Myanmar men appeal against death sentences over British murders in Thailand

[wakeupplease]

9 minutes ago, sambum said:

Regardless of whether you think the B2 are guilty or innocent, (or whether you are Republican or Democrat) I am amazed that such a blatantly political post that has nothing to do with the topic was accepted on this Forum. 

Sorry I do not see where I was political I called for the name not to be used in this case and hey I am English so not Republican or Democrat

[DM07]

I dont see why so many posters should be so sure of their innocence.  The reporting of this incident in the media, and the accuracy of postings on Thai Visa have been so bad that no conclusion can be reached by us as interested spectators.  It is somewhat mortifying to think that people on this board could be championing a pair of rapists and murderers because of their blind prejudice against Thai police. Equally, it is awful to think that 2 innocent men could go their deaths based on dodgy evidence. 
 
But one can not be blindly sentimental either way.  People should think before posting.
 
 

Maybe you should take your own last sentence to your own heart!
So many posters are so sure of the innocence of the B2, because we have been through tis, many times!
The crime scene was a mess, the RTP investigations and the "evidence" were a joke. The report of the RTP was refused several timed due to severe €&@: ups and...and ...and
Inform yourself, before posting!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Now if I was interested I would just go and visit those innocent "lads"

And tell them to get down on their knees ,  apologise and beg the king for a royal pardon based on their age and crappy legal advice. 

I would tell them to stop all this crap and fess up 

But no, these lawyers will rave on right to the royal pardon, 

The chain of custody was broken, therefore please don't sentence them to death. 

They will not win supreme with the same arguments. 

 

I can understand your stance , if the relevance of the chain of custody , and its ensuring purpose of safeguarding justice bypasses you..

However even forgoing this there is still doubt raised of the seminal dna

[greenchair]

28 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

What you describe is more akin to a civil prosecution, where preponderance and clear and convincing is adequate level of threshold to gain a guilty verdict.

In a criminal case the threshold is set much higher , due to the severity of a guilty verdict in such cases is more extreme. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this does not mean that doubt cannot exist, but it must be unreasonable. The guilt proven must be that any reasonable person would conclude no other alternative exists with moral certainty

Well yes, I guess that's what the meant, when he told the b2, their story was absolutely unbelievable. 

[rockingrobin]

6 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well yes, I guess that's what the meant, when he told the b2, their story was absolutely unbelievable. 

I dont think the judgement said unbelievable, more like not normal behaviour

[wakeupplease]

4 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well yes, I guess that's what the meant, when he told the b2, their story was absolutely unbelievable. 

greenchair

 

knowing your boys as I do up close I would say their story is fully believable. I would like you to explain to me why the DNA was convenient lost or misplaced at best. In civilized country's they keep it did you not know that and in some countries like the UK and the USA they are retrieving it now 25 years after the case and retesting it and convicting the criminals. That is because DNA techniques have moved on and testing can deliver better results today.

 

Do you know how to become a judge locally I do and its easy for a former con to get a job.

 

Life may mean nothing to some but in the better part of the world it does.

 

Keep throwing the sidelines, I for one will not read and more of your posts.

[rockingrobin]

8 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

greenchair

 

knowing your boys as I do up close I would say their story is fully believable. I would like you to explain to me why the DNA was convenient lost or misplaced at best. In civilized country's they keep it did you not know that and in some countries like the UK and the USA they are retrieving it now 25 years after the case and retesting it and convicting the criminals. That is because DNA techniques have moved on and testing can deliver better results today.

 

Do you know how to become a judge locally I do and its easy for a former con to get a job.

 

Life may mean nothing to some but in the better part of the world it does.

 

Keep throwing the sidelines, I for one will not read and more of your posts.

Wakeupplease

 

With regards the dna , you missunderstand. The explanation is given by a police statement following the analysis on sep17 2014

 

The police identified 2 dna on the cigarette butt, however they could not say if the semen dna matched the dna on the cigarette butt. In order to accomplish this they would require fresh samples from the unidentified persons.

 

From this 2 main and 1 subsequent questions arise.

Why the dna from cigarette butt and Semen cannot be compared 

Why do they need fresh samples

 

and which dna sample did they use to clear the 12 suspects at that time

 

[greenchair]

44 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I dont think the judgement said unbelievable, more like not normal behaviour

No, if I remember correctly it said absolutely unbelievable. 

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No, if I remember correctly it said absolutely unbelievable. 

Page 55 of final judgement (page 37 of unofficial translation) , unusual for normal people, thus their testimonies not credible. 

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

They had lawyers from 3 countries working on their case. All paid for by the Thai government. They had in excess of a million baht and some have said up to 20 million in donations. They had embassy officials from their government and indeed their own government had taken an interest in their case. 

They had top dna experts all working for free to help them. They had more backup probably than any other case in the history of the world. 

The best they could come up with is gaet analysis, I drunk I don't remember, and our human rights have been violated. I am sorry to say it, but it was pathetic. 

The maid would have done a better job. 

But you have missed the point...........thet were already "guilty" based on the utterings of, "no Thai could have done this" and a certain General praising the police for their good work. Not to mention contacts, money and power.

 

Face needed to be saved and even if they'd had the best lawyers in the world, the biggest governments backing them and a DNA analysis that showed the perpetrators came from Ethiopia (for example) a guilty verdict would would have ensued.

 

Sometimes I think you forget where you are and how things work here.....remember TIT!

[greenchair]

25 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Page 55 of final judgement (page 37 of unofficial translation) , unusual for normal people, thus their testimonies not credible. 

My apologies. 

Still , the same arguments through 3 courts have not won. 

Now it's down to the wire. 

Eat humble pie, lose face and plead guilty. Beg for forgiveness and a pardon for the death sentence. 

They should have done that at appeal 1. At least they should have changed tactic at supreme. 

Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. 

They at least could argue their innocence when they got out in a few years. 

I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances. 

 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, DM07 said:

Maybe you should take your own last sentence to your own heart!
So many posters are so sure of the innocence of the B2, because we have been through tis, many times!
The crime scene was a mess, the RTP investigations and the "evidence" were a joke. The report of the RTP was refused several timed due to severe €&@: ups and...and ...and
Inform yourself, before posting!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Your posting is the complete example of what I was describing.

[xylophone]

A footnote to my previous post............

 

The defense had nowhere to go in defending them because even the best lawyers in the land could not challenge the KEY aspect here......the notoriously corrupt (as per the Thai ombudsmans finding) BIB shut the door with regard to the DNA testing. 

 

This could prove their innocence but this avenue was not open to them....closed, nothing to test, end of story, therefore guilty. A complete travesty of justice.

[rockingrobin]

45 minutes ago, greenchair said:

My apologies. 

Still , the same arguments through 3 courts have not won. 

Now it's down to the wire. 

Eat humble pie, lose face and plead guilty. Beg for forgiveness and a pardon for the death sentence. 

They should have done that at appeal 1. At least they should have changed tactic at supreme. 

Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. 

They at least could argue their innocence when they got out in a few years. 

I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances. 

 

Its nonsense

What you are suggesting is that everybody who is charged with a criminal offence should plead guilty, because they might lose the case

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, greenchair said:

Well yes, I guess that's what the meant, when he told the b2, their story was absolutely unbelievable. 

What is implausible is that no witnesses have come forward from the nightime enterntainment venue,

After being seen entering at midnight to leaving at gone 2am (assuming that this time is correct), Hannah must have had some interactions with other people.

[wakeupplease]

47 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Its nonsense

What you are suggesting is that everybody who is charged with a criminal offence should plead guilty, because they might lose the case

That is what the bib and prosecutors try to do, even to the point of leaning on your lawyer. They tried it on our friend and we saw it happen close up so know its true.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Its nonsense

What you are suggesting is that everybody who is charged with a criminal offence should plead guilty, because they might lose the case

Oh rubbish. 

I'm saying there was a lot against them. They had the victims phone. 

In order to win a case you must have reasonable rebuttal to defend. They tried that twice. It didn't work. Their best bet is to beg for mercy or die. 

That's the way it is. Complain all you like. It won't change that fact. 

[IslandLover]

9 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Oh rubbish. 

I'm saying there was a lot against them. They had the victims phone. 

In order to win a case you must have reasonable rebuttal to defend. They tried that twice. It didn't work. Their best bet is to beg for mercy or die. 

That's the way it is. Complain all you like. It won't change that fact. 

They had the victims phone. 

 

I will say this again, there is no "they"!  Only ONE of the B2 - Wai Phyo - was convicted of being in possession of David Miller's phone.  Nevertheless, this does not prove that either, or both of the B2, murdered Hannah Witheridge and David Miller. 

 

Some people seem to think that being in possession of this phone is key to Zaw Lin's and Wai Phyo's guilt.  I don't.

[GOLDBUGGY]

10 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

You are wanting to alter the standard and internationally recognised principle of a fair trial , namely the accussed is innoncent untill proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies with the prosecution to prove its case.

 

Two further principles to be satisfied are that were the facts of the case are disputed the onus of validity relies with the person making the claim. As the accused is innocent untill proven guilty then untill proven otherwise is account is taken as the truth

 

The validity of the claim is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In Theory this would be correct, but in Practice I doubt it happens that way all the time. For example if the Accused had an Air Tight Alibi, is this not an example of the Accused proving his own innocents? 

 

On one side you have the Prosecution with Signed Confessions from both of the Accussed. Witnesses, DNA Testing of Cigarette Butts and the Accused themselves, placing them at or near the Crime Scene on the night in question and the last known suspects to be in that area during this crime. The Accused having (or had) in their possession a Cell Phone, which the Accused said they gave it to a Friend and claimed they never saw David Miller that night, which the Prosecution claim belonged to David Miller. DNA taken from the Victims Body (Hannah)  matching in a Lab the DNA taken form both of the Accused, who they both claim never saw her that night at all.

 

Now "If" (and please notice I use the word "If") you can believe that what the Prosecution have is true and accurate, then one would have to agree they would have a pretty Rock Solid Case against them. "If" on the other hand you believe the Accused that there Confessions were given under duress and torture (with no visable signs of abuse) they fund this Cell Phone on the Beach that night and did not see either of the Victims that night, and the DNA collected was flawed, then I guess you could say they have a strong Defense. 

 

So I don't think it is really a question of proof beyond reasonable doubt here. You can find that on both sides. I think it all boils down to who you beleive the most here.   

[Zeberdee]

Was DNA from the b2 on the hoe?

Was DNA from the b2 on Hannahs clothing?

Was Hannahs clothing present in court?

Edited August 24, 2017 by Zeberdee

[JLCrab]

According to postings in this very topic, there are people known to have been in the bar that evening 'and saw everything leading up to the incident'. So if such persons were able to supply corroborable proof that the B2 were not involved, that should be a compelling part of any Petition for a Royal Pardon if a Petition for a Royal Pardon is to be submitted.

[mommysboy]

5 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

In Theory this would be correct, but in Practice I doubt it happens that way all the time. For example if the Accused had an Air Tight Alibi, is this not an example of the Accused proving his own innocents? 

 

On one side you have the Prosecution with Signed Confessions from both of the Accussed. Witnesses, DNA Testing of Cigarette Butts and the Accused themselves, placing them at or near the Crime Scene on the night in question and the last known suspects to be in that area during this crime. The Accused having (or had) in their possession a Cell Phone, which the Accused said they gave it to a Friend and claimed they never saw David Miller that night, which the Prosecution claim belonged to David Miller. DNA taken from the Victims Body (Hannah)  matching in a Lab the DNA taken form both of the Accused, who they both claim never saw her that night at all.

 

Now "If" (and please notice I use the word "If") you can believe that what the Prosecution have is true and accurate, then one would have to agree they would have a pretty Rock Solid Case against them. "If" on the other hand you believe the Accused that there Confessions were given under duress and torture (with no visable signs of abuse) they fund this Cell Phone on the Beach that night and did not see either of the Victims that night, and the DNA collected was flawed, then I guess you could say they have a strong Defense. 

 

So I don't think it is really a question of proof beyond reasonable doubt here. You can find that on both sides. I think it all boils down to who you beleive the most here.   

 

Debunking the prosecution's case requires one to believe there has been extreme incompetence/collusion/corruption throughout all branches of the legal system involved and top to bottom. 

 

The allegations of torture seem to have been corroberated by the accusations of others who seemingly have the marks to prove it. 

 

But it all really rests with the forensic evidence since all else is circumstantial.  If you believe it has been corrupted or introduced later then of course you will believe in their innocence.  The judges clearly thought otherwise.

Edited August 24, 2017 by mommysboy

[metisdead]

Troll posts bringing Trump into the topic have been removed as well as the replies. 

[wakeupplease]

11 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Wakeupplease

 

With regards the dna , you missunderstand. The explanation is given by a police statement following the analysis on sep17 2014

 

The police identified 2 dna on the cigarette butt, however they could not say if the semen dna matched the dna on the cigarette butt. In order to accomplish this they would require fresh samples from the unidentified persons.

 

From this 2 main and 1 subsequent questions arise.

Why the dna from cigarette butt and Semen cannot be compared 

Why do they need fresh samples

 

and which dna sample did they use to clear the 12 suspects at that time

 

My friend cigarettes where not use to kill, the hoe was said to be the weapon and the DNA on that was not from the boys, so many in the know have said, so who"s DNA was on the Hoe and other locations?

[Artisi]

23 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

My friend cigarettes where not use to kill, the hoe was said to be the weapon and the DNA on that was not from the boys, so many in the know have said, so who"s DNA was on the Hoe and other locations?

And many in the "know" don't need DNA to know who the  culprit is, but that's another story now well glossed over. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Artisi

[GOLDBUGGY]

13 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

My friend cigarettes where not use to kill, the hoe was said to be the weapon and the DNA on that was not from the boys, so many in the know have said, so who"s DNA was on the Hoe and other locations?

I am sorry, and I really don't mean to be so questionable, but what is it that makes this Hoe, if it is the weapon that was involved in these murders, so important, as to not having DNA or Fingerprints on it? It is not just you but I keep seeing this come up time and time again.

 

I mean that if I clubbed you with a Garden Hoe, or anything else like that, while I was standing next to an Ocean, would it be so hard to believe that I then threw this Hoe into the Salt Water, and one reason why there was no Fingerprints or my DNA, on this Hoe? 

 

I mean even a 10 year old knows about Fingerprints and wiping them off after use. So what is this fashionation that people keep bringing up, that DNA and Fingerprints were not found, which can easily be wiped off after use. Is it because this old news is totally new to everyone else? 

[GOLDBUGGY]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

Debunking the prosecution's case requires one to believe there has been extreme incompetence/collusion/corruption throughout all branches of the legal system involved and top to bottom. 

 

The allegations of torture seem to have been corroberated by the accusations of others who seemingly have the marks to prove it. 

 

But it all really rests with the forensic evidence since all else is circumstantial.  If you believe it has been corrupted or introduced later then of course you will believe in their innocence.  The judges clearly thought otherwise.

I Agree!

 

Debunking the Prosecution does require the belief of extreme incompetence. There has never been any solid proof of that happening. Nor will there likely ever be. So why we are here today and in this moment of time. 

[AGareth2]

David's DNA was on the hoe

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Debunking the Prosecution does require the belief of extreme incompetence. There has never been any solid proof of that happening. Nor will there likely ever be

That has to be the statement of the year.......extreme incompetance was EVIDENT in all aspescts of this case, from the pics taken at the crime scene showing people wandering over it, the lack of chain of custody process, "used up" DNA, non accredited laboratory until after the fact, Hannahs clothes going missing, no mention/testing of the blond hair found in her hand, the changing of the BIB in charge of the case after he said they had strong leads on the perpetrators, the Chief Forensic Officer publicly stating that correct evidence collecting procedures weren't followed (then she went strangely silent?), no conclusion as to who/what caused the puncture wounds in Davids head.......

 

Jeez, how can any reasonable person not see these flaws; they have been published for all to see and if you can't even admit that there is a strong element of incompetance here then you don't live in the same world that I do.

Edited August 25, 2017 by xylophone

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I Agree!   Debunking the Prosecution does require the belief of extreme incompetence. There has never been any solid proof of that happening. Nor will there likely ever be. So why we are here today and in this moment of time. 

              I have followed this case closely from the first minutes it was reported, Sept. 14, 2015.  There has been 'extreme incompetence' by the prosecution.  There's been worse.  There's been collusion and probable under-the-table payments (to authorities) by very rich mafia-like players.  It stinks so much that major press outlets worldwide have reported on its destruction of four people:  the two murder victims, and the two scapegoats.  Meanwhile, the real criminals are strolling around free, to continue their nefarious ways.