Police coy over new probe into Koh Tao murders

[thailandchilli]

It's really not a nuclear science what needs to be done to clear up lingering doubts. The UK government should officially request a permission to take DNA samples from imprisoned suspects so the British forensic team could carry out an independent DNA test. It would give Royal Thai police an opportunity to repair their reputation and prove many of us here wrong.

Possible scenario: In the first round of DNA-testing, where 200-300 people were tested, amongst them the alledged culprits and their DNA-profile goes to the RTP's evidence-room marked: "Retrieved from female victim"

A week later, they are arrested and DNA-tested again, and surprise, surprise: A MATCH!!

Forensic science has made a lot of progress, but sadly can also be misused by coppers lacking moral and ethics!!

I would hope that this point is a strong part of the defense case (they have many) as it alone would prove corruption or incompetent DNA testing, both of which would add to the other mounting evidence that will set them free

[Katoom]

An investigation in Thailand, that under UK law they have no authority to investigate?

What could a private citizen say from the UK that changes an investigation in Thailand, in which the UK police are only observers?

If any of the UK cits that returned to the UK have any evidence /proof of anything that directly implicates anyone other than the 2 Burmese men, would it not create leverage to push for a new investigation headed by the DSI?

Add to that the absolute freedom of speech and what is there but the conclusion that the people that returned to the UK have nothing to add.

Well, for the simple fact that it would be subjudice to the inquest to be held in the UK in January 2015? I think you will also find that similar rules also apply in the House of Commons regarding subjudice and inquests for questions or statements by members but at the discretion of the Speaker.

Sub judice -

There's no case in court in the UK regarding this matter. An inquest is not a trial and the legal concept of Sub judice doesn't apply.

Nothing about why none of the people have spoken to the press?

Think again, you really do need to be more informed;

http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/contempt-and-reporting-legal-proceedings/contempt-or-sub-judice-rules

As said, there are also rules applying to the House of Commons but the Speaker has discretion.

[boomerangutang]

It's really not a nuclear science what needs to be done to clear up lingering doubts. The UK government should officially request a permission to take DNA samples from imprisoned suspects so the British forensic team could carry out an independent DNA test. It would give Royal Thai police an opportunity to repair their reputation and prove many of us here wrong.

Possible scenario: In the first round of DNA-testing, where 200-300 people were tested, amongst them the alledged culprits and their DNA-profile goes to the RTP's evidence-room marked: "Retrieved from female victim"

A week later, they are arrested and DNA-tested again, and surprise, surprise: A MATCH!!

Forensic science has made a lot of progress, but sadly can also be misused by coppers lacking moral and ethics!!

I've put forth that viable possibility earlier, though you put a slightly different spin on it. If coppers used the Burmese scapegoats' DNA profiles, made a copy of the paper and also labelled them, 'DNA taken from female victim' ...then all the pap which the RTP has claimed since the Burmese were arrested would fit like a glove.

It's no surprise that top Thai investigators are keeping a tight lid on the DNA results labelled 'from victim'. The last thing they want, is for inquiring netizens to be able to see what's going on behind the black curtains. It's eerily like the final sequence of the Wizard of Oz movie, when Toto (Dorothy's dog) pulls aside the curtain to reveal the little old man manipulating the giant mechanical OZ. The old man says, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

In this case, Oz is the ruse orchestrated by Thai police top brass, the little man at the controls is police brass themselves, and of course, we're the observers who should be awed by the magnificence and viability of Oz, ....but we're not.

[mojorison]

That picture alone would negate the possibility of a fair trial in any country in the world with a proper justice system.

What is it with the pictures of alleged offenders being paraded in front of the media, never seen anything quite like it in any other country.

In some countries, a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. One country that comes to mind is Mexico.

That's true. The onus of proof varies from place to place. In Ireland (I think) they have 3 outcomes. Guilty, not Guilty, not proven. So there you go. (BTW people often use the word "innocent"... I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, "not-guilty" being the correct term. Also while I'm at it, some people here do not understand what a conspiracy is. There is "conspiracy to commit a crime" which is a legal term totally different to the JFK CIA conspiracy definition. Most people here use the JFK CIA conspiracy notion which is totally inappropriate, as conspiracy theory basically means that all events are linked. For an example of a current conspiracy, you could argue that Margaret Thatcher's poll tax is responsible for the manifestation of IS in Syria and Iraq. What people here mean when they say "conspiracy" is really just lies and a botched investigation.)

[boomerangutang]

What people here mean when they say "conspiracy" is really just lies and a botched investigation.)

Half full of bull, or half empty.

It's ironic, JD and JTJ have thrown out the phrase 'conspiracy theory' a hundred times each in their posts, all the while trying to get it to stick to the hundreds of thousands of netizens who are searching for the truth online. From others' viewpoint, mine included, JD and JTJ are themselves siding with the conspiracy of Thai officialdom who appear to have locked arms to frame the Burmese, while concurrently shielding the headman's people.

It will be interesting if/when the Brit experts come forth with their inquest data.

[Katoom]

Still no response from jdinasia...

[SteveFong]

don't bait him

the less said directly to him,

the more peace among the rest of us

[thailandchilli]

Hes good at always asking for 'source' 'credible information' 'facts' but when presented with these he closes his eyes. Impossible to debate with such people. When something looks you in the face and you still refuse to believe it, then thats your own problem.

So so the RTP glee club internet warriors

[jdinasia]

That picture alone would negate the possibility of a fair trial in any country in the world with a proper justice system.

What is it with the pictures of alleged offenders being paraded in front of the media, never seen anything quite like it in any other country.

In some countries, a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. One country that comes to mind is Mexico.

That's true. The onus of proof varies from place to place. In Ireland (I think) they have 3 outcomes. Guilty, not Guilty, not proven. So there you go. (BTW people often use the word "innocent"... I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, "not-guilty" being the correct term. Also while I'm at it, some people here do not understand what a conspiracy is. There is "conspiracy to commit a crime" which is a legal term totally different to the JFK CIA conspiracy definition. Most people here use the JFK CIA conspiracy notion which is totally inappropriate, as conspiracy theory basically means that all events are linked. For an example of a current conspiracy, you could argue that Margaret Thatcher's poll tax is responsible for the manifestation of IS in Syria and Iraq. What people here mean when they say "conspiracy" is really just lies and a botched investigation.)

No.

What people mean by conspiracy theories is that people have bizarre theories that not only is there a conspiracy to frame the suspects, but that 1000's of people know who committed the crimes and not one of those people are talking, even those removed from KT by 1000's of miles.

[jdinasia]

Still no response from jdinasia...

I am not in the UK. It was Saturday night.

From your link

"

Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

There's no jury pool to influence in the UK. The inquest Into cause of death cannot be influenced by people talking about the events earlier in the night, or if someone was on the island.

[jpeg]

When and where did he get the haircut may be relevant as it was mentioned on one of the forums he was seen with marks or cuts on his arms.

Wow. That's 'Nomsod'? That is most certainly the same guy. Look at the way he walks and with his arms thrown out. I've been told I can be spotted a mile away by my walk And so if indeed that CTV footage is dated the same night of the slayings, game over.

For chrissakes pick the little sh1t up!

[Soutpeel]

When and where did he get the haircut may be relevant as it was mentioned on one of the forums he was seen with marks or cuts on his arms.

Wow. That's 'Nomsod'? That is most certainly the same guy. Look at the way he walks and with his arms thrown out. I've been told I can be spotted a mile away by my walk And so if indeed that CTV footage is dated the same night of the slayings, game over.

For chrissakes pick the little sh1t up!

The thing that has intrigued me, was the hair sample which was suppose to have been found on one of the victims being described as "blonde" could this not have been a mistranslation for "high lighted hair", and I believe this kid did have highlights in his hair in the not too distant past, and could be another reason why he got his hair cut to get the high lights out

one imagines the "blonde" sample they have from the victim can be easily compared with the kids, if of course it hasn't been thrown away or "misplaced"

[tingtongtourist]

Wow many thousand of post and people with theory. The one i like is the post that says thai police are like mice running scared and getting trapped in a corner.

But sadly i fear it will all come to nothing. Incident happened in thailand and simply is a thai issue for thai justice system.

if the Burmese get found guilty there is nothing anyone can do about.

And what power does social media have? Only the choice to lobby their own government..

and lobbying brit government is no use as they have no gonads..after all...just look what they allowed to happen to their country.

no, the Thai justice system will handle this their own way and they wont care what anyone thinks.

the rest of the world can do nothing about it.

i remember the case of the brit girl abducted and boyfriend killed by the maniac in australia.

and the backpacker killings in Belangelo forest..many many young people slayed but we dont banish everyone to not travel to aus

it took them ages to get any leads in those cases but didnt hear any uproar from brit government.

[thailandchilli]

Still no response from jdinasia...

I am not in the UK. It was Saturday night.

From your link

"

Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

There's no jury pool to influence in the UK. The inquest Into cause of death cannot be influenced by people talking about the events earlier in the night, or if someone was on the island.

Also known as the 'sub-judice' rules, contempt is a criminal offence. There are two types of contempt: statutory and common law. Both involve interfering with legal proceedings in the UK. There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes "legal proceedings" but it includes, for example, the main courts: Magistrates' Court, County Court, High Court and also Inquests, Military Courts and Industrial Tribunals. Hearings before the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council are not included.

http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/contempt-and-reporting-legal-proceedings/contempt-or-sub-judice-rules

[SteveFong]

ting tong,

you apparently haven't seen the RTP howl and scream at the "armchair detectives" and the "internet idiots" then have you?

you must have also missed how they stated they had "found" Hannah's cell phone at the Burmese residence

and then when the social media stormed that Hannah's cell phone was on the desk of the RTP the morning after the murders

they then announced it was David's cell phone,

then, the social media pummeled them again, because they announced, David's cell phone was found at the scene

did you also know, they (the RTP) put bloody clothes in David's luggage and were "caught again" by the unternet idiots?

and then there was the 100,000 signatures that forced David Cameron, to throw a lasso at the PM, and handed him a list of 20 questions,

ll supplied by the social media brigades...........

you missed all this?

[Bleacher Bum East]

Still no response from jdinasia...

I am not in the UK. It was Saturday night.

From your link

"

Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

There's no jury pool to influence in the UK. The inquest Into cause of death cannot be influenced by people talking about the events earlier in the night, or if someone was on the island.

Also from Katoom's link:

"There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes "legal proceedings" but it includes, for example, the main courts: Magistrates' Court, County Court, High Court and also Inquests, . . . . "

"It is not just potential jurors who might be prejudiced by what is broadcast. Witnesses may also be prejudiced by what they see or hear on television. In addition, although professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting, some courts are presided over by lay people (most Magistrates' Courts), and the law assumes that such people can be prejudiced.

http://www.channel4....ub-judice-rules

[mojorison]

That picture alone would negate the possibility of a fair trial in any country in the world with a proper justice system.

What is it with the pictures of alleged offenders being paraded in front of the media, never seen anything quite like it in any other country.

In some countries, a person accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent. One country that comes to mind is Mexico.

That's true. The onus of proof varies from place to place. In Ireland (I think) they have 3 outcomes. Guilty, not Guilty, not proven. So there you go. (BTW people often use the word "innocent"... I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, "not-guilty" being the correct term. Also while I'm at it, some people here do not understand what a conspiracy is. There is "conspiracy to commit a crime" which is a legal term totally different to the JFK CIA conspiracy definition. Most people here use the JFK CIA conspiracy notion which is totally inappropriate, as conspiracy theory basically means that all events are linked. For an example of a current conspiracy, you could argue that Margaret Thatcher's poll tax is responsible for the manifestation of IS in Syria and Iraq. What people here mean when they say "conspiracy" is really just lies and a botched investigation.)

No.

What people mean by conspiracy theories is that people have bizarre theories that not only is there a conspiracy to frame the suspects, but that 1000's of people know who committed the crimes and not one of those people are talking, even those removed from KT by 1000's of miles.

Oh dear... you are really clutching at straws now.

[jdinasia]

Still no response from jdinasia...

I am not in the UK. It was Saturday night.

From your link

"

Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

There's no jury pool to influence in the UK. The inquest Into cause of death cannot be influenced by people talking about the events earlier in the night, or if someone was on the island.

Also from Katoom's link:

"There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes "legal proceedings" but it includes, for example, the main courts: Magistrates' Court, County Court, High Court and also Inquests, . . . . "

"It is not just potential jurors who might be prejudiced by what is broadcast. Witnesses may also be prejudiced by what they see or hear on television. In addition, although professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting, some courts are presided over by lay people (most Magistrates' Courts), and the law assumes that such people can be prejudiced.

http://www.channel4....ub-judice-rules

All of which are discussing events leading to trial in the UK.

Witnesses placing specific people on the island would be outside the pervue of the Inquest

[thailandchilli]

Still no response from jdinasia...

I am not in the UK. It was Saturday night.

From your link

"

Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

There's no jury pool to influence in the UK. The inquest Into cause of death cannot be influenced by people talking about the events earlier in the night, or if someone was on the island.

Also from Katoom's link:

"There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes "legal proceedings" but it includes, for example, the main courts: Magistrates' Court, County Court, High Court and also Inquests, . . . . "

"It is not just potential jurors who might be prejudiced by what is broadcast. Witnesses may also be prejudiced by what they see or hear on television. In addition, although professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting, some courts are presided over by lay people (most Magistrates' Courts), and the law assumes that such people can be prejudiced.

http://www.channel4....ub-judice-rules

All of which are discussing events leading to trial in the UK.

Witnesses placing specific people on the island would be outside the pervue of the Inquest

All of which are discussing events leading to trial or Inquest.

Hannah's friends who may be deemed to be a witness into how she died are not outside the pervue of the Inquest

Edited November 9, 2014 by thailandchilli

[Bleacher Bum East]

Still no response from jdinasia...

I am not in the UK. It was Saturday night.

From your link

"

Finally, note that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. You could not, therefore, be in contempt of US legal proceedings for broadcasting prejudicial material in the UK."

There's no jury pool to influence in the UK. The inquest Into cause of death cannot be influenced by people talking about the events earlier in the night, or if someone was on the island.

Also from Katoom's link:

"There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes "legal proceedings" but it includes, for example, the main courts: Magistrates' Court, County Court, High Court and also Inquests, . . . . "

"It is not just potential jurors who might be prejudiced by what is broadcast. Witnesses may also be prejudiced by what they see or hear on television. In addition, although professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting, some courts are presided over by lay people (most Magistrates' Courts), and the law assumes that such people can be prejudiced.

http://www.channel4....ub-judice-rules

All of which are discussing events leading to trial in the UK.

Witnesses placing specific people on the island would be outside the pervue of the Inquest

No ... it relates to the circumstances leading up to a "legal proceeding" in the UK

A "legal proceeding" is not limited to a trial (as is clear from the link above)

The coroner's inquest--as stated in the link above--is a legal proceeding in the UK.

The coroner is charged with determining the circumstances surrounding a death.

Any witness providing information regarding those circumstances at the inquest would therefore be a witness to a legal proceeding in the UK.

Therefore, any witness who will testify at the inquest will be subject to the law and rules of sub-judice.

Regarding the purview of the inquest:

Go to the Memorandum that you often cite and look at to Section 6.12 regarding Request for Information from Overseas by the Coroner.

This non-exhaustive list of "material likely to be requested" by the coroner is very broad and highly informative as to what the coroner may look into and report on as part of his or her investigation into the circumstances surrounding a death overseas.

It includes:

• Any witness statements
• Police Report outlining: circumstances of death, evidential aspects, people interviewed, forensic aspects, persons charged, continuing enquiries
• Photos, plans or drawings of the crime scene
• Post mortem reports including any photos taken
• Toxicology reports
• Medical Reports

[boomerangutang]

What people mean by conspiracy theories is that people have bizarre theories that not only is there a conspiracy to frame the suspects, but that 1000's of people know who committed the crimes and not one of those people are talking, even those removed from KT by 1000's of miles.

Exaggeration is ok for the schoolyard, but give it a rest on T.Visa. No one except perhaps JD is claiming there are 1000's of witnesses. Several, perhaps. There could be witnesses (to the bar scene prior to the crime, etc) who are be in UK. fpr example. Being far away doesn't lessen their recollection nor their possible usefulness in offering clues to who the real criminals are.

Witnesses placing specific people on the island would be outside the pervue of the Inquest

what a load of unperfumed kaka.

Regarding the purview of the inquest:

Go to the Memorandum that you often cite and look at to Section 6.12 regarding Request for Information from Overseas by the Coroner.

This non-exhaustive list of "material likely to be requested" by the coroner is very broad and highly informative as to what the coroner may look into and report on as part of his or her investigation into the circumstances surrounding a death overseas.

It includes:

• Any witness statements
• Police Report outlining: circumstances of death, evidential aspects, people interviewed, forensic aspects, persons charged, continuing enquiries
• Photos, plans or drawings of the crime scene
• Post mortem reports including any photos taken
• Toxicology reports
• Medical Reports

Of course any decent inquest would want to have testimony of witnesses. The only parties not wanting that, in the Ko Tao case, are those who need to remain shielded from inquiry, like the headman's friends and family, and those who are trying deperately to shield them, like jdinasia, JTJ and top brass in the police and military.

[AGareth2]

so there maybe others involved?

at least 4 attackers?

"You proved my point that some people seem to think that "everyone knows", when the truth is (no matter who you think did it) that it is most unlikely that anyone other than the killers and a potential witness or 2 know anything. "

[metisdead]

A number of nonsense posts and replies have disappeared.

[CharlieH]

More posts discussing posters and not the topic have been removed.

[jdinasia]

What people mean by conspiracy theories is that people have bizarre theories that not only is there a conspiracy to frame the suspects, but that 1000's of people know who committed the crimes and not one of those people are talking, even those removed from KT by 1000's of miles.

Exaggeration is ok for the schoolyard, but give it a rest on T.Visa. No one except perhaps JD is claiming there are 1000's of witnesses. Several, perhaps. There could be witnesses (to the bar scene prior to the crime, etc) who are be in UK. fpr example. Being far away doesn't lessen their recollection nor their possible usefulness in offering clues to who the real criminals are.

Witnesses placing specific people on the island would be outside the pervue of the Inquest

what a load of unperfumed kaka.

Regarding the purview of the inquest:

Go to the Memorandum that you often cite and look at to Section 6.12 regarding Request for Information from Overseas by the Coroner.

This non-exhaustive list of "material likely to be requested" by the coroner is very broad and highly informative as to what the coroner may look into and report on as part of his or her investigation into the circumstances surrounding a death overseas.

It includes:

• Any witness statements
• Police Report outlining: circumstances of death, evidential aspects, people interviewed, forensic aspects, persons charged, continuing enquiries
• Photos, plans or drawings of the crime scene
• Post mortem reports including any photos taken
• Toxicology reports
• Medical Reports

Of course any decent inquest would want to have testimony of witnesses. The only parties not wanting that, in the Ko Tao case, are those who need to remain shielded from inquiry, like the headman's friends and family, and those who are trying deperately to shield them, like jdinasia, JTJ and top brass in the police and military.

No. People (I think you may have been one) have claimed "everyone knows" or "everyone on the island knows" who did it. (implying it was not the 2 Burmese men accused)

[englishoak]

Still running

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-two-men-4588520

[SteveFong]

Still running

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/thailand-beach-murders-two-men-4588520

has the mirror violated the computer crimes act?

what actually constitutes a violation in this case?