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

[stephenterry]

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 you still cannot get your head around the fact, that what you regard as facts as per the prosecution's case has yet to be challenged in court. In respect of the DNA, that is now being independently verified. so it could match or it couldn't. You don't know.

In respect of any alibi, no-one knows what the defence's case is, so it is incorrect to state that no alibi exists. Confessions since retracted and re-enactments are not considered by the court.

I applaud the media interest in seeking justice via a fair trial, and I applaud the trial judge for taking an unprecedented step in trying to ensure a fair trial takes place. Your last sentence is outside the topic, but once the B2 were put in the frame all RTP attention on anyone else stopped.

The most interesting recent report by Andy Hall offers some insight into the defence's task. That they have to wade through thousands of pages of paperwork including many DNA profiles, and to possibly cross-examine up to 100 witnesses all told, indicates to me, that the case against the B2 is not as strong as that pronounced by the prosecutor. Once the DNA match is discredited, anything else is circumstantial, and can be explained.

[AleG]

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 you still cannot get your head around the fact, that what you regard as facts as per the prosecution's case has yet to be challenged in court. In respect of the DNA, that is now being independently verified. so it could match or it couldn't. You don't know.

In respect of any alibi, no-one knows what the defence's case is, so it is incorrect to state that no alibi exists. Confessions since retracted and re-enactments are not considered by the court.

I applaud the media interest in seeking justice via a fair trial, and I applaud the trial judge for taking an unprecedented step in trying to ensure a fair trial takes place. Your last sentence is outside the topic, but once the B2 were put in the frame all RTP attention on anyone else stopped.

The most interesting recent report by Andy Hall offers some insight into the defence's task. That they have to wade through thousands of pages of paperwork including many DNA profiles, and to possibly cross-examine up to 100 witnesses all told, indicates to me, that the case against the B2 is not as strong as that pronounced by the prosecutor. Once the DNA match is discredited, anything else is circumstantial, and can be explained.

I don't think the notion that the actual time between Nomsod being named as a suspect and him being cleared was a week or more (as Boomerangutang claimed) will be challenged in court, unless they are going to argue that the time between the 23rd of September and the 25th of the same month really adds up to more than two days.

I don't think the prosecution is going to argue the fact that they did actually confess to the crime, they will certainly argue that the confession is not admissible, but the fact is they made that confession, to the police and to one of the defense lawyers.

I don't think they will contest the fact that they were in the vicinity of the murders, since they have admitted of that themselves, also I don't think they will contest the fact that they were in possession of David Miller's cell phone, in fact during the last hearing they admitted they were in possession of it.

I don't think they will contest the fact that one of them was caught when attempting to leave the island, because that is what actually happened.

Those are facts, they are facts because they can be supported by events that happened in the real world; it's not the case of someone simply making claims without substantiation, to which you (judging for your lack of any action on your part) seem to have no problem whatsoever as long as it agrees with the notion that the two suspects are scapegoats.

[stephenterry]

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.

I could be right and so could you. Neither of us knows for sure. It hasn't been substantiated. All we see or read in the media is what people want us to see and read. In this scenario, though, you only see one side, and not open your mind up to the possibility that what you believe to be the truth may not be.

[stephenterry]

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 you still cannot get your head around the fact, that what you regard as facts as per the prosecution's case has yet to be challenged in court. In respect of the DNA, that is now being independently verified. so it could match or it couldn't. You don't know.

In respect of any alibi, no-one knows what the defence's case is, so it is incorrect to state that no alibi exists. Confessions since retracted and re-enactments are not considered by the court.

I applaud the media interest in seeking justice via a fair trial, and I applaud the trial judge for taking an unprecedented step in trying to ensure a fair trial takes place. Your last sentence is outside the topic, but once the B2 were put in the frame all RTP attention on anyone else stopped.

The most interesting recent report by Andy Hall offers some insight into the defence's task. That they have to wade through thousands of pages of paperwork including many DNA profiles, and to possibly cross-examine up to 100 witnesses all told, indicates to me, that the case against the B2 is not as strong as that pronounced by the prosecutor. Once the DNA match is discredited, anything else is circumstantial, and can be explained.

I don't think the notion that the actual time between Nomsod being named as a suspect and him being cleared was a week or more (as Boomerangutang claimed) will be challenged in court, unless they are going to argue that the time between the 23rd of September and the 25th of the same month really adds up to more than two days.

I don't think the prosecution is going to argue the fact that they did actually confess to the crime, they will certainly argue that the confession is not admissible, but the fact is they made that confession, to the police and to one of the defense lawyers.

I don't think they will contest the fact that they were in the vicinity of the murders, since they have admitted of that themselves, also I don't think they will contest the fact that they were in possession of David Miller's cell phone, in fact during the last hearing they admitted they were in possession of it.

I don't think they will contest the fact that one of them was caught when attempting to leave the island, because that is what actually happened.

Those are facts, they are facts because they can be supported by events that happened in the real world; it's not the case of someone simply making claims without substantiation, to which you (judging for your lack of any action on your part) seem to have no problem whatsoever as long as it agrees with the notion that the two suspects are scapegoats.

You miss the point. Once a confession is retracted within the investigation time-frame, it won't be considered by the court (as I understand it - see my previous 300 post). As I have been at pains to point out, no-one has had any insight into the defence's case, and their answers to your valid points. This is what the trial is (or should be) all about. And, as I have also said before while I don't believe they carried out the murders, I think the B2 know more about what happened that night than they have disclosed to date.

At this point in time, I am more interested in seeing the B2 get a fair trial than seeing/reading/hearing about Nomsod, whose questionable behaviour post-murders gives credence to the fact he might also know what happened that night, although I don't see him as a murderer either. Others may differ in their views, as is their right on this open forum.

[AleG]

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.

I could be right and so could you. Neither of us knows for sure. It hasn't been substantiated. All we see or read in the media is what people want us to see and read. In this scenario, though, you only see one side, and not open your mind up to the possibility that what you believe to be the truth may not be.

Attributing the same value to uninformed and informed opinions is disingenuous; furthermore being open minded means to be willing to consider evidence, not to be willing to accept claims without any evidence to support them.

I, for one, think that making claims of fact without any concrete evidence to back them up is immoral, specially in a matter of a murder investigation.

The opinions of different people don't carry the same weight, for instance my opinion of the validity of the CCTV footage comes from my actual knowledge of video editing, someone that doesn't have any background on that has no basis on which to make judgements. For example as someone here that was claiming the video was fake because the time stamp changed colours, something I knew without having to look it up, is a normal feature on CCTV on-screen displays.

It's very easy to say "it's fake", those that cling to that belief have failed to prove how the footage from about 15 CCTV cameras, with embedded time-stamps was modified in the space of two or three days between Nomsod being named a suspect and the footage being provided as an alibi. Who did it, how and why the other people seen on the footage have not contested its validity.

[stephenterry]

Re post 333 goldbuggy

Nation -26 September

Also, before local police officers arrived at the crime scene at dawn on September 15, many locals had already messed up the evidence by moving the two murder weapons - a hoe and a wooden stick - and thereby affecting the fingerprints.

Ahh. Many locals messing up the evidence, huh? Why would many locals mess up the evidence? To protect the Burmese? And what happened to the wooden stick? First and last time it was mentioned. Or it changed into a bottle according to the Myanmar pancake man when interrogating the B2. Or perhaps the Nation got it all wrong.

Pol Maj Gen Kittipong Kaosam-ang, a Surat Thani police commander, asked the media not to report in-depth investigation results, saying it may give some clues to the culprits. But he revealed that Thais may have been involved in the murders and had tried to destroy evidence linking them to the attacks. Some people on Koh Tao had given false information to police in a bid to divert attention.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-police-fail-another-day-30243890.html

Who were these Thais who had tried to destroy evidence linking them to the attacks? Who gave false information to police in a bid to divert attention? Why is this not being taken further? Where is this evidence now? Can the defence independently analyze it?

And from my 251 post:

If the Police Officer is correct in his statement, why would Thai people try and destroy evidence and why would some people on Koh Tao give false information to police in order to divert attention if no Thais were involved? I hope his allegations will be raised in court and be subject to further examination by the defence.

The alternative scenario, i.e. the PO made a mistake, is that the B2 (if complicit in the crimes) would have been marched into police HQ by the locals the following morning. Whichever way one looks at it, the actions of the Thai locals don't match the B2 scenario that has now been painted by the RTP.

This post is worth repeating because it lays down the scenario from the beginning of the investigation. If the defence has any witnesses who could shed light on this improper Thai behaviour, it could point away from the B2.

[stephenterry]

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.

I could be right and so could you. Neither of us knows for sure. It hasn't been substantiated. All we see or read in the media is what people want us to see and read. In this scenario, though, you only see one side, and not open your mind up to the possibility that what you believe to be the truth may not be.

Attributing the same value to uninformed and informed opinions is disingenuous; furthermore being open minded means to be willing to consider evidence, not to be willing to accept claims without any evidence to support them.

I, for one, think that making claims of fact without any concrete evidence to back them up is immoral, specially in a matter of a murder investigation.

The opinions of different people don't carry the same weight, for instance my opinion of the validity of the CCTV footage comes from my actual knowledge of video editing, someone that doesn't have any background on that has no basis on which to make judgements. For example as someone here that was claiming the video was fake because the time stamp changed colours, something I knew without having to look it up, is a normal feature on CCTV on-screen displays.

It's very easy to say "it's fake", those that cling to that belief have failed to prove how the footage from about 15 CCTV cameras, with embedded time-stamps was modified in the space of two or three days between Nomsod being named a suspect and the footage being provided as an alibi. Who did it, how and why the other people seen on the footage have not contested its validity.

In relation to the CCTV footage, you don't have any concrete evidence to assert they are genuine because it hasn't been substantiated. I have no concrete evidence to assert they are false, either, but the possibility exists (given the media circus surrounding this particular scenario). That is not being immoral.

If Nomsod had publically declared I was in BKK on the night of the murders, and these are my university and friends witnesses to substantiate what I was doing, where I ate, and where I hung out, and here is a verified transcript of my phone calls showing my whereabouts, dates and times, he would have been exonerated with apologies all round. But no, we all were subjected to the most convoluted drama played out by a family lawyer best designed for a Thai soap.

It's not too difficult to provide concrete evidence, is it?

[AleG]

Attributing the same value to uninformed and informed opinions is disingenuous; furthermore being open minded means to be willing to consider evidence, not to be willing to accept claims without any evidence to support them.

I, for one, think that making claims of fact without any concrete evidence to back them up is immoral, specially in a matter of a murder investigation.

The opinions of different people don't carry the same weight, for instance my opinion of the validity of the CCTV footage comes from my actual knowledge of video editing, someone that doesn't have any background on that has no basis on which to make judgements. For example as someone here that was claiming the video was fake because the time stamp changed colours, something I knew without having to look it up, is a normal feature on CCTV on-screen displays.

It's very easy to say "it's fake", those that cling to that belief have failed to prove how the footage from about 15 CCTV cameras, with embedded time-stamps was modified in the space of two or three days between Nomsod being named a suspect and the footage being provided as an alibi. Who did it, how and why the other people seen on the footage have not contested its validity.

In relation to the CCTV footage, you don't have any concrete evidence to assert they are genuine because it hasn't been substantiated. I have no concrete evidence to assert they are false, either, but the possibility exists (given the media circus surrounding this particular scenario). That is not being immoral.

If Nomsod had publically declared I was in BKK on the night of the murders, and these are my university and friends witnesses to substantiate what I was doing, where I ate, and where I hung out, and here is a verified transcript of my phone calls showing my whereabouts, dates and times, he would have been exonerated with apologies all round. But no, we all were subjected to the most convoluted drama played out by a family lawyer best designed for a Thai soap.

It's not too difficult to provide concrete evidence, is it?

I can see the footage, I know what it would take to fake it, I don't think that to be possible therefore I can say that, unless you can prove how it was faked, it is not faked. Uninformed opinions are not proof, by the way.

You have already demonstrated that concrete evidence is not acceptable to you, so why bother asking?

People from the University and friends coming out to confirm his presence in Bangkok at the time? "The possibility exists" that they are lying.

Phone records? "The possibility exists" that they are fake.

Any other evidence? "The possibility exists" that it is false.

You can explain everything with "the possibility exists that...", of course the problem with arguments that explain everything is that they explain nothing.

Edited May 8, 2015 by AleG

[Linky]

The problem fo a minority of posters is they consider anything said by RTP is fact and anything else is opinion.

They are delusional.

[mcm991]

If you know that you weren't there, and the police investigation revealed that you weren't there....

Why would you or the police look as if any other result was possible?

Of course it was a foregone conclusion.

A quote who I forget who to attribute this sec:

"If you have credibility then nothing else matters. If you don't have credibility then nothing else matters."

To many, the Bibs don't have credibility - from the cop on the corner taking tea money, the other one who has to pay a few million to his superior for a promotion and all the way to the top where enough gold bars and cash are discovered under the floor of his mansion to rival fort knox.

If you understand the quote, you can understand the posts that so many here make.

[JLCrab]

Beats me who said it (other than yourself) but:

I don't have credibility, I'm a comedian.

Dennis Miller

Edited May 8, 2015 by JLCrab

[boomerangutang]

AleG, in particular, and the RTP echoers in general, choose their facts. They may look at all the data related to the case, and choose which bits fit with what they the police, and the H's people want to see. That data becomes their facts. Every other bit of data, which doesn't fit with their plan, are considered 'conspiracy theories', 'fairy tales', social media hysteria, 'vile lies' .....or whatever their favorite phrase is, on a given day.

Another dynamic I'd like to point out. Whereas posters herein have been poring over the deluge of data, and taking it in to consideration, we can't expect the judge(s) to necessarily do the same. I venture to say they will make their conclusions/verdicts based on one or two items. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong (and I don't want to be disrespectful to their position). However, those of us seeking truth have had let downs before, in this case and its investigation. We had high hopes when we heard the British experts were going to be allowed to do some investigating (as they're encouraged to do in Portugal and Holland and other foreign countries). Those hopes were dashed when, the next day, the Thai PM specified 'observers only.' We had hopes the British Coroner would do her job, and come up with some findings. Those hopes too, were dashed, when it became clear she's not doing anything in regard to the two Brit subjects who were murdered, one of whom probably gang raped. We had hopes during the first week, when it appeared the RTP were doing a decent job of seeking the real perpetrators of the crime. Those hopes were also dashed.

So, for us to now pin our hopes on what the judges decide.... ....well, we have no choice, really. We have to hope the judges will do an objective and sage job. Of course, the people who are most at risk, are the two Burmese men jailed without bail. The people next in line with the most riding on the judge's conclusion (in October '15), are those men who were prime suspects. If those men are indeed the perps, they know they're already clear and safe from prosecution. Yet, even so, they may have a few dangling thoughts concerning perversion of justice. Lucky for them, Thailand doesn't have a history of free-thinking cops who might scrutinize a 'cold case' to gauge who the real perps are. They can rest easy, but do they sleep well at night?

[jdinasia]

Strange - the video Stephen keeps harpies on about was analyzed by the press. What the press say able it matches what AleG says.......

Note - the press brought in an expert.

Now - where's ANY evidence he was on the island?

Why haven't any people who were actually there (and are now safely back overseas) come forward with anything?

Why hasn't any single reputable source come forward about the furniture claims at the apartment? (remember that they actually did analyze the video)

Why hasn't a single facet of the conspiracy theories been verified?

[berybert]

You don't recall correctly, she was wearing pink sandals.

Would you please provide the verifiable fact that she was wearing pink sandals

Those are the sandals found at the crime scene, none with actual knowledge on the matter (such as friends or family of the victim) has contested that fact, the only people contesting it are online speculators that are systematically looking for straws to clutch.

That and CCTV footage that shows her wearing them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw6wj73yuEQ

Are you trying to be comical ? you mention that it was impossible to say it was Nomsod on the CCTV. Then post a video of equally bad quality to try to prove what colour flip flops someone is wearing.

[AleG]

The problem fo a minority of posters is they consider anything said by RTP is fact and anything else is opinion.

They are delusional.

Being delusional is believing on something to be true when there is no evidence to demonstrate that something is in fact true or even believing in something when there is evidence that demonstrate that something not to be true.

Would you point out some specific instances of that, or is throwing insults the total extent of your ability to participate in a discussion.

[berybert]

The problem fo a minority of posters is they consider anything said by RTP is fact and anything else is opinion.

They are delusional.

Being delusional is believing on something to be true when there is no evidence to demonstrate that something is in fact true or even believing in something when there is evidence that demonstrate that something not to be true.

Would you point out some specific instances of that, or is throwing insults the total extent of your ability to participate in a discussion.

So when the first head cop said we believe we have identified the running man who has fled to Bangkok, he was being delusional. You are calling one of Thailands top policemen delusional.

What is it you often say about defamation laws here ?.

Edited May 8, 2015 by berybert

[boomerangutang]

Now - where's ANY evidence he was on the island?

'Running Man video'

Why haven't any people who were actually there (and are now safely back overseas) come forward with anything?

You and I don't know whether that's true. Brit authorities claim to have done interviews with returnees. They may also have contacted Sean in Italy. Furthermore, there were allegations that Brits shared those interview data with prosecution (directly or indirectly) but not with defense. Brit wouldn't be playing favorites would they?

Why hasn't any single reputable source come forward about the furniture claims at the apartment? (remember that they actually did analyze the video)

News people, at that early juncture, may not have been thinking about furniture. They were probably concerned about time-stamp and whether it was indeed Nomsod. It may have been after the analysis that social media pointed out the furniture aspect. On T.Visa there have been those who observed the various videos. Some are experts, some aren't. Most thought it was faked. Nomsod had a week to tweak evidence. That's quite a time in the digital world. Plus, who is paying-for and overseeing the people who do the analysis? Is it NS's father, his lawyer, the RTP, or ....?

Why hasn't a single facet of the conspiracy theories been verified?

You're the only one calling things you don't agree with 'conspiracy theories.' The biggest conspiracy is the RTP and you-know-who-else. If you're asking why that biggest conspiracy hasn't been verified, you'll probably have to wait, like all of us, until the trial concludes. Edited May 8, 2015 by boomerangutang

[AleG]

The problem fo a minority of posters is they consider anything said by RTP is fact and anything else is opinion.

They are delusional.

Being delusional is believing on something to be true when there is no evidence to demonstrate that something is in fact true or even believing in something when there is evidence that demonstrate that something not to be true.

Would you point out some specific instances of that, or is throwing insults the total extent of your ability to participate in a discussion.

So when the first head cop said we believe we have identified the running man who has fled to Bangkok, he was being delusional. You are calling one of Thailands top policemen delusional.

What is it you often say about defamation laws here ?.

That if you make claims about someone that are not true (for example that claiming I said something that I didn't as you just did "You are calling one of Thailands top policemen delusional.") you can end up facing criminal prosecution.

Don't try to be smart, it always backfires.

[berybert]

The problem fo a minority of posters is they consider anything said by RTP is fact and anything else is opinion.

They are delusional.

Being delusional is believing on something to be true when there is no evidence to demonstrate that something is in fact true or even believing in something when there is evidence that demonstrate that something not to be true.

Would you point out some specific instances of that, or is throwing insults the total extent of your ability to participate in a discussion.

So when the first head cop said we believe we have identified the running man who has fled to Bangkok, he was being delusional. You are calling one of Thailands top policemen delusional.

What is it you often say about defamation laws here ?.

That if you make claims about someone that are not true (for example that claiming I said something that I didn't as you just did "You are calling one of Thailands top policemen delusional.") you can end up facing criminal prosecution.

Don't try to be smart, it always backfires.

Are you sure ? The head man said he was sure it was Nomsod on the CCTV even to the point of trying to arrest him in Bangkok. Now as far as you are aware there is no way on gods earth that the man in the video has any semblance to Nomsod what-so-ever. Yet the top man thought it was.

You are happy to call us that think it is him delusional. So by that thought train it can only lead to you thinking everyone who thought it was delusional.

Edited May 8, 2015 by berybert

[jdinasia]

LOL.

Boomerangutang - no the "running man video" is not evidence that anyone specific was on the island.

No Boomerangutang, nobody who left the island has come forward to support your conspiracy theories.

No Boomerangutang, the press.(the same people who ran an analysis of the video from the BKK apartment, have not even now reported on the furniture conspiracy theory.

No Boomerangutang, I am not the only person calling your conspiracy theories exactly what they are..

You still can't seem to manage the difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theories.

[boomerangutang]

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear

And disregards the rest"

an excerpt from 'The Boxer' ....a ballad by Paul Simon

[JohnThailandJohn]

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear

And disregards the rest"

an excerpt from 'The Boxer' ....a ballad by Paul Simon

Looks at the facts not hearsay speculative theories to come up with what the conclusion you want ... living in reality.

[JLCrab]

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear

And disregards the rest"

an excerpt from 'The Boxer' ....a ballad by Paul Simon

From Paul Simoon's 'Call Me Al':

A man walks down the street

He says why am I short of attention

Got a short little span of attention

And wo my nights are so long

Not a ballad.

[Si Thea01]

AleG, in particular, and the RTP echoers in general, choose their facts. They may look at all the data related to the case, and choose which bits fit with what they the police, and the H's people want to see. That data becomes their facts. Every other bit of data, which doesn't fit with their plan, are considered 'conspiracy theories', 'fairy tales', social media hysteria, 'vile lies' .....or whatever their favorite phrase is, on a given day.

Another dynamic I'd like to point out. Whereas posters herein have been poring over the deluge of data, and taking it in to consideration, we can't expect the judge(s) to necessarily do the same. I venture to say they will make their conclusions/verdicts based on one or two items. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong (and I don't want to be disrespectful to their position). However, those of us seeking truth have had let downs before, in this case and its investigation. We had high hopes when we heard the British experts were going to be allowed to do some investigating (as they're encouraged to do in Portugal and Holland and other foreign countries). Those hopes were dashed when, the next day, the Thai PM specified 'observers only.' We had hopes the British Coroner would do her job, and come up with some findings. Those hopes too, were dashed, when it became clear she's not doing anything in regard to the two Brit subjects who were murdered, one of whom probably gang raped. We had hopes during the first week, when it appeared the RTP were doing a decent job of seeking the real perpetrators of the crime. Those hopes were also dashed.

So, for us to now pin our hopes on what the judges decide.... ....well, we have no choice, really. We have to hope the judges will do an objective and sage job. Of course, the people who are most at risk, are the two Burmese men jailed without bail. The people next in line with the most riding on the judge's conclusion (in October '15), are those men who were prime suspects. If those men are indeed the perps, they know they're already clear and safe from prosecution. Yet, even so, they may have a few dangling thoughts concerning perversion of justice. Lucky for them, Thailand doesn't have a history of free-thinking cops who might scrutinize a 'cold case' to gauge who the real perps are. They can rest easy, but do they sleep well at night?

I wasn't going to respond to you again but on this occasion I will make an exception. I have been reading everything you post, and honestly, it is not worth commenting on other than for this one aspect that I've highlighted.

You are criticising everyone, from the RTP, to other posters but now, you have hit rock bottom. You are now openly criticising the Thai judiciary and have stated:-

"Another dynamic I'd like to point out. Whereas posters herein have been poring over the deluge of data, and taking it in to consideration, we can't expect the judge(s) to necessarily do the same. I venture to say they will make their conclusions/verdicts based on one or two items. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong (and I don't want to be disrespectful to their position). However, those of us seeking truth have had let downs before, in this case and its investigation."

I think that by posting such a statement you have now crossed the line. You have indicated that the judge/s is inept, incapable of analysing the evidence, and will make a findings based on only one or two items. Your intellect amazes me but hopefully you have a little left to enable you to answer two questions?

Who in the hell do you think you are to caste aspersions over anyone, in particular, the judiciary and what are you trying to prove by doing so? Your prior posts lack credibility, now, with this, it has gone to zero and only highlights that you have difficulty in articulating your argument and highlights that your postings are illogical. You are also hypocritical. You degrade the a judge, who you don not know anything of and then don't want to be disrespectful. For goodness sake, post something intelligent, that is if you're capable.

[IslandLover]

You don't recall correctly, she was wearing pink sandals.

Would you please provide the verifiable fact that she was wearing pink sandals

Those are the sandals found at the crime scene, none with actual knowledge on the matter (such as friends or family of the victim) has contested that fact, the only people contesting it are online speculators that are systematically looking for straws to clutch.

That and CCTV footage that shows her wearing them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw6wj73yuEQ

Are you trying to be comical ? you mention that it was impossible to say it was Nomsod on the CCTV. Then post a video of equally bad quality to try to prove what colour flip flops someone is wearing.

She could just as well have been barefoot according to that CCTV footage.

[AleG]

Now - where's ANY evidence he was on the island?

'Running Man video'

Ah yes, you know he was there because you saw him on that video, even though it's impossible to distinguish facial features at all on the footage.

One "armchair detective" somewhere else put together these two photos of Nomsod compared to the "running man", matched in quality to the footage (in my opinion they are even more clear than what can be seen on the footage), and if you (or anyone else) tells me that you can positively identify Nomsod's face or match the two faces together I don't believe you.

[jdinasia]

Now - where's ANY evidence he was on the island?

'Running Man video'

Ah yes, you know he was there because you saw him on that video, even though it's impossible to distinguish facial features at all on the footage.

One "armchair detective" somewhere else put together these two photos of Nomsod compared to the "running man", matched in quality to the footage (in my opinion they are even more clear than what can be seen on the footage), and if you (or anyone else) tells me that you can positively identify Nomsod's face or match the two faces together I don't believe you.

005.jpg

There's no evidence of him being on the island.

Simply nothing. So, what should we expect from the conspiracy theorists? I expect more of the vague "they" are all in on it....

All the while ignoring that none of the people actually on the island have brought any evidence forward to support the conspiracy theories. Not one person returned home and posted pictures.

The furniture claims? Nada

[boomerangutang]

There's no evidence of him being on the island.

Simply nothing. So, what should we expect from the conspiracy theorists? I expect more of the vague "they" are all in on it....

Are you calling the RTP conspiracy theorists? They seriously thought it was him on that video for the first week of the investigation. They have never claimed, since then, it was not him, unless you can cite something which shows the police claiming it was not him (But then AleG asserts police statements are not fact). And that's just some police officers who were spearheading the investigation. Then there are the many folks who have seen the CCTV of Running Man, and believe it is him. BTW, I'd rather deal with un-doctored pics and videos, rather than photoshopped pics, like the one AleG put forth, 2 posts prior.

It bolsters the premise that I and other fair-minded people adhere to, in this case: We're willing to concede the B2 are guilty and should be punished severely, if it's proven by a fair trial that they were guilty of the crimes they're charged with.

In contrast, the H's people shielders can never admit the people they're shielding could be guilty, regardless of what evidence comes forth.

Can you see the difference? One side is open plausible scenarios which are supported by evidence. The other side isn't, and will do all they can to discredit anything which indicate others could be involved. One side is open and seeks justice. The other side is closed-minded.

Edited May 8, 2015 by boomerangutang

[jdinasia]

Again you miss simple facts.

The first week of the investigation was when?

When the police said that he (never mentioned by name) was NOT on the island did you understand that to mean that the rules of science had been suspended by a grand conspiracy? That someone could be in 2 places at once?

For the 2 days 23rd until 25th (not inclusive) that they took the conspiracy theorists' online postings as meaningful he was a suspect.

BTW - that a statement was made is fact if cited. It doesn't make a statement factual. You have made many statements, almost none have been factual

[rockingrobin]

Was there any outcome to the chemical residues mentioned in the following article

BANGKOK, Sept 20 —Thai police stepped up their effort to catch the killers of two British tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller. The pair was murdered on Koh Tao earlier this week.

Police raided a nightclub on Koh Tao and seized items included narcotics and chemical substances which would compare with chemical residues retrieved from the cigarette butt, the Bangkok Post reported

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/thai-police-raid-nightclub-on-koh-tao-after-double-murder-

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/thai-police-raid-nightclub-on-koh-tao-after-double-murder-video