Supreme Court accepts final appeal in the Koh Tao murders

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

The AUG 2017 BBC report occurred well after the UK Norfolk FEB 2016 post-mortem .

 

It also occurred well after the Thai post mortem. So what's your point?

[JLCrab]

What I am suggesting is that in the intervening 15 months between the FEB 2016 inquest and the statement in AUG 2017 BBC article that Ms. Witheridge had been raped the BBC had contact with the Coroner's office sufficient such that they could make that claim.

Justice Green of the QB was probably in contact with the Coroner's Office as well when he wrote in his opinion that it was a FACT of the case that Ms. Witheridge had been raped,

Edited September 24, 2017 by JLCrab

[rockingrobin]

58 minutes ago, EyeOfRa said:

Countless questions, mysteries and conundrums plague the "evidence" used in this case.

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30324491

 

One especially puzzling and troubling question is this:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35170419

 

Of course, this purported DNA no longer exists so these claims are not verifiable.

 

Extraordinary.

 

 

 

 

On the 17th September  , the police announced that they was unable to match the dna Semen samples to the cigarette but samples,and in order to do so fresh samples from persons involved would be required. 

 

Report was in the BP at 23:00

[Khun Han]

Just now, JLCrab said:

What I am suggesting is that in the intervening 15 months between the FEB 2016 inquest and the statement in AUG 2017 BBC article that Ms. Witheridge had been raped the BBC had contact with the Coroner's office sufficient such that they could make that claim.

 

Where does the report state that the reporter had contact with the Norfolk coroner's office?

[JLCrab]

It doesn't. But it makes more sense than that even though there had been a UK post mortem the post-mortem to which the BBC referred was the one conducted in Thailand.

The BBC felt confident in making that AUG 2017 claim as did several other UK media in referring to the results of the post-mortem.

Edited September 24, 2017 by JLCrab

[Khun Han]

Just now, JLCrab said:

Ir doesn't. But it makes more sense than that even though there had been a UK post mortem the post-mortem to which the BBC referred was the one conducted in Thailand.

 

No, it doesn't.

[JLCrab]

Actually it does. So on one side we have you and some others on ThaiVIsa who say the post-mortem said Ms. Witheridge was not raped and then on the other side the UK media establishment.

And I do not think the BBC needs a lesson in legal syntax that if the HO Pathologist issues a finding of 'sexually assaulted' that 15 months later and with what they might have learned in the interim they are not justified in referring to that as 'rape'.

Edited September 24, 2017 by JLCrab

[EyeOfRa]

Quote

 

The inquest heard from a British Home Office pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, who detailed the injuries that killed Ms Witheridge were consistent with the blade of a hoe. It was likely she was struck multiple times and would have died quickly.

There were also signs of sexual assault and dragging.

 

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-mother-of-british-backpacker-hannah-witheridge-begged-her-not-to-go-to-thailand/news-story/7743233b6f59704c874d2d8a864e960b

 

Similarly, http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/we-weren-t-happy-about-her-going-to-thailand-say-family-of-murdered-student-hannah-witheridge-1-4409433.

 

1. The same wording is reported by multiple sources. As noted on many occasions here, "sexual assault" does not equate to rape.

 

2. The UK autopsy stated that the vaginal tear suffered by Hannah was caused by the Thai autopsy.

Edited September 24, 2017 by EyeOfRa

[JLCrab]

This is the BBC you are trying to give a lesson in syntax. You think they don't know that?

Edited September 24, 2017 by JLCrab

[EyeOfRa]

Syntax? Perhaps you mean semantics? 

 

Just Google. Most of us are well aware of the attempts at obfuscation over this issue.

 

Perhaps some trust the UK NCA as well as the BBC in every instance?

 

 

 

 

[JLCrab]

Maybe the BBC felt confident in using the word 'rape' because one of their reporters spoke with someone in the coroner's office. But that's OK -- I figure at this point that's about all you've got left is to question the credibility of the BBC and the other UK media who published the same thing.

[iReason]

14 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Maybe the BBC felt confident in using the word 'rape' because one of their reporters spoke with someone in the coroner's office.

 

"Maybe"...

 

That's all you've got left?

[JLCrab]

Maybe or not -- doesn't make any difference. The BBC published it.

[iReason]

12 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Maybe or not -- doesn't make any difference. The BBC published it.

By that standard, then you would agree with the reporting from ThaiPBS, correct?

 

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

[JLCrab]

No because Khaosod published the same thing but retracted it a year later as bullsh***t.

 

And if you want to compare the ThaiPBS to the BBC that's up to you.

Edited September 24, 2017 by JLCrab

[StealthEnergiser]

5 minutes ago, iReason said:

By that standard, then you would agree with the reporting from ThaiPBS, correct?

 

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

It has been mentioned that Nomsod was to have got off off the island quickly by boat   damage control was actioned.

Trolls seem to have been employed anywhere his  name is  mentioned those trolls are still  operating today.

[iReason]

20 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

No because Khaosod published the same thing but retracted it a year later as bullsh***t.

And if you want to compare the ThaiPBS to the BBC that's up to you.

 

No. You are just deflecting and going down the road of another poster.

 

Let's use your rationalization and say, "maybe" the word "arrested" was "detained."

 

Are you claiming these quotes are bullsh***t? :

 

Eighth Region Police Command commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen identified the first suspect as Mon.

He was arrested after evidence which police collected were examined and proved he was involved, he said.

He also said another suspect is also a son of that village headman.

He said both suspects were captured by CCTV cameras and the police have gathered enough evidence to implicate them in the murders.

[iReason]

18 minutes ago, StealthEnergiser said:

Trolls seem to have been employed anywhere his  name is  mentioned those trolls are still  operating today.

 

Easily ascertained by the fact that you never see them on any other thread than Koh Tao.

A bunch of parroting one trick ponies...

[EyeOfRa]

In any case, we know precisely why Khaosod withdrew its report:

 

Quote

 

A Thai newspaper today published an apology for its coverage of the investigation into the murders of two British travelers in September on Koh Tao.

Khaosod newspaper apologized for two headlines suggesting the Warot Toovichian, the son of a village chief on Koh Tao, was responsible for the savage murders of British tourists David Miller and Hannah Witheridge on the island.

 

Quote

In the statement published today, Khaosod said it was publicly apologizing as part of a settlement agreement with Warot, who filed a libel suit against the paper over its coverage.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2015/08/14/1439558550/

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Actually it does. So on one side we have you and some others on ThaiVIsa who say the post-mortem said Ms. Witheridge was not raped and then on the other side the UK media establishment.

And I do not think the BBC needs a lesson in legal syntax that if the HO Pathologist issues a finding of 'sexually assaulted' that 15 months later and with what they might have learned in the interim they are not justified in referring to that as 'rape'.

 

The BBC did not state that the Norfolk coroner found evidence of rape. The BBC is not on your side on this issue. The Norfolk coroner stated that Hannah had been sexually assaulted, not raped. The difference has been explained to you many times before. But, like DiscoDan, you just keep on presenting the same mistruths and twisting of information over and over and over again. But most of us worked out a long time ago that your little team ('little' being a key word ) are not here to get to the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Maybe the BBC felt confident in using the word 'rape' because one of their reporters spoke with someone in the coroner's office. But that's OK -- I figure at this point that's about all you've got left is to question the credibility of the BBC and the other UK media who published the same thing.

 

Please provide a link to the BBC reporting that the Norfolk coroner stated Hannah was raped. The BBC is not on your side on this issue, no matter how much you falsely claim that it is.

[TheLobster]

19 hours ago, EyeOfRa said:

https://www.samuitimes.com/supreme-court-accepts-final-appeal-koh-tao-murders/

Is some hair which is barely visible to the human eye being split here?

You are right. There was a hair in Hannah's hand when she was found that wasn't examined or tested by the RTP. Why was that?

 

12 hours ago, JLCrab said:

That assumes the Thai Supreme Court decides that proof of guilt was not provided beyond a reasonable doubt even though the 2 lower courts said that it was so provided.

It was the same lower court so one court, same decision twice, after all no one likes to lose face 

 

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

No because Khaosod published the same thing but retracted it a year later as bullsh***t.

And if you want to compare the ThaiPBS to the BBC that's up to you.

It wasn't bullsh***t it was the truth but the evidence had been destroyed. It was more to do with infamous Thai laws than the truth.

 

2 hours ago, StealthEnergiser said:

It has been mentioned that Nomsod was to have got off off the island quickly by boat   damage control was actioned.

Trolls seem to have been employed anywhere his  name is  mentioned those trolls are still  operating today.

That is quite possible, the CTV of the early morning ferry was ignored by the investigators and was deleted by someone.

2 hours ago, iReason said:

Easily ascertained by the fact that you never see them on any other thread than Koh Tao.

A bunch of parroting one trick ponies...

Agreed that is annoying, only one topic only one aim.

 

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

But most of us worked out a long time ago that your little team ('little' being a key word ) are not here to get to the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Sad reality of the situation, money and business is more important to some people than sentencing two innocent people to death.

[EyeOfRa]

The following description of the appeal process in Thailand is taken from a Canadian government website. (https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/advisories/overview-of-the-criminal-law-system-in-thailand)

 

It seems an accurate account of the manner in which the previous appeal of this case was conducted.

 

Quote

 

The Appeals Court generally does not hear additional evidence; it will base its findings and judgment on the evidence submitted during the trial. All legal arguments are submitted in writing and the proceedings are not conducted in public. The identity of the panel of judges is not disclosed, thus the parties are not permitted to meet the judges. The procedure in the Appeals Court may take between eight months to two years.

Once the judgment has been made by the Appeals Court, it will be put into a sealed envelope, to remain confidential, and sent together with the case file to the Court of First Instance that initially tried the case. When the Court of First Instance receives the sealed envelope containing the judgment, it will schedule a date for the reading of the Appeals Court’s judgment. A notice is sent to the public prosecutor to attend the reading, but a notice is not sent to the defendant or his or her lawyer. The court orders that the imprisoned defendant be brought to court on the scheduled reading date. Therefore, the defense lawyer generally will not know when the judgment of the Appeals Court has been read. It is the defendant’s obligation to notify his or her own lawyer should he or she wish to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

 

(Compare account of the Koh Tao case appeal at https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/koh-tao-defense-team-to-file-appeal-with-thai-supreme-court.html .)

 

The Canadian site adds: 

Quote

The same appeal procedures apply in the Supreme Court process.

 

Is anyone able to confirm that procedure for the appeal to the Supreme Court will be the same as for the previous appeal of this case -- that is, the appeal consists of the written document being reviewed by the judges in private, with a decision emerging several months later?

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by EyeOfRa

[smedly]

14 hours ago, JLCrab said:

You were one of the 'likers' on that false report that the post-mortem revealed that Ms. Witheridge had not been raped.

actually the official UK report said "there was no evidence of rape" ,  in Thailand the coroner determined she had been raped but it seems he/she lost any samples he/she may have taken during that examination ...... go figure, and never attempted to explain or describe how the very obvious (from early crime scene photos) short sharp puncture wounds on David's body could have occurred.....oh we don't need to talk about those. 

 

Most Western people would assume that "like the police" - medical examiners would do their job in a highly professional manner and could never be coerced or forced into making a false report - Thailand the Hub of Highly Professional People who are all above reproach.....right ?

 

 

Right ?  

[smedly]

15 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Just how many scenarios have been proffered on this website over the last nearly 3 years that this was a crime of vengeance and not lust all predicated on the claim that the late Ms. Witheridge had not been raped.

well when you are making up a fictional story the great thing is that you can edit it as many times as you like because there is nothing holding you to any particular provable version of events, the only thing that we know about that can be verified beyond doubt is that

 

David and Hannah were both found murdered on the beach of Koh Tao

They were both in AC bar before they were murdered

There was possibly an altercation involving Hannah in AC bar the night she was murdered

 

after that the dots can be joined however the author likes

 

All of the rest is fictional (all of it) unless you have solid presentable provable verifiable evidence that says otherwise and that means evidence that can be physically produced  and independently verified - otherwise it really is all just fiction and can be made up what ever way the authors want, unfortunately or actually "fortunately" fiction has no place in a court of law anywhere that I am aware of but maybe Thailand is the exception  

[EyeOfRa]

Quote

well when you are making up a fictional story the great thing is that you can edit it as many times as you like because there is nothing holding you to any particular provable version of events, the only thing that we know about that can be verified beyond doubt is that... (see post above).

Well said, smedly.

 

Barely a glimmer of concrete evidence exists.

 

The hoe survived but does not show the DNA of the convicted Burmese men. 

 

Clothing has been lost. Crucial CCTV has been banished.The hair has evaporated. Even the DNA is used up or unusable!

 

We are left with a shifting narrative which centres around a phone and a cigarette butt.

 

Reasonable doubt? Any reasonable person should be shaking their head in utter disbelief.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by EyeOfRa

[rockingrobin]

36 minutes ago, smedly said:

well when you are making up a fictional story the great thing is that you can edit it as many times as you like because there is nothing holding you to any particular provable version of events, the only thing that we know about that can be verified beyond doubt is that

 

David and Hannah were both found murdered on the beach of Koh Tao

They were both in AC bar before they were murdered

There was possibly an altercation involving Hannah in AC bar the night she was murdered

 

after that the dots can be joined however the author likes

 

All of the rest is fictional (all of it) unless you have solid presentable provable verifiable evidence that says otherwise and that means evidence that can be physically produced  and independently verified - otherwise it really is all just fiction and can be made up what ever way the authors want, unfortunately or actually "fortunately" fiction has no place in a court of law anywhere that I am aware of but maybe Thailand is the exception  

From court testimony and the NCA revelations we can reasonable conclude an altercation did occur

In court the RTP testified that they did not investigate the rumour of altercation, therefore they cannot have requested information from the NCA about the altercation. 

We know the NCA passed information to the RTP about an alleged altercation, taking into account the RTP court testimony that they did not investigate, then this information can only have been iniated by the NCA , and we are left with the conclusion the NCA information must have come from somebody with knowledge of the altercation.

[dick dasterdly]

16 hours ago, JLCrab said:

No because Khaosod published the same thing but retracted it a year later as bullsh***t.

 

And if you want to compare the ThaiPBS to the BBC that's up to you.

Retracting their statements a YEAR later, does rather indicate that this retraction was entirely due to the libel/defamation court case brought against them,  which (apparently?) only requires proof of damage to reputation - rather than proof that the claims made were untrue.

[EyeOfRa]

Essential listening for anyone new to the Koh Tao case, and a good refresher for others, is the opinion of Sonthi Lim (see video below). Whatever you may think of Sonthi Lim -- and let's NOT digress into political discussion here -- there's no denying that he is well versed in the ways of Thailand. (Sondhi Limthongkul, Thai media mogul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondhi_Limthongkul). Note: The meeting in the video was held in in November 2014. The murders took place in September, 2014.

 

[EyeOfRa]

Link to a detailed timeline of events surrounding the murders in September, 2014: