Sister of murdered backpacker Hannah Witheridge receives death threats

[asiamaster]

Just been reading the translation of the final Kho Tao judgement.

Part of the sentence they received was '20 years imprisonment for the rape of a woman who is not their wife'

So it's ok if it's their wife?

Whether

Gobsmacked. Am I missing something?

You are not missing anything. Ever watched the soaps they are addicted to here (hard I know)? Rape is a constant feature of these, frequently treated as a legitimate seduction technique. Just another aspect of Thainess.

It's just a legal term to differentiate from martial rape. "Rape of a woman who is not their wife" is considered to be a criminal act worldwide - also in Thailand. Unfortunately "marital rape" is not yet.

[asiamaster]

You seem rather desperate to keep people from learning about the facts of the case.

As for Andy Hall, this is from the report you rather ignore:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken in to account."

The defense wasted at least day of hearings so that he could vent his opinions, they should have focused on the DNA, but they didn't.

More things you rather ignore:

"The plaintiff’s examination presented Mr Mau Mau as a circumstantial witness to the scene before the crime took place. Mr Mau Mau, who is a friend of the two defendants, testified and confirmed that on the said date of the incident, he and the two defendants were playing the guitar and drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the dry log not far from the crime scene. After that, Mr Mau Mau drove off on his motorcycle. The time indicated by Mr Mau Mau’s testimony was shortly before the crime was committed. Miss Phornthip Singkhamma, witness for the plaintiff, testified that she saw three persons sitting and playing a guitar at approximately 2am, which supports and give persuasiveness to the testimony given by Mr. Mau Mau. The facts provided by the testimonies in this regard are in accordance with the timecodes that appear on the from the CCTV camera footage obtained nearby the crime scene. The examination of two defendants cannot confute this fact and that there was no one else nearby except the two defendants."

The hoe used to kill Witheridge and Miller was normally left at the sample place they were seeing around 2AM:

"In addition, the point where the two defendants and Mr Mau Mau were sitting was in the same place that Mr O (no surname), the plaintiff’s witness, regularly left the exhibited hoe, which is also in the vicinity of the place that the exhibited hoe was found with the two victims’s blood stains."

That place was between were both victims were last seen (again around the same time) and the crime scene.

"The wounds to the head and face of the Second Deceased were all shown to be serious wounds matching the kind of injury that would be incurred by an attack with the blade and handle of the exhibited hoe, as Police Colonel Phawat M.D. and Khunying Pornthip M.D. have testified. The discovery of bloodstains from the Second Deceased on the exhibited hoe further lead to the undeniable suspicion that the exhibited hoe was the weapon used in the attack on the Second Deceased. The serious injury caused to her face occurred after the tear wound that occurred during the rape and so it must be concluded that after the Second Deceased was raped at the crime scene she was attacked and killed with the exhibited hoe. The evidence and connected circumstances lead to the conclusion that there can be no other finding than that the two Defendants used the exhibited hoe as a weapon to attack and kill the Second Deceased at the crime scene. Even though the report of the results of the DNA tests conducted by the Institute of Forensic Science according to Document number Lor. 29 summarises the results and conclusions of the examination that the DNA of the two Defendants did not match the mixed DNA of a male found on the exhibited hoe, this is not signicicant or inconsistent because the mixed DNA of a male that was found on the hoe matched the DNA of the First Deceased. In this case, and based on the evidence given by the witness for the Plaintiff, Mr O, it transpires that Mr O was the person who regularly used the exhibited hoe and even after the crime has been committed Mr O continued to use the exhibited hoe before it was sent off for examination. However, there was no examination for a match with the DNA of Mr O. With regard to the reason for not cinding a match with the DNA of the Offenders on the exhibited hoe, Khunying Pornthip M.D. explained that there could be many reasons for this, such as whether the hands are dry or sweaty which affects whether or not DNA is left on an object, or if the offenders had been wearing gloves or had put a cloth around the handle of the hoe or even if the handle of the exhibited hoe had been washed before being sent off for examination then DNA might not be found. Therefore the absence alone of the DNA of the Defendants on the exhibited hoe alone is not signicicant proof to confute the other evidence of the DNA from the sperm of both the Defendants found in the body of the Second Deceased. The Court hears that after the two Defendants raped the Second Deceased they used the exhibited hoe, which is a hard object with a long sharp edge, to repeatedly attack and kill the Second Deceased causing deep wounds to the head, and bone of the forehead and left eye socket. This points to the fact that both Defendants used the exhibited hoe to attack the Second Deceased with their full force resulting in the death of the Second Deceased and that they had the intention to kill her. Both Defendants are therefore guilty of jointly committing the murder of the Second Deceased in order to conceal their other offense."

Talking about concealing, something more to ignore:

"Mr. Mau Mau for interrogation and found that prior to the incident, Mr. Mau Mau and both Defendants had gone out to play the guitar, drink beer and smoke near the dry log underneath the pine tree. Thereafter, Mr. Mau Mau exchanged his shirt with the Second Defendant and borrowed the motorcycle to ride to his girlfriend’s place. Upon coming back home, Mr. Mau Mau found both Defendants were asleep. Pol. Col. asked Mr. Mau Mau to take him to the house to meet both Defendants. Upon arriving, only the First Defendant was there. From interrogations, the First Defendant could not show his passport and admitted to having illegally entered the Kingdom. The police then detained the First Defendant and seized his clothes and the motorcycle used on the night of crime for further inspection. The police interrogated the First Defendant via a Burmese Translator named Mr. Kamol Uzon, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 52, and subsequently charged the First Defendant with illegally entering and residing in the Kingdom without due permission, according to the Arrest Record, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 36. As for the Second Defendant, the police were informed of him having left Koh Tao on a night boat and that he would reach Surat Thani at around 6 hrs. of 2nd October B.E. 2557 (2014), therefore coordinating with Investigation Officers of Surat Thani province to follow up. The Second Defendant was found hiding on the night boat. The police then took his picture and sent it to Mr. Mau Mau for verification."

The Jersey Evening Post article on Jan 9th states that Wei Phyo (the one that fled) said to the police that he left because he had another job, but had never informed his employer he was leaving.

Also mentions that the defense own DNA specialist, Worvee Wiyamu said the forensic work was carried out to international standards.

Explains a lot....

[Darkknight666]

I have a question for the folks here who believe the RTP are completely honest and transparent courts too. Why were foreign journalists NOT allowed to take notes in court?

[Throatwobbler]

You seem rather desperate to keep people from learning about the facts of the case.

As for Andy Hall, this is from the report you rather ignore:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken in to account."

The defense wasted at least day of hearings so that he could vent his opinions, they should have focused on the DNA, but they didn't.

More things you rather ignore:

"The plaintiff’s examination presented Mr Mau Mau as a circumstantial witness to the scene before the crime took place. Mr Mau Mau, who is a friend of the two defendants, testified and confirmed that on the said date of the incident, he and the two defendants were playing the guitar and drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the dry log not far from the crime scene. After that, Mr Mau Mau drove off on his motorcycle. The time indicated by Mr Mau Mau’s testimony was shortly before the crime was committed. Miss Phornthip Singkhamma, witness for the plaintiff, testified that she saw three persons sitting and playing a guitar at approximately 2am, which supports and give persuasiveness to the testimony given by Mr. Mau Mau. The facts provided by the testimonies in this regard are in accordance with the timecodes that appear on the from the CCTV camera footage obtained nearby the crime scene. The examination of two defendants cannot confute this fact and that there was no one else nearby except the two defendants."

The hoe used to kill Witheridge and Miller was normally left at the sample place they were seeing around 2AM:

"In addition, the point where the two defendants and Mr Mau Mau were sitting was in the same place that Mr O (no surname), the plaintiff’s witness, regularly left the exhibited hoe, which is also in the vicinity of the place that the exhibited hoe was found with the two victims’s blood stains."

That place was between were both victims were last seen (again around the same time) and the crime scene.

"The wounds to the head and face of the Second Deceased were all shown to be serious wounds matching the kind of injury that would be incurred by an attack with the blade and handle of the exhibited hoe, as Police Colonel Phawat M.D. and Khunying Pornthip M.D. have testified. The discovery of bloodstains from the Second Deceased on the exhibited hoe further lead to the undeniable suspicion that the exhibited hoe was the weapon used in the attack on the Second Deceased. The serious injury caused to her face occurred after the tear wound that occurred during the rape and so it must be concluded that after the Second Deceased was raped at the crime scene she was attacked and killed with the exhibited hoe. The evidence and connected circumstances lead to the conclusion that there can be no other finding than that the two Defendants used the exhibited hoe as a weapon to attack and kill the Second Deceased at the crime scene. Even though the report of the results of the DNA tests conducted by the Institute of Forensic Science according to Document number Lor. 29 summarises the results and conclusions of the examination that the DNA of the two Defendants did not match the mixed DNA of a male found on the exhibited hoe, this is not signicicant or inconsistent because the mixed DNA of a male that was found on the hoe matched the DNA of the First Deceased. In this case, and based on the evidence given by the witness for the Plaintiff, Mr O, it transpires that Mr O was the person who regularly used the exhibited hoe and even after the crime has been committed Mr O continued to use the exhibited hoe before it was sent off for examination. However, there was no examination for a match with the DNA of Mr O. With regard to the reason for not cinding a match with the DNA of the Offenders on the exhibited hoe, Khunying Pornthip M.D. explained that there could be many reasons for this, such as whether the hands are dry or sweaty which affects whether or not DNA is left on an object, or if the offenders had been wearing gloves or had put a cloth around the handle of the hoe or even if the handle of the exhibited hoe had been washed before being sent off for examination then DNA might not be found. Therefore the absence alone of the DNA of the Defendants on the exhibited hoe alone is not signicicant proof to confute the other evidence of the DNA from the sperm of both the Defendants found in the body of the Second Deceased. The Court hears that after the two Defendants raped the Second Deceased they used the exhibited hoe, which is a hard object with a long sharp edge, to repeatedly attack and kill the Second Deceased causing deep wounds to the head, and bone of the forehead and left eye socket. This points to the fact that both Defendants used the exhibited hoe to attack the Second Deceased with their full force resulting in the death of the Second Deceased and that they had the intention to kill her. Both Defendants are therefore guilty of jointly committing the murder of the Second Deceased in order to conceal their other offense."

Talking about concealing, something more to ignore:

"Mr. Mau Mau for interrogation and found that prior to the incident, Mr. Mau Mau and both Defendants had gone out to play the guitar, drink beer and smoke near the dry log underneath the pine tree. Thereafter, Mr. Mau Mau exchanged his shirt with the Second Defendant and borrowed the motorcycle to ride to his girlfriend’s place. Upon coming back home, Mr. Mau Mau found both Defendants were asleep. Pol. Col. asked Mr. Mau Mau to take him to the house to meet both Defendants. Upon arriving, only the First Defendant was there. From interrogations, the First Defendant could not show his passport and admitted to having illegally entered the Kingdom. The police then detained the First Defendant and seized his clothes and the motorcycle used on the night of crime for further inspection. The police interrogated the First Defendant via a Burmese Translator named Mr. Kamol Uzon, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 52, and subsequently charged the First Defendant with illegally entering and residing in the Kingdom without due permission, according to the Arrest Record, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 36. As for the Second Defendant, the police were informed of him having left Koh Tao on a night boat and that he would reach Surat Thani at around 6 hrs. of 2nd October B.E. 2557 (2014), therefore coordinating with Investigation Officers of Surat Thani province to follow up. The Second Defendant was found hiding on the night boat. The police then took his picture and sent it to Mr. Mau Mau for verification."

The Jersey Evening Post article on Jan 9th states that Wei Phyo (the one that fled) said to the police that he left because he had another job, but had never informed his employer he was leaving.

Also mentions that the defense own DNA specialist, Worvee Wiyamu said the forensic work was carried out to international standards.

Explains a lot....

Actually it explains nothing. Instead it shows that the evidence that they used the hoe is very weak at best.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Throatwobbler

[joebrown]

"quotes of the things said to my bereaved, heart broken family by the judges and court officials at the trial"

Why didn't reporters jump all over this if it was said at the trial?

Do you honestly believe that what was allegedly said by by the judge(s) to the bereaved would have been in full earshot of the press? If you do, you have a lot to learn about human nature, and more especially Thailand.

You don't know much about the freedom of the press to report trials here do you!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about! I've previously posted on the palpable lack of coverage of the 'trial' by the Thai media. This lack of reporting was in stark contrast to the immediate post murders/pre-trial coverage, and it is obvious that a 'gagging' order, or a similar persuasive tactic has been forced upon the media. BTW I've lived in LOS long enough to understand that there's a lot more to this place than the abundance of smiles shown in the glossy tourist brochures.

[asiamaster]

Laura Witheridge's Facebook page has now completely been taken down....

[jacky54]

She has probably been intimidated by (improbable) legal threats, so very Thai

[AGareth2]

I see the police chief has asked a legal committee to investigate whether Laura's FB post contravened any Thai laws and will file charges against her, if the committee decides that it did.

It is understandable that he should be upset about because he was made personally in charge of the investigation after the former commander of Police Region 8, Pol Lt Gen Panya Mamen, was promoted to an inactive post soon after he announced he was planning to arrest the headman's son. Police Chief, Pol Gen Chakthip, who was then commander of the Bangkok Metropolitan Police Bureau, which got a sudden extension of its territory, managed to get the investigation back on track quickly and within days the two convicts were arrested, confessed and police finished their one page handwritten DNA match with semen samples found in the body of Laura's late sister, who may not have been sexually assaulted according what little has been revealed from the independent Home Office pathologist's report. Who wouldn't be offended at receiving such an unpleasant brickbat for such a perfect job which even drew praise from Thailand's prime minister?

Hopefully Pol Gen Chakthip will be man enough to defend his personal honour and the hard earned reputation of the Royal Thai Police with lawsuits for criminal defamation and offences under the Computer Crimes Act against the grieving sister of the deceased. Undoubtedly lawyers hired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be able to secure her extradition to Thailand through the English courts after many years of enjoyable visits to Harrods, since the British government has showed such solidarity with the Royal Thai Police over its superb investigation of the deaths of its citizens and Laura will eventually face many years in Lard Yao women's prison, where the toms will just love her. In fact he probably won't have to wait that long. Since Laura expressed such deep affection for Thailand, she probably won't be able to resist coming on another wonderful holiday to LOS to enjoy the wonderful hospitality of Thai people and public officials.

Laura's arrest and incarceration would undoubtedly be the coup of the century for the Tourist Authority of Thailand - streaks ahead their obviously fake James video. .

one part makes me laugh

"Promoted to an inactive post" for his deeds

[glenmohr]

Isitjustme, on 12 Jan 2016 - 10:05, said:

Just posted this on the Luke Miller thread. Seems to me to have the same relevance here.

I agree with you absolutely. Quite a number of these rtp apologists have been guilty of sickening callousness in their comments, almost on a par with the scum who commited these crimes and roam free to do it again.

There's no accounting for human nature. How low would anyone stoop to protect their interests and those of their paymasters? Right down to gutter level and below apparently. It's not only Thais, as someone suggested, who have no concept of conscience.

Ignoring their sick fantasies is my preferred way to deal with them. Why give them the pleasure of being acknowledged as if their lies, digressions, obfuscations, deliberate baiting and general disregard for the obvious truth, apart from their overall disregard for human life.....as if any of this garbage was worth responding directly to them.

Luke's sister and Hannah's are indeed brave young woman who probably don't see it that way themselves. They just want justice to be done and seen to be done for their departed siblings. I think any of us would do the same if it was our brothers and sisters whose lives had been lost in such a meaningless way.They want people to realise the corruption and cover-ups involved and see the depths to which Kho Tao officialdom will stoop to protect their precious baht and save their worthless faces.

I hope the efforts of the decent-minded people who post on here can go some way to support them.

Bravo, Isitjustme!

Well said

[timewilltell]

"quotes of the things said to my bereaved, heart broken family by the judges and court officials at the trial"

Why didn't reporters jump all over this if it was said at the trial?

Do you honestly believe that what was allegedly said by by the judge(s) to the bereaved would have been in full earshot of the press? If you do, you have a lot to learn about human nature, and more especially Thailand.

You don't know much about the freedom of the press to report trials here do you!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about! I've previously posted on the palpable lack of coverage of the 'trial' by the Thai media. This lack of reporting was in stark contrast to the immediate post murders/pre-trial coverage, and it is obvious that a 'gagging' order, or a similar persuasive tactic has been forced upon the media. BTW I've lived in LOS long enough to understand that there's a lot more to this place than the abundance of smiles shown in the glossy tourist brochures.

My bad - I was referring to the post you were quoting on, not your reply. Apologies for that oversight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phuketandsee]

More fun and games on Koh Tao:

http://www.planelesstravellers.com/travel/yesterday-night-my-friend-davy-got-beaten-up-in-the-sunset-beach-bar-in-koh-tao-what-happened-is-unaceptable-here-is-the-story/

[CantSpell]

And even tho english is not my mother tongue, let's do a little bit of semantic...

Many people mentioned DNA evidence as the reason why the court took that decision...

That is wrong: they took their decision based on a DNA report...

DNA evidence is what is collected; then a "statistical" report is issued.

DNA "proof" is not based on evidence, it is based on statistics only!!!

Read above mentioned article.

Many factors may not have been included in the testing and those omissions may have altered the final report..

So it beats me why Andy and his team didn't include Jane Taupin's arguments in their defence, perhaps no one really understands the technicalities, after all Jane herself blamed TV crime programmes for giving the impression DNA testing is a cinch.

What I would like to know is : could or did the Norfolk coroner manage to obtain sample of semen inside Hannah that could be tested for DNA?

At least that would prove sex took place, and consequent testing in Thailand might find the owner.

Proving that sex took place is far from proving who killed but that is another topic...

The answer to you question about DNA and defense strategy could very well be there:

Jayjay78 Post #374:

"Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world, the International Commission of Jurists promotes and protects human rights through the Rule of Law"

Here is what they said on the Koh Tao verdict:

"Whether this was done in this case consistent with international standards should be reviewed on appeal."

[farcanell]

The verdict was not based on the RTP's word. It was based on the DNA evidence!!

A handwritten form by the in-house RTP forensics department claiming a DNA match with alterations and dated after the announcement of the Burmese kids confessions. What would normally be provided in the form of a chain of custody was not provided. The only documented DNA evidence presented in court was that the accuseds' DNA was not on the alleged murder weapon. Other relevant DNA samples were lost, used up or not tested. In my book, it still comes down to the RTP's word.

Lack of chain of custody doesn't invalidate the DNA evidence, it may make it disputable but that's all.

I recall posts in the other Koh Tao threads that OJ Simpson was acquitted because of lack of chain of custody, well it was not, he was acquitted because the forensic team was unable to explain the forensic evidence in an to the jury understandable language.

What???

Lack of chain of custody does indeed invalidate evidence, making it disputable, and unreliable... Therefore it should be either dismissed, or deemed to be disputable.

Guilt needs to be undisputed.

Hell, before going to work I have to pee in a cup in front of a nurse, to maintain chain of custody... And that's just to go to work!

If no demonstrable chain of custody, how the hell can anyone say we're the evidence came from

[CantSpell]

DrTuner, on 12 Jan 2016 - 07:03, said:

The arm of the Koh Tai mafia is long enough to reach into UK?

It's already reached as far as Milan, Italy.

What happened in Milan?

[phuketandsee]

A reference to Sean M perhaps?

[Isitjustme]

Just been reading the translation of the final Kho Tao judgement.

Part of the sentence they received was '20 years imprisonment for the rape of a woman who is not their wife'

So it's ok if it's their wife?

Gobsmacked. Am I missing something?

You are not missing anything. Ever watched the soaps they are addicted to here (hard I know)? Rape is a constant feature of these, frequently treated as a legitimate seduction technique. Just another aspect of Thainess.

Yes Phuketandsee, I've seen them. Managed to wean myself off that particular addiction (haha) after about half an episode.

Aware of these rape scenes and general attitude to women, know of tough guys beating up on their spouse/gf.

I even read somewhere that if a girl goes on a date with their Thai guy then he almost has a 'right' to have sex with her, insomuch as the law wouldn't protect her or defend her if she claims rape .This 'right' for want of a better word is often enforced or so I read.

A bit like the illustrious PMs comment about bikini-clad 'pretty girls'; They should know better or deserve what's coming to them.

Enlightened right? Still, even being aware of all this, it's astonishing to me that the law stipulates 'rape of a woman who is not their wife'.

As if rape of a wife is a non-crime or at least a lesser crime.

[Isitjustme]

I have a question for the folks here who believe the RTP are completely honest and transparent courts too. Why were foreign journalists NOT allowed to take notes in court?

Exactly DK. Nail on the head!

I mentioned something similar in an earlier post. If the rtp/prosecution team had one valid and verifiable piece of evidence, just one scrap of proof or evidence that was irrefutable and proved the B2s guilt, then they would have been showcasing it for all the world to see. The chain of custody would have been in order, there would be samples(of dna) for the defence to retest as it would prove their guilt, translators would be encouraged not threatened away, reporters both foreign and Thai would be allowed full access to take notes and print the "truth'. Full transparency as you say.

In short they wouldn't have been able to restrain themselves from showing the world how competent they are and what a great criminal case they had put together.

To me, as I'm sure to any right-minded decent person, it's the total lack of any of these, their complete unwillingness/inability to "prove" their own competence as police officers that shows up the case for what it is. A farce. a sham. A complete cock-up.

[JLCrab]

To the above: Standard policy:

In Thailand, filming, recording or taking notes in courts is forbidden. The Guardian spoke to the defence team and an observer in the court to confirm (Dr.) Porntip’s statement.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/11/dna-weapon-not-match-men-accused-killing-british-tourists-thailand

[mrrizzla]

More fun and games on Koh Tao:

http://www.planelesstravellers.com/travel/yesterday-night-my-friend-davy-got-beaten-up-in-the-sunset-beach-bar-in-koh-tao-what-happened-is-unaceptable-here-is-the-story/

My word. What a cesspit that island is!

[Squeegee]

What strikes me about RTP contemplating a law suit against Laura is that they immediatly dismiss her claims. Its as if the RTP could never be capable of such actions. Why not investigate the police chief who she said took money from the media, investigate what was alledgedly said to her and her family by the judges. The defamation laws in Thailand seem to used to silence people. We have seen it with Andy Hall and the pinapple company, Andrew Drummond with fraudsters, an academic whos name escapes me for plagiarism and countless others. In all these cases the law was used in retaliation by wrongdoers to silence their critics and stop them revealing criminal activity.Now the police are using the same tactic.

Quite frankly, after everything going back decades this kind of behaviour is nothing less than unsurprising for a third world banana state masquerading as a civilized country, but for such authorities to apparently openly suggest they might sue Laura really goes to show how despicable the United Kingdom is in consistently abandoning its own citizens to appease trade opportunities with a foreign country that regularly kills its citizens.

The Thai police are the Thai police, so it's like complaining about a dog lifting its leg to pee, but the British government is something else entirely, least of all essentially harbouring criminal activity against its own people in far away places.

It's great that Anonymous are weighing in on what's gone on for decades in Thailand on a weekly, almost daily basis, but it's not just a bunch of questionable officials from a third world country who need to be exposed, the most guilty party to my mind is the UK government for not warning people sufficiently about the Land Of Rape, Theft And Murder.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/thailand/safety-and-security

Violent sexual assaults and robberies against both men and women are reported regularly in the Koh Samui archipelago and Krabi province. These are particularly common during the monthly Full Moon parties and generally occur late at night near bars.

Thank you for the link. At least they are saying something, sure, I take your point, but I just don't think it's good enough.

First and foremost, the UK government must do more to support it citizens, not just in terms of how it deals with Thai officialdom where a crime has already been committed, but before the fact and in a more realistic manner than expecting the masses to do their research on a government website before leaving.

It's quite impressive that they actually list a number of issues but then they bury them amongst silly advice that will result in the average consumer not taking the whole list seriously enough. For example: warning there is crime in Pattaya and following up with this:

"...resulting in accidents, injuries, robbery, assaults and lost travel documents. If you drink, know your limit. Drinks served in bars overseas are often stronger than those in the UK. Some British nationals in Thailand have suffered severe psychiatric problems because of drug use, resulting in some suicides."

It comes across like teaching people to suck eggs: I can imagine anyone who does bother to look at the webpage may take the attitude that they know already that alcohol can result in impaired judgement, thus the advice goes like water off a duck's back for everything else as well.

Far better in my opinion would be for them to highlight the amount of weekly/daily deaths in mysterious circumstances and then place the information where consumers will actually see it, like obliging British holiday companies to provide a handout with all the information once they commit to booking a trip, and similarly at airports for flights heading out. If Western governments had the decency and backbone to do such a thing it would force the face-saving Thais to take more care themselves of how they are treating their 'guests'.

It's simply not good enough to assume the masses are responsible enough to pursue relevant information from a government website when all they are generally thinking about are the costs, itineraries and fun places for their visit.

There is enough evidence that Thailand can be an extremely dangerous place to go to, so the current state of things is no better than putting up a website warning against drink driving and expecting people to take it seriously. That just doesn't happen and to properly educate the masses there must be a campaign, as there is with drink driving.

But it's not just that they fail to make a real effort to warn their citizens, it's also the fact that they show little support for anyone who does have problems abroad. I am not necessarily suggesting that people can get their plane fare home paid by the government because in most cases that would indeed be wrong and create more problems for the government and its citizens, but actual support in terms of backing up our people with our values where needed.

Our values, like decency, transparency and fair play should not be abandoned by a government just because its citizen chose to go to a third world country. If said country is regularly killing people that should be made overt and let the third world country manage the consequences, ie. shape up or see their walking ATMs ship out.

So in essence, there are two major problems with the link: firstly that most people would even bother to go there; secondly that it encourages a 'This happens all over the world and it won't happen to me' attitude in people who should be taking better precautions.

Even so, simply putting these warnings on a webpage is not good enough and when something does happen there is clearly not enough support for citizens. We as expats know that the Embassy will not help us in many situations other than give advice, but when a Thai cop can openly consider suing a British citizen who is the victim of a crime in Thailand after the cops themselves have been less than professional in their treatment of said crime it can only leave a bad taste in the mouth with the UK government and shows they are not doing nearly enough.

[Krenjai]

""What I would like to know is : could or did the Norfolk coroner manage to obtain sample of semen inside Hannah that could be tested for DNA?""

No not very likely because that would be the key to prove the B2 are innocent, and even if such a sample exists it would not be accepted by the Thai courts! Even if you would read a headline like: "Norfolk Coroner, on behalf of the families and request of Andy Hall, did test samples against the DNA of the B2 and did not find a match", it would still be dismissed by the Thai courts.They decided who did this long time ago!

[lucky11]

You seem rather desperate to keep people from learning about the facts of the case.

As for Andy Hall, this is from the report you rather ignore:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken in to account."

The defense wasted at least day of hearings so that he could vent his opinions, they should have focused on the DNA, but they didn't.

More things you rather ignore:

"The plaintiff’s examination presented Mr Mau Mau as a circumstantial witness to the scene before the crime took place. Mr Mau Mau, who is a friend of the two defendants, testified and confirmed that on the said date of the incident, he and the two defendants were playing the guitar and drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the dry log not far from the crime scene. After that, Mr Mau Mau drove off on his motorcycle. The time indicated by Mr Mau Mau’s testimony was shortly before the crime was committed. Miss Phornthip Singkhamma, witness for the plaintiff, testified that she saw three persons sitting and playing a guitar at approximately 2am, which supports and give persuasiveness to the testimony given by Mr. Mau Mau. The facts provided by the testimonies in this regard are in accordance with the timecodes that appear on the from the CCTV camera footage obtained nearby the crime scene. The examination of two defendants cannot confute this fact and that there was no one else nearby except the two defendants."

The hoe used to kill Witheridge and Miller was normally left at the sample place they were seeing around 2AM:

"In addition, the point where the two defendants and Mr Mau Mau were sitting was in the same place that Mr O (no surname), the plaintiff’s witness, regularly left the exhibited hoe, which is also in the vicinity of the place that the exhibited hoe was found with the two victims’s blood stains."

That place was between were both victims were last seen (again around the same time) and the crime scene.

"The wounds to the head and face of the Second Deceased were all shown to be serious wounds matching the kind of injury that would be incurred by an attack with the blade and handle of the exhibited hoe, as Police Colonel Phawat M.D. and Khunying Pornthip M.D. have testified. The discovery of bloodstains from the Second Deceased on the exhibited hoe further lead to the undeniable suspicion that the exhibited hoe was the weapon used in the attack on the Second Deceased. The serious injury caused to her face occurred after the tear wound that occurred during the rape and so it must be concluded that after the Second Deceased was raped at the crime scene she was attacked and killed with the exhibited hoe. The evidence and connected circumstances lead to the conclusion that there can be no other finding than that the two Defendants used the exhibited hoe as a weapon to attack and kill the Second Deceased at the crime scene. Even though the report of the results of the DNA tests conducted by the Institute of Forensic Science according to Document number Lor. 29 summarises the results and conclusions of the examination that the DNA of the two Defendants did not match the mixed DNA of a male found on the exhibited hoe, this is not signicicant or inconsistent because the mixed DNA of a male that was found on the hoe matched the DNA of the First Deceased. In this case, and based on the evidence given by the witness for the Plaintiff, Mr O, it transpires that Mr O was the person who regularly used the exhibited hoe and even after the crime has been committed Mr O continued to use the exhibited hoe before it was sent off for examination. However, there was no examination for a match with the DNA of Mr O. With regard to the reason for not cinding a match with the DNA of the Offenders on the exhibited hoe, Khunying Pornthip M.D. explained that there could be many reasons for this, such as whether the hands are dry or sweaty which affects whether or not DNA is left on an object, or if the offenders had been wearing gloves or had put a cloth around the handle of the hoe or even if the handle of the exhibited hoe had been washed before being sent off for examination then DNA might not be found. Therefore the absence alone of the DNA of the Defendants on the exhibited hoe alone is not signicicant proof to confute the other evidence of the DNA from the sperm of both the Defendants found in the body of the Second Deceased. The Court hears that after the two Defendants raped the Second Deceased they used the exhibited hoe, which is a hard object with a long sharp edge, to repeatedly attack and kill the Second Deceased causing deep wounds to the head, and bone of the forehead and left eye socket. This points to the fact that both Defendants used the exhibited hoe to attack the Second Deceased with their full force resulting in the death of the Second Deceased and that they had the intention to kill her. Both Defendants are therefore guilty of jointly committing the murder of the Second Deceased in order to conceal their other offense."

Talking about concealing, something more to ignore:

"Mr. Mau Mau for interrogation and found that prior to the incident, Mr. Mau Mau and both Defendants had gone out to play the guitar, drink beer and smoke near the dry log underneath the pine tree. Thereafter, Mr. Mau Mau exchanged his shirt with the Second Defendant and borrowed the motorcycle to ride to his girlfriend’s place. Upon coming back home, Mr. Mau Mau found both Defendants were asleep. Pol. Col. asked Mr. Mau Mau to take him to the house to meet both Defendants. Upon arriving, only the First Defendant was there. From interrogations, the First Defendant could not show his passport and admitted to having illegally entered the Kingdom. The police then detained the First Defendant and seized his clothes and the motorcycle used on the night of crime for further inspection. The police interrogated the First Defendant via a Burmese Translator named Mr. Kamol Uzon, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 52, and subsequently charged the First Defendant with illegally entering and residing in the Kingdom without due permission, according to the Arrest Record, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 36. As for the Second Defendant, the police were informed of him having left Koh Tao on a night boat and that he would reach Surat Thani at around 6 hrs. of 2nd October B.E. 2557 (2014), therefore coordinating with Investigation Officers of Surat Thani province to follow up. The Second Defendant was found hiding on the night boat. The police then took his picture and sent it to Mr. Mau Mau for verification."

The Jersey Evening Post article on Jan 9th states that Wei Phyo (the one that fled) said to the police that he left because he had another job, but had never informed his employer he was leaving.

Also mentions that the defense own DNA specialist, Worvee Wiyamu said the forensic work was carried out to international standards.

Explains a lot....

It doesn't explain a lot, it explains everything regards how the judge came to the correct conclusion as to who the guilty parties were for this heinous crime!!

[JLCrab]

Note that there is a similar Travel - Crime Thailand notice on the US State Department website including:

Violent crimes against foreigners are relatively rare. However, murders, rapes, and assaults do occur. These crimes happen most often at night. Frequently, victims, both male and female, have been drinking and are often alone or separated from travelling companions. These crimes have occurred all over Thailand but are most common in Bangkok, Pattaya, Chiang Mai, and tourist areas in southern Thailand, including Phuket, Koh Tao, Koh Samui, Koh Phangan, and Krabi. If you are traveling alone, you should exercise caution, stay near other travelers and ensure that friends or family know how to contact you. Sexually motivated violent incidents, committed by both Thai citizens and visitors, are most likely to occur at parties at discos or beaches, such as the Full Moon party on Phangan Island, and Krabi.

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/thailand.html

Edited January 14, 2016 by JLCrab

[glenmohr]

I have a question for the folks here who believe the RTP are completely honest and transparent courts too. Why were foreign journalists NOT allowed to take notes in court?

Exactly DK. Nail on the head!

I mentioned something similar in an earlier post. If the rtp/prosecution team had one valid and verifiable piece of evidence, just one scrap of proof or evidence that was irrefutable and proved the B2s guilt, then they would have been showcasing it for all the world to see. The chain of custody would have been in order, there would be samples(of dna) for the defence to retest as it would prove their guilt, translators would be encouraged not threatened away, reporters both foreign and Thai would be allowed full access to take notes and print the "truth'. Full transparency as you say.

In short they wouldn't have been able to restrain themselves from showing the world how competent they are and what a great criminal case they had put together.

To me, as I'm sure to any right-minded decent person, it's the total lack of any of these, their complete unwillingness/inability to "prove" their own competence as police officers that shows up the case for what it is. A farce. a sham. A complete cock-up.

Could not agree more even though the chief of police will set his legal people on to me for defamation tomorrow for me saying that. I am certain that if the case was watertight there would be no way you would lose the DNA evidence!

[DM07]

This so called mafia family on KT seem to have been turned into some sort of mythical mega empire, with their claws reaching far and wide Does anyone know them, what hotels they own, had any dealings with them, even seen them. With these 100's of millions of £/$, would they still live on KT?

Yeah...why would they?

Live in a place where they are "king", where they make the rules, where you - literally - live and die by their sword?

Or to say it with the Dire Straits "Money for nothing and the chicks for free!"

Why would they?

I can't quiet figure it out!

Well...I guess, it will remain a mystery!

[KunMatt]

I have a question for the folks here who believe the RTP are completely honest and transparent courts too. Why were foreign journalists NOT allowed to take notes in court?

Exactly DK. Nail on the head!

I mentioned something similar in an earlier post. If the rtp/prosecution team had one valid and verifiable piece of evidence, just one scrap of proof or evidence that was irrefutable and proved the B2s guilt, then they would have been showcasing it for all the world to see. The chain of custody would have been in order, there would be samples(of dna) for the defence to retest as it would prove their guilt, translators would be encouraged not threatened away, reporters both foreign and Thai would be allowed full access to take notes and print the "truth'. Full transparency as you say.

In short they wouldn't have been able to restrain themselves from showing the world how competent they are and what a great criminal case they had put together.

To me, as I'm sure to any right-minded decent person, it's the total lack of any of these, their complete unwillingness/inability to "prove" their own competence as police officers that shows up the case for what it is. A farce. a sham. A complete cock-up.

Exactly. There isn't 1 single irrefutable piece of evidence which supports any of the police's case, which is why the prosecution rejected it 3 times. The best they have is the DNA which is sketchy from beginning to end and could well be an outright lie, so anybody who bases their entire argument on that is a liar too. On a small island with CCTV everywhere there were no witnesses and only a few seconds of CCTV footage used in the case.

Seeing how much the police gloated and went extremely public about all of the sketchy evidence they put together at every step, imagine what they would have done if they actually had the smoking gun that the B2 were guilty and acted alone. They didn't have anything concrete on the B2 committing these murders. The whole thing, including the court report, is a sham.

[JLCrab]

From Pages 36-37 of the MWRN translation of the Full Court Judgment:

With regard to the Defendants’ alibi argument, both Defendants only present their testimonies in Court, without any other witnesses or evidence to support their whereabouts, that the Defendants were not at the crime scene. Details of which are self-contradict and are unable to refute the evidence of the Plaintiff that has clearly shown that both Defendants were the perpetrators of the crime in this case.

Under the testimony of both Defendants that claimed that after drinking beer they both wanted to go home and so decided to walk home, but that then both went for a swim in the sea late at night while it was raining lightly, as the First Defendant has testified, this is unusual for normal people to do under such circumstances, and thus the testimonies are not credible. This gives rise to the belief that their behaviour must instead have been conducted in a way tdestroy evidence on the bodies of both the Defendants. Bcause neither of the Defendants have any evidence to support their alibi then it appears only as an invalid alibi argument.

[stephenterry]

You seem rather desperate to keep people from learning about the facts of the case.

As for Andy Hall, this is from the report you rather ignore:

"Mr Andrew Jonathan Hall or Andy Hall to testify on the autopsy report of the Second Deceased in Document Lor. 31, claiming that the autopsy report at the United Kingdom did not indicate an abrasive tear on the perineum from the vulva to the anus of the Second Deceased. Mr Andrew also hired an expert from the United Kingdom to conduct a gait analysis of a suspect from CCTV images, comparing that suspect to the second defendant’s motion appeared on the video footage on the date of the incident. The result of the gait analysis provided in Document Lor. 47 indicated that the second defendant was not the same man as the suspect. It is found that this witness did not learn the factual issues or was not directly involved with the case, nor is he an expert on autopsy and the analysis of the two reports. Additionally, the witness is merely the coordinator and recipient of the said reports. Almost all of the facts in the testimony are his personal opinions. His testimony constitutes hearsay evidence because he only refutes what has been written in the reports or claims that an expert has informed him of such information. Unless a relevant expert can testify before the court to confirm the information in such reports, the plaintiff cannot cross-examine the witness in order to properly examine the fact. The testimony alone is without any weight and not worthy of being taken in to account."

The defense wasted at least day of hearings so that he could vent his opinions, they should have focused on the DNA, but they didn't.

More things you rather ignore:

"The plaintiff’s examination presented Mr Mau Mau as a circumstantial witness to the scene before the crime took place. Mr Mau Mau, who is a friend of the two defendants, testified and confirmed that on the said date of the incident, he and the two defendants were playing the guitar and drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in the vicinity of the dry log not far from the crime scene. After that, Mr Mau Mau drove off on his motorcycle. The time indicated by Mr Mau Mau’s testimony was shortly before the crime was committed. Miss Phornthip Singkhamma, witness for the plaintiff, testified that she saw three persons sitting and playing a guitar at approximately 2am, which supports and give persuasiveness to the testimony given by Mr. Mau Mau. The facts provided by the testimonies in this regard are in accordance with the timecodes that appear on the from the CCTV camera footage obtained nearby the crime scene. The examination of two defendants cannot confute this fact and that there was no one else nearby except the two defendants."

The hoe used to kill Witheridge and Miller was normally left at the sample place they were seeing around 2AM:

"In addition, the point where the two defendants and Mr Mau Mau were sitting was in the same place that Mr O (no surname), the plaintiff’s witness, regularly left the exhibited hoe, which is also in the vicinity of the place that the exhibited hoe was found with the two victims’s blood stains."

That place was between were both victims were last seen (again around the same time) and the crime scene.

"The wounds to the head and face of the Second Deceased were all shown to be serious wounds matching the kind of injury that would be incurred by an attack with the blade and handle of the exhibited hoe, as Police Colonel Phawat M.D. and Khunying Pornthip M.D. have testified. The discovery of bloodstains from the Second Deceased on the exhibited hoe further lead to the undeniable suspicion that the exhibited hoe was the weapon used in the attack on the Second Deceased. The serious injury caused to her face occurred after the tear wound that occurred during the rape and so it must be concluded that after the Second Deceased was raped at the crime scene she was attacked and killed with the exhibited hoe. The evidence and connected circumstances lead to the conclusion that there can be no other finding than that the two Defendants used the exhibited hoe as a weapon to attack and kill the Second Deceased at the crime scene. Even though the report of the results of the DNA tests conducted by the Institute of Forensic Science according to Document number Lor. 29 summarises the results and conclusions of the examination that the DNA of the two Defendants did not match the mixed DNA of a male found on the exhibited hoe, this is not signicicant or inconsistent because the mixed DNA of a male that was found on the hoe matched the DNA of the First Deceased. In this case, and based on the evidence given by the witness for the Plaintiff, Mr O, it transpires that Mr O was the person who regularly used the exhibited hoe and even after the crime has been committed Mr O continued to use the exhibited hoe before it was sent off for examination. However, there was no examination for a match with the DNA of Mr O. With regard to the reason for not cinding a match with the DNA of the Offenders on the exhibited hoe, Khunying Pornthip M.D. explained that there could be many reasons for this, such as whether the hands are dry or sweaty which affects whether or not DNA is left on an object, or if the offenders had been wearing gloves or had put a cloth around the handle of the hoe or even if the handle of the exhibited hoe had been washed before being sent off for examination then DNA might not be found. Therefore the absence alone of the DNA of the Defendants on the exhibited hoe alone is not signicicant proof to confute the other evidence of the DNA from the sperm of both the Defendants found in the body of the Second Deceased. The Court hears that after the two Defendants raped the Second Deceased they used the exhibited hoe, which is a hard object with a long sharp edge, to repeatedly attack and kill the Second Deceased causing deep wounds to the head, and bone of the forehead and left eye socket. This points to the fact that both Defendants used the exhibited hoe to attack the Second Deceased with their full force resulting in the death of the Second Deceased and that they had the intention to kill her. Both Defendants are therefore guilty of jointly committing the murder of the Second Deceased in order to conceal their other offense."

Talking about concealing, something more to ignore:

"Mr. Mau Mau for interrogation and found that prior to the incident, Mr. Mau Mau and both Defendants had gone out to play the guitar, drink beer and smoke near the dry log underneath the pine tree. Thereafter, Mr. Mau Mau exchanged his shirt with the Second Defendant and borrowed the motorcycle to ride to his girlfriend’s place. Upon coming back home, Mr. Mau Mau found both Defendants were asleep. Pol. Col. asked Mr. Mau Mau to take him to the house to meet both Defendants. Upon arriving, only the First Defendant was there. From interrogations, the First Defendant could not show his passport and admitted to having illegally entered the Kingdom. The police then detained the First Defendant and seized his clothes and the motorcycle used on the night of crime for further inspection. The police interrogated the First Defendant via a Burmese Translator named Mr. Kamol Uzon, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 52, and subsequently charged the First Defendant with illegally entering and residing in the Kingdom without due permission, according to the Arrest Record, the Evidence Document marked as Jor. 36. As for the Second Defendant, the police were informed of him having left Koh Tao on a night boat and that he would reach Surat Thani at around 6 hrs. of 2nd October B.E. 2557 (2014), therefore coordinating with Investigation Officers of Surat Thani province to follow up. The Second Defendant was found hiding on the night boat. The police then took his picture and sent it to Mr. Mau Mau for verification."

The Jersey Evening Post article on Jan 9th states that Wei Phyo (the one that fled) said to the police that he left because he had another job, but had never informed his employer he was leaving.

Also mentions that the defense own DNA specialist, Worvee Wiyamu said the forensic work was carried out to international standards.

Explains a lot....

It doesn't explain a lot, it explains everything regards how the judge came to the correct conclusion as to who the guilty parties were for this heinous crime!!

Sure. I have a fairy tale book for children that you should read. Get some ideas on what to post next. IMO the judges did not come to the correct conclusions because the guilty parties who committed this heinous crime were not on trial. But, hey, why let truth get in the way of fiction.

[metisdead]

Some nonsense posts have been removed:

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[JLCrab]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The Court has offered their opinion. Mr. Andrew Hall has said that, although he respects the Court, he does not agree with their opinion. But even if Mr. Hall did not respect the Court, wouldn't make any difference.

Edited January 14, 2016 by JLCrab