SURVEY: Do you believe the 2 Burmese found guilty of the Koh Tao Murders are guilty?

[bra]

I voted not guilty as it appears that they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I am not even sure that this principle applies in the Thai justice system. Having been on a jury in Australia (not a serious offence) and experienced what 12 citizens had to go through to agree that there was reasonable doubt and therefore the accused was judged not guilty I think that a jury in this case would have agreed likewise.

But this is Thailand and there is no jury system - only judge/s. I hope their appeal is successful, and they are found not guilty or their sentence is reduced to life or shorter and they are deported to Myanmar to serve their sentences.

[F4UCorsair]

The press has a terrible record for misreporting, oeither through ignorance or malice, with little to no accountability.

I presume the knowledge of TV posters comes from the press? Did any actually sit through the trial, and were in a position to analyze the evidence?

I believe there should have been an "I have no idea" option, not just "yes" and "no".

• The press are bound by strict censorship and defamation litigation even during elected government terms. During recent times, censorship and defamation look pretty good.
• You presume wrong. International media deliver fact based reporting. Thaivisa is under the same censorship and defamation threats as other media and press.
• Not having any idea should be an option? If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

If you stand for something of which you have NO factual knowledge, merely what is reported, you will definitely fall for anything.

[givenall]

No and this has been covered at length in the other thread.

The real killers are still walking free. Their freedom bought and paid for.

fake DNA

[Baerboxer]

I believe they are guilty...DNA is hard to dispute.....

However botched the investigation turned out to be DNA does not lie....

The DNA would prove what? Rape? Certainly not murder.

Would it be likely that two rapists would knock a man out, drag him into the sea to drown; rape a young lady and then leave her alive to be a witness?

Not suggesting the DNA test was valid, the guilt or innocence of these two or the validity of the investigation. Simply questioning your logic that in the circumstances of this case the rapists might have simply walked away and left the victim alive.

[zoza]

I have voted no but I am going on all the evidence that has been made public, when the one family

made a statement a lot things became more cloudy, as there is very little real documented and

accepted evidence linking the two boys to these crimes and the public who followed the case closely

are generally astonished by the outcome. and unless there is some outside influence not viewed in court

that has made the family think the two boys are guilty.

it could be a force outside of Thailand who cannot admit its involvement but why just the one family

and if there is a smoking gun why not tell everyone and then there would be no argument about the guilty

parties. as it stands now it is a travesty of justice.

[phitsanulokjohn]

Not guilty.They were framed just like Roger Rabbit.

[zaphod reborn]

The prosecution couldn't prove guilt beyond doubt because the DNA taken from Heather's body was not properly handled or tested. The chain of custody did not comply with accepted procedures and the testing was flawed.

[unclueng]

If it was the USA they would have been found not guilty because of all the procedural errors; ie. "Miranda", evidence custody, etc. However, this doesn't mean that they didn't do it. As it was said in another thread, "The DNA trumps everything else"

[xerostar]

Guilty or innocent the death penalty seems a bit harsh considering the controversy over evidence. A life sentence would at least allow a chance that another person may eventually bring new evidence or confess to the crime. It will be bit late for these two boys and their families if their sentence has already been carried out.

[unclueng]

The prosecution couldn't prove guilt beyond doubt because the DNA taken from Heather's body was not properly handled or tested. The chain of custody did not comply with accepted procedures and the testing was flawed.

However, an additional sample was obtained from her body in the UK.

[JOC]

2 young Brits brutally murdered.

2 young men sentenced to death.

How do we handle that?

Let's make a poll to increase traffic and entertain the readership (the other thread on the subject is slowing down)

Or is it only me??

[Bluespunk]

Until the statement by the Miller family, I would have naturally said no. That statement changed everything. If they can clearly and categorically say that after all they've been through and all the evidence they must have combed through and along with advice they must have received from the UK police, I have to say the same thing. GUILTY.

And yet the family of the accused say not guilty. Their view is less relevant? Now, I wonder why that is the case? It's a puzzler for sure.

Oh wait...

[Baerboxer]

I've voted 'No' but really mean 'Not proven'

I think your right - "Not proven" would be the verdict a Scottish trial returned. But then they have that option. The case would remain open and the police would continue to work on it.

It's impossible to form a correct opinion based on the reporting alone. All of the evidence would need to be presented, and it would be interesting to see what Scotland Yard concluded. The victims' families know this of course.

Ignoring the social media story tellers, which so many on here seem to regard as sacrosanct, there are so many different questions.

why were no witnesses from either victims' group of friends called?

why was Shaun Whatsisname not called as a witness?

Depositions and statements could have been taken by UK police forces if travel and attendance wasn't required.

Perhaps there was a lot more information exchange between the RTP and the Met? We will never know,

[beammeup]

I think it would put the story to rest if the UK did get a semen sample and have a DNA profile (which going by the Millers reaction I think they did) I think there is evidence that the public are not informed about.

[Baerboxer]

Until the statement by the Miller family, I would have naturally said no. That statement changed everything. If they can clearly and categorically say that after all they've been through and all the evidence they must have combed through and along with advice they must have received from the UK police, I have to say the same thing. GUILTY.

And yet the family of the accused say not guilty. Their view is less relevant? Now, I wonder why that is the case? It's a puzzler for sure.

Oh wait...

Would you expect the families of the accused to say any different?

Perhaps they haven't read the Scotland Yard report, and been privy to all the evidence that the victims' families have?

It's not usual for the families of the accused to be treated the same as the bereaved families, is it?

[Baerboxer]

If it was the USA they would have been found not guilty because of all the procedural errors; ie. "Miranda", evidence custody, etc. However, this doesn't mean that they didn't do it. As it was said in another thread, "The DNA trumps everything else"

And we can all read how wonderful the US Justice system is.

[Sutty]

Found guilty by a court of law good enough for me

[Artisi]

I believe they are guilty...DNA is hard to dispute.....

However botched the investigation turned out to be DNA does not lie....

The DNA would prove what? Rape? Certainly not murder.

So the DNA proves rape...OK so those boys raped and someone else came along and killed the two...

I guess it is possible...

How can DNA prove rape? however the B2 are not guilty of murder....

[Artisi]

The prosecution couldn't prove guilt beyond doubt because the DNA taken from Heather's body was not properly handled or tested. The chain of custody did not comply with accepted procedures and the testing was flawed.

However, an additional sample was obtained from her body in the UK.

And, does that prove rape and murder?

[off road pat]

"You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law."

so? what ells can I say......there is not much left is it ???

[sawadee1947]

I think we discussed this matter now long enough. We will not get the truth but only what will be publshed. Wait for the Supreme Court and then.....chapter closed.

Edited December 27, 2015 by metisdead
Bold font removed, again.

[swampdonkey]

No and Never, these two Burmese are purely innocent, but seem to be guilty of committing crimes in the first place coming to works in Thailand.

How can they be purely innocent

You can not argue against DNA

Read the family statement

They where actually in Court.

[Sutty]

Until the statement by the Miller family, I would have naturally said no. That statement changed everything. If they can clearly and categorically say that after all they've been through and all the evidence they must have combed through and along with advice they must have received from the UK police, I have to say the same thing. GUILTY.

And yet the family of the accused say not guilty. Their view is less relevant? Now, I wonder why that is the case? It's a puzzler for sure.

Oh wait...

But of course the family of the Guilty (not accused any more) would say not guilty what possible relevance is that statement the family of the dead is relevant they have had loved ones snatched away I have not seen or read anywhere the bereaved families saying they were guilty until they were found guilty in a court of law. Where as I have seen and heard so many times the family of guilty men saying no no no not guilty as I suspect we all would but it's not relevant.

[yellowboat]

A better question would be: do you think evidence was strong enough to convict? I would vote NO. Voted no as the question stands.

[nontabury]

Found guilty by a court of law good enough for me

I don't know if they are guilty or not. What I do know is they were not convicted in a court of law, as we understand it In the west.

[sanukjim]

Remember that the bumbling BIB lost and then behold they found the "contaminated" evidence.Also remember the BIB fired their only honest florescence doctor Kung Porntip becauseThe US trained doctor would not her findings to the results they wanted.Now they can adjust the results that they want.

[off road pat]

I believe they are guilty...DNA is hard to dispute.....

However botched the investigation turned out to be DNA does not lie....

DNA could have been be planted, or do you believe the Thai police would never do any thing like that ??? they F... up in everything ells.

so now they had to get irrefutable evidence...!!!!!

None of us has all the details, and all we can do is assume and make guesses. on our experiences with the long arm of the law here..!! (That's a funny way they call the police in my country).!!! and the articles we read previously about similar cases and there outcome.

We can not change anything about it, but this case leaves a bad taste in my mouth....

Best regards, Off Road Pat

Edited December 27, 2015 by off road pat

[dazzz]

Seems to me the survey question is incorrect . The question is not do you think they are guilty or not as no forum members could possibly know the answer to that question .
The survey question should be do you think they should have been found guilty on the evidence presented and the answer would overwhelmingly be no.
I do not know if they did it but i think very unlikely by themselves . They either did it with other people whose DNA could be what was found on the weapon or they did not do it.

[kingdratsab]

My vote was No!! But only because the information and misinformation from the powers that

be make it impossible to make an educated judgement. So its a case of too much in doubt.

[JAG]

You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

That precondition somehow limits our freedom of speech.......................

And effectively precludes any comment if you believe that the evidence failed to prove guilt " beyond reasonable doubt."