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

[AleG]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

[Darkknight666]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

Ok, I'll bite. Why did Sean flee? Assume a new name?

Stalking? Haha... He's a person of interest in a crime. He's actually a key witness being that he was threatened by Mon. I'll talk about the guy all I want.

Lastly, if what you want is justice how can you dismiss Sean as not important to the investigation?

[Isitjustme]

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.

An excellent review of the circumstances. Fair,rational,logical and sensible. Sadly none of these traits has much place in a Thai court of law

[missexpat]

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_07_2015/post-155768-0-67433800-1438159488.jpg

The posing with the hoe like implements by those sickos is In my guess predictable and shows some people view life and more than that farang life. However why the posing with the guns or is there something in this gun shot wound suggestion? Don't know maybe there just showing how big a gangster there are when they have a gun and lots of mates around.!how do you think they would stand up to this gang??

Incidentally some of these British Royal Marines will probably same age or younger than the B2

Keep posting them pictures please....

[Nigeone]

You guys arguing the toss, your filling the thread up with bullshit, its 80% of pointless toing and afroing, its repetative and making it nigh on impossible for people who just want to keep up with the case, quote after quote after quote.

Please give it a rest..

Hi I understand what your saying and for my part if my posts you consider bullshit I'm sorry you feel like that.

The problem so many of us have is if we left it to JLT ,GB and the like you wouldn't get a true reflection on what's actually happening. It's a difficult I know and for my part in it I apologise for it. But some on here feel quite strongly that people aren't getting a fair deal from authorities so hence the input. Sorry again

[jimmybkk]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

What was Sean referring to when he stated "owner of ac bar did it" then?

[silverado]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

Nige,

Forgive my ignorance but as I do not do Face Book, I am a bit in the dark about this character. I have seen a number of references to him, some for, some against but in so far as the wounds, I have never seen them, not that it would make any difference, seeing them and actually seeing them is quite different and to make any comparison, would be difficult. But I understand that one can note similarities in shape and size but to come to a finite conclusion would be unwise.

Given what this character has alleged, put on Face Book and in other quotes, some of which have been referred to on the forum, then it would be reasonably expected for him to be interviewed in depth, if only to dimiss him as being a person of interest. Maybe he was interviewed, do you or some others have this information and maybe shred some light on this aspect? Also, what is it with the blood on his guitar, why is he proudly displaying it for the world to see? Even though I do not know a lot about this character, if I was one of the investigators, then I would certainly look at lot closer at him. Might prove fruitless but at least no stone would be left unturned in an effort to get to the bottom of this heinous crime.

I will PM you Si Thea but I do agree with you and you notice I was careful not to directly say he was there but there is too many questions he should have been asked. The blood on guitar, the injuries, the threats he said he received and his obvious fear coupled with his statement that his was sleeping that night and didnt know anything then coming out with stories of what happened and finally him disappearing of the Island very quickly. I'm sure he's been threatened, I'm happy to come out and say that ,but threatened for what reason needs looked at. Or should,have been looked at. In my opinion he knows exactly what when on that night and might have even been involved.

"his statement that his was sleeping that night and didnt know anything.." (alibi not confirmed by any witness) just and ONLY came after this :

[thailandchilli]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

My thoughts on the guitar blood are because as you say it was alleged that someone washed blood of him. He loves his music and I'm sure his guitar as that usually is precious to a singer/songwriter so if that blood came from something that happened that night it stands to reason he would have washed it. What's the reason for leaving it on. However the other angle could be that same blood could belong to someone involved that night and he's using it as a tool to warn people off. All,theory's that could have and should have been investigated. I saw the pictures and his postings on his Facebook that night and the replies from his friends etc and there was real fear. There's no doubt

The very mans interview in the back of the tuk tuk

[Lancashireman]

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.

An excellent review of the circumstances. Fair,rational,logical and sensible. Sadly none of these traits has much place in a Thai court of law

Good words, sensible opinion. One or two posters might learn from this?

Cuts out the 'willy waggling',

Thank you

[fish fingers]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

Sorry but Sean's statements are so contradictory, they just don't add up.

As for saying he didn't name the killers and that it was actually about him, could you quote to us the exact phrase he used on his Facebook status?

Also he states that he arrived in Thailand on the 9th, which is probably true. But he also states that his injuries are from the same day, the 9th, and the blood was caused by the motorbike accident he had.

Now, don't you think it a little odd to have been in the vicinity of a gruesome bloody murder (that happened to be a best friend) and keep this accidental blood on his guitar? And then to show it off almost in a defiant way to the press?

So do we believe his claims he had kept this blood on the guitar from sept 9th(accident)

He left on the sept 22nd. That blood was supposedly on that guitar for two weeks, from the day he arrived.

Any pics of Sean with his guitar in these two weeks?

Edited July 29, 2015 by fish fingers

[balo]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

What was Sean referring to when he stated "owner of ac bar did it" then?

Many people believe Sean McAnna was intoxicated that night and dillusional , he could not think clearly. After living on that island for 6 months Sean knew these people well enough as we have seen in other pictures , and yes he knew they can be bad boys , but it doesnt mean thay are the killers. It could very well be that Mon and his police friend tried to question Sean about the murders, this was several hours afterward and everyone on the island tried to figure out who did it.

Maybe they believed that Sean did it , and Sean believed the owner of AC bar did it. I agree that it doesnt make the case easier looking at these pictures.

Edited July 29, 2015 by balo

[Nigeone]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

What was Sean referring to when he stated "owner of ac bar did it" then?

Just in case some people,don't know the guy on the left was the guy prominent at the crime scene when the bodies had been found. A policeman allegedly .

[dcutman]

It strikes me as a bit odd that the 2 Burmese commit what is turning out to be the crime of the century and having committed 2 gruesome murders go calmly off to bed.

In the meantime another local identity who had nothing to do with the crime flees the island in a speedboat in the wee dark hours.

Got me baffled. We employed a guy once who was in rehabilitation from being a fairly physical sort of criminal, he told me that when they do the big ones the adrenalin rush is through the roof. The crime is better than drugs were his words, And now we have two midgets who had no practice in the art of murder performing a really big one and calmly going off to bed.

Another poster raised the point about their comradeship and dignity since their arrest. It seems no other prisoner has over heard them quarrelling or telling each other they should not have gone so far etc. Its got me baffled. If Sean could get off the island why could the Burmese not get off the same way, they must have known the Thai authorities would punish them for the murders.

In addition to your first sentance may i add something i find very odd..

After the most dispicable crime, when they are confessing, they were sloshed drunk..

So, you might think under the horriffic circumstances they would forget certain insignificant details, but yet they thought it significant to mention their smoking and drinking wine.

and both these details fit snugly in with the 2 main pieces of evidence.

Now i dont about you, but to see poor Burmese on minimum wage drinking wine? (Also the friend was supposed to have gone back to the accomodation to get more beer)

So now, they've pulled of the crime of the century, while plastered, able to pull the whole thing off, got home safe and sound on bike, in bed by 5am.

then when confessing just happen to casually mention smoking and bottles of wine and..bingo!

And as for the running man in the cctv..well he is running quite effeciently for a 5"guy sloshed on beer and wine...doesnt look drunk at all to me

If they didn't mention the cigarettes in the confession, the certainly would have been asked about it since police had already stated very early in the case the dna on the cigarettes matched that found in the victim. These guys had also been under suspicion for days and the police also probably had the video of them buying the same brand. So regardless if the volunteered the smoking or not, they would have been asked about it.

The vast majority of people who get drunk, don;t have blackouts and it is rare for people to forget what they drank to get to a drunken state. The same comments about the "poor" defendants not being able to afford named brand smokes was stated just like you mention the wine but video shows they did in fact buy that brand of cigarettes. As for wine, there is cheap wine.

If they were in bed at 5 AM and they were both "sloshed drunk" as you say then this would explain there going home and passing out.

Not seeing anything in your points that would at all indicate proof of anything ... just speculating on insignificant things mentioned. I have no idea what is true when it comes to details as sooo many have been reported inaccurately. None of this is going to matter. The DNA is going to be the case and everything else will fall inline with those results. If the DNA doesn't match then even a direct witness testimony will be ignored but if it does then even more questionable circumstantial evidence will believed in the trial.

As for the running guy on the video ... have prosecutors stated it was one of these two? Has either side during the trial stated that person was involved? I am not being sarcastic but don;t know. I thought I heard police played the video in court without much comment being reported. Made me wonder if it might be the friend who is now a prosecution witness but have no clue how or if the running person even fits into the crime ... actually wasn't it reported it was an individual running back and forth between a Burmese camp? Seem to recall something like that being stated in the last couple weeks in the press but again not sure and thought no identity was given.

These guys had also been under suspicion for days

So these three guys are the same three guys the police detained and questioned a day after the murders?

[sweatalot]

Not sure what your motivation is Big John, But I would wager all of us posting here come from countries that have functioning criminal justice systems which are separate institutions and are separated from the influence of the rich and powerful.

In what country does money and power influence criminal justice?

That is a baiting post that sensible folk will not answer.....Sensible folk know the answer and so do you.

Gawd.............

Well said.

All there posts are. Just bullbaiting Aren't you aware?

That's the reason I do not answer to their posts.

(you know who "they" are)

[fish fingers]

just to say this link is not a competitor of Thaivisa etc

https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/nomsod-putting-a-suspect-to-rest/

Just some things written there which state there are witnesses to Nomsod leaving and CCTV at the arrival port

[boomerangutang]

At minimum, based on reports, he would put them at the scene smoking around the time of the murders and where police said from early on they found butt(s) with DNA that matched DNA from the semen found in the victim and the later confirmed this was their DNA. confirmed by who, nothing is confirmed in this case until the dna samples have been handed over to defence for independent verification along with a documented record following the handling of the evidence - how many times do have to be told this, this evidence you mention will be useless unless it can be verified - This was a match because I say so doesn't cut it

why do you continue with this dribble, it really is getting tired

even if the DNA is independently verified then you will simply say it is planted or some other conspiracy took place that involved switching samples.

you go on and on speculating about half reports but then want to silence those who mention reports that have been consistent including the DNA. You can doubt it all you want but you know you will change the goal post once it is independently confirmed.

no different than the kid in Bangkok who has submitted his DNA voluntarily after being cleared by police as well as releasing video footage showing he was in Bangkok at the time. Then people said phone records would show the truth and now police have stated they did use these too to confirm he was in Bangkok and now that is not good enough. now the demand is he should prove his innocence (a much higher bar than is being asked of the actual defendants) and he should prove this to the public (social media forensic experts, internet sleuths, conspiracy nuts).

JTJ, it looked as though you were slowly coming over to the side of reason - from some of your recent posts, but now I see you're still leaning to the Headman shielding camp. Everything you mention, regarding clearing Nomsod, is based on announcements from RTP top brass. If you believe them (as you and AleG plainly do), then yes, Thai officialdom has a strong case against the Burmese. Now why would 97% of posters here not believe top brass' announcements? Hmmm, let me think. Maybe it's because.......

>>> they won't allow any independent reviewing of their data. Or

>>> they've proven to be shielding the headman's people in every way possible.

>>> even their own top investigator admitted in court to not seeing any results from Nomsod's DNA non-match silliness

>>> they won't share Nomsod's or any other pertinent DNA typing with Brit experts

>>> they won't look at video which anyone else would deem very important (such as inside AC bar, or of boats leaving the island)

the list could go on and on. Stay tuned for more screw-ups by RTP which further confirm their frame-up - with their fixation of shielding the H's people. ...that is, unless the judges declare a mistrial or otherwise force charges to be dropped. If they did that, it would be to relieve the RTP/prosecution from showing what a mess they've made of the investigation. It wouldn't surprise me (if it's declared a mistrial), and would be good for the scapegoats, but it would also be disappointing, because it would shield officials from having their shoddy and purposefully skewed investigation revealed. Either way, a mistrial would still leave the real killers/rapists free to roam around at will.

[GOLDBUGGY]

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.

An excellent review of the circumstances. Fair,rational,logical and sensible. Sadly none of these traits has much place in a Thai court of law

Contamination does not mean Compromised! Not one Media Report posted the Crime Scene was contaminated! If you were in the Desert and someone gave you a cup of water with a bug floating on top, (Compromised) could you still drink tis safely? But if someone gave you a cup of water that was (Contaminated), could you drink that safely?

Contaminated means toxin, poison, polluted which does not describe this crime scene at all. Did you not see the Police measuring everyone's foot prints?

Is it possible to contaminated a Crime Scene? Sure! If someone dropped the A-Bomb on it. .

[AleG]

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

Ok, I'll bite. Why did Sean flee? Assume a new name?

Stalking? Haha... He's a person of interest in a crime. He's actually a key witness being that he was threatened by Mon. I'll talk about the guy all I want.

Lastly, if what you want is justice how can you dismiss Sean as not important to the investigation?

What investigation, your "investigation"?

[Darkknight666]

I have always felt from day one when I followed Seans Facebook site about how they were out to get him indicated he had a involvement in something. He certainly looked very scared amongst other things and with what has come out since leaves me thinking he has questions to answer. The blood on the guitar I'm not sure about but the injuries to him which look to much like David's injuries and possibly the same weapon used to have inflicted them. It's sad that regardless of fear etc that he can't find a way of coming clean with what he knows. I surely understand the fear of threats towards him but what about the fear of the B2 if they haven't done anything and could be sentenced to death. I still have faith in the UK Sunday papers in finding out some stories that wouldn't normally be heard. Even the Daily Mail which has been very active in reports etc.

interested to hear your theories on the guitar blood.

Yes his carbon copy injuries, his convenient alibi, his bold statement about knowing his good friend fought to protect Hannah and the statement indicating he knew who carried out the murder, And that suddenly he tried to retract both..

Then you have Mon trying to implicate Sean with a witness who claims she washed the blood off him in the early hours.. very tit for tat.

So both of these extremely dodgy individuals were trying to implicate each other hours after the murder.

Why would that be?

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

What was Sean referring to when he stated "owner of ac bar did it" then?

Many people believe Sean McAnna was intoxicated that night and dillusional , he could not think clearly. After living on that island for 6 months Sean knew these people well enough as we have seen in other pictures , and yes he knew they can be bad boys , but it doesnt mean thay are the killers. It could very well be that Mon and his police friend tried to question Sean about the murders, this was several hours afterward and everyone on the island tried to figure out who did it.

Maybe they believed that Sean did it , and Sean believed the owner of AC bar did it. I agree that it doesnt make the case easier looking at these pictures.

Allow me to show you the massive hole in your logic. Mon an that police man had NO business trying to "find the killer". The first thing they should have done is call in the big cops right away... But they did not. They waited hours to call. Why? I know you don't know, but give it some thought.

[boomerangutang]

what made him (Nomsod) submit was that the DNA was fixed not to match his

I can't remember exactly whose but one DNA sample was taken and the result was done in hrs.. completely impossible!

Why the Defence havent made anything of that I just don't know...

For starters, I think the defense have to try and stay focused on defending the defendants. I can see how it would be tempting to go on the attack against the 600 lb gorilla issue (Nomsod being likely guilty), but I don't think the will follow that rabbit down the hole.

Secondly, for months I was thinking that top police brass (mainly Somyot) were likely skewing the DNA via changing names of typing cards on computer files, etc. Now I'm thinking they didn't even make any efforts to do any of that sort of back-alley skewing of the DNA trail. Just announce what they want the public to think.

For decades, RTP have been able to stand in front of the press corps, make an announcement, and all Thais are obliged to either believe it or reluctantly go along with it. There wasn't the option of disagreeing with it publicly. There weren't blogs. Private discussions, maybe, but if you're Thai, you simply don't speak up to counter what RTP top brass announce. Period.

Keeping with that pattern, all top brass needed to do in this case, was simply make whatever announcement they wanted the public to believe. They thought no one would stand up to question it. If it went to court, ok, but they figured judges would side with authority.

This new paradigm, with general public speaking up (albeit with fictitious names) is a new thing for RTP top brass to deal with. They're trying to ignore it, but it won't go away.

On a side note: I mentioned this case to a Thai person (a biz acquaintance who speaks ok English). Right away, he got defensive, saying things like 'Thais get murdered too' and 'farang come to Thailand and kill people sometimes.' It took me by surprise. I didn't want to argue, so I just eased out of the conversation as gracefully as I could.

[AleG]

Sean McAnna never said he knew who carried out the murders; again, the same pattern of taking misinformation as true and deriving conclusions from it.

It's appalling how he keeps being stalked (and by the looks of it by some of the people posting in this thread) because he refuses to say what the conspiracy theorists want him to say. Here's a clue, maybe what he says is the truth and you are all wrong.

He was there, you are just weaving theories which, as shown above, are more often than not based on things that never happened.

The same thing, as far as I know, happened with Warot AKA Nomsod, he dared defend his uncle at CSI-LA and next thing he knew the police was tipped off by social media that he was the man on the "Running Man" video; it stinks of a hatchet job, the most egregious of them but not the only one related the social media "investigation" of the crime.

What was Sean referring to when he stated "owner of ac bar did it" then?

If you hadn't conveniently removed the previous post it would be plainly obvious that the "owner of ac bar did it" was referring to the threats against him, not to the murders of Miller and Witheridge, I've seen other conversations he clearly explained what he meant but evidently it doesn't matter, people are going to believe what they want to believe and continue to harass him anyway.

[Rykbanlor]

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.

An excellent review of the circumstances. Fair,rational,logical and sensible. Sadly none of these traits has much place in a Thai court of law

Contamination does not mean Compromised! Not one Media Report posted the Crime Scene was contaminated! If you were in the Desert and someone gave you a cup of water with a bug floating on top, (Compromised) could you still drink tis safely? But if someone gave you a cup of water that was (Contaminated), could you drink that safely?

Contaminated means toxin, poison, polluted which does not describe this crime scene at all. Did you not see the Police measuring everyone's foot prints?

Is it possible to contaminated a Crime Scene? Sure! If someone dropped the A-Bomb on it. .

No, you're misunderstanding the use of contaminated when applied to a crime scene. Look it up.

[saminoz]

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.

An excellent review of the circumstances. Fair,rational,logical and sensible. Sadly none of these traits has much place in a Thai court of law

Contamination does not mean Compromised! Not one Media Report posted the Crime Scene was contaminated! If you were in the Desert and someone gave you a cup of water with a bug floating on top, (Compromised) could you still drink tis safely? But if someone gave you a cup of water that was (Contaminated), could you drink that safely?

Contaminated means toxin, poison, polluted which does not describe this crime scene at all. Did you not see the Police measuring everyone's foot prints?

Is it possible to contaminated a Crime Scene? Sure! If someone dropped the A-Bomb on it. .

Strange post showing the amazing lack of understanding or simple "head in the sand" syndrome of the writer.

I'll give you a head start: "Contamination is the presence of an unwanted constituent, contaminant or impurity in a material, physical body, natural environment, workplace, etc." (thank you Wikipedia)

I'd say that Mon was certainly an unwanted constituent in the environment of the crime scene, wasn't he? Given the unsavory reputation of his powerful family, I guess you could also argue for impurity and, thank you GB, something toxic.

Mon, along with severely untrained island Police, compromised the crime scene with their presence.

Edited July 29, 2015 by saminoz

[Darkknight666]

Ahh goldbuggy, you say NS was fingered as the killer after standing up for Mon on CSI LA? Where did you read that? Got a link? He was accused by the top cop in the province and he RAN! Refused DNA for a citing his "human rights" ( I remember at the time telling my wife "#@&% your human rights, kid) and the lead investigator never cleared the "DNA testing" story... He's said he never saw the results!

If he's not guilty he's doing a horrible job at appearing that way! And, what he offered as an "Alibi" is one video and a DNA test nobody knows the results of other than some trusted RTP source. How can you be so dense?

[StealthEnergiser]

what made him (Nomsod) submit was that the DNA was fixed not to match his

I can't remember exactly whose but one DNA sample was taken and the result was done in hrs.. completely impossible!

Why the Defence havent made anything of that I just don't know...

For starters, I think the defense have to try and stay focused on defending the defendants. I can see how it would be tempting to go on the attack against the 600 lb gorilla issue (Nomsod being likely guilty), but I don't think the will follow that rabbit down the hole.

Secondly, for months I was thinking that top police brass (mainly Somyot) were likely skewing the DNA via changing names of typing cards on computer files, etc. Now I'm thinking they didn't even make any efforts to do any of that sort of back-alley skewing of the DNA trail. Just announce what they want the public to think.

For decades, RTP have been able to stand in front of the press corps, make an announcement, and all Thais are obliged to either believe it or reluctantly go along with it. There wasn't the option of disagreeing with it publicly. There weren't blogs. Private discussions, maybe, but if you're Thai, you simply don't speak up to counter what RTP top brass announce. Period.

Keeping with that pattern, all top brass needed to do in this case, was simply make whatever announcement they wanted the public to believe. They thought no one would stand up to question it. If it went to court, ok, but they figured judges would side with authority.

This new paradigm, with general public speaking up (albeit with fictitious names) is a new thing for RTP top brass to deal with. They're trying to ignore it, but it won't go away.

On a side note: I mentioned this case to a Thai person (a biz acquaintance who speaks ok English). Right away, he got defensive, saying things like 'Thais get murdered too' and 'farang come to Thailand and kill people sometimes.' It took me by surprise. I didn't want to argue, so I just eased out of the conversation as gracefully as I could.

With the DNA it may be possible for the real killers rapist's to give their DNA and someone like a corrupt official gets hold of the bottles before sending them to the lab and just change the names to b2.

[boomerangutang]

I am still waiting for you to post some shred of evidence from your La-la Land that shows me the 2 accused you are standing up for strongly and are so sure they are innocent. Or are you going to post a Grainy Picture, which looks like most Thai's here that age, that is until some Spin Doctor puts a false face on it, of some guy running, that doesn't prove a hill of beans anyway, as your star defense strategy?

Would you say the same directly to Pol. General Panya - the initial head cop of the investigation? He and his team were sure that Running Man showed Nomsod - oh, until his superiors in Bangkok told him to drop that idea, and focus only on busting some Burmese boys.

If a person doesn't want to acknowledge it's Nomsod, that's their choice.

Headman's people, RTP, prosecution, and some posters on this thread are determined that Running Man not be shown to be Nomsod. Sorry folks, the cats out of the bag, and you can't put it back. The video has been released. Mon would have loved for that video to have never gone public, just as he and RTP made sure a slew of other footage would never be seen - but he missed that bit. Sorry 'bout that Mon. It will come back to haunt you.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Ahh goldbuggy, you say NS was fingered as the killer after standing up for Mon on CSI LA? Where did you read that? Got a link? He was accused by the top cop in the province and he RAN! Refused DNA for a citing his "human rights" ( I remember at the time telling my wife "#@&% your human rights, kid) and the lead investigator never cleared the "DNA testing" story... He's said he never saw the results!

If he's not guilty he's doing a horrible job at appearing that way! And, what he offered as an "Alibi" is one video and a DNA test nobody knows the results of other than some trusted RTP source. How can you be so dense?

What I said was NS was cleared of all wrong doing over 10 months ago, and for many good proven reasons you refuse to accept.

NS is not Guilty! It is only the Media Spin Doctors out their, who Brain Washed you, to make it appear this way.

For the Umpteen Time NS is not on Trail here for many good reasons. Perry Mason is not going to walk into this court room and free the accused by finding the real person on the stand. That was all TV made up and fictional, and like many of the posts here.

[fish fingers]

Ahh goldbuggy, you say NS was fingered as the killer after standing up for Mon on CSI LA? Where did you read that? Got a link? He was accused by the top cop in the province and he RAN! Refused DNA for a citing his "human rights" ( I remember at the time telling my wife "#@&% your human rights, kid) and the lead investigator never cleared the "DNA testing" story... He's said he never saw the results!

If he's not guilty he's doing a horrible job at appearing that way! And, what he offered as an "Alibi" is one video and a DNA test nobody knows the results of other than some trusted RTP source. How can you be so dense?

What I said was NS was cleared of all wrong doing over 10 months ago, and for many good proven reasons you refuse to accept.

NS is not Guilty! It is only the Media Spin Doctors out their, who Brain Washed you, to make it appear this way.

For the Umpteen Time NS is not on Trail here for many good reasons. Perry Mason is not going to walk into this court room and free the accused by finding the real person on the stand. That was all TV made up and fictional, and like many of the posts here.

proven by the thai police? sorry but no one on the island even believes that...

[metisdead]

Off-topic, threatening, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension. Digging through other member's posts and bringing them up on the forum can be considered stalking and it is against the forum rules.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

[thailandchilli]

Contamination does not mean Compromised! Not one Media Report posted the Crime Scene was contaminated! If you were in the Desert and someone gave you a cup of water with a bug floating on top, (Compromised) could you still drink tis safely? But if someone gave you a cup of water that was (Contaminated), could you drink that safely?

Contaminated means toxin, poison, polluted which does not describe this crime scene at all. Did you not see the Police measuring everyone's foot prints?

Is it possible to contaminated a Crime Scene? Sure! If someone dropped the A-Bomb on it. .

Yawn.................... It matters not what term you use when referring to a crime scene that has been in part destroyed:

The original crime scene was compromised, and several theories advanced and discarded by different officers in the first few days, when no one appeared to be properly in charge. http://www.thephuketnews.com/koh-tao-accused-suspects-appeal-directly-to-uk-49773.php

Their handling of forensic evidence appears to be seriously compromised and that will undoubtedly cause them problems if they ever get someone into court.” http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/thailand-murders-footy-players-quizzed-dna-taken-as-police-offer-reward-to-find-killers/story-fnizu68q-1227073894950

They did not seal the island, contaminated the crime scene http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764038/Did-Thai-murder-victims-argue-island-gangster-hour-brutally-killed-Locals-claim-no-one-speak-scared.html

reports described how the crime scene was contaminated, how the police failed to cordon off the island http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thailand-murder-in-the-land-of-smiles/

Or what would you call a crime scene where the alleged murder weapon, the hoe was handled multiple times beforehand and so proved usless to get fingerprints from? Thats just one example of the mess and evidence compromised and destroyed at the scene.