Artisi, on 20 Dec 2014 - 03:06, said:

IslandLover, on 20 Dec 2014 - 02:20, said:

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

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.

No, I'm not. I just find it unbelievable that Scotland Yard would not have interviewed a key witness. Anyway, it's not unreasonable to expect that Ware that will be called to give evidence at the inquest(s) in the U.K. Should be interesting. Unfortuately it will probably be too late for the B2.

thailandchilli, on 20 Dec 2014 - 03:39, said:

jdinasia, on 20 Dec 2014 - 03:24, said:

IslandLover, on 20 Dec 2014 - 02:28, said:

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

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

Thanks for that Thailandchilli. I can't be ar$ed to justify myself to the likes of our resident sadman .

Looks like Andy Hall is asking the same questions (tweeted 1 hour ago):

Koh Tao defense case:if anyone has evidence UK police/officials took statements from witnesses either in UK/Thailand pls contact me ASAP

https://twitter.com/atomicalandy

Edited December 20, 201411 yr by thailandchilli

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.

Well, now we know a bit more about what the Burmese defense has been doing, from another thread:

"To get more defence witnesses, we are trying to contact the leaders of migrant workers, committee members who are helping Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand and migrant workers who love their country. We have quite a few witnesses now, but the number may rise to over 100 or 200 in the next few days,"

They are counting on number of witnesses rather than relevance to the case on trial. To me that looks like they want to change it from a murder case against the defendants to a human rights case against Thailand.

AleG: "They are counting on number of witnesses rather than relevance to the case on trial."

How do you know that? You are constantly harping on the fact that you you want to see the evidence in the case and chastise other posters for speculating and then you do the same yourself, can't have it both ways.

The whole world seems to know that they are innocent except Thailand where the murder took place. Talk about a downer.

AleG: "They are counting on number of witnesses rather than relevance to the case on trial."

How do you know that? You are constantly harping on the fact that you you want to see the evidence in the case and chastise other posters for speculating and then you do the same yourself, can't have it both ways.

"To get more defence witnesses, we are trying to contact the leaders of migrant workers, committee members who are helping Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand and migrant workers who love their country. We have quite a few witnesses now, but the number may rise to over 100 or 200 in the next few days,"

There's your answer, they are trying to contact up to 200 witnesses with no direct relation to the crime, what would a migrant workers leader testify about at the trial if they were not material witnesses to the crime? And if they were why not simply say they are trying to contact material witnesses?

AleG: "They are counting on number of witnesses rather than relevance to the case on trial."

How do you know that? You are constantly harping on the fact that you you want to see the evidence in the case and chastise other posters for speculating and then you do the same yourself, can't have it both ways.

"To get more defence witnesses, we are trying to contact the leaders of migrant workers, committee members who are helping Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand and migrant workers who love their country. We have quite a few witnesses now, but the number may rise to over 100 or 200 in the next few days,"

There's your answer, they are trying to contact up to 200 witnesses with no direct relation to the crime, what would a migrant workers leader testify about at the trial if they were not material witnesses to the crime? And if they were why not simply say they are trying to contact material witnesses?

Take your own advice and leave it to the trial to decide on that. When others speculate in future remember that its a 2 way street.

AleG: "They are counting on number of witnesses rather than relevance to the case on trial."

How do you know that? You are constantly harping on the fact that you you want to see the evidence in the case and chastise other posters for speculating and then you do the same yourself, can't have it both ways.

"To get more defence witnesses, we are trying to contact the leaders of migrant workers, committee members who are helping Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand and migrant workers who love their country. We have quite a few witnesses now, but the number may rise to over 100 or 200 in the next few days,"

There's your answer, they are trying to contact up to 200 witnesses with no direct relation to the crime, what would a migrant workers leader testify about at the trial if they were not material witnesses to the crime? And if they were why not simply say they are trying to contact material witnesses?

Take your own advice and leave it to the trial to decide on that. When others speculate in future remember that its a 2 way street.

The motives and tactics of the defense are not on trial.

Looks like Andy Hall is asking the same questions (tweeted 1 hour ago):

Koh Tao defense case:if anyone has evidence UK police/officials took statements from witnesses either in UK/Thailand pls contact me ASAP

https://twitter.com/atomicalandy

Depending on the response Andy gets this could change things dramatically.

IF the court allows the defence to call witnesses from abroad and they call Brits who have made statements to the UK police things could change very quickly.

I am wondering if the Brit authorities have suggested this move, it takes them out of the loop whilst giving the defence some room.

Remember the FCO declared on the family statements that it did not necessarily reflect their own views.

Standard caveat but not so usual when explaining released documents of this type.

AlecG post #219

The motives and tactics of the defense are not on trial.

No because the prosecutors do want a defense that will shred the prosecution case to pieces and bring the spotlight to bear on the real killers.

AlecG post #219

The motives and tactics of the defense are not on trial.

No because the prosecutors do want a defense that will shred the prosecution case to pieces and bring the spotlight to bear on the real killers.

I think you need to restate that....

AlecG post #222.

I think you need to restate that....

As per your request AlecG .

See below, the truth..

No because the prosecutors do want a defense that will shred the prosecution case to pieces and bring the spotlight to bear on the real killers.

Edited December 20, 201411 yr by siampolee

https://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/khunying-pornthip-koh-tao-forensic-work-needs-to-separate-with-police-authority/

it would seem some posters are more interested in their egos than a fair trial

People the last link i posted does work but be aware that for reasons uknown to me the site sometimes is not available.

I found it an interesting read

rockingrobin post # 228

People the last link i posted does work but be aware that for reasons uknown to me the site sometimes is not available.

I found it an interesting read

Linked to it no problems.

AlecG post #222.

I think you need to restate that....

As per your request AlecG .

See below, the truth..

No because the prosecutors do want a defense that will shred the prosecution case to pieces and bring the spotlight to bear on the real killers.

So the prosecution wants the defense to win so that the real killers can be found. Did you actually re-read what you wrote or simple copy-paste it again?

An inflammatory post has been removed.

it would seem some posters are more interested in their egos than a fair trial

If the 2 Burmese guys are found not guilty there will be at least four people on here doing the best to try and convince people there would be no point in trying to find anybody else guilty of the crime, and hope it all dies quietly away.

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.

Isn't their report due out next month?

#227

When using VPN no problem!!

There are hundreds of people working tirelessly for these boys.many for free.it is great that the lawyers and Andy and csi are no longer relying on the prosecution for their evidence. All people must work diligently to find our own evidence of innocence. Every person whose name has popped up on these sites, that is not on the prosecution list. Should be on the defense list of witnesses.

Now if the brit police or brit coroner had anything to

Support the prosecution, they would be putting in everyone's faces from dawn to dusk. Since we have not heard any bigmouthing from jtj, then they will be great defense witnesses.

The coroners report and brit dna testing is the only chance these boys have.

Edited December 20, 201411 yr by greenchair

Looks like Andy Hall is asking the same questions (tweeted 1 hour ago):

Koh Tao defense case:if anyone has evidence UK police/officials took statements from witnesses either in UK/Thailand pls contact me ASAP

https://twitter.com/atomicalandy

Depending on the response Andy gets this could change things dramatically.

IF the court allows the defence to call witnesses from abroad and they call Brits who have made statements to the UK police things could change very quickly.

I am wondering if the Brit authorities have suggested this move, it takes them out of the loop whilst giving the defence some room.

Remember the FCO declared on the family statements that it did not necessarily reflect their own views.

Standard caveat but not so usual when explaining released documents of this type.

Instead of relying on TV readers. Why don't the defense team simply write an email to the brit police and ask them.though the interview might be confidential .asking simply if they were interview would be fine.

And meanwhile Koh Tao remains firmly in the spotlight with the UK parents wanting more investigations :

"A family who think their son could have been murdered on holiday in Thailand want to launch a campaign to find answers to his death" http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Nick-Pearson-inquest-Family-Derbyshire-man-dead/story-25741734-detail/story.html

Thread over at Inquest of Derby man found dead in Koh Tao http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785549-inquest-of-derby-man-found-dead-in-koh-tao/

Burmese have become a slave race in Thailand.

Sort of odd, as historically Burma whipped on Thailand like it was a red headed

stepchild... Guess life is full of changes.

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

your point 2:

I read that their lawyers only had access to speaking to them through a glass screen and that was one at a time! What the F!

That is right. They only get to speak through glass with a phone. 1 at a time. And anything they say can be heard or perhaps even recorded. I don't think they have had a private talk with their lawyers since they were arrested. The are watched so closely. And we should not forget, when everybody goes home.the b2 must stay there with the police. Same ole story. Who will protect us from the police? ?

These lawyers (I think ) were enlisted at the Myanmar government request. I have never heard of any government anytime, anywhere standing up for their people in such a glorious way. Kinda puts the brit government to shame a bit.

If the Myanmar government has that much trust in these boys, that good enough for me.

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as a reply.