Jump to content

Koh Tao murder trial rescheduled


Lite Beer

Recommended Posts

Sean McAnna's statement contradicts Mon's employee statement,

Sean was asleep, employee helped to wash blood off McAnna now obviously both these cannot be correct

The conclusion to draw

Both lying - why

one telling the truth the other lying - who is telling the truth

employee mistaken - ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One post containing defamation and subsequent replies to that post have been removed from this thread.

From the Forum Rules:

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person to suffer harm. It does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either in a drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

catsanddogs, on 25 Feb 2015 - 01:43, said:catsanddogs, on 25 Feb 2015 - 01:43, said:

<snipped>

The beige shorts that were said to have been found on the beach (Picture 2) look smaller than the ones David was wearing in the images on CCTV before his death (Picture 3). Measuring the shorts on the screen they come up as approx 8cm across waist (so 16 cm all round waist), 9.5 cm waist to hem and 5cm crotch to hem. David was 6ft 2” or something like that. My husband was that height and had a waist of 36” (92cm) and David didn’t look like he was much bigger built than that. A 92cm waist scaled down to the 16cm waist on screen would mean one cm on screen would equal approx. 5.75cm. (16 x 5.75 = 92). So the on screen the length of 9.5cm would equate to approx 54cm and the crotch to hem would equate approx. 29cm. I am 5ft 4 and my measurement from belly button to bottom of knee is 54cm so either David had very short legs or the waist of the shorts was hanging half way down his bum (which is doesn’t look like in the stills). A measurement of 29cm from crotch to hem (approx. 1 foot) would mean the shorts would be fitting him more like underpants than shorts. In picture 3 the shorts David is wearing look loose fitting and baggy. The measurement at the hem on screen is 4.5cm across, so 9cm all round x 5.75 = 51cm approx. for the circumference of the bottoms, which would seem realistic for the shorts photographed on the beach but not the ones David was wearing.

I've found a relatively clear photo of David wearing what appears to be the same beige shorts which was taken earlier on the same holiday (this was published in one of the British newspapers - probably the Daily Mail). You will notice a mark/stain towards the bottom of the left inner leg which appears to match up with the shorts photographed on the beach. The stitching around the bottom of the legs is also the same. I therefore think the beige shorts photographed on the beach are definitely David's.

What I can't figure out are the "dark blue" shorts photographed at the crime scene. I thought at first that they were the beige ones turned inside out but there is just too much blue for that to be the case.

post-222707-0-68144300-1424910041_thumb.post-222707-0-65021800-1424910057_thumb.

Edited by IslandLover
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the wounds look like they came from the same type of weapon or blow etc. The pathologist said Davids were from a blunt instrument causing the skin to part as there was no scar to the bone as would be the case with a blade.

Whatever pathologist said that, should go out and find another job. At least half of David's stab wounds were to the side of his neck ....there are few bones in the neck (only vertebrae in the back). Neck is mostly muscle. Plus, the most likely weapon: a stubby sharp blade (just like the shark's tooth ring worn by one of the H's men, who should be a prime suspect) isn't going to penetrate more than about 2 or 3 cm. - just far enough to puncture a jugular vein. Cops and other wanna-be tough guys who hang at AC bar are the type of guys who would know the most vulnerable parts of the anatomy to puncture in a fight to the death.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the wounds look like they came from the same type of weapon or blow etc. The pathologist said Davids were from a blunt instrument causing the skin to part as there was no scar to the bone as would be the case with a blade.

When were the first images of Sean's wounds shown? Were they part of his polite warning long after the murders? I haven't researched that and so I can't answer you.

As for your last suggestion that I could be Sean. Read some of my old posts.

I am 3 times his age with a wife and children.

You can read what he himself said about that here: https://crimesontheblog.wordpress.com/category/koh-tao-sept-2014/the-players-more/sean-mcanna/

The account he used to publish those comments has been closed, no doubt due to the systematic campaign of harassment and defamation from the Truth and Justice League.

If you don't want to read all the comments, the short of it is that the cuts some people are busy weaving into conspiracy theories happened days before the murders.

Despite all of this confusion about cuts and when they happened, I would like to reiterate that it's a crying shame Mon and "Big Ears" didn't actually go through with their intended threat. A world with Sean McAnna in it doesn't do anyone much good. He knows the truth but has been gagged, leaving the country with too many unanswered questions. Knowing he's out there--probably bullshitting and partying his way through islands in Italy--with the truth is annoying. He's 'dirty' and will never be forced to come clean. Had he suffered the intentions of Mon and Big Ears...well, at least there wouldn't be as much grey area floating around this case. And I could live easier with that, quite honestly.

Ain't that nice, advocating murder.

The armchair detectives here remind me of the "Diabolicals" in Umberto Eco's novel Foucault's Pendulum, a group of occultists that fall for the protagonist's ploy to peddle made up esoteric conspiracy theories to sell books, to the point that they are willing to murder in order to get to the "truth" they believe the scammers are withholding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One post containing defamation and subsequent replies to that post have been removed from this thread.

From the Forum Rules:

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person to suffer harm. It does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either in a drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand.

I see plenty of those still, in fact, practically every post in the last few page falls afoul of that rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The armchair detectives here remind me of the "Diabolicals" in Umberto Eco's novel Foucault's Pendulum, a group of occultists that fall for the protagonist's ploy to peddle made up esoteric conspiracy theories to sell books, to the point that they are willing to murder in order to get to the "truth" they believe the scammers are withholding.

Well AleG, you're off-base again.

I actually wrote a book about debunking hocus pocus beliefs: metaphysics, astrology, religion, occult, ghosts, voodoo, etc. Randi is one of my heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One post containing defamation and subsequent replies to that post have been removed from this thread.

From the Forum Rules:

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person to suffer harm. It does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either in a drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand.

I see plenty of those still, in fact, practically every post in the last few page falls afoul of that rule.

You are correct.

Time to close this topic.

/Closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...