Koh Tao murder suspects retract confessions: 'interpreter assaulted us'

[Bleacher Bum East]

I'm not sure that's correct. Despite the not-guilty plea and retraction of the confession, I think that the prosecutor will still be able to introduce the confessions into evidence, although he would have a big challenge demonstrating the reliability of the confessions because the defense counsel would counter them in the way I described in my comment. I might be wrong, but unless the judge decides the confessions are so unreliable that they are not admissible into evidence, they will still be part of the case.

This is one objective of the Brit police. To examine the confession methodology, and allegations of coercion and torture. I would like to think that the prosecutor would realise he could not submit this evidence as being sound beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a normal case the prosecutor might submit everything and see what sticks ... leaving it up to the judge (or jury when there is one) to decide whether the evidence is reliable beyond a reasonable doubt (although prosecutors hate to even charge suspects unless they are almost certain they will win the case).

But this is not a normal case.

What is unusual about this case is that the Thai prosecutor (and his bosses all the way up the line) now realize that in order to "win" this case they have to do two things:

First, they have to prove to the judge that the evidence is reliable and the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to gain a conviction.

Second, they have to prove to the observers who will be watching in the courtroom that the evidence is reliable and the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in order for the Thai government to put this case to rest and remove the national and international spotlight and criticism it is experiencing.

Neither the prosecutor (and his superiors all the way up the line) nor the judge wants to be publicly hung out to dry by pushing a conviction based on evidence that is not reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in a case where they themselves will be under the spotlight. They know the accused now have good defense lawyers who will be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt if it exists. So they have sent the case back to the police once again to gather more circumstantial evidence to support a charge of rape and murder.

My guess is that the problem for the Thai police investigators will be that most or the remaining circumstantial evidence (including regarding the murder weapon, location and condition of the bodies, etc. etc.) will actually cut in favor of the accused rather than the prosecution's case--this is of course A GUESS based on publicly available information that I have personally read about. I have no idea what they may have available that is not public information.

[culicine]

Correct. They were apparently cleared the first time...this alone will get them off.

Where did you see they were cleared? From Police reports I remember, the 2 suspects were part of a group of *hundreds* workers who got a DNA sample collected... but Police also said the DNA tests were made only for a few tens of people who were suspected at this time. The 2 final suspects were not in the short list, as their employer "forgot" to put them on his employees list...

The three guitar playing Burmese were of high interest in the very early stages of the investigation. Why does it then take two weeks to get a positive result, when the police said over 200 tested at that time came up clear. The prosecutors are not buying it an neither are most people.

[heyexile]

Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Posters keep using the phrase but it does not apply to the Thai judicial system. Basically you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. There is no `presumption of innocence` as in the West and there is no trial by jury.

Mr Crab or anyone who knows better, please correct me if I am mistaken. This is just my understanding and for once I have not fact checked it.

[stephen terry]

Thai authorities have strongly denied using the pair as scapegoats, insisting the case is built on solid evidence showing the DNA of the accused matches samples taken from Witheridge's body.

"It doesn't matter if they confessed or denied it because the court will consider evidence from forensic tests," said prosecution lawyer Paiboon Archavanuntakun.

Seems like the DNA evidence will be crucial. The RTP will say it's factual and no-one could challenge them, because they won't release their samples. Get a few new 'witnesses' to confirm that the B2 were at the crime scene. Case completed.

[heyexile]

I'm not sure that's correct. Despite the not-guilty plea and retraction of the confession, I think that the prosecutor will still be able to introduce the confessions into evidence, although he would have a big challenge demonstrating the reliability of the confessions because the defense counsel would counter them in the way I described in my comment. I might be wrong, but unless the judge decides the confessions are so unreliable that they are not admissible into evidence, they will still be part of the case.

This is one objective of the Brit police. To examine the confession methodology, and allegations of coercion and torture. I would like to think that the prosecutor would realise he could not submit this evidence as being sound beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a normal case the prosecutor might submit everything and see what sticks ... leaving it up to the judge (or jury when there is one) to decide whether the evidence is reliable beyond a reasonable doubt (although prosecutors hate to even charge suspects unless they are almost certain they will win the case).

But this is not a normal case.

What is unusual about this case is that the Thai prosecutor (and his bosses all the way up the line) now realize that in order to "win" this case they have to do two things:

First, they have to prove to the judge that the evidence is reliable and the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to gain a conviction.

Second, they have to prove to the observers who will be watching in the courtroom that the evidence is reliable and the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in order for the Thai government to put this case to rest and remove the national and international spotlight and criticism it is experiencing.

Neither the prosecutor (and his superiors all the way up the line) nor the judge wants to be publicly hung out to dry by pushing a conviction based on evidence that is not reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in a case where they themselves will be under the spotlight. They know the accused now have good defense lawyers who will be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt if it exists. So they have sent the case back to the police once again to gather more circumstantial evidence to support a charge of rape and murder.

My guess is that the problem for the Thai police investigators will be that most or the remaining circumstantial evidence (including regarding the murder weapon, location and condition of the bodies, etc. etc.) will actually cut in favor of the accused rather than the prosecution's case--this is of course A GUESS based on publicly available information that I have personally read about. I have no idea what they may have available that is not public information.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Western concept, no `presumption of innocence` in LOSt.

See #183

[eeworldwide]

This is gonna make one heck of a movie when all is done and dusted.

[webfact]

UPDATE:

Myanmar suspects formally retract confession



BANGKOK: -- Two Myanmar suspects who earlier admitted to the killings of British backpackers David Miller and Hannah Witheridge in Koh Tao have spectacularly retracted their confessions, their lawyers say.

They said they were beaten and forced to confess, Mr Rassada Manoorassada, a lawyer of the Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) said.

The two migrant workers Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun were named as suspects soon after the bodies of the two tourists were found on Sairee beach on the idyllic holiday island.

But the HRLA lawyer now said that both suspects said they did not kill Ms Witheridge and Mr Miller, nor did they see what happened after they visited them in the Koh Samui prison Monday.

Mr Rassada said he was told by Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun that they had to confess one week after the murders that they were physically abused by the police.

They said the interpreter the police arranged also is not of their ethnic and dialect and this interpreter also kicked them to confess, the lawyer said.

He said parents of both suspects were expected to arrive in Samui to visit their sons today.

The two suspects are charged with conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to rape, and robbery and, if charged, they could face the death penalty.

But the state prosecutor has delayed the prosecution of the two in court with reason that the case file submitted for prosecution lacked substantial evidence and needed to be improved.

Post-mortem examinations found Mr Miller died from drowning and a blow to the head, while Ms Witheridge died from head wounds.

British ambassador Mark Kent met
the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC) president Mrs Amara Pongsapich yesterday to discuss on the murder suspects.

Mrs Amara disclosed that the ambassador inquired about the scope of authority of the NHRC and the human rights’ view on the case.
She said the ambassador was happy that the NHRC has worked in the case as it would be another version of information different from that of the Thai police.

She said the NHRC has evidence of physical assault though the police had denied it.

She was told that the British police would arrive next week to observe the investigation

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/myanmar-suspects-formally-retract-confession/


-- Thai PBS 2014-10-22

[chotthee]

Interpreter - The new sheep.

[IAMHERE]

That girl wore a sexy bikini and excited bad guys, so where was it these two Myanmar fellas caught site of her ? Supposedly they were out smoking and playing their guitars, the two falangs said lets go <deleted> in front of them, and this led to their ultimate demise. One of the guys runs off in the frangs underwear but left his guitar ? Is a mystery how powerful families on a small island dictate to Bangkok elite what is what.

[Artisi]

After dna verification has been confirmed by the UK ( if it should become so ) there will be perhaps a solid case of guilt on the part of the accused. However, proof of rape, in itself, is surely not proof that the accused committed murder, without other conclusive evidence.

You're not the first to raise this important and crucial point - but this is Thailand and rape must be murder as well (In this case) because BIB say so and they know.

[JingerBen]

The so called interpreter potentially has a lot of answers as to how the ' confessions ' etc were obtained so let's hope he can be made available for any court hearings and just doesn't just ' disappear '. There are a couple on possible interpretations of this so I'll leave to members to decide as they see fit.

Incidentally BBC World Television is covering the story that the suspects have retracted their confessions etc.

"...so I'll leave [it] to members to decide as they see fit."

The only problem with that is the fact that the "members" don't have any inside information and are completely clueless.

[heyexile]

And the shit finally has hit the fan - for the RTP !!!

Let's hope that this cesspit full of corrupt brown crooks will be stirred up properly and that heads will roll accordingly.

"To the guillotines. Vive la revolution!"

"Off with their heads!" cried the red queen.

"Perfecter and perfecter" cried Alice.

(with apologies to Prof Dodgson)

[Gweiloman]

Thai authorities have strongly denied using the pair as scapegoats, insisting the case is built on solid evidence showing the DNA of the accused matches samples taken from Witheridge's body.

"It doesn't matter if they confessed or denied it because the court will consider evidence from forensic tests," said prosecution lawyer Paiboon Archavanuntakun.

Seems like the DNA evidence will be crucial. The RTP will say it's factual and no-one could challenge them, because they won't release their samples. Get a few new 'witnesses' to confirm that the B2 were at the crime scene. Case completed.

I believe that the case will go to court but that the outcome is already pre-determined ie Not Guilty. Can you imagine the uproar if the accused are found guilty? The investigation has been so tainted with numerous contradictions and allegations that I cannot imagine any judge wanting to take it upon him/herself to find the defendants guilty, regardless of whatever DNA evidence there would be.

IMO, this is the best face saving option left for the RTP, the Thai legal system and the Government.

[lahgon29]

Lies! This was a perfect police investigation and you farrangs just need time to understand.

Happiness in the Kingdom now sits at 120% and corruption has been eradicated.

Love live the Generalissimo

"Lies! This was a perfect police investigation and you farrangs just need time to understand".

Well, tullynagardy I can assure you that by world's best practice this was most definitely NOT a perfect police investigation. Like everyone else I have been following events everyday, particularly the constant stream of contradictory press releases by the RTP. Nothing, I repeat nothing, could have been more counter-productive and amateur than the performance of the RTP. I have no knowledge whatsoever as to the guilt or innocence of the accused and I would respectfully suggest that you do not either.

As for your statement that corruption "...has been eradicated", you just have to be joking. By this statement you lose any credibility you may have had. As for your ridiculous and somewhat insulting comment that "...you farrangs just need time to understand". You are obviously ignorant as to the depth of understanding that most farangs have regarding this matter.

I can't believe that you can't see the tongue in cheek nature of this post. It is funny. It is humour. If you are British or Australasian, you really should have seen this for what It is.If you're not...Then I understand.

[Thai at Heart]

Guessing the police were hoping they'd commit suicide in prison, or at least wished for a fast-track trial. Tough on them and I hope it all comes out and destroys careers and KT tourism (until it's thoroughly cleansed).

I see Mr Kent's name mentioned again. Why? And why is he still ambassador even?

I bet the British bobbies are relishing working with the Thai police. I hope they are familiar with this place as it'll be easy to run them around if not. They'd be better off being chaperoned by the army. RTP should take a backseat or, better still, get out of the car!

Stop believing that the embassy never does anything .

They have quite cleverly managed to get access for thr British police without annoying anyone in thailand. They have made their statements about the problems with the case quite firmly and diplomatically.

What would you like them to do? Send in thr SAS?

I agree with you and YES I would like a few teams of 4 sent in to 'observe'!

Don't be so silly. The embassy does have channels into the various minstries in Thailand, it is just that there isn't much to be gained by throwing your weight around publically about issues like this. They achieved their goal which was to get the issue raised in profile and to get the right to send the British police over to observe. This splitting hairs about what observe means is stupid anyway. The bodies have been returned to the UK, it is possible that they took DNA samples from the bodies in the UK. I presume they will inspect the samples here in Thailand.

it all helps to throw light onto the case.

[Gweiloman]

where are the pics, showing their beaten bodies, tortured, etc........... Not once, has a pic been spread thru social media, yet, everyone who has no clue of the truth, states they were........

When I was still a lad in school (before the days of internet and photoshop), a teacher asked my class as to whether seeing is believing. Obviously, everyone said yes. He then asked how many of us saw ourselves being born and how can we be sure that our mother is in fact our real mother.

Just because there is no picture of any abuse or torture does not mean that there wasn't (conversely, even a picture might not tell the truth). One would need to be very naive to think that especially here in Thailand (and a few other SEA countries) that the police do not resort to some dubious means to get what they want.

[jdinasia]

I'm not sure that's correct. Despite the not-guilty plea and retraction of the confession, I think that the prosecutor will still be able to introduce the confessions into evidence, although he would have a big challenge demonstrating the reliability of the confessions because the defense counsel would counter them in the way I described in my comment. I might be wrong, but unless the judge decides the confessions are so unreliable that they are not admissible into evidence, they will still be part of the case.

This is one objective of the Brit police. To examine the confession methodology, and allegations of coercion and torture. I would like to think that the prosecutor would realise he could not submit this evidence as being sound beyond all reasonable doubt.

"reasonable doubt " comes from jury trials in some Western countries. It is not a burden that the prosecution must use in a case. It is the basis for a conviction by a jury. They decide what is reasonable.

Thailand does not have a jury system. Judges decide based upon evidence and what they believe it to mean.

[Gweiloman]

Lies! This was a perfect police investigation and you farrangs just need time to understand.

Happiness in the Kingdom now sits at 120% and corruption has been eradicated.

Love live the Generalissimo

"Lies! This was a perfect police investigation and you farrangs just need time to understand".

Well, tullynagardy I can assure you that by world's best practice this was most definitely NOT a perfect police investigation. Like everyone else I have been following events everyday, particularly the constant stream of contradictory press releases by the RTP. Nothing, I repeat nothing, could have been more counter-productive and amateur than the performance of the RTP. I have no knowledge whatsoever as to the guilt or innocence of the accused and I would respectfully suggest that you do not either.

As for your statement that corruption "...has been eradicated", you just have to be joking. By this statement you lose any credibility you may have had. As for your ridiculous and somewhat insulting comment that "...you farrangs just need time to understand". You are obviously ignorant as to the depth of understanding that most farangs have regarding this matter.

Read some of tullynagardy's other posts (in other political threads) and you will see why this post of his has gathered such a huge number of likes.

[Bleacher Bum East]

I'm not sure that's correct. Despite the not-guilty plea and retraction of the confession, I think that the prosecutor will still be able to introduce the confessions into evidence, although he would have a big challenge demonstrating the reliability of the confessions because the defense counsel would counter them in the way I described in my comment. I might be wrong, but unless the judge decides the confessions are so unreliable that they are not admissible into evidence, they will still be part of the case.

This is one objective of the Brit police. To examine the confession methodology, and allegations of coercion and torture. I would like to think that the prosecutor would realise he could not submit this evidence as being sound beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a normal case the prosecutor might submit everything and see what sticks ... leaving it up to the judge (or jury when there is one) to decide whether the evidence is reliable beyond a reasonable doubt (although prosecutors hate to even charge suspects unless they are almost certain they will win the case).

But this is not a normal case.

What is unusual about this case is that the Thai prosecutor (and his bosses all the way up the line) now realize that in order to "win" this case they have to do two things:

First, they have to prove to the judge that the evidence is reliable and the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to gain a conviction.

Second, they have to prove to the observers who will be watching in the courtroom that the evidence is reliable and the accused are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in order for the Thai government to put this case to rest and remove the national and international spotlight and criticism it is experiencing.

Neither the prosecutor (and his superiors all the way up the line) nor the judge wants to be publicly hung out to dry by pushing a conviction based on evidence that is not reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in a case where they themselves will be under the spotlight. They know the accused now have good defense lawyers who will be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt if it exists. So they have sent the case back to the police once again to gather more circumstantial evidence to support a charge of rape and murder.

My guess is that the problem for the Thai police investigators will be that most or the remaining circumstantial evidence (including regarding the murder weapon, location and condition of the bodies, etc. etc.) will actually cut in favor of the accused rather than the prosecution's case--this is of course A GUESS based on publicly available information that I have personally read about. I have no idea what they may have available that is not public information.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Western concept, no `presumption of innocence` in LOSt.

See #183

Read my post more carefully.

In a normal case this may be true ... I don't know what the presumptions or standard for proving guilt in a criminal case are in Thailand (as either a practical or criminal matter).

And what you said may still be true for the prosecution to get a conviction.

But the UK observers and media, other international observers and media, and I believe a preponderance of the Thai media and observers will hold the prosecution to the normal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

If the Thai prosecution and judiciary don't meet that standard, they will never be able to put this case to rest. The criticism may eventually subside, but it will have more of an impact than any other case of this kind has ever had.

The prosecutor, judge and other authorities know this very well.

That's what I believe is the reality of the situation, regardless of what the actual legal standard is in Thailand.

BTW I'd also be interested to know what is the legal presumption and standard for guilt in Thailand ...

[sfokevin]

Lies! This was a perfect police investigation and you farrangs just need time to understand.

Happiness in the Kingdom now sits at 120% and corruption has been eradicated.

Love live the Generalissimo

He is retired from the army so I think the proper term would be Juntalissimo

[hiller]

Guessing the police were hoping they'd commit suicide in prison, or at least wished for a fast-track trial. Tough on them and I hope it all comes out and destroys careers and KT tourism (until it's thoroughly cleansed).

I see Mr Kent's name mentioned again. Why? And why is he still ambassador even?

I bet the British bobbies are relishing working with the Thai police. I hope they are familiar with this place as it'll be easy to run them around if not. They'd be better off being chaperoned by the army. RTP should take a backseat or, better still, get out of the car!

If the British Police play their cards right they could have a brand new Mercedes waiting for them when they get home.

[Bleacher Bum East]

I'm not sure that's correct. Despite the not-guilty plea and retraction of the confession, I think that the prosecutor will still be able to introduce the confessions into evidence, although he would have a big challenge demonstrating the reliability of the confessions because the defense counsel would counter them in the way I described in my comment. I might be wrong, but unless the judge decides the confessions are so unreliable that they are not admissible into evidence, they will still be part of the case.

This is one objective of the Brit police. To examine the confession methodology, and allegations of coercion and torture. I would like to think that the prosecutor would realise he could not submit this evidence as being sound beyond all reasonable doubt.

"reasonable doubt " comes from jury trials in some Western countries. It is not a burden that the prosecution must use in a case. It is the basis for a conviction by a jury. They decide what is reasonable.

Thailand does not have a jury system. Judges decide based upon evidence and what they believe it to mean.

The lawyers on these websites seem to think the burden of proof for a criminal conviction in Thailand is "beyond a reasonable doubt":

http://www.siam-legal.com/litigation/litigation-in-thailand.php

"Like in most countries, the burden of proof in criminal cases like murder or rape is proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, civil controversies like breach of contract or rescission require mere preponderance of evidence."

http://www.tilleke.com/sites/default/files/ICLG-Business-Crime2011.pdf

9 Burden of Proof

9.1 For each element of the business crimes identified above,

which party has the burden of proof?

In general, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor in a criminal

case unless stated otherwise in the law.

9.2 What is the standard of proof that the party with the

burden must satisfy?

The prosecutor has the burden of proof to prove the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.

9.3 In a criminal trial, who is the arbiter of fact? Who

determines whether the party has satisfied its burden of

proof?

The judge is the arbiter of facts and determines whether a party has

satisfied its burden of proof.

Also see my comment in #199 below ... I think there are practical reasons the Thai prosecutors and judge need to meet the "reasonable doubt" standard, regardless of whether this is the Thai legal standard for a criminal conviction (although it appears that it is) or whether in reality this standard is normally applied.

[stephen terry]

I'm not sure that's correct. Despite the not-guilty plea and retraction of the confession, I think that the prosecutor will still be able to introduce the confessions into evidence, although he would have a big challenge demonstrating the reliability of the confessions because the defense counsel would counter them in the way I described in my comment. I might be wrong, but unless the judge decides the confessions are so unreliable that they are not admissible into evidence, they will still be part of the case.

This is one objective of the Brit police. To examine the confession methodology, and allegations of coercion and torture. I would like to think that the prosecutor would realise he could not submit this evidence as being sound beyond all reasonable doubt.

"reasonable doubt " comes from jury trials in some Western countries. It is not a burden that the prosecution must use in a case. It is the basis for a conviction by a jury. They decide what is reasonable.

Thailand does not have a jury system. Judges decide based upon evidence and what they believe it to mean.

Exactly. I know that. And so does the prosecutor. He's not going to risk his reputation (at the very least) by submitting evidence to the judge(s) that, in his opinion, wouldn't pass this test. That's why he re-submitted the RTP report back to them to ask for more evidence.

[Artisi]

Guessing the police were hoping they'd commit suicide in prison, or at least wished for a fast-track trial. Tough on them and I hope it all comes out and destroys careers and KT tourism (until it's thoroughly cleansed).

I see Mr Kent's name mentioned again. Why? And why is he still ambassador even?

I bet the British bobbies are relishing working with the Thai police. I hope they are familiar with this place as it'll be easy to run them around if not. They'd be better off being chaperoned by the army. RTP should take a backseat or, better still, get out of the car!

If the British Police play their cards right they could have a brand new Mercedes waiting for them when they get home.

Very intelligent insight.

[heyexile]

I'm not sure that's correct. Despite the not-guilty plea and retraction of the confession, I think that the prosecutor will still be able to introduce the confessions into evidence, although he would have a big challenge demonstrating the reliability of the confessions because the defense counsel would counter them in the way I described in my comment. I might be wrong, but unless the judge decides the confessions are so unreliable that they are not admissible into evidence, they will still be part of the case.

This is one objective of the Brit police. To examine the confession methodology, and allegations of coercion and torture. I would like to think that the prosecutor would realise he could not submit this evidence as being sound beyond all reasonable doubt.

"reasonable doubt " comes from jury trials in some Western countries. It is not a burden that the prosecution must use in a case. It is the basis for a conviction by a jury. They decide what is reasonable.

Thailand does not have a jury system. Judges decide based upon evidence and what they believe it to mean.

See my comment in #199 below ... I think there are practical reasons the Thai prosecutors and judge need to meet the "reasonable doubt" standard, regardless of whether this is the Thai legal standard for a criminal conviction.

In the US the standard for conviction would be the same whether trial by judge or jury (a jury trial can be waived by the accused) ... the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil trial.

I don't know the answer, but am interested to know: Are you saying there is no standard for judges in a criminal trial in Thailand? That they can use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard or something similar if they wish, or even a standard of "I think he might have done it", in order to convict in a rape and murder trial?

If you or anyone can cite the actual standard a judge must use, or say definitively there is no standard at all (i.e. it is up to each judge to set his own standard), I think that would be helpful to everyone following the case.

But again, I think most observers will apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in deciding if the verdict was fair. And to to be fair themselves, the observers should should apply this standard to any defendant in this case, whether the two currently accused or otherwise.

I`m inclined to agree with you. But whilst western observers may be familiar with the concepts of `beyond a reasonable doubt`, `presumption of innocence` etc they are alien to the Thai judicial system. This is a super high-profile case and the stakes are so high for Thailand`s ruling military junta. Gweiloman #193 suggests the best face saver for the generals is for the case to go to trial and result in a `not guilty` verdict. Not sure if prosecutors will agree as they have no amnesty cover and could be hung out to dry.

Depends on envelope sizes and what you fear most, so some say.

[greenchair]

"A police spokeswoman said police from New Scotland Yard had yet to contact Thai police about how or when their detectives would start "work" with them. Pol Lt-Colonel Chanchai Rattanaphanich said all details on the case including crime-scene investigation had been readied for them."

Can't wait for the UK bobbies to read the Engrishee translation of those thousands of pages. They will go nuts reading "two peoples has killd two peoples". "kon burma very maidee and run with from away bodys" and the ever incredible "DNA of two kon burma maidee bad have on them and on bidys of two peoples and all police peoples love uk peoples and wes too"

So funny.

[stephen terry]

Thai authorities have strongly denied using the pair as scapegoats, insisting the case is built on solid evidence showing the DNA of the accused matches samples taken from Witheridge's body.

"It doesn't matter if they confessed or denied it because the court will consider evidence from forensic tests," said prosecution lawyer Paiboon Archavanuntakun.

Seems like the DNA evidence will be crucial. The RTP will say it's factual and no-one could challenge them, because they won't release their samples. Get a few new 'witnesses' to confirm that the B2 were at the crime scene. Case completed.

I believe that the case will go to court but that the outcome is already pre-determined ie Not Guilty. Can you imagine the uproar if the accused are found guilty? The investigation has been so tainted with numerous contradictions and allegations that I cannot imagine any judge wanting to take it upon him/herself to find the defendants guilty, regardless of whatever DNA evidence there would be.

IMO, this is the best face saving option left for the RTP, the Thai legal system and the Government.

While I do hope you are correct, I am a realist. The authorities won't back down from their stated position. If the RTP provide DNA samples that they say matched, the judge has no option but to accept it. I think the rape charge will be proven. Whether that will also lead to the murder charge evidence being

proven is less sure. It can only be circumstantial at best. That would also be a face-saver if found guilty of the other charges but not-guilty of murder. The RTP would say the culprits were trialled. And everyone else would be in two camps.

[culicine]

Interpreter - The new sheep.

Nothing new here. Abuse by authorities (including the interpreter) was noted a number of weeks ago.

[marquis22]

"No No Dummy, you did it this way not that way"!!

A single image extracted from its context often can say anything you want it to say... A popular Internet game

Now go look the full video, and see how wrong your comment is.

Joke Joyce

[Bleacher Bum East]

"reasonable doubt " comes from jury trials in some Western countries. It is not a burden that the prosecution must use in a case. It is the basis for a conviction by a jury. They decide what is reasonable.

Thailand does not have a jury system. Judges decide based upon evidence and what they believe it to mean.

See my comment in #199 below ... I think there are practical reasons the Thai prosecutors and judge need to meet the "reasonable doubt" standard, regardless of whether this is the Thai legal standard for a criminal conviction.

In the US the standard for conviction would be the same whether trial by judge or jury (a jury trial can be waived by the accused) ... the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil trial.

I don't know the answer, but am interested to know: Are you saying there is no standard for judges in a criminal trial in Thailand? That they can use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard or something similar if they wish, or even a standard of "I think he might have done it", in order to convict in a rape and murder trial?

If you or anyone can cite the actual standard a judge must use, or say definitively there is no standard at all (i.e. it is up to each judge to set his own standard), I think that would be helpful to everyone following the case.

But again, I think most observers will apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in deciding if the verdict was fair. And to to be fair themselves, the observers should should apply this standard to any defendant in this case, whether the two currently accused or otherwise.

I`m inclined to agree with you. But whilst western observers may be familiar with the concepts of `beyond a reasonable doubt`, `presumption of innocence` etc they are alien to the Thai judicial system. This is a super high-profile case and the stakes are so high for Thailand`s ruling military junta. Gweiloman #193 suggests the best face saver for the generals is for the case to go to trial and result in a `not guilty` verdict. Not sure if prosecutors will agree as they have no amnesty cover and could be hung out to dry.

Depends on envelope sizes and what you fear most, so some say.

Just in response to whether "the concepts of `beyond a reasonable doubt`, `presumption of innocence` etc they are alien to the Thai judicial system" see my comment in #202 above.

I realize that as a practical matter these standards may not always be applied, but it appears that as technical legal matter at least, the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the burden of proof in a criminal case is not foreign at all in Thailand. In fact, that is the actual standard that is supposed to be applied.