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

GOLDBUGGY · July 29, 2015

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.

Where is the rest of this with the link that goes on to explain it is toxin, poison, polluted?

Nigeone · July 29, 2015

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. .

Wrong, but why am I not surprised ! And on your analogy of the bug in the water! If the bug was carrying disease that would contaminate the water. More so than possibly compromise it. Just saying !!

contaminated

adjective polluted, dirtied, poisoned, infected, stained, corrupted, tainted, sullied, defiled, soiled, adulterated More than 100,000 people could fall ill after drinking contaminated water.

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

Edited July 29, 2015 by Nigeone

thailandchilli · July 29, 2015

A few interesting points in this early Daily Mail article from the 21st Sept 2014, This must be coming back to haunt the RTP:

The last court session the lead investigator said they did not investigate the rumours of a row in the AC bar and yet according to Police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen they were going to. In the second paragraph he also said he did not check the pier cctv as it was not relevant despite reports of a speedboat leaving and also now we see that there were 10 fishing boats moored offshore and 6 of them had left!

Police Colonel Kissana Phathanacharoen said: 'We are appealing for anyone who had a relationship, even a one night stand, with either Hannah or David in the days before they died to come forward as a matter of urgency.
'We have asked the Metropolitan Police to go back and ask their friends if they can help with any further information.'
'No lines of inquiry can be ruled out and we believe these crimes could have been motivated by sexual jealousy.
'We are aware of reports they may have been involved in a row in a bar with a Thai man and we are currently investigating.'

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

Officers have taken the details of the fishing boats moored off the island’s Sairee Beach on the island of Koh Tao. At the time of the murders last Monday morning, ten boats were lying offshore.
Six of those have since left and police colonel Kitthanes Thananunthawisin, of the Marine Police Division’s sub-division 6, said he had the names of all the boats and they were being recalled.
A local Western businessman though, who did not want to be named, criticised the police for allowing the boats to leave.
He said: ‘The police are capable of little more than extracting fines from foreigners and they are in the palms of the local big families on the island.’

Edited July 29, 2015 by thailandchilli

thailandchilli · July 29, 2015

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. .

Hey GB, sssssssssssshhhhhh the RTP are trying to keep the footprint evidence quiet, because it indicated that the person they were looking for was 170 to 174 cms tall, just a heads up for u

Edited July 29, 2015 by thailandchilli

Darkknight666 · July 29, 2015

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.

Perry Mason was long before my time, Genius. I don't care what "evidence" you try to pass off, NONE of it is verifiable by ANYONE but RTP... Who have shown their Hand here over and over. Until NS, , IT and Mon are cleared in some other way than at the word of a RTP officer there is nothing to clear any of them. Tell me one piece of evidence you can cite that will clear any of them... And I'll repeat myself, if NS is innocent he has a funny way of portraying it! Giving half-arse video and unverifiable DNA and cell record won't work.

I don't mind saying this is a HUGE coverup, and those don't happen for two migrant Burmese workers. Evidence doesn't get "used up/not available" for two poor schlubs... People don't get cleared of murder with the kind of evidence put forth.

Give me your best shot as to why the B2 did this... Also explain why the 3 Burmese on the beach that night don't look like running man who is clearly a suspect?

You're bating people GB.... And you're deflecting for people who could be rapists and killers, Oh, an you're making lite of Hannah's death by cracking jokes about people getting ht in the head with a hoe?

You're by far the most devious of the RTP/Killer team.

There are only 4 of you great fellas... JTJ, AleG,Balo and you.

Nobody else buys the story one way or the other.....

There are about 10 posts of mine with direct questions that aren't touched because you boys got nothin'.

Pathetic.

ffaarraanngg · July 29, 2015

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

You're not going to change their mind, and its at a point where it seems as if its you're entire lifes goal to do as much.

You're as bad as JTJ and the gang and are trying to make this case about you as opposed to the actual victims ... like being one of those people who have to connect themselves in some way to tragedy.

Nigeone · July 29, 2015

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.

Perry Mason was long before my time, Genius. I don't care what "evidence" you try to pass off, NONE of it is verifiable by ANYONE but RTP... Who have shown their Hand here over and over. Until NS, , IT and Mon are cleared in some other way than at the word of a RTP officer there is nothing to clear any of them. Tell me one piece of evidence you can cite that will clear any of them... And I'll repeat myself, if NS is innocent he has a funny way of portraying it! Giving half-arse video and unverifiable DNA and cell record won't work.
I don't mind saying this is a HUGE coverup, and those don't happen for two migrant Burmese workers. Evidence doesn't get "used up/not available" for two poor schlubs... People don't get cleared of murder with the kind of evidence put forth.

Give me your best shot as to why the B2 did this... Also explain why the 3 Burmese on the beach that night don't look like running man who is clearly a suspect?

You're bating people GB.... And you're deflecting for people who could be rapists and killers, Oh, an you're making lite of Hannah's death by cracking jokes about people getting ht in the head with a hoe?

You're by far the most devious of the RTP/Killer team.

There are only 4 of you great fellas... JTJ, AleG,Balo and you.

Nobody else buys the story one way or the other.....

There are about 10 posts of mine with direct questions that aren't touched because you boys got nothin'.

Pathetic.

You too , that's funny as I listed 16 questions the other day to JTJ and several to Goldbuggy and I know they've seen them but no answer either.

Okay I will give you chance. GB. In 6 days of trial , can you tell me one piece of evidence to show that the B2 were involved ! And as a supplementary question. Why hasn't the DNA still not been handed over to the defense after many requests ! Please answer because I want you to have some credibility

GOLDBUGGY · July 29, 2015

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.

Perry Mason was long before my time, Genius. I don't care what "evidence" you try to pass off, NONE of it is verifiable by ANYONE but RTP... Who have shown their Hand here over and over. Until NS, , IT and Mon are cleared in some other way than at the word of a RTP officer there is nothing to clear any of them. Tell me one piece of evidence you can cite that will clear any of them... And I'll repeat myself, if NS is innocent he has a funny way of portraying it! Giving half-arse video and unverifiable DNA and cell record won't work.

I don't mind saying this is a HUGE coverup, and those don't happen for two migrant Burmese workers. Evidence doesn't get "used up/not available" for two poor schlubs... People don't get cleared of murder with the kind of evidence put forth.

Give me your best shot as to why the B2 did this... Also explain why the 3 Burmese on the beach that night don't look like running man who is clearly a suspect?

You're bating people GB.... And you're deflecting for people who could be rapists and killers, Oh, an you're making lite of Hannah's death by cracking jokes about people getting ht in the head with a hoe?

You're by far the most devious of the RTP/Killer team.

There are only 4 of you great fellas... JTJ, AleG,Balo and you.

Nobody else buys the story one way or the other.....

There are about 10 posts of mine with direct questions that aren't touched because you boys got nothin'.

Pathetic.

I know as I said that, and exactly what you just said also. That you don't care what evidence is presented.

But I added because these people are Brain Washed.

A "Like" would be better then repeating what I just said.

Nigeone · July 29, 2015

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

You're not going to change their mind, and its at a point where it seems as if its you're entire lifes goal to do as much.
You're as bad as JTJ and the gang and are trying to make this case about you as opposed to the actual victims ... like being one of those people who have to connect themselves in some way to tragedy.

I'm sorry you think that of me. I'm not trying to make this case about anything but for justice for Hannah and David. Also at the moment from what's become apparent there could be 2 more victims and that can't be right. I do accept that it easy to get caught up in the case but to say I'm as bad as JTJ etc is not fair. I've tried very hard to be objective and stay balanced and not speculate and I think I've done that. It is a forum however and invites opinion . However I understand what your saying. Thank you

jimmybkk · July 29, 2015

Now the most interesting fact here is that there is a coterie of posters who are determined to ensure the B2 are found guilty of this heinous crime.

Now gentleman, why would that be ?

You have been a conducting consistent ongoing campaign of guilty since the B2 were arrested.

Be truthful, what is your agenda or whose agenda are you working to and why are you working to that agenda ?

Why does someone who has a different opinion then yours have to have an agenda? Why can't we just have an opinion based on what we have learned by ourselves? An opinion that is based on what we have read about this case in the Media, which is our only source of information, and therefore not written in stone?

But you say "Us" and "Them" like some new Marshal in Town here to clean up this site and restore law and order here. Being a participating member here from the very start do you really want to know the difference between "Us" and "Them"?

"Us" (We) base our own opinion on what we read from a credible media report. We don't want to see anyone who is innocent be tried guilty, but at the same time we do not want to release 2 possible murders and rapist free to commit this crime someplace else, Until it is proven in a court of law, as enough evidence has been collected to accuse them. If the DNA is re-tested proven there is no DNA Match to the accused, then we would reconsider our opinion and would consider them being innocence.

"Them" (You) on the other hand base your opinions on pure speculations and theory. You do not have one shred of evidence to conclude their innocents. You base your evidence on what you call the Prosecutors lack thereof, but yet the trial in in it's infancy. Perhaps worst of all is that if this DNA Re-testing comes back and doesn't go your way, and still proves it matches the 2 accused, you will not accept this. You will say it should have been tested in the UK , or Singapore, and not in Thailand, even though this was the request of the Defense Lawyers, You will add more people to some grand conspiracy and claim they were all bought off to.

The real big difference between "Us" and "Them" is that we can still be rational and use our judgement and logic, and be opened minded, to form our own opinions. Where you are all Brain Washed, and are no longer able or capable to think for yourselves. You wouldn't care to know the truth or justice for the 2 Victims even if it crept up behind you and hit you on the back of the head with a Garden Hoe. ,

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

IslandLover · July 29, 2015

The police testimony re the CCTV, he states Hannah seen entering AC bar with 3 friends, and there the trail ends not seen again so must have left via the back door.

What of her friends she enetered with, surely they had something to say but as far as i can read nothing from the prosecution about interviewing them etc.

This is very strange that there hasnt been anything either thorugh the court, or the press absolutely zip.

David entered on his own, fair enough but Hannah with 3 freinds.

Have i missed something, is there any statments from them about how they left her?

All these people who were with David and Hannah that night have remained totally silent in public, except for Tom Wood (see attached). It was reported in the U.K. press that the travelling companions of H&D had given statements to the U.K. police and that these had been sent on to the Thai authorities by Interpol, which was rightfully criticised as this is a death penalty case and against U.K. government policy.

Darkknight666 · July 29, 2015

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"?

What investigation are you going off?

The RTP "investigation" is hardly more than a childish clusterfokk of LIES, which you swallow daily like your dose of Metamucil. The "investigating" YOU are staking your claims on is highly suspicious to anyone with an IQ of 90.

You're deflecting and trolling this thread.

You dodge 96% of any rational query directed at you and give Limp answers for the rest.

Wake up, Boys..... You're failing miserably and resorting to petty discrepancies to further your point.

There is NO more proof to offer NS innocence as their is the B2's guilt.

The case is a disaster and so are the defenders of it. SHAME!

007cableguy · July 29, 2015

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.

m

OH dear looks like someone is throwing all his toys out of the pram,!

AleG · July 29, 2015

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.

Perry Mason was long before my time, Genius. I don't care what "evidence" you try to pass off, NONE of it is verifiable by ANYONE but RTP... Who have shown their Hand here over and over. Until NS, , IT and Mon are cleared in some other way than at the word of a RTP officer there is nothing to clear any of them. Tell me one piece of evidence you can cite that will clear any of them... And I'll repeat myself, if NS is innocent he has a funny way of portraying it! Giving half-arse video and unverifiable DNA and cell record won't work.

I don't mind saying this is a HUGE coverup, and those don't happen for two migrant Burmese workers. Evidence doesn't get "used up/not available" for two poor schlubs... People don't get cleared of murder with the kind of evidence put forth.

Give me your best shot as to why the B2 did this... Also explain why the 3 Burmese on the beach that night don't look like running man who is clearly a suspect?

You're bating people GB.... And you're deflecting for people who could be rapists and killers, Oh, an you're making lite of Hannah's death by cracking jokes about people getting ht in the head with a hoe?

You're by far the most devious of the RTP/Killer team.

There are only 4 of you great fellas... JTJ, AleG,Balo and you.

Nobody else buys the story one way or the other.....

There are about 10 posts of mine with direct questions that aren't touched because you boys got nothin'.

Pathetic.

"The RTP/Killer team"? Are you out of your mind?

So much for having a civil discussion, you seem intent on demonizing anyone and everything that doesn't agree with you.

Accusing people of being killers, and you have the chutzpah of calling people trolls.

Darkknight666 · July 29, 2015

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.

Perry Mason was long before my time, Genius. I don't care what "evidence" you try to pass off, NONE of it is verifiable by ANYONE but RTP... Who have shown their Hand here over and over. Until NS, , IT and Mon are cleared in some other way than at the word of a RTP officer there is nothing to clear any of them. Tell me one piece of evidence you can cite that will clear any of them... And I'll repeat myself, if NS is innocent he has a funny way of portraying it! Giving half-arse video and unverifiable DNA and cell record won't work.
I don't mind saying this is a HUGE coverup, and those don't happen for two migrant Burmese workers. Evidence doesn't get "used up/not available" for two poor schlubs... People don't get cleared of murder with the kind of evidence put forth.

Give me your best shot as to why the B2 did this... Also explain why the 3 Burmese on the beach that night don't look like running man who is clearly a suspect?

You're bating people GB.... And you're deflecting for people who could be rapists and killers, Oh, an you're making lite of Hannah's death by cracking jokes about people getting ht in the head with a hoe?

You're by far the most devious of the RTP/Killer team.

There are only 4 of you great fellas... JTJ, AleG,Balo and you.

Nobody else buys the story one way or the other.....

There are about 10 posts of mine with direct questions that aren't touched because you boys got nothin'.

Pathetic.

I know as I said that, and exactly what you just said also. That you don't care what evidence is presented.
But I added because these people are Brain Washed.

A "Like" would be better then repeating what I just said.

Because you have an issue interpreting English, I'll help you out. The evidence presented by the prosecution so far is all.... garbage. None of it has been confirmed by anyone but the RTP "investigator". Since the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, the ground you're standing on is quicksand. The only people in the world that will accept this kind of evidence in a major sex crime leading to a double murder are bias folks like you or people who have zero interest in how the case turns out so long as Farangs keep flying in here and spending money.

You lost your legs long ago GB. All you and JTJ and your ilk are doing now is clinging to one sided evidence and attacks on posters,,snarky and spineless as that is... It's all you have!

Darkknight666 · July 29, 2015

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.

Perry Mason was long before my time, Genius. I don't care what "evidence" you try to pass off, NONE of it is verifiable by ANYONE but RTP... Who have shown their Hand here over and over. Until NS, , IT and Mon are cleared in some other way than at the word of a RTP officer there is nothing to clear any of them. Tell me one piece of evidence you can cite that will clear any of them... And I'll repeat myself, if NS is innocent he has a funny way of portraying it! Giving half-arse video and unverifiable DNA and cell record won't work.
I don't mind saying this is a HUGE coverup, and those don't happen for two migrant Burmese workers. Evidence doesn't get "used up/not available" for two poor schlubs... People don't get cleared of murder with the kind of evidence put forth.

Give me your best shot as to why the B2 did this... Also explain why the 3 Burmese on the beach that night don't look like running man who is clearly a suspect?F

You're bating people GB.... And you're deflecting for people who could be rapists and killers, Oh, an you're making lite of Hannah's death by cracking jokes about people getting ht in the head with a hoe?

You're by far the most devious of the RTP/Killer team.

There are only 4 of you great fellas... JTJ, AleG,Balo and you.

Nobody else buys the story one way or the other.....

There are about 10 posts of mine with direct questions that aren't touched because you boys got nothin'.

Pathetic.

"The RTP/Killer team"? Are you out of your mind?

So much for having a civil discussion, you seem intent on demonizing anyone and everything that doesn't agree with you.

Accusing people of being killers, and you have the chutzpah of calling people trolls.

Please.. Nice try on the drama. To many here, you are siding with the killers. Sorry about that, it's the perception you're giving no matter how hard you try not to give that perception. You also Like to bait posters you find are inferior to your intellect. You can be as nasty as you like, condescending too.. I'll still be here laughing at you and punting out the flaws in this case. You're not scaring anyone off or influencing anyone with any sense of reality.

Actually, get out of my post's.. You're little more than an antagonist.

Si Thea01 · July 29, 2015

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. .

And your qualifications and experience are? Mine was in law enforcement for 30 years, and when I left I held the rank of Detective Sergeant, was a qualified crash, crime scene, fraud and homicide investigator, after having undertaken the necessary specialist courses. I was also the lead investigator in many, many cases. So I think I have a bit of an idea about what I have stated. If I may, I'd suggest you read my post and understand what the following means.

"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." Also this, "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.

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Si Thea01

Fat Haggis · July 29, 2015

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?

Pretty much all of the African Continent, South America, Mexico, The Middle East...

Darkknight666 · July 29, 2015

Now the most interesting fact here is that there is a coterie of posters who are determined to ensure the B2 are found guilty of this heinous crime.

Now gentleman, why would that be ?

You have been a conducting consistent ongoing campaign of guilty since the B2 were arrested.

Be truthful, what is your agenda or whose agenda are you working to and why are you working to that agenda ?

Why does someone who has a different opinion then yours have to have an agenda? Why can't we just have an opinion based on what we have learned by ourselves? An opinion that is based on what we have read about this case in the Media, which is our only source of information, and therefore not written in stone?
But you say "Us" and "Them" like some new Marshal in Town here to clean up this site and restore law and order here. Being a participating member here from the very start do you really want to know the difference between "Us" and "Them"?

"Us" (We) base our own opinion on what we read from a credible media report. We don't want to see anyone who is innocent be tried guilty, but at the same time we do not want to release 2 possible murders and rapist free to commit this crime someplace else, Until it is proven in a court of law, as enough evidence has been collected to accuse them. If the DNA is re-tested proven there is no DNA Match to the accused, then we would reconsider our opinion and would consider them being innocence.

"Them" (You) on the other hand base your opinions on pure speculations and theory. You do not have one shred of evidence to conclude their innocents. You base your evidence on what you call the Prosecutors lack thereof, but yet the trial in in it's infancy. Perhaps worst of all is that if this DNA Re-testing comes back and doesn't go your way, and still proves it matches the 2 accused, you will not accept this. You will say it should have been tested in the UK , or Singapore, and not in Thailand, even though this was the request of the Defense Lawyers, You will add more people to some grand conspiracy and claim they were all bought off to.

The real big difference between "Us" and "Them" is that we can still be rational and use our judgement and logic, and be opened minded, to form our own opinions. Where you are all Brain Washed, and are no longer able or capable to think for yourselves. You wouldn't care to know the truth or justice for the 2 Victims even if it crept up behind you and hit you on the back of the head with a Garden Hoe. ,

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

This x 100,000,000,000.

Few people claim to know what happened. The rest don't believe what has been put forth.

Less than 6 active posters buy the RTP version of events and here we are at page 125.

Thesticle · July 29, 2015

Now the most interesting fact here is that there is a coterie of posters who are determined to ensure the B2 are found guilty of this heinous crime.

Now gentleman, why would that be ?

You have been a conducting consistent ongoing campaign of guilty since the B2 were arrested.

Be truthful, what is your agenda or whose agenda are you working to and why are you working to that agenda ?

Why does someone who has a different opinion then yours have to have an agenda? Why can't we just have an opinion based on what we have learned by ourselves? An opinion that is based on what we have read about this case in the Media, which is our only source of information, and therefore not written in stone?
But you say "Us" and "Them" like some new Marshal in Town here to clean up this site and restore law and order here. Being a participating member here from the very start do you really want to know the difference between "Us" and "Them"?

"Us" (We) base our own opinion on what we read from a credible media report. We don't want to see anyone who is innocent be tried guilty, but at the same time we do not want to release 2 possible murders and rapist free to commit this crime someplace else, Until it is proven in a court of law, as enough evidence has been collected to accuse them. If the DNA is re-tested proven there is no DNA Match to the accused, then we would reconsider our opinion and would consider them being innocence.

"Them" (You) on the other hand base your opinions on pure speculations and theory. You do not have one shred of evidence to conclude their innocents. You base your evidence on what you call the Prosecutors lack thereof, but yet the trial in in it's infancy. Perhaps worst of all is that if this DNA Re-testing comes back and doesn't go your way, and still proves it matches the 2 accused, you will not accept this. You will say it should have been tested in the UK , or Singapore, and not in Thailand, even though this was the request of the Defense Lawyers, You will add more people to some grand conspiracy and claim they were all bought off to.

The real big difference between "Us" and "Them" is that we can still be rational and use our judgement and logic, and be opened minded, to form our own opinions. Where you are all Brain Washed, and are no longer able or capable to think for yourselves. You wouldn't care to know the truth or justice for the 2 Victims even if it crept up behind you and hit you on the back of the head with a Garden Hoe. ,

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

Great Analogy jimmy . You summed up the whole problem with that one.

NCFC · July 29, 2015

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.

I don't know about the Thai legal system, but under UK law Sean would be guilty of murder if he was merely in a group of people and one of that group committed the actual murder. There was a case where a guy murdered somebody in a pizza shop and the driver of the getaway car was also convicted of murder, even though he was in the car outside the sop at the time. So Sean could be 'guilty by association' and that would explain him running away and keeping schtum.

Why didn't the Thai police hold him for questioning given the bloodied guitar? That's almost a smoking gun, under the circumstances. At the very least you'd expect a statement to have been recorded. But what we have is a policeman at the pier shaking hands with Sean as he leaves the island. Is it normal for cops to see people off, unless they want to be sure that person really has gone?

Chetzee · July 29, 2015

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. .

And your qualifications and experience are? Mine was in law enforcement for 30 years, and when I left I held the rank of Detective Sergeant, was a qualified crash, crime scene, fraud and homicide investigator, after having undertaken the necessary specialist courses. I was also the lead investigator in many, many cases. So I think I have a bit of an idea about what I have stated. If I may, I'd suggest you read my post and understand what the following means.

"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." Also this, "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.

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

trying to pull a bit of rank are we ? laughable truly laughable .

Did you also do the course in trying to demean people who's grammer and spelling arn't up to scrath Gov ?

bamukloy · July 29, 2015

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

Bamulkloy you did not mention that there was Hannah's DNA all over one of the cigarettes the culprits were smoking. Now all previous reports indicate that Hannah was a non smoker. But it is easy to explain how her DNA got there, while the 2 midgets were taking turns to bash David with a rusty hoe, which was conveniently lying on the beach at the time, they would have asked Hannah to hold the cigarettes for them, therefore Hannah's DNA
is now on the cigarettes. You assume that the running man ( a drunken Burmese) was not drunk, not sure about that but I noticed something odd about the way he carried his left arm, am I seeing things or is it just all in the shadows?

Well,when the ciggy issue first came up the BiB claimed Hanna and the B2 shared a ciggy on the beach.

They even tried to make it fit by claiming there was red lipstick on the butt, but wrong again...

But they werent to know then that Hanna didnt smoke.

Its just one of many times they've had to change their story midstream after being caught out.

The whole theory is absurd anyway, as the butt could have been discarded at the scene any time, hours or even a day before the crime..and then collected a spray of blood..or for that matter even around that rock or area where the blood stains were noted

but yeah, i get your sarcasm..im suprised we havent heard the burmese guy was deliberately holding his hand like that in the video to throw suspicion off himself and looking like someone else

Edited July 29, 2015 by bamukloy

bunglebag · July 29, 2015

http://blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/koh-tao-thailand-murder-death-foreigners-28701/28701

Interesting comments on this article.

Combined with Sean's comments about there being a lot of rapes on Koh Tao it could point to a group of local people carrying out these sort of attacks over a sustained period of time.

I do not know if Sean was present that night but I think he most likely knows who the local dangermen were/are on Sairee beach with regards to female safety & fighting etc, as probably do a lot of other long termers, whether via gossip or other means.

People on that island appear to be either not bothered and maybe protecting their interests, or else scared to speak up.

Fear like that does not come from a couple of young Burmese guys so for me that is another big pointer that something is seriously amiss here and the people on trial are not the full story.

GOLDBUGGY · July 29, 2015

Now the most interesting fact here is that there is a coterie of posters who are determined to ensure the B2 are found guilty of this heinous crime.

Now gentleman, why would that be ?

You have been a conducting consistent ongoing campaign of guilty since the B2 were arrested.

Be truthful, what is your agenda or whose agenda are you working to and why are you working to that agenda ?

Why does someone who has a different opinion then yours have to have an agenda? Why can't we just have an opinion based on what we have learned by ourselves? An opinion that is based on what we have read about this case in the Media, which is our only source of information, and therefore not written in stone?

But you say "Us" and "Them" like some new Marshal in Town here to clean up this site and restore law and order here. Being a participating member here from the very start do you really want to know the difference between "Us" and "Them"?

"Us" (We) base our own opinion on what we read from a credible media report. We don't want to see anyone who is innocent be tried guilty, but at the same time we do not want to release 2 possible murders and rapist free to commit this crime someplace else, Until it is proven in a court of law, as enough evidence has been collected to accuse them. If the DNA is re-tested proven there is no DNA Match to the accused, then we would reconsider our opinion and would consider them being innocence.

"Them" (You) on the other hand base your opinions on pure speculations and theory. You do not have one shred of evidence to conclude their innocents. You base your evidence on what you call the Prosecutors lack thereof, but yet the trial in in it's infancy. Perhaps worst of all is that if this DNA Re-testing comes back and doesn't go your way, and still proves it matches the 2 accused, you will not accept this. You will say it should have been tested in the UK , or Singapore, and not in Thailand, even though this was the request of the Defense Lawyers, You will add more people to some grand conspiracy and claim they were all bought off to.

The real big difference between "Us" and "Them" is that we can still be rational and use our judgement and logic, and be opened minded, to form our own opinions. Where you are all Brain Washed, and are no longer able or capable to think for yourselves. You wouldn't care to know the truth or justice for the 2 Victims even if it crept up behind you and hit you on the back of the head with a Garden Hoe. ,

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

Well, let me ask you something since you compare this to, lets say a Football Game. You mention this coin toss and being able to see the truth. A Referee and 2 Captains see the coin being tossed and land on the ground, then the call is made. So here is my question to you.

How many times as a Fan or Spectator have you actually seen with your own eyes which way the coin has landed, and if it was Heads or Tails? Would Zero be close? So you put your faith in 2 Captains and the Referee to tell you the truth. Could not 3 people be bribed to lie about this?

In a Murder and Rape Investigation, Arrest, and Trial, and as a Spectator, you don't have any rights to know all the Evidence any more then you have the right as a Fan to walk out onto the field and see the coin toss in your own country. With the exception of attending the Trial, which in my country on big profile cases you would never find a seat in the Court Room. So it is up to the 2 Captains (Prosecution and Defense Lawyers) and the Referee (Judges) to tell you how it ends up.

As to all this other stuff about DNA Testing and who should do it, that could become endless trail (got it right this time) of Speculation. You say a different branch in Thailand, some with say Singapore, some FBI, some Scotland Yard, and so on. It is pretty obvious from knowing were the 2 accused are now, that this DNA Testing that took place, was good enough to keep them their until this Trial at least. .

Heisenberg01 · July 29, 2015

The police testimony re the CCTV, he states Hannah seen entering AC bar with 3 friends, and there the trail ends not seen again so must have left via the back door.

What of her friends she enetered with, surely they had something to say but as far as i can read nothing from the prosecution about interviewing them etc.

This is very strange that there hasnt been anything either thorugh the court, or the press absolutely zip.

David entered on his own, fair enough but Hannah with 3 freinds.

Have i missed something, is there any statments from them about how they left her?

All these people who were with David and Hannah that night have remained totally silent in public, except for Tom Wood (see attached). It was reported in the U.K. press that the travelling companions of H&D had given statements to the U.K. police and that these had been sent on to the Thai authorities by Interpol, which was rightfully criticised as this is a death penalty case and against U.K. government policy.

Many thanks for the reply, its took me ages wading through the pssing contests gong on and obscenely long quotes but i got it.

What with Hannahs freinds being in the bar im sure any agro would have been witnessed, looks probable they left of their own accord, but odd nothing read out in court, of either cctv or the freinds statements.

GOLDBUGGY · July 29, 2015

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. .

Wrong, but why am I not surprised ! And on your analogy of the bug in the water! If the bug was carrying disease that would contaminate the water. More so than possibly compromise it. Just saying !!
contaminated

adjective polluted, dirtied, poisoned, infected, stained, corrupted, tainted, sullied, defiled, soiled, adulterated More than 100,000 people could fall ill after drinking contaminated water.

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

Now you got it!

If the Bug had a disease then this water would not be compromised anymore, as in the Crime Scene, it would become contaminated as now it can't be safe to drink.

At last you see the difference. Hurrah!

GOLDBUGGY · July 29, 2015

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. .

And your qualifications and experience are? Mine was in law enforcement for 30 years, and when I left I held the rank of Detective Sergeant, was a qualified crash, crime scene, fraud and homicide investigator, after having undertaken the necessary specialist courses. I was also the lead investigator in many, many cases. So I think I have a bit of an idea about what I have stated. If I may, I'd suggest you read my post and understand what the following means.

"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." Also this, "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.

Now I have no problem with someone, who has the experience, knowledge and qualifications critiquing what I have written but when someone, who clearly has no idea of what they are on about, then I suggest you do not enter the debate in relation to crime scene investigation unless you know what you are talking about, which quite clearly, you do not.

As for your examples and the questions asked, I have no intention of fuelling the fire by even contemplating providing an answer to such childish and irrelevant requests. I'd suggest you learn and understand legal definitions and maybe then you won't engage in such written foolishness.

You may or may not be who you say but this does not mean you know this case. How long have you been an Investigator in this case?

To back your statement just show me one Media Report who says this Crime Scene has been Contaminated!

I'm waiting!

saminoz · July 29, 2015

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

Great post Jimmy K++

saminoz · July 29, 2015

Why does someone who has a different opinion then yours have to have an agenda? Why can't we just have an opinion based on what we have learned by ourselves? An opinion that is based on what we have read about this case in the Media, which is our only source of information, and therefore not written in stone?

But you say "Us" and "Them" like some new Marshal in Town here to clean up this site and restore law and order here. Being a participating member here from the very start do you really want to know the difference between "Us" and "Them"?

"Us" (We) base our own opinion on what we read from a credible media report. We don't want to see anyone who is innocent be tried guilty, but at the same time we do not want to release 2 possible murders and rapist free to commit this crime someplace else, Until it is proven in a court of law, as enough evidence has been collected to accuse them. If the DNA is re-tested proven there is no DNA Match to the accused, then we would reconsider our opinion and would consider them being innocence.

"Them" (You) on the other hand base your opinions on pure speculations and theory. You do not have one shred of evidence to conclude their innocents. You base your evidence on what you call the Prosecutors lack thereof, but yet the trial in in it's infancy. Perhaps worst of all is that if this DNA Re-testing comes back and doesn't go your way, and still proves it matches the 2 accused, you will not accept this. You will say it should have been tested in the UK , or Singapore, and not in Thailand, even though this was the request of the Defense Lawyers, You will add more people to some grand conspiracy and claim they were all bought off to.

The real big difference between "Us" and "Them" is that we can still be rational and use our judgement and logic, and be opened minded, to form our own opinions. Where you are all Brain Washed, and are no longer able or capable to think for yourselves. You wouldn't care to know the truth or justice for the 2 Victims even if it crept up behind you and hit you on the back of the head with a Garden Hoe. ,

Goldbuggy, regarding your description of "Us" and "Them", I would just like to clarify why I would be considered a "Them" because it is not included as an option in your post.

A huge amount of weight in this whole case is being placed upon the DNA evidence. I think it's fair to say that if there was no DNA match the RTP would still be looking for the perpetrators today. Once there was a match the "investigation" effectively ceased.

From the outset the RTP decided that it would be best if collection of all the forensic evidence was kept "in house", and this is when I sensed that something may be amiss with the investigations.The Central Institute of Forensic Science, now headed by Khunying Pornthip, was set up for precisely the purpose of avoiding such a scenario as this by providing forensic services under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, and so independent of the RTP "in house" forensics division and I cannot think of one valid reason for the RTP failing to involve the CIFS in this case that benefits anyone other than the RTP themselves. So many question marks over this case would have been removed if Khunying Pornthip and her team had been able to take responsibility for this role.

Here is an analogy I used once before and I think it still offers an easy to understand explanation as to why I am what you would consider a conspiracy theorist.

If you have ever seen a sporting event where a relatively crucial decision is made by the toss of a coin (which team will kick first, which end a team chooses to play from etc.) you will have noticed that the typical procedure goes something like this:

The referee and captain(s) from both teams will gather in the middle of the pitch.

The referee will show both sides of the coin to both team captains.

The referee then tosses the coin high into the air in full view of the team captains, the TV cameras and onlookers.

A pre-determined team captain will call either heads or tails whilst the coin is in the air.

All those involved (the team captains and the referees) will stand back to allow the coin to land on the ground in plain view of everyone so their can be no doubt as to whether it's a head or a tail.

The referee will look at the coin where it lays on the ground, without touching it, and will announce whether it is a head or a tail.

They stage the coin toss like this because it is deemed to be fair, transparent and because it removes almost all possibilities of foul play.

What they do not do, and for very good reasons, is allow the home team players (who have called heads for example) to crowd around the coin as it lands so that neither the referees, the TV cameras nor the opposing team can see it and accept the result as final and fair when the home team captain says "Yeah, it was a head...", picks up the coin and returns it to the referee whilst his teammates all nod their heads in agreement, and the opposing team scratches theirs, which is basically what happened with everything regarding the collection and analysis of the forensic evidence in this case.

In the above sporting event scenario, if the away team were seen walking away from the coin toss appearing unconvinced of the fairness of the outcome and were heard muttering things like: "I never saw it land..." or "It coulda been a tail you know..." then you and your fellow "Us" contingent would be labeling the away team as conspiracy theorists and calling their mutterings "wild and baseless speculation". Meanwhile an impartial observer (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would have noticed that the problem lies with the the coin toss procedure and its obvious lack of transparency and would be aiming their criticism at this rather than at the away team players.

Now if the impartial observers were then advised that actually a more transparent coin toss system was widely available and had been brought into effect some 12 years earlier to prevent such suggestions of foul play and deception, and that the only reason this new system was not used for this particular coin toss was because the home team refused to implement it... Well, it should come as no surprise to find that no matter how loudly the home team players accuse the away team of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, the finger of suspicion is now pointing squarely at the home team and their very deliberate decision to use the old "crowd round the coin" coin toss procedure, with everyone except for the home team players and their most loyal of fans having serious doubts about their intentions and their integrity.

In the world of sports it is expected and accepted that fans will blindly support their team simply because it is Their Team and because they are loyal fans. There is no expectation of a logical thought process being behind the reason they give their support to their team. However, in the scientific world of criminal investigation and forensics, and in the very real world of the murder trial we are discussing here, one would expect that the majority of impartial observers would use logic, probability and rational thinking as a basis for making a decision as to whether they throw their support behind a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict, perhaps combined with a certain amount of "gut feeling". However, what I find puzzling about the "Us" contingent is that despite Goldbuggy's assertions to the contrary, their support of a guilty verdict appears to be based almost exclusively on a sports team style blind loyalty, perhaps coupled with some gut feeling, because how can anyone using logic and rational thinking support results that were achieved as a direct result of the highly prejudicial "coin toss" their team insisted on using?

And so that is why I am a "Them". I thought there was something very fishy about the coin toss...

Well, let me ask you something since you compare this to, lets say a Football Game. You mention this coin toss and being able to see the truth. A Referee and 2 Captains see the coin being tossed and land on the ground, then the call is made. So here is my question to you.

How many times as a Fan or Spectator have you actually seen with your own eyes which way the coin has landed, and if it was Heads or Tails? Would Zero be close? So you put your faith in 2 Captains and the Referee to tell you the truth. Could not 3 people be bribed to lie about this?

In a Murder and Rape Investigation, Arrest, and Trial, and as a Spectator, you don't have any rights to know all the Evidence any more then you have the right as a Fan to walk out onto the field and see the coin toss in your own country. With the exception of attending the Trial, which in my country on big profile cases you would never find a seat in the Court Room. So it is up to the 2 Captains (Prosecution and Defense Lawyers) and the Referee (Judges) to tell you how it ends up.

As to all this other stuff about DNA Testing and who should do it, that could become endless trail (got it right this time) of Speculation. You say a different branch in Thailand, some with say Singapore, some FBI, some Scotland Yard, and so on. It is pretty obvious from knowing were the 2 accused are now, that this DNA Testing that took place, was good enough to keep them their until this Trial at least. .

Oh Dear!

It was no great leap to foresee that the meaning of Jimmy's excellent analogy would go right over your head. I suspect that to you, analogy is something you'd take anti histamines for.

End result the same, you, as usual, end up with a red face, a runny nose and are crying all the time.

The point of his post was to demonstrate, in a manner that even the simplest and blindest on this forum would understand, the principle of openness and transparency and why the lack of this has polarised this debate so badly!

That this was too much to grasp is no great surprise to most of us on here and more than demonstrates your inability to grasp simple, let alone slightly complex, issues.

I hear that there's still plenty of space left in the "Basic Playdough Shapes" forum! Go grab a space somewhere you can contribute in a meaningful fashion!

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US