Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[losername]

Whats the sense in doing their investigation if it is pre-agreed it will not be disclosed. In other words the UK's business interests are more important than the lives of 2 very possibly innocent human beings. The non disclosure agreement null and voids access to information that may counter the thai narrative.

My suspicion is that, without the non-disclosure agreement, there would have been no MPS investigation. It would be interesting to know if the Thai legal system could agree to publish. I am sure the RTP would have withheld access to information that may counter the Thai narrative so that is not an issue of non-disclosure.

[Linky]

In essence the report should be confidential as per the agreement.

However, that changed when the families spoke out about the agreement and made a statement that the accused had a strong case to answer. Once they made such a prejudicial statement the defence has a right of response by being provided the same information. Not providing them with that information goes against the interests of natural justice.

Further, the agreement was that the police play no role whatsoever in the investigation, observers only. Now it is known the actively interviewed people they broke that agreement. In doing so they also broke the govt policy of no involvement because the death penalty was in play.

As those officers found it necessary to interview people they then become part of the case and should be listed as witnesses for the prosecution. In the very least the defense should request a summons for those officers to be compelled to give evidence.

[loonodingle]

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.

Well this is what has possibly happened which is why they wanted the DNA taken in court with witnesses. That was a game changer I think.

[loonodingle]

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.

The defence did contact witnesses. Thats how they found out the local police forces had already Interviewed them

[AleG]

In essence the report should be confidential as per the agreement.

However, that changed when the families spoke out about the agreement and made a statement that the accused had a strong case to answer. Once they made such a prejudicial statement the defence has a right of response by being provided the same information. Not providing them with that information goes against the interests of natural justice.

Further, the agreement was that the police play no role whatsoever in the investigation, observers only. Now it is known the actively interviewed people they broke that agreement. In doing so they also broke the govt policy of no involvement because the death penalty was in play.

As those officers found it necessary to interview people they then become part of the case and should be listed as witnesses for the prosecution. In the very least the defense should request a summons for those officers to be compelled to give evidence.

First of, my opinion on the family statements is that they came in the context of a continuous and systematic campaign by the defense to prejudice the trial in favour of the defendants.

Secondly the judge did address this point:

"Personal data placed in the public domain by the FCO on behalf of the families and deployed adversely to the Claimants in Thailand:

The Claimants submit that the personal data has already caused them prej udice because the FCO, on behalf of the families, has stated publically that the evidence was “ powerful and convincing” and the Thai authorities have referred in public in Thailand to this as strong support from the families and/or UK Government for the prosecution case. It is said that this risks prejudicing the trial in Thailand. I attach some weight to this. But it is not compelling. First, the FCO did not disclose personal data; they (at its highest) provided a very high level statement about the strength of the evidence generally.

Secondly, there has also been extensive press media critical of the Thai authorities,especially in the light of the allegations by the accused that they had been tortured and were subject to unfair procedures – the media coverage was not therefore one way traffic. Thirdly, and importantly, the trial is presided over by a judge about whom no complaint has been made to me in these proceedings. Any adverse comment in the Thai press can, I am bound to assume, be addressed by the judge applying normal, objective, standards."

Basically, the defense strategy of having a trial in court of public opinion backfired on them on this instance.

Personally, I consider the people that complain about the family's statement having a prejudicial effect and at the same time have for months made and propagated allegations, rumors and "theories" quite specifically meant to prejudice negatively the prosecution case to be hypocrites.

[AleG]

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.

The judge very explicitly states that he went out of his way not "to let the cat out of the bag"

"Secondly, Ms Proops objected to my even attempting to pose in abstract terms questi ons to Mr Facenna for him to answer about the relevance of what might be in the Report to the defen ce in the Thai proceedings. When I said to her that I had no intention to letting the cat (ie the Report) out of the bag but that I could see no objection to putting before Mr Facenna the odd hair from its back she nonetheless said that even a highly limited and (frankly) innocuous disclosure like this would be objectionable and contrary to section 15(2) DPA 1998"

So I don't think that hypothetical is a wink-wink-nudge-nudge concession from the judge to the claimants; specially in view of the unambiguous statement that nothing in the report constitutes exculpatory evidence.

[StealthEnergiser]

philr, on 22 Aug 2015 - 13:31, said:

Please, can all the TV users that actually want justice in this case, for the accused, the poor victims and their families stop responding to the tactics of those that clearly have a different agenda to the majority.

Those that respond in kind, causing threads to be locked and the silencing of discussion are falling into a simple trap and in my view are as responsible for the inevitable consequences as the shills.

Count to ten, walk the dog, put the kettle on to let the air out of your tyre before hitting Post. I know, it works, I've done it several times myself.

[thailandchilli]

Great to see posters are staying strong and avoiding feeding the trolls

[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.

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.

Don't be a dipstick - it's a situational parody of what might happen in court, emphasising the 'don't knows' that witnesses have already made. .

[Linky]

So to avoid the trolls....any updates from the court?

[thailandchilli]

So to avoid the trolls....any updates from the court?

Not yet, my guess is we need to wait for the lunch break for A.H. to tweet

[stephenterry]

So to avoid the trolls....any updates from the court?

Zilch from Andy Hall. And sorry, I did respond to AleG who must be wearing his 'serious' hat today.

Edited August 27, 2015 by stephenterry

[loonodingle]

Miller family in court. No mention of the Witheridge family. I get the feeling they have seen enough. But hey what do I know!

[loonodingle]

So to avoid the trolls....any updates from the court?

Not yet, my guess is we need to wait for the lunch break for A.H. to tweet

You can also try Heidi Anna Facebook.

[loonodingle]

So to avoid the trolls....any updates from the court?

Zilch from Andy Hall. And sorry, I did respond to AleG who must be wearing his 'serious' hat today. [/quote

I think AleG has had 6 cans of RedBull today as he/she is bouncing of the walls... worse than me today....lol..]

[BritTim]

In essence the report should be confidential as per the agreement.

However, that changed when the families spoke out about the agreement and made a statement that the accused had a strong case to answer. Once they made such a prejudicial statement the defence has a right of response by being provided the same information. Not providing them with that information goes against the interests of natural justice.

Further, the agreement was that the police play no role whatsoever in the investigation, observers only. Now it is known the actively interviewed people they broke that agreement. In doing so they also broke the govt policy of no involvement because the death penalty was in play.

As those officers found it necessary to interview people they then become part of the case and should be listed as witnesses for the prosecution. In the very least the defense should request a summons for those officers to be compelled to give evidence.

Your first point, about the report being used, via the families' statements, to influence the course of the case is an extremely good one. I wonder if Mr Justice Green considered it.

Your second point, suggesting that the Met officers carried out interviews on behalf of the prosecution was incorrect. Regional police forces were involved, not the Met.

[Dogmatix]

At least critics of Cameron, Hugo Swire, Justice Green and the British plods here have no need to fear criminal defamation charges in the UK. However, some of those people make have become so enamoured with the Thai justice system and its ability to render such a 'perfect job' in investigating and prosecuting rapists and murderers of British citizens without fear or favour that they will initiate criminal defamation suits in Thailand. No doubt their new friends in the RTP and RTG will be more than happy to assist them.

Meanwhile, I have been deafened by the howls of protest by the British government at the criminal defamation case revived by the Thai court against Mr Andy Hall over his contribution to Finnwatch's report on abuse of migrant labourers in Thailand.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Dogmatix

[Linky]

In essence the report should be confidential as per the agreement.

However, that changed when the families spoke out about the agreement and made a statement that the accused had a strong case to answer. Once they made such a prejudicial statement the defence has a right of response by being provided the same information. Not providing them with that information goes against the interests of natural justice.

Further, the agreement was that the police play no role whatsoever in the investigation, observers only. Now it is known the actively interviewed people they broke that agreement. In doing so they also broke the govt policy of no involvement because the death penalty was in play.

As those officers found it necessary to interview people they then become part of the case and should be listed as witnesses for the prosecution. In the very least the defense should request a summons for those officers to be compelled to give evidence.

Your first point, about the report being used, via the families' statements, to influence the course of the case is an extremely good one. I wonder if Mr Justice Green considered it.

Your second point, suggesting that the Met officers carried out interviews on behalf of the prosecution was incorrect. Regional police forces were involved, not the Met.

My apologies, i thought UK police where reported to have conducted interviews.

Cool.

[BritTim]

In essence the report should be confidential as per the agreement.

However, that changed when the families spoke out about the agreement and made a statement that the accused had a strong case to answer. Once they made such a prejudicial statement the defence has a right of response by being provided the same information. Not providing them with that information goes against the interests of natural justice.

Further, the agreement was that the police play no role whatsoever in the investigation, observers only. Now it is known the actively interviewed people they broke that agreement. In doing so they also broke the govt policy of no involvement because the death penalty was in play.

As those officers found it necessary to interview people they then become part of the case and should be listed as witnesses for the prosecution. In the very least the defense should request a summons for those officers to be compelled to give evidence.

First of, my opinion on the family statements is that they came in the context of a continuous and systematic campaign by the defense to prejudice the trial in favour of the defendants.

Secondly the judge did address this point:

"Personal data placed in the public domain by the FCO on behalf of the families and deployed adversely to the Claimants in Thailand:

The Claimants submit that the personal data has already caused them prej udice because the FCO, on behalf of the families, has stated publically that the evidence was “ powerful and convincing” and the Thai authorities have referred in public in Thailand to this as strong support from the families and/or UK Government for the prosecution case. It is said that this risks prejudicing the trial in Thailand. I attach some weight to this. But it is not compelling. First, the FCO did not disclose personal data; they (at its highest) provided a very high level statement about the strength of the evidence generally.

Secondly, there has also been extensive press media critical of the Thai authorities,especially in the light of the allegations by the accused that they had been tortured and were subject to unfair procedures – the media coverage was not therefore one way traffic. Thirdly, and importantly, the trial is presided over by a judge about whom no complaint has been made to me in these proceedings. Any adverse comment in the Thai press can, I am bound to assume, be addressed by the judge applying normal, objective, standards."

Basically, the defense strategy of having a trial in court of public opinion backfired on them on this instance.

Personally, I consider the people that complain about the family's statement having a prejudicial effect and at the same time have for months made and propagated allegations, rumors and "theories" quite specifically meant to prejudice negatively the prosecution case to be hypocrites.

There were attempts by both the prosecution and the defense to try the case in the court of public opinion. However, the Met report has only been used to suggest the prosecution has a strong case. Any other media reports are not relevant. I find it a compelling argument that the Met report itself should not be allowed to be used only to bolster the prosecution's case.

[seahorse]

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.

Thailand has the best justice system money can buy.

[DLang]

When will the Forensic Institute have the results from the DNA they took from the defendants in court last week?

[boomerangutang]

In essence the report should be confidential as per the agreement.

However, that changed when the families spoke out about the agreement and made a statement that the accused had a strong case to answer. Once they made such a prejudicial statement the defence has a right of response by being provided the same information. Not providing them with that information goes against the interests of natural justice.

Further, the agreement was that the police play no role whatsoever in the investigation, observers only. Now it is known the actively interviewed people they broke that agreement. In doing so they also broke the govt policy of no involvement because the death penalty was in play.

As those officers found it necessary to interview people they then become part of the case and should be listed as witnesses for the prosecution. In the very least the defense should request a summons for those officers to be compelled to give evidence.

Below are a few brief excerpts from Justice Green's dissertation (in .pdf)

within section 18:

Zaw Lin says in his statement that when he was arrested he was stripped naked and exposed to extremely cold air from an air conditioning unit. He says he was beaten, kicked and punched. He says that the police held a plastic bag over his head and neck to suffocate him. He says there were threats to kill him, electrocute him and burn him and he denies that he had a lawyer or translator present when interviewed and that he was deprived of food until he eventually signed a confession because he could not withstand any further mistreatment. Wai Phyo has also given a witness statement to this court. He makes the same complaints, in more or less identical language. These allegations are strenuously denied by the RTP.

within section 22: "....evidence was collected such as ....retrieval and collation of cell phone data ect."

Boomer's comment: That's funny, we hadn't heard peep about cell phone data from RTP since the crime, nearly a year ago - except one mention re; Nomdod supposedly using his cell phone in Bangkok on Monday morning. It is hoped that the defense will ask for and receive complete cell phone data from RTP - for ALL persons of interest, which would include Mon, Nomsod, their family members, fast boat drivers, and tough-guy/cop buddies of Mon.

within section 23: "he (DCI Lyons) does say that the accused repeated their confessions in court before the judge in the presence of their own lawyers. "

Boomer's comment: That, in itself, ('confessions in court before the judge') could be proof that British were fed faulty information by RTP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defendants didn't make confessions in court - with or without a judge. Either that, or DCI Lyons deliberately altered what he was told by his RTP minder.

[loonodingle]

When will the Forensic Institute have the results from the DNA they took from the defendants in court last week?

Ha..... dont you think they had them already. Last Friday when Nakhon said its ok we don't need anything else checked. We have the DNA taken in court with witnesses. And a comment that we have enough to prove our case or words to that effect. .. they have had the results. .. I would have money on it...

[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.

Well this is what has possibly happened which is why they wanted the DNA taken in court with witnesses. That was a game changer I think.

If the hypothetical scenario offered by the Judge was in the Report, it would be considered exculpatory and the Judge has said that there is nothing in the Report that he would consider to be exculpatory.

[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.

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

I see you are now entering the works of AleG and changing your story to make things fit.

Or maybe you just forgot the word publicly in your previous post.

[JLCrab]

This was my original post on the matter. If you want to say that every time I responded to the tag-team that was questioning me, then maybe you're right that I did not include the word 'publicly' to every response on which I was being bombarded.

The Dragon-guy says that during the time he was at the AC Bar on that date that he did not see the Kid with whom he was on a 'Hello' basis. Nobody else has publicly said that they saw him either or that any one saw any altercation that evening in the bar including friends of the deceased who are back home in the UK.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/849310-koh-tao-murder-trial-reconvenes-in-koh-samui/?view=findpost&p=9778530

I also wrote this on this same Topic:

< Snip >. When I can read abut something on Reuters it is public; if it may have happened but no one in the public knows about it then it isn't public. <Snip2 >

Edited August 27, 2015 by JLCrab

[loonodingle]

What hacks me off is "informal interviews" taken by the police forces in Essex Hampshire and Hertfordshire. Because they are informal they dont need to diclose the information.

What a load of B011ocks...

You dont do Informal work for another police force in another country with death penalty punishment.

But hey whats informal. Meet down the pub with your notes on the back of a fag packet... Or listen we have been told to come andtell you dont show your holiday pictures to the newspapers as it may show a potential witness we are tracking.... nudge nudge wink wink... and we dont want him to get wind of our investigation. .. Ok Na Kup...

Its a murder case and they are doing informal work for the bloody thai police... ff. Sake..

[stephenterry]

This was my original post on the matter. If you want to say that every time I responded to the tag-team that was questioning me, then maybe you're right that I did not include the word 'publicly' to every response on which I was being bombarded.

The Dragon-guy says that during the time he was at the AC Bar on that date that he did not see the Kid with whom he was on a 'Hello' basis. Nobody else has publicly said that they saw him either or that any one saw any altercation that evening in the bar including friends of the deceased who are back home in the UK.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/849310-koh-tao-murder-trial-reconvenes-in-koh-samui/?view=findpost&p=9778530

It's quite fair you defending this Dragon guy - no problems with that, however, we have yet to hear the defence's case where they could have witness statements to what happened in the AC bar. Or they might not. Wait and see.

[loonodingle]

Just confirmed No Witheridge family in court...

[JLCrab]

This was my original post on the matter. If you want to say that every time I responded to the tag-team that was questioning me, then maybe you're right that I did not include the word 'publicly' to every response on which I was being bombarded.

The Dragon-guy says that during the time he was at the AC Bar on that date that he did not see the Kid with whom he was on a 'Hello' basis. Nobody else has publicly said that they saw him either or that any one saw any altercation that evening in the bar including friends of the deceased who are back home in the UK.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/849310-koh-tao-murder-trial-reconvenes-in-koh-samui/?view=findpost&p=9778530

It's quite fair you defending this Dragon guy - no problems with that, however, we have yet to hear the defence's case where they could have witness statements to what happened in the AC bar. Or they might not. Wait and see.

The Dragon guy made his statement and then you and several others started to ask him questions as to whether he saw the late Ms. Witheridge that night or that The Kid maybe walked out the back door as he entered the front door or visa versa. The Dragon guy deigned not to answer any of those questions. He doesn't need my defense.

As to what witnesses the defense may have as to the night in question, again, I will say that no one has come forward publicly or offered their story to any newspaper or other media in UK who probably spent reasonable time trying to track down such persons and have them make a pubic statement.

Edited August 27, 2015 by JLCrab