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

[juice777]

Almost, but not quite, as far as I can tell.  According to the article, where the NCA broke the law was in not "seeking authority from its own directors or Home Office ministers" before sharing the information with Thai authorities in a situation where the death penalty was a possibility and they had not received assurances that the death penalty would not result.  It wasn't the fact that they got the death penalty in the end that made it illegal, it was the fact that even before the court case had started, the death penalty was a possibility that had not been ruled out and so they should have sought authority to share the information.

So basically it's a load of rubbish

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[BangkokNicky]

The  Defendant / NCA shall pay ·the Claimants £15,000 life is cheap these days thats 7,500 each .. 

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

[juice777]

Why is the Thai authorities asking us to check phone records in Thailand anyway. Can't they do it there selves. It's quite scary to think that the UK can see where everyone is in Thailand just from there phones.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[BangkokNicky]

3 minutes ago, juice777 said:

Why is the Thai authorities asking us to check phone records in Thailand anyway. Can't they do it there selves. It's quite scary to think that the UK can see where everyone is in Thailand just from there phones.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

 

UK sim card by the sounds of it .. 

[juice777]

 
UK sim card by the sounds of it .. 

Yes but they was checking where the suppects was, wasn't they?

We know the victims was there. Or am I totally missing something here or is it more ridiculous then I thought.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[BangkokNicky]

2 minutes ago, juice777 said:

Yes but they was checking where the suppects was, wasn't they?

We know the victims was there. Or am I totally missing something here or is it more ridiculous then I thought.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

Hmm i know something does sound fishy ..

[Dogmatix]

7 hours ago, Proboscis said:

So lets get this straight - according to British Law (and presumably therefore NOT EU law!), it is unlawful to pass information to other countries where there might be a danger that the perpetrators in question could receive the death penalty.

 

1. Does this apply to all crimes, including terrorism?

 

2. The UK is prepared to withhold vital evidence and allow the perpetrator of a murderous act to go free and do it again rather than provide information just in case the death penalty is applied!

 

By the way, I also have severe doubts that the two Burmese men convicted are in fact guilty of the crimes mentioned - here we are just talking about the principle of the matter.

 

It would make a more credible law if evidence were withheld in cases where the jurisdiction could not be trusted to provide a fair trial.

 

In working with developed countries that still have the death penalty, like the US and Japan, it is standard procedure, at least for US prosecutors, to agree in advance not to seek the death penalty if they need vital evidence from British law enforcement agencies.  Exchanging information about terrorist organisations who might not even have committed the crime yet is obviously not subject to this, unless there is a specific prosecution in progress.    

 

In this case, I think the Thai authorities make clear that the A-G's office would not agree to not seek the death penalty but the NCA handed over the evidence without approval from the Home Office anyway.  On  the other hand the British police refused to hand over the Met's report to the defence and this decision was upheld by a British court on the grounds that it benefited the public to maintain the goodwill of the Thai police or some such drivel.  As if the goodwill of the Thai police is needed for Britain to export next to nothing to Thailand while buying a huge amount of consumer goods from it and spending zillions of tourist dollars there.  And, as if the British public cared about the goodwill of Thai police.

 

I hope someone at the NCA is prosecuted or at least fired without pension for this grossly disgusting and criminal behaviour.

      

[Dogmatix]

18 minutes ago, BangkokNicky said:

The  Defendant / NCA shall pay ·the Claimants £15,000 life is cheap these days thats 7,500 each .. 

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_29_PRIV-High-Court-Order-NCA-unlawful-action.pdf

 

No doubt the British court had in mind that this should at least pay for flowers at their funerals after they have been executed in determining this hugely generous settlement.  

[pacovl46]

2 hours ago, DiscoDan said:

The only difference was the B2 were sitting only a few feet away from where the hoe was kept. and had the victims phone.

Was the hoe buried in the sand? Also, the phone might have been overlooked by the perpetrators and then found by the two Burmese guys. That piece of evidence is simply circumstantial.

[NCFC]

To be clear, the British police handed over evidence to the police not the prosecution. It is up to the Thai police to hand over all relevant facts to the defence.
It must have come up in court as evidence so why didnt Andy Hall and friends challenge the source?

[Arkady]

1 hour ago, juice777 said:

This is <deleted> unbelievable

POT KETTLE BALCK

it sounds like to me the the UK authorities just messed up. Confirming that the 2 suspects was in the vicinity of a small island dose not make them guilty. Now if they said they wasn't there that would would prove them incoent. I am sure the UK authorities have messed up here. But it sounds like This is a clever move by the the defense lawyers to offer a Face saving way out for Thailand. Oh we only found them guilty because of The uk gave us information illegally it's not our fault. The difference being we don't torture and fit up innocent people with no evidence. We'll not for a long time anyway.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

 

From the British court document it seems that British police actually handed over evidence from David Miller's phone about arguments he and Hannah had with individuals on Koh Tao and harassment Hannah had suffered in a beach bar there.  If I understand it correctly, Thai police and prosecutors apparently chose to ignore this evidence that might have pointed to suspects other than the 2B and just used the evidence to do with the phone's location. 

 

Unfortunately it is unlikely to taken as a face saving way of letting the 2B off.  It is far more likely to be completely ignored by the Thai Supreme Court, as irrelevant.  With the best will in the world there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to take it into consideration, unless the defence has including this as evidence in its final appeal which has already been submitted. 

[partington]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Thank you for the correction. Am I right in thinking that this amplified dna could just as easily have been taken from mouth swabs done in the first round-up of Burmese migrants as from semen samples allegedly taken from Hannah's body?

 The thing is there is no reason to believe that the police/prosecution really had any DNA evidence at all, so it is a moot point what was offered to the defence for a supposed re-test. Who knows what they were offered and why?
 

According to the expert forensic DNA witness for the defence,  Australian Jane Taupin, interviewed in Australia after the  case, no scientific data of any kind was presented in court, that is nothing that resembled in any way a DNA profiling report in a western court. She was not called because there was no data for her to be asked questions about.  According to most reports all that was presented was a single sheet of paper basically amounting to a statement saying a match was found, but presenting none of the work to justify this conclusion. It is most likely therefore that there was no presentable DNA evidence, just a made up statement.

 

Therefore the idea that the prosecution had a convincing faked DNA sample made of a mix of the DNA from the Burmese accused, taken from them in jail, is superfluous. They didn't, because they didn't even have a DNA report themselves that could have been prepared from such a faked sample. They had nothing that could even produce a convincing DNA profile that they could themselves produce in court, so could have offered nothing for independent testing to the prosecution.   

Edited August 30, 2017 by partington
replaced victims (typo) with Burmese accused

[juice777]

 
From the British court document it seems that British police actually handed over evidence from David Miller's phone about arguments he and Hannah had with individuals on Koh Tao and harassment Hannah had suffered in a beach bar there.  If I understand it correctly, Thai police and prosecutors apparently chose to ignore this evidence that might have pointed to suspects other than the 2B and just used the evidence to do with the phone's location. 
 
Unfortunately it is unlikely to taken as a face saving way of letting the 2B off.  It is far more likely to be completely ignored by the Thai Supreme Court, as irrelevant.  With the best will in the world there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to take it into consideration, unless the defence has including this as evidence in its final appeal which has already been submitted. 

So now I am really confused. They decided not to use the evendince against other people. But used the the location data to prove that the victims was there even if we know they was there because they found there dead bodies.So this information was handed over in a technically illegal way because they didn't get assurances that there was no Death penalty.But if the data was handed over by the UK because they thought it would help the B2 Denfince,(or at least pointing out that there is other suspects) why would they need to seek assurances there was no death penalty.

I think they are probably innocent so in a round about way this might help. But I am still flabbergasted.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[BangkokNicky]

The surveillance system has been procured by the Metropolitan police from Leeds-based company Datong plc, which counts the US Secret Service, the Ministry of Defence and regimes in the Middle East among its customers.  Seems like RTP don't have a clue what they we're doing 

 

http://www.defenceindustryreports.com/datong_247.html

 

 

[rockingrobin]

25 minutes ago, Arkady said:

 

From the British court document it seems that British police actually handed over evidence from David Miller's phone about arguments he and Hannah had with individuals on Koh Tao and harassment Hannah had suffered in a beach bar there.  If I understand it correctly, Thai police and prosecutors apparently chose to ignore this evidence that might have pointed to suspects other than the 2B and just used the evidence to do with the phone's location. 

 

Unfortunately it is unlikely to taken as a face saving way of letting the 2B off.  It is far more likely to be completely ignored by the Thai Supreme Court, as irrelevant.  With the best will in the world there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to take it into consideration, unless the defence has including this as evidence in its final appeal which has already been submitted. 

Item D is interesting, request to take dna sample from suspect , Oct 17 , this is after the B2 arrest.

If we are to believe the final thai court judgement , all the dna samples have been accounted for

Edited August 30, 2017 by rockingrobin

[Wilsonandson]

[farcanell]

6 hours ago, strawpanda said:

Is this the UK government ingratiating itself with the Thai government? 

More like an over achieving data analyst in the U.K., about to be hung drawn and quartered.... pity really, as I'm sure that there was a genuine attempt here, to do the right thing regards Hannah and David

 

and then..... the Thai justice system kicked in and screwed a couple of unconnected itinerant workers.

 

reminds me of the old story about a cow taking a big old dump on a freezing birdy.... whereby those that dump on you, aren't nessesarily your enemy, and those that help you out, aren't nessesarily your friend.

[rockingrobin]

Did the RTP mislead the Thai court when 

Cherdpong also conceded that officers never investigated rumors of an altercation between Witheridge and a young Thai man in the AC Bar

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Dogmatix said:

 

In working with developed countries that still have the death penalty, like the US and Japan, it is standard procedure, at least for US prosecutors, to agree in advance not to seek the death penalty if they need vital evidence from British law enforcement agencies.  Exchanging information about terrorist organisations who might not even have committed the crime yet is obviously not subject to this, unless there is a specific prosecution in progress.    

 

In this case, I think the Thai authorities make clear that the A-G's office would not agree to not seek the death penalty but the NCA handed over the evidence without approval from the Home Office anyway.  On  the other hand the British police refused to hand over the Met's report to the defence and this decision was upheld by a British court on the grounds that it benefited the public to maintain the goodwill of the Thai police or some such drivel.  As if the goodwill of the Thai police is needed for Britain to export next to nothing to Thailand while buying a huge amount of consumer goods from it and spending zillions of tourist dollars there.  And, as if the British public cared about the goodwill of Thai police.

 

I hope someone at the NCA is prosecuted or at least fired without pension for this grossly disgusting and criminal behaviour.

      

I agree with some of what you say. But I remember that British court case. The judge said there was nothing in the report that would exonerated the b2 so he saw no reason to possibly damage international relations, when there would be no benefit to the b2. 

From what I see, he was correct. 

Having an argument in a bar, does not exclude them from the crime. 

It may be the person that had the argument was involved in the murder. It still doesn't make the b2 innocent. They stole the  victims phone, they raped her. They were there. they deserve to be in prison. 

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Well the MPS disagrees with you, under oath they have testified they did not carry out any investigation , take possesion of any evidence, but were there merely as observers

 

If you wish I will locate the relevant UK  High Court judgement

Please. 

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, DiscoDan said:

The only difference was the B2 were sitting only a few feet away from where the hoe was kept. and had the victims phone.

And hid the phone and lied extensively throughout the case. 

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, partington said:

 The thing is there is no reason to believe that the police/prosecution really had any DNA evidence at all, so it is a moot point what was offered to the defence for a supposed re-test. Who knows what they were offered and why?
 

According to the expert forensic DNA witness for the defence,  Australian Jane Taupin, interviewed in Australia after the  case, no scientific data of any kind was presented in court, that is nothing that resembled in any way a DNA profiling report in a western court. She was not called because there was no data for her to be asked questions about.  According to most reports all that was presented was a single sheet of paper basically amounting to a statement saying a match was found, but presenting none of the work to justify this conclusion. It is most likely therefore that there was no presentable DNA evidence, just a made up statement.

 

Therefore the idea that the prosecution had a convincing faked DNA sample made of a mix of the DNA from the Burmese accused, taken from them in jail, is superfluous. They didn't, because they didn't even have a DNA report themselves that could have been prepared from such a faked sample. They had nothing that could even produce a convincing DNA profile that they could themselves produce in court, so could have offered nothing for independent testing to the prosecution.   

 

Thank you. It's long been my belief that no semen samples ever existed (and I believe the Norfolk coroner came to the conclusion that Hannah hadn't been raped). There was some speculation that the b2 had been in the first round-up of Burmese migrants for swab testing, before they were arrested, and that they may have been selected as scapegoats from that and the knowledge that they had been on the beach that fateful night, which is why I asked the question.

[DiscoDan]

The fact they have kept this case quite speaks volumes, there is no problem with the evidence provided only that the death penalty is on the table.

[rockingrobin]

31 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Please. 

link to MPS case back in 2015

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/zaw-lin-and-wai-phyo-v-commissioner-of-police-for-the-metropolis/

[fuzzie]

These two boys did not murder, Mafia thais run that koh (island)..The some one is walking free Scapgoats are these poor boys.

[greenchair]

9 hours ago, partington said:

This is absolutely incorrect.  There was  no sperm DNA test, of the accused, and absolutely no necessity to do one. DNA from cheek cells is identical to DNA isolated from sperm and there is no necessity to do a sperm collection or isolation from the accused under any circumstances.

 

You are probably confused by reading somewhere that DNA from sperm cells is haploid, that is, contains only half the chromosomes of body cells. This  is true but would only be relevant if you had exactly one sperm cell to test! When DNA is made from a swab of sperm it contains millions of cells. These cells as a group contain every chromosome and therefore every DNA forensic marker in the body, and so when  DNA is prepared from this kind of sample it is indistinguishable from DNA prepared from any body cells, including the cheek cells in saliva that are the source of routine DNA for profiling. So no-one has any need to do more than collect cheek cells from the accused.

 

The DNA isolated from a rape victim would come from swabbed sperm, but once DNA is successfully isolated from THIS sample it does not need to be compared with sperm from anybody accused of the rape, because it is identical to DNA throughout their entire bodies! The 13 DNA markers compared are the same whether detected in DNA prepared from liver, cheek cells in saliva, or hair follicles or blood!

Well they matched at 16 locations. 

Would that pass the 13 marker requirement? ??

[IslandLover]

6 hours ago, sambum said:

Why do you have to use such language as "2 guilty sods"?

How would you like it if I called you a biased troll who likes nothing better than stirring it up and causing trouble in almost every thing you write? Sorry, don't answer that  - you'll probably take it as a compliment.

And before you say they have been proved to be guilty, the same can be said for yourself in your persecution of anybody who dares to disagree with your views.

Your ceaseless,  dogged comments regarding your support of the the DNA tests in another post are a typical example of you supporting flawed evidence that would have been thrown out of a civilised court, and your recent smug comment about the UK police is nothing less than sickening i.e.

"I just want to thank those brave officers that risked their jobs and good reputation in the name of justice" What a load of bullpoo - I'm sorry they can't be here for you to lick their boots for breaking the law!

She claims she is against the death penalty yet likes a post where the poster screams "execute the two Burmese immediately".  Sick.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, DiscoDan said:

The fact they have kept this case quite speaks volumes, there is no problem with the evidence provided only that the death penalty is on the table.

That's right. There really wasn't anything in there. 

There was an argument at a bar. 

They advised the Thai to take a dna sample of a suspect. 

There was information about the phone, but it doesn't say what that information is. 

There's nothing in it really. 

[partington]

15 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well they matched at 16 locations. 

Would that pass the 13 marker requirement? ??

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. This too is simply made up nonsense.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by partington

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

That's right. There really wasn't anything in there. 

There was an argument at a bar. 

They advised the Thai to take a dna sample of a suspect. 

There was information about the phone, but it doesn't say what that information is. 

There's nothing in it really. 

Assume you are correct about advising the thais to take a dna sample from a suspect.

This request is made some 2 weeks after the B2 arrest and dna being profiled.