Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[fritzzz25]

"Yes it is too serious a matter to be making things about."

Yes it is, now substantiate your claims that:

"The defendants' lawyer statement........... Obtained under duress and after torture

The HRC commissioner.................... Obtained under duress and after torture.

The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie.

Don't start rambling about other things, you made some claims, show us were they come from.

Can you do that?

I specially want to know about the one about being paid to lie, how do you know that?

Sorry but you first. You have made one claim after another, invented one story after another, taken peoples words and twisted them further than thought possible.

I specially want to know about the bloody condom. I call you a liar on that. Now would you like to prove me wrong ? And if you cant prove me wrong can we take it anything you have said is true ?

Or are we to believe you just want to see justice done and you have no connection to people on Koh Tao ?

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

You are backing things up with MEDIA reporting. NOTHING is fact until it is entered at trial and ADMITTED as evidence.

[fritzzz25]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Again, not admitted evidence. Hearsay from the media........

[fritzzz25]

Yet there were 2 other confessions. To the lawyer (public statements) and to the HRC commissioner.

The mobile phone ties everything together.

Not admitted evidence. Rumour and speculation. Hearsay.

[AleG]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Again, not admitted evidence. Hearsay from the media........

A press article directly quoting the defense lawyers is not hearsay.

[AleG]

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

You are backing things up with MEDIA reporting. NOTHING is fact until it is entered at trial and ADMITTED as evidence.

Reality doesn't work like that.

[fritzzz25]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Again, not admitted evidence. Hearsay from the media........

A press article directly quoting the defense lawyers is not hearsay.

Until ANYTHING is admitted at trial, it is hearsay. Lawyers do NOT get sworn in to give evidence in court and do NOT give evidence in court unless called as a witness.

[fritzzz25]

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

You are backing things up with MEDIA reporting. NOTHING is fact until it is entered at trial and ADMITTED as evidence.

Reality doesn't work like that.

Please tell us how court works then. I await your detailed response.

[AleG]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

Again, not admitted evidence. Hearsay from the media........

A press article directly quoting the defense lawyers is not hearsay.

Until ANYTHING is admitted at trial, it is hearsay. Lawyers do NOT get sworn in to give evidence in court and do NOT give evidence in court unless called as a witness.

You can use caps as much as you like and it won't change the fact that they confessed to their own lawyers to the murders. Unless you want to claim that the lawyers were lying when they were interviewed.

If that is going to be used during the trial is a different matter.

[jdinasia]

Yet there were 2 other confessions. To the lawyer (public statements) and to the HRC commissioner.

The mobile phone ties everything together.

Not admitted evidence. Rumour and speculation. Hearsay.

Nope - direct statements made to the press is admissible in Thailand. The HRC commissioner 's statement regarding the 2 Burmese defendants confessions also admissible.

What is not admissible are claims like blunt force trauma can never cause lacerations.

[AleG]

Reality doesn't work like that.

Please tell us how court works then. I await your detailed response.

Why should I bother with that if it has nothing to do with what I said?

[berybert]

With refarance to the Condom , a couple of points

When blood is found on a piece of evidence or item then this is not usually described as dna , but as blood

If blood was indeed discovered on the condom then how can it be declared as having no relevance

If it was there before the crime it's not relevant to the murders, or if there is nothing else to link it to the murder than a drop of blood (there were blood splatters everywhere) then you can't establish that is relevant to the murder.

This condom is very relevant. This is another item the defense should ask to do another DNA test on assuming it hasn't been destroyed.

A condom on the beach next to the victim that has DNA on the outside but none on the inside. So retest it and find out if it truly has no DNA on the inside or maybe the test will reveal it does have DNA on the inside which is further proof of a cover up.

[Thai at Heart]

The argument is about crime scene contamination, and how semen from men caught three weeks later could end up there due to said contamination.

You say it was planted? Then what?, the police went around like headless chicken for three weeks until they though the time was right to arrest the men they had framed all along?

Never mind explaining how and when they got the samples from the "scapegoats" in the first place (which they somehow forgot about since they haven't mentioned any of it)

Try to think things through.

As for the 3 sets of DNA, you are confabulating things, it was two from the accused in the body and the third in a cigarette butt. I think I explained that to you before, didn't I? With citations and all that. Are you going to keep asking the same questions, or rather peddling the same innuendo, over and over again?

"Blond hairs" found in the body of a blond person, that recently hung around with blond friends... yes, what of it? The police said they couldn't extract DNA from it so it was a dead end as far as I know. You know better, I'm all ears.

"hoes that make shapes that no hoe could ever make," Well, thank you for your expert forensic analysis, but one thing, how do you know those cuts were caused by the hoe?

"condoms with DNA on one side but not the other" One condom, so you are already up to a shaky start; what I know about that is that it was determined to not be related to the crime, it was just laying there and blood drops fell on it. And yes, condoms laying on the beach, specially in a "party" island is not uncommon.

As for the defense seeing the evidence that's what a trial is for.

Ok so this condom, we all assumed it had semen on it, you know it was blood ?

Wasn't it you who said just a small while ago that there had to be contamination of the murder scene or the bodies would have just floated out to sea ?

Strange then that a condom made of rubber didn't float out to sea. And we can assume the sea washed it as it was free from semen because as you have stated it just had a few drops of blood on it. Can I ask where you got the information about the condom having blood on it, I and I'm sure many others would be interested to read this, or is it just another thing you have made up ?

Going back to the Burmese DNA the question of how did they get the Burmese DNA planted into the body. Have you not worked out yet that there was never any Burmese DNA in the body ? Just from DNA from the cigarettes they bought.

When I mention the RTP being totally corrupt and being more than will to plant evidence I also think they would be more than willing to invent evidence.

The blond hair was from one of the Burmese that had dyed his hair, you must have read that ? It was a factual police statement. Despite pictures showing the person in question having black hair 3 or 4 hours before the murders.

"Ok so this condom, we all assumed it had semen on it,"

No, you assumed, then expect others to explain why your assumptions don't make sense. How about you explain your own assumptions instead?.

"Going back to the Burmese DNA the question of how did they get the Burmese DNA planted into the body. Have you not worked out yet that there was never any Burmese DNA in the body ? Just from DNA from the cigarettes they bought."

No, I haven't worked it out because I'm not in the habit of turning my assumptions into statements of fact.

You claim there was never any DNA from the Burmese suspects in the body, and tell me that I make things up... right.

The DNA in the cigarettes on the other hand, totally legit to you; so when the police say they found DNA in the body you declare that to be false, when they say there's DNA in the cigarettes that's true; make up your mind.

That meaning doesn't mean they confessed to their lawyers, but that they have confessed. You are drawing a wrong inference from this statement.

[Thai at Heart]

"Yes it is too serious a matter to be making things about."

Yes it is, now substantiate your claims that:

"The defendants' lawyer statement........... Obtained under duress and after torture

The HRC commissioner.................... Obtained under duress and after torture.

The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie.

Don't start rambling about other things, you made some claims, show us were they come from.

Can you do that?

I specially want to know about the one about being paid to lie, how do you know that?

Sorry but you first. You have made one claim after another, invented one story after another, taken peoples words and twisted them further than thought possible.

I specially want to know about the bloody condom. I call you a liar on that. Now would you like to prove me wrong ? And if you cant prove me wrong can we take it anything you have said is true ?

Or are we to believe you just want to see justice done and you have no connection to people on Koh Tao ?

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

You are backing things up with MEDIA reporting. NOTHING is fact until it is entered at trial and ADMITTED as evidence.

Astonishingly, the associated link to the Aussie website doesn't even contain the word blood. The statement about blood on the condom is not contained in that article.

[catsanddogs]

Yet there were 2 other confessions. To the lawyer (public statements) and to the HRC commissioner.

The mobile phone ties everything together.

Not admitted evidence. Rumour and speculation. Hearsay.

In your dreams JD.

[cumgranosalum]

"Yes it is too serious a matter to be making things about."

Yes it is, now substantiate your claims that:

"The defendants' lawyer statement........... Obtained under duress and after torture

The HRC commissioner.................... Obtained under duress and after torture.

The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie.

Don't start rambling about other things, you made some claims, show us were they come from.

Can you do that?

I specially want to know about the one about being paid to lie, how do you know that?

Sorry but you first. You have made one claim after another, invented one story after another, taken peoples words and twisted them further than thought possible.

I specially want to know about the bloody condom. I call you a liar on that. Now would you like to prove me wrong ? And if you cant prove me wrong can we take it anything you have said is true ?

Or are we to believe you just want to see justice done and you have no connection to people on Koh Tao ?

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

"You see, when I say something I can back it up." - REALLY?

All this shows is that you have absolutely no idea what a reference or citation should be.......it actually shows too you have no idea what evidence is or how it is handled.

[Scott]

A post has been removed. A continued effort to identify the names or other information about posters will result in suspensions. This topic is not about any forum member.

[cumgranosalum]

OK, you conveniently decline to comment on the independent testing of the DNA.

Let's rephrase items 2 and 3:- The statements obtained under duress and torture that the defendant's lawyer, and HRC commissioner have/have seen/have access to.

Anyway, the statements should be disregarded by the court anyway, regardless of whether they were under duress or torture, as the defendants didn't have legal representation present when the statements were taken. (another b@#$%^p by the RTP)

Re the phone, I believe there is still quite a bit of controversy over the phone - was it in "their" possession (a jointly owned phone?) or was the one that was "found" in the garden area next to their house?

No, the DNA samples have not been independently tested, that's what the trial is for.

The phone is the one found behind their lodgings, there's at least two witnesses saying they were given the phone by the men on trial and their own defense team admits they "found" it on the day of the murders.

Now, how about you ask Berybert to substantiate his claims that they were paid to lie about it?

As for this:

"Anyway, the statements should be disregarded by the court anyway, regardless of whether they were under duress or torture, as the defendants didn't have legal representation present when the statements were taken. (another b@#$%^p by the RTP)"

That is incorrect.

"Lawyer Aung Myo Thant said the pair, Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, from the Arakanese town of Kyaukphyu, told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe on 15 September"

Is it too difficult to refrain from making things up regarding the case? It's not a trivial matter.

Very cheeky AleG........

Your quote from your link is conveniently truncated by you to distort the message.

Here is another paragraph from the same article.

A lawyer contracted by the Burmese embassy to defend two Burmese migrants accused of murdering a British couple on the Thai island of Koh Tao said the men confessed to the crimes on Monday, but told the legal team they had been tortured.

Lawyer Aung Myo Thant said the pair, Zaw Lin and Win Zaw Htun, both 21, from the Arakanese town of Kyaukphyu, told a Burmese embassy legal team they had murdered English tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller by bludgeoning them to death with a hoe on 15 September. However, he said, their stories were “somewhat inconsistent” and “their faces portrayed fear”.

The interpretation of the article is a little dependant on how much you want to see them swing ... and we know how much you want to pull the lever.

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

"they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation" -

..........and if this actually occurred (not just in the media) you see this as acceptable legal procedure?

If your lawyers went to the press and divulged your case before going to court, would you be happy?

[AleG]

Let's recap:

Sambum said they had no legal representation when they confessed, I pointed out the fact that they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation besides confessing to the police and the HRC; were is the distortion?

"they confessed to the murders to their own legal representation" -

..........and if this actually occurred (not just in the media) you see this as acceptable legal procedure?

If your lawyers went to the press and divulged your case before going to court, would you be happy?

If it actually happened? You are claiming the journalists that interviewed their legal team blatantly lied about what they said?

If my lawyers prejudiced my case like that I wouldn't be happy, but this is not about me.

[AleG]

Sorry but you first. You have made one claim after another, invented one story after another, taken peoples words and twisted them further than thought possible.

I specially want to know about the bloody condom. I call you a liar on that. Now would you like to prove me wrong ? And if you cant prove me wrong can we take it anything you have said is true ?

Or are we to believe you just want to see justice done and you have no connection to people on Koh Tao ?

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

"You see, when I say something I can back it up." - REALLY?

All this shows is that you have absolutely no idea what a reference or citation should be.......it actually shows too you have no idea what evidence is or how it is handled.

Yes, really; I can provide a source from where I gained the information; whether you like the source or not (and I don't place a lot of credibility on that source) is up to you. I clearly said that all I know about the condom is what it is said in that link, you know better? I'm all ears.

Now, are you going to lecture Berybery about citations in relation to his claim that "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."?

[ScarpoFongness4U]

The case could be thrown out. Then again, the case has enough to work with to go forward in all likelihood.

DNA

The defendants' lawyer statement.

The HRC commissioner

The Burmese who had the phone.

DNA................ No independent testing done.

The defendants' lawyer statement........... Obtained under duress and after torture

The HRC commissioner.................... Obtained under duress and after torture.

The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie.

So their lawyer and the HRC tortured them into confession?

By the way, the torture allegations are that one of them claims to have been hit four times, which apparently didn't leave any marks, the other one didn't mention any such "torture".

As for paying to lie, it is the defense team and the men on trial that have admitted to having the phone since the day of the murders.

There was never a confession in a language understood by the RTP. It is a 3rd party, hearsay confession

The cell phone caper is a farce

Yet there were 2 other confessions. To the lawyer (public statements) and to the HRC commissioner.

The mobile phone ties everything together.

It was never announced that a fingerprint was ever lifted off any phones

there was a very public embarrassment though when the police change their story twice about the cell phone after the social media bandits pointed out it was right there on the cops desk the morning of the murder

[ScarpoFongness4U]

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

[cumgranosalum]

Sorry but you first. You have made one claim after another, invented one story after another, taken peoples words and twisted them further than thought possible.

I specially want to know about the bloody condom. I call you a liar on that. Now would you like to prove me wrong ? And if you cant prove me wrong can we take it anything you have said is true ?

Or are we to believe you just want to see justice done and you have no connection to people on Koh Tao ?

This is all I have heard about the condom you are so obsessed about:

Condom found

• initially said to contain victim HWs DNA on the outside

• no other DNA (inside)

• re-enactment: it is considered unrelated to the crime

• only blood drop of victim HW was found on the condom

You see, when I say something I can back it up.

Now, I'll make it very simple for you, you said "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."

How do you know they were paid to lie?

"You see, when I say something I can back it up." - REALLY?

All this shows is that you have absolutely no idea what a reference or citation should be.......it actually shows too you have no idea what evidence is or how it is handled.

Yes, really; I can provide a source from where I gained the information; whether you like the source or not (and I don't place a lot of credibility on that source) is up to you. I clearly said that all I know about the condom is what it is said in that link, you know better? I'm all ears.

Now, are you going to lecture Berybery about citations in relation to his claim that "The Burmese who had the phone.................. Who have been paid to lie."?

I think we've all seen that your concept of "source" is quite unacceptable and you really have no idea on how to present of analyse evidence.

Those who repeatedly rely on either querying sources or demanding them of others usually don't actually have a genuine argument, they just fall back on this old chestnut to hide the inadequacies of their hypotheses.

wat the above poster and several others fail to comprehend is they aren't even arguing the real point - discussing who is or isn't guilty is not how you discuss the validity of t a case's procedures.....they are way off the topic but persistently fail to realise it al they do is show they have only a very tenuous grasp of what is actually happening.

[jdinasia]

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

[fritzzz25]

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

Those persons are in a privileged position. Very easy for the defence team to argue this. Even you know that JD.....

No doubt there needs to be members of the UN at this trial to ensure the courts know they are being watched. The world knows of the corruption, this is their "time to shine" and eat crow and show the world that they have a shred of decency left. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be DNA collected on behalf of the defence from the "other" suspects. It is just a matter of when..... that discarded cigarette butt, that empty soda can.....

And here is a classic case of police tunnel vision. Pretty much the same scenario these two boys are in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Milgaard

Edited June 11, 2015 by fritzzz25

[JLCrab]

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf esp. Article 14

Thailand ratified and became party 29 OCT 1996

Edited June 11, 2015 by JLCrab

[jdinasia]

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf esp. Article 14

Thailand ratified and became party 29 OCT 1996

Is there something specific in that 92 pager that we should be looking for?

[JLCrab]

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf esp. Article 14

Thailand ratified and became party 29 OCT 1996

As acove -- Article 14

[jdinasia]

confessions came through the pancake man they are not legit

confessions came after they were beaten threatened with drowniir and had plastic bags put over their head

even alqueda confesses when that happens

when they have a lawyer all they do is confirm to the lawyer that they confessed but as soon as the pancake theater was out of the room they immediately said they were tortured

confessions are as bogus as seeing those boys are involved in the murders

The confessions to the police will probably not be admissible in court.

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner can be called to testify about the confessions made to them. (not the roti vendor- the lawyer and the HRC commissioner didn't use the roti vendor for translation)

Those persons are in a privileged position. Very easy for the defence team to argue this. Even you know that JD.....

No doubt there needs to be members of the UN at this trial to ensure the courts know they are being watched. The world knows of the corruption, this is their "time to shine" and eat crow and show the world that they have a shred of decency left. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be DNA collected on behalf of the defence from the "other" suspects. It is just a matter of when..... that discarded cigarette butt, that empty soda can.....

And here is a classic case of police tunnel vision. Pretty much the same scenario these two boys are in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Milgaard

Privileged positions? Yes, lawyer for the defense, and a Human Rights Commissioner. Both of whom made public statements that the 2 Burmese defendants told them that they did it.

[jdinasia]

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf esp. Article 14

Thailand ratified and became party 29 OCT 1996

As acove -- Article 14

Thanks, sorry missed it the first time!

[fritzzz25]

http://www.nhrc.or.th/en/file/International_Obligations/12.pdf

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Excerpt from preamble:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Article

Article 1 - All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. <- Clearly breached in this case.

Article 2 - Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. <- Another case of prejudice against these two men

Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. <- Allegations of torture by the two, along with past history of proof (assault of suspect in rape/murder of young female on train in 2014 showed police officer slapping suspect during interrogation)

Article 7 - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. <- Speaks for itself.

Article 10 - Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. <- We have already seen a lack of fairness and impartiality by refusal of evidence being released to defence team.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment - http://www.nhrc.or.th/en/file/International_Obligations/06.pdf

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture. <- Speaks for itself

Privilege, a Global Concept http://www.bakermckenzie.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Asia%20Pacific/APM%202010/pn_apm2010_privilegeissues_feb10.pdf

Most countries recognise that communications between a lawyer and client should be afforded special protection

Common law: confers privilege on communications between lawyers and clients that relate to clients legal position protecting them from disclosure <- Lawyers that the "confessions" were made to fall under this privilege. Throws a bit of a wrench into the thought of calling the "first lawyer and the HRC official"

Disclosure and privilege in Asia Pacific - http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/disclosure-and-privilege-guidepdf-28544.pdf

Page 34

Is there a concept of legal privilege and if so, how does it apply?
Yes. Information imparted for the purposes of obtaining legal professional advice or representation is privileged (Section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Communications between lawyer and client that do not fall into those categories are not privileged. Unauthorised disclosure may attract a criminal sanction.

Further reading for your pleasure. Office of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand - http://www.nhrc.or.th/en/index.php

I highly doubt that this police investigation could pass the "stink" test in regards to the above UN obligations - because we all know the RTP are above reproach......

Edited June 11, 2015 by fritzzz25