Forensic team to testify in Koh Tao murder trial

[BritTim]

"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?

This is the head of the Public Relations Department for the region in which the murders took place. Seriously.

[lucky11]

As I read there is a feeling that the accused in this trial may not be the real culprits , despite DNA showing their semen inside the girl's body .

However , one should not overlook that in this case Thailand is on trial and not just its Justice system .

Their semen inside the girl's body????? I thought that they found condoms nearby which supposedly matched the M2 DNA??????

They inadvertently admitted that they raped Hannah and so the logical conclusion is that they also killed both Hannah and David!!

[thailandchilli]

As I read there is a feeling that the accused in this trial may not be the real culprits , despite DNA showing their semen inside the girl's body .

However , one should not overlook that in this case Thailand is on trial and not just its Justice system .

Their semen inside the girl's body????? I thought that they found condoms nearby which supposedly matched the M2 DNA??????

They inadvertently admitted that they raped Hannah and so the logical conclusion is that they also killed both Hannah and David!!

The only logical conclusion I can see is that you obviously don't keep up with the news.

[saminoz]

As I read there is a feeling that the accused in this trial may not be the real culprits , despite DNA showing their semen inside the girl's body .

However , one should not overlook that in this case Thailand is on trial and not just its Justice system .

Their semen inside the girl's body????? I thought that they found condoms nearby which supposedly matched the M2 DNA??????

They inadvertently admitted that they raped Hannah and so the logical conclusion is that they also killed both Hannah and David!!

You mean they inadvertently admitted they raped Hanna whilst they were being tortured by the RTP? What of the UK pathologist's findings that there was NO rape?

What semen? The semen that RTP claim they tested but cannot produce, just some replicated DNA that could have originated from a mouth swab, a hair follicle or many other easy to acquire samples from the B2?

I can't believe that there are shills still trying to push this tired old line and obfuscate even further.

Your post amounts to trolling, IMHO.

[stephenterry]

"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?

This is the head of the Public Relations Department for the region in which the murders took place. Seriously.

This is the spin guy whose job is to promote tourism. If the verdict is not guilty he will recommend that the rtp appeal so as to keep the b2 incarcerated and not left to roam around raping and killing other tourists.

[Just1Voice]

One small glimmer of hope I have is a somewhat innocuous statement by one of the judges to prosecutors, when he inferred they should be better prepared for the appeal. Ok, maybe it's nothing, or maybe, just maybe, the judges know this case is a total cock up, but that they still have to go through the motions before rendering their "non guilty" verdict.

As for the possible verdicts, here is how I see it (Which doesn't make it right).

GUILTY. Not based on the facts of the case (as there are none), but to appease the "pay masters" and collect their reward. Naturally the B2 lawyers will appeal, as they should.

NOT GUILTY. As based on the lack of facts and actual evidence, other than the RTP saying "they did it". If that happens, the prosecution could go one of two ways.

First, they are outraged and their "pride" has been tarnished, so they will appeal to have that restored.

Second, they'll realize they are totally inadequate, and have already suffered enough "shame" and been made to look like total fools, and won't want to have a second issue of loss of major face, so they will simply shrug it off and go back to life as usual, with zero effort to find the real guilty party, as they have already been paid well for that.

[stephenterry]

"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?

This is the head of the Public Relations Department for the region in which the murders took place. Seriously.

This is the spin guy whose job is to promote tourism. If the verdict is not guilty he will recommend that the rtp appeal so as to keep the b2 incarcerated and not left to roam around raping and killing other tourists.

Best case scenario is he recommends that the b2 are deported for wasting police time.

[lucky11]

As I read there is a feeling that the accused in this trial may not be the real culprits , despite DNA showing their semen inside the girl's body .

However , one should not overlook that in this case Thailand is on trial and not just its Justice system .

Their semen inside the girl's body????? I thought that they found condoms nearby which supposedly matched the M2 DNA??????

They inadvertently admitted that they raped Hannah and so the logical conclusion is that they also killed both Hannah and David!!

You mean they inadvertently admitted they raped Hanna whilst they were being tortured by the RTP? What of the UK pathologist's findings that there was NO rape?

What semen? The semen that RTP claim they tested but cannot produce, just some replicated DNA that could have originated from a mouth swab, a hair follicle or many other easy to acquire samples from the B2?

I can't believe that there are shills still trying to push this tired old line and obfuscate even further.

Your post amounts to trolling, IMHO.

From the Washington Post in an article that is heavily defensive towards the 2 Myanmar men (not) being the guilty parties and unwittingly implicating them when they spoke the truth (probably for the first time):

Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

Edited September 28, 2015 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal. Please do not use oversize font for emphasis.

[thailandchilli]

From the Washington Post in an article that is heavily defensive towards the 2 Myanmar men (not) being the guilty parties and unwittingly implicating them when they spoke the truth (probably for the first time):

Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

I suggest you get to grips with reality, things have moved on since Oct 2014. Now look at all the media articles from 8th July 2015 onwards. Then come back to the thread and give a full explanation of why you think the B2 are guilty. Are you able to do that? I somehow doubt it.

You may also want to take a look at the topic of this thread, could give you a very large clue

Edited September 28, 2015 by thailandchilli

[lucky11]

From the Washington Post in an article that is heavily defensive towards the 2 Myanmar men (not) being the guilty parties and unwittingly implicating them when they spoke the truth (probably for the first time):

Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

I suggest you get to grips with reality, things have moved on since Oct 2014. Now look at all the media articles from 8th July 2015 onwards. Then come back to the thread and give a full explanation of why you think the B2 are guilty. Are you able to do that? I somehow doubt it.

The reality is that they admitted to sexually assaulting Hannah Witheridge!! Any reporting after this is irrelevant to the admittance of their guilt of rape as that has already been reported from their spoken words, in classically slipping up when trying to deny the rape(s).

It is a bit like someone accusing somebody of killing another person by shooting them and then have them saying "it couldn't have been me as I didn't shoot them, I stabbed them to death".

[newcomer71]

I think some action is due toward who continuously disrupt thread with lies and at least heavy inaccuracies... Or they just bait other users into being banned.

My 2 cents...

[Aj Mick]

One small glimmer of hope I have is a somewhat innocuous statement by one of the judges to prosecutors, when he inferred they should be better prepared for the appeal. Ok, maybe it's nothing, or maybe, just maybe, the judges know this case is a total cock up, but that they still have to go through the motions before rendering their "non guilty" verdict.

As for the possible verdicts, here is how I see it (Which doesn't make it right).

GUILTY. Not based on the facts of the case (as there are none), but to appease the "pay masters" and collect their reward. Naturally the B2 lawyers will appeal, as they should.

NOT GUILTY. As based on the lack of facts and actual evidence, other than the RTP saying "they did it". If that happens, the prosecution could go one of two ways.

First, they are outraged and their "pride" has been tarnished, so they will appeal to have that restored.

Second, they'll realize they are totally inadequate, and have already suffered enough "shame" and been made to look like total fools, and won't want to have a second issue of loss of major face, so they will simply shrug it off and go back to life as usual, with zero effort to find the real guilty party, as they have already been paid well for that.

True, early in the trial, while the prosecutors & RTP were giving evidence, it was reported ( Khaosod English 22 July 2015 ) that the lead judge did comment that they should be prepared for an appeal.

Three judges oversaw the trial today. The lead judge, who was highly engaged throughout the hearing, suggested that the verdict in October is unlikely to settle the matter once and for all; he personally advised the prosecutor to prepare the CCTV footage in a more simple format “so that it will be easy for both of you in the Appeal Court.”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1437573990

Edited September 28, 2015 by Aj Mick

[lucky11]

I think some action is due toward who continuously disrupt thread with lies and at least heavy inaccuracies... Or they just bait other users into being banned.

My 2 cents..

I assume you are referring to me. What lies have I told? I am simply quoting what the Burmese men said when challenged (by the police) that they had found their semen on the outside of the condom and they said that they didn't use a condom when they sexually violated Hannah Witheridge!!

Go check this out in the Washington Post like your "other denier of the truth" clearly did - much to his consternation no doubt!!

[thailandchilli]

Andy Hall ‏@Atomicalandy 17m17 minutes ago

Today submitted documents via Koh Tao defence lawyers to Koh Samui court request police investigators are called to court to explain conduct

[thailandchilli]

Thanks to Stealth for notifying me to these

Andy Hall ‏@Atomicalandy 16m16 minutes ago

Conduct in question relates to certain police officers unacceptable/unprofessional use of social media including posting crime scene photos

[bamukloy]

The reality is that they admitted to sexually assaulting Hannah Witheridge!! Any reporting after this is irrelevant to the admittance of their guilt of rape as that has already been reported from their spoken words, in classically slipping up when trying to deny the rape(s).

It is a bit like someone accusing somebody of killing another person by shooting them and then have them saying "it couldn't have been me as I didn't shoot them, I stabbed them to death".

As I thought, your unable to do that. Your stuck in a time warp so I'll place you in my ignore list.

.........which means I won the day as you can't counter my compelling arguments as to their guilt of rape!!

There have been enough compelling arguments to cast doubt on the rape to render your assertion irrelevant. The "admission" was extracted under torture, for a start.

secondly, the transcripts of what was supposedly said was translated by a pancake flipper with a different Burmese dialect to the B2.

The transcript would have then been translated (poorly) to Thai,

which hardly matters, since it would have then gone to a Thai policeman who (no doubt) wrote up his own version, printed the whole lot up in Thai and then was handed to the B2 to sign.

It would be illegal in any country in the world to force people to sign a document they cant read, but it happens in Thailand in many situations.

put simply, any confession those two signed would have been written by the Thai police, in a language they most probably couldnt read.

Would YOU trust the RTP to sign a form written by them (in Thai) that you had no idea of the content, and what you are agreeing to?

[joebrown]

Thanks to Stealth for notifying me to these

Andy Hall ‏@Atomicalandy 16m16 minutes ago

Conduct in question relates to certain police officers unacceptable/unprofessional use of social media including posting crime scene photos

Does anyone know who these policemen were, by name? I ask because it would be interesting to know whether one of them might be the KT man who likes to wear a blonde wig when performing.

[stephenterry]

From the Washington Post in an article that is heavily defensive towards the 2 Myanmar men (not) being the guilty parties and unwittingly implicating them when they spoke the truth (probably for the first time):

Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

I suggest you get to grips with reality, things have moved on since Oct 2014. Now look at all the media articles from 8th July 2015 onwards. Then come back to the thread and give a full explanation of why you think the B2 are guilty. Are you able to do that? I somehow doubt it.

The reality is that they admitted to sexually assaulting Hannah Witheridge!! Any reporting after this is irrelevant to the admittance of their guilt of rape as that has already been reported from their spoken words, in classically slipping up when trying to deny the rape(s).

It is a bit like someone accusing somebody of killing another person by shooting them and then have them saying "it couldn't have been me as I didn't shoot them, I stabbed them to death".

That quote, came from the 10/10/ 2014 Washington Post. I'll even help further. It was reported (during the torture session) that the B2 said they didn't use condoms, but the RTP insisted they had - hence the sperm sample (which has never been presented at the trial) found on the outside of one.

So far, so good. Everything is clear. But events have moved on since then. Here's one 2015 quote from same source:

Then, just a few days later, a lawyer for the two men declared that the confession was false: Police had beaten it out of them.“They told me that they were on the beach that night drinking and singing songs,” said attorney Aung Myo Thant, a Burmese Embassy official, the Guardian reported. “They said they didn’t do it, that the Thai police beat them until they confessed to something they didn’t do.

I would suggest a fair playing field is also to mention the above - agreed? But I guess you won't post a 'like' on my response.

[lucky11]

From the Washington Post in an article that is heavily defensive towards the 2 Myanmar men (not) being the guilty parties and unwittingly implicating them when they spoke the truth (probably for the first time):

Now there’s confusion over the condoms. In the migrants’ purported confession, they said they hadn’t used a condom when sexually assaulting Witheridge — despite the fact police said their sperm was found on a condom linked to the scene.

I suggest you get to grips with reality, things have moved on since Oct 2014. Now look at all the media articles from 8th July 2015 onwards. Then come back to the thread and give a full explanation of why you think the B2 are guilty. Are you able to do that? I somehow doubt it.

The reality is that they admitted to sexually assaulting Hannah Witheridge!! Any reporting after this is irrelevant to the admittance of their guilt of rape as that has already been reported from their spoken words, in classically slipping up when trying to deny the rape(s).

It is a bit like someone accusing somebody of killing another person by shooting them and then have them saying "it couldn't have been me as I didn't shoot them, I stabbed them to death".

That quote, came from the 10/10/ 2014 Washington Post. I'll even help further. It was reported (during the torture session) that the B2 said they didn't use condoms, but the RTP insisted they had - hence the sperm sample (which has never been presented at the trial) found on the outside of one.

So far, so good. Everything is clear. But events have moved on since then. Here's one 2015 quote from same source:

Then, just a few days later, a lawyer for the two men declared that the confession was false: Police had beaten it out of them.“They told me that they were on the beach that night drinking and singing songs,” said attorney Aung Myo Thant, a Burmese Embassy official, the Guardian reported. “They said they didn’t do it, that the Thai police beat them until they confessed to something they didn’t do.

I would suggest a fair playing field is also to mention the above - agreed? But I guess you won't post a 'like' on my response.

Fair enough response - but I still think that their original confessions are the valid ones. Where is the proof that they were tortured? They only retracted their statements once the Human Rights Watch became involved - isn't that a coincidence!!

My guess is that hey were probably too naive to tell lies and had assumed that they would be (had been) found out, so told the police what had really happened that fateful morning.

[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.

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

Just a short reply to answer the question to me.

We are not lawyers or real investigators, we get facts from the court which shows that the evidence is not good enough to sentence the B2.

I just suggested to you that some of the police reports might be factual, but that doesnt change anything in this case.

In other criminal cases in Thailand , not all the cops are bad guys , we paint a picture of RTP as an 100% corrupt organization and that might well be true but still the good guys are there working for us , and do solve crimes.

Edited September 28, 2015 by balo

[smedly]

guys do we really need to go over all this again and again, put the people baiting on ignore and let them talk to themselves, if they want answers as to were the condom hair or the dna is they can go ask RTP directly

[thailandchilli]

guys do we really need to go over all this again and again, put the people baiting on ignore and let them talk to themselves, if they want answers as to were the condom hair or the dna is they can go ask RTP directly

Totally agree, this has been covered numerous times. Time to move on and stick with trial issues only, leave others behind who are unable to do that

Edited September 28, 2015 by thailandchilli

[smedly]

One small glimmer of hope I have is a somewhat innocuous statement by one of the judges to prosecutors, when he inferred they should be better prepared for the appeal. Ok, maybe it's nothing, or maybe, just maybe, the judges know this case is a total cock up, but that they still have to go through the motions before rendering their "non guilty" verdict.

As for the possible verdicts, here is how I see it (Which doesn't make it right).

GUILTY. Not based on the facts of the case (as there are none), but to appease the "pay masters" and collect their reward. Naturally the B2 lawyers will appeal, as they should.

NOT GUILTY. As based on the lack of facts and actual evidence, other than the RTP saying "they did it". If that happens, the prosecution could go one of two ways.

First, they are outraged and their "pride" has been tarnished, so they will appeal to have that restored.

Second, they'll realize they are totally inadequate, and have already suffered enough "shame" and been made to look like total fools, and won't want to have a second issue of loss of major face, so they will simply shrug it off and go back to life as usual, with zero effort to find the real guilty party, as they have already been paid well for that.

I don't see what grounds they could possibly have for appeal - how can they present evidence they don't have in any other way, the authorities will want this to go away as fast as possible, what might happen is the PM under diplomatic pressure might call for a fundamental review of the whole investigation possibly carried out by the DSI or CSD, they may even be ordered to start a new investigation and uncover the truth about what went on - I wouldn't rule it out

[stephenterry]

snip

The reality is that they admitted to sexually assaulting Hannah Witheridge!! Any reporting after this is irrelevant to the admittance of their guilt of rape as that has already been reported from their spoken words, in classically slipping up when trying to deny the rape(s).

It is a bit like someone accusing somebody of killing another person by shooting them and then have them saying "it couldn't have been me as I didn't shoot them, I stabbed them to death".

That quote, came from the 10/10/ 2014 Washington Post. I'll even help further. It was reported (during the torture session) that the B2 said they didn't use condoms, but the RTP insisted they had - hence the sperm sample (which has never been presented at the trial) found on the outside of one.

So far, so good. Everything is clear. But events have moved on since then. Here's one 2015 quote from same source:

Then, just a few days later, a lawyer for the two men declared that the confession was false: Police had beaten it out of them.“They told me that they were on the beach that night drinking and singing songs,” said attorney Aung Myo Thant, a Burmese Embassy official, the Guardian reported. “They said they didn’t do it, that the Thai police beat them until they confessed to something they didn’t do.

I would suggest a fair playing field is also to mention the above - agreed? But I guess you won't post a 'like' on my response.

Fair enough response - but I still think that their original confessions are the valid ones. Where is the proof that they were tortured? They only retracted their statements once the Human Rights Watch became involved - isn't that a coincidence!!

My guess is that hey were probably too naive to tell lies and had assumed that they would be (had been) found out, so told the police what had really happened that fateful morning.

Torture - there is a witness. Again from the WP: -

On Thursday, the Guardian reported Burmese official Aung Myo Thant said the confessions were “beaten out of them. … They told me that they were on the beach that night drinking and singing songs. They said they didn’t do it, that the Thai police beat them until they confessed to something they didn’t do. They’re pleading with the Burmese government to look into the case and find out the truth. They were a really pitiful sight. Their bodies had all sorts of bruises.”

I would suggest the above evidence of severe bruising adds up to a forced confession. Now, of course that eye-witness statement could be incorrect, but it's a great deal less speculative than 'but I still think that their original confessions are the valid ones'.

[metisdead]

Disruptive posts and replies have been removed. Just like all the other Koh Tao topics, the discussions always go back to the very beginning and the speculation just goes round and round and round and round and round again and again and again and again. Maybe it would be best to close this and simply post updates.