Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[jdinasia]

Whatever credible organizations might say about this trial as well as posters on here, this is Thailand. Thailand has Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thailand it seems is well within its International rights to adhere to its own Rules of Criminal Procedure. That seems to be what they are doing regardless of protestations of outside NGOs and other government diplomatic representations in Thailand to which they seem to be saying: Mind your own f&^%king business.

It certainly isn't like Myanmar has a system that is any better. They may have some legislators willing to posture up but I don't expect any formal complaints today come from the government.

The Thai judicial system may have some issues but so does my home country.

[cumgranosalum]

Whatever credible organizations might say about this trial as well as posters on here, this is Thailand. Thailand has Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thailand it seems is well within its International rights to adhere to its own Rules of Criminal Procedure. That seems to be what they are doing regardless of protestations of outside NGOs and other government diplomatic representations in Thailand to which they seem to be saying: Mind your own f&^%king business.

What utter nonsense - Thailand isn't an isolated state; anything Thailand does has ramifications out a greater or lesser extent outside it's own borders....it is part of the world community and likes to give the impression that it is a free an fair country........They are signed up to treaties of international law and human rights and secondly as anyone who has spent more than a few days in Thailand will be aware, corruption graft and nepotism, coupled with a massive dose of "Kreng Jai" means that enforcement of any laws is highly inconsistent.

They are also increasingly sensitive to how the rest of the world sees them.....

[jdinasia]

Most on here believe the Judge had no choice whether the Judge had a choice or not.

No song right now but the famous quote from the US is:

"I could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich ..." (Sol Wachtler)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/11/25/sol_wachtler_the_judge_who_coined_indict_a_ham_sandwich_was_himself_indicted.html

[thailandchilli]

Whatever credible organizations might say about this trial as well as posters on here, this is Thailand. Thailand has Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thailand it seems is well within its International rights to adhere to its own Rules of Criminal Procedure. That seems to be what they are doing regardless of protestations of outside NGOs and other government diplomatic representations in Thailand to which they seem to be saying: Mind your own f&^%king business.

It certainly isn't like Myanmar has a system that is any better. They may have some legislators willing to posture up but I don't expect any formal complaints today come from the government.

The Thai judicial system may have some issues but so does my home country.

This crime took place in Thailand and so thats why the issues with the judicial system are raised in these forums

[cumgranosalum]

Whatever credible organizations might say about this trial as well as posters on here, this is Thailand. Thailand has Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thailand it seems is well within its International rights to adhere to its own Rules of Criminal Procedure. That seems to be what they are doing regardless of protestations of outside NGOs and other government diplomatic representations in Thailand to which they seem to be saying: Mind your own f&^%king business.

It certainly isn't like Myanmar has a system that is any better. They may have some legislators willing to posture up but I don't expect any formal complaints today come from the government.

The Thai judicial system may have some issues but so does my home country.

how can the faults of one country's legal system mitigate the faults of another?

actually at present, on paper at least, Myanmar is more democratic than Thailand - they at least have elections....

[Linky]

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)

The confession to a lawyer could not have happened.

If a client confesses a crime to his lawyer then his lawyer is not permitted to enter a not guilty plea on their behalf. If the client insists on a not guilty plea then the lawyer must remove himself from the case.

A lawyer must not knowingly mislead the court. Has happened many times where clients have told their lawyer the did the crime but plead not guilty and the lawyer has to remove himself from the case.

[boomerangutang]

Re; the supposed added confessions by the B2. If they are shown to be genuine confessions, then that could add to the pile of incriminating evidence against them. However, we're talking about people here, not automatons.

They are two young men who, at the time they were hauled in to custody, didn't know anything about legal rights. They knew they were at the bottom rung of the social ladder, and to fear (or at least be wary of) authority at all times. Just hours before the supposed added confessions, the two young men were questioned intensely (allegedly tortured) by a subjective non-professional while stern-faced uniformed men stood close by, fists clenched. Was any video or audio taken of the interrogation? We'll probably never know. It's quite likely, as often happens, that the boys were told they had two choices: "either confess and you won't get the death penalty, or if you don't confess, we will find you guilty (in court) and you will be killed." ....or words to that effect. Such choices are often offered in such scenarios, not only in Thailand.

Now segue to the meetings with the Human Rights Commissioner and later with lawyer(s). First off, all these discussions are subject to translation issues. There's Thai to Burmese, Burmese dialects back and forth, Burmese back to Thai, Thai to English (where we get our info). Probably more to the issue, is at that subsequent time, the two Burmese, still shaken up from their intense encounter with the inquisitors at the 'safe house,' are asked questions by other stern-fafed elder men who they'd never seen before. The threats of death (if they don't say they're guitly) is still ringing in their ears. Even if they did say, to the HRC, that they did the crimes, and even if the translation was crystal clear .....it's still not a strong pillar to rest pending executions on.

[boomerangutang]

I found a very viable way in which a young man could get from KT to Bkk in close to 3.5 hours - well under the 5 hours which would have been needed to enact that alibi video at the apartment lobby in Bkk. I'm going to a be a bit cagey (Thai and RTP style) about the details, for now. I would ask the RTP to do a bit of investigation on that issue, but they'd either:

>>> not listen to my suggestion (no speak Engrish)

>>> laugh out loud (ha ha ha, a farang suggesting what we could do!)

>>> notify the people who are involved with the specific transport vehicles, to make sure they don't reveal anything uncomfortable. In other words: continue the cover-up.

>>> say, in effect: 'that's not important. The B2 are going to trial, so only the B2 are being looked at.'

>>> say 'we've already looked at that, and there's nothing there. Forget about it.'

[JLCrab]

Whatever credible organizations might say about this trial as well as posters on here, this is Thailand. Thailand has Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thailand it seems is well within its International rights to adhere to its own Rules of Criminal Procedure. That seems to be what they are doing regardless of protestations of outside NGOs and other government diplomatic representations in Thailand to which they seem to be saying: Mind your own f&^%king business.

It certainly isn't like Myanmar has a system that is any better. They may have some legislators willing to posture up but I don't expect any formal complaints today come from the government.

The Thai judicial system may have some issues but so does my home country.

This crime took place in Thailand and so thats why the issues with the judicial system are raised in these forums

Next time Thailand decides to amend its Rules of Criminal Procedure (1934 as amended through 2008) maybe they will consult with you, first.

[SABloke]

I found a very viable way in which a young man could get from KT to Bkk in close to 3.5 hours - well under the 5 hours which would have been needed to enact that alibi video at the apartment lobby in Bkk. I'm going to a be a bit cagey (Thai and RTP style) about the details, for now. I would ask the RTP to do a bit of investigation on that issue, but they'd either:

>>> not listen to my suggestion (no speak Engrish)

>>> laugh out loud (ha ha ha, a farang suggesting what we could do!)

>>> notify the people who are involved with the specific transport vehicles, to make sure they don't reveal anything uncomfortable. In other words: continue the cover-up.

>>> say, in effect: 'that's not important. The B2 are going to trial, so only the B2 are being looked at.'

>>> say 'we've already looked at that, and there's nothing there. Forget about it.'

So mysterious Here's a very easy, publicly known way to do it: Take a speedboat to Chumphon and then fly to BKK. 2.5 hours (3 if traffic is bad

[JLCrab]

I found a very viable way in which a young man could get from KT to Bkk in close to 3.5 hours - well under the 5 hours which would have been needed to enact that alibi video at the apartment lobby in Bkk. I'm going to a be a bit cagey (Thai and RTP style) about the details, for now. I would ask the RTP to do a bit of investigation on that issue, but they'd either:

>>> not listen to my suggestion (no speak Engrish)

>>> laugh out loud (ha ha ha, a farang suggesting what we could do!)

>>> notify the people who are involved with the specific transport vehicles, to make sure they don't reveal anything uncomfortable. In other words: continue the cover-up.

>>> say, in effect: 'that's not important. The B2 are going to trial, so only the B2 are being looked at.'

>>> say 'we've already looked at that, and there's nothing there. Forget about it.'

OK come on Boomer. Just a little hint wouldja -- we're just dying to know.

[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)

The confession to a lawyer could not have happened.

If a client confesses a crime to his lawyer then his lawyer is not permitted to enter a not guilty plea on their behalf. If the client insists on a not guilty plea then the lawyer must remove himself from the case.

A lawyer must not knowingly mislead the court. Has happened many times where clients have told their lawyer the did the crime but plead not guilty and the lawyer has to remove himself from the case.

2 points

1) the legal concept you are using is not necessarily germain.

2) it was a confession with mitigation.

[Linky]

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)

The confession to a lawyer could not have happened.

If a client confesses a crime to his lawyer then his lawyer is not permitted to enter a not guilty plea on their behalf. If the client insists on a not guilty plea then the lawyer must remove himself from the case.

A lawyer must not knowingly mislead the court. Has happened many times where clients have told their lawyer the did the crime but plead not guilty and the lawyer has to remove himself from the case.

2 points

1) the legal concept you are using is not necessarily germain.

2) it was a confession with mitigation.

So they didnt actually confess to their lawyers then. Glad you agree.

[ScarpoFongness4U]

As soon as they felt safe, they confessed that a fellow countryman assisted in torturing them, and the torturers who film everything, from reenactments and press conferences and lying alibi creating,

Didn't film their interrogations

[JLCrab]

Whatsamatter Scarp -- isn't the official start of Florida Hurricane Season enough excitement for ya? (June 1)

[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)

The confession to a lawyer could not have happened.

If a client confesses a crime to his lawyer then his lawyer is not permitted to enter a not guilty plea on their behalf. If the client insists on a not guilty plea then the lawyer must remove himself from the case.

A lawyer must not knowingly mislead the court. Has happened many times where clients have told their lawyer the did the crime but plead not guilty and the lawyer has to remove himself from the case.

2 points

1) the legal concept you are using is not necessarily germain.

2) it was a confession with mitigation.

So they didnt actually confess to their lawyers then. Glad you agree.

Nope - not only did they confess to the lawyer and HRC commissioner, both made public statements about it.

Please catch up with the case.

[jdinasia]

I found a very viable way in which a young man could get from KT to Bkk in close to 3.5 hours - well under the 5 hours which would have been needed to enact that alibi video at the apartment lobby in Bkk. I'm going to a be a bit cagey (Thai and RTP style) about the details, for now. I would ask the RTP to do a bit of investigation on that issue, but they'd either:

>>> not listen to my suggestion (no speak Engrish)

>>> laugh out loud (ha ha ha, a farang suggesting what we could do!)

>>> notify the people who are involved with the specific transport vehicles, to make sure they don't reveal anything uncomfortable. In other words: continue the cover-up.

>>> say, in effect: 'that's not important. The B2 are going to trial, so only the B2 are being looked at.'

>>> say 'we've already looked at that, and there's nothing there. Forget about it.'

OK come on Boomer. Just a little hint wouldja -- we're just dying to know.

He's still ignoring the fact that PBS did an entire show with experts (that aired in Thailand) where they analysed the CCTV recordings from the time of the murders until he left the apartment to go to school.

But hey.....

[Linky]

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)

The confession to a lawyer could not have happened.

If a client confesses a crime to his lawyer then his lawyer is not permitted to enter a not guilty plea on their behalf. If the client insists on a not guilty plea then the lawyer must remove himself from the case.

A lawyer must not knowingly mislead the court. Has happened many times where clients have told their lawyer the did the crime but plead not guilty and the lawyer has to remove himself from the case.

2 points

1) the legal concept you are using is not necessarily germain.

2) it was a confession with mitigation.

So they didnt actually confess to their lawyers then. Glad you agree.

Nope - not only did they confess to the lawyer and HRC commissioner, both made public statements about it.

Please catch up with the case.

You are confusing.

You first say the confessed with mitigation. Then say they confess without mitigation. Which one is it?

If they confessed to their lawyers then their lawyers cannot act for them unless they plead guilty.

But if they confessed and said it was because they were tortured then that is not a confession and their lawyers can still act for them.

So as their lawyers have not resigned it is logical they did not confess. As you rightly pointed out. Glad you agree.

[JLCrab]

Why would you presume that a lawyer would not be able to defend someone accused of murder even if the accused confessed to the lawyer that they did in fact commit the crime as charged?

[Linky]

Why would you presume that a lawyer would not be able to defend someone accused of murder even if the accused confessed to the lawyer that they did in fact commit the crime as charged?

Because a lawyer is not allowed to purposely mislead a court, they get disbarred, fined etc.

So if you are charged with murder and tell your lawyer you did it but want to plead not guilty then the lawyer cannot represent you, he is not permitted to put scenarios to witnesses or the court that he knows is untrue, because he knows you are guilty.

Has happened many times, even in the midst of trials where the lawyer has to inform the court he can no longer act.

[JLCrab]

Why would you presume that a lawyer would not be able to defend someone accused of murder even if the accused confessed to the lawyer that they did in fact commit the crime as charged?

Because a lawyer is not allowed to purposely mislead a court, they get disbarred, fined etc.

So if you are charged with murder and tell your lawyer you did it but want to plead not guilty then the lawyer cannot represent you, he is not permitted to put scenarios to witnesses or the court that he knows is untrue, because he knows you are guilty.

Has happened many times, even in the midst of trials where the lawyer has to inform the court he can no longer act.

http://www.quora.com/Should-you-admit-guilt-to-your-defense-attorney

Even if you tell your attorney that you are guilty as charged, he/she is still able to defend you. It is the burden of the state to prove that you are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state does not meet its burden, then you should be found not guilty, even if you in fact committed the crimes in question. Therefore, even if your lawyer knows with 100% certainty that you are guilty, that does nothing to change the fact that the state is responsible for proving your guilt, and your lawyer is still responsible for making the state work to prove its case.

[Linky]

Why would you presume that a lawyer would not be able to defend someone accused of murder even if the accused confessed to the lawyer that they did in fact commit the crime as charged?

Because a lawyer is not allowed to purposely mislead a court, they get disbarred, fined etc.

So if you are charged with murder and tell your lawyer you did it but want to plead not guilty then the lawyer cannot represent you, he is not permitted to put scenarios to witnesses or the court that he knows is untrue, because he knows you are guilty.

Has happened many times, even in the midst of trials where the lawyer has to inform the court he can no longer act.

http://www.quora.com/Should-you-admit-guilt-to-your-defense-attorney

Even if you tell your attorney that you are guilty as charged, he/she is still able to defend you. It is the burden of the state to prove that you are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state does not meet its burden, then you should be found not guilty, even if you in fact committed the crimes in question. Therefore, even if your lawyer knows with 100% certainty that you are guilty, that does nothing to change the fact that the state is responsible for proving your guilt, and your lawyer is still responsible for making the state work to prove its case.

You conveniently left out the parts you dont like.

The lawyer cannot lie to the court. He cannot say you are innocent. He cannot cross examine witnesses because he knows they are truthful. He cannot allow you to give evidence as he would be assisting in perjury.

Once a lawyer knows you are guilty there is really nothing he can except hope the prosecutor doesnt have evidence to cross the threshold of reasonable doubt. The lawyer is severely hampered and therefore cannot withdraws from the case as it is a very dangerous position he has been placed.

So when you quote things do try not to cherry pick the bits you like as that only shows you to be dishonest and trying to do anything you can, even lying, just to try and be right.

[JLCrab]

Why would you presume that a lawyer would not be able to defend someone accused of murder even if the accused confessed to the lawyer that they did in fact commit the crime as charged?

Because a lawyer is not allowed to purposely mislead a court, they get disbarred, fined etc.

So if you are charged with murder and tell your lawyer you did it but want to plead not guilty then the lawyer cannot represent you, he is not permitted to put scenarios to witnesses or the court that he knows is untrue, because he knows you are guilty.

Has happened many times, even in the midst of trials where the lawyer has to inform the court he can no longer act.

http://www.quora.com/Should-you-admit-guilt-to-your-defense-attorney

Even if you tell your attorney that you are guilty as charged, he/she is still able to defend you. It is the burden of the state to prove that you are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state does not meet its burden, then you should be found not guilty, even if you in fact committed the crimes in question. Therefore, even if your lawyer knows with 100% certainty that you are guilty, that does nothing to change the fact that the state is responsible for proving your guilt, and your lawyer is still responsible for making the state work to prove its case.

You conveniently left out the parts you dont like.

The lawyer cannot lie to the court. He cannot say you are innocent. He cannot cross examine witnesses because he knows they are truthful. He cannot allow you to give evidence as he would be assisting in perjury.

Once a lawyer knows you are guilty there is really nothing he can except hope the prosecutor doesnt have evidence to cross the threshold of reasonable doubt. The lawyer is severely hampered and therefore cannot withdraws from the case as it is a very dangerous position he has been placed.

So when you quote things do try not to cherry pick the bits you like as that only shows you to be dishonest and trying to do anything you can, even lying, just to try and be right.

So far, you haven't quoted anyone but yourself.

[Linky]

Why would you presume that a lawyer would not be able to defend someone accused of murder even if the accused confessed to the lawyer that they did in fact commit the crime as charged?

Because a lawyer is not allowed to purposely mislead a court, they get disbarred, fined etc.

So if you are charged with murder and tell your lawyer you did it but want to plead not guilty then the lawyer cannot represent you, he is not permitted to put scenarios to witnesses or the court that he knows is untrue, because he knows you are guilty.

Has happened many times, even in the midst of trials where the lawyer has to inform the court he can no longer act.

http://www.quora.com/Should-you-admit-guilt-to-your-defense-attorney

Even if you tell your attorney that you are guilty as charged, he/she is still able to defend you. It is the burden of the state to prove that you are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state does not meet its burden, then you should be found not guilty, even if you in fact committed the crimes in question. Therefore, even if your lawyer knows with 100% certainty that you are guilty, that does nothing to change the fact that the state is responsible for proving your guilt, and your lawyer is still responsible for making the state work to prove its case.

You conveniently left out the parts you dont like.

The lawyer cannot lie to the court. He cannot say you are innocent. He cannot cross examine witnesses because he knows they are truthful. He cannot allow you to give evidence as he would be assisting in perjury.

Once a lawyer knows you are guilty there is really nothing he can except hope the prosecutor doesnt have evidence to cross the threshold of reasonable doubt. The lawyer is severely hampered and therefore cannot withdraws from the case as it is a very dangerous position he has been placed.

So when you quote things do try not to cherry pick the bits you like as that only shows you to be dishonest and trying to do anything you can, even lying, just to try and be right.

So far, you haven't quoted anyone but yourself.

Its in your own quote. You did a quick google search for yours. Try searching again and not just the first one you come across. You may also care to read the rules of professional conduct.

[JLCrab]

A lawyer who knows that his client is guilty must be very circumspect in his dealings with the court. But the lawyer, as you claim above, would not be required to resign the case if, at any point after he takes the case, he is told by the client that the client is guilty of the charges at hand.

[Linky]

A lawyer who knows that his client is guilty must be very circumspect in his dealings with the court. But the lawyer, as you claim above, would not be required to resign the case if, at any point after he takes the case, he is told by the client that the client is guilty of the charges at hand.

A lawyer will never ask his client if he is guilty.

If the client tells the lawyer he is guilty but insists on pleading not guilty then the lawyer cannot act in the best interests of his client because he cannot put to the witnesses they are lying as he knows they are not. He cannot let you give evidence as he will be complicit in perjury.

In effect all he can do is sit there and listen to the prosecution and hope the evidence does notpass reasonable doubt threshold.

The lawyer cannot allow the court to be lied to. Therefore, in the best interests of his client he withdraws. It is also in his best interests as he is in a very dangerous position. I have personally seen it done many times as I used to instruct barristers in criminal proceedings myself.

So back on topic, as the lawyers continue to act and also profess the innocence of the two it is quite clear the two have not confessed to their lawyers. Unless you consider them saying they were tortured into confession being a real confession.

[jdinasia]

You do realize that you are not discussing law as it is practiced in Thailand, don't you?

Regarding law as practiced elsewhere...

In the US a lawyer can and often does represent defendants who confess, either to them or publicly.

[JLCrab]

The lead attorney on the case has actually said very little. 23 NOV 2014:

Among the sceptics is Nakhon Chomphuchat, the leading Thai human rights lawyer defending the suspects. “If I thought they had done it I couldn’t work for them,” he told the Guardian. “Of course, no one can ever say with 100% accuracy, but I’m pretty certain they didn’t.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Everyone is entitled to representation. If a lawyer chooses to ask the court to be removed from a case after taking the case, that is his right but he is not obligated to do so. So I think your supposition that the 2 accused have not confessed to their lead attorney is speculation on your part.

[jdinasia]

The lead attorney on the case has actually said very little. 23 NOV 2014:

Among the sceptics is Nakhon Chomphuchat, the leading Thai human rights lawyer defending the suspects. “If I thought they had done it I couldn’t work for them,” he told the Guardian. “Of course, no one can ever say with 100% accuracy, but I’m pretty certain they didn’t.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Everyone is entitled to representation. If a lawyer chooses to ask the court to be removed from a case after taking the case, that is his right but he is not obligated to do so. So I think your supposition that the 2 accused have not confessed to their lead attorney is speculation on your part.

Legal representation has changed.

[JLCrab]

The lead attorney on the case has actually said very little. 23 NOV 2014:

Among the sceptics is Nakhon Chomphuchat, the leading Thai human rights lawyer defending the suspects. “If I thought they had done it I couldn’t work for them,” he told the Guardian. “Of course, no one can ever say with 100% accuracy, but I’m pretty certain they didn’t.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Everyone is entitled to representation. If a lawyer chooses to ask the court to be removed from a case after taking the case, that is his right but he is not obligated to do so. So I think your supposition that the 2 accused have not confessed to their lead attorney is speculation on your part.

Legal representation has changed.

Not as of May 31, 2015 per that newspaper can't be named.