Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[IslandLover]

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.

Very good post (I am out of "likes" for today)

[IslandLover]

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

The full judgement (and the reasoning behind it) by Mr. Justice Green can be found here in two pdf files:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/zaw-lin-and-wai-phyo-v-commissioner-of-police-for-the-metropolis/

They make interesting reading, particularly the larger of the two pdf files.

[IslandLover]

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...

Excellent post, particularly this bit:

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...

The double standards of the British authorities are clearly evident.

[berybert]

They released that statement over six months before the beginning of the trial, the prosecution hasn't even finished presenting the evidence to the court as of now; so how could they had made a statement against something that haven't happened yet?

Geez...

because professional police observed how the Thai police were throwing together what we have now mostly seen and called it into question, there was little they could say in reality but if you are smart enough you can join up the dots, like I have said continually - there is nothing the Thai police have presented so far that would have made it past the front gate of a western court, it really is as simple as that, in fact it is so very obviously bad that smart people here on this forum can't figure out why you don't see it and keep defending this very obvious farce, you are either cognitively challenged - a troll - have divisive motives or a mix of all three

Well gee, I may be a stupid troll but at least don't suffer from the hubris necessary to declare I know what the entirety of the case presented to the court by the prosecution amounts to based on a handful of tweets from the defense team and sparse and often inaccurate accounts from the press.

So can we ask what you are basing your guilty verdict on ?

[BritTim]

My own sense is that Justice Green tried hard to balance differing important principles and probably made the correct decision. The reaction of the defense lawyer (no appeal) tends to support that view.

On the larger question of the UK involvement:

• Interviewing witnesses on the RTP's behalf, in a case carrying a potential death sentence, was wrong.
• The families' statements seeming to endorse the RTP's investigation was wrong.
• The decision by the coroners to adjourn the inquests pending the final outcome of investigations in Thailand was normal. We may not like it, but that is a fact.
• Sending the MET team to Thailand under the eventual negotiated conditions was probably a mistake. The view may have been that having impartial observers breathing down their necks could keep the RTP honest. If so, the view was naive.

Does this show the UK complicit in a cover up, and trying to send innocent Burmese kids to the gallows? Certainly not. There is an element of trying to maintain good Thailand-UK relations and not rocking the boat. Mostly, though, it shows the UK is fallible. They do not screw up nearly as badly as the Thais, but they do make mistakes.

[berybert]

JLC

There are people who say directly it was NS and they can't be a witness. I cannot post it because it's in Thai but I'll be happy to PM it to you

There are plenty of people who know what happened, even some claimed eye witnesses but, they're scared as well. I wonder if that's because of the Burmese mafia on Tao....

As I said "... no one has ever come forward ...".

Do you know this for a fact ?

A number of people meet untimely deaths since these murders happened. And would you be privy to anyone who may have come forward ?

I doubt the police would be telling the world if people mentioned Nomsod was there.

[Dogmatix]

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...

Excellent post, particularly this bit:

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...

The double standards of the British authorities are clearly evident.

So now it is clear that Cameron's foreign secretary ordered the British police to undertake observation only, after Cameron had already made his political capital by pretending to order an 'independent enquiry' in response to the petition. It is also very clear to most of us that the Thai government and RTP would in no way have allowed an independent enquiry by foreign police on Thai soil. Thus the British government deliberately misled the British public into believing that British police were going to Thailand to be involved in genuine investigative work, after the British government had expressly forbidden that. This was a cynical act of deception and an abuse of taxpayers' money. An honest response to the petition would have been to explain truthfully that neither the British nor Thai governments are willing to permit an independent enquiry by British police. Therefore a police jolly out to Thailand would serve no purpose at all and would be a complete waste of taxpayers' money as well as create unrealistic expectations for the families of the victims.

The point about British police agreeing with the RTP not to keep confidential the results of their own investigations in the UK simply beggars belief. Thai police would do whatever they felt like with any information they obtained from investigations on Thai soil. Similarly, British police are entitled to conduct investigations in the UK into the deaths of British citizens abroad without waiting for instructions from foreign police and without having to make undertakings of confidentiality to them. From the Guardian:

The FCO response said Hampshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Jersey police had been asked by Thai police to interview Britons who were on Koh Tao with Witheridge and Miller. It added: “We now understand that UK law enforcement colleagues shared the contents of these statements informally with Thai police after they had taken human rights considerations into account".

Whose human rights exactly did they take into account? Those of Thai police.

The behaviour of British police in this case is so shameful that Justice Green would do well to call for an investigation into the assets of the officers involved to see, if they have received any recent gratuities from the Far East, rather then cravenly succumbing to political pressure to go along with what was at best an abuse of taxpayers' money and possibly something much worse.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Dogmatix

[Jonmarleesco]

'High court judge Mr Justice Green ... added he had felt unease when reaching his findings.' Now, I wonder why that was?

[balo]

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.

Good that we can agree on something , RTP does a good job , sometimes...

Here in Pattaya we see alot of crimes solved on a weekly basis , at least what we read about in the news.

And yes we have the bad cops too.

The question remains if every local police officer that worked on the KT case are bad guys or just do it the Thai way without "thinking" too much .

[berybert]

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.

Good that we can agree on something , RTP does a good job , sometimes...

Here in Pattaya we see alot of crimes solved on a weekly basis , at least what we read about in the news.

And yes we have the bad cops too.

The question remains if every local police officer that worked on the KT case are bad guys or just do it the Thai way without "thinking" too much .

The local plod are all in the mafia pocket. So all bad would be right.

You might remember the decent cop got diverted.

[loonodingle]

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.

Good that we can agree on something , RTP does a good job , sometimes...

Here in Pattaya we see alot of crimes solved on a weekly basis , at least what we read about in the news.

And yes we have the bad cops too.

The question remains if every local police officer that worked on the KT case are bad guys or just do it the Thai way without "thinking" too much .

Not sure how long u have lived there but at one point the Mayor ordered the newspapers to report no more than 2 murders a week there.

My friend who had sold his home and was leaving Thailand in 4 days turns up dead. By hanging himself. The police said it was suicide. End of story. No investigation or anything. I could write a book about Pattaya

[loonodingle]

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...

Excellent post, particularly this bit:

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...

The double standards of the British authorities are clearly evident.

So now it is clear that Cameron's foreign secretary ordered the British police to undertake observation only, after Cameron had already made his political capital by pretending to order an 'independent enquiry' in response to the petition. It is also very clear to most of us that the Thai government and RTP would in no way have allowed an independent enquiry by foreign police on Thai soil. Thus the British government deliberately misled the British public into believing that British police were going to Thailand to be involved in genuine investigative work, after the British government had expressly forbidden that. This was a cynical act of deception and an abuse of taxpayers' money. An honest response to the petition would have been to explain truthfully that neither the British nor Thai governments are willing to permit an independent enquiry by British police. Therefore a police jolly out to Thailand would serve no purpose at all and would be a complete waste of taxpayers' money as well as create unrealistic expectations for the families of the victims.

The point about British police agreeing with the RTP not to keep confidential the results of their own investigations in the UK simply beggars belief. Thai police would do whatever they felt like with any information they obtained from investigations on Thai soil. Similarly, British police are entitled to conduct investigations in the UK into the deaths of British citizens abroad without waiting for instructions from foreign police and without having to make undertakings of confidentiality to them. From the Guardian:

The FCO response said Hampshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Jersey police had been asked by Thai police to interview Britons who were on Koh Tao with Witheridge and Miller. It added: “We now understand that UK law enforcement colleagues shared the contents of these statements informally with Thai police after they had taken human rights considerations into account".

Whose human rights exactly did they take into account? Those of Thai police.

The behaviour of British police in this case is so shameful that Justice Green would do well to call for an investigation into the assets of the officers involved to see, if they have received any recent gratuities from the Far East, rather then cravenly succumbing to political pressure to go along with what was at best an abuse of taxpayers' money and possibly something much worse.

Its good you have highlighted that and I quote

"The FCO response said Hampshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Jersey police had been asked by Thai police to interview Britons who were on Koh Tao with Witheridge and Miller"

On that basis it shows the Thai police have tried to gain extra information that they can try to pin on the B2.. that's commendable ........ You will also note that they haven't gained in information so far.

There's been no evidence submitted that links the B2 except for DNA they claim is from the B2. Nothing from the UK submitted. Nothing to confirm the phone was Davids. No letter from a phone company was there?? Nope nothing.. they have achieved absolutely Zilch. So what does that tell us??

I would argue that it goes to prove the case is a crock of sh!te so far.

Barking up the wrong tree perhaps

In view of the seriousness someone needs to pull their finger out and get a move on finding evidence. Not from torture but decent detective work. Transparent work.

[catsanddogs]

The case is sensitive because of Thailand's reliance on tourism, which makes up nearly 10 per cent of the economy, and because of questions that have emerged over police tactics.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/thailand-backpackers-murder-suspects-cant-have-british-police-report

[catsanddogs]

http://www.gofundme.com/HannahWitheridge

As many of you know, the trial into the horrific murder of our beautiful Hannah will begin in July this year. As a family we are extremely keen to travel out to Thailand to represent Hannah and to, hopefully, see justice done. The trial is scheduled to run on for many months so we hope to go out on 2 occassions- at the beginning of the trial and again at the end to witness the verdict.

[JLCrab]

JLC

There are people who say directly it was NS and they can't be a witness. I cannot post it because it's in Thai but I'll be happy to PM it to you

There are plenty of people who know what happened, even some claimed eye witnesses but, they're scared as well. I wonder if that's because of the Burmese mafia on Tao....

As I said "... no one has ever come forward ...".

Do you know this for a fact ?

A number of people meet untimely deaths since these murders happened. And would you be privy to anyone who may have come forward ?

I doubt the police would be telling the world if people mentioned Nomsod was there.

Yes -- I know for a fact that no one has publicly come forward because then you would know about it as well.

[loonodingle]

http://www.gofundme.com/HannahWitheridge

As many of you know, the trial into the horrific murder of our beautiful Hannah will begin in July this year. As a family we are extremely keen to travel out to Thailand to represent Hannah and to, hopefully, see justice done. The trial is scheduled to run on for many months so we hope to go out on 2 occassions- at the beginning of the trial and again at the end to witness the verdict.

Last updated 5 months ago I think. Certainly not since Tony Witheridge and his son attended the opening of the trial. Leaving early in a distressed state and failing to return. Just 2 of them went.

[StealthEnergiser]

[simonuk]

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

I imagine the report was damming in its view of the Thai police techniques and evidence gathering.

Whilst this would be useful to the defense it's nothing that they can't prove themselves and nothing the the Rtp are not demonstrating everytime they take the stand. No need to damage relations if no aditional value is to be gained.

[IslandLover]

I have now waded through all 38 pages of Mr. Justice Green's judgment and I must say paragraph 108 is rather interesting, hypothetically speaking. In it, the judge describes a hypothetical scenario which could well apply to this case. Was it deliberate, or merely a coincidence?

But, be thankful for small mercies. The Defence may not have access to the Met report, but then neither does the Prosecution.

Edited August 27, 2015 by IslandLover

[JLCrab]

I have now waded through all 38 pages of Mr. Justice Green's judgment and I must say paragraph 108 is rather interesting, hypothetically speaking. In it, the judge describes a hypothetical scenario which could well apply to this case. Was it deliberate, or merely a coincidence?

But, be thankful for small mercies. The Defence may not have access to the Met report, but then neither does the Prosecution.

Just to elaborate, the hypothetical case involves the UK forensic team knowing that the DNA samples have been "mixed up" by foreign forensics personnel such that the wrong DNA sample is being used against those foreign defendants and the Judge asks whether the pubic interest of UK would still outweigh the private interest of the foreign defendants who have brought the case that any such info should be released to the foreign defendants legal team.

Edited August 27, 2015 by JLCrab

[Dogmatix]

I think we are getting the message that, if the UK had the equivalent of a bunch of Uighur refugees, the government would gladly deport them to a country that was likely to torture and execute them, in exchange for unspecified trade and investment benefits, if it thought it could get away with it.

The message to British tourists should be that if you're murdered in a corrupt third world country, the FCO and police will willingly cooperate with a bumbling police operation in that country that gives a very strong impression of being a cover-up and includes torture of suspects and forced re-enactments. British police will even interview witnesses in the UK at UK taxpayers' expense and agree to only disclose the results of this investigation to said 3rd world police. Meanwhile back in the other country the police have no concept of confidentiality and will disclose anything they feel like. They will take pictures of the naked bodies of murdered British victims with their phones and post them on social media, LiveLeaks, Rotten.com etc. they will even put words into the mouths of British police observers to the effect that the plods agreed with their investigation knowing that the plods can't contradict that due their confidentiality agreement.

All this in exchange for some dubious trade benefits from a small economy that is so badly managed if is now in permanent recession and partly depends on the continuing flow of British tourists, far too many of whom are slaughtered in suspicious circumstances.

[boomerangutang]

The case is sensitive because of Thailand's reliance on tourism, which makes up nearly 10 per cent of the economy, and because of questions that have emerged over police tactics. [/size]

http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/thailand-backpackers-murder-suspects-cant-have-british-police-report

Yes, but its tentacles also reach to other realms, such as reputation of Thai PM (who has vouched for the 'perfection' of the investigation), and the publics' perception of RTP. As u know, a lot's riding on this. Even the reputation/image of some British institutions are getting a bit dented.

I imagine the report was damming in its view of the Thai police techniques and evidence gathering.

Whilst this would be useful to the defense it's nothing that they can't prove themselves and nothing the the Rtp are not demonstrating everytime they take the stand. No need to damage relations if no aditional value is to be gained.

I read much of the report. It's very long and detailed. Justice Green obviously put a lot of concerted focus and effort in to it. I take back some of my criticism of him in my posts from yesterday. He was between a rock and a hard place: trying to satisfy secrecy imperatives from UK and Thai authorities, while also considering the defence team and defendants. The two biggest considerations, for his decision seem to boil down to:

>>> maintaining the confidentiality agreement that UK authorities made with Thai officials (in November '14). To release the report would have blitzed that agreement and tarnished UK's reputation for being trustworthy.

>>> concerns for influencing a trial which could wind up with executions.

I have now waded through all 38 pages of Mr. Justice Green's judgment and I must say paragraph 108 is rather interesting, hypothetically speaking. In it, the judge describes a hypothetical scenario which could well apply to this case. Was it deliberate, or merely a coincidence?

But, be thankful for small mercies. The Defence may not have access to the Met report, but then neither does the Prosecution.

How can you be sure? Prosecution work hand in glove with the RTP. RTP gave data to Brit officials who, in turn, brought same data to victims' families. Sometime last winter, there was data (interviews in UK with possible witnesses) which Brit experts passed on to Interpol. Interpol data is accessible to Thai government but not to defense team. It appears there are several instances where Brit authorities are showing more to Thai authorities/RTP/prosecution than is being shown to the defense team.

[stephenterry]

Extract from DogM that paraphrases the judges report - British police will even interview witnesses in the UK at UK taxpayers' expense and agree to only disclose the results of this investigation to said 3rd world police.

Bearing in mind the interviews were probably held early in the investigation, and the Brits probably considered that they were helping to find the murderers, it seems a reasonable course of action. Now with the trial taking place, I would have hoped that the Brits would have shared this information with the defence IF it was clear that the witness statements did not accord to the B2 being involved.

I wonder if the defence do have these witness statements, perhaps from re-interviewing them privately, as they seemed keyed-up about important info coming from the UK.

I'm not going to delve into what the RTP did with the information, because that would open up a new can of worms. Let's see if the senior investigating officers making statements today, can shed some light. It would make my day if the defence's cross examination can trip them up...

...so during your investigation you received witness statements from the uk?

Correct.

Was one of these from John Smith?

Don't remember.

Well let me help you. Mr Smith said he saw Nomsod in the AC bar threatening the female victim. Do you recollect, now?

No.

So what happened to these statements?

I don't know.

Well you are the senior investigating officer, so I repeat, what happened to these statements?

Don't know.

So who does know?

....SIO shakes his head stays silent.

[IslandLover]

The case is sensitive because of Thailand's reliance on tourism, which makes up nearly 10 per cent of the economy, and because of questions that have emerged over police tactics. [/size]

http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/thailand-backpackers-murder-suspects-cant-have-british-police-report

Yes, but its tentacles also reach to other realms, such as reputation of Thai PM (who has vouched for the 'perfection' of the investigation), and the publics' perception of RTP. As u know, a lot's riding on this. Even the reputation/image of some British institutions are getting a bit dented.

I imagine the report was damming in its view of the Thai police techniques and evidence gathering.

Whilst this would be useful to the defense it's nothing that they can't prove themselves and nothing the the Rtp are not demonstrating everytime they take the stand. No need to damage relations if no aditional value is to be gained.

I read much of the report. It's very long and detailed. Justice Green obviously put a lot of concerted focus and effort in to it. I take back some of my criticism of him in my posts from yesterday. He was between a rock and a hard place: trying to satisfy secrecy imperatives from UK and Thai authorities, while also considering the defence team and defendants. The two biggest considerations, for his decision seem to boil down to:

>>> maintaining the confidentiality agreement that UK authorities made with Thai officials (in November '14). To release the report would have blitzed that agreement and tarnished UK's reputation for being trustworthy.

>>> concerns for influencing a trial which could wind up with executions.

I have now waded through all 38 pages of Mr. Justice Green's judgment and I must say paragraph 108 is rather interesting, hypothetically speaking. In it, the judge describes a hypothetical scenario which could well apply to this case. Was it deliberate, or merely a coincidence?

But, be thankful for small mercies. The Defence may not have access to the Met report, but then neither does the Prosecution.

How can you be sure? Prosecution work hand in glove with the RTP. RTP gave data to Brit officials who, in turn, brought same data to victims' families. Sometime last winter, there was data (interviews in UK with possible witnesses) which Brit experts passed on to Interpol. Interpol data is accessible to Thai government but not to defense team. It appears there are several instances where Brit authorities are showing more to Thai authorities/RTP/prosecution than is being shown to the defense team.

I can't be sure, but that's what it says in the judgment document. The Prosecution will certainly know what is in the Met report from the RTP's perspective, but they will not know if there are any "extra" observations in there. It is also certain that the victims' families have not seen the actual report and were only given a verbal summary of what it contained.

Interpol is a different kettle of fish. They seem to delight in passing on information to other countries' police forces without checking whether that information is legitimate or not, or subject to abuse, resulting in the arrest of innocent people. It doesn't concern them that the countries they are helping use torture or have the death penalty. I would quote from a recent article in the U.K. Independent newspaper about the workings of Interpol, but it is off-topic.

[smedly]

The case is sensitive because of Thailand's reliance on tourism, which makes up nearly 10 per cent of the economy, and because of questions that have emerged over police tactics. [/size]

http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/thailand-backpackers-murder-suspects-cant-have-british-police-report

Yes, but its tentacles also reach to other realms, such as reputation of Thai PM (who has vouched for the 'perfection' of the investigation), and the publics' perception of RTP. As u know, a lot's riding on this. Even the reputation/image of some British institutions are getting a bit dented.

I imagine the report was damming in its view of the Thai police techniques and evidence gathering.

Whilst this would be useful to the defense it's nothing that they can't prove themselves and nothing the the Rtp are not demonstrating everytime they take the stand. No need to damage relations if no aditional value is to be gained.

I read much of the report. It's very long and detailed. Justice Green obviously put a lot of concerted focus and effort in to it. I take back some of my criticism of him in my posts from yesterday. He was between a rock and a hard place: trying to satisfy secrecy imperatives from UK and Thai authorities, while also considering the defence team and defendants. The two biggest considerations, for his decision seem to boil down to:

>>> maintaining the confidentiality agreement that UK authorities made with Thai officials (in November '14). To release the report would have blitzed that agreement and tarnished UK's reputation for being trustworthy.

>>> concerns for influencing a trial which could wind up with executions.

I have now waded through all 38 pages of Mr. Justice Green's judgment and I must say paragraph 108 is rather interesting, hypothetically speaking. In it, the judge describes a hypothetical scenario which could well apply to this case. Was it deliberate, or merely a coincidence?

But, be thankful for small mercies. The Defence may not have access to the Met report, but then neither does the Prosecution.

How can you be sure? Prosecution work hand in glove with the RTP. RTP gave data to Brit officials who, in turn, brought same data to victims' families. Sometime last winter, there was data (interviews in UK with possible witnesses) which Brit experts passed on to Interpol. Interpol data is accessible to Thai government but not to defense team. It appears there are several instances where Brit authorities are showing more to Thai authorities/RTP/prosecution than is being shown to the defense team.

here is the information the Thai police gave to the UK Police - The victims families - the Thai PM - and the press

condensed version - we have a confession and we have a DNA match so we have a strong case, that just about sums it up

[canuckamuck]

The prosecution in this case appears to be the best defense.

[catsanddogs]

I think we are getting the message that, if the UK had the equivalent of a bunch of Uighur refugees, the government would gladly deport them to a country that was likely to torture and execute them, in exchange for unspecified trade and investment benefits, if it thought it could get away with it.

The message to British tourists should be that if you're murdered in a corrupt third world country, the FCO and police will willingly cooperate with a bumbling police operation in that country that gives a very strong impression of being a cover-up and includes torture of suspects and forced re-enactments. British police will even interview witnesses in the UK at UK taxpayers' expense and agree to only disclose the results of this investigation to said 3rd world police. Meanwhile back in the other country the police have no concept of confidentiality and will disclose anything they feel like. They will take pictures of the naked bodies of murdered British victims with their phones and post them on social media, LiveLeaks, Rotten.com etc. they will even put words into the mouths of British police observers to the effect that the plods agreed with their investigation knowing that the plods can't contradict that due their confidentiality agreement.

All this in exchange for some dubious trade benefits from a small economy that is so badly managed if is now in permanent recession and partly depends on the continuing flow of British tourists, far too many of whom are slaughtered in suspicious circumstances.

Think you should send that to the Guardian letters page Dog.

[email protected]

[AleG]

I think we are getting the message that, if the UK had the equivalent of a bunch of Uighur refugees, the government would gladly deport them to a country that was likely to torture and execute them, in exchange for unspecified trade and investment benefits, if it thought it could get away with it.

The message to British tourists should be that if you're murdered in a corrupt third world country, the FCO and police will willingly cooperate with a bumbling police operation in that country that gives a very strong impression of being a cover-up and includes torture of suspects and forced re-enactments. British police will even interview witnesses in the UK at UK taxpayers' expense and agree to only disclose the results of this investigation to said 3rd world police. Meanwhile back in the other country the police have no concept of confidentiality and will disclose anything they feel like. They will take pictures of the naked bodies of murdered British victims with their phones and post them on social media, LiveLeaks, Rotten.com etc. they will even put words into the mouths of British police observers to the effect that the plods agreed with their investigation knowing that the plods can't contradict that due their confidentiality agreement.

All this in exchange for some dubious trade benefits from a small economy that is so badly managed if is now in permanent recession and partly depends on the continuing flow of British tourists, far too many of whom are slaughtered in suspicious circumstances.

I'm pretty certain you didn't get that message, you just tapped into your own prejudices to explain things to your own satisfaction, no outside input necessary.

If you would actually read the 38 pages long explanation given by the judge that made the decision you would see you are completely off base.

The Reader's Digest version is this, the report was made for the benefit of the victim's families on condition of confidentiality by the Thai government, the claimants (the men on trial) claim their personal data is contained on that report so they are entitled to a disclosure based on statutes regarding personal data and that information would help in mounting a defense against their charges.

The short of the resolution is, violating agreements between law enforcement agencies would negatively affect the ability of the UK police to work with all other countries (not just Thailand) on a similar basis and this is not outweighed by the claimants request to see their personal date that that would both necessarily be already known to them and does not provide exculpatory evidence in any case.

The short short version, what they were asking for would not help them but would harm the public interest.

These are the conclusions:

"Observations on the personal data: With these general considerations in mind I would make the following observations about the items of personal data in the Report:

a)The references are frequently brief, descriptive, and broad brush.

b)There are some exceptions to this where personal data is compiled in tabular form. But even here it is not much more than a series of terse statements in abbreviated form eg a summary of the main points in the chronology leading up to a suspect’s arrest. In such cases whether the items are viewed in isolation or as part of a wider picture (the table as a whole) it is all information that th e accused will already be aware of.

c)A good deal of the personal data relates to the observations of the MPS on documents or video recordings that they were permitted to read and review. As such since (as I understand matters) the accused will have had access during the trial to the same material then the references in the Report would, at this stage, add nothing to the sum of knowledge held by the defence team on these matters.

d)To the extent that the personal data refers to such matters as whether the accused had access to legal representation during interviews and/or translators these are matters within the knowledge of the accused and their lawyers in Thailand even if, as is said in the evidence before me in this case, there is a dispute about such matters.

e)The personal data is not, as I have already observed, analytical and does not perform an evaluation of the prosecution evidence or case.

f) I have not identified any material exculpatory personal data in the Report."

Curiously enough, the judge doesn't cite any "dubious trade benefits" as a rationale.

[AleG]

Extract from DogM that paraphrases the judges report - British police will even interview witnesses in the UK at UK taxpayers' expense and agree to only disclose the results of this investigation to said 3rd world police.

Bearing in mind the interviews were probably held early in the investigation, and the Brits probably considered that they were helping to find the murderers, it seems a reasonable course of action. Now with the trial taking place, I would have hoped that the Brits would have shared this information with the defence IF it was clear that the witness statements did not accord to the B2 being involved.

I wonder if the defence do have these witness statements, perhaps from re-interviewing them privately, as they seemed keyed-up about important info coming from the UK.

I'm not going to delve into what the RTP did with the information, because that would open up a new can of worms. Let's see if the senior investigating officers making statements today, can shed some light. It would make my day if the defence's cross examination can trip them up...

...so during your investigation you received witness statements from the uk?

Correct.

Was one of these from John Smith?

Don't remember.

Well let me help you. Mr Smith said he saw Nomsod in the AC bar threatening the female victim. Do you recollect, now?

No.

So what happened to these statements?

I don't know.

Well you are the senior investigating officer, so I repeat, what happened to these statements?

Don't know.

So who does know?

....SIO shakes his head stays silent.

So your strategy would be to ask witnesses to comment on some unsubstantiated or outright fabricated evidence and if they don't know what you are talking about that discredits them?

Brilliant.

[phuketandsee]

Given a few days to read and reflect I can understand why the Met's report will not be shared and the chances it contains anything of value is minimal given the constraints they were under. My guess is it would just confirm what is now widely known about the "investigation" and confirm the Met's incredulity (and disgust?) at the RTP's performance.

However I find it deeply troubling that the UK police conducted interviews on behalf of the RTP and will not share these with the defense either (http://www.theguardi...murder-thailand). I'm no expert but this would seem to be outside the confidentiality agreement. There is the question, of course, of whether the court would allow the Met's information to be introduced even if it was useful.

Presumably there are still the UK autopsy reports. Can these be released before the coroner wraps up? And would they be admissible?