Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[BritTim]

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 am speculating, but I guess he is concerned that no one can ever be 100% sure what might be helpful to a defense case. His best judgment is that no significant assistance to the defense would be served by breaching the confidentiality agreement, but he has a nagging fear that he could be wrong.

[Dogmatix]

Definitely British police should not have been allowed to agree with RTP to keep their report confidential. Otherwise, what an earth could be the possible benefit to UK taxpayers forced to shell out for their trip? The value of the trip was already very hard to justify when the British police were told they were prohibited from any involvement in the investigation whatsoever. Most of their time was no doubt spent listening to nonsense from a police translator (perhaps one of the pancake sellers) in broken English. We were told that only redacted parts of the police reports were read out in off-the-cuff translation to the plods.

Clearly the right thing to do was to politely decline the invitation to come out as observers on the grounds that their limited role and obligation to sign a non-disclosure agreement made it inconceivable that the trip could achieve anything of value whatsoever in pursuit of justice for the two murdered British citizens. Instead it created a expectation that the plods would be able to serve a useful function.

But it was a great grandstanding opportunity for Prayut and Cameron.

[stephenterry]

Read this. The judge offered an appeal which was rejected by the defence. So for far <deleted> sake move on.

[stephenterry]

A load of uniformed posters today who cannot be bothered to READ.

[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?

maybe he read the report.

Maybe true, but there's lots of comments that the team from UK had limited access and didn't do any investigation themselves.

[BritTim]

Read this. The judge offered an appeal which was rejected by the defence. So for far f sake move on.

Quite right. The defense lawyer has stated that she trusts the UK judge's opinion. Due diligence done, and time to focus on other matters,

I think the defense is quietly confident, and not making desperate appeals to try to find something to prop up their case.

[jacksam]

UK authorities have nothing to do with this case. They should never have been "invited" in the first place. If thai nationals where murdered in UK would the Thai authorities be welcome over there to have a squiz at the evidence

If thai nationals where murdered in UK would the Thai authorities be welcome over there to have a squiz at the evidence

Actually, yes, they would, if they showed an interest in the case.

Can you please provide one example of say a murder in say UK or USA or AU where the police have "invited" police for the victims country to come over have check how things are going. UK police should never have been involved. As for making public their findings....what's the point. The findings cannot be questioned in the court here in Thailand. Also who cares what UK police think about the evidence. It ain't their country!

[z42]

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

Ridiculous, the UK police team didn't investigate anything themselves. They were essentially on a paid junket being chaperoned by the RTP top brass, and a report that came out from the fco said that they didn't see any evidence that they could verify in terms of source and credibility.

They had to take the RTP brass at their word, but it is very unlikely that the brit cops were bowled over by the cutting edge investigative prowess of the RTP. The likely reason for not disclosing the contents of this latest report is that it's very reasonable to assume that the appraisal of the RTP is far from complimentary.

The judge said he found the report pretty unsettling, that would tend to point to shock and dismay at the methods and conclusions reached by the RTP. This is a senior judge, the nature of facts of deceased's injuries etc will very much be like water off a duck's back.

So what else do you think a man of his experience would have found so unsettling about the report? Very keen to see how you spin this one

[Nemesis7]

I understand UK's commitment issue but what about Fair justice and some sort of way to sort his out for a fair judgement. Im sure there are plenty of ways out.

[jdinasia]

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

Ridiculous, the UK police team didn't investigate anything themselves. They were essentially on a paid junket being chaperoned by the RTP top brass, and a report that came out from the fco said that they didn't see any evidence that they could verify in terms of source and credibility.

They had to take the RTP brass at their word, but it is very unlikely that the brit cops were bowled over by the cutting edge investigative prowess of the RTP. The likely reason for not disclosing the contents of this latest report is that it's very reasonable to assume that the appraisal of the RTP is far from complimentary.

The judge said he found the report pretty unsettling, that would tend to point to shock and dismay at the methods and conclusions reached by the RTP. This is a senior judge, the nature of facts of deceased's injuries etc will very much be like water off a duck's back.

So what else do you think a man of his experience would have found so unsettling about the report? Very keen to see how you spin this one

Huh?

How do you get anything but unsettling from "unsettling"?

[loonodingle]

UK authorities have nothing to do with this case. They should never have been "invited" in the first place. If thai nationals where murdered in UK would the Thai authorities be welcome over there to have a squiz at the evidence

If thai nationals where murdered in UK would the Thai authorities be welcome over there to have a squiz at the evidence

Actually, yes, they would, if they showed an interest in the case.

Can you please provide one example of say a murder in say UK or USA or AU where the police have "invited" police for the victims country to come over have check how things are going. UK police should never have been involved. As for making public their findings....what's the point. The findings cannot be questioned in the court here in Thailand. Also who cares what UK police think about the evidence. It ain't their country!

Quite right. It was allowed due to pressure from a petition delivered to 10 Downing Street. Public opinion outweighed normal diplomatic protocol.

However it was announced it was to verify evidence. By the time the officers arrived Khun Somyot had announced that there would be No Verification. Not by the British. Not by the Singapore labs. Not by the USA labs. And certainly not by the Thai forensic authorities. He would have absolute control on all evidence retrieved. Including CCTV and Weapons.

This is where it all started to smell bad... why would you do that if you wanted to show the world what a great host nation you are. How your rights would be protected and your families could rest assured when their offspring went to full moon partys and got smashed they would always find the perps if they ended up in a body bag or raped etc.

[stephenterry]

I understand UK's commitment issue but what about Fair justice and some sort of way to sort his out for a fair judgement. Im sure there are plenty of ways out.

It won't happen here. That's a given. It may come as a surprise to you but Thailand isn't renowned for any fair justice. Unless you buy it.

[loonodingle]

Definition: making you upset, nervous, worried, etc.

Perhaps a look at dictionary may help you if u cant work it out

http://i.word.com/idictionary/unsettling.quote name=

"jdinasia" post="9779920" timestamp="1440586706"]

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

Ridiculous, the UK police team didn't investigate anything themselves. They were essentially on a paid junket being chaperoned by the RTP top brass, and a report that came out from the fco said that they didn't see any evidence that they could verify in terms of source and credibility.

They had to take the RTP brass at their word, but it is very unlikely that the brit cops were bowled over by the cutting edge investigative prowess of the RTP. The likely reason for not disclosing the contents of this latest report is that it's very reasonable to assume that the appraisal of the RTP is far from complimentary.

The judge said he found the report pretty unsettling, that would tend to point to shock and dismay at the methods and conclusions reached by the RTP. This is a senior judge, the nature of facts of deceased's injuries etc will very much be like water off a duck's back.

So what else do you think a man of his experience would have found so unsettling about the report? Very keen to see how you spin this one

Huh?

How do you get anything but unsettling from "unsettling"?

A look at dictionary perhaps would assist you if u cant work it out.

[stephenterry]

How many more times. The defence rejected an appeal.

[sambum]

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.

And that contains the whole "story"? (Fiction or non-fiction?)

Edited August 26, 2015 by sambum

[stephenterry]

Forget the UK report. It doesn't add anything to the defence case. Wait and see.

[boomerangutang]

let us not fight about this case slagging each other off because we have different views isn't a crime and doesn't merit this type of behaviour at the end of the day when all the evidence is presented we will have a result one way or the other,

'....Merrily merrily merrily merrily, life is but a dream.'

Uhmmmm, reality check time: The prosecution have already had nearly all their days ended, and what has been presented of value? Essentially nothing. Yes, we will have a result. We also had a result when the Bamian Buddha was bombed. We're not just looking for a result, we're looking for justice, we're hoping for some closure for victims' families, and we're looking to get the real criminals out of the public domain. If you have a daughter, sister or attractive farang woman friend under the age of 30, you'll know what that means. If she's blond and very cute (prancing around a Thai beach resort like Ko Tao, Phi Phi or Ko Pangnan), then the danger level rises.

UK authorities have nothing to do with this case. They should never have been "invited" in the first place. If thai nationals where murdered in UK would the Thai authorities be welcome over there to have a squiz at the evidence

Hello, anybody home? It was two Brits who got murdered. One would assume British citizens would be particularly interested in the case, plus finding and apprehending who really did the crime. There are many examples of officials from different countries cooperating on serious crimes. Just recently, Brits experts were allowed by Portuguese officials to investigate in Portugal. Similarly, Brits were invited by Dutch to investigate a crime in Holland. That's what open civilized first-world countries do. Countries with things to hide, like Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe ...try to keep many things hidden.

[boomerangutang]

Forget the UK report. It doesn't add anything to the defence case. Wait and see.

I somewhat agree. It's prime newsworthiness is how it shows how British officials are willing to obfuscate things. It shores up the idea that : relations with Thai officialdom trumps openness and justice for a couple of penniless migrants. It's probably true that the report would add nothing substantial to the defense's case. If that's so, then it's added reason for Justice Green to say, "Ok, take the report. Good luck." By not allowing it to be shared, he appears to be conspiring with other Brit authorities to stymie the course of justice.

Suppose my pregnant wife had an addiction to smoking cigs and swore she had quit. I come home, I smell tobacco smoke. I ask her if she's been smoking. She says, "I can't say." I ask to look in her purse where she usually keeps cigs, and she says no. That scenario would add substance to the assumption she's hiding things.

[boomerangutang]

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?

Deep down, Justice Green probably has a conscience, and that little bit of conscience probably knew he was doing the wrong thing. Green had a chance to do something decent, but he blew it.

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.

I beg your pardon! I take a fence to that

Edited August 26, 2015 by boomerangutang

[Rykbanlor]

Whoops boomer, we know you're above aboard! Take a fence by all means, but don't sit on it!

[metisdead]

Posts with messed up quotes have been removed.

[Dogmatix]

Mr Justice Green probably had enough evidence from the report to understand that cooperation of that type from a murky third world police force is not worth a damn. He might have felt uneasy because he was under political pressure to appease the RTP by appeasing the met with no obvious benefit to the British crown or public and at the expense of fairness and transparency.

[stephenterry]

Mr Justice Green probably had enough evidence from the report to understand that cooperation of that type from a murky third world police force is not worth a damn. He might have felt uneasy because he was under political pressure to appease the RTP by appeasing the met with no obvious benefit to the British crown or public and at the expense of fairness and transparency.

RIP stop rabbiting on about nothing of any consequence and focus on the trial tomorrow.

[Rykbanlor]

Mr Justice Green probably had enough evidence from the report to understand that cooperation of that type from a murky third world police force is not worth a damn. He might have felt uneasy because he was under political pressure to appease the RTP by appeasing the met with no obvious benefit to the British crown or public and at the expense of fairness and transparency.

RIP stop rabbiting on about nothing of any consequence and focus on the trial tomorrow.

The tension is palpable waiting for tomorrow. Is it just me or does the media coverage appear to have slipped from slight to almost non-existent?

I can't help but think that the next days will turn up little else, and we'll have to wait for the defence days next month to see some new twists.

[boomerangutang]

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

Actually, RTP sometimes get things right. Once in awhile there is a crime solved by RTP who actually look closely at the clues, follow leads, use some outside-the-box thinking - and nab the culprits. They have the capabilities, it's mostly a matter of whether they have an agenda which supersedes doing real detective work. I think that's the situation in this KT case.

Also who cares what UK police think about the evidence. It ain't their country!

I hope you're joking.

[Rykbanlor]

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

Actually, RTP sometimes get things right. Once in awhile there is a crime solved by RTP who actually look closely at the clues, follow leads, use some outside-the-box thinking - and nab the culprits. They have the capabilities, it's mostly a matter of whether they have an agenda which supersedes doing real detective work. I think that's the situation in this KT case.

Also who cares what UK police think about the evidence. It ain't their country!

I hope you're joking.

It often seems to be the case that a financial motivation will get them working. A guy I n=know who runs another hostel in Krabi, had some stuff thieved from the hostel, an i-phone and other bits and pieces. The local plod told him it was unlikely they could catch the culprit until he told them they could keep the phone if they got the other stuff back, and hey presto, a couple of hours later they'd run the thief down.

[Linky]

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?

Deep down, Justice Green probably has a conscience, and that little bit of conscience probably knew he was doing the wrong thing. Green had a chance to do something decent, but he blew it.

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.

I beg your pardon! I take a fence to that

Dont take the gate as well ?

[jimmybkk]

This whole issue of the report is ridiculous.

Firstly, the Brits did not fly out to Thailand out of the goodness of their hearts, nor were they there from a sense of obligation to ensure that justice be served in this case. The reason the Brits sent a team there was purely political - 100,000 people put their names to a petition demanding an independent investigation into the murders and publicly handed it to the British government at 10 Downing Street, at a time when (and here's the clincher...) a general election was just around the corner. Cameron had no choice.

According to Mr. Justice Green's report (Quoted text from the report is in bold and I have underlined what I think is worth highlighting):

9.The misgivings raised were sufficient for the Prime Minister to engage in discussion with the Prime Minister of Thailand with the consequence that the two reached agreement that The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (MPS) would send a team led by a senior officer to Thailand to conduct an independent inquiry.

Sounds good, right? An independent inquiry... just what the petitioner's had been asking for and the Thai PM has agreed to it... but wait...

The power [to send such a team to another country] can only be exercised with the express authority of the Secretary of State subject to such conditions as the Minister might consider appropriate.

So, it's the UK Secretary of State who authorizes such a trip and who decides upon the conditions...

10. In the present case the authority granted by the Minister took account of the fact that Thailand maintained the death penalty and that in the absence of assurances about the possible punishment that might be imposed at the end of the trial the officers assigned to go to Thailand were to undertake, in essence, a listening or observer role.

So that role was decided by the uk Sec. of State and was clearly understood before the UK cops left the shores of Blighty... is that the way it was reported at the time? i got the impression the Brits were headed there with the expectation of doing some investigating but were denied by Thai authorities... apparently not...

and on the the subject of confidentiality:

The report highlights the importance of confidentiality so as to not harm the relationship between the Thai and UK governments and so as not to tarnish the highly-esteemed reputation of the Met & Scotland Yard. At the same time "The Commissioner of the RTP had sought and obtained express agreement from DCI Lyons at the outset that his observations of the deployment, as set out in the Report, would only be shared with the Miller and Witherbridge families, and would not be disclosed any further”. So I guess when DCI Lyons showed the report to the Witheridge family he forget to mention the fact that confidentiality was of the highest priority and they should not make mention of it to anyone... and so giving a statement to the press that suggested his report indicated that the 2 Burmese lads were guilty was a definite no-no... Oops...

But screw the report of a bunch of UK cop voyeurs that apparently is so wishy-washy that it wouldn't have any effect on the outcome of the trial even if it was released, what i would like to know is why no-one is kicking up a huge stink about the fact that: "four English police forces conducted interviews about the case at the request of their Thai counterparts and passed on the information" (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/01/capital-punishment-concerns-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-murder-thailand).

What is going on here...? Why was that information, which was not bound by the condition of confidentiality that the Met's jolly-up in Thailand was subject to, not released to the defense team whilst it was given freely to the RTP for use by the prosecution in a death sentence case?

I hope to see Justice Green's report justifying such actions...

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[IslandLover]

"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

Like