Jump to content

Myanmar men jailed for murder of British tourists on Koh Tao taken off death row


rooster59

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dene16 said:

I thought it was more of a rhetorical question then a genuine one. So in answer to your question no.

 

Did you follow the case since day 1  , follow the investigation and court case ?

Its been a complete travesty ever since day 2 , ever since it was announced by the top police that they had evidence ......................I am just repeating myself , I have posted this previously in this thread

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Difficult to prove you did not do something, but there was also the lack of their DNA on the murder weapon.

I agree but the fact nothing was even suggested is very strange. No DNA on the murder weapon is definitely odd but the whole investigation was botched. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but i just don't see how people can be so adamant as to their innocence  when it is so clearly not cut and dry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Did you follow the case since day 1  , follow the investigation and court case ?

Its been a complete travesty ever since day 2

Followed it quite extensively i would say and read a lot about the trial. I cannot argue the fact that the the investigation was not a joke from beginning to end. Because of that i can never be 100% sure they are guilty.

The fact that the defence decided against the 2 Burmese giving evidence themselves, not offering any evidence whatsoever in their defence. This is only ever done where there is a risk of incriminating oneself. stories not matching up between the two of them etc. The whole defence stank and you have to wonder why,

Remember they had a fairly good team of lawyers in the end but came up with nothing to put any doubt in peoples mind 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

Followed it quite extensively i would say and read a lot about the trial. I cannot argue the fact that the the investigation was not a joke from beginning to end. Because of that i can never be 100% sure they are guilty.

The fact that the defence decided against the 2 Burmese giving evidence themselves, not offering any evidence whatsoever in their defence. This is only ever done where there is a risk of incriminating oneself. stories not matching up between the two of them etc. The whole defence stank and you have to wonder why,

Remember they had a fairly good team of lawyers in the end but came up with nothing to put any doubt in peoples mind 

Many many people doubt the verdict .

The verdict was just a formality and the Court case was just for show .

"No Thai would ever do this" was an order, rather than an opinion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Walter Travolta said:

I think you are very naive to think good defence lawyers can outweigh an inevitable outcome

Actually it's not about outweighing an inevitable outcome, it's about they didn't even try. Are you then saying that the defence were paid off also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Many many people doubt the verdict .

The verdict was just a formality and the Court case was just for show .

"No Thai would ever do this" was an order, rather than an opinion 

Can't argue with that and will all know that corruption rampantly exists in all levels of Thai society.

But, for me, this case had become far too high profile for them to just blame 2 innocent people with the whole world looking on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dene16 said:

Some people have stated ‘where is the evidence’ but the fact is the defence offered zero evidence to exonerate them, please do not say innocent until proven guilty.

What evidence is there to prove the B2 were guilty ?

The B2 may have possibly have been at the crime scene , as its unlike Thais to go and fight someone in equal numbers , anyway, what evidence is there to prove the B2 committed the murders ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Many many people doubt the verdict .

The verdict was just a formality and the Court case was just for show .

"No Thai would ever do this" was an order, rather than an opinion 

Duly delivered. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

What evidence is there to prove the B2 were guilty ?

There was none that's why they were found guilty

I don't know why i'm even answering this but in the words of the judge

The DNA evidence is so overwhelming you are guilty. I believe he was referring to the semen found in the victim amongst other things

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

Can't argue with that and will all know that corruption rampantly exists in all levels of Thai society.

But, for me, this case had become far too high profile for them to just blame 2 innocent people with the whole world looking on

Not only corrupt but completely devoid of any concept or interest on what the world thinks. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

There was none that's why they were found guilty

I don't know why i'm even answering this but in the words of the judge

The DNA evidence is so overwhelming you are guilty. I believe he was referring to the semen found in the victim amongst other things

 

 

No, DNA from the B2 were not found in the victims .

Try to post facts, rather than just what you believe .

Try to post genuine quotes as well .

The DNA wasnt overwhelming at all , it wasnt even a match to the B2

There was no DNA evidence linking the B2 to the murders

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

Try to post genuine quotes as well

The first one said believe as for the quote that is exactly what the judge said 

You obviously didn't follow the trial as closely as you state

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

If it's not cut and dry they should have been found innocent, they would never have been found guilty in most western countries with a jury. Their guilt had already been decided before the trial, claims of forced confessions were entirely believable. 

Has this been in a Western Country , The Police, the prosecution , the Judge and many other people connected with the case would have found themselves in Court on charges of wrong doing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Could you provide a link to that ?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/thailand-burmese-british-murder-1.3379518

DNA evidence showed that the semen of both men was found inside Witheridge, the court said.

Still looking for a link to the Quote which i know to be true 

what is your problem don't you think your being rather pedantic 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/thailand-burmese-british-murder-1.3379518

DNA evidence showed that the semen of both men was found inside Witheridge, the court said.

Still looking for a link to the Quote which i know to be true 

what is your problem don't you think your being rather pedantic 


 

From your link :

 

 

A Thai court on Thursday sentenced two Burmese migrants to death for the murder of two British backpackers on a resort island last year, in a case that raised questions about police competence and the judicial system in Thailand.

Human Rights Watch called the verdict "profoundly disturbing," citing the defendants' accusations of police torture that were never investigated and questionable DNA evidence linking them to the crime. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

If it's not cut and dry they should have been found innocent, they would never have been found guilty in most western countries with a jury.

I have never said they should of been found guilty i have merely stated the actions of the accused and the defence are not the actions of innocent people and a defence not allowing them to testify for that reason

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

From your link :

 

i could go to numerous links to verify what i have said. everyone knows that the the DNA evidence has come under scrutiny because they wanted to retest it and they declared it had all been used up so your ridiculous attempts to vindicate your previous statements don't wash

Again why are you being so pedantic are you one of those people that will not except that you don't actually know everything you claim

Edited by Dene16
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

I have never said they should of been found guilty i have merely stated the actions of the accused and the defence are not the actions of innocent people and a defence not allowing them to testify for that reason

 

You obviously havent been in a criminal trial.

 

In more enlightened countries, when a defendant does not give evidence, a judge will instruct a jury that the defendant is clothed in innocence and they must make no prejudicial inference about not giving evidence.

 

One good reason a defendant does not give evidence is when the prosecution have failed to provide their evidence to reach the standard of reasonable doubt.

 

This case should be taught in law school that for judge alone trials money and face is more important than law.

 

Their case simply didnt meet the high threshold of reasonable doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They were sentenced to death. It is.reasonable to be pedantic when you are to be killed upon evidence that is not verified and very dodgy.

We were talking about a statement made in a court that had no actual relevance to the subject matter being discussed. Pedantic overload  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dene16 said:

It just amazes me how naive and short sighted people can be, they only see what they want to see

The only defence offered in the trial, was that it was a forced confession. Literally nothing else.

Don't you find that strange?

 

 

 

If you have done nothing, what defence do you have other than saying it wasn't me/us, of course that would be a waste of time anyway as the decision was pre-purchased and ordained from the top. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mike787 said:

How do we know thy did it?????  Are we sure???  Where is the evidence???  A GOFUND could help vindicate these poor souls.

No it wouldnt. Only a real police force presenting evidence using internationally approved guidelines would help them. Not going to happen.

 

No one should be given a traffic fine nevermind a death sentence on the shoddy work done by the police.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...