Koh Tao: Trial opens for 2 accused of killing British tourists

[stephenterry]

Moderators

Could we perhaps have a poll on this thread along the lines of:

Do you believe that

• The B2 are most likely the rapists/murderers alone?
• The B2 were complicit but not alone?
• The B2 are purely scapegoats?
• The most likely suspects are being protected, hence (3.)

It would be interesting to most of us to see exactly how polarised this group is.

I don't think the suggestion is in poor taste but it might give us a better idea of the spread of opinions.

The list above is not exhaustive and anyone could change for a better format.

regards

S

My opinion

- B2 could be the murderers alone but most likely had complicits or witnesses who were with them and never did anything to prevent the killings.

- B2 could be complicit , but someone else did the murders

- B2 are purely scapegoats : No, I believe they were complicit or at least witnesses to the crime

- It could be other suspects are being protected , I would also like to add that Sean could be involved , in my opinion just as much as NS or anyone else who were on the island that night

I am open for all of these options , in a case like this you can never be 100% sure about anything. That's why I will never support one side alone without substantial evidence.

Again all of these theories has been discussed so many times on TV and we all know it will only end up as speculations until some real , solid facts are provided.

Sometimes, Balo, real solid facts are limited to collateral evidence. The test for this prosecution is to make a case that could prove beyond reasonable doubt (in an ideal world) and for the defence to contest it. So far, the prosecution has yet to have anything presented as substantiated, validated, or verified - and that includes DNA.

IMO, the B2 are purely scapegoats. Why? This is based on (mine and others) observation of motivation and behaviour of them and the local population. Is there a valid rationale as to why translators were intimidated at the trial that makes any sense? And why the RTP should become involved with an altercation with the defence, when the former had a 'perfect' case against the B2 is clear to me that there isn't a beyond reasonable doubt case against the B2.

It is also my opinion that of the various scenarios presented here, in the media, or by the ineptitude of the RTP's investigation and history of corruption, the most likely one is that the B2 are indeed scapegoats and not murderers or accomplices.

[loonodingle]

Moderators

Could we perhaps have a poll on this thread along the lines of:

Do you believe that

• The B2 are most likely the rapists/murderers alone?
• The B2 were complicit but not alone?
• The B2 are purely scapegoats?
• The most likely suspects are being protected, hence (3.)

It would be interesting to most of us to see exactly how polarised this group is.

I don't think the suggestion is in poor taste but it might give us a better idea of the spread of opinions.

The list above is not exhaustive and anyone could change for a better format.

regards

S

My opinion

- B2 could be the murderers alone but most likely had complicits or witnesses who were with them and never did anything to prevent the killings.

- B2 could be complicit , but someone else did the murders

- B2 are purely scapegoats : No, I believe they were complicit or at least witnesses to the crime

- It could be other suspects are being protected , I would also like to add that Sean could be involved , in my opinion just as much as NS or anyone else who were on the island that night

I am open for all of these options , in a case like this you can never be 100% sure about anything. That's why I will never support one side alone without substantial evidence.

Again all of these theories has been discussed so many times on TV and we all know it will only end up as speculations until some real , solid facts are provided.

Sometimes, Balo, real solid facts are limited to collateral evidence. The test for this prosecution is to make a case that could prove beyond reasonable doubt (in an ideal world) and for the defence to contest it. So far, the prosecution has yet to have anything presented as substantiated, validated, or verified - and that includes DNA.

IMO, the B2 are purely scapegoats. Why? This is based on (mine and others) observation of motivation and behaviour of them and the local population. Is there a valid rationale as to why translators were intimidated at the trial that makes any sense? And why the RTP should become involved with an altercation with the defence, when the former had a 'perfect' case against the B2 is clear to me that there isn't a beyond reasonable doubt case against the B2.

It is also my opinion that of the various scenarios presented here, in the media, or by the ineptitude of the RTP's investigation and history of corruption, the most likely one is that the B2 are indeed scapegoats and not murderers or accomplices.

Other than the DNA which is being challenged then its all Circumstantial evidence.

The DNA is the hardest challenge as everything else has fallen down at the first hurdle.

For the non native speakers

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

[Jai Dee]

Topic closed pending moderation.

/Closed