Capital punishment concerns raised over Thai backpackers' murder case

[greenchair]

Also I seem to have lost the original showing the shirt on the rock. Does anybody have it

[greenchair]

Don't you worry loony.

I am sure the defense is garnering important information from us daily. ??

[JLCrab]

From The Nation 17 DEC 2014: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-murder-trial-rescheduled-30250774.html

"(But this request was turned down by the court, on grounds that) all existing witnesses were already on the lists, including 60 people on the public prosecutors' list who are local police, forensic police personnel and footage from surveillance cameras, a court source said

My guess is that there is a defense 'war room' somewhere with a big white-board where they are trying to figure out just who these 60 witnesses are and what evidence they might be able to present.

[jdinasia]

From The Nation 17 DEC 2014: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-murder-trial-rescheduled-30250774.html

"(But this request was turned down by the court, on grounds that) all existing witnesses were already on the lists, including 60 people on the public prosecutors' list who are local police, forensic police personnel and footage from surveillance cameras, a court source said

My guess is that there is a defense 'war room' somewhere with a big white-board where they are trying to figure out just who these 60 witnesses are and what evidence they might be able to present.

IIRC the both sides got the witness lists on the 26th of December. Trying to figure out what each witness will testify to is probably a bit of a challenge.

[JLCrab]

From The Nation 17 DEC 2014: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Koh-Tao-murder-trial-rescheduled-30250774.html

"(But this request was turned down by the court, on grounds that) all existing witnesses were already on the lists, including 60 people on the public prosecutors' list who are local police, forensic police personnel and footage from surveillance cameras, a court source said

My guess is that there is a defense 'war room' somewhere with a big white-board where they are trying to figure out just who these 60 witnesses are and what evidence they might be able to present.

IIRC the both sides got the witness lists on the 26th of December. Trying to figure out what each witness will testify to is probably a bit of a challenge.

Just because they have a name doesn't mean 'who' they really and in what capacity they are relevant to the case. Even if trying to figure what each may say or evidence they may submit is a challenge, that still may be about the best use of their time between now and then.

[boomerangutang]

Is it true that no types of recording devices are allowed in a Thai courtroom? ....not even handwritten notes?

Even with recording devices, things can get confusing and misconstrued. Without recording devices, the best we (the general public and press corps) can expect is a few memorized tidbits from hours of proceedings.

And there's the added hurdle of translations. Burmese for the defendants and Thais for the court. Then mostly English for most outsiders. Already, the lead-up to the trial has spawned articles in nearly every major news outlet ww. We've all seen Google translations from Thai to English. They're gobbly-gook at best. Thai speakers translating to English are scant better. Even official Thai-to-English translations are often skewed, because Thais would rather translate in-house, than have pesky farang be involved with translation in to English and other languages.

I suggest the Thai court adjust their rules to allow one or more of the following recording devices in the courtroom: video, audio or note-taking - particularly for the KT trial expected to last from June through October. If not, the news coming out of daily trial proceedings could well be confusing and misconstrued at best. I realize the most important issues are what goes on between the prosecution, defense and judge(s), pertaining to the two defendants, who may be executed. However, public interest is deep and widespread, so that's a consideration, in terms of how the trial proceedings are conveyed to the public - which affects the public's perception of whether it's a fair trial, or more like an Indonesian or Malaysian trial, where guilt is expected - just by the fact that there's been an indictment.

[jdinasia]

Is it true that no types of recording devices are allowed in a Thai courtroom? ....not even handwritten notes?

Even with recording devices, things can get confusing and misconstrued. Without recording devices, the best we (the general public and press corps) can expect is a few memorized tidbits from hours of proceedings.

And there's the added hurdle of translations. Burmese for the defendants and Thais for the court. Then mostly English for most outsiders. Already, the lead-up to the trial has spawned articles in nearly every major news outlet ww. We've all seen Google translations from Thai to English. They're gobbly-gook at best. Thai speakers translating to English are scant better. Even official Thai-to-English translations are often skewed, because Thais would rather translate in-house, than have pesky farang be involved with translation in to English and other languages.

I suggest the Thai court adjust their rules to allow one or more of the following recording devices in the courtroom: video, audio or note-taking - particularly for the KT trial expected to last from June through October. If not, the news coming out of daily trial proceedings could well be confusing and misconstrued at best. I realize the most important issues are what goes on between the prosecution, defense and judge(s), pertaining to the two defendants, who may be executed. However, public interest is deep and widespread, so that's a consideration, in terms of how the trial proceedings are conveyed to the public - which affects the public's perception of whether it's a fair trial, or more like an Indonesian or Malaysian trial, where guilt is expected - just by the fact that there's been an indictment.

Feel free to pass your suggestions on to the judges. They have already ruled on it. The judges will summarize the day's testimony and evidence daily at the end of the day.

When the verdict is read at the end it may take hours and transcripts will be available later as well as the verdict likely being televised.

[jimmybkk]

Feel free to pass your suggestions on to the judges. They have already ruled on it. The judges will summarize the day's testimony and evidence daily at the end of the day.

When the verdict is read at the end it may take hours and transcripts will be available later as well as the verdict likely being televised.

"The judges will summarize the day's testimony and evidence daily at the end of the day."

Who can see the judge's summaries?

"...transcripts will be available later..."

Available to whom?

[jdinasia]

The daily summaries are verbal in the courtroom.

See the references here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Thai_political_party_dissolution_charges#Summary_Verdict_2

I sat through the entire reading of the verdict in the Ratchadapisek land trial against Thaksin. It took hours and was televised. I don't expect this case to have the whole verdict televised but for highlights to be shown.

[jimmybkk]

How about those transcripts?

[jdinasia]

How about those transcripts?

See the references in the link

[jimmybkk]

My apologies - I misread your post. I see now it is only transcripts of the verdicts that you were referring to.

So is it safe to say that anyone hoping to see/hear about the evidence that is presented in court is likely to be disappointed unless they attend the proceedings in person?

And am I right in thinking that even if they do attend, it is possible that the judges may at any time, at their discretion, decide that the proceedings be held behind closed doors and that no members of the public be allowed inside the courtroom?

[Keesters]

My apologies - I misread your post. I see now it is only transcripts of the verdicts that you were referring to.

So is it safe to say that anyone hoping to see/hear about the evidence that is presented in court is likely to be disappointed unless they attend the proceedings in person?

And am I right in thinking that even if they do attend, it is possible that the judges may at any time, at their discretion, decide that the proceedings be held behind closed doors and that no members of the public be allowed inside the courtroom?

Behind closed doors.

That is my biggest fear here with regards the trial. If that happens who knows what happens and the trial will IMO then be a complete shame unless the verdict is innocent. If the verdict is guilty then the trial should have be in full view of the public to ensure it was fair and not a cover up.

[JLCrab]

I do not know what are the provisions for access to the trial proceedings but I presume the trial will be conducted under whatever is standard Thai criminal trial procedure.

The big difference with the trial this summer may be that there may be a BBC and CNN satellite truck parked outside the courthouse.

[Keesters]

Is it true that no types of recording devices are allowed in a Thai courtroom? ....not even handwritten notes?

Even with recording devices, things can get confusing and misconstrued. Without recording devices, the best we (the general public and press corps) can expect is a few memorized tidbits from hours of proceedings.

And there's the added hurdle of translations. Burmese for the defendants and Thais for the court. Then mostly English for most outsiders. Already, the lead-up to the trial has spawned articles in nearly every major news outlet ww. We've all seen Google translations from Thai to English. They're gobbly-gook at best. Thai speakers translating to English are scant better. Even official Thai-to-English translations are often skewed, because Thais would rather translate in-house, than have pesky farang be involved with translation in to English and other languages.

I suggest the Thai court adjust their rules to allow one or more of the following recording devices in the courtroom: video, audio or note-taking - particularly for the KT trial expected to last from June through October. If not, the news coming out of daily trial proceedings could well be confusing and misconstrued at best. I realize the most important issues are what goes on between the prosecution, defense and judge(s), pertaining to the two defendants, who may be executed. However, public interest is deep and widespread, so that's a consideration, in terms of how the trial proceedings are conveyed to the public - which affects the public's perception of whether it's a fair trial, or more like an Indonesian or Malaysian trial, where guilt is expected - just by the fact that there's been an indictment.

I expect the trial to be fully in Thai language except for when and if the Burmese are in the witness box. At that time there will be an official court translator whom I think/hope I can trust. Translations to English which have nothing to do with the court can be done outside later. Thailand has plenty of qualified lawyers proficient in English for that assuming somebody is prepared to pay for them. I hope the BBC is gearing themselves up in this regard. It would be a shame if they left it to somebody who was not familiar with the language used in a Thai court to translate.

[jdinasia]

My apologies - I misread your post. I see now it is only transcripts of the verdicts that you were referring to.

So is it safe to say that anyone hoping to see/hear about the evidence that is presented in court is likely to be disappointed unless they attend the proceedings in person?

And am I right in thinking that even if they do attend, it is possible that the judges may at any time, at their discretion, decide that the proceedings be held behind closed doors and that no members of the public be allowed inside the courtroom?

No it is not safe to say that. You will most likely hear about the testimony and evidence daily. You will hear about it again at the reading of the verdict.

Can the judges close the courtroom? They can in most countries, but it would be unusual.

[Keesters]

My apologies - I misread your post. I see now it is only transcripts of the verdicts that you were referring to.

So is it safe to say that anyone hoping to see/hear about the evidence that is presented in court is likely to be disappointed unless they attend the proceedings in person?

And am I right in thinking that even if they do attend, it is possible that the judges may at any time, at their discretion, decide that the proceedings be held behind closed doors and that no members of the public be allowed inside the courtroom?

No it is not safe to say that. You will most likely hear about the testimony and evidence daily. You will hear about it again at the reading of the verdict.

Can the judges close the courtroom? They can in most countries, but it would be unusual.

Rather than ask whether they can close it, which I'm pretty sure they can, I'd be asking is it going to be open. I'm told that in Cambodia all courts are closed. Even a mate of mine who is now in prison was not allowed to attend his own hearing. It was all done in a room with only 3 present. Judge plus the two lawyers. Edited March 11, 2015 by Keesters

[boomerangutang]

You will most likely hear about the testimony and evidence daily. You will hear about it again at the reading of the verdict.

Am curious how we hear about proceedings, daily or otherwise. Who will give summaries, and is that person court-sanctioned (official) or an observer in attendance. There are all sorts of potentially odd developments, particularly if no recording devices are allowed (not even note-taking!) - and also if more than one person gives their spin on what happened during a particular session.

It sounds as though there may be an 'official' transcript-taking mechanism (a Thai official in court, taking notes?) to assist the judge. I don't know. I won't be surprised if much of the public chatter, next summer, on this topic, will be regarding the mechanics (and veracity of reporting) of what goes on in the court. The other extreme would an OJ-type court (with a limp-wristed Judge Ito presiding) being televised, but obviously that wouldn't be approved.

I know I can't have a gnat's whisper of an effect on court proceedings in the Ko Tao crime case, but I think a reasonable way to deal with it would be a daily briefing by a court official (in Thai) at the end of each day's proceedings - but instead of that person committing everything to memory prior, he/she can refer to written notes taken in court. Better than that would be the reporting official referring to a recording device (audio or video).

In sum, with the current official limitations placed on reporting of court proceedings, I foresee mumbo-jumbo of epic proportions - regarding the task of gauging what transpires, each day, in court proceedings. It will be difficult for news outlets to report upon. Proceedings will be about as clear as a dusty window in an old abandoned Bangkok house.

[Keesters]

You will most likely hear about the testimony and evidence daily. You will hear about it again at the reading of the verdict.

Am curious how we hear about proceedings, daily or otherwise. Who will give summaries, and is that person court-sanctioned (official) or an observer in attendance. There are all sorts of potentially odd developments, particularly if no recording devices are allowed (not even note-taking!) - and also if more than one person gives their spin on what happened during a particular session.

It sounds as though there may be an 'official' transcript-taking mechanism (a Thai official in court, taking notes?) to assist the judge. I don't know. I won't be surprised if much of the public chatter, next summer, on this topic, will be regarding the mechanics (and veracity of reporting) of what goes on in the court. The other extreme would an OJ-type court (with a limp-wristed Judge Ito presiding) being televised, but obviously that wouldn't be approved.

I know I can't have a gnat's whisper of an effect on court proceedings in the Ko Tao crime case, but I think a reasonable way to deal with it would be a daily briefing by a court official (in Thai) at the end of each day's proceedings - but instead of that person committing everything to memory prior, he/she can refer to written notes taken in court. Better than that would be the reporting official referring to a recording device (audio or video).

In sum, with the current official limitations placed on reporting of court proceedings, I foresee mumbo-jumbo of epic proportions - regarding the task of gauging what transpires, each day, in court proceedings. It will be difficult for news outlets to report upon. Proceedings will be about as clear as a dusty window in an old abandoned Bangkok house.

Hope we don't get the debacle of multiple people all giving interviews saying different things as if they were true as witnessed in Koh Tao during the investigation.

I want the truth nothing more nothing less.

[JLCrab]

So if the 2 accused are in no way complicit in these crimes, the prosecution will have to orchestrate their case from a parade of 60 or so witnesses made out of 'whole cloth'. From the movie The Verdict (1982) -- script by David Mamet:

(NB: A woman has been left brain dead following what should've been a routine maternal delivery at the Archdiocese hospital.)

Mickey Morrissey: [Mickey is trying to convince Frank to settle and not take the case to trial]

Do you know who the attorney for the Archdiocese is? Ed Concannon!

Frank Galvin: He's a good man...

Mickey Morrissey: He's a good man? Heh, heh, he's the Prince of f&%cking Darkness! He'll have people testifying they saw her water-skiing in Marblehead last summer. Now look, Frank, don't f*%ck with this case!

Edited March 11, 2015 by JLCrab

[jdinasia]

My apologies - I misread your post. I see now it is only transcripts of the verdicts that you were referring to.

So is it safe to say that anyone hoping to see/hear about the evidence that is presented in court is likely to be disappointed unless they attend the proceedings in person?

And am I right in thinking that even if they do attend, it is possible that the judges may at any time, at their discretion, decide that the proceedings be held behind closed doors and that no members of the public be allowed inside the courtroom?

No it is not safe to say that. You will most likely hear about the testimony and evidence daily. You will hear about it again at the reading of the verdict.

Can the judges close the courtroom? They can in most countries, but it would be unusual.

Rather than ask whether they can close it, which I'm pretty sure they can, I'd be asking is it going to be open. I'm told that in Cambodia all courts are closed. Even a mate of mine who is now in prison was not allowed to attend his own hearing. It was all done in a room with only 3 present. Judge plus the two lawyers.

Thailand is not Cambodia. The only trials I know of that are always closed are LM trials. Still, even then the defendants are present.

Comparing systems in other places to Thailand Just doesn't work. This is not the OJ trial or any other trial.

The daily reporting will need to match what the observers see. (the court could reasonably limit what is reported -regarding the details -as there will be other people testifying to the same topics who should not be influenced by the testimony of others)

I expect the daily reports to be limited to things such as "today the prosecution presented evidence of the DNA from the semen found in Hannah to match the defendants " followed by"the defense contested this evidence on the grounds of..."

Or "today the prosecution presented evidence of the confessions by the defendants made to the police then later to..." The defense claims that the confessions to the police was coerced....

We certainly won't know how much credence the judges give either argument until the verdict is read.

Edited March 11, 2015 by jdinasia

[berybert]

Is it true that no types of recording devices are allowed in a Thai courtroom? ....not even handwritten notes?

Even with recording devices, things can get confusing and misconstrued. Without recording devices, the best we (the general public and press corps) can expect is a few memorized tidbits from hours of proceedings.

And there's the added hurdle of translations. Burmese for the defendants and Thais for the court. Then mostly English for most outsiders. Already, the lead-up to the trial has spawned articles in nearly every major news outlet ww. We've all seen Google translations from Thai to English. They're gobbly-gook at best. Thai speakers translating to English are scant better. Even official Thai-to-English translations are often skewed, because Thais would rather translate in-house, than have pesky farang be involved with translation in to English and other languages.

I suggest the Thai court adjust their rules to allow one or more of the following recording devices in the courtroom: video, audio or note-taking - particularly for the KT trial expected to last from June through October. If not, the news coming out of daily trial proceedings could well be confusing and misconstrued at best. I realize the most important issues are what goes on between the prosecution, defense and judge(s), pertaining to the two defendants, who may be executed. However, public interest is deep and widespread, so that's a consideration, in terms of how the trial proceedings are conveyed to the public - which affects the public's perception of whether it's a fair trial, or more like an Indonesian or Malaysian trial, where guilt is expected - just by the fact that there's been an indictment.

I expect the trial to be fully in Thai language except for when and if the Burmese are in the witness box. At that time there will be an official court translator whom I think/hope I can trust. Translations to English which have nothing to do with the court can be done outside later. Thailand has plenty of qualified lawyers proficient in English for that assuming somebody is prepared to pay for them. I hope the BBC is gearing themselves up in this regard. It would be a shame if they left it to somebody who was not familiar with the language used in a Thai court to translate.

When you have 2 Burmese men being trialed in a Thai court why would you expect any of the readings to be in English ?

Looks like I read your post wrong.

<snip>

Edited March 11, 2015 by Jai Dee
Off-topic comment removed

[Keesters]

My apologies - I misread your post. I see now it is only transcripts of the verdicts that you were referring to.

So is it safe to say that anyone hoping to see/hear about the evidence that is presented in court is likely to be disappointed unless they attend the proceedings in person?

And am I right in thinking that even if they do attend, it is possible that the judges may at any time, at their discretion, decide that the proceedings be held behind closed doors and that no members of the public be allowed inside the courtroom?

No it is not safe to say that. You will most likely hear about the testimony and evidence daily. You will hear about it again at the reading of the verdict.

Can the judges close the courtroom? They can in most countries, but it would be unusual.

Rather than ask whether they can close it, which I'm pretty sure they can, I'd be asking is it going to be open. I'm told that in Cambodia all courts are closed. Even a mate of mine who is now in prison was not allowed to attend his own hearing. It was all done in a room with only 3 present. Judge plus the two lawyers.

Thailand is not Cambodia. The only trials I know of that are always closed are LM trials. Still, even then the defendants are present.

Comparing systems in other places to Thailand Just doesn't work. This is not the OJ trial or any other trial.

The daily reporting will need to match what the observers see. (the court could reasonably limit what is reported -regarding the details -as there will be other people testifying to the same topics who should not be influenced by the testimony of others)

I expect the daily reports to be limited to things such as "today the prosecution presented evidence of the DNA from the semen found in Hannah to match the defendants " followed by"the defense contested this evidence on the grounds of..."

Or "today the prosecution presented evidence of the confessions by the defendants made to the police then later to..." The defense claims that the confessions to the police was coerced....

We certainly won't know how much credence the judges give either argument until the verdict is read.

The post I answered was asking if a trial court be closed in Thailand. He knew that it happened in other countries. But did it happen here. I gave him an example of a country where only closed trials happen.

LM cases closed. Fair enough I suppose because someone other than the defence would probably be committing the same offence in order for the trial to go ahead.

What about juvenile courts or cases. IMO they should also be closed because you're dealing with minors. Sorry to go off topic a bit but the thread is getting very boring with so little real news on the case. Hoping to keep it alive until something worthwhile shows up.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Jai Dee
Inflammatory comments removed

[greenchair]

Any interesting pictures.

Who woulda thought people could talk so much without some visual aids to provide interest.

Does anyone have a picture of the bloody jandal.

[berybert]

Any interesting pictures.

Who woulda thought people could talk so much without some visual aids to provide interest.

Does anyone have a picture of the bloody jandal.

Would this be the jandal that you talked about at length about 2 or 3 months ago ?

When you have CCTV footage that makes a dark red t-shirt appear white I am sure a grainy CCTV footage can make a thin jandal foot strap appear invisible.

And again this is a CCTV picture from 4 hours before the crime took place.

How do you know there was blood on a jandal ? I have not seen any mention of a bloody jandal.

How long before there is another 3 week argument about why David's shorts were blue when found at the beach but cream when he was wearing them.

There is going to be no new evidence found by anyone on here.

It is basically just trying to keep the subject open.

[Jai Dee]

A number of posts and replies containing flames, off-topic nonsense, and petty bickering have been removed from this thread.

[greenchair]

Some visual fodder please.

[fritzzz25]

Perhaps one day, AleG and JD, will realise their opinion is in the minority on this forum. Any reasonable person could deduce that it is more probable that the majority's opinion is more realistic. To rely on what the RTP have reported is not backed up by any evidence as to its veracity - it's say-so. What I find intolerable is the total acceptance that the B2 are responsible for this crime without hearing their defence to the RTP's allegations.

These chaps do not grasp the concept of PROOF beyond a REASONABLE doubt. They have their minds made up, and NOTHING will change it. Quite sad actually....

[jimmybkk]

There are a couple of non-LM cases held behind closed doors a few months back mentioned here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Concerns-over-trying-civilians-in-military-court-30246569.html

[jimmybkk]

For those who are suggesting that daily events at the trial will be reported, can you point to where I can find details of the daily reporting at previous trials. I would be interested to see the actual way the events were reported rather than pure speculation based on someone's expectations of the reporting.