Forensic team to testify in Koh Tao murder trial

[JoopJoop]

So....if a guilty verdict, what then?

I asked this question several weeks ago and I'm not referring to the case, I'm referring to individuals on this forum.

Being well aware as individuals you'll not make a difference in this country re legal accountability, competence, integrity and the like, so what will you do?

Accept life here, carry on, hope you'll never have a run in with RTP, or the non transparent and bought legal system, or the Establishment.

I've previously stated that I have the greatest admiration for those contributing, particularly those qualified in their previous professions but what can you change.

As individuals, highly unlikely; a strong group, possible (but that's not on an Internet forum).

As others have stated, Thai people are brought up not to question authority and believe me, I've asked many if they would rise against the establishment; not likely.

So, as an outsider, someone who is not valued here in Thai society (don't tell me your Thai family and community love you), and having the feeling now that a guilty verdict is perhaps very real and possible, do you throw your hands in the air disgusted and appalled at this very real miscarriage of justice and then eventually follow another topic on this forum?

That's not good enough for me; not even close. I'm going to try, if it fails, I'm out of here and back to Aus; a democratic country with transparency and accountability.

As with a guilty verdict, I'll be just as appalled if you don't do the same, especially if you have families here.

[B166ER]

....she was so excited two weeks prior the vacation. Holiday mode was setting in. We've all experience that. I'd say 99.9% on this forum.

This young lady in my opinion was by no means a creampuff and I'm not saying anyone here has said so. She was fit from running, gymnastics,

equestrian riding. Horses average 400kilos. Jumping them requires great skill. Combine all these together and you have quite the spirited fit

gal. Two vertically challenged Myamarian's would pose not so much a threat methinks. David was twice their height then some.

When in a tense situation I'm sure she'd be very assertive in handling herself. Could have been a surprise confrontation. Recognition. Again

words exchanged, things getting out of hand till some major catalyst occurred. Perhaps just to scare and humiliate. Exacerbated combinations of

inhibitors stretched the situation beyond persons of interest control. Some of us have been there too. This end result we all know now too well.

In my view, up to four or five persons of interest were involved. An ambush of this magnitude would certainly easily overcome and handle violent

repercussions. There would have been noise for sure....maybe a few "hey, what are you doings" It was late so verbal disruptions of this nature

would just blend in with background din of late night partying. Something again a few of us have experienced more than one or two times I'm

sure.

Hmmmm....it's been pointed out several times over the year that at this point, after the fact, the scene became not as it was. Sure looks like to me that Hannah was placed in that very unnatural position. Would anyone on a very public unfamiliar beach take the time to do this unless the beachwere not so...unfamiliar? I would think they would have had to have control of the area in question to do these things. That requires look outs

and helpers to set deck the stage. Not very well thought out, considering the circumstances? Unabated control of the crime scene hours later

and voila. Call to arms...send in the.....well you know the rest.

At this point it reminds me of when I was young and I broke a vase my parents cherished. I pieced the thing back together as best I could. Placing

it where it sat for many years safely. One of my family members walked by and wouldn't you know it.... it fell right apart.

Of course I jumped up and with a pointy finger "j'accuse".

Is it just me or do I think anyone who has followed this....I don't even know what to rightly call it....feel the same way. Why yes I do. I

think pretty well anyone possessing firing neurons would agree. I'm of the persuasion that the protection most sought after is for the Islands

local constabulary. The family in question had a representative or two present but they did not commit the unforgivable.

A lot of people on this forum are very smart and have had excellent and informative hypothesis. I'm in awe and inspired by some.

Truly, sir in respect of a fine workman, I am but as you would say a cobbler...I may use with a safe conscience, which is, indeed, sir, a mender ofbad "Souls"

Oh "please" make it so....

[docshock13]

For my part I don't agree in any way by conspiracy theory has enclose two innocent to protect the real culprits.

However I perceive clearly the reasons that have taken the investigators do not spread the scabrous details of this case. Unfortunately lounge detectives have not accepted this discretion and they stir a big shit that will ultimately engulf them.

If I had "clear perceptions" I would want to share them with the unenlightened masses.

As this is a forum for discussion, would you care to share?

[stephenterry]

So....if a guilty verdict, what then?

I asked this question several weeks ago and I'm not referring to the case, I'm referring to individuals on this forum.

Being well aware as individuals you'll not make a difference in this country re legal accountability, competence, integrity and the like, so what will you do?

Accept life here, carry on, hope you'll never have a run in with RTP, or the non transparent and bought legal system, or the Establishment.

I've previously stated that I have the greatest admiration for those contributing, particularly those qualified in their previous professions but what can you change.

As individuals, highly unlikely; a strong group, possible (but that's not on an Internet forum).

As others have stated, Thai people are brought up not to question authority and believe me, I've asked many if they would rise against the establishment; not likely.

So, as an outsider, someone who is not valued here in Thai society (don't tell me your Thai family and community love you), and having the feeling now that a guilty verdict is perhaps very real and possible, do you throw your hands in the air disgusted and appalled at this very real miscarriage of justice and then eventually follow another topic on this forum?

That's not good enough for me; not even close. I'm going to try, if it fails, I'm out of here and back to Aus; a democratic country with transparency and accountability.

As with a guilty verdict, I'll be just as appalled if you don't do the same, especially if you have families here.

I will stay here because I do have a family and I don't have financial freedom to move Sorry.

[metisdead]

I would suggest some members to calm down and discuss the topic rather than making personal comments toward other members. Suspensions have issued and more will continue to be issued if discussion continues down the same path. Remember, this is not the court room, what ever is said here will not have any impact on the day the court makes it verdict on this case.

[RWA]

An interesting point raised by Andy Hall is the role of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and police in this case. I assume that the police sent out to Thailand were experienced investigators, not numbskulls. In that case, they should have seen immediately that their Thai counterparts had done a particularly shoddy investigation job and must have had their suspicions that the results were being deliberately fudged. Yet the FCO, after presumably examining the UK police report and hopefully interviewing them in person, apparently gave the victims' families the impression that the investigation was sound and manipulated them to make statements in support of the dodgy Thai police investigation, suggesting they believed the 2B were guilty. An alternative interpretation is that the UK police were indeed intellectually challenged and didn't see anything wrong with the Thai investigation, which would raise serious questions about they conduct investigations at home. However, the most likely scenario is that they did figure that the investigation was shady but were instructed to make the report very bland and not mention any of their misgivings 'in the public interest', as a result of intervention by the FCO. Whichever way it was, it was totally inexcusable for the FCO to pander to Thailand by trying to influence the outcome of a capital murder trial and the FCO should be make accountable for this.

Then there is the case of various British police forces conducting investigations in the UK on behalf of Thai police at British taxpayers' expense, in order to try to give them evidence that would help build the prosecution case in a capital murder trial, which is illegal under UK and EU protocols. This serious offence was exacerbated by the fact that UK police forces had the gall to sign a confidentiality agreement with Thai police, which guaranteed that any evidence collected by UK police that might have been helpful to the defendants would automatically be suppressed.

Very very well ... and what now and then?!!!

[CharlieH]

Off topic posts removed

[Nigeone]

When your in court and faced with prosecuting someone for crimes they are accused of committing a crime or in court and defending someone accused of committing a crime it's the same procedure. Both sides try to show the other but more importantly the judge and/or jury the evidence they are in possession of to argue there case.

In a court of law all parties want to win there case for there clients on which ever side of the fence there on but also there's a pride and professionalism involved to do there best for there client. And of course financial benefits along the way for the defense at least. Bearing in mind this if you are a party defending or prosecuting a person or persons you do your best to carry this out. Your best evidence, most reliable and knowledgeable witnesses and strongest case is put forward and best source of all this information is put forward first to strengthen your case and prove your argument.

This is now where I have a problem as despite all the rhetoric coming out of the prosecution camp they actually have provided NOTHING to prove the guilt or involvement of the B2. On the contrary it could be argued if anything they have seriously harmed there case by the unwillingness or inability to provide any proof to back up there claims.

I'm not in the slightest bothered about the few people on here that try to argue the prosecution case as it's clear there isn't up to now remotely a credible case to answer. That's a fact and all the attempts to argue there is or derail the topic isn't going to change this fact.

It looks like to me that the RTP have had an easy ride in previous cases and are just not aware or used to handling a serious crime like this or there too aware of financial benefits in ensuing the real perpetrators are protected. It's all been said before by many but nothing's changed except the whole justice system has been shown even worse than perhaps most of us even invisaged . A very sad situation for the future of Thailand.

The General in charge of this country could do his and the criminal justice system a big favor by stepping in and calling it for what it is... Quite simply ...A disgrace that in this world we live in a country supposedly wanting to be a leader in every area possible should still be controlled by corruption and greed . And the poor are the ones taking it on the chin every day in this country. This has been a set up to rival all set ups. A complete and utter fabrication against the B2 and a shame and embarrassment to what should be a great country. The RTP have been found out in this one in a big way and I hope they receive world wide condemnation for what they have done. The families have been in court during many of the sessions and I'm sure they are intelligent people so god knows what they think of what they've seen and heard in court. My heart goes out to them now and always.

[BritTim]

An interesting point raised by Andy Hall is the role of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and police in this case. I assume that the police sent out to Thailand were experienced investigators, not numbskulls. In that case, they should have seen immediately that their Thai counterparts had done a particularly shoddy investigation job and must have had their suspicions that the results were being deliberately fudged. Yet the FCO, after presumably examining the UK police report and hopefully interviewing them in person, apparently gave the victims' families the impression that the investigation was sound and manipulated them to make statements in support of the dodgy Thai police investigation, suggesting they believed the 2B were guilty. An alternative interpretation is that the UK police were indeed intellectually challenged and didn't see anything wrong with the Thai investigation, which would raise serious questions about they conduct investigations at home. However, the most likely scenario is that they did figure that the investigation was shady but were instructed to make the report very bland and not mention any of their misgivings 'in the public interest', as a result of intervention by the FCO. Whichever way it was, it was totally inexcusable for the FCO to pander to Thailand by trying to influence the outcome of a capital murder trial and the FCO should be make accountable for this.

Then there is the case of various British police forces conducting investigations in the UK on behalf of Thai police at British taxpayers' expense, in order to try to give them evidence that would help build the prosecution case in a capital murder trial, which is illegal under UK and EU protocols. This serious offence was exacerbated by the fact that UK police forces had the gall to sign a confidentiality agreement with Thai police, which guaranteed that any evidence collected by UK police that might have been helpful to the defendants would automatically be suppressed.

Very very well ... and what now and then?!!!

If the Thai judges were intending to return a guilty verdict, they have been put on the spot by the brave action of the Norfolk coroner in ensuring falsehoods in the Thai autopsy report were brought to their attention. They know the critical findings from the UK postmortem report are eventually going to become public at the Norfolk inquest, together with the verdict and reasoning of the Thai judges in the case. Any findings by the judges that are in conflict with the report of the UK Home Office pathologist are going to be documented. The repercussions will reverberate for a long time.

The British authorities have proven pretty slippery in the past in avoiding censure for questionable acts. I think they will get away with it this time, unless the families decide to complain vigorously in the media about the way they were misled. I doubt they will.

The good news is that the Burmese kids have a good chance of a not guilty verdict. If so, the prosecution will need to decide on the best form of damage control. An appeal against the not guilty verdict is going to be heavily criticized by human rights organizations, much of the media, and possibly diplomatically. Accepting the verdict would mean calls for a new investigation to find the real perpetrators, but the Thai police are masters in the art of stonewalling in such situations. I am optimistic there will be no appeal, and the Burmese kids allowed to go home. I am extremely pessimistic about the prospects of the real villains ever being held to account.

[Gweiloman]

Not only has the prosecution not proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the B2, they have not created any doubt whatsoever that the B2 are not guilty.

No DNA match or fingerprints on alleged murder weapon.

No eye witnesses

No definitive DNA match of the B2 on/in Hannah or David or any of their belongings

No CCTV evidence of any sort whatsoever

Nothing other than the RTP's claim that they have the right perps

And yet......... some on this forum still thinks the B2 are guilty.<deleted>

[Trisha61]

Which explains why the rtp have acted to protect Thais. They probably are furious with the defence for not supporting them. No one dare question a Thai authority. It's ingrained in Thai society.

I've posted before about Andy Hall not being a very popular individual in the eyes of the Thai establishment. This was exemplified by him being berated by senior Thai policemen outside the Samui courthouse on the 1st day of the trial. They were annoyed by the fact that he had the sheer audacity to support the B2 and not their corrupted version of justice.

Actually the confrontation was, according to Andy Hall, for "disrespecting the families of the victims", and from what I've hear it has something to do with events described at the end of this article.

And we know the editor of the Samui times has a "beef" with Andy, so it is no surprise he is slagged off there........

There are many off limit "beefs' anyone who seeks justice could raise about the TVF postings of the Thai police puppets, but one thing they keep repeating ad nauseum is their accusation that the defence is desperately seeking media attention. They say this is because there are only Tweets by Andy Hall and conclude from this that reporting of the trial is one-sided and unreliable.

Sorry guys and gals, this simply doesn't 'cut the mustard' with those of us who live in the world where truth, justice and freedom of thought and speech don't play second fiddle to the bank balances of any establishment be it either police, civil service or government.

Stop crying 'crocodile tears' and blaming the defence for one-sided reporting, because the lack of concise direct media coverage of the trial is exactly what your paymasters have deemed necessary to protect any remaining shreds of credibility in a greatly flawed investigation/cover-up.

Sadly, press freedom in LOS is subject to 'attitude adjustment', and the editors also have to carefully balance their reporting so as not to jeopardise advertising income by reporting the unpalatbe truth, which might also be damaging to the country's image (income from tourism). In these situations truth is an inconvenience to be avoided at all costs, even if it means convicting and executing 2 innocent persons.

Very well put Joe.

[Trisha61]

So let me get this right, a DNA expert analyst for the defence even stated she was surprised that the results came so quick, and very early on it was alleged that Thailand didn't have the ability to have results yielded so quick, in some cases less than 48 hours.

It was then alleged that the samples were sent to Singapore to be independently verified, would I be right them is stating that the claims that the RTP processed these DNA samples in several different places of theirs is also a fabrication ? This would mean that if they sent the DNA Analysis to several different locations there should be several sets of "chain of custody" documentation to accompany these results then?

Who received the samples in Singapore ? If they were ever sent there in the first place.

Given that Thailand and the RTP labs seem to be able to process DNA with such efficiency and speed, are they not being asked to analyse DNA from outside the country seeing as they're now the Hub of rapid DNA results?

Thailand, the new hub of falsified DNA results.

DNA in Thai police circles would appear to stand for Do Not Ask!

[Mooner]

This case gets more ridiculous everyday. Can't believe anyone still supports the RTP version of events.

[Dogmatix]

An interesting point raised by Andy Hall is the role of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and police in this case. I assume that the police sent out to Thailand were experienced investigators, not numbskulls. In that case, they should have seen immediately that their Thai counterparts had done a particularly shoddy investigation job and must have had their suspicions that the results were being deliberately fudged. Yet the FCO, after presumably examining the UK police report and hopefully interviewing them in person, apparently gave the victims' families the impression that the investigation was sound and manipulated them to make statements in support of the dodgy Thai police investigation, suggesting they believed the 2B were guilty. An alternative interpretation is that the UK police were indeed intellectually challenged and didn't see anything wrong with the Thai investigation, which would raise serious questions about they conduct investigations at home. However, the most likely scenario is that they did figure that the investigation was shady but were instructed to make the report very bland and not mention any of their misgivings 'in the public interest', as a result of intervention by the FCO. Whichever way it was, it was totally inexcusable for the FCO to pander to Thailand by trying to influence the outcome of a capital murder trial and the FCO should be make accountable for this.

Then there is the case of various British police forces conducting investigations in the UK on behalf of Thai police at British taxpayers' expense, in order to try to give them evidence that would help build the prosecution case in a capital murder trial, which is illegal under UK and EU protocols. This serious offence was exacerbated by the fact that UK police forces had the gall to sign a confidentiality agreement with Thai police, which guaranteed that any evidence collected by UK police that might have been helpful to the defendants would automatically be suppressed.

If the Thai judges were intending to return a guilty verdict, they have been put on the spot by the brave action of the Norfolk coroner in ensuring falsehoods in the Thai autopsy report were brought to their attention. They know the critical findings from the UK postmortem report are eventually going to become public at the Norfolk inquest, together with the verdict and reasoning of the Thai judges in the case. Any findings by the judges that are in conflict with the report of the UK Home Office pathologist are going to be documented. The repercussions will reverberate for a long time.

The British authorities have proven pretty slippery in the past in avoiding censure for questionable acts. I think they will get away with it this time, unless the families decide to complain vigorously in the media about the way they were misled. I doubt they will.

The good news is that the Burmese kids have a good chance of a not guilty verdict. If so, the prosecution will need to decide on the best form of damage control. An appeal against the not guilty verdict is going to be heavily criticized by human rights organizations, much of the media, and possibly diplomatically. Accepting the verdict would mean calls for a new investigation to find the real perpetrators, but the Thai police are masters in the art of stonewalling in such situations. I am optimistic there will be no appeal, and the Burmese kids allowed to go home. I am extremely pessimistic about the prospects of the real villains ever being held to account.

It is a good point that the UK post mortem report will be made public at Norwich inquest, although I wouldn't automatically assume that judges in Samui have sufficient knowledge of other countries' legal systems to be aware of that. Most Thai lawyers I have known Bangkok have not slightest clue or interest in other legal systems, even those who deal with foreign corporate clients, and I would assume that provincial judges would be far more ignorant about the real world outside.

I can't remember if there was any announcement of a post mortem and inquest on David. Under Jersey law there isn't the same obligation to perform a post mortem on repatriated bodies of citizens who have died in suspicious circumstances as there is in England and Wales. If there were to be a post mortem that was made public, it would be interesting to know what a competent UK pathologist would make of the Thai forensic findings that David's horrible puncture wounds were inflicted by a hoe.

I also doubt that the victims' families would complain vigorously to the media about the way they were apparently deliberately misled and manipulated by British authorities. God knows what they are thinking, as they watch the 'very strong case' they were tricked into believing Thai police had put together against the 2B turn into a laughing stock, but they seem to be understandably too flattened by pain and grief to take any affirmative action. They don't seem likely to spend years pushing for justice for their loved ones like the mother of Kirsty Jones who was murdered in Chiang Mai and whose killer, allegedly a policeman, is still at large. The father of Vanessa Arscott, murdered by a policeman in Kanchaburi also displayed significant resilience and determination by acting as a co-plaintiff with the Thai state in the trial of his daughter's brutal killer.

I would also hope there would be no appeal, if the 2B were acquitted, although I am not convinced the Samui judges would dare to acquit them in the first place. No matter how much the police case lacks credibility they can still fall back on the mantra that police forensic evidence must be accepted because the police have a virtual monopoly on forensics and admitting publicly that police forensic scientists are incompetent and dishonest would rapidly mean that prosecutors would not have access to forensic evidence any more. Logically, if the rape charges have to be dropped because there is no clear evidence that Hannah was raped, the murder charges automatically fall away because they presuppose that the rapists murdered her to prevent her from revealing their identities. But this is Thailand and I wouldn't count on the prosecution not appealing an acquitting an acquittal even if there is no possibility of finding any new evidence to build a new case. Appealing would keep the defendants in jail where they still die in suspicious circumstances. Also the the defence might run of funding and lose key players in an appeals process lasting several more years.

[BritTim]

It is a good point that the UK post mortem report will be made public at Norwich inquest, although I wouldn't automatically assume that judges in Samui have sufficient knowledge of other countries' legal systems to be aware of that. Most Thai lawyers I have known Bangkok have not slightest clue or interest in other legal systems, even those who deal with foreign corporate clients, and I would assume that provincial judges would be far more ignorant about the real world outside.

I can't remember if there was any announcement of a post mortem and inquest on David. Under Jersey law there isn't the same obligation to perform a post mortem on repatriated bodies of citizens who have died in suspicious circumstances as there is in England and Wales. If there were to be a post mortem that was made public, it would be interesting to know what a competent UK pathologist would make of the Thai forensic findings that David's horrible puncture wounds were inflicted by a hoe.

I also doubt that the victims' families would complain vigorously to the media about the way they were apparently deliberately misled and manipulated by British authorities. God knows what they are thinking, as they watch the 'very strong case' they were tricked into believing Thai police had put together against the 2B turn into a laughing stock, but they seem to be understandably too flattened by pain and grief to take any affirmative action. They don't seem likely to spend years pushing for justice for their loved ones like the mother of Kirsty Jones who was murdered in Chiang Mai and whose killer, allegedly a policeman, is still at large. The father of Vanessa Arscott, murdered by a policeman in Kanchaburi also displayed significant resilience and determination by acting as a co-plaintiff with the Thai state in the trial of his daughter's brutal killer.

I would also hope there would be no appeal, if the 2B were acquitted, although I am not convinced the Samui judges would dare to acquit them in the first place. No matter how much the police case lacks credibility they can still fall back on the mantra that police forensic evidence must be accepted because the police have a virtual monopoly on forensics and admitting publicly that police forensic scientists are incompetent and dishonest would rapidly mean that prosecutors would not have access to forensic evidence any more. Logically, if the rape charges have to be dropped because there is no clear evidence that Hannah was raped, the murder charges automatically fall away because they presuppose that the rapists murdered her to prevent her from revealing their identities. But this is Thailand and I wouldn't count on the prosecution not appealing an acquitting an acquittal even if there is no possibility of finding any new evidence to build a new case. Appealing would keep the defendants in jail where they still die in suspicious circumstances. Also the the defence might run of funding and lose key players in an appeals process lasting several more years.

I can't remember if there was any announcement of a post mortem and inquest on David. Under Jersey law there isn't the same obligation to perform a post mortem on repatriated bodies of citizens who have died in suspicious circumstances as there is in England and Wales. If there were to be a post mortem that was made public, it would be interesting to know what a competent UK pathologist would make of the Thai forensic findings that David's horrible puncture wounds were inflicted by a hoe.

We know that a postmortem was carried out on David, and the inquest into his death similarly adjourned until the end of the court case here in Thailand. As far as I know, the defense has not seen the postmortem report on David.

Verdict and possible appeal? Conjecture, but I think the top priority of the Thai leadership will be to make this go away with as little noise as possible. My instinct is that not guilty and no appeal is their best option, but they may not see it that way.

[Basil B]

To answer the above:

Transportation of Bodies into and out of Jersey

Permission must be obtained from the Coroner for bodies to be brought into or removed from the Island.

Such arrangements must be made by a firm of funeral directors. If a body is brought into the Island of someone who has died overseas in circumstances which, in Jersey, might necessitate the holding of an inquest, the Coroner will consider whether a post-mortem examination of the body should be made and an inquest held: the family is consulted about this, although ultimately the decision is for the Coroner. (This contrasts with the position in England and Wales, where a Coroner is obliged to hold an inquest even when entirely satisfactory parallel enquiries have been made overseas or, conversely, when no reliable evidence is available and the inquest, thus, serves no useful purpose.)

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ID%20Sudden%20Death%20Guide%2007-2012%20BJL.pdf

Reading the full document:

1. The Coroner would almost certainly have opened an inquest.
2. Requested a post mortem.
3. because of the nature of the case he would have asked for a home Office Pathologist from the Mainland to attend, (maybe the PM was done in the UK, en-route to Jersey).
4. Almost certainly the Inquest will not be concluded until after the trial in Thailand.

[boomerangutang]

An interesting point raised by Andy Hall is the role of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and police in this case. I assume that the police sent out to Thailand were experienced investigators, not numbskulls. In that case, they should have seen immediately that their Thai counterparts had done a particularly shoddy investigation job and must have had their suspicions that the results were being deliberately fudged. Yet the FCO, after presumably examining the UK police report and hopefully interviewing them in person, apparently gave the victims' families the impression that the investigation was sound and manipulated them to make statements in support of the dodgy Thai police investigation, suggesting they believed the 2B were guilty. An alternative interpretation is that the UK police were indeed intellectually challenged and didn't see anything wrong with the Thai investigation, which would raise serious questions about they conduct investigations at home. However, the most likely scenario is that they did figure that the investigation was shady but were instructed to make the report very bland and not mention any of their misgivings 'in the public interest', as a result of intervention by the FCO. Whichever way it was, it was totally inexcusable for the FCO to pander to Thailand by trying to influence the outcome of a capital murder trial and the FCO should be make accountable for this.

Then there is the case of various British police forces conducting investigations in the UK on behalf of Thai police at British taxpayers' expense, in order to try to give them evidence that would help build the prosecution case in a capital murder trial, which is illegal under UK and EU protocols. This serious offence was exacerbated by the fact that UK police forces had the gall to sign a confidentiality agreement with Thai police, which guaranteed that any evidence collected by UK police that might have been helpful to the defendants would automatically be suppressed.

You're assuming the Brit experts were aware of how things are done in Thailand. Unless they were long-time residents here, they probably didn't. For starters, the Brits probably assumed they were being told the truth. Secondly, the Brits probably assumed the Thai officials were trying to solve the case. From those points onward, it was a losing battle for the 'Observer Only' flatfooted Brits. They were bamboozled easier than a guy showing up at a Samui girlie bar on his first day in Thailand. It's not only the Thai authorities who need to learn things. Next time, perhaps Her Majesty will send gumshoes who have some understanding of how things happen in Thailand. Because the Brits were so easily fooled, they then regurgitated the lies to the victims' families - so everyone became a loser - except those who are guilty of the crime, who are grinning each time they go back to the bars and seduce drunk backpacker chicks.

[Basil B]

I can only imagine the very short conversation of the police observers on the flight home ..."Who's going to believe us"???

[balo]

I don't think anyone on this forum supports RTP's full version , but they look at some of it to be factual . And for all I know some of it is , but as always it's not possible to make out if anything make sense in this case,

Maybe some of the good cops tried to do their job early on and investigate, and then other cops messed up. I think both sides (whatever that is) want justice in the end.

That a poster suggest that we all should move out of Thailand if the verdict is not going in the way we think it will is just ridicilous , we have families and life will go on . Unfortunately it's not a perfect world we're living in.

[RWA]

So let me get this right, a DNA expert analyst for the defence even stated she was surprised that the results came so quick, and very early on it was alleged that Thailand didn't have the ability to have results yielded so quick, in some cases less than 48 hours.

It was then alleged that the samples were sent to Singapore to be independently verified, would I be right them is stating that the claims that the RTP processed these DNA samples in several different places of theirs is also a fabrication ? This would mean that if they sent the DNA Analysis to several different locations there should be several sets of "chain of custody" documentation to accompany these results then?

Who received the samples in Singapore ? If they were ever sent there in the first place.

Given that Thailand and the RTP labs seem to be able to process DNA with such efficiency and speed, are they not being asked to analyse DNA from outside the country seeing as they're now the Hub of rapid DNA results?

Thailand, the new hub of falsified DNA results.

DNA in Thai police circles would appear to stand for Do Not Ask!

hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (out of Likes)

[IslandLover]

Basil B, on 27 Sept 2015 - 22:04, said:Basil B, on 27 Sept 2015 - 22:04, said:

To answer the above:

QuoteQuote

Transportation of Bodies into and out of Jersey

Permission must be obtained from the Coroner for bodies to be brought into or removed from the Island.

Such arrangements must be made by a firm of funeral directors. If a body is brought into the Island of someone who has died overseas in circumstances which, in Jersey, might necessitate the holding of an inquest, the Coroner will consider whether a post-mortem examination of the body should be made and an inquest held: the family is consulted about this, although ultimately the decision is for the Coroner. (This contrasts with the position in England and Wales, where a Coroner is obliged to hold an inquest even when entirely satisfactory parallel enquiries have been made overseas or, conversely, when no reliable evidence is available and the inquest, thus, serves no useful purpose.)

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ID%20Sudden%20Death%20Guide%2007-2012%20BJL.pdf

Reading the full document:

1. The Coroner would almost certainly have opened an inquest.
2. Requested a post mortem.
3. because of the nature of the case he would have asked for a home Office Pathologist from the Mainland to attend, (maybe the PM was done in the UK, en-route to Jersey).
4. Almost certainly the Inquest will not be concluded until after the trial in Thailand.

IIRC a post-mortem was carried out on David Miller by a Home Office pathologist. I don't know whether it was conducted on the U.K. mainland or in Jersey but it was mentioned on the BBC website some time ago. N.B. the Home Office is a government organisation and is independent of the police.

[silverado]

It is hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that:

- Hannah was not raped, since the Home Office pathologist found nothing consistent with that. Therefore Thai police cannot have found any semen traces in her body.

- Police took DNA saliva samples from the 2B and divided each into two parts: one labelled semen sample and the other labelled saliva sample.

If this is the case, it is very easy to understand why police have:

- Failed to provide the semen samples for independent retesting, claiming they were all 'used up'.

- Failed to provide documentation relating to DNA collection, testing and the chain of custody.

- Failed to provide copies of their crime scene photographs, citing the pathetic excuse of lack of budget to print them.

- Claimed to have 'Lost' Hannah's clothing.

- Failed to test the hoe.

- Didn't even attempt to explain how David's wounds could have been inflicted with the blade of the hoe, as they claimed.

- Provided only limited CCTV footage.

- Used illegal stateless immigrants who are totally illiterate in both Thai and Burmese and have only a limited verbal command of both languages as official translators.

- Etc, etc.

Excellent post, it would also, in my opinion cast doubts on the Thai coroners "estimated time of death"

It's pretty obvious the crime scene was very carefully staged to make it look like there was a horrific sexual attack on Hannah, that takes someone with a bit of "knowledge" about Crime scenes and how they can/will be interpreted.

That smell you are getting is the smell of bullshit emanating from the RTP and prosecutions mouthes !!

Good point. We had all assumed that Hannah had been raped before the poor girl was murdered, as claimed by the police pathologists, and this seemed highly plausible, particularly in the light of the horrific unofficial crime scene photographs that were obviously leaked by police deliberately. However, the new evidence provided by the UK coroner that Hannah was not, in fact, raped, we now have to question whether her body was re-arranged after death by pulling her top done, pulling up her skirt and removing her underwear to make it look as if it was a sexually motivated attack. Perhaps this was done by the 'running man', footage of whom was released in the naive belief that it could be pinned on some one else, since no features were recognisable but without any knowledge of scientific gait analysis.

This would easily explain why Hannah's clothing was 'mislaid' and why a police department, whose generals sport multiple mansions, luxury sedans, billion baht stock portfolios and exclusive overseas educations for their spawn, was unable to scrape together a measly few hundred baht to print out the 'official' crime scene photographs which might have made tampering discernible to an expert eye, such as Dr Pornthip's. As an aside, it is a good example of the impotence of the judicial branch that the judge couldn't make a court order for the photographs making clear that the case would be dismissed, if police still refused to comply.

The lack of any credible evidence of rape removes any possible motive for the 2B to have murdered Hannah and David. The fabricated confessions covered this point by claiming that the 2B became 'aroused' when they allegedly saw David and Hannah having sex. Since this explanation no longer retains a shred of credibility, why would the 2B midgets decide to take on a strapping young farang like David and murder him along with Hannah. Even though they might have earlier seen one or other or both of them in the bar they worked or in the street, it is inconceivable that anything could have happened that could have made the 2B so angry with them that they would have wanted to murder them. Even more unlikely that, having murdered them in a drunken state, they would have had the presence of mind to re-arrange Hannah's body to make it look like a rape. A rape to frame whom and how could they have imagined they had the money and connections to frame anyone?

What we are left with seems to be a completely motiveless crime committed by two defendants who might not have had the physical stature and strength to accomplish it. Having committed the motiveless crime with extreme physical difficulty, despite being paralytically drunk, they then cleverly re-arranged the body of the female victim to make it look as if she had been raped, thus transforming it into a crime with a motive that could easily be pinned on them.

[jgriff]

The prosecution case is filled with holes and to date they have not proved that the B2 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't even matter what the DNA proves or does not. It has to be excluded because there is no chain of custody. Without the chain of custody, no one can believe anything regarding DNA. The confessions are useless, possibly extracted by coercion; incompetent translators; and general unprofessional actions regarding the confession process. There was no logical motive that was presented by the prosecution. In addition there are questions as to the actual investigation itself. I don't know who may actually committed this horrible crime- but I do know that no one has provided a complete picture of the deceased's actions prior to entering the AC bar; what happened in the AC bar and what happened after they left. actually happened? The missing information centers on compiling a timeline for the deceased and the B2.and seeing where it leads. Without this information-the picture is incomplete.

The work of the defense is not to find who "really" did it, it's to get their clients free.

To that end the strategy the defense is using is called FUD, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, to create enough of the three elements to discredit the work of the RTP and the prosecution case. The problem is that doubts and uncertainties are not the way one arrives to the truth, quite the contrary in fact.

That's the way the defense is suppose to work AleG Are you suggesting that the defence should try to find the real culprit/s ? How is the defence even able to FUD if they can't even get the RTP to release everything ?

[Dogmatix]

An interesting point raised by Andy Hall is the role of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and police in this case. I assume that the police sent out to Thailand were experienced investigators, not numbskulls. In that case, they should have seen immediately that their Thai counterparts had done a particularly shoddy investigation job and must have had their suspicions that the results were being deliberately fudged. Yet the FCO, after presumably examining the UK police report and hopefully interviewing them in person, apparently gave the victims' families the impression that the investigation was sound and manipulated them to make statements in support of the dodgy Thai police investigation, suggesting they believed the 2B were guilty. An alternative interpretation is that the UK police were indeed intellectually challenged and didn't see anything wrong with the Thai investigation, which would raise serious questions about they conduct investigations at home. However, the most likely scenario is that they did figure that the investigation was shady but were instructed to make the report very bland and not mention any of their misgivings 'in the public interest', as a result of intervention by the FCO. Whichever way it was, it was totally inexcusable for the FCO to pander to Thailand by trying to influence the outcome of a capital murder trial and the FCO should be make accountable for this.

Then there is the case of various British police forces conducting investigations in the UK on behalf of Thai police at British taxpayers' expense, in order to try to give them evidence that would help build the prosecution case in a capital murder trial, which is illegal under UK and EU protocols. This serious offence was exacerbated by the fact that UK police forces had the gall to sign a confidentiality agreement with Thai police, which guaranteed that any evidence collected by UK police that might have been helpful to the defendants would automatically be suppressed.

You're assuming the Brit experts were aware of how things are done in Thailand. Unless they were long-time residents here, they probably didn't. For starters, the Brits probably assumed they were being told the truth. Secondly, the Brits probably assumed the Thai officials were trying to solve the case. From those points onward, it was a losing battle for the 'Observer Only' flatfooted Brits. They were bamboozled easier than a guy showing up at a Samui girlie bar on his first day in Thailand. It's not only the Thai authorities who need to learn things. Next time, perhaps Her Majesty will send gumshoes who have some understanding of how things happen in Thailand. Because the Brits were so easily fooled, they then regurgitated the lies to the victims' families - so everyone became a loser - except those who are guilty of the crime, who are grinning each time they go back to the bars and seduce drunk backpacker chicks.

I don't rule out completely the possibility that all the senior British detectives sent out to observe the RTP investigation were genuinely such complete idiots that they actually believed the BS served up to them by the RTP. However, that would raise serious questions about the quality of British police selection procedures and training, if senior detectives have no ability to determine that they are possibly being lied to by criminals.

If the British police were really that stupid, then even more blame should be attributed to the FCO. The FCO's SE Asia desk would have been receiving daily briefs on the case and the local media reaction to it from the well trained Thai speakers at the British Embassy, not to mention the Thai speaking ambassador himself. Remember also that the British police observer mission required the approval of the foreign secretary and that Cameron had personally button holed Prayut to get his permission as a result of the change.org petition. Thus it is simply not possible that the FCO had no idea that there had been grave doubts about the RTP investigation from the point that Pol Lt Gen Panya Mamen was abruptly kicked into touch. It would also be hard to believe that the British police were not briefed by the embassy's political analysts en route to KT.

At any rate there can be no shred of doubt that the FCO in London, notably Hugo Swire, was fully aware of the grave doubts about the RTP investigation that was apparently endorsed in the British police observers' worthless, pliant report. Knowing all this they cynically misled the distraught grieving families and manipulated them into making statements that were likely to be helpful to notoriously corrupt third world police force in a capital murder trial in violation of UK and EU protocols. There needs to be some accounting for the FCO's conduct.

[Gweiloman]

I don't think anyone on this forum supports RTP's full version , but they look at some of it to be factual . And for all I know some of it is , but as always it's not possible to make out if anything make sense in this case,

Maybe some of the good cops tried to do their job early on and investigate, and then other cops messed up. I think both sides (whatever that is) want justice in the end.

That a poster suggest that we all should move out of Thailand if the verdict is not going in the way we think it will is just ridicilous , we have families and life will go on . Unfortunately it's not a perfect world we're living in.

I think you are wrong. It is clear to anyone following the case here on TV that there are certain posters who are not interested in real justice. It is evident in some of their outlandish posts as well as attempts to intentionally mislead and obfuscate the subject matters. There were many such attempts, for eg stating that the defense rejected a retesting of DNA because they were afraid the results would not be favourable to them when in FACT, the defense REFUSED for very clear and understandable reasons.

I understand that you don't see that considering that your likes are firmly planted in one camp but that's fine, like all has said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[smedly]

I don't think anyone on this forum supports RTP's full version , but they look at some of it to be factual . And for all I know some of it is , but as always it's not possible to make out if anything make sense in this case,

Maybe some of the good cops tried to do their job early on and investigate, and then other cops messed up. I think both sides (whatever that is) want justice in the end.

That a poster suggest that we all should move out of Thailand if the verdict is not going in the way we think it will is just ridicilous , we have families and life will go on . Unfortunately it's not a perfect world we're living in.

I'll put a question to you in response to your post and maybe you can research and answer it for your self

- you said - I don't think anyone on this forum supports RTP's full version (I believe there are a couple) and for all I know some of it is .........here is the question and it is specifically about the second part of your sentence

In any court case anywhere in the world how do police make sure that physical evidence they present to court during a trial is not made up or manufactured - may I also add that DNA evidence is classed as physical evidence, you said "and for all I know" which is not good enough, a panel of judges or a jury cannot simply conclude "for all I know it could be true" the police must present that evidence in a certain way were everyone understands without doubt "that it is true"

Here is a starter, police cannot simply stand up in court and say "the DNA is a match" or "we have the murder weapon which we can connect to the accused and prove it was used to commit the crime" an easy example to the latter would be a gun with a ballistic report - but you must have the gun and the tests must be repeatable, the clue here is that the same applies to DNA

"for all I know it could be true" is not something anyone should be saying about "claimed" physical evidence that police have gathered and made "claims" about during presentation to a court, the words "claimed" and "claims" should not be in that sentence - police cannot claim something

Simplistic view - Imagine you are in a gold shop and left without buying anything and as you walked down the street you were stopped by police and accused of stealing a gold ring and arrested, what would you want to see presented in court - clue, something similar happened recently involving a suspected stolen diamond

"for all I know it could be true" is not good enough

[thailandchilli]

I wonder, was it the same pathologist who carried out the autopsy for Hannah and David as for some of the other mysterious deaths on Koh Tao? I'm assuming so and that being the case the credibility of those findings should also be seriously called into question.

[glenmohr]

When your in court and faced with prosecuting someone for crimes they are accused of committing a crime or in court and defending someone accused of committing a crime it's the same procedure. Both sides try to show the other but more importantly the judge and/or jury the evidence they are in possession of to argue there case.

In a court of law all parties want to win there case for there clients on which ever side of the fence there on but also there's a pride and professionalism involved to do there best for there client. And of course financial benefits along the way for the defense at least. Bearing in mind this if you are a party defending or prosecuting a person or persons you do your best to carry this out. Your best evidence, most reliable and knowledgeable witnesses and strongest case is put forward and best source of all this information is put forward first to strengthen your case and prove your argument.

This is now where I have a problem as despite all the rhetoric coming out of the prosecution camp they actually have provided NOTHING to prove the guilt or involvement of the B2. On the contrary it could be argued if anything they have seriously harmed there case by the unwillingness or inability to provide any proof to back up there claims.

I'm not in the slightest bothered about the few people on here that try to argue the prosecution case as it's clear there isn't up to now remotely a credible case to answer. That's a fact and all the attempts to argue there is or derail the topic isn't going to change this fact.

It looks like to me that the RTP have had an easy ride in previous cases and are just not aware or used to handling a serious crime like this or there too aware of financial benefits in ensuing the real perpetrators are protected. It's all been said before by many but nothing's changed except the whole justice system has been shown even worse than perhaps most of us even invisaged . A very sad situation for the future of Thailand.

The General in charge of this country could do his and the criminal justice system a big favor by stepping in and calling it for what it is... Quite simply ...A disgrace that in this world we live in a country supposedly wanting to be a leader in every area possible should still be controlled by corruption and greed . And the poor are the ones taking it on the chin every day in this country. This has been a set up to rival all set ups. A complete and utter fabrication against the B2 and a shame and embarrassment to what should be a great country. The RTP have been found out in this one in a big way and I hope they receive world wide condemnation for what they have done. The families have been in court during many of the sessions and I'm sure they are intelligent people so god knows what they think of what they've seen and heard in court. My heart goes out to them now and always.

Quote "The general in charge of this country could do...".Unquote.

Good thinking Nige.

However this general you have mentioned is extremely busy, right now he is in New York lecturing world leaders on how they can best eradicate poverty!

[phuketandsee]

"Samui court judges & lawyers discussed today Koh Tao case judgement will be sent to director general judge region 8 for checking prior to release"

Does anyone have any information as to what Andy Hall's tweet actually means? Is this a "Superior Court" judge? Should we be concerned by the the reference to "Region 8" i.e. does this mean the RTP get a review?

Could it mean the judges are heading towards an acquittal and don't want to take responsibility for it?

[BritTim]

An interesting point raised by Andy Hall is the role of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and police in this case. I assume that the police sent out to Thailand were experienced investigators, not numbskulls. In that case, they should have seen immediately that their Thai counterparts had done a particularly shoddy investigation job and must have had their suspicions that the results were being deliberately fudged. Yet the FCO, after presumably examining the UK police report and hopefully interviewing them in person, apparently gave the victims' families the impression that the investigation was sound and manipulated them to make statements in support of the dodgy Thai police investigation, suggesting they believed the 2B were guilty. An alternative interpretation is that the UK police were indeed intellectually challenged and didn't see anything wrong with the Thai investigation, which would raise serious questions about they conduct investigations at home. However, the most likely scenario is that they did figure that the investigation was shady but were instructed to make the report very bland and not mention any of their misgivings 'in the public interest', as a result of intervention by the FCO. Whichever way it was, it was totally inexcusable for the FCO to pander to Thailand by trying to influence the outcome of a capital murder trial and the FCO should be make accountable for this.

Then there is the case of various British police forces conducting investigations in the UK on behalf of Thai police at British taxpayers' expense, in order to try to give them evidence that would help build the prosecution case in a capital murder trial, which is illegal under UK and EU protocols. This serious offence was exacerbated by the fact that UK police forces had the gall to sign a confidentiality agreement with Thai police, which guaranteed that any evidence collected by UK police that might have been helpful to the defendants would automatically be suppressed.

Andrew Drummond has a new long article up on his site. It discusses why the UK authorities have acted why they have. I cannot link to it here, and those in Thailand will need to use a VPN or web proxy to read it. It is well informed IMHO, and recommended reading.