Myanmar says workers innocent of murdering Britons on Koh Tao

[z42]

An incredibly meaningful development it seems. Would be nice to see if these people actually do get to say their piece in court, how reliable their evidence is, and the lengths to which the prosecution will likely go to character assassinate them before / after the trial.

Kudos for the Burmese govt for backing its citizens. And just shows how utterly shameful the UK authorities have been during this whole debacle. Not once during this whole thing has anybody stepped up with a pair of cajones to try and get some legitimate answers and really grill the Thai investigators about their methods & very limited lines of actual investigation.

& AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself of what you're posting. May I suggest keeping an open mind, these Burmese investigators seemingly know what they're doing & are working diligently for their clients best interests. Maybe you should invest some time in reading what they've done and how the findings may pose some pertinent questions later. The Thai investigators from day 1 have not been consistent in what they've done. The same levels of diligence and integrity from all concerned seem to be worlds apart. There is plenty to read into there. I hope you do so before penning your next entry

"AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too"

I have been very consistent on my stance all the time, evidence is what has to decide the outcome of the case, not speculation, not opinions and certainly not conspiracy theories; I have the feeling that the difference between "balanced thoughts" and "reams of mendacious nonsense" has more to do on whether you agree or with a particular point or not.

In any case I don't know from were do you derive your opinion that the Burmese investigators know what they are doing and work diligently since all they have done is make claims with no indications of what actual methodology they applied to reach their conclusions or even what is the nature of the evidence they claim to have, what is it? first hand accounts exculpating the defendants, inculpating someone else, circumstantial evidence, second/third hand accounts, character witnesses, etc, etc...? There is no information to glean any insight into what they've done and what it means for the case.

Besides, as I pointed out before witnesses are at the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation, they are not a reliable source to establish facts; you can check the case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson to get an idea.

Bloody hell you don't quit do you. On cue with the mendacious BS posts again. You twist everything people say to make it fit your agenda and refuse to have an open mind. Embarrassing. I think that their (Burmese team) investigative credentials must be pretty solid if the Burmese govt are entrusting them to do the job against almost impossible odds (unless you're still claiming the RTP methodology & public prosecutor's legal manoeuvrings to be wholly transparent and fair thus far).

The Burmese investigators have worked diligently,I derive this from the fact they've been interviewing people inside Burma and in Koh Tao as a means to defend their clients and try to get different views and insights about the crime. This in itself shows a level of professionalism and dedication the RTP has yet to show (maybe with the exception of when they brought in Mon for a chat for a couple of hours back in September). They said they've got witnesses who can shed light on things a little better, and that means it could affect the credibility of any evidence the RTP supposedly collected. I say supposedly because they are being incredibly evasive in where / how they got their circumstantial evidence from.

You seem to take glee in rubbishing their (Burmese investigators') findings. Remember the RTP only have a CCTV camera clip of the B3 driving towards the beach. Then there is the DNA test matches. Thailand DOES NOT have the capability to do forensic DNA profiling to international standards (unless you can show me evidence proving otherwise). Add to that the chain of custody of samples has never been outlined, and this lack of transparency relative to protocol can only make one suspicious about how exactly forensic DNA profiling was done so quickly and so accurately within Thailand's borders when they neither have the facilities nor personnel to do it.

So with these pieces of evidence being very shaky in themselves, what other evidence should I be aware of that is implicating the Burmese in the murders? Bearing in mind they signed a confession in Thai (despite not understanding Thai language and having an unqualified pancake seller translator coercing them into signing the said document). The evidence seems flimsy at best. The investigative ethics demonstrated by the RTP were at best questionable and at worst an absolute disgrace.

So with official confessions marred in controversy, it seems independent witnesses; "the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation" are not credible sources of facts like you so gleefully point out. So again please tell me what cast iron evidence that is irrefutable could possibly convict the defendants on trial currently. Can't wait for you to enlighten me.

And please for your and my sake, keep it short and simple. Cheers

[catsanddogs]

Ah the dna raises it head again.thid is where people and the rtp have made some error of judgement in intepretting the results

Lets consider what the actual meaning of the dna "match" and " no match"

If a donor supplies a specimen that is a match for the sample , then this is intepreted that the donor is possibly the source of the sample, and the next question should be "how "

Now for the no match result, this obviously states that the donor could not have supplied the sample tested against.Sounds simple untill you then ask the next question can the donor be eliminated and in the case of a crime scene we have 3 possibilities

a ) the donor was not at the crime scene

the donor was at the crime scene ,dna left but either not the sample was unsuitable for testing or not collected by forensics forwhatever reason

C) the donor was at the crimescene but did not leave any dna

Throughout the investigation the common statement was the dna did not match so he is cleared, surely this is incorrect because if he was a suspect to begin with then other evidence would be required to eliminate or clear

Yes unfortunately that was the message sent out by the Thai Pm at the start of the investigation who stated, we are doing this as scientifically as possible, if peoples DNA does not match then they are innocent..............another gaff by him to add to the growing list of gaffs by officials in this case. I think the RTP took this as a message and then followed through[/quot

On a side issue are you aware that there is a report where Pornthip is stating that the headman could not have claimed his son innocent based on the dna test only

A link to the report would be great thanks.

[catsanddogs]

An incredibly meaningful development it seems. Would be nice to see if these people actually do get to say their piece in court, how reliable their evidence is, and the lengths to which the prosecution will likely go to character assassinate them before / after the trial.

Kudos for the Burmese govt for backing its citizens. And just shows how utterly shameful the UK authorities have been during this whole debacle. Not once during this whole thing has anybody stepped up with a pair of cajones to try and get some legitimate answers and really grill the Thai investigators about their methods & very limited lines of actual investigation.

& AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself of what you're posting. May I suggest keeping an open mind, these Burmese investigators seemingly know what they're doing & are working diligently for their clients best interests. Maybe you should invest some time in reading what they've done and how the findings may pose some pertinent questions later. The Thai investigators from day 1 have not been consistent in what they've done. The same levels of diligence and integrity from all concerned seem to be worlds apart. There is plenty to read into there. I hope you do so before penning your next entry

"AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too"

I have been very consistent on my stance all the time, evidence is what has to decide the outcome of the case, not speculation, not opinions and certainly not conspiracy theories; I have the feeling that the difference between "balanced thoughts" and "reams of mendacious nonsense" has more to do on whether you agree or with a particular point or not.

In any case I don't know from were do you derive your opinion that the Burmese investigators know what they are doing and work diligently since all they have done is make claims with no indications of what actual methodology they applied to reach their conclusions or even what is the nature of the evidence they claim to have, what is it? first hand accounts exculpating the defendants, inculpating someone else, circumstantial evidence, second/third hand accounts, character witnesses, etc, etc...? There is no information to glean any insight into what they've done and what it means for the case.

Besides, as I pointed out before witnesses are at the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation, they are not a reliable source to establish facts; you can check the case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson to get an idea.

Bloody hell you don't quit do you. On cue with the mendacious BS posts again. You twist everything people say to make it fit your agenda and refuse to have an open mind. Embarrassing. I think that their (Burmese team) investigative credentials must be pretty solid if the Burmese govt are entrusting them to do the job against almost impossible odds (unless you're still claiming the RTP methodology & public prosecutor's legal manoeuvrings to be wholly transparent and fair thus far).

The Burmese investigators have worked diligently,I derive this from the fact they've been interviewing people inside Burma and in Koh Tao as a means to defend their clients and try to get different views and insights about the crime. This in itself shows a level of professionalism and dedication the RTP has yet to show (maybe with the exception of when they brought in Mon for a chat for a couple of hours back in September). They said they've got witnesses who can shed light on things a little better, and that means it could affect the credibility of any evidence the RTP supposedly collected. I say supposedly because they are being incredibly evasive in where / how they got their circumstantial evidence from.

You seem to take glee in rubbishing their (Burmese investigators') findings. Remember the RTP only have a CCTV camera clip of the B3 driving towards the beach. Then there is the DNA test matches. Thailand DOES NOT have the capability to do forensic DNA profiling to international standards (unless you can show me evidence proving otherwise). Add to that the chain of custody of samples has never been outlined, and this lack of transparency relative to protocol can only make one suspicious about how exactly forensic DNA profiling was done so quickly and so accurately within Thailand's borders when they neither have the facilities nor personnel to do it.

So with these pieces of evidence being very shaky in themselves, what other evidence should I be aware of that is implicating the Burmese in the murders? Bearing in mind they signed a confession in Thai (despite not understanding Thai language and having an unqualified pancake seller translator coercing them into signing the said document). The evidence seems flimsy at best. The investigative ethics demonstrated by the RTP were at best questionable and at worst an absolute disgrace.

So with official confessions marred in controversy, it seems independent witnesses; "the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation" are not credible sources of facts like you so gleefully point out. So again please tell me what cast iron evidence that is irrefutable could possibly convict the defendants on trial currently. Can't wait for you to enlighten me.

And please for your and my sake, keep it short and simple. Cheers

Here here! Well said.

[Luang]

So whatever happened with the British inquiry?

Notting??????????????????????

Unless the victims or the Burmese 2 went to Eton, the British govt. will do bugger all.

Aye, you have a point but even that probs wouldn't be enough over their business interests!

[cookee68]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

very true, show us the evidence that proves them not to be guilty, don't say other countries would do this and that because we are in Thailand, and you are guilty until proven otherwise, hearsay is not evidence if it cant be backed up with proof, not in Thailand

[catsanddogs]

There's a very recent post on a FB page that is not allowed to be mentioned on TV saying the trial may be postponed till next year!

[cookee68]

An incredibly meaningful development it seems. Would be nice to see if these people actually do get to say their piece in court, how reliable their evidence is, and the lengths to which the prosecution will likely go to character assassinate them before / after the trial.

Kudos for the Burmese govt for backing its citizens. And just shows how utterly shameful the UK authorities have been during this whole debacle. Not once during this whole thing has anybody stepped up with a pair of cajones to try and get some legitimate answers and really grill the Thai investigators about their methods & very limited lines of actual investigation.

& AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself of what you're posting. May I suggest keeping an open mind, these Burmese investigators seemingly know what they're doing & are working diligently for their clients best interests. Maybe you should invest some time in reading what they've done and how the findings may pose some pertinent questions later. The Thai investigators from day 1 have not been consistent in what they've done. The same levels of diligence and integrity from all concerned seem to be worlds apart. There is plenty to read into there. I hope you do so before penning your next entry

"AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too"

I have been very consistent on my stance all the time, evidence is what has to decide the outcome of the case, not speculation, not opinions and certainly not conspiracy theories; I have the feeling that the difference between "balanced thoughts" and "reams of mendacious nonsense" has more to do on whether you agree or with a particular point or not.

In any case I don't know from were do you derive your opinion that the Burmese investigators know what they are doing and work diligently since all they have done is make claims with no indications of what actual methodology they applied to reach their conclusions or even what is the nature of the evidence they claim to have, what is it? first hand accounts exculpating the defendants, inculpating someone else, circumstantial evidence, second/third hand accounts, character witnesses, etc, etc...? There is no information to glean any insight into what they've done and what it means for the case.

Besides, as I pointed out before witnesses are at the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation, they are not a reliable source to establish facts; you can check the case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson to get an idea.

Bloody hell you don't quit do you. On cue with the mendacious BS posts again. You twist everything people say to make it fit your agenda and refuse to have an open mind. Embarrassing. I think that their (Burmese team) investigative credentials must be pretty solid if the Burmese govt are entrusting them to do the job against almost impossible odds (unless you're still claiming the RTP methodology & public prosecutor's legal manoeuvrings to be wholly transparent and fair thus far).

The Burmese investigators have worked diligently,I derive this from the fact they've been interviewing people inside Burma and in Koh Tao as a means to defend their clients and try to get different views and insights about the crime. This in itself shows a level of professionalism and dedication the RTP has yet to show (maybe with the exception of when they brought in Mon for a chat for a couple of hours back in September). They said they've got witnesses who can shed light on things a little better, and that means it could affect the credibility of any evidence the RTP supposedly collected. I say supposedly because they are being incredibly evasive in where / how they got their circumstantial evidence from.

You seem to take glee in rubbishing their (Burmese investigators') findings. Remember the RTP only have a CCTV camera clip of the B3 driving towards the beach. Then there is the DNA test matches. Thailand DOES NOT have the capability to do forensic DNA profiling to international standards (unless you can show me evidence proving otherwise). Add to that the chain of custody of samples has never been outlined, and this lack of transparency relative to protocol can only make one suspicious about how exactly forensic DNA profiling was done so quickly and so accurately within Thailand's borders when they neither have the facilities nor personnel to do it.

So with these pieces of evidence being very shaky in themselves, what other evidence should I be aware of that is implicating the Burmese in the murders? Bearing in mind they signed a confession in Thai (despite not understanding Thai language and having an unqualified pancake seller translator coercing them into signing the said document). The evidence seems flimsy at best. The investigative ethics demonstrated by the RTP were at best questionable and at worst an absolute disgrace.

So with official confessions marred in controversy, it seems independent witnesses; "the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation" are not credible sources of facts like you so gleefully point out. So again please tell me what cast iron evidence that is irrefutable could possibly convict the defendants on trial currently. Can't wait for you to enlighten me.

And please for your and my sake, keep it short and simple. Cheers

Here here! Well said.

The fact that they are being tried in Thailand is enough, and if the BIB say they have enough evidence then they have enough, its all about what can the b2 prove, this is Thailand not the UK

[catsanddogs]

A FB page is saying trial may be postponed until next year. It's a good read. Things are looking up!

[BritTim]

From Deutsche Welle English:

[balo]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The way I read it: the Burmese investigators have been convinced of the B2's innocence for weeks, based on what they have been told by the Burmese community on Koh Tao. No one with first-hand knowledge is willing to come forward officially, giving the reason that they are fearful of retaliation. This makes sense to me, but the claimed first-hand accounts might not be truthful. I doubt the B2's guilt, but the defense is sounding desperate.

The witnesses are not on Koh Tao, they are back in Myanmar.

Why do you think 40 migrant workers suddenly left Koh Tao. They needed a holiday? or were they convinced by "someone", that it was time to leave.

Since many of them were illegals (?), they were probably escorted all the way to the border in police minivans, just to make sure they had a safe journey of course. Last word from their escorts before the migrants crossed the border: "If you ever came back, you are dead"

Since they probably had witnessed fellow migrant workers "disappear" without any consequences for the perpetrators, maybe not so strange that they are scared of returning to Thailand!!

Your comments doesnt make sense. If the witnesses are back in their native Myanmar , then why dont they talk to the Myanmar defence team ? If they have information to share that will give us other suspects than B2, of course they will speak , they are safely back in Myanmar and have nothing to lose. .

Edited December 19, 2014 by balo

[aimbc]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The way I read it: the Burmese investigators have been convinced of the B2's innocence for weeks, based on what they have been told by the Burmese community on Koh Tao. No one with first-hand knowledge is willing to come forward officially, giving the reason that they are fearful of retaliation. This makes sense to me, but the claimed first-hand accounts might not be truthful. I doubt the B2's guilt, but the defense is sounding desperate.

I am sure they taped the statements by eyewitness. They will just have to do their best to protect the identity of these individuals and try to submit it as evidence. But I am sure the prosecution would like to cross examine them. How would they protect them now.

Actually with the Myanmar government having the two Myanmar back. Speaks very loud that they have enough to prove that these two are innocent. It would be a big risk for the nation if they were making it up. And now it seems to be a govt to govt challenge in the case. Neither will say that their investigation into the case was flawed. It's definitely getting interesting.

Does anyone know wether or not defense got a hold of the prosecutors files yet? Or when they are suppose to get them. I like the Myanmar hidden secret weapon. They probably pieced everything together for the boy's defense a long time ago. Just making sure the prosecution case are sealed in court, before springing this in them. We have to remember, it went back and forth so many times for revision.

[BritTim]

Your comments doesnt make sense. If the witnesses are back in their native Myanmar , then why dont they talk to the Myanmar defence team ? If they have information to share that will give us other suspects than B2, of course they will speak , they are safely back in Myanmar and have nothing to lose. .

More correctly stated, they probably have nothing to lose as long as they never intend setting foot in Thailand again. That is a major proviso when they can earn far more working in a place like Koh Tao than they can back home.

Anyway, say they were willing to talk openly to the defense team, even give videotapes interviews, how much impact would this have on the court proceedings? Most likely none. The prosecution would claim (with justification) that the statements should not be admissible with no chance for cross examination. Sure, if leaked to the press, such statements might be embarrassing. However, the Thais would just laugh them off.

[StealthEnergiser]

There's a very recent post on a FB page that is not allowed to be mentioned on TV saying the trial may be postponed till next year!

I translated that page but it is a bit hard to understand I think they questioning the DNA Collection is that right?

[DennisF]

There's a very recent post on a FB page that is not allowed to be mentioned on TV saying the trial may be postponed till next year!

I translated that page but it is a bit hard to understand I think they questioning the DNA Collection is that right?

As I read it it says that the defence may ask for a postponement as they have not been supplied with the prosecution case, as is required under Thai law.

[catsanddogs]

There's a very recent post on a FB page that is not allowed to be mentioned on TV saying the trial may be postponed till next year!

I translated that page but it is a bit hard to understand I think they questioning the DNA Collection is that right?

One of the things I get from reading it is along the lines of the defence are taking issue with the fact that the police had a whole month to test Burmese workers but the match result only came to light after the B2 had confessed. (which we all knew was dodgy) (well most of us). Lots of other stuff there too and it seems to read as if the defence team were going to discuss it on 19th December. Sure to be more of this very soon.

[greenchair]

There's a very recent post on a FB page that is not allowed to be mentioned on TV saying the trial may be postponed till next year!

I translated that page but it is a bit hard to understand I think they questioning the DNA Collection is that right?

As I read it it says that the defence may ask for a postponement as they have not been supplied with the prosecution case, as is required under Thai law.

Though the boys just want to go home. A postponement really is the best solution.

1.they are entitled to see the evidence against them.

2.they entitled to unrestricted access to their lawyers.

3.the coroners report is essential to all parties.

4.the dna must be redone by the defense. There would be dna everywhere. On the clothes, on the phone, on the body. (Not talking about ciggies)

If the b2 dna is on any part of these 2 people. They just better fess up. If not. Let them go

[IslandLover]

thailandchilli, on 19 Dec 2014 - 10:12, said:

CantSpell, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:48, said:

BritTim, on 19 Dec 2014 - 07:36, said:

catsanddogs, on 18 Dec 2014 - 14:38, said:

And of course, had the police said the toxicology reports showed the victims had drugs in their systems before their deaths, then that would open up another crate load of worms that they would have to deal with.

(No, I do not believe the B2 are guilty, but ...) if David had really been strung out on drugs, it would be slightly more credible that the B2 could overpower him without suffering any injury themselves. Just maybe, the RTP pitched this to the British cops and made them believe it. This would tie in with the statements by the families.

Though I think I remember that it was mentioned that David hands were bruised as after a fight, so that doesn't add up: he apparently fought someone..

Pretty sure there were no recreational drugs in David. There is an alleged autopsy report online and it has no trace of drugs. Somyot when asked about this also at first said no, then maybe, then he would not reveal out of 'respect for the families' thus leaving all options open to speculation.....

I think Hannah is more likely to have been drugged than David. This would certainly have showed up during the autopsy in the U.K. Thai autopsies appear to be less than thorough, which is a polite way of putting it. It won't be the first time that the Thais have missed something in the toxicology tests which the Brits have later discovered.

[007cableguy]

It's taken a while for one of the Glee club to find this thread!

Edited December 20, 2014 by 007cableguy

[boomerangutang]

When will the Brits release findings of DNA trail? Probably not until the inquest, 1st week of January, and even then it might be a watered-down statement like, "we found 2 (or 3) indications of bodily fluid on/in the female victim."
Do the Brits have DNA typing from suspects? Probably not, as Thai officials announced they would NOT share DNA of at least one (former) suspect with the Brits. Thais could just as easily NOT share other DNA typing they have.

in sum: who is surprised? Everything Thai officials have said and done, since the replacement head cop took over (in the 2nd week of the investigation), has pointed to cover-up / frame-up / and shielding the Headman's people from any sort of scrutiny. It's also since the 2nd head cop was appointed, that the Brits spent 2 (or 24) hours on the island (depending who you ask) in their roles as 'OBSERVERS ONLY.' Even 24 hours on an island, will only allow a few hours of questioning Thai police (Birts are not allowed to question anyone else, because they're observers only). Since Thai police are only going to say things which point to the B2 guilt, then that's essentially what the Brits have, to pass on to the victims' families.

....unless the Brits did their own independent DNA typing - yet again, they weren't given DNA typing of suspects from Thai officials, so they can't effectively put the puzzle together.

[falangjim]

There's a very recent post on a FB page that is not allowed to be mentioned on TV saying the trial may be postponed till next year!

So in what...13 days? What are you clamoring about?

[IslandLover]

falangjim, on 19 Dec 2014 - 17:13, said:falangjim, on 19 Dec 2014 - 17:13, said:

According to the 2B lawyer in the most recent article published in a Myanmar press, Scotland Yard never interviewed Ware or McAnna. Now both of these two have been summoned. I don't know enough about international law to say if they have to come forward as witnesses or not. The defense lawyer is implying they are implicated due to Sean's wounds, blood on his guitar. Of the two Brits, Ware seems to have his head screwed on tight. I'd be happy if they could create enough doubt in the judges mind as to what happened. We shall see. By the way, I'm over the moon that the Myanmar team have made this statement. The RTP have a lot to answer for, and no, I don't care if comments about a stitch up make them "feel sad" over doubts in their work.

I find it absolutely unbelievable that Scotland Yard have never interviewed Chris Ware. After all, Chris Ware shared a room with David Miller and knew of his movements on the night of the murders. He must have been one of the last people to see David alive. And what about Hannah's travelling companions? McAnna on the other hand could be viewed as an "unreliable witness" due to his fondness for alcohol and/or drugs, not to mention all the lies/half truths he's told so far. If this is true, then it's a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the British police.

[IslandLover]

boomerangutang, on 20 Dec 2014 - 01:58, said:

When will the Brits release findings of DNA trail? Probably not until the inquest, 1st week of January, and even then it might be a watered-down statement like, "we found 2 (or 3) indications of bodily fluid on/in the female victim."

Do the Brits have DNA typing from suspects? Probably not, as Thai officials announced they would NOT share DNA of at least one (former) suspect with the Brits. Thais could just as easily NOT share other DNA typing they have.

in sum: who is surprised? Everything Thai officials have said and done, since the replacement head cop took over (in the 2nd week of the investigation), has pointed to cover-up / frame-up / and shielding the Headman's people from any sort of scrutiny. It's also since the 2nd head cop was appointed, that the Brits spent 2 (or 24) hours on the island (depending who you ask) in their roles as 'OBSERVERS ONLY.' Even 24 hours on an island, will only allow a few hours of questioning Thai police (Birts are not allowed to question anyone else, because they're observers only). Since Thai police are only going to say things which point to the B2 guilt, then that's essentially what the Brits have, to pass on to the victims' families.

....unless the Brits did their own independent DNA typing - yet again, they weren't given DNA typing of suspects from Thai officials, so they can't effectively put the puzzle together.

It's interesting that one of the reasons (specifically requested by David Cameron) for sending the British police to Thailand was to verify the DNA evidence. Yet it appears they were not allowed to do this. I'm sure that DNA will have been collected during the U.K. autopsies on the victims but if they have nothing to compare it with, then it's useless.

[rickirs]

"If they go to court and speak as witnesses, they’ll have problems with the Thai police and Thai bosses,"

Remember that Thailand does not use juries in its trials, just a couple of judges. So there is no loss to the court if the witnesses cannot appear in court for their testimony. It seems that much of typical witness testimony is presented in transcript format anyways. But if the court wants something more substantial than transcripts, have the Thai prosecution and defense travel to Myanmar to take direct video testimony from the witnesses. There is no excuse for the accused not to have witness testimony presented in their defense.

[Artisi]

falangjim, on 19 Dec 2014 - 17:13, said:falangjim, on 19 Dec 2014 - 17:13, said:

According to the 2B lawyer in the most recent article published in a Myanmar press, Scotland Yard never interviewed Ware or McAnna. Now both of these two have been summoned. I don't know enough about international law to say if they have to come forward as witnesses or not. The defense lawyer is implying they are implicated due to Sean's wounds, blood on his guitar. Of the two Brits, Ware seems to have his head screwed on tight. I'd be happy if they could create enough doubt in the judges mind as to what happened. We shall see. By the way, I'm over the moon that the Myanmar team have made this statement. The RTP have a lot to answer for, and no, I don't care if comments about a stitch up make them "feel sad" over doubts in their work.

I find it absolutely unbelievable that Scotland Yard have never interviewed Chris Ware. After all, Chris Ware shared a room with David Miller and knew of his movements on the night of the murders. He must have been one of the last people to see David alive. And what about Hannah's travelling companions? McAnna on the other hand could be viewed as an "unreliable witness" due to his fondness for alcohol and/or drugs, not to mention all the lies/half truths he's told so far. If this is true, then it's a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the British police.

So now you are an expert on and privy to the inner workings of Scotland Yard and their investigation.

[Soutpeel]

Why should it not be possible to bring the Burmese workers who fled to Burma back

under protection of their government and then back to Burma.

May be even some money could be found as a substitute for their loss of income in Thailand.

So, you think that paying witnesses is a good idea?

Ask your buddies in the RTP when they tried to pay off the taxi driver to be witness and see how that worked out

[Alan653]

Evidence , please show us some evidence that they are not guilty, its hardly a surprise that Myanmar found them to be innocent.....

The way I read it: the Burmese investigators have been convinced of the B2's innocence for weeks, based on what they have been told by the Burmese community on Koh Tao. No one with first-hand knowledge is willing to come forward officially, giving the reason that they are fearful of retaliation. This makes sense to me, but the claimed first-hand accounts might not be truthful. I doubt the B2's guilt, but the defense is sounding desperate.

The witnesses are not on Koh Tao, they are back in Myanmar.

Why do you think 40 migrant workers suddenly left Koh Tao. They needed a holiday? or were they convinced by "someone", that it was time to leave.

Since many of them were illegals (?), they were probably escorted all the way to the border in police minivans, just to make sure they had a safe journey of course. Last word from their escorts before the migrants crossed the border: "If you ever came back, you are dead"

Since they probably had witnessed fellow migrant workers "disappear" without any consequences for the perpetrators, maybe not so strange that they are scared of returning to Thailand!!

Your comments doesnt make sense. If the witnesses are back in their native Myanmar , then why dont they talk to the Myanmar defence team ? If they have information to share that will give us other suspects than B2, of course they will speak , they are safely back in Myanmar and have nothing to lose. .

Wow...you really are soout of touch.

Been taking lesson's from the apologists?

[jdinasia]

boomerangutang, on 20 Dec 2014 - 01:58, said:

When will the Brits release findings of DNA trail? Probably not until the inquest, 1st week of January, and even then it might be a watered-down statement like, "we found 2 (or 3) indications of bodily fluid on/in the female victim."

Do the Brits have DNA typing from suspects? Probably not, as Thai officials announced they would NOT share DNA of at least one (former) suspect with the Brits. Thais could just as easily NOT share other DNA typing they have.

in sum: who is surprised? Everything Thai officials have said and done, since the replacement head cop took over (in the 2nd week of the investigation), has pointed to cover-up / frame-up / and shielding the Headman's people from any sort of scrutiny. It's also since the 2nd head cop was appointed, that the Brits spent 2 (or 24) hours on the island (depending who you ask) in their roles as 'OBSERVERS ONLY.' Even 24 hours on an island, will only allow a few hours of questioning Thai police (Birts are not allowed to question anyone else, because they're observers only). Since Thai police are only going to say things which point to the B2 guilt, then that's essentially what the Brits have, to pass on to the victims' families.

....unless the Brits did their own independent DNA typing - yet again, they weren't given DNA typing of suspects from Thai officials, so they can't effectively put the puzzle together.

It's interesting that one of the reasons (specifically requested by David Cameron) for sending the British police to Thailand was to verify the DNA evidence. Yet it appears they were not allowed to do this. I'm sure that DNA will have been collected during the U.K. autopsies on the victims but if they have nothing to compare it with, then it's useless.

Where are you getting that from?

I am aware of a couple of reasons put forth but they were not regarding the DNA.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic, troll, baiting topics and replies removed. Suspensions will be given.

Stay on topic.

[thailandchilli]

boomerangutang, on 20 Dec 2014 - 01:58, said:

When will the Brits release findings of DNA trail? Probably not until the inquest, 1st week of January, and even then it might be a watered-down statement like, "we found 2 (or 3) indications of bodily fluid on/in the female victim."

Do the Brits have DNA typing from suspects? Probably not, as Thai officials announced they would NOT share DNA of at least one (former) suspect with the Brits. Thais could just as easily NOT share other DNA typing they have.

in sum: who is surprised? Everything Thai officials have said and done, since the replacement head cop took over (in the 2nd week of the investigation), has pointed to cover-up / frame-up / and shielding the Headman's people from any sort of scrutiny. It's also since the 2nd head cop was appointed, that the Brits spent 2 (or 24) hours on the island (depending who you ask) in their roles as 'OBSERVERS ONLY.' Even 24 hours on an island, will only allow a few hours of questioning Thai police (Birts are not allowed to question anyone else, because they're observers only). Since Thai police are only going to say things which point to the B2 guilt, then that's essentially what the Brits have, to pass on to the victims' families.

....unless the Brits did their own independent DNA typing - yet again, they weren't given DNA typing of suspects from Thai officials, so they can't effectively put the puzzle together.

It's interesting that one of the reasons (specifically requested by David Cameron) for sending the British police to Thailand was to verify the DNA evidence. Yet it appears they were not allowed to do this. I'm sure that DNA will have been collected during the U.K. autopsies on the victims but if they have nothing to compare it with, then it's useless.

Where are you getting that from?

I am aware of a couple of reasons put forth but they were not regarding the DNA.

You are aware of a couple of reasons?

A diplomatic source said that Thai authorities were leading the investigation, but it was important that the victims' families could be reassured about the justice process.

He said: "There are two areas we are particularly concerned about. One is the verification of the DNA samples of the suspects, making sure there is further independent verification.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29668785

Edited December 20, 2014 by thailandchilli

[AleG]

An incredibly meaningful development it seems. Would be nice to see if these people actually do get to say their piece in court, how reliable their evidence is, and the lengths to which the prosecution will likely go to character assassinate them before / after the trial.

Kudos for the Burmese govt for backing its citizens. And just shows how utterly shameful the UK authorities have been during this whole debacle. Not once during this whole thing has anybody stepped up with a pair of cajones to try and get some legitimate answers and really grill the Thai investigators about their methods & very limited lines of actual investigation.

& AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself of what you're posting. May I suggest keeping an open mind, these Burmese investigators seemingly know what they're doing & are working diligently for their clients best interests. Maybe you should invest some time in reading what they've done and how the findings may pose some pertinent questions later. The Thai investigators from day 1 have not been consistent in what they've done. The same levels of diligence and integrity from all concerned seem to be worlds apart. There is plenty to read into there. I hope you do so before penning your next entry

"AleG you confuse me as I read through the forum, you post some really balanced thoughts (#125 for example) but there are just reams of mendacious nonsense rambling posts too"

I have been very consistent on my stance all the time, evidence is what has to decide the outcome of the case, not speculation, not opinions and certainly not conspiracy theories; I have the feeling that the difference between "balanced thoughts" and "reams of mendacious nonsense" has more to do on whether you agree or with a particular point or not.

In any case I don't know from were do you derive your opinion that the Burmese investigators know what they are doing and work diligently since all they have done is make claims with no indications of what actual methodology they applied to reach their conclusions or even what is the nature of the evidence they claim to have, what is it? first hand accounts exculpating the defendants, inculpating someone else, circumstantial evidence, second/third hand accounts, character witnesses, etc, etc...? There is no information to glean any insight into what they've done and what it means for the case.

Besides, as I pointed out before witnesses are at the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation, they are not a reliable source to establish facts; you can check the case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson to get an idea.

Bloody hell you don't quit do you. On cue with the mendacious BS posts again. You twist everything people say to make it fit your agenda and refuse to have an open mind. Embarrassing. I think that their (Burmese team) investigative credentials must be pretty solid if the Burmese govt are entrusting them to do the job against almost impossible odds (unless you're still claiming the RTP methodology & public prosecutor's legal manoeuvrings to be wholly transparent and fair thus far).

The Burmese investigators have worked diligently,I derive this from the fact they've been interviewing people inside Burma and in Koh Tao as a means to defend their clients and try to get different views and insights about the crime. This in itself shows a level of professionalism and dedication the RTP has yet to show (maybe with the exception of when they brought in Mon for a chat for a couple of hours back in September). They said they've got witnesses who can shed light on things a little better, and that means it could affect the credibility of any evidence the RTP supposedly collected. I say supposedly because they are being incredibly evasive in where / how they got their circumstantial evidence from.

You seem to take glee in rubbishing their (Burmese investigators') findings. Remember the RTP only have a CCTV camera clip of the B3 driving towards the beach. Then there is the DNA test matches. Thailand DOES NOT have the capability to do forensic DNA profiling to international standards (unless you can show me evidence proving otherwise). Add to that the chain of custody of samples has never been outlined, and this lack of transparency relative to protocol can only make one suspicious about how exactly forensic DNA profiling was done so quickly and so accurately within Thailand's borders when they neither have the facilities nor personnel to do it.

So with these pieces of evidence being very shaky in themselves, what other evidence should I be aware of that is implicating the Burmese in the murders? Bearing in mind they signed a confession in Thai (despite not understanding Thai language and having an unqualified pancake seller translator coercing them into signing the said document). The evidence seems flimsy at best. The investigative ethics demonstrated by the RTP were at best questionable and at worst an absolute disgrace.

So with official confessions marred in controversy, it seems independent witnesses; "the bottom rung of the preponderance ladder in an investigation" are not credible sources of facts like you so gleefully point out. So again please tell me what cast iron evidence that is irrefutable could possibly convict the defendants on trial currently. Can't wait for you to enlighten me.

And please for your and my sake, keep it short and simple. Cheers

Well, since you want it short and simple.

"So again please tell me what cast iron evidence that is irrefutable could possibly convict the defendants on trial currently"

First off, I haven't called cast iron evidence, putting that aside... Physical evidence, DNA (as much as you'd like to hand wave it away), fingerprints, the victims belongings found in possession of the accused (or witnesses that can confirm that point), etc, etc... That sort of thing.

As for the Burmese investigation, you don't know the methodology they used so just because they interviewed people doesn't mean much, for example if they didn't corroborate the statements of witnesses, or if they derived a conclusion that doesn't follow logically from the testimony.