Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[AleG]

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.

The fact that the suspects had their DNA taken for analysis before the head of the investigation team was replaced when he was promoted as scheduled since before the murders, completely invalidates your argument.

[greenchair]

The dna is the only real evidence that is going to make a difference. It was kept in the Headman's fridge for 3 days.

I am wondering if hannah was sent back before or after the b2 were arrested. I think it was before. David's clothes looked so clean as if they had been washed and even ironed. There would be dna all over hannah clothes. But they were probably kept here for evidence.

People should hope and pray the brit coroner got some dna from Hannah.

If it's a match, guilty as sin.

If not, the other evidence is pathetic.

If the coroner did not get any dna.

I would have to stand by the b2.

Other than the poorly collected dna, there is not a shred of evidence to show it was them.

[JLCrab]

From The Guardian.com article linked in post #1 this topic:

"... under Thai law the prosecution is not obliged to divulge its evidence in advance."

​So how is one to know what shreds of evidence the prosecution might hold that they have not yet publicly divulged?

[loonodingle]

From The Guardian.com article linked in post #1 this topic:

"... under Thai law the prosecution is not obliged to divulge its evidence in advance."

​So how is one to know what shreds of evidence the prosecution might hold that they have not yet publicly divulged?

Actually the prosecution has passed some details to the defence including the details of the mobile phone e found at the rear of their property. They did not have possession of it and it was alleged they gave it away to their friends. Anyone could have placed it their conviently. When you have taxi drivers saying they where offered 700,000 to implicate certain people you must be sceptical if not then your a dummy with a specific agenda.

[JLCrab]

From The Guardian.com article linked in post #1 this topic:

"... under Thai law the prosecution is not obliged to divulge its evidence in advance."

​So how is one to know what shreds of evidence the prosecution might hold that they have not yet publicly divulged?

Actually the prosecution has passed some details to the defence including the details of the mobile phone e found at the rear of their property. They did not have possession of it and it was alleged they gave it away to their friends. Anyone could have placed it their conviently. When you have taxi drivers saying they where offered 700,000 to implicate certain people you must be sceptical if not then your a dummy with a specific agenda.

That has nothing to do with the matter that the prosecution may still be in possession of evidence of which the hoi polloi is not aware and such evidence may not be divulged prior to the start of trial.

Edited March 7, 2015 by JLCrab

[loonodingle]

From The Guardian.com article linked in post #1 this topic:

"... under Thai law the prosecution is not obliged to divulge its evidence in advance."

​So how is one to know what shreds of evidence the prosecution might hold that they have not yet publicly divulged?

Actually the prosecution has passed some details to the defence including the details of the mobile phone e found at the rear of their property. They did not have possession of it and it was alleged they gave it away to their friends. Anyone could have placed it their conviently. When you have taxi drivers saying they where offered 700,000 to implicate certain people you must be sceptical if not then your a dummy with a specific agenda.

That has nothing to do with the matter that the prosecution may still be in possession of evidence of which the hoi polloi is not aware and such evidence may not be divulged prior to the start of trial.

When you have taxi drivers saying they where offered 700,000 to implicate certain people you must be sceptical if not then your a dummy with a specific agenda

[JLCrab]

What is there an echo in here? There was a comment above about what shreds of evidence may be in the possession of the prosecution and I noted that, even in The Guardian article linked in post #1 this topic, it states that the prosecution is not required prior to trial to divulge what evidence is or is not in their possession.

Edited March 7, 2015 by JLCrab

[loonodingle]

What is there an echo in here? There was a comment above about what shreds of evidence may be in the possession of the prosecution and I noted that, even in The Guardian article linked in post #1 this topic, it states that the prosecution is not required prior to trial to divulge what evidence is or is not in their possession.

Not sure about echoes. <snip>

Edited March 8, 2015 by Jai Dee
Flame deleted

[stephen terry]

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.

The fact that the suspects had their DNA taken for analysis before the head of the investigation team was replaced when he was promoted as scheduled since before the murders, completely invalidates your argument.

It is my opinion that this is a 'scapegoat crime'. Let's look at the timeline. The first set of RTP took DNA samples from many migrant workers including the B2 (as per the photo showing them standing in a queue). Later they reported NO matches were found. (That's not my statement, it's the head of the investigation team.) One could surmise the B2 were cleared at this point.

From the moment the 2nd team of RTP arrived, the attention switched from Thai suspects (the first RTP statements saying that there was enough evidence to support an arrest) to the B2. The second RTP said the B2 DNA matched within 24 hours of apprehending them. The fact that there has been no independent verification and a refusal to permit this, clearly leaves the RTP open to criticism of concealment/not being open/transparent.

I'd go further: if the B2 DNAs were a perfect match, there would be every reason for the RTP to allow independent verification. That they went overboard to 'prove' Nomsod's non-involvement before a media circus is an indication of the double standards utilised in this crime.

It is also my opinion that the island locals 'know' or are aware of who the killers are. So would the local police, including those from Surat. whatever my opinion of the RTP, I accept that they do know their patch, and their contacts on the island. I didn't hear of any big rush for the Thais to apprehend the B2 and march them into RTP HQ the days following the murders. That, for me, is the biggest rationale that it wasn't them.

i won't even mention the RTP's 'staged' re-enactment - it's about as puerile as it could get. It would be laughable, if not deadly serious. I also didn't notice any locals trying to attack or shout abuse at the B2 during this - if anyone could really believe this whole farce, they must have arrived on the banana boat...

[jdinasia]

Terry, you are still using the same invalid argument. The 2 Burmese men were in custody before the transfer. The senior officer who was transferred announced that the official arrest would happen within 3 days (it was announced in 2).

The DNA matches. The former person of interest arranged for his public DNA test to stop the feeding frenzy on social media.

Your idea that people on the island knew who committed the crime is based on gossip and not facts. To know, one would have to be present or have seen actual evidence.. That limits actual knowledge to the killers (the 2 Burmese men) and friends that helped deal with things like the phone.

[JLCrab]

Well at least the fiction that gets posted here you get to read for free.

[Prbkk]

Terry, you are still using the same invalid argument. The 2 Burmese men were in custody before the transfer. The senior officer who was transferred announced that the official arrest would happen within 3 days (it was announced in 2).

The DNA matches. The former person of interest arranged for his public DNA test to stop the feeding frenzy on social media.

Your idea that people on the island knew who committed the crime is based on gossip and not facts. To know, one would have to be present or have seen actual evidence.. That limits actual knowledge to the killers (the 2 Burmese men) and friends that helped deal with things like the phone.

If there was a "feeding frenzy" on social media then that is attributable to the contradictory statements made by the police in respect of the 'persons of interest' who became the subject of the "frenzy". Any outrage should be directed at the officials who identified, named and pursued those persons, issued conflicting statements and nominated them as suspects ...rather than those social media speculators. Key suspect with the police in hot pursuit one day, exonerated without additional explanation the next. Of course people will speculate in those circumstances.

[jdinasia]

Terry, you are still using the same invalid argument. The 2 Burmese men were in custody before the transfer. The senior officer who was transferred announced that the official arrest would happen within 3 days (it was announced in 2).

The DNA matches. The former person of interest arranged for his public DNA test to stop the feeding frenzy on social media.

Your idea that people on the island knew who committed the crime is based on gossip and not facts. To know, one would have to be present or have seen actual evidence.. That limits actual knowledge to the killers (the 2 Burmese men) and friends that helped deal with things like the phone.

If there was a "feeding frenzy" on social media then that is attributable to the contradictory statements made by the police in respect of the 'persons of interest' who became the subject of the "frenzy". Any outrage should be directed at the officials who identified, named and pursued those persons, issued conflicting statements and nominated them as suspects ...rather than those social media speculators. Key suspect with the police in hot pursuit one day, exonerated without additional explanation the next. Of course people will speculate in those circumstances.

Press releases were made. The person of interest was not on the island. Investigations often have leads that don't pan out. This is one. Contrary to claims here. It isn't the first lead that didn't pan out. To assert that people cleared by the investigation are, or should still be suspects damages them. It subjects them to ridicule. Feel free to see the legal definition of defamation in Thailand.

[AleG]

The fact that the suspects had their DNA taken for analysis before the head of the investigation team was replaced when he was promoted as scheduled since before the murders, completely invalidates your argument.

It is my opinion that this is a 'scapegoat crime'. Let's look at the timeline. The first set of RTP took DNA samples from many migrant workers including the B2 (as per the photo showing them standing in a queue). Later they reported NO matches were found. (That's not my statement, it's the head of the investigation team.) One could surmise the B2 were cleared at this point.

From the moment the 2nd team of RTP arrived, the attention switched from Thai suspects (the first RTP statements saying that there was enough evidence to support an arrest) to the B2. The second RTP said the B2 DNA matched within 24 hours of apprehending them. The fact that there has been no independent verification and a refusal to permit this, clearly leaves the RTP open to criticism of concealment/not being open/transparent.

I'd go further: if the B2 DNAs were a perfect match, there would be every reason for the RTP to allow independent verification. That they went overboard to 'prove' Nomsod's non-involvement before a media circus is an indication of the double standards utilised in this crime.

It is also my opinion that the island locals 'know' or are aware of who the killers are. So would the local police, including those from Surat. whatever my opinion of the RTP, I accept that they do know their patch, and their contacts on the island. I didn't hear of any big rush for the Thais to apprehend the B2 and march them into RTP HQ the days following the murders. That, for me, is the biggest rationale that it wasn't them.

i won't even mention the RTP's 'staged' re-enactment - it's about as puerile as it could get. It would be laughable, if not deadly serious. I also didn't notice any locals trying to attack or shout abuse at the B2 during this - if anyone could really believe this whole farce, they must have arrived on the banana boat...

You can't even keep your stories straight, on one paragraph you say that migrant workers were the target of investigation by the first team and on the very next paragraph you say that the first team was focusing on Thai people, which one is it?

Nobody, ever, said the two Burmese suspects had their DNA taken, tested and cleared before they were arrested. You are wrong on that.

Search the Bangkok Post article titled "Murder probe DNA testing ‘nearly done" were you can read that there were still 200 DNA tests waiting to be completed 3 or 4 days before the arrests. If you feel like wasting your time you can search for any actual report stating unequivocally that the two Burmese suspects were tested and cleared; you'll find nothing.

Besides that, it doesn't matter how many times you and some others repeat things like "From the moment the 2nd team of RTP arrived, the attention switched from Thai suspects (the first RTP statements saying that there was enough evidence to support an arrest) to the B2" it doesn't become true, it's false, completely and utterly false. First off because some of the very first suspects on the case were Burmese and other foreigners, secondly because the B2 as you call them were already within the scope of the investigation before the promotion of Panya.

[berybert]

The person of interest had his DNA taken to dispel any reason he had anything to do with the crime. His result came back as negative within 24 hours.

So how can people question if the RTP know how to process DNA.

Edited March 8, 2015 by berybert

[loonodingle]

Terry, you are still using the same invalid argument. The 2 Burmese men were in custody before the transfer. The senior officer who was transferred announced that the official arrest would happen within 3 days (it was announced in 2).

The DNA matches. The former person of interest arranged for his public DNA test to stop the feeding frenzy on social media.

Your idea that people on the island knew who committed the crime is based on gossip and not facts. To know, one would have to be present or have seen actual evidence.. That limits actual knowledge to the killers (the 2 Burmese men) and friends that helped deal with things like the phone.

And u still can't Comment on the taxi driver and the 700,000 so at least we know what catagory you fit in .

[JLCrab]

Here's a comment from the UK Daily Mail October 1, 2014 via Google search:

(headline) Taxi driver says he was beaten up by Thai police investigating murder of two British backpackers because he refused to accept bribe to give false evidence

"Pornprasit Sukdam claims he was offered 700,000 baht (£13,300) if he agreed to be a fake witness to events leading up to the deaths of David Miller and Hannah Witheridge in Koh Tao.

But when he turned down the offer, he claims the officers became angry and attacked him before releasing him on Monday evening."

Operative word: claims.

[berybert]

Claims as opposed to what other word ? Pretended to get beaten up. Thinks he was beaten up.

I guess it depends on who uses the word.

The RTP claim to have found a phone and sunglasses, the RTP claim to have found DNA.

Edited March 8, 2015 by berybert

[JLCrab]

'Claim' was the word used by the Daily Mail I will presume to indicate that they have no corroboration that the event actually happened.

[jdinasia]

Terry, you are still using the same invalid argument. The 2 Burmese men were in custody before the transfer. The senior officer who was transferred announced that the official arrest would happen within 3 days (it was announced in 2).

The DNA matches. The former person of interest arranged for his public DNA test to stop the feeding frenzy on social media.

Your idea that people on the island knew who committed the crime is based on gossip and not facts. To know, one would have to be present or have seen actual evidence.. That limits actual knowledge to the killers (the 2 Burmese men) and friends that helped deal with things like the phone.

And u still can't Comment on the taxi driver and the 700,000 so at least we know what catagory you fit in .

Why should I comment on the taxi driver? It is a totally unlikely claim.

[loonodingle]

LOL.... you couldn't make it up..

The whole case is claims. You have no access to any factual information.

I have had access to slightly more than you. I still don't know the truth though. It's all claims.

[berybert]

It is totally unlikely that a pancake seller would be used as an interpreter. But guess what.

Edited March 8, 2015 by draftvader
Removing all bold formatting

[boomerangutang]

Basicaly if your a Brit in Thailand and get in trouble. Do not expect any help from Britain. It is called diplomacy!

I'm not clear how you reached your conclusion from this article. It states that British police have been helping with the investigation/prosecution of (non-British) individuals accused of murdering British citizens. They are helping British citizens (the families of the deceased) by ensuring that those who committed the crimes see justice. I don't see how you conclude the opposite.

Yes, justice Thai-style: with the prosecution and the full weight of Thai officialdom getting the interviews and forensics from British experts, .....but the defense stuck with nada. If that's justice, then I'm a green frog.

[catsanddogs]

Here's a comment from the UK Daily Mail October 1, 2014 via Google search:

(headline) Taxi driver says he was beaten up by Thai police investigating murder of two British backpackers because he refused to accept bribe to give false evidence

"Pornprasit Sukdam claims he was offered 700,000 baht (£13,300) if he agreed to be a fake witness to events leading up to the deaths of David Miller and Hannah Witheridge in Koh Tao.

But when he turned down the offer, he claims the officers became angry and attacked him before releasing him on Monday evening."

Operative word: claims.

Standard practice for newspapers.

Let's look at some of the wording used by the RTP in the press over the past months about the case:

‘It is suggested’

‘It appears’

‘Difficult to say’

‘Might have’

‘Likely’

‘Could have’

‘May have’

[JLCrab]

If you disagree with the Daily Mail's choice of words in their reporting I'm sure that they'd love to hear from you: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/contactus

[catsanddogs]

Terry, you are still using the same invalid argument. The 2 Burmese men were in custody before the transfer. The senior officer who was transferred announced that the official arrest would happen within 3 days (it was announced in 2).

The DNA matches. The former person of interest arranged for his public DNA test to stop the feeding frenzy on social media.

Your idea that people on the island knew who committed the crime is based on gossip and not facts. To know, one would have to be present or have seen actual evidence.. That limits actual knowledge to the killers (the 2 Burmese men) and friends that helped deal with things like the phone.

And u still can't Comment on the taxi driver and the 700,000 so at least we know what catagory you fit in .

Why should I comment on the taxi driver? It is a totally unlikely claim.

'Unlikely'. Well that wouldn't hold up in court I hope.

[boomerangutang]

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

It's as clear as day: The Brit gov't gave evidence they had garnered (interviews / forensics?) to Thai authorities. Thai authorities are the same as the prosecution. Then, in a giant hypocrisy, Brits claim they won't/can't interfere in Thai judicial processes. That's like the soccer coach telling his athletes, "I don't want any of you smoking those dirty addictive cigs" ...while he's sucking on a cig.

It's interesting to note that no one, pro or con, even presumes that Thai officialdom will share crucial info with the defense. It's like a foregone conclusion: obfuscation is built-in to the system. Honesty and openness have no place in a so-called 'fair trial.' Thai authorities desperately want a particular outcome, and they will do all the can to achieve that - fairness is laughed at.

[loonodingle]

If you disagree with the Daily Mail's choice of words in their reporting I'm sure that they'd love to hear from you: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/contactus

So do u think the taxi driver made it all up... or.perhaps he was confused hey!!!

The problem is it doesn't fit your agenda on here. You have a lot to say about certain things and zero about others that doesn't fit your remit.

LOL...

[jdinasia]

Terry, you are still using the same invalid argument. The 2 Burmese men were in custody before the transfer. The senior officer who was transferred announced that the official arrest would happen within 3 days (it was announced in 2).

The DNA matches. The former person of interest arranged for his public DNA test to stop the feeding frenzy on social media.

Your idea that people on the island knew who committed the crime is based on gossip and not facts. To know, one would have to be present or have seen actual evidence.. That limits actual knowledge to the killers (the 2 Burmese men) and friends that helped deal with things like the phone.

And u still can't Comment on the taxi driver and the 700,000 so at least we know what catagory you fit in .

Why should I comment on the taxi driver? It is a totally unlikely claim.

'Unlikely'. Well that wouldn't hold up in court I hope.

Uncorroborated claims, such as the unlikely claim that a random taxi driver was offered 700k to commit perjury then commented about it publicly would indeed be unlikely to hold up in court.

The people claiming that the 2 Burmese men didn't do it are relying on the following argument. "there are people on the island that control the police, that would not hesitate to commit murder to protect their people / interests, and that everyone is so afraid of that they won't come forward "

If that's true then those people need to explain a few things. Why were there people of interest (before being excluded) from the island? Why would anyone need to offer so much money to suborn perjury? Why would anyone from the island be willing to make statements that they had been offered $?

Either the families are in fact untouchable -in which case none of those things would have happened, or they aren't untouchable.

[JLCrab]

If you disagree with the Daily Mail's choice of words in their reporting I'm sure that they'd love to hear from you: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/contactus

So do u think the taxi driver made it all up... or.perhaps he was confused hey!!!

The problem is it doesn't fit your agenda on here. You have a lot to say about certain things and zero about others that doesn't fit your remit.

LOL...

You asked for a comment; I gave you a comment. The Daily Mail only would go so far as to say that is what was claimed. Whether it is true or not, I don't have a clue. My only agenda is to have fun watching people like you blow a gasket.

Edited March 8, 2015 by JLCrab