The UK police have no standing in court in Thailand. They can't interfere.

If the case comes to court, the defense has the option of calling the UK police as witnesses. If that is done, the evidence presented will not be couched in diplomatic niceties. I suspect that is one factor weighing heavily on the minds of the Thai authorities as they try to decide whether to pursue the stitch-up of the Burmese kids to a conclusion.

You are mistaken.

The UK police have no standing. They didn't participate in the investigation. They were not there during the investigation. They were allowed to review /observe but didn't witness the investigation. They are not experts in Thai law.

Thai law 555. Who is an expert? Definitely not the RTP.

Screw them and their threats. They simply want cake and to eat it too. They want the tourists, but don't want them to freely exercise their basic human rights. Pick one or the other, you cant have both. Thailand needs to be forcefully taught that they need to get a clue.

The UK police have no standing in court in Thailand. They can't interfere.

If the case comes to court, the defense has the option of calling the UK police as witnesses. If that is done, the evidence presented will not be couched in diplomatic niceties. I suspect that is one factor weighing heavily on the minds of the Thai authorities as they try to decide whether to pursue the stitch-up of the Burmese kids to a conclusion.

You are mistaken.

The UK police have no standing. They didn't participate in the investigation. They were not there during the investigation. They were allowed to review /observe but didn't witness the investigation. They are not experts in Thai law.

So, you are saying that, under Thai law, defense lawyers cannot choose which witnesses they call? By he way, if they were not there to observe this case, what exactly were they there to observe?

The UK police have no standing in court in Thailand. They can't interfere.

If the case comes to court, the defense has the option of calling the UK police as witnesses. If that is done, the evidence presented will not be couched in diplomatic niceties. I suspect that is one factor weighing heavily on the minds of the Thai authorities as they try to decide whether to pursue the stitch-up of the Burmese kids to a conclusion.

You are mistaken.

The UK police have no standing. They didn't participate in the investigation. They were not there during the investigation. They were allowed to review /observe but didn't witness the investigation. They are not experts in Thai law.

So, you are saying that, under Thai law, defense lawyers cannot choose which witnesses they call? By he way, if they were not there to observe this case, what exactly were they there to observe?

Witnesses must be relevant

The suspects were in custody already so what did they witness?

The UK police have no standing in court in Thailand. They can't interfere.

If the case comes to court, the defense has the option of calling the UK police as witnesses. If that is done, the evidence presented will not be couched in diplomatic niceties. I suspect that is one factor weighing heavily on the minds of the Thai authorities as they try to decide whether to pursue the stitch-up of the Burmese kids to a conclusion.

You are mistaken.

The UK police have no standing. They didn't participate in the investigation. They were not there during the investigation. They were allowed to review /observe but didn't witness the investigation. They are not experts in Thai law.

So, you are saying that, under Thai law, defense lawyers cannot choose which witnesses they call? By he way, if they were not there to observe this case, what exactly were they there to observe?

I would guess if the defense want to call on credible witnesses who have been exposed to some of the evidence then it does not matter who they are and where they come from as long as they are prepared to speak. A high ranking police officer from the UK would certainly be classed as credible in my view.

The UK police have no standing in court in Thailand. They can't interfere.

If the case comes to court, the defense has the option of calling the UK police as witnesses. If that is done, the evidence presented will not be couched in diplomatic niceties. I suspect that is one factor weighing heavily on the minds of the Thai authorities as they try to decide whether to pursue the stitch-up of the Burmese kids to a conclusion.

You are mistaken.

The UK police have no standing. They didn't participate in the investigation. They were not there during the investigation. They were allowed to review /observe but didn't witness the investigation. They are not experts in Thai law.

So, you are saying that, under Thai law, defense lawyers cannot choose which witnesses they call? By he way, if they were not there to observe this case, what exactly were they there to observe?

I would guess if the defense want to call on credible witnesses who have been exposed to some of the evidence then it does not matter who they are and where they come from as long as they are prepared to speak. A high ranking police officer from the UK would certainly be classed as credible in my view.

You would be wrong.

Indeed, the defence can call expert witnesses, especially if they are questioning the investigation,

The UK police would certainly be credible expert witnesses and, should they be called and be willing to reveal what they

observed of the investigation I imagine the case would be dismissed.

Lots of ifs and buts though but I am sure the RTP will be a tad nervous should the scenario be possible.

Probably a lot of damage control at the moment.

Thailand is under military rule with martial law and media censorship yet a number of Thai TV stations question the suspects guilt and

the investigation.

This is being allowed for a reason, time will tell us what that is b\ut be prepared for the usual minor heads to roll into inactive posts.

Rather than engaging in arguments with the media, surely the police would inspire more public confidence if they were seen to be conducting their investigations in a clear and appropriate manner that conforms to widely held scientific procedures and protocols?

Regarding the back and forth debate about whether the British investigators could be called as witnesses in a rape/murder trial if one ever takes place:

The British investigators could be called as regular witnesses if they have relevant and admissible testimony to provide.

The British investigators could be called as expert witnesses if they qualify regarding a relevant subject matter.

The question isn't whether they could be called as witnesses, it's whether they would allow themselves to be called, since there would be no way to force them to testify.

The related issue is whether the UK would provide evidence it has collected on its own, both to the prosecution and defense, to be used at a trial.

As with testimony, this kind of evidence could be handed over and is in many international cases.

However, the questions of whether a UK investigator will testify and whether evidence collected by the UK will be provided to the parties at trial (as opposed to could testify and could be handed over) involves many considerations, including those of international law and diplomacy.

Personally, I don't think the UK would ever make its investigators available to testify for a combination of legal, diplomatic and practical reasons.

The big question is whether they will make evidence they have collected available (as well as their expert opinions on the reliability of collected evidence, etc.) . . . and if so, how.

FYI on some to the comments flying around:

“The UK police have no standing in court in Thailand.”

The legal concept of standing has no relevance to this discussion ... it has to do with whether a party can bring a case to court, not whether they could testify in a case brought by a person with standing.

BTW I believe that Hannah and David's parents may actually have standing to bring a criminal case to court in Thailand, as in Thailand private parties can bring criminal proceedings.

“Witnesses must be relevant”.

It's the witness's testimony that must be relevant, not the witness. There are many conceivable matters that the UK investigators would have relevant testimony regarding.

“They didn't participate in the investigation. They were not there during the investigation. They were allowed to review /observe but didn't witness the investigation.”

This has no bearing on whether the British investigators have relevant testimony to offer.

“They are not experts in Thai law.”

It is never a requirement for a witness to be an expert in the local law (unless they are testifying as an expert witness on the meaning of local law).

“I would guess if the defense want to call on credible witnesses who have been exposed to some of the evidence then it does not matter who they are and where they come from as long as they are prepared to speak. A high ranking police officer from the UK would certainly be classed as credible in my view."

This is true as long as their testimony is relevant and admissible . . . but just being "exposed to some of the evidence" probably wouldn't meet that test---it would depend on the type of evidence and the type of exposure.

”The suspects were already in custody so what did they witness”.

This assumes that a witness can only testify about what they saw the suspects do or what happened before or during the crime. This doesn't make sense. If they found the murder weapon after the suspects were in custody, surely they could testify about this, etc.

If the case comes to court, the defense has the option of calling the UK police as witnesses.

Yes, in theory. But in practicality probably not. And they could definitely not force them to come to Thailand and testify.

“They can't interfere.”

Yes, they can't interfere with Thailand's judicial process.

The question is what this means in the current situation.

And the real question is whether the British providing information and evidence they have collected to both parties would constitute interference.

If the British had information that clearly showed the two Burmese men were guilty, would it constitute interference in Thailand's judicial process if they gave this evidence to the Thai police?

If the answer to that question is no, this would not be interference, then how could it be claimed that providing evidence that the Burmese men were innocent could constitute interference?

But this is not any easy issue and involves many considerations .... It will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

The best answer for everyone is for Thai authorities to reach the right conclusion on their own ... and if the British have information that conflicts with what the Thai authorities are claiming, I think the British will wait for a while to see whether they do so (or at least give them ample time to do so---hence the inquest being set in January) before taking any public action.

I wonder exactly why the police chief appeared in the dramatis personae of the DNA show. It was only a private event organised and paid for by the boy's father and the police had already affirmed that neither the boy nor his father were suspects in the case. Other posters have pointed out that none of the hospitals participated are accredited for criminal DNA testing, except the Police General Hospital which many regard with suspicion for obvious reasons. The media was not shown details of exactly what tests the hospitals were contracted to do or on what basis DNA found on the victim was provided to them, if at all. If the hospitals other than PGH are only certified for paternity DNA testing, perhaps that was all they were paid to do and all they are willing to do. It was odd that the results of the DNA testing revealed the staggering news that they were father and son but, there again, perhaps there was a good reason for that.

The media didn't question any of this and all the doctors and nurses from the different hospitals made for good pantomime, even if most are only capable of doing paternity testing.

If you read the Thai's language closely it's as if they believe tourism is their right, and any disruption of that is a punishable offense. They don't seem to take into account even a single iota the fact that their actions and policies could affect tourism. They just expect tourism to be there no matter what mischief they propagate, and if anything gets in the way of that model they start with threats.

I hope thailand tourism goes right down the toilet, because in truth this is where it belongs.

False information ........ Hmmmmmm ....... I wonder who would do that?

No Thai would do that surely.

No police in Thailand would do that, I'm sure.

Who would do such a thing, unspeakable.

it seems whatever the real outcome of this investigation it has stirred up a huge amount of anger and resentment in the expat community towards the police and other authorities .... can't see this current dictum doing much to help.

The anger was always here ... have you never read Thaivisa before?

No different than there always being some distrust towards police. Thais have been angry for a long time regarding those who have and those who don't seeing different levels of justice.

This case just brought it to a head do to a number of factors but starting with the claim from the Governor (or someone down there) that said something to the effect a Thai could never do this crime. I have never seen the direct quote and hopefully I am not mistaken this as fact when it isn't but it has been repeated so much that this was said it really doesn't matter if it is true or not.

Anyway, that one idiotic comment came from some Thai that is like many of the posters here who who believe they are superior thought almost all of this comes from a low self-esteem. My guess is that the moron Thai who said this said it because he had what he thought was inside info that the crime was committed by a foreigner ... remember the blonde hair?

But this is what set many people off for a number of reasons including that it meant they intended to pin this on a non-Thai at any cost and it was just upsetting to those with low self-esteem, like this Thai, who are constantly trying to show their superiority over all things Thai. Even in this thread you can see people who will accept no other outcome except that a Thai has committed this crime. No logic to this just they have convinced themselves.

Now add the police naming suspects early on and being confident they were the ones. Police everywhere do this with cases in terms of believing they got the right person only to find out they don;t. The difference is elsewhere they generally don't share this info publicly. So now they have created more doubt and just a sense they had no idea what they were doing. As well people didn't know what to believe.

Then add CSI Facebook which had already been going but took off HUGE when they brought up the phone conspiracy that was later debunked. Now people found a way to believe they could make a difference by either solving the case on their own (without knowing any real details of most of the investigation) and also believed they could hurt the police and/or Thailand if they uncover corruption and cover-up. People were in the right state of mind to be lured like lemmings off a cliff with such promises of emotional satisfaction these theories , if they can get people to believe, will bring them.

There you have it -- Police have always been skeptical of police but they have no problem calling out to hang-em high in other cases where the evidence is less but this time a perfect storm of events happened to make many people lose their logic and enter fantasy about the power they have to solve a case and hurt those they don't like.

Sadly, the result is going to be the next time they scream Cover-up or Conspiracy Theory, regardless if trues, most will just point and say the nutters are at it again because they really have lost most all credibility except to those in their conspiracy group. But still, I do see more and more dropping out of this group and coming to their senses. They may not trust the police or the facts of this case but they have stopped with the nonsense theories.

wonderfully parochial post....the world according to ThaiVisa.......I'm not talking about just Thaivisa, i'm talking about countries OUTSIDE Thailand and OUTSIDE Thaivisa....yes, there IS a world out there!

it seems whatever the real outcome of this investigation it has stirred up a huge amount of anger and resentment in the expat community towards the police and other authorities .... can't see this current dictum doing much to help.

The anger was always here ... have you never read Thaivisa before?

No different than there always being some distrust towards police. Thais have been angry for a long time regarding those who have and those who don't seeing different levels of justice.

This case just brought it to a head do to a number of factors but starting with the claim from the Governor (or someone down there) that said something to the effect a Thai could never do this crime. I have never seen the direct quote and hopefully I am not mistaken this as fact when it isn't but it has been repeated so much that this was said it really doesn't matter if it is true or not.

Anyway, that one idiotic comment came from some Thai that is like many of the posters here who who believe they are superior thought almost all of this comes from a low self-esteem. My guess is that the moron Thai who said this said it because he had what he thought was inside info that the crime was committed by a foreigner ... remember the blonde hair?

But this is what set many people off for a number of reasons including that it meant they intended to pin this on a non-Thai at any cost and it was just upsetting to those with low self-esteem, like this Thai, who are constantly trying to show their superiority over all things Thai. Even in this thread you can see people who will accept no other outcome except that a Thai has committed this crime. No logic to this just they have convinced themselves.

Now add the police naming suspects early on and being confident they were the ones. Police everywhere do this with cases in terms of believing they got the right person only to find out they don;t. The difference is elsewhere they generally don't share this info publicly. So now they have created more doubt and just a sense they had no idea what they were doing. As well people didn't know what to believe.

Then add CSI Facebook which had already been going but took off HUGE when they brought up the phone conspiracy that was later debunked. Now people found a way to believe they could make a difference by either solving the case on their own (without knowing any real details of most of the investigation) and also believed they could hurt the police and/or Thailand if they uncover corruption and cover-up. People were in the right state of mind to be lured like lemmings off a cliff with such promises of emotional satisfaction these theories , if they can get people to believe, will bring them.

There you have it -- Police have always been skeptical of police but they have no problem calling out to hang-em high in other cases where the evidence is less but this time a perfect storm of events happened to make many people lose their logic and enter fantasy about the power they have to solve a case and hurt those they don't like.

Sadly, the result is going to be the next time they scream Cover-up or Conspiracy Theory, regardless if trues, most will just point and say the nutters are at it again because they really have lost most all credibility except to those in their conspiracy group. But still, I do see more and more dropping out of this group and coming to their senses. They may not trust the police or the facts of this case but they have stopped with the nonsense theories.

wonderfully parochial post....the world according to ThaiVisa.......I'm not talking about just Thaivisa, i'm talking about countries OUTSIDE Thailand and OUTSIDE Thaivisa....yes, there IS a world out there!

While you may want to change what you said now, you clearly said "Expat Community"

We all on these sites do not know 100% who did that to lovely hannah.

We most of us 100% b2 either are innocent or at least did not act alone. We know David did not die by the hoe

We all on these sites do not know 100% who did that to lovely hannah.

We most of us 100% b2 either are innocent or at least did not act alone. We know David did not die by the hoe

The cause of death has been reported as a massive blow to the head and drowning.

We all on these sites do not know 100% who did that to lovely hannah.

We most of us 100% b2 either are innocent or at least did not act alone. We know David did not die by the hoe

The cause of death has been reported as a massive blow to the head and drowning.

And if reported by the RTP, then it must be kosher, as they never lie or tell porkies - do they?

We all on these sites do not know 100% who did that to lovely hannah.

We most of us 100% b2 either are innocent or at least did not act alone. We know David did not die by the hoe

The cause of death has been reported as a massive blow to the head and drowning.

And if reported by the RTP, then it must be kosher, as they never lie or tell porkies - do they?

Report was from a coroner. There should be at least some corroboration or the opposite from the UK inquest. (the inquest won't tell us much but COD should be covered.

<snip>

We all on these sites do not know 100% who did that to lovely hannah.

We most of us 100% b2 either are innocent or at least did not act alone. We know David did not die by the hoe

The cause of death has been reported as a massive blow to the head and drowning.

And if reported by the RTP, then it must be kosher, as they never lie or tell porkies - do they?

Report was from a coroner. There should be at least some corroboration or the opposite from the UK inquest. (the inquest won't tell us much but COD should be covered.

<snip>

That I would tend to agree with re, coroner / greenchair, but wouldn't believe everything that came out of the coroners office, as it is really unknown how independent the coroners office is in case like this - you know nudge nudge wink wink - please look after our interests.

We all on these sites do not know 100% who did that to lovely hannah.

We most of us 100% b2 either are innocent or at least did not act alone. We know David did not die by the hoe

The cause of death has been reported as a massive blow to the head and drowning.

And if reported by the RTP, then it must be kosher, as they never lie or tell porkies - do they?

Is that in the autopsy report dated 15th november.

David didn't die from a massive blow to the head the hoe wasn't used on him nor a rock. All his injuries were from one object.

How can they explain away the cringe worthy re-enactment using the hoe on him...disgraceful.

An hoe explanation needed.

Here is a question for Thailands answer to Walter Buffet:

WHERE ARE THEY NOW??

1. Pancake man interpreter?

2. Staff at AC who claimed to have cleaned Sean of blood on the night of the murders?

(the cctv from the bar would be helpful too.. ta)

3. The Burmese who claimed torture by boliing water.

( A better set of photos would be nice too.)

4. The taxi driver who was threatened and or attempted to bribe to act as a witness against the B2.

I ask only because I know he wants the truth to be told and these people could help the defence case no end.

We await confirmation of their current addresses.

Here is a question for Thailands answer to Walter Buffet:

WHERE ARE THEY NOW??

1. Pancake man interpreter?

2. Staff at AC who claimed to have cleaned Sean of blood on the night of the murders?

(the cctv from the bar would be helpful too.. ta)

3. The Burmese who claimed torture by boliing water.

( A better set of photos would be nice too.)

4. The taxi driver who was threatened and or attempted to bribe to act as a witness against the B2.

I ask only because I know he wants the truth to be told and these people could help the defence case no end.

We await confirmation of their current addresses.

Who is Thailand's answer to Walter Buffet? Did you mean Warren Buffet and are you comparing the police chief who has emerged as a multi billion baht corporate raider in his spare time from crime busting? Wouldn't it be more fitting to compare him to Carl Icahn?

Mon, the headman's brother, said that Sean had got Lotus Bar staff to clean off him on the night of the murder, not AC Bar staff.

May we also have a photograph of the 2B being tortured by police by having plastic bags put over their heads to bring them close to suffocation, as alleged, please?