The case has become a hot topic shaking both the entertainment industry and justice system once again, as Professor Panthep Puapongpan publicly presented new evidence regarding the death of actress Tangmo Nida. He based his assumptions on scientific and forensic evidence during the detailed "Lae Yak Yip" program, which Thairath Entertainment summarized as follows.
- Professor Panthep revealed new scientific evidence related to images used in the Tangmo case files.
- Professor Panthep stated that Tangmo's wounds were notconsistent withbeing caused by a boat propeller. He hypothesized they resulted from other causes. The wounds measured 2 cm, 0.8 cm, and 3 cm, and were not from a propeller.
- The inner right thigh had a deep, straight wound. A doctor noted that if it were a propeller injury, there would also be wounds on the left thigh since it is a propeller.
- The right knee joint had three stab wounds, not propeller cuts or bites, causing fat to protrude. The left knee joint had two slash wounds.
- Importantly, how could she drown in deep water if there were no leaves in the water but Tangmo’s head was covered with leaves?
- There was mud in her mouth and deep in her lungs.
- If she had drowned facing upward while urinating at the boat's stern, how could both knees be bruised? This suggests she might have been crawling or escaping something, causing trauma.
.-Professor Panthepsaid he once spoke with Khun Ying Porntip about similar cases where bodies were concealed by pressing them into shallow water ditches and then disposed of in deeper water.
- Police said the propeller injuries were confirmed by forensic doctors, but the doctors clarified they never stated this explicitly, only that the wounds could be consistent with propeller injuries; whether they truly were is for the police to determine. No one has definitively confirmed the nature of the wounds to this day..-- The wounds suggest they were not caused by a propeller due to their varied nature, and the death circumstances do not match deep-water drowning while facing upward.
- Professor Panthep then meticulously outlined the timeline on the incident day using photos from the mobile phones of Tangmo, Kratik, Khun Dada, Khun Dada's younger brother, and Kwan Usamanee for comparison.
- Starting at 20:36, the last photo showing Tangmo’s activity on her phone was recorded. One minute earlier, at 20:35, Tangmo took a photo of the boat engine. Why would she take a photo of the engine?
- At 20:36, the boat stopped once. GPS checks confirmed the boat did stop.
- The river depth-measuring signal disappeared. This can happen for three reasons:
1. Engine start,which did not occur because the boat was moving.2. Engine off,or3. Signal interference,caused by a nearby boat, indicating another boat was close by.- After 20:36, the last image shows the boat stopping for 14 seconds near Riverdale Marina.
- At 20:36, Tangmo responded once to a modeling agency’s Line message. After that, there are no unedited images of Tangmo, either solo or with others.
- Even messages she supposedly sent herself show her phone signal was turned off eventually.- The chat reply to Anna was determined to be from someone else, not Tangmo’s phone.- After 20:36, it is suspected that all evidence might be fabricated.
- There are seven points of fabricated evidence, the first being the claim of a photo showing Kwan’s boat at 20:32.
- A set of four photos featuring Kratik and Tangmo were scientifically examined. Only one was publicly released. It is suspected all four images are edited because four images disappeared from the device and four others were imported and altered. The neck area between Kratik and Tangmo was blacked out to hide the Rama VIII Bridge suspension cables, suggesting an attempt to cover up background inconsistencies.
- On Kratik’s phone, there is a solo photo of him sitting at the bow with the Rama VIII Bridge in the background at 21:57. However, in the "Hon Krasae" program, this photo was removed even though Kratik did not want to discuss it. The program aired at 22:13, suggesting the phone’s timestamp was altered to support the narrative that Tangmo was present going to Rama VIII Bridge and on the return trip taking photos of Kratik.
- CCTV footage from Sanghee Bridge shows an earlier timestamp of 22:11, but Kratik's photo timestamp was later, after the program aired. This inconsistency led officials to adjust the CCTV time to 22:18 to align with the altered photo timestamp.
- Later, a police briefing counted six people on the boat, but reviewing the same CCTV footage (now inaccessible due to a broken CD), other case footage showed only five people, with no evidence of Tangmo falling into the water at 22:34:10. Thus, the police claim of Tangmo falling into the water at that time is implausible.
- The photo allegedly showing Tangmo falling into the water has shadows indicating light behind, and over time the object rises upward, suggesting it is not a person falling but rather rising back onto the boat. No one fell into the water; Tangmo disappeared when there were only five people on board.
- Photos showing Kratik standing at the bow were checked against his phone; none show him standing. This was confirmed in the investigation.
- Khun Dada posted photos on social media taken by her younger brother, questioning Tangmo's whereabouts at that time. The post was dated 25 February, before Tangmo was found. Kratik later used two of these photos.
- The photos taken by Khun Dada’s brother of the boat posted online were timestamped 20:32 on 24 February.
- This indicates the boat was not Kratik and Tangmo’s, as their boat had just left Krua Ta Nit and had not reached that location. It was definitely a different boat.
- Professor Panthep compared two boats and found differences: Kwan's boat engine is mounted underwater at the rear, while Tangmo's boat engine is visible above water.- Further investigation identified the boat in Khun Dada’s photos as belonging to Kwan Usamanee, who confirmed the people aboard.- Professor Panthep reviewed Kwan’s social media story from four years ago, confirming the authenticity of the images. He contacted Kwan, who said she was at Rama VIII Bridge that night but was not involved with Kratik. Upon learning her boat’s images were included in the case file, she cooperated.
- The boat with Kwan had six people aboard, matching the other boat in number and clothing color, with photos taken at the bow similarly.- To confirm the timeline, at 20:32 they were at Rama VIII Bridge; next was Wat Arun. Kwan’s photo timestamp was 21:11, and CCTV confirmed it was definitely Kwan’s boat.
Click to read more.
“Entertainment News Today”
