Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[PaPiPuPePo]

How many foreigners were in AC Bar that night ? And close to the beach ? Why have we not heard from them , ok maybe they are busy with their own lifes and couldnt care less, like Sean McAnna ,

Is this why you think Sean hasn't spoken out? Others make a pretty good case that he has other, much darker motives for not talking.

[stephenterry]

The judge in the UK put many claims made by members of TVF to rest.

Nothing exculpatory.

The BP article offers the best understanding so far, of why the UK police were only observers.

What is more interesting is that the RTP are now providing several incidents of exculpatory evidence at the trial. It's called an idiot's guide to carrying out a perfect investigation, with plenty of "don't knows" thrown in to bolster their case. Beats me how any got their jobs in the first place - oh, don't tell me, I can guess.

[Linky]

The parents of the victims have seen the reports yet haven't come out in support of the defendants.

Once again someone has to be told that:-

The reports contain only what the RTP and the prosecution want them to contain!

The parents of the victims have made statements. The conspiracy theorists don't like it.

The defendants and the defense team have made statements. Knowing much more than the now discredited RTP minority report given to the parents.

The shills dont like it.

[stephenterry]

The parents of the victims have seen the reports yet haven't come out in support of the defendants.

Once again someone has to be told that:-

The reports contain only what the RTP and the prosecution want them to contain!

The parents of the victims have made statements. The conspiracy theorists don't like it.

Well out of date - and all pre-trial.

The latest situation (according to UK links to the Witheridges) says they absolutely do not believe the accused are guilty, and that they wouldn't be returning to the trial.

Make of that what you will. We will see.

[JLCrab]

The judge in the UK put many claims made by members of TVF to rest.

Nothing exculpatory.

The BP article offers the best understanding so far, of why the UK police were only observers.

That is actually a Reuters dispatch which is posted here:

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/article/idUKKCN0QU1YA20150825

I had just read it on the BP site before I posted

No problem -- Reuters has provided much of the coverage to newspapers big and small in the UK and elsewhere. Sometimes you have to look hard to see that the newspaper on which you read the article is merely printing a dispatch from Reuters, AFP, US AP, or the UK PA.

[catsanddogs]

Someone told me yesterday they think Hannahs family are not attending any more court hearings and have washed their hands of the trial. ....

I cant guarantee thats going to happen , but she is normally right...

Let's hope they will be using the left over money raised for their travels and interpretors to start their own private investigation then.

[PaPiPuPePo]

The parents of the victims have seen the reports yet haven't come out in support of the defendants.

Once again someone has to be told that:-

The reports contain only what the RTP and the prosecution want them to contain!

The parents of the victims have made statements. The conspiracy theorists don't like it.

Well out of date - and all pre-trial.

The latest situation (according to UK links to the Witheridges) says they absolutely do not believe the accused are guilty, and that they wouldn't be returning to the trial.

Make of that what you will. We will see.

Is there anything more tiresome and boorish in all of these discussions than this one guy droning on about "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorists" without ONCE describing just what conspiracy he's referring to?

No one has spoken of a conspiracy, rather of shoddy police work, prejudice toward Burmese, possible (likely) bribes to divert attention to other possible suspects, contamination of evidence (see non-police Mon stepping across police tape early the next morning and many other instances), corruption among the RTP, and other irregularities, ALL of which have ample precedent in Thailand, some of which have evidence of occurring in this case.

So address the above, JDIA, or drop the "conspiracy" BS you keep pushing like week-old cupcakes. No one's buying.

I'll add this: since JDIA is obviously not an idiot (literally, a low-IQ person) and obviously has internet access, there's a ton of info out there that makes clear "conspiracy theory" is a complete and utter mischaracterisation of the position. So that he continues to (boorishly) push this meme at every occasion indicates, to me at least, the presence of blind obstinacy, or an ulterior agenda (of which he's been accused many times, I make no such determination as we can draw our own conclusions).

Edited August 26, 2015 by PaPiPuPePo

[loonodingle]

The judge in the UK put many claims made by members of TVF to rest.

Nothing exculpatory.

The BP article offers the best understanding so far, of why the UK police were only observers.

This a side show based around the statements the family released..

First let me remind every member here what the police actually said because that's the thing to remember, what we can actually see in words.

READ IT..

"In any event, the report is being prepared for the MPS purposes only, and it will not be shared with the Royal Thai Police"

"On the basis that the MPS does not hold any evidence in this case, it cannot provide any assistance in response to your clients requests"

So there you have it in BLACK AND WHITE. They hold no evidence.

So why take them to court???

Well that's simple. It was because of the family's statements not the police statements. The defence wanted to show that the support the family offered the prosecution was based on a flawed report. A report that contained no evidence just a list of things they had been told.

Remember this is what the police said

" The UK Police officers who deployed to Thailand operated within the parameters specified in a section 26 Authority issued by the home office. They did NOT conduct any investigations into the murders of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller"

So the police have saved face here. it would have set a new standard in disclosure unseen before.

The family's haven't had to withdraw their statements either which is very unfortunate given what the have seen now. Personally if I was the father of either victim I would speak up if I had seen enough evidence to question the police case. If I didn't and a wrongful conviction was made I would feel like I has been an accessory to murdering 2 innocent people. Not what my son or daughter would have approved off I am sure.

[BritTim]

The judge in the UK put many claims made by members of TVF to rest.

Nothing exculpatory.

The BP article offers the best understanding so far, of why the UK police were only observers.

This a side show based around the statements the family released..

First let me remind every member here what the police actually said because that's the thing to remember, what we can actually see in words.

Met Police 1.jpg

Met Police 2.jpg

READ IT..

"In any event, the report is being prepared for the MPS purposes only, and it will not be shared with the Royal Thai Police"

"On the basis that the MPS does not hold any evidence in this case, it cannot provide any assistance in response to your clients requests"

So there you have it in BLACK AND WHITE. They hold no evidence.

So why take them to court???

Well that's simple. It was because of the family's statements not the police statements. The defence wanted to show that the support the family offered the prosecution was based on a flawed report. A report that contained no evidence just a list of things they had been told.

Remember this is what the police said

" The UK Police officers who deployed to Thailand operated within the parameters specified in a section 26 Authority issued by the home office. They did NOT conduct any investigations into the murders of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller"

So the police have saved face here. it would have set a new standard in disclosure unseen before.

The family's haven't had to withdraw their statements either which is very unfortunate given what the have seen now. Personally if I was the father of either victim I would speak up if I had seen enough evidence to question the police case. If I didn't and a wrongful conviction was made I would feel like I has been an accessory to murdering 2 innocent people. Not what my son or daughter would have approved off I am sure.

The family's haven't had to withdraw their statements either which is very unfortunate given what the have seen now. Personally if I was the father of either victim I would speak up if I had seen enough evidence to question the police case.

I am pretty sure the Witheridge family, who have always shown a touching faith in their Home Office minder, will still be broadly following the advice, which right now is to reserve any statement until after the trial is over.

[loonodingle]

One more thing.

I don't know as none of you do if they are guilty of this crime.

What I would say is wouldn't be better if we had open files and true transparency so the world can see that if you die in Thailand police can remember things or that the officers are trained. Or that suspects aren't taken to a remote shop house for interrogation. We aren't daft none of us. I have allegiance to Andy Hall or anyone else. I just think Hannah and David are owed justice. When I laid Flowers on her grave earlier this year I said to her if I can do anything to help you get justice I will. I have done what I can as one person. Its far over my head now. I did send the link of the BBC recording to the lawyers and reprieve in case they have missed it. Other than that there's little more any of us can do.

The people who need to speak up wont. They know who they are and what they could do but other than torture which I don't condone it will be difficult to prise it out of them. If I had been given 6 months to live with terminal cancer or the like I would be doing more with impunity. However I probably have 30 years left I hope and more. This case will not go away and the perps will get justice meted out.

[loonodingle]

The family's haven't had to withdraw their statements either which is very unfortunate given what the have seen now. Personally if I was the father of either victim I would speak up if I had seen enough evidence to question the police case.

I am pretty sure the Witheridge family, who have always shown a touching faith in their Home Office minder, will still be broadly following the advice, which right now is to reserve any statement until after the trial is over.

Yes I agree. They will be towing the line. However it doesn't make I right.

I am informed they are not attending the trial judgement, I don't know if this is true but would speak volumes

Edited August 26, 2015 by loonodingle

[Dogmatix]

Well, I hope that Mr Justice Green will fly out to Thailand to witness their executions, if the worst comes to the worst. That might help confirm the unease he felt in reaching his judgement.

I also hope that the British government will not waste any more taxpayers' money to send any police on similar trips abroad again, if they are to serve no useful purpose in advancing the cause of justice for British murder victims but are just boondoggles for British police to hobnob with their corrupt colleagues in third world countries. Also the FCO should be asked to refrain from making statements that could be prejudicial to criminal cases in foreign countries, particularly when they are unwilling to reveal any evidence to support their statement.

An all round disgrace from the British establishment. I am ashamed to be a citizen and angry that I pay taxes for this garbage.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Dogmatix

[simonuk]

Its ironic that the recent tragic events in Bangkok are almost a mirror image of the Koh Tao tradgedy in terms of the investigation.

Pathetic, unprofessional, corrupt, ineptidude by the RTP.

A profesional investigation would have quickly solved this case.

I also surgest the Chief of the RTP buy some quality CCTV enhancement software instead of investing his billions of baht in the stock market.

He clearly has lost his focus of his "proper" job.

I think any RTP investigation would look as bad if under the spotlight.

[stephenterry]

Dogm I agree completely.

[loonodingle]

Well, I hope that Mr Justice Green will fly out to Thailand to witness their executions, if the worst comes to the worst. That might help confirm the unease he felt in reaching his judgement.

I also hope that the British government will not waste any more taxpayers' money to send any police on similar trips abroad again, if they are to serve no useful purpose in advancing the cause of justice for British murder victims but are just boondoggles for British police to hobnob with their corrupt colleagues in third world countries. Also the FCO should be asked to refrain from making statements that could be prejudicial to criminal cases in foreign countries, particularly when they are unwilling to reveal any evidence to support their statement.

An all round disgrace from the British establishment. I am ashamed to be a citizen and angry that I pay taxes for this garbage.

He has said theres nothing to help the case. Revealing the file though would cause huge embarrassment to the met police. It was written to be kept in house. The family wouldnt have read it either just fed Information from it through there local family liason officer. So the accuracy of what they had been told would also depend on the ability of the officer to honest and objective. In the circumstances it maybe that the officers felt they needed to give the families an assurance that all well dont worry. They have confessions etc. Rather than say what they really felt. Also 3rd or 4th hand Information can be jazzed up. You know how people take one thing and embellish it. Many of yiu on here are guilty of that...lol.....

As far as the UK Gov well they are shysters. Limp wristed uni boys who havent done a proper days work In their life. Hugo Swire is iinterested in trade deals not your rights. In fact the British embassy is very lax o support for UK citizens. Its renown for it.

[smedly]

I don't understand this.. The defence ask to be given access to certain information and then the judge says no, it's nothing of interest. If it's nothing of interest and cannot harm the prosection's case then why not give it to the defence? Surely if the information the defence are so eager to get is nothing special this would only strengthen the prosection's case? On the other hand, it is now easy to assume (rightly or wrongly) that the information is damning to the prosection's case. These guys were never going to walk free whatever the facts are.

everybody is fully aware of the prosecutions case and the circus it is, having a UK police report that confims it is going to make little difference - it is already out there plain to see and more exposed than anything the UK police surmised last year, so just leave it at that for Gods sake

There is now seeming only one person on the planet that think the Thai police have done a stellar job - AleG and of course the Thai police themselves

[sambum]

I've been saying since late December that Brit authorities are complicit in the cover-up. Late December was when the Brit Coroner changed her mind and nixed her prior promise to release the Coroner's report on January 6. When she cancelled, she said, "maybe October, I don't know."

They judge who made the recent decision to deny info to the defense is right to feel uneasy (as he says). He should feel as bad as a person should feel who is contributing to the skewed trial which may lead to a death sentence for two young poor men who are likely innocent. Shame on him and all others who are too cowed to stand up for what's right.

My confidence in British justice and its judges have just taken a massive nose dive.

The British police did not investigate the case, did not investigate other suspects, even those tried by social media, or question witnesses.

It is not their normal policy to do so and would require detailed agreement to do so. The report was on how the investigation had been conducted and based on only sharing with the families.

You've seen how the BiB operate on many cases, including recent ones. You can imagine what's in the full report. But, having made an agreement they won't break it.

No other nation has sent their police here to investigate the suspicious deaths or open murders of their citizens. It just doesn't work like that. You are, sadly in some cases, stuck with the police and judicial system of the country you're in. Rare exceptions but that takes agreement, invitations and can lead to conflict between the forces, e.g. Portuguese police didn't like being criticized by the Met for their initial handling of the McCann case.

The law does indeed work in strange ways - and non more so than here.

"You are, sadly in some cases, stuck with the police and judicial system of the country you're in."

Correct - says it all! So the RTP are going to let the British Police come here and"work on their patch"? Yeah, right! And obviously, the same would apply if the RTP were invited to the UK in the event of a couple of Thai citizens being murdered on British soil.

Some people on here (including myself, I must admit) thought that once the British Police got involved, the case would be turned on its head, and we would begin to see some semblance of a proper investigation. However, once it became apparent that the Met had not been invited to assist, but only to be here as observers, the die was cast - a bit like when HM the Queen goes anywhere, everything smells of fresh paint - she sees what she is allowed to see, what she has been invited to see, has her luncheon, says a few words of thanks, and moves on.

So really, we should not be surprised when a British judge denies the release of a report on the findings of the Met observers, although he feels "uneasy" about it. The report would probably contain nothing that would help the defence team, as the Met observers at best (worst?) could only say that they were a bit concerned about certain aspects of the case - nothing controversial you understand, as that could be seen as taking sides, or trying to affect the outcome of the case.

So, yes, unfortunately the situation appears to be that the involvement of the Met, and now the refusal of a judge to release details of their findings shows that the British Government are more concerned with "not rocking the boat" than "making waves" and the visit of the boys from the Met was always destined to be merely an example of diplomatic procedure/niceties, and what they saw (or did not see) was always destined to be a report purely for the eyes of those British people directly involved in the case. For example, the families of the victims, who would be no doubt not be allowed to divulge any details to the media, and certainly not be seen to be favouring the prosecution or defence, as this would be contravening the diplomatic code of not telling another country how to conduct their "investigations" (or lack of).

The statement "it would seem that the suspects have a particularly difficult case to answer" implies to me that as previously quoted, the Met have only been shown what the RTP/prosecution have allowed them to see, and on which their report was based. The Met's concern about various aspects of the case surely stems from the implications of what evidence or investigative processes the RTP/prosecution did NOT allow them to see, and as such, they can only speculate (as we do on TV) as to what that might be.

In some other countries, this case would have been thrown out by now, as the whole case has been a shambles from the start (and no, not "leaves a bit to be desired", or " not conducted to the standard it should have been") but a shambles. However, we are in Thailand, and we should be used to "shambles" - we are not in the UK, or America, or Australia etc, and unfortunately, different rules apply here. The best that we can hope for is that for once, common sense will prevail , and that justice will be served

Edited August 26, 2015 by sambum

[stephenterry]

Tomorrow we see police investigators giving evidence. It's not funny anymore. It really isn't.

[Jai Dee]

One flame post has been removed from this thread.

[Alwyn]

I don't understand this.. The defence ask to be given access to certain information and then the judge says no, it's nothing of interest. If it's nothing of interest and cannot harm the prosection's case then why not give it to the defence? Surely if the information the defence are so eager to get is nothing special this would only strengthen the prosection's case? On the other hand, it is now easy to assume (rightly or wrongly) that the information is damning to the prosection's case. These guys were never going to walk free whatever the facts are.

everybody is fully aware of the prosecutions case and the circus it is, having a UK police report that confims it is going to make little difference - it is already out there plain to see and more exposed than anything the UK police surmised last year, so just leave it at that for Gods sake

There is now seeming only one person on the planet that think the Thai police have done a stellar job - AleG and of course the Thai police themselves

That's two people, Prayut congratulated the police on a perfect investigation at the time!

[Dogmatix]

The rationale seems wrong. Who decides whether something is of value to the defense?

I am also disappointed by the ruling, but the judge was in a difficult position. He needed to balance the possibility that the report could be of value to the defense against the certainty that organizations around the world would be less likely to cooperate with UK authorities because they cannot be trusted to honour confidentiality agreements. The judge states (and perhaps I an naive but I believe him) that there was nothing essential to the defense in the report. If that is true, he probably made the right call.

Perhaps true but what was it that made him feel uneasy in his judgement?

[Rykbanlor]

I was reading some excerpts from a book called "How not to get murdered in Thailand" which undoubtedly (and particularly some phrases I read will support this) will be banned inside the kingdom.

The author stated quite clearly that corruption in Thailand is a top down business that permeates all areas of society, and that cannot be underestimated in it's scope, and the lengths in which people will go to avoid any blemishes on the Kingdoms reputation, or to avoid obstructing the inflow of (tourist)/other revenue.

This is not news to most of us on here, but it is affirming to see it in print from time to time by someone who has taken the time to research a book such as this.

It got me thinking to those who scoff at the idea that folks such as the headman would have any significant reach outside his teeny island domain.

[smedly]

there may be a lot of evidence coming from the UK, I suspect that some of Davids and Hannahs friends will have since been interviewed and made statements about certain things that went on that night/morning throwing some light on what happened in AC bar and whether David and Hannah were connected in some way or not.

Lets not forget the last place both were seen alive was AC bar, any professional investigation would have and should have started there and yet we hear no mention of it by police or prosecution when presenting their case, that is a massive black hole right there,

Friends may have already told Thai police during interviews and made statements that have generally been ignored because they didn't fit with the agenda

How many foreigners were in AC Bar that night ? And close to the beach ? Why have we not heard from them , ok maybe they are busy with their own lifes and couldnt care less, like Sean McAnna , but with so many possible witnesses I find it strange that they do not speak out.

I mean if they are safe in their home countries they got nothing to lose. They could give us some more information , what they saw that night. Unless all of them were working illegally on the island or using drugs, and do not want any unwanted attention from the media.

you wrote that in reply to my post - which it seems you didn't read

confused

[Rykbanlor]

The rationale seems wrong. Who decides whether something is of value to the defense?

I am also disappointed by the ruling, but the judge was in a difficult position. He needed to balance the possibility that the report could be of value to the defense against the certainty that organizations around the world would be less likely to cooperate with UK authorities because they cannot be trusted to honour confidentiality agreements. The judge states (and perhaps I an naive but I believe him) that there was nothing essential to the defense in the report. If that is true, he probably made the right call.

Perhaps true but what was it that made him feel uneasy in his judgement?

i would hazard a guess that while they may not have any evidence or anything of use to the B2 directly, the earlier tales of confusion and contradictions were enough to make him feel that the situation was as bent as boomerang.

[stephenterry]

Tomorrow we see police investigators giving evidence. It's not funny anymore. It really isn't.

And where's this DNA evidence that matches the b2? Isn't this the main rtp case? Well?

[Dogmatix]

I've been saying since late December that Brit authorities are complicit in the cover-up. Late December was when the Brit Coroner changed her mind and nixed her prior promise to release the Coroner's report on January 6. When she cancelled, she said, "maybe October, I don't know."

They judge who made the recent decision to deny info to the defense is right to feel uneasy (as he says). He should feel as bad as a person should feel who is contributing to the skewed trial which may lead to a death sentence for two young poor men who are likely innocent. Shame on him and all others who are too cowed to stand up for what's right.

My confidence in British justice and its judges have just taken a massive nose dive.

The British police did not investigate the case, did not investigate other suspects, even those tried by social media, or question witnesses.

It is not their normal policy to do so and would require detailed agreement to do so. The report was on how the investigation had been conducted and based on only sharing with the families.

You've seen how the BiB operate on many cases, including recent ones. You can imagine what's in the full report. But, having made an agreement they won't break it.

No other nation has sent their police here to investigate the suspicious deaths or open murders of their citizens. It just doesn't work like that. You are, sadly in some cases, stuck with the police and judicial system of the country you're in. Rare exceptions but that takes agreement, invitations and can lead to conflict between the forces, e.g. Portuguese police didn't like being criticized by the Met for their initial handling of the McCann case.

The law does indeed work in strange ways - and non more so than here.

"You are, sadly in some cases, stuck with the police and judicial system of the country you're in."

Correct - says it all! So the RTP are going to let the British Police come here and"work on their patch"? Yeah, right! And obviously, the same would apply if the RTP were invited to the UK in the event of a couple of Thai citizens being murdered on British soil.

Some people on here (including myself, I must admit) thought that once the British Police got involved, the investigation would be turned on its head, and we would begin to see some semblance of a proper investigation. However, once it became apparent that the Met had not been invited to assist, but only to be here as observers, the die was cast - a bit like when HM the Queen goes anywhere, everything smells of fresh paint - she sees what she is allowed to see, what she has been invited to see, has her luncheon, says a few words of thanks, and moves on.

So really, we should not be surprised when a British judge denies the release of a report on the findings of the Met observers, although he feels "uneasy" about it. The report would probably contain nothing that would help the defence team, as the Met observers at best (worst?) could only say that they were a bit concerned about certain aspects of the case - nothing controversial you understand, as that could be seen as taking sides, or trying to affect the outcome of the case.

So, yes, unfortunately the situation appears to be that the involvement of the Met, and now the refusal of a judge to release details of their findings shows that the British Government are more concerned with "not rocking the boat" than "making waves" and the visit of the boys from the Met was always destined to be merely an example of diplomatic procedure/niceties, and what they saw (or did not see) was always destined to be a report purely for the eyes of those British people directly involved in the case. For example, the families of the victims, who would be no doubt not be allowed to divulge any details to the media, and certainly not be seen to be favouring the prosecution or defence, as this would be contravening the diplomatic code of not telling another country how to conduct their "investigations" (or lack of).

The statement "it would seem that the suspects have a particularly difficult case to answer" implies to me that as previously quoted, the Met have only been shown what the RTP/prosecution have allowed them to see, and on which their report was based. The Met's concern about various aspects of the case surely stems from the implications of what evidence or investigative processes the RTP/prosecution did NOT allow them to see, and as such, they can only speculate (as we do on TV) as to what that might be.

In some other countries, this case would have been thrown out by now, as the whole case has been a shambles from the start (and no, not "leaves a bit to be desired", or " not conducted to the standard it should have been") but a shambles. However, we are in Thailand, and we should be used to "shambles" - we are not in the UK, or America, or Australia etc, and unfortunately, different rules apply here. The best that we can hope for is that for once, common sense will prevail , and that justice will be served

Good post Sailor. In most developed countries I think the case would have been dropped by the prosecutor just because the police didn't read the suspects their 'Miranda' rights. For taking them to a secret location away from police premises for interrogation without lawyers or witnesses present and without video taping from beginning to end, the police would face criminal prosecution. Then there is the issue of forcing translators who are totally unqualified and illiterate in the languages they are translating from. The judge would throw out a case where the defence was not given access to all the prosecution evidence in advance. It is unlikely that the judge would permit the prosecution to show the staged managed part of the suspects' confession on the dual grounds that it was already retracted and that it was made by illiterate, unqualified interpreters, who happen to be from a rival ethnic group, on their behalf. Definitely the video of the police re-enactment of the crime would not be allowed, nor would even be allowed to make a re-enactment in the first place. So it goes on in this third world justice system.

[smedly]

"Basically, the report probably rips to shreds the investigative techniques used in the case. However, it doesn't come to a different conclusion about the likely guilt of the two who are on trial."

Well if that's all true, then surely it does have an effect on the 'reasonable doubt' aspect of how the judges make a decision, and remembering that a guilty verdict could well bring some very severe long-term punishment.

here is the sort of interaction I imagine there was between Thai police and UK professionals

Thai - we have confession

UK - and you recorded the interview

Thai - No need we had Roti seller who heard everything

UK - Did the suspects have legal representation during interview

Thai - No we not want them have so we could do our work

UK - and the phones you found were investigated to check who owned them

Thai - we not check, no need we have confession

UK - and you checked them for DNA and finger prints along with the murder weapons and clothing

Thai - no we not check, no need we have confession

UK - and did you check in the last place victims were see alive

Thai - no we not check, not allowed and we have confession

​

UK - Private review between themselves later that night, Jesus Christ they are going to try and present that to a court of law, seriously

and their stay continued

[jdinasia]

The parents of the victims have seen the reports yet haven't come out in support of the defendants.

Once again someone has to be told that:-

The reports contain only what the RTP and the prosecution want them to contain!

The parents of the victims have made statements. The conspiracy theorists don't like it.

The defendants and the defense team have made statements. Knowing much more than the now discredited RTP minority report given to the parents.

The shills dont like it.

The job of the defense team is to get the defendants free.

The victims' parents want justice for their children.

The UK police reports weren't exculpatory. Nothing else can be said about them.

[scorecard]

The rationale seems wrong. Who decides whether something is of value to the defense?

I am also disappointed by the ruling, but the judge was in a difficult position. He needed to balance the possibility that the report could be of value to the defense against the certainty that organizations around the world would be less likely to cooperate with UK authorities because they cannot be trusted to honour confidentiality agreements. The judge states (and perhaps I an naive but I believe him) that there was nothing essential to the defense in the report. If that is true, he probably made the right call.

Point taken, but if the British judge doesn't know the whole story then how can that judge make an objective assessment of what is / what is not perhaps useful to the defense?

[stephenterry]

The rationale seems wrong. Who decides whether something is of value to the defense?

I am also disappointed by the ruling, but the judge was in a difficult position. He needed to balance the possibility that the report could be of value to the defense against the certainty that organizations around the world would be less likely to cooperate with UK authorities because they cannot be trusted to honour confidentiality agreements. The judge states (and perhaps I an naive but I believe him) that there was nothing essential to the defense in the report. If that is true, he probably made the right call.

Point taken, but if the British judge doesn't know the whole story then how can that judge make an objective assessment of what is / what is not perhaps useful to the defense?

maybe he read the report.