Docno Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I read the article but I could not find that the results of the witness interviews was evidence AGAINST the Burmese True. The 'problem' is that nobody but the RTP and the various British police services involved know what evidence was provided. The article states: "Lawyers acting for Reprieve have written to the government asking what information was shared with Thai authorities" So Reprieve doesn't know and the defense doesn't know. Clearly, the prosecution can be very selective about what it reveals at trial since the defense will not have access to full transcripts of the UK police interviews. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I read the article but I could not find that the results of the witness interviews was evidence AGAINST the Burmese It doesn't say the testimony is detrimental to the two Burmese suspects. With that in mind those that have assumed those testimonies would be incriminatory to the Burmese and thus want to see that evidence withheld need to take a long hard look at when and where they lost the plot, because what they are doing is, plain and simply, trying to cover up a murder. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
englishoak Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 This is all about the defence being refused details held by the prosecution, I suspect it is not within the remit of the UK police to provide information to the defence directly and that it probably must come via the Thai prosecution or courts process inside Thailand. Clearly thats not happening, hence the pressure and articles such as this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Yes, the trial will be with the Thai system. The defense doesn't have access to all of the prosecution discovery and the prosecution doesn't have access to all of the defense discovery. The defense gets the witness list from the prosecution and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winstonc Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 True justice wont be served here, no matter how much you pray for it. well done an english language post. i can understand....keep it that way eh.....as for praying who to and what....better off reading a good book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 "However, in an email to the rights group Reprieve, the Foreign Office (FCO) said it had learned that four English police forces conducted interviews about the case at the request of their Thai counterparts and passed on the information. Reprieve says it does not believe assurances over execution were sought. The FCO declined to comment on this point." How disgusting! It is beginning to look as if British police really have been studying from the same textbooks as their corrupt and incompetent counterparts in Thailand. I hope there is going to be a full accounting for this in the UK. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Basicaly if your a Brit in Thailand and get in trouble. Do not expect any help from Britain. It is called diplomacy! Its the same story for any nationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Removed a troll post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I find it hard to believe that a civilised country would not provide evidence to both sides. Thai authorities haven't provided evidence to the defence but I find it hard to believe the U.K would adopt Thai practices. I think this is rubbish being spewed by the prosecution. Thais love making statements and press releases on behalf of others. Edited March 2, 2015 by chooka 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I find it hard to believe that a civilised country would not provide evidence to both sides. Thai authorities haven't provided evidence to the defence but I find it hard to believe the U.K would adopt Thai practices. I think this is rubbish being spewed by the prosecution. Thais love making statements and press releases on behalf of others. Chooka If I have read the article correctly it is the FCO that is suggesting the information has been shared From The Guardian The FCO response said Hampshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Jersey police had been asked by Thai police to interview Britons who were on Koh Tao with Witheridge and Miller. It added: “We now understand that UK law enforcement colleagues shared the contents of these statements informally with Thai police after they had taken human rights considerations into account.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catsanddogs Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Wasn't it claimed at the time that the British police were sidelined by the RTP and didn't play an effectual role in the investigation? Now this article alleges that they did participate and have been giving "one-sided assistance" to the prosecution. Exactly! So we have been lied to by the British Government. About time Mark Kent stood up and said a few words! Lots of us want to know what the <deleted> is going on here. This news isn't going to do the prosecution any favours thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooloomooloo Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I'm glad that Scotland Yard were finally involved in the case. Don't forget what happened to them both, particularly the brutality meted out to Hannah Witheridge. Pure evil. If there's incontrovertible evidence to convict the pair then they'll face their judgement. If not, they walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loonodingle Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I find it hard to believe that a civilised country would not provide evidence to both sides. Thai authorities haven't provided evidence to the defence but I find it hard to believe the U.K would adopt Thai practices. I think this is rubbish being spewed by the prosecution. Thais love making statements and press releases on behalf of others.ChookaIf I have read the article correctly it is the FCO that is suggesting the information has been shared From The Guardian The FCO response said Hampshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Jersey police had been asked by Thai police to interview Britons who were on Koh Tao with Witheridge and Miller. It added: We now understand that UK law enforcement colleagues shared the contents of these statements informally with Thai police after they had taken human rights considerations into account. so why informally in such a high profile case. Is it so they cannot be held liable later on. Why wasn't it done on the record formally. Why is it that Reprieve have stumbled across this in their investigations. Despite previous denials from the police in writing. Informally. .. what a joke.. 2 people died and they just informally plod along... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenchair Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Based on the little bit of evidence of guilt that the rtp have produced. I could not in good conscience believe the b2 guilty of anything. Contaminated dna collected. Kept in the Headman's fridge. A guitar and clothes with no blood on it. Either handed in by someone who stole them.or found at the beach. Either way, there was no blood on them. (I can't believe they took off their clothes and ran round the beach naked , killing people ) A picture of them buying cigarettes at the shop. Still, things are looking grim for them. Shame shame shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post stephen terry Posted March 3, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Meanwhile the head public prosecutor said his side will make a compelling case with 65 witnesses to testify against the men including police, witnesses and forensic investigators. So where were these numerous witnesses on the days following the murders? If it all pointed to the B2 they would have been arrested around day 2, grassed up by the locals. Sorry, it's fabrication, smoke and mirrors. Anything to make the charges against the B2 stick. What about the withholding of CCTV - no film of B2 at the crime scene. What about the suspicious behaviour of the Headman's family - why did Nomsod go AWOL? Anyone with a grain of logic could understand that the locals know who committed these crimes - and it sure wasn't the B2. Edited March 3, 2015 by stephen terry 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ableguy Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Politically correct horse shit. Europe is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Lawrence Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 How can one commit to capital punishment in a system with flaws? 'Thailand’s military prime minister, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, said he believed migrant workers were the culprits. Soon afterwards, two young Burmese men were arrested.' I don't know what was passed on, but it remains a 'Keystone Cop' type investigation that highlights what can be manipulated in a case like this, with the two accused appearing to have very little money for a defence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooner Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro01 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It's simple folks "anything you say may be used against you" You ever heard them say "anything you say may be used in your favor?". Nope. Even if you say things that prove your innocence - the police can ignore that and only use the bits that make you look bad. Hence - there is never, ever any reason to talk to the police. They are quite literally out to screw you. Keep quiet - take your chance in court. Their job is to convict people. They get rewarded for that. Doesn't mean they convict the right people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. Pretty simple to avoid. Just show how the defendants who still admit to being there didn't do it. All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony5 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. Pretty simple to avoid. Just show how the defendants who still admit to being there didn't do it. All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc I shall correct that for you. All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc Confession have been withdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBill Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Shouldn't vs. can't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmybkk Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. Pretty simple to avoid. Just show how the defendants who still admit to being there didn't do it. All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc Guilty until proven innocent then... Spoken like a true witch-hunter. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. Pretty simple to avoid. Just show how the defendants who still admit to being there didn't do it.All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc Guilty until proven innocent then... Spoken like a true witch-hunter. Nope, simply some of the things that the defense has to overcome for an acquittal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 ... and to obtain an acquittal it is not necessary to prove or even show a likelihood that someone else did it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooner Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. Pretty simple to avoid. Just show how the defendants who still admit to being there didn't do it. All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc One good point out of 3. The confession part needs no adressing. Witness testimony....There is no witness to the killings. At best somebody can say I saw them at this time on the beach...proves nothing. DNA.. Gold point. As you are very quick to point out that your not a forensic expert then you will be aware that many experts are questioning whether a contaminated crime scene with every Tom, Dice and Harry walking over it can be judged to reliable. Guess we'll have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post AleG Posted March 7, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 7, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. Pretty simple to avoid. Just show how the defendants who still admit to being there didn't do it.All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc One good point out of 3. The confession part needs no adressing. Witness testimony....There is no witness to the killings. At best somebody can say I saw them at this time on the beach...proves nothing. DNA.. Gold point. As you are very quick to point out that your not a forensic expert then you will be aware that many experts are questioning whether a contaminated crime scene with every Tom, Dice and Harry walking over it can be judged to reliable. Guess we'll have to wait and see. How would the crime scene be contaminated with the DNA from the two Burmese being accused if they were not there? Or do you think that "contamination" would randomly produce the DNA signature of two people? Oh I know, someone would come around and claim it was planted, three weeks before they were arrested; because the absurdity of the scenario of someone getting their semen after the murders and before the autopsy (funnily enough the suspects haven't reported any people coming around to get it), to plant it so that then the police could then spend three weeks doing a dog and pony show, looking clueless, naming suspects and collecting DNA samples left, right and center to then say "Aha!, this are the culprits!" completely escapes them. By the way, the strongest witness testimony that I'm aware off is that the two men indicted had in their possession belongings from one of the victims. Regarding witness testimony, and bringing this back on topic, the complaint from Reprieve (shared by some people here) is that testimony from UK witnesses can lead to a death penalty so it should be withheld, that position assumes that the testimony would be incriminatory and therefore the position is: this testimony Could prove they committed the murders, therefore we don't want it. So much for wanting to see justice being done then. There's no two ways around it, if someone believes the testimony would help prove their guilt and therefore doesn't want it to be part of the trial, then that person believes the men are murderers and wants them to get away with it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdinasia Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. Pretty simple to avoid. Just show how the defendants who still admit to being there didn't do it. All you need to overcome is multiple confessions, DNA, witness testimony etc One good point out of 3. The confession part needs no adressing. Witness testimony....There is no witness to the killings. At best somebody can say I saw them at this time on the beach...proves nothing.DNA.. Gold point. As you are very quick to point out that your not a forensic expert then you will be aware that many experts are questioning whether a contaminated crime scene with every Tom, Dice and Harry walking over it can be judged to reliable. Guess we'll have to wait and see. I think that all of these things must be overcome. Including the spontaneous confession to the NHRC commissioner... The witnesses that place them at the crime scene as well as the witnesses that will testify about David's phone. The DNA from the semen found in Hannah will be the evidence that sees these 2 Burmese men to the needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJoad Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. The last time I posted my thoughts here...someone jumped all over me for claiming to have a crystal ball. Yet he conveniently ignored all the other posters who knew for certain that the police were involved in some sort of a massive conspiracy (but lacking evidence to back up these theories, btw). For me, from the beginning this case has given off the stench of a "drifter crime". It's possible the 2 "lads" didn't do it, but I think they probably did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post stephen terry Posted March 7, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 7, 2015 Keep this thread civil everyone. I think it's important to keep it open. Don't rise to the bait of opposing beliefs. Keep the thread going to try to pass on our ideas. We could be wrong but let's keep sharing and not get into flaming other posters and getting into threats of defamation. The last time I posted my thoughts here...someone jumped all over me for claiming to have a crystal ball. Yet he conveniently ignored all the other posters who knew for certain that the police were involved in some sort of a massive conspiracy (but lacking evidence to back up these theories, btw). For me, from the beginning this case has given off the stench of a "drifter crime". It's possible the 2 "lads" didn't do it, but I think they probably did. For me, from the very beginning when the original cops were replaced, this case has given off a stench of a "scapegoat crime". It's possible that the 2 "lads" didn't do it, and I think they probably didn't. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts