Lawyers appeal against death sentences over murder of British tourists in Thailand

[bannork]

Khun Han, Parents don't want to accept their children have died because of their own excesses and abuse of alcohol and substances . it's natural- ' My boy/ girl couldn't have done that' - especially when it's public news, it's shameful.

Jean was suffering from various ailments as you well know, especially from his diving, are you suggesting the 'Koh Tao mafia ' were lying in wait in Surat, knowing he would leave the ferry moments before the departure to buy cigarettes??

Every death has a litany of excuses. Every possible excuse jumped all over and done to death. But when these deaths are looked into by anyone with intelligence and integrity, the investigations and official conclusions never quite add up. Though it's not as though this fabulously rich and well connected and organised mafia are going to advertise their 'accomplishments', is it? Isn't it bizarre and desperately unlucky for such a small island to have so many strange deaths connected to it in such a relatively short space of time? It must be one of the unluckiest islands in the history of the world in that respect.

I suppose you put Kirsty Jones's mother in the "my girl couldn't have done that" catergory? A case, by the way, that echoes this one in many respects.

It's not bizarre at all to have people die of either overdoses or misadventure when they're abusing substances and alcohol I'm surprised more don't die but then when young, people have strong constitutions. .

What on earth has the Kirsty Jones case got to do with the deaths of David and Hannah?

It was a police cover up, in which they tried to create a scapegoat with fake evidence in order to protect the well-connected real murderer. Much the same as this case. I believe the UK police have since named the real murderer aftet doing their own investigations after Kirsty's mum ran a campaign for them to do so.

Thai police have done bugger all about the UK police findings in the Kirsty Jones case, so it's understandable if the UK police feel that they are wasting their time and resources going any further than the observer visit that resulted from the public petition raised.

I remember stories of them going around Chiang Mai trying to get a sperm sample (from a lady boy if i remember correctly) to plant in Kirsty to hide the true rapist and killer, suspected to be a high ranking policeman. .Cover-ups don't only affect farangs of course, the vast majority affect Thais- the Red Bull case for example where the police tried to get a servant/driver in the house to take the rap instead of the killer grandson

But i take issue with your assumption this case is necessarily the same and that the UK police will 'feel they are wasting their time' in going any further than an observer position. This case has generated widespread media interest in the UK from the time of the murders, it's hard to believe the UK police will remain silent if they really have some evidence 'of interest'.

[DiscoDan]

^greenchair?

No its not green chair a believe the fruitloop is an American women she has admitted on Her FB that she went to the pre trial with Andy Hall his parents and a group of women another english women has also admitted going not sure who the others are though.

[ianf]

See. They will fight on the technicalies of the case.

The new mantra.

Maybe they are innocent.

Maybe they are guilty.

It doesn't matter ☺☺

Protocol was not followed.

Bullshit.

Guilty as sin. even their own lawyers don't shout their innocence anymore.

Would like to see the death sentence overturned. Other than that, right where they should be.

Greenchair: "Guilty as sin". You don't know a thing do you?

At worst I would say: Too much doubt to convict.

At best I would say: Innocent as the day they were born.

And the buggers who perpetrated this crime are running free to do it again. That's the tragedy.

[StealthEnergiser]

Why not david? ??

What stands out for me is why are the defense no longer whining on about getting dna from UK. Could it be the end of the road for them?

Could it be they know exactly what would be in a dna report?

Is it possible that the UK does in fact have dna from hannah ?

What a pity thailand has a death sentence. Who knows what little gems they have on this case.

I think they didn't realize I was being sarcastic when I said there was no chance the western couple Maung Maung saw could be Hannah and David.

So seems they are not contesting that the dna matches.

So they will have to explain how it is possible to do a dna test incorrectly and still manage to get 2 matches from a mixed dna sample.

What do you mean not contesting the match?

The evidence presented to the court said their profiles matched I have not seen the defense claim they don't so in the appeal they will only be able to contest how dna was collected tested etc. but not the fact that even after all these mistakes they have meant to have made they still came up with a match.

Do you understand what Robin has explained to you?

"If they are contesting how the dna was tested , then it follows that the result of the contested testing is being challenged."

[rockingrobin]

Why not david? ??

What stands out for me is why are the defense no longer whining on about getting dna from UK. Could it be the end of the road for them?

Could it be they know exactly what would be in a dna report?

Is it possible that the UK does in fact have dna from hannah ?

What a pity thailand has a death sentence. Who knows what little gems they have on this case.

I think they didn't realize I was being sarcastic when I said there was no chance the western couple Maung Maung saw could be Hannah and David.

So seems they are not contesting that the dna matches.

So they will have to explain how it is possible to do a dna test incorrectly and still manage to get 2 matches from a mixed dna sample.

DiscoDan

MM statement about a western couple , like Greenchair I dont understand whu iy cannot be David and Hannah

[DiscoDan]

Why not david? ??

What stands out for me is why are the defense no longer whining on about getting dna from UK. Could it be the end of the road for them?

Could it be they know exactly what would be in a dna report?

Is it possible that the UK does in fact have dna from hannah ?

What a pity thailand has a death sentence. Who knows what little gems they have on this case.

I think they didn't realize I was being sarcastic when I said there was no chance the western couple Maung Maung saw could be Hannah and David.

So seems they are not contesting that the dna matches.

So they will have to explain how it is possible to do a dna test incorrectly and still manage to get 2 matches from a mixed dna sample.

DiscoDan

MM statement about a western couple , like Greenchair I dont understand whu iy cannot be David and Hannah

I was being sarcastic there is a good chance it was Hannah and David

[Khun Han]

^greenchair?

No its not green chair a believe the fruitloop is an American women she has admitted on Her FB that she went to the pre trial with Andy Hall his parents and a group of women another english women has also admitted going not sure who the others are though.

Not Christy Sweet?

[rockingrobin]

Why not david? ??

What stands out for me is why are the defense no longer whining on about getting dna from UK. Could it be the end of the road for them?

Could it be they know exactly what would be in a dna report?

Is it possible that the UK does in fact have dna from hannah ?

What a pity thailand has a death sentence. Who knows what little gems they have on this case.

I think they didn't realize I was being sarcastic when I said there was no chance the western couple Maung Maung saw could be Hannah and David.

So seems they are not contesting that the dna matches.

So they will have to explain how it is possible to do a dna test incorrectly and still manage to get 2 matches from a mixed dna sample.

DiscoDan

MM statement about a western couple , like Greenchair I dont understand whu iy cannot be David and Hannah

I was being sarcastic there is a good chance it was Hannah and David

Not to sound impertinent Disco, I am still confused, you claim your post was sarcastic , and then say it was a good chance it was Hannah and David

OK I will try to put it another way , in MM statement he said there was an English or western couple at some point. What do you make of the statement

[Khun Han]

Every death has a litany of excuses. Every possible excuse jumped all over and done to death. But when these deaths are looked into by anyone with intelligence and integrity, the investigations and official conclusions never quite add up. Though it's not as though this fabulously rich and well connected and organised mafia are going to advertise their 'accomplishments', is it? Isn't it bizarre and desperately unlucky for such a small island to have so many strange deaths connected to it in such a relatively short space of time? It must be one of the unluckiest islands in the history of the world in that respect.

I suppose you put Kirsty Jones's mother in the "my girl couldn't have done that" catergory? A case, by the way, that echoes this one in many respects.

It's not bizarre at all to have people die of either overdoses or misadventure when they're abusing substances and alcohol I'm surprised more don't die but then when young, people have strong constitutions. .

What on earth has the Kirsty Jones case got to do with the deaths of David and Hannah?

It was a police cover up, in which they tried to create a scapegoat with fake evidence in order to protect the well-connected real murderer. Much the same as this case. I believe the UK police have since named the real murderer aftet doing their own investigations after Kirsty's mum ran a campaign for them to do so.

Thai police have done bugger all about the UK police findings in the Kirsty Jones case, so it's understandable if the UK police feel that they are wasting their time and resources going any further than the observer visit that resulted from the public petition raised.

I remember stories of them going around Chiang Mai trying to get a sperm sample (from a lady boy if i remember correctly) to plant in Kirsty to hide the true rapist and killer, suspected to be a high ranking policeman. .Cover-ups don't only affect farangs of course, the vast majority affect Thais- the Red Bull case for example where the police tried to get a servant/driver in the house to take the rap instead of the killer grandson

But i take issue with your assumption this case is necessarily the same and that the UK police will 'feel they are wasting their time' in going any further than an observer position. This case has generated widespread media interest in the UK from the time of the murders, it's hard to believe the UK police will remain silent if they really have some evidence 'of interest'.

The UK police haven't done much at all in the way of investigating this case, and the only info that has made it into the public domain is bits of the UK coroner's report, which appear to discredit major aspects of the RTP case. Though I do remember a UK judge refusing to release the police report to the defence team, stating his unease/disquiet about being unable to do so.

Like I said, the UK police know they are flogging a dead horse. No point in them putting any more time or effort into this than the public petition made them.

What is the issue you can take with me over this? You've already agreed with me that the RTP were despicably corrupt in the Kirsty Jons case. What's so hard to accept about them doing the same in this case, especially with the amount of money they are alleged to have made out of it?

Edited May 25, 2016 by Khun Han

[phuketandsee]

As I have said before Laura has a right to say what she has if she says she or her parents witnessed any of these remarks the judges made I will believe her.

Just as I trust what the Millers said because they sat through the trial.

I don't doubt for one second she has had threatening phone and I don't doubt she has been followed in her car the question is by who ?

But I know the women that refer to 2 possible killers as Cute, adorable etc will do anything to have these 2 men found innocent even if it means damaging a family that has already been through an awful experience.

The Millers' speak Thai do they? And how come they had a written statement ready before the verdict was announced?

[DiscoDan]

As I have said before Laura has a right to say what she has if she says she or her parents witnessed any of these remarks the judges made I will believe her.

Just as I trust what the Millers said because they sat through the trial.

I don't doubt for one second she has had threatening phone and I don't doubt she has been followed in her car the question is by who ?

But I know the women that refer to 2 possible killers as Cute, adorable etc will do anything to have these 2 men found innocent even if it means damaging a family that has already been through an awful experience.

The Millers' speak Thai do they? And how come they had a written statement ready before the verdict was announced?

No have you never heard of translators ? do the Witheridge's speak Thai ?

Maybe if you paid a bit more attention to the case you would know the verdict was delivered long after the trial ended they could of had two statements one if found guilty and one if not found guilty.

As some people think that thai courts should have a jury lets look at it this way.

3 votes from the Miller family guilty

1 vote from Laura (will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one as she has not come straight out and said she believes they are innocent.

2 votes Witheridge parents abstained as they have not said either way.

So I make that 3-1 and thats not including Davids friend who also think the verdict is just.

Edited May 25, 2016 by DiscoDan

[DiscoDan]

I was being sarcastic there is a good chance it was Hannah and David

Not to sound impertinent Disco, I am still confused, you claim your post was sarcastic , and then say it was a good chance it was Hannah and David

OK I will try to put it another way , in MM statement he said there was an English or western couple at some point. What do you make of the statement

The B3 were all together on the beach WP & ZL claim they did not see anyone but they could see fire jugglers down the beach yet MM also saw a western couple that the B2 didn't.

So we now know there was a western couple near them when they were on the beach even though WP & ZL claimed there wasn't

get it ?

[DiscoDan]

Concerning the torture claims they said they were stripped naked put in freezing room (in the tropics), had their balls flicked, punched in the fac,e kicked in the chest, suffocated, threatened to have limbs cut off, threatened to be dumped in the sea etc etc.

Then claim they could not take it anymore so confessed

But then they also say the reason they confessed was because the policeman said if you confess you will do only 4 years in prison.

So which one was it ?

[Khun Han]

^All of them.

By the way, ever heard of this new-fangled device called air conditioning? I'm led to believe that natives of the tropics who didn't grow up with it often aren't right keen on it .

[Khun Han]

I was being sarcastic there is a good chance it was Hannah and David

Not to sound impertinent Disco, I am still confused, you claim your post was sarcastic , and then say it was a good chance it was Hannah and David

OK I will try to put it another way , in MM statement he said there was an English or western couple at some point. What do you make of the statement

The B3 were all together on the beach WP & ZL claim they did not see anyone but they could see fire jugglers down the beach yet MM also saw a western couple that the B2 didn't.

So we now know there was a western couple near them when they were on the beach even though WP & ZL claimed there wasn't

get it ?

I expect that those three Burmese men talk, sing and dance in perfect unison, as well as observe.

[rockingrobin]

As I have said before Laura has a right to say what she has if she says she or her parents witnessed any of these remarks the judges made I will believe her.

Just as I trust what the Millers said because they sat through the trial.

I don't doubt for one second she has had threatening phone and I don't doubt she has been followed in her car the question is by who ?

But I know the women that refer to 2 possible killers as Cute, adorable etc will do anything to have these 2 men found innocent even if it means damaging a family that has already been through an awful experience.

The Millers' speak Thai do they? And how come they had a written statement ready before the verdict was announced?

No have you never heard of translators ? do the Witheridge's speak Thai ?

Maybe if you paid a bit more attention to the case you would know the verdict was delivered long after the trial ended they could of had two statements one if found guilty and one if not found guilty.

As some people think that thai courts should have a jury lets look at it this way.

3 votes from the Miller family guilty

1 vote from Laura (will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one as she has not come straight out and said she believes they are innocent.

2 votes Witheridge parents abstained as they have not said either way.

So I make that 3-1 and thats not including Davids friend who also think the verdict is just.

Disco maybe you could point the RTP in the direction of some good translators

[rockingrobin]

I was being sarcastic there is a good chance it was Hannah and David

Not to sound impertinent Disco, I am still confused, you claim your post was sarcastic , and then say it was a good chance it was Hannah and David

OK I will try to put it another way , in MM statement he said there was an English or western couple at some point. What do you make of the statement

The B3 were all together on the beach WP & ZL claim they did not see anyone but they could see fire jugglers down the beach yet MM also saw a western couple that the B2 didn't.

So we now know there was a western couple near them when they were on the beach even though WP & ZL claimed there wasn't

get it ?

Actually I still dont get it

Although in the article MM says there is a western couple , he never actually states if this whilst they are all together , or after he goes back to the beach after visiting his girlfriend

[rockingrobin]

Concerning the torture claims they said they were stripped naked put in freezing room (in the tropics), had their balls flicked, punched in the fac,e kicked in the chest, suffocated, threatened to have limbs cut off, threatened to be dumped in the sea etc etc.

Then claim they could not take it anymore so confessed

But then they also say the reason they confessed was because the policeman said if you confess you will do only 4 years in prison.

So which one was it ?

What was the recommended sentence requested by the RTP in its original 300 page file to the prosecutor

As for the torture claims , the prosecution witness acknowledged injuries along with a cellmate

[TheLobster]

What evidence is there that would be sufficient to convict the B2 to death? The alleged murder weapon does not have their blood or DNA on it.

The UK autopsy report which potentially dismisses the case regarding rape etc. was not accepted because it was presented by someone that did not come to court to explain their findings.

All other 'evidence' is circumstantial or not proven.

I'd like to see all the evidence made available as the original suspects still seem to be the most likely guilty parties.

[jimmybkk]

As far as I am aware, none of the friends and family of the deceased who are reported to be in support of the guilty verdict were actually on the island at the time of the murders, let alone out and about with the deceased in the hours before they were slain. I think a lot can be learned from the actions of David's and Hannah's friends who were with them that night, such as Chris Ware. Chris was apparently a childhood friend of David's and it's been reported that they were travelling together and were sharing a room on Koh Tao. The CCTV footage released shows him out with David that night, and TV reports show him clearly distressed as he is shown images of David's body and apparently being asked to identify some of David's belongings. Initially he was even considered a suspect.

After the trial, Chris must have felt under enormous pressure to release a statement that agreed with the statement released by the family of his childhood friend, confirming that he also believed the guilty verdict was the right verdict. It could've put the whole thing to bed once and for all if someone so close to the events of that night came forward and said that he believed the right guys had been charged with committing the murders and that he supported their conviction. I'm sure he would like nothing more than to see his friend's killers brought to justice, and publicly offering his support to the charges and the verdict handed down to the B2 may also have removed any lingering doubts people may have had about his involvement in the murders. In other words, there would appear to be a lot of benefits to Chris offering his public support to the guilty verdict if that is what he truly believed. But he didn't, and as far as I am aware to this day he hasn't. He's remained silent, as have the other friend's of David and Hannah.

Not so long ago, before the trial, I viewed the silence of the friends of the deceased who were with them that night with disdain. I have since changed my opinion, and I now think their silence actually speaks volumes.

[AleG]

Concerning the torture claims they said they were stripped naked put in freezing room (in the tropics), had their balls flicked, punched in the fac,e kicked in the chest, suffocated, threatened to have limbs cut off, threatened to be dumped in the sea etc etc.

Then claim they could not take it anymore so confessed

But then they also say the reason they confessed was because the policeman said if you confess you will do only 4 years in prison.

So which one was it ?

What was the recommended sentence requested by the RTP in its original 300 page file to the prosecutor

As for the torture claims , the prosecution witness acknowledged injuries along with a cellmate

Was that one supposed injury concordant with this claims?

From their lawyer:

"They were really a pitiful sight," the lawyer said. "Their bodies had all sorts of bruises."

From Zaw Lin's testimony in the judgement report:

"The Second Defendant said he had been severely beaten until he had almost been killed."

I say supposed because again from the court judgement:

"In regard to the bruises that the defendants claimed to be discovered by a doctor, it is still unclear as to when they could have occurred or by whom they were caused. According to the witness examination by the Plaintiff, following the interrogation of both the Defendants the Investigating Officers arranged for Dr Chasit to examine the Defendants as evidence and Dr Chasit testified in this Court as a witness for the Plaintiff, confirming that, based on his examination of both the Defendants, there was no evidence of bruising, that their pulses were normal and that the general health of the Defendants was in the normal range. Upon consideration of the Witness statement and the photographs taken during the examination of the Defendants conducted by Dr Chasit in Evidence Document Jor 68 it can be seen that both Defendants appeared normal and showed no traces of having been assaulted as claimed."

So one side has only assertions, the other verifiable evidence disproving those assertions, yet you chose to believe the first.

Does this look like someone who has been recently severely beaten nearly to death?

How about here, any signs of the kicks and punches to the face they claimed?

Not a bruise, not a scratch; you've been sold a lie.

[wellred]

Concerning the torture claims they said they were stripped naked put in freezing room (in the tropics), had their balls flicked, punched in the fac,e kicked in the chest, suffocated, threatened to have limbs cut off, threatened to be dumped in the sea etc etc.

Then claim they could not take it anymore so confessed

But then they also say the reason they confessed was because the policeman said if you confess you will do only 4 years in prison.

So which one was it ?

What was the recommended sentence requested by the RTP in its original 300 page file to the prosecutor

As for the torture claims , the prosecution witness acknowledged injuries along with a cellmate

Was that one supposed injury concordant with this claims?

From their lawyer:

"They were really a pitiful sight," the lawyer said. "Their bodies had all sorts of bruises."

From Zaw Lin's testimony in the judgement report:

"The Second Defendant said he had been severely beaten until he had almost been killed."

I say supposed because again from the court judgement:

"In regard to the bruises that the defendants claimed to be discovered by a doctor, it is still unclear as to when they could have occurred or by whom they were caused. According to the witness examination by the Plaintiff, following the interrogation of both the Defendants the Investigating Officers arranged for Dr Chasit to examine the Defendants as evidence and Dr Chasit testified in this Court as a witness for the Plaintiff, confirming that, based on his examination of both the Defendants, there was no evidence of bruising, that their pulses were normal and that the general health of the Defendants was in the normal range. Upon consideration of the Witness statement and the photographs taken during the examination of the Defendants conducted by Dr Chasit in Evidence Document Jor 68 it can be seen that both Defendants appeared normal and showed no traces of having been assaulted as claimed."

So one side has only assertions, the other verifiable evidence disproving those assertions, yet you chose to believe the first.

Does this look like someone who has been recently severely beaten nearly to death?

How about here, any signs of the kicks and punches to the face they claimed?

690632.jpg

Guardian-article-26-Oct-2015.png

Not a bruise, not a scratch; you've been sold a lie.

how do you know when that pic was taken?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Khun Han]

^Maybe he's trying to sell you a lie, a very, very big one.

[Khun Han]

Concerning the torture claims they said they were stripped naked put in freezing room (in the tropics), had their balls flicked, punched in the fac,e kicked in the chest, suffocated, threatened to have limbs cut off, threatened to be dumped in the sea etc etc.

Then claim they could not take it anymore so confessed

But then they also say the reason they confessed was because the policeman said if you confess you will do only 4 years in prison.

So which one was it ?

What was the recommended sentence requested by the RTP in its original 300 page file to the prosecutor

As for the torture claims , the prosecution witness acknowledged injuries along with a cellmate

Was that one supposed injury concordant with this claims?

From their lawyer:

"They were really a pitiful sight," the lawyer said. "Their bodies had all sorts of bruises."

From Zaw Lin's testimony in the judgement report:

"The Second Defendant said he had been severely beaten until he had almost been killed."

I say supposed because again from the court judgement:

"In regard to the bruises that the defendants claimed to be discovered by a doctor, it is still unclear as to when they could have occurred or by whom they were caused. According to the witness examination by the Plaintiff, following the interrogation of both the Defendants the Investigating Officers arranged for Dr Chasit to examine the Defendants as evidence and Dr Chasit testified in this Court as a witness for the Plaintiff, confirming that, based on his examination of both the Defendants, there was no evidence of bruising, that their pulses were normal and that the general health of the Defendants was in the normal range. Upon consideration of the Witness statement and the photographs taken during the examination of the Defendants conducted by Dr Chasit in Evidence Document Jor 68 it can be seen that both Defendants appeared normal and showed no traces of having been assaulted as claimed."

So one side has only assertions, the other verifiable evidence disproving those assertions, yet you chose to believe the first.

Does this look like someone who has been recently severely beaten nearly to death?

How about here, any signs of the kicks and punches to the face they claimed?

690632.jpg

Guardian-article-26-Oct-2015.png

Not a bruise, not a scratch; you've been sold a lie.

Oh dear. Off he goes again with his 'bible', that discredited judgement report . And again he highlights discrepancies in it: a different medical examination revealed injuries, and a cellmate witnessed injuries. But the police managed to find a doctor who would report what they wanted him to report, and the judges (as usual) believed the police and ignored the other evidence.

[JLCrab]

So according to the Defense lead attorney in the Reuters article linked in Post #1, the Appeals Court will require a minimum 7 months deliberations to determine whether the initial Samui Court verdict should be overturned or stayed -- Justice as such moves much more swiftly on these pages.

[Si Thea01]

Concerning the torture claims they said they were stripped naked put in freezing room (in the tropics), had their balls flicked, punched in the fac,e kicked in the chest, suffocated, threatened to have limbs cut off, threatened to be dumped in the sea etc etc.

Then claim they could not take it anymore so confessed

But then they also say the reason they confessed was because the policeman said if you confess you will do only 4 years in prison.

So which one was it ?

What was the recommended sentence requested by the RTP in its original 300 page file to the prosecutor

As for the torture claims , the prosecution witness acknowledged injuries along with a cellmate

Was that one supposed injury concordant with this claims?

From their lawyer:

"They were really a pitiful sight," the lawyer said. "Their bodies had all sorts of bruises."

From Zaw Lin's testimony in the judgement report:

"The Second Defendant said he had been severely beaten until he had almost been killed."

I say supposed because again from the court judgement:

"In regard to the bruises that the defendants claimed to be discovered by a doctor, it is still unclear as to when they could have occurred or by whom they were caused. According to the witness examination by the Plaintiff, following the interrogation of both the Defendants the Investigating Officers arranged for Dr Chasit to examine the Defendants as evidence and Dr Chasit testified in this Court as a witness for the Plaintiff, confirming that, based on his examination of both the Defendants, there was no evidence of bruising, that their pulses were normal and that the general health of the Defendants was in the normal range. Upon consideration of the Witness statement and the photographs taken during the examination of the Defendants conducted by Dr Chasit in Evidence Document Jor 68 it can be seen that both Defendants appeared normal and showed no traces of having been assaulted as claimed."

So one side has only assertions, the other verifiable evidence disproving those assertions, yet you chose to believe the first.

Does this look like someone who has been recently severely beaten nearly to death?

How about here, any signs of the kicks and punches to the face they claimed?

690632.jpg

Guardian-article-26-Oct-2015.png

Not a bruise, not a scratch; you've been sold a lie.

Oh dear. Off he goes again with his 'bible', that discredited judgement report . And again he highlights discrepancies in it: a different medical examination revealed injuries, and a cellmate witnessed injuries. But the police managed to find a doctor who would report what they wanted him to report, and the judges (as usual) believed the police and ignored the other evidence.

So you're saying that a criminal actually gave evidence, "under oath" to sighting injuries? If so, did he also see how these alleged injuries were inflicted or was he told how as well? If not, did he ask how and did he give those details in evidence? And the police located a doctor, who was willing "under oath", to perjure him/herself, with the judge/s believing the police. Sorry but it wasn't police who gave the evidence, it was a doctor, whose evidence was accepted, wouldn't you agree?.

Were there two independent medical examinations, carried out? If there was, then the defense produced one, the prosecution the other, correct? So when was the second examination carried out, and by whom? Now, if I have your version straight, please correct me if I am wrong, you are alleging that the prosecution's witness perjured him/herself and the learned judge/s dismissed the evidence of the two defense's witnesses.

I am not aware of a second examination, but if what you stated is accepted, then given what you have stated it appears, in your eyes, that the defense witnesses can tell no lies, only the prosecutions, is that correct? How is it that you have this in depth knowledge that allows you to go on and besmirch the character of a witness and the judge/s? Maybe a little biased, not a lot, I would say.

[Khun Han]

You do make a habit out of interceding in these discussions pleading ignorace of pro-defence evidence whilst showing strong bias toward the prosucution case, don't you. Go back and read the case history if you are genuinely interested in educating yourself about the other medical report and witness (and other matters). You won't have to keep jumping in pleading ignorance then, will you? Or, if you're not prepared to do that, stop embarrassing yourself by advertising your ignorance on these threads.

Judges are inclined to accept police hearsay in Thai court cases. That's how the system works, and is the main reason why (as even one of Thailand's most senior police officers conceded) a very large percentage of Thailand's prison inmates are innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated.

Besmirch the character of a prosecution witness in a case that is clearly riddled with corruption and police deception/lies? You're having a laugh, aren't you?

[Si Thea01]

You do make a habit out of interceding in these discussions pleading ignorace of pro-defence evidence whilst showing strong bias toward the prosucution case, don't you. Go back and read the case history if you are genuinely interested in educating yourself about the other medical report and witness (and other matters). You won't have to keep jumping in pleading ignorance then, will you? Or, if you're not prepared to do that, stop embarrassing yourself by advertising your ignorance on these threads.

Judges are inclined to accept police hearsay in Thai court cases. That's how the system works, and is the main reason why (as even one of Thailand's most senior police officers conceded) a very large percentage of Thailand's prison inmates are innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated.

Besmirch the character of a prosecution witness in a case that is clearly riddled with corruption and police deception/lies? You're having a laugh, aren't you?

Are you for real or just looking to inflame things with such a response. Sorry, not biting but it's amazing when someone puts something to you, it is evident that you do not like being questioned, so it must be either it's your way or the highway. Do you find it too hard or it is that either you cannot or will not answer and to avoid doing so you turn your response into a personal attack.

You are very practiced at avoiding answering questions but you method and manner says it all. I will not fall into you little trap by making this a personal attack on you, other than to reiterate that it is evident where the bias lies. Biased. Do you know the meaning of the word, given what you have written, it doesn't appear you do.

And further, I do not need educating and I am neither ignorant or an embarrassment to myself but according to you, I fit all three categories because I have dared questioning certain aspects of your post. I have never indicated that the police case was all it should be and have never condoned anything untoward that has arisen throughout that inquiry. But you seem to have all the answers, yet cannot respond when questions are put to you.

Maybe you should read everything, as in you haste to decry what I have written, you left out that I also included the judge/s, whose character you have also besmirched. And the only laugh I am having is at the joker who pretends he knows all, is always right, so woe betide anyone who questions him. We all learn something new everyday and this is by observing, reading and asking questions, maybe you should practise a little humility, as we are not right all of the time, just some of the time.

[StealthEnergiser]

You do make a habit out of interceding in these discussions pleading ignorace of pro-defence evidence whilst showing strong bias toward the prosucution case, don't you. Go back and read the case history if you are genuinely interested in educating yourself about the other medical report and witness (and other matters). You won't have to keep jumping in pleading ignorance then, will you? Or, if you're not prepared to do that, stop embarrassing yourself by advertising your ignorance on these threads.

Judges are inclined to accept police hearsay in Thai court cases. That's how the system works, and is the main reason why (as even one of Thailand's most senior police officers conceded) a very large percentage of Thailand's prison inmates are innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated.

Besmirch the character of a prosecution witness in a case that is clearly riddled with corruption and police deception/lies? You're having a laugh, aren't you?

Are you for real or just looking to inflame things with such a response. Sorry, not biting but it's amazing when someone puts something to you, it is evident that you do not like being questioned, so it must be either it's your way or the highway. Do you find it too hard or it is that either you cannot or will not answer and to avoid doing so you turn your response into a personal attack.

You are very practiced at avoiding answering questions but you method and manner says it all. I will not fall into you little trap by making this a personal attack on you, other than to reiterate that it is evident where the bias lies. Biased. Do you know the meaning of the word, given what you have written, it doesn't appear you do.

And further, I do not need educating and I am neither ignorant or an embarrassment to myself but according to you, I fit all three categories because I have dared questioning certain aspects of your post. I have never indicated that the police case was all it should be and have never condoned anything untoward that has arisen throughout that inquiry. But you seem to have all the answers, yet cannot respond when questions are put to you.

Maybe you should read everything, as in you haste to decry what I have written, you left out that I also included the judge/s, whose character you have also besmirched. And the only laugh I am having is at the joker who pretends he knows all, is always right, so woe betide anyone who questions him. We all learn something new everyday and this is by observing, reading and asking questions, maybe you should practise a little humility, as we are not right all of the time, just some of the time.

You assume no prosecution persons lie under oath as Khun Han said you should educate yourself first.

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologist’s statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridge’s hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

Source: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

[rockingrobin]

You do make a habit out of interceding in these discussions pleading ignorace of pro-defence evidence whilst showing strong bias toward the prosucution case, don't you. Go back and read the case history if you are genuinely interested in educating yourself about the other medical report and witness (and other matters). You won't have to keep jumping in pleading ignorance then, will you? Or, if you're not prepared to do that, stop embarrassing yourself by advertising your ignorance on these threads.

Judges are inclined to accept police hearsay in Thai court cases. That's how the system works, and is the main reason why (as even one of Thailand's most senior police officers conceded) a very large percentage of Thailand's prison inmates are innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated.

Besmirch the character of a prosecution witness in a case that is clearly riddled with corruption and police deception/lies? You're having a laugh, aren't you?

Are you for real or just looking to inflame things with such a response. Sorry, not biting but it's amazing when someone puts something to you, it is evident that you do not like being questioned, so it must be either it's your way or the highway. Do you find it too hard or it is that either you cannot or will not answer and to avoid doing so you turn your response into a personal attack.

You are very practiced at avoiding answering questions but you method and manner says it all. I will not fall into you little trap by making this a personal attack on you, other than to reiterate that it is evident where the bias lies. Biased. Do you know the meaning of the word, given what you have written, it doesn't appear you do.

And further, I do not need educating and I am neither ignorant or an embarrassment to myself but according to you, I fit all three categories because I have dared questioning certain aspects of your post. I have never indicated that the police case was all it should be and have never condoned anything untoward that has arisen throughout that inquiry. But you seem to have all the answers, yet cannot respond when questions are put to you.

Maybe you should read everything, as in you haste to decry what I have written, you left out that I also included the judge/s, whose character you have also besmirched. And the only laugh I am having is at the joker who pretends he knows all, is always right, so woe betide anyone who questions him. We all learn something new everyday and this is by observing, reading and asking questions, maybe you should practise a little humility, as we are not right all of the time, just some of the time.

You assume no prosecution persons lie under oath as Khun Han said you should educate yourself first.

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologist’s statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridge’s hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

Source: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The denials and backtracks seemed a common trait throughout the whole episode

Evidence lost/used up / not lost everything available

Didnt examine cctv/ Yes we did

Didnt test the handle of the Hoe for dna / well actually we did and found Davids dna on the handle

No contact with the pathalogist after 3rd Oct / Yes I did, but im not telling you