British police examining Koh Tao murder probe to return to UK

[englishoak]

There is nothing lazy about calling a conspiracy theory out for what it is.

I am unaware of any person on TVF saying that there are no issues with the RTP investigation.

What IS clear is that many people are claiming to "know exactly what happened" or "everyone knows exactly who did it "...

Those claims are patently untrue.

What we do know is that the RTP has conducted an investigation. The 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have a legal team to defend them.

The 2 Burmese men confessed more than one time. One confession was to a member of the NHRC.

What is needed now is a trial with a vigorous defense, not more conspiracy theories.

Retracted confessions more than once too. What happened there?

They lied. Which time and under what circumstances, was the lie will be up to the judges.

They will have a hard time explaining why they lied to the NHRC commissioner.

You really need to understand the difference between lying, and being coerced (by torture) into confessing. It is not up to you to determine if they are telling porky pies. In your words, that is up to the judge (and jury LOL) to decide.

There are NO juries in Thailand, nor i believe are there any transcripts or court proceedings like the west. Thats partly the concern of a slam dunk scapegoat trail.

[jdinasia]

A confession extorted as result of alleged torture and with no lawyer present is not considered a lie in any court in any country. Quite the reverse

A confession freely given after being informed of rights is admissible in most places. A second spontaneous confession given to a human rights commissioner with no threats and after rights are explained would almost always be admissible.

The judges will decide the admissibility of the confessions.

Wrong, there was no second confession in writing only heresay of the Thai NHRC allegedly to a Thai newspaper which are about as credible as facebook like the Thai claim the UK is happy with the case etc etc and all that other bunk they have been coming out with from all quarters.

Also it is the duty to make sure a person understands their rights by the HRC and it would have had to have been explained very clearly why the NHCR was there and it wasnt as an interrogator, so excuse me if it dosnt look entirely odd and out of place they would confess to a human rights advisor when its already clear their rights were violated.

I have never heard such a crazy story as confessing to a HR rep when they are there to investigate abuses.. youll note no other but the Thai one made that claim and with no witnesses.

spontaneous my ass.

back on ignore

Obviously I was never "on ignore"..

There were witnesses.

[fritzzz25]

A confession extorted as result of alleged torture and with no lawyer present is not considered a lie in any court in any country. Quite the reverse

A confession freely given after being informed of rights is admissible in most places. A second spontaneous confession given to a human rights commissioner with no threats and after rights are explained would almost always be admissible.

The judges will decide the admissibility of the confessions.

Yes, judges do rule on admissions and VOLUNTARINESS of confessions. I am sure if you had been the B2's position, you would have confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Nowhere in the Western world would an investigation like this be accepted. I invite you to look at USA and Canada, where courts have ruled on confessions to police. There is a landmark decision in Canada in regards to admissions R. V. Oickle. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1801/index.do

When a police officer interrogates someone, there needs to be PROOF that the accused was NOT tortured, threatened or induced to confess. To do this without video and audio brings a huge doubt into the confession. We saw the accused on the railway rape and murder being SLAPPED on video by the RTP during his interrogation. If you believe that these men were NOT treated the same way, you are certainly out to lunch.

[SteveFong]

In light of the appalling mess of the so called investigation by the RTP its human nature to speculate. Its human nature to question whats really going on, its human nature to look for alternative theories based on the incredible cock up the RTP have made of this on every level.

We are not robots conditioned to obey the RTP line. We have education and intelligence that teaches us to ask questions and be critical. The RTP have now realized that Thai people because of social media are now also doing this.

Some of the theories posted on here are way off the mark, but some seem more than plausible and in the absence of a trusted RTP investigation then those who question and demand the truth will continue.

The RTP club labels this as 'conspiracy theroy' and attacks posts with this as its only defense. Very easy and very lazy to do so. As a result they themselves illicit these so called attacks on them.

They would gain much more respect if they actually debated the issues rather than take the RTP line in this, ie we have suspects and once charged they will be taken to court, full stop, anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist!

There is nothing lazy about calling a conspiracy theory out for what it is.

I am unaware of any person on TVF saying that there are no issues with the RTP investigation.

What IS clear is that many people are claiming to "know exactly what happened" or "everyone knows exactly who did it "...

Those claims are patently untrue.

What we do know is that the RTP has conducted an investigation. The 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have a legal team to defend them.

The 2 Burmese men confessed more than one time. One confession was to a member of the NHRC.

What is needed now is a trial with a vigorous defense, not more conspiracy theories.

patently false,

there was an NHRC person who made that claim,

it is no different that the theory posed by RTP that David was killed in a gay rage.

no blood evidence anywhere of a bloody crime,

[Soutpeel]

Confessions in Thai.

My limited experience is that any document in Thai presented to you by Police for signing should be shunned if possible. They never provide an own language translation (unless maybe a diplomat can get one) and seem to be under no obligation to do so.

The Police world is not the commercial world and they rely on `confessions` completely to close cases..

They will say stuff like "oh this is just to say you`re free to leave, have been well treated and have no complaints. Sign here quickly so we can all go home" or any such variation, when actually you could be signing an admittance of a criminal offence.

Such methods and worse by RTP well documented by asiancorrespondent and others.

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

[SteveFong]

In light of the appalling mess of the so called investigation by the RTP its human nature to speculate. Its human nature to question whats really going on, its human nature to look for alternative theories based on the incredible cock up the RTP have made of this on every level.

We are not robots conditioned to obey the RTP line. We have education and intelligence that teaches us to ask questions and be critical. The RTP have now realized that Thai people because of social media are now also doing this.

Some of the theories posted on here are way off the mark, but some seem more than plausible and in the absence of a trusted RTP investigation then those who question and demand the truth will continue.

The RTP club labels this as 'conspiracy theroy' and attacks posts with this as its only defense. Very easy and very lazy to do so. As a result they themselves illicit these so called attacks on them.

They would gain much more respect if they actually debated the issues rather than take the RTP line in this, ie we have suspects and once charged they will be taken to court, full stop, anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist!

There is nothing lazy about calling a conspiracy theory out for what it is.

I am unaware of any person on TVF saying that there are no issues with the RTP investigation.

What IS clear is that many people are claiming to "know exactly what happened" or "everyone knows exactly who did it "...

Those claims are patently untrue.

What we do know is that the RTP has conducted an investigation. The 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have a legal team to defend them.

The 2 Burmese men confessed more than one time. One confession was to a member of the NHRC.

What is needed now is a trial with a vigorous defense, not more conspiracy theories.

Retracted confessions more than once too. What happened there?

They lied. Which time and under what circumstances, was the lie will be up to the judges.

They will have a hard time explaining why they lied to the NHRC commissioner.

wowwwwwwwwwwwww

they lied?

look at the tone being used now

they don't speak Thai,

they confessed, to nothing

the pancake man, said they confessed,

[stephen terry]

The prosecutor said (from one news report stating he needed more time) that confessions are not taken into consideration until the judge decides that the charges are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Then it's a matter of determining a sentence. If the guilty have made a confession the sentence will be lightened. In a death sentence charge, the sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment.

Nevertheless, it's my understanding that reliable DNA evidence plus a confession plus the re-enactment would be regarded as proven beyond reasonable doubt - but don't quote me on that because I could be mistaken.

In the case of the B2 they are materially charged with 'conspiring to commit murder' and 'robbery'. The RTP have stated they have a DNA match that places them at the scene, a found phone near their lodgings, but NO eye-witnesses. Hence the prosecutor asking for more 'evidence'.

[jdinasia]

Confessions in Thai.

My limited experience is that any document in Thai presented to you by Police for signing should be shunned if possible. They never provide an own language translation (unless maybe a diplomat can get one) and seem to be under no obligation to do so.

The Police world is not the commercial world and they rely on `confessions` completely to close cases..

They will say stuff like "oh this is just to say you`re free to leave, have been well treated and have no complaints. Sign here quickly so we can all go home" or any such variation, when actually you could be signing an admittance of a criminal offence.

Such methods and worse by RTP well documented by asiancorrespondent and others.

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

Different situations

Interpreter present in the situation with the NHRC commissioner. Verbal spontaneous confession

[jdinasia]

The prosecutor said (from one news report stating he needed more time) that confessions are not taken into consideration until the judge decides that the charges are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Then it's a matter of determining a sentence. If the guilty have made a confession the sentence will be lightened. In a death sentence charge, the sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment.

Nevertheless, it's my understanding that reliable DNA evidence plus a confession plus the re-enactment would be regarded as proven beyond reasonable doubt - but don't quote me on that because I could be mistaken.

In the case of the B2 they are materially charged with 'conspiring to commit murder' and 'robbery'. The RTP have stated they have a DNA match that places them at the scene, a found phone near their lodgings, but NO eye-witnesses. Hence the prosecutor asking for more 'evidence'.

Several factors above are incorrect, I will address one.

A confession doesn't automatically mean a reduced sentence. See the railway rape murder.

[jdinasia]

A confession extorted as result of alleged torture and with no lawyer present is not considered a lie in any court in any country. Quite the reverse

A confession freely given after being informed of rights is admissible in most places. A second spontaneous confession given to a human rights commissioner with no threats and after rights are explained would almost always be admissible.

The judges will decide the admissibility of the confessions.

Yes, judges do rule on admissions and VOLUNTARINESS of confessions. I am sure if you had been the B2's position, you would have confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Nowhere in the Western world would an investigation like this be accepted. I invite you to look at USA and Canada, where courts have ruled on confessions to police. There is a landmark decision in Canada in regards to admissions R. V. Oickle. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1801/index.do

When a police officer interrogates someone, there needs to be PROOF that the accused was NOT tortured, threatened or induced to confess. To do this without video and audio brings a huge doubt into the confession. We saw the accused on the railway rape and murder being SLAPPED on video by the RTP during his interrogation. If you believe that these men were NOT treated the same way, you are certainly out to lunch.

I am in Thailand, not Canada. In Thailand legal precedent is not binding.

BTW I think the confession in the railway case stood.

Edited November 14, 2014 by jdinasia

[Bleacher Bum East]

Confessions in Thai.

My limited experience is that any document in Thai presented to you by Police for signing should be shunned if possible. They never provide an own language translation (unless maybe a diplomat can get one) and seem to be under no obligation to do so.

The Police world is not the commercial world and they rely on `confessions` completely to close cases..

They will say stuff like "oh this is just to say you`re free to leave, have been well treated and have no complaints. Sign here quickly so we can all go home" or any such variation, when actually you could be signing an admittance of a criminal offence.

Such methods and worse by RTP well documented by asiancorrespondent and others.

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

Different situations

Interpreter present in the situation with the NHRC commissioner. Verbal spontaneous confession

"Verbal spontaneous confession"

Where is your link with a video proving that the accused Burmese men were not asked any questions about whether they committed the crime, no police were present when they spoke to the NHRC commissioner, and shows the entire circumstances surrounding this supposed "confession" to prove that it was in fact "spontaneous"?

If you don't have one, then your description of this as a "spontaneous confession" is, as you like to say, pure speculation and a conspiracy theory...not to mention potential defamation.

[SteveFong]

idk, fellas,

if I were the kind of guy who likes to puch people's buttons,

I would probably use a new screeen name to do it with,

seeings how the internet has a way of "storing" all sorts of things I may

as I have been posting wrecklessly to various different websites,

people wishing me happy birthday, on the same day, different sites,

my pictures on dating sites =, you know that sort of thing

[fritzzz25]

A confession extorted as result of alleged torture and with no lawyer present is not considered a lie in any court in any country. Quite the reverse

A confession freely given after being informed of rights is admissible in most places. A second spontaneous confession given to a human rights commissioner with no threats and after rights are explained would almost always be admissible.

The judges will decide the admissibility of the confessions.

Yes, judges do rule on admissions and VOLUNTARINESS of confessions. I am sure if you had been the B2's position, you would have confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Nowhere in the Western world would an investigation like this be accepted. I invite you to look at USA and Canada, where courts have ruled on confessions to police. There is a landmark decision in Canada in regards to admissions R. V. Oickle. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1801/index.do

When a police officer interrogates someone, there needs to be PROOF that the accused was NOT tortured, threatened or induced to confess. To do this without video and audio brings a huge doubt into the confession. We saw the accused on the railway rape and murder being SLAPPED on video by the RTP during his interrogation. If you believe that these men were NOT treated the same way, you are certainly out to lunch.

I am in Thailand, not Canada. In Thailand legal precedent is not binding.

BTW I think the confession in the railway case stood.

Oh I know you are in Thailand. I know you are on Koh Tao. I know you have NO idea of law, nor police investigations. I know you are hooked up with the "families" there and I know why you are so adamantly defending them.

What I am saying, is that IF this "confession" is admitted into court, the onus will be on the RTP to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary and no torture was used. Without video, it is going to be tough for them to dispute that fact. CCTV is everywhere in Thailand, but imagine that, NO video of the confessions. Hmmmmm.

Remember, the prosecution must prove the case. And it appears that they can't.

[Dogmatix]

One point that has not had much play is that the 2 Burmese suspects are Rakhine, and the interpreter was a Rohingya.

The two groups share a long mutual hatred on ethnic and religious grounds -- as recently as 2012, several hundred Rohingya were slaughtered by Rakhines.

Rohingyas are routinely persecuted wherever they go (for some reason) so I can imagine one enjoying being in the catbird seat for a change, especially with a couple of the despised Rakhine cowering in front of him.

Superb observation and insight.

Another point is that Rohingyas have their own language which is a dialect of Chittagonian Bengali, i.e. an Indo-Aryan language - you can tell this from the heavy "Indian" accent of the pancake man being interviewed in his broken Thai. Thus, neither central Burmese, nor Rakhine dialect are native languages to him. The Burmese lawyer complained that the 2B had problems communicating with him. His Thai is horrible too and no doubt he can't read Thai and probably not Burmese properly either.

In other words, in the eyes of Thai police, he was perfectly qualified to act as an interpreter taking a confession and reading back the Thai translation in a capital murder case.

According the Thai lawyers association, the suspects should have been given the right to appoint their own interpreter. The police said the suspects didn't ask for a lawyer, or plead the right to remain silent (of which they were not informed), or ask for their own interpreter. I wonder why.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Dogmatix

[mojorison]

In light of the appalling mess of the so called investigation by the RTP its human nature to speculate. Its human nature to question whats really going on, its human nature to look for alternative theories based on the incredible cock up the RTP have made of this on every level.

We are not robots conditioned to obey the RTP line. We have education and intelligence that teaches us to ask questions and be critical. The RTP have now realized that Thai people because of social media are now also doing this.

Some of the theories posted on here are way off the mark, but some seem more than plausible and in the absence of a trusted RTP investigation then those who question and demand the truth will continue.

The RTP club labels this as 'conspiracy theroy' and attacks posts with this as its only defense. Very easy and very lazy to do so. As a result they themselves illicit these so called attacks on them.

They would gain much more respect if they actually debated the issues rather than take the RTP line in this, ie we have suspects and once charged they will be taken to court, full stop, anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist!

There is nothing lazy about calling a conspiracy theory out for what it is.

I am unaware of any person on TVF saying that there are no issues with the RTP investigation.

What IS clear is that many people are claiming to "know exactly what happened" or "everyone knows exactly who did it "...

Those claims are patently untrue.

What we do know is that the RTP has conducted an investigation. The 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have a legal team to defend them.

The 2 Burmese men confessed more than one time. One confession was to a member of the NHRC.

What is needed now is a trial with a vigorous defense, not more conspiracy theories.

Retracted confessions more than once too. What happened there?

They lied. Which time and under what circumstances, was the lie will be up to the judges.

They will have a hard time explaining why they lied to the NHRC commissioner.

You really need to understand the difference between lying, and being coerced (by torture) into confessing. It is not up to you to determine if they are telling porky pies. In your words, that is up to the judge (and jury LOL) to decide.

Poor semantics on your part. 2 statements, one is not true, one is a lie.

There is no jury system here.

I know there is no jury system here... I was being sarcastic. My point is that you term "a lie" what is actually a coerced confession. You then elaborate or justify the comment by saying that either they are lying about confessing, or the veracity of the confession itself. Semantic gibberish. All this does, is paints you as what has been coined on TV as a member of "the RTP Glee Club." It makes you appear biassed in your "firmly held beliefs of justice and fairness". I used inverted commas, because I was again sarcastically using the type of language that you use to justify your spurious position (or your bias.) You intersperse your commentary with hastily compiled jargon from wiki, and then gleefully attempt to seize the moral high ground. And please, learn to quote.

[StealthEnergiser]

idk, fellas,

if I were the kind of guy who likes to puch people's buttons,

I would probably use a new screeen name to do it with,

seeings how the internet has a way of "storing" all sorts of things I may

as I have been posting wrecklessly to various different websites,

people wishing me happy birthday, on the same day, different sites,

my pictures on dating sites =, you know that sort of thing

do you mean places like thai for love looking for someone 18-100 wow not to self centered in that department.

Edited November 14, 2014 by StealthEnergiser

[Bleacher Bum East]

A confession extorted as result of alleged torture and with no lawyer present is not considered a lie in any court in any country. Quite the reverse

A confession freely given after being informed of rights is admissible in most places. A second spontaneous confession given to a human rights commissioner with no threats and after rights are explained would almost always be admissible.

The judges will decide the admissibility of the confessions.

Yes, judges do rule on admissions and VOLUNTARINESS of confessions. I am sure if you had been the B2's position, you would have confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Nowhere in the Western world would an investigation like this be accepted. I invite you to look at USA and Canada, where courts have ruled on confessions to police. There is a landmark decision in Canada in regards to admissions R. V. Oickle. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1801/index.do

When a police officer interrogates someone, there needs to be PROOF that the accused was NOT tortured, threatened or induced to confess. To do this without video and audio brings a huge doubt into the confession. We saw the accused on the railway rape and murder being SLAPPED on video by the RTP during his interrogation. If you believe that these men were NOT treated the same way, you are certainly out to lunch.

I am in Thailand, not Canada. In Thailand legal precedent is not binding.

BTW I think the confession in the railway case stood.

"In Thailand legal precedent is not binding."

You say this often, but what do you mean when you say it? How do you think that applicable precedent will impact the trial in this case if it every occurs?

Are you implying that if the two accused Burmese men are brought to trial in a case under a tremendous spotlight, that the judges will simply ignore legal precedent set by Thailand's higher courts and interpret the law in whatever way they see fit?

"In the Kingdom of Thailand, judicial precedent is not binding on lower courts. The Supreme Court of Justice is not bound to follow its own decisions, and lower courts are not bound to follow precedents set by higher courts. In practice, however, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice do have significant influence on the Supreme Court of Justice itself and on lower courts."

http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Thailand.htm

The law firm in the above link has also written that in Thailand, if the judge excludes evidence then he must put a written explanation of why he excluded the evidence in the trial record . . . and therefore his legal reasoning if flawed will be subject to review by appellate court judges. I assume (but do not know for sure) that this means that if he admits evidence over an objection, then the same will occur.

Google: "www.buriramexpats.com and Criminal Law in Thailand and 12/12/2010"

And in this case, the judges' legal reasoning will also be subject to review by a slew of international observers looking on to determine whether the trial and verdict were fair.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Bleacher Bum East

[thailandchilli]

One point that has not had much play is that the 2 Burmese suspects are Rakhine, and the interpreter was a Rohingya.

The two groups share a long mutual hatred on ethnic and religious grounds -- as recently as 2012, several hundred Rohingya were slaughtered by Rakhines.

Rohingyas are routinely persecuted wherever they go (for some reason) so I can imagine one enjoying being in the catbird seat for a change, especially with a couple of the despised Rakhine cowering in front of him.

Superb observation and insight.

Another point is that Rohingyas have their own language which is a dialect of Chittagonian Bengali, i.e. an Indo-Aryan language - you can tell this from the heavy "Indian" accent of the pancake man being interviewed in his broken Thai. Thus, neither central Burmese, nor Rakhine dialect are native languages to him. The Burmese lawyer complained that the 2B had problems communicating with him. His Thai is horrible too and no doubt he can't read Thai and probably not Burmese properly either.

In other words, in the eyes of Thai police, he was perfectly qualified to act as an interpreter taking a confession and reading back the Thai translation in a capital murder case.

According the Thai lawyers association, the suspects should have been given the right to appoint their own interpreter. The police said the suspects didn't ask for a lawyer, or plead the right to remain silent (of which they were not informed), or ask for their own interpreter. I wonder why.

Correct, "in the eyes of the Thai police, he was perfectly qualified to act as an interpreter"

The Thai police forget the eyes of the 'world' however who see him as the perfect ally in their conspiracy to hide the truth

[Dogmatix]

As StealEnergiser pointed out in a now closed thread, http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/772375-koh-tao-murders-influential-island-figure-vows-to-clear-his-sons-name/page-22 , there are video clips apparently showing the hoe in three different positions at the crime scene:

1) On the beach next to a jasmine rice bag; 2) lying on the ground partially covered with sand in the enclosed vegetable patch; 3) propped up against the fence of the vegetable patch. (One of the police reports in Thai mentions something about a rice bag but I can't lay my hands on it for now.)

In the picture of the hoe lying on the ground partially covered with in the enclosed vegetable patch there is also a used condom next to it.

From the pictures it is difficult to form a view of the police theory that the condom had been used by others not involved in the rape and murders but happened to lying on the beach near enough to where the killers were violently murdering Hannah with the hoe, so that the blood dripped from the hoe on to the condom. Sounds rather far fetched but then it avoids explaining why no DNA was reported found inside the condom.

Assuming the hoe was taken from the vegetable patch by the murderers, that would assume a more than spontaneous decision to commit murder with it. So Hannah and David must have walked past the 2B and oddly decided to strip naked and have sex almost in plain view of them. The 2B found this so arousing that one of them ran off to fetch the hoe and he beat David almost to death using light blows with the hoe that made only slight chop like wounds and dragged him into the sea to drown, while his companion managed to restrain Heather until David had been deposited in the waves. From the records of their purchases at the convenience store the 2B must have had about one large beer each over the course of 4 hours before they committed the crimes. So drunkenness couldn't be the factor they reportedly claimed in their confession. Thus, almost stone cold sober, two 4'6" weaklings coldly decided to murder a 6'6" young and fit white guy and then rape and murder the girl which first of all required one of them to go off in search of the hoe. That is all too cold and calculating with the most likely outcomes to the 2B that they would probably fail to overcome the man and restrain the girl successfully with just the two of them. Further, they must have been able to estimate the likely outcome in the unlikely event of successfully executing the crimes, given that they were lowly Burmese workers without money, influence, police friends or political connections. Also sounds rather far fetched. I could understand more if they were really drunk and spontaneously attacked a lone girl on the beach without running off to find the hoe first. Perhaps they imagined they would be able to pay off police and senior national figures to fit out local mafia for the crimes, using the 8,000 baht the pancake selling interpreter stole from them in the 'safe house' to give them confidence they could rape and murder with inpunity.

Or could it be that David was repeatedly stabbed, (carefully using the blade end of the hoe?) and then drowned. And that Hannah was killed first by some other method that didn't show up in the autopsy because no x-rays or MRIs were used. After ensuring she was dead, perhaps the killers went off in search of the hoe in order the destroy the evidence left by another murder weapon. I leave it to you to decide.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Dogmatix

[jdinasia]

Confessions in Thai.

My limited experience is that any document in Thai presented to you by Police for signing should be shunned if possible. They never provide an own language translation (unless maybe a diplomat can get one) and seem to be under no obligation to do so.

The Police world is not the commercial world and they rely on `confessions` completely to close cases..

They will say stuff like "oh this is just to say you`re free to leave, have been well treated and have no complaints. Sign here quickly so we can all go home" or any such variation, when actually you could be signing an admittance of a criminal offence.

Such methods and worse by RTP well documented by asiancorrespondent and others.

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

Different situations

Interpreter present in the situation with the NHRC commissioner. Verbal spontaneous confession

"Verbal spontaneous confession"

Where is your link with a video proving that the accused Burmese men were not asked any questions about whether they committed the crime, no police were present when they spoke to the NHRC commissioner, and shows the entire circumstances surrounding this supposed "confession" to prove that it was in fact "spontaneous"?

If you don't have one, then your description of this as a "spontaneous confession" is, as you like to say, pure speculation and a conspiracy theory...not to mention potential defamation.

Exactly who would it defame?

I refer you back to the statement by the NHRC commissioner for how the confessions came about in his and his team 's presence.

[joebrown]

If the B2 ever get to face a Thai trial judge(s) can someone with relevant knowledge please tell me whether the proceedings will be witnessed by any media/general public, apart from lawyers, RTP, Military and Influentials. Jd has already opined that there might not be a transcript of the trial. IMHO any attempt to suppress the full content of the trial proceedings will be met with justified condemnation of the Thai Justice system.

Thanks to those whose only wish is to see truth and justice prevail above vested interests, there will be a 'jury' of many thousands, if not millions carefully studying the outcome, and I think the trial judge(s) is acutely aware that he will also be 'judged' by the world at large as to how he performs on the day, if that day ever arrives.

[SteveFong]

idk, fellas,

if I were the kind of guy who likes to puch people's buttons,

I would probably use a new screeen name to do it with,

seeings how the internet has a way of "storing" all sorts of things I may

as I have been posting wrecklessly to various different websites,

people wishing me happy birthday, on the same day, different sites,

my pictures on dating sites =, you know that sort of thing

do you mean places like thai for love looking for someone 18-100 wow not to self centered in that department.

sure explains the "bull" headness of the Taurus

[fritzzz25]

If the B2 ever get to face a Thai trial judge(s) can someone with relevant knowledge please tell me whether the proceedings will be witnessed by any media/general public, apart from lawyers, RTP, Military and Influentials. Jd has already opined that there might not be a transcript of the trial. IMHO any attempt to suppress the full content of the trial proceedings will be met with justified condemnation of the Thai Justice system.

Thanks to those whose only wish is to see truth and justice prevail above vested interests, there will be a 'jury' of many thousands, if not millions carefully studying the outcome, and I think the trial judge(s) is acutely aware that he will also be 'judged' by the world at large as to how he performs on the day, if that day ever arrives.

The public sits behind the tables occupied by the parties. Normally, the public is allowed to attend criminal trials, but the judge may on his or her own, or at the request of either of the parties, close the trial to the public if he or she thinks doing so would be in the interest of public order, good morals, or state security. An example of when a judge might close a trial to the public is where the victim of a sex crime is a child and the judge doesn't wish the child to be exposed to negative publicity as a result of the trial.

If a member of the public, including the press, wants to record, photograph or video any portion of the trial, he or she must apply in a letter to the chief judge of the court, giving the case number, date and the reason for the recording. Without prior permission, recording, photographing or videoing any portion of a trial is considered in contempt of court and will expose the person doing it to punishment.

[Bleacher Bum East]

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

Different situations

Interpreter present in the situation with the NHRC commissioner. Verbal spontaneous confession

"Verbal spontaneous confession"

Where is your link with a video proving that the accused Burmese men were not asked any questions about whether they committed the crime, no police were present when they spoke to the NHRC commissioner, and shows the entire circumstances surrounding this supposed "confession" to prove that it was in fact "spontaneous"?

If you don't have one, then your description of this as a "spontaneous confession" is, as you like to say, pure speculation and a conspiracy theory...not to mention potential defamation.

Exactly who would it defame?

I refer you back to the statement by the NHRC commissioner for how the confessions came about in his and his team 's presence.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tourist-murder-suspects-confess-human-rights-commissioner/

There is nothing in the NHRC commissioners "statement" that proves in any way the "confessions" were spontaneous.

Again, your comment that the confessions to the NHRC commissioner were "Verbal spontaneous confession" is pure speculation with no backup support at all to show that what you claim is true.

So do you think it's OK to accuse somebody of spontaneously confessing to a crime without any proof that what you said is true?

Would that constitute defamation by your understanding of the term?

You can answer how you like, but whatever way you answer it will set a "precedent" for what you consider to constitute defamation . . . but of course you are in Thailand, and in Thailand precedent is not binding

[Rimmer]

General flame removed

[jdinasia]

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

Different situations

Interpreter present in the situation with the NHRC commissioner. Verbal spontaneous confession

"Verbal spontaneous confession"

Where is your link with a video proving that the accused Burmese men were not asked any questions about whether they committed the crime, no police were present when they spoke to the NHRC commissioner, and shows the entire circumstances surrounding this supposed "confession" to prove that it was in fact "spontaneous"?

If you don't have one, then your description of this as a "spontaneous confession" is, as you like to say, pure speculation and a conspiracy theory...not to mention potential defamation.

Exactly who would it defame?

I refer you back to the statement by the NHRC commissioner for how the confessions came about in his and his team 's presence.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tourist-murder-suspects-confess-human-rights-commissioner/

There is nothing in the NHRC commissioners "statement" that proves in any way the "confessions" were spontaneous.

Again, your comment that the confessions to the NHRC commissioner were "Verbal spontaneous confession" is pure speculation with no backup support at all to show that what you claim is true.

So do you think it's OK to accuse somebody of spontaneously confessing to a crime without any proof that what you said is true?

Would that constitute defamation by your understanding of the term?

You can answer how you like, but whatever way you answer it will set a "precedent" for what you consider to constitute defamation . . . but of course you are in Thailand, and in Thailand precedent is not binding

I retract the word "spontaneously" until I can confirm through an English language source.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/tourist-murder-suspects-confess-human-rights-commissioner/

Still there is no way in Thailand that the use of the word spontaneously constitutes defamation. They confessed at least twice.

[Dogmatix]

If the B2 ever get to face a Thai trial judge(s) can someone with relevant knowledge please tell me whether the proceedings will be witnessed by any media/general public, apart from lawyers, RTP, Military and Influentials. Jd has already opined that there might not be a transcript of the trial. IMHO any attempt to suppress the full content of the trial proceedings will be met with justified condemnation of the Thai Justice system.

Thanks to those whose only wish is to see truth and justice prevail above vested interests, there will be a 'jury' of many thousands, if not millions carefully studying the outcome, and I think the trial judge(s) is acutely aware that he will also be 'judged' by the world at large as to how he performs on the day, if that day ever arrives.

There is no transcript made of Thai trials. The judge sums up what he feels are the salient points at the end of each day and dictates them into a dictaphone. Often judges are reassigned during the course of a trial and a new judge with no prior knowledge of the case takes over. His only means of finding out what has happened to date is to listen to the commentary recorded by his predecessor. Journalists are allowed in the courtroom but judges usually dislike them taking notes and often specifically prohibit note taking. It is illegal for journalists to publish anything about the trial until it is finished which may take years, as the court usually only convenes once a month for each case with sessions often postponed endlessly when some one (often a police officer) doesn't show up to give evidence. Judges may publish their rulings at the end but transcripts are not published because their aren't any.

The Thai justice system, in addition to the police, is desperately need of reform but that doesn't seem on the agenda at the moment. Defendants are heavily pressurised to plead guilty (even without torture) and threatened with much more severe sentences, if they don't, without having the details of the prosecution's case to help them and their lawyers make a decision. Tiny bail is often given (e.g. B20k in the case of the guy who murdered the Danish man's wife in front of multiple witnesses in a recent thread which is the same as the bail for drunk driving.) In other cases no bail is given for relatively petty offences like defamation.

One of the worst deficiencies of the Thai justice system IMHO is that, unlike in English common law jurisdictions where judges are appointed from the ranks of successful (and wealthy) senior barristers, or trial lawyers, Thai judges are taken on straight from university based on exams (we know what that means) and connections. They serve time in the provinces until they can secure a post in Bangkok (we also know what that means). Unlike barristers who are already financially successful when they are called to the bench, the only way Thai judges can become rich is while sitting on the bench. The whole system is a blueprint for corruption.

Regarding the question of why the 2B told the HNCR they committed the crimes, this has already been explained by the Burmese lawyer. He said that the 2B didn't trust the Thai HNCR at first or even the Burmese lawyer or the folk from the Burmese embassy. This is because they thought the HNCR were really from the police and they would be tortured again if they didn't repeat the confession story. Since the pancake interpreter had told them he was from the Burmese embassy and then beat them, they didn't trust the embassy folk or the Burmese lawyer at first either. According to him, they only started to trust them and tell them the truth after they brought their parents to see them.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Dogmatix

[heyexile]

Confessions in Thai.

My limited experience is that any document in Thai presented to you by Police for signing should be shunned if possible. They never provide an own language translation (unless maybe a diplomat can get one) and seem to be under no obligation to do so.

The Police world is not the commercial world and they rely on `confessions` completely to close cases..

They will say stuff like "oh this is just to say you`re free to leave, have been well treated and have no complaints. Sign here quickly so we can all go home" or any such variation, when actually you could be signing an admittance of a criminal offence.

Such methods and worse by RTP well documented by asiancorrespondent and others.

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

Good advice but not so simple. Your signed document will be whisked away from you (you won`t even have a copy in Thai). It can then be taken to a court and acted upon without you even being aware of a court procedure. If you do get `invited` to court, you will be appointed a police translator for whom you have to pay and you will not be offered any alternatives. The threat being you could be imprisoned for a long time without trial if you don`t cooperate to make life easy for RTP and it will cost you less if you hellp them.

Never sign anything in Thai. Tough it out and get someone to call you a lawyer first. They take away your phone if you are in custody so communications are v difficult. In fact no matter how used to the messed up place you are, don`t go alone anywhere as you might not be able to quickly contact family, contacts in a police emergency. Bit OTT I know and might as well say leave TH if you can, the POLICE are not SAFE.

[thailandchilli]

Confessions in Thai.

My limited experience is that any document in Thai presented to you by Police for signing should be shunned if possible. They never provide an own language translation (unless maybe a diplomat can get one) and seem to be under no obligation to do so.

The Police world is not the commercial world and they rely on `confessions` completely to close cases..

They will say stuff like "oh this is just to say you`re free to leave, have been well treated and have no complaints. Sign here quickly so we can all go home" or any such variation, when actually you could be signing an admittance of a criminal offence.

Such methods and worse by RTP well documented by asiancorrespondent and others.

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

No way to know if this is authentic but it is in the public domain claiming to be.

The alleged forced confession by one of the B2

<deleted Thai doc>

[heyexile]

Confessions in Thai.

My limited experience is that any document in Thai presented to you by Police for signing should be shunned if possible. They never provide an own language translation (unless maybe a diplomat can get one) and seem to be under no obligation to do so.

The Police world is not the commercial world and they rely on `confessions` completely to close cases..

They will say stuff like "oh this is just to say you`re free to leave, have been well treated and have no complaints. Sign here quickly so we can all go home" or any such variation, when actually you could be signing an admittance of a criminal offence.

Such methods and worse by RTP well documented by asiancorrespondent and others.

Talking to a Thai lawyer, who works for one of the well know "expat firms" in Thailand,

in the first instance, do not sign anything in Thai if you don't understand what your signing, second if you are coerced in signing something without an official translation, in almost all cases the judge will throw out this "evidence" as being inadmissible, as the person doesn't understand Thai, and the judges are well aware of what the RTP get up to, as its used as a scare tactic, "sign this, and everything will be ok"....

No way to know if this is authentic but it is in the public domain claiming to be.

The alleged forced confession by one of the B2

Thanks. Typical piece of RTP bs. Seem more keen to pin a phone theft on suspect than anything else. God knows what they told suspect he was signing. A receipt for his phone?