Family of Brits murdered in Thailand say evidence convincing

[JohnThailandJohn]

And how do you know all this ? Obviously you don't have a clue what the British investigators did in Thailand. Unless you work for them .

Well, it is hardly likely that the plods got hold of the CCTV footage from BU and quizzed students and teachers there, isn't it?

More likely they were just incompetent fools who the far superior Thai investigators were able to dupe -- either that or they got paid off by the village headsman too.

Interesting what great respect everyone had for the UK and their investigators until they get a glimpse of their views in this case that don't seem to indicate a cover up and that the right people are about to go on trial.

Do you think they would have been allowed to investigate the headman son's alibis in BU or Pattaya, if they had even wanted to.

I seem to remember parallels being drawn with the Welsh police efforts to investigate the Kirsty Jones murder, i.e. that the plods would be stonewalled, if they tried to investigate anything themselves.

Actually in that case the Thai authorities were stumped and allowed UK investigators to actually investigate the case here. Last year UK authorities announced they were close to solving and also had been very thankful to the Thai authorities for their help and access they provided.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/10236169/Kirsty-Jones-detective-very-optimistic-backpackers-killer-can-be-found.html

But lets not get off topic ... just wanted people to know the facts vs. your claims.

Edited December 7, 2014 by JohnThailandJohn

[JohnThailandJohn]

I have not claimed anything. All I have questioned is the reporting standards here. With discrepancies in the reporting agency's investigations into their article we should probably discount the rest of the article too. If they are showing slack standards in their research who knows what they are quoting.

Conspiracy theories? What have I said that even hints at that?

You are questioning if the family statements release are true despite MANY news reports reporting them and the fact they were released though the FCO. Do you think it possible people conspired to release this false information or just one person was responsible for possibly duping all these media outlets?

What exactly is your point by going on about the FCO not releasing their statements directly to the public if not to cast doubt on the authenticity?

As I said. To cast doubt on the reporting. In context of the OP (i.e. AP PR) I have good reason to.

I never questioned the family's statements being true. Please find and quote where I have said that.

So you believe the statements are true but want to cast doubt on the reporting even though the statements in the reporting are reported accurately?

[Dogmatix]

Thai Newspaper wrote David and Hannah family believe the Burmese suspects are actual suspects not scapegoats. David and Hannah family have never said that.

Must be a conspiracy since this paper paraphrased the family's statement for a headline.

And just below the main Thai Rath headline, which you correctly translated it says,

" Families of the two farangs announce they are confident that the two Burmese are the murderers."

So much for a fair trial and presumption of innocence until proved otherwise.

You are quite aware that there is no jury pool to contaminate.

Excuse me but it is not clear whether this was a statement or a question on your part.

I am well aware there are no juries in Thailand or anywhere else in Asian any more, except for Hong Kong. Perhaps your point was that, if there is no jury to influence, then distorted statements in the press such as, " Families of the two farangs announce they are confident that the two Burmese are the murderers" are quite acceptable as they do nothing to influence judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers or defendants and will do nothing to influence outcome of a trial or public sentiment.

[BoristheBlade]

A quick recap

It was widely reported by the worlds press that Her Majesty's representative to Thailand had stated that he "was delighted with the professional investigation by the RTP"

It was later pointed out by Her Majesty's Ambassador to Thailand that this was complete lies and he NEVER made any statement.

Indeed Her Majesty's ambassador has closely worked with Mr Andrew Hall during this case. Mr Hall is closely working with the two accused.

Now call me stupid or a conspiracy theorist, but would the British Ambassador very publicly back Mr Andrew Hall if he felt the case against the Burmeses was strong?

The answer is a big NO, why is that?

jdinasia post # 588.

This was reported first in the UK, not Thailand. It has been reported by top rated news outlets.

Did you not see, or did you not wish to see the fact that there has been no official announcement from the F.C.O.

None so blind as those who do not wish to see nor as deaf as those who do not wish to hear.

As the statement was from the families, not the FCO......

Do you think itv BBC mirror etc all got it wrong?

[JohnThailandJohn]

Must be a conspiracy since this paper paraphrased the family's statement for a headline.

And just below the main Thai Rath headline, which you correctly translated it says,

" Families of the two farangs announce they are confident that the two Burmese are the murderers."

So much for a fair trial and presumption of innocence until proved otherwise.

You are quite aware that there is no jury pool to contaminate.

Excuse me but it is not clear whether this was a statement or a question on your part.

I am well aware there are no juries in Thailand or anywhere else in Asian any more, except for Hong Kong. Perhaps your point was that, if there is no jury to influence, then distorted statements in the press such as, " Families of the two farangs announce they are confident that the two Burmese are the murderers" are quite acceptable as they do nothing to influence judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers or defendants and will do nothing to influence outcome of a trial or public sentiment.

Have you never picked up a paper even where there are juries to read headlines of victims stating the accused was guilty? Don't think a day went by during the OJ trial where the Goldman's didn't shout this to the press.

Yes the headline, like most doesn't provide the entire story but really isn't inaccurate as the parents statements indicated pretty clearly they think police have the right people at this point. You are making a big deal over something little and trying to use it as a distraction and to promote your anger towards Thailand.

[catsanddogs]

Having read this article again -

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/new_statements_from_families_of_hannah_witheridge_from_hemsby_and_david_miller_evidence_against_burmese_suspects_powerful_and_convincing_1_3876229

- I telephoned the EDP office (Norwich Norfolk) to enquire the source of the press release. The woman said she couldn't be 100% certain (but could clarify on Monday), but that it would most likely have been issued by Norfolk Constabulary.

[catsanddogs]

Now Thai justice chiefs have told the victims' grieving parents they can file joint murder charges against the men and help see them die by lethal injection.

The above is from the Daily Star on 20th October. The lowest of the low as far as tabloids go in the UK and I sincerely hope these were not the words from Thai chiefs and that the Daily Star has made an 'error'.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/405883/Hannah-Witheridge-and-David-Miller-killers-face-death-sentence

[phuketandsee]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

[DM07]

Hmmm...from "please leave us alone and good luck" to "kill'em all" in 24 hours!

I guess, it is all conspiracy- theory, but I have the feeling, that the reporting is not 100% accurate!

...at least, I hope, what it is!

[phuketandsee]

The piece in full:

From: XXX (name removed)
Date: 7 December 2014 14:38:29 GMT+7
To: Andy Hall <[email protected]>
Subject: Statements Released by Hannah and David's families through the FCO

Hi Andy:

I continue to applaud your work on behalf of the B2 and other Burmese migrant workers, and a big congrats on your initial victory in your own case.

I saw your tweets about the statements just released by Hannah and David's families, and understand you have to be publicly diplomatic and respect them, as well as the British govt. whose help you need at times.

But I personally believe that the British government should be directly condemned for facilitating and allowing the release of these statements.

For what it's worth, here are my complete thoughts on why:

The sincerity and suffering of Hannah and David’s family should be completely respected.

But the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) should be unequivocally condemned for allowing the statements of the two families (released on Dec. 6) to be released through its office and facilitated by its staff, or even released at all.

In fact, the British Foreign Secretary, the British Ambassador to Thailand, and anyone else involved in the release of these statements should resign immediately, if not worse, for dereliction of duty and abuse and misuse of law.

Regardless of whether the two accused Burmese men are guilty or innocent (or guilty in combination with others who have not been identified) . . .

And regardless of whether their trial eventually turns out to be fair . . .

There is nothing more prejudicial to a murder trial than public statements like those just made by Hannah and David’s families on the eve of arraignment and just before the trial.

The statement of David Miller’s family said this: "From what we have seen, the suspects have a difficult case to answer. The evidence against them appears to be powerful and convincing."

In a murder trial, the defendants do not have to answer anything unless and until the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So this statement is saying that the Miller’s believe the Thai police have already done so.

Can you imagine if in the UK the family of a murder victim was given access to a large amount of publicly unavailable evidence by the police, and then allowed to publicly state, in effect, that in their opinion the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before the trial even begins?

Not only would this be illegal, but the police would be roundly and deservedly criticized and possibly even prosecuted for allowing it to happen. And it may then be deemed impossible for a fair trial to occur at all.

Even the statement made by Hannah’s family, which on its face is much more innocuous, is highly prejudicial.

The family said: "We would like to stress that as a family we are confident in the work that has been carried out into these atrocious crimes."

As a practical matter this statement provides almost complete cover for an investigation that the defense is sure to challenge as a key part of its case.

In fact, the statements of David and Hannah’s families in combination have effectively inoculated the police, prosecutor, and judge from any criticism that the investigation, prosecution and trial of the accused Burmese men are unfair.

The “qualifiers” in the families’ statements, which say in effect the public should wait and see all the evidence produced in a fair trial, do not have any practical meaning once the previous statements that the evidence is powerful and convincing, and expressing “confidence” in the investigation, have been made.

While it is very important to respect and support the feelings and wishes of the victims’ families, it is also important to recognize that their interests are not the only interests at stake.

The people and residents of Thailand have a direct public safety interest in making sure that all of the killers are apprehended and prosecuted, and also have an interest in having a fair and just judicial system. Of course the accused also have an interest in a fair trial.

In a fair trial, the defense will be able to (i) vigorously challenge the methods of investigation and evidence collection, (ii) produce its own witnesses, (iii) receive fair rulings on the introduction of evidence by both prosecution and defense, (iv) receive all of the evidence in the hands of the police and prosecutor (both inculpatory and exculpatory) well before trial, etc. etc.

Before the statements of the victims’ families were released on Dec. 6, one of the best assurances that the trial and verdict of the two accused Burmese men would be fair was the international spotlight that has been shown on this case.

But now, after these statements by the victims’ families, any criticism of the methods of investigation or fairness of the trial proceedings can be easily deflected by the authorities (which the Thai police have already done).

The authorities can simply say, in essence, that “if it was good enough for the victim’s families, it must be fair and just”. And this basically gives them carte blanche to do as they please at trial.

Of course the defense can still raise objections, and outside observers can complain if there is any unfairness, but in reality it will have no impact now that the families have publicly blessed the proceedings and, in the Miller’s case, said in effect that they think the two accused men are guilty.

In addition, if there are witnesses that would help the defense, why would any now come forward after the victim’s families have said this?

The British FCO has also abused and misused the UK law requiring an investigation of a death overseas if requested by the victim’s family.

They have done so in a manner that both highly prejudices the accused men’s right to a fair trial, making their actions entirely at odds with the purpose of the law, and have set a dangerous precedent for foreign cases that directly conflicts with what the law is on UK soil.

Ordinarily in the UK, a victim’s family would not be shown all of the evidence that Hannah and David’s family were shown---they would have to wait for the trial just like everyone else. And in any event, in a UK proceeding they would not be allowed to speak about the trial until it was completed.

This case is unusual because under British law the families were allowed to request an investigation and receive a large amount of information and evidence because the deaths occurred overseas.

But it is an abject abuse and misuse of that law to provide the families with an extensive amount of non-public information and then allow them to issue public comments, facilitated directly by the FCO, about what they’ve seen in any way that is prejudicial to the fair administration of justice.

This is exactly what has happened in this case.

Hannah and David’s families are not to blame.

The British government and FCO are to blame.

And they should be condemned in the strongest terms, and those responsible removed from office, for extreme dereliction of duty and abuse and misuse of law in a manner that in all likelihood condemned two men to death before a trial even takes place.

Finally, it is ironic that the British government has stated previously that they cannot do anything that “interferes” with the Thai judicial process.

By facilitating and allowing the release of the statements by Hannah and David’s families, they have directly interfered in a death penalty case in a manner highly prejudicial to the accused.

This harms not only the accused.

It also harms the Thai people, other Burmese migrants, etc. who would benefit from complete assurances of a fair trial in this case, because pressure to hold a fair trial in the current case could have a positive impact on the reform of the Thai judicial system in the future—every small step forward towards a fair judicial system matters greatly to Thai residents.

Now, instead of sending the message that “we will be watching” and “this is what we expect a fair trial to include”, the British government has sent a message that “we’re satisfied” even before the trial has begun.

This is an absolute travesty and the British FCO is directly responsible.

On another related note:

Thailand is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes provisions for a right to a fair trial (See Article 14), and the country is legally bound by its provisions.

https://treaties.un....668-English.pdf

http://www.ccprcentr.../G0443072en.pdf

Thailand must follow the provisions of this Covenant the same way that Britain and Myanmar are bound by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The fair trial provisions of the ICCPR have been interpreted on many occasions by courts and international organizations.

Here are two reports detailing interpretations of Article 14 of the ICCPR regarding fair trials.

http://www.amnesty.o...300022014en.pdf

This is Amnesty International’s fair trial handbook.

https://www.humanrig.../fair_trial.pdf

In all interpretations that I have seen, a fair trial under the ICCPR that Thailand is a party to absolutely requires that all evidence, including exculpatory evidence, be given to the accused well in advance of the trial.

This includes interpretation by the UNHRC.

http://ccprcentre.org/…/HRI.GEN.1.Rev.9%28Vol.I%29_%28GC13%…

“Subparagraph 3 ( provides that the accused must have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing. What is “adequate time” depends on the circumstances of each case, but the facilities must include access to documents and other evidence which the accused requires to prepare his case, as well as the opportunity to engage and communicate with counsel.”

Since Thailand is a party to this convention, it could be argued that the failure to provide the defese with all the relevant evidence obtained is illegal.

In any event, a conviction obtained in a trial that does not include the basic elements of fairness cannot be relied upon to have convicted the guilty party and could easily result in an innocent person going to jail or being executed (and the real killers remaining free to kill again) . . . that is why these provisions exist.

Despite the public statements by the victims’ families, I hope that many qualified independent observers will be closely watching the trial of the B2 and using the ICCPR and its interpretations as a scorecard to determine if the trial was fair.

I don’t have a voice that they will listen to, but I think that Amnesty International, the UNHCR, etc. should be directly asked if they will have observers attending the trial, following its proceedings and issuing a report on whether it was fair or not.

If they say they will not, they should explain why.

This is important not only for the sake of Hannah and David's family and justice, but also for Thailand and the Thai people who deserve these standards to be followed in all criminal cases.

Very unfortunately, I think the statements just released may have a practical impact on whether international observers closely follow the trial

[BoristheBlade]

Very interesting.

I hope if the statements are unintentionally praising the RTP side of the investigation, they are quickly withdrawn.

I fear diplomacy has got involved in this case, if so the Burmese fate has already been decided.

If so...shame on the British Government.

But lets stand firm...all we want is justice.

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

[JohnThailandJohn]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

Edited December 7, 2014 by JohnThailandJohn

[JohnThailandJohn]

Now Thai justice chiefs have told the victims' grieving parents they can file joint murder charges against the men and help see them die by lethal injection.

The above is from the Daily Star on 20th October. The lowest of the low as far as tabloids go in the UK and I sincerely hope these were not the words from Thai chiefs and that the Daily Star has made an 'error'.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/405883/Hannah-Witheridge-and-David-Miller-killers-face-death-sentence

Hmmm...from "please leave us alone and good luck" to "kill'em all" in 24 hours!

I guess, it is all conspiracy- theory, but I have the feeling, that the reporting is not 100% accurate!

...at least, I hope, what it is!

The report re: can help them prosecute case is from October (states date in article .. Published 20th October 2014) and was widely reported back then. I don't remember the help kill them part.

Edited December 7, 2014 by JohnThailandJohn

[DM07]

Now Thai justice chiefs have told the victims' grieving parents they can file joint murder charges against the men and help see them die by lethal injection.

The above is from the Daily Star on 20th October. The lowest of the low as far as tabloids go in the UK and I sincerely hope these were not the words from Thai chiefs and that the Daily Star has made an 'error'.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/405883/Hannah-Witheridge-and-David-Miller-killers-face-death-sentence

Hmmm...from "please leave us alone and good luck" to "kill'em all" in 24 hours!

I guess, it is all conspiracy- theory, but I have the feeling, that the reporting is not 100% accurate!

...at least, I hope, what it is!

The report re: can help them prosecute case is from October (states date in article .. Published 20th October 2014) and was widely reported and I don't remember the help kill them part.

Let me make it clear for you: from the "official statement" of the 2 families to "the 2 farang families think the B2 are guilty" to the article in the Daily Star, asking for a firing squad...hopefully the reporting is not 100% accurate! Got it now, sporty?

Speaking in general terms about reporting here!

Edited December 7, 2014 by DM07

[StealthEnergiser]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

John you are looking very suspicious for continuously trying to protect and cover for people on that island you are being watched and if these B2 are eventually proven to be innocent I hope you are prepared to be fully investigated as we are all looking for the truth you seem to know to much and that may be helpful once a new investigation starts.

Edited December 7, 2014 by StealthEnergiser

[jdinasia]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

Worth noting is that Andy Hall praised the wording of the families ' press release about 24 hours ago.

[boomerangutang]

Now that conspiracy theorists, who demanded UK authorities look into the case, have some insight into UK investigators findings and since it doesn't go along with their baseless conspiracy theories they have proclaimed UK authorities are now in on the cover-up or are more incompetent than Thai police who easily pulled the wool over their eyes.

Would be extremely easy to laugh at these people if not for the damage and hurt they are causing.

Go ahead and laugh. Then think about the people who have caused the most hurt, and how easy it would be for those same people to cause yet more hurt. Yes, I'm referring to the actual murderers and gang rapists. They're currently strolling around, going to parties, using date-rape drugs, and.... they know they're untouchable. Perhaps next time, they'll be a bit more careful in how they do their dastardly deeds. At least they got rid of Sean. There must be a collective sigh of relief by them (and those who are shielding the Headman's people) that Sean was spirited out of the country the day after the crime. Even if testimony were to come forth from Sean (Brit interrogation, perhaps?), the Headman's people and their shielders could readily dismiss it as utterings of a deranged law-breaking man.

[jdinasia]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

John you are looking very suspicious for continuously trying to protect and cover for people on that island you are being watched and if these B2 are eventually proven to be innocent I hope you are prepared to be fully investigated as we all looking for the truth you seem to know to much and that may be helpful once a new investigation starts.

Fully investigated? Does that mean you and those others who have claimed to know "exactly who the killers are" should be prosecuted if the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers are convicted?

[jdinasia]

Now that conspiracy theorists, who demanded UK authorities look into the case, have some insight into UK investigators findings and since it doesn't go along with their baseless conspiracy theories they have proclaimed UK authorities are now in on the cover-up or are more incompetent than Thai police who easily pulled the wool over their eyes.

Would be extremely easy to laugh at these people if not for the damage and hurt they are causing.

Go ahead and laugh. Then think about the people who have caused the most hurt, and how easy it would be for those same people to cause yet more hurt. Yes, I'm referring to the actual murderers and gang rapists. They're currently strolling around, going to parties, using date-rape drugs, and.... they know they're untouchable. Perhaps next time, they'll be a bit more careful in how they do their dastardly deeds. At least they got rid of Sean. There must be a collective sigh of relief by them (and those who are shielding the Headman's people) that Sean was spirited out of the country the day after the crime. Even if testimony were to come forth from Sean (Brit interrogation, perhaps?), the Headman's people and their shielders could readily dismiss it as utterings of a deranged law-breaking man.

Still pushing the conspiracy theories even after the families issued a statement. Edited December 7, 2014 by jdinasia

[boomerangutang]

The parents obviously have little understanding of just how entrenched graft is here, it is not fair to blame them for taking the word of Thai authorities as gospel.

Thought they spoke to UK investigators before releasing their statements? UK investigators who examined the evidence and handling of the case first hand.

We assume the UK experts looked at evidence. But how much of that could they do (?) if only in Thailand a few days, and under restraint of only being 'observers' and not participants in the investigation. They don't speak Thai. There could have been many instances where the Brits asked something like "what did so 'n so say? Did you question him?" ...and Thai authorities respond, "Yes, we talked to him. He has nothing significant to add." OR, the Brits could ask, "did you find any bloody clothes anywhere?" ....and the Thai cops respond, "No bloody clothes anywhere. No laundry. No indications of clothes being burnt or buried." Similar dialogue for phone records, CCTV, weapons, Nomsod's alibi, a prime suspect on the beach the next morning, the cop who threatened Sean, The 'Stingray Man' with the shark-tooth ring, etc.

You get the picture? The Brits are not allowed to question anyone (other than RTP) at Ko Tao, and aren't allowed to do any independent investigating there. Granted, the Brits supposedly did DNA testing on the victims (though aren't allowed by Thai officials, to see DNA profile of some suspects), but we haven't heard anything from the Brits about DNA. Thus far, 100% of DNA commentary has come from the Thais, and they've made it crystal clear which direction they want this investigation to go.

Police from one country tend to trust police from another. This case could put a serious crimp in that trust, if it's proved that Thai cops lied to UK experts, in order to further Thai officials' agenda. I await the DNA trail from the Brits. If it points to the B2, I will agree the B2 are guilty of rape. Judging from DNA claims by Thai officials, I can't say the same.

Weren't you one of the ones all confident of and in favor of UK authorities looking into the case? Now you don't like their findings appear to be so they are either incompetent or involved in the cover up.

I would have confidence in evidence UK garnered INDEPENDENTLY of Thai sources. If, however, the evidence was garnered from simply talking to RTP (in line with the Brit's role as observers, not assistants), then such evidence would be suspect. Thus far we've heard zero about ANY evidence garnered independently by Brit experts. It's likely much, if not all evidence the Brits have - was taken from Thai investigators. The exception may be DNA, but even that would (only?) be samples taken from victims, and not necessarily samples taken from suspects, because Thai authorities have already stated publicly "We don't need to send DNA results to the British, because they trust our findings." Similarly, did Brit experts take any evidence independently from the hoe, ....or did they simply rely on Thai police? There's a big difference. On one side are the Brits, who are sincerely looking to solve the case, yet perhaps trusting too much in what Thais feed them. The other side, the Thais are doing all they can to frame you-know-who, while shielding you-know-who. If in doubt, look at EVERYTHING the Thai side has said and done since the replacement head cop took over the investigation in the 2nd week.

[evadgib]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

Worth noting is that Andy Hall praised the wording of the families ' press release about 24 hours ago.

Worth also noting that FCO wouldn't release anything without a green light all around.

[StealthEnergiser]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

John you are looking very suspicious for continuously trying to protect and cover for people on that island you are being watched and if these B2 are eventually proven to be innocent I hope you are prepared to be fully investigated as we all looking for the truth you seem to know to much and that may be helpful once a new investigation starts.

Fully investigated? Does that mean you and those others who have claimed to know "exactly who the killers are" should be prosecuted if the 2 Burmese men accused of being the killers are convicted?

No one has claimed who the killers are people have seen a flawed investigation and want the truth people like you and your made JTJ have tried to cover this up from day one for other reasons.

[boomerangutang]

Now that conspiracy theorists, who demanded UK authorities look into the case, have some insight into UK investigators findings and since it doesn't go along with their baseless conspiracy theories they have proclaimed UK authorities are now in on the cover-up or are more incompetent than Thai police who easily pulled the wool over their eyes.

Would be extremely easy to laugh at these people if not for the damage and hurt they are causing.

Go ahead and laugh. Then think about the people who have caused the most hurt, and how easy it would be for those same people to cause yet more hurt. Yes, I'm referring to the actual murderers and gang rapists. They're currently strolling around, going to parties, using date-rape drugs, and.... they know they're untouchable. Perhaps next time, they'll be a bit more careful in how they do their dastardly deeds. At least they got rid of Sean. There must be a collective sigh of relief by them (and those who are shielding the Headman's people) that Sean was spirited out of the country the day after the crime. Even if testimony were to come forth from Sean (Brit interrogation, perhaps?), the Headman's people and their shielders could readily dismiss it as utterings of a deranged law-breaking man.

Still pushing the conspiracy theories even after the families issued a statement. Pathetic.

we've already discussed your favorite phrase (conspiracy theories), but in case you've forgotten, I'll remind you:

The biggest conspiracy theory is that concocted by Thai officials in order to shield the Headman's people. Was there big payment involved? We won't know, but those of us familiar with how things happen in Thailand would be surprised if there was not big money changing hands. We also know how heavily stratified Thai society is. I respect the Brit families, but that does not mean I think the families have been shown evidence taken by objective & real detectives. Brit experts were expressly forbidden from doing any detective work while in Thailand, so the lion's share of evidence (the families have been presented with) is likely from Thai authorities who have made their agenda crystal clear. That's the big conspiracy theory, by jove.

[jdinasia]

Now that conspiracy theorists, who demanded UK authorities look into the case, have some insight into UK investigators findings and since it doesn't go along with their baseless conspiracy theories they have proclaimed UK authorities are now in on the cover-up or are more incompetent than Thai police who easily pulled the wool over their eyes.

Would be extremely easy to laugh at these people if not for the damage and hurt they are causing.

Go ahead and laugh. Then think about the people who have caused the most hurt, and how easy it would be for those same people to cause yet more hurt. Yes, I'm referring to the actual murderers and gang rapists. They're currently strolling around, going to parties, using date-rape drugs, and.... they know they're untouchable. Perhaps next time, they'll be a bit more careful in how they do their dastardly deeds. At least they got rid of Sean. There must be a collective sigh of relief by them (and those who are shielding the Headman's people) that Sean was spirited out of the country the day after the crime. Even if testimony were to come forth from Sean (Brit interrogation, perhaps?), the Headman's people and their shielders could readily dismiss it as utterings of a deranged law-breaking man.

Still pushing the conspiracy theories even after the families issued a statement. Pathetic.

we've already discussed your favorite phrase (conspiracy theories), but in case you've forgotten, I'll remind you:

The biggest conspiracy theory is that concocted by Thai officials in order to shield the Headman's people. Was there big payment involved? We won't know, but those of us familiar with how things happen in Thailand would be surprised if there was not big money changing hands. We also know how heavily stratified Thai society is. I respect the Brit families, but that does not mean I think the families have been shown evidence taken by objective & real detectives. Brit experts were expressly forbidden from doing any detective work while in Thailand, so the lion's share of evidence (the families have been presented with) is likely from Thai authorities who have made their agenda crystal clear. That's the big conspiracy theory, by jove.

No. You don't respect the families. If you did you would respect their wishes.

You are also misusing the words "conspiracy theory". You have a theory there are conspiracy / conspiracies. You claim to know who the killers are and that they are free, and out there using date rape drugs.

Edited December 7, 2014 by jdinasia

[lil fluffy clouds]

Those statements have British style diplomacy written all over them.

[CharlieH]

Post removed

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[Tonyrichard]

As the British police were specifically told that they could be observers ONLY and certainly not initiators of a fresh, independent investigation into the case and its handling, any information taken back to the grieving British families is likely to have been almost exclusively made up of what the Thai police told the British. This is not a sufficiently sound basis - for many analysts of this tragic case - to inspire confidence.

The single most damning piece of 'evidence' that the Thai police are likely to wave in the air at the trial is the DNA of the attackers. But since there is photographic and video evidence that proves that the crime scene was not secured against contamination (a point implicitly criticised by Thailand's leading DNA collection expert), and since even the gathering of the DNA was not carried out by qualified persons (another point highlighted with great disapprobation by that same Thai specialist), any DNA evidence wielded in court will literally have zero probative force and value. It is worthless. That leaves only vanishingly sparse circumstantial evidence (remember that the case was knocked back some five times by the public prosecutor) on which to find the Burmese guys guilty and then to sentence them to death (or, if they are lucky, to life imprisonment). Who could live with their conscience if they convicted fellow human beings to death on such a flimsy basis? There are those here who could and would - and probably will. Others will hear the words, 'Travesty of justice', ringing in their ears. Each person must decide for him or herself once all the evidence is out there in the public domain, during the course of the trial. But as posters on Thaivisa Forum - the power to pronounce sentence in a court of law, or to appear on a non-existent Thai jury, is of course wholly denied us.

There remains, however, the individual, internal MORAL court of law - where even 'Thai justice' can hold no sway.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Tonyrichard

[jdinasia]

As the British police were specifically told that they could be observers ONLY and certainly not initiators of a fresh, independent investigation into the case and its handling, any information taken back to the grieving British families is likely to have been almost exclusively made up of what the Thai police told the British. This is not a sufficiently sound basis - for many analysts of this tragic case - to inspire confidence.

The single most damning piece of 'evidence' that the Thai police are likely to wave in the air at the trial is the DNA of the attackers. But since there is photographic and video evidence that proves that the crime scene was not secured against contamination (a point implicitly criticised by Thailand's leading DNA collection expert), and since even the gathering of the DNA was not carried out by qualified persons (another point highlighted with great disapprobation by that same Thai specialist), any DNA evidence wielded in court will literally have zero probative force and value. It is worthless. That leaves only vanishingly sparse circumstantial evidence (remember that the case was knocked back some five times by the public prosecutor) on which to find the Burmese guys guilty and then to sentence them to death (or, if they are lucky, to life imprisonment). Who could live with their conscience if they convicted fellow human beings to death on such a flimsy basis? There are those here who could and would - and probably will. Others will hear the words, 'Travesty of justice', ringing in their ears. Each person must decide for him or herself once all the evidence is out there in the public domain, during the course of the trial. But as posters on Thaivisa Forum - the power to pronounce sentence in a court of law, or to appear on a non-existent Thai jury, is of course wholly denied us.

There remains, however, the individual, internal MORAL court of law - where even 'Thai justice' can hold no sway.

You seem to have access to evidence that nobody outside of the investigation has. The families have commented on what the UK police have shared with them and at the least see cause for the trial to proceed.

[thailandchilli]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

Worth noting is that Andy Hall praised the wording of the families ' press release about 24 hours ago.

If you want to speak on behalf of Andy Hall then I would suggest you do so accurately. He did not praise the statements of the victims families he did however give them 'respect' and he was specific in the parts he did highlight.

Here are the 2 tweets he made:

Koh Tao case victims families statement: important call for 'fair transparent' trial for accused, justice to be done

I respect Koh Tao victims' parents 'full' 2 statements as both call clearly for need for a fair & transparent trial and emphasize 'justice'

Also worth noting that he was the author of many of the quotes in this article on 4th Dec http://asiancorrespondent.com/128732/koh-tao-murder-suspects-issue-plea-for-witnesses-ahead-of-formal-charges/

“It’s really challenging getting witnesses for them because everyone’s so scared,” Hall said. He said that Thais living on Koh Tao are especially scared to speak out, because they have names and addresses that can be easily tracked. This is their home, they can’t leave the way migrant workers or Western expats can. People are scared that their businesses will be closed or their lives will be threatened, even that they could be killed, Hall said.

Edited December 7, 2014 by thailandchilli

[thailandchilli]

Very interesting, and troubling, piece posted on Andy Hall's FB page regarding the FCO's actions in this:

https://www.facebook.com/andy.hall.3110/posts/10152644382575677

Isn't this called, attacking the messenger when you don't like the message.

Edit: actually I think the actual phrase is "Shooting the messenger"

I would call that raising some concerns that Andy Hall finds credible enough to publish