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

[Darkknight666]

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

Huh? May want to clean that post up a bit.

[Darkknight666]

Still above from this:

[stephenterry]

I wish Sean would take the witness stand. I don't care if he's a party animal or has a checkered past.

He must know things which would point to the real culprits. I actually believe what Sean said in the interview in the Song-taow (p.u. truck taxi). And I believe what he said in the convenience store when he was cowering, and took that photo. If that photo had not been taken, Headman shielders on here would be screaming about how that scenario was a complete fantasy thought up by Thai-hating conspiracy theorists.

His online statement to the effect (I can't recall the exact words) "If I die soon, then it was Mon and his friend who did it." then he adds a qualifier which states he (Sean) is not saying Mon did the crime, but instead saying if he (Sean) is found dead, then it was orchestrated by Mon.

In other words, Sean is saying he was threatened with hanging (bullies saying; "you should hang yourself"). Why would those two men threaten Sean's life? The most plausible reason: because he knew things about the crime, and could possibly implicate those bullies (or their friends and family members) who took part in it.

Which adds to the rationale that it sure wasn't some migrant workers that carried out the crimes. Throughout the months following, I've noted plenty of strange and suspicious behaviour from the locals that just do not accord to the B2 being in custody. Here's a few:

the Sean episode (verifiable)

the report of an attack on the same beach the night before (not been substantiated)

the initial police statement that he had evidence to connect Mon and one other to the crime scene (never revealed, and since cleared)

the contamination of the crime scene and the locals attempts to mislead the police and destroy evidence (initial RTP reports)

no eye-witnesses or people coming forward to accuse anyone (really?)

the reenactment unlawfully directed by the RTP (local silence)

the local headman's offer of a million baht (who was he protecting - the B2?)

the media circus surrounding Nomsod (a charade or factual, now cleared)

the taxi driver who claimed he was offered a huge bribe by the RTP (not been substantiated)

the refusal to hand over CCTV by headman's family (RTP report)

the inept RTP explanations in the court trial (factual)

the threatening of reporters and translators at the trial (factual)

Blog page of recent tourists visits (Feb 2015) that resulted in unprovoked attacks at the beach fire dance (not been substantiated)

Blog page of one resident (one year there) who relates that there have been many women gone missing (last seen at Koh Tao) (not been substantiated)

Plus there are the victims wounds unexplained, weapons that were never used or never found or wiped clean. Statements of DNA match as yet unsubstantiated and as yet not available to the defence.

Do I really need to go on?

[happy Joe]

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.

You are absolutely right buddy. It must limit the discussion to your own intellectual faculties and therefore banish those who do not share your opinion.

Even better, put on ignore to avoid all effort. So you are the inventor of a new form forum : one-way discussion.

Congratulations !

[Eirene]

Huh? May want to clean that post up a bit.

Sorry....don't understand what you mean. Is there something offensive in the post?

[balo]

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.

Good to know that you already know all the facts , did you see it with your own eyes ? Or are you speculating ?

[SiSePuede419]

Koh Tao police quizzed on why they didnt look into rumoured bar dispute

Sarah Yuen in Thailand

< snip >

Not investigated

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

Read more: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Hows this one going to be spun by the shills?

It was a rumor.

Rule #1: Never investigate rumors. Because they might be true and then must be called "facts".

555

[BlahBlah23]

Koh Tao police quizzed on why they didnt look into rumoured bar dispute

Sarah Yuen in Thailand

< snip >

Not investigated

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

Read more: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Hows this one going to be spun by the shills?

It was a rumor.

Rule #1: Never investigate rumors. Because they might be true and then must be called "facts".

555

Rule #2: Never forget it is just a rumor..... if still unsure refer back to Rule #2

[Si Thea01]

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 !

Condescending, your opinion. Once a copper always a copper. Don't guess, just say it like you think it is. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. At least I am able to say that I am proud of having been a copper and also of my many achievements. Last time I responded, you did not have the intestinal fortitude to answer, so now you've decided it's time to inject another two bob's worth, is it? Why two bob, because that's the value I place on anything you have to say, complimentary or otherwise.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Si Thea01

[thailandchilli]

Rule #1: Never investigate rumors. Because they might be true and then must be called "facts".

555

Rule #2: Never forget it is just a rumor..... if still unsure refer back to Rule #2

Rule #3: If you do decide to investigate a rumour and find something that does not toe our official line then refer to rule #4

Rule #4: Deny investigating rumours

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

'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...eak-scared.html

[JohnThailandJohn]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

For God's sake there is still a moronic rumor they kid in Bangkok at the time was actually on the tisland. I am sure you want them to continue to pursue this rumor too since it is still a rumor despite them clearing the kid and confirming he was not on the island at the time.

You have to be joking ... with all the BS internet rumors they have wasted their time with, they should spend more time chasing down things that have no credible basis and escape any plausibility.

Edited July 31, 2015 by JohnThailandJohn

[BlahBlah23]

Rule #1: Never investigate rumors. Because they might be true and then must be called "facts".

555

Rule #2: Never forget it is just a rumor..... if still unsure refer back to Rule #2

Rule #3: If you do decide to investigate a rumour and find something that does not toe our official line then refer to rule #4

Rule #4: Deny investigating rumours

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

'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...eak-scared.html

Rule #5: Refer back to Rule #2 and read post #5804 - its not so difficult

Edited July 31, 2015 by Bonez

[thailandchilli]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

If your going to quote me then do so in context and not delete the other reference I gave, you missed out the quote where they said they were investigating the rumour!.............tut tut

[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.

You are absolutely right buddy. It must limit the discussion to your own intellectual faculties and therefore banish those who do not share your opinion.

Even better, put on ignore to avoid all effort. So you are the inventor of a new form forum : one-way discussion.

Congratulations !

nice try, but really quite transparent. i see you're quite new here, with 81 posts to your credit, perhaps an alter ego of one of the very people i'm referring to? naw, of course not, you are just an impartial observer who wants to see justice carried out, correct? and you just now appeared out of nowhere to make insulting remarks on this thread? quite interesting, methinks, to see who has been the first and only to click like on your farcical post.

Edited July 31, 2015 by alfalfa19

[BlahBlah23]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

If your going to quote me then do so in context and not delete the other reference I gave, you missed out the quote where they said they were investigating the rumour!.............tut tut

So are they investigating the rumour, or not investigating the rumour, i cannot open the second link to read the context of the story.

[fayou]

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 .

Not only because he is the son of the headman (Phu Yai Ban) in Sairee Koh Tao and live very close to the crime scene, he might be also in the position of an assistant (Phu tschuai) to the headman. The headman has two assistants, one for governmental affairs and one for security affairs.

If considering to be so it will be his duty to help the headman in every way he can.

Not helping at the crime scene would make him questionable.

However...if he was involved in this case, his position was 'very convenient' and be his last chance to conceal evidence at the crime scene.

[thailandchilli]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

If your going to quote me then do so in context and not delete the other reference I gave, you missed out the quote where they said they were investigating the rumour!.............tut tut

So are they investigating the rumour, or not investigating the rumour, i cannot open the second link to read the context of the story.

'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.'

You cannot open the link as the Daily Mail is blocked in Thailand, this was reported on the 21st Sept 2014

However in court on the 23rd July they said they did not investigate it.

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co....dence_1_4164482

[tajtom]

The POLICE are the ones that should be on trial for accessory to murder and providing false evidence

Disgusting

[tajtom]

Those police are no good like most in Thailand and probably would pass a drivers license test

And the prime minister wants to be voted in by the people funny

[tajtom]

Nice police officer a real credit to the community...... I would enjoy 10 minutes with him

[StealthEnergiser]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

For God's sake there is still a moronic rumor they kid in Bangkok at the time was actually on the tisland. I am sure you want them to continue to pursue this rumor too since it is still a rumor despite them clearing the kid and confirming he was not on the island at the time.

You have to be joking ... with all the BS internet rumors they have wasted their time with, they should spend more time chasing down things that have no credible basis and escape any plausibility.

So you have been hireD to defend the kid ? " ADMIT IT "

Edited July 31, 2015 by StealthEnergiser

[BlahBlah23]

So are they investigating the rumour, or not investigating the rumour, i cannot open the second link to read the context of the story.

If your going to quote me then do so in context and not delete the other reference I gave, you missed out the quote where they said they were investigating the rumour!.............tut tut

'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.'

You cannot open the link as the Daily Mail is blocked in Thailand, this was reported on the 21st Sept 2014

However in court on the 23rd July they said they did not investigate it.

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co....dence_1_4164482

Ahhh okay i see, bizarre they make these contradictory statements, as they surely know it will be picked up at some point given the media interest, or maybe one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. Why is the Daily Mail banned, is it because of the reporting of this case ?

[AleG]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

For God's sake there is still a moronic rumor they kid in Bangkok at the time was actually on the tisland. I am sure you want them to continue to pursue this rumor too since it is still a rumor despite them clearing the kid and confirming he was not on the island at the time.

You have to be joking ... with all the BS internet rumors they have wasted their time with, they should spend more time chasing down things that have no credible basis and escape any plausibility.

So you have been hireD to defend the kid ? " ADMIT IT "

This is the sort of paranoid nonsense behind the cover-up theories.

Can't understand something? Just make up a scenario were your lack of understanding is caused by external, evil forces. Saves one the trouble of self examination and rational thinking.

[BlahBlah23]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

For God's sake there is still a moronic rumor they kid in Bangkok at the time was actually on the tisland. I am sure you want them to continue to pursue this rumor too since it is still a rumor despite them clearing the kid and confirming he was not on the island at the time.

You have to be joking ... with all the BS internet rumors they have wasted their time with, they should spend more time chasing down things that have no credible basis and escape any plausibility.

So you have been hireD to defend the kid ? " ADMIT IT "

Calm down... take a deep breath and think about what you are saying, does it really make sense, No.

[JohnThailandJohn]

So are they investigating the rumour, or not investigating the rumour, i cannot open the second link to read the context of the story.

If your going to quote me then do so in context and not delete the other reference I gave, you missed out the quote where they said they were investigating the rumour!.............tut tut

'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.'

You cannot open the link as the Daily Mail is blocked in Thailand, this was reported on the 21st Sept 2014

However in court on the 23rd July they said they did not investigate it.

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co....dence_1_4164482

Ahhh okay i see, bizarre they make these contradictory statements, as they surely know it will be picked up at some point given the media interest, or maybe one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. Why is the Daily Mail banned, is it because of the reporting of this case ?

Violating Lesse-Majeste laws. Blocked before the murders.

[fritzzz25]

How come the RTP didn't hire some kid with a drone to photograph the crime scene? He probably would have done it for free.

[smedly]

Koh Tao police quizzed on why they didnt look into rumoured bar dispute

Sarah Yuen in Thailand

< snip >

Not investigated

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

Read more: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Hows this one going to be spun by the shills?

It was a rumor.

Rule #1: Never investigate rumors. Because they might be true and then must be called "facts".

555

another one of the many problems in Thailand is the fact that certain people believe they are above the law, that list includes the police - politicians - mafia sorts - headmen etc, they believe they can do just about whatever they like and answer to none, they feel they can manipulate anything and there is nothing in place that will hold them to account, it is something that has been very obvious during the investigation into these murders, some smart wise people see it and some not so smart don't - or have an agenda and are seen to be actively supporting it,

We on TVF and other similar social media sites, human rights organisations and international news reports can go some way to exposing such things to the masses but in the end it will make little difference to the outcome of this case because they are so arrogant they will just ignore it and carry on regardless, nobody has the will or the (deleted) to stand up to it.

It is Worth noting though, that in terms of losing face there is only one at the top of the chain of command and of course the Thai people and Thailand

[stephenterry]

So are they investigating the rumour, or not investigating the rumour, i cannot open the second link to read the context of the story.

If your going to quote me then do so in context and not delete the other reference I gave, you missed out the quote where they said they were investigating the rumour!.............tut tut

'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.'

You cannot open the link as the Daily Mail is blocked in Thailand, this was reported on the 21st Sept 2014

However in court on the 23rd July they said they did not investigate it.

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co....dence_1_4164482

Ahhh okay i see, bizarre they make these contradictory statements, as they surely know it will be picked up at some point given the media interest, or maybe one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. Why is the Daily Mail banned, is it because of the reporting of this case ?

Violating Lesse-Majeste laws. Blocked before the murders.

The video was considered to be insulting the monarchy (at the very least) - and, although factual, it is another example of newspapers' sensationalism of the actions of public figures (mainly to sell copy). Thailand has one of the strictest lese majeste laws in this respect, so beware.

The coverage of this crime trial by the DM has been particularly hard-hitting against the ineptitude of the prosecutions case. Must be karma...

[smedly]

The POLICE are the ones that should be on trial for accessory to murder and providing false evidence

Disgusting

I wouldn't go as far as saying "providing false evidence" I would however support the notion of not supplying any viable verifiable evidence or testimony to the court, a prime police witness answering "I don't know" to almost every question being asked of him is quite frankly useless, if I had been the judge I'd have stopped the proceedings and told him to come back when he did have some answers, or compelled him to tell the court what he thought he did know and also what he knew but didn't tell the court ............................

farce

[Darkknight666]

The senior police officer investigating the killing of Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge in Thailand said today that he had not investigated rumours that she had been involved in an argument with a Thai youth on the night of her death.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_defence_team_hope_to_re_test_crucial_forensic_evidence_1_4164482

Why would they investigate this when they interviewed people at the bar including friends who didn't see such a thing? This is why it is rumor as NOBODY they have spoken to who was at the bar saw it. They police also testified that there was NOBODY on any of the video harassing her. The fact the cop said it was only rumor is something you cannot grasp, you want to hold on to the fact he didn't investigate something that had no only no merit but also that no witness they interviewed or video the viewed indicated the rumor had any credibility at all.

For God's sake there is still a moronic rumor they kid in Bangkok at the time was actually on the tisland. I am sure you want them to continue to pursue this rumor too since it is still a rumor despite them clearing the kid and confirming he was not on the island at the time.

You have to be joking ... with all the BS internet rumors they have wasted their time with, they should spend more time chasing down things that have no credible basis and escape any plausibility.

So you have been hireD to defend the kid ? " ADMIT IT "

Calm down... take a deep breath and think about what you are saying, does it really make sense, No.

We don't believe NS "evidence" his lawyer gave for him being in Bangkok... Also all of the info is coming from one side with a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Conflict of interest anyone? Normally evidence given to clear a suspect is given to the public in great detail, Because the public want to feel sure criminals are held accountable, and police are held accountable to the standards of the law. Your new, maybe you won't dodge the question.... If NS is innocent why has he given nothing else to prove it? There are what 500K cameras all over Bangkok, and that's all he can give? Also, why did he hide? Why did he initially refuse to give DNA citing his "Human Rights"? Why is there even a Rumor he was on the Island?

Whether JTJ is paid for his posts is not important. What's important is trying to sift through the lies and get to the truth. The truth put forth so far is bleeding from every orifice.