Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[JLCrab]

So the Royal Thai Police and the Thai Judicial Court system are 'unprofessional'. Thank you

[catsanddogs]

Unless I'm mistaken, all the evidence against the 2 Burmese lads that has been made public was revealed within a few days of their arrest: Their proximity to the crime scene, the CCTV footage, the DNA evidence, the confessions, reports of mobile phones being found etc. etc... And yet since then over 100,000 people were sufficiently dissatisfied with the RTP investigation of the murders and the results of their investigations that they put their names to a petition that was delivered to Downing Street appealing for the UK government to conduct their own independent investigation.

On top of that there are over 400,000 people, mostly Thais, who have shown their support for the CSILA Facebook page which also questions the RTP investigation. 400,000 is a huge number, especially considering it is for the most part a Thai language website with a Thai following who are not voicing their concerns about an injustice being carried out to a fellow Thai, but are expressing their dissatisfaction with the investigation into the murder of 2 Brits and the subsequent prosecution of 2 Burmese, which I think is probably quite unusual and definitely highly commendable.

So that's around half a million people who are aware of the DNA evidence, the confessions, the mobile phones etc. and who still don't believe that the 2 Burmese lads are the real killers.

My question to AleG is this: What evidence are you aware of, that half a million of us are unaware of, that leads you to the conclusion that these 2 Burmese lads are guilty?

Or are you simply barking mad?

Good post. Barking mad or shielding bad?

[JLCrab]

There are also a lot of people who think the B2 didn't do it because they think they know who did do it. However there TTBOMK is not one person among her friends now in UK who was with the deceased Ms. Witheridge that evening who has come forward publicly and said or produced a phone-shot that they ever saw that person even in the vicinity of the late victim or that he ever even met her.

[berybert]

There are also a lot of people who think the B2 didn't do it because they think they know who did do it. However there TTBOMK is not one person among her friends now in UK who was with the deceased Ms. Witheridge that evening who has come forward publicly and said or produced a phone-shot that they ever saw that person even in the vicinity of the late victim or that he ever even met her.

The only thing I could understand in this post is TTBOMK and I have no idea what that means.

Well done on the most ridukulas post ever.

Spelt that way as you might understand it.

Just as a point how long had the two murdered people been on the island ? 1 day maybe two. Crab go to a bar you have never been in before tomorrow and the day after I will show you pictures of every person who was in that bar at the same time you were. I will bet you wouldn't recognize 3 or 4 of them. But you expect Hannah's friends to know and have taken pictures of each person who was in that bar on that night ?

Or any bars they didn't go into.

Edited June 3, 2015 by berybert

[JLCrab]

There are also a lot of people who think the B2 didn't do it because they think they know who did do it. However there TTBOMK is not one person among her friends now in UK who was with the deceased Ms. Witheridge that evening who has come forward publicly and said or produced a phone-shot that they ever saw that person even in the vicinity of the late victim or that he ever even met her.

The only thing I could understand in this post is TTBOMK and I have no idea what that means.

Well done on the most ridukulas post ever.

Spelt that way as you might understand it.

TTBOMK = To the best of my knowledge. Thank you -- from you I consider that a compliment.

[JLCrab]

I said 'publicly' which also includes any interviews with the British tabloid press.

[AleG]

All that you've said is on record and you have been proven (again) to have no credibility whatsoever.

Coming from you, it's heartening, because you reply most vehemently to the posts (by whomever) which ring the most true and which specify how the RTP investigation purposefully tries to shield the millionaire H's people while concurrently nail the impoverished scapegoats. The squeaky wheel gets the most oil. In sum: if I get a raging response from you or JD, then I know I've hit a nerve of truth.

You've been caught (again) peddling BS and can't face it, hence you run back into your make-believe happy place were being shown to be wrong is in fact proof of being right.

Utterly pathetic.

A better definition of 'pathetic', is a poster who is flummoxed, off topic, plays lose with truth, and can only respond to a post with name-calling.

You know, projecting your misbeheaviours on me doesn't make you look any better.

[fritzzz25]

Oh to be a fly on the wall in the homes of a few posters on here. One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise. Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice. Once the evidence is passed on to the prosecution, the investigation of the police is done.

I have conducted interviews with suspects, and NEVER did I ever do it without being on a video camera with a back up audio device. Why? So I can have the courts, the prosecutor and the defence counsel SEE that NO threats or inducements were made to the suspect. Without FULL disclosure of evidence, a prosecution is one sided and unjust. And now, the presiding judge has backtracked and says that the defence will not get access to evidence and exhibits until the start of the trial reeks of injustice. But, we have seen a few posters here who believe that these two men are guilty and the trial has not even started.

This investigation was truly difficult. It was a crime scene that was in a location that evidence was extremely perishable. However, the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder was extremely biased. And, the PM must have just forgot of the young girl raped, murdered and thrown from a moving train by a THAI man, not that long before this crime.

[AleG]

Oh to be a fly on the wall in the homes of a few posters on here. One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise. Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice. Once the evidence is passed on to the prosecution, the investigation of the police is done.

I have conducted interviews with suspects, and NEVER did I ever do it without being on a video camera with a back up audio device. Why? So I can have the courts, the prosecutor and the defence counsel SEE that NO threats or inducements were made to the suspect. Without FULL disclosure of evidence, a prosecution is one sided and unjust. And now, the presiding judge has backtracked and says that the defence will not get access to evidence and exhibits until the start of the trial reeks of injustice. But, we have seen a few posters here who believe that these two men are guilty and the trial has not even started.

This investigation was truly difficult. It was a crime scene that was in a location that evidence was extremely perishable. However, the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder was extremely biased. And, the PM must have just forgot of the young girl raped, murdered and thrown from a moving train by a THAI man, not that long before this crime.

Ah yes, a paragon of impartiality and non prejudice, you say so so it must be true...

"One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise."

No partiality or prejudice there, nope, not at all.

But let's give you another chance to prove you really live up to your own standards:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

Yes, FACTS, impartially and without prejudice, FACTS above all. Good stuff.

"the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder"

The PM didn't say that...

So, tell me, why instead of arguing FACTS impartially and without prejudice you make up demeaning scenarios about other people instead of addressing the arguments they present?

You jumped right in to defend Boomerangutang spreading falsehoods (as usual), did you question his "FACTS", lack of partiality or prejudiced views? You could have used your self professed expertise and credentials to prove him right, did you do that or went straight away to the personal attacks? The second, obviously; because you couldn't do the first.

But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS.

[fritzzz25]

Oh to be a fly on the wall in the homes of a few posters on here. One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise. Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice. Once the evidence is passed on to the prosecution, the investigation of the police is done.

I have conducted interviews with suspects, and NEVER did I ever do it without being on a video camera with a back up audio device. Why? So I can have the courts, the prosecutor and the defence counsel SEE that NO threats or inducements were made to the suspect. Without FULL disclosure of evidence, a prosecution is one sided and unjust. And now, the presiding judge has backtracked and says that the defence will not get access to evidence and exhibits until the start of the trial reeks of injustice. But, we have seen a few posters here who believe that these two men are guilty and the trial has not even started.

This investigation was truly difficult. It was a crime scene that was in a location that evidence was extremely perishable. However, the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder was extremely biased. And, the PM must have just forgot of the young girl raped, murdered and thrown from a moving train by a THAI man, not that long before this crime.

Ah yes, a paragon of impartiality and non prejudice, you say so so it must be true...

"One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise."

No partiality or prejudice there, nope, not at all.

But let's give you another chance to prove you really live up to your own standards:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

Yes, FACTS, impartially and without prejudice, FACTS above all. Good stuff.

"the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder"

The PM didn't say that...

So, tell me, why instead of arguing FACTS impartially and without prejudice you make up demeaning scenarios about other people instead of addressing the arguments they present?

You jumped right in to defend Boomerangutang spreading falsehoods (as usual), did you question his "FACTS", lack of partiality or prejudiced views? You could have used your self professed expertise and credentials to prove him right, did you do that or went straight away to the personal attacks? The second, obviously; because you couldn't do the first.

But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS.

AleG, you are really worked up over this matter. I am wondering if you have built your own wiki on this so you can make sure you quote who said what on here to immediately throw it back. You seem to go on the offensive over everything said here. As I said, it is unfortunate that we have people who have no compassion for the victims in this mater or the suspects. Remember that the rule of law in most countries that suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

And I can't be bothered with wasting my time to go search back to who said what. There has been every spin thrown at this investigation and MY opinion is that it was terribly done. I guess we will have to wait and see if the "legal" system agrees (because I really do not believe there is a justice system in this country based on trials I have read). What I do know that is that basic crime scene security and evidence collection was not done on this scene. I would have more faith in a group of pre-schoolers conducting the crime scene investigation than these officers.

Happy flying!

[phuketandsee]

Having kept up with most of the threads and news on this topic since the tragic event, in my experience boomerangutang is one of the best informed members on this subject and he (I assume he is a he) has documented every twist and turn over the months. Might I suggest AleG (and others) refrain from all the abuse until you can demonstrate a similar understanding. You talk a lot about "facts" but have provided few yourself. I understand facts are hard enough to come by in Thailand let alone in this case, but IMHO boomer has done a stand-up job in keeping us informed and keeping focus on the right places and I would like to thank him for his endeavors.

[JLCrab]

So if 'running man' is the person that Boomer, on the previous page, presumably assumes he is, at least publicly not one of the late Ms. Witheridge's friends who were with her that evening has stated that they saw that person in the company of or talking with let alone seeing him hustling and being rejected by their friend and that the nebulous 'running man' video (with the bent elbow, etc.) would be the only record that such person was there on the island the evening in question.

[AleG]

Ah yes, a paragon of impartiality and non prejudice, you say so so it must be true...

"One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise."

No partiality or prejudice there, nope, not at all.

But let's give you another chance to prove you really live up to your own standards:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

Yes, FACTS, impartially and without prejudice, FACTS above all. Good stuff.

"the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder"

The PM didn't say that...

So, tell me, why instead of arguing FACTS impartially and without prejudice you make up demeaning scenarios about other people instead of addressing the arguments they present?

You jumped right in to defend Boomerangutang spreading falsehoods (as usual), did you question his "FACTS", lack of partiality or prejudiced views? You could have used your self professed expertise and credentials to prove him right, did you do that or went straight away to the personal attacks? The second, obviously; because you couldn't do the first.

But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS.

AleG, you are really worked up over this matter. I am wondering if you have built your own wiki on this so you can make sure you quote who said what on here to immediately throw it back. You seem to go on the offensive over everything said here. As I said, it is unfortunate that we have people who have no compassion for the victims in this mater or the suspects. Remember that the rule of law in most countries that suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

And I can't be bothered with wasting my time to go search back to who said what. There has been every spin thrown at this investigation and MY opinion is that it was terribly done. I guess we will have to wait and see if the "legal" system agrees (because I really do not believe there is a justice system in this country based on trials I have read). What I do know that is that basic crime scene security and evidence collection was not done on this scene. I would have more faith in a group of pre-schoolers conducting the crime scene investigation than these officers.

Happy flying!

Why should I be worked out?, it's not me the one failing miserably at upholding some self professed ethical and intellectual standards.

You go from:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

To:

"I can't be bothered with wasting my time to go search back to who said what."

Is there anything else to say to that than ?

[AleG]

Having kept up with most of the threads and news on this topic since the tragic event, in my experience boomerangutang is one of the best informed members on this subject and he (I assume he is a he) has documented every twist and turn over the months. Might I suggest AleG (and others) refrain from all the abuse until you can demonstrate a similar understanding. You talk a lot about "facts" but have provided few yourself. I understand facts are hard enough to come by in Thailand let alone in this case, but IMHO boomer has done a stand-up job in keeping us informed and keeping focus on the right places and I would like to thank him for his endeavors.

"Having kept up with most of the threads and news on this topic since the tragic event, in my experience boomerangutang is one of the best informed members on this subject and he (I assume he is a he) has documented every twist and turn over the months. Might I suggest AleG (and others) refrain from all the abuse until you can demonstrate a similar understanding."

You mean like on post #136?

Well, not like that because I am not demonstrating a similar level of understanding, I'm demonstrating a superior level of understanding, but I digress.

Please, feel free to show us how Boomerangutang was right and I was wrong there (he asks expecting some excuse to not do so)

[DLang]

So there's basically two types of posters:

1) Those who believe the B2 are completely innocent.

2) Sad trolls.

Okay then.

[Jai Dee]

The comments on this thread are getting personal again...

[sambum]

There are also a lot of people who think the B2 didn't do it because they think they know who did do it. However there TTBOMK is not one person among her friends now in UK who was with the deceased Ms. Witheridge that evening who has come forward publicly and said or produced a phone-shot that they ever saw that person even in the vicinity of the late victim or that he ever even met her.

The only thing I could understand in this post is TTBOMK and I have no idea what that means.

Well done on the most ridukulas post ever.

Spelt that way as you might understand it.

TTBOMK = To the best of my knowledge. Thank you -- from you I consider that a compliment.

You're easily pleased then!

[fritzzz25]

Ah yes, a paragon of impartiality and non prejudice, you say so so it must be true...

"One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise."

No partiality or prejudice there, nope, not at all.

But let's give you another chance to prove you really live up to your own standards:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

Yes, FACTS, impartially and without prejudice, FACTS above all. Good stuff.

"the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder"

The PM didn't say that...

So, tell me, why instead of arguing FACTS impartially and without prejudice you make up demeaning scenarios about other people instead of addressing the arguments they present?

You jumped right in to defend Boomerangutang spreading falsehoods (as usual), did you question his "FACTS", lack of partiality or prejudiced views? You could have used your self professed expertise and credentials to prove him right, did you do that or went straight away to the personal attacks? The second, obviously; because you couldn't do the first.

But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS.

AleG, you are really worked up over this matter. I am wondering if you have built your own wiki on this so you can make sure you quote who said what on here to immediately throw it back. You seem to go on the offensive over everything said here. As I said, it is unfortunate that we have people who have no compassion for the victims in this mater or the suspects. Remember that the rule of law in most countries that suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

And I can't be bothered with wasting my time to go search back to who said what. There has been every spin thrown at this investigation and MY opinion is that it was terribly done. I guess we will have to wait and see if the "legal" system agrees (because I really do not believe there is a justice system in this country based on trials I have read). What I do know that is that basic crime scene security and evidence collection was not done on this scene. I would have more faith in a group of pre-schoolers conducting the crime scene investigation than these officers.

Happy flying!

Why should I be worked out?, it's not me the one failing miserably at upholding some self professed ethical and intellectual standards.

You go from:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

To:

"I can't be bothered with wasting my time to go search back to who said what."

Is there anything else to say to that than ?

just send me the link to your wiki. as i said, i cant be bothered to search for "facts" on here, as i know there are none. and nothing more to say!

[sambum]

So if 'running man' is the person that Boomer, on the previous page, presumably assumes he is, at least publicly not one of the late Ms. Witheridge's friends who were with her that evening has stated that they saw that person in the company of or talking with let alone seeing him hustling and being rejected by their friend and that the nebulous 'running man' video (with the bent elbow, etc.) would be the only record that such person was there on the island the evening in question.

Not being personal, as I would make this same comment to anybody. You do seem to have a reasonable command of the English language, so why more than 3 full lines of text without a single full stop? It does make it very difficult for people to understand the point that you are trying to make.

[JLCrab]

So if 'running man' is the person that Boomer, on the previous page, presumably assumes he is, at least publicly not one of the late Ms. Witheridge's friends who were with her that evening has stated that they saw that person in the company of or talking with let alone seeing him hustling and being rejected by their friend and that the nebulous 'running man' video (with the bent elbow, etc.) would be the only record that such person was there on the island the evening in question.

Not being personal, as I would make this same comment to anybody. You do seem to have a reasonable command of the English language, so why more than 3 full lines of text without a single full stop? It does make it very difficult for people to understand the point that you are trying to make.

to put me in the proper mood to respond to much of what gets posted on here,, I pretend that i am writing dialog for The Marx Brothers.

[sambum]

So if 'running man' is the person that Boomer, on the previous page, presumably assumes he is, at least publicly not one of the late Ms. Witheridge's friends who were with her that evening has stated that they saw that person in the company of or talking with let alone seeing him hustling and being rejected by their friend and that the nebulous 'running man' video (with the bent elbow, etc.) would be the only record that such person was there on the island the evening in question.

Not being personal, as I would make this same comment to anybody. You do seem to have a reasonable command of the English language, so why more than 3 full lines of text without a single full stop? It does make it very difficult for people to understand the point that you are trying to make.

to put me in the proper mood to respond to much of what gets posted on here,, I pretend that i am writing dialog for The Marx Brothers.

Ah, that explains a lot about the "information" in your posts!

[JLCrab]

So if 'running man' is the person that Boomer, on the previous page, presumably assumes he is, at least publicly not one of the late Ms. Witheridge's friends who were with her that evening has stated that they saw that person in the company of or talking with let alone seeing him hustling and being rejected by their friend and that the nebulous 'running man' video (with the bent elbow, etc.) would be the only record that such person was there on the island the evening in question.

Not being personal, as I would make this same comment to anybody. You do seem to have a reasonable command of the English language, so why more than 3 full lines of text without a single full stop? It does make it very difficult for people to understand the point that you are trying to make.

to put me in the proper mood to respond to much of what gets posted on here,, I pretend that i am writing dialog for The Marx Brothers.

Ah, that explains a lot about the "information" in your posts!

Take it as you will. With due respect to the powers that be on this website, I agree with Alice:

Who cares for you?' said Alice, ... 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

Edited June 4, 2015 by JLCrab

[AleG]

Ah yes, a paragon of impartiality and non prejudice, you say so so it must be true...

"One can see their faces red and their blood pressure going through the roof. But it appears that they thrive on the misery of two young men who likely have very little education, that were born into poverty and now are being held in poor conditions in a jail in a country known for corruption amongst its government, its police and its courts. It is sad to see that the humanity of a few who hide behind a keyboard and have never done an investigation of this nature, but claim their expertise."

No partiality or prejudice there, nope, not at all.

But let's give you another chance to prove you really live up to your own standards:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

Yes, FACTS, impartially and without prejudice, FACTS above all. Good stuff.

"the statements that were made by the PM such as "no Thai could ever do this" - in relation to this horrific murder"

The PM didn't say that...

So, tell me, why instead of arguing FACTS impartially and without prejudice you make up demeaning scenarios about other people instead of addressing the arguments they present?

You jumped right in to defend Boomerangutang spreading falsehoods (as usual), did you question his "FACTS", lack of partiality or prejudiced views? You could have used your self professed expertise and credentials to prove him right, did you do that or went straight away to the personal attacks? The second, obviously; because you couldn't do the first.

But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS.

AleG, you are really worked up over this matter. I am wondering if you have built your own wiki on this so you can make sure you quote who said what on here to immediately throw it back. You seem to go on the offensive over everything said here. As I said, it is unfortunate that we have people who have no compassion for the victims in this mater or the suspects. Remember that the rule of law in most countries that suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

And I can't be bothered with wasting my time to go search back to who said what. There has been every spin thrown at this investigation and MY opinion is that it was terribly done. I guess we will have to wait and see if the "legal" system agrees (because I really do not believe there is a justice system in this country based on trials I have read). What I do know that is that basic crime scene security and evidence collection was not done on this scene. I would have more faith in a group of pre-schoolers conducting the crime scene investigation than these officers.

Happy flying!

Why should I be worked out?, it's not me the one failing miserably at upholding some self professed ethical and intellectual standards.

You go from:

"Having been on the investigative end of these things (and I am willing to meet up and show proof of my investigations and my career to those who wish to question it) an investigator (police officer) is trained to gather evidence and FACTS. They are to gather them with impartiality and without prejudice."

To:

"I can't be bothered with wasting my time to go search back to who said what."

Is there anything else to say to that than ?

just send me the link to your wiki. as i said, i cant be bothered to search for "facts" on here, as i know there are none. and nothing more to say!

If you can step out of your make-believe world were I have a "wiki" to link to, you may notice that I did gave you a link to work with before, you know, the part I now put in bold in my previous post, that you didn't seem to read or comprehend?

Here it goes again, let's see if this time it registers (although I expect you to make up some new excuse to avoid having to defend your position):

"But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS."

[berybert]

AleG share with us the facts that you have. You have spent 8 or 9 months trying to convince people the Burmese are guilty and have not submitted one single fact.

[AleG]

AleG share with us the facts that you have. You have spent 8 or 9 months trying to convince people the Burmese are guilty and have not submitted one single fact.

If in all that time you haven't manage to understand why those men are on trial you are beyond hope of understanding anything. Specially in view that you are asking something that you have already seen on this very thread (post #75).

So really, you should let the discussion to people that can grok the issues and stop embarrassing yourself.

[berybert]

AleG share with us the facts that you have. You have spent 8 or 9 months trying to convince people the Burmese are guilty and have not submitted one single fact.

If in all that time you haven't manage to understand why those men are on trial you are beyond hope of understanding anything. Specially in view that you are asking something that you have already seen on this very thread (post #75).

So really, you should let the discussion to people that can grok the issues and stop embarrassing yourself.

Oh sorry I didn't realize post #75 was actually what you received from the judge, or was it the prosecution team that handed you the information.

In the area 6 hours before the crime means what ?

Admitted to having Davids phone, they have done no such thing. And you cannot point to one article where they have said they did.

Didn't we already discuss the guy stopped fleeing the island, you claimed a few weeks ago he was working in a bar/restaurant on Surat Thani, now claim he was stopped on the pier.

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

I asked you for facts all you have done is mention a few things you have read in some newspapers or cherry picked what some policemen have said

BTY who are these people you talk about who can grok the issue ? Are they the ones you attack with every post you make ?

Oh and you never did reply to my question about the judge changing his mind on the letting the defense see the evidence against them.

Guess if you cant attack you have no reason to post.

[fritzzz25]

If you can step out of your make-believe world were I have a "wiki" to link to, you may notice that I did gave you a link to work with before, you know, the part I now put in bold in my previous post, that you didn't seem to read or comprehend?

Here it goes again, let's see if this time it registers (although I expect you to make up some new excuse to avoid having to defend your position):

"But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS."

AleG - I am not sure what country you come from, or your experience with the way CRIMINAL trials work. The PROSECUTION needs FACTs that is EVIDENCE based to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. What FACTS would you like me to provide to you? Unless you have the entire file of the prosecution team, then you have as many FACTS as I do.

Now, a DEFENCE team does NOT need to present facts. They have to put a reasonable doubt in the proof of the evidence. They can do this with theories, factual evidence they have gleaned, witnesses, and many MANY other avenues of investigation. Once there is reasonable doubt, there is no room for conviction.

Now, if this were a CIVIL trial, one would only have to prove the evidence on a balance of probabilities. You know, that ole 51% thing.....

So, I went back to my comment that you hyperlinked (thank you by the way) and looked at it, and I am not sure what FACTS you want me to explain. I have had lawyers that litigate in the Supreme Court of Canada cross examine me on the stand in different trials. They ask me DIRECT questions, and I answer with the FACTS that I have obtained myself, and NOTHING that anyone else has said. SO, even if you had the entire prosecution file, until each one of the persons who were involved in the investigation (first police on scene, forensic specialists, DNA analysts, pathologists, etc) provides SWORN testimony in the court and it is ACCEPTED as evidence it is just HEARSAY.

SO, now that you know how courts work, reveal your poker hand. I highly doubt you have anything greater than a pair of threes.....

Edited June 4, 2015 by fritzzz25

[mcm991]

If you can step out of your make-believe world were I have a "wiki" to link to, you may notice that I did gave you a link to work with before, you know, the part I now put in bold in my previous post, that you didn't seem to read or comprehend?

Here it goes again, let's see if this time it registers (although I expect you to make up some new excuse to avoid having to defend your position):

"But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS."

AleG - I am not sure what country you come from, or your experience with the way CRIMINAL trials work. The PROSECUTION needs FACTs that is EVIDENCE based to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. What FACTS would you like me to provide to you? Unless you have the entire file of the prosecution team, then you have as many FACTS as I do.

Now, a DEFENCE team does NOT need to present facts. They have to put a reasonable doubt in the proof of the evidence. They can do this with theories, factual evidence they have gleaned, witnesses, and many MANY other avenues of investigation. Once there is reasonable doubt, there is no room for conviction.

Now, if this were a CIVIL trial, one would only have to prove the evidence on a balance of probabilities. You know, that ole 51% thing.....

So, I went back to my comment that you hyperlinked (thank you by the way) and looked at it, and I am not sure what FACTS you want me to explain. I have had lawyers that litigate in the Supreme Court of Canada cross examine me on the stand in different trials. They ask me DIRECT questions, and I answer with the FACTS that I have obtained myself, and NOTHING that anyone else has said. SO, even if you had the entire prosecution file, until each one of the persons who were involved in the investigation (first police on scene, forensic specialists, DNA analysts, pathologists, etc) provides SWORN testimony in the court and it is ACCEPTED as evidence it is just HEARSAY.

SO, now that you know how courts work, reveal your poker hand. I highly doubt you have anything greater than a pair of threes.....

Sadly, AleG and his cohorts represent the local system - not the Supreme Court of Canada.

No facts nor indeed any evidence at all needs to be presented here by the prosecution to obtain a conviction.

Shine the light of facts and evidence and doubt on this case and they will attack like cornered rats in the dark.

[AleG]

AleG share with us the facts that you have. You have spent 8 or 9 months trying to convince people the Burmese are guilty and have not submitted one single fact.

If in all that time you haven't manage to understand why those men are on trial you are beyond hope of understanding anything. Specially in view that you are asking something that you have already seen on this very thread (post #75).

So really, you should let the discussion to people that can grok the issues and stop embarrassing yourself.

Oh sorry I didn't realize post #75 was actually what you received from the judge, or was it the prosecution team that handed you the information.

In the area 6 hours before the crime means what ?

Admitted to having Davids phone, they have done no such thing. And you cannot point to one article where they have said they did.

Didn't we already discuss the guy stopped fleeing the island, you claimed a few weeks ago he was working in a bar/restaurant on Surat Thani, now claim he was stopped on the pier.

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

I asked you for facts all you have done is mention a few things you have read in some newspapers or cherry picked what some policemen have said

BTY who are these people you talk about who can grok the issue ? Are they the ones you attack with every post you make ?

Oh and you never did reply to my question about the judge changing his mind on the letting the defense see the evidence against them.

Guess if you cant attack you have no reason to post.

"In the area 6 hours before the crime means what ?"

Were did I mention anything about 6 hours?

Their friend testified they were near the scene of the crime within 2 to 4 hours of the murders, not 6 hours. What that means is that they had access to the scene of the crime withing the time frame were it was committed, therefore they can't claim it would had been impossible for them to be there, like for example if there was evidence that proved they were in Bangkok at the time. You understand the relevance of that now?

"Admitted to having Davids phone,"

Yes they did, well "allegedly" David's phone, you may want to check the page were the defense asks for money to see for yourself.

The phone has been identified by the police as being Miller's phone, and since nobody in a position to refute that claim (friends or family) has come forward to refute that claim it stands until it can be proven to be false, i.e. during the trial. Which is why I have repeated ad nauseum that the evidence, as it stands now, points at their involvement in the murders. Something your simple logic reinterprets as me saying they are guilty.

"Didn't we already discuss the guy stopped fleeing the island, you claimed a few weeks ago he was working in a bar/restaurant on Surat Thani, now claim he was stopped on the pier."

I said he was working in Surat Thani? You are making things up or really have no clue. I have never said such thing.

But tell me, hot shot, were was Wei Phyo caught by the police? (Hint, at a pier in Surat Thani)

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

This gibberish I can't decipher...

"BTY who are these people you talk about who can grok the issue ? Are they the ones you attack with every post you make"

I don't think you understand what grok means.

As for the judge, my first post in this thread, there is no discovery process in Thai trials. Why the judge said they could have access to evidence and why he now says no (all according only to statements from the defense team) I don't know, you don't know neither so what of it? Booo! the judge is doing exactly what he is supposed to do!, booo!?

[AleG]

AleG - I am not sure what country you come from, or your experience with the way CRIMINAL trials work. The PROSECUTION needs FACTs that is EVIDENCE based to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. What FACTS would you like me to provide to you? Unless you have the entire file of the prosecution team, then you have as many FACTS as I do.

Now, a DEFENCE team does NOT need to present facts. They have to put a reasonable doubt in the proof of the evidence. They can do this with theories, factual evidence they have gleaned, witnesses, and many MANY other avenues of investigation. Once there is reasonable doubt, there is no room for conviction.

Now, if this were a CIVIL trial, one would only have to prove the evidence on a balance of probabilities. You know, that ole 51% thing.....

So, I went back to my comment that you hyperlinked (thank you by the way) and looked at it, and I am not sure what FACTS you want me to explain. I have had lawyers that litigate in the Supreme Court of Canada cross examine me on the stand in different trials. They ask me DIRECT questions, and I answer with the FACTS that I have obtained myself, and NOTHING that anyone else has said. SO, even if you had the entire prosecution file, until each one of the persons who were involved in the investigation (first police on scene, forensic specialists, DNA analysts, pathologists, etc) provides SWORN testimony in the court and it is ACCEPTED as evidence it is just HEARSAY.

SO, now that you know how courts work, reveal your poker hand. I highly doubt you have anything greater than a pair of threes.....

Fancy that, you done and ignored the point completely again. I'm shocked.

The point was this:

This is a lie:

"For over a week, police were sure it was a particular young man, and were looking for him, but he was hiding. When found, his lawyer waved around a couple grainy b&w photos, so the young man was let off scot free, never to be looked at again as a suspect. The police have never announced, since then, that the man was not 'running man'."

Nomsod was identified as a suspect on the 23rd of September:

"He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok." (September 23, 2014 3:18 pm)

He was cleared by the 25th of September (in case you don't know that is less than "over a week)

"Khaosod, 25 September 2014: ...police questioned Mr. Warot and established that he was not on the island when the murder took place, deputy police chief Pol.Gen. Ake Angsananond said yesterday. Therefore, he is no longer being treated as a potential suspect, Pol.Gen. Ake said."

The first paragraph is Boomerangutang's usual BS, the second is my refutation of it. You read that and went right ahead with:

Has the trial already been here and gone and evidence / testimony been ruled on? Because I think until then, nothing has been PROVEN.

It is an interesting why some people have such a hatred for these two men in custody. The few supporters of this "investigation" on here have shown their bias and prejudice for quite some time now. Really a very sad state of affairs to thrive on the misery of others.....

There doesn't need to be a trial to prove or disprove Boomerangutang's claims (although as I mentioned before slanders of that type can and do get taken to court), there is no need to refer to your irrelevant qualifications, what goes on in Canada or USING ALL CAPS.

What I asked of you, for like the fourth time, is to tell me if what Boomerangutang claimed is true or not, you know, address the argument. It's not that difficult, is it?