Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[boomerangutang]

If I was on the defense team, I would request to see all the CCTV from that night and morning. Perhaps they've done that already. I might also call, as a witness, the cop(s) who were told by managers of the beach bars that "we cannot show/give you the CCTV from that night - because we own the footage. It's our private property" ...or words to that effect. How may people are the defense allowed to call to examine? Since they're allowed half as many days for witnesses, as the prosecution (5 compared to 10), it's assumed they're allowed half as many witnesses.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Above post misses the point:

It wasnt just a sudden sexual urge,

But a team, or gang, under mob mentality.

David Miller was killed for one reason only, he saw the rape and beating and had to be silenced

Once they killed him, they had to kill her.

This was more than two small Burmese kids

This was a ruthless gang, with experience

[JLCrab]

Have you ever heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

Actually, the expression is "preaching to the converted".

'Preaching to the choir' means you are trying to make believers out of people who already believe, or convince people who are already convinced

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=preaching+to+the+choir

[JLCrab]

The entire time alloted to the trial could be filled up with things that Boomer thinks they coulda or shoulda done. And I do not see how the running-man video even with re-enactments could positively identify who was in that that video. It would be inadmissible for being inconclusive if for no other reason.

The easiest way to show that someone was or was not on the island is for someone to say that 'I saw him on the island' especially if that person saying so was now safely back home in the UK. There can be 101 different reasons why someone was on the island but nobody can claim that they saw him on the island but at a certain point that becomes more implausible than not.

Edited June 7, 2015 by JLCrab

[JLCrab]

Above post misses the point:

It wasnt just a sudden sexual urge,

But a team, or gang, under mob mentality.

David Miller was killed for one reason only, he saw the rape and beating and had to be silenced

Once they killed him, they had to kill her.

This was more than two small Burmese kids

This was a ruthless gang, with experience

You have the video?

[rockingrobin]

Have you ever heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

Actually, the expression is "preaching to the converted".

'Preaching to the choir' means you are trying to make believers out of people who already believe, or convince people who are already convinced

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=preaching+to+the+choir

Preaching to the choir is almost certainly a follow on from Preaching to the converted , as it represents the same idea

and I would regard it as an Americanism of the saying

[JLCrab]

Have you ever heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

Actually, the expression is "preaching to the converted".

'Preaching to the choir' means you are trying to make believers out of people who already believe, or convince people who are already convinced

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=preaching+to+the+choir

Preaching to the choir is almost certainly a follow on from Preaching to the converted , as it represents the same idea

and I would regard it as an Americanism of the saying

I guess then they don't have choirs in UK -- only the converted.

[rockingrobin]

JLCrab

I suppose they dont have choirs in uk

If this the level of comprehension and logic you have utilised during the RTP investigation into these murders then it does not surprise me that you cannot see the forest for the trees

[JLCrab]

What forest?

[berybert]

I don't have a point.

A lot of my time these days goes to reading documents related the the Trans Pacific Partnership and the legislation in the US House and Senate of so-called fast track trade authority for the US President. After reading that fascinating but rather dry stuff, I come on here for a little diversion and entertainment which I thank you and some of the others for supplying.

JLCrab this is the second time I have seen you mention using the murder of two young Brits as a form of entertainment. Carry on having fun.

[JLCrab]

I don't have a point.

A lot of my time these days goes to reading documents related the the Trans Pacific Partnership and the legislation in the US House and Senate of so-called fast track trade authority for the US President. After reading that fascinating but rather dry stuff, I come on here for a little diversion and entertainment which I thank you and some of the others for supplying.

JLCrab this is the second time I have seen you mention using the murder of two young Brits as a form of entertainment. Carry on having fun.

I did not say that the murder of two young Brits is entertainment.

I said that YOU & others on here were entertainment.

[berybert]

I don't have a point.

A lot of my time these days goes to reading documents related the the Trans Pacific Partnership and the legislation in the US House and Senate of so-called fast track trade authority for the US President. After reading that fascinating but rather dry stuff, I come on here for a little diversion and entertainment which I thank you and some of the others for supplying.

JLCrab this is the second time I have seen you mention using the murder of two young Brits as a form of entertainment. Carry on having fun.

I did not say that the murder of two young Brits is entertainment.

I said that YOU & others on here were entertainment.

If two young Brits had not have been murdered then we would not be on here. So it stands that their murders is your entertainment.

[JLCrab]

Just because 2 persons were murdered does not mean that I have to treat some of the ridiculous hypotheses that persons post on here in as a serious mode as the murders themselves.

[berybert]

Just because 2 persons were murdered does not mean that I have to treat some of the ridiculous hypotheses that persons post on here in as a serious mode as the murders themselves.

Just because 2 persons were murdered................. No need to say anymore.

[JLCrab]

Just because 2 persons were murdered does not mean that I have to treat some of the ridiculous hypotheses that persons post on here in as a serious mode as the murders themselves.

Just because 2 persons were murdered................. No need to say anymore.

Ridiculous posters. There -- I said more. Somehow you seem to equate that the ramblings here on this website should be garnered the same solemnity as the murders themselves.

Edited June 7, 2015 by JLCrab

[boomerangutang]

Crab has 66% of the past 12 posts. Busy morning for him.

The entire time alloted to the trial could be filled up with things that Boomer thinks they coulda or shoulda done. And I do not see how the running-man video even with re-enactments could positively identify who was in that that video. It would be inadmissible for being inconclusive if for no other reason.

On the one hand, a person only sees what he wants to see. Secondly, my suggestion of a reenactment (farang-style, not Thai style) using the CCTV camera which caught 'Running Man' - could shed light on who he is. In the real world, such things happen: Innovative ideas are tried, and sometimes they lead to big steps forward. It happens in business, in medicine, in sport (Fosbury's Flop), and it can happen in crime investigations. It's easy to sit back and respond to every innovative investigative idea with "naww, that wouldn't accomplish anything. Let's just sit on our butts and stick with the police's fixed ideas of what happened. No use to turn over any stones. The Head cop and the PM already told us what happened, so that's good enough. Plus, we don't want to rock the boat. We want to continue to get our salaries and perks."

The easiest way to show that someone was or was not on the island is for someone to say that 'I saw him on the island' especially if that person saying so was now safely back home in the UK. There can be 101 different reasons why someone was on the island but nobody can claim that they saw him on the island but at a certain point that becomes more implausible than not.

Yes, that's one way ('for someone to say he was seen'). Great insight, Sherlock. Though even eyewitnesses can be wrong. That's why there's a trial, to test the veracity of clues. There were hundreds of hours of CCTV which, as far as we know, only the police have seen - and Mon, because he's embroiled in every aspect of the investigation/cover-up. CCTV can be useful. Of course prosecution and H's people and their shielders on this thread are going to do everything they can to obfuscate and/or destroy any CCTV footage which could implicate the H's people. The beat goes on. It's too bad the defense, the general public and victims' families can't rely on Thai police to do an honest and professional investigation.

[JLCrab]

Very entertaining as usual. Thanks Boomer. I'm still waiting to hear when you visit Samui to tell the Thai Judicial officials how they should conduct their trial, if the headman's family will offer to take you out to dinner. Or maybe the cop sipping coffee on Koh Tao and counting his bribe money while entertaining his mia noi will offer to share one of his other mia nois with you for an evening of two.

That's of course after you stop in Chumpon on the way down south to inquire whether any taxi drivers picked up a wet guy just off a speed boat the morning in question before whisking him off to Bangkok in time for class.

However the trial starts beginning of July -- better start lining up the actors for the western style re-enactment when you demonstrate just how certain people are prone to walk in a certain way:

Edited June 8, 2015 by JLCrab

[boomerangutang]

ok, Crab, we get it. You've run out of things to say. I make suggestions on these threads. It's probable none will be heeded. Yet, there remains a possibility that some of the things mentioned herein by posters - will trickle up to those in high places (police, judges, controllers in Bkk). The general public pays taxes to pay salaries (and equipment and training) for public servants (government employees, judges, police, army, etc) ....in the hope those taxpayer-paid workers do a decent job. Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? You tell me.

[JLCrab]

I don't have the slightest f--kin' idea -- But I''m sure getting my entertainment's worth.

Here's a recent photo of a guy from Phuket who was protesting his treatment by the Thai officialdom. When are you going to chain yourself to the Samui Courthouse doors and refuse to leave until they will hear all your suggestions as to how this trial should be conducted?

Edited June 8, 2015 by JLCrab

[AleG]

Talking about obfuscation regarding CCTV evidence.

Some more thoughts on CCTV on the island that night. For starters, it would not be surprising if the CCTV camera which took the footage of 'running man' has been removed or re-positioned.

Secondly, there was mention (I can't recall the exact source) of 600+ hours of CCTV by various cameras taken near the crime location on that night and early morning. A police officer commented on that, saying something like "it will take a lot of time to look at all that footage." Whatever, but it may show some pertinent shots, particularly if Nomsod was on the island that night, which many people believe he was. All we've seen is a few seconds and a few 'still grabs.' Perhaps that's why the prosecution's case was so thick - they had to wade through all that footage and decide what could be incriminating against the B2 (all we've seen thus far is a few stills from 5 hours prior to the crime), ....and what might be incriminating to the H's people (that footage would likely be hidden or unmentioned or, most likely: destroyed).

Thirdly, there's the CCTV from one or both of the bars. We've heard that there was a request from cops for that footage, but it was declined, with managers saying something like "it's private property." If that happened, it's blatantly obstruction of justice (by bar managers) and dereliction of duty by the cop(s) who gave validity to such a soggy excuse. Any such CCTV footage would have been destroyed.a.s.a.p. before or after the cops came snooping around

What Boomerangutang describes as "a few seconds and a few 'still grabs" is, in reality, several hours of footage from several cameras that prove Nomsod (the man he insist should be the main suspect) was in Bangkok at the time of the murders.

Thai PBS journalists reviewed the entire footage and aired a segment on the matter, in it they show CCTV footage from before the time of the murders until several hours after the crime showing that Worawat didn't leave his apartment during the entire time. (starting from 3:17 on this video)

In short, "All we've seen is a few seconds and a few 'still grabs.'" is false, was false all the other times Boomerangutang made the same claim and will be false the next time he repeats it.

[bamukloy]

C- Have already admitted of being in possesion of David Miller's phone since that night (and possibly sunglasses).

Funny when you say it,it is a fact.

"I guess your show stopped is that they claim they did or didn't have David's sun glasses. Reckon that could see them go down."

This gibberish I can't decipher...

When I say it, it is gibberish.

If you want some real gibberish try this ...................

"Admitted to having Davids phone,"

Yes they did, well "allegedly"

The fact is that the police claim Miller's phone and sunglasses were in possession of the two suspects, the fact is the defense team admits they had, since the day of the murders, possessions (plural) allegedly from the victims, and specified a phone as part of those possessions. They don't deny they had those possessions, they just say they are "allegedly" from the victim, which will be easily proved or disproved when the evidence is examined.

As it stands now, the evidence is that they were in possession of items from one of the victims (among other things)

Is that clear now?

It really is a strange case that is for sure. Was there not pictures of the guys phone on the policemans desk? Long before they were supposed to have found it on the boys?

Anyway it is all a little to convenient for me.

I mean..what sort of idiot (if they were the muderer) would keep any posessions of their victim that would link them to such a terrible crime?

I realise some Burmese havent had the best of educations but they couldnt be that dumb?

[AleG]

The fact is that the police claim Miller's phone and sunglasses were in possession of the two suspects, the fact is the defense team admits they had, since the day of the murders, possessions (plural) allegedly from the victims, and specified a phone as part of those possessions. They don't deny they had those possessions, they just say they are "allegedly" from the victim, which will be easily proved or disproved when the evidence is examined.

As it stands now, the evidence is that they were in possession of items from one of the victims (among other things)

Is that clear now?

It really is a strange case that is for sure. Was there not pictures of the guys phone on the policemans desk? Long before they were supposed to have found it on the boys?

Anyway it is all a little to convenient for me.

I mean..what sort of idiot (if they were the muderer) would keep any posessions of their victim that would link them to such a terrible crime?

I realise some Burmese havent had the best of educations but they couldnt be that dumb?

"Was there not pictures of the guys phone on the policemans desk?"

No, there wasn't, friends of Hanna Witheridge gave her phone (a different model and colour to that of Miller) to the police so they could search for clues.

As for the lack of foresight, the two men claim that they were drunk at that time.

[boomerangutang]

What Boomerangutang describes as "a few seconds and a few 'still grabs" is, in reality, several hours of footage from several cameras that prove Nomsod (the man he insist should be the main suspect) was in Bangkok at the time of the murders.

Your sense of time and mine are different. The crime happened between 4:30 and 5 am. The CCTV of Nomsod, if unaltered (and that's a big 'IF') were nearly 5 hours later. How can 5 hours difference be 'at the time of the murders' ?!?

That's almost as warped as Thai cops making a big deal about a photo of 3 boys on a motorbike taken 5 hours BEFORE the crime.

What it shows is: Thai officialdom, and their echoers on T.Visa are so desperately stretching to try and nail the B2, that they're looking more ridiculous than ridiculous.

[boomerangutang]

Where are the several hours of footage from several cameras' allegedly of Nomsod in Bangkok? claimed by AleG. Is he chummy with RTP now, and gets to see things that outsiders don't see? Do any of those hours show Nomsod in Bkk prior to 5 hours after the crime? If Nomsod was in Bangkok for the entire weekend, then there should be CCTV of that, shouldn't there? Unless he hung in his room the entire time. And what of the g.f. who claims she couldn't find him in Bkk on Sunday the 14th, and their friends saying they're inseperable - or at least one always knows where the other is.

Has anyone tried traveling as fast as possible from the island to Bangkok (using a speedboat for part of the trip) - to see how fast it can be done? I would bet it could be done in under 5 hours, even on a Monday morning. A desperate young man, with money and connections.....

Thai cops could interview fastboat drivers, but wait, I just remembered, they tried talking with a speedboat operator, just after the crime date, and the driver had been sleeping out in the woods, and cops said he was too drugged to make any sense, so the cops left him alone forever and a day. Just another of 1,000 examples of cops not doing their jobs in this case.

Edited June 8, 2015 by boomerangutang

[AleG]

What Boomerangutang describes as "a few seconds and a few 'still grabs" is, in reality, several hours of footage from several cameras that prove Nomsod (the man he insist should be the main suspect) was in Bangkok at the time of the murders.

Your sense of time and mine are different. The crime happened between 4:30 and 5 am. The CCTV of Nomsod, if unaltered (and that's a big 'IF') were nearly 5 hours later. How can 5 hours difference be 'at the time of the murders' ?!?

That's almost as warped as Thai cops making a big deal about a photo of 3 boys on a motorbike taken 5 hours BEFORE the crime.

What it shows is: Thai officialdom, and their echoers on T.Visa are so desperately stretching to try and nail the B2, that they're looking more ridiculous than ridiculous.

"Your sense of time and mine are different"

Evidently so, the footage runs from 3:28 until 8:16AM, which, according to your sense of timing does not include the period between 4:30 and 5AM.

[AleG]

Where are the several hours of footage from several cameras' allegedly of Nomsod in Bangkok? claimed by AleG. Is he chummy with RTP now, and gets to see things that outsiders don't see? Do any of those hours show Nomsod in Bkk prior to 5 hours after the crime? If Nomsod was in Bangkok for the entire weekend, then there should be CCTV of that, shouldn't there? Unless he hung in his room the entire time. And what of the g.f. who claims she couldn't find him in Bkk on Sunday the 14th, and their friends saying they're inseperable - or at least one always knows where the other is.

Has anyone tried traveling as fast as possible from the island to Bangkok (using a speedboat for part of the trip) - to see how fast it can be done? I would bet it could be done in under 5 hours, even on a Monday morning. A desperate young man, with money and connections.....

Thai cops could interview fastboat drivers, but wait, I just remembered, they tried talking with a speedboat operator, just after the crime date, and the driver had been sleeping out in the woods, and cops said he was too drugged to make any sense, so the cops left him alone forever and a day. Just another of 1,000 examples of cops not doing their jobs.

"Where are the several hours of footage from several cameras' allegedly of Nomsod in Bangkok? claimed by AleG"

Not claimed by me, I posted the Thai PBS video showing it.

How about you substantiate your claims likewise?

[boomerangutang]

What Boomerangutang describes as "a few seconds and a few 'still grabs" is, in reality, several hours of footage from several cameras that prove Nomsod (the man he insist should be the main suspect) was in Bangkok at the time of the murders.

Your sense of time and mine are different. The crime happened between 4:30 and 5 am. The CCTV of Nomsod, if unaltered (and that's a big 'IF') were nearly 5 hours later. How can 5 hours difference be 'at the time of the murders' ?!?

That's almost as warped as Thai cops making a big deal about a photo of 3 boys on a motorbike taken 5 hours BEFORE the crime.

What it shows is: Thai officialdom, and their echoers on T.Visa are so desperately stretching to try and nail the B2, that they're looking more ridiculous than ridiculous.

"Your sense of time and mine are different"

Evidently so, the footage runs from 3:28 until 8:16AM, which, according to your sense of timing does not include the period between 4:30 and 5AM.

It could run for 1,000 hours, so what. What matters is when Nomsod is shown, and whether the footage is alterered. He and his buddies had a week to alter it, if they chose to do so.

[boomerangutang]

If the video shows Nomsod leaving the premises (looking debonair, with no books or pack or papers, btw - going to class? ha, that's funny.)

......the same camera should also show when he entered the premises. Is that footage available? ....or perhaps there's a slight gap in the footage, ....shades of Nixon and his clumsy editing of the White House tapes. A week is a long time, if some computer whiz wanted to alter CCTV footage. Have cops interviewed the person who cuts Nomsod's hair in Bangkok? Have they spoken with the person(s) Nomsod or his lawyer would go to - if they needed some digital things fixed? Others that cops should have interviewed: Nomsod's mother, his girlfriend, his mates in the apartment, his teacher, the apartment manager, his schoolmates, and, any security guards in the vicinity. Yet more of the 1,000 basic things Thai investigators either didn't do, or screwed up. That '1,000 Things....' list may have to be upgraded to: '2,000 Things Which Thai Cops Didn't Do Regarding The Crime'

Now I'm expecting JD to shout again about 'defamation of character' lawsuits. ....and endless conspiracty theories. It's a good thing AleG and the rest of RTP echoers aren't working as detectives. On the plus side: Their jobs would be easy: they'd just accept at face value whatever the top brass declare, and not do any investigative work. On the down side: such ineptitude shortchanges the victims' families and the general public - because an inept or purposefully flawed investigation ensure dangerous criminals walk freely all over town - without a care of getting caught.

Edited June 8, 2015 by boomerangutang

[bamukloy]

I seek clarification: Did the judge say he will allow review of evidence - starting the first day of the trial, or that he may allow..... ?

Also, what sorts of restrictions are Thai authorities (judge included) putting on what can be reviewed? In the April announcement by the judge, bloody clothing was mentioned. Is bloody clothing still one of the categories which the judge will allow to be reviewed? How about the hoe?

Of course, the list of evidenciary things in this case which should be reviewed by professionals is long, but unfortunately (for the defendants and for the general public) the judge has a lot of power in deciding what can be reviewed. He may even want to micro-manage how it's reviewed. In other words, he may say the bloody hoe can be scrutinized for blood, but not for fingerprints. He may say only clothing found at the crime scene can be reviewed, but no other clothing. Ideally, everything related to the crime would be open for review by experts, but that's expecting too much. Lest we forget, even those who may be allowed to review evidence - are ONLY people from the ranks of Thai officialdom. Outsiders are precluded.

Is the judge aware that such reviews of evidence, will likely take days or weeks? Another judge earlier placed a 7 month time lag between arraignment and beginning trial date. Yet a replacement judge puts a SAME DAY time-frame for allowing the evidence to be reviewed. That's a ratio of over 200 to 1 when comparing the time for defense and prosecution to prepare for the trial, and the time allowance for review of evidence in relation to the trial start-date.

From the BBC:

Their defence lawyers have asked for the forensic evidence gathered by Thai police to be sent to independent experts.

But the judge in the case has said that he will not rule on the matter until the first day of the trial.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32948790

From the Malaymailonline (which says a bit more):

In April a court on the nearby island of Koh Samui approved the defences request to independently analyse the evidence against their clients, including DNA and physical evidence at the crime scene such as blood stains and a shirt.

But the lead lawyer on the defence side said his team had been told by the court that they would only find out whether they can access the evidence on July 8 the first day of the trial.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/8-months-on-koh-tao-murder-suspects-still-waiting-on-evidence-review

This is all we know at the moment, but it looks like the defence team may not even be granted access to the evidence on July 8 - it depends on the whim of the judge (at least that's how I interpret it). This goes against everything that was agreed upon in the Samui court on April 30 and one seriously has to ask why? Just what are the prosecution/RTP afraid of?

You seem to be implying that the judge and the prosecution are on the same team, seeing how the judge must be scared of evidence being scrutinised.

If this is the case everyone may as well pack up and give those boys some blindfolds

[AleG]

If the video shows Nomsod leaving the premises (looking debonair, with no books or pack or papers, btw - going to class? ha, that's funny.)

......the same camera should also show when he entered the premises. Is that footage available? ....or perhaps there's a slight gap in the footage, ....shades of Nixon and his clumsy editing of the White House tapes. A week is a long time, if some computer whiz wanted to alter CCTV footage. Have cops interviewed the person who cuts Nomsod's hair in Bangkok? Have they spoken with the person(s) Nomsod or his lawyer would go to - if they needed some digital things fixed? Others that cops should have interviewed: Nomsod's mother, his girlfriend, his mates in the apartment, his teacher, the apartment manager, his schoolmates, and, any security guards in the vicinity. Yet more of the 1,000 basic things Thai investigators either didn't do, or screwed up. That '1,000 Things....' list may have to be upgraded to: '2,000 Things Which Thai Cops Didn't Do Regarding The Crime'

Now I'm expecting JD to shout again about 'defamation of character' lawsuits. ....and endless conspiracty theories. It's a good thing AleG and the rest of RTP echoers aren't working as detectives. On the plus side: Their jobs would be easy: they'd just accept at face value whatever the top brass declare, and not do any investigative work. On the down side: such ineptitude shortchanges the victims' families and the general public - because an inept or purposefully flawed investigation ensure dangerous criminals walk freely all over town - without a care of getting caught.

"Others that cops should have interviewed: Nomsod's mother, his girlfriend, his mates in the apartment, his teacher, the apartment manager, his schoolmates, and, any security guards in the vicinity."

And you know they didn't interview any of those people because...?

"It's a good thing AleG and the rest of RTP echoers aren't working as detectives. On the plus side: Their jobs would be easy: they'd just accept at face value whatever the top brass declare,"

If there is evidence for it, yes; now, how about you provide any evidence for what you claim? The altering of the footage, the police cover-up, any evidence that Nomsod was implicated on the murders, or do you expect people to take your theories at face value?

Anyone can come up with inane why-didn't-they and what-ifs ( "Have cops interviewed the person who cuts Nomsod's hair in Bangkok?" ), it doesn't make any of if true or relevant.