UK police broke law in case of British backpackers murdered on Koh Tao

[JLCrab]

I don't have the slightest idea. The Queen's Bench ruling said no more than what I directly quoted above.

[greenchair]

50 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

While a strong possibility, it is rather surprising , considering, some of the info dates are beyond the frirst pre-trial hearing and the RTP written case

Well one date. Which asks the Thai to test dna of suspect. 

Which may refer to the person that had the conflict. 

Still irrelevant to the burmese case. 

I don't see anything in there, that would effect burmese case as their testimony stands. Unless they want to fess up. 

[AGareth2]

I think the UK is now under a "duty" to release the data that might point to other assailants

[AGareth2]

well it would seem from the UK inquiry that the B2 may not be the murderers.

The DNA evidence is non verifiable and therefore cannot be claimed to be "true"

An other's DNA is on "the murder weapon"- the hoe

This is a stitch up!

And the UK knows it

[rockingrobin]

39 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well one date. Which asks the Thai to test dna of suspect. 

Which may refer to the person that had the conflict. 

Still irrelevant to the burmese case. 

I don't see anything in there, that would effect burmese case as their testimony stands. Unless they want to fess up. 

Without knowing further details, I cannot see how it can be concluded that it is not relevant to the B2 case, considering it was passed on with regards to the B2 case

[manchega]

I stand corrected on the DNA, I am not even sure where I got the idea of dna from hair from.  I was sure there was something though?

none the less,

wrt whole story

and the stakes

for people with potentially more than 50 years left to stumble around this planet be they men or boys

the possibility of miscarriage of justice is what is irking the uk .

not that I beleive the uk is infallable, but less fallible than this place and more than others.

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

I think the UK is now under a "duty" to release the data that might point to other assailants

The data is there already, they had information there was a conflict of some sort at a bar. The person might be a possible suspect to interview. 

It was well before the burmese were arrested. 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Without knowing further details, I cannot see how it can be concluded that it is not relevant to the B2 case, considering it was passed on with regards to the B2 case

It wasn't passed on in regard to the b2 case. It was passed on well before they were even suspects. 

Nothing to do with the b2 case. 

It just means the person that had a conflict would be a person to interview  .nothing more. 

[Krenjai]

5 hours ago, greenchair said:

The phone convinced me. No matter how it's argued, there's just no explaining why they would have the victims phone and lie about it. A few people have tried to explain that away. And failed. 

The argument from the defense is 

1. It just proves they were there and perhaps witnessed the crime, then accidently stole the phone . 

2.in regards to dna on 2nd deceased, just proves they raped her but didn't kill her. 

3.there was obviously someone else there that might have held the hoe and the b2 are too afraid to speak of it, therefore they should be free. 

Make of that defense what you will. ??

Wrong! 

 

1) The phone does not prove anything they were the killers, they stole it, not accidentally but just stole it.  It is very plausible actually they heard something (50 meters away?), saw something (?) and went there, found the phone, took it and ran away. 

 

Now lying about this is probably what anybody would have done knowing Burmese are often perfect scapegoat puppies in Thailand (no Thai could have done this). Not in any way you would want to be associated with a horrible killing as a Burmese on an island like Koh Tao. 

 

2) Everything associated with the DNA evidence is plain BS and not even worth reading. It is a total unverifiable fabrication. 

 

3) Obviously someone else was there, oh yes, that is correct! Just look at the multiple push-knife stab wounds on David. There must have been one hell of fight. I think there are some people in the know,  but of course these persons will never speak out.

 

Case closed, B2 convicted, Party goes one, $$$

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Krenjai

[Proboscis]

On 30/8/2017 at 0:45 PM, greenchair said:

It amazes me the tantrum and outcry for the UK to reveal their findings of an independent investigation that was conducted because of a Petition to the prime minister, is followed by a tantrum and outcry because the UK revealed the findings of their investigations that clearly showed the b2 guilty. 

Well, if it clearly showed the B2 guilty, we would be all going home with nothing to talk about. All it showed was that the two suspects, assuming that the phone is theirs, were in the area - nothing more. There were a lot of people in the area that night and none of them have been convicted. Dodgy DNA findings plus mobile phone locator does not add up to a knock-down conviction for me. 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

well it would seem from the UK inquiry that the B2 may not be the murderers.

The DNA evidence is non verifiable and therefore cannot be claimed to be "true"

An other's DNA is on "the murder weapon"- the hoe

This is a stitch up!

And the UK knows it

Saying the victims had words in a bar with someone is a far stretch to insinuste the b2 are innocent. 

Nothing in there about the hoe or the veritability of dna. 

Clutching straws. 

[greenchair]

2 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

Well, if it clearly showed the B2 guilty, we would be all going home with nothing to talk about. All it showed was that the two suspects, assuming that the phone is theirs, were in the area - nothing more. There were a lot of people in the area that night and none of them have been convicted. Dodgy DNA findings plus mobile phone locator does not add up to a knock-down conviction for me. 

Obviously you are new to this case referring to the phone being theirs. 

Please read court documents. 

[Proboscis]

8 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Obviously you are new to this case referring to the phone being theirs. 

Please read court documents. 

Ah, you got me with your eagle-eyed linguistic precision. I of course should have said 'if it had indeed been in their possession'.

 

I have some time ago stopped reading fiction - that includes many court documents in Thailand.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Proboscis
addition of text

[dick dasterdly]

17 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The data is there already, they had information there was a conflict of some sort at a bar. The person might be a possible suspect to interview. 

It was well before the burmese were arrested. 

Hang on a minute - there is now proof that one or both of the victims were involved in a conflict at the bar shortly before they were murdered?

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Hang on a minute - there is now proof that one or both of the victims were involved in a conflict at the bar shortly before they were murdered?

 

I suspect we will get the details of this sooner rather than later.

[Krenjai]

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I suspect we will get the details of this sooner rather than later.

As has been posted before, the loss of face can lead to an uncontrollable explosive violent reaction!

[JLCrab]

This is verbatim from the Queen's Bench ruling:

(Intelligence was given regarding) person(s) with whom the murdered individuals had had an argument (30 September 2014);

Note the words 'bar' and 'conflict' are not in this statement although in the previous statement they did mention a 'beach bar' but not in the above statement.

Edited August 31, 2017 by JLCrab

[rockingrobin]

44 minutes ago, greenchair said:

The data is there already, they had information there was a conflict of some sort at a bar. The person might be a possible suspect to interview. 

It was well before the burmese were arrested. 

The RTP testified in court this was not investigated

[iReason]

4 hours ago, JLCrab said:

The NCA provided the intelligence of " ...Mr Miller being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the island of Koh Phangan (10 October 2014)"
The B2 were arrested 3 October 2014.

You folks can infer and extrapolate as you wish.

 

"The NCA also admitted in a schedule to the August 21 order that it had, without proper ministerial consent, provided intelligence about "a person who had displayed anti-British female sentiment" at a local beach bar, and about "person(s) with whom the murdered individuals had had an argument".

 

"In October 2014 it also wrongly provided information about Mr Miller "being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the island of Koh Phangan", and the need for DNA samples to be taken "from a potential suspect".
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/leeds-backpacker-murder-case-intelligence-shared-unlawfully-with-thai-police-1-8728674

 

Interesting how;

"In October 2014 it also wrongly provided information about Mr Miller "being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the island of Koh Phangan"

 

Became in your unattributed post:

"The NCA provided the intelligence of " ...Mr Miller being involved in a dispute with certain persons on the

island of Koh Phangan (10 October 2014)"

 

 

You folks can infer and extrapolate as you wish... 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by iReason

[Khun Han]

17 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

This is verbatim from the Queen's Bench ruling:

(Intelligence was given regarding) person(s) with whom the murdered individuals had had an argument (30 September 2014);

Note the words 'bar' and 'conflict' are not in this statement although in the previous statement they did mention a 'beach bar' but not in the above statement.

 

I wouldn't get too excited about your 'find' Crab. The specifics of this will almost certainly find their way into the public domain shortly.

[greenchair]

36 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Hang on a minute - there is now proof that one or both of the victims were involved in a conflict at the bar shortly before they were murdered?

So what? ?

[greenchair]

32 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I suspect we will get the details of this sooner rather than later.

That is the detail. There was a disagreement in a bar earlier. 

Nothing to see here. 

Go back to your dream kh.?

[JLCrab]

The NCA 'wrongly' provided information meaning they shouldn't have done it not that the information was wrong.

Well saying the whole cookie is about to crumble seems that you sure got excited.

Edited August 31, 2017 by JLCrab

[greenchair]

20 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The RTP testified in court this was not investigated

Why would they investigate? 

What would they say at court? 

This man was angry at victim 2 and argued with victim 1. 

He lost face and murdered them at the beach. 

It's like the 1 hair. 

We found a hair belonging to that man so we know he is the murderer.

Please don't insult my extensive intelligence. 

 

[007cableguy]

Why would they investigate? 
What would they say at court? 
This man was angry at victim 2 and argued with victim 1. 
He lost face and murdered them at the beach. 
It's like the 1 hair. 
We found a hair belonging to that man so we know he is the murderer.
Please don't insult my extensive intelligence. 
 

Extensive intelligence..... Really?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[iReason]

12 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

The NCA 'wrongly' provided information meaning shouldn't have done it not that the information was wrong.
Well saying the whole cookie is about to crumble seems that you sure got excited.

 

Nice dancing. NOT.

 

Now, let's get back to the point:

You posted a self-edited "quote" to imply completely the opposite of the original.

You were busted spreading blatant disinformation.

 

 

You folks can infer and extrapolate on that, as you wish...

[Dogmatix]

15 hours ago, greenchair said:

Wrong Khun Han!!

The UK coroner said she was sexually assaulted and andy tried to pass that off as she was not raped. That's just rediculous. 

The b2 were arrested because extensive video footage show the 3 of them in the area of the crime, when no one else was in that area. 

Upon interviewing the burmese and their friends, the police were informed about David's phone. 

The rest is history. 

 

Video footage showed them in the area but it also showed someone else who was clearly not one of them running back and forth in the area.  There was a lot more video footage that we did not see because police didn't demand the owners of CCTV cameras in the area to hand it over immediately, saying it was their private property and they had a right to hand over some, all or none of it as they pleased.  They also admitted that they didn't scrutinise the footage from CCTV cameras at the port which might have shown people leaving the island soon after the murders.  There was never an adequate explanation of the sudden transfer of the police chief of Region soon after he announced he would soon make an arrest of a suspect in Bangkok. 

 

The only thing that police and prosecutors ever established beyond a reasonable doubt was that the 2B were in the vicinity and that is only circumstantial evidence and not enough to enough prosecute in a Western court of law.  That is not to mention that the case would have been thrown out by a Western court for any number of reasons pertaining to the rights of the accused to be allowed to remain silent to have an independently appointed lawyer present during police questioning, to have an independently appointed and properly qualified translator etc etc.  All of these things are also required in Thai law too but the court chose to ignore the accused's rights.      

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Hang on a minute - there is now proof that one or both of the victims were involved in a conflict at the bar shortly before they were murdered?

 

53 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

This is verbatim from the Queen's Bench ruling:

(Intelligence was given regarding) person(s) with whom the murdered individuals had had an argument (30 September 2014);

Note the words 'bar' and 'conflict' are not in this statement although in the previous statement they did mention a 'beach bar' but not in the above statement.

As the UK police have already been convicted of supplying evidence to the Thai police, but not the defence team - surely its time for them and the UK coroner to release ALL evidence?

[Dogmatix]

3 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

I think the UK is now under a "duty" to release the data that might point to other assailants

 

I expect they will release the information once the 2B have safely been executed or died in prison under a 30 year rule or something.  The British government is more concerned with trying to sell defence equipment to the military government, even though they have nil chance against sellers like China that can give "preferential" terms.  

 

Funny that the British Embassy's Defence Attache's office was shut down for several years after the previous attache, an army colonel, was court martialled for drunkenly goosing a BA business class stewardess on the way to home leave and all enquiries were referred to the defence attache at the KL embassy.  Smelling an opportunity to do business after the 2014 coup with the prospect of a significantly expanded military budget, the FCO suddenly staffed the Bangkok defence attache's office up again.  The FCO would not want a couple of dead backpackers, who failed to heed basic precautions for travel in a dangerous country like Thailand, get in the way of business  and they clearly demonstrated that in their disgraceful handling of the case, both in London and Bangkok. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Dogmatix

[dick dasterdly]

34 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Why would they investigate? 

What would they say at court? 

This man was angry at victim 2 and argued with victim 1. 

He lost face and murdered them at the beach. 

It's like the 1 hair. 

We found a hair belonging to that man so we know he is the murderer.

Please don't insult my extensive intelligence. 

 

Really?  This is your best effort?

 

I'm completely pissed but can see that if there's evidence of a conflict shortly before the victims were murdered - its VERY important evidence!