Bleacher Bum East

" It has been two months since the brutal murders of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller on the Thai island of Koh Tao. The Thai authorities’ handling of the case has caused additional heartbreak for the victims’ families and damaged Thailand’s reputation as a tourist destination. It has also exposed the brutality of the country’s flawed justice system."

New article by the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/21/democracy-rule-law-thailand-murders-britons

Let the RTP Glee Club Rejoice in their association with this conspiracy!

I'm happy to see Hannah and David's case getting the continued publicity it deserves, and articles constructively discussing the problems with Thailand's justice system are good for the country . . .

But the problems with Thailand's justice system are long-term and run across governments by all political parties and non-political party institutions (i.e. the military).

They did not begin with the coup and they won't end with an election.

So this guy's transition from discussing how Hannah and David's case illustrates some of the problems with the system to using the attention (and internet hits) the title and content of his article will clearly gain him, to promoting an obvious agenda at the end of the article . . .

I think this comes across as disingenuous and exploitative.

Just look at the title: "Democracy and the rule of law must be restored to Thailand"

This of course presumes that the rule of law previously existed.

FYI, this is the full section on "Inquest Conclusions" from the UK's Crown Prosecution Service website [bold provided by me]:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/coroners/#a10

Inquest conclusions

There is no definitive list of conclusions available to a Coroner. The Coroner (with the assistance of a jury where appropriate) may apply one of the following verdicts once satisfied of the necessary facts to the required standard of proof ('on the balance of probabilities' rather than the criminal standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'). The following verdicts are those most commonly used by a Coroner when concluding the cause of death at an inquest:

• natural causes (including fatal medical conditions);
• accident or mis-adventure;
• dependence on drugs/non-dependent abuse of drugs (the latter is often recorded as accident or mis-adventure);
• attempted/self-induced abortion;
• disasters subject to public inquiry;
• self neglect or lack of care/neglect;
• suicide;
• unlawful killing;
• lawful killing (such as deaths caused during acts of war, or self defence);
• industrial disease; or
• open verdict (where there is insufficient evidence for any other verdict).

The commencement of the provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 have added two further possible conclusions to this list: 'alcohol/drug related death', and 'road traffic collision'.

Narrative verdicts

Coroners may also deliver a 'narrative verdict' which sets out the facts surrounding the death in more detail, explaining the reasons for the decision. The Coroner is also not bound by the list of suggested verdicts above; this means that as long as the Coroner can form a conclusion which is concise and indicates how the deceased came by their death, a narrative verdict is acceptable. The Coroner is unable to apportion any blame or civil or criminal liability of another individual (as defined by section 10(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009).

From Post #136 above: So it really isn't worth my time and effort to debate these issues with you any further, and after this post I won't do so.

So what is your time worth? You seem to have a lot of it for this issue.

The following are potential verdicts in a UK coroner's inquest:

Verdicts

The coroner can bring the following verdicts:

• Natural causes
• Accident or misadventure
• Suicide
• Narrative, which enables the coroner to set out the circumstances by which the death came about
• Unlawful killing
• Miscellaneous (drug dependence/industrial)
• Neglect
• Open, meaning that there is insufficient evidence to decide how the death came about – the case is left open in case further evidence appears.

http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/england-factsheets/inquests

Doesn't seem here there is much in doubt.

It is worth my time when I find a particular issue that I am interested in and feel that I have something to offer with my opinion and/or research findings that may help other people analyze the case and the issues involved. It is also worth my time to debate gray area issues with other posters when I feel both sides are presenting their arguments in an intellectually honest manner and at least taking the time to have some support, either reasoned or researched, for their arguments. This type of debate can lead to a better understanding on all sides and I would hope to learn just as much as I contribute to the discussion.

I have actually learned quite a bit from your posts, because you have put up links along the way that I may never have visited regarding issues I may never have thought of. But I think that if you are going to post a link you need to take the time to read all relevant parts, understand what type of law it is that is being applied to the facts, and understand what is black and white in the law versus what requires interpretation and is therefore gray.

The issue that you've raised in this post is also an interesting one that is very relevant to the case, i.e. what will be the scope of the coroner's verdict and report once the inquest is complete.

You've once again presented this as a black and white issue: "Doesn't seem here there is much doubt".

But the fact that "Coroners may also deliver a 'narrative verdict' which sets out the facts surrounding the death in more detail, explaining the reasons for the decision" makes it very much in doubt as to what will be included in the coroner's report.

This comes directly from the Crown Prosecution Service website:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/coroners/#a10

No citation you offered covered cases which could never be tried in a UK court

Once again:

This is a direct quote from Section 39 of the Second Report of Session 2005–06 of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee titled "Application of the sub

In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there is an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons.

Source : wiki

There's no case before a court nor the risk of a case being before a court in the UK.

Thus no witnesses in a court case etc

Are you serious?

That's your response to my comment?

A Wikipedia article with no citations related to English law and this banner on top: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

No defense of or citation for your use of the phrase "judicial action", another in a growing list of legal terms you have thrown out for which you had no support and which were misleadingly irrelevant to the discussion.

No response to the several citations I provided to reliable UK sources regarding UK law.

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold others every day JD.

And please tell me, how would you respond to this direct quote from Section 39 of the Second Report of Session 2005–06 of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee titled "Application of the sub

I'm sure an un-sourced Wiki article trumps a UK House of Commons report any day

The only possible excluded people and or news agencies would be from the UK.

So still nobody speaking?

Not one German, Italian, Spanish, French, Israeli.... American, Russian, Irish... Nobody.

I do not know where you get the time, to scour all press from these countries is impressive. Maybe they have spoken and it has been reported to the police? we don't know. Because it has not been reported does not make it untrue and again because it has been reported does not make it true. It is uncommon but not unheard of for a particular countries press to be interested in another countries citizens murdered in a third country by persons unknown and then even more uncommon for them to pay for this information. If it did happen this information would then be passed on to police and Soutpeel amongst others has told you why it would not be divulged.

BTW as far as I have been able to determine, since there will be no judicial action in the UK, there is no sub judice reasons that could be applied here

JD: How did you determine that the term "judicial action" is appropriate to determining if sub judice applies?

Can you tell us how you have made the determination that sub judice would not apply to a coroner's inquest because there will be no "judicial action"?

Links to relevant sections of UK statutory or case law?

As far as I have been able to determine, sub judice applies to "legal proceedings" and that the coroner's inquest is a legal proceeding to which sub judice applies.

I assume you disagree with the reasons and support that were given to you on a previous thread as to why this is the case.

Can you tell us why you disagree?

Here is the support for my determination:

http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/contempt-and-reporting-legal-proceedings/contempt-or-sub-judice-rules

"Also known as the 'sub-judice' rules, contempt is a criminal offence. There are two types of contempt: statutory and common law. Both involve interfering with legal proceedings in the UK...."

https://www.gov.uk/g...po-coroners.pdf

What jdinasia is saying is that your expertise and analysis are bogus and there are no witnesses that have come forward. If there were they would be part of the case.

If a landscape painter is not accredited by the Worldwide Landscape Painting Society, is that person an inept artist? As a fellow human being, I can put one and one together and get two. There are other things I'm as or more adept at than trained 'experts' in their field, would you like a list.

No witnesses? Perhaps you mean: 'there are no witnesses who have a death wish for themselves and their families.'

Point - not one of the people on the island has come forward to state publicly that anyone other than the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers is involved. This includes foreigners on the island that night.

Hello, there are farang witnesses who have been and are willing to speak up re; the scenario in the bar (and other scenarios) that night. Most of them have left the island. Their testimony is still relevant even if they're not on the island. Because JD and Thai officials don't want to hear anything which might implicate the headman's people or show the Burmese to be scapegoats, ....you'all either:

>>>> don't hear it, or

>>>> claim it's conspiracy theory, or

>>>> claim it's bogus, or

>>>> claim it's inadmissible in court, or

>>>> threaten character assassination lawsuits

In sum, Thai officials are doing everything possible, including outlandish maneuverings, to shield the headman's people from scrutiny in this case.

So why no public statements from any of these people?

There's two ways to look at the fact that no witnesses have made any public statements that implicate any particular person or persons in the trial.

One is like you have said . . . that they have nothing material to offer and that is why they have been silent.

But don't you think it's strange that no farang witness has said anything about anything that happened that night, material to the case or otherwise?

If they really were free to speak to the press as you have posited, you would think that they would have been interviewed about what happened that night, even if it turned out to be seemingly benign.

And witnesses present in the bar, etc. and not seeing anything strange actually is important information. Some news organization would have recognized that and reported it if they were allowed to do so and witnesses were allowed to speak.

So although it's impossible to say with certainty, my inference is that the reason no farang witness has said anything about anything publicly is that they've been told by British authorities that they cannot.

It's already been discussed on TVC what grounds they would have to do so.

Yes, a still frame can be "Photoshopped", and when you then compare it with the other frames in the footage it would stand up like a sore thumb, not very useful is it?

So, more hypothetical and speculation, were are the actual facts?

I wasn't hypothesizing or speculating anything . . . I was just curious and I didn't know the answer.

In fact I haven't gotten involved one way or the other in the discussion about whether any particular individual should be a prime suspect/ a person of interest/has been cleared and therefore should be out of the discussion entirely/should never have been a suspect, etc. etc.

I'm interested in whether a professional, fair and thorough investigation and trial takes place, because if that happens it provides the best chance for justice and taking the killers "off the street". So when relevant I put in my two cents worth about what would go into such an investigation and trial...as well as arguments available to both sides on gray areas.

Regarding a professional, thorough and fair investigation, A CCTV analysis including facial mapping of the running man in the Koh Tao video would provide "actual facts", wouldn't it? [This is the CCTV footage I was referring to when I spoke about analysis and mapping in my last post as well]

So I believe one should be performed if it hasn't already ... I make no prediction or speculation about what the results would show because I have no idea what they would show.

And as far as a professional, thorough and fair investigation goes, your response does beg an obvious question:

If a photo-shopped still frame would stand out like a sore thumb when compared to other frames in a piece of footage, it would make sense to review those other frames as well, wouldn't it? This would also provide "actual facts".

BTW I do agree with you that in most cases "the absence of evidence is not evidence" . . . although in some cases such an absence could be circumstantial evidence in and of itself, especially when viewed in combination with other circumstantial evidence.

Also, as an expert have you provided your analysis and opinion about the feasibility of changing dates on video footage, and whether that may or may not have occurred in this case? Do you have enough publicly available information to perform that analysis? If you do, I'd be interested in your expert opinion and the reasons behind it. Again, I have no idea as I know nothing about the subject, but am interested in what you think.

What I think is that it's exceedingly easy to throw hypotheticals around to rationalize a reason to dismiss evidence. Everyone and their dog has seen the footage (not just a still frame) of the man in question, so the "photoshopped" still frame theory is baloney.

Yes the CCTV footage can be tampered with, where is the evidence for that?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that places the headman's son in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and in the crime scene, endless discussions and accusations yet... zero actual evidence.

Now there are at least two reasons for that, first because there is no such evidence because he wasn't there and didn't commit the crime or second a vast conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people in Thailand and abroad to suppress all the evidence. Now which one is more likely?

"What I think is that it's exceedingly easy to throw hypotheticals around to rationalize a reason to dismiss evidence."

I agree, that's why I don't do it in general, and don't draw definitive conclusions if I do. But good investigators throw hypothetical possibilities around all the time . . . and then follow up to see if they can be proven true or false.

Everyone and their dog has seen the footage (not just a still frame) of the man in question, so the "photoshopped" still frame theory is baloney.

I had forgotten the footage was available ... I tend to agree with you on this.

Yes the CCTV footage can be tampered with, where is the evidence for that?

This is what I was asking you . . . as an expert do you see any evidence the time display was tampered with?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that places the headman's son in Koh Tao at the time of the murders and in the crime scene, endless discussions and accusations yet... zero actual evidence.

I agree that there is zero actual evidence that has been made public as far as I'm aware of . . . whether there is any evidence that has not been made public I have no idea.

A CCTV analysis including facial mapping would presumably rule him out as being the running man if he wasn't on the island. So you would think that he would encourage this analysis to be performed since it is non-invasive and doubts still linger (see The Guardian not just social media).

Again, I have no idea what it would show, just that it should be done.

Do you agree?

Now there are at least two reasons for that, first because there is no such evidence because he wasn't there and didn't commit the crime or second a vast conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people in Thailand and abroad to suppress all the evidence. Now which one is more likely?

Yes those are two of the possible reasons for that . . . and I agree that the first is more likely than the second.

But there are many more possible reasons in between. . .

And I have no idea as between the first and other possible reasons.

Neither I nor anybody else on TVC has enough information to declare anybody guilty at this point.

So confident about what? That absence of evidence is not evidence? Yes, I am very confident that is so, I don't need CCTV footage to validate that statement because it's based on elementary logic.

http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/cctv-video-forensic-image-analysis.asp

Since you're an expert I assume you know about CCTV analysis and "facial mapping" as described in this link.

This is a UK company and I think it's safe to assume the UK investigators have the same capability.

You would expect that the Thai police have performed a CCTV analysis like this, including facial mapping of anyone at anytime who was a person of interest in the crime. And that this analysis would show with a fairly high level of probability whether the person seen in the CCTV footage was one of the accused or another person they have identified at any point as a person of interest (not just the accused and not just any one particular person, but any person of interest).

I think the family of the victims, the media, Thai citizens wanting integrity and safety for their country, the accused and their defense attorneys, etc. have a right to ask whether this type of common investigative analysis has been performed and what where the results. And if CCTV analysis of this type wasn't performed, why not?

BTW in your debate about whether CCTV can be photo-shopped: it wasn't claimed that CCTV footage was photo-shopped, it was claimed a still from the footage was. I'm curious to know whether that is possible. Can you answer?

Yes, a still frame can be "Photoshopped", and when you then compare it with the other frames in the footage it would stand up like a sore thumb, not very useful is it?

So, more hypothetical and speculation, were are the actual facts?

I wasn't hypothesizing or speculating anything . . . I was just curious and I didn't know the answer.

In fact I haven't gotten involved one way or the other in the discussion about whether any particular individual should be a prime suspect/ a person of interest/has been cleared and therefore should be out of the discussion entirely/should never have been a suspect, etc. etc.

I'm interested in whether a professional, fair and thorough investigation and trial takes place, because if that happens it provides the best chance for justice and taking the killers "off the street". So when relevant I put in my two cents worth about what would go into such an investigation and trial...as well as arguments available to both sides on gray areas.

Regarding a professional, thorough and fair investigation, A CCTV analysis including facial mapping of the running man in the Koh Tao video would provide "actual facts", wouldn't it? [This is the CCTV footage I was referring to when I spoke about analysis and mapping in my last post as well]

So I believe one should be performed if it hasn't already ... I make no prediction or speculation about what the results would show because I have no idea what they would show.

And as far as a professional, thorough and fair investigation goes, your response does beg an obvious question:

If a photo-shopped still frame would stand out like a sore thumb when compared to other frames in a piece of footage, it would make sense to review those other frames as well, wouldn't it? This would also provide "actual facts".

BTW I do agree with you that in most cases "the absence of evidence is not evidence" . . . although in some cases such an absence could be circumstantial evidence in and of itself, especially when viewed in combination with other circumstantial evidence.

Also, as an expert have you provided your analysis and opinion about the feasibility of changing dates on video footage, and whether that may or may not have occurred in this case? Do you have enough publicly available information to perform that analysis? If you do, I'd be interested in your expert opinion and the reasons behind it. Again, I have no idea as I know nothing about the subject, but am interested in what you think.

Why yes, I am in fact an expert on video editing and visual effects, thanks for asking.

Just so you know, Photoshop is an image manipulation software, it is not used for video.

What I'm telling you is that the absence of evidence is not good enough to prove the headman's son was on the island.

Now, where is the evidence that the (social media) accused was in Koh Tao at the time and committed the murders?

If you had available all cctv from the island that night, and it had not been tempered with, would you be so confident?

So confident about what? That absence of evidence is not evidence? Yes, I am very confident that is so, I don't need CCTV footage to validate that statement because it's based on elementary logic.

http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/cctv-video-forensic-image-analysis.asp

Since you're an expert I assume you know about CCTV analysis and "facial mapping" as described in this link.

This is a UK company and I think it's safe to assume the UK investigators have the same capability.

You would expect that the Thai police have performed a CCTV analysis like this, including facial mapping of anyone at anytime who was a person of interest in the crime. And that this analysis would show with a fairly high level of probability whether the person seen in the CCTV footage was one of the accused or another person they have identified at any point as a person of interest (not just the accused and not just any one particular person, but any person of interest).

I think the family of the victims, the media, Thai citizens wanting integrity and safety for their country, the accused and their defense attorneys, etc. have a right to ask whether this type of common investigative analysis has been performed and what where the results. And if CCTV analysis of this type wasn't performed, why not?

BTW in your debate about whether CCTV can be photo-shopped: it wasn't claimed that CCTV footage was photo-shopped, it was claimed a still from the footage was. I'm curious to know whether that is possible. Can you answer?

Missed it again in the end.

Trial in any media much less anonymous social media is dangerous.

Claiming it helps solve a crime by anonymously accusing people who have been excluded by investigation actually deserves defamation charges.

So what role do you think the news media should play in a case like this?

What do you think is the range of appropriate responses for people on social media in a case like this?

A dozen years in the city, very often out and about all areas of the city at all times of night, a wide circle of friends who are also often out late at night . . . and I've never known any farang in Chiang Mai who has experienced this type of direct confrontation and robbery.

(I did hear in the English language news about one instance a couple of years ago where two farang woman were robbed about 2 am in front of a 7-11 near Chang Puak Gate, and of course have heard about motorcycle drive-by robberies but almost all not involving farang).

But unlike those who think the fact that this rarely happens here makes it non-newsworthy, I think that's exactly what does make it newsworthy and highly worrisome.

Yes, common sense needs to be used . . . single female travelers should not wander a small soi alone really late at night anywhere in the world. But many guesthouses in Chiang Mai are on small sois, and 9-10 at night or even midnight has never been a problem for females in Chiang Mai before, and even later than that if you are not alone. (I personally have never been worried going anywhere alone in Chiang Mai at anytime of the night)

Chiang Mai has always been a place where you could be out late at night and not really worry about this kind of assault happening, and that has been one of the things that makes it a great place to live and visit. If this kind of robbery (and the inevitable physical assaults that will come along with it) becomes common, it will change the entire nature of the city.

I really hope that doesn't happen.

It still does not change the fact that what you wrote was actually not stated in the article and was factually wrong according to the quote I posted.

Yes, the current charge may well fit the crime, but I dare you to find any criminal code anywhere where any form of assault (not leading to death) is a more serious crime than attempted murder :-)

Further in criminal cases the prosecution will usually (if not always) go for the most severe charge, at least till a deal is struck.

MonkeyCountry, I will ask once again--Do you have any knowledge of Thai Criminal Law? Or are you attempting to apply the laws of your own country here in Thailand?

I am interested in facts--not in assumptions made by posters who rant and rave about how bad Thailand is.

Are the statements you have made based on knowledge of Thai Law and Precedent?

-----------

Now here are the points I made that disproved your claim the police had been incompetent:

Within hours the RTP have

-- identified the attackers,

-- arrested the attackers,

-- located the weapon used in the assault,

-- gotten statements of guilt from the attackers, and

-- are ready to pursue additional charges.

Each of these statements is true and clearly indicated in the article. In other words, your accusation failed at all levels. You cannot prove your claim of incompetence.

If you can then please do so now. Otherwise, you are offering a straw-man argument because you got called for your BS.

BTW, some posters could easily misinterpret your username as being a racist moniker against the Thai people, ie a country full of monkeys.

Thailand Penal Code

https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/Thailand/THA_Pena_CodeEN.pdf

See:

• Book I Chapter 5 on Attempt
• Book II Title X Chapter 1 on Offense Causing Death
• Book II Title X Chapter 2 on Offenses Against the Body

Bottom Line:

• Attempted Murder carries a sentence of 10-13 years
• Committing Grievous Bodily Harm carries a sentence of 6 months-10 years (maybe 2 yrs-10 yrs in this case)

So Attempted Murder carries a minimum sentence of 10 years, and Committing Grievous Bodily Harm carries a minimum sentence of 6 months-2 years.

That's a big difference.

I recollect the police saying that David had wounds and his hands etc indicating he had fought vigorously to defend himself from his attackers. Also that that were searching for another blunt instrument (though at the time to be a stick or piece of wood) that was used on David, as it coudn't have been the hoe due to the lack of his blood found on it. However, it was not the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, who said that. It was another policeman or a journalist who said that. I am sure the clips and articles are still available online, if you want to research it. Any suggestion that David fought back or was stabbed, or that there was a second murder weapon was eliminated from police accounts soon after that. However, there has been no convincing explanation of how he sustained the stab wounds, nor any further report of wounds to his hands or back, nor any explanation of why there were no traces of his blood on the hoe, since it has been assumed to be the sole murder weapon.

The initial crime scene report which is available online posited that the victims were surprised with blows from the hoe while engaging in sexual intercourse and the confession signed by the 2B was almost identical, as if the 2B were unable to add anything much to what the police had already surmised, (the pancake man added the large wine bottle as an alternative murder weapon but this seems to have been his own original contribution). This version has the advantage of being able to explain how two tiny little men were able to overpower a large man and a woman and avoids the problem of a second, missing murder weapon of a type more usually carried by local thugs and bouncers than newly arrived Burmese workers, even though it fails to explain the absence of David's blood on the hoe. The original version involving David fighting back would automatically lead to an assumption that 3 or more attackers were involved. If he fought one pint sized Burmese boy (a hoe is only an effective weapon if the victim is taken by surprise or being held down, since you can see it coming and can disarm your attacker if you are much bigger than him), he would have won and Hannah probably could have escaped from the other pint sized boy while the fight was still going on by biting and scratching him. The explanation in the crime scene report and the confession is virtually the only one possible, if the 2B are the perps. Anything at variance with that seems to have been glossed over or ignored.

BTW the phrase used in the autopsy report and by the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine for a blunt instrument is "song kheng mi khom", literally "a hard, blunt instrument."

"The original version involving David fighting back would automatically lead to an assumption that 3 or more attackers were involved."

Here's some pure speculation to chew on:

When the two accused Burmese men were arrested, their friend who was on the beach with them was also arrested (and this friend's DNA was on the cigarette butt---i.e. the third set of DNA).

So at the time of the arrests, the police likely did think they had captured three "perpetrators",

and this would match up with the "theory of the case" they had constructed as to how the rape and murder went down---and three killers would have a much higher degree of public credibility than two.

But the the third Burmese man inconveniently had an airtight alibi, which pretty much blew the "theory of the case" right out of the water.

So the arrests didn't quite pan out as expected . . . and therefore it was necessary to improvise and run with a two killer theory rather than three.

My recollection is that the two of you made these posts immediately after I had posted that in some reports around Sept. 18, immediately after the forensic autopsy was performed at the forensics hospital in Bangkok, the police and the chief of forensics had stated that a weapon other than the hoe was used on David.

My post was then removed because someone reported that it had direct quotes from a source we are not allowed to quote on this forum (even though I don't believe there were any direct quotes).

In these reports, the police said the hoe was used and only Hannah's blood was found on it. They also said that another weapon might have been wielded by the killers on David, and that second weapon used to bludgeon him was likely a metal object.

The chief of the Institute of Forensic Medicine also spoke with reporters after the autopsy (i.e. not just the specific media org). He said that by examining the wounds they couldn't tell exactly what types of weapons [plural] the killers used, only that the objects were "blunt". [i'd like to see the Thai word this was translated from, and know whether it is a term of art in forensics and what that term refers to].

In any event, I think you can infer (but not know for sure) that right after the initial forensics exam the Thai authorities did not believe that the hoe was the weapon used to kill both David and Hannah. I think there are other similar reports on this but don't have time to find them right now.

BTW, the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine also said that David had wounds on his hands and bruises on his back, and these wounds were an indication that he likely had a fight with whoever attacked him and was pulled down to the sand in that fight.

Edit: There were also reports that day that it was British embassy staff who arranged for Hannah and David's bodies to be released from the Institute of Forensic Medicine just after the autopsy for transport back to England---suggesting the British government arranged for the transportation of the bodies and not the families, who did not arrive until the next day.

Also reports on the detention and DNA testing of 3 Burmese who were drinking near the crime scene that night. I wonder who those guys were?

All interesting reading from reports right after the murders. Worth a Google.

PS There are no direct quotes from any source in this comment.

I recollect the police saying that David had wounds and his hands etc indicating he had fought vigorously to defend himself from his attackers. Also that that were searching for another blunt instrument (though at the time to be a stick or piece of wood) that was used on David, as it coudn't have been the hoe due to the lack of his blood found on it. However, it was not the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine, who said that. It was another policeman or a journalist who said that. I am sure the clips and articles are still available online, if you want to research it. Any suggestion that David fought back or was stabbed, or that there was a second murder weapon was eliminated from police accounts soon after that. However, there has been no convincing explanation of how he sustained the stab wounds, nor any further report of wounds to his hands or back, nor any explanation of why there were no traces of his blood on the hoe, since it has been assumed to be the sole murder weapon.

The initial crime scene report which is available online posited that the victims were surprised with blows from the hoe while engaging in sexual intercourse and the confession signed by the 2B was almost identical, as if the 2B were unable to add anything much to what the police had already surmised, (the pancake man added the large wine bottle as an alternative murder weapon but this seems to have been his own original contribution). This version has the advantage of being able to explain how two tiny little men were able to overpower a large man and a woman and avoids the problem of a second, missing murder weapon of a type more usually carried by local thugs and bouncers than newly arrived Burmese workers, even though it fails to explain the absence of David's blood on the hoe. The original version involving David fighting back would automatically lead to an assumption that 3 or more attackers were involved. If he fought one pint sized Burmese boy (a hoe is only an effective weapon if the victim is taken by surprise or being held down, since you can see it coming and can disarm your attacker if you are much bigger than him), he would have won and Hannah probably could have escaped from the other pint sized boy while the fight was still going on by biting and scratching him. The explanation in the crime scene report and the confession is virtually the only one possible, if the 2B are the perps. Anything at variance with that seems to have been glossed over or ignored.

BTW the phrase used in the autopsy report and by the deputy commander of the police Institute of Forensic Medicine for a blunt instrument is "song kheng mi khom", literally "a hard, blunt instrument."

"BTW, the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine also said that David had wounds on his hands and bruises on his back, and these wounds were an indication that he likely had a fight with whoever attacked him and was pulled down to the sand in that fight."

The source I was referring to did not get the information from the police, it was in fact the chief of the Institute for Forensic Medicine who said this right after the forensic autopsy was performed.

Google: Koh Tao murders AND still no arrests AND September 18.

Read all of the reports from this day and you get a lot of contemporaneous information that is very interesting.

If the B2 ever get to face a Thai trial judge(s) can someone with relevant knowledge please tell me whether the proceedings will be witnessed by any media/general public, apart from lawyers, RTP, Military and Influentials. Jd has already opined that there might not be a transcript of the trial. IMHO any attempt to suppress the full content of the trial proceedings will be met with justified condemnation of the Thai Justice system.

Thanks to those whose only wish is to see truth and justice prevail above vested interests, there will be a 'jury' of many thousands, if not millions carefully studying the outcome, and I think the trial judge(s) is acutely aware that he will also be 'judged' by the world at large as to how he performs on the day, if that day ever arrives.

There is no transcript made of Thai trials. The judge sums up what he feels are the salient points at the end of each day and dictates them into a dictaphone. Often judges are reassigned during the course of a trial and a new judge with no prior knowledge of the case takes over. His only means of finding out what has happened to date is to listen to the commentary recorded by his predecessor. Journalists are allowed in the courtroom but judges usually dislike them taking notes and often specifically prohibit note taking. It is illegal for journalists to publish anything about the trial until it is finished which may take years, as the court usually only convenes once a month for each case with sessions often postponed endlessly when some one (often a police officer) doesn't show up to give evidence. Judges may publish their rulings at the end but transcripts are not published because their aren't any.

The Thai justice system, in addition to the police, is desperately need of reform but that doesn't seem on the agenda at the moment. Defendants are heavily pressurised to plead guilty (even without torture) and threatened with much more severe sentences, if they don't, without having the details of the prosecution's case to help them and their lawyers make a decision. Tiny bail is often given (e.g. B20k in the case of the guy who murdered the Danish man's wife in front of multiple witnesses in a recent thread which is the same as the bail for drunk driving.) In other cases no bail is given for relatively petty offences like defamation.

One of the worst deficiencies of the Thai justice system IMHO is that, unlike in English common law jurisdictions where judges are appointed from the ranks of successful (and wealthy) senior barristers, or trial lawyers, Thai judges are taken on straight from university based on exams (we know what that means) and connections. They serve time in the provinces until they can secure a post in Bangkok (we also know what that means). Unlike barristers who are already financially successful when they are called to the bench, the only way Thai judges can become rich is while sitting on the bench. The whole system is a blueprint for corruption.

Regarding the question of why the 2B told the HNCR they committed the crimes, this has already been explained by the Burmese lawyer. He said that the 2B didn't trust the Thai HNCR at first or even the Burmese lawyer or the folk from the Burmese embassy. This is because they thought the HNCR were really from the police and they would be tortured again if they didn't repeat the confession story. Since the pancake interpreter had told them he was from the Burmese embassy and then beat them, they didn't trust the embassy folk or the Burmese lawyer at first either. According to him, they only started to trust them and tell them the truth after they brought their parents to see them.

"There is no transcript made of Thai trials. The judge sums up what he feels are the salient points at the end of each day and dictates them into a dictaphone.

I have a question ... and I have no experience in a Thai courtroom so I don't know the answer.

A lawyer practicing in Thailand wrote that a Thai judge records the trial and that all testimony will be placed in a computer file by a clerk, and that the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court is charged with setting regulations that determine the type of recording the judges must use.

Google: www.buriramexpats.com and Criminal Law in Thailand and 12/12/2010.

So is the judge's summary that you are describing the "recording" this other lawyer is describing?

And there is no other transcript of the trial or the witnesses testimony?

Do you either have a source I could look at (out of interest) or have broad enough experience in Thai courts to answer this definitively?

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

Different situations

Interpreter present in the situation with the NHRC commissioner. Verbal spontaneous confession

"Verbal spontaneous confession"

Where is your link with a video proving that the accused Burmese men were not asked any questions about whether they committed the crime, no police were present when they spoke to the NHRC commissioner, and shows the entire circumstances surrounding this supposed "confession" to prove that it was in fact "spontaneous"?

If you don't have one, then your description of this as a "spontaneous confession" is, as you like to say, pure speculation and a conspiracy theory...not to mention potential defamation.

Exactly who would it defame?

I refer you back to the statement by the NHRC commissioner for how the confessions came about in his and his team 's presence.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tourist-murder-suspects-confess-human-rights-commissioner/

There is nothing in the NHRC commissioners "statement" that proves in any way the "confessions" were spontaneous.

Again, your comment that the confessions to the NHRC commissioner were "Verbal spontaneous confession" is pure speculation with no backup support at all to show that what you claim is true.

So do you think it's OK to accuse somebody of spontaneously confessing to a crime without any proof that what you said is true?

Would that constitute defamation by your understanding of the term?

You can answer how you like, but whatever way you answer it will set a "precedent" for what you consider to constitute defamation . . . but of course you are in Thailand, and in Thailand precedent is not binding

A confession extorted as result of alleged torture and with no lawyer present is not considered a lie in any court in any country. Quite the reverse

A confession freely given after being informed of rights is admissible in most places. A second spontaneous confession given to a human rights commissioner with no threats and after rights are explained would almost always be admissible.

The judges will decide the admissibility of the confessions.

Yes, judges do rule on admissions and VOLUNTARINESS of confessions. I am sure if you had been the B2's position, you would have confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Nowhere in the Western world would an investigation like this be accepted. I invite you to look at USA and Canada, where courts have ruled on confessions to police. There is a landmark decision in Canada in regards to admissions R. V. Oickle. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1801/index.do

When a police officer interrogates someone, there needs to be PROOF that the accused was NOT tortured, threatened or induced to confess. To do this without video and audio brings a huge doubt into the confession. We saw the accused on the railway rape and murder being SLAPPED on video by the RTP during his interrogation. If you believe that these men were NOT treated the same way, you are certainly out to lunch.

I am in Thailand, not Canada. In Thailand legal precedent is not binding.

BTW I think the confession in the railway case stood.

"In Thailand legal precedent is not binding."

You say this often, but what do you mean when you say it? How do you think that applicable precedent will impact the trial in this case if it every occurs?

Are you implying that if the two accused Burmese men are brought to trial in a case under a tremendous spotlight, that the judges will simply ignore legal precedent set by Thailand's higher courts and interpret the law in whatever way they see fit?

"In the Kingdom of Thailand, judicial precedent is not binding on lower courts. The Supreme Court of Justice is not bound to follow its own decisions, and lower courts are not bound to follow precedents set by higher courts. In practice, however, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice do have significant influence on the Supreme Court of Justice itself and on lower courts."

http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Thailand.htm

The law firm in the above link has also written that in Thailand, if the judge excludes evidence then he must put a written explanation of why he excluded the evidence in the trial record . . . and therefore his legal reasoning if flawed will be subject to review by appellate court judges. I assume (but do not know for sure) that this means that if he admits evidence over an objection, then the same will occur.

Google: "www.buriramexpats.com and Criminal Law in Thailand and 12/12/2010"

And in this case, the judges' legal reasoning will also be subject to review by a slew of international observers looking on to determine whether the trial and verdict were fair.

Why do people make such loooooong posts . 2 or 3 posts short and to the point works best.

If you don't have the attention span to read the infrequent longer posts that provide some useful information and insight that might help you follow and analyze the case more accurately, then no worries just scroll through them.

The same way I scroll through the hundreds of 2-3 line posts that provide absolutely no useful information or insight into the case.

I realize that's a broad generalization that may appear unfair to some posters, but since this is my third sentence and you want me to stop here, I won't take any more of our time to provide any support or explanation for my claim