Koh Tao murder trial reconvenes in Koh Samui

[IslandLover]

Well this latest translator episode just takes the biscuit.

My gawwwd, what a bunch of morons investigating this case. The perfect case, from the same script as Scotland Yard eh?

Perhaps now is as good a time as any to go find the real culprits.

Over 2000 Burmese on Koh Tao, I'm sure they could have found a few translators there, instead the RTP rope in a Rohingya Burmese Roti seller from Koh Samui who cant speak the B2's dialect, can't read or write Thai yet signs the statements!

It seems there are two Rohingya pancake sellers who worked as translators - Ye and Kamar. They are both pictured during the re-enactment "guiding" the B2.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/thai_murder_trial_translators_were_pancake_sellers_1_4202853

Thai police used two translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to assist in the interrogation of the Burmese suspects accused of raping and murdering Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge and killing her Jersey backpacker David Miller

[JLCrab]

Despite all the Keystone Kops type comments on here, whatever the outcome of this trial, the Judge's will have to submit a report detailing the basis of their decision. In the West, a criminal trial is mostly held before a jury and the jury is not required to explain the basis of their decision. So if the 2 accused are indeed found guilty of these crimes, there will be, as required by Thai Criminal Procedure, a detailed report as to how the Judge's came to that conclusion which would also serve as the prime basis for any appeal.

Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 182: After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case. A judgement or order shall be read in open Court either on the day the trial is over or within three days from such date

[BritTim]

Despite all the Keystone Kops type comments on here, whatever the outcome of this trial, the Judge's will have to submit a report detailing the basis of their decision. In the West, a criminal trial is mostly held before a jury and the jury is not required to explain the basis of their decision. So if the 2 accused are indeed found guilty of these crimes, there will be, as required by Thai Criminal Procedure, a detailed report as to how the Judge's came to that conclusion which would also serve as the prime basis for any appeal.

Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 182: After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case. A judgement or order shall be read in open Court either on the day the trial is over or within three days from such date

Worth also mentioning that there is no verbatim transcript of the trial proceedings. Further, as in this case, independent observers can be prevented from recording what is said in court. Thus, what appears in the judge's official report may or may not reflect the evidence produced in court. It is up to the judge, and (by law) no one can criticize any conclusion he comes to, or question what the judge claims was the evidence produced in court.

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

Thai murder trial: Translators were pancake sellers

Thai police used two translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to assist in the interrogation of the Burmese suspects accused of raping and murdering Norfolk student Hannah Witheridge and killing her Jersey backpacker David Miller

The judges hearing the case at Koh Samui District Court heard one of the translators, Ko Ye, could not read or write Thai, although he signed police statements in Thai, and he barely understood the Rakhine dialect which the suspects speak.

He also claimed he could not read Burmese very well either.

Both Ko Ye, and the other translator, Ko Kamar, are Muslims who are a persecuted minority in Myanmar.

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/mobile/news/thai_murder_trial_translators_were_pancake_sellers_1_4202853

[StealthEnergiser]

Thai police used roti vendors as translators

Thai police used two Muslim Rohingya translators with a very poor grasp of the Thai language to interrogate two Rakhine men accused of murdering British backpackers, it was revealed in court yesterday.

One of the translators, Ko Ye, admitted to the Samui Central Court yesterday that he could not read or write Thai and barely understood the Rakhine dialect.

Under questioning from the defence, he said that he signed a statement confirming what happened in the interrogation even though he didn’t know what it said in Thai, and he wasn’t asked to sign it until a month afterward.

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/16101-thai-police-used-roti-vendors-as-translators.html

[sweatalot]

Despite all the Keystone Kops type comments on here, whatever the outcome of this trial, the Judge's will have to submit a report detailing the basis of their decision. In the West, a criminal trial is mostly held before a jury and the jury is not required to explain the basis of their decision. So if the 2 accused are indeed found guilty of these crimes, there will be, as required by Thai Criminal Procedure, a detailed report as to how the Judge's came to that conclusion which would also serve as the prime basis for any appeal.

Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 182: After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case. A judgement or order shall be read in open Court either on the day the trial is over or within three days from such date

Worth also mentioning that there is no verbatim transcript of the trial proceedings. Further, as in this case, independent observers can be prevented from recording what is said in court. Thus, what appears in the judge's official report may or may not reflect the evidence produced in court. It is up to the judge, and (by law) no one can criticize any conclusion he comes to, or question what the judge claims was the evidence produced in court.

Wouldn't that allow the judge to sentence them to death and inventing evidence and witness testimonies at will?

[boomerangutang]

Where's Waldo? oh sorry, ....where's Mon?

I've been looking for this photo since it was first published 10.5 months ago.

that's Mon standing in the 2nd row, stern-looking and accusatory, just above the scapegoat being pointed out by one of the chief inquisitors.

Speaking of inquisitors - the Thai court has similarities to the Spanish Inquisition, in the way it's trying to stifle emanation of what goes on inside the courtroom.

[boomerangutang]

Yes he can speak Thai of course.....

Wrong Balo. He can't speak Thai well at all. That was proven yesterday when he didn't understand questions addressed to him in Thai, and when he couldn't make himself clear in Thai, when trying to respond. You can fool some Thais some of the time, but you can't fool any of them into thinking you speak Thai - when you don't.

Thai officials picking the roti seller to serve as interpreter is a microcosm of the whole screwed up mess orchestrated by Thai officialdom. Actually, to Balo's defense, the roti-seller probably speaks Thai better than....

....Thai forensic experts can determine a murder weapon, or

....Thai detectives can secure a crime scene, or

....Thai detectives can find clues and follow them, or

....Thai top brass can concoct a believable crime scenario for scapegoats.

[boomerangutang]

Maybe, just maybe, after this trial, Thai jurists will consider dragging Thai court parameters out of the 19th century.

Oh, and Thai police can talk to any 6 yr old and find out how to save digital photos on a digital device.

[AleG]

Despite all the Keystone Kops type comments on here, whatever the outcome of this trial, the Judge's will have to submit a report detailing the basis of their decision. In the West, a criminal trial is mostly held before a jury and the jury is not required to explain the basis of their decision. So if the 2 accused are indeed found guilty of these crimes, there will be, as required by Thai Criminal Procedure, a detailed report as to how the Judge's came to that conclusion which would also serve as the prime basis for any appeal.

Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 182: After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case. A judgement or order shall be read in open Court either on the day the trial is over or within three days from such date

Worth also mentioning that there is no verbatim transcript of the trial proceedings. Further, as in this case, independent observers can be prevented from recording what is said in court. Thus, what appears in the judge's official report may or may not reflect the evidence produced in court. It is up to the judge, and (by law) no one can criticize any conclusion he comes to, or question what the judge claims was the evidence produced in court.

Certainly the decision will not be based on the snippets of biased opinion provided by the defense that have been the basis of the reporting on the proceedings; I think some people are setting themselves up for disappointment by embracing this bias.

[fritzzz25]

Despite all the Keystone Kops type comments on here, whatever the outcome of this trial, the Judge's will have to submit a report detailing the basis of their decision. In the West, a criminal trial is mostly held before a jury and the jury is not required to explain the basis of their decision. So if the 2 accused are indeed found guilty of these crimes, there will be, as required by Thai Criminal Procedure, a detailed report as to how the Judge's came to that conclusion which would also serve as the prime basis for any appeal.

Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 182: After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case. A judgement or order shall be read in open Court either on the day the trial is over or within three days from such date

Worth also mentioning that there is no verbatim transcript of the trial proceedings. Further, as in this case, independent observers can be prevented from recording what is said in court. Thus, what appears in the judge's official report may or may not reflect the evidence produced in court. It is up to the judge, and (by law) no one can criticize any conclusion he comes to, or question what the judge claims was the evidence produced in court.

Certainly the decision will not be based on the snippets of biased opinion provided by the defense that have been the basis of the reporting on the proceedings; I think some people are setting themselves up for disappointment by embracing this bias.

Get your crying towels ready.......

[stephenterry]

What's the point of showing a video of the confession? They've recanted it. Or am I missing something? And I understand that the court disregards any confession obtained during a police investigation. It's not logical

[StealthEnergiser]

Where's Waldo? oh sorry, ....where's Mon?

I've been looking for this photo since it was first published 10.5 months ago.

that's Mon standing in the 2nd row, stern-looking and accusatory, just above the scapegoat being pointed out by one of the chief inquisitors.

Speaking of inquisitors - the Thai court has similarities to the Spanish Inquisition, in the way it's trying to stifle emanation of what goes on inside the courtroom.

Well spotted I never realised Mon was there, what would his official position to be standing up with the police ? I was thinking maybe paymaster but surely there couldn't be corruption involved in this investigation.

[stephenterry]

Despite all the Keystone Kops type comments on here, whatever the outcome of this trial, the Judge's will have to submit a report detailing the basis of their decision. In the West, a criminal trial is mostly held before a jury and the jury is not required to explain the basis of their decision. So if the 2 accused are indeed found guilty of these crimes, there will be, as required by Thai Criminal Procedure, a detailed report as to how the Judge's came to that conclusion which would also serve as the prime basis for any appeal.

Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 182: After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case. A judgement or order shall be read in open Court either on the day the trial is over or within three days from such date

Worth also mentioning that there is no verbatim transcript of the trial proceedings. Further, as in this case, independent observers can be prevented from recording what is said in court. Thus, what appears in the judge's official report may or may not reflect the evidence produced in court. It is up to the judge, and (by law) no one can criticize any conclusion he comes to, or question what the judge claims was the evidence produced in court.

Certainly the decision will not be based on the snippets of biased opinion provided by the defense that have been the basis of the reporting on the proceedings; I think some people are setting themselves up for disappointment by embracing this bias.

Get your crying towels ready.......

clearly the only bias is being provided by the prosecution to date. They seem to be pinning their case on a retracted confession.

[GanDoonToonPet]

What's the point of showing a video of the confession? They've recanted it. Or am I missing something? And I understand that the court disregards any confession obtained during a police investigation. It's not logical

I think they're referring to the re-enactment, which is a kind of confession if you think about it. You can be sure that, if the police had a video record of the written / oral confessions, they would have been shouting it from the rooftops for months or it would have been leaked.

Damn! I promised myself I'd never post on one of these threads...

[StealthEnergiser]

What's the point of showing a video of the confession? They've recanted it. Or am I missing something? And I understand that the court disregards any confession obtained during a police investigation. It's not logical

I think they're referring to the re-enactment, which is a kind of confession if you think about it. You can be sure that, if the police had a video record of the written / oral confessions, they would have been shouting it from the rooftops for months or it would have been leaked.

Damn! I promised myself I'd never post on one of these threads...

this one ?

[stephenterry]

What's the point of showing a video of the confession? They've recanted it. Or am I missing something? And I understand that the court disregards any confession obtained during a police investigation. It's not logical

I think they're referring to the re-enactment, which is a kind of confession if you think about it. You can be sure that, if the police had a video record of the written / oral confessions, they would have been shouting it from the rooftops for months or it would have been leaked.

Damn! I promised myself I'd never post on one of these threads...

Exactly. Once a confession is retracted a reenactment is inadmissible evidence in a Thai court.

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

[StealthEnergiser]

[stephenterry]

Seems like the prosecution is determined to make the 'confession' stick by having a senior police investigator go through the re-enactment video. I wonder what the judges think of it? They've been fairly flexible so far in allowing the defence access to DNA, so let the prosecution have their say. Up to the defence to show it's all B/S when their turn comes?

[boomerangutang]

I can picture the senior police inspector explaining to the judges what's going on. Something like. ......

Officer on video: "Raise your arm, Wai"

(suspect on video raises his arm)

Officer in court: "you can now plainly see the suspect raising his arm as if he had the murder weapon hoe, and is about to hit David with the sharp end."

Officer on video: "Wai, make a threatening noise."

suspect on video: "Arghhh!"

Officer in court: "You can now see, your honor, the suspect is very aroused by seeing two farang kissing, and he's about to bash in the head of the farang."

Judge: "But you say your forensics found none of David's blood on the hoe."

Officer in court: "Everything is mutable, your honor. We're all Buddhists here. Use your imagination."

[boomerangutang]

tw16.jpg

maybe cops didn't feed the hamster which runs in the wheel which powers the copier machine.

[stephenterry]

tw16.jpg

(Copier) Broken? Not allowed? B/S. It's dirty, underhand, and immoral. Desperate and blatant measures to foil any attempt of a fair and just trial. Bar-stewards. Hope the world's media kick up a real storm over this disclosure failure.

[BritTim]

Despite all the Keystone Kops type comments on here, whatever the outcome of this trial, the Judge's will have to submit a report detailing the basis of their decision. In the West, a criminal trial is mostly held before a jury and the jury is not required to explain the basis of their decision. So if the 2 accused are indeed found guilty of these crimes, there will be, as required by Thai Criminal Procedure, a detailed report as to how the Judge's came to that conclusion which would also serve as the prime basis for any appeal.

Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 182: After the trial is over,a judgement or order shall be given in accordance with the merits of the case. A judgement or order shall be read in open Court either on the day the trial is over or within three days from such date

Worth also mentioning that there is no verbatim transcript of the trial proceedings. Further, as in this case, independent observers can be prevented from recording what is said in court. Thus, what appears in the judge's official report may or may not reflect the evidence produced in court. It is up to the judge, and (by law) no one can criticize any conclusion he comes to, or question what the judge claims was the evidence produced in court.

Wouldn't that allow the judge to sentence them to death and inventing evidence and witness testimonies at will?

That is an extreme possibility but, yes, it is possible. More often, the judge's powers simply allow evidence, embarrassing to the prosecution, to be selectively omitted. For instance, all the things not investigated, and all the things the witnesses did not know can easily disappear from the official record.

[Briggsy]

It seems the prosecution are just recycling different versions of the same unsubstantiated evidence over and over.

1. We, the police, heard them confess.

2. I, the lawyer, witnessed their confession.

3. We, the Burmese translators, translated their confession.

4. Video of the post-confession re-enactment.

5. Copy of signed confession.

6. We, the police, say the DNA matches.

And even then, none of it is done in any kind of convincing way, let alone with any evidence to back it up.

It is as if they couldn't care less. Perhaps they know the outcome is pre-determined.

Perhaps another bung from Jao Phor Wor will make them put on a better show.

I doubt many in the UK have the faintest grasp of what a ridiculous pantomime this is.