Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[rockingrobin]

Aleg

The quotes you want are in the public domain

On a personal issue I find your constant demands for proof and links quite tiresome, it should be remembered that I have no obligation to provide or prove anything for you.

No, they are not in the public domain, just because you say so it doesn't make it so.

"On a personal issue I find your constant demands for proof and links quite tiresome"

Well, who wants facts to get on the way of a good story?

So you can't show where is the father quoted as saying his son left on the morning of the murders or that it was Hanna's actual phone the one behind the lodgings of the Burmese men. If you tried to find corroboration for that you know both things are not true, that is why you (and by that I mean rockingrobin and those that endorsed your post) are fine with just saying it's out there without actually substantiating it.

A post of desperation, frustration and anger. Hope the answers you are seeking come soon for you.

Desperation and frustration is to cling to a fantasy to avoid facing being wrong.

What Boomerangutang said is just not true, and it's not the first time his BS has been proven to not be true such as Nomsod being a suspect since the first week, him hiding from the police for a week, the course of the investigation changing after Panya's promotion, etc, etc...

Aleg

Your logic is flawed, just because I refuse to accept your demands to prove statements or provide links does not mean they do not exist or I cannot provide them.

Learn to accept what you cannot change, namely I am not going to be bullied into complying with your demands

[PaPiPuPePo]

If the B2 and the defense had credible, demonstrable, corroborable information as to who committed these crimes, this whole thing may have never not gotten past the preliminary hearing so much of this discussion is moot point anyway.

Possibly. However, I don't think either the prosecution or defence has - the prosecution are sticking to the B2 case, and the defence are not carrying out an independent investigation, are they? You need to be realistic, this is not a cut and dried case that's being acted out on a movie screen. The B2 possibly know or have heard on the migrant grapevine that so and so could have been involved -but if they weren't actually at the crime scene (which is what the defence will aim to prove) it's all hearsay.

And you are correct in your observation that there isn't a complete answer to these crimes - that's why this thread discussion has over 1000 posts

So the suspects are supposed to provide evidence has to who really did it? Not only raise enough doubt about their guilt to not by convicted, but do the police force's job as well? Is this a serious statement?

That's about the silliest thing I've read on any of these threads and that's saying something!

[JLCrab]

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11313714/Koh-Tao-murders-suspects-in-killing-of-David-Miller-and-Hannah-Witheridge-say-they-were-framed.html --

“Did you kill them or didn’t you kill them?” the judge asked at one point, according to Mr Hall.

“No, we didn’t,” the men replied.

The judge then urged the two men to reveal any information they had about the murders, Mr Hall added. “You don’t need to be scared. If you know who did it, tell us.”

The men replied that they had been drunk and did not have any information about the crimes.

From the above post: That's about the silliest thing I've read on any of these threads and that's saying something!

Tell it to the Judge.

[boomerangutang]

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11313714/Koh-Tao-murders-suspects-in-killing-of-David-Miller-and-Hannah-Witheridge-say-they-were-framed.html --

“Did you kill them or didn’t you kill them?” the judge asked at one point, according to Mr Hall.

“No, we didn’t,” the men replied.

The judge then urged the two men to reveal any information they had about the murders, Mr Hall added. “You don’t need to be scared. If you know who did it, tell us.”

The men replied that they had been drunk and did not have any information about the crimes.

From the above post: That's about the silliest thing I've read on any of these threads and that's saying something!

Tell it to the Judge.

The above missive is not precise (about what was said in court), but close. The prior poster wasn't commenting directly about the B2's responses to the judge's q's. The poster was commenting in a roundabout way about comments on that exchange. When quoting what transpired in court, let's try to be as reasonably accurate as possible, as each word spoken may have significance. This will become difficult of us (concerned observers) and the press corp, this summer, because we're relying completely upon what the judge(s) chooses to recall, surmise, and share with the public, if he/they choose to share that particular day's testimony. In the 21 century, it's an archaic way to convey vital info, but we have no choice in the matter. The judges set the parameters.

[boomerangutang]

Also, the judges (and everyone else) are dealing with two defendants, not one. So, to get an answer to a question, he/they may be more accurate by asking the question individually to each defendant.

[JLCrab]

I quoted from The Telegraph as they were quoting Andy Hall who was in the courtroom. If you feel they have not been reasonably accurate, that is up-to-you.

[boomerangutang]

I quoted from The Telegraph as they were quoting Andy Hall who was in the courtroom. If you feel they have not been reasonably accurate, that is up-to-you.

That rather proves my point. It's like the game of 'telephone' played with kindergardeners: each time the word/phrase/sentence is conveyed from one person to another, it stands a chance of getting twisted and losing some accuracy. The court will have at least 3 different languages (English/Burmese/Thai), and then rely on one or two judges to boil down hours of testimony to one or a few minutes (if they choose to convey anything on any given day). Then the press corps get a-hold of it and bandies around the most sensationalist sound-bites, again with translations to other languages.

The judges don't want to hear what a nobody farang like me has to say, but I'll say it anyway: Get recording devices for all that transpires in court. Video is preferable, but audio would suffice. Get a Thai who is really fluent in English and another who is fluent in Burmese, to translate, at least the highlights of what happens each day in court. When I say 'really fluent' I don't mean your average Thai who teaches English, ....who stumbles along about as well as I stumble along in Thai.

I have a Burmese friend who is fluent in English, even knows much slang and many idioms. He's available.

[JLCrab]

From the above: The judges don't want to hear what a nobody farang like me has to say ... They probably aren't alone.

[catsanddogs]

From the above: The judges don't want to hear what a nobody farang like me has to say ... They probably aren't alone.

For goodness sake! If posters have nothing constructive to say why don't they just shut up.

[JLCrab]

From the above: The judges don't want to hear what a nobody farang like me has to say ... They probably aren't alone.

For goodness sake! If posters have nothing constructive to say why don't they just shut up.

Thank you -- I guess telling the Criminal Court in Samui under what rules of procedure they should run their Court is constructive.

[PaPiPuPePo]

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/11313714/Koh-Tao-murders-suspects-in-killing-of-David-Miller-and-Hannah-Witheridge-say-they-were-framed.html --

“Did you kill them or didn’t you kill them?” the judge asked at one point, according to Mr Hall.

“No, we didn’t,” the men replied.

The judge then urged the two men to reveal any information they had about the murders, Mr Hall added. “You don’t need to be scared. If you know who did it, tell us.”

The men replied that they had been drunk and did not have any information about the crimes.

From the above post: That's about the silliest thing I've read on any of these threads and that's saying something!

Tell it to the Judge.

The above missive is not precise (about what was said in court), but close. The prior poster wasn't commenting directly about the B2's responses to the judge's q's. The poster was commenting in a roundabout way about comments on that exchange. When quoting what transpired in court, let's try to be as reasonably accurate as possible, as each word spoken may have significance. This will become difficult of us (concerned observers) and the press corp, this summer, because we're relying completely upon what the judge(s) chooses to recall, surmise, and share with the public, if he/they choose to share that particular day's testimony. In the 21 century, it's an archaic way to convey vital info, but we have no choice in the matter. The judges set the parameters.

The original statement was "If the B2 and the defense had credible, demonstrable, corroborable information as to who committed these crimes, this whole thing may have never not gotten past the preliminary hearing so much of this discussion is moot point anyway."

Never-mind the erroneous double-negative which I also missed first time. Providing “credible, demonstrable, corroborable (sic) information” as to “who did these crimes” means verifiable information pointing at another (much) more likely suspect. That is not the responsibility of a suspect, and the lack of such information is not incriminating beyond the evidence the suspects in the first place, at least in theory and in practice where the court processes are relatively transparent, though I'll grant that's not necessarily the case here; regardless, I wonder how such information would be proven “credible, demonstrable, corroborable” at a single hearing.

Guilty until proven innocent may be okay with the OP but I find it objectionable.

[JLCrab]

And as I said, it is all a moot point because, if the defense had any credible evidence as to the identity of the real perpetrators, they would already have presented it.

[boomerangutang]

From the above: The judges don't want to hear what a nobody farang like me has to say ... They probably aren't alone.

my humbleness flew right by you.

And as I said, it is all a moot point because, if the defense had any credible evidence as to the identity of the real perpetrators, they would already have presented it.

Not true. The defense won't show its hand until the trial begins. It's not up to the defense to try and solve the crime, it's primarily up to the RTP with their non-independent investigators. Judging from the thousands of posts, just on T.Visa, the RTP are doing a rotten job of it.

Contrary to what RTP echoers would like to believe, posters like myself don't want to continually find fault with the RTP. When Thai police do something right, I'm one of the first to stand up and say ,"job well done!" Proof of that are letters/comments to the Bangkok's two major Eng.Lang dailies, where several times I've commended the police when they've done a good job on an investigation. There are times when RTP do their jobs well. However, in the KT crime investigation stemming from Sept. 2014, they've failed, and there are repercussions beyond incriminating two boys who are probably innocent, and letting several islanders (who are probably guilty) go free.

[AleG]

Aleg

The quotes you want are in the public domain

On a personal issue I find your constant demands for proof and links quite tiresome, it should be remembered that I have no obligation to provide or prove anything for you.

No, they are not in the public domain, just because you say so it doesn't make it so.

"On a personal issue I find your constant demands for proof and links quite tiresome"

Well, who wants facts to get on the way of a good story?

So you can't show where is the father quoted as saying his son left on the morning of the murders or that it was Hanna's actual phone the one behind the lodgings of the Burmese men. If you tried to find corroboration for that you know both things are not true, that is why you (and by that I mean rockingrobin and those that endorsed your post) are fine with just saying it's out there without actually substantiating it.

A post of desperation, frustration and anger. Hope the answers you are seeking come soon for you.

Desperation and frustration is to cling to a fantasy to avoid facing being wrong.

What Boomerangutang said is just not true, and it's not the first time his BS has been proven to not be true such as Nomsod being a suspect since the first week, him hiding from the police for a week, the course of the investigation changing after Panya's promotion, etc, etc...

Aleg

Your logic is flawed, just because I refuse to accept your demands to prove statements or provide links does not mean they do not exist or I cannot provide them.

Learn to accept what you cannot change, namely I am not going to be bullied into complying with your demands

Facts talk, BS walks.

[thailandchilli]

Just found a fitting quote for those of us who feel injustice is lurking in this case:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
― Desmond Tutu

[AleG]

Just found a fitting quote for those of us who feel injustice is lurking in this case:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

― Desmond Tutu

How about his one:

"Collective narcissism is characterized by the members of a group holding an inflated view of their ingroup.^[1] It is important to note that collective narcissism can be exhibited by an individual on behalf of a group or by a group as a whole.^[1] Fundamentally, however, collective narcissism always has some tie to the individuals who make up a narcissistic group.^[1] Collectively narcissistic groups require external validation, just as individual narcissists do.^[9] Organizations and groups who exhibit this behavior typically try to protect their identities through rewarding group-building behavior (this is positive reinforcement)"

[thailandchilli]

Just found a fitting quote for those of us who feel injustice is lurking in this case:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

― Desmond Tutu

How about his one:

"Collective narcissism is characterized by the members of a group holding an inflated view of their ingroup.^[1] It is important to note that collective narcissism can be exhibited by an individual on behalf of a group or by a group as a whole.^[1] Fundamentally, however, collective narcissism always has some tie to the individuals who make up a narcissistic group.^[1] Collectively narcissistic groups require external validation, just as individual narcissists do.^[9] Organizations and groups who exhibit this behavior typically try to protect their identities through rewarding group-building behavior (this is positive reinforcement)"

Thank you for such a wonderful but off base response AleG, the quote was not intended for you however

[berybert]

There have been about 80 or 90 people who have commented on the murder threads over the last 6 months. There are 4 people who are 100% sure the Burmese are the killers and are prepared to listen to no one who disagree with them.

10 or 20 who don't have a view as to guilty or not.

50 or 60 who believe the police have the wrong people.

For me 3 of the 4 are desperate for the Burmese to be found guilty. One even would refuse to believe they didn't do it if found not guilty.

I do wonder why they need the Burmese to be found guilty. They don't just want them found guilty they need them to be found guilty.

[thailandchilli]

There have been about 80 or 90 people who have commented on the murder threads over the last 6 months. There are 4 people who are 100% sure the Burmese are the killers and are prepared to listen to no one who disagree with them.

10 or 20 who don't have a view as to guilty or not.

50 or 60 who believe the police have the wrong people.

For me 3 of the 4 are desperate for the Burmese to be found guilty. One even would refuse to believe they didn't do it if found not guilty.

I do wonder why they need the Burmese to be found guilty. They don't just want them found guilty they need them to be found guilty.

Thats a good question but the answer eludes me as to why some people will be little any remark, statement or report that could be considered as endorsing the defense of the B2. They appear to be like hawks waiting for the moment to jump in if they see any post that contains a snippet that they can discredit. One even has an obsession with bestowing on us Freudian based theories and physicological inadequacies particularly within group dynamic situations to try to explain why we are all apparently acting as we do. Quite astounding really.

[boomerangutang]

There have been about 80 or 90 people who have commented on the murder threads over the last 6 months. There are 4 people who are 100% sure the Burmese are the killers and are prepared to listen to no one who disagree with them.

10 or 20 who don't have a view as to guilty or not.

50 or 60 who believe the police have the wrong people.

For me 3 of the 4 are desperate for the Burmese to be found guilty. One even would refuse to believe they didn't do it if found not guilty.

I do wonder why they need the Burmese to be found guilty. They don't just want them found guilty they need them to be found guilty.

A few more than 3 of 4. A couple of them, I could mention names, who haven't posted in awhile. And yes, fixation to that extent stinks of some sort of relationship with those who were prime suspects, but who were suddenly excused for the flimsiest of reasons. If there is a relationship (friend, family member, biz associate) it would be eye-opening if they would come clean, but that's not possible.

[JLCrab]

From the above: The judges don't want to hear what a nobody farang like me has to say ... They probably aren't alone.

my humbleness flew right by you.

And as I said, it is all a moot point because, if the defense had any credible evidence as to the identity of the real perpetrators, they would already have presented it.

Not true. The defense won't show its hand until the trial begins. It's not up to the defense to try and solve the crime, it's primarily up to the RTP with their non-independent investigators. Judging from the thousands of posts, just on T.Visa, the RTP are doing a rotten job of it.

Contrary to what RTP echoers would like to believe, posters like myself don't want to continually find fault with the RTP. When Thai police do something right, I'm one of the first to stand up and say ,"job well done!" Proof of that are letters/comments to the Bangkok's two major Eng.Lang dailies, where several times I've commended the police when they've done a good job on an investigation. There are times when RTP do their jobs well. However, in the KT crime investigation stemming from Sept. 2014, they've failed, and there are repercussions beyond incriminating two boys who are probably innocent, and letting several islanders (who are probably guilty) go free.

From the above: Not true. The defense won't show its hand until the trial begins. If the defense had any real hand to show at the preliminary hearing, they maybe could've prevented the B2 from having to go to trial in the first place.

[balo]

There have been about 80 or 90 people who have commented on the murder threads over the last 6 months. There are 4 people who are 100% sure the Burmese are the killers and are prepared to listen to no one who disagree with them.

10 or 20 who don't have a view as to guilty or not.

50 or 60 who believe the police have the wrong people.

For me 3 of the 4 are desperate for the Burmese to be found guilty. One even would refuse to believe they didn't do it if found not guilty.

I do wonder why they need the Burmese to be found guilty. They don't just want them found guilty they need them to be found guilty.

For me comments like these I can not take seriously. You should know better than that.

Nobody are saying B2 are 100% guilty , nobody! Why can't you get that into your head and whats the point in trying to think we are posting here to sentence the "wrong" men as murderers ?

If they did it, so be it. We can only hope for a fair trial and more evidence to come forward. And I do not believe nomsod did it , its my personal opinion which I am entitled to have on a public forum.

[boomerangutang]

From the above: The judges don't want to hear what a nobody farang like me has to say ... They probably aren't alone.

my humbleness flew right by you.

And as I said, it is all a moot point because, if the defense had any credible evidence as to the identity of the real perpetrators, they would already have presented it.

Not true. The defense won't show its hand until the trial begins. It's not up to the defense to try and solve the crime, it's primarily up to the RTP with their non-independent investigators. Judging from the thousands of posts, just on T.Visa, the RTP are doing a rotten job of it.

Contrary to what RTP echoers would like to believe, posters like myself don't want to continually find fault with the RTP. When Thai police do something right, I'm one of the first to stand up and say ,"job well done!" Proof of that are letters/comments to the Bangkok's two major Eng.Lang dailies, where several times I've commended the police when they've done a good job on an investigation. There are times when RTP do their jobs well. However, in the KT crime investigation stemming from Sept. 2014, they've failed, and there are repercussions beyond incriminating two boys who are probably innocent, and letting several islanders (who are probably guilty) go free.

From the above: Not true. The defense won't show its hand until the trial begins. If the defense had any real hand to show at the preliminary hearing, they maybe could've prevented the B2 from having to go to trial in the first place.

Not plausible. Remember that leading up to the prelim, the RTP worked hand in glove with the prosecution to hammer out an accusatory scenario. They kept passing the script back and forth until they got what they believed to be an ironclad case against the B2. They wanted B3, because even die-hard shelterers of the H can't believe that two small men could overpower and kill two healthy farang, one of whom was twice the size of either of the fingered perps. However, one of the B3 wasn't sufficiently cowed by the pancake seller and the RTP (shouting threats with fists clenched), so they let the 3rd guy scuttle out the side door. After all those hours and dozens/hundreds of pages of re-written 'evidence' it's very doubtful the judge would have tossed it where it belonged due to something the defense or defendants were to say. It would be going against the same establishment in which the judge is embedded in, and which pays his salary.

The concerted efforts by the RTP and prosecutors are like a 'grand jury' in the US system. A judge isn't going to counter all the efforts of his brethren.

[AleG]

There have been about 80 or 90 people who have commented on the murder threads over the last 6 months. There are 4 people who are 100% sure the Burmese are the killers and are prepared to listen to no one who disagree with them.

10 or 20 who don't have a view as to guilty or not.

50 or 60 who believe the police have the wrong people.

For me 3 of the 4 are desperate for the Burmese to be found guilty. One even would refuse to believe they didn't do it if found not guilty.

I do wonder why they need the Burmese to be found guilty. They don't just want them found guilty they need them to be found guilty.

A few more than 3 of 4. A couple of them, I could mention names, who haven't posted in awhile. And yes, fixation to that extent stinks of some sort of relationship with those who were prime suspects, but who were suddenly excused for the flimsiest of reasons. If there is a relationship (friend, family member, biz associate) it would be eye-opening if they would come clean, but that's not possible.

It's not possible because that is all in your imagination.

[berybert]

There have been about 80 or 90 people who have commented on the murder threads over the last 6 months. There are 4 people who are 100% sure the Burmese are the killers and are prepared to listen to no one who disagree with them.

10 or 20 who don't have a view as to guilty or not.

50 or 60 who believe the police have the wrong people.

For me 3 of the 4 are desperate for the Burmese to be found guilty. One even would refuse to believe they didn't do it if found not guilty.

I do wonder why they need the Burmese to be found guilty. They don't just want them found guilty they need them to be found guilty.

For me comments like these I can not take seriously. You should know better than that.

Nobody are saying B2 are 100% guilty , nobody! Why can't you get that into your head and whats the point in trying to think we are posting here to sentence the "wrong" men as murderers ?

If they did it, so be it. We can only hope for a fair trial and more evidence to come forward. And I do not believe nomsod did it , its my personal opinion which I am entitled to have on a public forum.

So when I asked jdinasia what his thoughts would be if the Burmese were found not guilty. His reply was something along the lines of the police not having done there jobs right and they would need to go back and get more evidence. He is 1000% sure of guilt to the extent that he rules out looking for anybody else if the guys are acquitted.

So while you might not take them seriously, many do.

[thailandchilli]

Somebody was asking for links to the RTP stating that Hannah's phone had been found behind the bushes, that got me thinking back to the phone fiasco.

Here’s a little summary of the contradictory statements made by the RTP and press on Hannah’s and Davids phones and their whereabouts, which led to suspicions of evidence planting that were denied by the RTP (obviously).

15th Sept Hannah's phone handed into RTP by Hannah's friend

16^th Sept 4 mobile phones found

Police raided a worker's bungalow near the crime scene earlier today. Four mobile phones, one of which was a broken iPhone, were confiscated. http://www.phuketgazette.net/thailand-news/Three-suspects-questioned-murder-British-tourists-Koh/34915#ad-image-0

16^th Sept Blonde hairs found on phone

'There was also blonde hair on a mobile telephone police have now located.' Daily Mail 16^th Sept (blocked in Thailand)

26^th Sept Hannah’s mobile phone is missing

Then there's her mobile phone, which has gone missing. Thai police are reportedly coordinating with her family in the United Kingdom to get phone registration details and see if they can unearth any relevant clues. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Investigation-into-Koh-Tao-murders-seriously-flawe-30244163.html

Oct 3^rd Rtp reports Hannah’s phone found in bushes behind suspects accommodation

Reports then emerged that the police said that the DNA from the suspects matched that found on the female victim and cigarette butts found at the scene, then further stated that Hannah’s mobile phone had been found in some bushes behind the men’s accommodation. http://www.samuitimes.com/international-confusion-murder-reconstruction-koh-tao/

3^rd & 4^th Oct Social media including CSILA point out that Hannah’s phone was clearly handed into the RTP on the day after the murders, video and photo evidence to back up claims.

6^th Oct RTP clarify the allegations of the mobile phone evidence planting

Pol.Col. Prachum Ruengthong, a top officer in charge of Koh Tao, explained yesterday that there was a misunderstanding. According to Pol.Col. Prachum, the phone uncovered by police at the suspect's residence belonged to Miller, not Witheridge. http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412601958

[JLCrab]

Per Post above: Not plausible.-- The concerted efforts by the RTP and prosecutors are like a 'grand jury' in the US system. A judge isn't going to counter all the efforts of his brethren.

Very plausible. The judge could say: "I do not find sufficient grounds to hold this matter for trial. Case dismissed.' How do you know what a Judge in Thailand is likely to do or not likely to do on a matter totally within his discretion?

[stephenterry]

JLC - try and embrace the concept that the B2 probably do not know who are the killers, let alone have iron-clad evidence to warrant their immediate release. At best, their 'knowledge' could be just hearsay. I'm sure the defence would aim to reinforce the scenario that would entail the B2 NOT being at the crime scene - which means contesting the DNA evidence procured by the prosecution.

That's what could make or break the case against them - not some spurious claim that mister X and mister Y committed murder.

[boomerangutang]

A few more than 3 of 4. A couple of them, I could mention names, who haven't posted in awhile. And yes, fixation to that extent stinkof some sort of relationship with those who were prime suspects, but who were suddenly excused for the flimsiest of reasons. If there is a relationship (friend, family member, biz associate) it would be eye-opening if they would come clean, but that's not possible.

It's not possible because that is all in your imagination.

Interesting that AleG is so self-assured about his knowledge of the private lives of several posters herein.

[JLCrab]

JLC - try and embrace the concept that the B2 probably do not know who are the killers, let alone have iron-clad evidence to warrant their immediate release. At best, their 'knowledge' could be just hearsay. I'm sure the defence would aim to reinforce the scenario that would entail the B2 NOT being at the crime scene - which means contesting the DNA evidence procured by the prosecution.

That's what could make or break the case against them - not some spurious claim that mister X and mister Y committed murder.

Try to embrace the concept that at least one possible reason they responded as they did is that they were lying when they responded to the Judge's query (according to The Telegraph):

'“Did you kill them or didn’t you kill them?” the judge asked at one point, according to Mr Hall.'