Bleacher Bum East

In light of the appalling mess of the so called investigation by the RTP its human nature to speculate. Its human nature to question whats really going on, its human nature to look for alternative theories based on the incredible cock up the RTP have made of this on every level.

We are not robots conditioned to obey the RTP line. We have education and intelligence that teaches us to ask questions and be critical. The RTP have now realized that Thai people because of social media are now also doing this.

Some of the theories posted on here are way off the mark, but some seem more than plausible and in the absence of a trusted RTP investigation then those who question and demand the truth will continue.

The RTP club labels this as 'conspiracy theroy' and attacks posts with this as its only defense. Very easy and very lazy to do so. As a result they themselves illicit these so called attacks on them.

They would gain much more respect if they actually debated the issues rather than take the RTP line in this, ie we have suspects and once charged they will be taken to court, full stop, anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist!

There is nothing lazy about calling a conspiracy theory out for what it is.

I am unaware of any person on TVF saying that there are no issues with the RTP investigation.

What IS clear is that many people are claiming to "know exactly what happened" or "everyone knows exactly who did it "...

Those claims are patently untrue.

What we do know is that the RTP has conducted an investigation. The 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have a legal team to defend them.

The 2 Burmese men confessed more than one time. One confession was to a member of the NHRC.

What is needed now is a trial with a vigorous defense, not more conspiracy theories.

Retracted confessions more than once too. What happened there?

They lied. Which time and under what circumstances, was the lie will be up to the judges.

They will have a hard time explaining why they lied to the NHRC commissioner.

You really need to understand the difference between lying, and being coerced (by torture) into confessing. It is not up to you to determine if they are telling porky pies. In your words, that is up to the judge (and jury LOL) to decide.

Poor semantics on your part. 2 statements, one is not true, one is a lie.

There is no jury system here.

An untrue statement made by a person who reasonably fears he will suffer physical harm if he tells the truth is not a "lie".

A "lie" in normal usage involves an intention to deceive.

If it is demonstrated the accused reasonably feared for their life if they did not confess and maintain that confession, then neither their "confession" during interrogation or to the HRC commissioner was a "lie".

If the prosecutor attempted to characterize their confession to the HRC commissioner as a "lie", then a good defense lawyer would immediately object that this is personal opinion not supported by the evidence and intended to mislead and prejudice the case, and a good judge would agree and order the statement removed from the record and not used by the prosecutor again.

In my opinion, this is how an independent observer making a determination of whether the trial was fair would view the matter.

Since a number of people have expressed interest in the autopsy report, I have taken the trouble to translate the one page extract from the report that has been posted online. It is unverified and lacks the preamble and signature pages among other things but is consistent with media reports that have appeared and seems likely to be genuine.

" Page 3

4.1.1. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by a hard blunt instrument consistent with the item referred to in the report (hoe found at the crime scene).

4.1.2. The area of the vagina exhibited signs of sexual assault.

4.1.3. Results of toxology.

4.1.3.1. No traces of psychotropics or psychoactive substances in the urine or blood.

4.1.3.2. No toxins from food found in the digestive tract.

4.1.4. Results of biochemical analysis.

4.1.4.1. In the area of the right nipple DNA was found from two individuals, Mr B and Mr C (assigned names).

4.1.4.2. Inside the vagina semen and DNA of Mr B was found.

4.1.4.3. In the vulva semen and DNA of Mr B and Mr C was found.

4.1.4. Cause of death. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by violent blows from a blunt instrument.

4.2. Autopsy report on the body of Mr David William Miller.

4.2.1. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by a hard blunt instrument consistent with the item referred in the report (hoe found at the crime scene).

4.2.2. No signs of sexual assault.

4.2.3. Water found in both sides of the chest cavity. Water induced swelling in both lungs.

4.2.4. Results of toxology.

4.2.4.1. No traces of psychotropics or other psychoactive substances in the urine or blood.

4.2.4.2. No toxins from food found in the digestive tract.

4.2.5. Results of biochemical analysis. No semen found in the anus. "

In the widely vewed interview with Sorayud on Channel 3 that can be found on Youtube, the deputy commander of the Institute of Forensic Science at the Police General Hospital, Police Colonel Dr Bhavat Prateepvisrut presented findings from the autopsy that seem identical to this report.

Bhavat Channel 3.jpg

On 12 October Komchadluek also published an article that reported on the results of the autopsy using the same language as the extract that is translated above.

In addition, Komchadluek also reported that the police had explained the reason why they thought there was no DNA found inside the condom found at the scene with Hanna's blood on the outside. According to Komchadluek, police said that the condom was probably an old one left on the beach and that the blood on the outside of it was dripped from the hoe while the perpetrators were using it to murder her.

I am confused about this theory about the condom as I was under the impression that the condom was found at the spot where David's clothes and a large spatter of David's blood were found, whereas most of Hannah's blood was found by the rock where her body was found but I may be wrong on this point.

Thanks for the time and effort you've put into this. I'm hoping we're not going to have a troll come along to try and discredit it

I think the report you posted could not be the entire official forensic autopsy report for the following reasons:

The official report must surely contain a "touch DNA" analysis of Hannah and David's clothing and bodies, which would surely show that at least they had each other's DNA on their bodies and clothes if they were in fact in close contact, and would also show the DNA of anybody else that had touched their clothing (surely the perpetrator of the rape) and grabbed their bodies.

The official report must surely contain a toxicology analysis of Hannah and David's hair . . . because date rape drugs dissipate very quickly in the blood and urine, and a hair analysis is the only way to confirm or eliminate the presence of date rape drugs--- and a hair analysis can be done for a month or more afterwards and still get accurate results.

The official report must surely contain a detailed forensics analysis of the wounds, including size and angle of attack, etc. as well as an analysis of the material that caused the wounds ( a jagged weapon would leave a certain type of wound; a glass or wood, etc. would leave tiny shards or splinters behind). And since the initial comments by the director of forensics and police after the forensic autopsy was performed stated that they believed a second metalic weapon was used on David, the forensic analysis would opine as to the nature of that weapon.

The official report must surely contain an analysis of any defensive wounds on Hannah and David's body.

• If Hannah had zero defensive wounds including bruises, then that would tell you in all probability she wasn't even restrained before being killed as well as raped.
• If David did have defensive wounds including bruises on his back and wounds on his hands, and therefore probably had a fight with his attacker and was dragged or knocked down to the sand, as initially stated by the chief of the Institute if Forensic Medicine right after the forensic autopsy was performed, then that would tell you in all probability he was not rendered unconscious by an initial blow to the back of the head. And if he was rendered unconscious with one blow and didn't fight back, then the forensic autopsy report would surely opine as to why he had wounds on his chin and front upper chest area, bruises on his back, wounds on his hands, etc.

Also, the initial reports said the bodies were transported to the Institute of Forensic Science at the Police General Hospital in Bangkok and that is where the initial forensic autopsy was performed, so the official autopsy could not have been performed in Koh Tao.

For all these reasons, while interesting I can't believe that what you translated is the complete official forensic autopsy results. The official autopsy that has not been published surely contains a large amount of crucial information that is not included in the one you translated.

I have described what I translated and you can find it online for yourself and form an opinion as to whether you believe it was a part of the official autopsy report or not. You can also compare it to the Channel 3 interview of the deputy commander of the police's Institute of Forensic Medicine where gives information that is an exact match with what is translated here - nothing more, nothing less. You may also compare with all the reports in the Thai language press that also convey the same information. If the pathologists analysed all the other points you mentioned, they have apparently not shared any of this information with the Thai media, despite the police's apparent lack of inhibitions in publicising intimate details of murder investigations and the individual and often conflicting hunches of many different officers.

I didn't say in the post that the autopsy was performed in Koh Tao. I believe it was performed at the IFM at the Police General Hospital. If you look back at my earlier posts, you will see that a document headed "Autopsy Report" in Thai has also been posted online which is signed by a doctor at the Koh Tao hospital which caused some confusion. However, despite the fact that document was on a form headed "Autopsy Report" it seems that would have been better headed "Crime Scene Report". Nevertheless, it is interesting that what police and the doctor described as their assumption as to what took place in this crime scene report document apparently foreshadowed so closely the confession of the 2B including the suggestion that the victims were surprised by the perpetrators having sex on the beach and were both beaten to death with a blunt instrument. This was apparently supposed without the benefit of any forensic analysis, since the nearest forensic pathologist is at the Surat Thani public hospital which means that the KT doctor has no forensic pathology training.

"I have described what I translated and you can find it online for yourself and form an opinion as to whether you believe it was a part of the official autopsy report or not."

I don't think you caught the sarcastic gist of my post . . .

"I didn't say in the post that the autopsy was performed in Koh Tao. I believe it was performed at the IFM at the Police General Hospital. If you look back at my earlier posts, you will see that a document headed "Autopsy Report" in Thai has also been posted online which is signed by a doctor at the Koh Tao hospital which caused some confusion."

My mistake . . . I thought that first "Autopsy Report" by the doctor at the Koh Tao hospital was what you had translated here.

Since a number of people have expressed interest in the autopsy report, I have taken the trouble to translate the one page extract from the report that has been posted online. It is unverified and lacks the preamble and signature pages among other things but is consistent with media reports that have appeared and seems likely to be genuine.

" Page 3

4.1.1. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by a hard blunt instrument consistent with the item referred to in the report (hoe found at the crime scene).

4.1.2. The area of the vagina exhibited signs of sexual assault.

4.1.3. Results of toxology.

4.1.3.1. No traces of psychotropics or psychoactive substances in the urine or blood.

4.1.3.2. No toxins from food found in the digestive tract.

4.1.4. Results of biochemical analysis.

4.1.4.1. In the area of the right nipple DNA was found from two individuals, Mr B and Mr C (assigned names).

4.1.4.2. Inside the vagina semen and DNA of Mr B was found.

4.1.4.3. In the vulva semen and DNA of Mr B and Mr C was found.

4.1.4. Cause of death. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by violent blows from a blunt instrument.

4.2. Autopsy report on the body of Mr David William Miller.

4.2.1. Severe injuries to the head and face caused by a hard blunt instrument consistent with the item referred in the report (hoe found at the crime scene).

4.2.2. No signs of sexual assault.

4.2.3. Water found in both sides of the chest cavity. Water induced swelling in both lungs.

4.2.4. Results of toxology.

4.2.4.1. No traces of psychotropics or other psychoactive substances in the urine or blood.

4.2.4.2. No toxins from food found in the digestive tract.

4.2.5. Results of biochemical analysis. No semen found in the anus. "

In the widely vewed interview with Sorayud on Channel 3 that can be found on Youtube, the deputy commander of the Institute of Forensic Science at the Police General Hospital, Police Colonel Dr Bhavat Prateepvisrut presented findings from the autopsy that seem identical to this report.

Bhavat Channel 3.jpg

On 12 October Komchadluek also published an article that reported on the results of the autopsy using the same language as the extract that is translated above.

In addition, Komchadluek also reported that the police had explained the reason why they thought there was no DNA found inside the condom found at the scene with Hanna's blood on the outside. According to Komchadluek, police said that the condom was probably an old one left on the beach and that the blood on the outside of it was dripped from the hoe while the perpetrators were using it to murder her.

I am confused about this theory about the condom as I was under the impression that the condom was found at the spot where David's clothes and a large spatter of David's blood were found, whereas most of Hannah's blood was found by the rock where her body was found but I may be wrong on this point.

Thanks for the time and effort you've put into this. I'm hoping we're not going to have a troll come along to try and discredit it

I think the report you posted could not be the entire official forensic autopsy report for the following reasons:

The official report must surely contain a "touch DNA" analysis of Hannah and David's clothing and bodies, which would surely show that at least they had each other's DNA on their bodies and clothes if they were in fact in close contact, and would also show the DNA of anybody else that had touched their clothing (surely the perpetrator of the rape) and grabbed their bodies.

The official report must surely contain a toxicology analysis of Hannah and David's hair . . . because date rape drugs dissipate very quickly in the blood and urine, and a hair analysis is the only way to confirm or eliminate the presence of date rape drugs--- and a hair analysis can be done for a month or more afterwards and still get accurate results.

The official report must surely contain a detailed forensics analysis of the wounds, including size and angle of attack, etc. as well as an analysis of the material that caused the wounds ( a jagged weapon would leave a certain type of wound; a glass or wood, etc. would leave tiny shards or splinters behind). And since the initial comments by the director of forensics and police after the forensic autopsy was performed stated that they believed a second metalic weapon was used on David, the forensic analysis would opine as to the nature of that weapon.

The official report must surely contain an analysis of any defensive wounds on Hannah and David's body.

• If Hannah had zero defensive wounds including bruises, then that would tell you in all probability she wasn't even restrained before being killed as well as raped.
• If David did have defensive wounds including bruises on his back and wounds on his hands, and therefore probably had a fight with his attacker and was dragged or knocked down to the sand, as initially stated by the chief of the Institute if Forensic Medicine right after the forensic autopsy was performed, then that would tell you in all probability he was not rendered unconscious by an initial blow to the back of the head. And if he was rendered unconscious with one blow and didn't fight back, then the forensic autopsy report would surely opine as to why he had wounds on his chin and front upper chest area, bruises on his back, wounds on his hands, etc.

Also, the initial reports said the bodies were transported to the Institute of Forensic Science at the Police General Hospital in Bangkok and that is where the initial forensic autopsy was performed, so the official autopsy could not have been performed in Koh Tao.

For all these reasons, while interesting I can't believe that what you translated is the complete official forensic autopsy results. The official autopsy that has not been published surely contains a large amount of crucial information that is not included in the one you translated.

Not totally lacking. That has been clear from the beginning. CCTV, beer purchase, suspects at the beach....

But don't let the truth bother you!

I think it's clear for you and few else here.

I don't know who killed the two poor lads. But I sure notice that at least RTP showed total and utter incompetence, throwing the whole investigation in the toilet. Or you want to tell me you did not see any flaw at all?

There is circumstantial evidence and that is clear.

There have been flaws in the investigation though they probably are not fatal flaws.

"There is circumstantial evidence and that is clear."

There are 4 pieces of circumstantial evidence that the public has been told about:

• The DNA match the police say they have from the semen found on Hannah's body
• The DNA match police say they have on the cigarette
• The phone the police say they found at the accused Burmese men's residence
• The fact that the accused Burmese men were close to the crime scene up until about 2-4 hours before the murders took place (the 3rd Burmese man said he left at 1 a.m. and the police say the murders occurred between 3-5 a.m.)

Only the last piece of circumstantial evidence is known to be reliable at this point . . . and that only places them near the crime scene before the time of the murders, not during.

We don't know how reliable the first 3 pieces of evidence are . . . but we can guess some of the attacks on reliability the defense will make.

The prosecution has asked for more circumstantial evidence and for more interviews to be conducted.

We don't know whether that means they don't think they have enough to bring a case at all, or whether they believe they can get more to solidify a case they already have.

BTW I think the CCTV footage from the mini-mart and the motorbike are really irrelevant to the prosecution since it can pretty much be stipulated the 3 guys were in fact on the beach near the crime scene drinking beer until at least 1 a.m. . . . although if they denied this at trial then the footage would become relevant although certainly only circumstantial.

"There have been flaws in the investigation though they probably are not fatal flaws."

This is just speculation the same as saying "they probably are fatal flaws" would be.

You're allowed to speculate if you like just like everybody else.

There is sooooo much evidence, circumstantial and other, to show the Burmese didn't do it, just read for awhile on these threads. If you want to read about rumors, look at nearly everything Thai officials have claimed since the self-appointed PM appointed a new head cop to investigate. Note: that was the day before the Burmese were brought to the 'safe house' for their forced confessions with no attorneys.

I think you meant to say 'the right side of his head...' All else mentioned is spot-on!

There is no circumstantial evidence showing the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers did not do it. That would be called exculpatory evidence. It doesn't exist.

Neither post is really accurate ...and to the extent it is accurate it's misleading.

Any evidence that tends to show the two accused Burmese men might not have committed the crime would be considered "exculpatory" evidence. . . regardless of whether it shows definitively they did not do it.

Exculpatory evidence can be circumstantial, direct, physical or documentary.

Exculpatory evidence that is circumstantial would tend to raise doubts by inference that the accused Burmese men committed the crimes.

That certainly does exist . . . the defense lawyer will be able to provide a lot of circumstantial evidence that tends to show the accused are not-guilty (meaning it argues in favor of the fact they are not guilty, not definitively proves it).

The question is whether there is enough such circumstantial evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has made it's case. if it ever goes to trial.

People can argue about whether what we know provides enough circumstantial exculpatory evidence for a not-guilty verdict, or for no charges to be brought at all.

Exculpatory evidence that is direct would prove definitively that the accused did not commit the crime. For example, if it were shown that both of them had been arrested and were in jail the night of the murder so they had zero opportunity to commit the crime, then that would be direct exculpatory evidence.

We do not know whether that exists.

Background reading:

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-exculpatory-evidence/

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-circumstantial-evidence-what-is-direct-evidence/

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-real-evidence-is-it-the-same-thing-as-physical-evidence/

For the information of the gang arguing/debating the interrogation site of the Burmese suspects and their friend who has been released . . .

Reports from from October 3, the day of the crime scene re-enactment, said the following:

• At 9 pm on Wednesday, Oct. 1, the suspect named Wyn left Koh Tao
• At 6 am on Thursday, Oct. 2, Wyn was captured on the main wharf in Nakhon Surat Thani.
• Wyn was then taken to the Provincial Police Region 8 investigation centre
• Wyn was questioned at the Provincial Police Region 8 investigation centre for five hours.
• The media were not allowed to approach the Provincial Police Region 8 investigation centre or take photos
• At 9 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 2, the suspect named Saw and his friend Mau (the witness who was cleared) were detained on Koh Tao.
• By the time Saw and Mau were detained, Wyn's confession had already leaked (3 hours earlier) from police offices in Surat Thani and Bangkok.
• On Friday morning, Oct. 3, it was announced that DNA samples obtained from Wyn and Saw matched that of DNA found on Hannah's body, and that both had now confessed
• Later on Friday, Oct. 3. the re-enactment took place on Sairee Beach in Koh Tao

Begs a lot of questions ... have at it.

Edit: There are no quotes from or links to any news source in this comment.

I think the Oct. 3 report about Saw and Mau being detained at 9 pm on Thursday, Oct. 2 was probably not correct (in rereading it was a little ambiguous as well).

Another report from the same media source at around 5 pm on Oct. 2 said they had been detained at 9 pm on Wednesday, Oct. 1 . . . and a report in the Nation at 5 pm on Oct 2 said the two had already been detained as well.

The Nation report did say that Wyn had been picked up on the mainland of Surathani.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Myanmar-worker-confesses-killing-British-tourists-30244632.html

The point of all this is that contemporaneous reports say that the two suspects Wyn and Saw were arrested separately---Wyn on the Surathani mainland and Saw on Koh Tao.

And the Nation's rival reported on several occassions that Wyn, the first to confess, was interrogated at the Provincial Police Region 8 investigation centre, while reports said that Saw was interrogated at a "safe house" on Koh Tao.

So from media reports at the time, it seems that the two accused Burmese men were (at least initially) arrested and interrogated and confessed in two different locations . . . one in Surathani and one on Koh Tao.

What actually happened? Who knows . . .

http://www.channel4....ub-judice-rules

Jdinasia @ "Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

And that's precisely why you will not hear Hannah and Davids friends making any statements to the press in the UK contrary to you earlier statement that they have freedom of speech. Until after the inquest.

By the way nice to see that you are quoting from a credible source that was handed to you by Katoom so you can now in future be clear about your statements.

Your conclusions are wrong. The inquest doesn't prevent the discussion of things that might prejudice a case in Thailand. The inquest itself has absolutely no bearing on anything in Thailand.

I suggest you look at exactly what the inquest is empowered to do.

Your wrong. My conclusion is that you will not hear any statements in the UK media made by Hannah's or David's friends. I did not mention Thailand, you mention this.

However your correct that the inquest will have no bearing on the case in Thailand.

Other that tell the truth as the inquest finds and the consequences of that to the RTP investigation

What the inquest can tell us.

Cause of death.

Types of injuries.

Toxicology

That is about all it will reveal.

I was aware of that. That is precisely what we want to hear from the inquest, nothing more. That in itself will reveal whats needed

So, people who were on the island and didn't witness the murders would be outside the scope of the Inquest.

"So, people who were on the island and didn't witness the murders would be outside the scope of the Inquest."

See my reply in #180 above . . . it is clearly not outside the scope of the inquest. In fact the scope is very broad.

And your statement makes absolutely no sense.

That would mean that if a UK resident saw a person walking away from a crime scene covered in blood and carrying a bloody knife, but did not actually witness the murder, then you would consider that outside of the scope of the coroner's inquest.

Actually, if the person was at the crime scene, they could be considered a witness.

You seem to be forgetting that the fact finding mission of the coroner's inquest is not to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine cause of death.

http://www.channel4....ub-judice-rules

Jdinasia @ "Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

And that's precisely why you will not hear Hannah and Davids friends making any statements to the press in the UK contrary to you earlier statement that they have freedom of speech. Until after the inquest.

By the way nice to see that you are quoting from a credible source that was handed to you by Katoom so you can now in future be clear about your statements.

Your conclusions are wrong. The inquest doesn't prevent the discussion of things that might prejudice a case in Thailand. The inquest itself has absolutely no bearing on anything in Thailand.

I suggest you look at exactly what the inquest is empowered to do.

Your wrong. My conclusion is that you will not hear any statements in the UK media made by Hannah's or David's friends. I did not mention Thailand, you mention this.

However your correct that the inquest will have no bearing on the case in Thailand.

Other that tell the truth as the inquest finds and the consequences of that to the RTP investigation

What the inquest can tell us.

Cause of death.

Types of injuries.

Toxicology

That is about all it will reveal.

I was aware of that. That is precisely what we want to hear from the inquest, nothing more. That in itself will reveal whats needed

So, people who were on the island and didn't witness the murders would be outside the scope of the Inquest.

"So, people who were on the island and didn't witness the murders would be outside the scope of the Inquest."

See my reply in #180 above . . . it is clearly not outside the scope of the inquest. In fact the scope is very broad.

And your statement makes absolutely no sense.

That would mean that if a UK resident saw a person walking away from a crime scene covered in blood and carrying a bloody knife, but did not actually witness the murder, then you would consider that outside of the scope of the coroner's inquest.

Still no response from jdinasia...

I am not in the UK. It was Saturday night.

From your link

"

Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

There's no jury pool to influence in the UK. The inquest Into cause of death cannot be influenced by people talking about the events earlier in the night, or if someone was on the island.

Also from Katoom's link:

"There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes "legal proceedings" but it includes, for example, the main courts: Magistrates' Court, County Court, High Court and also Inquests, . . . . "

"It is not just potential jurors who might be prejudiced by what is broadcast. Witnesses may also be prejudiced by what they see or hear on television. In addition, although professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting, some courts are presided over by lay people (most Magistrates' Courts), and the law assumes that such people can be prejudiced.

http://www.channel4....ub-judice-rules

The phone issue has been dealt with.

That HANNAH'S friends have not made any statement...

You are avoiding my rebuttal to your assertion that they have free speech in the following;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/774320-police-coy-over-new-probe-into-koh-tao-murders/?p=8645781

Would you care to comment with reference to you assertion above?

Murder occurred in Thailand.

Look at the memorandum regarding murder Manslaughter and Infanticide of citizens abroad.

JD have you read the memorandum you continually reference in its entirety?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/141958/mou-fco-acpo-coroners.pdf

If you have read it in it's entirety, then its hard to understand why you would keep referencing it as you do...especially without citing sections and explaining how you think this memorandum supports your positions...because by my reading of this memorandum in its entirety, it would not help you support most if not all of the positions you use it to support.

So based on the entirety of the memorandum,

How does the fact that the murder occurred in Thailand negate sub-judice rules in England?

How does the memorandum preclude any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the murders of Hannah and David?

How does the memorandum rise to the level of "UK law" that an investigation, or anything else the UK authorities would like to do in order to determine exactly how Hannah and David were killed, would violate?

Cameron said:

But said: “Obviously we can’t interfere with another country’s judicial system, but we should do what we can to help, and to ensure that the people who did this are found and justice is done and that is what we are focused on.”

Notice, not has been... diplocrap or a mistake??

Who knows.

It will not be a mistake, unlike officials Thailand, who spout verbal diarrhea all the time and put their foot in it, the politicians in the UK are very careful what is said or put in print, the words are "crafted"

diplocrap most likely, but could also be a veiled reference suggesting the RTP are full of sh*t we know it, but cant be seen to interfering in a police investigation in another country...

and the fact is they cant interfere..

Any time a public official (or anybody for that matter) uses a "but" following a statement that begins with "obviously", it should (and was probably intended to) raise antennas.

Parsing the second sentence, you get two separate statements:

1) We should do what we can to help, and

2) We should do what we can to ensure that the people who did this are found and justice is done and that is what we are focused on.

The waterfall of related questions this begs are:

How will the British government interpret what would constitute "interference" in the Thai judicial system in this particular case?

What steps does the British government believe it can take to "ensure that the people who did this are found and justice is done" within the parameters of the answer to the first question?

What steps will the British government actually take within the parameters of the answers to the last two questions?

BTW it's interesting that Cameron's statement closely tracks the statement made by Hannah's family:

"As a family we hope that the right people are found and brought to justice," said the statement.

Good analyses. I guess Thai authorities can also halt any unwanted Brit actions/enquiries at any time by saying you are "now interfering in Thailand`s judicial system. Desist. Go forth..."

Or are we just talking about what can be done back in uk?

I think we're talking about both . . .

Of course the Thai authorities will have their own interpretation of what constitutes interfering in the Thai judicial system.

If they think or claim the British team have stepped over that line, they may actively try and block further investigation/observation on Thai soil. But that would have it's own set of diplomatic and public relations consequences.

But it also relates to what the British team can and will do to investigate, and more importantly how they will handle the results, from outside of Thailand.

I don't think it was a coincidence that a certain frequent poster disappeared for the most part at the same time that Islandlife showed up . . . so yes it's a good bet the new poster is an "imposter".

I believe that even jdinasia made a subtle comment calling him out on it a while back . . . saying that Islandlife's use of the phrase "pot kettle black" (or something like that) gave him away.

Where has JohnThailandJohn gone? He was posting often, until a couple days ago. All his posts were along the lines; "The RTP is right. Everyone who counters the RTP are conspiracy theorists." More recently, he challenged me to find any posts of his which called the Burmese 'rapists and murderers.' I did find such posts. He's been quiet since. Chagrined, perchance? I kinda miss his posts. It's challenging to have someone contrary to bounce off of, instead of just JD. It stirs things up. Indeed, it's almost comical how they continue to toe the official line, when so much evidence (and officials' avoidance/ignorance of basic investigative principles) points toward the headman's family.

That's who I was referring to . . . I'm wildly speculating that JTJ has morphed into Islandlife . . . maybe even he was getting bored of his old persona?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

what became of the U K plod ?? or are they still taking tea ?

A number of posters have conjectured that the U.K. police are going to do something along the lines of Columbo meets Murder She Wrote and wrap the whole thing up in 90 minutes including commercial breaks.

These posters have totally misunderstood the role of the U.K. police here and have completely ignored the restraints they are here under. They will observe, they may request to review the case notes if they are permitted to see them, they may ask questions of the Thai police who may or may not choose to reveal evidence or information. Then they will report back to the Home Office, presumably, who will brief the Foreign Office.

They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, here in the role of participating in the prosecution of anybody.

Well yes, but surely if they see something which concerns them, in any part/aspect of this case we should all be expecting they will speak up. I guess there is little doubt the plods will on their own conduct a press event, but surely, using the right avenues they would speak up.

In fact if they are concerned and they don't speak up then this damages their credibility.

There is a huge gulf between what Briggsy lists as the "restraints they are under" and "participating in the prosecution of anybody".

Where the British will land in this gulf nobody but them knows . . .

"The relatives of the defendants have also asked for fairness, so officials are investigating the points they requested in order to give fairness to all sides."

Should I be arrested please remind my mom to ask for fairness ...

"The relatives of the defendants have also asked for fairness, so officials are investigating the points they requested in order to give fairness to all sides."

What I've highlighted in bold is the really interesting part of the statement.

Methinks Islandlife is an account used by two people. Some of the posts are in poor English/spelling, others are articulate as you'd expect from a native English speaker. Am I off base on that?

Yeah , you're right. It certainly looks like that.

Native English speaking KT "diver master" on one shift, None native English speaking "Diver master" on the other, Scandinavian or similar me thinks

Methinks Islandlife is an account used by two people. Some of the posts are in poor English/spelling, others are articulate as you'd expect from a native English speaker. Am I off base on that?

Yeah , you're right. It certainly looks like that.

Native English speaking KT "diver master" on one shift, None native English speaking "Diver master" on the other, Scandinavian or similar me thinks

I don't think it was a coincidence that a certain frequent poster disappeared for the most part at the same time that Islandlife showed up . . . so yes it's a good bet the new poster is an "imposter".

I believe that even jdinasia made a subtle comment calling him out on it a while back . . . saying that Islandlife's use of the phrase "pot kettle black" (or something like that) gave him away.

Now this truly is a conspiracy theory . . . but of course not all conspiracy theories turn out to be false, eh?

So of the persons mentioned in Post #369 not one of those categories of persons other than the criminals themselves would have any information that would be admissible in a US court of law unless the criminals themselves specifically told such persons that they did it and even that would be questionable.

Your comment is absolutely wrong.

All of these persons could potentially have information that would be admissible.

Official DNA test results have showed his son was not involved in the murders.

As far as I remember- it only showed his son was not involved in the rape...

Using your logic, all the people tested for DNA matches on the island should only be cleared of sexual assault/rape charges. They are all still murder suspects.

Interesting.

A reliable DNA match only proves one thing for certain---that the person left fluids on or came in contact with whatever surface the DNA was found on. But a reliable DNA match from the semen of someone who didn't know Hannah would certainly make that person a prime suspect for sexual assault.

The lack of a reliable DNA match proves nothing and clears nobody of anything---unless some other persons are proven to be guilty and it is also proven that nobody else was involved. It remains entirely possible that anybody whose DNA did not match the DNA found in the semen, on the hoe, or on the cigarette still committed sexual assault and/or murder. And yes, that means anybody on the island was still possibly involved in these crimes. But no, that does not mean that everybody on the island is a murder suspect---not being cleared does not mean you are a suspect.

However, if a thorough and reliable Touch DNA analysis was performed on Hannah's skin and clothing, and none was found to match a particular person tested and the semen DNA did not match as well, then that would significantly reduce the likelihood that the person tested was involved in the sexual assault ---but it would not entirely eliminate the possibility.

This is true of any investigation, anywhere in the world. It is not unique to this case on Koh Tao Island in Thailand.

And this is not inference, or speculation. It is fact.