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

[RickBradford]

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

[DennisF]

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

The biggest fear on this thread, by most posters, is that you might just be correct.

We are all hanging on to the international/social media pressure.

Then again TIT and there is no World outside its borders and everyone is happy.

[mcm991]

These boys are in grave danger of being found guilty of murder.

The foul and fetid jouney to this point has continued unabated despite obvious gaping 'issues' in an investigation that never really investigated anything.

I see no reason why the next phase would be any less odious.

[thailandchilli]

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

The biggest fear on this thread, by most posters, is that you might just be correct.

We are all hanging on to the international/social media pressure.

Then again TIT and there is no World outside its borders and everyone is happy.

Yes but don't forget there will be a host of witness statements along with the statements from the Police who were here in Thailand. The inquest can be quite damning. The one here although nowhere near the level of this case does show just how the real truth can be revealed at an inquest. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brit-found-hanged-thai-cell-4058070

[Krenjai]

"I confess that I stole black iphone 4 which belongs to David Miller. I also did kill David and Hannah and stole the belongings from Davids shorts. It was the police who taken the cellphone back."

The above is the official confession of one of the B2 that was later retracted.

The document that this translation was taken from is online for everyone to see and is signed by the RTP and one of the B2. It also has a photo of the B2 suspect being questioned at the 'safe house'. This document looks authentic but take it as it is, its not verified so cannot guarantee its the real one. If the scant autopsy report that was published is real and is anything to go by then this goes in keeping with the lack of details that are required in Thailand for court cases.

Of course we have yet to see if the judge takes this confession into account because of the retraction and of course we also have the allegations that the confession was made under torture or threat of torture.

If the judge does take it into consideration then I would say there's absolutely no hope for a fair trial along with all the other failings that currently exist on the evidence and lack of evidence.

If you'd like to find the document online pm me

If thats all they have its pathetic.

That is not exactly a detailed confession in anyones eyes..

Correct, however, I start to believe it doesn't matter anymore what was said by whom at what time under what circumstances. The cards have been dealt long time ago as some have correctly posted and predicted here.

It's like OJ, a blood trail from the murder scene to his house, blood spatters in the bronco, a DNA match with his blood, Nicole & Ron, a missing knife, bloody shoe prints in the walkway, a bloody glove at his estate and the other glove at Nicole's, a cut at his finger, his escape in the Bronco and the list goes on and on, we all know the verdict: NOT GUILTY of course...

This case will be the same:

It's like the B2, no blood trail from the murder scene to their place, no blood spatters in their apartment, no DNA match on the hoe from David, the missing murder weapon on David was never found, no matching foot prints in the sand, no bloody clothes in their room, no cuts no bruises on them, no escape attempt and the list goes on an on, and the verdict? GUILTY of course....

[jdinasia]

"I confess that I stole black iphone 4 which belongs to David Miller. I also did kill David and Hannah and stole the belongings from Davids shorts. It was the police who taken the cellphone back."

The above is the official confession of one of the B2 that was later retracted.

The document that this translation was taken from is online for everyone to see and is signed by the RTP and one of the B2. It also has a photo of the B2 suspect being questioned at the 'safe house'. This document looks authentic but take it as it is, its not verified so cannot guarantee its the real one. If the scant autopsy report that was published is real and is anything to go by then this goes in keeping with the lack of details that are required in Thailand for court cases.

Of course we have yet to see if the judge takes this confession into account because of the retraction and of course we also have the allegations that the confession was made under torture or threat of torture.

If the judge does take it into consideration then I would say there's absolutely no hope for a fair trial along with all the other failings that currently exist on the evidence and lack of evidence.

If you'd like to find the document online pm me

"taken from online "?

Were they posted by any news agency or the RTP or the defense or the prosecution?

If not then I would call that rumor mongering.

[uty6543]

I'm only 2 or 3 hours drive and then ferry from Samui, my daughter is on school holidays from the 12th Dec so presuming its not too late, then in the holidays I will make a trip to visit a colleague in Samui and also see if its possible to visit the B2. I'm sure if I tweet Andy Hall he will let me know the procedure for making a visit. I'd be happy to bring with me any messages for them from anyone on here.

I doubt you will be able to get to see them but if you do you can say tell them :-

I and 99% of the farang community belive in their innocence and we will keep doing what ever we can to secure their release. Every day since their arrest I have thought of their plight and hope they will be home with their family soon.

Peter Smith

Sakon Nakhon

[jdinasia]

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

I agree with your final conclusion. I think the wording may be a bit stronger but not in a significant way.

[Tatsujin]

And yet another big <deleted> you from the RTP ... no one is convinced this is all above board, despite their claims to the contrary.

I guess Thai justice (i.e. who can pay the most) is still winning out.

Love to see the Military step in and oversee it all and start from scratch on the off-chance that they don't have a vested interest in a non-Thai being the perpetrator.

Can't wait to see what HRW has to say about this. Oh ... can't access their website for some reason ...

[thailandchilli]

I'm only 2 or 3 hours drive and then ferry from Samui, my daughter is on school holidays from the 12th Dec so presuming its not too late, then in the holidays I will make a trip to visit a colleague in Samui and also see if its possible to visit the B2. I'm sure if I tweet Andy Hall he will let me know the procedure for making a visit. I'd be happy to bring with me any messages for them from anyone on here.

I doubt you will be able to get to see them but if you do you can say tell them :-

I and 99% of the farang community belive in their innocence and we will keep doing what ever we can to secure their release. Every day since their arrest I have thought of their plight and hope they will be home with their family soon.

Peter Smith

Sakon Nakhon

Thank you, message will be delivered if its possible if the timing is ok and I can get there before the case is over. I see no reason why even if I'm not allowed to see them then the very least I can do is hand them messages via the lawyer or Andy Hall. I will take a photo of delivery.

[Bleacher Bum East]

And should a foreign government invoke rights as suggested in Section 6 the host country could call in the Ambassador and order them to cease and desist or else be expelled from the country.

that is how I read and analyze it.

For some reason you've chosen to make this personal not just disagreeing but telling me what I do and don't understand.

In concept I agree with that, and this is where I think the discussion should be centered regarding what publicly seen actions the British and Myanmar governments will take---on more of a diplomatic analysis than a legal analysis because that is probably what is really going on behind the scenes for the most part.

Basically I think the following, and my guess is we aren't to far apart on our conclusions:

• Governments cannot just do whatever they want to assist its citizens inside a foreign country--there are international laws that apply such as the Vienna Convention, and practical government policies in place such as those listed on most embassy's website to avoid having to do the same thing thousands of times around the world when a citizen gets injured, killed or arrested.
• Some relevant legal provisions of the Vienna Convention are written in general rather than specific terms that are subject to interpretation---they do allow foreign governments to take some actions but not all. Governments on each side will interpret "interference", "assistance", etc. more broadly or narrowly depending on the result they want to accomplish.
• Government policies are not laws, and a government can bend or break those policies in some circumstances if they choose without legal ramifications.
• ALL THAT BEING SAID, even if a foreign government has the legal right to take certain more aggressive actions to assist a citizen abroad, it will rarely do so, even in cases when many people are calling for justice and action. This is because there are many other considerations and ramifications in doing so that go beyond the particular case in question.
• For example, while the foreign government has to take into account the requirements for justice and assistance of its citizens, it also has to take into account the diplomatic ramifications of taking aggressive action in a foreign country, because those diplomatic responses may in fact harm other of the foreign country's citizens and interests.
• On the flip side, the host country has to hesitate before making a strong diplomatic response to more aggressive actions by a foreign government, because this may end up harming its own interest and its own citizens as well (for example, evicting diplomats is an extreme response that would draw a reciprocal reaction in the other country and affect many other issues).
• Because of all this, people should not expect the British and Myanmar government to severely rock the diplomatic boat by pushing the limits of the Vienna Convention and their own internal policies. They will only do so as a last resort, if that, and because it is politically and diplomatically their best option all things being considered, and because they feel they have no other choice. (this means that if they do take more aggressive actions, which both the British and Myanmar government have already done to a certain extent, you can solidly bet they have some serious concerns).

So the bottom line is that at the highest levels, this horrific crime and totally justified emotional and moral call for justice has become in large part a diplomatic game of poker.

In a recent exchange/hand of of poker being played, which I think you may have put your analytical finger on, the Burmese speaker of the house arrived with forensic and legal experts and announced they had raised the bail money for the B2 (notice that these actions do in fact mirror some of those in Section 6 of The Guide). In response, the Thai court denied bail, and while the judges said it was because of flight risk and the nature of the crime, you surmised it was actually a political/diplomatic message that they won't allow Thailand's internal affairs to be interfered with (in their own narrower interpretation of "interference"--and whether it is a correct interpretation or not is not really the issue). I tend to agree that hard core diplomacy was likely as much a part of the judges/his advisers decision as legal concerns.

So there's no reason for you to use hyperbolic overkill and state repeatedly that one provision of the Vienna Convention read in isolation legally prohibits basically all actions by the British and Myanmar governments to assist the B2 and/or make sure they real killers are put away and justice served---this is what I object to, because it is misleading other people in an intellectually dishonest way and is simply not true (the other thing I object to are flip deflective responses like "I'll ask the ambassador" to legitimate questions).

You don't even need the legal argument to make your case. What is much more credible and persuasive is to say that even though international law may be interpreted by a foreign country to allow certain actions by the British and Myanmar governments, it is not likely they will actually take these actions unless they feel they have no other choice, if that.

I blame any lapses in logic on the two sundowner mojitos and two glasses of wine that followed. I can't blame my extreme long-windesness on the drinks, because that's obviously become the trend for me.

[thailandchilli]

More delays by the prosecutor, perhaps theres just a few dozen annoying little things that just won't stand up even in a Thai court, like evidence

1. Samui prosecutor said Friday publicly Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo to be prosecuted by end of next week. 1st deadline of Nov passed, let's wait for 2nd.

2. Today last day November. Samui prosecutor said publicly Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo (Koh Tao accused) would be prosecuted by end Nov. It didn't happen.

https://twitter.com/atomicalandy

[JLCrab]

In the sphere where I operate ex-ThaiVisa I only write brief responses or else they wail not be read. My line is to write sufficiently brief so that it has been read before the person realizes that they wished they hadn't read it.

If UK or any other country would choose to invoke extreme measures in a case like this which may or may not have international implications, they can expect it to be invoked someday on them, you betcha.

BTW the flip answer regarding ask-the-ambassador was after I quoted the UK Embassy Bangkok website which uses the word 'interfere' and you posted:

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

which I did not consider to be a legitimate question as far as this website goes but just a set-up on your part.

[BritTim]

In the sphere where I operate ex-ThaiVisa I only write brief responses or else they wail not be read. My line is to write sufficiently brief so that it has been read before the person realizes that they wished they hadn't read it.

If UK or any other country would choose to invoke extreme measures in a case like this which may or may not have international implications, they can expect it to be invoked someday on them, you betcha.

BTW the flip answer regarding ask-the-ambassador was after I quoted the UK Embassy Bangkok website which uses the word 'interfere' and you posted:

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

which I did not consider to be a legitimate question as far as this website goes but just a set-up on your part.

When you quote the UK Embassy website, I think it important to stress that it describes normal diplomatic and consular practice. It does not necessarily reflect what will occur in all cases when London becomes involved and exceptional pressures (such as domestic political considerations) influence decisions at the highest levels.

The UK's involvement has already been unusual, sparked by public concerns along with doubts that justice is being served. Further, concrete evidence that the UK may possess will be presented at the English and Jersey inquests, and parts of the UK detectives' report will likely be made public. I also expect the UK to cooperate with the Burmese lawyers. That, I think, is as far as they will go. It is already much more than you would expect by reading the UK Embassy website. It is not the limit of what could be done, if the potential ramifications were not a deterrent.

[JLCrab]

Other than the notoriety this case has received through the blogosphere, the involvement of the UK government is straight out of the handbook as would apply to the +/- 200 other countries with which the UK maintains diplomatic relations:

MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER AND INFANTICIDE OF BRITISH NATIONALS

ABROAD

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/141958/mou-fco-acpo-coroners.pdf

[mcm991]

More delays by the prosecutor, perhaps theres just a few dozen annoying little things that just won't stand up even in a Thai court, like evidence

That, my friend, is a very big assumption indeed...........

( a good friend of mine is a solicitor...... evidence is apparently not a huge requirement in the determination of guilt or innosence...... )

[Bleacher Bum East]

In the sphere where I operate ex-ThaiVisa I only write brief responses or else they wail not be read. My line is to write sufficiently brief so that it has been read before the person realizes that they wished they hadn't read it.

If UK or any other country would choose to invoke extreme measures in a case like this which may or may not have international implications, they can expect it to be invoked someday on them, you betcha.

BTW the flip answer regarding ask-the-ambassador was after I quoted the UK Embassy Bangkok website which uses the word 'interfere' and you posted:

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

which I did not consider to be a legitimate question as far as this website goes but just a set-up on your part.

"In the sphere where I operate ex-ThaiVisa I only write brief responses or else they wail not be read. My line is to write sufficiently brief so that it has been read before the person realizes that they wished they hadn't read it."

I agree that's the best approach in most cases on forums like Thai Visa . . . but it can be very misleading when invoking isolated sections of generally stated law or policy as definitive responses to suggestions/comments by other posters, because that is not the way the law works.

I write for the admittedly very small niche market of viewers (maybe only myself?) who may want some more detailed background or analysis . . . after doing the research legwork and analysis for myself because I'm interested in the subject and enjoy looking for answers on relevant issues.

If UK or any other country would choose to invoke extreme measures in a case like this which may or may not have international implications, they can expect it to be invoked someday on them, you betcha.

I agree . . . that is a big part of the "many considerations and ramifications" that foreign governments must take into account when deciding how aggressive to be inside another country. And I'm not a fan of governmental double-standards, including of my own home government.

In a death penalty case, however, they also have to consider the ramifications of allowing a blatantly unfair trial to occur (I'm not saying this will happen, just if it did) or a conviction to take place when they have potentially exculpatory evidence (I'm not saying they have it, just if they did). The political fallout from that could be much greater than the diplomatic fallout of not intervening (as opposed to interfering) at all.

And the host government will have to consider the diplomatic and political fallout of taking public diplomatic countermeasures against foreign countries that are taking actions simply designed to ensure a fair and thorough investigation and a fair trial and judgement.

All of these things are being balanced by the governments involved.

BTW one of the interesting things about the Consular Guide I linked to is that this guidance was first put together for foreign consulates in the United States when their citizens were involved in death penalty cases ... so the interpretation and advice the legal scholars were giving was for taking these more "extreme" action in the host country with the ability to toss around the largest diplomatic countermeasures of any.

BTW the flip answer regarding ask-the-ambassador was after I quoted the UK Embassy Bangkok website which uses the word 'interfere' and you posted:

So what's your legal analysis of the meaning of "interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings"?

Specifically, what options do you think governments can pursue without such "interference", and what options do you think they are legally prohibited from pursuing?

which I did not consider to be a legitimate question as far as this website goes but just a set-up on your part.

The wasn't intended at all to be a set-up.

What constitutes "interference" is an open question that has not been definitively answered by any authority as far as I have seen . . . and even the Consular Guide that I cited, while making a well-researched and reasoned case of interpretation, is not authoritative on the subject---although it does constitute the expert opinion of two legal scholars on the subject, and the best research and analysis publicly available that I've found.

So I was genuinely interested in what actions you would consider to constitute interference and which you would not . . . I had this same discussion with friends over lunch a couple of days ago, and one of them very much disagreed with my position on some actions that I argued would not constitute interference. I make no claims to knowing all the answers in this gray area . . . I only claim to know that it is gray and not black and white.

I asked the open-ended question to you because I wanted to give you the courtesy of not answering the question for you in advance, and I didn't want to frame your response with my own.

I do think that if someone cites a law then they should be willing to go out on the limb of providing their own application of the law to the facts of the case at hand . . . and it's a much more interesting and beneficial debate if everyone does so . . . but that's my opinion.

[JLCrab]

Holy Cow!

[Artisi]

This is a cover up of monumental proportions.

This country is on the verge of enormous change and nothing can "rock the boat", not even the murder of two foreign guest by the 'elite"

Please share with those of us in Thailand, what is your definition of "elite"?

e·lite

əˈlēt,āˈlēt/

noun

1. a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.

   "the elite of Britain's armed forces"

   synonyms: best, pick, cream, crème de la crème, flower,nonpareil, elect;

   high society, jet set, beautiful people, beau monde, haut monde, glitterati;

   aristocracy,nobility, upper class

But you have no need to worry JDinasia no one will ever accuse you of being elite

P.S. For those of you not in Thailand please don't read this post.

Would anyone not in Thailand be a member in the first place?

Why not?

[IslandLover]

RickBradford, on 30 Nov 2014 - 14:55, said:

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

I disagree. I don't think the U.K. coroner will hold anything back. There have already been serious doubts expressed over the deaths of the British man who allegedly hanged himself in police custody in Bangkok last year, as well as the man who died in suspicious circumstances in Koh Tao on New Year's Day this year, not to mention the Kirsty Jones case. I see the inquest as the "green light" for the victims' travelling companions to finally speak out about what happened on the night of the murders and I think the press are going to have a field day with it.

None of this of course will affect the outcome of the trial and I think what you stated in the first part of your post is what will happen sadly.

[Dogmatix]

RickBradford, on 30 Nov 2014 - 14:55, said:

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

I disagree. I don't think the U.K. coroner will hold anything back. There have already been serious doubts expressed over the deaths of the British man who allegedly hanged himself in police custody in Bangkok last year, as well as the man who died in suspicious circumstances in Koh Tao on New Year's Day this year, not to mention the Kirsty Jones case. I see the inquest as the "green light" for the victims' travelling companions to finally speak out about what happened on the night of the murders and I think the press are going to have a field day with it.

None of this of course will affect the outcome of the trial and I think what you stated in the first part of your post is what will happen sadly.

Yes, the 2B will be convicted based solely on the DNA tests done by the police themselves without independent corroboration. They don't seem to have other evidence linking them to the rape and the evidence linking them to the murders seems only circumstantial too. They will probably have been already sentenced to death by the time any evidence from the UK is made public. The best the coroner can do is to point out serious discrepancies in police evidence, lack of independent forensic analysis, doubt that David's wounds were caused by the hoe. However, bear in mind that, unlike the case of the British man hanged in the police station and Nick Pearson's apparent murder in Samui, the cause of death here is not going to be disputed, since everyone can agree they were murdered. It is not up the coroner to say who murdered the victims. The UK will definitely couch it in such terms so as not to jeopardise trade, investment and tourism ties with Thailand.

Embasssies under Cameron have been slashed to mere trade posts with little or no interest in or resources to look after British citizens abroad. When Nick Pearson died the Foreign Office was too lazy even to write to his mother to explain the circumstances surrounding his death or what she had to do or what options she might have. They just called her up and in her state of shock and extreme grief, she couldn't remember what was said. It has become a total disgrace and a rip off of taxpayers' money. They may as well just save the entire budget and sell off the rest of the land on Wireless Road. British interests could be taken care of by the Nigerian Embassy for a small fee.

[thailandchilli]

RickBradford, on 30 Nov 2014 - 14:55, said:

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

I disagree. I don't think the U.K. coroner will hold anything back. There have already been serious doubts expressed over the deaths of the British man who allegedly hanged himself in police custody in Bangkok last year, as well as the man who died in suspicious circumstances in Koh Tao on New Year's Day this year, not to mention the Kirsty Jones case. I see the inquest as the "green light" for the victims' travelling companions to finally speak out about what happened on the night of the murders and I think the press are going to have a field day with it.

None of this of course will affect the outcome of the trial and I think what you stated in the first part of your post is what will happen sadly.

Yes, the 2B will be convicted based solely on the DNA tests done by the police themselves without independent corroboration. They don't seem to have other evidence linking them to the rape and the evidence linking them to the murders seems only circumstantial too. They will probably have been already sentenced to death by the time any evidence from the UK is made public. The best the coroner can do is to point out serious discrepancies in police evidence, lack of independent forensic analysis, doubt that David's wounds were caused by the hoe. However, bear in mind that, unlike the case of the British man hanged in the police station and Nick Pearson's apparent murder in Samui, the cause of death here is not going to be disputed, since everyone can agree they were murdered. It is not up the coroner to say who murdered the victims. The UK will definitely couch it in such terms so as not to jeopardise trade, investment and tourism ties with Thailand.

Embasssies under Cameron have been slashed to mere trade posts with little or no interest in or resources to look after British citizens abroad. When Nick Pearson died the Foreign Office was too lazy even to write to his mother to explain the circumstances surrounding his death or what she had to do or what options she might have. They just called her up and in her state of shock and extreme grief, she couldn't remember what was said. It has become a total disgrace and a rip off of taxpayers' money. They may as well just save the entire budget and sell off the rest of the land on Wireless Road. British interests could be taken care of by the Nigerian Embassy for a small fee.

Sure but lets not also forget that aside from the witness and police statements, the coroner aside from the actual verdict will also have the right to give a narrative of the events as they see it. This is the part of the coroners report apart from the verdict and clarification of how wounds may have been inflicted, drug traces etc that I am hoping will highlight any major discrepancies in the Thai version of events

[jdinasia]

RickBradford, on 30 Nov 2014 - 14:55, said:

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

I disagree. I don't think the U.K. coroner will hold anything back. There have already been serious doubts expressed over the deaths of the British man who allegedly hanged himself in police custody in Bangkok last year, as well as the man who died in suspicious circumstances in Koh Tao on New Year's Day this year, not to mention the Kirsty Jones case. I see the inquest as the "green light" for the victims' travelling companions to finally speak out about what happened on the night of the murders and I think the press are going to have a field day with it.

None of this of course will affect the outcome of the trial and I think what you stated in the first part of your post is what will happen sadly.

There weren't serious doubts in the case you cite, and it didn't involve a criminal proceeding in a foreign country.

There was an evidence gap. The coroner could not rule out suicide.

[Dogmatix]

RickBradford, on 30 Nov 2014 - 14:55, said:

Face it, the B2 are cooked.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

In a cargo cult society like Thailand, the appearance is everything, the substance nothing. There will be an indictment, a trial, and a conviction. Anything else is unthinkable.

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

Still. I will be interested what the UK inquest comes up with in January, though the language used will certainly be nuanced, anything to avoid a diplomatic spat.

I will be very surprised if it gets any stronger than: "We feel that the investigation lacked something in rigor and transparency, but we have no reason to doubt the conclusion".

I disagree. I don't think the U.K. coroner will hold anything back. There have already been serious doubts expressed over the deaths of the British man who allegedly hanged himself in police custody in Bangkok last year, as well as the man who died in suspicious circumstances in Koh Tao on New Year's Day this year, not to mention the Kirsty Jones case. I see the inquest as the "green light" for the victims' travelling companions to finally speak out about what happened on the night of the murders and I think the press are going to have a field day with it.

None of this of course will affect the outcome of the trial and I think what you stated in the first part of your post is what will happen sadly.

There weren't serious doubts in the case you cite, and it didn't involve a criminal proceeding in a foreign country.

There was an evidence gap. The coroner could not rule out suicide.

So, if the 2B have already been sentenced to death on probably contaminated DNA evidence alone, will the coroner say nothing for fear of Thailand's contempt of court laws, even if he or she believes there were serious gaps in the evidence?

Or was your point that a suicide pact a distinct possibility and that the coroner might raise this as a neat alternative to the not really believable theory of the 2B as assasins?

[jdinasia]

Simply refuting the claim I replied to.

[thailandchilli]

Sad the attempts by some people to play down the seriousness of this crime and the extreme concern displayed by international community. Lets hope those same people never have cause to need support that is currently being given to the B2 and the victims families. Disgraceful

[JLCrab]

According to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) approximately 60 UK citizens are murdered overseas each year. Let's hope in the future maybe the same concern and support of the international community can be shown to the other 58 whether they occur under suspicious circumstances or not.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-office-sets-out-support-for-british-nationals-overseas

[uty6543]

According to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) approximately 60 UK citizens are murdered overseas each year. Let's hope in the future maybe the same concern and support of the international community can be shown to the other 58 whether they occur under suspicious circumstances or not.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-office-sets-out-support-for-british-nationals-overseas

Whilst every murder is a tragedy for the family concerned in most murder cases it is clear from the beginning who the murderer is and if the local police conduct a proper investigation there is no need for the international community to intrude into matters that don't concern them. I think it is best to let the family come to terms with their loss and grieve in their own way.

But when a murder is as horrific as this one and the investigation is a farce from the moment the bodies are found I think it is right that people should become involved to put pressure on those involved in the investigation, their superiors and their government in the hope that justice can be served.

[thailandchilli]

2mrw Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo Koh Tao accused to attend Samui court 9am. Prosecutor will request 6th detention extension OR prosecute lets wait & see

https://twitter.com/atomicalandy

[JLCrab]

According to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) approximately 60 UK citizens are murdered overseas each year. Let's hope in the future maybe the same concern and support of the international community can be shown to the other 58 whether they occur under suspicious circumstances or not.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-office-sets-out-support-for-british-nationals-overseas

Whilst every murder is a tragedy for the family concerned in most murder cases it is clear from the beginning who the murderer is and if the local police conduct a proper investigation there is no need for the international community to intrude into matters that don't concern them. I think it is best to let the family come to terms with their loss and grieve in their own way.

But when a murder is as horrific as this one and the investigation is a farce from the moment the bodies are found I think it is right that people should become involved to put pressure on those involved in the investigation, their superiors and their government in the hope that justice can be served.

The UK has a defined process for the investigation of murder of UK citizens and t is initiated by a member of the immediate family expressing dissatisfaction with the ongoing investigation. The pressure exerted at least by the UK government might have occurred with or without the attendant publicity. Whether the blosphere will ultimately affect the outcome of the Thai government's actions is too early to tell.