Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[Keesters]

They will have reporters and legal experts/translators inside the courtroom. The cameras will be outside of course taking note of all the prosecution witnesses entering the court to offer their perjured testimony.

So it'll be up for grabs as to whether the prosecution is smart enough to pull off this sham trial under such scrutiny if that's what it turns out to be.

When this trial starts this summer there will most likely be a BBC and maybe CNN video crew with legal experts, translators, and reporters inside the courtroom and outside. If, as people have no problem suggesting on here, there are whatever number of persons who are fully aware that the 2 accused are innocent and in fact know who are the 'real killers', that will be a hard thing to bottle up under such scrutiny.

To the best of my knowledge there will be no recording allowed in the courtroom, even on paper. The rest of your post I concur with

So it is a public hearing then. Well at least that's something. No phones or other electronic recording devices I can understand. But taking notes on paper. What's the problem with that? Do they have artists like we used to see on Perry Mason and other US court dramas to replace photos as cameras not allowed?

Who's going up to report on behalf of TV?

Edited March 9, 2015 by Keesters

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

.. Or else maybe there haven't any rapes/murders on KT similar to those SEP 2014 because the perps in that case are in jail on Koh Samui. But wouldn't it be just peachy-keen for the defense and their supporters if there were to be another rape/murder while the 2 Burmese are in custody such that they can say "You see - we told you so!"

If there were additional gang rapes or murders before or during the trial, that would not compel the RTP to let the B2 out of jail. That's kindergaden mentality. Of course none of us want any more crimes on the little island. What I was saying is two-fold: It's no secret that I believe the real culprits are out there. And criminals have a tendency, if they get away with a dire crime, to commit added crimes in the future - maybe months or years later.

The RTP and Brit experts, by doing shoddy and incomplete investigative work, are increasing the odds of dire crimes taking place in the future, on Ko Tao and elsewhere in southern Thailand. The rape of a pretty backpacker Dutch girl (the Thai perp initially admitted it, then denied it the next day), comes to mind. He was buddies with local cops (sound familiar?) so, of course, he got off scot free, without even a slap on the wrist. Southern Thai beach resorts can be hazardous for backpackers. Beware.

From the above: "It's no secret that I believe the real culprits are out there. And criminals have a tendency, if they get away with a dire crime, to commit added crimes in the future - maybe months or years later."

Great -- I'm sure along with the 700K taxi driver that you'll be a great witness for the defense when the trial starts.

Your wit eludes you. You're better at memorizing lines from old movies.

[JLCrab]

Gee and here I thought, since they're low on funds, they could use an expert on criminal psychological tendencies that would come for cheap.

[Keesters]

They will have reporters and legal experts/translators inside the courtroom. The cameras will be outside of course taking note of all the prosecution witnesses entering the court to offer their perjured testimony.

So it'll be up for grabs as to whether the prosecution is smart enough to pull off this sham trial under such scrutiny if that's what it turns out to be.

Here we go with the defamation "all prosecution witnesses will perjure themselves" and the crystal ball foretelling the future "sham trial". Your comments may be true of some past trials but no one can see the future. Relax and wait and see.

[jdinasia]

They will have reporters and legal experts/translators inside the courtroom. The cameras will be outside of course taking note of all the prosecution witnesses entering the court to offer their perjured testimony.

So it'll be up for grabs as to whether the prosecution is smart enough to pull off this sham trial under such scrutiny if that's what it turns out to be.

Here we go with the defamation "all prosecution witnesses will perjure themselves" and the crystal ball foretelling the future "sham trial". Your comments may be true of some past trials but no one can see the future. Relax and wait and see.

I think you missed the sarcasm....

[Keesters]

They will have reporters and legal experts/translators inside the courtroom. The cameras will be outside of course taking note of all the prosecution witnesses entering the court to offer their perjured testimony.

So it'll be up for grabs as to whether the prosecution is smart enough to pull off this sham trial under such scrutiny if that's what it turns out to be.

Here we go with the defamation "all prosecution witnesses will perjure themselves" and the crystal ball foretelling the future "sham trial". Your comments may be true of some past trials but no one can see the future. Relax and wait and see.

I think you missed the sarcasm....

Easy to call it sarcasm to cover up a boo boo post. Nothing in the post in indicates sarcasm to me..

[jdinasia]

They will have reporters and legal experts/translators inside the courtroom. The cameras will be outside of course taking note of all the prosecution witnesses entering the court to offer their perjured testimony.

So it'll be up for grabs as to whether the prosecution is smart enough to pull off this sham trial under such scrutiny if that's what it turns out to be.

Here we go with the defamation "all prosecution witnesses will perjure themselves" and the crystal ball foretelling the future "sham trial". Your comments may be true of some past trials but no one can see the future. Relax and wait and see.

I think you missed the sarcasm....

Easy to call it sarcasm to cover up a boo boo post. Nothing in the post in indicates sarcasm to me..

His posting history does.

This simply shows that with no actual news to discuss that there's no point in these threads.

Edited March 9, 2015 by jdinasia

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

[thailandchilli]

They will have reporters and legal experts/translators inside the courtroom. The cameras will be outside of course taking note of all the prosecution witnesses entering the court to offer their perjured testimony.

So it'll be up for grabs as to whether the prosecution is smart enough to pull off this sham trial under such scrutiny if that's what it turns out to be.

When this trial starts this summer there will most likely be a BBC and maybe CNN video crew with legal experts, translators, and reporters inside the courtroom and outside. If, as people have no problem suggesting on here, there are whatever number of persons who are fully aware that the 2 accused are innocent and in fact know who are the 'real killers', that will be a hard thing to bottle up under such scrutiny.

To the best of my knowledge there will be no recording allowed in the courtroom, even on paper. The rest of your post I concur with

So it is a public hearing then. Well at least that's something. No phones or other electronic recording devices I can understand. But taking notes on paper. What's the problem with that? Do they have artists like we used to see on Perry Mason and other US court dramas to replace photos as cameras not allowed?

Who's going up to report on behalf of TV?

Yes I'm under the same impression from what I've read on other sites from people and journalist who have attended a Thai court. You cannot even take notes so all has to be memorized until the official judges version is translated. However thats the law for Thailand, I would guess it does not stop UK or international reporters make their statements of the days proceedings directly to their media outlets and those countries publishing them. Will have to wait and see I guess on that I suppose the Judge could ban them from the court if they did.

[Keesters]

They will have reporters and legal experts/translators inside the courtroom. The cameras will be outside of course taking note of all the prosecution witnesses entering the court to offer their perjured testimony.

So it'll be up for grabs as to whether the prosecution is smart enough to pull off this sham trial under such scrutiny if that's what it turns out to be.

Here we go with the defamation "all prosecution witnesses will perjure themselves" and the crystal ball foretelling the future "sham trial". Your comments may be true of some past trials but no one can see the future. Relax and wait and see.

I think you missed the sarcasm....

Easy to call it sarcasm to cover up a boo boo post. Nothing in the post in indicates sarcasm to me..

His posting history does.

This simply shows that with no actual news to discuss that there's no point in these threads.

That's twice today I been referred to the way people write. Hard to keep up with it all let alone remember who wrote what and their writing styles. Plus sarcasm is lost on a lot of people so IMO shouldn't be used.

[IslandLover]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:

Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:

TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:

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.

Read the article again very slowly.

Several British police forces and the Jersey police were asked to interview witnesses that had returned to Britain and Jersey.

Reprieve's beef is that the police forces and the FCO won't comment on whether assurances regarding not applying the death penalty were sought. The fact the Reprieve spokesperson states the trial is flawed before it even takes place suggests their mindset.

One sided assistance ? The British and Jersey police were responding to the RTP request. Where does it say that the defense have requested anything or it's automatically assumed they should be given copies of everything? Thai law does not require the prosecution to share all evidence before the trial begins with the defense team or presumably vice versa.

The way the article reads suggests the various forces involved and FCO were operating individually to specific requests rather than collectively. Wonder if that is so.

No doubt far more to come out at the trial.

According to article

Legal guidelines , evidence should not be provided in death penalty cases, my understanding is that Thailand is tier 3 and the UK would assert EU minimum standards

The information was passed on informally without assurances over the death penalty

The Met police refused to pass its report to Thai police due to the death penalty, and refused to give to defence

It is not clear from the article if the FCO or Met or individual forces provided the alleged evidence or not (see below)

"Hampshire police said it interviewed a witness over the case but that, as far as it knew, the information had not yet been passed on to Thai police. Jersey, Essex and Hertfordshire police referred the matter to the Met, who in turn referred it to the FCO.

The FCO said it could not assist the defence: “The evidence to be presented to the court was and remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor. Decisions about what and how this will be presented at any trial are for the Thai authorities to make.

“The British government cannot interfere in Thailand’s judicial proceedings, just as other governments are unable to interfere in our own judicial processes." "

With regards the British government and foreign affairs an article called "Saudi Babylon" gives an insight into their workings

In a report in the Jersey Evening Post it says that the Jersey police passed information on to Interpol who presumably passed it on to the Thai authorities:

‘Following a request from Interpol, the States Police obtained a witness statement which was then sent back to Interpol.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/03/thai-murders-fears-raised-by-human-rights-group-over-possible-execution/

It also appears that the Essex, Hampshire and Hertfordshire police have been working independently from the MET, which is par for the course in the U.K.

Edited March 9, 2015 by IslandLover

[AleG]

Regarding the assertion that the investigation suddenly changed focus after Panya was transferred to BKK (as scheduled) that can clearly be disproven.

October 11, 2014: police chief Somyot Poompanmoung traveled to Ko Tao to take over heading the investigation. He outranked the prior head investigator, Panya, and was likely controlling the investigation for awhile before he put himself (or the PM put him) in charge. Nearly every day prior, official Thai outlets were lamenting how no suspects had been indicted. The most often cited reason was 'problems for tourism revenue, and and the island's image.' (Note: the reason for pressuring investigators to indict, didn't seem to be much concerned with finding justice for the victims & families, nor getting the REAL perpetrators out of the public domain.)

Anyone familiar with Thailand knows everything official is controlled, as much as possible, by officials in Bangkok. You go to any province, and ask a bureaucrat a question which is outside of their finite knowledge base, and they'll immediately say, "you will have to contact the agency in Bangkok to get an answer."

As for evidence: Sure, physical evidence is significant in a crime case, but person to person communication can be relevant. Just using the word 'hearsay' doesn't exclude what a person says. For example, if a woman runs in to a store, all wild-eyed and screams that she just saw a child run over by a car, and she has a description of the driver, that's not just

'hearsay' or rumor. Similarly, if a man confides in another person about having committed a crime, the other person's testimony can be used as evidence in a crime investigation.

There are several men who committed the KT crime, and likely one or more of them told others they're close to. I estimate there are about a dozen people who know for sure who committed the crime. Obviously they're not telling what they know now, ....but hopefully, the veneer will crack and the truth will out. Until then, there are likely several dangerous criminals walking/partying on the island - who could strike again - knowing how easy it is to evade the law. Who will be the next victims?

"October 11, 2014: police chief Somyot Poompanmoung traveled to Ko Tao to take over heading the investigation. He outranked the prior head investigator, Panya, and was likely controlling the investigation for awhile before he put himself (or the PM put him) in charge."

How utterly predictable, when proven wrong about something just create some new self serving speculation to hand wave it all away.

"There are several men who committed the KT crime, and likely one or more of them told others they're close to. I estimate there are about a dozen people who know for sure who committed the crime."

Have you considered using your psychic powers to take the stand as a defense witness?

[AleG]

You are the one trying to have potentially incriminating testimony taken on the UK to be withhold, in the name of justice and transparency, apparently.

Alex. .

Your statement is defamatory and libelous. I have never at any point suggested that any evidence should be witheld so backup your claims or remove your defamatory and vexatious comment as it's wholly without foundation.

You are the one that got in a tizzy over the UK providing witness testimony to the prosecution, therefore you have a problem with potentially incriminating evidence being collected.

[boomerangutang]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:

Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:

TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:

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.

Read the article again very slowly.

Several British police forces and the Jersey police were asked to interview witnesses that had returned to Britain and Jersey.

Reprieve's beef is that the police forces and the FCO won't comment on whether assurances regarding not applying the death penalty were sought. The fact the Reprieve spokesperson states the trial is flawed before it even takes place suggests their mindset.

One sided assistance ? The British and Jersey police were responding to the RTP request. Where does it say that the defense have requested anything or it's automatically assumed they should be given copies of everything? Thai law does not require the prosecution to share all evidence before the trial begins with the defense team or presumably vice versa.

The way the article reads suggests the various forces involved and FCO were operating individually to specific requests rather than collectively. Wonder if that is so.

No doubt far more to come out at the trial.

According to article

Legal guidelines , evidence should not be provided in death penalty cases, my understanding is that Thailand is tier 3 and the UK would assert EU minimum standards

The information was passed on informally without assurances over the death penalty

The Met police refused to pass its report to Thai police due to the death penalty, and refused to give to defence

It is not clear from the article if the FCO or Met or individual forces provided the alleged evidence or not (see below)

"Hampshire police said it interviewed a witness over the case but that, as far as it knew, the information had not yet been passed on to Thai police. Jersey, Essex and Hertfordshire police referred the matter to the Met, who in turn referred it to the FCO.

The FCO said it could not assist the defence: The evidence to be presented to the court was and remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor. Decisions about what and how this will be presented at any trial are for the Thai authorities to make.

The British government cannot interfere in Thailands judicial proceedings, just as other governments are unable to interfere in our own judicial processes." "

With regards the British government and foreign affairs an article called "Saudi Babylon" gives an insight into their workings

In a report in the Jersey Evening Post it says that the Jersey police passed information on to Interpol who presumably passed it on to the Thai authorities:

Following a request from Interpol, the States Police obtained a witness statement which was then sent back to Interpol.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/03/thai-murders-fears-raised-by-human-rights-group-over-possible-execution/

It also appears that the Essex, Hampshire and Hertfordshire police have been working independently from the MET, which is par for the course in the U.K.

Can the defense team also access the Brit info which was leaked to Interpol? ...or can only gov't/police entities do so? If only the prosecution winds up with such info, then it skews hopes for a fair trial. Interviews with Backpackers on the scene could shed light on the case. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the Brit authorities should do the decent thing, and send same info to the defense team - otherwise they'll appear to be taking sides. Best would be if British experts could be open with what they know, but we know better than to expect any transparency in such matters.

[Keesters]

Of course whatever the British police found should be given to both sides. Their mandate surely was to get the truth not to act only for one side. Its bad enough that the RTP might have hidden a lot of the evidence. It would be awful if the British police did the same.

[Jai Dee]

More off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies have been removed from this thread.

[jdinasia]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:

Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:

TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:

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.

Read the article again very slowly.

Several British police forces and the Jersey police were asked to interview witnesses that had returned to Britain and Jersey.

Reprieve's beef is that the police forces and the FCO won't comment on whether assurances regarding not applying the death penalty were sought. The fact the Reprieve spokesperson states the trial is flawed before it even takes place suggests their mindset.

One sided assistance ? The British and Jersey police were responding to the RTP request. Where does it say that the defense have requested anything or it's automatically assumed they should be given copies of everything? Thai law does not require the prosecution to share all evidence before the trial begins with the defense team or presumably vice versa.

The way the article reads suggests the various forces involved and FCO were operating individually to specific requests rather than collectively. Wonder if that is so.

No doubt far more to come out at the trial.

According to article

Legal guidelines , evidence should not be provided in death penalty cases, my understanding is that Thailand is tier 3 and the UK would assert EU minimum standards

The information was passed on informally without assurances over the death penalty

The Met police refused to pass its report to Thai police due to the death penalty, and refused to give to defence

It is not clear from the article if the FCO or Met or individual forces provided the alleged evidence or not (see below)

"Hampshire police said it interviewed a witness over the case but that, as far as it knew, the information had not yet been passed on to Thai police. Jersey, Essex and Hertfordshire police referred the matter to the Met, who in turn referred it to the FCO.

The FCO said it could not assist the defence: The evidence to be presented to the court was and remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor. Decisions about what and how this will be presented at any trial are for the Thai authorities to make.

The British government cannot interfere in Thailands judicial proceedings, just as other governments are unable to interfere in our own judicial processes." "

With regards the British government and foreign affairs an article called "Saudi Babylon" gives an insight into their workings

In a report in the Jersey Evening Post it says that the Jersey police passed information on to Interpol who presumably passed it on to the Thai authorities:

Following a request from Interpol, the States Police obtained a witness statement which was then sent back to Interpol.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/03/thai-murders-fears-raised-by-human-rights-group-over-possible-execution/

It also appears that the Essex, Hampshire and Hertfordshire police have been working independently from the MET, which is par for the course in the U.K.

Can the defense team also access the Brit info which was leaked to Interpol? ...or can only gov't/police entities do so? If only the prosecution winds up with such info, then it skews hopes for a fair trial. Interviews with Backpackers on the scene could shed light on the case. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the Brit authorities should do the decent thing, and send same info to the defense team - otherwise they'll appear to be taking sides. Best would be if British experts could be open with what they know, but we know better than to expect any transparency in such matters.

The defense team can use their own investigators. The prosecution will not be entitled to knowing the results of the defense investigation until the trial.

[Keesters]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:

Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:

TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:

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.

Read the article again very slowly.

Several British police forces and the Jersey police were asked to interview witnesses that had returned to Britain and Jersey.

Reprieve's beef is that the police forces and the FCO won't comment on whether assurances regarding not applying the death penalty were sought. The fact the Reprieve spokesperson states the trial is flawed before it even takes place suggests their mindset.

One sided assistance ? The British and Jersey police were responding to the RTP request. Where does it say that the defense have requested anything or it's automatically assumed they should be given copies of everything? Thai law does not require the prosecution to share all evidence before the trial begins with the defense team or presumably vice versa.

The way the article reads suggests the various forces involved and FCO were operating individually to specific requests rather than collectively. Wonder if that is so.

No doubt far more to come out at the trial.

According to article

Legal guidelines , evidence should not be provided in death penalty cases, my understanding is that Thailand is tier 3 and the UK would assert EU minimum standards

The information was passed on informally without assurances over the death penalty

The Met police refused to pass its report to Thai police due to the death penalty, and refused to give to defence

It is not clear from the article if the FCO or Met or individual forces provided the alleged evidence or not (see below)

"Hampshire police said it interviewed a witness over the case but that, as far as it knew, the information had not yet been passed on to Thai police. Jersey, Essex and Hertfordshire police referred the matter to the Met, who in turn referred it to the FCO.

The FCO said it could not assist the defence: The evidence to be presented to the court was and remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor. Decisions about what and how this will be presented at any trial are for the Thai authorities to make.

The British government cannot interfere in Thailands judicial proceedings, just as other governments are unable to interfere in our own judicial processes." "

With regards the British government and foreign affairs an article called "Saudi Babylon" gives an insight into their workings

In a report in the Jersey Evening Post it says that the Jersey police passed information on to Interpol who presumably passed it on to the Thai authorities:

Following a request from Interpol, the States Police obtained a witness statement which was then sent back to Interpol.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/03/thai-murders-fears-raised-by-human-rights-group-over-possible-execution/

It also appears that the Essex, Hampshire and Hertfordshire police have been working independently from the MET, which is par for the course in the U.K.

Can the defense team also access the Brit info which was leaked to Interpol? ...or can only gov't/police entities do so? If only the prosecution winds up with such info, then it skews hopes for a fair trial. Interviews with Backpackers on the scene could shed light on the case. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the Brit authorities should do the decent thing, and send same info to the defense team - otherwise they'll appear to be taking sides. Best would be if British experts could be open with what they know, but we know better than to expect any transparency in such matters.

The defense team can use their own investigators. The prosecution will not be entitled to knowing the results of the defense investigation until the trial.

Has anyone ever said they couldn't? Normal Thai legal procedure IMO don't see its relevance.

[loonodingle]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:

Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:

TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:

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.

Read the article again very slowly.

Several British police forces and the Jersey police were asked to interview witnesses that had returned to Britain and Jersey.

Reprieve's beef is that the police forces and the FCO won't comment on whether assurances regarding not applying the death penalty were sought. The fact the Reprieve spokesperson states the trial is flawed before it even takes place suggests their mindset.

One sided assistance ? The British and Jersey police were responding to the RTP request. Where does it say that the defense have requested anything or it's automatically assumed they should be given copies of everything? Thai law does not require the prosecution to share all evidence before the trial begins with the defense team or presumably vice versa.

The way the article reads suggests the various forces involved and FCO were operating individually to specific requests rather than collectively. Wonder if that is so.

No doubt far more to come out at the trial.

According to article

Legal guidelines , evidence should not be provided in death penalty cases, my understanding is that Thailand is tier 3 and the UK would assert EU minimum standards

The information was passed on informally without assurances over the death penalty

The Met police refused to pass its report to Thai police due to the death penalty, and refused to give to defence

It is not clear from the article if the FCO or Met or individual forces provided the alleged evidence or not (see below)

"Hampshire police said it interviewed a witness over the case but that, as far as it knew, the information had not yet been passed on to Thai police. Jersey, Essex and Hertfordshire police referred the matter to the Met, who in turn referred it to the FCO.

The FCO said it could not assist the defence: The evidence to be presented to the court was and remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor. Decisions about what and how this will be presented at any trial are for the Thai authorities to make.

The British government cannot interfere in Thailands judicial proceedings, just as other governments are unable to interfere in our own judicial processes." "

With regards the British government and foreign affairs an article called "Saudi Babylon" gives an insight into their workings

In a report in the Jersey Evening Post it says that the Jersey police passed information on to Interpol who presumably passed it on to the Thai authorities:

Following a request from Interpol, the States Police obtained a witness statement which was then sent back to Interpol.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/03/thai-murders-fears-raised-by-human-rights-group-over-possible-execution/

It also appears that the Essex, Hampshire and Hertfordshire police have been working independently from the MET, which is par for the course in the U.K.

Can the defense team also access the Brit info which was leaked to Interpol? ...or can only gov't/police entities do so? If only the prosecution winds up with such info, then it skews hopes for a fair trial. Interviews with Backpackers on the scene could shed light on the case. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the Brit authorities should do the decent thing, and send same info to the defense team - otherwise they'll appear to be taking sides. Best would be if British experts could be open with what they know, but we know better than to expect any transparency in such matters.

The defense team can use their own investigators. The prosecution will not be entitled to knowing the results of the defense investigation until the trial.

Has anyone ever said they couldn't? Normal Thai legal procedure IMO don't see its relevance.

They are.

[Keesters]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:

Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:

TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:

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.

Read the article again very slowly.

Several British police forces and the Jersey police were asked to interview witnesses that had returned to Britain and Jersey.

Reprieve's beef is that the police forces and the FCO won't comment on whether assurances regarding not applying the death penalty were sought. The fact the Reprieve spokesperson states the trial is flawed before it even takes place suggests their mindset.

One sided assistance ? The British and Jersey police were responding to the RTP request. Where does it say that the defense have requested anything or it's automatically assumed they should be given copies of everything? Thai law does not require the prosecution to share all evidence before the trial begins with the defense team or presumably vice versa.

The way the article reads suggests the various forces involved and FCO were operating individually to specific requests rather than collectively. Wonder if that is so.

No doubt far more to come out at the trial.

According to article

Legal guidelines , evidence should not be provided in death penalty cases, my understanding is that Thailand is tier 3 and the UK would assert EU minimum standards

The information was passed on informally without assurances over the death penalty

The Met police refused to pass its report to Thai police due to the death penalty, and refused to give to defence

It is not clear from the article if the FCO or Met or individual forces provided the alleged evidence or not (see below)

"Hampshire police said it interviewed a witness over the case but that, as far as it knew, the information had not yet been passed on to Thai police. Jersey, Essex and Hertfordshire police referred the matter to the Met, who in turn referred it to the FCO.

The FCO said it could not assist the defence: The evidence to be presented to the court was and remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor. Decisions about what and how this will be presented at any trial are for the Thai authorities to make.

The British government cannot interfere in Thailands judicial proceedings, just as other governments are unable to interfere in our own judicial processes." "

With regards the British government and foreign affairs an article called "Saudi Babylon" gives an insight into their workings

In a report in the Jersey Evening Post it says that the Jersey police passed information on to Interpol who presumably passed it on to the Thai authorities:

Following a request from Interpol, the States Police obtained a witness statement which was then sent back to Interpol.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/03/thai-murders-fears-raised-by-human-rights-group-over-possible-execution/

It also appears that the Essex, Hampshire and Hertfordshire police have been working independently from the MET, which is par for the course in the U.K.

Can the defense team also access the Brit info which was leaked to Interpol? ...or can only gov't/police entities do so? If only the prosecution winds up with such info, then it skews hopes for a fair trial. Interviews with Backpackers on the scene could shed light on the case. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the Brit authorities should do the decent thing, and send same info to the defense team - otherwise they'll appear to be taking sides. Best would be if British experts could be open with what they know, but we know better than to expect any transparency in such matters.

The defense team can use their own investigators. The prosecution will not be entitled to knowing the results of the defense investigation until the trial.

Has anyone ever said they couldn't? Normal Thai legal procedure IMO don't see its relevance.

They are.

They are WHAT?

[boomerangutang]

You (someone else?) are the one that got in a tizzy over the UK providing witness testimony to the prosecution, therefore you have a problem with potentially incriminating evidence being collected.

I know you're addressing someone else, but my spin is: I have no problem with prosecution garnering incriminating evidence. What I have a problem with is; British investigators appearing to be gathering evidence which is shuttled only to prosecution, whether wittingly or not. It stinks of favoritism on the part of the Brits. Was there pressure from Thailand top brass? We don't know, because none of the parties are frank about anything. If the Brits want to appear fair about this whole mess, they should channel the same data to the defense team.

The defense team can use their own investigators. The prosecution will not be entitled to knowing the results of the defense investigation until the trial.

We know that. Yet, are you saying the British investigators are working for the prosecution only? Do you see an imbalance/unfairness there? Unfair to whom, you may ask. Unfair to the defendents, who already have the full weight of Thai officialdom against them (plus the Headman and all his supporters). Added to that, it appears the defense has the weight of British experts against them also.

[greenchair]

The brit cops are not unknown for setting up a person or 4 themselves.

Think of the gales pi 4 that have never received compensation for the years that they spent in prison. The police and the prosecutors knew they were innocent. Fabricated evidence and hid evidence that would have exonerated them.

Hard as it is for people to believe. This type of thing happens often. The police and the prosecutors get too far into the case with their illusions. It's very difficult to back peddle. So they push it forward in order to save face. ??????

Does anyone have any interesting pictures?

[IslandLover]

Why are some of recent posts in this thread so messed up? The formatting is non-existant and it is extremely hard to work out who is saying what.

[jdinasia]

rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:rockingrobin, on 02 Mar 2015 - 12:19, said:

Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:Baerboxer, on 02 Mar 2015 - 11:03, said:

TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:TooPoopedToPop, on 02 Mar 2015 - 08:50, said:

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.

Read the article again very slowly.

Several British police forces and the Jersey police were asked to interview witnesses that had returned to Britain and Jersey.

Reprieve's beef is that the police forces and the FCO won't comment on whether assurances regarding not applying the death penalty were sought. The fact the Reprieve spokesperson states the trial is flawed before it even takes place suggests their mindset.

One sided assistance ? The British and Jersey police were responding to the RTP request. Where does it say that the defense have requested anything or it's automatically assumed they should be given copies of everything? Thai law does not require the prosecution to share all evidence before the trial begins with the defense team or presumably vice versa.

The way the article reads suggests the various forces involved and FCO were operating individually to specific requests rather than collectively. Wonder if that is so.

No doubt far more to come out at the trial.

According to article

Legal guidelines , evidence should not be provided in death penalty cases, my understanding is that Thailand is tier 3 and the UK would assert EU minimum standards

The information was passed on informally without assurances over the death penalty

The Met police refused to pass its report to Thai police due to the death penalty, and refused to give to defence

It is not clear from the article if the FCO or Met or individual forces provided the alleged evidence or not (see below)

"Hampshire police said it interviewed a witness over the case but that, as far as it knew, the information had not yet been passed on to Thai police. Jersey, Essex and Hertfordshire police referred the matter to the Met, who in turn referred it to the FCO.

The FCO said it could not assist the defence: The evidence to be presented to the court was and remains in the possession of the Thai police and prosecutor. Decisions about what and how this will be presented at any trial are for the Thai authorities to make.

The British government cannot interfere in Thailands judicial proceedings, just as other governments are unable to interfere in our own judicial processes." "

With regards the British government and foreign affairs an article called "Saudi Babylon" gives an insight into their workings

In a report in the Jersey Evening Post it says that the Jersey police passed information on to Interpol who presumably passed it on to the Thai authorities:

Following a request from Interpol, the States Police obtained a witness statement which was then sent back to Interpol.

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/03/03/thai-murders-fears-raised-by-human-rights-group-over-possible-execution/

It also appears that the Essex, Hampshire and Hertfordshire police have been working independently from the MET, which is par for the course in the U.K.

Can the defense team also access the Brit info which was leaked to Interpol? ...or can only gov't/police entities do so? If only the prosecution winds up with such info, then it skews hopes for a fair trial. Interviews with Backpackers on the scene could shed light on the case. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the Brit authorities should do the decent thing, and send same info to the defense team - otherwise they'll appear to be taking sides. Best would be if British experts could be open with what they know, but we know better than to expect any transparency in such matters.

The defense team can use their own investigators. The prosecution will not be entitled to knowing the results of the defense investigation until the trial.

Has anyone ever said they couldn't? Normal Thai legal procedure IMO don't see its relevance.

Neither side has access to discovery from the other. My post was a rebuttal to the post above it.

[jdinasia]

You (someone else?) are the one that got in a tizzy over the UK providing witness testimony to the prosecution, therefore you have a problem with potentially incriminating evidence being collected.

I know you're addressing someone else, but my spin is: I have no problem with prosecution garnering incriminating evidence. What I have a problem with is; British investigators appearing to be gathering evidence which is shuttled only to prosecution, whether wittingly or not. It stinks of favoritism on the part of the Brits. Was there pressure from Thailand top brass? We don't know, because none of the parties are frank about anything. If the Brits want to appear fair about this whole mess, they should channel the same data to the defense team.

The defense team can use their own investigators. The prosecution will not be entitled to knowing the results of the defense investigation until the trial.

We know that. Yet, are you saying the British investigators are working for the prosecution only? Do you see an imbalance/unfairness there? Unfair to whom, you may ask. Unfair to the defendents, who already have the full weight of Thai officialdom against them (plus the Headman and all his supporters). Added to that, it appears the defense has the weight of British experts against them also.

No. I am saying that the requests from the prosecution are just that.

Your fixation with the headman aside, he has nothing to do with this.

[greenchair]

Why are some of recent posts in this thread so messed up? The formatting is non-existant and it is extremely hard to work out who is saying what.

Because we in our goodness are blindly drawn into senseless arguments in order to derail our investigations. These arguments are meticulously designed to take the spotlight off certain people.and in many cases have our important discussions closed down and or deleted.

Let's focus on interesting persons shall we.

Sean

Nomsod

Mon

Monlada

The foreigner

Matt

Tom

Stingray man

Muang Muang

Wei

Zaw

[berybert]

I have to agree with GC. What is the point of having the same arguments with the same people about the same subjects every 2 weeks.

If you are hoping to find the one little bit of info that could help in clearing someone being accused of murder, it isn't going to be found in a 4 month old argument.

[Jai Dee]

One post containing excessive mixed up quotes and one post criticizing moderation have been removed from this thread.

[loonodingle]

For all the chat has anyone on here actually put forward any evidence that helps the defence or prosecution. I am not talking about blogs but actual hard evidence. That's is to both sides of the defence.

[greenchair]

It seems we have been deceived into believing these are 2 different pictures. 1 is the tshirt on the rock and 1 is the tshirt in what I imagine is the police display.

In fact both t shirts are the same shirt exactly but given the allusion of having a different picture taking in different locations.

The question is.

Which is the original?