Myanmar men appeal against death sentences over British murders in Thailand

[JLCrab]

32 minutes ago, Krenjai said:

The outcome was decided when Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamem was replaced three years ago.

Yes good ol' Pol Lt-Gen Always-safely-back-up-your-computer-evidence-files-when-you're-accusing-the-mafia-of-murder Panya Mamem

[aslimversgwm]

On 8/21/2017 at 5:46 PM, sambum said:

" the families of both victims have spoken out in defence of the police investigation."

 

I thought that only one of the families had been satisfied with the "investigation"?

Correct. Hannah's family have never said this.

[rockingrobin]

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Every arrested person is given the warning before court and at court. 

If you did this, and are helpful to the investigation your sentence will be greatly reduced. This is also standard practice in western courts. Especially in rape and murder cases, if the criminals don't force the victims to go through a sham trial, hoping they can beat the system. 

At the court the judge issued a last warning, he said, do you understand this is a death penalty case? If you lose you will recieve the death penalty. The gamble is 50/50. But by god any lawyer should know they would at least need something to defend the case to take that chance. The judge said decision was based on testimony of the 2, evidence presented the confession did not influence his decision. 

I didn't see a link.

Which part did not match? 

All of that is on record. 

The social media buzz /,the meeting with human rights group happened  before they recanted. In that order. 

To soome extent you have answered your own pint

If they committed the crime, 

The part that did not match is all of it, the B2 withdrew the confession after a visit from a myanmar embassy official and lawyer.

Even the thai prosecutor admitted the confession was deficient and insufficient to  charge the men in court, (Oct 12 ,2014)

[bannork]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Yes, you put a lot of effort into sticking up for the reputation of a place you don't care about, don't you?

A few minutes here and there Khun Han. Like some others, speculation without any shred of evidence just gets my goat. And I am not referring to the Hannah and Davis case which is what this topic is about.

Edited August 23, 2017 by bannork

[sambum]

37 minutes ago, aslimversgwm said:

Correct. Hannah's family have never said this.

Yes, I believe that even threats were issued, but I was unsure as to which family or family member - I think it was Hannah's sister?

[IslandLover]

3 hours ago, frank83628 said:

talking about publicity...how much does all of this gain for the woman from samui times and her supposed forthcoming book about the case.....vested interests much!! 

As an expat resident of Koh Tao no doubt you have "vested interests" too.   

Edited August 23, 2017 by IslandLover

[greenchair]

11 minutes ago, transam said:

And YOU still do not understand that if one is innocent they must stand by their innocence, but folk like you think one must tell lies .......Dear oh Dear.....

They were 19 years old and told  by a group of lawyers there was no evidence and thousands believe them to be innocent. 

They were told there was no case.

So they withdrew.  

That was before everyone found out about the victims phone, the video that was indeed them, their proximity to the crime, their belongings left at the crime. 

And they went back to the crime to clean up. 

They told the lawyers they had a beer at the beach and went back to the room at 1 o'clock. We all thought that. 

The evidence showed they were guilty. They fooled themselves and lost. 

[transam]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

They were 19 years old and told  by a group of lawyers there was no evidence and thousands believe them to be innocent. 

They were told there was no case.

So they withdrew.  

That was before everyone found out about the victims phone, the video that was indeed them, their proximity to the crime, their belongings left at the crime. 

And they went back to the crime to clean up. 

They told the lawyers they had a beer at the beach and went back to the room at 1 o'clock. We all thought that. 

The evidence showed they were guilty. They fooled themselves and lost. 

You seen to have missed out a lot of stuff regarding missing evidence, folk who disappear at the time and dodgy CCTV, folk who will not give DNA AND dodgy DNA as there was no "guard" on it.  DNA on the hoe that belongs to WHO...? Folk walking on a crime sight that could have even been involved.....55555....Yet you want to hang.....

[sambum]

7 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Well regardless that you liked it because some one decided to tell  me what I don't understand, you read it so you know who said I should talk to people in North Korea.  And I take enough crap from the tag team that I don't know I should be lectured on manners

 

At any rate all this is taking time away from my Japanese language lessons so I'll see you later.

 

Just 2 quick points for when you get back then:-

1. "you know who said I should talk to people in North Korea" I never denied that.

 

2. "I take enough crap from the tag team that I don't know I should be lectured on manners"

      Your replies are rude and arrogant.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

 

Troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[sambum]

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

They were 19 years old and told  by a group of lawyers there was no evidence and thousands believe them to be innocent. 

They were told there was no case.

So they withdrew.  

That was before everyone found out about the victims phone, the video that was indeed them, their proximity to the crime, their belongings left at the crime. 

And they went back to the crime to clean up. 

They told the lawyers they had a beer at the beach and went back to the room at 1 o'clock. We all thought that. 

The evidence showed they were guilty. They fooled themselves and lost. 

I wouldn't normally jump on this, as "splitting hairs" is more like a certain other poster's style, but from Time magazine July 17 2015:-

 

"Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo, both 22-year-old ethnic Rakhine"

 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

To soome extent you have answered your own pint

If they committed the crime, 

The part that did not match is all of it, the B2 withdrew the confession after a visit from a myanmar embassy official and lawyer.

Even the thai prosecutor admitted the confession was deficient and insufficient to  charge the men in court, (Oct 12 ,2014)

The lawyer was from the office of the human rights. Not a criminal lawyer, and that's what I said. 

And I also said the judgement was not based on either the confession or the dna. So the prosecutor was right , it would not have been enough to go to court. 

The judge said the decision was based on a combination of  physical evidence, b2 own testimony, dna, video, and the lack of credible  defense which created a whole picture. 

He pointed out why he agreed with each piece presented by the prosecution. And he pointed out why he could not accept the 1 witness testimony. 

 

The one hooray day for the defense was when the prosecution said both were illegal immigrants, the lawyers pulled out Zaw Lin passport and slammed it on the table. Everyone was excited thinking a special witness was coming from UK to say the dna doesn't match. The phone is proven not to be Hannah's. A witness that might say the 2 were sleeping at the time of crime. 

Anything. Please something to defend them. 

But no. The court got a lecture on thai poor human rights and gaet analysis .

 

[rockingrobin]

17 minutes ago, greenchair said:

They were 19 years old and told  by a group of lawyers there was no evidence and thousands believe them to be innocent. 

They were told there was no case.

So they withdrew.  

That was before everyone found out about the victims phone, the video that was indeed them, their proximity to the crime, their belongings left at the crime. 

And they went back to the crime to clean up. 

They told the lawyers they had a beer at the beach and went back to the room at 1 o'clock. We all thought that. 

The evidence showed they were guilty. They fooled themselves and lost. 

 

7 minutes ago, transam said:

You seen to have missed out a lot of stuff regarding missing evidence, folk who disappear at the time and dodgy CCTV, folk who will not give DNA AND dodgy DNA as there was no "guard" on it.  DNA on the hoe that belongs to WHO...? Folk walking on a crime sight that could have even been involved.....55555....Yet you want to hang.....

The poster is flipping the fundamental principle of presumed innocent until proved guilty , where the burden is on the prosecution to prove their facts beyond reasonable doubt, to one where the accussed is required to prove their innocence.

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The lawyer was from the office of the human rights. Not a criminal lawyer, and that's what I said. 

And I also said the judgement was not based on either the confession or the dna. So the prosecutor was right , it would not have been enough to go to court. 

The judge said the decision was based on a combination of  physical evidence, b2 own testimony, dna, video, and the lack of credible  defense which created a whole picture. 

He pointed out why he agreed with each piece presented by the prosecution. And he pointed out why he could not accept the 1 witness testimony. 

 

The one hooray day for the defense was when the prosecution said both were illegal immigrants, the lawyers pulled out Zaw Lin passport and slammed it on the table. Everyone was excited thinking a special witness was coming from UK to say the dna doesn't match. The phone is proven not to be Hannah's. A witness that might say the 2 were sleeping at the time of crime. 

Anything. Please something to defend them. 

But no. The court got a lecture on thai poor human rights and gaet analysis .

 

The attorney was Aung Myo Thant from the Myanmar Embassy

[greenchair]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

 

The poster is flipping the fundamental principle of presumed innocent until proved guilty , where the burden is on the prosecution to prove their facts beyond reasonable doubt, to one where the accussed is required to prove their innocence.

The poster is flipping the fundamental principle that the prosecution proved their case with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was not able to show any reasonable doubt. That has already been confirmed by 2 court rulings that both said they accepted the submission of both sides and found the balance well in favour of guilt. The fight is over. They were found guilty. 

[greenchair]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The attorney was Aung Myo Thant from the Myanmar Embassy

Where is the link for gods sake. 

I have lost your point. 

[rockingrobin]

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The poster is flipping the fundamental principle that the prosecution proved their case with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was not able to show any reasonable doubt. That has already been confirmed by 2 court rulings that both said they accepted the submission of both sides and found the balance well in favour of guilt. The fight is over. They were found guilty. 

Finding guilt on the basis of balance does not reach the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, more the threshold of preponderance.

Edited August 23, 2017 by rockingrobin

[JLCrab]

24 minutes ago, sambum said:

<snip>      Your replies are rude and arrogant.

Headman don't pay me to follow 'Rules of Order & Decorum'. 

[sambum]

3 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Headman don't pay me to follow 'Rules of Order & Decorum'. 

Unfortunately, others get suspended or their posts deleted, so I guess your money is well spent!

Edited August 23, 2017 by sambum

[greenchair]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Finding guilt on the basis of balance does not reach the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, more the threshold of preponderance.

Robin, you have been around a long time. 

There is no point to continue the media court. 

They have been convicted. 

Nothing will change that. 

Short of a new witness coming forward for them. 

A dna expert from the UK coming to Thailand and going to the justice office with irrefutable evidence that the dna does not match or they found dna from someone else. 

It ends with this. 

They have been ruled guilty. 

[JLCrab]

14 minutes ago, sambum said:

Unfortunately, others get suspended or their posts deleted, so I guess your money is well spent!

Well he offered me more money but I said not necessary because -- while there may be some people out there who could do you some damage -- no need to worry about the popinjays on ThaiVisa.

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Robin, you have been around a long time. 

There is no point to continue the media court. 

They have been convicted. 

Nothing will change that. 

Short of a new witness coming forward for them. 

A dna expert from the UK coming to Thailand and going to the justice office with irrefutable evidence that the dna does not match or they found dna from someone else. 

It ends with this. 

They have been ruled guilty. 

The court has given its verdict , having said that I like everybody else is free to agree or disagree with its conclusions or reasoning. Personally I do not know if the B2 committed the crime, but I dont believe that the prosecution proved its case to the required threshold. 

 

[greenchair]

20 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Well he offered me more money but I said not necessary because -- while there may be some people out there who could do you some damage -- no need to worry about the popinjays on ThaiVisa.

?????

[greenchair]

16 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The court has given its verdict , having said that I like everybody else is free to agree or disagree with its conclusions or reasoning. Personally I do not know if the B2 committed the crime, but I dont believe that the prosecution proved its case to the required threshold. 

 

Well both judges felt that they did. 

I also think they did not prove murder. But there are few murder cases with living witnesses other than the murderers themselves. 

The 3 witnesses are not talking so here we are with a guilty verdict. 

[transam]

29 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well both judges felt that they did. 

I also think they did not prove murder. But there are few murder cases with living witnesses other than the murderers themselves. 

The 3 witnesses are not talking so here we are with a guilty verdict. 

 

 

Can you explain the BOTH....?

Edited August 23, 2017 by transam

[greenchair]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

 

 

Can you explain the BOTH....?

The first court and the appeal court. 

Actually I think the first court has 3 judges in a capital case. 

Correct me if I am wrong. 

So 4 judges. 

[rockingrobin]

48 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well both judges felt that they did. 

I also think they did not prove murder. But there are few murder cases with living witnesses other than the murderers themselves. 

The 3 witnesses are not talking so here we are with a guilty verdict. 

I fail to understand this

 

You also think they did not prove murder, but suggest that they should have gone along with the confession

[transam]

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The first court and the appeal court. 

Actually I think the first court has 3 judges in a capital case. 

Correct me if I am wrong. 

So 4 judges. 

I thought the original judge bailed or moved on after hearing the first bit and another took over, l would of thought in cases with no jury a new trial should have taken place so one judge hears the lot, don't you...?...

But it has been going on a long time so l maybe mistaken...

 

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, bannork said:

A few minutes here and there Khun Han. Like some others, speculation without any shred of evidence just gets my goat. And I am not referring to the Hannah and Davis case which is what this topic is about.

 

Except that there is a busload of evidence to back up the speculation, and a paucity of rather dodgy evidence to back up the conviction.

[Khun Han]

25 minutes ago, transam said:

40 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The first court and the appeal court. 

Actually I think the first court has 3 judges in a capital case. 

Correct me if I am wrong. 

So 4 judges. 

I thought the original judge bailed or moved on after hearing the first bit and another took over, l would of thought in cases with no jury a new trial should have taken place so one judge hears the lot, don't you...?...

But it has been going on a long time so l maybe mistaken...

 

The trial (presiding) judge and the appeal court judge were.....er.....ahem.....one and the same.

 

greenchair gets herself endlessly confused over this case. Only last week she was claiming that the b2 had accepted their guilt and given up their appeal.