I have hunger for lobster which I had on a recent trip to USA. When you come to a country -- any country -- you abide by its judicial system as is. Human Rights NGO's may work toward changing that system for the better; but that is for down the road.

I have hunger for lobster which I had on a recent trip to USA. When you come to a country -- any country -- you abide by its judicial system as is. Human Rights NGO's may work toward changing that system for the better; but that is for down the road.

I agree, but you do not abide by corruption which forms no part of that system, no matter what country you may happen to be in. When corruption is the concern and you have to fight for justice, then as we see in this case Human Rights, and outside countries will get involved to defend their own citizens and fight for justice for them.

From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

I am not talking about laws and regulations

and where does that stop anyone fighting for justice. Did it stop the UK, Burmese or international human rights organizations such as Amnesty fighting for justice in this case. NO

From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

and where does that stop anyone fighting for justice. Did did it stop the UK, Burmese or international human rights organizations such as Amnesty fighting for justice in this case. NO

The UK has an established protocol for the murder of UK citizens overseas and it states that it can only be involved at the invitation of the country in which the murder occurred. What an NGO can do within a country and what an official consular presence in another country can do are two entirely different matters.

From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

Where in The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 does it say verdicts that have been bought or delivered unjustly on corrupt evidence have to be respected?

From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

and where does that stop anyone fighting for justice. Did did it stop the UK, Burmese or international human rights organizations such as Amnesty fighting for justice in this case. NO

The UK has an established protocol for the murder of UK citizens overseas and it states that it can only be involved at the invitation of the country in which the murder occurred. What an NGO can do within a country and what a consular presence in another can do are two entirely different matters.

I'm from the UK I know the protocol. Another part of the lever that is used to express concern regards the corruption is to have diplomatic talks regards the incident in question. When those talks fail to produce results then the next step is for the country defending its citizen to officially summon the Thai diplomat for further talks.

Your going over very old ground that is already well documented in this case. If you have something new to add please let me know

Chilli is master of this case....

This is from the UK Bangkok Embassy website regarding a country defending its citizens:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

This is from the UK Bangkok Embassy website regarding a country defending its citizens:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

Jesus, when did we start talking about trying to get UK citizens out of jail!

This is from the UK Bangkok Embassy website regarding a country defending its citizens:

What consulates cannot do for you

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

Jesus, when did we start talking about trying to get UK citizens out of jail!

That statement by the UK Embassy is in conformance with the Article 55 of the Vienna Protocol which you know all about. And the same goes for any other country with diplomatic relations with Thailand including Myanmar.

I suggest you do some further research on a subject you know little about, or I can provide the relevant links for you if you wish

I suggest you do some further research on a subject you know little about, or I can provide the relevant links for you if you wish

Thank you. I'll find my own links.

JLCRAB

He's being obtuse.

He made up his mind ages ago and will not accept any answer other than one which includes people connected to important families. (even though the 2 Burmese men are connected)

You are being obtuse.

You made up your mind ages ago and will not accept any answer other than one which excludes people connected to important families.

That seems to work both ways except this side are more than willing to accept the Burmese guilt but only if and when there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit the crime.

The judges will weigh the evidence. The defense will be vigorous. I am willing to accept the results.

The conspiracy theorists will never accept the results of the trial if it convicts the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers.

After all this time nothing places the guy "everyone knows" did it on the island. Nothing shows he wasn't at his BKK residence. Should that change, I will accept that as well. What I find unacceptable is the conspiracy theorists' claims of guilt based on speculation from social media.

Why has nobody officially identified the running man, oh wait the RTP did identify him once as Nomsod but then changed their minds. In Koa Toa everyone knows each other

How about the couple who were just feet in front of him and obviously saw him.

I hope this is explained adequately in the trial

Identification of people captured on cctv at or near the time of the murders would form a vital part of any "professional investigation"

LOL, why would a conspiracy theory be discussed in the trial?

LOL, why would a conspiracy theory be discussed in the trial?

I fink you don't know it, but your input here really has made a difference to the truth being eventually revealed. Fink you perhaps have been suckered by brain dead "friends".............

LOL, why would a conspiracy theory be discussed in the trial?

Because they will be discussing other conspiracies

Confessions and DNA for example

LOL, why would a conspiracy theory be discussed in the trial?

Because they will be discussing other conspiracies

Confessions and DNA for example

They will be discussing evidence and then the judges will decide the merits of the evidence. They won't be discussing conspiracy theories.

LOL, why would a conspiracy theory be discussed in the trial?

Because they will be discussing other conspiracies

Confessions and DNA for example

Straight over his head

Why has nobody officially identified the running man, oh wait the RTP did identify him once as Nomsod but then changed their minds. In Koa Toa everyone knows each other

How about the couple who were just feet in front of him and obviously saw him.

I hope this is explained adequately in the trial

Identification of people captured on cctv at or near the time of the murders would form a vital part of any "professional investigation"

They will not mention the family once during the trial. After all they are no longer police suspects.

Why has nobody officially identified the running man, oh wait the RTP did identify him once as Nomsod but then changed their minds. In Koa Toa everyone knows each other

How about the couple who were just feet in front of him and obviously saw him.

I hope this is explained adequately in the trial

Identification of people captured on cctv at or near the time of the murders would form a vital part of any "professional investigation"

They will not mention the family once during the trial. After all they are no longer police suspects.

it would seem entirely proper to offer an alternative scenario as to who might have committed the crime in which case "the family" would fit in the frame much better than the B2. "The family" were suspects and remain suspects to 1/2 million+ people around the world. We know there is 1 dissenter.

can Thais actually do dna tests ?

can Thais actually do dna tests ?

Yes, collect the sample, take it to a lab, wait a few hours until the RTP grab the nearest burmese, write the burmese scapegoats name on it. Put the sample in a fridge. Wait at least another 8 hours for credibility, then release it back to the RTP with the desired match..........................allegedly

There is some doubts about the whole DNA collection and chain of custody in regards to the collected DNA. That is 1 red flag as the RTP have never clarified it (unless anyone can give links showing it).

Also it was reported that a group of 3 Burmese suspects who were reported as been on the beach that night were tested, and DNA didn't match that recovered from the bodies. And then with a new investigative team another group of 3 Burmese suspects who were reported as been on the beach that night were tested and came back as matching in 2 cases. This strikes me as odd because it is easy to assume that the groups of 3 were one and the same, but could have been different. The RTP never confirmed differences which is either very sloppy delivery of information or merely an oversight.

But that Nomsod's DNA doesn't match doesn't match that DNA supposedly taken from the victims clears him of murder seems an awfully bold claim. The crime of rape and the crime of murder are totally different. The running man CCTV figure bears an incredibly good likeness and as it is his own blood relatives' bar surely it wouldn't hurt to just question him some more. Or am I missing the point, as it would seem he has never been formally questioned even to eliminate him from the enquiries in a transparent way. I for one am not overly impressed with the dorm CCTV. Looks dodgy to say the least

This is from the UK Bangkok Embassy website regarding a country defending its citizens:

What consulates cannot do for you[/size]

Although we try to help British nationals in a wide range of situations, we cannot:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings

From The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

I have my own moral code, and it supersedes a country's code of laws. If I see blatant injustice, I will know it's wrong, and hope I have the courage to speak out against it. All countries have rules. In Saudi Arabia, for example, you can't be Jewish. In Soviet Russia and East Germany, there were stiffling rules. In Tibet, a person can be thrown in prison for carrying a little photo of the Dalai Lama in his wallet. In Thailand there's no law against harboring a fugitive, or date-raping a woman and not paying a satang for child support.

They will be discussing evidence and then the judges will decide the merits of the evidence. They won't be discussing conspiracy theories.

Broken record. It's plain, we get it JD, anything which might implicate any of the headman's people is conspiracy. Even the CCTV evidence of the man on the island who matches Nomsod is 'conspiracy theory' (in JD's opinion), even though the cops initially claimed it was Nomsod. Once the Burmese were arrested, everything changed. All of a sudden, the real perps were no longer suspects, and all evidence pointing to the Headman's family was suppressed or discounted.

BTW, With the full weight of Thai officialdom trying to shield the headman's people, including Nomsod, Mon, Mon's cop friend, and the man with the shark's tooth ring, it will be easy for them to deflect any evidence pointing to them. It will be easier than OJ claiming the bloody gloves weren't his. I think all of us yearning for justice (and getting murderers/rapists behind bars) will have to accept that: even if any of the headman's people are put on trial (a virtual impossibility, considering they own the police), they'll be able to refute any evidence presented, no matter how solid it is.

Thai PBS TV said that the Samui prosecutor is now satisfied with the evidence he has received from the police and expects that the trail of the 2B will start by the end of next week.

Satisfied with what, they have already been found guilty or has the BIB finally got all their ducks inline as far as the presented "evidence" (right or wrong) is coherent, logical and worth considering?

How about the basic requirement that they now think that they have a case that they can win?

That would be the basic requirement for prosecution everywhere, wouldn't it?

My experience shows that alignment of payments with prosecutor, judge(s) and police far out way any other considerations.

Thai PBS TV said that the Samui prosecutor is now satisfied with the evidence he has received from the police and expects that the trail of the 2B will start by the end of next week.

Satisfied with what, they have already been found guilty or has the BIB finally got all their ducks inline as far as the presented "evidence" (right or wrong) is coherent, logical and worth considering?

The BIB had their ducks in line the day they arrested the B2. They forget they needed to back it up with evidence however. The prosecutor reminded them about that so now they've 'fixed' those annoying little issues

So, what would it take to convince you that the 2 Burmese men accused the being the killers are guilty?

Clear and eliminate other suspects properly, provide chain of custody for DNA evidence, provide physical evidence linking the accused to the murder scene other than any evidence that shows sexual contact (e.g. victim DNA on the person or clothing of the suspects or in their rooms, physical evidence linking the accused to the murder weapons, etc...), explain how it is possible that any evidence gathered at the crime scene could have avoided contamination, ...

Edit: I would also add that because of the appearance of torture used to extract the "confessions", the lack of an interpreter during the interrogations, and the other irregularities in the interrogations of the suspects, the "confessions" are, in my opinion, worthless, inadmissible, useless, an embarrassment to the RTP and their investigation, ...

boomerangutang, on 29 Nov 2014 - 16:00, said:

<snipped>

BTW, With the full weight of Thai officialdom trying to shield the headman's people, including Nomsod, Mon, Mon's cop friend, and the man with the shark's tooth ring, it will be easy for them to deflect any evidence pointing to them. It will be easier than OJ claiming the bloody gloves weren't his. I think all of us yearning for justice (and getting murderers/rapists behind bars) will have to accept that: even if any of the headman's people are put on trial (a virtual impossibility, considering they own the police), they'll be able to refute any evidence presented, no matter how solid it is.

I don't think justice will be served when this case comes to court - far from it, as Thai officialdom is determined to convict the B2 at any cost. I don't hold out much hope of them getting a fair trial.

I have been reading about another disturbing death of a British tourist in Bangkok last year, which occurred while in police custody. The lad had been arrested on the Khaosan Road after being found in possession of drugs. The U.K. coroner's report is scathing of the Thai authorities' handling of the case and does not agree with their version of how he died. The body was embalmed before being repatriated but a second autopsy was conducted in the U.K. which revealed a cocktail of drugs in his system, which Thai forensics had apparently missed. Without going into details, there were other discrepancies in the autopsies too. It seems that the British authorities and the lad's parents are powerless to challenge the Thai authorities over this case, as the RTP gleefully insists that the case is closed, which is exactly what I think will happen with the Koh Tao murders.

Nevertheless, we know that second autopsies were conducted in the U.K. on Hannah and David and regardless of whether the bodies were embalmed or not before repatriation, I feel sure that IF date-rape drugs, or any other drugs were given to Hannah on that fateful night, they will have been detected by British forensic specialists. Likewise they will know what type of weapon caused David's injuries.

I think the only justice we will see in this case is when the TRUTH comes out at the U.K. inquests, which will sadly be too late for the B2.