Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing

[connda]

So in the trial of public opinion, the British families have just cast their collective verdict.

[catsanddogs]

The Miller family:

“The evidence against them appears to be powerful and convincing. They must respond to these charges, and their arguments must be considered with the same scrutiny as those of the prosecution.'

(extract from today's Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/06/hannah-witheridge-david-miller-families-speak-thailand

[jdinasia]

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance evident in the posts of this thread. Those who believe (like myself) that the RTP is framing the Burmese kids find it very difficult to accept that the families are satisfied ,so far, with the work of the RTP. However, the endorsement (of the FO drafted statement) by the families states that quite clearly. On the other side, those who were previously convinced of the B2's guilt are presenting the statement as irrefutable endorsement of their views and clear proof that the B2 are guilty. The statement neither states, nor even implies, any such thing, though it certainly does suggest there is quite enough evidence (given trust of the RTP) for an indictment.

More importantly it asks for an end to the constant conspiracy theory speculation

[DennisF]

Throughout this terrible affair both families have shown dignity and common sense.

We should respect that.

The statements as released are not conclusive one way or the other, they are quite rightly, asking that the due process of law

be allowed to continue without further speculation.

I, like everyone, have my own analysis of the statements but, like everyone else, its only my view.

There is a possibility that the GB police will release their findings to the defence team, if there is anything to

release and unless and until then we have no further news.

Read between the lines as much as we like, there is nothing in these statements that are anything but neutral.

They were penned by lawyers and diplomats and signed by the families as a true reflection of their present position.

Thats all.

[Fat Haggis]

Unfortunately the conspiracy theories will never end given that this is a multi cultural multi nationality forum.

[Willy Eckerslike]

With all respect to the grieving parents:

- Did someone (with some appropriate authority) put all the evidence in front of the parents to read and then ask the parents for a comment?

- Do the parents know how to evaluate the evidence and know how it might be challenged in legal terms, and then come up with a word like 'convincing'?

What is clear is they have A LOT more information and insight into the evidence than any of us as do the UK police who briefed them on the case and the family clearly has a MUCH MUCH MUCH greater interest in seeing this case concluded with the right people responsible standing trial and they believe there is ample evidence indicating these are the right guys.

Good and truthful comment up until .......and they believe there is ample evidence indicating these are the right guys.............what gives you the right to come out with a comment like that...................how the hell do you know what they believe

The statement from the parents clearly indicates they believe there is ample evidence for these guys to stand trial ... you might try actually reading and repeating a full sentence instead of quoting a partial one out of context. Maybe I should do that too and just stop at the fact you say my post was a "Good and truthful comment"

But are the right people standing trial?

[wilcopops]

it doesn't make any difference what the family think - it is the whole press that is flawed - guilty or not the case should be thrown out.

It is also pretty strange that the family have been used to infer these men were guilty BEFORE any trial...in the states and even UK this kind of media intervention would be deemed to interfere with a fair trial.

It looks to me as if the family are being collectively duped and should NEER have been allowed to make such a prejudicial statement. It's just another nail in the coffin of the chances of a fair trial.

[Anthony5]

But are the right people standing trial?

The answer to your question is at the top of this page, stated by people who are more involved in the case and have been informed better about the investigation, than anyone on this forum will ever be.

Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing

Edited December 6, 2014 by Anthony5

[JOC]

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance evident in the posts of this thread. Those who believe (like myself) that the RTP is framing the Burmese kids find it very difficult to accept that the families are satisfied ,so far, with the work of the RTP. However, the endorsement (of the FO drafted statement) by the families states that quite clearly. On the other side, those who were previously convinced of the B2's guilt are presenting the statement as irrefutable endorsement of their views and clear proof that the B2 are guilty. The statement neither states, nor even implies, any such thing, though it certainly does suggest there is quite enough evidence (given trust of the RTP) for an indictment.

More importantly it asks for an end to the constant conspiracy theory speculation

In which you of course play no part??

IMO the biggest conspiracy theorists are the ones buying whatever BS the RTP serves up!!

From day one, you and your groupies here have locked yourselves onto the holy truth as presented by the police. No arguments have been able to move your just a millimeter from your original views.

That in my book is a true conspiracy theorist!!

At least we, on the other side of the fence, try to have an open mind and be flexible!!

[jdinasia]

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance evident in the posts of this thread. Those who believe (like myself) that the RTP is framing the Burmese kids find it very difficult to accept that the families are satisfied ,so far, with the work of the RTP. However, the endorsement (of the FO drafted statement) by the families states that quite clearly. On the other side, those who were previously convinced of the B2's guilt are presenting the statement as irrefutable endorsement of their views and clear proof that the B2 are guilty. The statement neither states, nor even implies, any such thing, though it certainly does suggest there is quite enough evidence (given trust of the RTP) for an indictment.

More importantly it asks for an end to the constant conspiracy theory speculation

In which you of course play no part??

IMO the biggest conspiracy theorists are the ones buying whatever BS the RTP serves up!!

From day one, you and your groupies here have locked yourselves onto the holy truth as presented by the police. No arguments have been able to move your just a millimeter from your original views.

That in my book is a true conspiracy theorist!!

At least we, on the other side of the fence, try to have an open mind and be flexible!!

Again I point you to the words from the families.

[Puccini]

The report said the families back the police investigation,

which police are they talking about, the Thai or the UK's?

Maybe you ask someone to read it for you, as reading doesn't seem to have been your favorite subject at school. I think the following extracted from the letter should say it all.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

The increasing sensationalism of this story in the media is emotionally hurtful to us and appears to be wide of the mark.

The support for the Myanmar suspects has been strong and vocal, but please do not jump to conclusions until you have considered the evidence from both sides in full.

From what we have seen, the suspects have a difficult case to answer. The evidence against them appears to be powerful and convincing. They must respond to these charges, and their arguments must be considered with the same scrutiny as those of the prosecution.

Anthony5, maybe you ask someone to read the post of gr8fldanielle for you, as reading doesn't seem to have been your favorite subject at school. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does the above text you quoted from the news article answer he question of "which police are they talking about, the Thai or the UK's?"

Edited December 6, 2014 by CharlieH

[DennisF]

Pretty sad that the RTP apologists have jumped on these statements as conclusive proof

of the integrity of the RTP.

In actual fact it is nothing of the sort.

It stated that the accused have a difficulty case to answer and that ALL evidence should be examined from both sides,

defence and prosecution.

That is sensible and we all are aware that there is convincing evidence, its the manner in which the evidence was

collected and whether it was tampered with that is questioned by many.

Neither side of the divide can hail these statements as conclusive or backing their own theory, the only thing that is

open to debate is the timing of these statements.

Read into that what you will.

[djjamie]

Suspects arrested. Response on TVF. "Scapegoats"

Suspects confess. Response on TVF. "Cannot trust the Burmese"

Suspects retract confession. Response on TVF. "Cannot trust the police"

Investigation not transparent. Response on TVF. "Let the UK police investigate it and then I will believe it" and "The UK police have no agenda so are not part of this conspiracy"

UK police travel to Thailand to investigate it. Response on TVF "Now we will find out for sure that the suspects are scapegoats as I will believe the UK police"

UK police return home" Response on TVF. "I have confidence that the UK police will prove me right and "Any moment now I will look so good on this forum amongst my peers for being right all along. I really am THE MAN"

UK police prepare there report. Response on TVF "Any moment now. Any moment I can boast that I was right all along" and "I will defiantly respect what the UK police say"

Uk police brief family and family make a statement showing "THE MAN" maybe wrong. Response on TVF. "I am still right that the suspects are scapegoats and the UK police are wrong" or "The family are in on this conspiracy" or "The UK police are in on the conspiracy" or ""I don't believe the source"

When it goes to court and IF the court finds them guilty then the courts will be in on the conspiracy right? If the court had a jury of Thai citizens and IF the jury found them guilty then the jury would be in on the conspiracy right? All because some simply do not want to be proven wrong.

I have only ever observed PTP logic on this forum, but this is a whole lotta other logic right here folks.

I was shacking my head while reading most of the comments on this article and it aint because I have shaky head syndrome.

Edited December 6, 2014 by djjamie

[siampolee]

AlecG post # 325.

What part of "We would like to stress that as a family we are confident in the work that has been carried out into these atrocious crimes..." is hard to understand?

I bolded and underlined the part of your post my question refers to, to make things easier to answer.

AlecG.

With all due respect to you I would suggest that you too read the press release slowly and carefully and then sit down and analyse the contents carefully.

There is no mention of satisfaction regarding the conduct of the investigation nor to be fair is there any recrimination on that matter either.

However read the comments below

In a statement released via police, Hannah’s family said they had met with UK detectives who travelled to Thailand last month to review the case.

They said: “There is a great deal of detail and vast areas of investigative work which has been shared with us. We respect the need for such detail not to be shared publicly before Royal Thai Police start their trial process.

David’s family Ian, Sue and Michael Miller said: “We would like to express our relief that progress is being made in Thailand and this case is finally coming to court.

“The support for the Myanmar suspects has been strong and vocal, but please do not jump to conclusions until you have considered the evidence from both sides in full.

“From what we have seen, the suspects have a difficult case to answer. The evidence against them appears to be powerful and convincing.”

Note the comment ''appears.'' That means it is not conclusive.

Also to be fair the support for the accused is mentioned and people are asked ''not to jump to conclusions.''

That to many peoples minds indicates elements of doubt regarding the complicity and indeed the guilt of the two accused persons.

Again harping back to the suspects and the fact they have a difficult case to answer implies again in many peoples minds that the truth is still no being reached in this horrific case.

The whole proceedings are indeed on a very shaky base with the possible result of a flawed case being presented'.

Now can you say , will you say hand on heart this case is watertight ?

I think not as you are an insightful person and your common sense would prevail.

In conclusion I would like to draw your attention to this matter quoted below when an innocent man was hung(judicially murdered) at the behest of a biased judge and rabid public opinion. I can certainly recall it vaguely although only being 8 years old at the time, some interesting parallels in these two matters even if they are separated by years and many miles too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

Edited December 6, 2014 by siampolee

[philw]

But are the right people standing trial?

The answer to your question is at the top of this page, stated by people who are more involved in the case and have been informed better about the investigation, than anyone on this forum will ever be.

Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing

But they don't.

Those words come from a sub editor or worse, a person attempting to sensationalise.

Read the text of their statement, it is very carefully worded.

Edited December 6, 2014 by philw

[JOC]

But are the right people standing trial?

The answer to your question is at the top of this page, stated by people who are more involved in the case and have been informed better about the investigation, than anyone on this forum will ever be.

Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing

As much respect as I have for the parents, they are still laypeople!!

And the headline doesn't really reflect what are said in the statements!!

The statements are as vague as a speech by a speaker, who don't want to offend either side.

Politics or diplomacy comes to mind.

After being quiet for almost 3 months, the parents decide to finally "speak" 2 days before the trial.

Hardly a coincidence, but very damaging for the B2.

Their chance of a fair trial are even more distant now!!

[Anthony5]

The report said the families back the police investigation,

which police are they talking about, the Thai or the UK's?

Maybe you ask someone to read it for you, as reading doesn't seem to have been your favorite subject at school. I think the following extracted from the letter should say it all.

In the meantime however, we ask that the speculative theories circulating on social media are not taken as fact. These interpretations are based on incomplete evidence and substantial conjecture.

The increasing sensationalism of this story in the media is emotionally hurtful to us and appears to be wide of the mark.

The support for the Myanmar suspects has been strong and vocal, but please do not jump to conclusions until you have considered the evidence from both sides in full.

From what we have seen, the suspects have a difficult case to answer. The evidence against them appears to be powerful and convincing. They must respond to these charges, and their arguments must be considered with the same scrutiny as those of the prosecution.

Anthony5, maybe you ask someone to read the post of gr8fldanielle for you, as reading doesn't seem to have been your favorite subject at school. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does the above text you quoted from the news article answer he question of "which police are they talking about, the Thai or the UK's?"

Since the UK police hasn't performed any investigation, only observed and assisted in the investigation performed by the the Thai police, where do you think the parents got the evidence from ?

Tell me you native language and I get it translated for you.

Edited December 6, 2014 by CharlieH

[inutil]

As someone who genuinely thinks there are serious issues with this 'case', i cant help but read this parent intervention as a genuine and sincere expression of their belief that the two young guys going to trial have a very strong case to answer. They have been briefed by the foreign office. They know more than anyone on this board does. It's fair then to assume that they are more capable of reaching an impartial decision on the merits of the case.

That of course being said, the prosecution have several issues they need to convince the public of.

The first and primary one is of course how 2 little dudes like that could suppress not only one guy very much bigger than them, but also restrain and prevent Hannah from raising an alarm. This is a serious issue that simply has yet to be answered. And it is a very big problem with the official story.

The second one pertains to the murder weapon itself and the infamous reconstruction. How on earth could they have forgotten the weapon they used on David? The police initially stated that the hoe was NOT the weapon used on David. They claimed it was a rock. The reconstruction showed the boys using the hoe with the strong guidance of the police. Was this simply over zealous policing? Were the boys in fact too drunk as they claimed (and was used to provide a strong motive against them?)

If they were drunk, then again, the story they managed to hold down and subdue both Hannah and David sounds incredible. How is this possible? Are we missing people?

Third, David's iphone was reported by the Bangkok post as being found in his luggage. It turned up much later in bushes. Was this a mistake? How did they know he was carrying an iphone 4 (they stated the make and model)?

Fourth, the taxi driver claim is incredibly serious. The police looked to fabricate evidence through witness testimony. This requires an investigation and should be used to attack any witness claims.

Fifth. The two men took a DNA test in the first week of the investigation when the police rounded up and tested all the Burmese workers. Two weeks later they took a second DNA test in custody and were found very quickly to be guilty. Were the initial results simply not revealed for fear of causing the two Burmese to flee? Either way, it requires a great deal of explanation.

Six: Burmese laborers report incidents of coercion in the initial investigation. Were these fabrications? Should it be shown that they were not (under cross examination), would it not reinforce the claims by the two defendants that their confession was also derived through coercion? Again, to be proven in court, but a serious issue fr the RTP should several witnesses corroborate one another.

Seven: Why did the prosecution struggle so hard to bring the case to trial?

Eight: The rest of the claims... who is the runner?, was the crime scene corrupted?, why was Hannah so savagely attacked? How could one of the defendants have been wearing the same t-shirt without any trace of Hannah's blood on it despite the ferocity and primal nature of the attack? What about that condom? Since it had traces of Hannahs DNA on the outside, who used it? Why have no prints been found on the murder weapon? Why has no one claimed to have found DNA from David on the hoe? Who handled the DNA material and has it been independently verified?

The sensible thing then is to keep some of these questions in mind in the ensuing case. So long as it is open and transparent then justice should be seen to be done.

[DM07]

Suspects arrested. Response on TVF. "Scapegoats"

Suspects confess. Response on TVF. "Cannot trust the Burmese"

Suspects retract confession. Response on TVF. "Cannot trust the police"

Investigation not transparent. Response on TVF. "Let the UK police investigate it and then I will believe it" and "The UK police have no agenda so are not part of this conspiracy"

UK police travel to Thailand to investigate it. Response on TVF "Now we will find out for sure that the suspects are scapegoats as I will believe the UK police"

UK police return home" Response on TVF. "I have confidence that the UK police will prove me right and "Any moment now I will look so good on this forum amongst my peers for being right all along. I really am THE MAN"

UK police prepare there report. Response on TVF "Any moment now. Any moment I can boast that I was right all along" and "I will defiantly respect what the UK police say"

Uk police brief family and family make a statement showing "THE MAN" maybe wrong. Response on TVF. "I am still right that the suspects are scapegoats and the UK police are wrong" or "The family are in on this conspiracy" or "The UK police are in on the conspiracy" or ""I don't believe the source"

When it goes to court and IF the court finds them guilty then the courts will be in on the conspiracy right? If the court had a jury of Thai citizens and IF the jury found them guilty then the jury would be in on the conspiracy right? All because some simply do not want to be proven wrong.

I have only ever observed PTP logic on this forum, but this is a whole lotta other logic right here folks.

I was shacking my head while reading most of the comments on this article and it aint because I have shaky head syndrome.

Wow!

That was low, even for you!

They confessed and someone said "Can not trust the Burmese?"

You are wrong on so may accounts (apart from dragging the PTP into this discussion, which makes no sense at all!), that it almost tragic to follow this!

You may not have "shacky"- head syndrome, but...man...

Edited December 6, 2014 by DM07

[CharlieH]

flame post removed

[seajae]

"Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing" Doesnt say it is the truth or what actually happened, just that it is convincing, after all how many goes did it take the rtp to get it right before the prosecutors accepted it. This statement does not imply guilt, just strong evidence, whether or not it is simply all a set up and none of it is true is not raised so the court will have to decide who is telling the truth

Edited December 6, 2014 by seajae

[Scully]

Reads to me like a diplomatic way of saying let it go to court, stop the rumours and please leave us alone. Its obvious they will have more evidence than publicly known, its just a case of is there enough and is it credible. It's funny how the British police finished their review on 11th Nov, yet the prosecutions office gave the Thai police more time to "fix flaws" just a few days earlier on the 7th. So as some suggest the family maybe satisfied with the police evidence but the prosecution weren't.

I'll not speculate and wait for trial.

[jdinasia]

As someone who genuinely thinks there are serious issues with this 'case', i cant help but read this parent intervention as a genuine and sincere expression of their belief that the two young guys going to trial have a very strong case to answer. They have been briefed by the foreign office. They know more than anyone on this board does. It's fair then to assume that they are more capable of reaching an impartial decision on the merits of the case.

That of course being said, the prosecution have several issues they need to convince the public of.

The first and primary one is of course how 2 little dudes like that could suppress not only one guy very much bigger than them, but also restrain and prevent Hannah from raising an alarm. This is a serious issue that simply has yet to be answered. And it is a very big problem with the official story.

The second one pertains to the murder weapon itself and the infamous reconstruction. How on earth could they have forgotten the weapon they used on David? The police initially stated that the hoe was NOT the weapon used on David. They claimed it was a rock. The reconstruction showed the boys using the hoe with the strong guidance of the police. Was this simply over zealous policing? Were the boys in fact too drunk as they claimed (and was used to provide a strong motive against them?)

If they were drunk, then again, the story they managed to hold down and subdue both Hannah and David sounds incredible. How is this possible? Are we missing people?

Third, David's iphone was reported by the Bangkok post as being found in his luggage. It turned up much later in bushes. Was this a mistake? How did they know he was carrying an iphone 4 (they stated the make and model)?

Fourth, the taxi driver claim is incredibly serious. The police looked to fabricate evidence through witness testimony. This requires an investigation and should be used to attack any witness claims.

Fifth. The two men took a DNA test in the first week of the investigation when the police rounded up and tested all the Burmese workers. Two weeks later they took a second DNA test in custody and were found very quickly to be guilty. Were the initial results simply not revealed for fear of causing the two Burmese to flee? Either way, it requires a great deal of explanation.

Six: Burmese laborers report incidents of coercion in the initial investigation. Were these fabrications? Should it be shown that they were not (under cross examination), would it not reinforce the claims by the two defendants that their confession was also derived through coercion? Again, to be proven in court, but a serious issue fr the RTP should several witnesses corroborate one another.

Seven: Why did the prosecution struggle so hard to bring the case to trial?

Eight: The rest of the claims... who is the runner?, was the crime scene corrupted?, why was Hannah so savagely attacked? How could one of the defendants have been wearing the same t-shirt without any trace of Hannah's blood on it despite the ferocity and primal nature of the attack? What about that condom? Since it had traces of Hannahs DNA on the outside, who used it? Why have no prints been found on the murder weapon? Why has no one claimed to have found DNA from David on the hoe? Who handled the DNA material and has it been independently verified?

The sensible thing then is to keep some of these questions in mind in the ensuing case. So long as it is open and transparent then justice should be seen to be done.

Umm in response to this

"That of course being said, the prosecution have several issues they need to convince the public of.

"

No.

The prosecution only needs to convince the judges.

[Anthony5]

As someone who genuinely thinks there are serious issues with this 'case', i cant help but read this parent intervention as a genuine and sincere expression of their belief that the two young guys going to trial have a very strong case to answer. They have been briefed by the foreign office. They know more than anyone on this board does. It's fair then to assume that they are more capable of reaching an impartial decision on the merits of the case.

That of course being said, the prosecution have several issues they need to convince the public of.

The first and primary one is of course how 2 little dudes like that could suppress not only one guy very much bigger than them, but also restrain and prevent Hannah from raising an alarm. This is a serious issue that simply has yet to be answered. And it is a very big problem with the official story.

The second one pertains to the murder weapon itself and the infamous reconstruction. How on earth could they have forgotten the weapon they used on David? The police initially stated that the hoe was NOT the weapon used on David. They claimed it was a rock. The reconstruction showed the boys using the hoe with the strong guidance of the police. Was this simply over zealous policing? Were the boys in fact too drunk as they claimed (and was used to provide a strong motive against them?)

If they were drunk, then again, the story they managed to hold down and subdue both Hannah and David sounds incredible. How is this possible? Are we missing people?

Third, David's iphone was reported by the Bangkok post as being found in his luggage. It turned up much later in bushes. Was this a mistake? How did they know he was carrying an iphone 4 (they stated the make and model)?

Fourth, the taxi driver claim is incredibly serious. The police looked to fabricate evidence through witness testimony. This requires an investigation and should be used to attack any witness claims.

Fifth. The two men took a DNA test in the first week of the investigation when the police rounded up and tested all the Burmese workers. Two weeks later they took a second DNA test in custody and were found very quickly to be guilty. Were the initial results simply not revealed for fear of causing the two Burmese to flee? Either way, it requires a great deal of explanation.

Six: Burmese laborers report incidents of coercion in the initial investigation. Were these fabrications? Should it be shown that they were not (under cross examination), would it not reinforce the claims by the two defendants that their confession was also derived through coercion? Again, to be proven in court, but a serious issue fr the RTP should several witnesses corroborate one another.

Seven: Why did the prosecution struggle so hard to bring the case to trial?

Eight: The rest of the claims... who is the runner?, was the crime scene corrupted?, why was Hannah so savagely attacked? How could one of the defendants have been wearing the same t-shirt without any trace of Hannah's blood on it despite the ferocity and primal nature of the attack? What about that condom? Since it had traces of Hannahs DNA on the outside, who used it? Why have no prints been found on the murder weapon? Why has no one claimed to have found DNA from David on the hoe? Who handled the DNA material and has it been independently verified?

The sensible thing then is to keep some of these questions in mind in the ensuing case. So long as it is open and transparent then justice should be seen to be done.

Umm in response to this

"That of course being said, the prosecution have several issues they need to convince the public of.

"

No.

The prosecution only needs to convince the judges.

You must be a newbie on Thaivisa

[MJP]

It's on the Beeb site now. Family seem pretty convinced . . .

Thai murder victim families voice 'relief' at court charges

The families of two Britons murdered in Thailand say they feel "relief" that the case is coming to court and are "confident" about the investigation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30359459

[BritTim]

Umm in response to this

"That of course being said, the prosecution have several issues they need to convince the public of.

"

No.

The prosecution only needs to convince the judges.

I know what you mean, and it is mostly accurate. However, if the court of public opinion is not also mostly convinced, this can have negative consequences going forward.

[DennisF]

The prosecution does only have to convince the judge to get a guilty verdict.

However, there is enormous public disquiet and doubt in both Thailand and the rest of the World about this investigation.

The current regime is hell bent on getting a good international image so it is not beyond reasonable assumption that

the prosecutor will be aware of a duty to convince the public also.

Therefore, there are many questions he will try to resolve at trial.

I think.

[Fat Haggis]

Ask the Guildford fours families how they felt about solid convictions and irrefutable evidence

Then ask the families of all their alleged victims the same thing.

Of course the B2 have a case to answer to, that's why their going on trial it neither concludes that despite all the gathered evidence they're indeed guilty!!

The fact remains however is that these two guys numbers were up right from the minute they were detained, they have already been tried in the eyes of many otherwise why ask for death penalty before the trial?

As for djjamies comments bringing in politics to the thread I'm hardly surprised as he's another one who made claims of intimidation and threats without a shred of evidence to support his claims.

[jdinasia]

Umm in response to this

"That of course being said, the prosecution have several issues they need to convince the public of.

"

No.

The prosecution only needs to convince the judges.

I know what you mean, and it is mostly accurate. However, if the court of public opinion is not also mostly convinced, this can have negative consequences going forward.

The court of public opinion should be of no consequence to the court. The law and the facts of the case are all that should matter.

Most of the points raised above have nothing to do with the investigation and only deal with the conspiracy theories. If the prosecution can prove that the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers are indeed guilty of murder, then all the other crap is moot.

[cgphuket]

As long as we all know the family only saw the evidence the Thai police provided.......We can understand their opinion.