Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[berybert]

No, but it takes a lot of money to buy off those who might have proof that he was there.

And you have exactly zero proof that anyone was bought off either as alibi providers, or escape accomplishes, or eyewitnesses, or anybody else.

.. except to maybe say we all know how corrupt Thailand is and that it has happened before, etc. etc.

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is that the reason the man some are so obsessed about become a suspect in the first place was because of tip-offs from social media.

As far as I've been able to piece together the order of events, it went like this...

Some days before the murders Sean McAnna had a motorcycle accident resulting in several cuts, someone at the bar he worked at helped him clean the blood, after the murders someone told Mon about that and either he assumed it must have happened after the murders or the source got the date wrong, in any case he jumped to the conclusion that McAnna had cuts and blood on him the day of the murders therefore he must had been be involved. Then he and a friend harassed McAnna at a 7-11, he made some posts on social media and then the feeding frenzy began.

Of course the conspiracy minded people at CSILA assumed that the men chasing McAnna were actually connected with the murder (and not just, as they were doing themselves, jumping to conclusions), at some point Nomsod pitched in in the discussions and someone decided that his defense(1) of his uncle meant that he must be connected to the murders too.

Any similarity between that and the persons here that see you, me, Jdinasia or anyone else being accused of being connected with the murders for not jumping in on their bandwagon is no mere coincidence; it's the same mindset: "why do they say something I disagree with? They must be in it!"

So the armchair detectives focused on Nomsod, decided he looked like the man on the CCTV footage and next thing you know the police announce they have identified the suspect; after the dust settled the police blamed incorrect information coming from Social Media for the whole thing (2). Of course that didn't felt right with the armchair detectives that were pumped up in the feeling they got the "real" murderer,

Now, in a perfect example of a (very) vicious circle the Social Media detectives point at the police announcement that Nomsod was a suspect to support their theories that he was involved in the murders, even though he became a suspect due to claims made in Social Media.

There's a name for that, Circular Reporting.

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

(2) On the day Nomsod was cleared: "Pol Gen Somyot pointed to groundless reports posted on social media that obstructed the investigation and confused the investigators."

[/quote

[berybert]

No, but it takes a lot of money to buy off those who might have proof that he was there.

And you have exactly zero proof that anyone was bought off either as alibi providers, or escape accomplishes, or eyewitnesses, or anybody else.

.. except to maybe say we all know how corrupt Thailand is and that it has happened before, etc. etc.

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is that the reason the man some are so obsessed about become a suspect in the first place was because of tip-offs from social media.

As far as I've been able to piece together the order of events, it went like this...

Some days before the murders Sean McAnna had a motorcycle accident resulting in several cuts, someone at the bar he worked at helped him clean the blood, after the murders someone told Mon about that and either he assumed it must have happened after the murders or the source got the date wrong, in any case he jumped to the conclusion that McAnna had cuts and blood on him the day of the murders therefore he must had been be involved. Then he and a friend harassed McAnna at a 7-11, he made some posts on social media and then the feeding frenzy began.

Of course the conspiracy minded people at CSILA assumed that the men chasing McAnna were actually connected with the murder (and not just, as they were doing themselves, jumping to conclusions), at some point Nomsod pitched in in the discussions and someone decided that his defense(1) of his uncle meant that he must be connected to the murders too.

Any similarity between that and the persons here that see you, me, Jdinasia or anyone else being accused of being connected with the murders for not jumping in on their bandwagon is no mere coincidence; it's the same mindset: "why do they say something I disagree with? They must be in it!"

So the armchair detectives focused on Nomsod, decided he looked like the man on the CCTV footage and next thing you know the police announce they have identified the suspect; after the dust settled the police blamed incorrect information coming from Social Media for the whole thing (2). Of course that didn't felt right with the armchair detectives that were pumped up in the feeling they got the "real" murderer,

Now, in a perfect example of a (very) vicious circle the Social Media detectives point at the police announcement that Nomsod was a suspect to support their theories that he was involved in the murders, even though he became a suspect due to claims made in Social Media.

There's a name for that, Circular Reporting.

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

(2) On the day Nomsod was cleared: "Pol Gen Somyot pointed to groundless reports posted on social media that obstructed the investigation and confused the investigators."

[/quote

You missed out Mons mate being a copper. And now you are accusing Mon of starting a CT.

[AleG]

Groan.

More pages and pages of some earnest people wasting time and energy trying to do the impossible: convince these 2 guys that their theories about this case are no better supported than anyone else's, or less so (as I think most of us believe, with very good cause), or even engage them in an honest debate. Neither is interested in finding the truth, that should be obvious after months of this. They're merely interested in pushing their agenda and sidestepping or otherwise not responding directly to any statements that poke holes in their own stories.

It's like arguing with your fundamentalist Christian cousin; they're true believers, and nothing's going to change that. I lean towards the B2 being innocent, but am smart and candid enough to admit that I don't KNOW anything about this with certainty. These two guys have no better info than any of us, but they're willing to spend thousands of hours acting like they alone know the truth about this case.

So I've said it before and I'll say it again:

They should present their case in one go, if it's so rock solid (I'm not holding my breath for that).

The vast majority of people populating these threads who disagree with them should use their time and energy more productively: put all the info out there elsewhere on the internet (there is a website for that, can anyone share the URL?), and more importantly IMO engage with people in and outside Thailand who can have some influence: try get in touch with some of these friends of David and Hannah's; send information to the Thai media (MUCH more useful than arguing with these two guys); try track down Sean in Italy and see if he'll start talking, or anything but waste time here.

The fact that these two guys have posted tons of opinions here but I have not seen either express the slightest bit of sympathy for the victims in any of their thousands of posts about this murder should by itself speak volumes (granted, I've got both on ignore so only skim over what others quote, but I challenge anyone to quote me some such sympathy from either). Let them yell into the wind, or better yet into a vacuum!

The lack of self awareness in this post is astounding.

In case PaPiPuPePo someday musters enough, shall we say, moral fiber to stop hiding here goes the answer.

"More pages and pages of some earnest people wasting time and energy trying to do the impossible: convince these 2 guys that their theories about this case are no better supported than anyone else's, or less so (as I think most of us believe, with very good cause), or even engage them in an honest debate. Neither is interested in finding the truth, that should be obvious after months of this. They're merely interested in pushing their agenda and sidestepping or otherwise not responding directly to any statements that poke holes in their own stories."

No better supported than anyone else's... yes, just say it, don't bother to support the assertion (ironic), then again that's why placing people in ignore is all about."

I have done nothing but contest and disprove the "theories" of those people you say have an equal standing; case in point, post #749 were I disproved, with citations one more of Boomerangutang completel unsupported assertions. I could count dozens and dozens of similar posts but PaPiPuPePo wouldn't know, because he rather hide them from view, decide they are full of unsupported assertions and call that having a honest debate.

You see, I said something and I supported it... no, you don't see, I forgot the part about hiding.

As for the last point from that paragraph, Boomerangutang, once again, completely fails to even try to defend his claims, funny you don't see that but can tell from not reading my posts that is me the one that don't bother to support an assertion, now that is ironic.

"It's like arguing with your fundamentalist Christian cousin; they're true believers, and nothing's going to change that. I lean towards the B2 being innocent, but am smart and candid enough to admit that I don't KNOW anything about this with certainty. These two guys have no better info than any of us, but they're willing to spend thousands of hours acting like they alone know the truth about this case."

Again, making unsupported claims (irony reaching critical levels), as for your last point, again every time I challenge one of your fellow "theorists" they either pretend not to notice, divert into some other point or just outright resort to repeating the same demonstrably wrong arguments over and over again.

"So I've said it before and I'll say it again:

They should present their case in one go, if it's so rock solid (I'm not holding my breath for that)."

I don't have case to present, the case is going to be presented in court in a few weeks. It may seem unimaginable to you but I don't feel the need to engage in speculative games as others do here because... hang on to that thought for a moment.

"The vast majority of people populating these threads who disagree with them should use their time and energy more productively: put all the info out there elsewhere on the internet (there is a website for that, can anyone share the URL?), and more importantly IMO engage with people in and outside Thailand who can have some influence: try get in touch with some of these friends of David and Hannah's; send information to the Thai media (MUCH more useful than arguing with these two guys); try track down Sean in Italy and see if he'll start talking, or anything but waste time here."

Again, your main point is to avoid your views to be challenged, in the name of honest debating I suppose.

"The fact that these two guys have posted tons of opinions here but I have not seen either express the slightest bit of sympathy for the victims in any of their thousands of posts about this murder should by itself speak volumes (granted, I've got both on ignore so only skim over what others quote, but I challenge anyone to quote me some such sympathy from either). Let them yell into the wind, or better yet into a vacuum!"

How dare you? I'll answer that, you dare because you hide from having to defend your views and accusations. I, and Jdinasia have been the only people here that have consistently called to respect the wishes of the families in regards to baseless speculation in social media, here's what they said about you and the armchair detectives you are here to defend:

The family of Hannah Witheridge, who was tragically murdered alongside David Miller on a beach in Thailand last month, have "begged" for graphic pictures of her corpse to be removed from the web.

They are "traumatised" by "senseless" photos of the crime scene, they say, which show her body wrapped in blue plastic on the Koh Tao beach.

"We beg that Hannah and David are afforded privacy and dignity through the removal of these pointless and insensitive reminders," her family said.

Our thoughts are also with the Ware family and any other innocents that have been hurt by harassment and wrongful accusation.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

Further speculation should be put aside until all the evidence is made public and appropriate conclusions can be drawn.

You have the unmitigated gall to not only claim that I have no sympathy for the families of the victims (and that specifically based on not reading what I have said in the matter), but directly call for their wishes to be ignored and continue not only with the damaging speculation but also to drag the victim's friends into your games.

No wonder you hide from having your views challenged, they are indefensible.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

The families of the victims have one thing most families of victims do not have and that's hundreds of expats and hundreds of Thai locals,

Who are outraged by the handling of this case from the start

[catsanddogs]

Groan.

More pages and pages of some earnest people wasting time and energy trying to do the impossible: convince these 2 guys that their theories about this case are no better supported than anyone else's, or less so (as I think most of us believe, with very good cause), or even engage them in an honest debate. Neither is interested in finding the truth, that should be obvious after months of this. They're merely interested in pushing their agenda and sidestepping or otherwise not responding directly to any statements that poke holes in their own stories.

It's like arguing with your fundamentalist Christian cousin; they're true believers, and nothing's going to change that. I lean towards the B2 being innocent, but am smart and candid enough to admit that I don't KNOW anything about this with certainty. These two guys have no better info than any of us, but they're willing to spend thousands of hours acting like they alone know the truth about this case.

So I've said it before and I'll say it again:

They should present their case in one go, if it's so rock solid (I'm not holding my breath for that).

The vast majority of people populating these threads who disagree with them should use their time and energy more productively: put all the info out there elsewhere on the internet (there is a website for that, can anyone share the URL?), and more importantly IMO engage with people in and outside Thailand who can have some influence: try get in touch with some of these friends of David and Hannah's; send information to the Thai media (MUCH more useful than arguing with these two guys); try track down Sean in Italy and see if he'll start talking, or anything but waste time here.

The fact that these two guys have posted tons of opinions here but I have not seen either express the slightest bit of sympathy for the victims in any of their thousands of posts about this murder should by itself speak volumes (granted, I've got both on ignore so only skim over what others quote, but I challenge anyone to quote me some such sympathy from either). Let them yell into the wind, or better yet into a vacuum!

The lack of self awareness in this post is astounding.

In case PaPiPuPePo someday musters enough, shall we say, moral fiber to stop hiding here goes the answer.

"More pages and pages of some earnest people wasting time and energy trying to do the impossible: convince these 2 guys that their theories about this case are no better supported than anyone else's, or less so (as I think most of us believe, with very good cause), or even engage them in an honest debate. Neither is interested in finding the truth, that should be obvious after months of this. They're merely interested in pushing their agenda and sidestepping or otherwise not responding directly to any statements that poke holes in their own stories."

No better supported than anyone else's... yes, just say it, don't bother to support the assertion (ironic), then again that's why placing people in ignore is all about."

I have done nothing but contest and disprove the "theories" of those people you say have an equal standing; case in point, post #749 were I disproved, with citations one more of Boomerangutang completel unsupported assertions. I could count dozens and dozens of similar posts but PaPiPuPePo wouldn't know, because he rather hide them from view, decide they are full of unsupported assertions and call that having a honest debate.

You see, I said something and I supported it... no, you don't see, I forgot the part about hiding.

As for the last point from that paragraph, Boomerangutang, once again, completely fails to even try to defend his claims, funny you don't see that but can tell from not reading my posts that is me the one that don't bother to support an assertion, now that is ironic.

"It's like arguing with your fundamentalist Christian cousin; they're true believers, and nothing's going to change that. I lean towards the B2 being innocent, but am smart and candid enough to admit that I don't KNOW anything about this with certainty. These two guys have no better info than any of us, but they're willing to spend thousands of hours acting like they alone know the truth about this case."

Again, making unsupported claims (irony reaching critical levels), as for your last point, again every time I challenge one of your fellow "theorists" they either pretend not to notice, divert into some other point or just outright resort to repeating the same demonstrably wrong arguments over and over again.

"So I've said it before and I'll say it again:

They should present their case in one go, if it's so rock solid (I'm not holding my breath for that)."

I don't have case to present, the case is going to be presented in court in a few weeks. It may seem unimaginable to you but I don't feel the need to engage in speculative games as others do here because... hang on to that thought for a moment.

"The vast majority of people populating these threads who disagree with them should use their time and energy more productively: put all the info out there elsewhere on the internet (there is a website for that, can anyone share the URL?), and more importantly IMO engage with people in and outside Thailand who can have some influence: try get in touch with some of these friends of David and Hannah's; send information to the Thai media (MUCH more useful than arguing with these two guys); try track down Sean in Italy and see if he'll start talking, or anything but waste time here."

Again, your main point is to avoid your views to be challenged, in the name of honest debating I suppose.

"The fact that these two guys have posted tons of opinions here but I have not seen either express the slightest bit of sympathy for the victims in any of their thousands of posts about this murder should by itself speak volumes (granted, I've got both on ignore so only skim over what others quote, but I challenge anyone to quote me some such sympathy from either). Let them yell into the wind, or better yet into a vacuum!"

How dare you? I'll answer that, you dare because you hide from having to defend your views and accusations. I, and Jdinasia have been the only people here that have consistently called to respect the wishes of the families in regards to baseless speculation in social media, here's what they said about you and the armchair detectives you are here to defend:

The family of Hannah Witheridge, who was tragically murdered alongside David Miller on a beach in Thailand last month, have "begged" for graphic pictures of her corpse to be removed from the web.

They are "traumatised" by "senseless" photos of the crime scene, they say, which show her body wrapped in blue plastic on the Koh Tao beach.

"We beg that Hannah and David are afforded privacy and dignity through the removal of these pointless and insensitive reminders," her family said.

Our thoughts are also with the Ware family and any other innocents that have been hurt by harassment and wrongful accusation.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

Further speculation should be put aside until all the evidence is made public and appropriate conclusions can be drawn.

You have the unmitigated gall to not only claim that I have no sympathy for the families of the victims (and that specifically based on not reading what I have said in the matter), but directly call for their wishes to be ignored and continue not only with the damaging speculation but also to drag the victim's friends into your games.

No wonder you hide from having your views challenged, they are indefensible.

No one on here as far as I'm aware posted graphic pictures of the victims. Wasn't it one of the RTP cops that did that? If the RTP had have had any professionalism about the handling of these crimes then the press would never have been allowed down onto the beach to take the 'senseless' photos in the first place. If I were one of the parents I would be suing the scum bag that took the graphic images (which I have not seen and have no desire to) and circulated them on social media. No point in trying to hang that on TV posters who, in the majority, want justice for the wretched parents.

[jdinasia]

Groan.

More pages and pages of some earnest people wasting time and energy trying to do the impossible: convince these 2 guys that their theories about this case are no better supported than anyone else's, or less so (as I think most of us believe, with very good cause), or even engage them in an honest debate. Neither is interested in finding the truth, that should be obvious after months of this. They're merely interested in pushing their agenda and sidestepping or otherwise not responding directly to any statements that poke holes in their own stories.

It's like arguing with your fundamentalist Christian cousin; they're true believers, and nothing's going to change that. I lean towards the B2 being innocent, but am smart and candid enough to admit that I don't KNOW anything about this with certainty. These two guys have no better info than any of us, but they're willing to spend thousands of hours acting like they alone know the truth about this case.

So I've said it before and I'll say it again:

They should present their case in one go, if it's so rock solid (I'm not holding my breath for that).

The vast majority of people populating these threads who disagree with them should use their time and energy more productively: put all the info out there elsewhere on the internet (there is a website for that, can anyone share the URL?), and more importantly IMO engage with people in and outside Thailand who can have some influence: try get in touch with some of these friends of David and Hannah's; send information to the Thai media (MUCH more useful than arguing with these two guys); try track down Sean in Italy and see if he'll start talking, or anything but waste time here.

The fact that these two guys have posted tons of opinions here but I have not seen either express the slightest bit of sympathy for the victims in any of their thousands of posts about this murder should by itself speak volumes (granted, I've got both on ignore so only skim over what others quote, but I challenge anyone to quote me some such sympathy from either). Let them yell into the wind, or better yet into a vacuum!

The lack of self awareness in this post is astounding.

In case PaPiPuPePo someday musters enough, shall we say, moral fiber to stop hiding here goes the answer.

"More pages and pages of some earnest people wasting time and energy trying to do the impossible: convince these 2 guys that their theories about this case are no better supported than anyone else's, or less so (as I think most of us believe, with very good cause), or even engage them in an honest debate. Neither is interested in finding the truth, that should be obvious after months of this. They're merely interested in pushing their agenda and sidestepping or otherwise not responding directly to any statements that poke holes in their own stories."

No better supported than anyone else's... yes, just say it, don't bother to support the assertion (ironic), then again that's why placing people in ignore is all about."

I have done nothing but contest and disprove the "theories" of those people you say have an equal standing; case in point, post #749 were I disproved, with citations one more of Boomerangutang completel unsupported assertions. I could count dozens and dozens of similar posts but PaPiPuPePo wouldn't know, because he rather hide them from view, decide they are full of unsupported assertions and call that having a honest debate.

You see, I said something and I supported it... no, you don't see, I forgot the part about hiding.

As for the last point from that paragraph, Boomerangutang, once again, completely fails to even try to defend his claims, funny you don't see that but can tell from not reading my posts that is me the one that don't bother to support an assertion, now that is ironic.

"It's like arguing with your fundamentalist Christian cousin; they're true believers, and nothing's going to change that. I lean towards the B2 being innocent, but am smart and candid enough to admit that I don't KNOW anything about this with certainty. These two guys have no better info than any of us, but they're willing to spend thousands of hours acting like they alone know the truth about this case."

Again, making unsupported claims (irony reaching critical levels), as for your last point, again every time I challenge one of your fellow "theorists" they either pretend not to notice, divert into some other point or just outright resort to repeating the same demonstrably wrong arguments over and over again.

"So I've said it before and I'll say it again:

They should present their case in one go, if it's so rock solid (I'm not holding my breath for that)."

I don't have case to present, the case is going to be presented in court in a few weeks. It may seem unimaginable to you but I don't feel the need to engage in speculative games as others do here because... hang on to that thought for a moment.

"The vast majority of people populating these threads who disagree with them should use their time and energy more productively: put all the info out there elsewhere on the internet (there is a website for that, can anyone share the URL?), and more importantly IMO engage with people in and outside Thailand who can have some influence: try get in touch with some of these friends of David and Hannah's; send information to the Thai media (MUCH more useful than arguing with these two guys); try track down Sean in Italy and see if he'll start talking, or anything but waste time here."

Again, your main point is to avoid your views to be challenged, in the name of honest debating I suppose.

"The fact that these two guys have posted tons of opinions here but I have not seen either express the slightest bit of sympathy for the victims in any of their thousands of posts about this murder should by itself speak volumes (granted, I've got both on ignore so only skim over what others quote, but I challenge anyone to quote me some such sympathy from either). Let them yell into the wind, or better yet into a vacuum!"

How dare you? I'll answer that, you dare because you hide from having to defend your views and accusations. I, and Jdinasia have been the only people here that have consistently called to respect the wishes of the families in regards to baseless speculation in social media, here's what they said about you and the armchair detectives you are here to defend:

The family of Hannah Witheridge, who was tragically murdered alongside David Miller on a beach in Thailand last month, have "begged" for graphic pictures of her corpse to be removed from the web.

They are "traumatised" by "senseless" photos of the crime scene, they say, which show her body wrapped in blue plastic on the Koh Tao beach.

"We beg that Hannah and David are afforded privacy and dignity through the removal of these pointless and insensitive reminders," her family said.

Our thoughts are also with the Ware family and any other innocents that have been hurt by harassment and wrongful accusation.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

Further speculation should be put aside until all the evidence is made public and appropriate conclusions can be drawn.

You have the unmitigated gall to not only claim that I have no sympathy for the families of the victims (and that specifically based on not reading what I have said in the matter), but directly call for their wishes to be ignored and continue not only with the damaging speculation but also to drag the victim's friends into your games.

No wonder you hide from having your views challenged, they are indefensible.

No one on here as far as I'm aware posted graphic pictures of the victims. Wasn't it one of the RTP cops that did that? If the RTP had have had any professionalism about the handling of these crimes then the press would never have been allowed down onto the beach to take the 'senseless' photos in the first place. If I were one of the parents I would be suing the scum bag that took the graphic images (which I have not seen and have no desire to) and circulated them on social media. No point in trying to hang that on TV posters who, in the majority, want justice for the wretched parents.

People here posted links (which were removed) and detailed descriptions on where to find those pictures.

[Mooner]

Some are using police statements saying they had suspects including Burmese and other foreigners as proof that the police had the B2 as suspects from the beginning.

Now can we find any statements from the police saying they have proof of people being involved and evidence to prove it at the same time while naming the suspects?

[boomerangutang]

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is that the reason the man some are so obsessed about become a suspect in the first place was because of tip-offs from social media.

As far as I've been able to piece together the order of events, it went like this...

Some days before the murders Sean McAnna had a motorcycle accident resulting in several cuts, someone at the bar he worked at helped him clean the blood, after the murders someone told Mon about that and either he assumed it must have happened after the murders or the source got the date wrong, in any case he jumped to the conclusion that McAnna had cuts and blood on him the day of the murders therefore he must had been be involved. Then he and a friend harassed McAnna at a 7-11, he made some posts on social media and then the feeding frenzy began.

Of course the conspiracy minded people at CSILA assumed that the men chasing McAnna were actually connected with the murder (and not just, as they were doing themselves, jumping to conclusions), at some point Nomsod pitched in in the discussions and someone decided that his defense(1) of his uncle meant that he must be connected to the murders too.

Any similarity between that and the persons here that see you, me, Jdinasia or anyone else being accused of being connected with the murders for not jumping in on their bandwagon is no mere coincidence; it's the same mindset: "why do they say something I disagree with? They must be in it!"

So the armchair detectives focused on Nomsod, decided he looked like the man on the CCTV footage and next thing you know the police announce they have identified the suspect; after the dust settled the police blamed incorrect information coming from Social Media for the whole thing (2). Of course that didn't felt right with the armchair detectives that were pumped up in the feeling they got the "real" murderer,

Now, in a perfect example of a (very) vicious circle the Social Media detectives point at the police announcement that Nomsod was a suspect to support their theories that he was involved in the murders, even though he became a suspect due to claims made in Social Media.

There's a name for that, Circular Reporting.

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

(2) On the day Nomsod was cleared: "Pol Gen Somyot pointed to groundless reports posted on social media that obstructed the investigation and confused the investigators."

An almost plausible response.

So, who do you think committed the crime ?

Two diminutive Burmese men with little respect in Thailand ?

A gang of entitled Thai men (and not necessarily NS) who are used to immunity from law or justice ?

There've been some other instances of unsolved crimes on this small island. Something's fishy.

As the evidence stands now the two men on trial are likely to be involved in the murders.

Something that may or may not have happened before is not evidence of someone else being responsible.

Sorry to quote so much verbage from AleG, because there are just a few points I'd like to venture:

>>> first, it's the first time I can recall, that any of the few who support the RTP's investigation, have put together a 'likely scenario.' I don't agree with it, but I support AleG's right to do so on this blog. It gives a better idea of what RTP supporters are thinking, and therefore a picture of what the establishment is probably thinking. We got the reenactment (which was full of mistakes), and now we get to read about AleG's reenactment: proposing that Mon and his cop friend pursued Sean because they thought Sean was involved. Hmmmm, interesting. Plus, AleG is assumng what Mon and his cop friend were thinking at that time. Pursuing justice? Dream on.

However, for many posts, AleG would chastize and challenge any posters who ventured to present what they thought happened that night, calling on the posters to only present proven facts, not heresay. And yet AleG now feels free to express his assumptions about what may have happened and why. Plus, I like the hippocracy of how AleG and particularly JD have been continually harping about how all social media posts are conspiracy theories (particularly if they implicate the H's people), yet AleG now relies on quotes from social media to try and bolster his assumptions.

"As the evidence stands now the two men on trial are likely to be involved in the murders." (quote from AleG's above post) ....hello! it's that very evidence that few people (outside of officialdom) currently have any faith in. That's why the defense asked for evidence to be re-examined. The judge apparently agreed in April, but then changed his ruling to a 'maybe' in June - with a possible go-ahead for July, on the first day of the trial. If you build a wood stove out of wood, it will put out heat the first time it's used, but then it's a pile of ashes.

[AleG]

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is that the reason the man some are so obsessed about become a suspect in the first place was because of tip-offs from social media.

As far as I've been able to piece together the order of events, it went like this...

Some days before the murders Sean McAnna had a motorcycle accident resulting in several cuts, someone at the bar he worked at helped him clean the blood, after the murders someone told Mon about that and either he assumed it must have happened after the murders or the source got the date wrong, in any case he jumped to the conclusion that McAnna had cuts and blood on him the day of the murders therefore he must had been be involved. Then he and a friend harassed McAnna at a 7-11, he made some posts on social media and then the feeding frenzy began.

Of course the conspiracy minded people at CSILA assumed that the men chasing McAnna were actually connected with the murder (and not just, as they were doing themselves, jumping to conclusions), at some point Nomsod pitched in in the discussions and someone decided that his defense(1) of his uncle meant that he must be connected to the murders too.

Any similarity between that and the persons here that see you, me, Jdinasia or anyone else being accused of being connected with the murders for not jumping in on their bandwagon is no mere coincidence; it's the same mindset: "why do they say something I disagree with? They must be in it!"

So the armchair detectives focused on Nomsod, decided he looked like the man on the CCTV footage and next thing you know the police announce they have identified the suspect; after the dust settled the police blamed incorrect information coming from Social Media for the whole thing (2). Of course that didn't felt right with the armchair detectives that were pumped up in the feeling they got the "real" murderer,

Now, in a perfect example of a (very) vicious circle the Social Media detectives point at the police announcement that Nomsod was a suspect to support their theories that he was involved in the murders, even though he became a suspect due to claims made in Social Media.

There's a name for that, Circular Reporting.

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

(2) On the day Nomsod was cleared: "Pol Gen Somyot pointed to groundless reports posted on social media that obstructed the investigation and confused the investigators."

An almost plausible response.

So, who do you think committed the crime ?

Two diminutive Burmese men with little respect in Thailand ?

A gang of entitled Thai men (and not necessarily NS) who are used to immunity from law or justice ?

There've been some other instances of unsolved crimes on this small island. Something's fishy.

As the evidence stands now the two men on trial are likely to be involved in the murders.

Something that may or may not have happened before is not evidence of someone else being responsible.

Sorry to quote so much verbage from AleG, because there are just a few points I'd like to venture:

>>> first, it's the first time I can recall, that any of the few who support the RTP's investigation, have put together a 'likely scenario.' I don't agree with it, but I support AleG's right to do so on this blog. It gives a better idea of what RTP supporters are thinking, and therefore a picture of what the establishment is probably thinking. We got the reenactment (which was full of mistakes), and now we get to read about AleG's reenactment: proposing that Mon and his cop friend pursued Sean because they thought Sean was involved. Hmmmm, interesting. Plus, AleG is assumng what Mon and his cop friend were thinking at that time. Pursuing justice? Dream on.

However, for many posts, AleG would chastize and challenge any posters who ventured to present what they thought happened that night, calling on the posters to only present proven facts, not heresay. And yet AleG now feels free to express his assumptions about what may have happened and why. Plus, I like the hippocracy of how AleG and particularly JD have been continually harping about how all social media posts are conspiracy theories (particularly if they implicate the H's people), yet AleG now relies on quotes from social media to try and bolster his assumptions.

"As the evidence stands now the two men on trial are likely to be involved in the murders." (quote from AleG's above post) ....hello! it's that very evidence that few people (outside of officialdom) currently have any faith in. That's why the defense asked for evidence to be re-examined. The judge apparently agreed in April, but then changed his ruling to a 'maybe' in June - with a possible go-ahead for July, on the first day of the trial. If you build a wood stove out of wood, it will put out heat the first time it's used, but then it's a pile of ashes.

What I wrote is not a reenactment, it's a summary of events as described by different sources, you may try (and fail) to prove me wrong in any point of that summary.

"I like the hippocracy of how AleG and particularly JD have been continually harping about how all social media posts are conspiracy theories (particularly if they implicate the H's people), yet AleG now relies on quotes from social media to try and bolster his assumptions. "

I never said such thing, you simply cannot make an argument without making things up. By the way, it's spelled hypocrisy.

As for evidence and what you think of it, it has been proven time and time again that you base your conclusions of false premises, and avoid facing that as you did with post #749 and countless others; so whether you believe something to be true or not bears no weight whatsoever.

[rockingrobin]

Aleg attention to detail is wavering,

With reference to Mon and Sean

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

' Mr. Montriwat discredited the Briton’s claim saying in fact on the night of the murder an employee of a spa has told him she helped to wash and clean blood from the face and body of Mr Sean who is a friend of the murdered David Miller '

which is mutually exclusive to Sean's account

and then there was the report that Joc (spa employee) was reluctant to talk to the RTP because they had declared the dna was asian

[PaPiPuPePo]

Groan.

...Let them yell into the wind, or better yet into a vacuum!

In case PaPiPuPePo someday musters enough, shall we say, moral fiber to stop hiding here goes the answer.

PaPiPuPePo wouldn't know, because he rather hide them from view, decide they are full of unsupported assertions and call that having a honest debate.

no, you don't see, I forgot the part about hiding.

As for the last point from that paragraph, Boomerangutang, once again, completely fails to even try to defend his claims, funny you don't see that but can tell from not reading my posts that is me the one that don't bother to support an assertion, now that is ironic.

Again, making unsupported claims (irony reaching critical levels), as for your last point, again every time I challenge one of your fellow "theorists" they either pretend not to notice, divert into some other point or just outright resort to repeating the same demonstrably wrong arguments over and over again.

I don't have case to present, the case is going to be presented in court in a few weeks. It may seem unimaginable to you but I don't feel the need to engage in speculative games as others do here because... hang on to that thought for a moment.

Again, your main point is to avoid your views to be challenged, in the name of honest debating I suppose.

How dare you? I'll answer that, you dare because you hide from having to defend your views and accusations. I, and Jdinasia have been the only people here that have consistently called to respect the wishes of the families in regards to baseless speculation in social media, here's what they said about you and the armchair detectives you are here to defend:

You have the unmitigated gall to not only claim that I have no sympathy for the families of the victims (and that specifically based on not reading what I have said in the matter), but directly call for their wishes to be ignored and continue not only with the damaging speculation but also to drag the victim's friends into your games.

No wonder you hide from having your views challenged, they are indefensible.

No one on here as far as I'm aware posted graphic pictures of the victims. Wasn't it one of the RTP cops that did that? If the RTP had have had any professionalism about the handling of these crimes then the press would never have been allowed down onto the beach to take the 'senseless' photos in the first place. If I were one of the parents I would be suing the scum bag that took the graphic images (which I have not seen and have no desire to) and circulated them on social media. No point in trying to hang that on TV posters who, in the majority, want justice for the wretched parents.

Amazing lack of self-awareness on the part of AleG.

And note that he starts off attacking me rather than my statements (saying I lack moral fiber). For someone who claims the high ground and says others should respect the TV rules, he has a hard time refraining from making ad hominem attacks. Anger issues it seems.

I wrote that he has shown lack of sympathy for the victims; instead of pointing to such an expression, he refers to his request to respect the wishes of Hannah's family that photos of her murdered body not be shown online. That is completely NOT the same thing. They've made no request that anyone refrain from looking into the case in order to ascertain whether the two suspects are guilty and/or whether others may have committed the crimes. But that is still not the same as showing sympathy for the victims. In case I didn't make my point clear (i.e. it's not just AleG who didn't understand it), in reading the comments by--to simplify a bit for the sake of brevity--those on the "other side," I either see explicit statements of sadness or sympathy for the victims--I've done the same. I've never seen such in the statements by AleG or JDinAsia, though since I only see parts of their posts quoted by others, it is indeed possible they've expressed such. So perhaps I shouldn't have gone so far. YET--just the parts quoted that I've seen are more verbiage than me or numerous others have posted in total. So still a lot of words to draw from.

So he should prove me wrong if he's so offended and post quotes showing this sympathy.

As to my "hiding"...how am I hiding? I'm ignoring someone who's made his one or two points very clearly, numerous times, who so often doesn't respond to challenges to his point of view--as he didn't with my comments above as I just outlined--and who is such a rude hothead his comments have too high of a noise-to-signal ratio to be worth wasting time reading and deciphering. This logical disconnect (between ignoring someone and "hiding") is another perfect example.

Last, he charges me with being unable to accept a differing point of view, based on my lack of interest in pulling the peanuts of meritorious argument out of his piles of ranting and attacking/condescending to other members. Again, instead of refuting my point he helps me make it.

And so I retain my TV-given right to ignore him. He has succeeded however in making me even more tired of reading any of these threads. I'd really like to get a clearer picture of what happened that night, and also whether 1) there's more evidence either for or against these two Burmese guys and 2) whether despite the very flawed local justice system they might get a reasonably fair trial.* But, again, noise-to-signal ratio's just too high.

*maybe I've missed them presenting such, but I've yet to see either of the two "B2 did it" guys refute or even address the widely-known and accepted lack of faith in the workings of the police and courts--I've seen specific arguments about certain aspects of the handling of the case, but none were convincing to me--but every time I've seen someone state doubts about or question the transparency and fairness of the process that has put the B2 and jail and could end with their executions, these two guys seem to say nothing or reply about as logically as was outlined above.

Edited June 16, 2015 by PaPiPuPePo

[Thai at Heart]

OK. So if through some miracle, the court acquits the Burmese pair.

After all, there is little to prove they did it other than pretty ropey circumstantial evidence.

Will this become a tragic unsolved story?

It is a likely outcome.

[Thai at Heart]

Some are using police statements saying they had suspects including Burmese and other foreigners as proof that the police had the B2 as suspects from the beginning.

Now can we find any statements from the police saying they have proof of people being involved and evidence to prove it at the same time while naming the suspects?

Nothing I have read conclusively implicates the Burmese pair.

[jimmybkk]

It will be interesting to see if the friends of the deceased will be called as witnesses. If there was an altercation in the bar as reported, then one of them, maybe more witnessed it. One would hope the friends would want the right people punished even though it won't bring the victims back. You'd hope also that the family would support the defence having access to everything necessary for a fair trial too, unless of course they are 100% assured that the Burmese men are guilty of killing their children.

There has been ongoing coverage of this case by the British tabloids, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and the BBC since last September. If there are friends of the late Ms. Witheridge or other persons on-site who observed anything as above, they have as yet chosen for some reason not to tell their story publicly.

It seems you are choosing your words carefully - catsanddogs posted: "It will be interesting to see if the friends of the deceased will be called as witnesses."

Your reply: "If there are friends of the late Ms. Witheridge or other persons on-site who observed anything as above, they have as yet chosen for some reason not to tell their story publicly."

It is very sad that there were 2 young people who lost their lives that night. Why would you choose to disregard statements released by friends of the late Mr. Miller?

You have mentioned on several occasions that if aspects of the investigation are amiss you would find it surprising that no friends of the deceased have come forward to offer their own account of events that would contradict the official account of events.

Well, in fact there have been statements released by a friend of the deceased, who was on-site and who did tell their story - Sean Mcanna, who was a friend of David Miller said:

"...no one believes it was the Burmese guys and anyone would be stupid to even consider it."

"Anybody with half a brain knows it would always be blamed on Burmese."

"But the fact I was threatened by family of the AC owner and by the owner of 'in touch' was (in my eyes) a good lead for starting the investigation. Unfortunately, even though I said to the papers that they need to look for the 3 guys who haven't shown up for work at AC since it happened. Although I said that "Burmese guys will be blamed" and that "they won't let Thai people go down for the sake of the tourist industry", and even though everyone said the same, the police went ahead and did it anyway"

So I guess if I were also to choose my words carefully then I would not be lying if I said that every single friend of the deceased who was on-site and has told their story about what actually happened that night and who they believed was guilty of committing these murders, based on what they saw and heard has stated categorically that they do not believe that the Burmese are the real killers...

From the above: Why would you choose to disregard statements released by friends of the late Mr. Miller? Because I was specifically referring to the friends of the late Ms. Witheridge who might have noticed their friend in the company of a Thai male person let alone being confronted with hostility by a Thai male person.

So you can choose what ever words you like. I'll stick with mine.

Of course you will stick with your words, because your words are typed with the intention of suggesting that the silence of Hannah's friends somehow confirms that a certain person was not on the island at the time of the murders, because if he was, then surely one of her friends would have come forward to confirm that he was. Despite the obfuscation of your quotes from movies, song lyrics and often cryptic posts (which incidentally I quite enjoy), anyone familiar with your posts will be aware that the underlying message of your posts regarding this subject is that Nomsod is innocent of any involvement in these murders and also innocent of any wrongdoing. This is the message you are trying to get across, but I fail to comprehend your rationale. You appear to be an intelligent individual - surely you understand that Nomsod is off the hook for these murders. He has an alibi, his DNA doesn't match and no witnesses have come forward to put him anywhere near the crime scene, so why on earth would you choose to focus on what Hannah's friends are not saying as if their silence somehow proves anything?

I assume you also noticed that none of Hannah's friends have come forward to publicly state that they believe the 2 Burmese lads are the actual murderers. Does this lead you to believe that they are innocent? As far as I am aware they have also never publicly stated that they did not see Nomsod on the island that night... Do you read anything into that? Likewise, none of them has stated that I will never win the Thai national lottery... Does that somehow suggest I should expect a win?

Personally I couldn't give a flying toss whether Nomsod was on the island at the time or whether he wasn't. I means nothjing to me whether he was somehow involved or whether he had absolutely no involvement and has had his name tarnished by suggestions that he was involved. Whatever.... one thing's for sure..... he will get over it. One thing's also for sure - The 2 Burmese lads are unlikely to get over a death sentence if they are found guilty of these murders.

It was reported that both Hannah and David were involved in a confrontation confrontation with a Thai man or group of Thai men at the AC Bar. Here is just one such report:

"Many Koh Tao locals say they are convinced that whatever triggered the Britons' murders is likely to have taken place at the nightclub.

"We all believe that it started at AC Bar," one source said.

Rumours have circulated about a possible altercation at the AC Bar between the two victims and a group of Thai men."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11122966/Police-quiz-Thai-footballers-over-murder-of-British-backpackers.html

One of David's friends then came out and suggested that the police "need to look for the 3 guys who haven't shown up for work at AC since it happened."

So why "specifically refer to the friends of the late Ms Witheridge, who might have noticed their friend in the company of a Thai male person let alone being confronted with hostility by a Thai male person" when apparently both victims were involved in the confrontation. Ms Witheridge's friends are saying nothing, whilst a friend of the other victim who was on-site at the time has come forth and made public statements? Is it perhaps because the silence of Ms Witheridge's friends allows you to offer your speculative comments?

You made mention of a possible confrontation involving Hannah and a Thai male, and intoned that had such a situation occurred one would think that Hannah's friends would have made a public statement about such an incident. Well, it would appear that 3rd parties suggested that there was indeed such a confrontation and that both of the deceased were involved, which would possibly explain why Hannah's friends were not involved - she was not alone at the time, she was with David and perhaps they felt he would be able to handle the situation. These 3rd parties also seem to suggest that the confrontation/argument happened at AC Bar. Meanwhile a friend of one of the deceased stated that "they need to look for the 3 guys who haven't shown up for work at AC since it happened."

So, just to recap... we have 3rd parties saying an argument may have taken place at AC Bar between the 2 victims and one or more Thai males on the night of the murders. A friend of David's, familiar with the island, suggested that the police should be investigating 3 guys who worked at AC Bar who didn't show up for work since the murders took place, and in the early days of the police investigation the owner of AC Bar was considered a prime suspect. And yet meanwhile, you are ignoring all of this and instead are focusing on the silence (i.e. absence of evidence) coming from Hannah's friends, and making out that this silence somehow puts Nomsod in the clear, despite the fact that he's already in the clear...

What's that all about Mr. Crabs...???

[JLCrab]

I have never said the guy you mention is innocent. I have just said that the rationale and evidence people want to use to implicate him is bullsh-t. Why the friends of the late Ms. Witheridege? Because as they were the friends of the late Ms. Witheridge and accompanied her that evening, they were most likely to notice something going amiss with the late Ms. Witheridge.

As to what the locals believe or rumors they have circulated about the events of that evening, if there is some exonerating impact of those statements, the defense team for the 2 accused should call them as witnesses in Court.

However, I still say that this 'Perry Mason' style defense may not be the choice of the B2's team. All they have to do establish that the Prosecution's case does not show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To do that, they do not have to prove who really did it.

And I still believe there is a reasonable chance that those who committed these crimes were other tourists who just calmly left the island the following morning.

Edited June 16, 2015 by JLCrab

[jimmybkk]

My memory is good.

I recall they planted bloody trousers

I recall they had the headmans family

I recall they announced it was the headmans family

I recall. They suddenly got promotions and transfers off the island when they realized they may have made a mistake w uncle sutheps family

Gee whiz, even they thought the coup meant something

I recall their faces when they announced it was the headmans family

I recall their faces when they said it wasn't

I recall they beat a taxi driver

Your memory is not good, it's also very selective.

"I recall they planted bloody trousers"

You don't recall that after being examined they were not bloody to begin with?

"I recall they had the headmans family"

"I recall they announced it was the headmans family"

You don't recall them being cleared of involvement? You know, like the many other suspects that came and went.

"I recall. They suddenly got promotions and transfers off the island when they realized they may have made a mistake w uncle sutheps family"

Suthep... So that's it, you are using this murders to take political potshots? How noble.

Suthep has nothing to do with this, and there was nothing sudden about the promotion of Panya Mamen, it was scheduled since before the murders. But don't let facts get on the way of your political agenda.

"I recall their faces when they announced it was the headmans family"

"I recall their faces when they said it wasn't"

Good for you, it's completely irrelevant to anything though.

"I recall they beat a taxi driver"

Yes, allegedly, and that was wrong, allegedly.

"...and there was nothing sudden about the promotion of Panya Mamen, it was scheduled since before the murders. But don't let facts get on the way of your political agenda."

That is a lie. It was never revealed anywhere that it was scheduled since before the murders, and neither you nor JD has ever proved that it was. However, now's your chance - either a link, or else if you are planning to suggest this news was released in a Thai language publication then simply provide the "directions" to exactly where it can be found, i.e. "sentence xxx... paragraph xxx.... page xxx... of publication xxxxxxxxx dated xx/xx/20xx..." We can do the rest.

Failure to provide such proof will clearly demonstrate that you are posting outright lies in support of your political agenda...

Oh, and by the way, you have never proved this in the past so please don't try one of your "I can't be bothered to look for the link again..." escapes. You've got away with too many of those already.

Can't wait to see the link. This is exciting...

[ScarpoFongness4U]

I recall that Nomsod was quoted in the past of using the name Uncle Suthep.

I'm not politically motivated.

I have sent marriage proposals to Yingluck though

Additionally,

Isn't the reason that Nomsod went to the monastery was because in Thailand you avoid prosecution that way?

[jimmybkk]

I have never said the guy you mention is innocent. I have just said that the rationale and evidence people want to use to implicate him is bullsh-t. Why the friends of the late Ms. Witheridege? Because as they were the friends of the late Ms. Witheridge and accompanied her that evening, they were most likely to notice something going amiss with the late Ms. Witheridge

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments about the rationale and evidence being used to implicate Nomsod, but do you not feel the same about the charges against the 2 Burmese lads? Nomsod's in the clear, and he's got what it takes to look after himself. The 2 Burmese lads do not.

Which friends of Ms Witheridge are you referring to? I have not read any reports that the confrontation occurred when Ms Witheridge was with her group of friends, and most CCTV of the later part of the evening shows her with the 2 guys (one I think was called Tom Bright?) and one other girl, but I have no idea if this girl was part of Hannah's original group of friends. So who are you expecting to reveal information about what went amiss? Maybe Hannah's friends have not revealed anything of what happened that night because they were not with her and simply do not know what happened.

However, there are apparently witnesses saying that Hannah was with David when the confrontation at AC Bar occurred, and David's friend Sean suggested that 3 guys from AC Bar were, in his opinion, the prime suspects... Hannah's friends are apparently saying nothing. David's friend has said something of interest. Why not focus on what has been said rather than search for answers in what has not been said?

[JLCrab]

From the above: However, there are apparently witnesses saying ... Good. The trial starts in 21 days. If they have sufficient substance the defense should call them as witnesses.

[jaidam]

From the above: However, there are apparently witnesses saying ... Good. The trial starts in 21 days. If they have sufficient substance the defense should call them as witnesses.

Let's hope you never find yourself in such a situation ie incarcerated in a prison wing and forced to grass on a popular prisoner, marooned on a small island and forced to grass on a local VIP. Of course, when you think about it logically, well, you wouldn't last as long as a mayfly would you? Looks, stares, whispers, verbal threats, threats to your wife and children, threats carried out, not good is it? Loose lips sink ships. What would the crab do? Same as eveyone else, eyes forward, mouth shut, don't attract attention.

[JLCrab]

I deal with lawyers ex-ThaiVisa on a daily basis. Government lawyers, private lawyers, NGO lawyers, etc. I choose my words very carefully. I sometimes take my hits but, as I am not a lawyer, I rarely say anything that I cannot back-up with quoted judicial text, statute, or the opinion of credible others.

... and I don't do islands.

Edited June 16, 2015 by JLCrab

[IslandLover]

I recall that Nomsod was quoted in the past of using the name Uncle Suthep.

I'm not politically motivated.

I have sent marriage proposals to Yingluck though

Additionally,

Isn't the reason that Nomsod went to the monastery was because in Thailand you avoid prosecution that way?

Isn't the reason that Nomsod went to the monastery was because in Thailand you avoid prosecution that way?

And atone for your sins ....

[boomerangutang]

I have never said the guy (Nomsod) you (jimmybkk) mention is innocent. I have just said that the rationale and evidence people want to use to implicate him is bullsh-t.

The evidence which could likely implicate NS is bull if you want it to be bull. However, for some us, there are indications of his involvement in the crime:

>>> Running Man CCTV, which not only many interested members of the public think is him, but also the first team of police investigators.

>>> Many of the islanders, many of NS's associates at the Bkk U, as well as many Thais and farang who are following this case - think he should at least be reinstated as a suspect. Perhaps every one of those tens of thousands of keen observers are wrong, but it's incumbent on investigators to do their jobs objectively and professionally.

>>> there are other implications, too many to list here. But anyone interested, can read through the many posts which detail why NS should not have been dropped as a prime suspect.

The only people who insist he's 100% innocent (whether they really believe it or not) are those who are shielding him and every other implicated person connected to the Headman. But, if NS was involved in the crime, he couldn't have done it solo. Perhaps the B2 or B3 were involved, perhaps Sean, ...but more likely NS's uncle and their friends. The police are paid by taxpayers to protect the general public: Thais, tourists, resident farang, everyone. By not doing their jobs, police are contributing to the endangerment of the public.

And as regards anether side-issue: Yes, it happens in Thailand, where people in the spotlight, implicated for grave crimes, have gone straight away to a wat - to don robes, get their heads shaved, and.... (pick as many of the following as may apply:

>>> give the impression they're now becoming pure in Buddha's good graces

>>> atonement for sins

>>> avoid the glare of the press corps

Former Thai prime ministers who fell afoul of the law have done it. Former political rabble-rousers have done it, and so have criminals running from justice.

[JLCrab]

Perhaps? Many of the islanders think? Running man may or may not be who you think he is? More Bulllsh-t, Boomer. Thanks. Trial starts in 21 days. I hope the defense has more going for them than what you repeatedly post.

Edited June 17, 2015 by JLCrab

[boomerangutang]

Perhaps? Many of the islanders think? Running man may or may not be who you think he is? More Bulllsh-t, Boomer. Thanks. Trial starts in 21 days. I hope the defense has more going for them than what you repeatedly post.

Again, you can believe what you want to believe. You can believe tomatos are poisonous (which early American colonists believed), if you so choose. Up to you.

Am quite sure the judge will (or try to) disallow any mention of NS or any other of the H's people from being discussed at the trial. It's already known that it's only the B2 on trial, and that any and all of the H's people are scot free of suspicion by Thai officialdom, along with a few of their supporters on this blog. Your boy is teflon coated. Be happy. He can't and won't ever again be officially implicated in the crime. Rejoice.

[JLCrab]

Perhaps? Many of the islanders think? Running man may or may not be who you think he is? More Bulllsh-t, Boomer. Thanks. Trial starts in 21 days. I hope the defense has more going for them than what you repeatedly post.

Again, you can believe what you want to believe. You can believe tomatos are poisonous (which early American colonists believed), if you so choose. Up to you.

Am quite sure the judge will (or try to) disallow any mention of NS or any other of the H's people from being discussed at the trial. It's already known that it's only the B2 on trial, and that any and all of the H's people are scot free of suspicion by Thai officialdom, along with a few of their supporters on this blog. Your boy is teflon coated. Be happy. He can't and won't ever again be officially implicated in the crime. Rejoice.

What is this H stuff? No Judge in the USA would allow into evidence any of the above either.

The Prosecution believes it has sufficient evidence and testimony to convict the 2 as accused. It is the Defense's job to show that such evidence and testimony does not meet the test of beyond a reasonable doubt. All the rest as of now is immaterial. And just about everything you choose to post is immaterial.

Edited June 17, 2015 by JLCrab

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Even if Nomsod was running man, so what?

In the US lying to the police is a crime,

If they didn't ask if it was him, because after his emergency haircut let's face it it didn't look like him as much anymore,but they may have went with Don't Ask Don't Tell with the boy,

especially if it was one of the head man's collection department that was actually the guilty party and porn um so I just got caught running on the video

[JLCrab]

The Prosecution claims to have testimony and evidence to convict the 2 as accused. If the Defense starts going off on a tangent claiming that someone else may have been responsible for committing those crimes, but does not have the evidence to overwhelmingly prove such a claim, then all that becomes an admittance by the Defense that the do not have sufficient means to counter-attack the direct testimony and evidence as presented by the Prosecution.

Chat room is over. It's trial time coming up.

Edited June 17, 2015 by JLCrab

[AleG]

My memory is good.

I recall they planted bloody trousers

I recall they had the headmans family

I recall they announced it was the headmans family

I recall. They suddenly got promotions and transfers off the island when they realized they may have made a mistake w uncle sutheps family

Gee whiz, even they thought the coup meant something

I recall their faces when they announced it was the headmans family

I recall their faces when they said it wasn't

I recall they beat a taxi driver

Your memory is not good, it's also very selective.

"I recall they planted bloody trousers"

You don't recall that after being examined they were not bloody to begin with?

"I recall they had the headmans family"

"I recall they announced it was the headmans family"

You don't recall them being cleared of involvement? You know, like the many other suspects that came and went.

"I recall. They suddenly got promotions and transfers off the island when they realized they may have made a mistake w uncle sutheps family"

Suthep... So that's it, you are using this murders to take political potshots? How noble.

Suthep has nothing to do with this, and there was nothing sudden about the promotion of Panya Mamen, it was scheduled since before the murders. But don't let facts get on the way of your political agenda.

"I recall their faces when they announced it was the headmans family"

"I recall their faces when they said it wasn't"

Good for you, it's completely irrelevant to anything though.

"I recall they beat a taxi driver"

Yes, allegedly, and that was wrong, allegedly.

"...and there was nothing sudden about the promotion of Panya Mamen, it was scheduled since before the murders. But don't let facts get on the way of your political agenda."

That is a lie. It was never revealed anywhere that it was scheduled since before the murders, and neither you nor JD has ever proved that it was. However, now's your chance - either a link, or else if you are planning to suggest this news was released in a Thai language publication then simply provide the "directions" to exactly where it can be found, i.e. "sentence xxx... paragraph xxx.... page xxx... of publication xxxxxxxxx dated xx/xx/20xx..." We can do the rest.

Failure to provide such proof will clearly demonstrate that you are posting outright lies in support of your political agenda...

Oh, and by the way, you have never proved this in the past so please don't try one of your "I can't be bothered to look for the link again..." escapes. You've got away with too many of those already.

Can't wait to see the link. This is exciting...

My "political agenda"? Wow, some people really live in a world of their own.

Gen Patchara's appointment is one of a slew of changes taking place at top provincial and regional levels at midnight tonight (September 30).

Lt Gen Panya Mamen, Commissioner of Police Region 8, is promoted to Assistant Commissioner General of the Royal Thai Police in Bangkok.

He is replaced by Maj Gen Decha Budnampeth, Deputy Commissioner of the Central Investigation Bureau, and a former provincial police cheif in Phuket. (2006-2008)

Maj Gen Paween Pongsirin, Commander of the Region 8 General Staff Division and the head of the current mafia investigations in Phuket, is promoted to be Deputy Commissioner of Police Region 8.

Maj Gen Smith Mukdasanit, Pathum Thani Provincial Police Commander, takes his place.

Maj Gen Krajang Suwannarat, acting commender of Phuket Provincial Police, returned to his post as Region 8 Deputy Commissioner yesterday (September 29). He is due to retire in a year's time.

Once these officers have settled into their new posts, other promotions and movements may take place in the Phuket provincial police ranks.

Panya's promotion was part of a general reshuffle of police positions at the end of September, he was not the only one getting a promotion or transfer.

Now how about you provide support to the idea that he was moved to affect the course of the investigation? Do keep in mind he was the one that announced the arrests the day before the two Burmese men were detained.

[boomerangutang]

The Prosecution claims to have testimony and evidence to convict the 2 as accused. If the Defense starts going off on a tangent claiming that someone else may have been responsible for committing those crimes, but does not have the evidence to overwhelmingly prove such a claim, then all that becomes an admittance by the Defense that the do not have sufficient means to counter-attack the direct testimony and evidence as presented by the Prosecution.

Chat room is over. It's trial time coming up.

We agree. The defense won't be allowed to go off on that tangent (submit evidence that someone else may have done the crime) - for several reasons:

>>> it would trigger the full weight of Thai officialdom to squelch that assertion.

>>> only the Burmese scapegoats migrants are defendants.

>>> The prosecution worked with the RTP faux detectives for months, trying to amass as much faux evidence to convict the B2 as possible. They even passed continually edited drafts back and forth. Of course they don't want any diversionary crap to get in the way, like evidence which may implicate others in the crime. Their motto is: "Stick with the plan. don't waver. Don't consider any data which implicates any of the Headman's people. Only put forth data which might find the B2 guilty. All else is counter to what the top brass want."

This isn't about justice or truth. We know what it's about. Since you like movies so much, may I suggest watching Liar, Liar - starring Jim Carrey.

>>>