Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[partington]

If she has tested that wouldn't the results be in the system now and they just need a match.

I don't understand why she is saying inconclusive if she knows the DNA does not match Hannah / David or the B2.

Maybe the defence missed a trick there. What does 'inconclusive' mean? No doubt when it was returned, the RTP said it matches. I think 11 September will be very enlightening after Win completes his testimony and Ms Pornthip takes the stand. I think this will be the day when key DNA evidence is submitted that contests that of the prosecution's assertions.

If, and when, that happens it will be all downhill for the defence, bolstered by the professional crime scene witness, and possibly statements from other UK witnesses. They could probably attain 'reasonable doubt' that the prosecution case has not been proven, in which case a not guilty verdict should be the outcome at this court. Then there will be an appeal...

Just as a matter of fact it is quite possible and common for a DNA profile to be inconclusive, especially if the sample is a single cell, or very low copy number source of DNA.

What this means is quite specific. To get a DNA profile with a 50 billion to one chance of being a false match you need to be able to read 15 pairs of markers , that is 30 or so separate peaks on a graph. Often with bad or low sources of DNA , when the signal is low it is impossible to read many or most of these peaks, that is, say for sure that a peak is there and what size it is, against background noise and "blip" peaks coming from non signal sources.

If you can only read a few peaks unambiguously, the sample cannot be use for evidentiary purposes because it proves nothing. If you can only read 4 or 5 pairs out of the 30, then the profile is not usable to determine identity, so is inconclusive. In some cases no peaks can be read at all.

This is probably what is meant.

Secondly, the chance that DNA evidence taken from human remains in the UK (even it were possible to obtain, and had been done at all, which is by no means certain) would be admissible in a Thai court is vanishingly small in my opinion.

The human remains have already been (in Thai authorities minds) completely processed, have been returned to the families, have been outside Thai authorities hands for weeks, and since then have been transported and handled by countless unidentifiable, unknown and unsupervised personnel: how much less "chain of custody" verification is there for these hypothetical results compared to all the other evidence?

I think no court would admit this kind of evidence: how could they?

[Darkknight666]

From day one comments from a certain poster have not gave any indication that he want's the truth out .

His remarks are very disrespectful to the families who have already been through enough .

It is difficult to report this person due to his tactics.

Every time a thread has been down he has been the common denominator.

Surely it is time to completely ignore him .

I hope that some actions can be taken to consider what value he is to the thread or is he just there throwing wood into the fire until thread is closed down again ?

Then why dont you go ahead and ignore him. Let the rest of us make up our own minds.

I put Ale on the ol' ignore list weeks ago, far better read that way.

[Linky]

I fail to see what thats got to do with the video.

What it does is show clearly how you try to discredit anything that goes against the RTP line that is full of numerous contradictions that you seem to follow and adjust to like a snake. I could go ahead and start making quotes on some of the weird quotes the Junta has made on this, or the chief of police or many of the other leading investigators but everyone knows already and I'm not wasting further time on somebody that says the alleged tortures were neither here nor there. Adios

The point is quite simple, you are trying to use the unsupported ramblings of a man that has been described as "the biggest liar I have ever seen" by one of the persons affected by his mudslinging habit to give credibility to your "theories".

That is to say, you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel by bringing him in.

I'm sure the RTP & prosecution would agree with you as you agree with them, but I do not.

Seen it used against Assange and Snowden. Attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the message.

As soon a someone attacks the messenger with no comment on the message they lose credibility instantly.

[thailandchilli]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

@Chrissiewrite koh tao murder case recommences with expert pathology witness on 11th Sept at Koh Samui also

Great lets hope now that we begin to see the truth rather than the veiled evidence and contradictions from the prosecution. I'm sure its going to be another packed day in court for the 11th

[catsanddogs]

The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man is already highly suspicious, because, whoever you may think it was, it most obviously wasn;t him, so why would he claim it was him? Was he trying to protect a couple of strangers?

These are questions the shills just ignore because they can't spin it. Or they will say - bad reporting, lost in translation.

"The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man" your fact is not a fact, it's one more of a long list of unwarranted assumptions made by armchair detectives.

Perhaps people should stop derailing a thread about the real court case into their whodunit games, again.

No, it was widely reported, but that answer I expected from you. No I will not cite any sources for you, feel free to accuse me of not backing up my posts with facts, but I have nothing to prove to you, good day!

Well, I'll do it for you then, this is where that particular nugget of misinformation originated:

"Police have confirmed that Montriwat is the man appeared in the CCTV video footage near the scene and they still did not rule out a possible connection."

Of course the misinformation part comes exclusively from people that took "the CCTV video footage" to mean what they dubbed The "Running Man" footage, the CCTV footage could be from any other number of cameras, at any other time; therefore the verdict of unwarranted assumption, therefore not a "fact".

If you actually have an interest justice you shouldn't be so sloppy about facts, because that's how innocent people end up paying for things they didn't do.

.

If you actually have an interest justice you shouldn't be so sloppy about facts, because that's how innocent people end up paying for things they didn't do.

Priceless! Tell it to the RTP.

[mike313]

From day one comments from a certain poster have not gave any indication that he want's the truth out .

His remarks are very disrespectful to the families who have already been through enough .

It is difficult to report this person due to his tactics.

Every time a thread has been down he has been the common denominator.

Surely it is time to completely ignore him .

I hope that some actions can be taken to consider what value he is to the thread or is he just there throwing wood into the fire until thread is closed down again ?

Each member has a right to their say, whether you agree with it or not. Don't make this personal, , for one,I want to hear counter arguments, when one is made I would love to see you respond to it without personal attack, but with a counter argument or fact.of your own. I am sifting through all statements of facts and objective opinions to see if some truth can be weeded out. Nobody knows who committed this crime, unfortunately, so there is a possibility it could be the B2, or someone else, nobody actually knows at this precise moment,

[boomerangutang]

If someone owns a business adjacent to a major crime and that person has multiple cctv cameras that would contain, most certainly, evidence that would be instrumental to solving the case. A case which is international in scope and drawing a tremendous amount of attention in a negative way to the country and to the owner of the establishment. How is it possible that warrants are not presented to demand the cctv evidence? And what does it say about the person denying the access to the evidence?

At the very least, you would conclude that something is being hidden. More likely people would conclude something more serious.

It should be a criminal offence to obstruct a criminal investigation by withholding or knowingly destroy evidence.

If that were the case, Mon would be hauled up for breaking the law if it's true as reported that he didn't submit CCTV when asked. Then again, perhaps the investigating cop didn't ask in a direct way, so the cop should be disciplined for dereliction of duty. But hey, this is Thailand, if you're well connected, you can get away with murder, literally.

Here's a scenario, with the cop (Malibu surfer accent) saying something like, "Umm, hey ol' buddy Mon, umm, don't take this the wrong way, but if you happened to have any CCTV footage from that night, I mean, I'm not saying it shows anything, you know, it's just that I'm supposed to ask you this question, but hey, you do whatever you want. No pressure dude."

Mon responds: "I got nothing to show you. Any CCTV from my bar is my property. I can't believe you're even asking me this. My nephew wasn't anywhere near the island that night. You got that?"

investigating cop: "No worries, dude. We're still buddies, right?"

[catsanddogs]

Two things on my mind having read the horrific reports of Zaw Lin's 'alleged' torture -

1. Makes me ponder on whether any police could have been involved with the murders of Hannah and David in light of their barbaric acts on the B2.

2. Helps me to understand why any potential witnesses to the crime are too scared to come forward.

[AleG]

Maybe the defence missed a trick there. What does 'inconclusive' mean? No doubt when it was returned, the RTP said it matches. I think 11 September will be very enlightening after Win completes his testimony and Ms Pornthip takes the stand. I think this will be the day when key DNA evidence is submitted that contests that of the prosecution's assertions.

If, and when, that happens it will be all downhill for the defence, bolstered by the professional crime scene witness, and possibly statements from other UK witnesses. They could probably attain 'reasonable doubt' that the prosecution case has not been proven, in which case a not guilty verdict should be the outcome at this court. Then there will be an appeal...

Just as a matter of fact it is quite possible and common for a DNA profile to be inconclusive, especially if the sample is a single cell, or very low copy number source of DNA.

What this means is quite specific. To get a DNA profile with a 50 billion to one chance of being a false match you need to be able to read 15 pairs of markers , that is 30 or so separate peaks on a graph. Often with bad or low sources of DNA , when the signal is low it is impossible to read many or most of these peaks, that is, say for sure that a peak is there and what size it is, against background noise and "blip" peaks coming from non signal sources.

If you can only read a few peaks unambiguously, the sample cannot be use for evidentiary purposes because it proves nothing. If you can only read 4 or 5 pairs out of the 30, then the profile is not usable to determine identity, so is inconclusive. In some cases no peaks can be read at all.

This is probably what is meant.

Secondly, the chance that DNA evidence taken from human remains in the UK (even it were possible to obtain, and had been done at all, which is by no means certain) would be admissible in a Thai court is vanishingly small in my opinion.

The human remains have already been (in Thai authorities minds) completely processed, have been returned to the families, have been outside Thai authorities hands for weeks, and since then have been transported and handled by countless unidentifiable, unknown and unsupervised personnel: how much less "chain of custody" verification is there for these hypothetical results compared to all the other evidence?

I think no court would admit this kind of evidence: how could they?

I agree with what you say about the chain of evidence issue with using samples taken in the UK. On top of that, not only the UK government would certainly not (officially at least) endorse such evidence, the defense team itself has already raised a stink every time anything to coming from the UK was used or even suggested to be used to prop the prosecution case.

The apparent course of action of the defense may cause doubt in the public over the analysis done in Thailand, but it doesn't seem that it would get that much traction in court.

Having said that, whatever possible contamination in the bodies would still not produce a false positive for a particular individual or individuals, no?

Without getting into unpleasant details, it would take a lot of... mishandling, to introduce certain types of DNA sources into the mix.

[Briggsy]

Murder charge = mandatory shackles, I believe, even in the cell.

[boomerangutang]

Murder charge = mandatory shackles, I believe, even in the cell.

Yea, but those laws are made by men, and men can change those laws. They're not carved in stone on some mountaintop for someone like Moses to find and bring down to the ignorant teeming masses.

[stephenterry]

If she has tested that wouldn't the results be in the system now and they just need a match.

I don't understand why she is saying inconclusive if she knows the DNA does not match Hannah / David or the B2.

Maybe the defence missed a trick there. What does 'inconclusive' mean? No doubt when it was returned, the RTP said it matches. I think 11 September will be very enlightening after Win completes his testimony and Ms Pornthip takes the stand. I think this will be the day when key DNA evidence is submitted that contests that of the prosecution's assertions.

If, and when, that happens it will be all downhill for the defence, bolstered by the professional crime scene witness, and possibly statements from other UK witnesses. They could probably attain 'reasonable doubt' that the prosecution case has not been proven, in which case a not guilty verdict should be the outcome at this court. Then there will be an appeal...

Just as a matter of fact it is quite possible and common for a DNA profile to be inconclusive, especially if the sample is a single cell, or very low copy number source of DNA.

What this means is quite specific. To get a DNA profile with a 50 billion to one chance of being a false match you need to be able to read 15 pairs of markers , that is 30 or so separate peaks on a graph. Often with bad or low sources of DNA , when the signal is low it is impossible to read many or most of these peaks, that is, say for sure that a peak is there and what size it is, against background noise and "blip" peaks coming from non signal sources.

If you can only read a few peaks unambiguously, the sample cannot be use for evidentiary purposes because it proves nothing. If you can only read 4 or 5 pairs out of the 30, then the profile is not usable to determine identity, so is inconclusive. In some cases no peaks can be read at all.

This is probably what is meant.

Secondly, the chance that DNA evidence taken from human remains in the UK (even it were possible to obtain, and had been done at all, which is by no means certain) would be admissible in a Thai court is vanishingly small in my opinion.

The human remains have already been (in Thai authorities minds) completely processed, have been returned to the families, have been outside Thai authorities hands for weeks, and since then have been transported and handled by countless unidentifiable, unknown and unsupervised personnel: how much less "chain of custody" verification is there for these hypothetical results compared to all the other evidence?

I think no court would admit this kind of evidence: how could they?

So far this court has accepted senior police officers and other lawyer type witnesses relating the confessions, and permitted the reenactment video to be shown, when both are irrelevant as the confessions had been recanted, and should not be accepted by the Thai court. On that basis, should any DNA evidence (or autopsy findings) have been sourced from the UK it is just as likely the court would allow the presentation. Whether any of it is taken into consideration is another story.

However, I think that the collection of B2 DNA samples in Samui court and sent to the national forensic institute in BKK, overlorded by Ms Pornthip (who is the next defence witness) indicates that she has access to evidence that will contest the prosecution's claim that the B2 profiles match that of the female victim.

[boomerangutang]

Nobody knows who committed this crime, unfortunately, so there is a possibility it could be the B2, or someone else, nobody actually knows at this precise moment,

Wrong, there are probably at least 20 people who know for sure who committed the crime. There are are culprits, and quite possibly some people they're closest with. It would be very odd if none of the real culprits told (or hinted to) anyone else. And there are myriad indirect ways of telling people. Some examples: "hey, you gotta help me launder (or burn or bury) these clothes, they're covered in blood. Don't ask me how it happened. Ok?" or "mom, don't tell anyone what I just told you." or (to the boat driver) "Don't breathe a word of what happened, about this boat trip or anything to anyone, or you're dead. You got that?"

[fxe1200]

https://www.change.org/petition

[AleG]

Each member has a right to their say, whether you agree with it or not. Don't make this personal, , for one,I want to hear counter arguments, when one is made I would love to see you respond to it without personal attack, but with a counter argument or fact.of your own. I am sifting through all statements of facts and objective opinions to see if some truth can be weeded out. Nobody knows who committed this crime, unfortunately, so there is a possibility it could be the B2, or someone else, nobody actually knows at this precise moment,

I'm afraid that your opening premise is not shared by several people here.

[catsanddogs]

https://www.change.org/petition

I'll give it a go then. Thanks fxe.

[fxe1200]

https://www.change.org/petition

Some one of you please go ahead with that petition. I am sure, that a native speaker definitely can write a suitable text better than me.

[Aj Mick]

The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man is already highly suspicious, because, whoever you may think it was, it most obviously wasn;t him, so why would he claim it was him? Was he trying to protect a couple of strangers?

These are questions the shills just ignore because they can't spin it. Or they will say - bad reporting, lost in translation.

"The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man" your fact is not a fact, it's one more of a long list of unwarranted assumptions made by armchair detectives.

Perhaps people should stop derailing a thread about the real court case into their whodunit games, again.

Perhaps people should realise that the real thread derailers and the sham court case are into their take the heat off whodunit games again.

[fireplay]

I don't know how to say this exactly but I will try:

There are some true leaders, heroes and incredibly well versed intelligent people here posting...and who have been carrying these threads for a year. For this level of commitment, work and passion I am truly grateful.

That being said, I truly can't put myself in said poster's shoes about the emotional responses they must have when the antogonists post such opposing(and in my opinion less developed) viewpoints. Trolls shills whatever ya wanna call them...they do in fact serve a purpose.

These posters force those to be tight and focused and push harder and further for clarity facts and truth.

There was a term that was thrown around a bit back about 6 months ago...the echo chamber (of conspiracy theorists)

There is some truth in that...I don't know if i can name names...i have been a member here for 5 years and only this case has really inspired me to post but....

Sorry if i make the people who i admire angry by saying this...

Those antogonists or rtp supporters, shills ...you know the folks...they are just as vocal as the other side...

They do offer value to this forum. If only to keep you on your toes...but to give a counterpoint for all avenues to be considered.

Does it make sense?

No need to feel angry...the truth and light will set you free...

[stephenterry]

snip -sorry Boom

Thanks to Heidi for posting that. ....and to catsanddogs. I put a 'like' on it, because I like how Zaw is not afraid to speak up. The pressure then, and the pressure now must be great - particularly for a 22 year old who's got the full force of Thai officialdom stacked up against him. I'm with you, dude.

.....message to Thai officialdom: take those shackles off the boys! Particularly the ankle irons. Jeezo, those chains do nothing but paint Thais as feudal. You wanna lessen your loss of face? Trash those chains!

Red Bull boy intentionally kills a cop with his car, and is allowed to skip off to Singapore to chase women and get drunk. Two poor boys are framed for a crime and they're forced to wear wrist and ankle chains while in a no-bail prison for minimum 1 year. The same could never happen to NS if he was indicted for the crime. He'd be left with his passport and millions of his daddy's money - to skip off to party wherever in the world he wants to go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the Red Bull boy intentionally kill a cop? I don't believe for one moment he got into his Ferrari and thought "let's kill a cop tonight". Do you really think that?

Pissed, drugged, knackered after a night's partying, speeding, driving dangerously, yep. Failing to stop, urgently report it, and fleeing the scene, yep. But intentional - that's a far stretch.

This case has been a farce. Inept, inefficient, ineffective, clowns with contaminated crime scene and non police giving the orders. How much of that was actually orchestrated by some to protect others will never be known.

The "evidence" so far is farcical and no one who knows anything of the RTP will trust anything they present. Equally there is no evidence, real evidence not speculation and conjecture fueled by social media, been put forward regarding any others. Not surprising as those possibilities have never been followed up.

Why McAnna was allowed to leave when he would appear both a potential witness and suspect, and almost certainly seems to know more than he's told, is anyone's guess.

Hyperbole and rhetoric aren't going to change it. Like many other infamous cases it will never really be solved, regardless of whatever the verdict here, because some one or ones doesn't want it to be, just like the others.

What is even more alarming is that this farce is in the international spotlight as a high profile case. That senior police officers can act with impunity at court is frightening. I hate to imagine what happens in cases that are low profile.

[StealthEnergiser]

The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man is already highly suspicious, because, whoever you may think it was, it most obviously wasn;t him, so why would he claim it was him? Was he trying to protect a couple of strangers?

These are questions the shills just ignore because they can't spin it. Or they will say - bad reporting, lost in translation.

"The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man" your fact is not a fact, it's one more of a long list of unwarranted assumptions made by armchair detectives.

Perhaps people should stop derailing a thread about the real court case into their whodunit games, again.

Perhaps people should realise that the real thread derailers and the sham court case are into their take the heat off whodunit games again.

"But as Montriwat is the man appeared in the CCTV video footage near the scene, the police still did not rule out a possible connection."

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao

[Rykbanlor]

The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man is already highly suspicious, because, whoever you may think it was, it most obviously wasn;t him, so why would he claim it was him? Was he trying to protect a couple of strangers?

These are questions the shills just ignore because they can't spin it. Or they will say - bad reporting, lost in translation.

"The fact that Mon claimed to be the running man" your fact is not a fact, it's one more of a long list of unwarranted assumptions made by armchair detectives.

Perhaps people should stop derailing a thread about the real court case into their whodunit games, again.

Perhaps people should realise that the real thread derailers and the sham court case are into their take the heat off whodunit games again.

"But as Montriwat is the man appeared in the CCTV video footage near the scene, the police still did not rule out a possible connection."

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/new-twist-murder-two-brits-koh-tao

So Sean has both admitted to being in a group playing guitar, and being asleep at home all night.

The contradictions just keep flying.

[Madaussie]

https://www.change.org/petition

Some one of you please go ahead with that petition. I am sure, that a native speaker definitely can write a suitable text better than me.

FXE,

The problem you have is that this is old news. The initial shock factor is gone. People have moved on with their lives. Most people are me me me me. Except for a few diehard supporters of justice for Hannah and David and the 2 suspects.

I hate to say it but I think its nearly done its course and has been consigned to chip paper. The politicians don't give a Hoot!!! its not PC m8 to stir trouble. Not sure what the answer is but will give my opinion when the trial is over and I can make a better judgement having heard more evidence. So far not convinced they done it.

What I do think is the crime scene was staged.. Hannah was placed there in that position her legs etc. I think the clothes where scattered around. And they bashed her head

in-situ. I really don't think she was in that position when she died. Lets hope the crime scene specialist brings something to the table. he has worked on many cases inc the Kosovo massacres I believe.

One thing I did pick up was a Chris Cooper from a dive school on Koh Tao initially claimed he had a beer with Sean McAnna on that evening prior to their deaths. He swiftly removed that at some point from his feed. Make of that what you will.

[metisdead]

Deflection posts and replies have been removed.

Please do not post content from a facebook page as they are not credible sources of information.

There have been posts with content containing Thai language, this is an English language forum. English is the only acceptable language anywhere on ThaiVisa including Classifieds, except within the Thai language forum, where of course using Thai is allowed. Posts containing Thai language have been removed.

[fish fingers]

This Trial has really screwed up Thailand's image .. and will continue to do so, whatever the outcome.

I don't entirely agree with you. Anyone who has lived in Thailand for any length of time know what goes on and how justice is seen to be done but not necessarily with the right guilty parties.

Having lived in Thailand for a good few years, that wasnt really the point I was making.

[silverado]

Nobody knows who committed this crime, unfortunately, so there is a possibility it could be the B2, or someone else, nobody actually knows at this precise moment,

Wrong, there are probably at least 20 people who know for sure who committed the crime. There are are culprits, and quite possibly some people they're closest with. It would be very odd if none of the real culprits told (or hinted to) anyone else. And there are myriad indirect ways of telling people. Some examples: "hey, you gotta help me launder (or burn or bury) these clothes, they're covered in blood. Don't ask me how it happened. Ok?" or "mom, don't tell anyone what I just told you." or (to the boat driver) "Don't breathe a word of what happened, about this boat trip or anything to anyone, or you're dead. You got that?"

at least , some of Koh tao people know what and how happened... and there are more than one possibility it must be them ....

[Reigntax]

Just wondering, if I don't get 5 or 6 likes as predicted am I entitled to torture those out of some people since as all others know this is well established tradition in Thailand, isn't it?

The Kritsuda case of last year comes to mind. The poor girl was tortured by the military regime as all but me knew and there was the global worrying upon she had disappeared for several weeks.

Now, a year has passed and there is nothing left but the silence of the lambs. She has gone lost now obviously forever but no one appears to give a hoot anymore despite all the previous knowledge. This is indeed kind of puzzling. Where has all the knowledge gone?

In any case the allegations of torture are neither here or there in respect of whether they are innocent or not. If they were tortured that doesn't change the reality of what happened before it, if the physical evidence proves their guilt then the confessions or "confessions" are largely irrelevant, which I know it's going to rattle some people but it is what the defenders of Wai Phyo and Zaw Lin have been saying all along, isn't it?

I, for one, I'm more interested in finding out the truth about the murders first.

If they had the physical evidence they wouldnt need to torture them, in fact wouldnt even need to question them.

Sorry but this case is nothing more than select who we want to blame and fabricate the evidence to suit our scapegoat. And they are ammatures at fabrication of evidence as well!

[balo]

If I was thay guy on the picture posing ,I would be quite upset actually having to deal with social media gossip .

Yes he could be a bad guy , but maybe just a normal guy, looking tough and posing on pictures.

It will only lead to endless speculations until someone actually can dig up som "dirt" on this guy.

Oh really, the fact that he posed for these pictures and put them on a social media site means he is open to criticism and gossip, you don't want harangued, it's simply, don't post or write stuff that people can use against you on a public social network site!!!

Please don't tell me He is defending the guy who posed with a frickin hoe. Yes, if he posts that kind of insensitive bs he deserves to be scrutinised.

I'm just saying posing on a picture does not make him guilty of murder . I dont know this person, he might be a bad guy. What did he do in his past, dig up som dirt and it would be on social media in a few minutes,

[PaPiPuPePo]

From day one comments from a certain poster have not gave any indication that he want's the truth out .

His remarks are very disrespectful to the families who have already been through enough .

It is difficult to report this person due to his tactics.

Every time a thread has been down he has been the common denominator.

Surely it is time to completely ignore him .

I hope that some actions can be taken to consider what value he is to the thread or is he just there throwing wood into the fire until thread is closed down again ?

Each member has a right to their say, whether you agree with it or not. Don't make this personal, , for one,I want to hear counter arguments, when one is made I would love to see you respond to it without personal attack, but with a counter argument or fact.of your own. I am sifting through all statements of facts and objective opinions to see if some truth can be weeded out. Nobody knows who committed this crime, unfortunately, so there is a possibility it could be the B2, or someone else, nobody actually knows at this precise moment,

Let me respond to your post starting at "for one, I want to hear....": You say that it's this person who's not responding to arguments, but merely getting personal. But from what I've be unable to avoid reading of the disputes these same people are having with each other, it seems that the perception is that it's not the OP and other B2 defenders not responding to counter-arguments, (I've read numerous such myself), but this person he complains about who doesn't respond directly to arguments or counter-arguments.

I think there's some pot-and-kettle to all of this, and I fully agree one should attack the argument not the person, though there's a fine line and we've all crossed it, but on the whole it seems the reason the majority of people following this case are speaking out in defense of the B2 is because of the entirety of evidence and context around the crime, the investigation, and the environments micro and macro that it happened in.

And it does seem from my reading through parts of these backs-and-forths that certain members here who either hold the opposite view or oppose this one have done a poor job of presenting their case and have often just debated dead-end details or resorted to repetition of the same talking points or buzz words ("conspiracy theory"), which again is what this comment you respond to is referring to. Like you, I would like to see a case against the B2 presented that doesn't make me roll my eyes at points and groan at others, but so far that hasn't happened. Despite the copious verbiage. I too would very much like to, but no longer have your expectations of it happening.

[Madaussie]

Hi all,

Can I add to the conversation as I have had my clip taken down that in the video it clearly states that Mon says that Sean McAnna went into the Lotus Bar with blood on his face and body around the time David and Hannah died. This is the same man with similar wounds to David. The same man who fled the island. The same man that was so terrified of what was happening he contacted the embassy and sky news to save his hide. You can judge what you will from this but his character is flawed. He has been convicted for a heinous crime that involves underage children, so he has shown he is a filthy piece of trash already.

Why did they let him leave the island??

Any ideas anyone. That is open to All inc the doubters

Ps. if anyone can help with the subtitles addition I would appreciate it so I can get it up and it will stay up. (you know what I mean..ha ha )