Ensure 'fair probe' for suspects, says Thein Sein

[SICHONSTEVE]

I had a long bus ride in which to read a full-page article in today's Thai press about the case, with numerous police and politicians quoted, including 'Big Two', which is the Thai nickname for General Prime Minister Prayut.

The main point made was: this is such a big case, under the scrutiny of the local and international press, not to mention the online world, that no police would have dared to frame some scapegoats.

Cynics might say that a) it is precisely because it is such an important case that scapegoating was seen as a good option or, b ) the case only came under massive public scrutiny because of the botched investigation and consequent likelihood that scapegoats were being framed. However, that's the General's line.

"I do not believe that anyone would have dared to do this, or that the defendants who were arrested would have allowed themselves to be forced into accepting responsibility for a crime of this magnitude," he said.

He also suggests that online media, who don't know the facts, keep quiet and leave it to the officials.

Another senior policeman absolutely rejected suggestions that the Burmese were subjected to any physical or psychological torture in order to force a confession. In any case, the policeman said, the arrest was based on evidence, not the confessions, and it is the suspects' right under Thai law to retract those confessions if they so choose.

One point that Big Two made was that foreign observers were welcome to monitor the process, and he added some not very veiled threats that if it was discovered that police had created scapegoats, there would be hell to pay in police ranks.

I make no comment either way, just reporting what was said in the article.

This mirrors (almost precisely) my version of events.

In fact, make that precisely as I agree with ALL aspects of this article - including leaving the investigation to the officials and not the media police!

[smokie36]

Great! Thats the militaries response to the local mafia and corrupt police and judges?

Come to Koh Tao, where you will be watched 24/7!

The cameras are being installed to keep an eye on the locals...not the tourists.

[Number 3]

According to an unnamed newspaper source the Police have until Thursday to submit a final report to the Surat Thani prosecutor.

Public prosecutor on this is in Samui, province of Surat Thani.

[bernard75]

Great! Thats the militaries response to the local mafia and corrupt police and judges?

Come to Koh Tao, where you will be watched 24/7!

The cameras are being installed to keep an eye on the locals...not the tourists.

300? With the inhabitable part of Tao you could see the turtles hatch.

[Just1Voice]

@SICHONSTEVE - While at times you actually do make some relevant statements and fact, you seem to have a serious "obsession" in regards to the two suspects NOT being tortured. So, with that in mind, I'm assuming you completely missed the article in the BP a few days back in regards to them being "tortured" into a confession,

I guess you totally missed the article about the representative of the Myanmar Embassy who went to talk to the two suspects, and afterwards openly stated comments concerning the serious bruising on BOTH of their bodies that he observed during his interview with them? Did you, by chance, miss that article????

Shhhh! Don't tell Steve this ! What is wrong you with you man !

Too late! already seen it. Not substantiated I'm afraid without GENUINE and unquestionable proof which has not been forthcoming.

Ok, so according to your "logic", the official from the Malaysian embassy is lying about the bruises he saw because he didn't take pictures and post them online for all to see. So he just said he saw the bruises to be saying something, according to your "logic". But what if he DID take pictures, and chose NOT to post them online, but instead, to show them to the other officials at the Malaysian embassy? Or does that not fit into you "no proof, then it never happened" theory? You might want to join the real world were things don't always have to have pictorial proof for the world to see for them to be true.

[SICHONSTEVE]

@SICHONSTEVE - While at times you actually do make some relevant statements and fact, you seem to have a serious "obsession" in regards to the two suspects NOT being tortured. So, with that in mind, I'm assuming you completely missed the article in the BP a few days back in regards to them being "tortured" into a confession,

I guess you totally missed the article about the representative of the Myanmar Embassy who went to talk to the two suspects, and afterwards openly stated comments concerning the serious bruising on BOTH of their bodies that he observed during his interview with them? Did you, by chance, miss that article????

Shhhh! Don't tell Steve this ! What is wrong you with you man !

Too late! already seen it. Not substantiated I'm afraid without GENUINE and unquestionable proof which has not been forthcoming.

Ok, so according to your "logic", the official from the Malaysian embassy is lying about the bruises he saw because he didn't take pictures and post them online for all to see. So he just said he saw the bruises to be saying something, according to your "logic". But what if he DID take pictures, and chose NOT to post them online, but instead, to show them to the other officials at the Malaysian embassy? Or does that not fit into you "no proof, then it never happened" theory? You might want to join the real world were things don't always have to have pictorial proof for the world to see for them to be true.

Yes, I am sticking by my beliefs and I am convinced that they were not tortured and that they are guilty of at least rape if not the murders as well!

[Scully]

No

You've got the wrong end of the stick - I didn't mean that at all.

If you read the rest of the thread you will understand. I might be controversial and not everyone's cup of tea but I am not heartless!

You are certainly not controversial, in fact you are the opposite. You have accepted everything the authorities have told you without even a hint of doubt, you have clearly picked the side of the RTP and you know you have little chance of losing the argument as the Burmese lads have "admitted it".

Theres always a few with rose tinted glasses and they tend to shout the most, I think it must be a result of a totally closed mind and the fear someone will burst your utopian bubble.

It sometimes takes a heck of a long time listening to someone to realise they have nothing to say.

[wandasloan]

The main point made was: this is such a big case, under the scrutiny of the local and international press, not to mention the online world, that no police would have dared to frame some scapegoats.

Cynics might say that a) it is precisely because it is such an important case that scapegoating was seen as a good option or, b ) the case only came under massive public scrutiny because of the botched investigation and consequent likelihood that scapegoats were being framed. However, that's the General's line. [snip] [snip]

You don't have to be a cynic.It is well known, acknowledged that in the MOST important case in the recorded history of Thailand, police did exactly frame some scapegoats, four prominent ones included. Three of them were executed and the fourth shamefully banished (although recently if posthumously recognised - even with a major street now renamed in his honour).

It is not only that case that makes Thais very suspicious about the Koh Tao case, but it is absolute proof that in fact there is no such thing as a case "too big" to frame suspects.

.

Edited October 11, 2014 by wandasloan

[SICHONSTEVE]

No

You've got the wrong end of the stick - I didn't mean that at all.

If you read the rest of the thread you will understand. I might be controversial and not everyone's cup of tea but I am not heartless!

You are certainly not controversial, in fact you are the opposite. You have accepted everything the authorities have told you without even a hint of doubt, you have clearly picked the side of the RTP and you know you have little chance of losing the argument as the Burmese lads have "admitted it".

Theres always a few with rose tinted glasses and they tend to shout the most, I think it must be a result of a totally closed mind and the fear someone will burst your utopian bubble.

It sometimes takes a heck of a long time listening to someone to realise they have nothing to say.

It is not the case at all that I support the RTP (they are bumbling idiots akin to inspector Clouseau) I do not accept anything that the authorities have told me either - they haven't told me anything for a start as I have had no contact with them.

I actually agree with your third point, that is that I have little chance of losing the argument as to their guilt as you rightly point out that they have freely admitted the rapes, so no arguments there.

Not sure what you mean by my utopian bubble and I listen to other peoples views and make a considered response to them. If anyone is wearing rose tinted glasses then it is you and not me as you have made up your mind and won't budge from the stance that they are not guilty and faced torture.

If it takes someone a long time listening to someone before realising they have nothing to say then that suggests they have poor or impaired judgement! I'm sorry to hear that about you and I hope it improves.

Edited October 11, 2014 by SICHONSTEVE

[englishoak]

i have tried this link you can get on to UK goverment web site,

if you try to read the security advise it directs you to booking,com or agoda or another booking agency

i suspect that there some clandestine operation going on to block UK official web site

can some oun in Thailand check this out i dont think its my PC

the UK gov web site worked this morning and the security report was preety daming i thinking some interference for some source in thailand

trying to block information maybe

UK travel advice now updated "Western tourists including British nationals have been victims of vicious, unprovoked attacks by individuals and gangs in Koh Samui, Koh Phangan and Koh Tao (the Samui archipelago)."

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/thailand/safety-and-security

Are they going to release a similar one for New York??

No and New York isnt peddled as being a safe holiday tourist friendly paradise Island.

This travel warning by the British FO is VERY significant.... They names specific crimes and examples and many locations ..... Thailand has sold itself to be viewed as just another destination like Spains or the Greek Islands but more exotic, also it claims to be safe and fun, id say its a bombshell as an official gov warning that says otherwise.

I have NEVER seen a warning like this for tourists going to specific areas of supposedly safe and well established tourist destinations. Not for Thailand

Read the statement in full, its not short and goes into pretty strong examples...

Violent sexual assaults and robberies against both men and women are reported regularly in the Koh Samui archipelago and Krabi province and are particularly common during the monthly Full Moon parties and generally occur late at night near bars.

Tourists have also been robbed after bringing visitors to their hotel rooms. In some cases their drinks were drugged. Be careful about taking drinks from strangers and at clubs and parties, particularly in Koh Samui, Pattaya and at the Full Moon party on Koh Phangan, where date rapes have been reported.

UK.gov and the FO make it very very clear. You need to be very careful and aware whilst on a dream holiday of what a lot would think a paradise trip.... well the most traumatic things can happen to you here and do on a REGULAR basis.

Thats a pretty strong statement by the UK id say.... diplomatically its more than harsh .... problem is though its all true.

Come to Thailand but remember visitors get robbed and raped and worse here on A REGULAR BASIS. Thats a pretty amazing thing for a FO to print on its advice page about specific, supposedly safe, tourist package holiday destinations.......... now if you were Mr & Mrs Smith etc who have never been to Thailand but read the Sun do a 9-5 why would you take that chance with your family when theres no need ?

Theres no doubt about it... UK.gov are very not happy with things here... and rightly so.

Well done Mark at the Embassy and the FO for that.

Edited October 11, 2014 by englishoak

[Robby nz]

That is true ! Slap me in a foreign country where I can ne speak the language with a representative of a disposed people of my home land, with scalding water and electrocution and you would fall over backwards at the things I would tell you that I have done ! I would even sign a confession in a language that I didn't understand and would ask police to direct me through the reenactment to ensure I got that correct too.

But they were not tortured.

That is true. Once the claims of torture, by the three victims of torture, have these claims signed off and agreed to by the coppers and the army we will all be sure to forward this to you mate so you can believe what they have informed us already. Nothing exists without the police and army agreeing that it happened. Or at least creating a fairy tale about how it was ONLY the roti guy and they were not present whilst the roti guy took it upon himself to inflict harm. See - hands clean !

A tiny scratch on the neck does not constitute harm and would never extract a confession for such a serious crime such as this.

You are all having a laugh!

Stevie baby you need to go lay down . That small scratch on his neck as you see it, it actually on his arm pit...

You are spending so much time running from post to post defending your BIB it is doing your eye sight in..

Or is that the other thing you spend so much time doing over a picture of one of them ?

This gets more hilarious by the minute - I've just put it back on follow again.

So it (the confession) was extracted through 'over zealous tickling.

That will go down well in court I should imagine, I can just picture it - well your honour he was making me laugh so much that I just had to sign that confession!

.

Continue to advise when you choose to follow or unfollow a thread.

Apparently we find interest in what your section is at any given moment What an odd thing to do.

Anyway - back to real business folks !

Why are you people protecting rapists, that's what I want to know!

So you have declared them guilty as charged, not a shed of doubt, lets not bother with a trial.

And anyone who doesn't agree with you is defending rapists.

But hang on they haven't been charged yet, but why bother with little details like that just get on with the executions.

No!! I didn't, they did.

Without thinking they basically said the BIB are liars because they claimed to find their DNA on the outside of the condoms that they picked up.

One of them went on to say "how could they have found DNA on the outside of the condoms as WE DIDN'T USE CONDOMS WHEN WE VIOLATED THEM". Their words notice, not the BIB's, not mine.

If that isn't implicating themselves then what is??

You have to try to understand the two accused don't speak either Thai or English.

You are quoting someone elses words that they are attributing to the accused.

You have no idea of what questions they were asked or how any questions were asked and what answers were given then translated.

There are many ways to ask questions that no matter what the answer it can still be incriminating, the classic is 'Have you stopped beating your wife".

With two scared young men and a less than helpful interpreter it would have been easy for the police get any result they wanted.

They had no representation the whole time they were kept in a safe house and the things they are supposed to have said they may not have said at all.

And yes it is the police words that you are quoting for the police have said that this was what these men told them, there is no proof other than the police word that it is actually what they said, (through an interpreter).

It seems not unreasonable that when for the first time the accused are confronted with someone who is there to help them, speaks their language properly and is neither threatening, intimidating or possible hurting them, that they would be speaking out and tell the truth.

I don't know if they are the ones who committed these crimes and neither do you but given the performance of the police from day one there must be questions asked.

While you are convinced of their guilt many others are not.

[sweatalot]

This seems to be a sad pattern among Thai leaders regardless of the color of their shirts. A complete tone-deafness to basic PR management. They seem to be their own worst enemies when it comes to dealing with these episodes. The proper way for the good general to have dealt with this would have been to take advantage of this unfortunate event in order to strengthen his position as a different kind of Thai leader by having DSI take over investigtation and invite Scotland Yard to participate, which would have demonstrated to the world that the new government is very serious about tourist safety and their fight against corruption. Instead he left the Koh Tao somchais to do their best at being the worst and bungle this beyond any recognition and make Thailand and him the laughing stock once again.

Don't they have a PR team to advise PM on these matters? It seems like this would be taught in politics 101. It's not about reality but perception of reality and they need to pay attention to that.

They've done a fairly good job of it in Phuket by going after the taxi mafia and the beach encroachers and publicising it in a favorable light. This would have been such a slam dunk for them in terms of international PR, a good excuse to clean up Koh Tao and Samui mafias (they already started it in Phuket), not to mention doing the right thing by the unfortunate young victims and their families.

I swear any decent PR firm from New York or London or Singapore would be worth their retainer in gold for the PM. Thaksin's got several working for him. No wonder he's winning the public opinion war.

"any decent PR firm from New York or London or Singapore would be worth their retainer in gold for the PM. Thaksin's got several working for him. No wonder he's winning the public opinion war."

And not only in Thailand

So looks like he knew why not to use a Thai PR firm.

And it shows that the business man approach (which means PR, PR, PR - even if for shit) was the secret of his success. Apart from the money.

And why is T. still alive ( I mean in regard of politics) ? PR, PR, PR

That's what the PM missed - he can still learn

Edited October 11, 2014 by sweatalot

[SICHONSTEVE]

Fair comments throughout, apart from one thing. They seemed to be able to communicate perfectly well when they accidentally compromised themselves.

They seemed to be berating the police for accusing them of having found their DNA on the outside of the condom by saying that it couldn't be so as they didn't use condoms when they raped her (violated is the word that thy used to be specific). How could this get lost in translation??

The police have cocked up throughout but that doesn't mean that they didn't rape her (even if they made everything up and lied about the whole thing). They raped her and there is no getting away from that fact - as to whether they committed the murders that is still up for discussion but they must be the prime suspects for that.

[mauGR1]

Fair comments throughout, apart from one thing. They seemed to be able to communicate perfectly well when they accidentally compromised themselves.

They seemed to be berating the police for accusing them of having found their DNA on the outside of the condom by saying that it couldn't be so as they didn't use condoms when they raped her (violated is the word that thy used to be specific). How could this get lost in translation??

The police have cocked up throughout but that doesn't mean that they didn't rape her (even if they made everything up and lied about the whole thing). They raped her and there is no getting away from that fact - as to whether they committed the murders that is still up for discussion but they must be the prime suspects for that.

Are you making that up or do you have a source ?

I've been reading all the stuff, and i can't remember that detailed confession.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Fair comments throughout, apart from one thing. They seemed to be able to communicate perfectly well when they accidentally compromised themselves.

They seemed to be berating the police for accusing them of having found their DNA on the outside of the condom by saying that it couldn't be so as they didn't use condoms when they raped her (violated is the word that thy used to be specific). How could this get lost in translation??

The police have cocked up throughout but that doesn't mean that they didn't rape her (even if they made everything up and lied about the whole thing). They raped her and there is no getting away from that fact - as to whether they committed the murders that is still up for discussion but they must be the prime suspects for that.

Are you making that up or do you have a source ?

I've been reading all the stuff, and i can't remember that detailed confession.

Fortunately, I did.

The quote is as follows:

“A case of two murdered people certainly needs a forensic physician,” the head of Thailand’s forensic science institute said, according to the Guardian. Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

As to the source, I think the Washington Post is a fairly reputable newspaper!

Check out the article by Terrence McCoy in the WP edition on October 10th.

[mauGR1]

Fair comments throughout, apart from one thing. They seemed to be able to communicate perfectly well when they accidentally compromised themselves.

They seemed to be berating the police for accusing them of having found their DNA on the outside of the condom by saying that it couldn't be so as they didn't use condoms when they raped her (violated is the word that thy used to be specific). How could this get lost in translation??

The police have cocked up throughout but that doesn't mean that they didn't rape her (even if they made everything up and lied about the whole thing). They raped her and there is no getting away from that fact - as to whether they committed the murders that is still up for discussion but they must be the prime suspects for that.

Are you making that up or do you have a source ?

I've been reading all the stuff, and i can't remember that detailed confession.

Fortunately, I did.

The quote is as follows:

“A case of two murdered people certainly needs a forensic physician,” the head of Thailand’s forensic science institute said, according to the Guardian. Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

As to the source, I think the Washington Post is a fairly reputable newspaper!

Check out the article by Terrence McCoy in the WP edition on October 10th.

I'm going to check now, sure it's the first time i hear there was sperm on the mysterious condom.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Fair comments throughout, apart from one thing. They seemed to be able to communicate perfectly well when they accidentally compromised themselves.

They seemed to be berating the police for accusing them of having found their DNA on the outside of the condom by saying that it couldn't be so as they didn't use condoms when they raped her (violated is the word that thy used to be specific). How could this get lost in translation??

The police have cocked up throughout but that doesn't mean that they didn't rape her (even if they made everything up and lied about the whole thing). They raped her and there is no getting away from that fact - as to whether they committed the murders that is still up for discussion but they must be the prime suspects for that.

Are you making that up or do you have a source ?

I've been reading all the stuff, and i can't remember that detailed confession.

Fortunately, I did.

The quote is as follows:

“A case of two murdered people certainly needs a forensic physician,” the head of Thailand’s forensic science institute said, according to the Guardian. Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

As to the source, I think the Washington Post is a fairly reputable newspaper!

Check out the article by Terrence McCoy in the WP edition on October 10th.

I'm going to check now, sure it's the first time i hear there was sperm on the mysterious condom.

Whether there was sperm on the condom or not is irrelevant - it is what they said that is the telling thing as to their guilt.

[evadgib]

Thein Sein obviously telling Prayuth that they are being watched.

What Prayuth and his police chiefs have also forgotten is that there 'human rights' behaviour is also being scrutinised by the US with regards to mistreatment of migrants and their human rights, and now add Amnesty International to that list.

If they decide to carry on with this charade, then I think they will not escape punishment this time. They got off lucky a few months ago when they were downgraded to the lowest tier for human rights abuses yet managed to escape tangible sanctions. They were lucky to get away with a slap on the wrist.

I hope they get a hard kick up the arse next time...... The world is watching.... continue to be stupid, and you may well see CIVILISED countries marking Thailand down as an unsafe destination.

That would wipe that smarmy look off your face.

I believe the UK Government has a duty of care for British subjects and should revise Foreign Office travel guidance in light of the frequency British subjects have been victims of murder, "suicides", rape and other violent crime in Thailand over the past five years.

Actually, I have today received an e-mail from GOV.UK doing just that - revising Thailand Travel Advice, and making particular reference to the "Crime" Section. A bit late maybe, as the latest incident happened almost a month ago!

As the superseded warning included a reference to the last British murder in the same archipelago at a full moon party your post is irrelevant.

Edited October 11, 2014 by evadgib

[MikePhuket1970]

One rape case is for sure solved already.

The crime scene was raped by Mon and the police farce force

[mauGR1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/terrence-mccoy

Fair comments throughout, apart from one thing. They seemed to be able to communicate perfectly well when they accidentally compromised themselves.

They seemed to be berating the police for accusing them of having found their DNA on the outside of the condom by saying that it couldn't be so as they didn't use condoms when they raped her (violated is the word that thy used to be specific). How could this get lost in translation??

The police have cocked up throughout but that doesn't mean that they didn't rape her (even if they made everything up and lied about the whole thing). They raped her and there is no getting away from that fact - as to whether they committed the murders that is still up for discussion but they must be the prime suspects for that.

Fortunately, I did.

The quote is as follows:

“A case of two murdered people certainly needs a forensic physician,” the head of Thailand’s forensic science institute said, according to the Guardian. Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

As to the source, I think the Washington Post is a fairly reputable newspaper!

Check out the article by Terrence McCoy in the WP edition on October 10th.

Whether there was sperm on the condom or not is irrelevant - it is what they said that is the telling thing as to their guilt.

(quote )

So, i think you are a bit confused Nothing about sperm in the condom, except your imagination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/terrence-mccoy

Edited October 11, 2014 by mauGR1

[SICHONSTEVE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/terrence-mccoy

Fair comments throughout, apart from one thing. They seemed to be able to communicate perfectly well when they accidentally compromised themselves.

They seemed to be berating the police for accusing them of having found their DNA on the outside of the condom by saying that it couldn't be so as they didn't use condoms when they raped her (violated is the word that thy used to be specific). How could this get lost in translation??

The police have cocked up throughout but that doesn't mean that they didn't rape her (even if they made everything up and lied about the whole thing). They raped her and there is no getting away from that fact - as to whether they committed the murders that is still up for discussion but they must be the prime suspects for that.

Fortunately, I did.

The quote is as follows:

“A case of two murdered people certainly needs a forensic physician,” the head of Thailand’s forensic science institute said, according to the Guardian. Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

As to the source, I think the Washington Post is a fairly reputable newspaper!

Check out the article by Terrence McCoy in the WP edition on October 10th.

Whether there was sperm on the condom or not is irrelevant - it is what they said that is the telling thing as to their guilt.

(quote )

So, i think you are a bit confused Nothing about sperm in the condom, except your imagination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/terrence-McCoy

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party??

[mauGR1]

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party?? ( quote )

I am not denying the possibility that the 2 Burmese may have ( or not ) raped the victim.

Still, i am not aware of them being interviewed by the press... It seems they speak very little Thai, they had no lawyer when they confessed, according to the police...And they had a " translator " who , according to their lawyer, was hitting them in the face.... Then you come out with nonsense about sperm in the condom..

Methinks things are confused enough without you adding your fantasies.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party?? ( quote )

I am not denying the possibility that the 2 Burmese may have ( or not ) raped the victim.

Still, i am not aware of them being interviewed by the press... It seems they speak very little Thai, they had no lawyer when they confessed, according to the police...And they had a " translator " who , according to their lawyer, was hitting them in the face.... Then you come out with nonsense about sperm in the condom..

Methinks things are confused enough without you adding your fantasies.

Let me simplify it for you:

"they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge"

Got it now?

[MikePhuket1970]

It would be so easy to save the reputation for thailand and authorities

-release all cctv recordings from the crime night

-take DNA from Nomsod by an independence investigation group

It would be so easy to stop all speculations and outcry

Its so simple,isn´t it ?

[smokie36]

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party?? ( quote )

I am not denying the possibility that the 2 Burmese may have ( or not ) raped the victim.

Still, i am not aware of them being interviewed by the press... It seems they speak very little Thai, they had no lawyer when they confessed, according to the police...And they had a " translator " who , according to their lawyer, was hitting them in the face.... Then you come out with nonsense about sperm in the condom..

Methinks things are confused enough without you adding your fantasies.

Let me simplify it for you:

"they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge"

Got it now?

The only thing that is really clear is that they had no legal representation....a translator who may or may not like those of Burmese origin and happens to be a banana pancake flipper.....amid rumours of beatings and torture.

Anything they have signed in Thai under these conditions isn't worth the paper its written on.....and it looks like they might have better legal representation than the police first imagined.

No wonder the prosecutor keeps tossing the case back to the police!

[SICHONSTEVE]

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party?? ( quote )

I am not denying the possibility that the 2 Burmese may have ( or not ) raped the victim.

Still, i am not aware of them being interviewed by the press... It seems they speak very little Thai, they had no lawyer when they confessed, according to the police...And they had a " translator " who , according to their lawyer, was hitting them in the face.... Then you come out with nonsense about sperm in the condom..

Methinks things are confused enough without you adding your fantasies.

Let me try and help you on the comprehension front.

"they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge:

OK now?

[mauGR1]

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party?? ( quote )

I am not denying the possibility that the 2 Burmese may have ( or not ) raped the victim.

Still, i am not aware of them being interviewed by the press... It seems they speak very little Thai, they had no lawyer when they confessed, according to the police...And they had a " translator " who , according to their lawyer, was hitting them in the face.... Then you come out with nonsense about sperm in the condom..

Methinks things are confused enough without you adding your fantasies.

Let me try and help you on the comprehension front.

"they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge:

OK now?

Ok, although it's not proven that they said anything of the sort... Probably they just signed a report.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party?? ( quote )

I am not denying the possibility that the 2 Burmese may have ( or not ) raped the victim.

Still, i am not aware of them being interviewed by the press... It seems they speak very little Thai, they had no lawyer when they confessed, according to the police...And they had a " translator " who , according to their lawyer, was hitting them in the face.... Then you come out with nonsense about sperm in the condom..

Methinks things are confused enough without you adding your fantasies.

Let me try and help you on the comprehension front.

"they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge:

OK now?

Ok, although it's not proven that they said anything of the sort... Probably they just signed a report.

......maybe the guessed and then forged their signatures as their hands were still quivering from the electric shock treatment!!!

[bunglebag]

Try reading the previous post in this series again where I stated that the condom is irrelevant to it all. Forget about the condom and sperm inside or outside of it and look at what one of the Burmese said. That is the pertinent part of my point!!!

In short, he basically said that they raped her!

Who is the confused party?? ( quote )

I am not denying the possibility that the 2 Burmese may have ( or not ) raped the victim.

Still, i am not aware of them being interviewed by the press... It seems they speak very little Thai, they had no lawyer when they confessed, according to the police...And they had a " translator " who , according to their lawyer, was hitting them in the face.... Then you come out with nonsense about sperm in the condom..

Methinks things are confused enough without you adding your fantasies.

Let me try and help you on the comprehension front.

"they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge:

OK now?

Would this not be what they *may* have said during the initial confession though, when they also 'confessed' to the murders and everything else they *may* have been 'instructed' to (even though they don't seem very familiar with how the two victims were murdered)?

I don't think anything they said in these confessions can be taken as a given presently. That said, I am also not ruling anything out. I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

I'm not even ruling out the fact that as pancake man was the translator he might even have modified things as he saw fit.

I'm going to be interested to see what their statements are now they have fair legal representation.

Edited October 11, 2014 by bunglebag

[joecoolfrog]

Sichon Steve

If the police force of a particular country has a proven track record of corruption , is the sensible course ;

A) To blindly accept the claims of said police , even if the investigation has appeared shambolic.

To adopt a more cynical aproach and insist that the investigators work in a fair , professional and honest fashion.

I dont see how the later aproach hinders justice or protects the guilty whereas the former aproach very much has the potential to do so. Do you disagree with my assesment and if so why ?