Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[berybert]

C- Have already admitted of being in possesion of David Miller's phone since that night (and possibly sunglasses).

Funny when you say it,it is a fact.

"I guess your show stopped is that they claim they did or didn't have David's sun glasses. Reckon that could see them go down."

This gibberish I can't decipher...

When I say it, it is gibberish.

If you want some real gibberish try this ...................

"Admitted to having Davids phone,"

Yes they did, well "allegedly"

Sorry I need to add the whole of this................

"Admitted to having Davids phone,"

Yes they did, well "allegedly" David's phone, you may want to check the page were the defense asks for money to see for yourself.

The phone has been identified by the police as being Miller's phone, and since nobody in a position to refute that claim (friends or family) has come forward to refute that claim it stands until it can be proven to be false, i.e. during the trial. Which is why I have repeated ad nauseum that the evidence, as it stands now, points at their involvement in the murders. Something your simple logic reinterprets as me saying they are guilty.

Now please explain how what you typed proves they had Davids phone ?

Edited June 4, 2015 by berybert

[mcm991]

Sadly, AleG and his cohorts represent the local system - not the Supreme Court of Canada.

No facts nor indeed any evidence at all needs to be presented here by the prosecution to obtain a conviction.

Shine the light of facts and evidence and doubt on this case and they will attack like cornered rats in the dark.

Funny, because for the past few pages I've been asking, repeatedly, for people to prove me wrong ("But go ahead, go back to your first comment to me here and prove me wrong, you know, with FACTS.") and all I'm getting is abuse (like you calling me a shill) or evasions, like Fritzzz going on a rant about the Canadian court system. Being proven wrong about things I've said... not so much.

At least a cornered rat fights, it doesn't run away making excuses for its inability to stand its ground.

In the real world, AleG, the presecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's pretty much it.

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused done the crime. Period.

Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........

Now ... what else does the prosecution have ? A retracted confession allegedly obtained under duress?

but as we know .... it's different here.

apologies for repeating this reference.

http://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]

[AleG]

C- Have already admitted of being in possesion of David Miller's phone since that night (and possibly sunglasses).

Funny when you say it,it is a fact.

"I guess your show stopped is that they claim they did or didn't have David's sun glasses. Reckon that could see them go down."

This gibberish I can't decipher...

When I say it, it is gibberish.

If you want some real gibberish try this ...................

"Admitted to having Davids phone,"

Yes they did, well "allegedly"

The fact is that the police claim Miller's phone and sunglasses were in possession of the two suspects, the fact is the defense team admits they had, since the day of the murders, possessions (plural) allegedly from the victims, and specified a phone as part of those possessions. They don't deny they had those possessions, they just say they are "allegedly" from the victim, which will be easily proved or disproved when the evidence is examined.

As it stands now, the evidence is that they were in possession of items from one of the victims (among other things)

Is that clear now?

[berybert]

C- Have already admitted of being in possesion of David Miller's phone since that night (and possibly sunglasses).

Funny when you say it,it is a fact.

"I guess your show stopped is that they claim they did or didn't have David's sun glasses. Reckon that could see them go down."

This gibberish I can't decipher...

When I say it, it is gibberish.

If you want some real gibberish try this ...................

"Admitted to having Davids phone,"

Yes they did, well "allegedly"

The fact is that the police claim Miller's phone and sunglasses were in possession of the two suspects, the fact is the defense team admits they had, since the day of the murders, possessions (plural) allegedly from the victims, and specified a phone as part of those possessions. They don't deny they had those possessions, they just say they are "allegedly" from the victim, which will be easily proved or disproved when the evidence is examined.

As it stands now, the evidence is that they were in possession of items from one of the victims (among other things)

Is that clear now?

The police claim .. Well the police were claiming they had solid evidence from the start and every time it got sent back they still claimed it was 100% They just didn't seem to know if it was too long or too short.

As for you speaking for the defense, really. They had the phone and the sunglasses from the day of the murder ? The defense and the boys have admitted this ?

You really are making this up as you go along.

[AleG]

In the real world, AleG, the presecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's pretty much it.

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused done the crime. Period.

Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........

Now ... what else does the prosecution have ? A retracted confession allegedly obtained under duress?

but as we know .... it's different here.

apologies for repeating this reference.

http://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]

"Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........"

Only if the contamination is relevant, just because someone walked around the crime scene doesn't mean that DNA from inside one of the victims is compromised or that it would yield a false positive identifying someone that wasn't physically present at the place. Unless you would want to argue that the DNA evidence was planted on the crime scene so they could, after over three weeks of fumbling around, announce that they have cracked the case, which is ridiculous (although hasn't stopped some people from trying that angle)

As for your last paragraph, then every convictions should be overturned on those grounds? Should they let free the man that raped and killed a girl and then threw her out of a moving train because he was beaten while in custody?

Or is it better to let the facts of the case decide guilt or innocence?

If there are abuses against suspects that is a different case to answer for by the police, it doesn't make the objective reality of whether the suspects are guilty or innocent any different.

[AleG]

The fact is that the police claim Miller's phone and sunglasses were in possession of the two suspects, the fact is the defense team admits they had, since the day of the murders, possessions (plural) allegedly from the victims, and specified a phone as part of those possessions. They don't deny they had those possessions, they just say they are "allegedly" from the victim, which will be easily proved or disproved when the evidence is examined.

As it stands now, the evidence is that they were in possession of items from one of the victims (among other things)

Is that clear now?

The police claim .. Well the police were claiming they had solid evidence from the start and every time it got sent back they still claimed it was 100% They just didn't seem to know if it was too long or too short.

As for you speaking for the defense, really. They had the phone and the sunglasses from the day of the murder ? The defense and the boys have admitted this ?

You really are making this up as you go along.

The idea that evidence is contested during a trial doesn't seem to sink on you. Neither the concept of being informed before being opinionated.

Yes, the defense has said that they had possessions "allegedly" belonging to the victims since the day of the murders and that they just happened to "find" them. They don't deny they had those possessions, or that they are not from the victims.

You asked what is the evidence that has been presented against the accused, I provided a list (by no means I expect it to be a complete one), you don't like that you got a factual answer, too bad.

[berybert]

The fact is that the police claim Miller's phone and sunglasses were in possession of the two suspects, the fact is the defense team admits they had, since the day of the murders, possessions (plural) allegedly from the victims, and specified a phone as part of those possessions. They don't deny they had those possessions, they just say they are "allegedly" from the victim, which will be easily proved or disproved when the evidence is examined.

As it stands now, the evidence is that they were in possession of items from one of the victims (among other things)

Is that clear now?

The police claim .. Well the police were claiming they had solid evidence from the start and every time it got sent back they still claimed it was 100% They just didn't seem to know if it was too long or too short.

As for you speaking for the defense, really. They had the phone and the sunglasses from the day of the murder ? The defense and the boys have admitted this ?

You really are making this up as you go along.

The idea that evidence is contested during a trial doesn't seem to sink on you. Neither the concept of being informed before being opinionated.

Yes, the defense has said that they had possessions "allegedly" belonging to the victims since the day of the murders and that they just happened to "find" them. They don't deny they had those possessions, or that they are not from the victims.

You asked what is the evidence that has been presented against the accused, I provided a list (by no means I expect it to be a complete one), you don't like that you got a factual answer, too bad.

Where do you get the idea from that I don't know the evidence gets contested during the trial ?

As for having possession of items I recall after they were 'found' in a bush behind their lodgings another Burmese was quoted as saying the 2 accused gave them to him, they didn't work so he threw them away. Allegedly the sunglasses did work but he threw those away as well.

You seem to love a link yet have not supplied one from the defense claiming the boys had these items.

[mcm991]

In the real world, AleG, the presecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's pretty much it.

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused done the crime. Period.

Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........

Now ... what else does the prosecution have ? A retracted confession allegedly obtained under duress?

but as we know .... it's different here.

apologies for repeating this reference.

http://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]

"Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........"

Only if the contamination is relevant, just because someone walked around the crime scene doesn't mean that DNA from inside one of the victims is compromised or that it would yield a false positive identifying someone that wasn't physically present at the place. Unless you would want to argue that the DNA evidence was planted on the crime scene so they could, after over three weeks of fumbling around, announce that they have cracked the case, which is ridiculous (although hasn't stopped some people from trying that angle)

As for your last paragraph, then every convictions should be overturned on those grounds? Should they let free the man that raped and killed a girl and then threw her out of a moving train because he was beaten while in custody?

Or is it better to let the facts of the case decide guilt or innocence?

If there are abuses against suspects that is a different case to answer for by the police, it doesn't make the objective reality of whether the suspects are guilty or innocent any different.

I suggest that having seen the photos and video of every man and his dog all over the crime scene - one would not need to be Matlock to have all the DNA evidence collected there thrown out as unreliable. The prosecution in most countries that I have lived in would have a uphill battle getting any of it admitted as reliable evidence.

I also maintain that any confession obtained through torture or 'enhanced interrogation techniques', as you no doubt prefer to call it - should be inadmissable in any civilized society. No exceptions.

[boomerangutang]

Note: AleG has 11 of the priort 32 posts, that's over one third! and Crab claims I'm the most frequent poster on this thread.

It's appreciated that Fritzzz25 has direct experienced with a legal system in a country which knows something about free and fair trials. It's good to get a reminder of what justice systems can and should be; innocent until proven guilty, evidence gathered and scrutinized objectively, evidence available to be seen by defense, and so on.

So there's basically two types of posters:

1) Those who believe the B2 are completely innocent.

2) Sad trolls.

Okay then.

Not quite that black and white. Though I believe the B2 are innocent, I will accept they are guilty of some transgressions (theft, for example) or even guilty of rape and murder, .....if the evidence shows that - beyond a reasonable doubt.

That distinguishes me from those few posters on the other side of the fence who don't even want to consider that any of the H's people could be guilty of any wrongdoing. Indeed, mention of the H's people, in relation to this crime is met (by the handful of shielders) with threats of defamation of character lawsuits. Let me think, who are they sorts of people who threaten defamation lawsuits? Hmmmm, the poster boy, in Thailand, for defamation lawsuits is none other than Thaksin. The sort of person who Shakespeare was referring to, when he wrote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Edited June 4, 2015 by boomerangutang

[AleG]

"Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........"

Only if the contamination is relevant, just because someone walked around the crime scene doesn't mean that DNA from inside one of the victims is compromised or that it would yield a false positive identifying someone that wasn't physically present at the place. Unless you would want to argue that the DNA evidence was planted on the crime scene so they could, after over three weeks of fumbling around, announce that they have cracked the case, which is ridiculous (although hasn't stopped some people from trying that angle)

As for your last paragraph, then every convictions should be overturned on those grounds? Should they let free the man that raped and killed a girl and then threw her out of a moving train because he was beaten while in custody?

Or is it better to let the facts of the case decide guilt or innocence?

If there are abuses against suspects that is a different case to answer for by the police, it doesn't make the objective reality of whether the suspects are guilty or innocent any different.

I suggest that having seen the photos and video of every man and his dog all over the crime scene - one would not need to be Matlock to have all the DNA evidence collected there thrown out as unreliable. The prosecution in most countries that I have lived in would have a uphill battle getting any of it admitted as reliable evidence.

I also maintain that any confession obtained through torture or 'enhanced interrogation techniques', as you no doubt prefer to call it - should be inadmissable in any civilized society. No exceptions.

Please explain to me how, precisely, having "every man and his dog all over the crime scene" (with people taking photos, that's why you know about that) would result in the DNA... not just DNA, semen, of the two men on trial being inside the rape victim.

Bonus points if you explain why that would happen and how it relates to the subsequent crime investigation.

[AleG]

Note: AleG has 11 of the priort 32 posts, that's over one third! and Crab claims I'm the most frequent poster on this thread.

It's appreciated that Fritzzz25 has direct experienced with a legal system in a country which knows something about free and fair trials. It's good to get a reminder of what justice systems can and should be; innocent until proven guilty, evidence gathered and scrutinized objectively, evidence available to be seen by defense, and so on.

So there's basically two types of posters:

1) Those who believe the B2 are completely innocent.

2) Sad trolls.

Okay then.

Not quite that black and white. Though I believe the B2 are innocent, I will accept they are guilty of some transgressions (theft, for example) or even guilty of rape and murder, .....if the evidence shows that - beyond a reasonable doubt.

That distinguishes me from those few posters on the other side of the fence who don't even want to consider that any of the H's people could be guilty of any wrongdoing. Indeed, mention of the H's people, in relation to this crime is met (by the handful of shielders) with threats of defamation of character lawsuits. Let me think, who are they sorts of people who threaten defamation lawsuits? Hmmmm, the poster boy, in Thailand, for defamation lawsuits is none other than Thaksin. The sort of person who Shakespeare was referring to, when he wrote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

"Let me think, who are they sorts of people who threaten defamation lawsuits?"

People who are defamed, for example by having someone claim they are complicit in a criminal conspiracy to cover-up a double murder, as you have accused me of being.

[mcm991]

"Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........"

Only if the contamination is relevant, just because someone walked around the crime scene doesn't mean that DNA from inside one of the victims is compromised or that it would yield a false positive identifying someone that wasn't physically present at the place. Unless you would want to argue that the DNA evidence was planted on the crime scene so they could, after over three weeks of fumbling around, announce that they have cracked the case, which is ridiculous (although hasn't stopped some people from trying that angle)

As for your last paragraph, then every convictions should be overturned on those grounds? Should they let free the man that raped and killed a girl and then threw her out of a moving train because he was beaten while in custody?

Or is it better to let the facts of the case decide guilt or innocence?

If there are abuses against suspects that is a different case to answer for by the police, it doesn't make the objective reality of whether the suspects are guilty or innocent any different.

I suggest that having seen the photos and video of every man and his dog all over the crime scene - one would not need to be Matlock to have all the DNA evidence collected there thrown out as unreliable. The prosecution in most countries that I have lived in would have a uphill battle getting any of it admitted as reliable evidence.

I also maintain that any confession obtained through torture or 'enhanced interrogation techniques', as you no doubt prefer to call it - should be inadmissable in any civilized society. No exceptions.

Please explain to me how, precisely, having "every man and his dog all over the crime scene" (with people taking photos, that's why you know about that) would result in the DNA... not just DNA, semen, of the two men on trial being inside the rape victim.

Bonus points if you explain why that would happen and how it relates to the subsequent crime investigation.

Fine.

Let the prosecution prove that - and let the defence have the chance the properly defend the accusation. That can only happen if the defence is allowed to examine the evidence that the prosecution claims to have.

Assuming that passes muster ...... of which I have my doubts based on ... so many things ...... but if an independant expert cannot refute the evidence then you have one more hurdle to overcome.

The prosecution has to prove that the accused killed her. The (alleged) intercourse does not prove murder by a long stretch.

So far .... the defence has no access to any of the states evidence. (the topic of this thread).

You may shout as loud as you like that there is no discovery process in Thailand ..... but it does not change the fact that the defence is unable to do their job of getting their clients a fair trial.

To many here ..... the actions of the bibs has been a long series of events to deny and pervert justice. No need to rehash the thousands of posts over many months - you are aware of the issues. You have never given even 1 inch of doubt to any of the dozens of major accusations of foul play in this investigation.

Not 1 inch. A 'perfect job' to quote the boss.

That kind of religion that you and JD et al possess is always suspect in my view.

[boomerangutang]

Note: AleG has 11 of the priort 32 posts, that's over one third! and Crab claims I'm the most frequent poster on this thread.

It's appreciated that Fritzzz25 has direct experienced with a legal system in a country which knows something about free and fair trials. It's good to get a reminder of what justice systems can and should be; innocent until proven guilty, evidence gathered and scrutinized objectively, evidence available to be seen by defense, and so on.

So there's basically two types of posters:

1) Those who believe the B2 are completely innocent.

2) Sad trolls.

Okay then.

Not quite that black and white. Though I believe the B2 are innocent, I will accept they are guilty of some transgressions (theft, for example) or even guilty of rape and murder, .....if the evidence shows that - beyond a reasonable doubt.

That distinguishes me from those few posters on the other side of the fence who don't even want to consider that any of the H's people could be guilty of any wrongdoing. Indeed, mention of the H's people, in relation to this crime is met (by the handful of shielders) with threats of defamation of character lawsuits. Let me think, who are they sorts of people who threaten defamation lawsuits? Hmmmm, the poster boy, in Thailand, for defamation lawsuits is none other than Thaksin. The sort of person who Shakespeare was referring to, when he wrote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

"Let me think, who are they sorts of people who threaten defamation lawsuits?"

People who are defamed, for example by having someone claim they are complicit in a criminal conspiracy to cover-up a double murder, as you have accused me of being.

I wouldn't threaten defamation against you or anyone else. It's not my style. If I've got a problem with somebody talking trash, I either ignore them or engage them in a discussion to see what the issues are. I'm voicing things that RTP should be voicing, but aren't - for the various reasons that have been articulated in these hundreds of posts on this topic. Perhaps that's the excuse the RTP can use - for doing such a crappy job of this investigation: because they were afraid of defamation lawsuits if they implicated the people which the evidence pointed to.

I'm somewhat hopeful the defense, when they get their five days in September to call witnesses (as opposed to 10 days for the prosecution), will call Panya to the stand. He was chief cop in the early stages of the investigation - who followed the evidence to where it pointed: at Mon and Nomsod - before he was abruptly yanked to Bangkok and told to sit at a desk and be quiet. However, even if he were called, it's inevitable he would toe the police line. He would have no other choice unless he wanted to be out of a job, or worse.

[berybert]

"Now .... if the prosecution is intending to use DNA in this case as evidence to make their case ..... in the real world, the contamination of the crime scene alone would have it thrown out of court before lunch. Surely, even you would struggle to argue with this ........"

Only if the contamination is relevant, just because someone walked around the crime scene doesn't mean that DNA from inside one of the victims is compromised or that it would yield a false positive identifying someone that wasn't physically present at the place. Unless you would want to argue that the DNA evidence was planted on the crime scene so they could, after over three weeks of fumbling around, announce that they have cracked the case, which is ridiculous (although hasn't stopped some people from trying that angle)

As for your last paragraph, then every convictions should be overturned on those grounds? Should they let free the man that raped and killed a girl and then threw her out of a moving train because he was beaten while in custody?

Or is it better to let the facts of the case decide guilt or innocence?

If there are abuses against suspects that is a different case to answer for by the police, it doesn't make the objective reality of whether the suspects are guilty or innocent any different.

I suggest that having seen the photos and video of every man and his dog all over the crime scene - one would not need to be Matlock to have all the DNA evidence collected there thrown out as unreliable. The prosecution in most countries that I have lived in would have a uphill battle getting any of it admitted as reliable evidence.

I also maintain that any confession obtained through torture or 'enhanced interrogation techniques', as you no doubt prefer to call it - should be inadmissable in any civilized society. No exceptions.

Please explain to me how, precisely, having "every man and his dog all over the crime scene" (with people taking photos, that's why you know about that) would result in the DNA... not just DNA, semen, of the two men on trial being inside the rape victim.

Bonus points if you explain why that would happen and how it relates to the subsequent crime investigation.

Fine.

Let the prosecution prove that - and let the defence have the chance the properly defend the accusation. That can only happen if the defence is allowed to examine the evidence that the prosecution claims to have.

Assuming that passes muster ...... of which I have my doubts based on ... so many things ...... but if an independant expert cannot refute the evidence then you have one more hurdle to overcome.

The prosecution has to prove that the accused killed her. The (alleged) intercourse does not prove murder by a long stretch.

So far .... the defence has no access to any of the states evidence. (the topic of this thread).

You may shout as loud as you like that there is no discovery process in Thailand ..... but it does not change the fact that the defence is unable to do their job of getting their clients a fair trial.

To many here ..... the actions of the bibs has been a long series of events to deny and pervert justice. No need to rehash the thousands of posts over many months - you are aware of the issues. You have never given even 1 inch of doubt to any of the dozens of major accusations of foul play in this investigation.

Not 1 inch. A 'perfect job' to quote the boss.

That kind of religion that you and JD et al possess is always suspect in my view.

mcm, you might have missed AleG's post on the title of the thread. Here it is again.

"As for the judge, my first post in this thread, there is no discovery process in Thai trials. Why the judge said they could have access to evidence and why he now says no (all according only to statements from the defense team) I don't know, you don't know neither so what of it? Booo! the judge is doing exactly what he is supposed to do!, booo!?"

AleG ... all according to statements from the defense team... which means he is not prepared to listen to anyone or anything if it doesn't fit in with officialdoms view of events.

[AleG]

Please explain to me how, precisely, having "every man and his dog all over the crime scene" (with people taking photos, that's why you know about that) would result in the DNA... not just DNA, semen, of the two men on trial being inside the rape victim.

Bonus points if you explain why that would happen and how it relates to the subsequent crime investigation.

Fine.

Let the prosecution prove that - and let the defence have the chance the properly defend the accusation. That can only happen if the defence is allowed to examine the evidence that the prosecution claims to have.

Assuming that passes muster ...... of which I have my doubts based on ... so many things ...... but if an independant expert cannot refute the evidence then you have one more hurdle to overcome.

The prosecution has to prove that the accused killed her. The (alleged) intercourse does not prove murder by a long stretch.

So far .... the defence has no access to any of the states evidence. (the topic of this thread).

You may shout as loud as you like that there is no discovery process in Thailand ..... but it does not change the fact that the defence is unable to do their job of getting their clients a fair trial.

To many here ..... the actions of the bibs has been a long series of events to deny and pervert justice. No need to rehash the thousands of posts over many months - you are aware of the issues. You have never given even 1 inch of doubt to any of the dozens of major accusations of foul play in this investigation.

Not 1 inch. A 'perfect job' to quote the boss.

That kind of religion that you and JD et al possess is always suspect in my view.

"You may shout as loud as you like that there is no discovery process in Thailand ..... but it does not change the fact that the defence is unable to do their job of getting their clients a fair trial."

So all trials in Thailand are unfair, again, should they open all the prison gates and let everyone loose because their convictions have been unfair?

The prosecution has no access to any evidence from the defense until the trial neither, isn't that unfair to the prosecution too?

There are reasons for that, one is that it protects witnesses from the being intimidated, coerced or worse by those under trial; with all the accusations that there is a vast conspiracy to thwart justice from the very top of the Thai government down I would expect you to be happy to hear that the defense doesn't have to divulge information about their witnesses, right?

As for the "alleged" intercourse not proving murder, well we could add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that would have to come together to just make it look like it was a murder/rape. They happened to be close by, they happened to find the phone from one of the victims on that night, they happened to have sex with Witheridge and they happened to forget to tell anyone about any of that during the course of the investigation.

"You have never given even 1 inch of doubt to any of the dozens of major accusations of foul play in this investigation."

You are wrong, I have criticized aspects of the investigation, in particular the constant disclosure of information that should be kept confidential during an investigation and alleged abuses against suspects. Any other false accusation you may want to cast and be rebutted?

What I don't concede are accusations and claims with no other basis than speculation, hearsay and outright falsehoods to substantiate them, or not substantiate them as the case may be, specially with claims that are proven to be false and still kept being repeated.

[berybert]

AleG wrote.

As for the "alleged" intercourse not proving murder, well we could add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that would have to come together to just make it look like it was a murder/rape. They happened to be close by, they happened to find the phone from one of the victims on that night, they happened to have sex with Witheridge and they happened to forget to tell anyone about any of that during the course of the investigation

So they only told this to the defense team and the defense team made it public knowledge ?

[PaPiPuPePo]

The same people who claim that "the DNA evidence is sacrosanct" are wilfully ignoring the fact that there was a lot of funny business around the collection and preservation of the DNA evidence.

First it pointed one way, then another.

The "conclusive" results were obtained within 24 hours.

It was at first maintained that it could only point towards a person with Asian genetics.

A condom was found supposedly with Hannah's DNA on the outside; who's was inside? No answer.

The condom was never linked to David. What rapist wears a condom while raping someone then takes it off so he can leave the world's most conclusive evidence behind? Not wearing one at all and doing the same, stupid as it is, is much more believable.

And we're to believe that either these two guys beat David into unconsciousness with a hoe, inflicting small-diamter wounds on him that couldn't have been made by a hoe (but are identical to those on Sean and look precisely what the shark-tooth ring would cause), while Hannah stood by waiting to be raped, then raped her without receiving any scratches or wounds, and then one of them held her down so the other could make two precision strikes with the hoe, one right across her eyes, the other splitting her mouth open virtually to her jaws, but neither got blood-spattered, and there was no shadow in the blood spatter all over the rocks around her head.

And this was a crime of lust, never mind that it's rare for rape to be a crime of lust, and horrifically chopping up the victim's face is something a lusty rapist does, never mind that it's beyond rare in rape case for this kind of Jack-the-Ripper stuff to happen.

And then these two guys hung out on KT and showed up for the DNA tests because they were so sure they'd covered their tracks and would never be scapegoated.

This was an unusually violent double-murder. That's just as plain as day. Whoever did it is a monster/are monsters in human form. The rape was part of the violence visited upon this poor young woman, not the main thing.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to "grok the issues and stop embarrassing himself." I wonder why anyone would expend so much effort and verbiage trying to convince others of this ridiculous narrative about the B2 killing and mutilating this young woman out of lust unless they are delusional, somehow involved even in a peripheral way (i.e. don't want the rep. of KT to be further sullied) or are harbouring some very dark obsessions or compulsions. Whether it's the Dr. Jekyl- or the Mr. Hyde-type character (the latter must be on vacation), there's something quite odd about it.

Edited June 4, 2015 by PaPiPuPePo

[AleG]

I wouldn't threaten defamation against you or anyone else. It's not my style. If I've got a problem with somebody talking trash, I either ignore them or engage them in a discussion to see what the issues are. I'm voicing things that RTP should be voicing, but aren't - for the various reasons that have been articulated in these hundreds of posts on this topic. Perhaps that's the excuse the RTP can use - for doing such a crappy job of this investigation: because they were afraid of defamation lawsuits if they implicated the people which the evidence pointed to.

I'm somewhat hopeful the defense, when they get their five days in September to call witnesses (as opposed to 10 days for the prosecution), will call Panya to the stand. He was chief cop in the early stages of the investigation - who followed the evidence to where it pointed: at Mon and Nomsod - before he was abruptly yanked to Bangkok and told to sit at a desk and be quiet. However, even if he were called, it's inevitable he would toe the police line. He would have no other choice unless he wanted to be out of a job, or worse.

Well, how swell of you to say you would be cool with that, too bad your track record of being out of sync with your self ascribed ethical values makes me doubt you.

"He was chief cop in the early stages of the investigation - who followed the evidence to where it pointed: at Mon and Nomsod"

Oh oh, you forgot the code words, now you are in trouble...

The two men under trial were summoned to provide DNA samples at the same time you say the case was focusing on those two persons and was promoted (as scheduled since before the murders) after they were cleared of any involvement.

And guess who announced the arrests were imminent?, why, yes, Lt. Panya Mamen:

"Police are confident that they will be able to issue warrant for the arrest of or arrest the suspects in the September 15 murder of two British bakcpackers on Koh Tao in a few days, said Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen, acting assistant national police chief, said today."

Do pay attention to the word "today" and the date of the article, October 1st. Almost a week after Mon and Nomsod had been cleared and the day before the two men on trial were arrested.

But, as always, don't let facts get on the way of a good conspiracy.

"before he was abruptly yanked to Bangkok and told to sit at a desk and be quiet. However, even if he were called, it's inevitable he would toe the police line. He would have no other choice unless he wanted to be out of a job, or worse. "

I'm amazed at your inside knowledge of what was said to Panya, were you there or are you making things up again? And of course, if he says things you don't want to hear, it's because his life is under threat by... who exactly? How do you know that? In any case, how convenient that you can explain facts away so easily and unburdened by any need of substantiation or reasoning.

Edited June 4, 2015 by AleG

[boomerangutang]

We can call it deduction or suppositions based on 34 years being involved with Thais in Thailand and having a pretty good idea of how things work here. No, I don't know exactly what was said from one person to another, any more than you do or any more than RTP know what happened that awful night. I'm asking the types of questions that investigators should have been asking, but aren't. I don't think they're being inept, as much as they're purposefully trying to obscure the truth, while supressing evidence. We know why they're doing it. Will they succeed? Yes, I think they will. Will it be awful for Thailand's reputation? Yes. But it will fade, as all news stories tend to do.

There were two victims inititally; David and Hannah. Now there are three added victims: The two Burmese and whatever tattered remnant Thailand may have had of a decent justice system.

Somalia is famous for pirates. Papua New Guinea is famous for penis gourds, Amazon jungles have shrunken heads. Thailand is setting itself up to be famous for an unfair justice system.

Edited June 4, 2015 by boomerangutang

[berybert]

I wouldn't threaten defamation against you or anyone else. It's not my style. If I've got a problem with somebody talking trash, I either ignore them or engage them in a discussion to see what the issues are. I'm voicing things that RTP should be voicing, but aren't - for the various reasons that have been articulated in these hundreds of posts on this topic. Perhaps that's the excuse the RTP can use - for doing such a crappy job of this investigation: because they were afraid of defamation lawsuits if they implicated the people which the evidence pointed to.

I'm somewhat hopeful the defense, when they get their five days in September to call witnesses (as opposed to 10 days for the prosecution), will call Panya to the stand. He was chief cop in the early stages of the investigation - who followed the evidence to where it pointed: at Mon and Nomsod - before he was abruptly yanked to Bangkok and told to sit at a desk and be quiet. However, even if he were called, it's inevitable he would toe the police line. He would have no other choice unless he wanted to be out of a job, or worse.

Well, how swell of you to say you would be cool with that, too bad your track record of being out of sync with your self ascribed ethical values makes me doubt you.

"He was chief cop in the early stages of the investigation - who followed the evidence to where it pointed: at Mon and Nomsod"

Oh oh, you forgot the code words, now you are in trouble...

The two men under trial were summoned to provide DNA samples at the same time you say the case was focusing on those two persons and was promoted (as scheduled since before the murders) after they were cleared of any involvement.

And guess who announced the arrests were imminent?, why, yes, Lt. Panya Mamen:

"Police are confident that they will be able to issue warrant for the arrest of or arrest the suspects in the September 15 murder of two British bakcpackers on Koh Tao in a few days, said Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen, acting assistant national police chief, said today."

Do pay attention to the word "today" and the date of the article, October 1st. Almost a week after Mon and Nomsod had been cleared and the day before the two men on trial were arrested.

But, as always, don't let facts get on the way of a good conspiracy.

"before he was abruptly yanked to Bangkok and told to sit at a desk and be quiet. However, even if he were called, it's inevitable he would toe the police line. He would have no other choice unless he wanted to be out of a job, or worse. "

I'm amazed at your inside knowledge of what was said to Panya, were you there or are you making things up again? And of course, if he says things you don't want to hear, it's because his life is under threat by... who exactly? How do you know that? In any case, how convenient that you can explain facts away so easily and unburdened by any need of substantiation or reasoning.

Reading this article leads to more confusion. They had the DNA results they, had 10 suspects. They were using plain clothes cops to keep an eye on these suspects, yet one of the two who were charged managed to get off the island.

Someone called Pornprasit Sukdam claims he was tortured, but the police chief assured us this didn't happen. So that's all good.

Seems it wasn't only the accused who were tortured. Add to the taxi driver who was beaten after refusing to lie for the police, I can see why AleG is so sure of guilt.

As the PM stated, it is the perfect case. Tho he forgot to add Thai style.

[catsanddogs]

The same people who claim that "the DNA evidence is sacrosanct" are wilfully ignoring the fact that there was a lot of funny business around the collection and preservation of the DNA evidence.

First it pointed one way, then another.

The "conclusive" results were obtained within 24 hours.

It was at first maintained that it could only point towards a person with Asian genetics.

A condom was found supposedly with Hannah's DNA on the outside; who's was inside? No answer.

The condom was never linked to David. What rapist wears a condom while raping someone then takes it off so he can leave the world's most conclusive evidence behind? Not wearing one at all and doing the same, stupid as it is, is much more believable.

And we're to believe that either these two guys beat David into unconsciousness with a hoe, inflicting small-diamter wounds on him that couldn't have been made by a hoe (but are identical to those on Sean and look precisely what the shark-tooth ring would cause), while Hannah stood by waiting to be raped, then raped her without receiving any scratches or wounds, and then one of them held her down so the other could make two precision strikes with the hoe, one right across her eyes, the other splitting her mouth open virtually to her jaws, but neither got blood-spattered, and there was no shadow in the blood spatter all over the rocks around her head.

And this was a crime of lust, never mind that it's rare for rape to be a crime of lust, and horrifically chopping up the victim's face is something a lusty rapist does, never mind that it's beyond rare in rape case for this kind of Jack-the-Ripper stuff to happen.

And then these two guys hung out on KT and showed up for the DNA tests because they were so sure they'd covered their tracks and would never be scapegoated.

This was an unusually violent double-murder. That's just as plain as day. Whoever did it is a monster/are monsters in human form. The rape was part of the violence visited upon this poor young woman, not the main thing.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to "grok the issues and stop embarrassing himself." I wonder why anyone would expend so much effort and verbiage trying to convince others of this ridiculous narrative about the B2 killing and mutilating this young woman out of lust unless they are delusional, somehow involved even in a peripheral way (i.e. don't want the rep. of KT to be further sullied) or are harbouring some very dark obsessions or compulsions. Whether it's the Dr. Jekyl- or the Mr. Hyde-type character (the latter must be on vacation), there's something quite odd about it.

Brilliant post. Thank you for reminding us all just exactly how horrific the crime was. It's too easy to get caught up in the childishness of some posters on here and forget about the real issue, which is making sure the evil scum that committed the crimes are no longer free, and bringing some sense of closure to the victims families. That will only be possible if the true perpetrators are found and tried, which however pathetic it may sound, I still think is possible.

[cdnvic]

Since the multitude of public warnings have failed to stop the personal attacks on each other, we've now started removing the offenders to a quiet corner where they cannot disrupt the discussion for a few days. This will be our course of action from now forward.

To those of you who have managed to stay on topic and civilized while insults flew everywhere, you have our thanks.

[balo]

We can call it deduction or suppositions based on 34 years being involved with Thais in Thailand and having a pretty good idea of how things work here. No, I don't know exactly what was said from one person to another, any more than you do or any more than RTP know what happened that awful night. I'm asking the types of questions that investigators should have been asking, but aren't. I don't think they're being inept, as much as they're purposefully trying to obscure the truth, while supressing evidence. We know why they're doing it. Will they succeed? Yes, I think they will. Will it be awful for Thailand's reputation? Yes. But it will fade, as all news stories tend to do.

There were two victims inititally; David and Hannah. Now there are three added victims: The two Burmese and whatever tattered remnant Thailand may have had of a decent justice system.

Somalia is famous for pirates. Papua New Guinea is famous for penis gourds, Amazon jungles have shrunken heads. Thailand is setting itself up to be famous for an unfair justice system.

If you want to call suspected killers for victims you can do that , maybe they are all victims. But you dont know that , I dont know that , we're all waiting for a trial . Nothing new here . I give the burmese a 50/50 chance , I still personally believe they are involved in this crime .

[JLCrab]

I agree that if this were Canada or the USA, the prosecution might have a big problem on their hands especially when dealing with a jury. But this ain't Canada or the USA and there is no jury.

[sambum]

PaPiPuPePo, on 04 Jun 2015 - 19:09, said:

“you are beyond hope of understanding anything.”

“So really, you should let the discussion to people that can grok the issues and stop embarrassing yourself.”

Just two examples of the nearly constant stream of disparagement and rudeness issuing from this one member, who gets much more sincere attention in return from other members than he deserves. I long ago put him on ignore but can't avoid seeing his low-class condescension visited on other apparently sincere and upstanding members of this forum. If I didn't think he is a true believer (because I've yet to see him provide a cohesive argument for his 100% belief in the guilt of the B2, my reasonable suggestion that he put it all up on his own web or Facebook page was, tellingly, ignored) I'd be sure he was a troll. I really don't see why he hasn't been banned for his constant belligerent disrespect of others.

If nothing else I suggest those who continue to engage him stop; without that attention to feed on he can either make his case in toto here or elsewhere, or if he's only about talking like an aggressive drunk, go sully some other part of the internet.

Completely agree with this post - the member that he refers to seems to be incapable of delivering a non-confrontational statement of any kind. He sets out deliberately to be argumentative and rude, and consequently gets much more attention than he deserves.

With all due respect to the powers that be on this website, I am also baffled as to why he is allowed to continue posting in this fashion, as I am sure that it contravenes the rules of the Forum

[IslandLover]

I'm beginning to suspect the judge's volte-face regarding the retesting of the DNA evidence could well be because the defence team made public the fact that they have engaged the services of a well-renowned British CSI specialist. So, if this IS the reason, I can only conclude that the prosecution REALLY have something to hide!

[boomerangutang]

PaPiPuPePo, on 04 Jun 2015 - 19:09, said:

“you are beyond hope of understanding anything.”

“So really, you should let the discussion to people that can grok the issues and stop embarrassing yourself.”

Just two examples of the nearly constant stream of disparagement and rudeness issuing from this one member, who gets much more sincere attention in return from other members than he deserves. I long ago put him on ignore but can't avoid seeing his low-class condescension visited on other apparently sincere and upstanding members of this forum. If I didn't think he is a true believer (because I've yet to see him provide a cohesive argument for his 100% belief in the guilt of the B2, my reasonable suggestion that he put it all up on his own web or Facebook page was, tellingly, ignored) I'd be sure he was a troll. I really don't see why he hasn't been banned for his constant belligerent disrespect of others.

If nothing else I suggest those who continue to engage him stop; without that attention to feed on he can either make his case in toto here or elsewhere, or if he's only about talking like an aggressive drunk, go sully some other part of the internet.

Completely agree with this post - the member that he refers to seems to be incapable of delivering a non-confrontational statement of any kind. He sets out deliberately to be argumentative and rude, and consequently gets much more attention than he deserves.

With all due respect to the powers that be on this website, I am also baffled as to why he is allowed to continue posting in this fashion, as I am sure that it contravenes the rules of the Forum

There are certain types who feed on controversy. I once wrote a regular weekly column for a newspaper in California. I was paired off with a guy - because the editor knew I was a liberal and the other fellow, a conservative. It was almost comical how the other guy could always be contrarian on every issue. Even if the topic was a proposed new park for the town, he could find ways to poop on the idea. The only thing we agreed upon was our mutual admiration for Native Americans. Sorry if it sounds like I'm straying off-topic, but the point is: if a person decides to be contrarian, it's not hard to do, and it garners attention in a scrooge-like way. Often they're attention-seekers, because that's probably the only way they can garner it - like the naughty boy in a big family. By being naughty, he demands the most attention. A cynic is an optimist gone sour.

[sambum]

In reply to JL Crab Post #173:-

Not being personal, as I would make this same comment to anybody. You do seem to have a reasonable command of the English language, so why more than 3 full lines of text without a single full stop? It does make it very difficult for people to understand the point that you are trying to make.

to put me in the proper mood to respond to much of what gets posted on here,, I pretend that i am writing dialog for The Marx Brothers.

marx-brothers.jpg

Ah, that explains a lot about the "information" in your posts!

Take it as you will. With due respect to the powers that be on this website, I agree with Alice:

Who cares for you?' said Alice, ... 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

Also with due respect to the powers that be on this website, if I am "nothing but a pack of cards!", I would suggest that you can be "nothing but the Joker!"

[JLCrab]

Thank you. This is an anonymous forum. If somebody wants to call me an idiot or say my posts are ridiculous, so what. Nothing more than the cards to Alice. Will they still let me buy a Coke at the 7-11?

[JLCrab]

PaPiPuPePo, on 04 Jun 2015 - 19:09, said:

“you are beyond hope of understanding anything.”

“So really, you should let the discussion to people that can grok the issues and stop embarrassing yourself.”

Just two examples of the nearly constant stream of disparagement and rudeness issuing from this one member, who gets much more sincere attention in return from other members than he deserves. I long ago put him on ignore but can't avoid seeing his low-class condescension visited on other apparently sincere and upstanding members of this forum. If I didn't think he is a true believer (because I've yet to see him provide a cohesive argument for his 100% belief in the guilt of the B2, my reasonable suggestion that he put it all up on his own web or Facebook page was, tellingly, ignored) I'd be sure he was a troll. I really don't see why he hasn't been banned for his constant belligerent disrespect of others.

If nothing else I suggest those who continue to engage him stop; without that attention to feed on he can either make his case in toto here or elsewhere, or if he's only about talking like an aggressive drunk, go sully some other part of the internet.

Completely agree with this post - the member that he refers to seems to be incapable of delivering a non-confrontational statement of any kind. He sets out deliberately to be argumentative and rude, and consequently gets much more attention than he deserves.

With all due respect to the powers that be on this website, I am also baffled as to why he is allowed to continue posting in this fashion, as I am sure that it contravenes the rules of the Forum

There are certain types who feed on controversy. I once wrote a regular weekly column for a newspaper in California. I was paired off with a guy - because the editor knew I was a liberal and the other fellow, a conservative. It was almost comical how the other guy could always be contrarian on every issue. Even if the topic was a proposed new park for the town, he could find ways to poop on the idea. The only thing we agreed upon was our mutual admiration for Native Americans. Sorry if it sounds like I'm straying off-topic, but the point is: if a person decides to be contrarian, it's not hard to do, and it garners attention in a scrooge-like way. Often they're attention-seekers, because that's probably the only way they can garner it - like the naughty boy in a big family. By being naughty, he demands the most attention. A cynic is an optimist gone sour.

If you have to say 'the point is', that means you didn't make it.