Jump to content

No review of Koh Tao case, says Prawit


webfact

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is important to keep the momento over this terrible case of police corruption. The real culprits carry on with their lives as if nothing has happened. The whole world knows but Thailand doesn't seem to care that they are seen as corrupt despicable liars. So much for keeping face, you lost face big time over this fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'He said he has ordered intelligence officials to find out these groups of people and brought them out for trials'

Yes that makes perfect sense in Thailand, if there are questions and concerns don't bother investigating them instead arrest the people asking the questions, perfect sense as there is much less chance of loss of face and denial and burying your head in the sand appears to be a national pastime here....

Good Post, however I would have to disagree its not a past time...It is an ingrained part of the Thai culture and their way of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'He also believed the recent protests ... might have backed (?) from those who were against and had ill intentions towards the government ... He said he has ordered intelligence officials to find out these groups of people and brought (?) them out for trials.' Ah, right, of course. Not possible, despite the evidence (lost and otherwise) and the flaws admitted to by the court, for the RTP to have 'erred'. Must be a conspiracy in there, somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wait. Only the death penality maks me up,

Texas Law, where 5% of proven innocents have been

executed, Mr.T. made his PhD there (extrajucinal killing)

Thailand will follow?

Death Penality in Thailand?

Thailand, a failed (or fake) Buddhist country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there will be no review. Conducting a review would mean a lot of things.

1. It would be an admission that the case was not conducted properly.

2. It would be an admission that the police assigned to the case were of inferior quality, not talented or experienced enough, and simply not up to the task.

3. It might be an admission that the real perpetrators are still roaming free, and that is the case due to their massive influence and wealth.

4. It would be rocking the boat. We do not want to upset the status quo, nor the elite and the powerful.

5. It would be fair. We do not want to be fair. Why would we want to be fair? For whom? For what?

6. It would be an admission that we also have doubts about the flimsy and ridiculously inadequate evidence. If the Burmese guys were innocent, and made to do this by their employer (we all know who that was), their DNA would be all over the crime scene.

7. If Nodsod, the truly guilty party, did not rape the gal, but only had her murdered by his henchmen, his DNA would not be on the condom anyway. So, all of the hoopla that has been made of DNA is not really any sort of proof of anything anyway. Why would we want people to be able to question that?

There are so many doubts, and the case was so poorly handled, why would we want to have this re-visited? We got the outcome we wanted. Case closed. Job done. People happy. We happy. Little P. happy. All is good in the world. The outside world does not matter that much anyway. Thailand is the most important country in the world. Everybody knows that.

I really want to click like so much. Especially at the mis spelling of the name of the protected little one.

Nodsod, Nomsod, Numnuts, murderous freak, serial killer, crime lord, above the law super freak, son of a godfather, spoiled brat, useless oxygen sucker, all of them work. What is the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something? I believe Prawit made a legitimate point; the case was tried and a verdict reached; there is an appeals process. Why go through a review?

An internal audit of the evidence, and extraction of further evidence where possible, would be in order for use in an appeal. I don't know if it is possible for the prosecution to adduce new evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Thailand,

Maybe so many want and have asked for further investigation because it's widely known that DNA testing results cannot be accurately processed in just two or three days like it apparently was for the hundreds of samples that were collected as evidence in Thailand, except maybe for a maternity test which can take two days.

Why doesn't Thailand investigators clearly explain how these tests were carried out for this case with all the DNA samples that were taken?

Thailand could have used a trusted spokesman to explain things to the public knowing that this case was high profile.

Instead, many speculated on much but Thailand didn't take the steps to clear up any confusion such as with the selected translator or the accused. Too much evidence was a missed opportunity for testing such as the victims clothes and the blood in the surrounding area that now we hear was not examined for DNA.

I think now after reading the final reports, it shows that there was a lot that was not transparent to the public causing much speculation.

I think many questions began to surface after seeing the reenactment on the beach when the accused visually displayed to the world that they were directed by the authorities to act out things (their actions) that were odd and clearly out of sink with the accused actions and not what really happened. From the beginning this created doubt in the public's mind.

It would be much more clear to the public if Thailand had a Q&A to clear up all the speculations such as the evidence or missing evidence of the CCTV footage from the cameras in and near the bars where the victims were seen.

By not clearing any of the speculation, Thailand will have this case hanging over them for a long long time to come.

I think less that it was not transparent as , there was no investigation. The police don't want to waste their time chasing murderers, going to labs, doing hard thinking. They want to get back to the profitable business of people smuggling, drug smuggling and getting paid by businesses so that those businesses can continue to operate legally.

The biggest question to ask is why when it is obvious there was no case against the burmese 2 was the case not thrown out of the door?

obvious, thailand needs to let the rest of the world knoq it will not change its methods even if it is obviously flawed. even if the other countries dissaprove. Thailand will continue its current course of institutionalised racism, etc until a real hero of the people appears.

Seems thailand is <deleted> right up until then.

thailand needs its own sukiyou like burma has. and even she don't stand up for the rohingyue because she knows that is a losing battle and will detract from her message of democracy or to put it more bluntyly she won't get elected if she gets behind a muslim minority group for equality

Who is that person going to be? Where are they going to come from? The guy who worked for the government and was responsible for investigating the allegations of human trafficking and slavery reported his findings. A day later he departed for Australia fearing for his life, where he is currently in exile.

Who is this person going to be? I agree Thailand desperately needs a person like this. But, this person would have to be a martyr. A person the caliber of Anwar Sadat. Does this place create people of that caliber? I sure hope so. Many of us do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there will be no review. Conducting a review would mean a lot of things.

1. It would be an admission that the case was not conducted properly.

2. It would be an admission that the police assigned to the case were of inferior quality, not talented or experienced enough, and simply not up to the task.

3. It might be an admission that the real perpetrators are still roaming free, and that is the case due to their massive influence and wealth.

4. It would be rocking the boat. We do not want to upset the status quo, nor the elite and the powerful.

5. It would be fair. We do not want to be fair. Why would we want to be fair? For whom? For what?

6. It would be an admission that we also have doubts about the flimsy and ridiculously inadequate evidence. If the Burmese guys were innocent, and made to do this by their employer (we all know who that was), their DNA would be all over the crime scene.

7. If Nodsod, the truly guilty party, did not rape the gal, but only had her murdered by his henchmen, his DNA would not be on the condom anyway. So, all of the hoopla that has been made of DNA is not really any sort of proof of anything anyway. Why would we want people to be able to question that?

There are so many doubts, and the case was so poorly handled, why would we want to have this re-visited? We got the outcome we wanted. Case closed. Job done. People happy. We happy. Little P. happy. All is good in the world. The outside world does not matter that much anyway. Thailand is the most important country in the world. Everybody knows that.

I really want to click like so much. Especially at the mis spelling of the name of the protected little one.

Nodsod, Nomsod, Numnuts, murderous freak, serial killer, crime lord, above the law super freak, son of a godfather, spoiled brat, useless oxygen sucker, all of them work. What is the difference?

There's always someone ready to try taking the pee, just put it down to mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new low for Thailand.

but thats just it - for Thailand this is just a new High - another win for Teflon Thailand. We can do what we want and the rest of the World are idiots because they cannot and we can and get away with it... hahaha Western idiots keep throwing your money at us, and if you run out China will instead... suckers!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something? I believe Prawit made a legitimate point; the case was tried and a verdict reached; there is an appeals process. Why go through a review?

Because the real murderess are sill at large.

So, now it's a female who murdered them? My friend, your spelling is no better then your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something? I believe Prawit made a legitimate point; the case was tried and a verdict reached; there is an appeals process. Why go through a review?

An internal audit of the evidence, and extraction of further evidence where possible, would be in order for use in an appeal. I don't know if it is possible for the prosecution to adduce new evidence.

Certainly, an appeal would review the evidence. The Myanmar army chief requested a separate review, did he not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I remember correctly reading that One early suspect became a monk shortly after the killings and has since left Thailand to study in some other country ? Do I understand that correctly ?

I don't know who killed the 2 Brits and with all the misinformation we may never know for sure. The one thing however we can look at is the behavior of the people who could be responsible. I have seen that when a Thai person has done something really bad they become a monk to help with all the bad karma they have created. Another thing you normally see are those with money who have a problem leave the country.

The swinging arm of the running man, Video missing, boats leaving early in morning and not viewing video, etc etc etc .... Sure makes you wonder ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something? I believe Prawit made a legitimate point; the case was tried and a verdict reached; there is an appeals process. Why go through a review?

An internal audit of the evidence, and extraction of further evidence where possible, would be in order for use in an appeal. I don't know if it is possible for the prosecution to adduce new evidence.

Certainly, an appeal would review the evidence. The Myanmar army chief requested a separate review, did he not?

An appeal would review the evidence presented. I believe the judges would not go searching for information not presented in court. Now, there may be issues with what new evidence would be admissible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...
""