Koh Tao Murders: Defense Asks Court to Drop Charges

[DiscoDan]

BACKPACKER MURDER SUSPECT 'FREELY CONFESSED'.

http://news.sky.com/story/1538057/backpacker-murder-suspect-freely-confessed

In this article Zaw Lin says he hit David with the Hoe when he was on top of Hannah, and that he then jumped up and started to fight back, there is a good chance this is where the chest and wrist injury came from, as there is no report of injuries on WP.

This would also explain why Davids DNA was on the hoe.

Also if you are trying to show the the B2 are the killers by showing old links before there confession and you seem believe the police then why did they lie under oath doesn't that seem wrong to you ?

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

I think you mean ALLEGEDLY tortured as you have no proof of this only there word, and the article I posted was about a lawyer taking the stand not a policeman,

But as you seem to post this same article again and again can you tell me what the big deal if he did speak to a pathologist a month later ?

Unlike the B2 who said they went home to bed at 2am and didn't wake up till 5am, and then changed it to oh we went back to the beach at 4am to look for a guitar but couldn't find it even though it was found in the exact place we left it.

[StealthEnergiser]

BACKPACKER MURDER SUSPECT 'FREELY CONFESSED'.

http://news.sky.com/story/1538057/backpacker-murder-suspect-freely-confessed

In this article Zaw Lin says he hit David with the Hoe when he was on top of Hannah, and that he then jumped up and started to fight back, there is a good chance this is where the chest and wrist injury came from, as there is no report of injuries on WP.

This would also explain why Davids DNA was on the hoe.

Also if you are trying to show the the B2 are the killers by showing old links before there confession and you seem believe the police then why did they lie under oath doesn't that seem wrong to you ?

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

I think you mean ALLEGEDLY tortured as you have no proof of this only there word, and the article I posted was about a lawyer taking the stand not a policeman,

But as you seem to post this same article again and again can you tell me what the big deal if he did speak to a pathologist a month later ?

Unlike the B2 who said they went home to bed at 2am and didn't wake up till 5am, and then changed it to oh we went back to the beach at 4am to look for a guitar but couldn't find it even though it was found in the exact place we left it.

So it's not a big deal to lie under oath and commit perjury in your eyes ,????????

Now I have very good reason NOT to answer any more of your questions.

[sweatalot]

I don't think we're any nearer in ascertaining what happened that night. So many imponderables, conflicting information, and missing evidence. IMO at least one of the b2 knows what happened but has been silenced by threats to his life. Also Mon knows what happened and so does Panya cop. And maybe others on the island who are keeping a low profile. I think it's important for Thailand that a not guilty verdict is reached, otherwise the country can never move on to a better place.

" I think it's important for Thailand that a not guilty verdict is reached,"

I think it is even more important to reach a guilty verdict -

of the true criminals (and that one with proof beyond reasonable doubt)

[smedly]

BACKPACKER MURDER SUSPECT 'FREELY CONFESSED'.

http://news.sky.com/story/1538057/backpacker-murder-suspect-freely-confessed

In this article Zaw Lin says he hit David with the Hoe when he was on top of Hannah, and that he then jumped up and started to fight back, there is a good chance this is where the chest and wrist injury came from, as there is no report of injuries on WP.

This would also explain why Davids DNA was on the hoe.

Also if you are trying to show the the B2 are the killers by showing old links before there confession and you seem believe the police then why did they lie under oath doesn't that seem wrong to you ?

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

I think you mean ALLEGEDLY tortured as you have no proof of this only there word, and the article I posted was about a lawyer taking the stand not a policeman,

But as you seem to post this same article again and again can you tell me what the big deal if he did speak to a pathologist a month later ?

Unlike the B2 who said they went home to bed at 2am and didn't wake up till 5am, and then changed it to oh we went back to the beach at 4am to look for a guitar but couldn't find it even though it was found in the exact place we left it.

The argument about torture and proof is exactly what the real problem is, this discussion should not even be taking place, if they had been given proper legal council during interview then all these accusations claims and discussions would be mute, this is why it is generally a good idea to make sure suspects are properly legally represented and interviews are recorded, as it stands the alleged confessions have been withdrawn, this happened as soon as they had legal council - go figure

Forget about torture, the simple fact is - they were abused

now move along

[DiscoDan]

BACKPACKER MURDER SUSPECT 'FREELY CONFESSED'.

http://news.sky.com/story/1538057/backpacker-murder-suspect-freely-confessed

In this article Zaw Lin says he hit David with the Hoe when he was on top of Hannah, and that he then jumped up and started to fight back, there is a good chance this is where the chest and wrist injury came from, as there is no report of injuries on WP.

This would also explain why Davids DNA was on the hoe.

Also if you are trying to show the the B2 are the killers by showing old links before there confession and you seem believe the police then why did they lie under oath doesn't that seem wrong to you ?

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

I think you mean ALLEGEDLY tortured as you have no proof of this only there word, and the article I posted was about a lawyer taking the stand not a policeman,

But as you seem to post this same article again and again can you tell me what the big deal if he did speak to a pathologist a month later ?

Unlike the B2 who said they went home to bed at 2am and didn't wake up till 5am, and then changed it to oh we went back to the beach at 4am to look for a guitar but couldn't find it even though it was found in the exact place we left it.

The argument about torture and proof is exactly what the real problem is, this discussion should not even be taking place, if they had been given proper legal council during interview then all these accusations claims and discussions would be mute, this is why it is generally a good idea to make sure suspects are properly legally represented and interviews are recorded, as it stands the alleged confessions have been withdrawn, this happened as soon as they had legal council - go figure

Forget about torture, the simple fact is - they were abused

now move along

If you read the article is says a Lawyer was present, so when they made this confession it seems they did have proper legal council during the interview.

[StealthEnergiser]

@ Disco,

If legal representation was used for the B2, why was pancake man brought in...?

Surely a lawyer who was proficient in both languages should have been used, shouldn't it..?

If the lawyer only spoke Thai he would not know what was being said, would he..?

Disco is saying that the B2 had a lawyer with them so they must have been telling truth when they confessed the first time.

He also says that it is not a big deal for police officer prosecution witness to lie in front of a judge and commit perjury in a double murder trial.

[smedly]

Also if you are trying to show the the B2 are the killers by showing old links before there confession and you seem believe the police then why did they lie under oath doesn't that seem wrong to you ?

• From the trial: Under oath Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod stated he had spoken to the pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd Oct but after that had no further contact with him. The defense then produced a statement from the pathologist stating that Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod had made two separate trips to meet him in late Oct and another on 18th Nov. The pathologist’s statement confirmed they talked about the hair found in Hannah’a hand. When challenged about this Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod then admitted he had had further discussions with the pathologist but would not reveal what was said between them. http://www.eveningne...rce=twitterfeed

I think you mean ALLEGEDLY tortured as you have no proof of this only there word, and the article I posted was about a lawyer taking the stand not a policeman,

But as you seem to post this same article again and again can you tell me what the big deal if he did speak to a pathologist a month later ?

Unlike the B2 who said they went home to bed at 2am and didn't wake up till 5am, and then changed it to oh we went back to the beach at 4am to look for a guitar but couldn't find it even though it was found in the exact place we left it.

The argument about torture and proof is exactly what the real problem is, this discussion should not even be taking place, if they had been given proper legal council during interview then all these accusations claims and discussions would be mute, this is why it is generally a good idea to make sure suspects are properly legally represented and interviews are recorded, as it stands the alleged confessions have been withdrawn, this happened as soon as they had legal council - go figure

Forget about torture, the simple fact is - they were abused

now move along

If you read the article is says a Lawyer was present, so when they made this confession it seems they did have proper legal council during the interview.

having to repeat myself again, They ***** did ***** not ***** have ****** legal ***** council

and before you comment again - go read about it so you understand what it is to be represented

Edited November 3, 2015 by smedly

[KamalaRider]

Guys, why not wait for the verdict and hope for the judges to be strong, fair and using the justice system as it was intended.

There's no use to debate with people who use Thai logic (read childrens logic) not pointing any fingers.

[DiscoDan]

@ Disco,

If legal representation was used for the B2, why was pancake man brought in...?

Surely a lawyer who was proficient in both languages should have been used, shouldn't it..?

If the lawyer only spoke Thai he would not know what was being said, would he..?

Disco is saying that the B2 had a lawyer with them so they must have been telling truth when they confessed the first time.

He also says that it is not a big deal for police officer prosecution witness to lie in front of a judge and commit perjury in a double murder trial.

Don't twist my words a never said it was ok to commit perjury READ IT AGAIN !

"But as you seem to post this same article again and again can you tell me what the big deal if he did speak to a pathologist a month later ?"

[Jai Dee]

Same old arguments and speculation going on...

This topic is now closed.

We can review again if/when there is more news relating to the trial.

/Closed.