Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[Jai Dee]

One baiting post (troll comment) and a reply have been removed from this thread.

[mcm991]

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.

Everytime you post about the wonderful rules of the Thai Justice system, I think I'll repost the below.

Are these the rules you are referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

The Asian Human Rights Commission called the Thai legal system a "mess" and called for a drastic overhaul of Thailand's criminal procedures. It cited the rampant use of forced confessions, and the fact that even a senior justice ministry official admitted that 30% of cases went to court with no evidence. It also criticized the judiciary for failing to ensure that trials are conducted speedily, citing the case of four Thai men accused of plotting to kill Supreme Court President Praman Chansue (Thai: ประมาณ ชันซื่อ). The accused were present in court 461 times before 91 different judges since proceedings began in 1993 and ended in 2008. While these proceedings continued, Mr Praman died in 2007.^[1]

or is this what you are referring to ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1005076016194004800

Mr. Chalerm's three sons are already notorious in Bangkok for their involvement in a string of bar brawls in recent years. They always have avoided prosecution, demonstrating the legal impunity enjoyed by the rich and well-connected in traditionally hierarchical Thai society. "People believe that influential people always escape from the hand of the law," says Somchai Homla-or, a lawyer and secretary-general of the Asia Forum for Human Rights.

or perhaps you are referring to some other set of rules that only exist in books somewhere but not in real life - like a special unicorn set of rules ?

[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.

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

Perhaps I am mistaken.

I thought the first lawyer that divulged the confession to him had been replaced by a team

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[sambum]

hy I think that this case has so much media attention that it'll be difficult now for the accused to be denied a fair trial.carry on

They've already been denied a fair trial before it even starts by the court first of all allowing the defence team to review the evidence in April, and turning tail a couple of weeks ago, and saying that they will make a decision as to whether the defence team can review the evidence on the first day of the trial. Does that not raise warning flags?

As someone earlier said, this is a chat room.

It is indeed, and I do believe that that is exactly what Adriana and I were doing until you interrupted us with your inane comment. I guess next you'll be posting stupid Marx Bros quotes (accompanied by pics of course to try to convince everyone how clever you are, and have a rather superior sense of humour) If you want to join in the "chat" by all means do so, but please refrain from the sarcastic, childish comments that are to be quite honest, a sign of your superiority complex.

[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.

Everytime you post about the wonderful rules of the Thai Justice system, I think I'll repost the below.

Are these the rules you are referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

The Asian Human Rights Commission called the Thai legal system a "mess" and called for a drastic overhaul of Thailand's criminal procedures. It cited the rampant use of forced confessions, and the fact that even a senior justice ministry official admitted that 30% of cases went to court with no evidence. It also criticized the judiciary for failing to ensure that trials are conducted speedily, citing the case of four Thai men accused of plotting to kill Supreme Court President Praman Chansue (Thai: ประมาณ ชันซื่อ). The accused were present in court 461 times before 91 different judges since proceedings began in 1993 and ended in 2008. While these proceedings continued, Mr Praman died in 2007.^[1]

or is this what you are referring to ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1005076016194004800

Mr. Chalerm's three sons are already notorious in Bangkok for their involvement in a string of bar brawls in recent years. They always have avoided prosecution, demonstrating the legal impunity enjoyed by the rich and well-connected in traditionally hierarchical Thai society. "People believe that influential people always escape from the hand of the law," says Somchai Homla-or, a lawyer and secretary-general of the Asia Forum for Human Rights.

or perhaps you are referring to some other set of rules that only exist in books somewhere but not in real life - like a special unicorn set of rules ?

When you pass through an Immigration check point, those are the rules that would prevail should you become subject to the Thai Judicial System. You can critique them all you want and many people do. As of today, so what?

Edited June 12, 2015 by JLCrab

[JLCrab]

hy I think that this case has so much media attention that it'll be difficult now for the accused to be denied a fair trial.carry on

They've already been denied a fair trial before it even starts by the court first of all allowing the defence team to review the evidence in April, and turning tail a couple of weeks ago, and saying that they will make a decision as to whether the defence team can review the evidence on the first day of the trial. Does that not raise warning flags?

As someone earlier said, this is a chat room.

It is indeed, and I do believe that that is exactly what Adriana and I were doing until you interrupted us with your inane comment. I guess next you'll be posting stupid Marx Bros quotes (accompanied by pics of course to try to convince everyone how clever you are, and have a rather superior sense of humour) If you want to join in the "chat" by all means do so, but please refrain from the sarcastic, childish comments that are to be quite honest, a sign of your superiority complex.

Thanks -- most on here would say I have an inferiority complex which I display by trying to muck up all your serious discussions about truth-and-justice.

[mcm991]

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.

Everytime you post about the wonderful rules of the Thai Justice system, I think I'll repost the below.

Are these the rules you are referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

The Asian Human Rights Commission called the Thai legal system a "mess" and called for a drastic overhaul of Thailand's criminal procedures. It cited the rampant use of forced confessions, and the fact that even a senior justice ministry official admitted that 30% of cases went to court with no evidence. It also criticized the judiciary for failing to ensure that trials are conducted speedily, citing the case of four Thai men accused of plotting to kill Supreme Court President Praman Chansue (Thai: ประมาณ ชันซื่อ). The accused were present in court 461 times before 91 different judges since proceedings began in 1993 and ended in 2008. While these proceedings continued, Mr Praman died in 2007.^[1]

or is this what you are referring to ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1005076016194004800

Mr. Chalerm's three sons are already notorious in Bangkok for their involvement in a string of bar brawls in recent years. They always have avoided prosecution, demonstrating the legal impunity enjoyed by the rich and well-connected in traditionally hierarchical Thai society. "People believe that influential people always escape from the hand of the law," says Somchai Homla-or, a lawyer and secretary-general of the Asia Forum for Human Rights.

or perhaps you are referring to some other set of rules that only exist in books somewhere but not in real life - like a special unicorn set of rules ?

When you pass through an Immigration check point, those are the rules that would prevail should you become subject to the Thai Judicial System. You can critique them all you want and many people do. As of today, so what?

'As of today, so what?'

what on earth does that mean ???

[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.

Everytime you post about the wonderful rules of the Thai Justice system, I think I'll repost the below.

Are these the rules you are referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Thailand

The Asian Human Rights Commission called the Thai legal system a "mess" and called for a drastic overhaul of Thailand's criminal procedures. It cited the rampant use of forced confessions, and the fact that even a senior justice ministry official admitted that 30% of cases went to court with no evidence. It also criticized the judiciary for failing to ensure that trials are conducted speedily, citing the case of four Thai men accused of plotting to kill Supreme Court President Praman Chansue (Thai: ประมาณ ชันซื่อ). The accused were present in court 461 times before 91 different judges since proceedings began in 1993 and ended in 2008. While these proceedings continued, Mr Praman died in 2007.^[1]

or is this what you are referring to ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1005076016194004800

Mr. Chalerm's three sons are already notorious in Bangkok for their involvement in a string of bar brawls in recent years. They always have avoided prosecution, demonstrating the legal impunity enjoyed by the rich and well-connected in traditionally hierarchical Thai society. "People believe that influential people always escape from the hand of the law," says Somchai Homla-or, a lawyer and secretary-general of the Asia Forum for Human Rights.

or perhaps you are referring to some other set of rules that only exist in books somewhere but not in real life - like a special unicorn set of rules ?

When you pass through an Immigration check point, those are the rules that would prevail should you become subject to the Thai Judicial System. You can critique them all you want and many people do. As of today, so what?

'As of today, so what?'

what on earth does that mean ???

It means if you were hauled into Thai Court today, the fact that the Asian Human Rights Commission thinks the Thai Jurisprudence System is a mess would not have much if any bearing on your case.

[sambum]

In reply to JLCrab Post #548:-

As someone earlier said, this is a chat room.

It is indeed, and I do believe that that is exactly what Adriana and I were doing until you interrupted us with your inane comment. I guess next you'll be posting stupid Marx Bros quotes (accompanied by pics of course to try to convince everyone how clever you are, and have a rather superior sense of humour) If you want to join in the "chat" by all means do so, but please refrain from the sarcastic, childish comments that are to be quite honest, a sign of your superiority complex.

Thanks -- most on here would say I have an inferiority complex which I display by trying to muck up all your serious discussions about truth-and-justice.

I take that as an admission that you DO have a superiority complex, as you don't deny it, and once again you have managed to completely divert the discussion away from the topic in the hope of getting another "Like" from your bosom buddy JD. Oh, I've just noticed that you have - well done!

[JLCrab]

In reply to JLCrab Post #548:-

As someone earlier said, this is a chat room.

It is indeed, and I do believe that that is exactly what Adriana and I were doing until you interrupted us with your inane comment. I guess next you'll be posting stupid Marx Bros quotes (accompanied by pics of course to try to convince everyone how clever you are, and have a rather superior sense of humour) If you want to join in the "chat" by all means do so, but please refrain from the sarcastic, childish comments that are to be quite honest, a sign of your superiority complex.

Thanks -- most on here would say I have an inferiority complex which I display by trying to muck up all your serious discussions about truth-and-justice.

I take that as an admission that you DO have a superiority complex, as you don't deny it, and once again you have managed to completely divert the discussion away from the topic in the hope of getting another "Like" from your bosom buddy JD. Oh, I've just noticed that you have - well done!

There used to be a guy who would regularly post on ThaiVisa who would say to me and others: The reason you disagree with me is that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.

So ain't nothing I haven't heard before.

Edited June 12, 2015 by JLCrab

[JLCrab]

If the real world means ex-Thailand, they can think whatever they want. If you were in a Thai Court and informed them in your humble opinion you think this Court is a mere Kangaroo Court, they might choose to advise you and demonstrate to the contrary.

I have wondered if the about-face of the court over allowing the defense to examine the evidence before the trial may have been related to the defense (apparent) main strategy being to attack and discredit (directly or by proxy) the Thai judicial system.

Maybe the judge didn't fancy giving them special privileges after all.

My guess is that simply the Judge was overruled by Superior Judges who said that, under Thai Criminal Procedure, there is no pre-trial discovery of the Prosecution's evidence by the Defense.

[metisdead]

A reminder to our members referring to the Thai courts in a derogatory manner:

2) You will not use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[JLCrab]

I have never said that I admire the Thai Judicial System. However, that's the system under which you have voluntarily chosen to conform when you choose to enter and remain in The Kingdom.

[AleG]

If the real world means ex-Thailand, they can think whatever they want. If you were in a Thai Court and informed them in your humble opinion you think this Court is a mere Kangaroo Court, they might choose to advise you and demonstrate to the contrary.

I have wondered if the about-face of the court over allowing the defense to examine the evidence before the trial may have been related to the defense (apparent) main strategy being to attack and discredit (directly or by proxy) the Thai judicial system.

Maybe the judge didn't fancy giving them special privileges after all.

My guess is that simply the Judge was overruled by Superior Judges who said that, under Thai Criminal Procedure, there is no pre-trial discovery of the Prosecution's evidence by the Defense.

Yes, that is the most likely reason.

[boomerangutang]

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

It's too bad police investigators don't have inquiring minds. You'd think that would be a basic requirement for the job.

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.....

Is that the original PBS based in the US, or Thai PBS? Did their analysis include footage and time when 'he' entered the lobby? If it's Thai PBS, are they in cohoots with the police and/or military?

[boomerangutang]

My guess is that simply the Judge was overruled by Superior Judges who said that, under Thai Criminal Procedure, there is no pre-trial discovery of the Prosecution's evidence by the Defense.

Yes, that is the most likely reason.

We're led to believe the judge or two judges assigned to the trial are the top authorities in the trial. Now we hear there may be a higher authority. And where does the PM stand in relation to the power structure of the courts? Are the courts independent from the government? - even though they're all public servants and (purportedly) paid from the public coffers by taxpayers. When the judge(s) rule on this case in late September, are we (the general public) and the defendants supposed to assume it's the judges themselves ruling, or is it a higher authority? I'm probably not supposed to be asking questions like this. After all, this is Thailand, and we're all supposed to accept whatever authority dishes out, and not question anything - at least not publicly.

And, if the most recent decision (to possibly allow review of pertinent evidence starting at the first day of the trial), is made by a higher authority, why isn't that stated plainly? Maybe because this is Asia, and people are supposed to forever 'read between the lines' and try to decipher what's really going on. I don't think there's a Thai word for 'being frank'. It's too alien a concept. So where does that leave us, the general public? Back where we've been and where we're headed: guessing what and why certain decisions are made from higher authorities - because there's rarely clarity.

[jdinasia]

So now boomerangutang thinks TV stations might be in on the conspiracy?

Amazing

[boomerangutang]

So now boomerangutang thinks TV stations might be in on the conspiracy? Amazing

You're easily amazed, even when you're purposefully off base, you're amazed by your wrong conclusion. Well, there are various ways to amuse onself, and you've found one of them.

Just as a refresher, here's a brief course on the definition of conspiracy:

If the top exec of a corporation chose to announce to everyone (the lie) that sales were up 50% for the prior month, only he and the accountant would know that wasn't true. If a person wants to call that a conspiracy (of 2), he can call it that. However, the other 200 employees of the company, and the general public (who heard the announcement) - and who believe the announcement - ARE NOT CO-CONSPIRATORS. They're simply people who believe what the chief exec announced. However, if you asked JD about that scenario, he/she would say everyone who believes what was announced - is a conspirator.

When Ken Lay announced, for many months, that all was well with Enron, was everyone who believed his pronouncements co-conspirators? No, of course not.

Here's how that applies to this case: If one or a few of the top brass decide to rig this case to criminalize some people (who are probably innocent) and exonerate others (who may be guilty), then those top brass can set up all the chess pieces to create that result. Everyone in lower ranks, and the general public can go along (and even agree) with the announcements (stated as facts) from the top. All those who believe (or accept without contesting) the announcements are not co-conspirators - despite what JD will want us to believe with his wrong interpretations of 'conspirator' and 'conspiracy theories.'

[jdinasia]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

[boomerangutang]

As for hypothetical scenarios of the crime. Any posters are allowed to do that. I put forth a supposed crime scenario within the first weeks of the crime. As the weeks and months passed, I tweaked that scenario a bit to fit additional bits of data and upon further reflection - though it's still quite close to my initial thoughts - and miles apart from the reenactment put forth by the RTP. Supposed crime scenarios are also what the defense and prosection are and will be doing - though they may be apprised of more data than those of us posting herein. On the other hand, there may be bits of data and/or insights which neither the prosecution and/or the defense are fully aware of - or perhaps things they deemed insignificant, which are actually significant. We don't know if any members of the defense or prosecution are reading this blog. I assume, if the prosecution is reading some things here, they're perspective (and their battle plan) is in line with those on this thread who do all they can to try and find dirt on the B2, while concurrently shield the H's people.

[boomerangutang]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

Sorry to make you sad, but as usual, you mis-read and mis-interpreted what was written - and then tried to disparage it. I wasn't even thinking of PBS when I wrote that. I was referring to the word 'conspiracy' and your favorite phrase 'conspiracy theory.' Actually, the examples I used should bring a smile to your face, because it precludes the police, from just below the top of the pyramic on down, from being part of a conspiracy to nail the B2. If there is a conspiracy to fudge the data, it would only need to be among those at the very top - to result in the quagmire the B2 are in now.

And I still didn't get an answer to what PBS you're referring to. Is it the US's PBS, or some Thai entity?

[AleG]

As for hypothetical scenarios of the crime. Any posters are allowed to do that. I put forth a supposed crime scenario within the first weeks of the crime. As the weeks and months passed, I tweaked that scenario a bit to fit additional bits of data and upon further reflection - though it's still quite close to my initial thoughts - and miles apart from the reenactment put forth by the RTP. Supposed crime scenarios are also what the defense and prosection are and will be doing - though they may be apprised of more data than those of us posting herein. On the other hand, there may be bits of data and/or insights which neither the prosecution and/or the defense are fully aware of - or perhaps things they deemed insignificant, which are actually significant. We don't know if any members of the defense or prosecution are reading this blog. I assume, if the prosecution is reading some things here, they're perspective (and their battle plan) is in line with those on this thread who do all they can to try and find dirt on the B2, while concurrently shield the H's people.

The scenario from the people with actual access to actual evidence differs from yours, well, what a surprise.

Of course you haven't refined your "scenario", even when your premises has been proven to be wrong you still cling to your conclusions which, surprise again, fit splendidly with your own prejudices.

That and clinging to a parallel reality where this "I assume, if the prosecution is reading some things here, they're perspective (and their battle plan) is in line with those on this thread who do all they can to try and find dirt on the B2, while concurrently shield the H's people.

" passes for rational thinking.

Here's a clue, disproving patently unsound arguments doesn't make one part of a vast conspiracy.

[AleG]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

No sadder than playing dumb to pretend he doesn't know which PBS you are referring to.

[jdinasia]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

No sadder than playing dumb to pretend he doesn't know which PBS you are referring to.

You posted the link and he replied to it in the last few days.

But hey.

[AleG]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

Sorry to make you sad, but as usual, you mis-read and mis-interpreted what was written - and then tried to disparage it. I wasn't even thinking of PBS when I wrote that. I was referring to the word 'conspiracy' and your favorite phrase 'conspiracy theory.' Actually, the examples I used should bring a smile to your face, because it precludes the police, from just below the top of the pyramic on down, from being part of a conspiracy to nail the B2. If there is a conspiracy to fudge the data, it would only need to be among those at the very top - to result in the quagmire the B2 are in now.

And I still didn't get an answer to what PBS you're referring to. Is it the US's PBS, or some Thai entity?

Let me help you; he is talking about Thai PBS, the broadcaster, the one that produced an entire segment proving that your theories are wrong:

Happy to oblige.

[AleG]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

No sadder than playing dumb to pretend he doesn't know which PBS you are referring to.

You posted the link and he replied to it in the last few days.

But hey.

Denial can easily become a habit.

[cdnvic]

1. Don't make accusations of malfeasance against the courts. It's illegal, like it or not.

2. I don't want to see Enron again. It has nothing to do with the topic.

3. You are starting to make personal attacks at each other again. Each time you lose your posting rights for it the time will double.

[berybert]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

Sorry to make you sad, but as usual, you mis-read and mis-interpreted what was written - and then tried to disparage it. I wasn't even thinking of PBS when I wrote that. I was referring to the word 'conspiracy' and your favorite phrase 'conspiracy theory.' Actually, the examples I used should bring a smile to your face, because it precludes the police, from just below the top of the pyramic on down, from being part of a conspiracy to nail the B2. If there is a conspiracy to fudge the data, it would only need to be among those at the very top - to result in the quagmire the B2 are in now.

And I still didn't get an answer to what PBS you're referring to. Is it the US's PBS, or some Thai entity?

Let me help you; he is talking about Thai PBS, the broadcaster, the one that produced an entire segment proving that your theories are wrong:

Happy to oblige.

How amazing. Now Nomsod doesn't have to be mentioned and still someone who doesn't know him, flies in to defend him.

[jdinasia]

Conflating PBS with Enron. Sad

Sorry to make you sad, but as usual, you mis-read and mis-interpreted what was written - and then tried to disparage it. I wasn't even thinking of PBS when I wrote that. I was referring to the word 'conspiracy' and your favorite phrase 'conspiracy theory.' Actually, the examples I used should bring a smile to your face, because it precludes the police, from just below the top of the pyramic on down, from being part of a conspiracy to nail the B2. If there is a conspiracy to fudge the data, it would only need to be among those at the very top - to result in the quagmire the B2 are in now.

And I still didn't get an answer to what PBS you're referring to. Is it the US's PBS, or some Thai entity?

Let me help you; he is talking about Thai PBS, the broadcaster, the one that produced an entire segment proving that your theories are wrong:

Happy to oblige.

How amazing. Now Nomsod doesn't have to be mentioned and still someone who doesn't know him, flies in to defend him.

Nope - you mentioned his name. Boomerangutang mentioned CCTV and added PBS to the list of people / groups in on the conspiracy