Police consider prosecuting Koh Tao victim's sister over Thailand criticism

iReason · January 16, 2016

^^^^

Jeez, a lot of wind devoted to ONE line from Laura Witheridges' post...

Forest for the trees anyone?

Mooner · January 16, 2016

One line?

Think you need to go look at her statement again.

iReason · January 16, 2016

^^^^

I think you need to look at the post just before mine...

Mooner · January 16, 2016

She wrote more than one line.

All pertinent. Don't cherry pick a line. Take the statement in full

iReason · January 16, 2016

"She wrote more than one line."
"All pertinent. Don't cherry pick a line. Take the statement in full"

Exactly.

Now, try doing as I suggested.

Look at the post (#450) just before mine.

Hope that helps...

Edited January 16, 2016 by iReason

Linky · January 16, 2016

Ahh its a crazy old world.

When considering the truth of what Laura said one should consider the reasons she said it. What has she to gain by saying it. Nothing. But she has put herself in harms way by saying it. So it is not self serving.

It is quite telling that some, well a very few, latched onto the millers statement as proof of a good and proper trial as the Millers, being a family involved, were privvy to special information that us normal public were not.

But when the witheridges have had the same access and information accuse those that are supposedly trying to bring them closure, that same very few decide that as it doesnt fit with their blinkered view so witheridges accusations and comments deserve no respect at all.

One could use logic and determine that instead of being open to find the truth that those very limited few have an agenda and have no interest whatsoever in the truth.

iReason · January 16, 2016

^^^^

Bingo!

Fortunately, they are a very, very, tiny minority.

TheLobster · January 16, 2016

^^^^

Jeez, a lot of wind devoted to ONE line from Laura Witheridges' post...

Forest for the trees anyone?

Distraction and misdirection iReason, ignore the trolls/shills

I need to add a new part to my script, don't assume all members of the forum are different people

Edited January 16, 2016 by TheLobster

gk10002000 · January 16, 2016

and exactly how would she be prosecuted? Where would she be prosecuted? She is a Brit living in the UK correct? Is Thailand going to request she be extradited to Thailand to face trial? Seems like if she avoids Thailand not much will happen?

farcanell · January 16, 2016

Farcenell

What if I told you that "what if I told you" was her way of saying that something happened.... And whilst it may confuse some, it does not mean that it did not happen

What if I told you, would you believe me? It all goes together.

If guilty of anything, it is perhaps bad sentence structure

Did I say anywhere that it did not happen? If I choose not to accept something, until it is substantiated, then that is my right, same as other's have the right to accept it as gospel, if that's the way they deem it. Tell me, or some of the others who have come rushing to her defense may be able to. When did what she is alleging happen, during or after the court case, that is the money angle said to have been offered for the family to be quiet?

And be quiet about what? If during the proceedings did she draw this to the attention of the prosecution, or even after, as if something did occur and it was in direct relationship to the trial, then there has a been an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Sure there is a lot of if's and but's however, if it was not drawn to anyone's attention, then why not?

And what if you told me, would I believe? Being a hypothetical question one really cannot provide an answer nor should one be expected.

Sidestepping, old son (post 385) "of course it's rumor, an unsubstantiated statement" implies ( strongly) that it did not happen

Try this..... "What if I told you,.... I was offered a bribe.... would you believe me? "

I find it hard that you can't put that together, such that it is not a hypothetical question, given the content of my post.... Now, what would your answer be ( assume for the sake of argument, she was addressing you, personally)

Now... Hypothetically would be the answer to your question... When did it happen.

She did not say, so we can only speculate.

For example... Offer of compensation while in Thailand.... Chased in her car in while in England....,Facebook defaced, while in England

But either way, the answer does not matter one iota....,because if you think her a liar, then the answer is pointless, and if you believe her, then you would be more about the sympathy and support, than the when and why of it

As to the bribe to keep her quiet... She may have been unaware of the Thai custom of financial compensation for victims of crime, so misconstrued the offer of compensation, for a bribe, which is not an attempt to pervert the course of justice, but an attempt to provide justice, under the Thai system

As to drawing it to the attention of others... Well.... She certainly seems to have, don't you think..... Your simply questioning the timing...,and once out of Thailand would be the best time to make comment, and undoubtedly, if she had mentioned it to a lawyer in Thailand, that would have been the answer, don't you think?

But... This is all conjecture, and will probably remain conjecture, as corroborating Thai witnesses will not sign an avid affidavit to these comments, and Thais won't go to Britain for an inquest, nor will she come back here (I hope) to partake in another charade.

IMHO, of course.

Not side stepping anything old fella. A rumour is a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts: As for unsubstantiated, it means something that is not supported or proven by evidence. So pray tell, how do you come to the conclusion that what I wrote implies (strongly) that it did not happen. So if one asks for something to be substantiated that is, to provide evidence to support or prove the truth of, then according to many on here, including yourself, it is an act of being callous, or in one case, vile and filthy and how dare one ask for it to be confirmed. Please do not twist the meaning of what I wrote and at least know what words mean before you criticise.

I do not have to beat around the bush and imply or allude to, assume or even make things up, I would come straight out and say if I did not believe her. Just understand, if you are able to, what I have said, as it in no way suggets what you have stated. And please do not use the word (liar) as I have not called anyone that nor alluded to it.

As for someone whom I do not know, telling me something, such as you outline, I think it would be highly unlikely to occur, so what answer would you like me to give? If it was a close associate, then I would accept it at face value but would still expect it to be substantiated. To allege something such as this, is a serious matter and not something to be scoffed at or have someone else offer an explanation as to why she may have erred in her FB post. You're only speculating, as most on here are also doing and that does not make it right.

I don't think you are quite right about an offer of compensation in Thailand either. Most people are not aware but there is actually, under the Thai criminal justice system, the Victim Compensation and Restitution for the Accused Person Act and it has been in force for about 12 years. This can only be paid to the parents or next of kin of the victim and is not offered, it has to be applied for. It is also handled through the prosecutors.

Now you are telling me she may have misinterpreted what was said, instead of being offered a bribe, it was meant to be compensation, for them to be quiet about what? The prosecution, rightly or wrongly, were able to bring the case to fruition, of which the result has been scorned by many so why would anyone offer the family money to be quiet. One would have thought, as the family of the victim, they would have believed that justice has been done.

You say that by asking when this offer was made and by whom, the answers would be of no consequence (my word), then you are utterly wrong. To know these answers would help to bolster the allegations made. So you think you know the Thai legal system, I'd suggest you don't because I can assure the legal profession is well aware of what the word compensation means and that is the word they would have used if they had advised the family of their rights to seek the same

Yet she was specific that they were offered a bribe to be quiet. So if they are entitled to claim then wouldn't you think, that by being offered a bribe to be quiet, which is vastly different to compensation, that she would have brought this to the attention of the prosecution and ultimately, the court, not now but when it occurred,either during or after the case. To offer some one, as she described, a bribe, that is illegal and would constitute perverting the course of justice, even if you do not think so and would not be in any way an attempt to provide justice under the Thai system. Now it it was under the legal system of legitimate compensation then one would hardly expect her to describe the incident as an attempt to bribe. I would be surprised if this young woman did not know the difference between the words, Bribe and Compensation and was unable to use them in the correct context.

Of course she has brought it to the attention of others but apparently not those involved in the legal process of the trail, at least not until she allegedly released the FB page. If she felt so strongly and is afraid of some type of retribution, from whom, god only knows, then there are avenues open to her, such as police protection, yet she has not indicated she sought any assistance in that regard. And no, I do not think it is the right time to bring this up, it should have been done when it was first allegedly put to them and not when the matter is in all likelihood heading for an appeal.

.

And yes, It is sad that the family has suffered a loss, however, as I do not know them nor they me, therefore I am unable to offer suppor. Would you have someone do that for every death that occurs and there is no association. Yes, one can be sympathetic but that is where it ends.

Definitely a well constructed reply... And at day's end, I think we are of a similar belief... That there is a lot of confusion and doubt as to the guilty findings of the court

Perhaps, because I am lazy, I latched to the first quotation that I came across, suggesting that Laura's comments were unbelievable, and I apologies for that... But we both know that there are several people who have blatantly claimed that the girl is telling porkies.

That said, I have no recollection of calling anyone callouse, vile or filthy, though I have seen the words in the forum, as I have the claims that Laura is telling untruths, nor have I called you a liar, but instead said.... "if you think HER a liar". Suggesting these words were intended as an indictment on yourself, is unfair, or perhaps as lazy as I, in not reviewing thirty or forty pages pertaining to this matter ( mainly the former words)

Further, I do have a good grasp of the English language, and rarely, if ever, use words that I don't understand, and I do try to proof read my comments, in an attempt to make my points understood, which, unfortunately, leads to long discourses, such as this, which most TV readers are uninterested in, so suggesting otherwise is insulting...,something I would not do to anyone on this forum, as not all have the benifits of the same quality of education, and they should not be vilified for that, but encouraged to participate, because it may add a new dimension to the thread

For example... Hitherto unknown to me, the couple were seen in a heated argument with a person of influence on the island, a short time before the murders occurred. And they ( persons of influence) soon after, left the island on a fast boat

Laura's online statement specifically mentioned compensation... She did not say who the offer of compensation came from... Or to who exactly it was made to ( she may have simply witnessed the offer, and It may well have been through the proper channel, even if unknown to her)

To someone not exposed to bribes vs compensation, and from a different culture, speaking a different language, it is not unreasonable to suggest that she misinterpreted the offer, or when writing her Facebook page, simply through in that word, as that may have been how she felt about the offer

As to the answers of when the Facebook allegations were made, in the context that I was using, I stand by those words... If they can be demonstrated that they are true and correct, they could have been made yesterday... So... Again, the chronology matters not

Your argument about my knowledge of Thai law is unfounded, relying on one word.... That said, I will freely admit that I do have a lot to learn about Thai law... But then, I also have a lot to learn about Australian law, as I am not, nor have I insinuated, that I am a lawyer, so unless you yourself are a lawyer, I could make the same statement as you

And sympathy or empathy is "support" as is decrying the findings of the court ( more so) so we can all choose to offer the families support, if we so wish, and our "outrage?" Keeps the issue squarely in the worlds mind, perhaps leading to a more informed judgement by the courts

Given the length of this response, I would suggest that your accusation about me twisting your words are uncalled for, because in your post, you have done the same thing... Otherwise I would have had no reasonable reply

Cheers.

iReason · January 16, 2016

Yeah Lobster, I know.

Just been a bit lazy to add that particularly whacked moniker to my ignore list.

But, after that last yawn inducing diatribe, that Troll has been added.

EyesWideOpen · January 16, 2016

and exactly how would she be prosecuted? Where would she be prosecuted? She is a Brit living in the UK correct? Is Thailand going to request she be extradited to Thailand to face trial? Seems like if she avoids Thailand not much will happen?

After her sister was murdered in Thailand, I suspect she has no

plans to travel there........ :-(

JLCrab · January 16, 2016

<snip>

For example... Hitherto unknown to me, the couple were seen in a heated argument with a person of influence on the island, a short time before the murders occurred. And they ( persons of influence) soon after, left the island on a fast boat

<snip2>

Just to note that the only person who on ThaiVisa said that he was at the AC Bar the night in question, who would know the (person of influence) on sight, and said that, at least for the time he was at the bar, did not see the (person of influence), was hooted by persons on here for so posting.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/838898-koh-tao-trial-opens-for-2-accused-of-killing-british-tourists/page-185#entry9660041

lvr181 · January 16, 2016

Every deveolped country in the World was in a similar place of moral development to where Thailand is now. The argument that 'this is how things are here, just get used to it' is just plain silly. Thailand will be dragged some way forward to the 21st century, with it's corrupt, immoral leaders and puyais kicking and screaming and causing plenty of collateral damage along the way. It's all a part of evolution.

Well, maybe. But it seems that it is taking 100s of years for Thailand to do what, a near neighbour, Singapore has done in 50 years?

Jacky 54, England developed a recognizable police force in the 1700's... Thailand already has one, so is a little more advanced than the feudal 1400's, and with the internet world and wider spread education ( most people in 1400 could not read or write), the countries of the world will reach social parity sooner than you seem to believe.

But Ivr181..... In response to the absurd comparison of Singapore to Thailand... What?

Singapore was almost completely destroyed by the Japanese in the Second World War, and its citizens were persecuted to near extinction.

It's recovery post WW2 was British led, and funded etc, until they could become self determined, so they had a huge springboard to begin there advancement to the model state that they have become... Previous to the war, they were as backward as any other contemporary.... Actually, the king of Siam was probably courted more than the ruler of a marshy island called Singapore.

Make comparisons, by all means... You have Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to choose from, to highlight your point.... Except... That won't work very well, will it?

I know what you are saying and Thailand maybe ahead of those you mention with perhaps the exception of Vietnam, who seems to be advancing rapidly with their economy.

But the Singaporeans provide very good education for their children, bring in "foreign expertise" (maybe only on a short term) to provide specialist advice for problems, have largely dealt with corruption (one can NEVER eliminate it), plus free elections. Is this happening in Thailand? I understand at the time of the Tsunami in 2004, foreign rescue workers were being asked to obtain a work permit!

Now, I am not saying that Thailand could do what Singapore did in 50 years but they appear not to be trying very hard. Why? Is nepotism/cronyism and corruption at all levels holding them back? Or maybe just a lack of responsibility and accountability of many authorities in what they do. There is always a lot of face to be saved (an Asian cultural habit?) but that should not detract from a respected justice system. In all my visits to Singapore I have never been intimidated or shaken down by any member of their Police. Or threatened by a taxi driver.

Respect is earned and cannot be demanded, the same with happiness. A song and Christmas lights does not cut it!

farcanell · January 16, 2016

<snip>

For example... Hitherto unknown to me, the couple were seen in a heated argument with a person of influence on the island, a short time before the murders occurred. And they ( persons of influence) soon after, left the island on a fast boat

<snip2>

Just to note that the only person who on ThaiVisa said that he was at the AC Bar the night in question, who would know the (person of influence) on sight, and said that, at least for the time he was at the bar, did not see the (person of influence), was hooted by persons on here for so posting.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/838898-koh-tao-trial-opens-for-2-accused-of-killing-british-tourists/page-185#entry9660041

Damn... I read that item about three times in the... You guessed it... Newspapers, with on article authored by the Asian editor for the uk telegraph... So I assumed it had some credence.

If your post is correct, that's now twice I have been sucked in by what I suppose would be called sensational journalism

Thanks for the heads up.

farcanell · January 16, 2016

Every deveolped country in the World was in a similar place of moral development to where Thailand is now. The argument that 'this is how things are here, just get used to it' is just plain silly. Thailand will be dragged some way forward to the 21st century, with it's corrupt, immoral leaders and puyais kicking and screaming and causing plenty of collateral damage along the way. It's all a part of evolution.

Well, maybe. But it seems that it is taking 100s of years for Thailand to do what, a near neighbour, Singapore has done in 50 years?

Jacky 54, England developed a recognizable police force in the 1700's... Thailand already has one, so is a little more advanced than the feudal 1400's, and with the internet world and wider spread education ( most people in 1400 could not read or write), the countries of the world will reach social parity sooner than you seem to believe.

But Ivr181..... In response to the absurd comparison of Singapore to Thailand... What?

Singapore was almost completely destroyed by the Japanese in the Second World War, and its citizens were persecuted to near extinction.

It's recovery post WW2 was British led, and funded etc, until they could become self determined, so they had a huge springboard to begin there advancement to the model state that they have become... Previous to the war, they were as backward as any other contemporary.... Actually, the king of Siam was probably courted more than the ruler of a marshy island called Singapore.

Make comparisons, by all means... You have Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to choose from, to highlight your point.... Except... That won't work very well, will it?

I know what you are saying and Thailand maybe ahead of those you mention with perhaps the exception of Vietnam, who seems to be advancing rapidly with their economy.

But the Singaporeans provide very good education for their children, bring in "foreign expertise" (maybe only on a short term) to provide specialist advice for problems, have largely dealt with corruption (one can NEVER eliminate it), plus free elections. Is this happening in Thailand? I understand at the time of the Tsunami in 2004, foreign rescue workers were being asked to obtain a work permit!

Now, I am not saying that Thailand could do what Singapore did in 50 years but they appear not to be trying very hard. Why? Is nepotism/cronyism and corruption at all levels holding them back? Or maybe just a lack of responsibility and accountability of many authorities in what they do. There is always a lot of face to be saved (an Asian cultural habit?) but that should not detract from a respected justice system. In all my visits to Singapore I have never been intimidated or shaken down by any member of their Police. Or threatened by a taxi driver.

Respect is earned and cannot be demanded, the same with happiness. A song and Christmas lights does not cut it!

You are correct about the progressiveness of Singapore, I too have been there several times and view it as one of the safest cities in the world.

Maybe change was easier, because after WW2, there was no " face" left to save.... Or maybe they just got lucky and elected some damn fine politicians, or maybe their position as a crossroad to the shipping world spurred their advancement

Hard to say, as they are Asian too, so should have the same mindset... Speculation as to the cause, but the results are irrefutable, so much so that it's hard to justify comparisons to the rest of south east Asia, which seems to be largely run by corruption

Change usually takes a couple of generations, as a minimum, so we won't be here to see an enlightened Thailand, unfortunately ( or fortunately, depending on you POV... I remember when one Aussie dollar was worth about three times that of singapores currency... That's certainly changed!) and... isn't it run on the British political model? That would help.

And they say Thailand is the most advanced of the SE Asian countries? I do love the word " emergent"... It puts me in mind of a pregnant woman screaming as the baby refuses to leave the womb.

glenmohr · January 17, 2016

Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and others all have faces. But they still have been able to join us in the 21st century in spite of having faces.

I was arrested in Philippines 1996. Detained and charged with a death penalty offense. The public prosecuter refused to prosecute due to the evidence being fabricated. Wake up Thailand!

Just another note to those who are telling us to go home, most of us critics like Thailand very much. It is just certain institutions in Thailand we would like our comments to have an effect on.

AleG · January 17, 2016

I don't think the defence need to razzle dazzle in the appeal (unless the same blinkers are employed). They just need to help the appeal judges see through the facade, for example from the trial report:

The results of the DNA tests on the exhibited cigarette butts indicated that the second defendant and Mr Mau Mau had smoked the exhibited cigarettes, which was confirmed by the testimonies of the two defendants that they took it in turns to smoke the same exhibited cigarettes. This indicates that the examination conducted by the Central Forensic Bureau was accurate and correct thus giving weight to the credibility of the test results and indicating that the test results are admissible.

You seem to need help with that line of reasoning, here it goes:

A ) Police collect evidence and examine the cigarette butts, they determine that mixed DNA from two people was present in the cigarettes and were able to produce two profiles from it; after they arrest the suspects they admit that they had shared those cigarette's and their DNA profiles matched those found on the cigarettes, therefore validating the forensic analysis as being able to separate and identify DNA profiles out of a mixed sample.

B ) The current attack on the prosecution case by the defense is, apparently, to cast doubts in their ability to separate and identify the profile of individuals from mixed DNA found in one sample (i.e. semen).

A shows that yes they can get correct DNA profiles out of mixed samples, therefore argument B has no merit.

Facts and logic are not on the defense side, thus all the razzle dazzle so far.

Si Thea01 · January 17, 2016

Farcenell

What if I told you that "what if I told you" was her way of saying that something happened.... And whilst it may confuse some, it does not mean that it did not happen

What if I told you, would you believe me? It all goes together.

If guilty of anything, it is perhaps bad sentence structure

Did I say anywhere that it did not happen? If I choose not to accept something, until it is substantiated, then that is my right, same as other's have the right to accept it as gospel, if that's the way they deem it. Tell me, or some of the others who have come rushing to her defense may be able to. When did what she is alleging happen, during or after the court case, that is the money angle said to have been offered for the family to be quiet?

And be quiet about what? If during the proceedings did she draw this to the attention of the prosecution, or even after, as if something did occur and it was in direct relationship to the trial, then there has a been an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Sure there is a lot of if's and but's however, if it was not drawn to anyone's attention, then why not?

And what if you told me, would I believe? Being a hypothetical question one really cannot provide an answer nor should one be expected.

Sidestepping, old son (post 385) "of course it's rumor, an unsubstantiated statement" implies ( strongly) that it did not happen

Try this..... "What if I told you,.... I was offered a bribe.... would you believe me? "

I find it hard that you can't put that together, such that it is not a hypothetical question, given the content of my post.... Now, what would your answer be ( assume for the sake of argument, she was addressing you, personally)

Now... Hypothetically would be the answer to your question... When did it happen.

She did not say, so we can only speculate.

For example... Offer of compensation while in Thailand.... Chased in her car in while in England....,Facebook defaced, while in England

But either way, the answer does not matter one iota....,because if you think her a liar, then the answer is pointless, and if you believe her, then you would be more about the sympathy and support, than the when and why of it

As to the bribe to keep her quiet... She may have been unaware of the Thai custom of financial compensation for victims of crime, so misconstrued the offer of compensation, for a bribe, which is not an attempt to pervert the course of justice, but an attempt to provide justice, under the Thai system

As to drawing it to the attention of others... Well.... She certainly seems to have, don't you think..... Your simply questioning the timing...,and once out of Thailand would be the best time to make comment, and undoubtedly, if she had mentioned it to a lawyer in Thailand, that would have been the answer, don't you think?

But... This is all conjecture, and will probably remain conjecture, as corroborating Thai witnesses will not sign an avid affidavit to these comments, and Thais won't go to Britain for an inquest, nor will she come back here (I hope) to partake in another charade.

IMHO, of course.

Not side stepping anything old fella. A rumour is a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts: As for unsubstantiated, it means something that is not supported or proven by evidence. So pray tell, how do you come to the conclusion that what I wrote implies (strongly) that it did not happen. So if one asks for something to be substantiated that is, to provide evidence to support or prove the truth of, then according to many on here, including yourself, it is an act of being callous, or in one case, vile and filthy and how dare one ask for it to be confirmed. Please do not twist the meaning of what I wrote and at least know what words mean before you criticise.

I do not have to beat around the bush and imply or allude to, assume or even make things up, I would come straight out and say if I did not believe her. Just understand, if you are able to, what I have said, as it in no way suggets what you have stated. And please do not use the word (liar) as I have not called anyone that nor alluded to it.

As for someone whom I do not know, telling me something, such as you outline, I think it would be highly unlikely to occur, so what answer would you like me to give? If it was a close associate, then I would accept it at face value but would still expect it to be substantiated. To allege something such as this, is a serious matter and not something to be scoffed at or have someone else offer an explanation as to why she may have erred in her FB post. You're only speculating, as most on here are also doing and that does not make it right.

I don't think you are quite right about an offer of compensation in Thailand either. Most people are not aware but there is actually, under the Thai criminal justice system, the Victim Compensation and Restitution for the Accused Person Act and it has been in force for about 12 years. This can only be paid to the parents or next of kin of the victim and is not offered, it has to be applied for. It is also handled through the prosecutors.

Now you are telling me she may have misinterpreted what was said, instead of being offered a bribe, it was meant to be compensation, for them to be quiet about what? The prosecution, rightly or wrongly, were able to bring the case to fruition, of which the result has been scorned by many so why would anyone offer the family money to be quiet. One would have thought, as the family of the victim, they would have believed that justice has been done.

You say that by asking when this offer was made and by whom, the answers would be of no consequence (my word), then you are utterly wrong. To know these answers would help to bolster the allegations made. So you think you know the Thai legal system, I'd suggest you don't because I can assure the legal profession is well aware of what the word compensation means and that is the word they would have used if they had advised the family of their rights to seek the same

Yet she was specific that they were offered a bribe to be quiet. So if they are entitled to claim then wouldn't you think, that by being offered a bribe to be quiet, which is vastly different to compensation, that she would have brought this to the attention of the prosecution and ultimately, the court, not now but when it occurred,either during or after the case. To offer some one, as she described, a bribe, that is illegal and would constitute perverting the course of justice, even if you do not think so and would not be in any way an attempt to provide justice under the Thai system. Now it it was under the legal system of legitimate compensation then one would hardly expect her to describe the incident as an attempt to bribe. I would be surprised if this young woman did not know the difference between the words, Bribe and Compensation and was unable to use them in the correct context.

Of course she has brought it to the attention of others but apparently not those involved in the legal process of the trail, at least not until she allegedly released the FB page. If she felt so strongly and is afraid of some type of retribution, from whom, god only knows, then there are avenues open to her, such as police protection, yet she has not indicated she sought any assistance in that regard. And no, I do not think it is the right time to bring this up, it should have been done when it was first allegedly put to them and not when the matter is in all likelihood heading for an appeal.

.

And yes, It is sad that the family has suffered a loss, however, as I do not know them nor they me, therefore I am unable to offer suppor. Would you have someone do that for every death that occurs and there is no association. Yes, one can be sympathetic but that is where it ends.

Definitely a well constructed reply... And at day's end, I think we are of a similar belief... That there is a lot of confusion and doubt as to the guilty findings of the court

Perhaps, because I am lazy, I latched to the first quotation that I came across, suggesting that Laura's comments were unbelievable, and I apologies for that... But we both know that there are several people who have blatantly claimed that the girl is telling porkies.

That said, I have no recollection of calling anyone callouse, vile or filthy, though I have seen the words in the forum, as I have the claims that Laura is telling untruths, nor have I called you a liar, but instead said.... "if you think HER a liar". Suggesting these words were intended as an indictment on yourself, is unfair, or perhaps as lazy as I, in not reviewing thirty or forty pages pertaining to this matter ( mainly the former words)

Further, I do have a good grasp of the English language, and rarely, if ever, use words that I don't understand, and I do try to proof read my comments, in an attempt to make my points understood, which, unfortunately, leads to long discourses, such as this, which most TV readers are uninterested in, so suggesting otherwise is insulting...,something I would not do to anyone on this forum, as not all have the benifits of the same quality of education, and they should not be vilified for that, but encouraged to participate, because it may add a new dimension to the thread

For example... Hitherto unknown to me, the couple were seen in a heated argument with a person of influence on the island, a short time before the murders occurred. And they ( persons of influence) soon after, left the island on a fast boat

Laura's online statement specifically mentioned compensation... She did not say who the offer of compensation came from... Or to who exactly it was made to ( she may have simply witnessed the offer, and It may well have been through the proper channel, even if unknown to her)

To someone not exposed to bribes vs compensation, and from a different culture, speaking a different language, it is not unreasonable to suggest that she misinterpreted the offer, or when writing her Facebook page, simply through in that word, as that may have been how she felt about the offer

As to the answers of when the Facebook allegations were made, in the context that I was using, I stand by those words... If they can be demonstrated that they are true and correct, they could have been made yesterday... So... Again, the chronology matters not

Your argument about my knowledge of Thai law is unfounded, relying on one word.... That said, I will freely admit that I do have a lot to learn about Thai law... But then, I also have a lot to learn about Australian law, as I am not, nor have I insinuated, that I am a lawyer, so unless you yourself are a lawyer, I could make the same statement as you

And sympathy or empathy is "support" as is decrying the findings of the court ( more so) so we can all choose to offer the families support, if we so wish, and our "outrage?" Keeps the issue squarely in the worlds mind, perhaps leading to a more informed judgement by the courts

Given the length of this response, I would suggest that your accusation about me twisting your words are uncalled for, because in your post, you have done the same thing... Otherwise I would have had no reasonable reply

Cheers.

So firstly, thank you for the response and I acknowledge your thoughts. Sorry if my wording was not clear and out of context in regard to the name calling, I did not mean that you used those words, that there others who were responsible, so accept my appology for not offering more clarity. As for the liar bit, I know you did not call me such, but I needed to assure you that I had not or even alluded to it, and I had never thought it. It is not an offence to ask for something to be substantiated so I find it quite perplexing that some on here have gone over the top with their ungracious remarks when responding. Again, not making mention to yourself.

As for the Thai legal system, I wasn't only relying on one word, I was also referring to where you initially stated that it was Thai practise to offer compensation. As this is not correct, especially in such matters. I listed the relevant compensation act that is applicable. I then added that Thais do have an understanding of words so if anyone was discussing that with the woman then this word they would use. So, it was in this vain that I was doubtful of someone having offered her anything, especially to be quiet; to be quiet about what? I know there is a practise in certain matters, more so serious traffic offences that compensation is offered not to proceed to trail but not so in murder cases.

Now again, I am not calling her a liar or not saying something didn't happen but taking all the givens into consideration, unless it can be substantitated, than I must remain tentative in my thinking. And no, I am not a lawyer but with 30 years of experience in law enforcment and within the court system of NSW, I believe I have a good understanding of the criminal law and the procedures involved

In addition, having read up on certain aspects of the Thai criminal and civil law, and being currently involved, as the prosecutor, in a criminal and civil case, I have noted that the procedures although not identical, are similar to NSW law in the way they are presented to a court. When I say as prosecutor, under Thai law, if one brings a case against another, without involving the police, they are listed as the prosecutor, but of course there are lawyers from both sides involved and they are the ones who do all the work, bring the matter to trail and carry out all the obligatory actions that a lawyer is responsible for.

In conclusion, there are some things that we will agree to disagree on but overall we probably are of a similar vain but I have no hesitation in saying that anyone can say anything and unless it can ber substantiated (verified) then it balls down to just being hearsay. In so far as family members being reliable witnesses and offering corroboration, yes it can be done but again, if it is relevant and in conflict with what others have said, then the allegations along with their corroboration needs to be tested. If it cannot not then it remains unfounded.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Si Thea01

dageurreotype · January 17, 2016

Ahh its a crazy old world.

When considering the truth of what Laura said one should consider the reasons she said it. What has she to gain by saying it. Nothing. But she has put herself in harms way by saying it. So it is not self serving.

It is quite telling that some, well a very few, latched onto the millers statement as proof of a good and proper trial as the Millers, being a family involved, were privvy to special information that us normal public were not.

But when the witheridges have had the same access and information accuse those that are supposedly trying to bring them closure, that same very few decide that as it doesnt fit with their blinkered view so witheridges accusations and comments deserve no respect at all.

One could use logic and determine that instead of being open to find the truth that those very limited few have an agenda and have no interest whatsoever in the truth.

If it'd been my sister, I'd have done exactly as Laura did. In SPADES.

metisdead · January 17, 2016

Some nonsense posts and replies 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.

jaywalker · January 17, 2016

That's not a rumor then, Thais tried to bribe one family of a murder victim, scandalous.

Of course it's rumour, an unsubstantiated statement from a family member. As she stated, "so what if I told you." Well what if she told someone, she could tell any one a number of things and because she said it occurred, you're suggesting that it gives credence to the allegations she raised?

The 'unsubstantiated statement' is how the BIB got DNA test results in 12 hours.

I don't know how we've come to this but if you must go off on a tangent than do so but the so called collection and testing has nothing do do with an unsubstantiated statement. DNA testing is based on forensics and depending on tthe Lab, can take 3 to 5 days, not 12 hours and is then reported on. What happened here is beyond the pale, so what's your point in using this as a comparison?

What if I told you I have been shaken down numerous times for bribes over a 17 year period just because I am not a local?

What if I told you that?

Driving in the inside (or outside) lane, speeding a cop actually had enough English to tell me I was going 126 kph in a 125 kph zone once... 200 baht.

What if I told you that my wife got dinged for 10,000 baht over a traffic accident where the motorcycle hit her, going in the wrong lane, with no license and no insurance? Our insurance paid his hospital bill, but the cops demanded 10,000 baht because her last name was a farang name.

What if I told you I believe the British lady?

What if I told you I had to give the cops 10,000 baht?

What if, what if?

Si Thea01 · January 17, 2016

jaywalker

Quote>"What if I told you I have been shaken down numerous times for bribes over a 17 year period just because I am not a local?

What if I told you that?

Driving in the inside (or outside) lane, speeding a cop actually had enough English to tell me I was going 126 kph in a 125 kph zone once... 200 baht.

What if I told you that my wife got dinged for 10,000 baht over a traffic accident where the motorcycle hit her, going in the wrong lane, with no license and no insurance? Our insurance paid his hospital bill, but the cops demanded 10,000 baht because her last name was a farang name.

What if I told you I believe the British lady?

What if I told you I had to give the cops 10,000 baht?

What if, what if?"<End quote

Suppositional questions, may well be true even though you do not have proof. What are you trying to prove, that you're the "What if Kid?" You can believe who you like, your perogative.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Si Thea01

Linky · January 17, 2016

jaywalker

Quote>"What if I told you I have been shaken down numerous times for bribes over a 17 year period just because I am not a local?

What if I told you that?

Driving in the inside (or outside) lane, speeding a cop actually had enough English to tell me I was going 126 kph in a 125 kph zone once... 200 baht.

What if I told you that my wife got dinged for 10,000 baht over a traffic accident where the motorcycle hit her, going in the wrong lane, with no license and no insurance? Our insurance paid his hospital bill, but the cops demanded 10,000 baht because her last name was a farang name.

What if I told you I believe the British lady?

What if I told you I had to give the cops 10,000 baht?

What if, what if?"<End quote

Suppositional questions, may well be true even though you do not have proof. What are you trying to prove, that you're the "What if Kid?" You can believe who you like, your perogative.

But you believe unsubstantiated comments and statements when it suits you.

Si Thea01 · January 17, 2016

jaywalker

Quote>"What if I told you I have been shaken down numerous times for bribes over a 17 year period just because I am not a local?

What if I told you that?

Driving in the inside (or outside) lane, speeding a cop actually had enough English to tell me I was going 126 kph in a 125 kph zone once... 200 baht.

What if I told you that my wife got dinged for 10,000 baht over a traffic accident where the motorcycle hit her, going in the wrong lane, with no license and no insurance? Our insurance paid his hospital bill, but the cops demanded 10,000 baht because her last name was a farang name.

What if I told you I believe the British lady?

What if I told you I had to give the cops 10,000 baht?

What if, what if?"<End quote

Suppositional questions, may well be true even though you do not have proof. What are you trying to prove, that you're the "What if Kid?" You can believe who you like, your perogative.

But you believe unsubstantiated comments and statements when it suits you.

Do I, and such as?

DJVillain · January 17, 2016

Over the past couple of days, in open forum, I have asked what a troll and a shill is/ are

I now know the simple answer... Lucky 11... Hey.... How much does a shill make?

You've given me two likes now. Can I conclude from that, that I'm not such a bad shill after all?

I think that I'll try to put my points over in a little less of a confrontational manner in the future as I don't want to come over as being 'all nasty'.

I shall still fight my corner though!! Whether it is against Yingluck or on the Koh Tao threads. I don't think you'd expect any different of me in this respect.

Some people have called you a shill, an RTP apologist etc etc.

I wont though...

I will call you what any self respecting British person would...

You're a <deleted>!

SamuiLoner · January 17, 2016

Hey guys, there's no point arguing over who twisted words and its irrelevant about who’s telling lies right now.

The fact of the matter is Laura W, is attacking the Thai Police and the Thai Authorities. Let's make it clear, she is NOT attacking the B2 who have been convicted of the rape and murder of her sister. Her statements are very brave and bold. Considering the RTP have supposedly got the right culprits, I wonder why these statements are being made now. Is there new information about to be revealed..?

Colabamumbai · January 17, 2016

Why don't we all inspect the police, to see if they violate any laws.

farcanell · January 17, 2016

Not side stepping anything old fella. A rumour is a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts: As for unsubstantiated, it means something that is not supported or proven by evidence. So pray tell, how do you come to the conclusion that what I wrote implies (strongly) that it did not happen. So if one asks for something to be substantiated that is, to provide evidence to support or prove the truth of, then according to many on here, including yourself, it is an act of being callous, or in one case, vile and filthy and how dare one ask for it to be confirmed. Please do not twist the meaning of what I wrote and at least know what words mean before you criticise.

I do not have to beat around the bush and imply or allude to, assume or even make things up, I would come straight out and say if I did not believe her. Just understand, if you are able to, what I have said, as it in no way suggets what you have stated. And please do not use the word (liar) as I have not called anyone that nor alluded to it.

As for someone whom I do not know, telling me something, such as you outline, I think it would be highly unlikely to occur, so what answer would you like me to give? If it was a close associate, then I would accept it at face value but would still expect it to be substantiated. To allege something such as this, is a serious matter and not something to be scoffed at or have someone else offer an explanation as to why she may have erred in her FB post. You're only speculating, as most on here are also doing and that does not make it right.

I don't think you are quite right about an offer of compensation in Thailand either. Most people are not aware but there is actually, under the Thai criminal justice system, the Victim Compensation and Restitution for the Accused Person Act and it has been in force for about 12 years. This can only be paid to the parents or next of kin of the victim and is not offered, it has to be applied for. It is also handled through the prosecutors.

Now you are telling me she may have misinterpreted what was said, instead of being offered a bribe, it was meant to be compensation, for them to be quiet about what? The prosecution, rightly or wrongly, were able to bring the case to fruition, of which the result has been scorned by many so why would anyone offer the family money to be quiet. One would have thought, as the family of the victim, they would have believed that justice has been done.

You say that by asking when this offer was made and by whom, the answers would be of no consequence (my word), then you are utterly wrong. To know these answers would help to bolster the allegations made. So you think you know the Thai legal system, I'd suggest you don't because I can assure the legal profession is well aware of what the word compensation means and that is the word they would have used if they had advised the family of their rights to seek the same

Yet she was specific that they were offered a bribe to be quiet. So if they are entitled to claim then wouldn't you think, that by being offered a bribe to be quiet, which is vastly different to compensation, that she would have brought this to the attention of the prosecution and ultimately, the court, not now but when it occurred,either during or after the case. To offer some one, as she described, a bribe, that is illegal and would constitute perverting the course of justice, even if you do not think so and would not be in any way an attempt to provide justice under the Thai system. Now it it was under the legal system of legitimate compensation then one would hardly expect her to describe the incident as an attempt to bribe. I would be surprised if this young woman did not know the difference between the words, Bribe and Compensation and was unable to use them in the correct context.

Of course she has brought it to the attention of others but apparently not those involved in the legal process of the trail, at least not until she allegedly released the FB page. If she felt so strongly and is afraid of some type of retribution, from whom, god only knows, then there are avenues open to her, such as police protection, yet she has not indicated she sought any assistance in that regard. And no, I do not think it is the right time to bring this up, it should have been done when it was first allegedly put to them and not when the matter is in all likelihood heading for an appeal.

.

And yes, It is sad that the family has suffered a loss, however, as I do not know them nor they me, therefore I am unable to offer suppor. Would you have someone do that for every death that occurs and there is no association. Yes, one can be sympathetic but that is where it ends.