Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[sartoric]

Yes, Panya's promotion was announced as part of the annual reshuffle.

Given he was the lead investigator in a serious crime that attracted international attention, wouldn't a prudent senior management have wanted him to continue the investigation ?

Or, was that inconvenient ....money having changed hands ?

[JLCrab]

This is about Thailand. That's what happens when you pass through immigration. Jim Carrey sucks.

[AleG]

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.

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.

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

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.... .

You accuse me of showing no sympathy for the families of the victims, on the basis that you, who have me on your "Ignore" list have not seen me expressing sympathy for them. You don't see the problem with that? I'll spell it out for you, prejudice.

For what is worth I not only have expressed sympathy for them, I've put my money were my mouth is and contributed to their funds to attend the trials.

You were saying something about not being able to have a honest debate a couple posts ago, didn't you?

Well, let's see:

"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."

You deliberately removed from my post the quote from the family were they made that request, here it is again:

"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."

Very rich of you to ask for a honest debate and at the same time altering what others write so that you can then make claims that contradict what was written.

"*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"

The answer to that is that is that your argument is based, again, on prejudice, not logic.

[AleG]

Yes, Panya's promotion was announced as part of the annual reshuffle.

Given he was the lead investigator in a serious crime that attracted international attention, wouldn't a prudent senior management have wanted him to continue the investigation ?

Or, was that inconvenient ....money having changed hands ?

This is the thing with conspiracy theories, always ask tendentious questions, never seek to actually answer them.

[sartoric]

Yes, Panya's promotion was announced as part of the annual reshuffle.

Given he was the lead investigator in a serious crime that attracted international attention, wouldn't a prudent senior management have wanted him to continue the investigation ?

Or, was that inconvenient ....money having changed hands ?

This is the thing with conspiracy theories, always ask tendentious questions, never seek to actually answer them.

This case calls for tendentious questions, the botched investigation, the unreliable DNA "evidence", the dubious alibis. I could go on.

What questions should we seek to answer ?

[AleG]

Yes, Panya's promotion was announced as part of the annual reshuffle.

Given he was the lead investigator in a serious crime that attracted international attention, wouldn't a prudent senior management have wanted him to continue the investigation ?

Or, was that inconvenient ....money having changed hands ?

This is the thing with conspiracy theories, always ask tendentious questions, never seek to actually answer them.

This case calls for tendentious questions, the botched investigation, the unreliable DNA "evidence", the dubious alibis. I could go on.

What questions should we seek to answer ?

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

[sartoric]

Yes, Panya's promotion was announced as part of the annual reshuffle.

Given he was the lead investigator in a serious crime that attracted international attention, wouldn't a prudent senior management have wanted him to continue the investigation ?

Or, was that inconvenient ....money having changed hands ?

This is the thing with conspiracy theories, always ask tendentious questions, never seek to actually answer them.

This case calls for tendentious questions, the botched investigation, the unreliable DNA "evidence", the dubious alibis. I could go on.

What questions should we seek to answer ?

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

Yes of course, bank records would help here. I guess those are unavailable too.

[AleG]

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

"Aleg attention to detail is wavering,"

Yes, how so?

How does being told, on the night of the murder (that happened near dawn), that the employee had helped clean blood off McAnna (at an unspecified time) contradict McAnna's account that event happened before the murders?

[AleG]

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

Yes of course, bank records would help here. I guess those are unavailable too.

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

[thailandchilli]

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

Yes of course, bank records would help here. I guess those are unavailable too.

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

Baseless accusations?

Has money changed hands to alter the course of the investigation? Nobody has proof of that but there is enough concern documented in the investigation that it may have and so of course those sorts of questions can legitimately be asked and talked about. Unless of course you believe the RTP hook line and sinker. Fortunately most people do not and thats only one of the reasons the FCO cited the concerns on corruption in this case.

[sartoric]

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

Yes of course, bank records would help here. I guess those are unavailable too.

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

In a transparent and fair trial with a proper investigation, those avenues would have been pursued. Neither a transparent or fair trial is likely in this case. Why is that ?

[AleG]

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

Baseless accusations?

Has money changed hands to alter the course of the investigation? Nobody has proof of that but there is enough concern documented in the investigation that it may have and so of course those sorts of questions can legitimately be asked and talked about. Unless of course you believe the RTP hook line and sinker. Fortunately most people do not and thats only one of the reasons the FCO cited the concerns on corruption in this case.

Yes, baseless accusations, you said so yourself "Nobody has proof of that".

The FCO cited concerns over allegations of corruption:

"we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption"

You forgot the "allegations" part, and I don't think it was an oversight.

The FCO echoed the allegations of corruption some people have made, so you are using circular logic here; some people make allegations of corruption, the FCO mentions those allegations and then, possibly the same people that made the allegations in the first place, use that as validation to lend support to their allegations.

Circular logic, simple, comforting, wrong.

[AleG]

Yes, baseless accusations, you said so yourself "Nobody has proof of that".

The FCO cited concerns over allegations of corruption:

"we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption"

You forgot the "allegations" part, and I don't think it was an oversight.

The FCO echoed the allegations of corruption some people have made, so you are using circular logic here; some people make allegations of corruption, the FCO mentions those allegations and then, possibly the same people that made the allegations in the first place, use that as validation to lend support to their allegations.

Circular logic, simple, comforting, wrong.

Get a life AleG

I already have one, and that has nothing to do with what you replied to.

[jdinasia]

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

Baseless accusations?

Has money changed hands to alter the course of the investigation? Nobody has proof of that but there is enough concern documented in the investigation that it may have and so of course those sorts of questions can legitimately be asked and talked about. Unless of course you believe the RTP hook line and sinker. Fortunately most people do not and thats only one of the reasons the FCO cited the concerns on corruption in this case.

Yes, baseless accusations, you said so yourself "Nobody has proof of that".

The FCO cited concerns over allegations of corruption:

"we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption"

You forgot the "allegations" part, and I don't think it was an oversight.

The FCO echoed the allegations of corruption some people have made, so you are using circular logic here; some people make allegations of corruption, the FCO mentions those allegations and then, possibly the same people that made the allegations in the first place, use that as validation to lend support to their allegations.

Circular logic, simple, comforting, wrong.

Get a life AleG

Answer me one question AleG, if it were your kid who got their head bashed in, would you be happy with the way the case has been handled..?...Now be honest.......

The families have made a public statement via the FCO.

They indicated that there's more to the investigation than you know. They indicated that the trial should proceed. They asked directly that public speculation stop.

That's what we know.

[Linky]

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

Baseless accusations?

Has money changed hands to alter the course of the investigation? Nobody has proof of that but there is enough concern documented in the investigation that it may have and so of course those sorts of questions can legitimately be asked and talked about. Unless of course you believe the RTP hook line and sinker. Fortunately most people do not and thats only one of the reasons the FCO cited the concerns on corruption in this case.

Yes, baseless accusations, you said so yourself "Nobody has proof of that".

The FCO cited concerns over allegations of corruption:

"we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption"

You forgot the "allegations" part, and I don't think it was an oversight.

The FCO echoed the allegations of corruption some people have made, so you are using circular logic here; some people make allegations of corruption, the FCO mentions those allegations and then, possibly the same people that made the allegations in the first place, use that as validation to lend support to their allegations.

Circular logic, simple, comforting, wrong.

Get a life AleG

Answer me one question AleG, if it were your kid who got their head bashed in, would you be happy with the way the case has been handled..?...Now be honest.......

The families have made a public statement via the FCO.

They indicated that there's more to the investigation than you know. They indicated that the trial should proceed. They asked directly that public speculation stop.

That's what we know.

Well in fairness they were told what the RTP has told them. Its what they haven't been told that concerns me.

It also seems to concern the RTP and the Judge as they are making it ectremely difficult to actually ontain the evidence.

Funny how the victims parents have been told certain things but defence have not.

[Jai Dee]

Several posts containing defamation and a flame post have been removed from this thread.

[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.

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.

Why would you think a situation as the above is any more likely to happen to me than to yourself?

[thailandchilli]

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

Baseless accusations?

Has money changed hands to alter the course of the investigation? Nobody has proof of that but there is enough concern documented in the investigation that it may have and so of course those sorts of questions can legitimately be asked and talked about. Unless of course you believe the RTP hook line and sinker. Fortunately most people do not and thats only one of the reasons the FCO cited the concerns on corruption in this case.

Yes, baseless accusations, you said so yourself "Nobody has proof of that".

The FCO cited concerns over allegations of corruption:

"we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption"

You forgot the "allegations" part, and I don't think it was an oversight.

The FCO echoed the allegations of corruption some people have made, so you are using circular logic here; some people make allegations of corruption, the FCO mentions those allegations and then, possibly the same people that made the allegations in the first place, use that as validation to lend support to their allegations.

Circular logic, simple, comforting, wrong.

The FCO citied concerns raised, the FCO will not publish those concerns publicly unless it feels they need investigating, have they been independently investigated? No, so questions remain whether you like it or not. Thats the reality, its not all dusted and wrapped up just yet AleG as much as you would like it to be.

Be as pedantic as you wish on the wording and carry on your conspiracy to try and silence anyone with legitimate questions in an open chatroom about the investigation and the B2 receiving a fair trial.

[jdinasia]

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

Baseless accusations?

Has money changed hands to alter the course of the investigation? Nobody has proof of that but there is enough concern documented in the investigation that it may have and so of course those sorts of questions can legitimately be asked and talked about. Unless of course you believe the RTP hook line and sinker. Fortunately most people do not and thats only one of the reasons the FCO cited the concerns on corruption in this case.

Yes, baseless accusations, you said so yourself "Nobody has proof of that".

The FCO cited concerns over allegations of corruption:

"we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption"

You forgot the "allegations" part, and I don't think it was an oversight.

The FCO echoed the allegations of corruption some people have made, so you are using circular logic here; some people make allegations of corruption, the FCO mentions those allegations and then, possibly the same people that made the allegations in the first place, use that as validation to lend support to their allegations.

Circular logic, simple, comforting, wrong.

Get a life AleG

Answer me one question AleG, if it were your kid who got their head bashed in, would you be happy with the way the case has been handled..?...Now be honest.......

The families have made a public statement via the FCO.

They indicated that there's more to the investigation than you know. They indicated that the trial should proceed. They asked directly that public speculation stop.

That's what we know.

Well in fairness they were told what the RTP has told them. Its what they haven't been told that concerns me.

It also seems to concern the RTP and the Judge as they are making it ectremely difficult to actually ontain the evidence.

Funny how the victims parents have been told certain things but defence have not.

No.

In fairness they were told what the UK police told them, plus whatever else that they learned from the people who were traveling with their kids.

We don't know that they were told anything different than the defense.

The discovery process in Thailand is a no-way street.

[boomerangutang]

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

Yes of course, bank records would help here. I guess those are unavailable too.

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

There are other ways to transfer valuables, than simply giving cash. Even a 5 year old can figure that out: if he had to pay for something clandestinely. There are gifts, there are favors, there are deferred payments (sometimes predicated on a desired result). If this case were being persued objectively by professional and smart authorities, some attention would be put toward things like "who just got unusually rich?" 'who just got increasingly loose with their spending habits?' 'who just bought and gave away something valuable'.....as well the old fashioned peeks at peoples' bank accounts - both givers and takers. But again, a savvy wheeler-dealer is not going to do a pay-off as blatantly as transferring cash from his own bank account to the person he's influencing. Indeed, mafia-wannabes nearly always deal in cash and gifts - almost never in anything which can be traced to a name.

I asked one of my Thai friends how she would bribe a VIP if need be. She said "simple. Just put the cash in an envelope, slip the envelope in a nice hardback picture book. Then, near the end of a conversation with the person you're bribing, just gently slide the book toward that person and say something like, 'a little gift for your daughter.'"

[jdinasia]

So, bank records don't matter?

With that reasoning would phone records matter?

I like watching people tear down their own earlier arguments

[JLCrab]

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

Yes of course, bank records would help here. I guess those are unavailable too.

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

There are other ways to transfer valuables, than simply giving cash. Even a 5 year old can figure that out: if he had to pay for something clandestinely. There are gifts, there are favors, there are deferred payments (sometimes predicated on a desired result). If this case were being persued objectively by professional and smart authorities, some attention would be put toward things like "who just got unusually rich?" 'who just got increasingly loose with their spending habits?' 'who just bought and gave away something valuable'.....as well the old fashioned peeks at peoples' bank accounts - both givers and takers. But again, a savvy wheeler-dealer is not going to do a pay-off as blatantly as transferring cash from his own bank account to the person he's influencing. Indeed, mafia-wannabes nearly always deal in cash and gifts - almost never in anything which can be traced to a name.

I asked one of my Thai friends how she would bribe a VIP if need be. She said "simple. Just put the cash in an envelope, slip the envelope in a nice hardback picture book. Then, near the end of a conversation with the person you're bribing, just gently slide the book toward that person and say something like, 'a little gift for your daughter.'"

So if no one got unusually rich by any outward appearance, that which just mean that they were smart enough to stick the cash in a safe non-bank place until after the trial, huh?

[boomerangutang]

The discovery process in Thailand is a no-way street.

What does that mean - there is no discovery process?

[AleG]

Yes, baseless accusations, you said so yourself "Nobody has proof of that".

The FCO cited concerns over allegations of corruption:

"we are very concerned by the allegations of corruption"

You forgot the "allegations" part, and I don't think it was an oversight.

The FCO echoed the allegations of corruption some people have made, so you are using circular logic here; some people make allegations of corruption, the FCO mentions those allegations and then, possibly the same people that made the allegations in the first place, use that as validation to lend support to their allegations.

Circular logic, simple, comforting, wrong.

The FCO citied concerns raised, the FCO will not publish those concerns publicly unless it feels they need investigating, have they been independently investigated? No, so questions remain whether you like it or not. Thats the reality, its not all dusted and wrapped up just yet AleG as much as you would like it to be.

Be as pedantic as you wish on the wording and carry on your conspiracy to try and silence anyone with legitimate questions in an open chatroom about the investigation and the B2 receiving a fair trial.

My conspiracy to silence people?

No words for that but

[boomerangutang]

There are other ways to transfer valuables, than simply giving cash. Even a 5 year old can figure that out: if he had to pay for something clandestinely. There are gifts, there are favors, there are deferred payments (sometimes predicated on a desired result). If this case were being persued objectively by professional and smart authorities, some attention would be put toward things like "who just got unusually rich?" 'who just got increasingly loose with their spending habits?' 'who just bought and gave away something valuable'.....as well the old fashioned peeks at peoples' bank accounts - both givers and takers. But again, a savvy wheeler-dealer is not going to do a pay-off as blatantly as transferring cash from his own bank account to the person he's influencing. Indeed, mafia-wannabes nearly always deal in cash and gifts - almost never in anything which can be traced to a name.

I asked one of my Thai friends how she would bribe a VIP if need be. She said "simple. Just put the cash in an envelope, slip the envelope in a nice hardback picture book. Then, near the end of a conversation with the person you're bribing, just gently slide the book toward that person and say something like, 'a little gift for your daughter.'"

So if no one got unusually rich by any outward appearance, that which just mean that they were smart enough to stick the cash in a safe non-bank place until after the trial, huh?

That's what I mean. It's difficult to gauge whether one person has bribed another, because it's so easy to be clandestine about it. In Thailand, even if someone is caught with more moolah than would be expected, all that person has to say is, "Oh, I won it on betting on bull races" or some other silliness like that, and authorities will just wink and split. It's only rarely that anyone gets called on the carpet about bribes, like when Thaksin's attorney got caught bringing a donut box full of cash to a judge's office. It wasn't the judge who made noise about that, it was his secretary who opened the box by mistake, before the box got to the judge. There were other people in the room when the secretary opened the box, so she was probably compelled to speak up. Of course, immediately, Thaksin's attorney said it was a mistake and he brought the wrong box to the judge's office. Harkens back to that movie: Liar Liar, where the lawyer is compelled by a magic spell to speak the truth for 24 hours, and it drives him completely batshit. Very funny movie.

In a similar vein, I knew a Thai woman who's brother could never get promoted to higher ranks in the Chiang Mai police force. Reason: he refused to pay his way up the ladder.

[007cableguy]

So, bank records don't matter?

With that reasoning would phone records matter?

I like watching people tear down their own earlier arguments

Are you in the real world?......... Phone records would go a long way to solving this case by competent investigators!

[AleG]

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

There are other ways to transfer valuables, than simply giving cash. Even a 5 year old can figure that out: if he had to pay for something clandestinely. There are gifts, there are favors, there are deferred payments (sometimes predicated on a desired result). If this case were being persued objectively by professional and smart authorities, some attention would be put toward things like "who just got unusually rich?" 'who just got increasingly loose with their spending habits?' 'who just bought and gave away something valuable'.....as well the old fashioned peeks at peoples' bank accounts - both givers and takers. But again, a savvy wheeler-dealer is not going to do a pay-off as blatantly as transferring cash from his own bank account to the person he's influencing. Indeed, mafia-wannabes nearly always deal in cash and gifts - almost never in anything which can be traced to a name.

I asked one of my Thai friends how she would bribe a VIP if need be. She said "simple. Just put the cash in an envelope, slip the envelope in a nice hardback picture book. Then, near the end of a conversation with the person you're bribing, just gently slide the book toward that person and say something like, 'a little gift for your daughter.'"

Just because you can come up with some imaginary scenario it doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality, you just skipped the if, the who, the why and went straight into the (theoretical) how.

[JLCrab]

You can start with your own question of whether money changed hands to change the course of the investigation.

Yes of course, bank records would help here. I guess those are unavailable too.

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

There are other ways to transfer valuables, than simply giving cash. Even a 5 year old can figure that out: if he had to pay for something clandestinely. There are gifts, there are favors, there are deferred payments (sometimes predicated on a desired result). If this case were being persued objectively by professional and smart authorities, some attention would be put toward things like "who just got unusually rich?" 'who just got increasingly loose with their spending habits?' 'who just bought and gave away something valuable'.....as well the old fashioned peeks at peoples' bank accounts - both givers and takers. But again, a savvy wheeler-dealer is not going to do a pay-off as blatantly as transferring cash from his own bank account to the person he's influencing. Indeed, mafia-wannabes nearly always deal in cash and gifts - almost never in anything which can be traced to a name.

I asked one of my Thai friends how she would bribe a VIP if need be. She said "simple. Just put the cash in an envelope, slip the envelope in a nice hardback picture book. Then, near the end of a conversation with the person you're bribing, just gently slide the book toward that person and say something like, 'a little gift for your daughter.'"

From the above: I asked one of my Thai friends how she would bribe a VIP if need be ... I guess maybe she didn't have the goods to say: I'd screw him all night in a manner the guy would never forget.

[jdinasia]

So, bank records don't matter?

With that reasoning would phone records matter?

I like watching people tear down their own earlier arguments

Are you in the real world?......... Phone records would go a long way to solving this case by competent investigators!

Why would a person the conspiracy theorists think is smart enough to hide money, use a phone associated with themselves?

[boomerangutang]

So baseless accusations then, just assume there's something fishy going on and work your way from there.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

There are other ways to transfer valuables, than simply giving cash. Even a 5 year old can figure that out: if he had to pay for something clandestinely. There are gifts, there are favors, there are deferred payments (sometimes predicated on a desired result). If this case were being persued objectively by professional and smart authorities, some attention would be put toward things like "who just got unusually rich?" 'who just got increasingly loose with their spending habits?' 'who just bought and gave away something valuable'.....as well the old fashioned peeks at peoples' bank accounts - both givers and takers. But again, a savvy wheeler-dealer is not going to do a pay-off as blatantly as transferring cash from his own bank account to the person he's influencing. Indeed, mafia-wannabes nearly always deal in cash and gifts - almost never in anything which can be traced to a name.

I asked one of my Thai friends how she would bribe a VIP if need be. She said "simple. Just put the cash in an envelope, slip the envelope in a nice hardback picture book. Then, near the end of a conversation with the person you're bribing, just gently slide the book toward that person and say something like, 'a little gift for your daughter.'"

Just because you can come up with some imaginary scenario it doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality, you just skipped the if, the who, the why and went straight into the (theoretical) how.

So, you don't like the scenarios I paint? Awww, I'm crushed. Or maybe you don't like me sharing personal recollections of conversations I've had with Thai friends? BTW, what about your scenario, with Mon and his cop friend pursuing Sean, in order to shore up the bastions of justice. Was that a joke?

Here's a clue: When crime investigators are on a case, they'd do well to use their brain cells. Part of that process is to think up possible scenarios, and then go looking for leads and/or evidence. The other side of that, is to look for clues and evidence and pertinent things certain 'people of interest' say - and then pursue those leads. I know it's a lot easier to be a Thai-style investigator who just hears what his superior officier wants to find, and then put on the blinders and looks only for clues which point to what the boss wants.

It's good that RTP investigators don't work under me, because I'd have them crying for mercy after a half day. They'd be pleading with me not to make them work or think so hard. They'd be banding together - trying to find ways to bring their prior superior officer back. The one who allowed them to lounge around all day, doing practically nothing. Who allowed them to put their brains on standby, without a creative thought. Some types of people much prefer to have a boss who just tells them what to do: connect Dot A with Dots B & C, and don't think about any other dots.