Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[boomerangutang]

Since he wasn't on the island at that time....

Statement of fact? AleG, you've posted many posts where you cajole people seeking truth and justice to 'report only facts' not heresay - yet, you state that Nomsod was not on the island, despite evidence indicating he was - primarily: the 'Running Man' KT videos taken minutes from the time of, and near the scene of the crime. You could say, "I don't believe he was on the island" and that would be fair ....but if you state "he wasn't on the island..." then it's a statement of fact. I'll admit I'm biased (in favor of truth and justice), but you won't admit to any bias.

We defend Nomsod because he is a likeable guy

There are hardened criminals in prison who could be called 'likeable guys'. Heck, some even get marriage proposals in the mail.

This isn't a popularity contest, it's trying to find who really committed the murders. Every person has various aspects to their personalities. The nicest person, can become the most awful person (and vice versa) depending on circumstances, drugs in their blood, hormones, whether they're offended and/or showing off to their buddies in the wee hours on a party beach, etc.

, he has no criminal history , he was suddenly pushed into the limelight by the media and a well known facebook group and then he had to take all this shit that you all seemed to think he was the only one to be guilty , just because he is the son of a wealthy headman.

He was a prime suspect during the first week of the investigation. So it's not just social media which is looking at him. It's not "just because he is the son of a wealthy headman." That's a factor, but there are more incriminating factors, if you've been reading the hundreds of threads which mention him. Many Thais also, who have been following this case, believe he is involved. Plus Mon is likely the go-to handler who does all he can to try to make his nephew appear innocent - including saying it's himself (Mon) shown in the Running Man videos, rather than his nephew. A person doesn't have to be a forensic expert to see that Running Man is a skinny young man, and not an older man like Mon. Running Man is also taller than either of the B2.

[JLCrab]

'Running man' could be guy who just realized he had run out of cigarettes.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Oh no, running man is involved for sure,

You can see how he slows down to a fast walk after realizing he is being filmed

People accuse Nomsod, because of what the police said and did, and because his father gave 3 stories

Before social media this was easy

Now the RTP is shown publicly announced confidence in the hard evidence and then suddenly/ there was no evidence and they get promotion off the island

There was a fantasy TV show about that

Gilligans Island, yep that's it,

Fast boat to a taxi, pretty easy

[ScarpoFongness4U]

One of the shielders mentioned there were many hours of CCTV camera footage of Nomsod's apartment lobby - for that weekend. We've all seen him supposedly leaving at 9:30 am on Monday (around 5 hours after the crime, carrying nothing, yet purportedly going to class), but is there any footage of him entering the same lobby? If so, it would be interesting to see it, and the time stamp.

So you can then dismiss it as fake too?
The footage Thai PBS reviewed runs continuously from before the murders happened until hours after, the target of your obsession is not seen entering or leaving the lobby, elevators or corridors of the dormitory until approximately three hours after the bodies were found. To any reasonable individual that proves that he didn't enter or leave his dormitory until he is seen leaving, emphasis on reasonable individual.

When did Nomsod enter the apartment lobby prior to supposedly leaving that morning? Has anyone seen that video, other than cops and the boy's handlers? Does that segment exist or has it been conveniently erased? According to AleG, there are many hours of CCTV prior to Monday morning.

But it's easier to believe that a nefarious conspiracy of all the police on the island (7)
And all the police and investigators who later went to the island...
And all of the people who live on the island....
And all of the foreigners who were on the island....
And all of the top brass in Thailand....
Are colluding....

If a PM claimed he had a bleeding ulcer, everyone would believe it. Yet, it would only take a 'conspiracy' (JD's favorite word) of the PM and his doctor to disseminate that idea. If every army person, every policeman, every citizen believed what the PM declared, then would it be a conspiracy by all those people? No, not for reasonable people. It would just be a belief in what was announced. But, for JDinasia, everyone believing the PM had a bleeding ulcer would be in on the conspiracy.

Now, segue to the DNA trail in this case: If top brass decided that, in order to nail the scapegoats and permanently excuse the H's people from suspicion, that the public needed to believe the B2's DNA matched samples found in/on Hannah - then only a very few people at the top of the pyramid would need to float that concept. Everyone else on down the ranks, would have only that announcement to chew on, so that's what they would believe, particularly if they were in lower ranks with the top brass announcers as their superior officers.

Even the lab techies wouldn't have to be in on the conspiracy. The techies process the samples they're given, then pass the data on to police heads. It was probably top brass who interpret the data how they please. Alternatively, if the techies interpretted the data as showing a different match (than the match the top brass wanted), then it's a simple matter of paying or otherwise hushing up the one or two techies. Paying hush-money happene all the time in Thailand. There are other ways to ensure silence, such as threats. The DNA trail is the primary issue that the defense wants re-examined (hopefully by objective professionals) ....and that's what the judge agreed to in April, but then changed. . . .

It would still be interesting to get the fast boat driver (the one who hid out in the woods, the night after the crime, and was too drugged-up to answer police questions) ....to speak what he really knows. But he, like the taxi driver who claimed he was offered big money (and beaten) by police to give false testimony .....are probably long gone, figuratively or literally. Mon the Handler will make sure we never hear from them again.[/quote



You can see this is faked because the girl that went in first.didnt have her iPhone in her hand

Clearly unreal

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic, inflammatory, baiting and troll posts have been removed. Continuing to address other members personally is off-topic. Stick to the topic of the thread, or face suspension.

[AleG]

Aleg

For further context (Nomsod), to be taken with fathers comments , returning to uni and not running

OK another article

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Police-free-bar-owners-and-look-for-ex-village-hea-30243997.html

A police source said the man they want to find landed on the Surat Thani coast and disappeared. Police say they want to interrogate him first

One of the two men released last night, who reporters did not identify, said he was unable to contact his son and did not know if he had a hand in the killings

Pol Lt-General Panya Mamen, who is overseeing the investigation, said yesterday that the headman's son is believed to be hiding in Bangkok. Panya refused to reveal the suspects' names, saying police were questioning one man and expected to arrest another in Bangkok today

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

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok

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

Anything besides hearsay and speculation to show he was in Koh Tao and he had a hand in the killings?

There is real evidence that he was not there, unambiguous CCTV footage, witness testimony and university documents; you are counting on initial reports (which are usually inaccurate) and police statements based on unconfirmed leads that didn't pan out.

Some of us remember the police interviews when they were sure they knew who at least two members of the killing team were,

And that one was in custody and the other one fled,

We also remember there was a speedboat operator arrested that night

We also remember the headman stating his son was there but that he wasn't fleeing and then later that he haddnt spoken to him or seen him in weeks

We also remember how the police who made the first announcement were made to eat crow on TV and announced with their heads now down and clearly uncomfortable reporting that,

All the convincing evidence they had gathered over a few days which pointed directly at members of an influential family were all just a very big mistake and that they are very sorry, but, now they are leaving the case because they were just promoted to very lucrative positions even though they had just gravely mishandled the biggest tourist murders of their careers but,

They got a promotion and a pay raise and they hope tourism will now improve without their interference

I don't believe the murderers are in custody

I also dont have an Uncle Sutep

Do you remember when the police checked his alibi and found out that he was in Bangkok at the time of the murders?

Someone provided a lead (as far as I know that lead came from speculation in social media), that lead was acted upon and it was proven to be wrong.

According to your logic the Duke University Lacrosse Team should be still considered to be rapists because at some point they were accused of being so and the police acted on those accusations. Or to give a more relevant example, every single person that was named a suspect by the police during the investigation should still be considered a suspect because you don't accept the concept of exculpatory evidence.

"All the convincing evidence they had gathered over a few days which pointed directly at members of an influential family were all just a very big mistake and that they are very sorry, but, now they are leaving the case because they were just promoted to very lucrative positions even though they had just gravely mishandled the biggest tourist murders of their careers but,"

You don't remember the same man announcing the day before the two Burmese suspects were arrested that an arrest was imminent? I do:

"October 1st, 2014- Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen, acting assistant National Police Chief, is now saying that he is confident that they will be able to issue warrant for the arrest of or arrest the suspects in the September 15 murder of two British tourists on Koh Tao in a few days."

[Scott]

I have now started issuing suspensions. You will follow the rules, or you will be suspended.

These threads become absolutely farcical in how far off topic and how personal the attacks become. It won't be tolerated.

You have been warned.

[JLCrab]

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.

What is that, some sort of ballerina pose?

Why is he leaving a store empty handed?

He forgot his wallet.

[cumgranosalum]

I fail to see discussing whether or not the 2 accused are innocent or not has any real relevance to the problem

the problem as I see it is that the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out.

in other words guilty or not the trial should never take place for these guys and probably anyone else.

Thanks to the handling of this case.

And the Judge assigned to the case might answer the above objection as follows: These horrible crimes took place on a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter with a limited police force on site. They and those who followed shortly thereafter did the best job that they could under difficult circumstances.

Objection overruled.

He might but as with most aspects of the case it would be poor practice to do so.....

It isn't a rational justification to suggest that the standards of policing should legally vary depending on the location of a crime. how many police does it take to cordon off a crime scene?

we also know that days even weeks after the crime normal protocols were being ignored or breached by the authorities.

Where the crime occurred has absolutely nothing to do with how the evidence was handled - it is EVIDENCE that is compromised no matter where it comes from. Allowing members of the public - even those potentially connected to the case - access to the crime scene is by any standards not "the best job that they could under difficult circumstances" -

Edited June 9, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[JLCrab]

Fine. Your concerns as to how the case was handled and how the trial should proceed are -- in Thailand -- within the discretion of the Judge

[cumgranosalum]

Fine. Your concerns as to how the case was handled and how the trial should proceed are -- in Thailand -- within the discretion of the Judge

My "concerns" as you like to call them, are that there will not, in fact cannot, be a trial that is fair according to internationally held standards. Many countries around the world fall short of these standards and now Thailand is in the international spotlight.

" within the discretion of the Judge" = "should" or "will" proceed - ???? -

You seem to me putting your own ideas onto my post.......As the judiciary in Thailand is far from independent it is quite likely that there may be outside interference in the process. However Thailand is well aware that this case is being watched closely by people outside the country and they will be interested to see how the case proceeds...Thailand I'll warrant will want to do this without losing any more face. So I see a balancing act here.

My "concern" about this thread is that many posters are engaging in a pointless circular round of arguments as to whether the two accused (or others) are guilty or not - something I doubt can ever be sorted "beyond reasonable doubt".....

Edited June 9, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[jdinasia]

Strangely people are still ignoring that in the center of the selfie universe, on a tourist island nobody can put the people Boomerangutang is accusing on the island that night.

Not one of the inhabitants, not one of the tourists, absolutely nobody has come forward.

[joebrown]

With regards Nomsod , being on island , not being on island , to me the most convincing clue which has not yet been clarified is the fathers comment

He was returning to uni and not fleeing,

Who was he referring to when he apparently made this statement ?

Yes - and the question is 'returning from where'?

You skipped the "if" before starting with the "why"s. First you have to establish if he said that and in reference to what question and when.

Picking up a single quote (translated from Thai by a notoriously error prone media) ignoring any context and then trying to assign some grand significance to it is disingenuous.

Yes AleG ,and you would do well to remember that you also rely on the "notoriously error prone media" for the basis of YOUR beliefs. As is often said,"What's good for the goose is good for the gander"

[fritzzz25]

Strangely people are still ignoring that in the center of the selfie universe, on a tourist island nobody can put the people Boomerangutang is accusing on the island that night.

Not one of the inhabitants, not one of the tourists, absolutely nobody has come forward.

.... in your opinion.

[AleG]

I fail to see discussing whether or not the 2 accused are innocent or not has any real relevance to the problem

the problem as I see it is that the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out.

in other words guilty or not the trial should never take place for these guys and probably anyone else.

Thanks to the handling of this case.

And the Judge assigned to the case might answer the above objection as follows: These horrible crimes took place on a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter with a limited police force on site. They and those who followed shortly thereafter did the best job that they could under difficult circumstances.

Objection overruled.

He might but as with most aspects of the case it would be poor practice to do so.....

It isn't a rational justification to suggest that the standards of policing should legally vary depending on the location of a crime. how many police does it take to cordon off a crime scene?

we also know that days even weeks after the crime normal protocols were being ignored or breached by the authorities.

Where the crime occurred has absolutely nothing to do with how the evidence was handled - it is EVIDENCE that is compromised no matter where it comes from. Allowing members of the public - even those potentially connected to the case - access to the crime scene is by any standards not "the best job that they could under difficult circumstances" -

By those standards any and all evidence from a crime scene that is not immediately cordoned off by the police is to be summarily dismissed.

"Where the crime occurred has absolutely nothing to do with how the evidence was handled"

Of course it has to do with how the evidence was handled, to begin with the crime took place in an area subject to tides, one of the bodies was in fact in the water; should they have waited to collect evidence and the bodies until a proper forensic team was assembled in the mainland and transported to the island even if that meant the crime scene would had been washed away by the sea? Or leave the bodies under the hot sun or let them float around for all the hours that would have taken?

"it is EVIDENCE that is compromised no matter where it comes from."

How can DNA evidence collected from inside the body of one of the victims be compromised by someone walking around the crime scene, specially while people are taking photos and videos at the time?

Simply declaring that all the evidence from the crime scene has to be dismissed, no matter what, is not the basis to establish anything; first you need to see if the evidence was compromised and if so to what degree, then decide if its valid or not, your proposed approach is completely negligent.

[AleG]

You skipped the "if" before starting with the "why"s. First you have to establish if he said that and in reference to what question and when.

Picking up a single quote (translated from Thai by a notoriously error prone media) ignoring any context and then trying to assign some grand significance to it is disingenuous.

Yes AleG ,and you would do well to remember that you also rely on the "notoriously error prone media" for the basis of YOUR beliefs. As is often said,"What's good for the goose is good for the gander"

What makes you believe I don't?, as a matter of fact I've been stressing that point ever since the first misinformation started pouring out.

Reports need to be correlated with supporting evidence and evaluated according to further information, as opposed to cherry picking one single quote or paraphrase from one news article at some specific time and ignoring everything else.

For example when Win Phyo was arrested at a pier in Surat Thani initial press releases identified him as either "Soe" or "Cho" and said his age was 23 to 25, when in actuality he was 21 at the time.

[joebrown]

Many posters have commented on the fact that the beach (supposed) crime scene was accessed by people not directly responsible for investigating these horrific murders. rape and mutilation.

What intrigues me is the collection of forensic evidence and it's likely significance in the prosecution's case against the B2. My understanding , as a layman is that if DNA is used as a 'cornerstone' in this trial, there has to be a strictly controlled/recorded chain of responsibility from the point of gathering the evidence right through to the submission of evidence in court.

I think the prosecution might have a considerable problem with DNA evidence, not only from the fact that the (supposed) crime scene was corrupted by outsiders, but also by the published statement by Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand (Head of Thai Forensic Institute) who lambasted the RTP for the inept way they handled the collection of forensic evidence. IMHO her comments should be used by the defence lawyers in support of their case.

For those of you who feel the impulse to mock K. Pornthip, don't forget that this thread is about the Koh Tao murders and not GT200 'bomb detectors'.

Furthermore, K. Pornthip was appointed to her present position at the Thai Forensic Institute by the current government.

[JLCrab]

Fine. Your concerns as to how the case was handled and how the trial should proceed are -- in Thailand -- within the discretion of the Judge

My "concerns" as you like to call them, are that there will not, in fact cannot, be a trial that is fair according to internationally held standards. Many countries around the world fall short of these standards and now Thailand is in the international spotlight.

" within the discretion of the Judge" = "should" or "will" proceed - ???? -

You seem to me putting your own ideas onto my post.......As the judiciary in Thailand is far from independent it is quite likely that there may be outside interference in the process. However Thailand is well aware that this case is being watched closely by people outside the country and they will be interested to see how the case proceeds...Thailand I'll warrant will want to do this without losing any more face. So I see a balancing act here.

My "concern" about this thread is that many posters are engaging in a pointless circular round of arguments as to whether the two accused (or others) are guilty or not - something I doubt can ever be sorted "beyond reasonable doubt".....

In The Judicial Procedure of Thailand, the issue of reasonable doubt is within the discretion of the Judge. The fact that many on here, for one reason or another, feel that the Judge (or Judges) in this case will make a determination of reasonable doubt based on other than the merits of the case is noted.

[jdinasia]

Strangely people are still ignoring that in the center of the selfie universe, on a tourist island nobody can put the people Boomerangutang is accusing on the island that night.

Not one of the inhabitants, not one of the tourists, absolutely nobody has come forward.

.... in your opinion.

Not opinion.

Not one has come forward.

[jdinasia]

Many posters have commented on the fact that the beach (supposed) crime scene was accessed by people not directly responsible for investigating these horrific murders. rape and mutilation.

What intrigues me is the collection of forensic evidence and it's likely significance in the prosecution's case against the B2. My understanding , as a layman is that if DNA is used as a 'cornerstone' in this trial, there has to be a strictly controlled/recorded chain of responsibility from the point of gathering the evidence right through to the submission of evidence in court.

I think the prosecution might have a considerable problem with DNA evidence, not only from the fact that the (supposed) crime scene was corrupted by outsiders, but also by the published statement by Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand (Head of Thai Forensic Institute) who lambasted the RTP for the inept way they handled the collection of forensic evidence. IMHO her comments should be used by the defence lawyers in support of their case.

For those of you who feel the impulse to mock K. Pornthip, don't forget that this thread is about the Koh Tao murders and not GT200 'bomb detectors'.

Furthermore, K. Pornthip was appointed to her present position at the Thai Forensic Institute by the current government.

Pornthip has severely damaged her reputation supporting the Army's purchase of the dowsing rods.

If she confirms that the 2 Burmese defendants are the killers, the conspiracy theorists will be crying foul

[cumgranosalum]

I fail to see discussing whether or not the 2 accused are innocent or not has any real relevance to the problem

the problem as I see it is that the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out.

in other words guilty or not the trial should never take place for these guys and probably anyone else.

Thanks to the handling of this case.

And the Judge assigned to the case might answer the above objection as follows: These horrible crimes took place on a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter with a limited police force on site. They and those who followed shortly thereafter did the best job that they could under difficult circumstances.

Objection overruled.

He might but as with most aspects of the case it would be poor practice to do so.....

It isn't a rational justification to suggest that the standards of policing should legally vary depending on the location of a crime. how many police does it take to cordon off a crime scene?

we also know that days even weeks after the crime normal protocols were being ignored or breached by the authorities.

Where the crime occurred has absolutely nothing to do with how the evidence was handled - it is EVIDENCE that is compromised no matter where it comes from. Allowing members of the public - even those potentially connected to the case - access to the crime scene is by any standards not "the best job that they could under difficult circumstances" -

By those standards any and all evidence from a crime scene that is not immediately cordoned off by the police is to be summarily dismissed.

"Where the crime occurred has absolutely nothing to do with how the evidence was handled"

Of course it has to do with how the evidence was handled, to begin with the crime took place in an area subject to tides, one of the bodies was in fact in the water; should they have waited to collect evidence and the bodies until a proper forensic team was assembled in the mainland and transported to the island even if that meant the crime scene would had been washed away by the sea? Or leave the bodies under the hot sun or let them float around for all the hours that would have taken?

"it is EVIDENCE that is compromised no matter where it comes from."

How can DNA evidence collected from inside the body of one of the victims be compromised by someone walking around the crime scene, specially while people are taking photos and videos at the time?

Simply declaring that all the evidence from the crime scene has to be dismissed, no matter what, is not the basis to establish anything; first you need to see if the evidence was compromised and if so to what degree, then decide if its valid or not, your proposed approach is completely negligent.

"How can DNA evidence collected from inside the body of one of the victims be compromised by someone walking around the crime scene, specially while people are taking photos and videos at the time?" - this has to be just about the most facile comment on the whole thread......

DNA is not some instant solution to a crime, like everything else it is EVIDENCE that is up to interpretation.

I can't believe you are serious! You do realise that Thailand doesn't even have an internationally recognise lab capable of handling DNA analysis? - and how/where it was found and handled afterwards together with any conclusions drawn are intrinsically up for debate.

and your perception of the validity of video/photographic evidence is just laughable.

Edited June 9, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[fritzzz25]

Strangely people are still ignoring that in the center of the selfie universe, on a tourist island nobody can put the people Boomerangutang is accusing on the island that night.

Not one of the inhabitants, not one of the tourists, absolutely nobody has come forward.

.... in your opinion.

Not opinion.

Not one has come forward.

Again, no facts to substantiate this. Mere speculation.

[joebrown]

Many posters have commented on the fact that the beach (supposed) crime scene was accessed by people not directly responsible for investigating these horrific murders. rape and mutilation.

What intrigues me is the collection of forensic evidence and it's likely significance in the prosecution's case against the B2. My understanding , as a layman is that if DNA is used as a 'cornerstone' in this trial, there has to be a strictly controlled/recorded chain of responsibility from the point of gathering the evidence right through to the submission of evidence in court.

I think the prosecution might have a considerable problem with DNA evidence, not only from the fact that the (supposed) crime scene was corrupted by outsiders, but also by the published statement by Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand (Head of Thai Forensic Institute) who lambasted the RTP for the inept way they handled the collection of forensic evidence. IMHO her comments should be used by the defence lawyers in support of their case.

For those of you who feel the impulse to mock K. Pornthip, don't forget that this thread is about the Koh Tao murders and not GT200 'bomb detectors'.

Furthermore, K. Pornthip was appointed to her present position at the Thai Forensic Institute by the current government.

Pornthip has severely damaged her reputation supporting the Army's purchase of the dowsing rods.

If she confirms that the 2 Burmese defendants are the killers, the conspiracy theorists will be crying foul

Predictably, you chose to ignore the penultimate sentence of my post! Obviously she wasn't discredited enough since she was appointed to her present position by the current government. K. Pornthip has already stated her opinion as to the validity of the crime scene forensic evidence, so your last comment is strange to say the least. It's always possible, of course that she might make a gigantic 'U-turn', similar to that which the RTP took when they dismissed the strong evidence they had against the KT VIPs in the early days of their investigation.

[JLCrab]

Strangely people are still ignoring that in the center of the selfie universe, on a tourist island nobody can put the people Boomerangutang is accusing on the island that night.

Not one of the inhabitants, not one of the tourists, absolutely nobody has come forward.

.... in your opinion.

Not opinion.

Not one has come forward.

Again, no facts to substantiate this. Mere speculation.

How do you establish the fact that no one has come forward to say that they saw the person-of-interest on that particular night especially in the company of the deceased Ms. Witheridge?

(Edit) as I have noted before publicly come forward. There may be persons in the UK who can say that I saw that person-of-interest on that niight but they may be under house arrest in the UK or a witness protection program.

Edited June 9, 2015 by JLCrab

[jdinasia]

Strangely people are still ignoring that in the center of the selfie universe, on a tourist island nobody can put the people Boomerangutang is accusing on the island that night.

Not one of the inhabitants, not one of the tourists, absolutely nobody has come forward.

.... in your opinion.

Not opinion.

Not one has come forward.

Again, no facts to substantiate this. Mere speculation.

Cannot prove a negative other than the fact that there are no reports of anyone placing him on the island. No pictures. No press statements that were not later refuted.

No foreigners have come forward from the safety of their own country....

Nada zilch nothing

[jdinasia]

Many posters have commented on the fact that the beach (supposed) crime scene was accessed by people not directly responsible for investigating these horrific murders. rape and mutilation.

What intrigues me is the collection of forensic evidence and it's likely significance in the prosecution's case against the B2. My understanding , as a layman is that if DNA is used as a 'cornerstone' in this trial, there has to be a strictly controlled/recorded chain of responsibility from the point of gathering the evidence right through to the submission of evidence in court.

I think the prosecution might have a considerable problem with DNA evidence, not only from the fact that the (supposed) crime scene was corrupted by outsiders, but also by the published statement by Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand (Head of Thai Forensic Institute) who lambasted the RTP for the inept way they handled the collection of forensic evidence. IMHO her comments should be used by the defence lawyers in support of their case.

For those of you who feel the impulse to mock K. Pornthip, don't forget that this thread is about the Koh Tao murders and not GT200 'bomb detectors'.

Furthermore, K. Pornthip was appointed to her present position at the Thai Forensic Institute by the current government.

Pornthip has severely damaged her reputation supporting the Army's purchase of the dowsing rods.

If she confirms that the 2 Burmese defendants are the killers, the conspiracy theorists will be crying foul

Predictably, you chose to ignore the penultimate sentence of my post! Obviously she wasn't discredited enough since she was appointed to her present position by the current government. K. Pornthip has already stated her opinion as to the validity of the crime scene forensic evidence, so your last comment is strange to say the least. It's always possible, of course that she might make a gigantic 'U-turn', similar to that which the RTP took when they dismissed the strong evidence they had against the KT VIPs in the early days of their investigation.

Not ignored at all. If she confirms that the 2 Burmese defendants are the killers people will cry that as someone appointed by the NCPO that it is collusion.

BTW - she stated that trained crime scene investigators should have collected the evidence. She didn't remark about the evidence itself.

Edited June 9, 2015 by jdinasia

[JLCrab]

K. Porntip is recognized as a forensics expert and may serve as an expert witness for the defense. The prosecution may very well have their own expert witnesses who might say, regardless, of what Dr. Porntip says, the evidence is reliable and should be admitted.

[bruceybonus]

Strangely people are still ignoring that in the center of the selfie universe, on a tourist island nobody can put the people Boomerangutang is accusing on the island that night.

Not one of the inhabitants, not one of the tourists, absolutely nobody has come forward.

.... in your opinion.

Not opinion.

Not one has come forward.

Again, no facts to substantiate this. Mere speculation.

http://news.sky.com/story/1339247/thai-murders-hannah-dna-matches-asian-men

Amazing how the guy who shakes hand with David on the video has exactly the same walk as Fresh milk!!!!

[JLCrab]

[Thai at Heart]

K. Porntip is recognized as a forensics expert and may serve as an expert witness for the defense. The prosecution may very well have their own expert witnesses who might say, regardless, of what Dr. Porntip says, the evidence is reliable and should be admitted.

If they can prove that the defendents were threatened with violence during their interrogation, that would scupper half the case. As for collecting DNA, these guys have been in custody for months. I am sure the Thai police are more than capable of getting DNA from them. What odds you reckon that there is a complete chain of custody and duplicates for all of the sample?

Thus, if this was a grown up, proper case, any reasonable lawyer would then get the DNA evidence removed from the court. And there would be basically absolutely no case to prove anything. As for Pornthip, she is a completely discredited witness of any sort, and since she wasn't involved from the first go, most of her evidence would be surmising and 3rd hand.

I fear that the Thai legal system will open itself up to massive ridicule when this case starts, so if I was one of the defendents, I would be pretty scared that I might just accidentally hang myself from the shame of it.......