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

[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

Yep see it all now .. you are right Patts

I can hear them say in the video " ok we did it this way"

happy now?

[SunsetT]

DNA has likely been faked, and destroyed as this would implicate the police tampering.

Expect the two boys to be released soon and the real sweating on Kho Tai to begin,

They have one week to let the kids go

Surely the original DNA tests processed in Singapore were recorded and copies kept in Singapore and these would be available for independent inspection.

[heyexile]

"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.

Ok, thanks for that. Your post #202 is very clear. I guess "supposed to be applied" are the operative words and if the scrutiny of foreign observers will incline the judge to apply that standard properly.

[MikePhuket1970]

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.

Because they find evidence to hang the burmese and the headmaster will be generous ?

[JLCrab]

The following was written by the Chief Judge of Nonthaburi Province:

The Court trial is the fact finding process in which the truth of guilt stated in any claim is ascertained and used as a tool in deciding the case, while the judgment stage is that of the Judges' making a decision on whether or not an accused is guilty. When the accused is found guilty, the judgement process is continued into the sentencing stage. In this connection, are based on two material substances: the adjudication of guilt and sentencing. An adjudication of guilt means that the Court gives a judgement on whether or not an accused is guilty, in accordance with the charge. The Judge in the case shall weigh all the evidence presented to him, until he is fully satisfied that an offence has actually been perpetrated and that the accused has committed that offence. Where any reasonable doubt exists as to whether or not the accused has committed the offence, the benefit of doubt shall be given to him.

In other words, if the Judge considers all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and is uncertain that the accused has committed the offence, regardless of whether the accused pleads guilty or not, he will dismiss the charge. On the contrary, if the Judge examines all the evidence and makes certain that the accused commits the offence, he will make a conviction and then inflict punishment on the accused in accordance to with Criminal Procedure Code. The problem of exercising a Judge's discretion at the trial stage depends on the extent to which the Judge is flexible and sees an opportunity to include evidence in the wider sense than that determined by the Law.

[johnnytuc]

Why is it I now feel that from now on all will be played by the book, and surely the only verdicts will be not guilty, Prosecutors Judges will not want to be implicated in this vile affair which was instigated by headmen and the RTP, there must be more than one on TV who have had suffered corrupt Thai justice, yes there are bent coppers in any nation,, but here its a national sport, so at the moment I am content to see the RTP climbing over each other like drowning rats trying to escape on a sinking ship.

Our thoughts should still be with the parents of David and Hannah, the pain and grieve that they must be feeling is unthinkable will they ever get closure.

[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.

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.

Is that why? Certainly that was not the statement made by him.

[RTH10260]

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?

The British Embassy and/or Mark Kent are next to useless and have done very little other than mouthing a few platitudes.

The British Police were allowed to be involved only AFTER the Thai PM met Cameron, that had nothing to do with Mark Kent or the British Embassy.

Quite honestly, the UK Govt and Embassies need to stop pussyfooting around and being so diplomatic that they achieve next to nothing. A little more forcefulness would be good to see occasionally. A little more give and take instead of the current just taking things (mostly) lying down in fear of upsetting the "host" nation.

How about: the Thai counterparts ignored the requests of the British embassy, and then in Italy Mr Cameron rather than ignoring the paria, made the choice to meet him under pretext to push the issue?

[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.

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.

Incorrect in at least one way. The presumption of innocence is far from "alien" to the Thai legal system.

Edit

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

Reasonable doubt is in fact the basis for decisions in cases of murder and rape.

Precedence however is not.

A judge may ignore even Supreme Court decisions and make a ruling on how he sees things

[minikev]

The following was written by the Chief Judge of Nonthaburi Province:

The Court trial is the fact finding process in which the truth of guilt stated in any claim is ascertained and used as a tool in deciding the case, while the judgment stage is that of the Judges' making a decision on whether or not an accused is guilty. When the accused is found guilty, the judgement process is continued into the sentencing stage. In this connection, are based on two material substances: the adjudication of guilt and sentencing. An adjudication of guilt means that the Court gives a judgement on whether or not an accused is guilty, in accordance with the charge. The Judge in the case shall weigh all the evidence presented to him, until he is fully satisfied that an offence has actually been perpetrated and that the accused has committed that offence. Where any reasonable doubt exists as to whether or not the accused has committed the offence, the benefit of doubt shall be given to him.

In other words, if the Judge considers all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and is uncertain that the accused has committed the offence, regardless of whether the accused pleads guilty or not, he will dismiss the charge. On the contrary, if the Judge examines all the evidence and makes certain that the accused commits the offence, he will make a conviction and then inflict punishment on the accused in accordance to with Criminal Procedure Code. The problem of exercising a Judge's discretion at the trial stage depends on the extent to which the Judge is flexible and sees an opportunity to include evidence in the wider sense than that determined by the Law.

Thanks for the research

[bunglebag]

Mon is everywhere.

He either has a finger right in this pie, or if not knowledge of what happened.

and Sean must know more too. If loads of locals apparently know what went down (is that still the claim?) then Sean does too. Hope the UK cops speak to him and he spills the beans before they go to 'observe'

[heyexile]

The following was written by the Chief Judge of Nonthaburi Province:

The Court trial is the fact finding process in which the truth of guilt stated in any claim is ascertained and used as a tool in deciding the case, while the judgment stage is that of the Judges' making a decision on whether or not an accused is guilty. When the accused is found guilty, the judgement process is continued into the sentencing stage. In this connection, are based on two material substances: the adjudication of guilt and sentencing. An adjudication of guilt means that the Court gives a judgement on whether or not an accused is guilty, in accordance with the charge. The Judge in the case shall weigh all the evidence presented to him, until he is fully satisfied that an offence has actually been perpetrated and that the accused has committed that offence. Where any reasonable doubt exists as to whether or not the accused has committed the offence, the benefit of doubt shall be given to him.

In other words, if the Judge considers all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and is uncertain that the accused has committed the offence, regardless of whether the accused pleads guilty or not, he will dismiss the charge. On the contrary, if the Judge examines all the evidence and makes certain that the accused commits the offence, he will make a conviction and then inflict punishment on the accused in accordance to with Criminal Procedure Code. The problem of exercising a Judge's discretion at the trial stage depends on the extent to which the Judge is flexible and sees an opportunity to include evidence in the wider sense than that determined by the Law.

Well researched. Courts/prosecutors past history in murder of tourist cases does not make pleasant reading. Lets hope this case will be different under the glare of media attention and that, if it does go to trial, the judge will use his discretion in a just manner.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/127509

[nithisa78]

Romans; 13

NIV

[sabaitoo]

Mon is everywhere.

He either has a finger right in this pie, or if not knowledge of what happened.

and Sean must know more too. If loads of locals apparently know what went down (is that still the claim?) then Sean does too. Hope the UK cops speak to him and he spills the beans before they go to 'observe'

Sean is back communicating ..look at the comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZEMf3iuEFs&feature=em-uploademail

[RTH10260]

I'm a bit surprised at how long it is taking the British police to get here. Why weren't they prepared to leave at a monemts notice just in case they were given the go-ahead?

Cause the British policce, which agency do you suggest, are not prepared to detach staff on a days notice, they need to select senior people with experience into Thainess, have to get replacement for their current assignments, get their visas, and least but not last, I believe the chosen staffer must agree on an overseas posting.

[Gweiloman]

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.

Pardon my ignorance but what would amnesty cover have to do with whether the prosecution wins or loses a case? It is not unknown for the "State" to lose cases in court.

[Bleacher Bum East]

DNA has likely been faked, and destroyed as this would implicate the police tampering.

Expect the two boys to be released soon and the real sweating on Kho Tai to begin,

They have one week to let the kids go

Surely the original DNA tests processed in Singapore were recorded and copies kept in Singapore and these would be available for independent inspection.

My understanding is that DNA test results are stored digitally and that the digital file can be used for future DNA matching tests (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

So if the media reports/police statements were correct and the DNA originally removed from Hannah's body was in fact sent to a reliable and truly independent Singapore lab for testing to discover the ethnicity of the suspects (who were unknown at that time), then that digital file should still be in Singapore and available for comparison with a new DNA sample taken from the two accused men by their defense team. (There should also be proof of exactly when and how that original sample was received in Singapore, when the results were known, etc. etc.).

If this test is done now and they do match, then all of the chain of custody procedures should still be closely examined for gaps (and to see if an earlier sample--taken before they were arrested--from the two accused had also been sent to the lab and tested), and crime scene contamination is still a big issue for the reliability of any DNA match, along with other issues. And as you said, the testing procedures, as well as the facilities, equipment and personnel, could also be inspected to make sure they met the proper standards of reliability.

But if this new test is done and they don't match . . .

[RTH10260]

Please, everyone, you're making the cops really sad!

and might increase the already high suicide rate that was reported previously..

but they now have a hotline so everything is good again...

[bunglebag]

Mon is everywhere.

He either has a finger right in this pie, or if not knowledge of what happened.

and Sean must know more too. If loads of locals apparently know what went down (is that still the claim?) then Sean does too. Hope the UK cops speak to him and he spills the beans before they go to 'observe'

Sean is back communicating ..look at the comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZEMf3iuEFs&feature=em-uploademail

Glad to see he has spoken out. What he says sounds viable too. BUT there were quite a few people early on insinuating that many (local) people on the island knew what happened that night. I'm surprised that if that is the case that Sean did not pick up some of this knowledge.

And not 100% sure I believe he takes no drugs. Seen mention of the 'red pill' on one of his profiles somewhere, which is the most common colour for Ya ba no? Anyway, pleased to see him speak out. Like he says, let's see the footage of him covered in blood in Mon's bar.

Mon knows a lot imo. I've thought so since day 1. Not saying he was directly involved but he knows about it. Coulda been the DJs (the village heads sons / nephews look like they are in or hang with the DJ group)

[heyexile]

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.

Pardon my ignorance but what would amnesty cover have to do with whether the prosecution wins or loses a case? It is not unknown for the "State" to lose cases in court.

It`s a bit iffy I admit. But if the case fails completely in court, the regime/police top brass could blame it on the prosecutors to save face. If, as some suggest, on the other hand this case causes the collapse of the current regime then prosecutors have no amnesty cover to protect them from new masters. Either way, they are vulnerable. Just saying.

[jaltsc]

"The two Burmese men accused of murdering a pair of British tourists in southern Thailand last month say they are innocent and were forced to confess under duress..."

C'mon...If you can't believe the police, who can you believe in Thailand?

Have I gone deaf? This is the longest moment of silence I have ever experienced in my life.

HEY...Still waiting for an answer.

[minikev]

"The two Burmese men accused of murdering a pair of British tourists in southern Thailand last month say they are innocent and were forced to confess under duress..."

C'mon...If you can't believe the police, who can you believe in Thailand?

Have I gone deaf? This is the longest moment of silence I have ever experienced in my life.

HEY...Still waiting for an answer.

trust is a HUGE word I trust a very few hand picked people. From past experiences in many places in the world. I don't think it has any relevance as to where.

[jabis]

Mon is everywhere.

He either has a finger right in this pie, or if not knowledge of what happened.

and Sean must know more too. If loads of locals apparently know what went down (is that still the claim?) then Sean does too. Hope the UK cops speak to him and he spills the beans before they go to 'observe'

Sean is back communicating ..look at the comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZEMf3iuEFs&feature=em-uploademail

Glad to see he has spoken out. What he says sounds viable too. BUT there were quite a few people early on insinuating that many (local) people on the island knew what happened that night. I'm surprised that if that is the case that Sean did not pick up some of this knowledge.

And not 100% sure I believe he takes no drugs. Seen mention of the 'red pill' on one of his profiles somewhere, which is the most common colour for Ya ba no? Anyway, pleased to see him speak out. Like he says, let's see the footage of him covered in blood in Mon's bar.

Mon knows a lot imo. I've thought so since day 1. Not saying he was directly involved but he knows about it. Coulda been the DJs (the village heads sons / nephews look like they are in or hang with the DJ group)

Meh, seems a lot of you haven't seen the Matrix, nor get the gist of red pill vs blue pill, so here's a little wikipedia entry explaining it.

[koele2]

I understand how money and influence affect things here in thailand, a sweet land deal here, fast tracked permits, business monopoly there, but you would think a line would be drawn with murder. It's fascinating to see how money from one side and pressure from the top to catch the culprit on the other side produced the Burmese guys. 10 yrs ago the case would be closed, but now with social media,a third source of pressure is being applied. Which side wins? We will see if things are truly changing or if it's more of the same.

[northernjohn]

Haven't read any thing here.

Just wondering how many ties they arte going to retract the confessions. Seems like about every other day they do it.

[maidee]

more armchair detectives at work

[MaxLee]

I understand how money and influence affect things here in thailand, a sweet land deal here, fast tracked permits, business monopoly there, but you would think a line would be drawn with murder. It's fascinating to see how money from one side and pressure from the top to catch the culprit on the other side produced the Burmese guys. 10 yrs ago the case would be closed, but now with social media,a third source of pressure is being applied. Which side wins? We will see if things are truly changing or if it's more of the same.

in this case,.... the dear PM aka the (former) Junta General can just order to shut down the entire internet

[JLCrab]

The current mechanism for mobilizing the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the entire UK homeland based investigative and forensic community in the case of Murders of British Nationals Abroad was only put in place in 2012. The first move is by the family of the deceased communicating to their appropriate chief of police that they are dissatisfied with the investigation in the country in which the murder of their family member occurred.

When a detailed analysis of the behind the scenes process in this criminal case is better known, I think the above will be primary source of pressure and influence of social media will not be so prominent as people on here repeatedly state.

[gamini]

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?

Not my country nor my business, but wasn't the "access" granted only after the General met with Cameron in UK,

without any involvment of the UK embassy?

The foreign office in London called in the Thai ambassador

Pretty rare occurence. So do you, think london just thought that up all on their own. Cameron wouldn't even know who the thai Pm is.

Its caller diplomacy. Get what you want by causing as few problems as possible.

How can you make such a ridiculous and childish comment. That Cameron would'nt know who the Thai MP is. He is far better educated and informed than you could ever be.. He has been to Thailand before and knows a lot more about the country than you.

[mrtoad]

The BIB will now have another scapegoat, Mr Banana Pancake. He will be blamed for the collapse of the case. Pesky foreigner.