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

[thailandchilli]

Damn we need to fill up the trolley the new trial dates are up again soon and its still our turn!!

[fayou]

Ok so I'm sure this is 2 separate people. Running man in the vid has a different body profile and looks a much younger man as opposed to the image. In addition the image and vid have the same background shop, but there must be 2 separate cctv cameras as the head shot in the image is above the bottom of the window, but if you look at the running man vid at 0.23 then you will see the angle is with the running mans head well below the window.

Yes I think RTP have more cctv and this is proof that they are holding back more images of the 2 separate men

I think the picture in your post is more likely made with software that you can place one image inside of another image for comparison. Like photoshop e.g. That explains why the man in this picture is in another position. I don't think there are 2 separate CCTV cameras. Why would there be 2 cameras installed recording in the same direction?

Superimposition technique is usually used for skull identification. An important way of identifying skulls when there is no reference sample for a forensic DNA. Not sure if in this case the software was used for the right purpose.

I think the picture doesn't illustrate Mon very credible. The hairs..maybe..but not his nose and chin.

Edited July 30, 2015 by fayou

[thailandchilli]

Ok so I'm sure this is 2 separate people. Running man in the vid has a different body profile and looks a much younger man as opposed to the image. In addition the image and vid have the same background shop, but there must be 2 separate cctv cameras as the head shot in the image is above the bottom of the window, but if you look at the running man vid at 0.23 then you will see the angle is with the running mans head well below the window.

Yes I think RTP have more cctv and this is proof that they are holding back more images of the 2 separate men

I think the picture in your post is more likely made with software that you can place one image inside of another image for comparison. Like photoshop e.g. That explains why the man in this picture is in another position. I don't think there are 2 separate CCTV cameras. Why would there be 2 cameras installed recording in the same direction?

Superimposition technique is usually used for skull identification. An important way of identifying skulls when there is no reference sample for a forensic DNA. Not sure if in this case the software was used for the right purpose.

I think the picture doesn't illustrate Mon very credible. The hairs..maybe..but not his nose and chin.

Montriwat.jpg

Yes accepted when they say this image has been superimposed then we have no clue how much its been altered. But very mysterious, the phone, the garment or towel.

[Eirene]

Ok so I'm sure this is 2 separate people. Running man in the vid has a different body profile and looks a much younger man as opposed to the image. In addition the image and vid have the same background shop, but there must be 2 separate cctv cameras as the head shot in the image is above the bottom of the window, but if you look at the running man vid at 0.23 then you will see the angle is with the running mans head well below the window.

Yes I think RTP have more cctv and this is proof that they are holding back more images of the 2 separate men

Sharing my original post regarding this.

My take on this is that it was done either on or sometime before the article was published on September 23/2014. The B2 were not suspects at this time as far as I recall, therefore this is either Nomsod or Mon that they have superimposed over the cctv image as they were the suspects at the time. IIRC Mon was questioned on September 23/2014. According to the original article the photo that was superimposed was taken by a tourist. A tourist takes a random photo of Mon or Nomsod? Hmmmm…. Who is the third suspect?

“The superimposition technique was applied to two of three suspects who allegedly molested Hannah Witheridge, one of the murdered tourists,on Sept 15, the night of the murder. A tourist had photographed them before the killings.”

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

I recall that MMB3 did a reenactment of the running man image, have not heard about the other two having to do one.

[IslandLover]

When David shakes hand with Number 9 who has not been identified as far as I know ,it is opposite a roti sellers shop would that be the same one as the roti seller ,translator that allegedly assaulted the b2 ?

If so maybe the defence should ask if he knows who number 9 is put him under oath but that probably won't help.

I thought the roti seller/"translator" had a business on Koh Samui, not Koh Tao. I may be wrong though.

[IslandLover]

GOLDBUGGY states:-

Quote>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!< End quote

Sorry if I've kept you waiting.

Let me suggest that you sit down, take a deep breath and I will explain, as simply as I can, what you seem to have difficulty in understanding but firstly you must ensure you thoughts are not affected in any way by any substances that are mind altering. It doesn't matter one iota if you cannot accept my qualifications and experience, that is you prerogative but at least I know where I am coming from, it is quite evident that you do not, it appears you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha. If you don't understand that, it means confused ok.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you are not willing to learn or accept anything unless it follows you train of thought. Can't you think logically or outside the square? Have you ever heard the saying that humans never stop learning, we will learn something new everyday, it is only a fool who does not.

I know only what I have read, heard and seen, does this not apply to yourself, or have you been observing a different case? I would say that given your question, it appears you are, or at the least you have your head stuck in the sand (No pun intended). What is your reason for continually asking childish, irrelevant and inane questions? I told you before I won't answer these because you well know that you are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now for your lesson. But don't worry, I will provide the answers, so you won't have to wrack your brain or look foolish if you fail.

1. The most important role when attending a crime scene is to protect the area. Why?

A. To keep the relevant evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.

2. When does the protection of the scene begin and cease?

A. From the time of arrival of the first police officer and ends when police relinquish control of it.

3. Why is it necessary to protect the scene?

A. because a successful prosecution can hinge on the condition of the evidence at the time it is collected.

4. Provide the legal definition of contamination? A hint, do not refer to the dictionary definition.

A. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there.

5. What did you see in the photographs of the crime scene at the time of Police initially attending and shortly thereafter?

A. Civilians, not involved in the investigation walking about the scene. later many, many spectators also roaming in and about the area.

6. Given what you have seen and learnt, would this be something introduced to the scene, which was previously not there? (multi choice answer, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. maybe.)

A. 1, yes.

7. Was the clothing placed into a neat pile for photographic purposes, if this occurred what does this indicate?

A. it would indicate that someone has moved it, thus contamination arises and that the evidence was compromised.

8. Was the alleged murder weapon removed and then brought back to the scene?

A. According to police, yes, therefore again contaminated and compromised.

Hopefully this is sufficient for you to understand the situation but given your past responses, I doubt it. Now to answer you last question. I do not need a media report to adjudge that the crime scene was severely contaminated and comprised, I just have to fall back on my experience, see what has been presented by the media and use common sense, the latter unfortunately I can see is not very common.

If you still want to carry on in such an adverse manner, then feel free to do so but it will only highlight that you have no idea of what you are on about and that all you can do, instead of providing legitimate debate, is respond in a manner that shows you have little, if any knowledge of crime scene investigation or what the legal definitions of words are. it also highlights that you are unwilling to learn anything even when shown you still will not accept that someone else can be right,. I can be wrong, and have been on a number of occasions but I learn and try not to make the same mistakes again, something you should try to do.

Oh by the way, I sat and passed the detectives' exam in 1982 and was designated the same year. Can you tell me the year you sat for the TVF detectives' exam and if you were ever designated as a fully fledged armchair detective or did you fail? I think the latter, as you posts give a clear indication of this. Now off you go and if you have learnt something today, say thank you..

PMSL..... Well Ali G your owned... by a Pro. .. lol...

i would call that wiping the floor with you..

Hats of to you for enlightening poor Ali G. He needs help and understanding.

Errrr, that's assuming AleG and GOLDBUGGY are the same person - which they are not. They are of like mind though.

[Chetzee]

GOLDBUGGY states:-

Quote>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!< End quote

Sorry if I've kept you waiting.

Let me suggest that you sit down, take a deep breath and I will explain, as simply as I can, what you seem to have difficulty in understanding but firstly you must ensure you thoughts are not affected in any way by any substances that are mind altering. It doesn't matter one iota if you cannot accept my qualifications and experience, that is you prerogative but at least I know where I am coming from, it is quite evident that you do not, it appears you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha. If you don't understand that, it means confused ok.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you are not willing to learn or accept anything unless it follows you train of thought. Can't you think logically or outside the square? Have you ever heard the saying that humans never stop learning, we will learn something new everyday, it is only a fool who does not.

I know only what I have read, heard and seen, does this not apply to yourself, or have you been observing a different case? I would say that given your question, it appears you are, or at the least you have your head stuck in the sand (No pun intended). What is your reason for continually asking childish, irrelevant and inane questions? I told you before I won't answer these because you well know that you are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now for your lesson. But don't worry, I will provide the answers, so you won't have to wrack your brain or look foolish if you fail.

1. The most important role when attending a crime scene is to protect the area. Why?

A. To keep the relevant evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.

2. When does the protection of the scene begin and cease?

A. From the time of arrival of the first police officer and ends when police relinquish control of it.

3. Why is it necessary to protect the scene?

A. because a successful prosecution can hinge on the condition of the evidence at the time it is collected.

4. Provide the legal definition of contamination? A hint, do not refer to the dictionary definition.

A. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there.

5. What did you see in the photographs of the crime scene at the time of Police initially attending and shortly thereafter?

A. Civilians, not involved in the investigation walking about the scene. later many, many spectators also roaming in and about the area.

6. Given what you have seen and learnt, would this be something introduced to the scene, which was previously not there? (multi choice answer, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. maybe.)

A. 1, yes.

7. Was the clothing placed into a neat pile for photographic purposes, if this occurred what does this indicate?

A. it would indicate that someone has moved it, thus contamination arises and that the evidence was compromised.

8. Was the alleged murder weapon removed and then brought back to the scene?

A. According to police, yes, therefore again contaminated and compromised.

Hopefully this is sufficient for you to understand the situation but given your past responses, I doubt it. Now to answer you last question. I do not need a media report to adjudge that the crime scene was severely contaminated and comprised, I just have to fall back on my experience, see what has been presented by the media and use common sense, the latter unfortunately I can see is not very common.

If you still want to carry on in such an adverse manner, then feel free to do so but it will only highlight that you have no idea of what you are on about and that all you can do, instead of providing legitimate debate, is respond in a manner that shows you have little, if any knowledge of crime scene investigation or what the legal definitions of words are. it also highlights that you are unwilling to learn anything even when shown you still will not accept that someone else can be right,. I can be wrong, and have been on a number of occasions but I learn and try not to make the same mistakes again, something you should try to do.

Oh by the way, I sat and passed the detectives' exam in 1982 and was designated the same year. Can you tell me the year you sat for the TVF detectives' exam and if you were ever designated as a fully fledged armchair detective or did you fail? I think the latter, as you posts give a clear indication of this. Now off you go and if you have learnt something today, say thank you..

PMSL..... Well Ali G your owned... by a Pro. .. lol...

i would call that wiping the floor with you..

Hats of to you for enlightening poor Ali G. He needs help and understanding.

Errrr, that's assuming AleG and GOLDBUGGY are the same person - which they are not. They are of like mind though.

That's all very well Si Thea01, thanks for putting them straight , but your condecending manner is anything but attractive . i guess once a copper always a copper !

[Isitjustme]

GB and nigeone

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are both right so why argue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why bother responding to these guys? Rising to their bait. They love it. Let them fester in their ignorance.

[balo]

Seriously GB what official role does Mon have at being at the crime scene? His presence alone constitutes contamination.

But why would Mon be at the crime scene all the time if he is involved? If it was me I would stay away .

[Isitjustme]

GB and nigeone

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are both right so why argue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Again well said. Succint and to the point. And factual. Makes a nice change on here.

[Isitjustme]

GOLDBUGGY states:-

Quote>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!< End quote

Sorry if I've kept you waiting.

Let me suggest that you sit down, take a deep breath and I will explain, as simply as I can, what you seem to have difficulty in understanding but firstly you must ensure you thoughts are not affected in any way by any substances that are mind altering. It doesn't matter one iota if you cannot accept my qualifications and experience, that is you prerogative but at least I know where I am coming from, it is quite evident that you do not, it appears you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha. If you don't understand that, it means confused ok.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you are not willing to learn or accept anything unless it follows you train of thought. Can't you think logically or outside the square? Have you ever heard the saying that humans never stop learning, we will learn something new everyday, it is only a fool who does not.

I know only what I have read, heard and seen, does this not apply to yourself, or have you been observing a different case? I would say that given your question, it appears you are, or at the least you have your head stuck in the sand (No pun intended). What is your reason for continually asking childish, irrelevant and inane questions? I told you before I won't answer these because you well know that you are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now for your lesson. But don't worry, I will provide the answers, so you won't have to wrack your brain or look foolish if you fail.

1. The most important role when attending a crime scene is to protect the area. Why?

A. To keep the relevant evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.

2. When does the protection of the scene begin and cease?

A. From the time of arrival of the first police officer and ends when police relinquish control of it.

3. Why is it necessary to protect the scene?

A. because a successful prosecution can hinge on the condition of the evidence at the time it is collected.

4. Provide the legal definition of contamination? A hint, do not refer to the dictionary definition.

A. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there.

5. What did you see in the photographs of the crime scene at the time of Police initially attending and shortly thereafter?

A. Civilians, not involved in the investigation walking about the scene. later many, many spectators also roaming in and about the area.

6. Given what you have seen and learnt, would this be something introduced to the scene, which was previously not there? (multi choice answer, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. maybe.)

A. 1, yes.

7. Was the clothing placed into a neat pile for photographic purposes, if this occurred what does this indicate?

A. it would indicate that someone has moved it, thus contamination arises and that the evidence was compromised.

8. Was the alleged murder weapon removed and then brought back to the scene?

A. According to police, yes, therefore again contaminated and compromised.

Hopefully this is sufficient for you to understand the situation but given your past responses, I doubt it. Now to answer you last question. I do not need a media report to adjudge that the crime scene was severely contaminated and comprised, I just have to fall back on my experience, see what has been presented by the media and use common sense, the latter unfortunately I can see is not very common.

If you still want to carry on in such an adverse manner, then feel free to do so but it will only highlight that you have no idea of what you are on about and that all you can do, instead of providing legitimate debate, is respond in a manner that shows you have little, if any knowledge of crime scene investigation or what the legal definitions of words are. it also highlights that you are unwilling to learn anything even when shown you still will not accept that someone else can be right,. I can be wrong, and have been on a number of occasions but I learn and try not to make the same mistakes again, something you should try to do.

Oh by the way, I sat and passed the detectives' exam in 1982 and was designated the same year. Can you tell me the year you sat for the TVF detectives' exam and if you were ever designated as a fully fledged armchair detective or did you fail? I think the latter, as you posts give a clear indication of this. Now off you go and if you have learnt something today, say thank you..

Armchair detective? Probably not. Couch potato? Plausible. Your insights are very enlightening and interesting.... at least for those of us blessed with some common sense. Keep them up.

[Isitjustme]

Some people here seem to have the agenda of wasting as much time of others as possible, sending topics round and round. Pretty much no-one is going to change their mind for the foreseeable future that much is clear.

Having stepped back from getting involved in 'discussions' for a few days now I'm able to follow the overall thread somewhat more clearly. The bigger picture shows a few people imo trying to direct / misdirect the thread, keep their opposition as busy as possible, defend NS/family whenever required then move the thread in a new direction etc. even try and say the police have done a good job (that has to be frustrating as impossible to do without losing credibility).

I'd recommend seriously reducing the amount of time wasted and effort spent interacting with certain posters. Keep it short and simple, if at all. If they want a link let them to go find it instead of spending your own time digging back. Whether they get links or not their view will not change, and let's be honest do we even care what they think or say? The few people backing the RTP's version of events and prosecution case will never be turned. They are doing a job. Flag up their misinformation/errors but don't get drawn in and don't waste time on them.

There is no need for any one-upmanship. They are not worth it. Their (official) view will never change. The majority would like to see good policing / investigating, transparency and justice. The few arguing with them do not want all three of those things.

Just saying it how it appears to me.

As Meat Loaf said...you took the words right out of my mouth

[smedly]

Ok so I'm sure this is 2 separate people. Running man in the vid has a different body profile and looks a much younger man as opposed to the image. In addition the image and vid have the same background shop, but there must be 2 separate cctv cameras as the head shot in the image is above the bottom of the window, but if you look at the running man vid at 0.23 then you will see the angle is with the running mans head well below the window.

Yes I think RTP have more cctv and this is proof that they are holding back more images of the 2 separate men

I think the picture in your post is more likely made with software that you can place one image inside of another image for comparison. Like photoshop e.g. That explains why the man in this picture is in another position. I don't think there are 2 separate CCTV cameras. Why would there be 2 cameras installed recording in the same direction?

Superimposition technique is usually used for skull identification. An important way of identifying skulls when there is no reference sample for a forensic DNA. Not sure if in this case the software was used for the right purpose.

I think the picture doesn't illustrate Mon very credible. The hairs..maybe..but not his nose and chin.

Montriwat.jpg

Yes accepted when they say this image has been superimposed then we have no clue how much its been altered. But very mysterious, the phone, the garment or towel.

same cctv camera showing two different people and are at different zoom levels on the stills, the person with black shorts and phone in hand is closer to the shop door making him look taller when lined up to the bottom of the door, the person in running man footage wearing light shorts is closer to the centre of the street

[GOLDBUGGY]

GOLDBUGGY states:-

Quote>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!< End quote

Sorry if I've kept you waiting.

Let me suggest that you sit down, take a deep breath and I will explain, as simply as I can, what you seem to have difficulty in understanding but firstly you must ensure you thoughts are not affected in any way by any substances that are mind altering. It doesn't matter one iota if you cannot accept my qualifications and experience, that is you prerogative but at least I know where I am coming from, it is quite evident that you do not, it appears you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha. If you don't understand that, it means confused ok.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you are not willing to learn or accept anything unless it follows you train of thought. Can't you think logically or outside the square? Have you ever heard the saying that humans never stop learning, we will learn something new everyday, it is only a fool who does not.

I know only what I have read, heard and seen, does this not apply to yourself, or have you been observing a different case? I would say that given your question, it appears you are, or at the least you have your head stuck in the sand (No pun intended). What is your reason for continually asking childish, irrelevant and inane questions? I told you before I won't answer these because you well know that you are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now for your lesson. But don't worry, I will provide the answers, so you won't have to wrack your brain or look foolish if you fail.

1. The most important role when attending a crime scene is to protect the area. Why?

A. To keep the relevant evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.

2. When does the protection of the scene begin and cease?

A. From the time of arrival of the first police officer and ends when police relinquish control of it.

3. Why is it necessary to protect the scene?

A. because a successful prosecution can hinge on the condition of the evidence at the time it is collected.

4. Provide the legal definition of contamination? A hint, do not refer to the dictionary definition.

A. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there.

5. What did you see in the photographs of the crime scene at the time of Police initially attending and shortly thereafter?

A. Civilians, not involved in the investigation walking about the scene. later many, many spectators also roaming in and about the area.

6. Given what you have seen and learnt, would this be something introduced to the scene, which was previously not there? (multi choice answer, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. maybe.)

A. 1, yes.

7. Was the clothing placed into a neat pile for photographic purposes, if this occurred what does this indicate?

A. it would indicate that someone has moved it, thus contamination arises and that the evidence was compromised.

8. Was the alleged murder weapon removed and then brought back to the scene?

A. According to police, yes, therefore again contaminated and compromised.

Hopefully this is sufficient for you to understand the situation but given your past responses, I doubt it. Now to answer you last question. I do not need a media report to adjudge that the crime scene was severely contaminated and comprised, I just have to fall back on my experience, see what has been presented by the media and use common sense, the latter unfortunately I can see is not very common.

If you still want to carry on in such an adverse manner, then feel free to do so but it will only highlight that you have no idea of what you are on about and that all you can do, instead of providing legitimate debate, is respond in a manner that shows you have little, if any knowledge of crime scene investigation or what the legal definitions of words are. it also highlights that you are unwilling to learn anything even when shown you still will not accept that someone else can be right,. I can be wrong, and have been on a number of occasions but I learn and try not to make the same mistakes again, something you should try to do.

Oh by the way, I sat and passed the detectives' exam in 1982 and was designated the same year. Can you tell me the year you sat for the TVF detectives' exam and if you were ever designated as a fully fledged armchair detective or did you fail? I think the latter, as you posts give a clear indication of this. Now off you go and if you have learnt something today, say thank you..

PMSL..... Well Ali G your owned... by a Pro. .. lol...

i would call that wiping the floor with you..

Hats of to you for enlightening poor Ali G. He needs help and understanding.

Errrr, that's assuming AleG and GOLDBUGGY are the same person - which they are not. They are of like mind though.

Sorry, but I am just trying to figure out what your point is to all this, and on what has all been said by you concerning DNA and how this has anything to do with me or what I said.

I never once claimed it was good that a Crime Scene is "Contaminated", "Compromised", or "Destroyed". I never once even said that the crime scene wan't "Compromised", although I was not their so I don't actually know for sure what happened.

But judging from your story and if what you say is true then I just have one simple question for you. Since it seems it is apparent and so far thought to be known that a lot of the Prosecutions Case rests on DNA Evidence, and I think it is a given that a lot of this evidence would have been collected from the Crime Scene, including the 2 bodies that were laying here, then here is my question.

How is it after (9 or is it 10) court appearances and this Crime Scene was "Contaminated", "Compromised" and "Destroyed", as you said, and thus all the the Evidence was "Contaminated" "Compromised" and "Destroyed", that the 2 Accused are still sitting in Prison, after 10 months, and are waiting to answer to these charges?

[NCFC]

PMSL..... Well Ali G your owned... by a Pro. .. lol...

i would call that wiping the floor with you..

Hats of to you for enlightening poor Ali G. He needs help and understanding.

Errrr, that's assuming AleG and GOLDBUGGY are the same person - which they are not. They are of like mind though.

Sorry, but I am just trying to figure out what your point is to all this, and on what has all been said by you concerning DNA and how this has anything to do with me or what I said.

I never once claimed it was good that a Crime Scene is "Contaminated", "Compromised", or "Destroyed". I never once even said that the crime scene wan't "Compromised", although I was not their so I don't actually know for sure what happened.

But judging from your story and if what you say is true then I just have one simple question for you. Since it seems it is apparent and so far thought to be known that a lot of the Prosecutions Case rests on DNA Evidence, and I think it is a given that a lot of this evidence would have been collected from the Crime Scene, including the 2 bodies that were laying here, then here is my question.

How is it after (9 or is it 10) court appearances and this Crime Scene was "Contaminated", "Compromised" and "Destroyed", as you said, and thus all the the Evidence was "Contaminated" "Compromised" and "Destroyed", that the 2 Accused are still sitting in Prison, after 10 months, and are waiting to answer to these charges?

I think you've lost all credibility, old son. Time you gave it a rest.

[IslandLover]

Still cant get my head round this image and how much of it is original and how may have been altered. The source and explanation is here http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

I'm starting to think that this image is of Mon. Is he on his way to the crime scene? He is carrying something in his right hand. Could it be the towel that was used to cover Hannah's face?

Now thats a possiblity. He is for sure carrying something in his right hand so could well be the green towel from his In Touch resort. We also know he called the RTP on the way to the scene so that would explain the phone

If that is him on the way to the crime scene carrying a towel, he must already know what he is going to have to use that towel for.

Edited July 30, 2015 by IslandLover

[loonodingle]

GOLDBUGGY states:-

Quote>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!< End quote

Sorry if I've kept you waiting.

Let me suggest that you sit down, take a deep breath and I will explain, as simply as I can, what you seem to have difficulty in understanding but firstly you must ensure you thoughts are not affected in any way by any substances that are mind altering. It doesn't matter one iota if you cannot accept my qualifications and experience, that is you prerogative but at least I know where I am coming from, it is quite evident that you do not, it appears you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha. If you don't understand that, it means confused ok.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you are not willing to learn or accept anything unless it follows you train of thought. Can't you think logically or outside the square? Have you ever heard the saying that humans never stop learning, we will learn something new everyday, it is only a fool who does not.

I know only what I have read, heard and seen, does this not apply to yourself, or have you been observing a different case? I would say that given your question, it appears you are, or at the least you have your head stuck in the sand (No pun intended). What is your reason for continually asking childish, irrelevant and inane questions? I told you before I won't answer these because you well know that you are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now for your lesson. But don't worry, I will provide the answers, so you won't have to wrack your brain or look foolish if you fail.

1. The most important role when attending a crime scene is to protect the area. Why?

A. To keep the relevant evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.

2. When does the protection of the scene begin and cease?

A. From the time of arrival of the first police officer and ends when police relinquish control of it.

3. Why is it necessary to protect the scene?

A. because a successful prosecution can hinge on the condition of the evidence at the time it is collected.

4. Provide the legal definition of contamination? A hint, do not refer to the dictionary definition.

A. Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously there.

5. What did you see in the photographs of the crime scene at the time of Police initially attending and shortly thereafter?

A. Civilians, not involved in the investigation walking about the scene. later many, many spectators also roaming in and about the area.

6. Given what you have seen and learnt, would this be something introduced to the scene, which was previously not there? (multi choice answer, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. maybe.)

A. 1, yes.

7. Was the clothing placed into a neat pile for photographic purposes, if this occurred what does this indicate?

A. it would indicate that someone has moved it, thus contamination arises and that the evidence was compromised.

8. Was the alleged murder weapon removed and then brought back to the scene?

A. According to police, yes, therefore again contaminated and compromised.

Hopefully this is sufficient for you to understand the situation but given your past responses, I doubt it. Now to answer you last question. I do not need a media report to adjudge that the crime scene was severely contaminated and comprised, I just have to fall back on my experience, see what has been presented by the media and use common sense, the latter unfortunately I can see is not very common.

If you still want to carry on in such an adverse manner, then feel free to do so but it will only highlight that you have no idea of what you are on about and that all you can do, instead of providing legitimate debate, is respond in a manner that shows you have little, if any knowledge of crime scene investigation or what the legal definitions of words are. it also highlights that you are unwilling to learn anything even when shown you still will not accept that someone else can be right,. I can be wrong, and have been on a number of occasions but I learn and try not to make the same mistakes again, something you should try to do.

Oh by the way, I sat and passed the detectives' exam in 1982 and was designated the same year. Can you tell me the year you sat for the TVF detectives' exam and if you were ever designated as a fully fledged armchair detective or did you fail? I think the latter, as you posts give a clear indication of this. Now off you go and if you have learnt something today, say thank you..

PMSL..... Well Ali G your owned... by a Pro. .. lol...

i would call that wiping the floor with you..

Hats of to you for enlightening poor Ali G. He needs help and understanding.

I was going to ask if you can't read, because that post is not addressed to me; but seeing that you insist in spelling my username as Ali G I don't think I need to ask after all.

LOL well rumour has it its your other member name...

[JohnThailandJohn]

Haven't been on the last day ... Wondering in this time how many people have been gone through as being surely responsible for the murders based on evidence and facts we don't know. What about how many individuals have been confirmed as being the running man during this time ...this of course being incredibly crucial to the case if we forget the fact it is just a video of somebody running and not wielding a weapon or killing anyone or blood soaked or anything else that ties him to the crime. Just as important, is how many things have not been put into evidence or that we cannot confirm has been put into evidence in the yet unfinished trial that proves there was a conspiracy to frame the two defendants.

Edited July 30, 2015 by JohnThailandJohn

[Lozza]

Why does CSI LA need to be shut down and prosecuted? For speculation?

We found the Facebook pages administrator might want to destroy the credibility of Thailands judicial process. The page is also linked to a political movement seeking to discredit the government, as reflected by its posts during the Peoples Democratic Reform Committees anti-government protests in the first half, he said.

The general also claimed the page was created by a Thai citizen living abroad but was run by a team in Thailand.

We already know who they are. We cant disclose more information at this stage because were bringing them to be prosecuted under Section 14 of the 2004 Computer Crime act of which penalty is five years in prison or a fine of up to 100,000 Baht"

From the following blog, https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/nomsod-cleared-or-clouded/

This was a report going back to october-nothing more said about it..another bravado statement from the pm.

[Lozza]

Still cant get my head round this image and how much of it is original and how may have been altered. The source and explanation is here http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webmobile/national/Police-use-superimposition-technique-to-identify-k-30243922.html

I'm starting to think that this image is of Mon. Is he on his way to the crime scene? He is carrying something in his right hand. Could it be the towel that was used to cover Hannah's face?

Is that Davids phone he has in his LEFT hand.

[GOLDBUGGY]

PMSL..... Well Ali G your owned... by a Pro. .. lol...

i would call that wiping the floor with you..

Hats of to you for enlightening poor Ali G. He needs help and understanding.

Errrr, that's assuming AleG and GOLDBUGGY are the same person - which they are not. They are of like mind though.

Sorry, but I am just trying to figure out what your point is to all this, and on what has all been said by you concerning DNA and how this has anything to do with me or what I said.

I never once claimed it was good that a Crime Scene is "Contaminated", "Compromised", or "Destroyed". I never once even said that the crime scene wan't "Compromised", although I was not their so I don't actually know for sure what happened.

But judging from your story and if what you say is true then I just have one simple question for you. Since it seems it is apparent and so far thought to be known that a lot of the Prosecutions Case rests on DNA Evidence, and I think it is a given that a lot of this evidence would have been collected from the Crime Scene, including the 2 bodies that were laying here, then here is my question.

How is it after (9 or is it 10) court appearances and this Crime Scene was "Contaminated", "Compromised" and "Destroyed", as you said, and thus all the the Evidence was "Contaminated" "Compromised" and "Destroyed", that the 2 Accused are still sitting in Prison, after 10 months, and are waiting to answer to these charges?

I think you've lost all credibility, old son. Time you gave it a rest.

Sorry I don't live up to your high expectations of me. This could be as when I came back I actually thought I was on the wrong Forum, from reading the last 10 pages or so and seeing nothing about the main subject matter. The 2 Accused on a Murder Trial. So perhaps it is you who is in the wrong place to begin with and why you don't understand my posts as they don't fit into some grand conspiracy.

Quite frankly, I don't care what you think of me or my credibility. There is also some ignore button you can use anytime. This should tell you what I think of yours. I would be honored if you would use that.

[alfalfa19]

Some people here seem to have the agenda of wasting as much time of others as possible, sending topics round and round. Pretty much no-one is going to change their mind for the foreseeable future that much is clear.

Having stepped back from getting involved in 'discussions' for a few days now I'm able to follow the overall thread somewhat more clearly. The bigger picture shows a few people imo trying to direct / misdirect the thread, keep their opposition as busy as possible, defend NS/family whenever required then move the thread in a new direction etc. even try and say the police have done a good job (that has to be frustrating as impossible to do without losing credibility).

I'd recommend seriously reducing the amount of time wasted and effort spent interacting with certain posters. Keep it short and simple, if at all. If they want a link let them to go find it instead of spending your own time digging back. Whether they get links or not their view will not change, and let's be honest do we even care what they think or say? The few people backing the RTP's version of events and prosecution case will never be turned. They are doing a job. Flag up their misinformation/errors but don't get drawn in and don't waste time on them.

There is no need for any one-upmanship. They are not worth it. Their (official) view will never change. The majority would like to see good policing / investigating, transparency and justice. The few arguing with them do not want all three of those things.

Just saying it how it appears to me.

Well said Bunglebag. I feel exactly the same way, but did not take the time to formulate the words as you did. In my opinion, it's enormously counter productive to engage with these characters. Clearly, they have a hidden agenda, and nobody can change their minds. They clutter up the thread with nonsense, in the hopes of confusing people. In many cases, they succeed. That's why I put these guys on ignore, because their posts are so offensive to the senses that I feel like lashing out, and I know that's just playing into their hands. They want to muddy things up, and sow disinformation, and getting lots of other posters involved in petty squabbles gets them what they want.

[boomerangutang]

Ok so I'm sure this is 2 separate people. Running man in the vid has a different body profile and looks a much younger man as opposed to the image. In addition the image and vid have the same background shop, but there must be 2 separate cctv cameras as the head shot in the image is above the bottom of the window, but if you look at the running man vid at 0.23 then you will see the angle is with the running mans head well below the window.

Yes I think RTP have more cctv and this is proof that they are holding back more images of the 2 separate men

It would be strange to have 2 CCTV cameras so near each other facing the same way, and both of them working when our trusted RTP said 2/3 of all cameras in the vicinity were not working. I think it could be the same camera. In one, the man is close to the steps, and it's cropped (it may also be altered due to the subject's dark hair turning to black blobs). In the other, the man is closer to the high camera, so that could explain why the top of his head is shown lower.

[boomerangutang]

Seriously GB what official role does Mon have at being at the crime scene? His presence alone constitutes contamination.

But why would Mon be at the crime scene all the time if he is involved? If it was me I would stay away .

Ok, I'll take the bait: here are some possible reasons:

>>> He's a bmoc (big man on campus, the campus being that beachfront party bar region)

>>> He's a go-to and fix-it kind of guy. When any local business people have problems, they're likely to go to him for advice/protection/loan etc. The taxi driver who was offered money to give false testimony and allegedly also beaten (by police) when he declined the offer, went to the Headman and/or Mon for protection.

>>> He's buddies with police, who know about the many fights, date-rapes, drug dealing at his places. Local cops allow all that with a grin and a 'mai pen rai' just like they allow Mon's AC Bar to stay open past the 2 pm closing time for other bars.

>>> He's very concerned his nephew (the heir to his brother's fiefdom) isn't implicated in the crime,

>>> He wanted to make sure that, any evidence found at the crime scene which may implicate people he's connected with - is either misinterpreted or discarded.

In hindsight, I'm sure he wishes he would have stayed away. He and RTP never dreamed there would be such sustained scrutiny of the crime and its aftermath. Everything is much clearer in retrospect. Actually, he did stay away from the re-enactment, even though he was in tight with the group of cops who were gathered tightly around the B2 earlier that day (stern faces with clenched fists). One of his cop buddies may have gone up and gingerly tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Hey Mon, it's probably better if you don't go down on the beach and assist with the reenactment. It may not look right."

[boomerangutang]

How is it after (9 or is it 10) court appearances and this Crime Scene was "Contaminated", "Compromised" and "Destroyed", as you said, and thus all the the Evidence was "Contaminated" "Compromised" and "Destroyed", that the 2 Accused are still sitting in Prison, after 10 months, and are waiting to answer to these charges?

Because it's a frame-up. Connect the dots.

Edited July 31, 2015 by boomerangutang

[Darkknight666]

Balo is really bad at this. Mon was on the scene as a helper/distraction while the CCTV was being scrubbed and other key evidence escaped on a boat. He also needed to keep track what the police were looking into so he could keep the evidence that escaped on a boat informed as to whether said evidence may need to hop on another plane out of the country.

[stephenterry]

Note: every tough-guy connected to Mon and the Headman, about 9 to 15 guys, erased their Facebook activities for the week before and several weeks after the crime. That alone should send up warning flags for anyone investigating. Besides a dozen other items of interest (phone records, weaponized rings they wear, history of carrying guns, numerous allegations of date-rape, fights often in beach bars, etc) that RTP didn't look into, there should be some scrutiny of FB activity. That's assuming RTP really want to find who did the crime, which is a big assumption. Facebook history can be erased, but it's not erased 100%. Law enforcement can access activity if they choose. But even if RTP wanted to pursue that, it's doubtful they would be able to. They're so computer-inept, they don't even know how to store digital pics.

Facebook is not very forthcoming when it comes to requests/demands from authorities for deleted content and/or user info. In a famous ongoing case in the Netherlands authorities asked for information about the poster of some damaging very personal content about another person. Facebook kept declining to hand over the requested data. It went to court and court ordered Facebook to disclose the information. Facebook still declined. Then after a few months Facebook said "sorry, we only store user info and deleted content for 90 days". Judge now ordered Facebook to give full access to all its systems to an impartial expert to see if that is true.

If you replace 'Facebook' with 'RTP' the sentiment holds true as well.

[thailandchilli]

I notice a few of the usual suspects are now trying to say posters are discussing things off topic................well when all else fails thats all they have left I guess

Despite the fact that the trial in this topic covered a numerous amount of angles on the case including cctv footage, prosecution evidence from the trolley and witness statements. I wonder is it possible to discuss anything on the case that is off topic??

Sure they'll find something coz they got nothing else now have they.

[Darkknight666]

I don think anyone can deny there were people around when these guys passed this camera.. So, why haven't they stepped up to give their account? Are they complicit? Did they try to let the police know who they saw walking in the area but it fell on deaf ears? So many questions.

Those witnesses wouldn't keep quiet to save two Burmese.

[Eirene]

The superimposed image over the running man is a photo not a cctv still.

Edit: OOOPS..my bad I see there is talk of two different runners..thought it was about the S/Image. Naw..one runner.MOO

Edited July 31, 2015 by Eirene