.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Bleacher Bum East
-
Posts
229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Bleacher Bum East
-
-
E scapegoats! Why do we need closure? Let them go and leave the case unsolved.
"We" don't need closure. But Hannah and David's families sure do.
I think you need to check your moral compass, it seems to have developed a fault.
Agreed.
The next potential victim---whether it's from additional killers of Hannah and David or different killers altogether---need closure also.
And the Thai people, who deserve a fair and efficient system of justice that they can have some faith in---or at least some visible steps in that direction---need closure as well.
-
- Popular Post
MURDER OF TWO BRITISH BACKPACKERS
Myanmar suspects indicted over murder of Britons on Koh Tao
KESINEE TAENGKHIO,
SUWANNEE BUNDISAK
THE NATION
BANGKOK: -- THE KOH Samui prosecutor yesterday indicted two Myanmar men over the murder of two British backpackers on Surat Thani's Koh Tao on September 15, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) said yesterday.
OAG spokesman Wanchai Rujanawong said Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, who were illegal migrant workers on the island at the time the murders, have been charged with murder, attempts to cover up a crime, gang rape and illegally entering the country.
Win Zaw Htun faces the additional charge of theft.
Wanchai told a press conference in Bangkok yesterday that the charges put forward by the public prosecutors were different from what police investigators had determined on two points.
The OAG spokesman said the prosecutors believed the 24-year-old female victim did not die from rape, but in the attempt to cover up the crime. As a result, the prosecutors didn't file the charge of rape causing death.
He said the other discrepancy centred on evidence pointing to only Win Zaw Htun stealing the victim's cellphone - meaning Zaw Lin would not face theft charge.
Earlier in Surat Thani province, public prosecutor Paiboon Achawananthakul - accompanied by police investigator Lt-Colonel Pana Senathip - submitted a 900-page case file indicting the Myanmar duo at the Koh Samui Provincial Court yesterday.
The suspects' lawyers are expected to submit an objection soon.
Paiboon said the men would appear in court on Monday morning to hear the charges and make their pleas.
-- The Nation 2014-12-05
Hannah Witheridge, the British forensics and Scotland yard are now the key to all this. In my opinion forensics in the UK will have found DNA on Hannah and have their own results of this. They will also know if the body will have been purposely ''Cleaned in an attempt to hide evidence'' either way this will be the case. Secondly obtaining DNA from the 2 boys is not a big undertaking. I am sure Scotland yard will have obtained it somehow either directly or indirectly if the Thai authorities refused to offer it too them. This has to be the starting point as far as the 2 boys are concerned, can Scotland yard or will Scotland yard release a statement saying they can prove that these two boys DNA is a match or not? If not then the Thai authorities have a serious chose to make. Do they undermine the evidence given to them by one of the most respected forensics people on earth or will they think of the consequences of disregarding what Scotland yards Forensics find. I am sure that now these boys have been officially charged the British will now make their move.
The victims were autopsied in Thailand. Assuming that the corpses were returned to the UK via commercial flight they were embalmed here too. Depending on how involved the autopsies were the corpses would have to have been cleaned as well.
Regarding New Scotland Yard's involvement in a case on Thai sovereign soil, you are assuming too much.
It was reported that British embassy staff arranged for Hannah and David's bodies to be returned to the U.K.---and they were present at the Forensic Hospital immediately after the Thai autopsy to do so.
Upon arrival in the UK the bodies were sent for a post mortem by a Home Office pathologist.
The bodies were not released to the families until after the coroner's inquest was opened.
Given all that, an "assumption" that the bodies were embalmed in Thailand and transported by a commercial carrier which dictated the terms to the British government about how the bodies would be transported is a very big assumption.
I would assume that the British government specifically requested the bodies not be embalmed in Thailand and arranged for their transportation back to the UK without embalming. First because it was the right thing to do in this particular case. But also because if governments want to do nothing else, they want to cover their ass. Allowing the bodies in a high profile case like this to be embalmed so that a proper forensic autopsy could not be performed at home could be a potential political firestorm that they would have wanted to avoid and taken steps to do so.
Neither of us knows.
From what I have read is very difficult to remove all DNA from a body, and all good forensics experts can tell if someone has tried to do so.
-
4
-
Surely it cant be to hard for a lawyer to prove these to guys are innocent. 1st theres photos of them being DNA tested the following day and cleared. One was wearing the same tshirt he was seen in on the video the night of the murders, he also had it on 3 weeks later when arrested. Surely it would have been blood splattered and even the most stupid person would have got rid of it. Why did the police anounce we had one in custody and the other has fled to Bangkok with evidence to link them to the murder and then after a visit from the brother of the one in custody and father of the one in BKK, the whole story suddenly changed. I havent spoken to one person who believes this story Thai or farang. Shouldnt the lawyer pull in the cop as a witness and ask how the story changed so quickly, what about the classmates of the one in Bangkok get them into to court to say he was definetly there. Also if the mobile phone data hasnt been deleted already it would prove where he was, be it BKK or Koh Tao. I hope the UK does something about this and hasnt just sent the cops over to keep everyone quite. It would be horrible to see to young men executed just to cover for a couple of spineless cowards.
To answer your doubts, the B2 are on trial, not anyone else. The RTP will say there was a backlog of DNA testing, and the suspects results came back at a later date, so they weren't cleared. (see page 450 of our 900 page report) They will say, it's not the same t-shirt. (see page 600 of our 900 page report) They will say other suspects were eliminated (see page 750 of our 900 page report).
All in all, it would be difficult to challenge such assertions without any evidence to the contrary. That's why the dice are loaded in the prosecution's favour.
Or they will say, as reported in the press. 36 out of 80 tests were completed.
They will point out that employees have more than one work shirt.
There's no need to explain why people were eliminated from the investigation earlier but I expect that the prosecution will do so.
It is worth noting that the people who are on trial were in the initial group of suspects.
It is also worth noting that the initial group of suspects were DNA tested and no matches were found.
This was a different and previous round of testing than the "36 out of 80" you referred to.
-
1
-
-
BANGKOK: -- Thai prosecutors on Wednesday said two Myanmar men will stand trial for the brutal killing of a pair of British holidaymakers on a tourist resort after finally accepting murder charges against them.
The headline from the article reads as if the B2 have now changed their minds again as it says 'finally accepting murder charges against them'.
Is anyone else reading it like this? Or is a mistake in the translation to English? I hope it's the latter.
And then this sentence:
'Thai authorities have strongly denied using the pair as scapegoats, insisting their case is built on solid evidence showing the DNA of the accused from initial tests matches samples taken from Witheridge's body'.
I thought they were cleared at the initial tests by the RTP and arrested after the second round?
Or does the article maybe mean that further tests done by other organisations do not match?
Never was their DNA tested prior to it coming back as a match. As explained numerous times as well as reported in the press, the police collected hundreds of samples and caused a huge backlog in testing at the labs. As they focused on particular suspects they would make checking theirs a priority and jump ahead in the queue. NEVER EVER has it been suggested or reported that a test was run that showed their DNA didn't match. And best I have seen there has been no explanation from the defense side as to why their semen would be in one of the victims or an accusation the DNA match was made up. As for contamination at the scene -- it cannot explain why their semen would be in one of the victims regardless of how many reporters or others were at the crime scene. "Contamination" would have to be a purposeful act of somebody having their semen and placing it in the victim early on in the first day of the investigation .. if the police did such a thing then they would not have gone out of their way to publicly accuse, and then have to admit being wrong about, those they accused early on including the farang friend and the son of the headsman.
A few days after the murder police told news organizations the following:
- The police had twelve initial suspects
- Three of these suspects were Burmese migrant workers seen drinking on the beach the night of the murder
- All three of the men seen drinking on the beach were DNA tested and no match was found
There has never been any reports of any Burmese migrant workers seen drinking on the beach the night of the murders other than the two accused Burmese men and their friend the "witness".
In addition, it is almost inconceivable that the police didn't know very quickly that the two accused and the witness were drinking on the beach near the crime scene that night---they were there for hours, there was no reason for any person who saw them there, or near there, to protect them, and from what I remember they frequently went to the same spot.
Therefore it is quite possible that the two accused were in fact DNA tested and no match was found very early in the investigation.
The defense lawyer should determine from his clients if they were tested and interrogated at that time. If they were, he should ask for all information available regarding the interrogation and testing. In a fair trial he would receive it.
-
2
-
How will you feel if they are convicted and executed based on a trial and verdict that is not deemed by qualified independent observers to be fair based on international standards?
I will let you know, if that actually happens. I don't expect that your scenario will come to pass, but it remains to be seen what the actual evidence is.
Yes, I agree it remains to be seen what the actual evidence is . . .
But for a trial to be fair, it's not just about what evidence is presented by the prosecution, but how it is presented and judged, and how the accused are allowed to defend themselves against that evidence (among other things).
This is particularly important in a case that may involve the death penalty.
Thailand is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes provisions for a right to a fair trial (See Article 15), and the country is legally bound by its provisions.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf
http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/G0443072en.pdf
I assume that you will agree that Thailand must follow the provisions of this Covenant the same way you argued that Britain and Myanmar are bound by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The fair trial provisions of the ICCPR have been interpreted on many occasions by courts and international organizations.
Here are two reports detailing interpretations of Article 15 of the ICCPR regarding fair trials.
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/fair_trial.pdf
A conviction obtained in a trial that does not include the basic elements of fairness cannot be relied upon to have convicted the guilty party and could easily result in an innocent person going to jail or being executed (and the real killers remaining free to kill again) . . . that is why these provisions exist.
I think/hope that many qualified independent observers will be closely watching the trial of the B2 and using the ICCPR and its interpretations as a scorecard to determine if the trial was fair.
I hope this for the sake of Hannah and David's family and justice, but also for Thailand and the Thai people who I care about very much and who deserve these standards to be followed in all cases.
Thailand is currently under martial law, constitutional law does not exist!
Sorry but you're way of base.
Yes, the 2007 Constitution has been suspended.
But the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not a provision of the Thai Constitution or fall under Thai Constitutional Law.
It is an international agreement to which the country of Thailand is a party.
The military government has not suspended or terminated the country's international treaties, covenants or agreements. They are still in force.
But thanks for giving me a chance to correct a mistake I made ---
The fair trial provisions of the ICCPR are contained in Article 14 (not Article 15 like I said in my post).
-
- Popular Post
How will you feel if they are convicted and executed based on a trial and verdict that is not deemed by qualified independent observers to be fair based on international standards?
I will let you know, if that actually happens. I don't expect that your scenario will come to pass, but it remains to be seen what the actual evidence is.
Yes, I agree it remains to be seen what the actual evidence is . . .
But for a trial to be fair, it's not just about what evidence is presented by the prosecution, but how it is presented and judged, and how the accused are allowed to defend themselves against that evidence (among other things).
This is particularly important in a case that may involve the death penalty.
Thailand is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes provisions for a right to a fair trial (See Article 15), and the country is legally bound by its provisions.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf
http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/G0443072en.pdf
I assume that you will agree that Thailand must follow the provisions of this Covenant the same way you argued that Britain and Myanmar are bound by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The fair trial provisions of the ICCPR have been interpreted on many occasions by courts and international organizations.
Here are two reports detailing interpretations of Article 15 of the ICCPR regarding fair trials.
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/fair_trial.pdf
A conviction obtained in a trial that does not include the basic elements of fairness cannot be relied upon to have convicted the guilty party and could easily result in an innocent person going to jail or being executed (and the real killers remaining free to kill again) . . . that is why these provisions exist.
I think/hope that many qualified independent observers will be closely watching the trial of the B2 and using the ICCPR and its interpretations as a scorecard to determine if the trial was fair.
I hope this for the sake of Hannah and David's family and justice, but also for Thailand and the Thai people who I care about very much and who deserve these standards to be followed in all cases.
-
4
-
Nobody on this forum has enough evidence, hard or otherwise, to prove that any particular person or persons committed the crimes against Hannah and David.
Nobody on this forum has enough evidence, hard or otherwise, to prove that anybody who has been a person of interest or suspect did not commit the crimes against Hannah and David.
Whether the police have enough evidence to prove that a particular person or persons committed the crimes, or did not commit the crimes, none of us know as we have not seen the evidence they have, if any, that has not been made public.
-
Just to note from Baker & McKenzie - Bangkok website:
We have been successfully involved in a wide range of complex cases at various Thai courts, including the Tax Court, Bankruptcy Court, the Labour Court, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the Administrative Court, as well as the Thai Arbitration Institute.
Being very familiar with Baker & McKenzie and other large international law firms of its ilk, I would note this:
- The firm's website did not mention any criminal defense work in criminal proceedings in Thailand---so one of the world's largest and best-recognized international law firms makes no claim that it has been successfully involved in any criminal defense work in Thailand
- It would be very safe to say that in none of the cases they were successfully involved in did they represent a client with as little economic or social standing as the B2
- It would be very safe to say that in the vast majority of the cases they were successfully involved in they represented clients with a significant degree of economic and/or social standing
- I would make an educated guess that in some of the cases the firm was successfully involved in, they considered a long dragged-out court case to be part of their strategy for success
-
Latest news from the 'blogosphere'
"Rights groups including Amnesty International have expressed concerns about the police investigation, citing apparent gaps in the evidence and the Thai authorities’ previous record of wrongly blaming Burmese nationals for high-profile crimes."
I find the most interesting part is:
Their original star witness, the third Burmese, I understood, had testified that he knew nothing that would link them to the crime. Have they found new witness(es)? Who are they? My suspicion is that the identity of the witnesses will remain confidential as long as possible to avoid independent examination of their credibility.The regional head prosecutor, Thawatchai Siangjaew, reportedly said the combined evidence, including witnesses and DNA, was strong enough for the prosecution to begin.
I think you will find that the Burmese men deposed earlier didn't include the third man that left before the attack. We'll know for sure during the trial.
https://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murders-third-man-released-returning-to-burma-myanmar/45040
"Speaking to DVB by telephone on Wednesday afternoon on condition that his location was not disclosed, Maung Maung said he was released on Tuesday evening, following his testimony in a Koh Samui courthouse that day.'I testified exactly what I knew to be true – that I drank beer with my friends Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin, that I left them on the beach to go to my girlfriend’s room, and that I found them sleeping in our room when I came home around 5 in the morning.'" -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Well as far as I'm concerned writing on the internet on what amounts to be pure speculation is as close to doing nothing as one can come without doing nothing.
And if you want to cue the Tom Joad speech "Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there..." Tom Joad whacked an officer to death -- he didn't whack his keyboard.
So I'm off now for another day in LOS doig nothing while and I'll check in to review the sanctimony hurled at me later in the day.
"And if you want to cue the Tom Joad speech "Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there..." Tom Joad whacked an officer to death -- he didn't whack his keyboard."
What do you think has more social impact for change, a guy like Tom Joad whacking an officer to death, or a guy like John Steinbeck whacking his keyboard and revealing the unjust circumstances that would cause a guy like Tom Joad to whack an officer to death?
“But words are things and a small drop of ink,Falling like a dew, upon a thought producesThat which makes thousands, perhaps millions think"― George Gordon Byron, Don JuanI have a question which I'm sure will be perceived as sanctimonious, but is actually sincere:
If you think all the people speculating on the internet are doing close to nothing, why do you bother commenting on their posts at all?
-
3
-
In the sphere where I operate ex-ThaiVisa I only write brief responses or else they wail not be read. My line is to write sufficiently brief so that it has been read before the person realizes that they wished they hadn't read it.
If UK or any other country would choose to invoke extreme measures in a case like this which may or may not have international implications, they can expect it to be invoked someday on them, you betcha.
BTW the flip answer regarding ask-the-ambassador was after I quoted the UK Embassy Bangkok website which uses the word 'interfere' and you posted:
So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?which I did not consider to be a legitimate question as far as this website goes but just a set-up on your part."In the sphere where I operate ex-ThaiVisa I only write brief responses or else they wail not be read. My line is to write sufficiently brief so that it has been read before the person realizes that they wished they hadn't read it."
I agree that's the best approach in most cases on forums like Thai Visa . . . but it can be very misleading when invoking isolated sections of generally stated law or policy as definitive responses to suggestions/comments by other posters, because that is not the way the law works.
I write for the admittedly very small niche market of viewers (maybe only myself?) who may want some more detailed background or analysis . . . after doing the research legwork and analysis for myself because I'm interested in the subject and enjoy looking for answers on relevant issues.
If UK or any other country would choose to invoke extreme measures in a case like this which may or may not have international implications, they can expect it to be invoked someday on them, you betcha.
I agree . . . that is a big part of the "many considerations and ramifications" that foreign governments must take into account when deciding how aggressive to be inside another country. And I'm not a fan of governmental double-standards, including of my own home government.
In a death penalty case, however, they also have to consider the ramifications of allowing a blatantly unfair trial to occur (I'm not saying this will happen, just if it did) or a conviction to take place when they have potentially exculpatory evidence (I'm not saying they have it, just if they did). The political fallout from that could be much greater than the diplomatic fallout of not intervening (as opposed to interfering) at all.
And the host government will have to consider the diplomatic and political fallout of taking public diplomatic countermeasures against foreign countries that are taking actions simply designed to ensure a fair and thorough investigation and a fair trial and judgement.
All of these things are being balanced by the governments involved.
BTW one of the interesting things about the Consular Guide I linked to is that this guidance was first put together for foreign consulates in the United States when their citizens were involved in death penalty cases ... so the interpretation and advice the legal scholars were giving was for taking these more "extreme" action in the host country with the ability to toss around the largest diplomatic countermeasures of any.
BTW the flip answer regarding ask-the-ambassador was after I quoted the UK Embassy Bangkok website which uses the word 'interfere' and you posted:
So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?which I did not consider to be a legitimate question as far as this website goes but just a set-up on your part.The wasn't intended at all to be a set-up.What constitutes "interference" is an open question that has not been definitively answered by any authority as far as I have seen . . . and even the Consular Guide that I cited, while making a well-researched and reasoned case of interpretation, is not authoritative on the subject---although it does constitute the expert opinion of two legal scholars on the subject, and the best research and analysis publicly available that I've found.So I was genuinely interested in what actions you would consider to constitute interference and which you would not . . . I had this same discussion with friends over lunch a couple of days ago, and one of them very much disagreed with my position on some actions that I argued would not constitute interference. I make no claims to knowing all the answers in this gray area . . . I only claim to know that it is gray and not black and white.I asked the open-ended question to you because I wanted to give you the courtesy of not answering the question for you in advance, and I didn't want to frame your response with my own.I do think that if someone cites a law then they should be willing to go out on the limb of providing their own application of the law to the facts of the case at hand . . . and it's a much more interesting and beneficial debate if everyone does so . . . but that's my opinion.-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
And should a foreign government invoke rights as suggested in Section 6 the host country could call in the Ambassador and order them to cease and desist or else be expelled from the country.
that is how I read and analyze it.
For some reason you've chosen to make this personal not just disagreeing but telling me what I do and don't understand.
In concept I agree with that, and this is where I think the discussion should be centered regarding what publicly seen actions the British and Myanmar governments will take---on more of a diplomatic analysis than a legal analysis because that is probably what is really going on behind the scenes for the most part.
Basically I think the following, and my guess is we aren't to far apart on our conclusions:
- Governments cannot just do whatever they want to assist its citizens inside a foreign country--there are international laws that apply such as the Vienna Convention, and practical government policies in place such as those listed on most embassy's website to avoid having to do the same thing thousands of times around the world when a citizen gets injured, killed or arrested.
- Some relevant legal provisions of the Vienna Convention are written in general rather than specific terms that are subject to interpretation---they do allow foreign governments to take some actions but not all. Governments on each side will interpret "interference", "assistance", etc. more broadly or narrowly depending on the result they want to accomplish.
- Government policies are not laws, and a government can bend or break those policies in some circumstances if they choose without legal ramifications.
- ALL THAT BEING SAID, even if a foreign government has the legal right to take certain more aggressive actions to assist a citizen abroad, it will rarely do so, even in cases when many people are calling for justice and action. This is because there are many other considerations and ramifications in doing so that go beyond the particular case in question.
- For example, while the foreign government has to take into account the requirements for justice and assistance of its citizens, it also has to take into account the diplomatic ramifications of taking aggressive action in a foreign country, because those diplomatic responses may in fact harm other of the foreign country's citizens and interests.
- On the flip side, the host country has to hesitate before making a strong diplomatic response to more aggressive actions by a foreign government, because this may end up harming its own interest and its own citizens as well (for example, evicting diplomats is an extreme response that would draw a reciprocal reaction in the other country and affect many other issues).
- Because of all this, people should not expect the British and Myanmar government to severely rock the diplomatic boat by pushing the limits of the Vienna Convention and their own internal policies. They will only do so as a last resort, if that, and because it is politically and diplomatically their best option all things being considered, and because they feel they have no other choice. (this means that if they do take more aggressive actions, which both the British and Myanmar government have already done to a certain extent, you can solidly bet they have some serious concerns).
So the bottom line is that at the highest levels, this horrific crime and totally justified emotional and moral call for justice has become in large part a diplomatic game of poker.
In a recent exchange/hand of of poker being played, which I think you may have put your analytical finger on, the Burmese speaker of the house arrived with forensic and legal experts and announced they had raised the bail money for the B2 (notice that these actions do in fact mirror some of those in Section 6 of The Guide). In response, the Thai court denied bail, and while the judges said it was because of flight risk and the nature of the crime, you surmised it was actually a political/diplomatic message that they won't allow Thailand's internal affairs to be interfered with (in their own narrower interpretation of "interference"--and whether it is a correct interpretation or not is not really the issue). I tend to agree that hard core diplomacy was likely as much a part of the judges/his advisers decision as legal concerns.
So there's no reason for you to use hyperbolic overkill and state repeatedly that one provision of the Vienna Convention read in isolation legally prohibits basically all actions by the British and Myanmar governments to assist the B2 and/or make sure they real killers are put away and justice served---this is what I object to, because it is misleading other people in an intellectually dishonest way and is simply not true (the other thing I object to are flip deflective responses like "I'll ask the ambassador" to legitimate questions).
You don't even need the legal argument to make your case. What is much more credible and persuasive is to say that even though international law may be interpreted by a foreign country to allow certain actions by the British and Myanmar governments, it is not likely they will actually take these actions unless they feel they have no other choice, if that.
I blame any lapses in logic on the two sundowner mojitos and two glasses of wine that followed. I can't blame my extreme long-windesness on the drinks, because that's obviously become the trend for me.
-
6
-
Since none of what you have quoted has actually occurred or been invoked by either the UK or Myanmar embassies, I will stick to what I have said and as to whether I understand international law or not i really don;t give a shit or not what is your opinion.
What a disrespectful attitude and response. What's the point in being on a forum when you 'don't give a shit' about someone's opinion?
When someone says in writing: But since you have just demonstrated, and admitted with your last comment, that you have no idea what the law is in this area ...
after quoting out of context a guide to consular procedures declaring that what is going on here amounts to a major international incident with international ramifications, I think my response is tepid. On page 6 it says:
LIMITATIONS ON CONSULAR ASSISTANCE
Consular assistance is not intended to immunise foreign nationals from local laws. With the exception ofindividuals possessing diplomatic or consular immunity, a foreigner arrested abroad is fully subject to thelaws and judicial procedures of the receiving State, including all legal punishments that may be imposedfor breaches of those laws.Section 6 of The Guide lists some of the actions that the authors believe in their expert legal/scholarly opinion a foreign consul can take if it chooses in assistance of its nationals while remaining within the confines of the Vienna Convention.
That was the subject of discussion.
And I specifically stated that the entire Guide should be read to understand all of the issues involved.
Section 6 is not at all in conflict with the "Limitations on Consular Assistance" section that you quoted. The legal concepts in the two sections work together in the following manner:
A foreign government can take the actions mentioned in Section 6 if it chooses to do so and they would not violate the Vienna Convention by doing taking these actions . . . but these actions in Section 6 cannot "immunise foreign nationals from local laws", and "a foreigner arrested abroad is fully subject to the laws and judicial procedures of the receiving State, including all legal punishments that may be imposed for breaches of those laws".
In other words, the actions in Section 6 do not by definition go beyond the "Limitations on Consular Assistance" that you quote.
You're bombast doesn't change the fact that you don't know how to read or analyze the law. . . although I understand it made you angry that someone that does know how to do so called you out on that.
But at least now you have some material to work with in the debate that you were too lazy to find for yourself ... you're welcome for that.
And where did this statement come from?:
". . . a guide to consular procedures declaring that what is going on here amounts to a major international incident with international ramifications"
-
Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:
What consulates cannot do for you
Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:
- get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings
https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok
So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?
Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?
Next time I meet with the British ambassador I'll ask him.
Your absurdly simplistic responses show that you are not serious about having an intelligent discussion about what the British and Myanmar governments can and cannot do in this particular case.
There are in fact limits, as you have suggested, but what those limits are and should be is open to serious debate.
But since you have just demonstrated, and admitted with your last comment, that you have no idea what the law is in this area, I assume you will no longer cite provisions of law that you don't understand in response to people suggesting a particular action should be taken by a foreign consul.
In case you ever want to take the time to educate yourself so you can have an informed opinion on the subject, a good starting point is a guide titled:
A Universal Safeguard:
Providing Consular Assistance to Nationals in Custody
An Introductory Guide for Consular Officers
This guide was written by a UK and international law scholar who has dedicated a large amount of her career to exactly the subject we are discussing.
The author's credentials:
https://lapa.princeton.edu/content/anne-james-executive-director-international-justice-project
This is the Introduction to The Guide written by another international legal scholar.
It is an honour to introduce this Guide for consular assistance to nationals in custody, compiled by AnneJames, Executive Director of the International Justice Project, with research prepared by Mark Warren ofHuman Rights Research in Ottawa, Canada.Based on the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, now ratified by over 160 countries, theGuide aims at strengthening the rule of law and human rights relating to consular protection of all peoplein custody outside their own countries. The Guide is a welcome addition to the consular law literature andfills an urgent need as an indispensable manual for consular officers as well as judicial and lawenforcement personnel of the receiving States.Luke T. LeeLuke T. Lee is the author of "Consular Law and Practice", by Luke T. Lee. Oxford University Press, 1991.This landmark book provides over 700 pages of authoritative information on the history, scope anddevelopment of consular practices world wide. It includes a very detailed section on the development ofthe VCCR, as well as many examples of consular assistance in action.The Guide should be read in its entirety for a full understanding, but Section 6 from The Guide shows some of the actions that these international legal scholars believe would be allowed by the Vienna Convention if a foreign government chose to take them:6. CONSULAR ASSISTANCE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASESConsular officers may provide any appropriate assistance necessary to ensure that a national facing severe punishment receives fair, equal, and humane treatment, throughout the legal proceedings . . . .Joint interventions by several consular officers may be called for in cases of special concern to the larger international community . . . .Some cases are so serious that the consular officer may be called upon to provide a greater range and scope of assistance than would normally be provided. Typical examples would include the detention or imprisonment of nationals resulting in grave or irreversible harm, such as a death sentence, amputation, torture or rape in custody. Although local laws may condone or even require harsh punishments, consular officers are entirely within their rights to appeal for an attenuation of the sentence on humanitarian grounds, or to provide additional assistance necessary to safeguard the national from unacceptable treatment. Determining when and how to provide special assistance would normally be made on the basis of a pre-existing consular policy, or in consultation with the home government.In a case of special concern, additional forms of consular assistance may be required:• Providing emergency funding for bail proceedings;• Interceding with prosecutors to avoid excessive punishment;• Funding expert witnesses and investigators, where the courts deny adequate resources to thedefence;• Funding or assisting mitigation investigations in the home country;• Bringing mitigation witnesses to testify;• If necessary, arranging for the hiring of competent counsel for the accused;• Retaining an attorney to represent the consular interest;• Submitting briefs or motions based on any violations of international law;• Participating directly or indirectly in appellate review;• Bringing claims before international courts and tribunals• Petitioning for clemency;• Hosting press conferences or assisting in publicity.Forgot to provide the link to The Guide . . . here it is:
http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/pdfs/GenericVCCRprint.pdf
A Universal Safeguard:
Providing Consular Assistance to Nationals in Custody
An Introductory Guide for Consular Officers
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:
What consulates cannot do for you
Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:
- get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings
https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok
So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?
Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?
Next time I meet with the British ambassador I'll ask him.
Your absurdly simplistic responses show that you are not serious about having an intelligent discussion about what the British and Myanmar governments can and cannot do in this particular case.
There are in fact limits, as you have suggested, but what those limits are and should be is open to serious debate.
But since you have just demonstrated, and admitted with your last comment, that you have no idea what the law is in this area, I assume you will no longer cite provisions of law that you don't understand in response to people suggesting a particular action should be taken by a foreign consul.
In case you ever want to take the time to educate yourself so you can have an informed opinion on the subject, a good starting point is a guide titled:
A Universal Safeguard:
Providing Consular Assistance to Nationals in Custody
An Introductory Guide for Consular Officers
This guide was written by a UK and international law scholar who has dedicated a large amount of her career to exactly the subject we are discussing.
The author's credentials:
https://lapa.princeton.edu/content/anne-james-executive-director-international-justice-project
This is the Introduction to The Guide written by another international legal scholar.
It is an honour to introduce this Guide for consular assistance to nationals in custody, compiled by AnneJames, Executive Director of the International Justice Project, with research prepared by Mark Warren ofHuman Rights Research in Ottawa, Canada.Based on the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, now ratified by over 160 countries, theGuide aims at strengthening the rule of law and human rights relating to consular protection of all peoplein custody outside their own countries. The Guide is a welcome addition to the consular law literature andfills an urgent need as an indispensable manual for consular officers as well as judicial and lawenforcement personnel of the receiving States.Luke T. LeeLuke T. Lee is the author of "Consular Law and Practice", by Luke T. Lee. Oxford University Press, 1991.This landmark book provides over 700 pages of authoritative information on the history, scope anddevelopment of consular practices world wide. It includes a very detailed section on the development ofthe VCCR, as well as many examples of consular assistance in action.The Guide should be read in its entirety for a full understanding, but Section 6 from The Guide shows some of the actions that these international legal scholars believe would be allowed by the Vienna Convention if a foreign government chose to take them:6. CONSULAR ASSISTANCE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASESConsular officers may provide any appropriate assistance necessary to ensure that anational facing severe punishment receives fair, equal, and humane treatment, throughoutthe legal proceedings . . . .Joint interventions by several consular officers may be called for incases of special concern to the larger international community . . . .Some cases are so serious that the consular officer may be called upon to provide a greater range and scope of assistance than would normally be provided. Typical examples would include the detention or imprisonment of nationals resulting in grave or irreversible harm, such as a death sentence, amputation, torture or rape in custody. Although local laws may condone or even require harsh punishments, consular . . . officers are entirely within their rights to appeal for an attenuation of the sentence on humanitarian grounds, or to provide additional assistance necessary to safeguard the national from unacceptable treatment. Determining when and how to provide special assistance would normally be made on the basis of a pre-existing consular policy, or in consultation with the home government.In a case of special concern, additional forms of consular assistance may be required:• Providing emergency funding for bail proceedings;• Interceding with prosecutors to avoid excessive punishment;• Funding expert witnesses and investigators, where the courts deny adequate resources to thedefence;• Funding or assisting mitigation investigations in the home country;• Bringing mitigation witnesses to testify;• If necessary, arranging for the hiring of competent counsel for the accused;• Retaining an attorney to represent the consular interest;• Submitting briefs or motions based on any violations of international law;• Participating directly or indirectly in appellate review;• Bringing claims before international courts and tribunals• Petitioning for clemency;• Hosting press conferences or assisting in publicity.-
3
-
Here's my legal analysis of Article 55 Vienna Convention courtesy of the UK Embassy Bangkok as regards judicial procedure within a host country:
What consulates cannot do for you
Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:
- get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings
https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-bangkok
So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?
Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?
-
I have hunger for lobster which I had on a recent trip to USA. When you come to a country -- any country -- you abide by its judicial system as is. Human Rights NGO's may work toward changing that system for the better; but that is for down the road.
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean that if the investigation and trial of any person accused of Hannah's murder and rape and David's murder is not considered fair by international standards, then there is nothing the accused or the government of the accused can do about it? That there is nothing the parents of the victims or the home government of the victims can do about it?
That if a trial in foreign country is unfair by international standards, a foreign national and his or her home government must just accept the unfair trial as being part of the "judicial system as it is" and wait for an NGO to try and change things in the future?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
So maybe as a hack writer you can be called in as an expert witness to explain to the judge or judge panel the moral code which supersedes the law of the land.
And maybe as a frequent poster of selective portions of the law and government policy you can be called to write an Amicus Brief to explain to the judge or judge panel the international law of the land.
On that note . . . Let's look at your frequent posting of Article 55 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, together with the British Embassy Website.
From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Article 55
Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State
1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.
You cite Article 55 with no interpretation or analysis as if it were a black and white speed limit law.
But in fact Article 55 is not black and white, it is broadly written and must be interpreted in light of all the other provisions of the Vienna Convention, as well as its purpose and history.
In this case, it is necessary to interpret what would constitute "interference" with the internal affairs of Thailand, as well as what foreign consuls are allowed to do within the realm of what does not constitute interference.
Anybody genuinely trying to analyze how the Vienna Convention applies to Hannah and David's case would do what the British and Myanmar government legal and diplomatic analysts would do.
That is this:
First Make a Legal Analysis
1. Interpret generally the scope of the Vienna Convention as a whole as to what the limits of what a foreign consul can do in the case of an arrest for murder of one of its citizens, or murder of one of its citizens, in a foreign country.
2. Apply that interpretation of the law to the facts of the particular case---meaning determine what contemplated consular actions in the case at hand would fall inside and outside of the Vienna Convention.
Second Make a Diplomatic Analysis
1. Look at what options the legal analysis allows you to pursue, and determine from a diplomatic standpoint what legal options are best to pursue in light of all the circumstances and considerations (which are many).
2. Decide what options to pursue at any given moment.
3. Continuously review those options and decisions as the case progresses
So since you cite the Vienna Convention so often, maybe you could provide your own legal analysis of what it allows the British and Myanmar consulates and government authorities to do in general, and how the Vienna Convention applies to the facts of the investigation of Hannah and David's murder and any following trial.
Specifically, what options do you think these governments can pursue within the Vienna Convention, and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?
I would provide you helpful links, but you've said you can find your own.
-
3
-
I accept that the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have recanted the confessions. I also accept that they confessed more than one time and once was to an HRC commissioner.And again, wrong.
Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.
As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.
So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.
To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?
That leaves the merits of the confessions in the judges' hands
That is cherry picking (as you define it) ... they later explained/recanted their confessions and this by your definition must be accepted as the real truth of the matter, i.e. the later retraction negates the earlier confession (by your definition of cherry picking).
Why do you not accept the Burmese men's current position as true the same way you accept Sean's explanation/current position as true?
What's the distinction in your apparent clear double standard?
Anyways, it's been a delightful few minutes "debating" with you JD.
Have a good day.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
And again, wrong.
Instead of cherry picking, I accept the current position. Sean did not change his statement. He explained it. He did so after he was safely out of Thailand.
As for, "cops eased Sean's" departure from Thailand. That is just another conspiracy theory.
So then I assume you also accept the current position of the two accused Burmese men that they are innocent and were coerced into confessing.
To cite their earlier confession would be cherry picking (by your definition), correct?
-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
"Cherry picking" seems to be the term of the day in the debate over what information/news reports/statements are valid to use in an argument regarding the investigation into the rape and murder of Hannah and murder of David.
"Cherry picking" means the selective use of information that tends to support your argument while ignoring information which tends to go against your argument.
"Cherry picking" does not mean using earlier information after more information on the same topic becomes available.
Whether the earlier information remains valid to use depends on all of the circumstances, particularly on the credibility of both sets of information.
If I go to the doctor and he tells me I have all the signs and symptoms of dengue fever and so his expert diagnosis is dengue fever, but then I go to a different doctor three weeks later and he says my body is inhabited by a demon and that is why i am sick, it is not cherry picking to cite the first doctor as my best source of information.
So when immediately after the forensic autopsy the chief of forensics says that the evidence indicates that David fought with his attackers, the police say they believe there were more than two perpetrators, both say there was more than one murder weapon, etc. etc. then it is not cherry picking to cite these reports---a good defense attorney would certainly do so.
It is of course also best to cite and acknowledge the later conflicting reports and allow the two to be analyzed side-by-side for credibility and investigative value.
But in many cases, later information does not negate earlier information, and later information does not mean better information.
To state otherwise by indiscriminately using the term "cherry picking" to argue that you can never cite earlier information if more information later becomes available, suggests either a total misunderstanding or intentional misuse of the term for misleading purposes.
-
7
-
Stay in jail, it is the safest place to live right now. Even if you went to Burma, the mafia would kill you for favors owed or imagines. These two are walking dead men, their death is going to be the end of this one way or the other. Just a matter of whose soil they die on.
Maybe if released they could hide out for years in the Myanmar Embassy in Bangkok out of the reach of the Thai judicial system.
Maybe not for years, but a least for months while they prepare a proper defense.
My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the B2 have never been allowed to meet privately with their defense attorneys . . . only allowed conversations through jail cell bars.
In any event, one of the benefits of bail would be an extremely heightened ability to meet with their defense attorneys and experts on a confidential basis for as much time as needed.
This would be one step towards a fair trial.
PS I thought your response to my question in another post about why you provided a certain link was interesting and insightful ... I hope we have a chance to continue that conversation at some point.
-
1
-
-
Are you really using an article from 8 days into the investigation?Yes I guessed that would be the case, I have mentioned before how you find it difficult to face the truth, so to save you precious time..........http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-police-fail-another-day-30243890.html
The article is also interesting in that it refers to the Little Duck speedboat and also confirms that the RTP were looking for 2 weapons not just the hoe
Strangely you skip over the fact that they were looking at Burmese as the primary suspects at that time.
It is in fact incredibly interesting, enlightening and useful in analyzing the case to go back and read all of the statements about the investigation made during the first 10 days or so after the crime was committed.
While there were many speculative and conflicting statements, you can also collect numerous statements of fact made by authorities based on sufficient information to make those statements--including the results of the forensic autopsy and their inferences from those results.
Some of these statements of fact and contemporaneous inferences don't really line up with the current scenario of the B2.
In addition, investigators and attorneys will tell you that many times statements made closer to event are more reliable than statements made later, because there is less time to craft the statements to fit a particular conclusion.
Regarding the initial focus on Burmese suspects, that raises a highly relevant question that has not yet been answered.
If you go back and read the news reports during the first week after the murders, the police said that they picked up 12 initial suspects and interrogated and DNA tested them, and that none of these suspects' DNA matched that found on Hannah.
Included in these 12 suspects, all of whom were released, were 3 Burmese men drinking on the beach that night.
I've not seen any news reports stating that anybody saw 3 different Burmese men drinking on the beach that night and who became suspects other than the B2 and the witness who was with them.
For an observer to properly analyze the case, as well as a judge, it would be extremely important to know if these 3 men who were interrogated, DNA tested, and released right after the murders were in fact the accused B2 and their friend the witness.
I would think that this would be one of the very first things their defense attorney would determine, as well as the prosecutor. Because if the B2 were tested at that time and no match was found, then that blows a devastating hole in the prosecutor's case if it goes to trial.
BTW I'm not talking about the B2 being tested at the time there were photos of one and the witness standing in line ... I'm talking about even earlier than that, a couple of days after the murders.
The problem with your idea here is people cherry pick from the time line.
Yes, I agree with that in some cases.
But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that because some people cherry pick to support their own conclusion while ignoring what doesn't support it, or that some previous statements were clearly speculative and unreliable, then no information more contemporaneous with the murders is useful.
Better just to point out the cherry picking and the unreliable statements than dismiss all information from the time.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Are you really using an article from 8 days into the investigation?I cba to dig through pages to find something you quote without citation.
Yes I guessed that would be the case, I have mentioned before how you find it difficult to face the truth, so to save you precious time..........http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-police-fail-another-day-30243890.html
The article is also interesting in that it refers to the Little Duck speedboat and also confirms that the RTP were looking for 2 weapons not just the hoe
Strangely you skip over the fact that they were looking at Burmese as the primary suspects at that time.
It is in fact incredibly interesting, enlightening and useful in analyzing the case to go back and read all of the statements about the investigation made during the first 10 days or so after the crime was committed.
While there were many speculative and conflicting statements, you can also collect numerous statements of fact made by authorities based on sufficient information to make those statements--including the results of the forensic autopsy and their inferences from those results.
Some of these statements of fact and contemporaneous inferences don't really line up with the current scenario of the B2.
In addition, investigators and attorneys will tell you that many times statements made closer to event are more reliable than statements made later, because there is less time to craft the statements to fit a particular conclusion.
Regarding the initial focus on Burmese suspects, that raises a highly relevant question that has not yet been answered.
If you go back and read the news reports during the first week after the murders, the police said that they picked up 12 initial suspects and interrogated and DNA tested them, and that none of these suspects' DNA matched that found on Hannah.
Included in these 12 suspects, all of whom were released, were 3 Burmese men drinking on the beach that night.
I've not seen any news reports stating that anybody saw 3 different Burmese men drinking on the beach that night and who became suspects other than the B2 and the witness who was with them.
For an observer to properly analyze the case, as well as a judge, it would be extremely important to know if these 3 men who were interrogated, DNA tested, and released right after the murders were in fact the accused B2 and their friend the witness.
I would think that this would be one of the very first things their defense attorney would determine, as well as the prosecutor. Because if the B2 were tested at that time and no match was found, then that blows a devastating hole in the prosecutor's case if it goes to trial.
BTW I'm not talking about the B2 being tested at the time there were photos of one and the witness standing in line ... I'm talking about even earlier than that, a couple of days after the murders.
-
4
fat elvis is open
in Chiang Mai
Posted · Edited by Bleacher Bum East
I've been to Fat Elvis three times. I think the burgers, ribs and buffalo chicken wings are all excellent. The two burgers I ordered medium were really good ... good quality meat, cooked perfectly as ordered and nice and juicy ... not dry or greasy which is the problem with other burger joints in town. The ribs are the only I've found in Chiang Mai that could accurately be described as falling off the bone so if you miss that then this is the place to come ... the bbq sauce is good but I like a bit more zing to mine, so I added a good dose of Tabasco to the extra sauce provided. The buffalo wings are my favorite in town ... very meaty and good recipe. Fries are also very good ... not greasy and I like the garlic mayo provided. Recommend adding A1 Steak Sauce to the condiments ... would go great with the burgers. I'll be a regular here for sure and would recommend it to anyone ... but will go in the hours when there's no karaoke because that's not my thing (I think karaoke is only after 9 or 10 pm but not sure).