Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[JLCrab]

So you believe an unfair trial is going to place even before the trial takes place.

Yes ... by Western, first world standards, I would say it is almost certain.

I think you will find that all international covenants to which Thailand may or may not be a signatory deal with death penalty cases that are determined to be unfair AFTER a trial has been conducted.

Everything depends on your reference point.

The expectations of justice in a feudal society is different to that of a first world democracy.

Fairness is relative.

Says you.

[berybert]

Ok then can you give us proof that the semen found in the body belonged to the Burmese. This is the whole point of this thread. The defense asking to see evidence. There have been many cases around the world of evidence being planted. Do you think a force as corrupt as Thailands would be against such a practice ?

What happened to the 3 set of DNA that was found on the body ? forgotten about. You seem to have no worries about someone who left semen on the body to be totally forgotten about. Blond hairs, hoes that make shapes that no hoe could ever make, condoms with DNA on one side but not the other. And not one bit of this you question.

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.

Edited June 9, 2015 by berybert

[sambum]

I fail to see discussing whether or not the 2 accused are innocent or not has any real relevance to the problem

the problem as I see it is that the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out.

in other words guilty or not the trial should never take place for these guys and probably anyone else.

Thanks to the handling of this case.

And the Judge assigned to the case might answer the above objection as follows: These horrible crimes took place on a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter with a limited police force on site. They and those who followed shortly thereafter did the best job that they could under difficult circumstances.

Objection overruled.

In which case, guilty - signed, sealed and delivered! "a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter" - Irrelevant where the crime took place. "A limited Police Force" - They are (should be) trained to do the most basic of preliminary investigative tasks, like securing the crime scene, and was the senior officer on the case not transferred/promoted after the PM said the police had done a wonderful job? "Under difficult circumstances" - mainly of their own making by having to repudiate previous statements, and having to represent their "perfect" case to the prosecution time and time again, not checking certain CTTV footage because it was "private property" (It's a dual murder and rape case, so private property my a**e!!!!) The list goes on and on, so basically, yes :- "the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out."

[jdinasia]

I fail to see discussing whether or not the 2 accused are innocent or not has any real relevance to the problem

the problem as I see it is that the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out.

in other words guilty or not the trial should never take place for these guys and probably anyone else.

Thanks to the handling of this case.

And the Judge assigned to the case might answer the above objection as follows: These horrible crimes took place on a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter with a limited police force on site. They and those who followed shortly thereafter did the best job that they could under difficult circumstances.

Objection overruled.

In which case, guilty - signed, sealed and delivered! "a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter" - Irrelevant where the crime took place. "A limited Police Force" - They are (should be) trained to do the most basic of preliminary investigative tasks, like securing the crime scene, and was the senior officer on the case not transferred/promoted after the PM said the police had done a wonderful job? "Under difficult circumstances" - mainly of their own making by having to repudiate previous statements, and having to represent their "perfect" case to the prosecution time and time again, not checking certain CTTV footage because it was "private property" (It's a dual murder and rape case, so private property my a**e!!!!) The list goes on and on, so basically, yes :- "the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out."

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.

[berybert]

I fail to see discussing whether or not the 2 accused are innocent or not has any real relevance to the problem

the problem as I see it is that the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out.

in other words guilty or not the trial should never take place for these guys and probably anyone else.

Thanks to the handling of this case.

And the Judge assigned to the case might answer the above objection as follows: These horrible crimes took place on a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter with a limited police force on site. They and those who followed shortly thereafter did the best job that they could under difficult circumstances.

Objection overruled.

In which case, guilty - signed, sealed and delivered! "a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter" - Irrelevant where the crime took place. "A limited Police Force" - They are (should be) trained to do the most basic of preliminary investigative tasks, like securing the crime scene, and was the senior officer on the case not transferred/promoted after the PM said the police had done a wonderful job? "Under difficult circumstances" - mainly of their own making by having to repudiate previous statements, and having to represent their "perfect" case to the prosecution time and time again, not checking certain CTTV footage because it was "private property" (It's a dual murder and rape case, so private property my a**e!!!!) The list goes on and on, so basically, yes :- "the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out."

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.

[cumgranosalum]

It doesn't matter whether you THINK they are guilty or what you THINK a judge might say - the handling of the case means it should be thrown out - either wat it is a GROSS miscarriage of justice - a farce, if it didn't involve people's lives it would be a joke.

[cumgranosalum]

So you believe an unfair trial is going to place even before the trial takes place.

of course! by now a fair, unbiased trial is impossible.....I amazes me that this needs to be said, surely anyone with the slightest concept of how a legal system should work can see that here it fell at the first fence - you can't UNDO the damage that has been done the process is permanently and irrevocably tainted

[mcm991]

I fail to see discussing whether or not the 2 accused are innocent or not has any real relevance to the problem

the problem as I see it is that the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out.

in other words guilty or not the trial should never take place for these guys and probably anyone else.

Thanks to the handling of this case.

And the Judge assigned to the case might answer the above objection as follows: These horrible crimes took place on a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter with a limited police force on site. They and those who followed shortly thereafter did the best job that they could under difficult circumstances.

Objection overruled.

In which case, guilty - signed, sealed and delivered! "a remote island accessible only by boat or helicopter" - Irrelevant where the crime took place. "A limited Police Force" - They are (should be) trained to do the most basic of preliminary investigative tasks, like securing the crime scene, and was the senior officer on the case not transferred/promoted after the PM said the police had done a wonderful job? "Under difficult circumstances" - mainly of their own making by having to repudiate previous statements, and having to represent their "perfect" case to the prosecution time and time again, not checking certain CTTV footage because it was "private property" (It's a dual murder and rape case, so private property my a**e!!!!) The list goes on and on, so basically, yes :- "the whole issue from beginning to end has been handled so ineptly by the police, that it breaches almost all the norms for presentation of evidence and handling of a serious crime....the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that ANY court case is so flawed that it has to be thrown out."

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.

No chance this case will be thrown out.

From my reference point it should never even get to trial. The evidence apears flimsy and easy to tear apart by a first year law student. Even the prosecutor told the bibs 3 times to go away and make up a better story.

But over in this corner ... far to much Face is at stake ...... and that trumps all.

It may even drag out until even we get tired of discussing it ......... that could take many years - all the while the boys will get old in prison.

either way Bye bye B2.

[Linky]

Ok then can you give us proof that the semen found in the body belonged to the Burmese. This is the whole point of this thread. The defense asking to see evidence. There have been many cases around the world of evidence being planted. Do you think a force as corrupt as Thailands would be against such a practice ?

What happened to the 3 set of DNA that was found on the body ? forgotten about. You seem to have no worries about someone who left semen on the body to be totally forgotten about. Blond hairs, hoes that make shapes that no hoe could ever make, condoms with DNA on one side but not the other. And not one bit of this you question.

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.

How do you know the semen was there at all? Where is the evidence it is there?

Thats the point you refuse to see because of your blinkers.

There is no proof of any semen being found. All you have is the RTP saying it was. Oh dear. But the rest of normal society actually demands proof of such things and that such proof be rigorously tested in such a serious case.

Im sure if it was you in the dock you would be spitting out nails if you werent allowed to view any evidence against you.

[AleG]

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.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

The man, believed to be tourist Sean McAnna from Lanarkshire, Scotland, claims he saw two Thai men trying to molest 23-year-old Witheridge before Miller intervened to stop the pair's advances hours before they were found murdered.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/greece-economy-imf-debt-repayment-delay-negotiating-tactic-1504713

I believe this may be the link you're after from 24 SEP 2014

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/koh-tao-thailand-photo-david-miller-hannah-witheridge-murder-suspects-1466751

Sean McAnna must come forward

[ScarpoFongness4U]

Its always been my thinking in that she was sodomized with the hoe, and that a gunshot to the face was how she died.

But, I wasn't there.

Just like the two Burmese boys, who were also not there to do the crime.

Not one drop of blood found anywhere near them

Nothing in the drain

Nothing in the shower

No bloody shoe prints

And

After raping and killing

They never asked the headmaster to send them home

Just the opposite of what others did

[cumgranosalum]

So you believe an unfair trial is going to place even before the trial takes place.

Yes ... by Western, first world standards, I would say it is almost certain.

I think you will find that all international covenants to which Thailand may or may not be a signatory deal with death penalty cases that are determined to be unfair AFTER a trial has been conducted.

Everything depends on your reference point.

The expectations of justice in a feudal society is different to that of a first world democracy.

Fairness is relative.

Fairness and Justice are universal and self-evident - how they are applied depends on how effective the legal system is....

[sambum]

In reply to berybert post #396:-

Thank you - saved me the bother!

[AleG]

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.

[sambum]

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.

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?

Edited June 10, 2015 by sambum

[jdinasia]

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.

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?

Nope -

The first lawyer and the HRC commissioner both stated that the 2 Burmese defendants told them (not told the police)

There's only controversy in your mind regarding the phone.

DNA issue will be decided in court

(as will all the rest)

[AleG]

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.

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.

[berybert]

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.

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.

Yes it is too serious a matter to be making things about. So with that in mind can you give us a link to the bloody condom you mentioned earlier ?

Maybe it will tell us who's blood was on it. Hannah's one would imagine or maybe David's being as they seemed to be the only people who had any blood on them. Certainly wasn't the Burmese as they were as clean walking off the beach as walking on it. Guess it might have been A.N. Other, but you don't like to talk about the chances of anyone else being involved.

Either way up, look forward to your link.

And of the torture where do you get that one was hit four times and one who has claimed he was tortured claimed he wasn't hit at all. You forget to mention the plastic bags over heads and threats of being shot. Wasn't it you who thought it was really funny when some one posted a picture showing another Burmese guy who had burns under his armpits ? He had to be let go because he had a cast iron alibi.

You may not remember but the RTP have yet to appear before the HMRC to talk about the torture claims despite saying they would on a number of occasions.

And its not like the RTP lie is it.

The statement you post from lawyer Aung Myo what has that to do with what happened at the Police safe house where the original signed confessions were made?

I think that is what sambum was referring to when he mentioned they had no legal aid present.

Kids who get abused are told if they ever tell anyone what happened their parents will be killed. Some will keep the secret for years and lie.

Edited June 10, 2015 by berybert

[AleG]

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.

Yes it is too serious a matter to be making things about. So with that in mind can you give us a link to the bloody condom you mentioned earlier ?

Maybe it will tell us who's blood was on it. Hannah's one would imagine or maybe David's being as they seemed to be the only people who had any blood on them. Certainly wasn't the Burmese as they were as clean walking off the beach as walking on it. Guess it might have been A.N. Other, but you don't like to talk about the chances of anyone else being involved.

Either way up, look forward to your link.

And of the torture where do you get that one was hit four times and one who has claimed he was tortured claimed he wasn't hit at all. You forget to mention the plastic bags over heads and threats of being shot. Wasn't it you who thought it was really funny when some one posted a picture showing another Burmese guy who had burns under his armpits ? He had to be let go because he had a cast iron alibi.

You may not remember but the RTP have yet to appear before the HMRC to talk about the torture claims despite saying they would on a number of occasions.

And its not like the RTP lie is it.

The statement you post from lawyer Aung Myo what has that to do with what happened at the Police safe house where the original signed confessions were made?

I think that is what sambum was referring to when he mentioned they had no legal aid present.

Kids who get abused are told if they ever tell anyone what happened their parents will be killed. Some will keep the secret for years and lie.

"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?

[mcm991]

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.

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.

[sambum]

In reply to JDinAsia Post # 406:-

And I'll ask you again - how do you feel about the statements being taken in a "safe" house with no representation - legal or other kind present?

Regarding the subject of "the DNA, and everything else" being decided in court, I think (surprisingly!) that you are right to a certain extent anyway. One area where we, and many others disagree, is whether the "court" will be completely fair in their judgement of the evidence. The "court" has already shown that it can make a concession to the defence one month, and then overturn it the next, so what is the chance of them being unreliable/pro prosecution in other areas? Quite high, I think.

However, due to the high profile of this case, and the fact that there are now huge amounts of money and face involved (Sorry - conspiracy theory - probably huge amounts of money involved!) I am not prepared to hazard a guess as to the outcome. Probably one that would satisfy most people would be for the case to be thrown out of court. The RTP could say that they had done an excellent job in fixing preparing the evidence, but never had a chance to prove it, and after all they have the PM's word on that, hence no loss of face. Similar result for the prosecution team, although they might be a bit peeved that they had to go over a case that had been made "perfect" a number of times, and no result to show for it. Similar result for the defence team - no case to answer, therefore a win for them, the "court" would not have to give a guilty or not guilty verdict, saving them and the country an enormous amount of grief as whichever way they decided, they would get a lot of flak, but the biggest winners would be the B2, because face is the last thing that they are wanting to save - it's their lives that they are wanting to save!

[berybert]

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.

Yes it is too serious a matter to be making things about. So with that in mind can you give us a link to the bloody condom you mentioned earlier ?

Maybe it will tell us who's blood was on it. Hannah's one would imagine or maybe David's being as they seemed to be the only people who had any blood on them. Certainly wasn't the Burmese as they were as clean walking off the beach as walking on it. Guess it might have been A.N. Other, but you don't like to talk about the chances of anyone else being involved.

Either way up, look forward to your link.

And of the torture where do you get that one was hit four times and one who has claimed he was tortured claimed he wasn't hit at all. You forget to mention the plastic bags over heads and threats of being shot. Wasn't it you who thought it was really funny when some one posted a picture showing another Burmese guy who had burns under his armpits ? He had to be let go because he had a cast iron alibi.

You may not remember but the RTP have yet to appear before the HMRC to talk about the torture claims despite saying they would on a number of occasions.

And its not like the RTP lie is it.

The statement you post from lawyer Aung Myo what has that to do with what happened at the Police safe house where the original signed confessions were made?

I think that is what sambum was referring to when he mentioned they had no legal aid present.

Kids who get abused are told if they ever tell anyone what happened their parents will be killed. Some will keep the secret for years and lie.

"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 ?

[mcm991]

According to Thai Law, the conferssions are inadmissable as the interrogations were conducted without any legal representation.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Criminal_Procedure_Code_of_Thailand/Provisions

§ 7/1^[12]

An arrestee or accused who is restrained or detained shall be entitled to, at the earliest occasion, inform or request the inquirer to inform his relative or a person in whom he reposes of the fact that he is under arrest and the place of his restraint. Also, the arrestee or accused shall be entitled to:

(1) Meet with and take advice of a person to become his counsel tête-à-tête.

(2) Have his counsel or the person in whom he reposes attending his interrogation during the inquiry.

(3) Receive visitation of or contact with his relative in appropriate manner.

(4) Have expeditious medical treatment provided for in the time of illness.

The administrative or police official receiving the arrestee or accused shall bear the duty to, at the earliest occasion, enlighten him on the rights set forth in paragraph 1.

(Table of contents)

[AleG]

"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?

[AleG]

According to Thai Law, the conferssions are inadmissable as the interrogations were conducted without any legal representation.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Criminal_Procedure_Code_of_Thailand/Provisions

§ 7/1^[12]

An arrestee or accused who is restrained or detained shall be entitled to, at the earliest occasion, inform or request the inquirer to inform his relative or a person in whom he reposes of the fact that he is under arrest and the place of his restraint. Also, the arrestee or accused shall be entitled to:

(1) Meet with and take advice of a person to become his counsel tête-à-tête.

(2) Have his counsel or the person in whom he reposes attending his interrogation during the inquiry.

(3) Receive visitation of or contact with his relative in appropriate manner.

(4) Have expeditious medical treatment provided for in the time of illness.

The administrative or police official receiving the arrestee or accused shall bear the duty to, at the earliest occasion, enlighten him on the rights set forth in paragraph 1.

(Table of contents)

How about confessions to their legal representation?

[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

[lildragon]

In reply to JDinAsia Post # 406:-

And I'll ask you again - how do you feel about the statements being taken in a "safe" house with no representation - legal or other kind present?

Regarding the subject of "the DNA, and everything else" being decided in court, I think (surprisingly!) that you are right to a certain extent anyway. One area where we, and many others disagree, is whether the "court" will be completely fair in their judgement of the evidence. The "court" has already shown that it can make a concession to the defence one month, and then overturn it the next, so what is the chance of them being unreliable/pro prosecution in other areas? Quite high, I think.

However, due to the high profile of this case, and the fact that there are now huge amounts of money and face involved (Sorry - conspiracy theory - probably huge amounts of money involved!) I am not prepared to hazard a guess as to the outcome. Probably one that would satisfy most people would be for the case to be thrown out of court. The RTP could say that they had done an excellent job in fixing preparing the evidence, but never had a chance to prove it, and after all they have the PM's word on that, hence no loss of face. Similar result for the prosecution team, although they might be a bit peeved that they had to go over a case that had been made "perfect" a number of times, and no result to show for it. Similar result for the defence team - no case to answer, therefore a win for them, the "court" would not have to give a guilty or not guilty verdict, saving them and the country an enormous amount of grief as whichever way they decided, they would get a lot of flak, but the biggest winners would be the B2, because face is the last thing that they are wanting to save - it's their lives that they are wanting to save!

I am with you on what will probably happen. The court will throw out the case, the B2 will be deported (good for them) while the real perps will forever walk free (bad for the families of Hannah and David)

The world will see the Thai 'justice' system as the complete farce it is.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

The pay to lie, was 700,000 baht to the taxi driver who was beaten when he refused

Apparently, Burmese have honor

Where is the interpreter?

Is he driving a new Mercedes back in his home country now?

[AleG]

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.

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?