Koh Tao: Trial opens for 2 accused of killing British tourists

[thailandchilli]

Double murder crime scene, photograph all items of evidence then bag into evidence bags.

Thai double murder crime scene, pile all items onto a rock and take a picture.

Correction:

Double murder crime scene, photograph all items of evidence then bag into evidence bags.

Thai double murder crime scene, pile all items onto a rock and take a picture.

Then tell the Judge they were found in a neat pile together

[smedly]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

like my previous post - who was wearing jeans ????????

[smedly]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

The tide was no where near the clothes as the pictures show. Also,the tide was on the way out I believe it was reported and third but not least goes back to the DNA compromised. On finding of the crime scene it should have been cordoned off and a meticulous examination and carefull recording and removal in a sterile environment of all items and anything related to the crime.Nobody should have entered the crime scene apart from forensic and the investigating officer. This should have been carried out by trained and qualified personal and be the bare minimum staff required to collect the necessary evidence. Once the clothes were collected and bunched together contamination will have taken place by at least the coming together of various garments and at worse by unqualified personal clearly packing the items together. No remotely qualified and trained persons would group items of evidence together like that. This is another issue that strengthens the many people on here's doubts of the validity of this case. They will be people on here with law enforcement experience and I'm sure they will back this account up and probably add to it. Thank you again

One further issue is I stand corrected but I think the picture of the scattered clothes was posted on police facebook pages before the cover up started. Somebody I know on here will confirm or deny this. It certainly didn't come from official police sources.

the investigating officer was Mon I believe - the headmans brother, I saw it in a photo

Edited July 26, 2015 by metisdead
16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[smedly]

Odd the Defense Team did not raise that point in court when the Top Forensic Officer was on the stand. Could it be because it is Bull-shit I wonder?

Because it is not the top forensic officer's job or responsibility to ensure chain of custody. It is usual for the arresting officer to ensure those details. The defense has asked for it. If it is not presented to the court then prosecution has failed to verify the sanctity of the specimens and the court has every chance to refuse to consider that evidence.

Sorry. Let me restate this.

Odd the Defense Team did not raise that point in court when the Lead Investigator Officer was on the stand. Could it be because it is Bull-shit I wonder?

Restate all you want, doesnt make what you say correct.

How do you know the defense didnt ask for it when he was on the stand?

In any event, it doesnt matter if the defense ask for it or not. The defense does not have to prove anything, it is up to the prosecution to prove the case and chain of custody is essential to dna evidence. Defense have requested the information and it has not been provided. At the end of the prosecution case they simply apply to the Judges to have dna evidence struck out as there is no chain of custody tomprove the verscity of the evidence.

In effect it becomes hearsay evidence.

One cannot have a situation where prosecution refuses to provide evidence to the court then blame defence for not refuting the evidence that was not provided.

In your world it may be acceptable but not in the real world.

Because it is not the top forensic officer's job or responsibility to ensure chain of custody. It is usual for the arresting officer to ensure those details

senior police officer in charge in the stand

- Yes we lock them up good cannot get away

I don't know

I don't know

I don't know

I don't know

ask Mon he big boss

[PaPiPuPePo]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

Here it is again maybe he missed it.

clothes2.jpg

There's no way the killers would have stacked the clothes up like that, and it's very poor procedure to do that unless they were extensively photographed in their original positions, and were handled carefully enough that now evidence on the clothes could be lost nor contamination occur. The fact that they're unbagged shows they weren't handled carefully enough--not that I'm surprised--and I have no expectations that sufficient documentation was done before they were moved.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Yes, the police said so and they have the physical evidence to back it up, which is going to be available to the defense to contest.

Whereas you only have your say so that it's all fake because someone paid someone else or something, not very convincing.

I think you'd better drop out of this one as at least JTJ and GB have a degree of intelligence while your answer above is a bit basic . The police said so. Haha that's a good one. The first rule of Thailand. Always believe what the police tell you!!

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

So we can take this to mean you take the RTP at their word?

That is insane, unless you're RTP, or a suspect, or a schill.

Did you not at least read his reply to this. Does "testimony in a court of law" mean the same to you as taking the "RTP at their word"?

Man!

Okay so here you go. And it's very topical around your post.

Does the police guy in court indicating that the clothes were found neatly piled on a rock mean that's is what happened. Remember he said this in a court of law and as you say it must be credible otherwise it would be perjury..I'm really interested in your answer. And I suggest before you do answer you take a look at the pictures of the crime scene posted above. Quote!

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

Well first off it is not a topic around my post as I never raised it as a topic. I did not start this link or even mention it here once. Please check again who posted this.

I was however asked this question before which I again have no idea why he asked me. Or again why you asked me. He said it was the Prosecutor who said the clothes were stacked neatly, and you said it was the Police Officer. I said I never heard that before from anyone of them and asked for a link So that 2 different people, like you and him, would not get it wrong and now say it was the Prosecutor who said this or now the Investigator Police Officer.

I personally thought the clothes would be messy. You said they said it was neat. Then I say that is what happens when you have poor reporting who seem to be getting a lot of things mixed up lately. I can't tell you for sure as I was not at the crime scene or in court.

Your right GB but I didn't say it was your topic did I. I was replying to your last remark as shown below

Did you not at least read his reply cto this. Does "testimony in a court of law" mean the same to you as taking the "RTP at their word"? That was your comment on said post that I replied to and as you supported the earlier poster its applicable to you too.

As for your mention of who said what I'm speaking as defence and prosecution and the prosecution stated that the clothes were in a neat pile as born out by the pictures.

Yeah! I agree. All this Gumbo Posts got mixed up. Someone was taking to me, who was actually talking to somebody else, and you thought I was talking to you, and so on.

Sorry for the confusion.

[saminoz]

So what makes you think that after their confessions they would be safe in jail anyway? Seems to me that would be the perfect time to bump them off if that was their plan, and not before they confessed.

Just put them in a cell with some shady characters doing life for murder, promise them a double helping for a week of Fish Head Soup and Rice, then...suddenly, case closed and nobody saw anything.

Which media is going to care or try to investigate or help 2 self confessed murders and rapists?

If there was justice in the world such a crime would happen to excuse for human beings like yourself as opposed to these decent young adults.

GB is showing what a nasty little piece of work he is again.......

They retracted their confessions that were achieved by torture and intimidation so how, until they are proven guilty, dare you to continue to use the "self confessed" line? Actions of a nasty, dreary little troll?

[smedly]

There's no way the killers would have stacked the clothes up like that, and it's very poor procedure to do that unless they were extensively photographed in their original positions, and were handled carefully enough that now evidence on the clothes could be lost nor contamination occur. The fact that they're unbagged shows they weren't handled carefully enough--not that I'm surprised--and I have no expectations that sufficient documentation was done before they were moved.

Mon the chief investigator stacked them up like that just before sending them to the laundry

Oh and I say again - which one of the victims was wearing jeans ???????

[boomerangutang]

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

"You have to assume that the court has not seen....."

Yes, there are many many many things the court won't see in this trial. There are only 5 days left for the prosecution (1/2 of their allotted time remaining) and then 5 days for the defense. Already, one of the prosecution's days was cut in half because the court deemed the prosecution were making so many mistakes, they had to terminate the screw-ups (the day the prosecution couldn't decide whether they had lost or 'used up' DNA evidence). And the published schedule for the trial dates was incorrect. But no one is surprised, because nearly everything authorities announce/publish is wrong.

Even if 9/10ths of the things discussed on ThaiVisa (threads on this case) are garbage, that still leaves enough pertinent data to be scrutinized for weeks of testimony. In other words, by limiting the number of days, the court is constricting the evidence that can be submitted and challenged.

If justice was the goal (ha ha ha), then the court would allow all pertinent evidence to get presented, and challenged. As it is, the whole process is hurried and can be easily subject to filibustering. Example: the prosecution says it has 65 witnesses, yet 2/3 of its case has been presented, and just about 3 witnesses have spoken for them.

I predict the 5 days in late August (assuming the court won't again change the schedule) will be more filibustering (wasting time) by the prosecution. They know, as well as everyone else, that their case is resting on a foundation of soggy matchsticks, so they'll try to reveal as little substance as possible, so as to try and avoid further ridicule and proofs of their blatant cover-up. I also predict the judges will close proceedings before the Sept. 1, when the defense are scheduled to present their case.

[saminoz]

Could those of you who were brave enough to view the pictures of Hannah and particularly David confirm that the injuries to him could have been made by the blunt end of a hoe!! From everything I have seen and taken in his injuries were not consistent with a implement like that. I'm sure somebody will confirm or deny the possibility. Thanks

There was no wound to the back of David's head. There were a couple of wounds on the side of the head, but most of the wounds (similar looking) are on the front.

To my eyes, the pattern of David's wounds are consistent only with a protracted fight. The wounds do not look consistent with a blunt instrument.

The only possible explanation I can concoct (and concoct is the word) is that the single blow from behind that incapacitated David and left him to drown in the sea left no mark (being a blow in an area covered by hair from a blunt instrument) and the visible wounds were inflicted by sharp shells or other objects after he fell. Realistically, the RTP story is a load of round objects.

I'm not sure what the blunt end of a hoe means but I am sure that if you hit someone with either corner of the working end of a hoe it could leave wounds consistent with what I unfortunately viewed in the photos.

It is unfortunate that the English translation for the alleged murder weapon is "hoe", because this gives a misleading impression to those who have not seen the Thai version of this tool. If you are expecting

you are not going to appreciate the kinds of wounds that would be inflicted by

Good post and don't forget that the hoe in question was encrusted in cement. Hard to get a clean would from that particular hoe, I should think.

Those small woulds look like they were inflicted with a short, sharp, triangular-shaped blade.

[smedly]

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

"You have to assume that the court has not seen....."

Yes, there are many many many things the court won't see in this trial. There are only 5 days left for the prosecution (1/2 of their allotted time remaining) and then 5 days for the defense. Already, one of the prosecution's days was cut in half because the court deemed the prosecution were making so many mistakes, they had to terminate the screw-ups (the day the prosecution couldn't decide whether they had lost or 'used up' DNA evidence). And the published schedule for the trial dates was incorrect. But no one is surprised, because nearly everything authorities announce/publish is wrong.

Even if 9/10ths of the things discussed on ThaiVisa (threads on this case) are garbage, that still leaves enough pertinent data to be scrutinized for weeks of testimony. In other words, by limiting the number of days, the court is constricting the evidence that can be submitted and challenged.

If justice was the goal (ha ha ha), then the court would allow all pertinent evidence to get presented, and challenged. As it is, the whole process is hurried and can be easily subject to filibustering. Example: the prosecution says it has 65 witnesses, yet 2/3 of its case has been presented, and just about 3 witnesses have spoken for them.

I predict the 5 days in late August (assuming the court won't again change the schedule) will be more filibustering (wasting time) by the prosecution. They know, as well as everyone else, that their case is resting on a foundation of soggy matchsticks, so they'll try to reveal as little substance as possible, so as to try and avoid further ridicule and proofs of their blatant cover-up. I also predict the judges will close proceedings before the Sept. 1, when the defense are scheduled to present their case.

I must admit I am having trouble figuring out what the prosecution is going to present over 5 more full days in court, maybe they can make something up fill in some time .........oh wait, isn't that what

I have an idea, have a competition with 30 million prize money for who ever can say "I don't know" the most without blinking

this whole charade just completely disgusts me

[Nigeone]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

like my previous post - who was wearing jeans ????????

Just been back to check on the pictures and your right. David clearly wasn't wearing jeans and yet there's a pair of jeans there. They can only belong to people involved in the crime. Why aren't they key evidence and also I have heard no, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, mention of a pair of jeans been available in the limited items available for DNA re testing by defence.

[Si Thea01]

GB and nigeone

Quote>"Compromised" means to accept standards lower than is desirable, "Compromised" does not mean "Destroyed".

For example if you were investigating the Crime Scene you would expect to find the footprints in the sand of the 2 Victims, plus any others who could belong to the murders. But now that 6 others entered the Crime Scene, the Crime Scene has been compromised.

This doesn't mean these footprints of the victims and possible murders aren't there anymore. It just now means that you have to sift through everyone's footprints that were in there, and clear them all as suspects, which is not desired. Unless of course a herd of cattle went through and destroyed all the footprints, but judging from photos of the police measuring the footprints, I don't think this was the case.

Now if you think the sperm samples taken from Hannah at the Forensic Lab was compromised and planted, then I have no more to say to you on this subject as then we disagree, Your not for real are you?? Compromised means what it says and in your analogy it's clear that if many people are allowed unchecked and not in a sterile environment some of those said footprints could have been compromised or even destroyed. You do know what happens to sand when it's walked don't you?? What about all the pics downloaded onto Facebook before the it came out that a murders had been carried out. Then there's the pictures of clothes in one place then scattered all around and a police guy stating he moved the body. How many of the people walking on that beach would have been wearing flip flop type shoes! Not easy to differentiate on sand wouldn't you agree. There was umpteen people walking over that crime scene including I will say again a possible suspect. How can that possible suspect be elimated from the case. Well we know the answer to that don't we! You haven't thought your reply out have you!. And are you telling me it's not possible to plant samples? and again we have only the RTP word up to now that they have any samples and they haven't been to clever at being forthcoming with anything up to now. The perfect case!!
Yes we do disagree and quite honestly this argument of yours is a joke. And as you've obviously not read previous post of mine and understood DNA taken from Hannah does not in any shape or form confirm that the DNA belonged to a murderer. Just that it belonged to someone there. Is that so hard to understand!!

Check the Dictionary for the word "Compromise". That is where I got this meaning from. Not sure where you got yours though.<End quote

You are both right so why argue?

However when using a word one should look at the context in which it is used. One place crime scene investigators can look to make certain that evidence is of the highest quality is contamination Yes, a crime scene can be comprised but through the contamination of that scene. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there. Investigators can even compromise and contaminate the scene with their own footprints.

If I was referring to this matter, as you two gentleman are, I would say that the crime scene has been contaminated thus compromising the investigation given what is now known to have occurred there. As such, one could reasonably state that any evidence collected there and possibly elsewhere, has been compromised. Careful appraisal is required so that a plan can be created so one knows what needs to be collected and the best way to do so but after looking at the evidence coming from the court, it appears this did not occur and the matter has been a monumental stuff up from the beginning.

Evaluating a scene before anyone enters can be the key to keeping contamination to a minimum. When doing a preliminary survey of the crime scene one needs to know what his/hers equipment and manpower needs are. Some scenes may require the presence of specialists, so maybe someone can answer this? When were the first specialist police called to the scene? I mean forensic and crime scene investigators, not the local BIB.

I have also read, with interest, that many people are criticising the DNA obtained. I do not know what procedures were followed by police but given what is coming out now then one would have to say that police failed to ensure the integrity of the DNA. Samples must be properly collected and care must be taken not to taint it, so given what has come to light regarding the DNA then it can reasonably assumed that it has been tainted therefore, compromised.

Looking at the overall situation, there has to be questions raised as to the credibility of police and why those who were first in attendance failed to carry out the very basics of policing, (securing the crime scene) thus giving rise to a flawed investigation. We can also do without all the outside influence and the irrational statements being made by some in authority. If this were back in my country it could result in mistrial or even those sprouting off being held in contempt of the Court.

I don't assume or presume as some have indicated, nor do I want to get involved in conspiracy theories, who thinks who is involved, the mafia, the headman, his sons or brothers, if the boys are innocent or guilty, how their confessions were obtained or whatever. I have in the past sided with police, as being an ex-copper one hopes that things are above board and that the investigation was carried out in a manner that would see justice prevail, one way or another. However, from what is now evident then the veracity of the police evidence must be called into question and their procedures closely scrutinised to ensure that from now and into the future this does not occur, there is transparency in all matters, fairness provided to all alleged offenders and that the families of the victims get closure.

Unfortunately, non of this has appears to have occurred in this case. I am not saying that all police have acted in a manner that would discredit them but certainly many have and they should be called to task for what they have done, many, at the very least, should be charged with neglect of duty or at the worst, a criminal offence. I know many will say this is Thailand, sure it is but unfortunately this is the way they operate. Hopefully, in time, the good cops will prevail and rid the system of inept and corrupt officers and the judicial system will get a long need overhaul. Sure, it will take time, many, many years, maybe not in my life time, but if and when this happens, then the hopefully people will find that Thailand is not so bad after all and the disgusting criticism now being displayed by some on this forum will cease.

In so far as the two alleged offenders, I do not know if they are guilty or innocent. No one on here does either. What everyone needs to understand that we were not there, we do not know what occurred, although many assume or say for certain they are guilty, some the opposite, they are innocent. I think emotions are playing a big role in this and should be put to one side. If they are convicted on the evidence obtained or not obtained, contaminated or concocted, then justice will have to be called into question. If they are found not guilty, then one needs to evaluate the overall situation and determine if they were innocent because they were, or if the decision was made because of a technicality or other undue outside influences. I really don't know in regards to the last two scenarios but one way or another this matter will come to it's conclusion and the whole process will start over, those on this side, those on that side, berating each because they believe they are right.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Si Thea01

[sammygood]

my prediction: no dna evidence, but still found guilty, TAT needs a suspect, 3 is better

[sartoric]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

like my previous post - who was wearing jeans ????????

Just been back to check on the pictures and your right. David clearly wasn't wearing jeans and yet there's a pair of jeans there. They can only belong to people involved in the crime. Why aren't they key evidence and also I have heard no, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, mention of a pair of jeans been available in the limited items available for DNA re testing by defence.

What was the guy in the number nine shirt wearing on his lower half ?

[teacherpaul]

Apologize if this has been posted before but this is the first time I've seen an extra day added to the trial and we also have confirmation that Dr Pornthip will attend for the defense.

SURAT THANI — The head of Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science will testify in defense of two Burmese men accused of killing two British backpackers in southern Thailand last year.

Judges ruled on Friday to add an additional day to the trial to allow for CIFS director Pornthip Rojanasunand to take the witness stand at Koh Samui Provincial Court on 11 September. http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437793064&section=12

Just have to wait for certain posters now to come along and discredit her some more..yawn

She discredited herself by her actions. This is a completely justified claim, as she continues to insist that empty plastic boxes, made in the garden shed of confidence tricksters who are now in an English jail for fraud, work as bomb , drug and human remains detectors, through methods "that science can't explain".

You can be very convinced that the case against the two Burmese seems flimsy and incompetent, and still be appalled at the calling of such a person as a defence witness.

There is no discrepancy between wanting the accused in this case to have the best defence possible, and distrusting the objectivity and expertise of one of the defence witnesses. I would not want her defending me, in a case where influence could be brought to bear on her by the people who gave her her job back.

Oh yes you would want her defending you! She is the best chance these Burmese boys have got. She'll tear the case to shreds. She is incorrupttable and if you need proof of how worried the prosectuion should be right now, a big reason why this case stinks so much is that she was purposefully left out of the investigation from day one by the people leading the cover-up.

[saminoz]

Okay so here you go. And it's very topical around your post.

Does the police guy in court indicating that the clothes were found neatly piled on a rock mean that's is what happened. Remember he said this in a court of law and as you say it must be credible otherwise it would be perjury..I'm really interested in your answer. And I suggest before you do answer you take a look at the pictures of the crime scene posted above. Quote!

Yes, the answer is very basic: if someone claims something, in testimony to court of law, they have the means to substantiate what they say and those means are open to scrutiny it makes them more credible than someone that says something on the Internet and only has his say so to substantiate it.

Well first off it is not a topic around my post as I never raised it as a topic. I did not start this link or even mention it here once. Please check again who posted this.

I was however asked this question before which I again have no idea why he asked me. Or again why you asked me. He said it was the Prosecutor who said the clothes were stacked neatly, and you said it was the Police Officer. I said I never heard that before from anyone of them and asked for a link So that 2 different people, like you and him, would not get it wrong and now say it was the Prosecutor who said this or now the Investigator Police Officer.

I personally thought the clothes would be messy. You said they said it was neat. Then I say that is what happens when you have poor reporting who seem to be getting a lot of things mixed up lately. I can't tell you for sure as I was not at the crime scene or in court.

Perhaps the "poor reporting" you refer to is down to the fact that the court has restricted the access for journalists, even to the point of forbidding the taking of notes in the courtroom, coupled with the fact that the Thai press seem to be "mysteriously" absent?

Would it not have been more transparent to broadcast the trial, given the very high suspicion of a cover-up, or even allow transcripts of each day's testimonies?

Events in the trial to date show that this would have been a complete disaster for the Thai justice enterprise system and especially for the RTP.

The lack of transparency in this farcical trial is what is most probably hurting the RTP's pathetic case the most.

[thailandchilli]

GB and nigeone

Quote>"Compromised" means to accept standards lower than is desirable, "Compromised" does not mean "Destroyed".

For example if you were investigating the Crime Scene you would expect to find the footprints in the sand of the 2 Victims, plus any others who could belong to the murders. But now that 6 others entered the Crime Scene, the Crime Scene has been compromised.

This doesn't mean these footprints of the victims and possible murders aren't there anymore. It just now means that you have to sift through everyone's footprints that were in there, and clear them all as suspects, which is not desired. Unless of course a herd of cattle went through and destroyed all the footprints, but judging from photos of the police measuring the footprints, I don't think this was the case.

Now if you think the sperm samples taken from Hannah at the Forensic Lab was compromised and planted, then I have no more to say to you on this subject as then we disagree, Your not for real are you?? Compromised means what it says and in your analogy it's clear that if many people are allowed unchecked and not in a sterile environment some of those said footprints could have been compromised or even destroyed. You do know what happens to sand when it's walked don't you?? What about all the pics downloaded onto Facebook before the it came out that a murders had been carried out. Then there's the pictures of clothes in one place then scattered all around and a police guy stating he moved the body. How many of the people walking on that beach would have been wearing flip flop type shoes! Not easy to differentiate on sand wouldn't you agree. There was umpteen people walking over that crime scene including I will say again a possible suspect. How can that possible suspect be elimated from the case. Well we know the answer to that don't we! You haven't thought your reply out have you!. And are you telling me it's not possible to plant samples? and again we have only the RTP word up to now that they have any samples and they haven't been to clever at being forthcoming with anything up to now. The perfect case!!

Yes we do disagree and quite honestly this argument of yours is a joke. And as you've obviously not read previous post of mine and understood DNA taken from Hannah does not in any shape or form confirm that the DNA belonged to a murderer. Just that it belonged to someone there. Is that so hard to understand!!

Check the Dictionary for the word "Compromise". That is where I got this meaning from. Not sure where you got yours though.<End quote

You are both right so why argue?

However when using a word one should look at the context in which it is used. One place crime scene investigators can look to make certain that evidence is of the highest quality is contamination Yes, a crime scene can be comprised but through the contamination of that scene. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there. Investigators can even compromise and contaminate the scene with their own footprints.

If I was referring to this matter, as you two gentleman are, I would say that the crime scene has been contaminated thus compromising the investigation given what is now known to have occurred there. As such, one could reasonably state that any evidence collected there and possibly elsewhere, has been compromised. Careful appraisal is required so that a plan can be created so one knows what needs to be collected and the best way to do so but after looking at the evidence coming from the court, it appears this did not occur and the matter has been a monumental stuff up from the beginning.

Evaluating a scene before anyone enters can be the key to keeping contamination to a minimum. When doing a preliminary survey of the crime scene one needs to know what his/hers equipment and manpower needs are. Some scenes may require the presence of specialists, so maybe someone can answer this? When were the first specialist police called to the scene? I mean forensic and crime scene investigators, not the local BIB.

I have also read, with interest, that many people are criticising the DNA obtained. I do not know what procedures were followed by police but given what is coming out now then one would have to say that police failed to ensure the integrity of the DNA. Samples must be properly collected and care must be taken not to taint it, so given what has come to light regarding the DNA then it can reasonably assumed that it has been tainted therefore, compromised.

Looking at the overall situation, there has to be questions raised as to the credibility of police and why those who were first in attendance failed to carry out the very basics of policing, (securing the crime scene) thus giving rise to a flawed investigation. We can also do without all the outside influence and the irrational statements being made by some in authority. If this were back in my country it could result in mistrial or even those sprouting off being held in contempt of the Court.

I don't assume or presume as some have indicated, nor do I want to get involved in conspiracy theories, who thinks who is involved, the mafia, the headman, his sons or brothers, if the boys are innocent or guilty, how their confessions were obtained or whatever. I have in the past sided with police, as being an ex-copper one hopes that things are above board and that the investigation was carried out in a manner that would see justice prevail, one way or another. However, from what is now evident then the veracity of the police evidence must be called into question and their procedures closely scrutinised to ensure that from now and into the future this does not occur, there is transparency in all matters, fairness provided to all alleged offenders and that the families of the victims get closure.

Unfortunately, non of this has appears to have occurred in this case. I am not saying that all police have acted in a manner that would discredit them but certainly many have and they should be called to task for what they have done, many, at the very least, should be charged with neglect of duty or at the worst, a criminal offence. I know many will say this is Thailand, sure it is but unfortunately this is the way they operate. Hopefully, in time, the good cops will prevail and rid the system of inept and corrupt officers and the judicial system will get a long need overhaul. Sure, it will take time, many, many years, maybe not in my life time, but if and when this happens, then the hopefully people will find that Thailand is not so bad after all and the disgusting criticism now being displayed by some on this forum will cease.

In so far as the two alleged offenders, I do not know if they are guilty or innocent. No one on here does either. What everyone needs to understand that we were not there, we do not know what occurred, although many assume or say for certain they are guilty, some the opposite, they are innocent. I think emotions are playing a big role in this and should be put to one side. If they are convicted on the evidence obtained or not obtained, contaminated or concocted, then justice will have to be called into question. If they are found not guilty, then one needs to evaluate the overall situation and determine if they were innocent because they were, or if the decision was made because of a technicality or other undue outside influences. I really don't know in regards to the last two scenarios but one way or another this matter will come to it's conclusion and the whole process will start over, those on this side, those on that side, berating each because they believe they are right.

'like' good well balanced and unbiased post

[smedly]

The other thing that bothers me from the NS supporters is they like to say NS had a girlfriend at the time, so he wouldn't need to rape...... That's that Thai logic getting them screwed at every turn.

NS lives in Bangkok. He comes from a wealthy family. I am sure he could easily find many single girls at university, who would want to latch on some of his wealth, or he could easily pay for it.

But since you keep suggesting he is a rapist then why not do that in Bangkok, and were he lives? Why would he come out to an Island on a weekend, and where his Father, Uncle, and perhaps other family members have a vested interest in Tourism, to do this? That a crime like this would hurt tourism, and thus hurt his family. He is a university student so surely he would know this before hand.

You posted here what you think is Thai Logic and like you are some professional with this, and speaking for all Thai's, which I doubt you are Thai. So let me make it easy for you and give you some Good Old Fashioned American Logic.

"You don't bite the hand that is feeding you!"

Nope..no farang girl would be interested in him.

now you are touching on the psychology and motive behind this heinous crime, add power and money into the mix and you have narrowed the suspect pool down to a hand full of people

[smedly]

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

My personal view is that these clothes were not piled up neatly when found. Just lately is the first time I ever saw them piled up neatly. First time I also heard the Prosecutor ever said this. Can you link that? Not to say I am calling you a Liar. I am just saying I would like to review that whole page.

I just got shocked to find out that a Media Report said Lin was their legally and had to bring in his passport to show the Prosecution that. So I am finding it difficult to believe anything that is written now. I does take the fun out of not being able to believe anything anymore. Ever what is being reported by the Court Media Reporters

Explanation from going from messy to neat? There are many which I am sure you know. Prevent the tide from washing them out to sea. Getting them ready to put in a bag and send to Forensics. Who knows. .

like my previous post - who was wearing jeans ????????

Just been back to check on the pictures and your right. David clearly wasn't wearing jeans and yet there's a pair of jeans there. They can only belong to people involved in the crime. Why aren't they key evidence and also I have heard no, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, mention of a pair of jeans been available in the limited items available for DNA re testing by defence.

might be worth passing this info on to someone with access to the defence team, as I'm sure these jeans are held somewhere in the evidence pool - they will be saturated with DNA

[DKUNPUTAF713]

Post #4746

I do not think that Pornthip Rojanasunand is really concerned about employment tenure at this time as she

will be 60 years of age in December and will most likely retire under current employment rules.

[IslandLover]

I would like to ask JTJ, AleG and jdinasia if he is still around a question.

The prosecution said the clothes were piled neatly on a rock. Up until they showed that picture of the clothes piled neatly on a rock I have never seen it before.

What I have seen is clothes tossed all over the beach around lots of blood.

Are you saying the pictures of the clothes tossed on the beach don't exist and are a figment of a CT's mind ?

When you see things with your own eyes and then someone in a uniform tells you what you have seen doesn't exist then I think it only fair to call them liars.

blood on beach.jpg

Is this picture real or am I dreaming it ?

You have to assume that the court has not seen the picture of the scattered clothes and David's body out to sea? Otherwise that would show the first on scene policeman's testimony to be untrue.

If the prosecution choose to only show certain cctv footage to the court then I presume they also do the same with pictures (although they did say they did not have the budget to store some - what does a flash drive cost? not much more than a few rotis).

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense. The picture showing the scattered clothes and David in the sea - Would it have been possible for the defence to show that or do they not get to do that sort of thing?

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

Here it is again maybe he missed it.

clothes2.jpg

In case nobody else has noticed, the photo of the clothes piled neatly on the rock was taken later in the day than the first crime scene photo of the clothes scattered all over the beach and David's body floating in the water, which has been in the public domain since Day 1. How do I know this? Well look at the sunlight and shadow in that photo of the clothes on the rock. This is completely absent in the first crime scene photos which were taken at dawn. This same police witness also testified that David's body was floating in the water face down - WRONG - it was floating face up! Are these prosecution witnesses deliberately lying in court? It was said in court that the RTP had no budget to store the crime scene photos, therefore they were unavailable. Well, they could have asked ThaiVisa members to supply them!

Edited July 26, 2015 by IslandLover

[darren84310]

I would love to know honestly if this was your daughter or son murdered in these circumstances would you still be happy with the RTP case!

My guess is my statement would be right in line with that of the actual victim's families who have expressed confidence in the evidence and case and believe the right people are on trial and like them would encourage people to let the case play out in court.

Why have to speculate about me when you have the actual families who have released multiple statements.

They have not expressed confidence that the right people are on trial.... Where exactly did you get that information from?

[stephenterry]

Just to clarify two points made on here. I quote from one poster:

I assume the judges make their decisions based on what 'evidence' is presented to the court, which is basically anything the RTP want to show or say to try and help their story make a semblance of sense.

This would apply to the statements made by the two cops who carried out DNA comparisons, and who said there was a match to the suspects. Clearly, it is still hearsay unless it can be backed up by the actual evidence. Nevertheless the defence would have to re-test the samples to counter the cops statements as the court could accept their word. While the defence has been given permission to do so, access to the DNA samples (as of now) have not been made available.

It is speculative to assume they won't ever be forthcoming but, based on past record in this case, it is a possibility. Then, unless the defence have an alternative counter (which they could have according to them) the decision whether to accept the unverified DNA report is at the discretion of the judges. Most people on here could shout 'foul', but that's the reality.

Secondly, with reference to Ms. Porntip and her government position which is not completely independent, Andy Hall stated that it was the request of the suspects that she carry out the analysis. Although it is again speculative, this lady has been outspoken in the past and I would be willing to accept her findings would by factual, not compromised by government pressure. And right now, she's probably the best the suspects could hope for.

[thailandchilli]

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

Here it is again maybe he missed it.

clothes2.jpg

In case nobody else has noticed, the photo of the clothes piled neatly on the rock was taken later in the day than the first crime scene photo of the clothes scattered all over the beach and David's body floating in the water, which has been in the public domain since Day 1. How do I know this? Well look at the sunlight and shadow in that photo of the clothes on the rock. This is completely absent from the original crime scene photos which were taken at dawn. This same police witness also testified that David's body was floating in the water face down - WRONG - it was floating face up! Are these prosecution witnesses deliberately lying in court? It was said in court that the RTP had no budget to store the crime scene photos, therefore they were unavailable. Well, they could have asked ThaiVisa members to supply them!

Ok another apparent lie to the judge, thats the first I heard that the officer said that Davids body was found face down in the water? We all know this is not the case! This is extremely serious or at least would be in any international court. A mistake made here and there can be understandable but this is now a catalogue of clearly false statements being made to the Judges in the trial. How can any logical minded person now keep supporting the RTP version of events is completely beyond any reasonable thinking person.

The first policeman on the scene, Lt. Jakrapan Kaewkao, told the court that he received a call at 6.30am that morning about two tourists’ bodies found on the beach. He said he discovered a gruesome scene on arrival, with Miller “face down” in the shallow surf. http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/families-hear-gruesome-details-as-trial-for-thailand-murders-of-two-british-tourists-begins/story-fnh81fz8-1227434677803

Edited July 26, 2015 by thailandchilli

[StealthEnergiser]

That's a good point and your right why didn't they challenge that. I can't imagine that the defense don't know about the scattered clothes pictures. Maybe there holding back and using it to prove the crime scene was compromised and bodies etc had been moved. Maybe in the Thai court system you can't challenge but they put questions to other witness for the prosecution. Maybe they haven't seen the pics !! Or of course they could have something that blows the whole case out of the water anyway and it isn't that relevant. All speculation but keeps us engaged

Here it is again maybe he missed it.

clothes2.jpg

In case nobody else has noticed, the photo of the clothes piled neatly on the rock was taken later in the day than the first crime scene photo of the clothes scattered all over the beach and David's body floating in the water, which has been in the public domain since Day 1. How do I know this? Well look at the sunlight and shadow in that photo of the clothes on the rock. This is completely absent from the original crime scene photos which were taken at dawn. This same police witness also testified that David's body was floating in the water face down - WRONG - it was floating face up! Are these prosecution witnesses deliberately lying in court? It was said in court that the RTP had no budget to store the crime scene photos, therefore they were unavailable. Well, they could have asked ThaiVisa members to supply them!

Ok another apparent lie to the judge, thats the first I heard that the officer said that Davids body was found face down in the water? We all know this is not the case! This is extremely serious or at least would be in any international court. A mistake made here and there can be understandable but this is now a catalogue of clearly false statements being made to the Judges in the trial. How can any logical minded person now keep supporting the RTP version of events is completely beyond and reasonable thinking person.

[Heisenbergg]

The other thing that bothers me from the NS supporters is they like to say NS had a girlfriend at the time, so he wouldn't need to rape...... That's that Thai logic getting them screwed at every turn.

NS lives in Bangkok. He comes from a wealthy family. I am sure he could easily find many single girls at university, who would want to latch on some of his wealth, or he could easily pay for it.

But since you keep suggesting he is a rapist then why not do that in Bangkok, and were he lives? Why would he come out to an Island on a weekend, and where his Father, Uncle, and perhaps other family members have a vested interest in Tourism, to do this? That a crime like this would hurt tourism, and thus hurt his family. He is a university student so surely he would know this before hand.

You posted here what you think is Thai Logic and like you are some professional with this, and speaking for all Thai's, which I doubt you are Thai. So let me make it easy for you and give you some Good Old Fashioned American Logic.

"You don't bite the hand that is feeding you!"

Nope..no farang girl would be interested in him.

now you are touching on the psychology and motive behind this heinous crime, add power and money into the mix and you have narrowed the suspect pool down to a hand full of people

Well, Let's see. Why would someone choose to go home and commit a crime? I don't think that was the intention. I think he went home for a weekend for whatever reason and during his time on the island he felt insulted, slighted, whatever. Now, he knows he's on an island his family controls, 100%... Who's gonna stop him from teaching these tourists a lesson? Nobody, not with Mr. Shark Tooth and Big Ears around.

Why not do it in Bangkok? Simple, dads power only reaches so far, waaay more empty palms up here to grease.

Oh, but he's a young rich guy why does he need to rape? Classic rapist apologist thinking. He needs to rape because he like to exert his power over people who he may feel inferior to in some way. Rape isn't about sex, normal sex isn't as big a turn on for a rapists because they're not exerting their power.

Kind of like how I don't find rape arousing, because it sickens me and any woman who doesn't want to be with me, won't turn me on.

There are patterns here, garing ugly patterns.

There is a reason certain people are under a microscope.

You're average Thai boy gets very little discipline, they're doted over and their mistakes laughed at. How do you think growing up with nobody telling you "No" ... You gain a massive sense of entitlement.

The kind of entitlement that makes you confident enough to commit a major crime in your family backyard because, Just like your crappy nappies, the maid will be by in the morning to clean things up... While you catch a nap.

[smedly]

NS lives in Bangkok. He comes from a wealthy family. I am sure he could easily find many single girls at university, who would want to latch on some of his wealth, or he could easily pay for it.

But since you keep suggesting he is a rapist then why not do that in Bangkok, and were he lives? Why would he come out to an Island on a weekend, and where his Father, Uncle, and perhaps other family members have a vested interest in Tourism, to do this? That a crime like this would hurt tourism, and thus hurt his family. He is a university student so surely he would know this before hand.

You posted here what you think is Thai Logic and like you are some professional with this, and speaking for all Thai's, which I doubt you are Thai. So let me make it easy for you and give you some Good Old Fashioned American Logic.

"You don't bite the hand that is feeding you!"

Nope..no farang girl would be interested in him.

now you are touching on the psychology and motive behind this heinous crime, add power and money into the mix and you have narrowed the suspect pool down to a hand full of people

Well, Let's see. Why would someone choose to go home and commit a crime? I don't think that was the intention. I think he went home for a weekend for whatever reason and during his time on the island he felt insulted, slighted, whatever. Now, he knows he's on an island his family controls, 100%... Who's gonna stop him from teaching these tourists a lesson? Nobody, not with Mr. Shark Tooth and Big Ears around.

Why not do it in Bangkok? Simple, dads power only reaches so far, waaay more empty palms up here to grease.

Oh, but he's a young rich guy why does he need to rape? Classic rapist apologist thinking. He needs to rape because he like to exert his power over people who he may feel inferior to in some way. Rape isn't about sex, normal sex isn't as big a turn on for a rapists because they're not exerting their power.

Kind of like how I don't find rape arousing, because it sickens me and any woman who doesn't want to be with me, won't turn me on.

There are patterns here, garing ugly patterns.

There is a reason certain people are under a microscope.

You're average Thai boy gets very little discipline, they're doted over and their mistakes laughed at. How do you think growing up with nobody telling you "No" ... You gain a massive sense of entitlement.

The kind of entitlement that makes you confident enough to commit a major crime in your family backyard because, Just like your crappy nappies, the maid will be by in the morning to clean things up... While you catch a nap.

I made absolutely no reference to NS in my post

[Lozza]

Could those of you who were brave enough to view the pictures of Hannah and particularly David confirm that the injuries to him could have been made by the blunt end of a hoe!! From everything I have seen and taken in his injuries were not consistent with a implement like that. I'm sure somebody will confirm or deny the possibility. Thanks

There was no wound to the back of David's head. There were a couple of wounds on the side of the head, but most of the wounds (similar looking) are on the front.

To my eyes, the pattern of David's wounds are consistent only with a protracted fight. The wounds do not look consistent with a blunt instrument.

The only possible explanation I can concoct (and concoct is the word) is that the single blow from behind that incapacitated David and left him to drown in the sea left no mark (being a blow in an area covered by hair from a blunt instrument) and the visible wounds were inflicted by sharp shells or other objects after he fell. Realistically, the RTP story is a load of round objects.

I'm not sure what the blunt end of a hoe means but I am sure that if you hit someone with either corner of the working end of a hoe it could leave wounds consistent with what I unfortunately viewed in the photos.

I take the blunt end of a hoe to mean the opposite side as in 180% from the active spade like digging end. Which from what I owned previously in my country is basically a casting which fits around the wooden handle.

So as somebody earlier said it would be like getting hit with say a lump hammer without the weight behind it. There could be possible breaking of skin etc but not deep incisions. From what I have had explained on here not wanting to see the pics David's wounds would not be received by the back of a hoe. And obviously if hit with the other end the wounds could be very deep but also quite extensive. Almost like a blunt axe type injury. Not sure if that's a good explanation or not. Incidently as the poster has quite rightly pointed out and provided a picture of a English style hoe the hoe I had was very very similar to the one in the crime pictures with the blood/not blood on it. Just to clarify .

David had several incisions to his head and face he also had one on his right cheekbone and under his jaw. If it were the hoe they are saying he was murdered with there is no way a hoe could have been used firstly his cheek bone would have been crushed and how could a hoe that size leave an incision under his Jaw which would shatter his jaw bone.

[Heisenbergg]

NS lives in Bangkok. He comes from a wealthy family. I am sure he could easily find many single girls at university, who would want to latch on some of his wealth, or he could easily pay for it.

But since you keep suggesting he is a rapist then why not do that in Bangkok, and were he lives? Why would he come out to an Island on a weekend, and where his Father, Uncle, and perhaps other family members have a vested interest in Tourism, to do this? That a crime like this would hurt tourism, and thus hurt his family. He is a university student so surely he would know this before hand.

You posted here what you think is Thai Logic and like you are some professional with this, and speaking for all Thai's, which I doubt you are Thai. So let me make it easy for you and give you some Good Old Fashioned American Logic.

"You don't bite the hand that is feeding you!"

Nope..no farang girl would be interested in him.

now you are touching on the psychology and motive behind this heinous crime, add power and money into the mix and you have narrowed the suspect pool down to a hand full of people

Well, Let's see. Why would someone choose to go home and commit a crime? I don't think that was the intention. I think he went home for a weekend for whatever reason and during his time on the island he felt insulted, slighted, whatever. Now, he knows he's on an island his family controls, 100%... Who's gonna stop him from teaching these tourists a lesson? Nobody, not with Mr. Shark Tooth and Big Ears around.

Why not do it in Bangkok? Simple, dads power only reaches so far, waaay more empty palms up here to grease.

Oh, but he's a young rich guy why does he need to rape? Classic rapist apologist thinking. He needs to rape because he like to exert his power over people who he may feel inferior to in some way. Rape isn't about sex, normal sex isn't as big a turn on for a rapists because they're not exerting their power.

Kind of like how I don't find rape arousing, because it sickens me and any woman who doesn't want to be with me, won't turn me on.

There are patterns here, garing ugly patterns.

There is a reason certain people are under a microscope.

You're average Thai boy gets very little discipline, they're doted over and their mistakes laughed at. How do you think growing up with nobody telling you "No" ... You gain a massive sense of entitlement.

The kind of entitlement that makes you confident enough to commit a major crime in your family backyard because, Just like your crappy nappies, the maid will be by in the morning to clean things up... While you catch a nap.

I made absolutely no reference to NS in my post

Erm, the two quotes in your reply are all about NS... Thought it was obvious.