george Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Russian murders: sketch released of gunman, witness in protection PATTAYA: -- Police released a sketch yesterday of a man suspected of killing two Russian women in Pattaya on Saturday. Officers said the image was taken from video footage from security cameras at a convenience store near where Tatiana Tsimfer, 30, and Liubov Svirkova, 25, were found dead in deckchairs at 5am on Jomtien beach on February 24. Police did not clarify whether the mugshot of the unidentified man was produced from the blurry camera image - later enhanced electronically - or if it simply matched a profile in their criminal records after the visual enhancement was done. It shows a man who appears to be a Thai in his 20s. Pattaya City mayor Nirand Watthanasartsathorn had said earlier that police were looking for a tall foreign man, possibly from a Middle Eastern country. Head investigator Pol Lt-General Assawin Khwanmueng said later the sketch was drawn based on accounts of an eyewitness now under protection. The officer said the witness called the sketch a "remarkable resemblance" of the gunman he saw shooting the victims. Prize money for information leading to the arrest of the killer/s was increased to Bt500,000 yesterday from the original Bt100,000. The police hotline is 081-875-1637. A police source said earlier that Svirkova complained to her mother she felt uneasy being wooed by some men and had felt like going home, according to a police interview with the mother. "She told her mum Pattaya was a nice place and Thai people were great, but she felt like returning home because some men were always trying to chat to her. Then she hung up," the source said. The mother said Svirkova's call showed no sign of fear or worry of being followed by her admirers. However, Russian media had earlier published an interview with the father of Tsimfer, who said she had sounded scared during their last chat, saying she had had some sort of threat. The source said police had interviewed five Russian men who had hung around with both women for several days before they were shot, and that two of the men said they had sex with the women - but had nothing to do with their murders. The source added the women also made friends with a group of foreign chopper motorcycle riders who hang out around Marine Plaza. Police also discovered that both Svirkova and Tsimfer spent three days on Koh Lan for three days upon arrival and their last five days in downtown Pattaya. No narcotic substances were found in their bodies apart from alcohol. --The Nation 2007-03-01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Wow, sounds like these two ladies were having their share of fun. They may have been bumped off by someone who saw them as competition. It is, however, very sad that things came to such a tragic end for them. I don't think you have read the original post properly. And then your supposition is pretty illogical. Would you like to edit your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 The source said police had interviewed five Russian men who had hung around with both women for several days before they were shot, and that two of the men said they had sex with the women - but had nothing to do with their murders. The source added the women also made friends with a group of foreign chopper motorcycle riders who hang out around Marine Plaza. That's what the report said, so I see no reason to edit my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingue2rep Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Krissana Duangpibun, 20, surrenders to Chon Buri police on Thursday after he found he looks like the suspect allegedly involved in the murders of two Russian women at Jomtien Beach over the weekend. He swore his innocence but admitted he had been drinking one kilometre from the murder scene. He claimed four men stole his motorcycle. -- TheNation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakanong Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Scary resemblance there - if its not him I bet he shit a brick when he saw the pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun ? Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 how recent was the haircut. If he recently cut his hair, that would indicate his concern to hide identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazeeboy Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 how recent was the haircut. If he recently cut his hair, that would indicate his concern to hide identity. looks pretty recent to me . whats having your motorbike stolen got to do with his alibi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chang_paarp Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 how recent was the haircut. If he recently cut his hair, that would indicate his concern to hide identity. looks pretty recent to me . whats having your motorbike stolen got to do with his alibi? He probably owns a 4 stroke Honda that was very similar to that described by the motorcycle expert. Tragic that it was stolen the night of the attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libya 115 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 ***** UPDATE ***** Man confesses to murder of two Russians SOURCE: Nation: March 1st 2007 man arrested for killing two Russian women Police arrested a 24-year-old man in Pattaya on Thursday for allegedly killing two Russian women in the Jomthien beach over the weekend. The suspect was identified as Anuchit Lamlert of Kaomaikaew district in Chon Buri province. He had criminal record of robbing foreigners in Pattaya. Police claimed that after long interrogation, Anuchi confessed that he killed the Russian women on Saturday. After that, he escaped by riding a motorcycle to Banglamung district and threw away a 9mm gun into a bush on the way. It is still unclear what was his motivation of killing the ladies, but police claimed that it was just a robbery. However the slain women's belongings were untouched. Police are now using metal detector to search for the gun at the place he claimed he dropped it. The Nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John K Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Quick confession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libya 115 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Quick confession. Actually his wife tipped off the police according to itv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) Seems unlikely story, if it were robbery why didnt he take anything? MIB have their patsy!! Edited March 1, 2007 by britmaveric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John K Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) Quick confession. Actually his wife tipped off the police according to itv. Still seems odd, did he piss off his wife? Is she the protected witness? Edited March 1, 2007 by John K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarqin Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Whilst you expect the usual Pattaya two step when stuff likes this happens I have to say that I have never ever come arose an event like this before. Normal sane level headed exceptionally well connected persons I know both Thai and falang have told me what they claim to be authoritative versions of events and they are wildly different. I will not besmirch the girls memories by retailing all the versions but I just can't get past the idea that someone somewhere has gone to a hel_l of a lot of trouble to muddy the waters to such an extent that I doubt we will ever really know what happened. Expect this guy to get the death penalty and offed quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gharknes Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 is this the same guy in the photo ? robbery but had taken nothing ??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarqin Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Lazeeboy, Lawrence is that you back again? Are you on Samui? Your old friend from Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarragona Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Quick confession. Not really. Police claimed that after long interrogation, Anuchi confessed He just needed wearing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libya 115 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 ****** NEWS******UPDATE****** SOURCE: Pattaya Daily News: March 1st 2007 MOMENTUM GATHERING AS POLICE CLOSE THE NET. MEDIA FRENZY NEAR SCENE OF CRIME. 1st. March,20.30 hrs. Crowds gathered in Soi Chaiyapruk, in another attempt to solve this case. Information suggests gun is dumped in building site・.Updates as they happen. The reward,currently 500,000 baht, brought a good response, and many phone calls to the police hotline. A Thai man who appeared similar to the published photo-fit・image, turned up to the police station,and claimed, he had nothing to do with the murder,in an attempt to clear his name from the list of suspects. Today at 3.30 pm. 1st March,information was received from witnesses, who regularly saw the two victims dining at a restaurant in walking street,accompanied by a local man,allegedly a Russian citizen, who, it is believed, is a restauranteur in Pattaya, it is believed he took them on a trip to Ayuthaya, North of Bangkok, on a chopper-bike, and spent three days there. This Russian man has been living in Pattaya for many years and also has a Thai wife. The witness said, he was shocked when he learned about the murder, but also a bit wary about reporting to the police,due to his safety,and that of his family. He does not want any reward money,and respects the hard work and efforts from the police. they are trying hard but not getting too many leads・ Head investigator Pol Lt-General Assawin Khwanmueng said, after the news of a higher reward, they were receiving more calls, but, also they were screening all the information very carefully. Earlier, at 11.30 am. Mr. Grisna Duangpibul, (20) the sketched suspect, residing at 451/192 Sirinda Village, Banglamung Chonburi, turned up to help the police with their enquiries, he had nothing to do with the murders. On the day in question,his alibi was that, he was drinking with his friends in Soi Chaiyapruk, it's about one kilometer. From the crime scene, and he had gone home at approximately 2.00 am. His motorbike is similar to the one (Honda Wave, red and black), mentioned in the police report, as a suspected get away・vehicle ,allegedly stolen by 4 theives, earlier, on 19th January 2007. which he allegedly reported, to officer Mr. Tailert Luepue at Dongtan Police box. Mrs. Tasorn Sawangcheun (41), mother of Mr.Grisna Duangpibul (20) reported that her son is, a very good boy・ she doesn't believe that he will do anything to hurt anybody. She then proceeded to bring her son along to report to the police. The police were questioning concerns about Mr.Grisna's new hair cut , which, coincidentally, he had cut at 10.00 am, only hours after the crime had occurred. Another suspect that the police are searching for is Mr. Tongchai Teeradetch, residing at 154/22 Moo. 10 Nongprue, Banglamung Chonburi, who also has a similar look to the sketch picture of the suspect, police would urge him to present himself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ronnakit Ekasing, the deputy Meyor of Pattaya City , revealed that approximately 30 broken CCTV cameras, from an original total of 80 that had been installed, had been sent to England for repair,they had now returned . Somehow, Pattaya city often has its problems with its electricity service, which causes damage to the CCTV cameras. He also added ・Pattaya is the only city that provide very bright lights on the beach all night long, we have done our best to protect the people, we cannot believe that such terrible crime like this has happened in Pattaya. We hope the police can catch the killer soon・ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.00 pm. Mr. Pracha Tehrat, the governor of Chonburi held the meeting with Banglamung chief District and the entertaining business owners in Pattaya , at Alcazar, to discuss about the safety of the tourists, And also donated money to the victims relatives, 100,000 Baht each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWalkingMan Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 ...but police claimed that it was just a robbery. However the slain women's belongings were untouched. Does this even pass the smell test? From the reports, 10 bullet holes and the belongings were untouched. I always thought that if a person were to commit double murder or even murder, at least they would take the property. I guess someone was needed to take the fall. TheWalkingMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libya 115 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 SOURCE: Pattaya Daily News: March 1st 2007 interesting news item for your perusal COLLEAGUES FROM RUSSIA WITH THEORIES ON THIS TERRIBLE CRIME My name is Sergei Dobrovolsky, I am a 33-year old entrepreneur living in Moscow. This letter contains my theory describing in detail the murder of the two Russian women killed in Pattaya on February 24, 2007. Contrary to what is currently believed about this crime, my theory fully explains all publicly available evidence about this case. It is based purely on logical conclusions from public information and photos, using no additional evidence, which I obviously don’t have. The Murder of Two Russian Women in Thailand : A Theory Obviously, I cannot figure out the names of the killers, but I hope that by explaining how it happened, I can help the Thailand authorities to look for them in the right place. At the very end of this letter there is some practical advice on additional ways and hints to look for the criminals. The most horrible thing about the aftermath of this terrible crime is seeing the memory of two nice beautiful young Russian women, who died such a tragic death, being smeared in message boards, and thus in human minds, all over the world. I cannot help Tatiana and Liubov, but by understanding what had happened to them, I want to stop the undeserved blasphemous attitudes to their fate. But, you may ask, weren’t the women drinking whiskey at the beach at night half-naked? Didn’t they associate or even flirt with criminals, who killed them in such a contract-style shooting? Weren’t they at least reckless? No, no and no. They did NOT go to the beach that night (not alive). They did NOT know those who killed them. I am shocked that this seems so non-obvious to pretty much everyone but me. They were two nice decent young women, who were brutally murdered and then set up in a disgusting way. They deserve no criticism – just sorrow and compassion. Now, let us proceed to the details. All the photos below were taken from the websites of Pattaya Daily News (http://www.pattayadailynews.com) and Pattaya City News (http://www.pattayacitynews.net). I express my sincerest gratitude to both news agencies. This report would not be possible without their articles. Some of the photos by Pattaya Daily News were removed from their article due to requests from their English-speaking readers. As I correctly guessed, those photos remained in the Thai version of the article. I found and used them, but did not paste them into this report. This letter is written both in English and in Russian. I dedicate this report to the loving memory of Tatiana and Liubov. I. The Murder Did NOT Happen at the Beach There is a lot of direct and circumstantial evidence that the murder of the women did NOT happen at the beach. а) Blood Stains The next photo shows Tatiana’s shoulder with her entry wound. Do you see anything strange about the beach towel in which she is wrapped? Exactly – it has no blood stains: See PHOTO 1 (Pattaya City News) At first I even thought that Tatiana was wrapped in the towel by policemen. Yet, it looks like the photos were taken before the bodies were moved, and I can’t imagine why policemen would have a beach towel. Tatiana had no clothes besides her towel and panties, so if she died at the beach, she must have been wrapped in the towel when she was shot, and the towel would be soaked with her blood. Moreover, the woman reclines in her deck chair to the back and left – how could the blood not flow on the towel? And how could it not at least trickle on the skin around the wound? It all leaves an impression that after being shot, Tatiana for some time was lying on her stomach, making her blood trickle from the exit wound on her chest. Also, she was wearing different clothes, which soaked in all the extra blood from the entry wound on the photo, and was then discarded by the criminals. Next, obviously, with such wounds, the backs of the deck chairs must be soaked in blood. Yet, look at the back of Tatiana’s deck chair on the next photo – not a single spot! See PHOTO 2 (Pattaya Daily News) Moreover, a person dying from a gunshot wound must leave a large pool of blood UNDER the chair, right? Look at the sand underneath Tatiana’s chair – just a tiny spot. Next, what happened at the time of the shot? Obviously, the bullet went through the body with a splash of blood. It flew in the forward-left direction. Therefore, Tatiana’s left leg, Liubov’s right leg, the left armrest of the chair and the table itself must be splattered with blood. The next photo shows that the respective women’s legs have no blood stains at all: See PHOTO 3 (Pattaya Daily News) The next photo shows that there are no blood stains on the table and the armrest either. Only a tiny trickle on Tatiana’s chest: See PHOTO 4 (Pattaya Daily News) Thus, there is no Tatiana’s blood on any side of the wound. If you don’t believe that such a wound must result in profuse bleeding, look at Liubov’s shirt on the photo. The only possible explanation for this is that Tatiana was bleeding after being shot neither in the towel nor in the deck chair. She was put in the deck chair when she was already dead, and she was wrapped in the towel after her bleeding had already stopped. Liubov also was put in her deck chair long after she died. Look at the back of her chair and at the sand under the chair on the next photo. Everything is absolutely clean. The backs of both chairs have neither gunshot holes, nor any blood stains, which would be especially apparent on a cloth of such light stripy color. See PHOTO 5 (Pattaya Daily News) Thus, I hope we all understand – the women did NOT die and even did NOT bleed in the deck chairs on the beach. Moreover, Tatiana did not bleed in the clothes (the towel) in which she was found. Let us look at a couple more contradictions that bring us close to our theory. Gunshot Directions Next question – from what place and in which direction was the killer shooting at the women? We know that Tatiana was shot in the back and Liubov was shot 3 times in the chest and once in her left arm. After the murder, both women remain sitting in the chairs. To shoot one of them in the chest and the other in the back, after shooting the first woman, the killer must have run around the chairs or the table to shoot the second. But why? There were two defenseless young women before him. No matter where he was shooting from, why didn’t he either shoot them both in the chest, or both in the back? Moreover, even if the killer decided to change his position, the second woman would most likely jump up and run away. In this case, the killer could shoot her in the back, but then she would fall on the sand. Even if she just stood up, I doubt that the force of a 9 mm gun shot would allow her to fall right back into the chair. The most obvious explanation of such wounds: Liubov was shot first, unexpectedly. Tatiana turned around and tried to run away, and was shot in the back. But the deck chairs and the beach, again, have nothing to do with it. More questions: first, why did the killer shoot Liubov in the left arm? He couldn’t miss a defenseless sitting woman shooting point-blank. Second, why didn’t the killer make sure that the women were actually dead? Everything happened in the darkness, and Tatiana’s shoulder wound could result only in some non-lethal lung damage. The killer could not see her exit wound. So why did the killer, who prepared for the murder so carefully (motorcycle, boots, other details), didn’t make the final shots to the head, as any contract killer would? Especially since no one hindered him from doing it in any way. Even if the killer tried to check whether the women were dead, everything happened so fast (at most 9 seconds, according to the official information), that the women simply could not die before the killer left the scene. How did the killer know that the women would not be saved by medical help? Third, why did the killer shoot Liubov four times and Tatiana only once? Looks too disorganized for such carefully planned crime. We will answer all these questions in Section II. с) Clothes and Makeup The first detail noticed by the general public is the weird, even indecent, way the women are dressed. Look again at PHOTO 4. Tatiana wears nothing but a beach towel and panties. Moreover, even the panties (although it’s hard to tell from such photos) don’t really look like those from a bathing suit. And she wears no bra. There are also no clothes nearby. Can you imagine a serious 30-year-old woman going outside dressed like this, even if she is walking to a beach? Or even a non-serious one – going to the street at 3 am in foreign country in her underwear, wrapped in a towel? But maybe Tatiana did have an unusual taste in clothing? Maybe she didn’t like wearing her bra at the beach? To see that it’s not true, just look at the next two photos, taken during the same tour. This is the way the women really dressed when they went to the beach. Shorts and tee-shirts. And you can see the bands of Tatiana’s bra on her shoulders. By the way, the same black-green bra in which she is seen on the next photo. Why didn’t she wear her favorite bathing suit on that tragic night? See PHOTO 6 (Pattaya Daily News) And this is what the women’s bathing suits really looked like: See PHOTO 7 (Pattaya Daily News) Now compare it with Tatiana’s clothes on PHOTO 4. Liubov’s clothes on PHOTO 4 are even weirder. Look closely at her white shirt. This is a fashionable, expensive, well-ironed shirt with long sleeves – obviously meant for a club. Do you know any woman who would wear such a shirt to the beach? And who would button all the buttons when sitting there? According to one theory, the women were swimming before being shot. So, Liubov went to swim and then put such a shirt on her wet body and buttoned all the buttons back? And the shirt remained well-ironed? Or at least she thought of doing it when she was dressing up to go to the beach? Next, both women have nothing on their legs. Did they walk out without any skirts, jeans or shorts? And Liubov just in a fashionable shirt and white panties? Liubov has a strange piece of cloth on her knees, which looks like a towel. On another photo, that has been removed from the Pattaya Daily News site, when policemen move Liubov’s body, it can be seen that she wears small string-like white panties. Could she really go to the beach without even the bottom part of her swimsuit? The last weird detail is the shoes, namely, their position. So, the two women came to the beach, sat in the deck chairs and kicked off their flip-flops. In your opinion, where would the flip-flops end up? PHOTO 2 shows the first pair. Whom does it belong to anyway? They stand between the chairs and are turned sideways. It’s difficult even to put them there on purpose. Please sit on your chair and kick off your slippers so that they turn out in such a position. The second pair of flip-flops is actually on the table (see PHOTOS 4 & 5)! Now consider the makeup. PHOTOS 3 & 4 show that both girls wear at least eye makeup, and Tatiana also seems to wear lipstick. Now look at PHOTOS 6 & 7 to convince yourself that the women, like all normal people, didn’t use to wear makeup to the beach. Especially at night. The official theory gives a partially correct explanation. Obviously, before going to the beach, the women went to a club. Sure. So the makeup could just remain when they went to the beach? Absolutely not. Imagine yourself dancing for a few hours in a club, especially in a hot exotic country. Next, you return to the hotel. What would you do first? Right – you’ll at least wash your face (most likely, will take a shower). If you are a woman, you will obviously take off all your makeup. Now look how black the women’s eyelashes are on PHOTOS 3 & 4. You mean, they didn’t even wash their faces in the hotel after the club? Or put on new makeup to go to an empty beach at 3 am to swim? Finally, let’s draw our conclusions. First, the women did go to the club on that tragic night. But, judging from their makeup and clothes, they never returned from it to their hotel. Thus, they were murdered either in the club, or on their way to or from it. I doubt they were killed on the way TO the club. It was too early, and a murder right on a road would have been noticed. Therefore, the murder happened either in the club, or on the way back. The last logic possibility is that the women left the club and went elsewhere. But where could they go at such time? In their own town, they could go to another club. But I doubt they went club-to-club in the middle of the night in a country where they’ve been for a couple of weeks. Most likely, there was just one club – the one where they went first. At the time of their death, the women were dressed in club clothes. The killers, staging a beach murder, took off from their bodies everything that obviously didn’t look right on a beach. Most likely, the top of Tatiana’s clothes and the bottoms of both women’s clothes were too fashionable for that. The killers left Liubov’s white shirt probably because her panties looked too obviously unlike a bathing suit. To cover it from random witnesses, they threw a towel on her lap. Tatiana was wrapped in a towel (after she bled in her own clothes). Both women’s shoes didn’t match, so the killers found them two pairs of cheap flip-flops. Although the latter were thrown in very carelessly. The first pair was just thrown under the deck chairs, ignoring the fact that a person sitting in the chair would never put them there. The guy who carried the second pair put them on the table, waiting for women’s bodies to be put in the deck chairs and to allow him to put the flip-flops next to the women. Something distracted him, and the flip-flops remained on the table. Since they were not white, no one noticed in the darkness. Now we have enough material to explain our theory of what had happened on that tragic night. II. Main Theory Up to the very moment of their deaths, Liubov and Tatiana had a happy fun vacation. This was witnessed by those who knew them in Pattaya. The only thing that bothered them was petty harassment from local idiots attracted to beautiful women. But if the women considered it a serious threat, they would behave differently. First, they wouldn’t leave their hotel at night. Friends and relatives characterize the women as serious reasonable people. They wouldn’t risk their lives (and who would?) to go dance in a club. Second, the women would seek real help from family, friends and local officials. Worst case, they would return to Russia. Nobody would or can happily sunbathe, dance and have fun knowing about a serious threat to their life. Obviously, the women had no contacts with local mafia or other criminals. They came to Thailand first time in their lives and spent all their time having fun. If they had any business in Pattaya, no matter what, they would not live in a hotel, where everyone saw them – they would rent an apartment. They would not spend their time sunbathing and dancing. And they would not make any new friends. Moreover, the women had good jobs in Russia and were honest decent people. All this throws away any theories that they were “killed by someone they knew” in a “contract-style killing”. Anyway, on that tragic night, the women dressed up, put on their makeup and went to a club to dance. As we learned in Section I, the murder happened either in the club or on the way back. Actually, it could not happen in the club. Five shots from a 9-millimeter gun in the middle of a club party would cause such a mass panic, that the news about it would get into the local media instantly, even before figuring out the details. Therefore, the women were killed on the way back from the club. Now let us think whether the murder was linked to the women’s attending the club. Suppose it was not. For example, they were attacked by random robbers, or by someone who wanted to kill them for some other reason. For example, according to official theories, their unsuccessful “admirer” or somebody who had committed a crime that the women witnessed. But all this is contradicted by one important fact. There must be a reason why the murder was disguised as done on the beach. The killer obviously didn’t want anyone to make a connection between the murder and the club. Why would he need it, if he himself had nothing to do with the club? How, in such a case, the murder near the club made him more vulnerable than the murder in any other place? Moreover, such a killer would simply destroy the bodies (e.g. bury them in the middle of the night). It would leave no traces, and the women would be considered missing instead of dead. For the staged “beach shooting” to make any sense, we must understand that the killer wanted to draw all suspicions away from the club. The killer and the murder were thus connected to the club to which the women went on the last night of their lives. The killer understood that the women were tourists. Therefore, anyone, from their friends to the hotel personnel, could know what club they went to. Especially if women went to the same club several times, and he knew it. If the girls went missing by not returning from the club, the police would first question those who were in the club on that night and – or so the killer thought – would somehow get a clue as to the identity of the killer. So what happened in the club? Suppose they became witnesses to some crime. But how? If it was seen by other people, they all must have been killed. If the women were alone with the criminals (in women’s restroom? where else?), the criminals would let them leave. Or they would risk they the women would notify the police or tell their friends. The theory that the women “saw but didn’t understand that it was crime” sounds way too strange. What kind of crime could that be, such that can be both witnessed by random bystanders and not understood by a normal person? Again, suppose the criminals let the women go, and then met them near the club afterwards. But then the criminals would have no reason to fear the connection between the murder and the club – since nobody saw them with the women anyway. Especially since the murder happened outside the club and could always be claimed as done by someone passing by. Thus, something must have happened between the women and the killer that was witnessed by many people in the club. I think, there is only one reasonable theory. Attracted by the women’s appearance, some criminal approached them and started to harass them. The women told him to leave them alone. A small verbal fight ensued, that was witnessed by other people in the club. Maybe the criminal also approached the women in their earlier visits. The criminal got offended, but he would not kill a random woman in this manner just because she didn’t want to sleep with him. If he was a sexual maniac, he would organize a kidnapping, rape and murder, not a contract-style killing. Therefore, the criminal bothering the women was more of a drunk idiot than an admirer, quite possibly a young drunk idiot. When the women left the club, the criminal and his cronies waited for them outside. Most likely to try again to persuade the women to be with him, rather than to kill them. Otherwise, they would simply kidnap the women. Here is a guess on what happened next. Imagine the following. The criminal and Liubov are standing in front of each other, while the criminal is talking to her. Tatiana is standing next to Liubov to the right from her (next to Liubov’s right arm). Liubov tells the criminal to go away. The criminal starts to threaten the women. To substantiate his threats, he pulls out his handgun. Obviously, the criminal is either drunk, or on drugs, or both. What happens next is probably unexpected to everybody involved. Most likely, Liubov is trying to push away the gun pointed at her. The criminal, either not controlling himself due to being drunk or overcome by rage, pulls the trigger. Imagine the criminal and Liubov standing face to face. The criminal holds a gun in his right hand, and Liubov is trying to push it aside with her right hand. Obviously, she would push it to the left. The ensuing shot hits her left arm. The criminal understands that he has committed an irreparable act. He is shocked by his own shot and the cry of the wounded women. In the darkness, he cannot see whether she is hurt seriously. He panics and starts shooting right in front of himself at Liubov. She sustains several closely located wounds in her chest and falls down. Tatiana, naturally, turns around and tries to run away. The criminal, now back to his senses, understands that he should not leave any witnesses. Since Tatiana originally was standing before the criminal to his left, the bullet hits her in the right shoulder, flying straight-left from the position of the killer. It thus passes her body under an angle to the left and exits in the middle of her chest. Note that each wound exactly matches the evidence. Liubov’s left-arm wound was sometimes reported as left-leg one. Both match the theory. The key is the left side. Actually, this wound would not happen at all if the gun went off when it was still pointed at the woman’s chest. Since Tatiana was lying on her stomach, almost all her bleeding occurred from the chest exit wound. The small amount of blood on her back entry wound was soaked in by her clothes. This explains the lack of blood on PHOTO 1. The killer and his cronies start frantically thinking on how to cover their tracks. They realize, that if the women don’t come back from the club, the police will question the people who were in the club. Those people will tell the police about the fight between the women and the criminals in the club. Meanwhile, neither the killer nor his cronies remembered all the people who saw them there. It was dark in the club, and the criminals at that point did not know how terribly it would all end. So they could neither kill nor bribe anyone to prevent them from talking to the police. The criminals thus understand that destroying the bodies won’t save them. The only way out was to draw all suspicions away from the club by disguising the murder as being done elsewhere. Meanwhile, while the criminals are thinking, both women have died, and the criminals understand it. Thus there is no need for any shots to the head as would happen in a contract killing. The key problem now is to carry the bodies unnoticed. But, first, it’s late night. Second, the bodies don’t have to be transported by road and especially unloaded from a car in some public place, where they can be seen by random witnesses. The criminals simply load the bodies on a boat and move them by sea, where there is definitely nobody at 2-3 am. They could still move the bodies to the sea by a car, although. They could quietly unload them in some far away deserted beach and put in a boat. This determines the place of the staged crime – a beach, close to the water. Next, since tourists always carry the address of their hotel with them (on a card), the criminals learn which hotel the women stayed in. They thus move the bodies to the beach close to that hotel and put them on the deck chairs. The bodies are undressed enough so that their clothes don’t look blatantly out of place on a beach. The bullets, flip-flops and drinks are put there as fake evidence. Then the criminals walk back to the boat, wiping off their footprints on the sand. The only remaining problem facing the criminals is that no one will believe that the murder happened on the beach and no shots were heard in the nearby hotel. Thus, one of the criminals returns to the beach on a motorcycle, runs to the already dead women and makes several shots in the air, most likely in the direction of the bay to prevent the new bullets from ever being found. The fact that the killer already was at the crime spot is proved by the speed with which he found the women. How did he know, that they were at the beach at all and where exactly they were? He just arrived there by a motorcycle. If he was searching for them based on someone’s info, is it possible that he could find the place in the darkness, run back-fourth and kill the women in such a short time? If he was searching for a place, why the videotape does not show him at least stopping to check the reference points given to him? Instead he walks fast exactly to the place where the women are. So this is what happened to Liubov and Tatiana. As you see, there is absolutely no fault of the unfortunate women in it – not even carelessness. They didn’t drink vodka on a beach at night and were not associated with criminals. Two beautiful nice girls on vacation simply went to dance in a club. I think this is the only plausible explanation. At each step we checked all possible scenarios, and only one of them is left standing, the one that matches all known evidence. Next we will discuss more circumstantial evidence, in case you are not fully convinced. III. Other Evidence а) Footprints on the Sand Immediately after the crime, the police reported that they found the footprints of the killer on the sand. There is one very strange thing about it. The police should have actually reported not finding, but successfully separating the footprints of the killer from those of two other people who walked to those deck chairs on that same night. Right – the footprints of Tatiana and Liubov themselves! What could be the reason that those footprints not only didn’t confuse the police, but were not even noticed by either the police or the journalists? Unless, of course, the reason was that the women never walked that way and were carried to the deck chairs dead. Next, the sand on the nighttime beach was very fine and wet – look at how sharp the edges of the killer’s footprints are: See PHOTO 8 (Pattaya Daily News) Now look at the sand next to Tatiana’s feet on PHOTO 2. There is even a footprint of some flip-flop in an unnatural direction perpendicular to the sitting person’s feet (belonging to one of the criminals?). But there is not a single footstep of Tatiana’s bare foot! Even if the girls didn’t swim, wouldn’t Tatiana at least once stand up from the deck chair? But even if she didn’t, just her bare feet standing on the wet sand must have left at least one footprint. If the woman was sitting in that chair alive. If we examine Tatiana’s feet on PHOTO 2 more closely, we can see that both her big toe and the bottom of her left foot are absolutely clean. As well as her right heal. Why didn’t wet sand stick to them? Maybe the sand somehow couldn’t stick to feet? But look at the tows of Tatiana’s right foot on the same photo – they are covered with a thick layer of wet sand! How did so much of sand get on the TOP her foot, while the bottom is clean? Unless, of course, it stuck when the body of the dead woman was carried to the deck chair face-down, while the tips of her dangling feet were touching the sand. Visiting the Beach at 3 am According to the official story, the women went to the beach at 3 am. It is stated that it is normal for Thailand. Yet, how are the Thai beaches different from any other ones? I don’t think there are many people going to the beach at 3 am in any country. Especially among young women in a foreign country. It is confirmed by the fact that when the killer was running around the beach, there was absolutely nobody else there. The second question – what did the women want to do at the beach? One explanation, they went there to see the dawn. If you look at the Weather Channel website, you’ll see that today, on February 28, the dawn in Pattaya happened at 6:33 am. A week ago it was even later. Did the women who did not sleep that night and were tired from dancing and drinking in a club really think they wouldn’t fall asleep sitting there for three and a half hours? And why wait for it at the beach? The bay is located to the west of Pattaya, and the sun thus rises in the opposite direction from the bay. To see it, they would have to turn their backs to the water. As you can see on the photos, the women are sitting facing the South. The water is to the West and the sunrise is to the East. The women thus could not look at either. So why would the women go to the beach? According to one story, to drink and swim. But they didn’t swim. There is makeup on their faces, and Liubov’s shirt is ironed and fully buttoned. Let us look more closely at drinking. c) Drinking PHOTO 4 shows that there is a bottle of “whiskey” (I guess, Thailand vodka), a can of coke and one empty glass. Everything here looks strange. First, why only one glass? They could not possibly drink from the same glass. So, did only one woman drink vodka, and the other drank coke? Strange – they go together to have a drink, and one does not drink at all. OK, maybe she didn’t want to. But why not at least take another glass – even just in case she would change her mind? And drinking coke from a glass is nicer too. The bottle is almost empty – so one woman drank a full bottle of vodka? What about the wine bottle under the chair? Suppose it was left from some prior party. But the table and the beach around it are totally clean. So someone else had a party, the garbage was cleaned up, but an obviously openly lying bottle was forgotten? Not some scrap of wrapping paper, or a piece of food – those tiny things were removed. Just a big bottle? I guess we are lead to imagine that the women drank that bottle too, right? But two bottles for two young women? Sorry – for one young woman (remember the glass). Mixing vodka and wine? Also, the women for some reason put their flip-flops right next to the wine bottle. Maybe it is easier to imagine that the criminal that was carrying the fake-evidence wine bottle and flip-flops was careless enough to throw them together under the chair. Second, why would two normal young women drink vodka? Not wine, not beer? Do you know any other young woman, of whatever wealth and character, who would, of all alcohol, prefer vodka? And how many of those would drink vodka alone next to a sober friend? Third, where is any food? At least a piece of bread? Even a strong man wouldn’t normally drink vodka without following it with eating something. Fourth, look at PHOTO 4 again. The coke, the glass and the bottle all stand on Tatiana’s side of the table. Liubov couldn’t reach either of them. And look how nicely everything is aligned. What’s more natural to believe – that two people drinking something put all their glasses and bottles in one line next to each other after each sip (Liubov would have to stand up to do it)? Оr that the criminal placing that fake evidence just put everything next to each other? This is further confirmed by the fact that the glass looks clean and empty, while the almost empty bottle is closed. d) Killer on the Beach The killer on the beach also acts weird. According to Pattaya news, only 9 seconds passed between the killer walking to the beach and his running back. But why did he hurry so much? After the shots, he obviously was afraid to get caught. But before the crime, his best strategy would be to sneak up on the women slowly and quietly, so as not to startle them and let them run away (especially in the darkness). At least he must have taken time to ascertain that his victims are his actual targets. Whatever the size of that beach, he went from the road to the water and back in 9 seconds, so he walked or ran fast in both directions. Also, why did the killer put on such heavy shoes? To make the sand screech louder under his feet? Obviously, the fact that he had a higher chance to startle the women with the sound of his steps did not bother him at all. He knew that they were already dead. He chose the shoes that let him run fast on the sand. If the women were already dead, he had to walk fast – someone else could find them at any second. Next, how did the killer know that the women were at the beach? He arrived on a motorcycle and walked right there. Someone must have spied after the women at 3 am to tell the killer where they went. But if that someone was tracing the women’s moves, why didn’t the killer himself do it? Why getting an extra witness, and a witness practically innocent of the crime itself and thus able to turn the killer to the police later? Also, if the informer of the killer was lurking near the hotel, he must have followed the women to the beach. How else would he know where exactly they went? He gave the killer information so accurate that the latter practically ran directly to the women’s table. But wouldn’t the same video camera that caught the killer catch his informer? By the way, wouldn’t the camera also catch the women themselves, walking to the beach? Last, how did the killer find the women so fast, even if he was given exact information? Try explaining someone over the phone where exactly you are on a beach. Say, the killer got all the reference points to look for women. And the killer, having just jumped off the motorcycle, in the darkness, figured out where to go without even a second-long pause to look around? Let us note again that everything said here in no way implies that the person on the tape is not the actual killer. It is very likely that the criminal who committed the murder near the club was the person to take the highest risks in covering it up. IV. Criticisms of other theories а) “Women were somehow connected to the organized crime” No. They came to Thailand first time in their lives and stayed in a hotel. Many witnesses saw them actually having fun. If they came to the country on business, they would at least try to “lie low”, most likely renting an apartment and avoiding making any new friends. “Women were killed by a rejected ‘admirer’” The theory that the women were contract-style murdered by an offended “admirer” is also strange. For such a crime, the criminal must have developed an obsession on the women, and this would be preceded by some serious harassment. There was no time for that, and it would become known to friends and family of the women. Organizing a premeditated murder of the first-met beautiful foreign women for being told “no” seems completely out of hand. If the criminal was a sexual maniac, even being a gang head, he would organize kidnapping and rape of the specific woman he wanted, not a 9-second run-fast contract killing of two women on a beach. c) The Deck-Chair-Rental Professional The theory that a person responsible for deck chair rental organized such a murder is too far-fetched. If he had a temper so bad as to kill a young beautiful woman over a petty argument, he must have at least attacked other clients, verbally and physically. This would be known to the police and would be brought up as circumstantial evidence in this case. Moreover, he would have been fired from his job long ago. Also, an insult of one person does not explain where he got accomplices. They were obviously not insulted by the women. Did he make his accomplices do it or pay them? A man responsible for deck chair renting? The disappearance of this man most likely means that, being at the beach at night, he either saw the bodies being carried to the table, or saw the running killer. If he was subsequently killed, then the former. The running killer had no time to hide another body, while the criminals who brought the women’s bodies to the beach could kill him and take his body with them into their boat. At best, he is simply hiding from the criminals. d) Tour Guide This theory has the same problem as above – no real motive and questionable ability of a simple tour guide to get accomplices for such a serious crime. He could be with the women in the club on the night of the murder. If he left earlier than them, he must be hiding from the criminals. If together, he probably got killed and his body destroyed. e) Russian Tourist Very vague theory. What were the motives? The women had no enemies in Russia. Also, why would a Russian decide to commit such a crime in such a different unfamiliar country? For example, where could he get a gun and a motorcycle and make sure that those locals who gave him those wouldn’t turn him to police later? Also, where did he get his accomplices? The driver, the informer – at least two more people? Did a three-person gang decide to vacation in Thailand together? Strange if the police considers appearing on the same photo with the women or an interview claiming being their friend as self-sufficient evidence. On the contrary, why would a real killer or even a member of organized crime leave such evidence of his whereabouts, both before and after the crime? V. Practical Advice The conclusions from our theory are obvious. The main question is, what club did the women attend on that tragic night? Is it possible to find and question all those who danced in that club that night and ask them who exactly had a verbal fight with the women? Publish a note in newspapers asking everyone who saw the conflict in the club to tell the police about it. Maybe some people would have already done it, but have no idea how a petty fight in the club could have anything to do with the “contract-style murder on the beach”. Next, the bottles, towels, flip-flops and the glass all belong to the killers. Maybe they were taken by them from someone else, but it still is a clue to finding people who know the killers. Unlike in other theories, where the killer shot the women and ran away without touching them, we believe that the killers handled their bodies a lot. There could thus be all kinds of traces of the killers on women’s bodies. Traces of the women’s blood possibly remain in the boat in which they were transported, especially if the boat was wooden. There may be traces of their blood or clothes somewhere near the club. If their bodies were driven to the boat by car (I don’t know how far the club was from the sea), there must be blood traces in that car. I believe that trying to find those people whom the police has been looking for so far is reasonable. The man on the videotape is either the killer himself or his very close accomplice. The man in charge of deck chairs and the tour guide, if they are alive, are most probably important witnesses. Finally, let me make a guess as to what the killer should look like. (Note: this paragraph was written before the portrait of the potential killer appeared in the news). I would say, taking into account that he bothered women in a club and tried to get their attention by waving a gun at them, he is quite young. Also, I doubt that he is a hardened experienced criminal. He is rather a show-off with little self-control. Looking at the haphazard way in which his friends placed the fake evidence at the beach, they were either scared or stupid. Therefore, I would guess that they are either part of some youth gang, with moderate criminal record, or maybe even a bunch of stupid youngsters with no criminal record at all. I want to stress again – this paragraph is purely my personal guess, and here I may be mistaken. There is some chance that the killer could be a hardened criminal. But that criminal must still have serious traces of teenager mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Absurd and most likely the longest -story- post ever on TV. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) Nice theory, but don't think a random thug from a club would go to that much effort. Edited March 1, 2007 by britmaveric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libya 115 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) Absurd and most likely the longest -story- post ever on TV. LaoPo It is not wise to "pooh pooh" the (rather lengthy, I agree) thoughts and theories of a fine-spirited, intelligent and erudite Muscovite reporter. Edited March 1, 2007 by libya 115 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libya 115 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) ******NEWS******UPDATE****** SOURCE: NATION: MARCH 2nd 2007: 0010 hours Man 'confesses' to shooting Russians Police last night arrested a man who they said was the gunman that shot dead two Russian women on a beach near Pattaya last Saturday. Anuchit Lamlert, an unemployed man with a long criminal record, allegedly confessed to shooting dead Tatiana Tsimfer, 30, and Liubov Svirkova, 25, while they sat drinking in deckchairs on Jomtien Beach. But, chief investigator Pol Lt General Assawin Khwanmueng, said he did not believe the victims were killed solely for their valuables - as reportedly claimed. A police source said investigators were also looking into a potential lead that a Thai women hired Anuchit to kill both women because one of them had a fling with her Russian husband, who owns a tourism business in Pattaya, shortly after they visited his office. "The Thai wife was worried that her husband might get attracted to the Russian woman and later leave her for the younger girl, so she [may have] decided to whack her potential rival," the source said. Police are still looking for the murder weapon, a Chinese-made Norinco pistol, which Anuchit said he threw into a shrub-covered plot after shooting both victims. Civil defence volunteers were mobilised to look for the handgun at press time last night, armed with high-powered spotlights. Police apprehended Anuchit in a rented room in Sri Racha district, and later found his motorcycle - a red Honda Wave - the same model seen in the blurry video footage from security cameras near the murder site, at a different location in Bang Lamung district. Police records show that Anuchit had frequently snatched gold necklaces and valuables from foreign tourists in the Pattaya area. Earlier yesterday, a Pattaya mother had taken her son to see police to prove his innocence. She said he only looked similar to the man in a police mugshot branded as the suspected gunman that killed both victims. Thasorn Sawangchuen said her son Krissana Duangphibool had nothing to do with the murder. No photo of Anuchit was released or available last night. Edited March 1, 2007 by libya 115 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asd Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Man 'confesses' to shooting Russians Anuchit Lamlert Police last night arrested a man who they said was the gunman that shot dead two Russian women on a beach near Pattaya last Saturday. Anuchit Lamlert, an unemployed man with a long criminal record, allegedly confessed to shooting dead Tatiana Tsimfer, 30, and Liubov Svirkova, 25, while they sat drinking in deckchairs on Jomtien Beach. But, chief investigator Pol Lt General Assawin Khwanmueng, said he did not believe the victims were killed solely for their valuables - as reportedly claimed. Tatiana Tsimfer and Liubov Svirkova A police source said investigators were also looking into a potential lead that a Thai women hired Anuchit to kill both women because one of them had a fling with her Russian husband, who owns a tourism business in Pattaya, shortly after they visited his office. "The Thai wife was worried that her husband might get attracted to the Russian woman and later leave her for the younger girl, so she [may have] decided to whack her potential rival," the source said. Police are still looking for the murder weapon, a Chinese-made Norinco pistol, which Anuchit said he threw into a shrub-covered plot after shooting both victims. Civil defence volunteers were mobilised to look for the handgun at press time last night, armed with high-powered spotlights. Police apprehended Anuchit in a rented room in Sri Racha district, and later found his motorcycle - a red Honda Wave - the same model seen in the blurry video footage from security cameras near the murder site, at a different location in Bang Lamung district. Police records show that Anuchit had frequently snatched gold necklaces and valuables from foreign tourists in the Pattaya area. Earlier yesterday, a Pattaya mother had taken her son to see police to prove his innocence. She said he only looked similar to the man in a police mugshot branded as the suspected gunman that killed both victims. Thasorn Sawangchuen said her son Krissana Duangphibool had nothing to do with the murder. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) Absurd and most likely the longest -story- post ever on TV. LaoPo It is not wise to "pooh pooh" the (rather lengthy, I agree) thoughts and theories of a fine-spirited, intelligent and erudite Muscovite reporter. With respect Libya, is this ironically meant? When I said absurd, I meant his theory that the 2 girls were not shot at the beach but elsewehere and moved there and put in the beach-chairs.... Anyone who knows Jomtien beach and the road along the beach will agree that that theory is plain absurd. He obviously has never been there. Besides, I thought he was a Moscovite 'entrepreneur' not a reporter; that's what he wrote, wasn't it? LaoPo Edited March 1, 2007 by LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgebhardt Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) When I said absurd, I meant his theory that the 2 girls were not shot at the beach but elsewehere and moved there and put in the beach-chairs....Anyone who knows Jomtien beach and the road along the beach will agree that that theory is plain absurd. He obviously has never been there. His theory is that the bodies were moved to the beach by boat. I see nothing wrong with that, the sea was just 3 meters away from the victims. Edited March 1, 2007 by bgebhardt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) Absurd and most likely the longest -story- post ever on TV. LaoPo It is not wise to "pooh pooh" the (rather lengthy, I agree) thoughts and theories of a fine-spirited, intelligent and erudite Muscovite reporter. With respect Libya, is this ironically meant? When I said absurd, I meant his theory that the 2 girls were not shot at the beach but elsewehere and moved there and put in the beach-chairs.... Anyone who knows Jomtien beach and the road along the beach will agree that that theory is plain absurd. He obviously has never been there. Besides, I thought he was n Moscovite 'entrepeneur' not a reporter; that's what he wrote, wasn't it? LaoPo What is absurd, are the "facts" that have been released each day by the police, with each new one seemingly contradicting the last. They have established zero credibility to my way of thinking, in their handling of this case. I commend the muscovite for his effort and taking the time to put forth some theories that encompass the facts as presented (no matter how dubious some of those "facts" may seem). It's not terribly important whether or not he's got it right or wrong, but he's certainly raised some points I'd not considered. The more enlightened scrutiny this case gets, the more difficult it will be for the police to evade doing the right thing by these poor girls and ther families. Edited March 1, 2007 by lannarebirth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 When I said absurd, I meant his theory that the 2 girls were not shot at the beach but elsewehere and moved there and put in the beach-chairs....Anyone who knows Jomtien beach and the road along the beach will agree that that theory is plain absurd. He obviously has never been there. His theory is that the bodies were moved to the beach by boat. I see nothing wrong with that, the sea was just 3 meters away from the victims. By boat...even more odd. His theory: the girls were killed elsewhere, put in a boat and put them nicely in some deckchairs. Really? The latest story from the police makes a lot more sense: jealous Thai wife from Russian husband hires a gunman. Was he the same Russian man the girls away went with for 3 days on a motorbike? Let's see what's next. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I'd have to agree jealous thai wife hiring hit man is far more reasonable than pissed off club thug, going to all those lengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts