attributed to Bmrgtang: "....until there is absolutely no incriminating evidence,"

Please don't add words to my quote, and then proceed to comment.

It is not weird behavior for a criminal to try and clean or destroy incriminating evidence.

Again, AleG adds his own embellishments to what someone else wrote: "....and laying in there in the space of two or three hours without leaving a trace or being seen by anyone all for..."

I believe the cops cordoned off the site (except for Mon traipsing in and out) close to noon (11 a.m?). That's 6+ hours after the crime, and several hours after the sun came up. Washing by hand was all that was needed (8 minutes?), no drying machine. No one but yourself said such a person (cleaning and returning evidence) was not seen by anyone. Do you want to embellish my proposed scenario further? Mon is show walking over the crime scene, sometimes in a hurry, and pointing things out to others on the scene. Mon, by his own admission was one of the first to see the crime scene after the crime, if we're to believe his claim of him being 'running man'. I don't believe he's 'running man' (readers know who I think that person is), but it's possible he was at the crime scene just after the crime. If so, it could have been just before sun-up. If you want to contradict Mon, go ahead.

Maybe I'm all wrong on the washing evidence idea. It's a proposed scenario by a poster on T.Visa. AleG asks "reasons?". Simple answer: if a person commits a murder, that person will not want incriminating evidence at the site - such evidence as blood, fingerprints, hair, dandruff, spittle, on victim's clothing which could incriminate. Any more questions?

"words added by AleG, attributed to Bmrgtang: "....until there is absolutely no incriminating evidence,"

Please don't add words to my quote, and then proceed to comment."

No need to put words in your mouth, here´s your own words:

"if a person commits a murder, that person will not want incriminating evidence at the site"

You just make things up as you go and don't realize how you trip over your own arguments; which one is it, the person was removing evidence or not?

"Washing by hand was all that was needed (8 minutes?)"

I can understand you having no clue over forensic matters, or video footage, or police procedures, but to be so clueless over things like housekeeping is remarkable, 8 minutes to remove all traces of blood or DNA from a shirt, right.

Do you actually put any thought into your ridiculous theories or just blurt out the first thing that comes to your head? No need to answer that.

"No one but yourself said such a person (cleaning and returning evidence) was not seen by anyone. Do you want to embellish my proposed scenario further?"

So someone saw him then? That person is also in the conspiracy too?, you just pile up the unsubstantiated BS and think that adds credibility to your nonsense.

Edited May 6, 2015 by AleG

[rockingrobin]

Yes! And a couple days later they were released because their DNA Samples did not match.

And unlike the Accused!

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/police-release-suspects-in-murder-of-two-brits-in-koh-tao.html

Wrong. Nomsod was in the clear days before his DNA was taken, typed (very quickly!) , and found not to match DNA found in/on Hannah. Indeed, Nomsod was cleared on the bases of two still 'grabs' (waved around by his lawyer) taken from questionable CCTV footage taken in Bkk, nearly 5 hours after the crime. I don't think the RTP themselves ever declared it was not Nomsod on the island CCTV minutes after the crime. Though RTP did claim they were sure it was him earlier. If anyone can source a quote where RTP claim it WAS NOT him on the island CCTV, please let us know.

You know this not to be true:

"Nomsod was cleared on the bases of two still 'grabs' (waved around by his lawyer) taken from questionable CCTV footage"

Therefore you are deliberately lying with an intention to deceive.

The police had the full footage from many different cameras in Nomsod's dormitory to prove he was not in Koh Tao at the time of the murder, also statements and documents from the University placing him there at that time.

Here's the full footage I referred to, as examined in full by journalists:

Regards the youtube video , does anybody notice an oddity at the following point in time

youtube video time 3.25

Timestamp on video 06:35 :31 and 06:36:46

[boomerangutang]

"No one but yourself said such a person (cleaning and returning evidence) was not seen by anyone. Do you want to embellish my proposed scenario further?"

So someone saw him then? That person is also in the conspiracy too?, you just pile up the unsubstantiated BS and think that adds credibility to your nonsense.

It's called an online discussion. Did someone see the person (who may have washed clothing)? we don't know. Just like there are many things we don't know about this case. That's why we're having a discussion. 8 minutes to wash a shirt and/or shorts? I could do it - standing/kneeling at a faucet with soap. If you can't, that's your predicament. Maybe it was 9 minutes or 11 minutes. That's why I put a question mark after the number 8. How important is # of minutes? To a die-hard contrarian, it's apparently important enough for name-calling. AleG, your pettiness is getting more shrill with each post. Try adding something to move the conversation forward, instead of niggling contrariness.

[boomerangutang]

"Washing by hand was all that was needed (8 minutes?)"

I can understand you having no clue over forensic matters, or video footage, or police procedures, but to be so clueless over things like housekeeping is remarkable, 8 minutes to remove all traces of blood or DNA from a shirt, right.

There you go again: adding words to my text, and then making disparaging comments. I never said "remove all traces of blood or DNA...." those are your added words, AleG. If you're going to comment on my text, try and stick with the text. It's not so hard. Have you ever learned how to do 'copy and paste' on a computer?

Perhaps the person who washed the clothing didn't remove all traces - and the scenario unfolded somewhat as I mentioned. .....then it's possible Thai forensics (who weren't experts) may have missed clues which weren't washed away. We've already heard how Thai forensics didn't find any traces of David's DNA on the hoe, yet they continue to stick with the premise that David was killed with the hoe. How does that fit with RTP echoers?

Thai forensic non-experts also ascertain that the hoe caused the stab wounds to David's neck and other parts of his body, when that assessment looks very doubtful to many thoughtful observers. The Brit coroner might be able to shed some light on these things, but she's shied away from any public statements. Is it due to political pressure (Brits not wanting to make top Thai officials lose face)? It looks that way, but we don't know for sure, just as there are a plethora of things being obscured in this case. The PM may still think Hannah was wearing a bikini when murdered. There is no limit to the absurdities that Thai officialdom is capable of - and just as absurd are the people who lap it all up as truth.

[AleG]

"No one but yourself said such a person (cleaning and returning evidence) was not seen by anyone. Do you want to embellish my proposed scenario further?"

So someone saw him then? That person is also in the conspiracy too?, you just pile up the unsubstantiated BS and think that adds credibility to your nonsense.

It's called an online discussion. Did someone see the person (who may have washed clothing)? we don't know. Just like there are many things we don't know about this case. That's why we're having a discussion. 8 minutes to wash a shirt and/or shorts? I could do it - standing/kneeling at a faucet with soap. If you can't, that's your predicament. Maybe it was 9 minutes or 11 minutes. That's why I put a question mark after the number 8. How important is # of minutes? To a die-hard contrarian, it's apparently important enough for name-calling. AleG, your pettiness is getting more shrill with each post. Try adding something to move the conversation forward, instead of niggling contrariness.

Your nonsensical scenarios don't move the topic of "Thai court grants Koh Tao evidence review for pair accused of Brit murders" anywhere, neither they help in finding any facts or bringing any justice related to the crimes. You may just be asking what role did fairies played in the murders.

In short, you have nothing of any real value to contribute to a better understanding of the topic and simply keep trying to get some attention to your discredited opinions.

[berybert]

Yes! And a couple days later they were released because their DNA Samples did not match.

And unlike the Accused!

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/police-release-suspects-in-murder-of-two-brits-in-koh-tao.html

Wrong. Nomsod was in the clear days before his DNA was taken, typed (very quickly!) , and found not to match DNA found in/on Hannah. Indeed, Nomsod was cleared on the bases of two still 'grabs' (waved around by his lawyer) taken from questionable CCTV footage taken in Bkk, nearly 5 hours after the crime. I don't think the RTP themselves ever declared it was not Nomsod on the island CCTV minutes after the crime. Though RTP did claim they were sure it was him earlier. If anyone can source a quote where RTP claim it WAS NOT him on the island CCTV, please let us know.

You know this not to be true:

"Nomsod was cleared on the bases of two still 'grabs' (waved around by his lawyer) taken from questionable CCTV footage"

Therefore you are deliberately lying with an intention to deceive.

The police had the full footage from many different cameras in Nomsod's dormitory to prove he was not in Koh Tao at the time of the murder, also statements and documents from the University placing him there at that time.

Here's the full footage I referred to, as examined in full by journalists:

Actually when it comes to lying to deceive I think claiming the police have documentation of where Nomsod was the morning after the crime is lying to deceive.

There has been no public showing of any such documents, so can you tell us how you know this to be true ?

[berybert]

I'd like to see the photos again, of the crime scene (perhaps someone could post 'em). From recollection, David's shorts were laid out flat on the sand, and they were not near Hannah (her body's final position). According to the RTP scenario, the two went to the rocky area, took their clothes off to have sex. Few observers believe that, but let's play along with what the RTP want us to believe. If a man is taking his clothes off to commence to have sex (as an aside: most men would not take all their clothes off on a public beach in that scenario, but that's a side issue) ....the man would very unlikely take his shorts and lay them flat on the sand, several meters from where the woman is. If a man took off his shorts, he would either drop them on the ground in a lump or put them up on the rock. It's just one more, of the hundreds of details which the RTP got wrong. Whether by stupidity or by scheming, we may never know.

Miller's shorts were not laid flat on the sand, you continue to make things up in order to create fanciful and fictitious scenarios; like the idea that someone took the time to was his clothes and return them to the crime scene, utterly ridiculous.

Ridiculous if you want it to be. However, if you study crime scenarios, you'll find that many things happen which you would call 'ridiculous.' People getting stuck in chimneys when robbing a house, a guy jumps in a cess pool in order to avoid capture, two guys with just body-armor standing in the open and having a shoot-out with 30 armed policemen - ....crime brings out weird behavior in desperate people. Try not to be so self-limiting in your perspective.

How else to you explain a man's clothing being spotless, after being brutally attacked and cut all over his torso, and bashed on the head? .....ok, unless he was nude to begin with, but that's not necessarily so, unless you choose to believe, hook-line-and-sinker the reenactment orchestrated by the RTP.

Taking the shirt of the dead body, washing it up until there is absolutely no incriminating evidence, drying it up, bringing it back to the crime scene and laying in there in the space of two or three hours without leaving a trace or being seen by anyone all for... reasons, is not weird beheaviour, it's baseless, absurd nonsense.

"How else to you explain a man's clothing being spotless, after being brutally attacked and cut all over his torso, and bashed on the head?"

Because he was not wearing it at the time he was in a secluded spot with an attractive woman... oh wait, what was I thinking that is implausible according to you.

A fine point made. Another question regard the clothing, can you explain why David's shirt was quite a distance from the rest of his clothing ?

And even further away from Hannah's flip flops. Must have been quite an energetic session. And she didn't even get her clothes off.

Apologize to Cha cha cah.

Edited May 6, 2015 by berybert

[seahorse]

A fine point made. Another question regard the clothing, can you explain why David's shirt was quite a distance from the rest of his clothing ?

shorts.jpg

And even further away from Hannah's flip flops. Must have been quite an energetic session. And she didn't even get her clothes off.

Apologize to Cha cha cah.

The shirt isn't that far away from the rest of his clothing. But the shorts that David was wearing that night are quite a distance from the rest of his clothing - they're not even in that photograph. Those are dark shorts. He was wearing light shorts. Yet somehow the light shorts appeared in the official police photographs of his belongings. How did the police get them?

Don't forget running man was wearing light shorts in the video, so it must have been David's light shorts that he was wearing and those dark shorts must be running man's. Now why would running man be wearing David's shorts and leave his own behind? He must have taken his own shorts off and put David's on in the dark. Why would he take his shorts off? To rape Hannah. So running man must be the rapist.

And we all know who running man was by now, don't we?

So how did they get from running man to the police photograph?

[IslandLover]

A fine point made. Another question regard the clothing, can you explain why David's shirt was quite a distance from the rest of his clothing ?

shorts.jpg

And even further away from Hannah's flip flops. Must have been quite an energetic session. And she didn't even get her clothes off.

Apologize to Cha cha cah.

The shirt isn't that far away from the rest of his clothing. But the shorts that David was wearing that night are quite a distance from the rest of his clothing - they're not even in that photograph. Those are dark shorts. He was wearing light shorts. Yet somehow the light shorts appeared in the official police photographs of his belongings. How did the police get them?

Don't forget running man was wearing light shorts in the video, so it must have been David's light shorts that he was wearing and those dark shorts must be running man's. Now why would running man be wearing David's shorts and leave his own behind? He must have taken his own shorts off and put David's on in the dark. Why would he take his shorts off? To rape Hannah. So running man must be the rapist.

And we all know who running man was by now, don't we?

So how did they get from running man to the police photograph?

The shorts are visible in the photo posted by berybert. They are in the far left of the image, just behind a rock. Here is another photo of the crime scene taken from a different angle. The two photos need to be viewed together to understand the position of the clothing.

[boomerangutang]

Your nonsensical scenarios don't move the topic of "Thai court grants Koh Tao evidence review for pair accused of Brit murders" anywhere, neither they help in finding any facts or bringing any justice related to the crimes. You may just be asking what role did fairies played in the murders.

Just the sort of missive I'd expect from someone, like a head cop, trying to restrict the scope of the investigation. "Don't deviate. Don't think outside the box. You superiors will tell you what to think, and your job is to back it up. That's final. If you deviate from the official line, you're out of a job."

In short, you have nothing of any real value to contribute to a better understanding of the topic and simply keep trying to get some attention to your discredited opinions.

There are only two posters trying to discredit what I add to the discussion, and it's indicative that my proposed options (of what may have happened) are striking a nerve. Otherwise they would just say, "not plausible." and perhaps back it up with some reasons why, instead of calling names like frustrated kids. It also indicates there are things to hide, otherwise why put up so much resistance? If I say that Pluto is made of green cheese, RTP echoers wouldn't expend calories to reply. If I say someone (you can guess his name) may have altered the crime scene in order to cover-up evidence, then the H's shielders start screaming 'RIDICULOUS!' 'NONSENSE!' 'CONSPIRACY!' 'DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER LAWSUITS COMETH!'

Edited May 7, 2015 by boomerangutang

[stephenterry]

The issue is, goldbuggy, you don't accept all of your statements are conjecture. You don't KNOW, you can only guess by what has been reported but not yet substantiated. And it's only the prosecution's side that has been reported and that which you are set to believe. That is what this trial is all about. Showing both sides. That means listening to the evidence supplied by the defence before you jump to the conclusion that the accused are the criminals..

The very fact that the crime scene was contaminated, the initial DNA samples held in the Headman's fridge until forensics arrived, is enough to cast doubt on the DNA custody chain. However, the defence has been allowed to independently test this, and they could be able to either accept or challenge the RTP's allegations of a DNA match. Same with the cigarette butts.

However, I accept that the very close attention by the world's media could have caused the RTP to try and obtain a guilty party ASAP, once the initial suspects dried up. It is not beyond reason that scapegoats had to be found to protect its tourist image. It's happened before, so why not again? I will point out that I am not saying it happened in this case, but no-one could rule it out.

"the initial DNA samples held in the Headman's fridge until forensics arrived"

Even if that is true, and there's only Boomerangutang's fertile imagination to back it up, the forensic examinations were not done in Koh Tao, so it's a moot point.

"It is not beyond reason that scapegoats had to be found to protect its tourist image. It's happened before"

Yes, when and where? I heard that argument repeated often, never heard it substantiated.

Even if it's true (samples held in a fridge belonging to the headman, yet to be determined in court) my statement refers to the custody chain, which is a crucial step in courts accepting DNA evidence. The realistic possibility that the CC wasn't as robust as it should have been may make it inadmissible.

And your second question: here is my post 300 which answers it.

Extracts from publicised sources (press releases)

Courts are no longer allowed to accept as evidence suspects' accounts during their re-enactment of serious crimes after laws were amended to prevent a repeat of some high-profile criminal cases in which scapegoats were convicted. (There's a thing, surely not?)

For criminal cases liable to over five years imprisonment, the court will not consider suspects' testimony during police investigations, whether confessions or denials. (One could state that point3 above is inadmissable as the confessions were made during the investigation with RTP present at the time.)

Sri-amporn Salikup,chief justice of the Supreme Court, said a re-enactment provides an imaginative model of how the crime is committed. (However), a confession is not enough for conviction and police must provide evidence to prove that suspects committed a crime. If a suspect reverses his confession during a trial, then the re-enactment is meaningless, he said.

I would presume the defence could persuade the court that all confessions and their subsequent retractions fall within the investigation time-frame.

[boomerangutang]

The shorts are visible in the photo posted by berybert. They are in the far left of the image, just behind a rock. Here is another photo of the crime scene taken from a different angle. The two photos need to be viewed together to understand the position of the clothing.

Crimescene 1a.jpg

Thanks for posting the pic. That's why I asked for a re-posting of pics taken from crime scene. They're significant. I was wrong about the shorts being laid out flat on the sand. I had the pic of the evidence after the crime (laid out neatly for pics) in my mind, rather than the shorts as they were purportedly found on the beach. Even so, by the way they're crumpled, they appear as though they were taken off a man, rather than taken off by the wearer. Maybe insignificant, but 'no stone unturned' should be the guide for investigators. Rather than, 'We, your superiors tell you what to think, and all investigative work should back that up.' Lot of blood - a reminder of what a violent and sad end it must have been for the two victims.

Any blood splatter on clothing? Not if RTP don't want there to be.

[AleG]

Yes! And a couple days later they were released because their DNA Samples did not match.

And unlike the Accused!

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/police-release-suspects-in-murder-of-two-brits-in-koh-tao.html

Wrong. Nomsod was in the clear days before his DNA was taken, typed (very quickly!) , and found not to match DNA found in/on Hannah. Indeed, Nomsod was cleared on the bases of two still 'grabs' (waved around by his lawyer) taken from questionable CCTV footage taken in Bkk, nearly 5 hours after the crime. I don't think the RTP themselves ever declared it was not Nomsod on the island CCTV minutes after the crime. Though RTP did claim they were sure it was him earlier. If anyone can source a quote where RTP claim it WAS NOT him on the island CCTV, please let us know.

You know this not to be true:

"Nomsod was cleared on the bases of two still 'grabs' (waved around by his lawyer) taken from questionable CCTV footage"

Therefore you are deliberately lying with an intention to deceive.

The police had the full footage from many different cameras in Nomsod's dormitory to prove he was not in Koh Tao at the time of the murder, also statements and documents from the University placing him there at that time.

Here's the full footage I referred to, as examined in full by journalists:

Actually when it comes to lying to deceive I think claiming the police have documentation of where Nomsod was the morning after the crime is lying to deceive.

There has been no public showing of any such documents, so can you tell us how you know this to be true ?

The video, in the post you quoted is "documentation of where Nomsod was the morning after the crime" are you just trolling now?

[AleG]

"the initial DNA samples held in the Headman's fridge until forensics arrived"

Even if that is true, and there's only Boomerangutang's fertile imagination to back it up, the forensic examinations were not done in Koh Tao, so it's a moot point.

"It is not beyond reason that scapegoats had to be found to protect its tourist image. It's happened before"

Yes, when and where? I heard that argument repeated often, never heard it substantiated.

Even if it's true (samples held in a fridge belonging to the headman, yet to be determined in court) my statement refers to the custody chain, which is a crucial step in courts accepting DNA evidence. The realistic possibility that the CC wasn't as robust as it should have been may make it inadmissible.

And your second question: here is my post 300 which answers it.

Extracts from publicised sources (press releases)

Courts are no longer allowed to accept as evidence suspects' accounts during their re-enactment of serious crimes after laws were amended to prevent a repeat of some high-profile criminal cases in which scapegoats were convicted. (There's a thing, surely not?)

For criminal cases liable to over five years imprisonment, the court will not consider suspects' testimony during police investigations, whether confessions or denials. (One could state that point3 above is inadmissable as the confessions were made during the investigation with RTP present at the time.)

Sri-amporn Salikup,chief justice of the Supreme Court, said a re-enactment provides an imaginative model of how the crime is committed. (However), a confession is not enough for conviction and police must provide evidence to prove that suspects committed a crime. If a suspect reverses his confession during a trial, then the re-enactment is meaningless, he said.

I would presume the defence could persuade the court that all confessions and their subsequent retractions fall within the investigation time-frame.

You said:

"It is not beyond reason that scapegoats had to be found to protect its tourist image. It's happened before, so why not again?"

That is a claim that you haven't substantiated.

[stephenterry]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Re 338. Yes! And a couple days later they were released because their DNA Samples did not match.

And unlike the Accused!

http://www.chiangrai...in-koh-tao.html

That's what has been reported by the RTP, and the DNA has yet to be independently tested to prove it. In regard to the B2, that is happening now. But more importantly is what evidence did the policeman have that initially implicated the Thais to the crime?

As Si Thea01 has been at pains to point out, nothing that has been released to the press by the RTP can be regarded as factual until it is substantiated. That's what this trial is all about..

Does DNA have to be independently tested in your country to be considered proof? So if it doesn't why do you assume it has to be done here. Because it doesn't have to be done here either.

But besides all that, for the 100th time. It was Independently Tested. In Singapore!

Geese!

It's actually, Jeez, a shortened and slang version of Jesus Christ. Geese are fowl. The B2 samples weren't sent to Singapore because of the time frame in which a 'match' was said to have been made. Nor indeed, were the initial samples taken at the crime site. They were spread around the country, a lot here in hospitals in Chiang Mai. That's normal, I have no beef with that.

However, the independence check comes from the comparison of the two samples - that's what's happening now. In England, DNA can be tested by both prosecution and defence - not here, initially. And in England, DNA evidence on its own is not conclusive enough to obtain a conviction. It's regarded as circumstantial, not more.

Never said that. I asked if in your country they have to have a DNA tested by an Independent Source before it is considered evidence.

Yes, DNA Evidence alone is not enough to convict someone in my country either. But adding in other factors, like being in possession of the victims cell phone, being seen near the crime scene when the murders took place, not having a good alibi, and hell knows what else that hasn't been disclosed yet, or from the 100 witnesses they have, would certainly add to this.

I used to be neutral about this case until I kept reading over and over again from all you Bleeding Hearts, screaming every time this type of news came out that they are framed, that Thai police are so corrupt, that these Poor Boys are innocent. But in all this time I have never seen anyone of them post something even 1 time, that proves they are as innocent as you all believe.

To you, every piece of evidence has been planted by the police or is false. Every News article that disproves your own personal theory you consider to be false. Every DNA Sample was not collected correctly or tainted by some Lab Tech. Every CCTV footage was tampered with, or changed, or something deleted. All confessions were made under torture. That it was just a strange coincidence that the accused happen to find the Cell Phone of one of the victims, on the night he was killed, but you see this as perfectly understandable. And this goes on and on.

What surprises me the most is that you have zero faith in the Police here, or Prosecutor, but yet you put so much faith in the Trail Judge here. That is interesting. Can't wait to see where you fit him in your corruption stories, after he finds them guilty.

I am sorry but this is my last post on this subject. It is just my Nature to feel sorry for the Victims and their Families, and not sorry to the guys who did that. Even with a death sentence, they will live much longer than Hannah and David did.

Well, it's not my last post.

In England and Wales. Evidence from an expert who has compared DNA samples must be accompanied by evidence as to the sources of the samples and the procedures for obtaining the DNA profiles. There is no jury in Thailand, so if this procedure is followed the judge must understand the significance of DNA matches and mismatches in the profiles.

The alibi, cell phone, sun-glasses, etc. along with the numerous witnesses has yet to be heard in court. The defence's case has not been disclosed to the general public. You really ought to get your head around that, before you jump to conclusions that the accused are guilty.

No-one knows for sure if the B2 are innocent (except themselves), and no-one knows for sure that they are guilty. Why keep raising this point when the full disclosure of the prosecution's case and the defence's case has not yet been made?

What posters on here have done is to question the veracity of the RTP's press release reports, as also queried by the Human Rights group who are assisting in the defence of the B2.

I have more faith in seeking a fair trial, which the trial judge appears to support. And I also seek justice for the families of the victims, whoever killed them.

[AleG]

Just the sort of missive I'd expect from someone, like a head cop, trying to restrict the scope of the investigation. "Don't deviate. Don't think outside the box. You superiors will tell you what to think, and your job is to back it up. That's final. If you deviate from the official line, you're out of a job."

There are only two posters trying to discredit what I add to the discussion, and it's indicative that my proposed options (of what may have happened) are striking a nerve. Otherwise they would just say, "not plausible." and perhaps back it up with some reasons why, instead of calling names like frustrated kids. It also indicates there are things to hide, otherwise why put up so much resistance? If I say that Pluto is made of green cheese, RTP echoers wouldn't expend calories to reply. If I say someone (you can guess his name) may have altered the crime scene in order to cover-up evidence, then the H's shielders start screaming 'RIDICULOUS!' 'NONSENSE!' 'CONSPIRACY!' 'DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER LAWSUITS COMETH!'

" Just the sort of missive I'd expect from someone, like a head cop, trying to restrict the scope of the investigation. "Don't deviate. Don't think outside the box. You superiors will tell you what to think, and your job is to back it up. That's final. If you deviate from the official line, you're out of a job.""

You think you are conducting an investigation? That is funny... an investigation involves corroborating facts, something you have systematically failed to do in any form; you are only interested in your theories, or embellishing some other people's theories, which you swallow unquestioningly.

For all your "investigative" work you haven't uncovered anything, zero, nothing, a complete failure. Creating fictional scenarios is not an "investigation".

"There are only two posters trying to discredit what I add to the discussion"

Your nonsense, when held against reality and common sense discredits you, such as here:

The shorts are visible in the photo posted by berybert. They are in the far left of the image, just behind a rock. Here is another photo of the crime scene taken from a different angle. The two photos need to be viewed together to understand the position of the clothing.

Crimescene 1a.jpg

Thanks for posting the pic. That's why I asked for a re-posting of pics taken from crime scene. They're significant. I was wrong about the shorts being laid out flat on the sand. I had the pic of the evidence after the crime (laid out neatly for pics) in my mind, rather than the shorts as they were purportedly found on the beach. Even so, by the way they're crumpled, they appear as though they were taken off a man, rather than taken off by the wearer. Maybe insignificant, but 'no stone unturned' should be the guide for investigators. Rather than, 'We, your superiors tell you what to think, and all investigative work should back that up.' Lot of blood - a reminder of what a violent and sad end it must have been for the two victims.

Any blood splatter on clothing? Not if RTP don't want there to be.

It's amazing how you, how makes so many grand claims about what "really" happened are constantly wrong about the facts.

Your premise was wrong, yet you stick to the conclusions you derived from it; that's intellectually dishonest, just so you know.

"by the way they're crumpled, they appear as though they were taken off a man, rather than taken off by the wearer."

"then the H's shielders start screaming 'RIDICULOUS!' 'NONSENSE!' 'CONSPIRACY!' 'DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER LAWSUITS COMETH!'"

Calling people "H's shielders" as a way of demonizing people that counter your BS is defamation of character, and so is accusing people of being involved in a murder with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

[stephenterry]

"the initial DNA samples held in the Headman's fridge until forensics arrived"

Even if that is true, and there's only Boomerangutang's fertile imagination to back it up, the forensic examinations were not done in Koh Tao, so it's a moot point.

"It is not beyond reason that scapegoats had to be found to protect its tourist image. It's happened before"

Yes, when and where? I heard that argument repeated often, never heard it substantiated.

Even if it's true (samples held in a fridge belonging to the headman, yet to be determined in court) my statement refers to the custody chain, which is a crucial step in courts accepting DNA evidence. The realistic possibility that the CC wasn't as robust as it should have been may make it inadmissible.

And your second question: here is my post 300 which answers it.

Extracts from publicised sources (press releases)

Courts are no longer allowed to accept as evidence suspects' accounts during their re-enactment of serious crimes after laws were amended to prevent a repeat of some high-profile criminal cases in which scapegoats were convicted. (There's a thing, surely not?)

For criminal cases liable to over five years imprisonment, the court will not consider suspects' testimony during police investigations, whether confessions or denials. (One could state that point3 above is inadmissable as the confessions were made during the investigation with RTP present at the time.)

Sri-amporn Salikup,chief justice of the Supreme Court, said a re-enactment provides an imaginative model of how the crime is committed. (However), a confession is not enough for conviction and police must provide evidence to prove that suspects committed a crime. If a suspect reverses his confession during a trial, then the re-enactment is meaningless, he said.

I would presume the defence could persuade the court that all confessions and their subsequent retractions fall within the investigation time-frame.

You said:

"It is not beyond reason that scapegoats had to be found to protect its tourist image. It's happened before, so why not again?"

That is a claim that you haven't substantiated.

It is not unreasonable to suggest a link between safeguarding an image (as almost every officialism news report mentions) and resolving crimes speedily (to show law and order is present) even if scapegoats need to be found (as has happened before). Whichever way you look at it and try to deflect the statement, it is a fact that scapegoats have been convicted of serious crimes.

[boomerangutang]

AleG, you'd be comical in your manic obsession with trying and find fault (with some posters' deductions), were it not for the gravity of the crime. Don Quixote comes to mind, and I'm the windmill.

I never said I was a hired investigator, though I (and hundreds of other posters) have looked at the data related this crime from an investigative perspective.

It will be interesting to see how restrictive the parameters on the new team looking for evidence will be. Obviously Thai officialdom will be setting the parameters. Will they allow the new team to investigate many facets relating to DNA (suspects, current and prior) or limit it to just the B2?

Will they allow the new team to re-examine clothing and other items found at and near the crime scene?

Will they allow the new team to pursue leads, if it appears they might contribute to solving the case?

My assumption is that Thai officials will continue to try and keep a tight lid on what the new team can scrutinize. I hope I'm wrong. Everything Thai officials have said and done since the replacement cop took over - points to restrictions, obfuscations, secrecy and denial. Just how AleG and JD want it to continue.

[seedy]

one post expressing defamation / libel removed

[seahorse]

A fine point made. Another question regard the clothing, can you explain why David's shirt was quite a distance from the rest of his clothing ?

shorts.jpg

And even further away from Hannah's flip flops. Must have been quite an energetic session. And she didn't even get her clothes off.

Apologize to Cha cha cah.

The shirt isn't that far away from the rest of his clothing. But the shorts that David was wearing that night are quite a distance from the rest of his clothing - they're not even in that photograph. Those are dark shorts. He was wearing light shorts. Yet somehow the light shorts appeared in the official police photographs of his belongings. How did the police get them?

Don't forget running man was wearing light shorts in the video, so it must have been David's light shorts that he was wearing and those dark shorts must be running man's. Now why would running man be wearing David's shorts and leave his own behind? He must have taken his own shorts off and put David's on in the dark. Why would he take his shorts off? To rape Hannah. So running man must be the rapist.

And we all know who running man was by now, don't we?

So how did they get from running man to the police photograph?

The shorts are visible in the photo posted by berybert. They are in the far left of the image, just behind a rock. Here is another photo of the crime scene taken from a different angle. The two photos need to be viewed together to understand the position of the clothing.

Crimescene 1a.jpg

David's shorts are not there. There is a pair of dark shorts with a pair of grey boxer pants on top of them. There is David's t-shirt nearer where the body lay, a pair of woman's panties in the foreground (presumably Hannah's) and Hannah's flip flops to the right. Behind where the body lay, there is one of David's shoes, a mystery white object and a yellow towel over a rock.

In the police display photograph of David's clothes, the dark shorts and the grey boxer shorts do not appear. Instead they show his light shorts and a skimpy pair of striped briefs, along with his t-shirt, both his shoes and Hannah's flip flops and panties. The mystery white object and yellow towel do not appear. Unfortunately I don't know how to post this picture but I'm sure someone else could.

So whose are the dark shorts and light grey boxer shorts?

[berybert]

You know this not to be true:

"Nomsod was cleared on the bases of two still 'grabs' (waved around by his lawyer) taken from questionable CCTV footage"

Therefore you are deliberately lying with an intention to deceive.

The police had the full footage from many different cameras in Nomsod's dormitory to prove he was not in Koh Tao at the time of the murder, also statements and documents from the University placing him there at that time.

Here's the full footage I referred to, as examined in full by journalists:

Actually when it comes to lying to deceive I think claiming the police have documentation of where Nomsod was the morning after the crime is lying to deceive.

There has been no public showing of any such documents, so can you tell us how you know this to be true ?

The video, in the post you quoted is "documentation of where Nomsod was the morning after the crime" are you just trolling now?

So now when you post something which is clearly unproven you accuse your accuser of being a troll ?

You said... 'The police had the full footage from many different cameras in Nomsod's dormitory to prove he was not in Koh Tao at the time of the murder, also statements and documents from the University placing him there at that time'....If you are trying to be clever and now think CCTV footage is a document then that is pretty poor work on your part. Does CCTV footage also count as a statement in your world ? CCTV, documents and statements = 3 things to most people.

I said there have never been any documents or statements to say he was at the university at the time. Something you are the only one who has claimed this to be so.

So again can you back up your claim of documents and statements ?

Edited May 7, 2015 by berybert

[stephenterry]

AleG, you'd be comical in your manic obsession with trying and find fault (with some posters' deductions), were it not for the gravity of the crime. Don Quixote comes to mind, and I'm the windmill.

I never said I was a hired investigator, though I (and hundreds of other posters) have looked at the data related this crime from an investigative perspective.

It will be interesting to see how restrictive the parameters on the new team looking for evidence will be. Obviously Thai officialdom will be setting the parameters. Will they allow the new team to investigate many facets relating to DNA (suspects, current and prior) or limit it to just the B2?

Will they allow the new team to re-examine clothing and other items found at and near the crime scene?

Will they allow the new team to pursue leads, if it appears they might contribute to solving the case?

My assumption is that Thai officials will continue to try and keep a tight lid on what the new team can scrutinize. I hope I'm wrong. Everything Thai officials have said and done since the replacement cop took over - points to restrictions, obfuscations, secrecy and denial. Just how AleG and JD want it to continue.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Andy Hall's latest summation indicates there are thousands of document pages to wade through, many of them DNA analysis, let alone anything else.

If the defence team can discredit or cast doubt on the alleged DNA 'match', it would go a long way. Plus witnesses that could either vouch for the B2's whereabouts or provide some enlightenment as to what happened that night.

But as I said, don't hold your breath.

[AleG]

The video, in the post you quoted is "documentation of where Nomsod was the morning after the crime" are you just trolling now?

So now when you post something which is clearly unproven you accuse your accuser of being a troll ?

You said... 'The police had the full footage from many different cameras in Nomsod's dormitory to prove he was not in Koh Tao at the time of the murder, also statements and documents from the University placing him there at that time'....If you are trying to be clever and now think CCTV footage is a document then that is pretty poor work on your part. Does CCTV footage also count as a statement in your world ? CCTV, documents and statements = 3 things to most people.

I said there have never been any documents or statements to say he was at the university at the time. Something you are the only one who has claimed this to be so.

So again can you back up your claim of documents and statements ?

Clueless as usual.

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

Last week police identified Mr. Warot as a primary suspect, claiming that he fled the island shortly after the bodies of Mr. Miller and Ms. Witheridge were found.

The police later retracted their statement and said Mr. Warot was no longer a suspect because he was in Bangkok when the murder took place."

The police confirmed his presence in Bangkok at the time based on the documentation provided, can't deal with the truth?, too bad.

[AleG]

The shorts are visible in the photo posted by berybert. They are in the far left of the image, just behind a rock. Here is another photo of the crime scene taken from a different angle. The two photos need to be viewed together to understand the position of the clothing.

Crimescene 1a.jpg

David's shorts are not there. There is a pair of dark shorts with a pair of grey boxer pants on top of them. There is David's t-shirt nearer where the body lay, a pair of woman's panties in the foreground (presumably Hannah's) and Hannah's flip flops to the right. Behind where the body lay, there is one of David's shoes, a mystery white object and a yellow towel over a rock.

In the police display photograph of David's clothes, the dark shorts and the grey boxer shorts do not appear. Instead they show his light shorts and a skimpy pair of striped briefs, along with his t-shirt, both his shoes and Hannah's flip flops and panties. The mystery white object and yellow towel do not appear. Unfortunately I don't know how to post this picture but I'm sure someone else could.

So whose are the dark shorts and light grey boxer shorts?

The complete lack of qualifications to formulate opinions and theories by the amateur detectives knows no bounds.

The shorts in the pictures are Miller's shorts, they look darker than in other photographs there because the lighting is darker in that photograph.

[stephenterry]

The video, in the post you quoted is "documentation of where Nomsod was the morning after the crime" are you just trolling now?

So now when you post something which is clearly unproven you accuse your accuser of being a troll ?

You said... 'The police had the full footage from many different cameras in Nomsod's dormitory to prove he was not in Koh Tao at the time of the murder, also statements and documents from the University placing him there at that time'....If you are trying to be clever and now think CCTV footage is a document then that is pretty poor work on your part. Does CCTV footage also count as a statement in your world ? CCTV, documents and statements = 3 things to most people.

I said there have never been any documents or statements to say he was at the university at the time. Something you are the only one who has claimed this to be so.

So again can you back up your claim of documents and statements ?

Clueless as usual.

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

Last week police identified Mr. Warot as a primary suspect, claiming that he fled the island shortly after the bodies of Mr. Miller and Ms. Witheridge were found.

The police later retracted their statement and said Mr. Warot was no longer a suspect because he was in Bangkok when the murder took place."

The police confirmed his presence in Bangkok at the time based on the documentation provided, can't deal with the truth?, too bad.

Ha, ha. LOL. I'm not going to breach the defamation laws, but your absolute faith in what's been reported as being the TRUTH (in your words) is laudable. Don't bother to reply, I'm off-air for the rest of the day, taking the sour taste out of my mouth. No disrespect, either.

[AleG]

It is not unreasonable to suggest a link between safeguarding an image (as almost every officialism news report mentions) and resolving crimes speedily (to show law and order is present) even if scapegoats need to be found (as has happened before). Whichever way you look at it and try to deflect the statement, it is a fact that scapegoats have been convicted of serious crimes.

And men like the two Burmese on trial have been found guilty of committing murder too, so what?

Rather than assumptions and speculation is facts that should determine the truth, the fact is there is DNA evidence from the crime scene and inside one of the victims that has been matched with them, the fact is they were directly connected with belongings of the victims taken away (apparently they now claim they just happened to find the phone... somewhere ), they confessed to the police and their own lawyers to the crime, the fact is they were in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the murders, the fact is that they can't produce an alibi to place them somewhere else, the fact is one of them tried to flee the island after being under surveillance for some days and his DNA taken for analysis.

After all that the fact is, as per the topic of this thread, the defense has been allowed to examine and contest all that evidence; notwithstanding the predictions of those that swore up and down that such thing would never happen.

One last fact is that, for all the hot air and bandwidth spent by amateur investigators, not one single iota of evidence has been found directly connecting anyone else to the crimes, none, zero, bugger all. It's all speculation, rumors, misinformation and outright lies.

[AleG]

Clueless as usual.

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

Last week police identified Mr. Warot as a primary suspect, claiming that he fled the island shortly after the bodies of Mr. Miller and Ms. Witheridge were found.

The police later retracted their statement and said Mr. Warot was no longer a suspect because he was in Bangkok when the murder took place."

The police confirmed his presence in Bangkok at the time based on the documentation provided, can't deal with the truth?, too bad.

Ha, ha. LOL. I'm not going to breach the defamation laws, but your absolute faith in what's been reported as being the TRUTH (in your words) is laudable. Don't bother to reply, I'm off-air for the rest of the day, taking the sour taste out of my mouth. No disrespect, either.

Right, it's all false because you say so. Got it.

The documents are fake, the witness testimony is fake, the multiple CCTV footage is fake. Why? Stephenterry says so.

It's all a conspiracy, the police are into it, the journalists that reviewed the evidence are into it t, the people around the suspect that know the "truth" (as decided by Stephenterry) say nothing because they are also into it.

No need to substantiate any of that of course, no sir, he says it's all fake and that is that.

[fritzzz25]

[jdinasia]

What I find most interesting (and most discrediting) about the conspiracy theories is that none of the people who were on the island and have since returned to the UK and elsewhere have spoken out.

The family statements released by the FCO suggests that sub-judice in no way applies to a case in Thailand. Yet not one of the friends of the victims has come forward to state that the premise of the prosecution case is wrong.

[JLCrab]

Dead Horse? Maybe. But just another song-&-dance.