Thailand Brit murder suspects 'still waiting' on evidence review

[IslandLover]

I seek clarification: Did the judge say he will allow review of evidence - starting the first day of the trial, or that he may allow..... ?

Also, what sorts of restrictions are Thai authorities (judge included) putting on what can be reviewed? In the April announcement by the judge, bloody clothing was mentioned. Is bloody clothing still one of the categories which the judge will allow to be reviewed? How about the hoe?

Of course, the list of evidenciary things in this case which should be reviewed by professionals is long, but unfortunately (for the defendants and for the general public) the judge has a lot of power in deciding what can be reviewed. He may even want to micro-manage how it's reviewed. In other words, he may say the bloody hoe can be scrutinized for blood, but not for fingerprints. He may say only clothing found at the crime scene can be reviewed, but no other clothing. Ideally, everything related to the crime would be open for review by experts, but that's expecting too much. Lest we forget, even those who may be allowed to review evidence - are ONLY people from the ranks of Thai officialdom. Outsiders are precluded.

Is the judge aware that such reviews of evidence, will likely take days or weeks? Another judge earlier placed a 7 month time lag between arraignment and beginning trial date. Yet a replacement judge puts a SAME DAY time-frame for allowing the evidence to be reviewed. That's a ratio of over 200 to 1 when comparing the time for defense and prosecution to prepare for the trial, and the time allowance for review of evidence in relation to the trial start-date.

From the BBC:

Their defence lawyers have asked for the forensic evidence gathered by Thai police to be sent to independent experts.

But the judge in the case has said that he will not rule on the matter until the first day of the trial.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32948790

From the Malaymailonline (which says a bit more):

In April a court on the nearby island of Koh Samui approved the defence’s request to independently analyse the evidence against their clients, including DNA and physical evidence at the crime scene such as blood stains and a shirt.

But the lead lawyer on the defence side said his team had been told by the court that they would only find out whether they can access the evidence on July 8 — the first day of the trial.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/8-months-on-koh-tao-murder-suspects-still-waiting-on-evidence-review

This is all we know at the moment, but it looks like the defence team may not even be granted access to the evidence on July 8 - it depends on the whim of the judge (at least that's how I interpret it). This goes against everything that was agreed upon in the Samui court on April 30 and one seriously has to ask why? Just what are the prosecution/RTP afraid of?

[IslandLover]

I seek clarification: Did the judge say he will allow review of evidence - starting the first day of the trial, or that he may allow..... ?

Also, what sorts of restrictions are Thai authorities (judge included) putting on what can be reviewed? In the April announcement by the judge, bloody clothing was mentioned. Is bloody clothing still one of the categories which the judge will allow to be reviewed? How about the hoe?

Of course, the list of evidenciary things in this case which should be reviewed by professionals is long, but unfortunately (for the defendants and for the general public) the judge has a lot of power in deciding what can be reviewed. He may even want to micro-manage how it's reviewed. In other words, he may say the bloody hoe can be scrutinized for blood, but not for fingerprints. He may say only clothing found at the crime scene can be reviewed, but no other clothing. Ideally, everything related to the crime would be open for review by experts, but that's expecting too much. Lest we forget, even those who may be allowed to review evidence - are ONLY people from the ranks of Thai officialdom. Outsiders are precluded.

Is the judge aware that such reviews of evidence, will likely take days or weeks? Another judge earlier placed a 7 month time lag between arraignment and beginning trial date. Yet a replacement judge puts a SAME DAY time-frame for allowing the evidence to be reviewed. That's a ratio of over 200 to 1 when comparing the time for defense and prosecution to prepare for the trial, and the time allowance for review of evidence in relation to the trial start-date.

Boomer, Further to my previous post, I've just added an article by Chris Harkins to the website which probably explains it best. It really doesn't look good for the defence team.

Edited June 6, 2015 by IslandLover

[boomerangutang]

Thai officialdom continues to hope that the ongoing slew of problems which crop up in Thailand and the rest of the world, will sufficiently divert attention away from this investigation and trial. That's why they put the trial off for 7 months from the first arraignment, and will be 380 days from the date of the crime - until the verdict. ....then there will likely be some more long stretches of time for appeals. That's unless charges are dropped, which looks unlikely, because, despite the sense of dropping charges, Thai officialdom is loather for that to happen. Worse than that, from the perspective of Thai officials, the PM and the H's family, would be taking another look at those who were the original prime suspects.

From Islandlover's post, quoting BBC and other news outlets, the Thai justice system looks ever more lopsided and subjective, as each week crawls by. And still no bail for the B2. There's no bail either for hyper-rich kid who killed a Bkk cop with his car, but he doesn't need bail, he can just skip off to Singapore and say he has a stomach ache and can't return to Thailand. Thai cops say, "ok, mai pen rai. Sorry for bothering you with pesky questions. Hope your tummy ache gets better, ha ha ha."

[JLCrab]

Have you ever heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

[jdinasia]

Have you ever heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

LOL

I just can't be bothered to continue beating down the conspiracy theories.

It's worth remembering that defamation is both a civil and criminal crime in Thailand.

[boomerangutang]

Have you ever heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

LOL

I just can't be bothered to continue beating down the conspiracy theories.

It's worth remembering that defamation is both a civil and criminal crime in Thailand.

It appears you'd like to see the Headman and his son and/or his brother slap some defamation lawsuits around. Now, why would that be? It wouldn't be to suppress the truth, would it? Nawww.

[boomerangutang]

LOL I just can't be bothered to continue beating down the conspiracy theories.

Tell us, JD, which of the following items is part of a conspiracty theory?

>>> "the trial was put off for 7 months from the first arraignment, and will be 380 days from the date of the crime - until the verdict."

>>> "then there will likely be some more long stretches of time for appeals. That's unless charges are dropped,....."

>>> "And still no bail (option) for the B2."

[boomerangutang]

Speaking of 'preaching to the choir' ....yesterday I watched an interview with Erin Brockovich. There was a popular movie made about a segment of her life, where she become an activist - against all odds - trying to assist regular people who were being railroaded by a large wealthy corporation.

I mention her, in the context of 'preaching to the choir.' She's still an activist, and a good portion of the people who listen to her speeches are already convinced of her causes: too many harmful chemicals ingested by people, many of those chemicals are knowingly emitted by large corporations, while government looks the other way.

I mention it because it relates to the trial: On the one hand, yes, the vast majority of posters on this topic are in favor of unvarnished truth and justice. So, when people like me post things which back that up, then you can call it 'preaching to the choir' if you want. Is it a put-down to say that? Maybe it is from your perspective. The bigger issue is: how it is possible for some little people to challenge the full might of officialdom. We may not get justice, but some of us are willing to try for that goal. Thankfully, Thailand has a moderately free press, certainly better than most of its neighboring countries, including China. So posters on here can generally speak their minds - though a few posters, in tight with officialdom (and maybe also tight with the Headman's people), would rather we didn't.

The pen may not be mightier than the sword, but it may deflect the full force of the sword. In this case, the sword is the force used by the full weight of Thai officialdom trying their darndest to convict the B2 and execute them 'Blunting' of the sword could be seen as hoping reason will prevail and the Burmese be let off for lack of evidence, if it proves they're innocent of the grave crimes (I don't care whether they stole sunglasses from the crime scene). Even if they're let off, they will have been in prison for a year of their young lives by that time. Who's going to compensate them for that lost year? Certainly not Thai officialdom.

[phuketandsee]

Thai officialdom continues to hope that the ongoing slew of problems which crop up in Thailand and the rest of the world, will sufficiently divert attention away from this investigation and trial. That's why they put the trial off for 7 months from the first arraignment, and will be 380 days from the date of the crime - until the verdict. ....then there will likely be some more long stretches of time for appeals. That's unless charges are dropped, which looks unlikely, because, despite the sense of dropping charges, Thai officialdom is loather for that to happen. Worse than that, from the perspective of Thai officials, the PM and the H's family, would be taking another look at those who were the original prime suspects.

From Islandlover's post, quoting BBC and other news outlets, the Thai justice system looks ever more lopsided and subjective, as each week crawls by. And still no bail for the B2. There's no bail either for hyper-rich kid who killed a Bkk cop with his car, but he doesn't need bail, he can just skip off to Singapore and say he has a stomach ache and can't return to Thailand. Thai cops say, "ok, mai pen rai. Sorry for bothering you with pesky questions. Hope your tummy ache gets better, ha ha ha."

They may also be counting on a big event being a major distraction. Can't be much longer now.

[JLCrab]

Erin Brockovich didn't spend her time sitting on her a-s whacking a computer keyboard writing stuff no one in a position to do anything about a travesty of justice is gonna read.

Besides, from the movie with Julia Roberts as E.B.:

Ed Masry: What makes you think you can just walk in there and find what we need?

Erin Brockovich: They're called boobs, Ed.

She had 'em; you don't

[boomerangutang]

Erin Brockovich didn't spend her time sitting on her a-s whacking a computer keyboard writing stuff no one in a position to do anything about a travesty of justice is gonna read.

Besides, from the movie with Julia Roberts as E.B.:

Ed Masry: What makes you think you can just walk in there and find what we need?

Erin Brockovich: They're called boobs, Ed.

She had 'em; you don't

So, when you're 3rd grade teacher was teaching about Abraham Lincoln, she turned to you and said, "Crab, you'll never be Abe Lincoln because you don't have a beard."

In the bigger picture, it's all that Crab JD and AleG have left: they can't post anything on-topic, so they're left spouting low-wit hot air. Here's a suggestion: Try posting something which relates to the topic AND is informative - but don't get an aneurism in the process. P.S. JD didn't/couldn't answer my question to him, from 4 posts prior. A simple 'yes or no' would suffice.

[boomerangutang]

.... no one in a position to do anything about a travesty of justice is gonna read.

So, are you concurring that this whole thing orchestrated by Thai officials, is a travesty of justice?

If so, welcome to reality.

[JLCrab]

Beats me -- all I was doing was paraphrasing your polemic.

[JLCrab]

Erin Brockovich didn't spend her time sitting on her a-s whacking a computer keyboard writing stuff no one in a position to do anything about a travesty of justice is gonna read.

Besides, from the movie with Julia Roberts as E.B.:

Ed Masry: What makes you think you can just walk in there and find what we need?

Erin Brockovich: They're called boobs, Ed.

She had 'em; you don't

So, when you're 3rd grade teacher was teaching about Abraham Lincoln, she turned to you and said, "Crab, you'll never be Abe Lincoln because you don't have a beard."

In the bigger picture, it's all that Crab JD and AleG have left: they can't post anything on-topic, so they're left spouting low-wit hot air. Here's a suggestion: Try posting something which relates to the topic AND is informative - but don't get an aneurism in the process. P.S. JD didn't/couldn't answer my question to him, from 4 posts prior. A simple 'yes or no' would suffice.

I did way back -- I said that if the person in the 'running man' video is who you think he is, then there is nobody among the friends of the late Ms. Witheridge who were with her that last evening of her life who have said publicly that they saw any such person in the company of their friend at any time. To which you answered to the effect that maybe they are under house arrest in UK or are being held incommunicado.

... and in terms of getting hard to get information, tits can go a lot farther than a beard.

[boomerangutang]

Well, Crab, at least you're somewhat open-minded. That's good. I never thought you were firmly in the H's corner. Let's see if running man videos will be looked at, and considered at the trial. I rather doubt it, because as soon as that issue is broached, the prosecution will jump up and say to the judge, "inadmissable, your honor. Only the two defendants are on trial, no one else!" If that happens, it would be no surprise which way the judge would rule on that issue.

JD can call that whole paragraph 'conspiracy theory' (which, of course, it's not) but I think even JD suspects what the 900 lb gorilla of conspiracy theories is (or maybe he can't, I don't know). The biggest conspiracy is top officials doing all they can to frame the B2 while concurrently shielding 'you know who.'

[boomerangutang]

... and in terms of getting hard to get information, tits can go a lot farther than a beard.

....it depends on whether the person seeking info has tits or a beard.

[JLCrab]

If I were trying to get hard-to-get info, I would send the one with the tits.

[JLCrab]

Well, Crab, at least you're somewhat open-minded. That's good. I never thought you were firmly in the H's corner. Let's see if running man videos will be looked at, and considered at the trial. I rather doubt it, because as soon as that issue is broached, the prosecution will jump up and say to the judge, "inadmissable, your honor. Only the two defendants are on trial, no one else!" If that happens, it would be no surprise which way the judge would rule on that issue.

JD can call that whole paragraph 'conspiracy theory' (which, of course, it's not) but I think even JD suspects what the 900 lb gorilla of conspiracy theories is (or maybe he can't, I don't know). The biggest conspiracy is top officials doing all they can to frame the B2 while concurrently shielding 'you know who.'

The running man video might not be admissible because it is so nebulous there is no way to positively determine just who that person is.

[JLCrab]

Note that yesterday there was a query about the forensic expert retained by the defense which I provided the info. And Boomer queried about whether a Thai official can be held for obstruction to which I provided the Section in the Thai criminal Code. So don't think I don't follow what you refer to as being 'back on topic'.

I take the horrific crime committed last September on Koh Tao very seriously but that does not mean that I have to take the persons who choose to post on here very seriously as well.

Edited June 7, 2015 by JLCrab

[Rimmer]

An off topic post with messed up quotes has been removed removed

[boomerangutang]

Well, Crab, at least you're somewhat open-minded. That's good. I never thought you were firmly in the H's corner. Let's see if running man videos will be looked at, and considered at the trial. I rather doubt it, because as soon as that issue is broached, the prosecution will jump up and say to the judge, "inadmissable, your honor. Only the two defendants are on trial, no one else!" If that happens, it would be no surprise which way the judge would rule on that issue.

JD can call that whole paragraph 'conspiracy theory' (which, of course, it's not) but I think even JD suspects what the 900 lb gorilla of conspiracy theories is (or maybe he can't, I don't know). The biggest conspiracy is top officials doing all they can to frame the B2 while concurrently shielding 'you know who.'

The running man video might not be admissible because it is so nebulous there is no way to positively determine just who that person is.

Ok, but are you stating as fact that it's too nebulous to be useful? Thai police, right after the crime, announced who they thought that young man was. They were looking for him for about a week. He was hiding. Another thing about those 'running man videos' (there are at least two, taken minutes from the time of the crime), is they could be re-enacted - as I've suggested several times, a few months ago. I could orchestrate it, if the RTP were willing to deputize me. I'd use the same camera in the same location, and try to get the same lighting of that night. I'd instruct several former and current suspects to re-enact (solo, without cop minders holding their arms) what's depicted. Granted, as JD opined, the reenactors could alter their gait, etc, ....but it still could be useful for determining who was on that CCTV that night. There are also factors of height and body types of suspects. Running man had no shirt, only shorts. For obvious reasons, such a reenactment won't be done. Primarily: the H doesn't want any of his people implicated, and the RTP are arm in arm with the H in every way.

[boomerangutang]

Some more thoughts on CCTV on the island that night. For starters, it would not be surprising if the CCTV camera which took the footage of 'running man' has been removed or re-positioned.

Secondly, there was mention (I can't recall the exact source) of 600+ hours of CCTV by various cameras taken near the crime location on that night and early morning. A police officer commented on that, saying something like "it will take a lot of time to look at all that footage." Whatever, but it may show some pertinent shots, particularly if Nomsod was on the island that night, which many people believe he was. All we've seen is a few seconds and a few 'still grabs.' Perhaps that's why the prosecution's case was so thick - they had to wade through all that footage and decide what could be incriminating against the B2 (all we've seen thus far is a few stills from 5 hours prior to the crime), ....and what might be incriminating to the H's people (that footage would likely be hidden or unmentioned or, most likely: destroyed).

Thirdly, there's the CCTV from one or both of the bars. We've heard that there was a request from cops for that footage, but it was declined, with managers saying something like "it's private property." If that happened, it's blatantly obstruction of justice (by bar managers) and dereliction of duty by the cop(s) who gave validity to such a soggy excuse. Any such CCTV footage would have been destroyed.a.s.a.p. before or after the cops came snooping around

[seahorse]

Some more thoughts on CCTV on the island that night. For starters, it would not be surprising if the CCTV camera which took the footage of 'running man' has been removed or re-positioned.

Secondly, there was mention (I can't recall the exact source) of 600+ hours of CCTV by various cameras taken near the crime location on that night and early morning. A police officer commented on that, saying something like "it will take a lot of time to look at all that footage." Whatever, but it may show some pertinent shots, particularly if Nomsod was on the island that night, which many people believe he was. All we've seen is a few seconds and a few 'still grabs.' Perhaps that's why the prosecution's case was so thick - they had to wade through all that footage and decide what could be incriminating against the B2 (all we've seen thus far is a few stills from 5 hours prior to the crime), ....and what might be incriminating to the H's people (that footage would likely be hidden or unmentioned or, most likely: destroyed).

Thirdly, there's the CCTV from one or both of the bars. We've heard that there was a request from cops for that footage, but it was declined, with managers saying something like "it's private property." If that happened, it's blatantly obstruction of justice (by bar managers) and dereliction of duty by the cop(s) who gave validity to such a soggy excuse. Any such CCTV footage would have been destroyed.a.s.a.p. before or after the cops came snooping around

The quote is a little different to what you said.

Pol.Gen. Somyot defended the police's 3-week investigation, claiming that it takes a long time to collect and analyse evidence.

"There are 366 CCTVs on Koh Tao," Pol.Gen. Somyot said, "Each camera took 6-10 hours for experts to investigate."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412314798

The implication is that the police looked at all of them i.e. 2,196 - 3,660 hours of footage (including the bars).

[boomerangutang]

Some more thoughts on CCTV on the island that night. For starters, it would not be surprising if the CCTV camera which took the footage of 'running man' has been removed or re-positioned.

Secondly, there was mention (I can't recall the exact source) of 600+ hours of CCTV by various cameras taken near the crime location on that night and early morning. A police officer commented on that, saying something like "it will take a lot of time to look at all that footage." Whatever, but it may show some pertinent shots, particularly if Nomsod was on the island that night, which many people believe he was. All we've seen is a few seconds and a few 'still grabs.' Perhaps that's why the prosecution's case was so thick - they had to wade through all that footage and decide what could be incriminating against the B2 (all we've seen thus far is a few stills from 5 hours prior to the crime), ....and what might be incriminating to the H's people (that footage would likely be hidden or unmentioned or, most likely: destroyed).

Thirdly, there's the CCTV from one or both of the bars. We've heard that there was a request from cops for that footage, but it was declined, with managers saying something like "it's private property." If that happened, it's blatantly obstruction of justice (by bar managers) and dereliction of duty by the cop(s) who gave validity to such a soggy excuse. Any such CCTV footage would have been destroyed.a.s.a.p. before or after the cops came snooping around

The quote is a little different to what you said.

Pol.Gen. Somyot defended the police's 3-week investigation, claiming that it takes a long time to collect and analyse evidence.

"There are 366 CCTVs on Koh Tao," Pol.Gen. Somyot said, "Each camera took 6-10 hours for experts to investigate."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412314798

The implication is that the police looked at all of them i.e. 2,196 - 3,660 hours of footage (including the bars).

ok, I stand corrected on details, thanks.

[jdinasia]

More conspiracy theories, and more defamation above

[Linky]

More conspiracy theories, and more defamation above

Oh you are a self appointed judge now to simply state something is defamation.

This thread would be a lot more interesting and informative if some of those that blindly believe the RTP didnt comment.

If we want to giggle at incompetence it is easier to just get it directly from the source, the investigation team.

[StealthEnergiser]

More conspiracy theories, and more defamation above

Stop cranking yourself over you and your mates posts and you will see much clearer picture of what may of happened .

[IslandLover]

Have you ever heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

Actually, the expression is "preaching to the converted".

[jdinasia]

More conspiracy theories, and more defamation above

Oh you are a self appointed judge now to simply state something is defamation.

This thread would be a lot more interesting and informative if some of those that blindly believe the RTP didnt comment.

If we want to giggle at incompetence it is easier to just get it directly from the source, the investigation team.

Nope, Thai law is quite clear on what defamation is.

In fact, I dislike the use of criminal defamation laws but they exist here. (note - I am actually in Thailand and that's where I am referring to)

[IslandLover]

Some more thoughts on CCTV on the island that night. For starters, it would not be surprising if the CCTV camera which took the footage of 'running man' has been removed or re-positioned.

Secondly, there was mention (I can't recall the exact source) of 600+ hours of CCTV by various cameras taken near the crime location on that night and early morning. A police officer commented on that, saying something like "it will take a lot of time to look at all that footage." Whatever, but it may show some pertinent shots, particularly if Nomsod was on the island that night, which many people believe he was. All we've seen is a few seconds and a few 'still grabs.' Perhaps that's why the prosecution's case was so thick - they had to wade through all that footage and decide what could be incriminating against the B2 (all we've seen thus far is a few stills from 5 hours prior to the crime), ....and what might be incriminating to the H's people (that footage would likely be hidden or unmentioned or, most likely: destroyed).

Thirdly, there's the CCTV from one or both of the bars. We've heard that there was a request from cops for that footage, but it was declined, with managers saying something like "it's private property." If that happened, it's blatantly obstruction of justice (by bar managers) and dereliction of duty by the cop(s) who gave validity to such a soggy excuse. Any such CCTV footage would have been destroyed.a.s.a.p. before or after the cops came snooping around

The quote is a little different to what you said.

Pol.Gen. Somyot defended the police's 3-week investigation, claiming that it takes a long time to collect and analyse evidence.

"There are 366 CCTVs on Koh Tao," Pol.Gen. Somyot said, "Each camera took 6-10 hours for experts to investigate."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1412314798

The implication is that the police looked at all of them i.e. 2,196 - 3,660 hours of footage (including the bars).

Although, it has been reported in the press that some CCTV footage was withheld due to it being "private property". There are so many contradictions in the reporting of this case that it's hard to know what to believe. I don't think we can take anything reported in the press as being the gospel truth.

Edited June 7, 2015 by IslandLover