Lawyers Council to appeal Koh Tao convicts’ death sentence

[rockingrobin]

It amazes me the amount of humanitarian agencies and individuals, that use the b2 case as a means to promote their cause and drum up donations.

This case is not about human rights. It is about 2 brutally murdered British citizens and the guilt or innocence of the 2 accused. People on the forum, should stay focused.

Can you clarify Muang Muang shoe being at the crime scene

[greenchair]

It amazes me the amount of humanitarian agencies and individuals, that use the b2 case as a means to promote their cause and drum up donations.

This case is not about human rights. It is about 2 brutally murdered British citizens and the guilt or innocence of the 2 accused. People on the forum, should stay focused.

An unnecessary cheap shot at people trying to help these men to give them access to rights that every human being on this planet is entitled to.

You are a disgrace .

Isn't there a rule about sticking to comments about the topic and not making abusive remarks attacking forum users, that are perfectly entitled to have their own useful contributions.

[glenmohr]

It amazes me the amount of humanitarian agencies and individuals, that use the b2 case as a means to promote their cause and drum up donations.

This case is not about human rights. It is about 2 brutally murdered British citizens and the guilt or innocence of the 2 accused. People on the forum, should stay focused.

I can tell you Mr Armchair that we are all very focused, particularly from a humanitarian perspective.

[PaPiPuPePo]

Ian's a solicitor I think, who specializes in humanitarian work, so an obvious target for trolls on here

http://www.imprintsolutionsltd.com/ian-yarwood/product-7.htm

Troll this and troll that. Don't you ever get tired of using that troll pejorative Mr. 3-week member?

Its quite difficult to think otherwise when all you seem concerned with is whether someone is a barrister and/or solicitor or feign concern one of the world's most emminent dna specialist may give a lecture.

Kind of paints yourself into that tight corner when you are on about those things instead of the topic at hand.

There is over-use of that word, not to say it isn't accurate in at least a couple of cases.

OTOH, your comment Scorcher is also accurate and the example you cite is hardly the most egregious example, added to which are a lot of vagueness, apparent insinuations, inappropriate "wit," and so on which I found indigestible after a while, hence.....

[glenmohr]

It amazes me the amount of humanitarian agencies and individuals, that use the b2 case as a means to promote their cause and drum up donations.

This case is not about human rights. It is about 2 brutally murdered British citizens and the guilt or innocence of the 2 accused. People on the forum, should stay focused.

An unnecessary cheap shot at people trying to help these men to give them access to rights that every human being on this planet is entitled to.

You are a disgrace .

Isn't there a rule about sticking to comments about the topic and not making abusive remarks attacking forum users, that are perfectly entitled to have their own useful contributions.

Yes Greenchair but you spoiled it by using the words " Useful contributions" Castigating human rights organisations is disgraceful conduct. Need I point out once more that all the defenders of justice in this tragic affair are digging deep into their own pockets, whereas the supporters of the so called Koh Tao thugs are showing no evidence of doing likewise.

[greenchair]

It amazes me the amount of humanitarian agencies and individuals, that use the b2 case as a means to promote their cause and drum up donations.

This case is not about human rights. It is about 2 brutally murdered British citizens and the guilt or innocence of the 2 accused. People on the forum, should stay focused.

I can tell you Mr Armchair that we are all very focused, particularly from a humanitarian perspective.

Well, you would be since

A.you were not able to provide a reasonable defense based on the crime and evidence that should have been challenged.

And

B. Using the humanitarian card, means that funds that have given to support the b2 can be used in other places so to speak.

[greenchair]

It amazes me the amount of humanitarian agencies and individuals, that use the b2 case as a means to promote their cause and drum up donations.

This case is not about human rights. It is about 2 brutally murdered British citizens and the guilt or innocence of the 2 accused. People on the forum, should stay focused.

An unnecessary cheap shot at people trying to help these men to give them access to rights that every human being on this planet is entitled to.

You are a disgrace .

Isn't there a rule about sticking to comments about the topic and not making abusive remarks attacking forum users, that are perfectly entitled to have their own useful contributions.

Yes Greenchair but you spoiled it by using the words " Useful contributions" Castigating human rights organisations is disgraceful conduct. Need I point out once more that all the defenders of justice in this tragic affair are digging deep into their own pockets, whereas the supporters of the so called Koh Tao thugs are showing no evidence of doing likewise.

That is exactly my point. Many of us did donate to the b2. We were told there will need to be witnesses flown in from all around the globe. Experts in dna, experts in gaet analysis, all manner of tests and investigating would need to be funded. More than 2 million baht was given to those b2. Call me disgraceful.

Here's disgraceful.

The dna expert paid her own air fare and contributed all of her time for free.

There were no witnesses that might have helped flown in.

All of the lawyers were free.

The person that could have testified about gaet analysis, wasn't even at court.

How much of that 2 million actually went towards the b2 getting witnesses and experts flown. NOTHING.

Now that's disgraceful.

[boomerangutang]

It amazes me the amount of humanitarian agencies and individuals, that use the b2 case as a means to promote their cause and drum up donations.

This case is not about human rights. It is about 2 brutally murdered British citizens and the guilt or innocence of the 2 accused. People on the forum, should stay focused.

This case touches on many issues. Here are a few:

>>> RTP showing the world how inept and unprofessional they can be

>>> Thai officialdom showing how stratified justice is: Rich + well connected = untouchable. Poor + powerless = scapegoats.

>>> Thailand's top cop can unabashedly lie. Just one of many examples: "No DNA was used up, and nothing was lost." Direct quote from him, summer last year.

>>> Some privileged people can defy the law with no repercussions. Just one of many examples: Mon not handing over potentially crucial CCTV data.

>>> Police can claim, straight-faced in a Thai court, that they did not think it important to look at potentially crucial data: One of many examples: them not looking at CCTV near the shore - soon after the murder.

>>> The PM's mindset: essentially saying pretty women in bikinis should not be surprised if bad things happen.

>>> At least one policeman's overview: "A Thai person could not have done this crime."

>>> Potentially crucial evidence was lost or never mentioned: Some examples: Hannah's clothing and the bottle at the crime scene.

As Khun Han mentioned earlier, regardless of whatever added twists and turns of this case, a couple of key impressions will stick in the minds of concerned farang around the world; Thai crime investigators are inept and frame-ups are tolerated. This case is abysmal for Thailand's ww reputation.

How can you prove an alibi when a Thai official release a statement , or DNA results. If they did we would still hear allegations about it had been faked. Since you are not willing to believe a word of what RTP tells you it's almost impossible to prove anything,

We are hearing allegations the alibi has been faked. Not just those of us seeking truth and justice, but also the head investigative cop. He stated in court that he wasn't sure whether NS's DNA was ever typed or compared to anything. As for believing RTP: I can believe most of what they were putting forth in the initial days after the crime, when the team was headed by Panya. He was a bumbler, but at least he was following some leads which were pointing at the real culprits. When Somyot pulled rank and put himself in charge (and told Panya to take a promotion, a Bkk desk job, and keep his mouth forever shut), the whole investigation galvanized toward two goals: 1. Nail Burmese migrants, and 2. Don't even mention anyone connected to the Headman - not his family members nor any of Mon's island buddies.

Edited February 1, 2016 by boomerangutang

[rockingrobin]

Greenchair posted

'That is exactly my point. Many of us did donate to the b2. We were told there will need to be witnesses flown in from all around the globe. Experts in dna, experts in gaet analysis, all manner of tests and investigating would need to be funded. More than 2 million baht was given to those b2. Call me disgraceful.

Here's disgraceful.

The dna expert paid her own air fare and contributed all of her time for free.

There were no witnesses that might have helped flown in.

All of the lawyers were free.

The person that could have testified about gaet analysis, wasn't even at court.

How much of that 2 million actually went towards the b2 getting witnesses and experts flown. NOTHING. '

GC

If i remember correctly back in Oct 2014 you were of the opinion the B2 were guilty or at least complicit and as such you would not donate to their cause

Robin, I fought fiercely against aleg and many others believing the b2 innocent. Then I wavered for a short time when I found out.

A.they went for a swim in the early hours.

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Then after listening to posters, that a swim was nothing unusual.

And being left unsure about the shoe .I again defended the b2.

I certainly did donate to them , with the intention they would get the best experts and criminal lawyers . what did we get. Human rights lawyers going on about torture. No defense of the case. No experts, no magic witnesses, I feel, guilty or innocent, those boys were robbed.

GC to claim you wavered is just not true , once the B2 had been arrested your opinion was one of guilt or complicity, and you stated that you would not donate to their cause.

I will have to accept that you did contribute but will have reservations due to an earlier post stating you would not.

Your knowlege of the shoe again leaves me confused , as you now state it was bloodied , I have no knowledge of the unidentified shoe being bloodied

You then go on to state 'No defense of the case. No experts, no magic witnesses, I feel, guilty or innocent, those boys were robbed.'

But are a willing supporter to see them condemned not on the bassis of guilty or innocence , but on your own feelings of being cheated

[jayjay78]

Greenchair posted

'That is exactly my point. Many of us did donate to the b2. We were told there will need to be witnesses flown in from all around the globe. Experts in dna, experts in gaet analysis, all manner of tests and investigating would need to be funded. More than 2 million baht was given to those b2. Call me disgraceful.

Here's disgraceful.

The dna expert paid her own air fare and contributed all of her time for free.

There were no witnesses that might have helped flown in.

All of the lawyers were free.

The person that could have testified about gaet analysis, wasn't even at court.

How much of that 2 million actually went towards the b2 getting witnesses and experts flown. NOTHING. '

GC

If i remember correctly back in Oct 2014 you were of the opinion the B2 were guilty or at least complicit and as such you would not donate to their cause

Robin, I fought fiercely against aleg and many others believing the b2 innocent. Then I wavered for a short time when I found out.

A.they went for a swim in the early hours.

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Then after listening to posters, that a swim was nothing unusual.

And being left unsure about the shoe .I again defended the b2.

I certainly did donate to them , with the intention they would get the best experts and criminal lawyers . what did we get. Human rights lawyers going on about torture. No defense of the case. No experts, no magic witnesses, I feel, guilty or innocent, those boys were robbed.

G.C. The defense would have won that case hands down, laughed out of court in any developed country. It did not happen in Thailand and in my opinion that says all there is to say about the Thai Justice system. Were there mistakes made by the defense, possibly. But not as many as made by the prosecution who were showing just how unprepared they were, "don't know" contradictions, lies and cover ups and even with that still won. Thats without even going into the lack of international standard DNA results

[iReason]

Pol Lt-Colonel Somsak Noorod who led the original investigation:

"There's nothing left. It was all used up when we tested the first time," he was quoted as saying. (In court)

“Meanwhile: "National police chief Pol General Somyot dismissed reports that the DNA evidence in the case could not be re-tested as some of it had either been "used up" or lost.”

"This report may have resulted from a mistranslation of the officer's statement," Somyot said, adding that maybe the officer wanted to say that the evidence had been handed over to the Institute of Forensic Medicine after the investigation finished”

"We still have specific DNA samples from the hoe," he said, without elaborating.

Really?

And where is it?

http://www.nationmul...f-30264238.html

Edited February 1, 2016 by iReason

[greenchair]

Oh rubbish rockin Robin. Go through my posts, me, you cat and dog, boomy and chilli were always defending them. I changed my mind when andy hall popped up on my fb on the last day of trial .people were freaking out because they found the b2 did indeed have David's phone.

Andies mate lawyer then tried to spin some bs. This is not about guilt or innocence lawyer crop.and andy is going on about their rights and don't worry about the phone crop. A lot of supporters changed on that day. Not only me.

[metisdead]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension. Digging through other member's posts and bringing them up on the forum can be considered stalking and it is against the forum rules.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

[catsanddogs]

Greenchair posted

'That is exactly my point. Many of us did donate to the b2. We were told there will need to be witnesses flown in from all around the globe. Experts in dna, experts in gaet analysis, all manner of tests and investigating would need to be funded. More than 2 million baht was given to those b2. Call me disgraceful.

Here's disgraceful.

The dna expert paid her own air fare and contributed all of her time for free.

There were no witnesses that might have helped flown in.

All of the lawyers were free.

The person that could have testified about gaet analysis, wasn't even at court.

How much of that 2 million actually went towards the b2 getting witnesses and experts flown. NOTHING. '

GC

If i remember correctly back in Oct 2014 you were of the opinion the B2 were guilty or at least complicit and as such you would not donate to their cause

Robin, I fought fiercely against aleg and many others believing the b2 innocent. Then I wavered for a short time when I found out.

A.they went for a swim in the early hours.

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Then after listening to posters, that a swim was nothing unusual.

And being left unsure about the shoe .I again defended the b2.

I certainly did donate to them , with the intention they would get the best experts and criminal lawyers . what did we get. Human rights lawyers going on about torture. No defense of the case. No experts, no magic witnesses, I feel, guilty or innocent, those boys were robbed.

the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Could you post a link for this please? Never heard that the shoe found was bloodied.

[greenchair]

The picture of the shoe disappeared. Lynn Taylor saw it. It was on andy fb page. Then disappeared. she searched for it so did I.

[iReason]

^^^^

Right.

Disappeared like a lot of "evidence".

And no published story about it either. Anywhere.

So, just hearsay.

Along with another poster who claims he has an NGO.

Haven't seen any proof of that either.

P.S. Anyone have a spin on Somyot's statement?:

"We still have specific DNA samples from the hoe," he said, without elaborating.

Edited February 1, 2016 by iReason

[JLCrab]

<snip>

So, just hearsay.

Along with another poster who claims he has an NGO.

Haven't seen any proof of that either.

<snip>

... and you're not going to get any proof. I did that once on ThaiVisa and will not make that mistake again. All I will say is that it is related to libraries.

Edited February 1, 2016 by JLCrab

[greenchair]

Andy hall (bless him) and his team, have done their fair share of covering up and withholding information also.

[boomerangutang]

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Catsanddogs beat me to it, but I also need to ask; what's this about a bloody shoe? If so, who's blood was on it? Was it a shoe or a flip-flop? If you're going to introduce evidence into the conversation, you're going to have to back it up with more than something like, "I heard about it, or saw a photo while ago, and......." If you use that sort of reasoning, you put yourself on the hearsay level of the RTP (re; DNA).

[jimmybkk]

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Catsanddogs beat me to it, but I also need to ask; what's this about a bloody shoe? If so, who's blood was on it? Was it a shoe or a flip-flop? If you're going to introduce evidence into the conversation, you're going to have to back it up with more than something like, "I heard about it, or saw a photo while ago, and......." If you use that sort of reasoning, you put yourself on the hearsay level of the RTP (re; DNA).

Do you really need to ask Boomer? It was a jandal of course...

[iReason]

"Andy hall (bless him) and his team, have done their fair share of covering up and withholding information also."

What on earth does that have to do with being caught out making completely unsubstantiated claims such as these? :

"the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found."

"The picture of the shoe disappeared. Lynn Taylor saw it. It was on andy fb page. Then disappeared. she searched for it so did I"

A Classic example of misdirection and deflection.

While continuing on a bizarre, baseless crusade of character assassination.

Deplorable.

Edited February 2, 2016 by iReason

[greenchair]

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Catsanddogs beat me to it, but I also need to ask; what's this about a bloody shoe? If so, who's blood was on it? Was it a shoe or a flip-flop? If you're going to introduce evidence into the conversation, you're going to have to back it up with more than something like, "I heard about it, or saw a photo while ago, and......." If you use that sort of reasoning, you put yourself on the hearsay level of the RTP (re; DNA).

Do you really need to ask Boomer? It was a jandal of course...

No, no it was a flipflop.

Ask andy, I'm sure he's seen that picture.

[greenchair]

So let's look at the swim shall we.

Apparently, it was a cold night.

We know that because mm borrowed wp long sleeved shirt because he was cold.

We know that it was raining, because wp himself said it was raining at the time.

So in the cold rain they just decided to jump in the water with all of their clothes on.

Wp, did not wear a shirt because he did not want to get his friend (MM) SHIRT bless and sweetNess. I thought that when they mentioned clothes stolen, it was all of their clothes. But apparently it was only the tshirt of mm that went missing.

Is that correct? ??

[DM07]

"So let's look at the swim shall we.

Apparently, it was a cold night.

We know that because mm borrowed wp long sleeved shirt because he was cold.

We know that it was raining, because wp himself said it was raining at the time.

So in the cold rain they just decided to jump in the water with all of their clothes on.

Wp, did not wear a shirt because he did not want to get his friend (MM) SHIRT bless and sweetNess. I thought that when they mentioned clothes stolen, it was all of their clothes. But apparently it was only the tshirt of mm that went missing.

Is that correct? ??"

No- let's not look at it (again...and again...and again...)!

If anyone is seriously thinking about answering this BS (again...and again...and again...)- please, don't!

Let's get this Troll starving, for forks sake!

I really can't read it anymore!

"But it was raining!"

"But why did they go for a swim?"

"But how?"
"But what?"

There is a Louis CK- number about children, asking the question" Why?" and how you -as an adult- can never win in a situation like that!

Be an adult and don't answer any of these stupid, childish questions, that have been either a) answered 100 times over or b ) for which there is no conclusive answer, anyways!

Jeeeeeeezzzzzuuuuuusss, Almighty!

[catsanddogs]

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Catsanddogs beat me to it, but I also need to ask; what's this about a bloody shoe? If so, who's blood was on it? Was it a shoe or a flip-flop? If you're going to introduce evidence into the conversation, you're going to have to back it up with more than something like, "I heard about it, or saw a photo while ago, and......." If you use that sort of reasoning, you put yourself on the hearsay level of the RTP (re; DNA).

Do you really need to ask Boomer? It was a jandal of course...

Yes, the 'jandal' was what Greenchair was talking about non stop last year. He/she was insistent that Maung Maung was only wearing one shoe in the CCTV footage and this was discussed to death.

From what I have seen there were two shoes that could/can be seen on photographs. One shoe that was under the tree where the the hoe was supposedly originally found (the tree with blood on the bark at the base) and another shoe on the beach at the crime scene. This shoe in close up looks very much like the ones worn by Matt Barratt on the evening/morning. I have no knowledge of a bloody shoe, like most on here I imagine.

[jayjay78]

Steering back on topic after all this bloody jandal, lets face it if there had of been one and it contained the blood of one of the B2 or MM, then it would have been used as evidence against them, but seeing as its vanished we can safely assume it didn't or if it did the blood belonged to someone else and so did not fit the prosecution script.

Ian Yarwood tweeted today that after a discussion with ILAC, a compliant is going to be lodged with the body in Thailand that sanctioned the ILAC accreditation for ISO standard DNA testing.

This is vital so that when this case reaches appeal the judges will see that it has already been raised as an official complaint with the authorized body

[iReason]

So, no one from the Hang 'em High crew wants to address this one?

Police Chief Somyot's quote?

You know the guy, the one who felt compelled to continually correct his investigators in the press?

"We still have specific DNA samples from the hoe," he said, without elaborating.

Specific. Sounds pretty definitive.

http://www.nationmul...f-30264238.html

Edited February 2, 2016 by iReason

[catsanddogs]

Steering back on topic after all this bloody jandal, lets face it if there had of been one and it contained the blood of one of the B2 or MM, then it would have been used as evidence against them, but seeing as its vanished we can safely assume it didn't or if it did the blood belonged to someone else and so did not fit the prosecution script.

Ian Yarwood tweeted today that after a discussion with ILAC, a compliant is going to be lodged with the body in Thailand that sanctioned the ILAC accreditation for ISO standard DNA testing.

This is vital so that when this case reaches appeal the judges will see that it has already been raised as an official complaint with the authorized body

That's good news. Thanks for that JJ.

[boomerangutang]

So, no one from the Hang 'em High crew wants to address this one?

Police Chief Somyot's quote?

You know the guy, the one who felt compelled to continually correct his investigators in the press?

"We still have specific DNA samples from the hoe," he said, without elaborating.

Specific. Sounds pretty definitive.

http://www.nationmul...f-30264238.html

Somyot is like Thaksin. To ascertain the veracity of anything he declares, simply turn it 180 degrees to get the truth.

[greenchair]

B.the shoe (that I thought was mm) was left bloodied at site where the hoe was found.

Catsanddogs beat me to it, but I also need to ask; what's this about a bloody shoe? If so, who's blood was on it? Was it a shoe or a flip-flop? If you're going to introduce evidence into the conversation, you're going to have to back it up with more than something like, "I heard about it, or saw a photo while ago, and......." If you use that sort of reasoning, you put yourself on the hearsay level of the RTP (re; DNA).

Do you really need to ask Boomer? It was a jandal of course...

Yes, the 'jandal' was what Greenchair was talking about non stop last year. He/she was insistent that Maung Maung was only wearing one shoe in the CCTV footage and this was discussed to death.

From what I have seen there were two shoes that could/can be seen on photographs. One shoe that was under the tree where the the hoe was supposedly originally found (the tree with blood on the bark at the base) and another shoe on the beach at the crime scene. This shoe in close up looks very much like the ones worn by Matt Barratt on the evening/morning. I have no knowledge of a bloody shoe, like most on here I imagine.

That's the one I'm talking about.

See. There was a jandal (not shoe) under the tree, where the hoe was found. And that belonged to I thought mm. But apparently it belonged to wp. Anyway, what the hell, it belongedto one of them and they went back at 5 am to retrieve it.

So, as I have said.

They had belongings of the victim in their possession.

They left their belongings at the crime scene, or at least right next to the murder weapon.

If that doesn't raise a flag for you lot, weeeellll.