Trisha61 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 What I find most scary is the total lack of humanity and integrity shown by the Rtp in this case. They seem incapable of discerning between right and wrong. On the same level as the psycho perps. It is scary and lets hope we never have to rely on Thai Justice personally or within our familes as this is the part that is most scary for me. Time and time again we see how it fails miserably and in some cases appears to favour anything but a fair trial. As another poster pointed out some time ago: The Asian Human Rights Commission called the Thai legal system a "mess" and called for a drastic overhaul of Thailand's criminal procedures. It cited the rampant use of forced confessions, and the fact that even a senior justice ministry official admitted that 30% of cases went to court with no evidence. There are no stenographic records kept by the trial court and the record is composed of what the judges decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Thailand This is a sad reflection on the ethics and honesty of not only the RTP but also the prosecutors and the judges themselves if they convict in such circumstances. UNBELIEVABLE:- Foreign aid for Human Rights Seminar - Amazing Thailand, The Land of Smiles! British still giving hundreds of millions of pounds in aid to wealthy countries Britain is still giving hundreds of millions of pounds in development aid to wealthy countries, a Sunday Tele***ph investigation has found. "Thailand gets funding for 22 projects, totalling £13 million, including £360,000 for the Holistic Approach of Public Partnership for Environment - a project that promotes social cohesion in Chiang Mai. Kazakhstan, which is ruled by an autocrat and which has huge stocks of oil and gas, also receives EU aid including £100,000 spent on a human rights seminar in the former capital Almaty." UNBELIEVABLE ? No, absolutely believable when you look at how the UK treats its own citizens! Off topic, but when one of the first things the current Government did was to reduce the annual Old Age Winter Fuel Allowance to pensioners by 50 pounds, it really sticks in the craw when you see the amount of money that is given away to already wealthy countries (assuming the Sunday Telegraph investigation is correct) and the amount of benefits given to asylum seekers and legal/illegal immigrants. Sorry Mods, I know it should be on a different thread, but the above post just shows how the worldwide distribution of wealth is designed to keep the poor people poorer and make the rich people richer (as per instances above) and if you are rich in a country like Thailand it appears that you can BUY your own brand of justice/injustice. Absolutely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 https://twitter.com/Atomicalandy/status/652445593634115584 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Zaw Lin/Wai Phyo final 2 defense witnesses, this is final session of Koh Tao murder case court proceedings prior to deliberation/verdict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 https://twitter.com/Atomicalandy/status/652446865586196480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Nonsense posts commenting on moderation have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisha61 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Lord, They need Your help. Please give them wisdom tomorrow and the right words to say so that the truth will be made apparent, and that justice will be done. Will you guide the judge and help the judge see that they are telling the truth? Will you grant them favour in the eyes of the judge? And will You help the judge be able to see that the other side is not telling the truth. I thank You that You will walk through this with them, and that You never leave or forsake them. Please help them though, not to be nervous, and to know what to say at the right time. Of course our prayer is that the judge will rule in their favour, and they may be free to return to their families, and that the families of David and Hannah can eventually see justice delivered for their loved ones. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisha61 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 https://twitter.com/Atomicalandy/status/652446865586196480'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) What I find most scary is the total lack of humanity and integrity shown by the Rtp in this case. They seem incapable of discerning between right and wrong. On the same level as the psycho perps. RTP have definitions of right and wrong. They're just not the same parameters as people like us. For us, 'right' means; objectively seeking justice no matter where the evidence leads. For them, 'right' means sheltering the rich and privileged at all costs. For us 'wrong' means; victimizing innocents. For them 'wrong' means; contributing to Thai VIP's losing face. Edited October 10, 2015 by boomerangutang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 It's a big day for the 22 year olds who will be required to speak in a court. They're speaking to try and save their lives from an inquisition orchestrated by Thai officials - all the way up to the top. Thai officials who are seized on only criminalizing the two young men, while concurrently refusing to even mention other men who any reasonable observers see as much more likely perpetrators of the heinous crime. Every day this faux-investigation and trial proceeds, is another day Thai officialdom's reputation gets plowed deeper in the black muck of lies and screw-ups. Since late September '14, when Nomsod and Mon were officially excused, the whole ugly mess has gone downhill like a diseased buffalo tossed over a 1,000 mile steep cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 For those making excuses for the RTP non allowing foreign experts to investigate the KT murders (countries never allow other countries to do investigative work on their soil), below is yet another proof of how they're wrong: title of today's article in NPR site: Mexico Says It Will Allow International Experts To Revisit Missing Students Case "Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the U.N.'s High Commissioner on Human Rights, recommended the experts re-examine the site where the government says the bodies of the students were burned. "Authorities contend the 43 were kidnapped, then murdered by a local drug gang. All the bodies were allegedly burned in one night at a garbage dump. That version has been publicly challenged by relatives and international experts. Mexico says it will allow seven experts from five countries to re-review the crime area. SOURCE - - - - - - - Boomer's note: the title says 'revisit' which infers 'visiting again.' If any further proof were needed how wrong the RTP and their defenders are about their claim that; 'countries don't allow other countries to investigate crimes', let me remind them: Portugal, USA, Britain and Holland, are just a few countries which gladly allow such investigations. When a Nepalese serial killer came to Thailand, Thai authorities allowed Dutch investigators to investigate his crimes in Thailand. The KT case desperately needs outside crime inspectors. RTP have shown in numerous ways - they can't be trusted to do a remotely-adept investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Follow Ian Yarwood@IanYarwood_Law #KOHTAO MURDER TRIAL FINAL TWO DAYS OF DEFENCE WITNESSES THIS WEEKEND. The two accused to give evidence of events including interrogation 7:23 PM - 9 Oct 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 https://twitter.com/Atomicalandy/status/652672028701405184 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo arrive at Koh Samui Court this morning for final two days of Koh Tao trial, today's witnesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisha61 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 For those making excuses for the RTP non allowing foreign experts to investigate the KT murders (countries never allow other countries to do investigative work on their soil), below is yet another proof of how they're wrong: title of today's article in NPR site: Mexico Says It Will Allow International Experts To Revisit Missing Students Case "Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the U.N.'s High Commissioner on Human Rights, recommended the experts re-examine the site where the government says the bodies of the students were burned. "Authorities contend the 43 were kidnapped, then murdered by a local drug gang. All the bodies were allegedly burned in one night at a garbage dump. That version has been publicly challenged by relatives and international experts. Mexico says it will allow seven experts from five countries to re-review the crime area. SOURCE - - - - - - - Boomer's note: the title says 'revisit' which infers 'visiting again.' If any further proof were needed how wrong the RTP and their defenders are about their claim that; 'countries don't allow other countries to investigate crimes', let me remind them: Portugal, USA, Britain and Holland, are just a few countries which gladly allow such investigations. When a Nepalese serial killer came to Thailand, Thai authorities allowed Dutch investigators to investigate his crimes in Thailand. The KT case desperately needs outside crime inspectors. RTP have shown in numerous ways - they can't be trusted to do a remotely-adept investigation. Excellent post Boomer - Keep pilling the pressure on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamukloy Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritTim Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Might be interesting if they said "we cannot remember how we got home". If the prosecution say "we know you did because we have it on CCTV", then the court might like to see the CCTV in question. Of course, that CCTV might then turn out not to have been kept for budget reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 https://www.facebook.com/meepooh.mp.39 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 This koh tao policeman has just made more comments while the court is in process. https://www.facebook.com/jarkrapan.kaewkhao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thailandchilli Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 They bought L&M cigarettes from 7/11 on the way to the beach. But of the 3 butts found 2 were Marlboro and only 1 L&M. Very strange. Stranger still the cigg butts are now unavailable to test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamukloy Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Might be interesting if they said "we cannot remember how we got home". If the prosecution say "we know you did because we have it on CCTV", then the court might like to see the CCTV in question. Of course, that CCTV might then turn out not to have been kept for budget reasons. Thats a point. And in a place like that there's probably only one main route for them to get home. I wonder if the defense has ever looked into trying to obtain the CCTV for that route? If they did, and were denied, they could then ask by whos authority was it denied and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smedly Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? TBH I'm not sure how taking the stand is going to help them, they can simply be accused of telling lies just like RTP, I would have thought these 2 days could have been used more productively, in saying that - The prosecution have not presented anything in court in the way of evidence so it is very difficult to argue against nothing, a series of - "I don't knows and conflicting testimony" - "lost evidence" - "crime scene contamination" - "no rape took place therefore no motive" - "injuries not properly explained investigated or omitted" - "claimed dna match without the supporting physical evidence or documentation" - "cctv footage that was never shared" - "confessions that were withdrawn as soon as the accused had legal representation" - "an obvious directed re-enactment on the beach which is against the law" - "claim after claim from RTP without supporting evidence or witnesses" the list is endless may I also add, people here have been talking about appeals, not sure how that works in Thailand but anywhere else you need to have something new to present in the case in order to appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smedly Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Might be interesting if they said "we cannot remember how we got home". If the prosecution say "we know you did because we have it on CCTV", then the court might like to see the CCTV in question. Of course, that CCTV might then turn out not to have been kept for budget reasons. Thats a point. And in a place like that there's probably only one main route for them to get home. I wonder if the defense has ever looked into trying to obtain the CCTV for that route? If they did, and were denied, they could then ask by whos authority was it denied and why? a point I have made many times, police claimed in court they left the beach on the motorbike yet have not shown any cctv footage, perhaps 2:30am didn't quite fit with the agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritTim Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? TBH I'm not sure how taking the stand is going to help them, they can simply be accused of telling lies just like RTP, I would have thought these 2 days could have been used more productively, in saying that - The prosecution have not presented anything in court in the way of evidence so it is very difficult to argue against nothing, a series of - "I don't knows and conflicting testimony" - "lost evidence" - "crime scene contamination" - "no rape took place therefore no motive" - "injuries not properly explained investigated or omitted" - "claimed dna match without the supporting physical evidence or documentation" - "cctv footage that was never shared" - "confessions that were withdrawn as soon as the accused had legal representation" - "an obvious directed re-enactment on the beach which is against the law" - "claim after claim from RTP without supporting evidence or witnesses" the list is endless may I also add, people here have been talking about appeals, not sure how that works in Thailand but anywhere else you need to have something new to present in the case in order to appeal That is for the written arguments to be submitted later. These two days are for witness testimony. Of course, witnesses may lie. If they do, a good lawyer will often trip them up. Anyway, the judges need to watch and listen and form their own conclusions about their credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenmohr Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I feel we have reached the point where Inspector Clouseau should be called as an expert witness on magnifying glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenterry Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? TBH I'm not sure how taking the stand is going to help them, they can simply be accused of telling lies just like RTP, I would have thought these 2 days could have been used more productively, in saying that - The prosecution have not presented anything in court in the way of evidence so it is very difficult to argue against nothing, a series of - "I don't knows and conflicting testimony" - "lost evidence" - "crime scene contamination" - "no rape took place therefore no motive" - "injuries not properly explained investigated or omitted" - "claimed dna match without the supporting physical evidence or documentation" - "cctv footage that was never shared" - "confessions that were withdrawn as soon as the accused had legal representation" - "an obvious directed re-enactment on the beach which is against the law" - "claim after claim from RTP without supporting evidence or witnesses" the list is endless may I also add, people here have been talking about appeals, not sure how that works in Thailand but anywhere else you need to have something new to present in the case in order to appeal Should there be an appeal - It is my understanding (which may not be totally accurate) that the judgement would allow the request to go to the appeals court. It would be up to the latter to accept or reject the request. Whether any fresh evidence is needed, I don't know - or it could be challenging part of the judges' decision making process. In respect of the B2 evidence, as 'hearsay' is acceptable in court, IMO the B2 will aim to show that they were tortured into confessing. If that is accepted by the judges, the 'confession' and reenactment is voided. That is important, as it would leave the prosecution's case based on RTP assertions and nothing else that can be substantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Returning back to Koh Samui courtroom 6 for afternoon of penultimate day of Koh Tao murder trial. Zaw Lin currently being cross examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthEnergiser Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Zaw Lin witness testimony this morning mainly discussion of investigation/questioning process and torture/procedural irregularity issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenterry Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Follow Andy Hall@Atomicalandy Zaw Lin witness testimony this morning mainly discussion of investigation/questioning process and torture/procedural irregularity issues Yes, which is the main aim of the B2. To show illegal methods used by the RTP to gain a confession. Up to the judges to agree or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The defence has pulled of some pretty clever moves so far. I wonder if they have a strategy for what the Burmese two must put out, to put real some real doubt into the minds of the judges? Or does it even matter? If facing death or life in prison surely you can come up with something better than.. we got extremely drunk, didnt see anything, went home... Then i guess the first thing an opposition would ask is "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Some have suggested they know more than what they are letting on. But if they facing the death penalty already, why would they be scared of speaking out? "If you were so drunk you couldnt walk and didnt know what was going on around you, then how did you manage to make it home on a bike? " Might be interesting if they said "we cannot remember how we got home". If the prosecution say "we know you did because we have it on CCTV", then the court might like to see the CCTV in question. Of course, that CCTV might then turn out not to have been kept for budget reasons. Thats a point. And in a place like that there's probably only one main route for them to get home. I wonder if the defense has ever looked into trying to obtain the CCTV for that route? If they did, and were denied, they could then ask by whos authority was it denied and why? One investigator cop said (on the stand at the trial) that he/they looked at over 60 hours of CCTV from that night. What was seen? Did they share some or any footage with defense? Was any of it CCTV which Mon declined to hand over (saying it was his 'private property')? Let's not forget, this is the same RTP which said they didn't even look at CCTV of boats leaving the island (and who might have boarded them?) just after the crime, deeming it unimportant. Re; the unseen beach/dock CCTV, the report used the word 'have' instead of 'had' as in; "we have that footage." Does that mean they still have it, as reported? Or was it just sloppy reporting, and they 'had' the potentially crucial CCTV, but trashed it when realizing it either A. was too unimportant to keep, or B. it implicated people they're sworn/paid to shield from scrutiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I dont see the need for the accused to give evidence at all. The prosecution needs to prove the B2 did it and have providd no evidence at all. In a real justice system defence would not need to call any evidence at all, just make an application to the judge that prosecution failed to prove the elements of the case and the B2 would be on their way home. But Thailand is different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts