Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[Linky]

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

In the interests of fairness any judge in the modern world would not accept the confessions once they had been recanted.

[jdinasia]

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

In the interests of fairness any judge in the modern world would not accept the confessions once they had been recanted.

Incorrect.

Judges may not be inclined to find the signed police confessions admissible, but very well could allow testimony from cell mates or other people who the defendants made statements to.

The public statements from the HRC commissioner and the lawyer are particularly damning.

[stephenterry]

<snip>

DNA on a weapon is circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence.

Guilty verdicts can be obtained from circumstantial evidence.

I am not disagreeing. Except there's neither a murder weapon with David's DNA on it, nor the suspects. How many more times do I have to repeat that? Because someone happens to be located in the vicinity of the crime scene (committing rape and robbery, as the prosecution alleges) does not make them murderers, without prima facie evidence to support the ultimate crime. In David's death, there aren't any links to the B2, apart from the re-enactment that shows them using the hoe (substitute) as a weapon. Clearly, incorrect. Which also questions the validity of any confession obtained.

It is circumstantial, and yes, if there is enough to convince the judges, and satisfies the beyond reasonable doubt criteria, then they could be found guilty. And that's what the defence has to robustly challenge. I am open-minded enough to accept that is what could happen, even if my opinion as to their guilt is opposite to yours.

Further, I would suggest you backtrack through the morass, and select information that casts doubt on the B2's involvement, rather than blindly accept that the RTP have found the right suspects. It's an exercise in open-mindness. I'll start you off with a couple:

The degrading position that Hannah was left in. Motivation?

Police searching for men with size 40 feet and over 170cm tall (as per beach footprints). Neither of the B2 fit that criteria.

[jdinasia]

You went to lengths to show that circumstantial evidence didn't create a prima facie case, then are now reversing that.

The prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon, or DNA on a weapon to establish the case. Repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

The court could throw out the Miller case entirely.... Still resulting in a capital case against the defendants with just the crimes against Hannah.

[jimmybkk]

I couldn't find any replies to my earlier post. Not even one link to a daily report from a previous trial? I have to say I am disappointed. After the reassuring assertions of some posters that we should all just wait for the trial at which time all will be revealed... Whilst others talked about being interested to see how evidence presented would stand up to scrutiny at the trial...

It's beginning to look like some people were trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes. Can no-one find a daily report from any previous trial? Or how about a report on how some evidence presented at a trial was scrutinized?

Hmmm...

Back in the days of the Roman Empire, when Christians were being thrown to the lions at the Colosseum, I can't help but feel some posters here would have been wandering around the Christian dwellings giving false hope to those who cared about the condemned Christians by saying things like: "They still have a chance. Some of those Christians look quite big you know. Let's all just wait and see how it plays out on the day before we get too hysterical. A lot will depend on how hungry the lions are..."

And all the while wearing t-shirts that said "Go Lions!"

You haven't been paying attention to the reports from the Koh Tao murder trials?

Search "Koh Tao murders: Pre-trial court hearing today - Bangkok Post" for example, it took me about five seconds to find that out; or the Tweets from Andy Hall during the hearings such as this one.

Is that really the best you can do? The pre-trial hearing of this case is what you choose to use as a comparable to back up your assurances that everything at the actual trial will be above board because the events and happenings will be reported daily for all to see? You've got to be kidding me. Either you're a fool or else you take the rest of us for fools.

Tell you what, how about comparing apples with apples? This is a high profile case of foreign tourists being murdered in Thailand. Why don't you post some links to the trial reports from another murder case where the victim was a foreign tourist so that we can all see, and be comforted by, the open and detailed reporting and the transparency of the proceedings, which presumably is what we can expect from this trial. It only took you about 5 seconds to find the reporting of this pre-trial hearing, so I can't believe it will take you much longer to find the reporting of an actual murder trial.

Incidentally, I searched "Koh Tao murders: Pre-trial court hearing today - Bangkok Post" as you suggested and almost immediately found myself reading this:

"Andy Hall (@Atomicalandy) reports that the questioning of the three witnesses has continued all day and into the evening. Little has been reported about what was said – although Hall says the male victim's (David Miller) phone was one subject. Other reports also said that Maung Maung, a friend of the suspects, did confirm he was with them near the beach earlier on the night of the murders."

So the witnesses were questioned all day and into the evening... And this is what was reported... Wow! That is a cutting edge exposé of events right there... Can we expect this level of detail at the actual trial also? Or do you think they may have to tone it down a bit? You know, a little less scrutinizing... a little less revealing... You and you're pal seem to be the experts, what do you think? Well anyway, no need to speculate, much better you just show us with these links you're going to provide, right?

"Tell you what, how about comparing apples with apples?"

I'm talking about the proceedings of the Koh Tao murder trials, you talked about Christians in the Colosseum. (1)

"Can we expect this level of detail at the actual trial also?"

If you are not satisfied with the level of detail the press and the defense (that are going about all day about making the case transparent) offer and absolutely must know every single words uttered in the courtroom I suggest you go to the court yourself, it's open to observers you know? (2)

Good lord! Any conversation with you seems to force me to regress back to kindergarten level... Frankly it's very tedious... (Come back JTJ, all is forgiven...!) Anyway, here goes:

Regarding the text which I have made bold and labelled (1) - My reference to Christians in the Colosseum is what is called an "analogy". I know it is a 3-syllable word, but don't be scared of it. In fact, analogies are a useful tool when teaching pre-schoolers, and they seem to pick up on the concept quite quickly. Not sure why you are struggling... So for your reference, an analogy is a comparison of 2 things based on their being alike in some way. Google it, look online for some examples, then maybe you will understand my post...

Regarding the text I have made bold and labelled (2) - Interesting (but very disingenuous) that you are attempting to throw back at me something I directed at you previously, with regard to exactly this subject. You posted here (Post #1741). I responded here (Post #1758):

You failed to reply to that post, and now here you are (somewhat ironically) throwing a straw man into the mix and suggesting that I am the one demanding open and transparent reporting of the trial. Let's be clear about this - I have never demanded transparent and open reporting of the trial. I know it's not going to happen the same as you and JD know it isn't, the difference is that you are shouting from the bell tower that it is going to happen. In fact in one of my previous posts I said we can expect the trial to be as transparent as a piece of wood. For the record, I have also never complained about the judicial system that is in place here. I have lived here long enough to know how it works and to accept it for what it is. I may not agree with certain aspects of it, but who am I to criticize. My reason for posting on these threads is not to voice my concerns at the way the system functions, it is to display my disdain for those who know the how the system works and are deliberately trying to mislead others who don't know.

I have asked on several occasions now for you to provide links to the reporting of a previous murder trial to support your numerous suggestions that there will be an element of transparency to this trial and that we, the general public, can expect to read reports about the evidence that is produced and how it will be scrutinized and as yet you have failed to provide any. Not one. Nada... JD has posted the form that he imagines the "daily reports" may take, but why would he need to imagine that...? has it been revealed somewhere that this trial will be groundbreaking in terms of the way it is reported? If not then why would he not just post a link to the daily reports from previous trials...? Hmmm.... I'm gonna take a guess that it's because there aren't any.

In other words you guys are attempting to comfort anyone skeptical of the investigation with false assurances that events and proceedings at the trial will be made public.

Now, given that there could be family and/or friends of the victims reading some of these posts I think it is deplorable that you guys would try to deliberately mislead them (and anyone else reading your posts) into thinking that the events at the trial will be reported upon daily for all to see. In fact, providing you have done your research, I would suggest that now may be a good time to take another look at my Christians at the Colosseum analogy...

Clearly this is fits with the rest of your game plan: First assert unwavering confidence in the guilt of the 2 Burmese lads. Next circle the wagons and defend any and all flaws in the prosecution's case. Finally offer assurances that the prosecution's case shall be validated and available for all to see at the trial, which shall be reported in detail.

Without the links to the reporting of previous trials that I have been requesting from you, I think it is clear that the final part of your game plan is nothing but a fallacy, which casts a huge shadow of doubt over the first 2 parts of your game plan. But hey, you can put this all to bed by posting those links if you like...

In the event that you don't post the links, then I hope you will at least be gracious enough to ensure that your "credibility" does not slam the door as it leaves the forum...

[stephenterry]

You went to lengths to show that circumstantial evidence didn't create a prima facie case, then are now reversing that.

The prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon, or DNA on a weapon to establish the case. Repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

The court could throw out the Miller case entirely.... Still resulting in a capital case against the defendants with just the crimes against Hannah.

What I'm saying is that layers of circumstantial evidence as to the overall scenario could support a prima facie assertion on a specific charge. In other words, if two guys went into a ocean vacuum for a couple of hours as witnessed by 60+ people and only one came out alive, the other being beaten to death - it could be alleged that the prime suspect, even in the absence of any weapon or bruises, would be the survivor.

You're correct, the prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon or DNA on a weapon, which means that there is no case to answer, if they do not provide any other evidence of the B2's involvement.

If the court throws out the Miller case (which I find unlikely) with not enough evidence to convict the B2, that in itself could cast doubt on the alleged crimes against Hannah, e.g. legally if the B2 are not guilty of killing David, who did? And why should they then kill Hannah? No, it's not at all a likely outcome.

[jdinasia]

You went to lengths to show that circumstantial evidence didn't create a prima facie case, then are now reversing that.

The prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon, or DNA on a weapon to establish the case. Repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

The court could throw out the Miller case entirely.... Still resulting in a capital case against the defendants with just the crimes against Hannah.

What I'm saying is that layers of circumstantial evidence as to the overall scenario could support a prima facie assertion on a specific charge. In other words, if two guys went into a ocean vacuum for a couple of hours as witnessed by 60+ people and only one came out alive, the other being beaten to death - it could be alleged that the prime suspect, even in the absence of any weapon or bruises, would be the survivor.

You're correct, the prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon or DNA on a weapon, which means that there is no case to answer, if they do not provide any other evidence of the B2's involvement.

If the court throws out the Miller case (which I find unlikely) with not enough evidence to convict the B2, that in itself could cast doubt on the alleged crimes against Hannah, e.g. legally if the B2 are not guilty of killing David, who did? And why should they then kill Hannah? No, it's not at all a likely outcome.

Again you draw erroneous conclusions.

With 60 plus witnesses and the DNA the case regarding Hannah isn't an issue. A reasonable person would likely conclude that the people responsible for killing Hannah through massive head wounds also killed David. Proving who killed David isn't important if they can prove who killed Hannah. I am sure that the prosecution would prefer to prove both cases so that they look better, but we must remember that this is not a jury trial. They don't have to worry about a jury saying "yes they proved who killed Hannah, but since they failed to prove who killed David....."

I rather like the tribunal system.

[stephenterry]

You went to lengths to show that circumstantial evidence didn't create a prima facie case, then are now reversing that.

The prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon, or DNA on a weapon to establish the case. Repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

The court could throw out the Miller case entirely.... Still resulting in a capital case against the defendants with just the crimes against Hannah.

What I'm saying is that layers of circumstantial evidence as to the overall scenario could support a prima facie assertion on a specific charge. In other words, if two guys went into a ocean vacuum for a couple of hours as witnessed by 60+ people and only one came out alive, the other being beaten to death - it could be alleged that the prime suspect, even in the absence of any weapon or bruises, would be the survivor.

You're correct, the prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon or DNA on a weapon, which means that there is no case to answer, if they do not provide any other evidence of the B2's involvement.

If the court throws out the Miller case (which I find unlikely) with not enough evidence to convict the B2, that in itself could cast doubt on the alleged crimes against Hannah, e.g. legally if the B2 are not guilty of killing David, who did? And why should they then kill Hannah? No, it's not at all a likely outcome.

Again you draw erroneous conclusions.

With 60 plus witnesses and the DNA the case regarding Hannah isn't an issue. A reasonable person would likely conclude that the people responsible for killing Hannah through massive head wounds also killed David. Proving who killed David isn't important if they can prove who killed Hannah. I am sure that the prosecution would prefer to prove both cases so that they look better, but we must remember that this is not a jury trial. They don't have to worry about a jury saying "yes they proved who killed Hannah, but since they failed to prove who killed David....."

I rather like the tribunal system.

Read my posts. The prosecution's whole legal scenario begins with the suspects killing David before Hannah. If they can't prove that, it cast doubts on their subsequent scenario. And you can bet a satang to a million baht that the defence will pick up on that. You can't just cherry-pick a victim to fit your opinion, because the prosecution has to get past the first hurdle of David's death - it is that important.

I'll explain why. If the trial does not proceed in a linear manner then the whole dynamics change. The events leading up to Hannah's death is as critical as her demise in order to understand the motivations,actions, and behaviour of the suspects. The witnesses will be called in a linear manner to evidence that. Although it might be more convenient to focus on Hannah's death first, it won't happen.

Edited March 17, 2015 by stephenterry

[jdinasia]

You went to lengths to show that circumstantial evidence didn't create a prima facie case, then are now reversing that.

The prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon, or DNA on a weapon to establish the case. Repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

The court could throw out the Miller case entirely.... Still resulting in a capital case against the defendants with just the crimes against Hannah.

What I'm saying is that layers of circumstantial evidence as to the overall scenario could support a prima facie assertion on a specific charge. In other words, if two guys went into a ocean vacuum for a couple of hours as witnessed by 60+ people and only one came out alive, the other being beaten to death - it could be alleged that the prime suspect, even in the absence of any weapon or bruises, would be the survivor.

You're correct, the prosecution doesn't have to present any weapon or DNA on a weapon, which means that there is no case to answer, if they do not provide any other evidence of the B2's involvement.

If the court throws out the Miller case (which I find unlikely) with not enough evidence to convict the B2, that in itself could cast doubt on the alleged crimes against Hannah, e.g. legally if the B2 are not guilty of killing David, who did? And why should they then kill Hannah? No, it's not at all a likely outcome.

Again you draw erroneous conclusions.

With 60 plus witnesses and the DNA the case regarding Hannah isn't an issue. A reasonable person would likely conclude that the people responsible for killing Hannah through massive head wounds also killed David. Proving who killed David isn't important if they can prove who killed Hannah. I am sure that the prosecution would prefer to prove both cases so that they look better, but we must remember that this is not a jury trial. They don't have to worry about a jury saying "yes they proved who killed Hannah, but since they failed to prove who killed David....."

I rather like the tribunal system.

Read my posts. The prosecution's whole legal scenario begins with the suspects killing David before Hannah. If they can't prove that, it cast doubts on their subsequent scenario. And you can bet a satang to a million baht that the defence will pick up on that. You can't just cherry-pick a victim to fit your opinion, because the prosecution has to get past the first hurdle of David's death - it is that important.

I'll explain why. If the trial does not proceed in a linear manner then the whole dynamics change. The events leading up to Hannah's death is as critical as her demise in order to understand the motivations,actions, and behaviour of the suspects. The witnesses will be called in a linear manner to evidence that. Although it might be more convenient to focus on Hannah's death first, it won't happen.

We don't know what the prosecution will present as its case.

You keep assuming things that are not facts. If the prosecution can prove who killed Hannah then proving other elements of the crime is academic.

I assume (yes I mean assume) that the prosecution will present evidence sufficient to prove both murders. I am not operating under the assumption that only proving the rape and murder of Hannah would be deemed a problem by the judges. A reasonable person would assume that the murders were connected but the law doesn't require the proof of each specific thing to prove another specific thing.

Trials occur in which one person is convicted and not another co-defendant, or where murder is proven but not rape (or vice versa)

Many things are possible still in this case, not limited to eyewitnesses, damning testimony from other migrants. Evidence of other motives etc.

The exact same thing can be said for the defence case.

[berybert]

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

Well hopefully being as we are in the 21st century not only should there be a recording of the confessions there should also be film of it. Show the film.

Unlike the CCTV footage, the police will own their own film. So any reason they wouldn't show it ?

You may wish to reread what I wrote.

Why would I need to reread what you wrote. The first confession was made to the police. The police would have been the ones who would have recorded the confession.

[berybert]

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

In the interests of fairness any judge in the modern world would not accept the confessions once they had been recanted.

Incorrect.

Judges may not be inclined to find the signed police confessions admissible, but very well could allow testimony from cell mates or other people who the defendants made statements to.

The public statements from the HRC commissioner and the lawyer are particularly damning.

Why do you think anyone would try to make the Burmese change there mind about the confessions ?

They confessed and that means they will end up serving life in prison. So what made them change their minds, someone said to them 'Hey guys you need to change your minds, and recant. That way you will die'

Really not likely to have happened is it.

[bannork]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

[jdinasia]

And no judge in the modern world would allow a confession as evidence when it is retracted and complaints of torture. In the modern world.

Since there were at least 3 confessions there's no telling what a group of judges would rule.

It is plausible that the confessions to the police would be allowed back in after deposing the HRC commissioner and the lawyer who both made public statements after the 2 Burmese men charged with the crimes confessed to them.

In the interests of fairness any judge in the modern world would not accept the confessions once they had been recanted.

Incorrect.

Judges may not be inclined to find the signed police confessions admissible, but very well could allow testimony from cell mates or other people who the defendants made statements to.

The public statements from the HRC commissioner and the lawyer are particularly damning.

Why do you think anyone would try to make the Burmese change there mind about the confessions ?

They confessed and that means they will end up serving life in prison. So what made them change their minds, someone said to them 'Hey guys you need to change your minds, and recant. That way you will die'

Really not likely to have happened is it.

You are mistaken if you think that a confession means that the criminals won't get the death sentence. Perhaps they thought like you did then found out that just on October 1st a Thai court sentenced the railway worker who confessed to the rape and murder of a girl to death.

Think about that timing.

[metisdead]

A post containing content from Bangkok Post has been removed as per forum rule 26:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

[rockingrobin]

I maybe wrong , but it is my understanding that the confessions were retracted after the prosecution decided to maximise the punishment

From Mizzima

Police in Thailand have denied that the two Myanmar suspects in the highly-publicised beach murders case have retracted their confessions, the Bangkok Post reported on October 12.

The police have also recommended longer sentences for the suspects, Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin, both 21, the newspaper said.

The suspects were arrested on October 3 over the murders of British tourists Hannah Witheridge, 23, and David Miller, 24, on a Thai resort island on September 15.

The Bangkok Post report quoted Police Major Praween Pongsirin as having said on October 11 that the suspects had maintained their confessions and repented their crime.

Their widely reported retraction was a rumour, said Pol Maj Praween, the deputy commissioner of the police region in which the murder occurred.

Pol Maj Praween also denied that prosecutors had rejected the investigation case file as incomplete. The evidence in the case was accurate and strong, he said.

A panel of prosecutors had merely asked police investigators to review the case and to maximise the punishment in light of evidence the suspects had tried to cover up the crime, the Bangkok Postquoted him as saying.

Police have resubmitted the investigation report to prosecutors along with a higher recommended sentence.

Police Maj Praween said the suspects were told of the revised penalty recommendation, but police have not said how many years in prison they may face.

Edited March 17, 2015 by rockingrobin

[jdinasia]

I maybe wrong , but it is my understanding that the confessions were retracted after the prosecution decided to maximise the punishment

The prosecution wasn't given the case until much later.

[rockingrobin]

I maybe wrong , but it is my understanding that the confessions were retracted after the prosecution decided to maximise the punishment

The prosecution wasn't given the case until much later.

See edited post above

[catsanddogs]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

[DarloKnight]

Will the translator the "roti man" be a key witness for the prosecution? He was the one that translated in the initial interviews when the accused were arrested.

[jdinasia]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

Your version just makes them liars no matter how you look at it.

I could toss around as many maybes as the conspiracy theorists but let's see what the trial reveals.

[rockingrobin]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

Your version just makes them liars no matter how you look at it.

I could toss around as many maybes as the conspiracy theorists but let's see what the trial reveals.

I think there is some merit to what catsanddogs has posted but I am unwilling to post at this juncture the reasons why

[jdinasia]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

Your version just makes them liars no matter how you look at it.

I could toss around as many maybes as the conspiracy theorists but let's see what the trial reveals.

I think there is some merit to what catsanddogs has posted but I am unwilling to post at this juncture the reasons why

You are entitled to your opinion

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[AleG]

Read my posts. The prosecution's whole legal scenario begins with the suspects killing David before Hannah. If they can't prove that, it cast doubts on their subsequent scenario. And you can bet a satang to a million baht that the defence will pick up on that. You can't just cherry-pick a victim to fit your opinion, because the prosecution has to get past the first hurdle of David's death - it is that important.

I'll explain why. If the trial does not proceed in a linear manner then the whole dynamics change. The events leading up to Hannah's death is as critical as her demise in order to understand the motivations,actions, and behaviour of the suspects. The witnesses will be called in a linear manner to evidence that. Although it might be more convenient to focus on Hannah's death first, it won't happen.

"The prosecution's whole legal scenario begins with the suspects killing David before Hannah. If they can't prove that, it cast doubts on their subsequent scenario."

It's kind of tragic how you almost, almost grasp the complete logical absurdity of the scenario you've been cooking up.

Right on your face... but you don't see it.

[bannork]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

If what you say is true they should certainly sing at their trial, for at stake is their long term freedom. Plus the case is high profile with the defence receiving backing from various lawyers and advisors from both Thailand and Myanmar.

[jdinasia]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

If what you say is true they should certainly sing at their trial, for at stake is their long term freedom. Plus the case is high profile with the defence receiving backing from various lawyers and advisors from both Thailand and Myanmar.

Remember this is not a jury trial. The prosecution asks about previous statements and then points out that they are liars. (under the scenario above)

Pretty hard to get past the fact of being a liar when you admit to it in court.

Edited March 17, 2015 by jdinasia

[berybert]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

If what you say is true they should certainly sing at their trial, for at stake is their long term freedom. Plus the case is high profile with the defence receiving backing from various lawyers and advisors from both Thailand and Myanmar.

Remember this is not a jury trial. The prosecution asks about previous statements and then points out that they are liars. (under the scenario above)

Pretty hard to get past the fact of being a liar when you admit to it in court.

From post 495.......Police in Thailand have denied that the two Myanmar suspects in the highly-publicised beach murders case have retracted their confessions,

Looks like the Judge will be dealing with a room full of liars.

[jdinasia]

Even if the Burmese are found guilty they won't be executed, at least not legally. How many executions this century? Thaksin executed 3 prisoners ( legally)- 2 Thais and one Taiwanese, very publicly back in the early years of his tenure but since then? - now injection, not firing squad, very few.

Some say if the Burmese are found not guilty the RTP have won because the guilty part(ies) have escaped justice. But I beg to differ- focus will turn to, so who are the perpetrators?

Hannah and David's families, the media, etc will demand answers.

One thing about the Burmese suspects' statement puzzles me.

When asked what happened, did they not say they did not know, they were drunk?

But did not other sources say they only drank 3 bottles of beer throughout the night. hardly enough to not know what's going on.

Maybe they were not drunk. Maybe they witnessed things that night that they were too afraid to speak about and saying they were drunk gave them an excuse not to divulge what they saw because they knew what the repercussions would be, should they speak.

If what you say is true they should certainly sing at their trial, for at stake is their long term freedom. Plus the case is high profile with the defence receiving backing from various lawyers and advisors from both Thailand and Myanmar.

Remember this is not a jury trial. The prosecution asks about previous statements and then points out that they are liars. (under the scenario above)

Pretty hard to get past the fact of being a liar when you admit to it in court.

From post 495.......Police in Thailand have denied that the two Myanmar suspects in the highly-publicised beach murders case have retracted their confessions,

Looks like the Judge will be dealing with a room full of liars.

At the time the defendants had not officially recanted.

They did officially recant 3 days later.

[berybert]

Bit like winning the lottery on a Saturday but cant make it official until you get the cheque on a Monday.

[rockingrobin]

RTP deny retraction 12 Oct

http://www.mizzima.com/mizzima-news/regional/item/13709-koh-tao-murders-retraction-denied-say-thai-police/13709-koh-tao-murders-retraction-denied-say-thai-police

Lawyers confession made under duress 7th Oct

http://www.mizzima.com/mizzima-news/regional/item/13709-koh-tao-murders-retraction-denied-say-thai-police/13709-koh-tao-murders-retraction-denied-say-thai-police