Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[AleG]

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

Since they didn't say that the second option wins by default.

"He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders."

Nothing about footage from the crime scene, let alone footage of them in the crime scene; but of course nothing stops you from providing a citation for your "fact".

You were complaining about me spreading misinformation not long ago, right? Just checking.

"Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

You said there was CCTV of them at the crime scene, "fact".

Is that a fact yes or no?

[KunMatt]

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

Since they didn't say that the second option wins by default.

"He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders."

Nothing about footage from the crime scene, let alone footage of them in the crime scene; but of course nothing stops you from providing a citation for your "fact".

You were complaining about me spreading misinformation not long ago, right? Just checking.

"Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

You said there was CCTV of them at the crime scene, "fact".

Is that a fact yes or no?

Maybe. You are I cannot say for sure but based on Panya's statement saying that they were definitely involved in the crime I would say probably yes.

Now.answer my question. "Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

I'm prepared to accept your entire argument of the B2's guilt but only on the basis that there were other people involved from Koh Tao. Are you?

Edited January 6, 2016 by KunMatt

[fab99]

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

Since they didn't say that the second option wins by default.

"He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders."

Nothing about footage from the crime scene, let alone footage of them in the crime scene; but of course nothing stops you from providing a citation for your "fact".

You were complaining about me spreading misinformation not long ago, right? Just checking.

"Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

You said there was CCTV of them at the crime scene, "fact".

Is that a fact yes or no?

Answering to a pertinent question by another one...

No, I guess you can't say that we know for sure the CCTV is from the crime scene (as only a small part of the cctv has been shared with the public), but it sure is interesting to note the implications of the police stong suspicions, that you keep trying to present as irrelevant. Only a minority is convinced that Mon was really in Bangkok, the evidences were not convincing enough, the lack of transparency in this case doesnt help and makes people suspicious, it's easy to comprehend.

[catsanddogs]

It's also probable (for certain values of probability) that a band of wayward Somali pirates were involved in the crimes. Should we waste time discussing this other unsupported scenario?

Too far fetched for you? How about the probable scenario that a rival family in Koh Tao tried to frame those guys for the murders by "staging a crime scene" right at their doorsteps as a way to gain a bigger slice of the pie? Not supported either but imagine the hours that could be wasted on it.

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

[catsanddogs]

re my post 3338

Don't know why my post has got all messed up within the other posts cos it was in its own box when I posted.

[AleG]

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

In case you didn't notice, I had already posted that link to show that KunMatt was wrong... and you can't even see what is right in front of your eyes that nowhere does it say they were caught by CCTV at the crime scene.

This is just sad.

[KunMatt]

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.
He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.
He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.
He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.
He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.
He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.
http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

In case you didn't notice, I had already posted that link to show that KunMatt was wrong... and you can't even see what is right in front of your eyes that nowhere does it say they were caught by CCTV at the crime scene.

This is just sad.

It is sad because you are not prepared to even consider anything off of your script. The police said that they had gathered enough evidence that implicated them in the crime, this could well mean the evidence from the CCTV they were just talking about.

I know that all we have is the English translation. Maybe we could get more info from the direct Thai quotes if anyone has it or can find it.

Either way we can say for certain that the police chief said that Mon and Nomsod were caught on TV and he had enough evidence that implicated them in the crime. No matter how you spin it this is a fact in black and white. So from this we can say for certain that Nomsod was not in Bangkok like he claimed so he was lying.

True or false?

[fab99]

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

In case you didn't notice, I had already posted that link to show that KunMatt was wrong... and you can't even see what is right in front of your eyes that nowhere does it say they were caught by CCTV at the crime scene.

This is just sad.

You keep focusing on the term "Crime scene", but avoid at the same time the real question which is the presence and the implication of the 2 suspects by CCTV evidence.

Where this cctv is from doesnt matter so much, what matters is that the police thought is was enough to implicate them without a doubt, the wording is very strong and clear.

Some people wish this statement hadn't been made but it has and the person responsible for these has been quickly "promoted" to another post and we haven't heard from him again.

The truth always comes out eventually, it won't disappear quietly like the RTP wished

[AleG]

You said there was CCTV of them at the crime scene, "fact".

Is that a fact yes or no?

Maybe. You are I cannot say for sure but based on Panya's statement saying that they were definitely involved in the crime I would say probably yes.

Now.answer my question. "Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

I'm prepared to accept your entire argument of the B2's guilt but only on the basis that there were other people involved from Koh Tao. Are you?

You said it was a fact... was that like the other facts you know about this case? the ones that make it impossible for you to contemplate anything but a scenario where other people were involved?

I already said I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence, just because the police said they were sure about something doesn't make it true, and it boggles the mind that "the police said so" is used as the be-all and end-all argument regarding this very specific point by the people that otherwise characterize the entirety of their work as a pack of lies and deceptions. This is nothing but cognitive dissonance at work and if you would apply a minimum of self examination on what you are doing you could see it too.

As I have already shown the police was wrong just a few days before when they said in no uncertain terms that Chris Ware was responsible for the murders, and then had to backtrack on that the next day.

[AleG]

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

In case you didn't notice, I had already posted that link to show that KunMatt was wrong... and you can't even see what is right in front of your eyes that nowhere does it say they were caught by CCTV at the crime scene.

This is just sad.

It is sad because you are not prepared to even consider anything off of your script. The police said that they had gathered enough evidence that implicated them in the crime, this could well mean the evidence from the CCTV they were just talking about.

I know that all we have is the English translation. Maybe we could get more info from the direct Thai quotes if anyone has it or can find it.

Either way we can say for certain that the police chief said that Mon and Nomsod were caught on TV and he had enough evidence that implicated them in the crime. No matter how you spin it this is a fact in black and white. So from this we can say for certain that Nomsod was not in Bangkok like he claimed so he was lying.

True or false?

You continue to ignore the fact that the police did the same thing at least twice before, announce that they had strong evidence against other people (up to the point of directly accusing them of being the murderer) before realizing that they had no such strong evidence.

If you can't bring yourself to accept that fact it's no wonder you are stuck on September 23rd 2014.

[KunMatt]

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.
He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.
He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.
He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.
He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.
He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.
http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

In case you didn't notice, I had already posted that link to show that KunMatt was wrong... and you can't even see what is right in front of your eyes that nowhere does it say they were caught by CCTV at the crime scene.

This is just sad.

It is sad because you are not prepared to even consider anything off of your script. The police said that they had gathered enough evidence that implicated them in the crime, this could well mean the evidence from the CCTV they were just talking about.

I know that all we have is the English translation. Maybe we could get more info from the direct Thai quotes if anyone has it or can find it.

Either way we can say for certain that the police chief said that Mon and Nomsod were caught on TV and he had enough evidence that implicated them in the crime. No matter how you spin it this is a fact in black and white. So from this we can say for certain that Nomsod was not in Bangkok like he claimed so he was lying.

True or false?

You continue to ignore the fact that the police did the same thing at least twice before, announce that they had strong evidence against other people (up to the point of directly accusing them of being the murderer) before realizing that they had no such strong evidence.
If you can't bring yourself to accept that fact it's no wonder you are stuck on September 23rd 2014.

True or false?

[AleG]

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

In case you didn't notice, I had already posted that link to show that KunMatt was wrong... and you can't even see what is right in front of your eyes that nowhere does it say they were caught by CCTV at the crime scene.

This is just sad.

It is sad because you are not prepared to even consider anything off of your script. The police said that they had gathered enough evidence that implicated them in the crime, this could well mean the evidence from the CCTV they were just talking about.

I know that all we have is the English translation. Maybe we could get more info from the direct Thai quotes if anyone has it or can find it.

Either way we can say for certain that the police chief said that Mon and Nomsod were caught on TV and he had enough evidence that implicated them in the crime. No matter how you spin it this is a fact in black and white. So from this we can say for certain that Nomsod was not in Bangkok like he claimed so he was lying.

True or false?

You continue to ignore the fact that the police did the same thing at least twice before, announce that they had strong evidence against other people (up to the point of directly accusing them of being the murderer) before realizing that they had no such strong evidence.

If you can't bring yourself to accept that fact it's no wonder you are stuck on September 23rd 2014.

True or false?

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.

You like that?

[fab99]

You said there was CCTV of them at the crime scene, "fact".

Is that a fact yes or no?

Maybe. You are I cannot say for sure but based on Panya's statement saying that they were definitely involved in the crime I would say probably yes.

Now.answer my question. "Both suspects were captured by CCTV". So Nomsod was not in Bangkok as he claimed was he?

I'm prepared to accept your entire argument of the B2's guilt but only on the basis that there were other people involved from Koh Tao. Are you?

You said it was a fact... was that like the other facts you know about this case? the ones that make it impossible for you to contemplate anything but a scenario where other people were involved?

I already said I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence, just because the police said they were sure about something doesn't make it true, and it boggles the mind that "the police said so" is used as the be-all and end-all argument regarding this very specific point by the people that otherwise characterize the entirety of their work as a pack of lies and deceptions. This is nothing but cognitive dissonance at work and if you would apply a minimum of self examination on what you are doing you could see it too.

As I have already shown the police was wrong just a few days before when they said in no uncertain terms that Chris Ware was responsible for the murders, and then had to backtrack on that the next day.

You sure do a great job defending them, I respect your dedication but I think we'll keep disagreeing until new information emerge, and I bet it will, but you will probably dismiss it or focus on a small part of it that is not totally bulletproof as you often do.

The lack of transparency in this case (CCTV, a lot of evidence not analyzed, used up or disappeared...) is just really really suspicious, at this scale, it is not simply a lack of professionalism.

We'll see how it evolves, but unfortunately, at the same time, 2 persons that may be innocent have been in jail for more than a year and could be there for a while before all the judicial process is over.

Put yourself in their shoes, if they are innocent (but you seem very convinced that they are not).

[KunMatt]

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

The police said that. You are not lying. Here ya go. Plenty more coverage if anyone needs it on the Web.

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.
He is the brother of a village headman in Koh Tao.
He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.
He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman. But he has already to Bangkok.
He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.
He said the southern police were coordinating with the metropolitan police to hunt him down, and expected to apprehend him today.
http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/one-tourist-murder-suspect-now-arrested-another-run

In case you didn't notice, I had already posted that link to show that KunMatt was wrong... and you can't even see what is right in front of your eyes that nowhere does it say they were caught by CCTV at the crime scene.

This is just sad.

It is sad because you are not prepared to even consider anything off of your script. The police said that they had gathered enough evidence that implicated them in the crime, this could well mean the evidence from the CCTV they were just talking about.

I know that all we have is the English translation. Maybe we could get more info from the direct Thai quotes if anyone has it or can find it.

Either way we can say for certain that the police chief said that Mon and Nomsod were caught on TV and he had enough evidence that implicated them in the crime. No matter how you spin it this is a fact in black and white. So from this we can say for certain that Nomsod was not in Bangkok like he claimed so he was lying.

True or false?

You continue to ignore the fact that the police did the same thing at least twice before, announce that they had strong evidence against other people (up to the point of directly accusing them of being the murderer) before realizing that they had no such strong evidence.
If you can't bring yourself to accept that fact it's no wonder you are stuck on September 23rd 2014.

True or false?

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.
You like that?

I've said that I will accept that the B2 are guilty, but only in the case that they are not alone. It's the only scenario that fits with your evidence against the B2 which you are adamant about and all of the evidence against Mon and Nomsod.

Why do you refuse to accept that Mon and Nomsod could have been involved? You dont think that they would have lied because when were accused of murdering 2 people? That's what you are basing your argument on, the word of 2 accused murderers??

[AleG]

You said it was a fact... was that like the other facts you know about this case? the ones that make it impossible for you to contemplate anything but a scenario where other people were involved?

I already said I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence, just because the police said they were sure about something doesn't make it true, and it boggles the mind that "the police said so" is used as the be-all and end-all argument regarding this very specific point by the people that otherwise characterize the entirety of their work as a pack of lies and deceptions. This is nothing but cognitive dissonance at work and if you would apply a minimum of self examination on what you are doing you could see it too.

As I have already shown the police was wrong just a few days before when they said in no uncertain terms that Chris Ware was responsible for the murders, and then had to backtrack on that the next day.

You sure do a great job defending them, I respect your dedication but I think we'll keep disagreeing until new information emerge, and I bet it will, but you will probably dismiss it or focus on a small part of it that is not totally bulletproof as you often do.

The lack of transparency in this case (CCTV, a lot of evidence not analyzed, used up or disappeared...) is just really really suspicious, at this scale, it is not simply a lack of professionalism.

We'll see how it evolves, but unfortunately, at the same time, 2 persons that may be innocent have been in jail for more than a year and could be there for a while before all the judicial process is over.

Put yourself in their shoes, if they are innocent (but you seem very convinced that they are not).

If I was an innocent man on their position I would be clamoring for the truth to come out in as clear and pure a form as possible; and I wouldn't consider people mucking that up with "facts" and wild theories, that would only discredit my cause, as being particularly helpful.

[GeckosDiving]

I see the Troll is still here !! Wow give it a REST <deleted> !!

[fab99]

You said it was a fact... was that like the other facts you know about this case? the ones that make it impossible for you to contemplate anything but a scenario where other people were involved?

I already said I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence, just because the police said they were sure about something doesn't make it true, and it boggles the mind that "the police said so" is used as the be-all and end-all argument regarding this very specific point by the people that otherwise characterize the entirety of their work as a pack of lies and deceptions. This is nothing but cognitive dissonance at work and if you would apply a minimum of self examination on what you are doing you could see it too.

As I have already shown the police was wrong just a few days before when they said in no uncertain terms that Chris Ware was responsible for the murders, and then had to backtrack on that the next day.

You sure do a great job defending them, I respect your dedication but I think we'll keep disagreeing until new information emerge, and I bet it will, but you will probably dismiss it or focus on a small part of it that is not totally bulletproof as you often do.

The lack of transparency in this case (CCTV, a lot of evidence not analyzed, used up or disappeared...) is just really really suspicious, at this scale, it is not simply a lack of professionalism.

We'll see how it evolves, but unfortunately, at the same time, 2 persons that may be innocent have been in jail for more than a year and could be there for a while before all the judicial process is over.

Put yourself in their shoes, if they are innocent (but you seem very convinced that they are not).

If I was an innocent man on their position I would be clamoring for the truth to come out in as clear and pure a form as possible; and I wouldn't consider people mucking that up with "facts" and wild theories, that would only discredit my cause, as being particularly helpful.

You would probably be very happy to get this kind of support and not be forgotten, left to rote in a cell.

For me the wild theory is the scenario of 2 short burmese men managing to kill two stronger persons without getting any injury, using a hoe that the victims handled (no element of surprise) with no trace of David's blood on it and these burmese then staying on the island for weeks...

It is totally unplausible...

The way the poor Hannah was killed just shows how unhumane the killers were, you have to be a beast to do this, and the idea that they could be free and never be convicted is very difficult to accept, that is why so many people won't quit and let this one go.

Edited January 6, 2016 by fab99

[boomerangutang]

It's also probable (for certain values of probability) that a band of wayward Somali pirates were involved in the crimes. Should we waste time discussing this other unsupported scenario?

Too far fetched for you? How about the probable scenario that a rival family in Koh Tao tried to frame those guys for the murders by "staging a crime scene" right at their doorsteps as a way to gain a bigger slice of the pie? Not supported either but imagine the hours that could be wasted on it.

More bluster from you to ignore the fact that Mon and Nomsod were caught on CCTV at the crime scene, so your assertion that the B2 is valid but it also means that they were accomplices to Mon and Nomsod, doesn't it?

If this is not the case then everything you have said all along is a pure lie. So I am agreeing with everything you said about the B2, but you are missing out the part about their bosses involvement.

So now you know for a fact that there's footage of them at the crime scene, and I'm the one that lies.

The police chief said that Nomsod and Mon were on the CCTV footage of the crime scene and were definitely implicated. Did the police say that or am I lying?

My recollection of news items from right after the crime: the initial police team, under Panya, indicated early on that his team knew who the suspect was, largely due to Running Man video (Nomsod) and were looking for him. I don't think Mon is on any CCTV from that night. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yet, there's a video 'grab' of a man - I distinctly recall the image, but I haven't seen that photo since it was published (I think it was the Bkk Post) about a day or two after the crime. It looked just like Mon. There was a reflection from one of the man's ears, and the photo caption mentioned that was due to him having an earring. It would be interesting to see that photo again and to also find out why it's no longer circulating. Was it trashed? At the same time, there were CCTV photo grabs of at least one side view of Running Man's head which showed his sideburns distinctly curling away from his ear. That was why it was interesting to me, that when Nomsod surfaced (with his lawyer, after over a week of hiding), he had his sideburns curling towards his ear, and his hair had been recently cut to be less bushy - thereby resembling Running Man slightly less. The photo of the man with sideburns seems to also be missing from the public domain. Were they just published once and then trashed? Perhaps some poster on here can retrieve copies of the Post and/or Nation newspapers from the days following the crime.

[AleG]

I've said that I will accept that the B2 are guilty, but only in the case that they are not alone. It's the only scenario that fits with your evidence against the B2 which you are adamant about and all of the evidence against Mon and Nomsod.

Why do you refuse to accept that Mon and Nomsod could have been involved? You dont think that they would have lied because when were accused of murdering 2 people? That's what you are basing your argument on, the word of 2 accused murderers??

What part of "I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence" is so difficult to grasp?

The problem is that when asking for it I get things like your "fact" that they were caught at the crime scene by CCTV, wishful thinking like "they could be involved", non-sequitors like "x amount of people agree with me" or convoluted, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

[AleG]

If I was an innocent man on their position I would be clamoring for the truth to come out in as clear and pure a form as possible; and I wouldn't consider people mucking that up with "facts" and wild theories, that would only discredit my cause, as being particularly helpful.

You would probably be very happy to get this kind of support and not be forgotten, left to rote in a cell.

For me the wild theory is the scenario of 2 short burmese men managing to kill two stronger persons without getting any injury, using a hoe that the victims handled (no element of surprise) with no trace of David's blood on it and these burmese then staying on the island for weeks...

It is totally unplausible...

No, I wouldn't be happy with the sort of "support" I see at work here, in particular with the hate campaigns.

"using a hoe that the victims handled"

There goes another "fact"...

[cadmus]

Someone kindly posted previously about the DNA findings in response to my question about methods, data, analysis - not really answering my question, but interesting all the same.

STR vWA analysis: DNA from rectum of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Zaw Lin (Zoren) & 16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR vWA analysis: DNA from vagina of Hannah Witheridge

16 matching loci to Wai Phyo (Win)

STR D2S1338 analysis: DNA from right nipple of Hannah Witheridge

Positive match to Wai Phyo (Win), loci 20 & 25 missing

16 Matching loci on only the vWA Core Locus .. probability of 0.21 - that is just over one in five. 21 out of 100 people.

really.. not the whole geonome? to have a statistically meaningful identification you need to match on 13 locus (US)

Completely meaningless when there is zero documentation on how the samples were processed.. I simply do not believe that the DNA found on Hannah was correctly processed.

If the Samples were correctly processed then simple response is PROVE IT!

It is not enough just say there are 16 matches on a single locus. its is meaningless. Show you methods and your working out. Science 101!

PS do not shoot the messenger - personally I was grateful to STE for posting this information

This information is wrong as written, and so fairly meaningless.

STR vWA means "the short tandem repeat at the vWA locus."

"vWA" IS ONE single locus (a place in the genome that can be of different lengths in different people.) Each single locus is present ONCE on each of a pair of chromosomes and therefore each person can only have TWO values for the vWA locus (e.g. 11,17 ) because the vWA locus is present only twice in any one person, NOT sixteen times-this is nonsense. There can't be sixteen matches at vWA therefore.

Similarly D2S1338 is a SINGLE locus, that is a site present only once on each of a pair of chromosomes, it therefore can only have two numerical values in a single person (one for the length of the site on each chromosome e.g. 21, 23). It is therefore impossible for there to be sixteen matches.

At vWA and D2S1388 there would only be four figures for each suspect. A full DNA profile uses 10 different loci (plural of locus) in the UK, and 13 different loci in the US. Thus a high probability identification (less than one in a billion of being a chance match, i.e. a definitive identification) needs two numbers at each of 10 or 13 loci, that is a list of 20 or 26 different numbers, each of which must be identical in the suspect and the victim sample.

If this rather garbled account above is trying to say that the DNA samples from the victim match the suspects at four places (two numbers at vWA and two numbers at D2S1388) then the probability that this could happen by chance would be so high that it would be completely unacceptable in any court anywhere as identification.

All DNA reports (but obviously not the one submitted to the court , since apparently this was non-existent) give a calculated probability that the results obtained could be a chance match. When this probability is one in 50 million to several billion (as they always are in perfect matches of 20 or 26 number profiles from 10 or 13 loci) then the identification can be absolutely relied on. If only two loci and four numbers were used the probability of a chance match would be so high the result would be meaningless. A one in a 100 chance of getting the match would simply not identify anybody.

In any case it's become clear from the time taken to do the "analysis" (less than 24 hours), and the lack of any laboratory account of what was done, that this DNA evidence is not true. For technical reasons sperm DNA must be isolated from the overwhelming background of victim DNA by chemical treatment. This treatment separates female from male DNA but it takes at least overnight to process, and then the actual DNA profile needs to be done. There was not enough time between collection and report of the "match" for this to really have been carried out.

EDIT: just as a follow up to what some have written above: it is of course quite feasible in a table that consists of 16 or so pairs of numbers to just type in whatever numbers you want. If the records of how the numbers were obtained are not made available for examination ( why would they not be? graphs from the sequencing machines are stored as digital files indefinitely and can be printed out at will to show the actual peaks giving the numbers listed in the table) there is no way to prove that the numbers weren't just written in as desired and based on nothing.

Finally a post that is authored by somebody who appears to have some real knowledge on DNA. Just as Jane Taupin does and the underlying theme is the same. The DNA is currently not credible evidence. A conviction for rape and murder in this case would need to rely soley on any other evidence the prosecution had presented. But the other evidence seems fragile at best. I do hope that an appeal happens and is successful.

[rockingrobin]

I've said that I will accept that the B2 are guilty, but only in the case that they are not alone. It's the only scenario that fits with your evidence against the B2 which you are adamant about and all of the evidence against Mon and Nomsod.

Why do you refuse to accept that Mon and Nomsod could have been involved? You dont think that they would have lied because when were accused of murdering 2 people? That's what you are basing your argument on, the word of 2 accused murderers??

What part of "I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence" is so difficult to grasp?

The problem is that when asking for it I get things like your "fact" that they were caught at the crime scene by CCTV, wishful thinking like "they could be involved", non-sequitors like "x amount of people agree with me" or convoluted, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

It as already been supplied

Blond hair

Dna on murder weapon

Dna on right shoe and the presence of the shoe

[fab99]

If I was an innocent man on their position I would be clamoring for the truth to come out in as clear and pure a form as possible; and I wouldn't consider people mucking that up with "facts" and wild theories, that would only discredit my cause, as being particularly helpful.

You would probably be very happy to get this kind of support and not be forgotten, left to rote in a cell.

For me the wild theory is the scenario of 2 short burmese men managing to kill two stronger persons without getting any injury, using a hoe that the victims handled (no element of surprise) with no trace of David's blood on it and these burmese then staying on the island for weeks...

It is totally unplausible...

No, I wouldn't be happy with the sort of "support" I see at work here, in particular with the hate campaigns.

"using a hoe that the victims handled"

There goes another "fact"...

Here is a fact for you, not a "fact" :

Forensic Science Officer Worawee Waiyawuth, from the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) in Bangkok, which was charged with the re-testing, said their laboratory found most of the DNA on the handle of the hoe came from Ms Witheridge.

“She had obviously held the hoe for some time. Her DNA traces, which were not blood, were taken from the handle. Her blood was on the blade,” said Mr Waiyawuth.

A full DNA profile for David Miller, a 24 year-old graduate from Jersey, who was with Ms Witheridge when both were bludgeoned to death on Sairee Beach on the island of Koh Tao, was also found on the handle of the hoe, along with a partial profile for another unidentified male.

http://thailandjustice.com/burmese-men-defence-lawyers-challenge-thai-police-to-revise-murder-theory-after-victims-dna-found-on-murder-weapon/

It contradicts the scenario given during the trial, but motive or MO don't matter here it seems only the DNA "evidence" (see what I did here?) does...

Edited January 6, 2016 by fab99

[fab99]

Short article from today :

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Koh-Tao-The-most-worrying-missing-link-30276187.html

Pornthip "said her laboratory's independent forensic analysis had found no DNA matches from the two accused on the alleged murder weapon, the hoe", reported Britain's Daily Telegraph. The same report then makes this shocking revelation: "The police had already acknowledged that they made no attempt to obtain DNA from the item, despite its central role in their case."

Can people be convicted of murder without any evidence linking them to the murder weapon? And why did police show no interest in examining the DNA found on the hoe? If DNA can be wiped off, can it in turn be added?

Evidence suggests there could be three separate cases here - a murder, a rape and then a theft - each perhaps involving different perpetrators and having nothing to do with the two men convicted of the crime.

And I don't get why people keep saying the hoe is the only murder weapon, how come Davd's blood isn't on it then ? and how could a hoe inflict the multiple small wounds found on his body ?

Edited January 6, 2016 by fab99

[lkv]

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.

You like that?

Yes AleG, out of hundreds of incoherent posts this one actually makes sense.

You're saying that because the Police has said and done many things incorrectly (they were incompetent) , they could have incorrectly stated what they have about the initial suspects.

That's fine we can accept that logic. However, that doesn't do your cause too much good either, because it comes back to a flawed incompetent investigation that had a lot of weight during a trial which ended in two people being given the death sentences.

So, either way you twist it, AleG, it doesn't look too good does it?

But thank you for clarifying that the Police is lying ("You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so").

Edited January 6, 2016 by lkv

[AleG]

No, I wouldn't be happy with the sort of "support" I see at work here, in particular with the hate campaigns.

"using a hoe that the victims handled"

There goes another "fact"...

Here is a fact for you, not a "fact" :

Forensic Science Officer Worawee Waiyawuth, from the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) in Bangkok, which was charged with the re-testing, said their laboratory found most of the DNA on the handle of the hoe came from Ms Witheridge.

“She had obviously held the hoe for some time. Her DNA traces, which were not blood, were taken from the handle. Her blood was on the blade,” said Mr Waiyawuth.

A full DNA profile for David Miller, a 24 year-old graduate from Jersey, who was with Ms Witheridge when both were bludgeoned to death on Sairee Beach on the island of Koh Tao, was also found on the handle of the hoe, along with a partial profile for another unidentified male.

http://thailandjustice.com/burmese-men-defence-lawyers-challenge-thai-police-to-revise-murder-theory-after-victims-dna-found-on-murder-weapon/

It contradicts the scenario given during the trial, but motive or MO don't matter here it seems only the DNA "evidence" (see what I did here?) does...

That fact has already been debunked... by the expert the defense didn't call to testify, as shown over here.

The notion that finding DNA on the hoe proves that the victims held it is hogwash.

[fab99]

I've said that I will accept that the B2 are guilty, but only in the case that they are not alone. It's the only scenario that fits with your evidence against the B2 which you are adamant about and all of the evidence against Mon and Nomsod.

Why do you refuse to accept that Mon and Nomsod could have been involved? You dont think that they would have lied because when were accused of murdering 2 people? That's what you are basing your argument on, the word of 2 accused murderers??

What part of "I will accept anything that can be substantiated with verifiable evidence" is so difficult to grasp?

The problem is that when asking for it I get things like your "fact" that they were caught at the crime scene by CCTV, wishful thinking like "they could be involved", non-sequitors like "x amount of people agree with me" or convoluted, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

It as already been supplied

Blond hair

Dna on murder weapon

Dna on right shoe and the presence of the shoe

The Earth is round.

Swiss cheese has holes.

William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066.

Random observations don't make an argument.

It is not an honest argument, you can't seriously say that

"Blond hair

Dna on murder weapon

Dna on right shoe and the presence of the shoe"

are random observations, they are obviously related to the case, infinitely more so than your swiss cheese and Bill...

[rockingrobin]

Below is a post from Myanmar says workers innocent from Britons On Khao Tao

Post No.498

Where he agrees Mon is caught on cctv

rockingrobin

Posted 2015-01-26 21:37:15

AleG, on 26 Jan 2015 - 14:16, said:

rockingrobin, on 26 Jan 2015 - 13:34, said:

AleG, on 26 Jan 2015 - 02:42, said:

You are confused because you assume that "Police have confirmed that Montriwat is the man appeared in the CCTV video footage near the scene" means the same CCTV video as the one the police were later on asking for help in identifying a man.

AleG

I understand what you are saying about Mon and cctv picture.

Do we agree that at some point in time Mon was on a surveilence camera going to the scene of crime

Yes, but that fact has relevance only if put into context, for example, the time he appears on camera, the location and direction he was going.

Besides that, since there is no CCTV footage of the immediate area of the crime scene at most what could be said is that some footage shows him going towards the direction of the crime scene.

Robert Heinlein, in his novel Stranger on a Strange Land had some characters, called Fair Witnesses, trained to provide credible testimony at trials, one of them, sitting as a witness is asked to look at a house on a hill, she is asked what colour it is, she answers "It's white, on this side"

The morality of the story is, if you want to find the truth, you have to acknowledge the limits of the available evidence, speculation that can't be checked against facts only leads to confusion.

Aleg

First of all thanks for your thoughts, but your analogy with novels was a bit ott

[AleG]

Your logic is flawed, therefore false.

You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so, and then compound that mistake to use it as the premise to support the conclusion that Nomsod wasn't in Bangkok.

The police say the B2 did it, therefore that is so. End of discussion.

You like that?

Yes AleG, out of hundreds of incoherent posts this one actually makes sense.

You're saying that because the Police has said and done many things incorrectly (they were incompetent) , they could have incorrectly stated what they have about the initial suspects.

That's fine we can accept that logic. However, that doesn't do your cause too much good either, because it comes back to a flawed incompetent investigation that had a lot of weight during a trial which ended in two people being given the death sentences.

So, either way you twist it, AleG, it doesn't look too good does it?

But thank you for clarifying that the Police is lying ("You confuse the police saying that something is so and so with that something being so").

Except that my view is that the evidence about those two is compelling enough even taking into account police blunders.

You can't go oopsie! and there's a DNA match.

You can't go oopsie! and nab two scapegoats that just by sheer coincidence had Miller's phone since day one.

And finally the obvious cop-out of an alibi by the B2 had nothing to do with the police.

[fab99]

No, I wouldn't be happy with the sort of "support" I see at work here, in particular with the hate campaigns.

"using a hoe that the victims handled"

There goes another "fact"...

Here is a fact for you, not a "fact" :

Forensic Science Officer Worawee Waiyawuth, from the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) in Bangkok, which was charged with the re-testing, said their laboratory found most of the DNA on the handle of the hoe came from Ms Witheridge.

“She had obviously held the hoe for some time. Her DNA traces, which were not blood, were taken from the handle. Her blood was on the blade,” said Mr Waiyawuth.

A full DNA profile for David Miller, a 24 year-old graduate from Jersey, who was with Ms Witheridge when both were bludgeoned to death on Sairee Beach on the island of Koh Tao, was also found on the handle of the hoe, along with a partial profile for another unidentified male.

http://thailandjustice.com/burmese-men-defence-lawyers-challenge-thai-police-to-revise-murder-theory-after-victims-dna-found-on-murder-weapon/

It contradicts the scenario given during the trial, but motive or MO don't matter here it seems only the DNA "evidence" (see what I did here?) does...

That fact has already been debunked... by the expert the defense didn't call to testify, as shown over here.

The notion that finding DNA on the hoe proves that the victims held it is hogwash.

NO... Your link doesnt debunk it.

It says that the absence of the B2 DNA doesn't mean the accused haven't held the weapon, it doesnt say anywhere that the presence of the victims DNA doesnt mean they didn't held it.

There is a sensible difference.

How would you explain the victims DNA on the handle otherwise ?