DNA results from Ko Tao village head’s son don't match traces on slain British tourists

[geistfunke]

Again EO, The story as posted isn't a rerun. It is the story from the 7th. Perfectly valid when the discussion turns to the HRC.

That you are not using ignore as claimed comes as no surprise, nor does your still being in Thailand 4.5 years after I first saw you talking about leaving.

The Thai Human Rights Commission accepted a petition submitted by the accused’s parents last week, in which they ask the commission to look into allegations that the two men were forced into their confessions.

To the police. There's no such allegations about the confessions to the HRC.

Today the police failed to show up for a hearing about their alleged torture of the two murder suspects again.

Khun Niran said: "If police fail to appear before the NHRC by 12 November, the commission may vote to take legal action against the police in accordance with Section 34 of the law that governs the NHRC's operation.

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1415024472

Let us wait 9 days and meanwhile the conspiracy on a special Spacebook page will hit over 400.000 likes, maybe 500.000.

It's amazing how united the Thai peoples can talk on this page about the Police work in this case.

Let us wait another 40-50 days, if the prosecutor will make a final rejection.

[Thaddeus]

To the police. There's no such allegations about the confessions to the HRC.

Who do you believe in any of this..... truly?

If you choose not to believe the HRC, then do so. I have no issue with that.

That was not the question.

Who do you believe?

[englishoak]

Again EO, The story as posted isn't a rerun. It is the story from the 7th. Perfectly valid when the discussion turns to the HRC.

That you are not using ignore as claimed comes as no surprise, nor does your still being in Thailand 4.5 years after I first saw you talking about leaving.

He said the two told him that they drank both beer and wine before they attacked the two British tourists and he suspected that they might be drunk at the time they committed the crime.

He went on saying that he would notify the police about their interpreter who was a Rohingya as the two suspects did not trust the interpreter and were afraid that they might not be treated fairly.

Its from the time when pancake man was still being used as an interpreter and the wine bottle hasnt ever been mentioned again since either....

Please stop making smart with your claims its not a re run when it is, some of us are not that inattentive, does that look like its upto date and current to you ?

PS I must have been in and out of Thailand 2 dozen times in the past 5 years and many more before that so ive actually left many times, Ive adjusted my life and business regarding Thailand a fair bit since the mid 2000s as things have been changing so I dont become marooned here and nor does my family. My kid gets a high quality education, decent morals, cultural variation with freedoms and equal opportunity to succeed, impossible to experience in Thailand on merit alone.Its worked out very well so far no longer having both feet and family planted wholly in Thailand thanks.

Your point is what exactly ?

Anyways ive wasted enough energy on you today, time for you to back in your box on ignore... ta taa

[jdinasia]

To the police. There's no such allegations about the confessions to the HRC.

Who do you believe in any of this..... truly?

If you choose not to believe the HRC, then do so. I have no issue with that.

That was not the question.

Who do you believe?

I think they confessed. Not just once.

Luckily for the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers, what I think doesn't matter. I think it should go to trial. When that happens we will know what the actual evidence is.

[jdinasia]

Ouch. Back in EO's fake ignore.

He strangely doesn't trust the HRC, but then credits them for helping the accused. Yet doesn't believe the public statement about the confessions. I find that rather odd

[Bleacher Bum East]

Again EO, The story as posted isn't a rerun. It is the story from the 7th. Perfectly valid when the discussion turns to the HRC.

That you are not using ignore as claimed comes as no surprise, nor does your still being in Thailand 4.5 years after I first saw you talking about leaving.

The Thai Human Rights Commission accepted a petition submitted by the accused’s parents last week, in which they ask the commission to look into allegations that the two men were forced into their confessions.

To the police. There's no such allegations about the confessions to the HRC.

At the time the two accused Burmese men met with the HRC and allegedly "confessed":

• They had not yet retracted their confessions made during interrogation to an unreliable interpreter
• They were meeting with a Thai authority figure who they did not know and did not trust
• If their stories of death threats made against them are true, they were still in fear of their life if they did not maintain their "confessions"

So the confessions to the HRC officer are suspect for many of the same reasons as the confessions during interrogation.

In addition, if these "confessions" are to be entered into evidence in court, then the HRC commissioner would need to appear as a witness and be the one testifying to the confessions, and he would then be subject to cross-examination by the defense lawyers. I think the likelihood of that happening is extremely slim for many reasons.

So I don't think that anything the Burmese men said to the HRC commissioner will be included in the prosecution's case if he brings charges, and even if it is it won't be considered credible beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW for an HRC commissioner to have publicly commented on an interview with these men made in his official capacity raises its own set of questions and a good defense lawyer would use this to cast doubt on his own credibility as witness if he did testify.

[jdinasia]

There's no reason that the HRC commissioner and team could not be called to testify that I am aware of.

Edit in response to your edit. I don't think that the judges would question an HRC commissioner's credibility. It is not going before a jury, where people can be bamboozled.

[Thaddeus]

To the police. There's no such allegations about the confessions to the HRC.

Who do you believe in any of this..... truly?

If you choose not to believe the HRC, then do so. I have no issue with that.

That was not the question.

Who do you believe?

I think they confessed. Not just once.

Luckily for the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers, what I think doesn't matter. I think it should go to trial. When that happens we will know what the actual evidence is.

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

[Neeranam]

I think they confessed. Not just once.

Luckily for the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers, what I think doesn't matter. I think it should go to trial. When that happens we will know what the actual evidence is.

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

He feels obligated to answer every other bloody post but this one!

[Docno]

In a world with ISIS, Ebola, a shaky Eurozone, and global warming, do you really believe that this will be a top-of-list issue in the elections?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You'd be surprised. Remember that margins are tight and everybody is going to have policies related to ISIS, Ebola and the Eurozone. With UKIP stealing the voters from both parties having a trump card to play to swing back the marginal voters could mean a straight victory come May.

I may be wrong, but I'm not yet convinced. The only times I've seen individual murder cases exploited in elections is when one of the parties has used to play on the fears and perceived vulnerabilities of the electorate. The Willie Horton case comes to mind. However, these murders took place overseas so they cannot be used to crank up fear among voters... bit of a stretch for any party to use them as evidence that the government is soft on crime. Let's see...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

UKIP is nationalistic. If nothing else presents then this is definitely pro-nationalistic.

The problem is that most UKIP supporters probably couldn't locate Thailand on a map ... and they would pronounce it "thigh-land" if they could.

[Bleacher Bum East]

There's no reason that the HRC commissioner and team could not be called to testify that I am aware of.

Edit in response to your edit. I don't think that the judges would question an HRC commissioner's credibility. It is not going before a jury, where people can be bamboozled.

There might not be any technical reason ... unless this could be considered a privileged conversation between the HRC and the accused men.

But there are many practical reasons why calling an HRC commissioner to the stand to testify against someone he interviewed in his official capacity would set a bad precedent, send a bad message and raise questions regarding whether the HRC is a legitimate organization that can be trusted by people seeking their assistance, and generally not be something the government or prosecutor would want to do because it is potentially another PR disaster. And I don't think it is something the HRC commissioner would want either given what he would have in store for him from the defense attorney.

My opinion: Highly unlikely this will be part of any case if brought.

But I could be wrong.

Also, just saw your response to my edit in the last post ... This isn't a matter of being bamboozled, the defense would be raising a legitimate issue that a judge should take into consideration---why would an HRC commissioner speak about a private conversation he had with two accused men publicly when he was there in his official capacity; he would have to answer to the judge for that and the judge would assess his answer.

And regardless, the defense will argue the "confessions" are suspect for the other reasons I outlined, and for all these reasons they may not even reach the level of admissibility (I believe the Thai Code of Criminal Procedure excludes confessions under duress).

But I admit these are not cut and dried issues . . . so we'll see what happens if these confessions are introduced. I honestly don't know how they would in reality be introduced, cross-examined, and assessed. We'll find out if it goes to trial, but the prosecution would have a tough job on this issue.

[Gweiloman]

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

He feels obligated to answer every other bloody post but this one!

Our resident troll (one poster refers to him as sad man, quite an appropriate description) will only reply to those posts that can be deflected. He will not answer to a direct question or give a direct answer to questions such as "do you think the B2 attacked David M, dragged him into the water where he drowned and raped and sodomised Hannah and bashed her face" or "do you think the running man is "fresh milk"" or "do you sincerely believe that fresh milk had no knowledge of what happened that tragic night".

Maybe "he" (the TV poster) has the hots for fresh milk. It was suggested by him that the owner of a particular FB page had the hots for fresh milk's gf.

[jabis]

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

He feels obligated to answer every other bloody post but this one!

Our resident troll (one poster refers to him as sad man, quite an appropriate description) will only reply to those posts that can be deflected. He will not answer to a direct question or give a direct answer to questions such as "do you think the B2 attacked David M, dragged him into the water where he drowned and raped and sodomised Hannah and bashed her face" or "do you think the running man is "fresh milk"" or "do you sincerely believe that fresh milk had no knowledge of what happened that tragic night".

Maybe "he" (the TV poster) has the hots for fresh milk. It was suggested by him that the owner of a particular FB page had the hots for fresh milk's gf.

Even if you argue with the opposite point of view - please try to do it in a civil manner. Your post is yet another that distracts from the real issue - just drop the personal attacks please

[draftvader]

You'd be surprised. Remember that margins are tight and everybody is going to have policies related to ISIS, Ebola and the Eurozone. With UKIP stealing the voters from both parties having a trump card to play to swing back the marginal voters could mean a straight victory come May.

I may be wrong, but I'm not yet convinced. The only times I've seen individual murder cases exploited in elections is when one of the parties has used to play on the fears and perceived vulnerabilities of the electorate. The Willie Horton case comes to mind. However, these murders took place overseas so they cannot be used to crank up fear among voters... bit of a stretch for any party to use them as evidence that the government is soft on crime. Let's see...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

UKIP is nationalistic. If nothing else presents then this is definitely pro-nationalistic.

The problem is that most UKIP supporters probably couldn't locate Thailand on a map ... and they would pronounce it "thigh-land" if they could.

Agreed. However a victory over "Johnny Foreigner" where-ever in the world might be enough to sway those sheep. It is a part of politics I hate passionately (the majority of voters not making an attempt to understand what they are voting for) but it is the part of politics that this case could have an effect on.

[simonuk]

Someone was owed a favour or two I suspect

[jdinasia]

I think they confessed. Not just once.

Luckily for the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers, what I think doesn't matter. I think it should go to trial. When that happens we will know what the actual evidence is.

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

He feels obligated to answer every other bloody post but this one!

Pardon, I thought "I think they confessed" was clear enough.

I think they have the killers in custody.

Edit. I was sleeping. I get up early

[jdinasia]

Thanks Jabis.

I have answered all of Gweilo's questions and didn't make any assertion regarding the gf.

He is just one of those people that didn't adjust to Thailand and is bitter about those that did.

[Bluespunk]

I think they confessed. Not just once.

Luckily for the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers, what I think doesn't matter. I think it should go to trial. When that happens we will know what the actual evidence is.

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

He feels obligated to answer every other bloody post but this one!

Pardon, I thought "I think they confessed" was clear enough.

I think they have the killers in custody.

Hope they are not relying on the confession as that has been retracted.

Under claims of torture.

Not the only claim of such a nature made surrounding this case.

[jdinasia]

There's no reason that the HRC commissioner and team could not be called to testify that I am aware of.

Edit in response to your edit. I don't think that the judges would question an HRC commissioner's credibility. It is not going before a jury, where people can be bamboozled.

There might not be any technical reason ... unless this could be considered a privileged conversation between the HRC and the accused men.

But there are many practical reasons why calling an HRC commissioner to the stand to testify against someone he interviewed in his official capacity would set a bad precedent, send a bad message and raise questions regarding whether the HRC is a legitimate organization that can be trusted by people seeking their assistance, and generally not be something the government or prosecutor would want to do because it is potentially another PR disaster. And I don't think it is something the HRC commissioner would want either given what he would have in store for him from the defense attorney.

My opinion: Highly unlikely this will be part of any case if brought.

But I could be wrong.

Also, just saw your response to my edit in the last post ... This isn't a matter of being bamboozled, the defense would be raising a legitimate issue that a judge should take into consideration---why would an HRC commissioner speak about a private conversation he had with two accused men publicly when he was there in his official capacity; he would have to answer to the judge for that and the judge would assess his answer.

And regardless, the defense will argue the "confessions" are suspect for the other reasons I outlined, and for all these reasons they may not even reach the level of admissibility (I believe the Thai Code of Criminal Procedure excludes confessions under duress).

But I admit these are not cut and dried issues . . . so we'll see what happens if these confessions are introduced. I honestly don't know how they would in reality be introduced, cross-examined, and assessed. We'll find out if it goes to trial, but the prosecution would have a tough job on this issue.

None of that makes sense in light of the commissioner's public statement.

Calling a witness to a confession who had already spoken publicly about it is not a stretch at all.

[jdinasia]

I think they confessed. Not just once.

Luckily for the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers, what I think doesn't matter. I think it should go to trial. When that happens we will know what the actual evidence is.

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

He feels obligated to answer every other bloody post but this one!

Pardon, I thought "I think they confessed" was clear enough.

I think they have the killers in custody.

Hope they are not relying on the confession as that has been retracted.

Under claims of torture.

Not the only claim of such a nature made surrounding this case.

A judge will weigh the recantation against the confessions. Nobody has suggested that torture happened when the HRC commissioner spoke with them

[Bluespunk]

Pardon, I thought "I think they confessed" was clear enough.

I think they have the killers in custody.

Hope they are not relying on the confession as that has been retracted.

Under claims of torture.

Not the only claim of such a nature made surrounding this case.

A judge will weigh the recantation against the confessions. Nobody has suggested that torture happened when the HRC commissioner spoke with them

Who else was in the room?

Who was doing the interpreting as they spoke no Thai and a dialect of Burmese not all speak?

Would you trust a stranger after torture?

The confessions have been retracted under claims of torture.

The judge will decide, yeah right, bet the Burmese guys are holding out a lot of hope for that.

I'm not saying they are innocent, but any confession extracted under torture should not be weighed, examined or even discussed during the case.

[Bluespunk]

Blue,

They addressed the issue of the interpreter.

Did they? News to me, but I'll take your word for it unless corrected. {Or should that be until?}

The rest of my points stand.

If you wish to use my username use all of it.

[Bluespunk]

Blue,

The link is in this thread. They didn't rely on that interpreter contrary to your claims. It was the HRC.

Who was the interpreter during the HRC visit, pray tell?

And the rest of my points still stand.

Torture is not acceptable and confessions extracted using it are not trustworthy or usable.

PS

Oh dear, we are a funny man eh. My user name is is as on page use all of it, not a request anymore as you clearly don't respond to politeness.

[SteveFong]

The "confession" is in large part why there is so much opposition to the official party line

If there was a real fear of electrocution, you would confess too

That is the very nature of torture,

think Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

btw,

the US uses LSD and other mind altering substances to get people to confess,

in fact, I recall that the US Marines were blasting the Red Hot Chili Peppers songs, repeatedly into Manuel Noreiga's house, which prompted him to come out of his compound trying to get those damned kids to turn down that awful music

think about that for a moment,

even music can be considered torture

just ask my kids, when I get in their vehicles and turn on music from the 1950's doo wops, and then sing along whether or not they feel they are being tortured

[MJP]

Blue,

The link is in this thread. They didn't rely on that interpreter contrary to your claims. It was the HRC.

Who was the interpreter during the HRC visit, pray tell?

And the rest of my points still stand.

Torture is not acceptable and confessions extracted using it are not trustworthy or usable.

PS

Oh dear, we are a funny man eh. My user name is is as on page use all of it, not a request anymore as you clearly don't respond to politeness.

I agree.

jdinasia, please use members complete user names.

Bluespunk is a well respected member of this forum and is at least owed that courtesy.

[BoristheBlade]

If I am not mistaken Thai law states that the accused in a case which could result in the death penalty MUST have a lawyer present when interviewed by the police at all times.

If that is true, the case is already flawed before if has begun

[asiamaster]

I think they confessed. Not just once.

Luckily for the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers, what I think doesn't matter. I think it should go to trial. When that happens we will know what the actual evidence is.

Sorry for the screwed up quotes, definitely not my fault.

When you say that what you think doesn't matter you are absolutely right.

The question still is, who do you believe?

Are you going to carry on just faffing on about justice, evidence, integrity (not high on a list of RTP traits) or, dare we hope that you may actually say what you feel.

Truth or benefits, pick one.

If you fail to feel it, I have no more time for you.

He feels obligated to answer every other bloody post but this one!

True skeptics do not believe anyone until sufficient evidence has been presented. Agreed the RTP does have a bad reputation but on the other hand this CsiLA is a rather overrated "keyboard investigator". I've looked into some of his earlier researches -such as the MH370 case -and I'm not overly impressed. Contrary to most of you my gut feeling tells me that the Burmese guys - no matter how sweet and innocent they may appear - did do it and that for a change the RTP did get it right.

[BoristheBlade]

I also find it strange that in case case described by Thailand own PM as perfect, the need for two accused men to be taken to a safe house for interrogation.

If the evidence against these two men is so great, why were they not questioned in the Koh Tao Police Station in the presence of lawyers.

And the most important thing of all...Why were the interviews not recorded? If the two accused have confessed, the Police would have a recording, and a vital bit of evidence.

[HUH]

If I am not mistaken Thai law states that the accused in a case which could result in the death penalty MUST have a lawyer present when interviewed by the police at all times.

If that is true, the case is already flawed before if has begun

I think this may be just one of many issues that the prosecution is worried about and why they are hesitant to proceed to indite them and require further "evidence' from the RTP.

As so called professional legal prosecutors would you want to take this flimsy case to court? Absolutely not and I'm pretty sure its heading that way.

Problem is that still leaves the murders out on the loose and no justice done. Not good enough. The repercussions of this will be felt severely and Koh Tao is going to hurt

[jdinasia]

Blue,

The link is in this thread. They didn't rely on that interpreter contrary to your claims. It was the HRC.

Who was the interpreter during the HRC visit, pray tell?

And the rest of my points still stand.

Torture is not acceptable and confessions extracted using it are not trustworthy or usable.

PS

Oh dear, we are a funny man eh. My user name is is as on page use all of it, not a request anymore as you clearly don't respond to politeness.

I agree.

jdinasia, please use members complete user names.

Bluespunk is a well respected member of this forum and is at least owed that courtesy.

Will do. (or rather, will not shorten)

Strange that "sad man" and "troll" appear to be accepted.