Koh Tao murders: Lawyer protests Myanmar men detention

[Bleacher Bum East]

The only possible excluded people and or news agencies would be from the UK.

So still nobody speaking?

Not one German, Italian, Spanish, French, Israeli.... American, Russian, Irish... Nobody.

I do not know where you get the time, to scour all press from these countries is impressive. Maybe they have spoken and it has been reported to the police? we don't know. Because it has not been reported does not make it untrue and again because it has been reported does not make it true. It is uncommon but not unheard of for a particular countries press to be interested in another countries citizens murdered in a third country by persons unknown and then even more uncommon for them to pay for this information. If it did happen this information would then be passed on to police and Soutpeel amongst others has told you why it would not be divulged.

BTW as far as I have been able to determine, since there will be no judicial action in the UK, there is no sub judice reasons that could be applied here

JD: How did you determine that the term "judicial action" is appropriate to determining if sub judice applies?

Can you tell us how you have made the determination that sub judice would not apply to a coroner's inquest because there will be no "judicial action"?

Links to relevant sections of UK statutory or case law?

As far as I have been able to determine, sub judice applies to "legal proceedings" and that the coroner's inquest is a legal proceeding to which sub judice applies.

I assume you disagree with the reasons and support that were given to you on a previous thread as to why this is the case.

Can you tell us why you disagree?

Here is the support for my determination:

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

"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.

". . . once legal proceedings become "active", it is a criminal offence for media organisations to broadcast material [this is a television producer's website] which would create "a substantial risk of serious prejudice" to the proceedings."

"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 [this is a television producer's website]."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmproced/714/714.pdf

The Parliament's sub judice rule applies to coroner's inquests:

"Parliament’s sub judice rule effectively prevents debate on individual cases while they are

active before the courts . . . .We have concluded that coroners’ courts should remain within the scope of the House’s sub judice rule. This is justified firstly by the risk of prejudice to specific inquests and

secondly on the grounds of comity and non-interference with the judiciary."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49

Contempt of Court Act 1981

The strict liability rule.

"In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.

https://www.gov.uk/g...po-coroners.pdf

The Role of the Coroner

Section 6.1 The coroner is an independent judicial officer with legal responsibility for investigating the cause and circumstances of any death which may be violent, unnatural, sudden, with unknown cause . . .

Death Overseas Section 6.3

. . . coroners are responsible for investigating the circumstances giving rise to the deaths of those persons whose bodies lie or are brought into their district.

[jdinasia]

In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there is an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons.

Source : wiki

There's no case before a court nor the risk of a case being before a court in the UK.

Thus no witnesses in a court case etc

[Bleacher Bum East]

In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there is an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons.

Source : wiki

There's no case before a court nor the risk of a case being before a court in the UK.

Thus no witnesses in a court case etc

Are you serious?

That's your response to my comment?

A Wikipedia article with no citations related to English law and this banner on top: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

No defense of or citation for your use of the phrase "judicial action", another in a growing list of legal terms you have thrown out for which you had no support and which were misleadingly irrelevant to the discussion.

No response to the several citations I provided to reliable UK sources regarding UK law.

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold others every day JD.

And please tell me, how would you respond to this direct quote from Section 39 of the Second Report of Session 2005–06 of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee titled "Application of the sub

judice rule to proceedings in coroners’ courts".

"The Contempt of Court Act applies to coroners courts in the same way that it applies to other courts."

I'm sure an un-sourced Wiki article trumps a UK House of Commons report any day

[jdinasia]

No citation you offered covered cases which could never be tried in a UK court

[Bleacher Bum East]

No citation you offered covered cases which could never be tried in a UK court

Once again:

This is a direct quote from Section 39 of the Second Report of Session 2005–06 of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee titled "Application of the sub

judice rule to proceedings in coroners’ courts".

"The Contempt of Court Act applies to coroners courts in the same way that it applies to other courts."

What my citations say is that sub judice applies to coroners inquests, which is a "legal proceeding" covered by the law of sub judice regardless of whether there will ever be a "judicial action" in which there is a "trial". It is not necessary for the case ever to be "tried" in a UK court for sub judice to apply . . . and you provide absolutely no support for your continued insistence that it is necessary.

Have a nice day JD . . . I had previously thought that you raised some interesting issues at times that would be worth discussing with you. I've now seen over time that you want to make no more effort in your arguments than many of the intellectually lazy posters you joust with. I'll leave you and them to go round in circles of meaningless blather with each other since you clearly don't want to have a serious discussion.

[boomerangutang]

It would seem quite likely that UK reps have interviewed Sean, and probably some others who may be able to shed some light on what happened that night. Just as likely, the interview would not be made public before the time Brit authorities deem it's useful to helping solve the case, if ever.

All that JD espouses is similar to the banter of a defense attorney. He/she, along with RTP are going to do and say all they can to try and keep truth from surfacing, while continuing to shield the headman's people from investigative scrutiny. It's working thus far (though public sentiment is against them), but will their ruse hold up if/when the British show their cards? If the Brits have evidence which counters what the Thais have, I don't think the Brits will release findings which will rock Thailand's ship of state. The Brits will likely opt for diplomacy over seeking justice for the victims (and getting some rapists/murders behind bars). The Burmese will be let off, and this KT crime will get filed under the thick file: "Thai murders - Inconclusive"

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Sometime back, when the British investigators left, it was said they would be making a statement much later. Perhaps it was the first of the year.

The problems for them is that they weren't allowed to investigate but only "observe."

The crime scene would have been horribly compromised.

There's no way to know if they could get DNA from the victims after the return to the UK. We don't know what was done to the bodies in Thailand. Protocol is embalming.

Were they allowed to get DNA from the Burmese with proper chain of custody? And on it goes.

I hope the Thais find a reason to release the Burmese and that the case goes unsolved. This time.

I agree with what you say, except for "I hope....the case goes unsolved."

I hope it gets solved. It would be tough to go up against the big money and powerful political status of the headman, ....but not impossible. Resolve!

[jdinasia]

No citation you offered covered cases which could never be tried in a UK court

Once again:

This is a direct quote from Section 39 of the Second Report of Session 2005–06 of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee titled "Application of the sub

judice rule to proceedings in coroners’ courts".

"The Contempt of Court Act applies to coroners courts in the same way that it applies to other courts."

What my citations say is that sub judice applies to coroners inquests, which is a "legal proceeding" covered by the law of sub judice regardless of whether there will ever be a "judicial action" in which there is a "trial". It is not necessary for the case ever to be "tried" in a UK court for sub judice to apply . . . and you provide absolutely no support for your continued insistence that it is necessary.

Have a nice day JD . . . I had previously thought that you raised some interesting issues at times that would be worth discussing with you. I've now seen over time that you want to make no more effort in your arguments than many of the intellectually lazy posters you joust with. I'll leave you and them to go round in circles of meaningless blather with each other since you clearly don't want to have a serious discussion.

And again you are deflecting from the fact that what you are referring to is about criminal cases in the UK.

You are also avoiding that nobody from any country has come out to help the world view of the conspiracy theorists. Not one person.

Then add to that, not one of the conspiracy theories has been proven, so many people claiming to know who did it, who was on the island. So many people blindly stating that they "know" who did it but not one person has come forward, not one person even outside of Thailand. Not one picture. Nothing from any reporter about the claim that the CCTV still, used in part to clear a former suspect, has reported on the furniture being removed long before that weekend.

Nothing.

But you think that citing references to UK domestic case law which does not apply to cases not possible to try in the UK, actually means something.

[boomerangutang]

You are also avoiding that nobody from any country has come out to help the world view of the conspiracy theorists. Not one person.

Then add to that, not one of the conspiracy theories has been proven, so many people claiming to know who did it, who was on the island. So many people blindly stating that they "know" who did it but not one person has come forward, not one person even outside of Thailand. Not one picture. Nothing from any reporter about the claim that the CCTV still, used in part to clear a former suspect, has reported on the furniture being removed long before that weekend. Nothing.

There's a line from an early Simon & Garfunkle song (The Boxer): "he just sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest."

That's JD, in the context of KT crime evidence. Social media is putting out lots of things. Not all of it will prove to be valid. However, even if just a small % is useful in nailing the real perps, then it's worthwhile. There are several items which have surfaced on social media which could contribute to solving the crime. It doesn't have to be iron-clad from the moment it's contributed. Example: if a sharks-tooth ring is shown being worn on the middle finger of a big strong Thai man who also happens to be a bouncer/regular at AC bar, and who also happens to be shown in another photo, partying inches away from Hannah ....that could be grist for pursuance of corroborating evidence and/or shoring up the connections. There are dozens of items like that revealed on social media. But we, the general public, would never know of those possibly useful items by looking at what Thai officials reveal. There are 1,000 lines of evidence which Thai officials have either not pursued or have realized implicates the headman's people, so they tossed it in the trash. JD is of the same mindset. He/she can't fathom taking issue with the Thai cop investigators, even when they blunder in plain sight. Just 3 of many examples:

>>> saying there was none of David's blood on the hoe, yet using the hoe in the reenactment.

>>> claiming Hannah's phone was found behind the scapegoat's shack, and then (when social media indicated that couldn't be possible), the police changed their story to say it was 'David's phone' ....and even that fall-back position was flawed.

>>> Thai officials denying or disregarding the knife-like wounds on David, while maintaining the blunt hoe was the weapon used on him.

JD and Thai officials detest social media right now, because many of the items posted there implicate the headman's people. Thai officials are doing everything they can to shield the headman's people. If social media all of a sudden came up with two bloody t-shirts found buried behind the Burmeses' shack, JD and the police would be happier than kids in a candy store.

[thailandchilli]

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

[jdinasia]

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

Strange,

Not one single legitimate source has confirmed this. How long would it take for a UK or Thai press agency to do the basic review of this claim? Yet another 45 days has passed. Nothing.

[jdinasia]

You are also avoiding that nobody from any country has come out to help the world view of the conspiracy theorists. Not one person.

Then add to that, not one of the conspiracy theories has been proven, so many people claiming to know who did it, who was on the island. So many people blindly stating that they "know" who did it but not one person has come forward, not one person even outside of Thailand. Not one picture. Nothing from any reporter about the claim that the CCTV still, used in part to clear a former suspect, has reported on the furniture being removed long before that weekend. Nothing.

There's a line from an early Simon & Garfunkle song (The Boxer): "he just sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest."

That's JD, in the context of KT crime evidence. Social media is putting out lots of things. Not all of it will prove to be valid. However, even if just a small % is useful in nailing the real perps, then it's worthwhile. There are several items which have surfaced on social media which could contribute to solving the crime. It doesn't have to be iron-clad from the moment it's contributed. Example: if a sharks-tooth ring is shown being worn on the middle finger of a big strong Thai man who also happens to be a bouncer/regular at AC bar, and who also happens to be shown in another photo, partying inches away from Hannah ....that could be grist for pursuance of corroborating evidence and/or shoring up the connections. There are dozens of items like that revealed on social media. But we, the general public, would never know of those possibly useful items by looking at what Thai officials reveal. There are 1,000 lines of evidence which Thai officials have either not pursued or have realized implicates the headman's people, so they tossed it in the trash. JD is of the same mindset. He/she can't fathom taking issue with the Thai cop investigators, even when they blunder in plain sight. Just 3 of many examples:

>>> saying there was none of David's blood on the hoe, yet using the hoe in the reenactment.

>>> claiming Hannah's phone was found behind the scapegoat's shack, and then (when social media indicated that couldn't be possible), the police changed their story to say it was 'David's phone' ....and even that fall-back position was flawed.

>>> Thai officials denying or disregarding the knife-like wounds on David, while maintaining the blunt hoe was the weapon used on him.

JD and Thai officials detest social media right now, because many of the items posted there implicate the headman's people. Thai officials are doing everything they can to shield the headman's people. If social media all of a sudden came up with two bloody t-shirts found buried behind the Burmeses' shack, JD and the police would be happier than kids in a candy store.

Apparently we are not allowed to abbreviate members names.

I have dealt with each of your points previously.

[catsanddogs]

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

Strange,

Not one single legitimate source has confirmed this. How long would it take for a UK or Thai press agency to do the basic review of this claim? Yet another 45 days has passed. Nothing.

Maybe the UK police/press have done a 'basic review of this claim'. None of us know that they haven't - including you JD (I imagine).

[Krenjai]

Why would anybody release these two suspects whose DNA matches to these horrific crimes knowing they will very likely do a runner to Myanmar?

The answer is INDEED very clear as posted earlier in this thread by somebody else, it is THE face-saver for the RTP.

There will be no court-case, no difficult questions to answer, nothing! The runner will even help them to claim the prefect case was perfect but the suspects ran!

I now also predict this is how it will end!!

Of course the real killers will never be caught! They also would like to see the B2 run! Same as the RTP, and the B2 for sure will also use the opportunity!

It will NEVER EVER be solved!

[Krenjai]

Why would anybody release these two suspects whose DNA matches to these horrific crimes knowing they will very likely do a runner to Myanmar?

The answer is INDEED very clear as posted earlier in this thread by somebody else, it is THE face-saver for the RTP.

There will be no court-case, no difficult questions to answer, nothing! The runner will even help them to claim the prefect case was perfect but the suspects ran!

I now also predict this is how it will end!!

Of course the real killers will never be caught! They also would like to see the B2 run! Same as the RTP, and the B2 for sure will also use the opportunity!

It will NEVER EVER be solved!

release = release on BAIL

[Bleacher Bum East]

No citation you offered covered cases which could never be tried in a UK court

Once again:

This is a direct quote from Section 39 of the Second Report of Session 2005–06 of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee titled "Application of the sub

judice rule to proceedings in coroners’ courts".

"The Contempt of Court Act applies to coroners courts in the same way that it applies to other courts."

What my citations say is that sub judice applies to coroners inquests, which is a "legal proceeding" covered by the law of sub judice regardless of whether there will ever be a "judicial action" in which there is a "trial". It is not necessary for the case ever to be "tried" in a UK court for sub judice to apply . . . and you provide absolutely no support for your continued insistence that it is necessary.

Have a nice day JD . . . I had previously thought that you raised some interesting issues at times that would be worth discussing with you. I've now seen over time that you want to make no more effort in your arguments than many of the intellectually lazy posters you joust with. I'll leave you and them to go round in circles of meaningless blather with each other since you clearly don't want to have a serious discussion.

And again you are deflecting from the fact that what you are referring to is about criminal cases in the UK.

You are also avoiding that nobody from any country has come out to help the world view of the conspiracy theorists. Not one person.

Then add to that, not one of the conspiracy theories has been proven, so many people claiming to know who did it, who was on the island. So many people blindly stating that they "know" who did it but not one person has come forward, not one person even outside of Thailand. Not one picture. Nothing from any reporter about the claim that the CCTV still, used in part to clear a former suspect, has reported on the furniture being removed long before that weekend.

Nothing.

But you think that citing references to UK domestic case law which does not apply to cases not possible to try in the UK, actually means something.

At first I thought you were a relatively intelligent guy who, regardless of your motive which I didn't much care about, was serving a purpose by challenging people to back up their claims and keep them grounded in some sort of logic and common sense.

But now I can see that you aren't smart enough to understand anything but the most superficial aspects of the legal issues you talk about or the the information contained in legitimate sources that discuss those issues.

So discussing these things with you is like having a debate with someone who had a high school "Introduction to Law" course a decade earlier and can't even be bothered to go back and remember correctly what he read in his textbook . . . instead you just throw around terms and concepts you don't understand and have no relevance to what is being discussed, and if you need support you spend five minutes or less on Wikipedia.

So it really isn't worth my time and effort to debate these issues with you any further, and after this post I won't do so.

Your recent replies reveal your lack of the necessary intellectual ability to comprehend the issues, and also your clear desperation when someone else can and does comprehend them. You obviously count on people knowing nothing about the terms you use and claims you make and being unable or unwilling to get themselves educated. When you find someone who does know what he's talking about you sputter like a punctured tire.

So let's look at this sputter you produced this time around:

"And again you are deflecting from the fact that what you are referring to is about criminal cases in the UK.

No, what I am referring to is not in any manner about criminal cases in the UK. I am referring to a coroner's inquest regarding a violent death overseas when the body is brought back into the jurisdiction of the coroner. In other words, I am directly referring to the coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death, to which the laws of sub judice in England clearly apply, as I gave you several sources for.

It is obvious that you simply cannot comprehend the source material I cited or have the ability to apply the facts of the case at hand to the UK law.

You are also avoiding that nobody from any country has come out to help the world view of the conspiracy theorists. Not one person.

First, exactly how does this relate to whether sub judice applies in the UK with respect to the coroner's inquest?

Hmmm, it doesn't relate at all, does it?

So I guess your statement is what you call a "deflection" of the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and are just plain wrong about the issue of sub judice in the UK being discussed.

In addition, I have never avoided this in any way. In fact, I have directly acknowledged it. I have no idea what witnesses to events that night would have to offer. They could in fact end up exonerating persons that many believe are guilty by saying they didn't see them, didn't witness any argument or come-on in any bar, etc. I have no idea what witnesses there are, what they saw or what they would have to say. And neither does anyone else.

So since I never avoided anything but you inaccurately claim that I have, I guess this would be using, as you say so often of others, a "straw man" argument.

What I do believe is that the witnesses in the UK are the subject of sub judice and so are all UK publications and any other publication that could be uploaded on a server in the UK, and that is why we have heard absolutely nothing from any of the UK residents that were with Hannah and David that night.

I don't know if there were any non-Uk residents with relevant first-hand information, and if there were why they have not spoken to someone in the press outside of England. There could be several reasons for this. One reason could be they don't have anything material to say, as you suspect. But I haven't seen any press reports other than from Thai and British media, with the exception of a couple short reports on CNN and Fox ... so I don't know if there's enough reporting or interest in the case outside the UK and Thailand that would justify news media interviewing non-UK witnesses. I admit that it is strange that nobody has said anything about anything. Why that is we will all find out in due course.

"Then add to that, not one of the conspiracy theories has been proven, so many people claiming to know who did it, who was on the island. So many people blindly stating that they "know" who did it but not one person has come forward, not one person even outside of Thailand. Not one picture. Nothing from any reporter about the claim that the CCTV still, used in part to clear a former suspect, has reported on the furniture being removed long before that weekend."

Nothing.

Again, this has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, and has nothing to do with me.

I have never posted anything remotely claiming to know who committed the murders, or who was on the island.

In fact, I directly said in a recent post that nobody on either side of the TVC debate has enough information to say that anybody is guilty of Hannah and David's murder.

So your making these comments in your reply to me is yet another straw man argument as well as another deflection form the fact that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the law of sub judice in England and its application to the coroner's inquest in the present case.

But you think that citing references to UK domestic case law which does not apply to cases not possible to try in the UK, actually means something.

This is just pure gibberish and once again reveals that you know absolutely nothing about the law . . . as you clearly don't even know what "case law" means any more than you knew what all the other legal terms you have recently thrown out mean (It is hilarious beyond belief that some people on TVC actually speculated you were a lawyer).

Again, this is what the sources I cited say:

• The UK laws of sub judice apply to legal proceedings in the UK
• The coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death is a legal proceeding in the UK
• Therefore, the UK laws of sub judice apply with respect to the coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death
• Therefore, no UK person or media organization can publish information which could prejudice the proceedings in the coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death

It is reasonable to infer that UK authorities would take the the view that publishing interviews with persons who will or could be called as a witnesses at the inquest into Hannah's death would violate the laws of sub judice, that the UK news media would not want to challenge the British authorities in this case, and that UK witnesses have been informed of their obligations under the laws of sub judice as well.

This does mean something . . . something very important to the case at hand.

It means that there may well be witnesses in the UK who were on Koh Tao the night of the murders who have material information, but have not publicly revealed that information because they are prevented by the law of sub judice from doing so. (They could also testify they saw nothing unusual, which would be material in itself . . . again I have no idea what they will say).

This was the subject being discussed, and whether you like it or not, or whether you have the intellectual ability to understand it or not, this is the answer to the issue raised.

So this time instead of saying have a nice day JD, I'll say have a nice life.

I was never bothered much by your trolling, that can be easily ignored, and so I thought you would be an interesting person to debate issues with that are important to this case and that have meaning beyond it as well.

But you are too intellectually dishonest, intellectually lazy, and I can now see intellectually deficient to make any debate with you worthwhile.

[SteveFong]

Let's all be appreciative that the Guardian and other UK interested journalists are not going to allow this to drop, and that the social media has played a major role here,

additionally,

it is very possible that the prosecutor, in reaching out to the family, has brought about their own demise, mush like Moses telling Pharoah, the next curse in on you

the family of the victims of the "-brutal rape and massacre of life on Koh Tao-" may not have any idea what has been done on behalf of the two kids,

and may now come out, and demand a broader investigation

btw,

what is the headman's name?

calling him the headman, makes me want to vomit,

I would rather see his name being used, over and over, to be picked up by the google search engines, and apply as much pressure as possible

let's all consider, that the google search engines will display these brutal murders along side people's search for hotels on Koh Tao,

they should also be splashed with as many "murderers of Koh Tao" as we can offer them

[boomerangutang]

We haven't heard a peep from Nomsod's mother. Mothers, particularly in Thailand, seem to know (or desperately want to know) everything about their boys. Granted, as any mother would do, she would defend her boy, no matter what, ....but she still may have some pertinent insights/clues to what happened that night. Was her phone checked? Did she do a particularly important batch of laundry on Monday? Did she scold her son or brother-in-law? There could be cracks in the veneer of the cover-up, but we'll never know if Thai police continue to shield the Headman's people.

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

Strange, not one single legitimate source has confirmed this. How long would it take for a UK or Thai press agency to do the basic review of this claim? Yet another 45 days has passed. Nothing.

The UK is not speaking about anything at this time. As for the Thai authorities, they're keeping mum lately (learning from UK professionalism and/or realizing everything they announce is ridiculed). I realize you're referring to 'the press' but this is Thailand, and we're under martial law. Police + Military = Law, currently in Thailand. It's also police + military who are doing all they can to orchestrate the frame-up of the B2, while shielding the Headman's people.

[jdinasia]

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

Strange,

Not one single legitimate source has confirmed this. How long would it take for a UK or Thai press agency to do the basic review of this claim? Yet another 45 days has passed. Nothing.

Maybe the UK police/press have done a 'basic review of this claim'. None of us know that they haven't - including you JD (I imagine).

Ummm if the press has, they haven't published.

[jdinasia]

We haven't heard a peep from Nomsod's mother. Mothers, particularly in Thailand, seem to know (or desperately want to know) everything about their boys. Granted, as any mother would do, she would defend her boy, no matter what, ....but she still may have some pertinent insights/clues to what happened that night. Was her phone checked? Did she do a particularly important batch of laundry on Monday? Did she scold her son or brother-in-law? There could be cracks in the veneer of the cover-up, but we'll never know if Thai police continue to shield the Headman's people.

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

Strange, not one single legitimate source has confirmed this. How long would it take for a UK or Thai press agency to do the basic review of this claim? Yet another 45 days has passed. Nothing.

The UK is not speaking about anything at this time. As for the Thai authorities, they're keeping mum lately (learning from UK professionalism and/or realizing everything they announce is ridiculed). I realize you're referring to 'the press' but this is Thailand, and we're under martial law. Police + Military = Law, currently in Thailand. It's also police + military who are doing all they can to orchestrate the frame-up of the B2, while shielding the Headman's people.

More conspiracy theories.

This case is being heard in a standard court.

Again not one shred of proof for the conspiracy theorists.

[boomerangutang]

We haven't heard a peep from Nomsod's mother. Mothers, particularly in Thailand, seem to know (or desperately want to know) everything about their boys. Granted, as any mother would do, she would defend her boy, no matter what, ....but she still may have some pertinent insights/clues to what happened that night. Was her phone checked? Did she do a particularly important batch of laundry on Monday? Did she scold her son or brother-in-law? There could be cracks in the veneer of the cover-up, but we'll never know if Thai police continue to shield the Headman's people.

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

Strange, not one single legitimate source has confirmed this. How long would it take for a UK or Thai press agency to do the basic review of this claim? Yet another 45 days has passed. Nothing.

The UK is not speaking about anything at this time. As for the Thai authorities, they're keeping mum lately (learning from UK professionalism and/or realizing everything they announce is ridiculed). I realize you're referring to 'the press' but this is Thailand, and we're under martial law. Police + Military = Law, currently in Thailand. It's also police + military who are doing all they can to orchestrate the frame-up of the B2, while shielding the Headman's people.

More conspiracy theories. This case is being heard in a standard court. Again not one shred of proof for the conspiracy theorists.

It's already been pointed out that if there's a conspiracy going on, it's the conspiracy to frame the B2 and shield the Headman's people. You get one guess, as to who is behind that conspiracy.

[jdinasia]

We haven't heard a peep from Nomsod's mother. Mothers, particularly in Thailand, seem to know (or desperately want to know) everything about their boys. Granted, as any mother would do, she would defend her boy, no matter what, ....but she still may have some pertinent insights/clues to what happened that night. Was her phone checked? Did she do a particularly important batch of laundry on Monday? Did she scold her son or brother-in-law? There could be cracks in the veneer of the cover-up, but we'll never know if Thai police continue to shield the Headman's people.

There's also a cctv video showing the furniture had been moved before the 15th Sept but its in Thai so cannot link to it. Also as much as we cannot trust the time stamp on the Nomsod video then the same goes for the video with the missing furniture

Strange, not one single legitimate source has confirmed this. How long would it take for a UK or Thai press agency to do the basic review of this claim? Yet another 45 days has passed. Nothing.

The UK is not speaking about anything at this time. As for the Thai authorities, they're keeping mum lately (learning from UK professionalism and/or realizing everything they announce is ridiculed). I realize you're referring to 'the press' but this is Thailand, and we're under martial law. Police + Military = Law, currently in Thailand. It's also police + military who are doing all they can to orchestrate the frame-up of the B2, while shielding the Headman's people.

More conspiracy theories.

This case is being heard in a standard court.

Again not one shred of proof for the conspiracy theorists.

Is Nomsod's mother alive? Functional? Still married? Involved in her son's life? Etc. You fail to address any of these points but slip a new conspiracy theory in on it. The press covers the press from any country

Murdoch 's organization could be making scads by publishing from any number of outside countries including the USofA

[boomerangutang]

All but a relatively few young men have a mother. If she's at all involved with her son, she should at least be questioned. You wanna drag Murdoch in to this? Jeez Louise.

[thailandchilli]

Bleacher Bum East's last post should be made into a sticky!!!

Just about wraps up any clinging doubts about the RTP Glee Club Captain. Not long before an inactive position will be found for him I'm sure

[mojorison]

Bleacher Bum East's last post should be made into a sticky!!!

Just about wraps up any clinging doubts about the RTP Glee Club Captain. Not long before an inactive position will be found for him I'm sure

Don't want to steal BBE's thunder, but I have articulated JDI's ineptitude many a time, he/she relies on wiki to make poorly constructed erroneous arguments constantly. ... the concerning aspect is that he or she is dishonest with her belief system, and may be close to people who have an interest or involvement in the whole fiasco. JdI needs to take a breath, and step back from the edge, for their own well being. If this goes pear shaped, which it may well, one needs to be on the right side of the fence.

[HeijoshinCool]

.

Your reply to jdinasia:

.

At first I thought you were a relatively intelligent guy who, regardless of your motive which I didn't much care about, was serving a purpose by challenging people to back up their claims and keep them grounded in some sort of logic and common sense.

But now I can see that you aren't smart enough to understand anything but the most superficial aspects of the legal issues you talk about or the the information contained in legitimate sources that discuss those issues.

So discussing these things with you is like having a debate with someone who had a high school "Introduction to Law" course a decade earlier and can't even be bothered to go back and remember correctly what he read in his textbook . . . instead you just throw around terms and concepts you don't understand and have no relevance to what is being discussed, and if you need support you spend five minutes or less on Wikipedia.

So it really isn't worth my time and effort to debate these issues with you any further, and after this post I won't do so.

Your recent replies reveal your lack of the necessary intellectual ability to comprehend the issues, and also your clear desperation when someone else can and does comprehend them. You obviously count on people knowing nothing about the terms you use and claims you make and being unable or unwilling to get themselves educated. When you find someone who does know what he's talking about you sputter like a punctured tire.

So let's look at this sputter you produced this time around:

"And again you are deflecting from the fact that what you are referring to is about criminal cases in the UK.

No, what I am referring to is not in any manner about criminal cases in the UK. I am referring to a coroner's inquest regarding a violent death overseas when the body is brought back into the jurisdiction of the coroner. In other words, I am directly referring to the coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death, to which the laws of sub judice in England clearly apply, as I gave you several sources for.

It is obvious that you simply cannot comprehend the source material I cited or have the ability to apply the facts of the case at hand to the UK law.

You are also avoiding that nobody from any country has come out to help the world view of the conspiracy theorists. Not one person.

First, exactly how does this relate to whether sub judice applies in the UK with respect to the coroner's inquest?

Hmmm, it doesn't relate at all, does it?

So I guess your statement is what you call a "deflection" of the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and are just plain wrong about the issue of sub judice in the UK being discussed.

In addition, I have never avoided this in any way. In fact, I have directly acknowledged it. I have no idea what witnesses to events that night would have to offer. They could in fact end up exonerating persons that many believe are guilty by saying they didn't see them, didn't witness any argument or come-on in any bar, etc. I have no idea what witnesses there are, what they saw or what they would have to say. And neither does anyone else.

So since I never avoided anything but you inaccurately claim that I have, I guess this would be using, as you say so often of others, a "straw man" argument.

What I do believe is that the witnesses in the UK are the subject of sub judice and so are all UK publications and any other publication that could be uploaded on a server in the UK, and that is why we have heard absolutely nothing from any of the UK residents that were with Hannah and David that night.

I don't know if there were any non-Uk residents with relevant first-hand information, and if there were why they have not spoken to someone in the press outside of England. There could be several reasons for this. One reason could be they don't have anything material to say, as you suspect. But I haven't seen any press reports other than from Thai and British media, with the exception of a couple short reports on CNN and Fox ... so I don't know if there's enough reporting or interest in the case outside the UK and Thailand that would justify news media interviewing non-UK witnesses. I admit that it is strange that nobody has said anything about anything. Why that is we will all find out in due course.

"Then add to that, not one of the conspiracy theories has been proven, so many people claiming to know who did it, who was on the island. So many people blindly stating that they "know" who did it but not one person has come forward, not one person even outside of Thailand. Not one picture. Nothing from any reporter about the claim that the CCTV still, used in part to clear a former suspect, has reported on the furniture being removed long before that weekend."

Nothing.

Again, this has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, and has nothing to do with me.

I have never posted anything remotely claiming to know who committed the murders, or who was on the island.

In fact, I directly said in a recent post that nobody on either side of the TVC debate has enough information to say that anybody is guilty of Hannah and David's murder.

So your making these comments in your reply to me is yet another straw man argument as well as another deflection form the fact that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the law of sub judice in England and its application to the coroner's inquest in the present case.

But you think that citing references to UK domestic case law which does not apply to cases not possible to try in the UK, actually means something.

This is just pure gibberish and once again reveals that you know absolutely nothing about the law . . . as you clearly don't even know what "case law" means any more than you knew what all the other legal terms you have recently thrown out mean (It is hilarious beyond belief that some people on TVC actually speculated you were a lawyer).

Again, this is what the sources I cited say:

• The UK laws of sub judice apply to legal proceedings in the UK
• The coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death is a legal proceeding in the UK
• Therefore, the UK laws of sub judice apply with respect to the coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death
• Therefore, no UK person or media organization can publish information which could prejudice the proceedings in the coroner's inquest regarding Hannah's death

It is reasonable to infer that UK authorities would take the the view that publishing interviews with persons who will or could be called as a witnesses at the inquest into Hannah's death would violate the laws of sub judice, that the UK news media would not want to challenge the British authorities in this case, and that UK witnesses have been informed of their obligations under the laws of sub judice as well.

This does mean something . . . something very important to the case at hand.

It means that there may well be witnesses in the UK who were on Koh Tao the night of the murders who have material information, but have not publicly revealed that information because they are prevented by the law of sub judice from doing so. (They could also testify they saw nothing unusual, which would be material in itself . . . again I have no idea what they will say).

This was the subject being discussed, and whether you like it or not, or whether you have the intellectual ability to understand it or not, this is the answer to the issue raised.

So this time instead of saying have a nice day JD, I'll say have a nice life.

I was never bothered much by your trolling, that can be easily ignored, and so I thought you would be an interesting person to debate issues with that are important to this case and that have meaning beyond it as well.

But you are too intellectually dishonest, intellectually lazy, and I can now see intellectually deficient to make any debate with you worthwhile.

.

Well stated.

[jdinasia]

All but a relatively few young men have a mother. If she's at all involved with her son, she should at least be questioned. You wanna drag Murdoch in to this? Jeez Louise.

One : you say that there's a conspiracy. That makes you presenting conspiracy theories.

Two: you brought the kid's mother into this then deflected.

Three: the press is the press. Murdoch pays well for stories.

Four: your Murdoch question deflects from why not one single conspiracy theory has been proven yet. Not one person can place the kid on the island nor show evidence of any problems at the bar.

The 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers have been in jail for quite awhile but you have nothing to prove their innocence nor the guilt of anyone else. Social media / armchair detectives / conspiracy theorists have so far failed on every count

[Ve37]

Burmese kids accused of Koh Tao murders appeal to the parents of the murdered,...I've never heard of such a thing.

"Handwritten in Burmese, and with their names signed in English, it reads: We are really distraught about the loss of your children, and we share your grief. But we want to stress to you that we didnt do anything wrong, and this crime was nothing to do with us.

In order that the truth can be revealed, we want to ask for help from all of you to ensure that we get access to information that the British government has. We would like this information to be shared with our lawyers so the truth can come out. We really want to express our thanks for your help.

[JLCrab]

From Post #136 above: So it really isn't worth my time and effort to debate these issues with you any further, and after this post I won't do so.

So what is your time worth? You seem to have a lot of it for this issue.

The following are potential verdicts in a UK coroner's inquest:

Verdicts

The coroner can bring the following verdicts:

• Natural causes
• Accident or misadventure
• Suicide
• Narrative, which enables the coroner to set out the circumstances by which the death came about
• Unlawful killing
• Miscellaneous (drug dependence/industrial)
• Neglect
• Open, meaning that there is insufficient evidence to decide how the death came about – the case is left open in case further evidence appears.

http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/england-factsheets/inquests

Doesn't seem here there is much in doubt.

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

They will execute these boys just to save face then proclaim it in a new TAT Thailand promotion video on how Thailand is safer now. Only catch is the other murders of foreigners after David and Hannah.