Thread: Two Tourists Brutally Murdered on Koh Tao, One Raped: Police Spark Thailand Manhunt

Any updates on this?...

Originally Posted by blue

Well all police and courts would , unless they had a well funded bunch of politically correct fascist + conspiracy nuts, putting pressure on them to let them off , because they are illegal immigrant workers from Burma

The only reason you want them to be guilty is because their immigrants.
Forget logic just do them because the are foreigners.

Originally Posted by bobo746

The only reason you want them to be guilty is because their immigrants. Forget logic just do them because the are foreigners.

Not true I just want justice and punishment , I'm far too professional to let my raw bigotry cloud my analysis.
I laid out my case for the prosecution without recourse to bias many times eg in post 3417,

Having said that I would like to confirm that I do indeed hate all immigrants, they cause a hugely disproportionate amount of problems for any society unfortunate enough to host them.

The world would be a much nicer place if every bastard stayed in their home country and limited their movements to holidays.

Can't we just call them expats and all get along ?

Originally Posted by blue

Having said that I would like to confirm that I do indeed hate all immigrants, they cause a hugely disproportionate amount of problems for any society unfortunate enough to host them.

Fair point. Just look at the toubles White Europeans caused societies when they 'migrated' to their lands.

Any more on this case?...

BOOM !

Originally Posted by blue

Not true I just want justice and punishment , I'm far too professional to let my raw bigotry cloud my analysis. I laid out my case for the prosecution without recourse to bias many times eg in post 3417, Having said that I would like to confirm that I do indeed hate all immigrants, they cause a hugely disproportionate amount of problems for any society unfortunate enough to host them. The world would be a much nicer place if every bastard stayed in their home country and limited their movements to holidays.

Where are you living, Blue? have you always confined your living to your home country of birth?

Originally Posted by blue

stayed in their home country and limited their movements to holidays

Have you ever left Lincolnshire Blue ?

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

Any more on this case?...

The next news you will hear on this case will be the execution of two innocent victims.

There was a glimmer of hope for a while with hundreds of thousands worldwide focussing on the case.

Governments/Juntas win at the end of the day.

An interesting article that's not been posted on this thread...

https://www.change.org/p/david-camer...m_medium=email

Below is an article written by legal expert Ian Yarwood.
He offers great insight into the reasoning behind why David's family seem so convinced that Wai and Zaw are guilty but points out that once they understand how the Thai "justice" system really works, their rational for their statements and their belief in the guilt of the two boys becomes a lot less logical and a lot more unreasonable.

It is my opinion that the statements that David's brother has made have become very damaging and since he has made them, virtually every article I read about the case concludes with his statements backing the Thai police and essentially paying respect to one of the most transparently corrupt police forces on the planet. Tragically, the same ones that evidence points to as being responsible for covering up the murders of both David and Hannah and clearing a path for the murders of another two innocent victims in Wai and Zaw.

With death sentences being handed out and Wai and Zaw being shackled 24/7 in one of the world's worst prisons for crimes they did not commit, being misinformed is no longer a luxury that anyone making public statements about this case should be allowed to afford without at least explaining their own rationale as to why they are so convinced one way or the other.

So while I feel this article should be mandatory reading for everyone interested in the case, it is incredibly important that the family of David Miller take the time to read this.

SOME INSIGHTS INTO THE MURDERS OF TWO BRITISH BACKPACKERS ON THE THAI ISLAND OF KOH TAO


Many Western tourists are drawn to Thailand by glossy brochures and travel documentaries featuring pristine beaches, sensational diving and the friendliness of the locals. Indeed, Thailand is often described as the “Land of Smiles”.

Everything is so cheap in the Land of Smiles. Food is cheap. Alcohol is cheap. Accommodation is cheap. Travel is cheap. Unfortunately, life is cheap too. Truth is so terribly cheap that it often appears to have no value whatsoever.

One thing that does have value is “face” and “saving face” of a powerful Thai person can come at a very high price for people on the lower rungs of an extremely class conscious society. The Burmese are even more vulnerable as the Thais look down on them as the old invaders who sacked Thai cities and dragged off the surviving inhabitants as slaves.

It was into this Land of Smiles – into this Land of Illusions – that two young British backpackers ventured. Their names were David Miller and Hannah Witheridge. Subsequently, on the morning of 15 September 2014 their battered bodies were found by a beach cleaner.

Fast forward to Christmas Eve 2015 and in the Samui Provincial Court two young Burmese workers, Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were duly convicted of the murders of both Britons and the rape of Hannah. Wai Phyo was also convicted of stealing David’s mobile phone. Both defendants were sentenced to death.

Michael Miller’s address to the press
Shortly afterwards at the court entrance and flanked by his parents Ian and Sue Miller, David’s brother, Michael Miller read a prepared statement to members of the press. The Miller family clearly approved of the guilty verdicts. Michael Miller’s short address was punctuated by the howls of the condemned men’s mothers coming from inside the building. In a very uncomfortable scene the distraught Burmese mothers exited the court building just as Michael was winding up his address.

Michael Miller has since been on the receiving end of some harsh and frankly unjustified criticism for that address. The opinions that Michael expressed were, in fact, perfectly reasonable and logical in the context of the evidence the Miller family heard in court and in the context of the evidence they did not hear. The opinions were also reasonable in the context of assumptions that the Miller family might have and on inferences they might have drawn.

Very few people will know who killed David and Hannah. I was not there so I do not know who the true killers are. I cannot be 100% sure that Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were not responsible but I respectfully disagree with the opinions expressed by Michael Miller.

To understand the fiasco it helps to know a little about Thailand and its police force. The police are allegedly notoriously corrupt and they are also not particularly bright. Just a few short days ago the Royal Thai Police raided an innocent gathering of 30 elderly bridge players in the sin city of Pattaya on suspicions of gambling. Ironically vice and crime are everywhere in Pattaya. Only a few hundred metres away the local jet ski scammers were hard at work fleecing tourists under the protection of the local police. See for example: Internet 'Mr. Angry' Takes On Thailand's Jet Ski Scammers - Andrew Drummond





In recent years there have been major revelations of the extent of slavery and human trafficking allegedly involving the Royal Thai Police and senior Thai military officers including an Army Lieutenant General. According to the helpful if imperfect Global Slavery Index there were an estimated 475,300 slaves in Thailand in 2014.

In the late 1970’s there were regular credible reports of Thai pirates attacking Vietnamese refugees who were fleeing their homeland at the end of the Vietnam War. Many of these pirates were fishermen who took advantage of some great opportunities.

The reality is that there are a lot of very dangerous people in Thailand who do not feature in the glossy tourist brochures.

On Koh Tao the police decided to charge two small Burmese men (relative puppy dogs) who were in the general vicinity of the crime scene at about the time the murders were committed. However, there were hundreds of people on Koh Tao who could have been at the crime scene at that time and some of them were wolves in comparison to Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo.

Psychologists say that ordinary law-abiding people do not suddenly commit the type of crimes for which the defendants were convicted. Psychologists explain that there is a progression from other violent crimes and/or crimes of a sexual nature. I do not know the defendants but I understand that there is no known history of them committing any violent crimes or sex crimes. They were simply focused on working and sending money home to their parents.

There has been extensive discussion elsewhere on the bungled police investigation which won’t be repeated here except to say that one should be extremely skeptical about anything a Thai police officer might say about the case.

Michael Miller did refer to the Thai lawyers who defended Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo. It would be a little naive to assume that these volunteer lawyers were properly prepared for the trial. One should also not assume that the unofficial spokesperson for the nebulous “defence team”, Mr Andy Hall has any special skills that could assist other than being fluent in spoken Thai and Burmese.

I have known Andy Hall since September 2014 and have attended three Thai courts with him in Prakanong, Nakhon Pathom and Phuket. He says that he is not a lawyer but according to his website he has a law degree with first class honours from University College London. My own observations are that he has little knowledge of the law of evidence and defamation, a poor memory, neglects to communicate properly and lacks attention to detail – although he is ridiculously brave in risking jail over his defence of some vexatious criminal defamation and Computer Crimes Act charges.

Based on my discussions with people including Jane Taupin and a retired Australian barrister who were attempting to advise the defence team, the defence lawyers appeared unprepared and appeared to have a poor knowledge of DNA evidence. Unfortunately, they also decided to ignore much of the advice given to them by the retired Australian barrister who was familiar with DNA and who was experienced in running criminal trials. The defence lawyers also squandered resources in the form of the international DNA expert, Jane Taupin who had flown from Melbourne to Koh Samui for the trial. Jane had made requests to Andy Hall for various documents explaining that she needed to examine and consider these before leaving Australia. She received nothing.

In late July 2015 Andy contacted me asking me to put him in touch with Australian experts who would know about DNA and one of the machines that the Thai police had said they used to analyse samples. I put him in touch with an Acting Inspector of the Western Australian Police. Subsequently, on 28 July 2015 Andy was also informed by the Melbourne Human Rights lawyer, Julian Burnside AO QC that Jane Taupin would be a good person to contact. Upon Andy’s request I contacted Jane’s agency “Experts Direct” the same day in order to create a contact between Jane Taupin and the defence team.

At this late stage the prosecution had already presented a great deal of its evidence. Andy has told me that he had previously been in contact with a British DNA expert. As it transpired though the defence team did not use the services of the British DNA expert. I do not know the reason(s).

The defence team was always facing an alleged problem of limited disclosure by the prosecution but the defence team really needed to be better prepared on the science of DNA many months prior July 2015.

In September 2015 Jane Taupin flew into Koh Samui without the benefit of receiving any documents and met with the Thai defence team. She expressed differences of opinion to those of the prosecution experts but she also expressed doubts upon some of the opinions expressed by the Thai expert Pornthip.

Ultimately, the defence team made a big mistake in deciding not to call Jane to give evidence. It is true that Jane had very few documents to analyse but she could certainly have given evidence in the witness box to the effect that the Thai police laboratories did not comply with international standards in this case and that no reasonable conclusions could be drawn from the scant documents presented by the prosecutor.

Jane could have given evidence that generally only 5 microlitres of mixed DNA would be required for the relevant test. One teaspoon of original mixed DNA sample would be enough for one thousand tests. Jane could have given evidence that pursuant to international standards, laboratories retain original mixed samples in order that they may retest the sample themselves and in order that any future defence team has an opportunity to retest an original mixed sample. The prosecution and police merely had “amplified” DNA evidence available but without the original samples one could never be sure of the source.

However, given that the defence team did not call Jane Taupin it is open to draw the inference that her evidence would not have helped the two defendants. That inference is reasonable for an outside observer but the reality is that the defence team made a mistake and that Jane’s evidence might have been enough to secure an acquittal. It certainly would have made an appeal much easier as there would be more material for defence lawyers to work with.

As it transpired, the defence team wasted Jane’s time and wasted an opportunity to present some compelling evidence before the Court. Jane had been flown to Samui with funds from generous donors across the world that had been raised for the defendants’ defence. Jane told me afterwards that she felt drained for a month after returning from Koh Samui.

Andy Hall requested an expert on the Rohingya to travel to Koh Samui for the trial. The idea was that this witness was to give evidence on the ethnic conflicts between the Rohingya (such as the pancake/roti seller who acted as police interpreter) and the ethnic Burmans such as the defendants. When the Rohingya expert met with the defence team she was told that the representative from the Burmese Government vetoed the idea of her giving evidence as the Burmese Government did not recognise the existence of Rohingya. In the circumstances, her time and effort was also wasted.

There are several examples of a lack of communication & coordination that plagued the defence team and wasted resources of volunteers and donors. In fact, after the verdict Andy Hall obtained the assistance of the Perth barrister Mark Trowell QC but neglected to inform him that the defence team had already been in contact with Jane Taupin. As a result Mark Trowell commenced obtaining opinions from a second Australian DNA expert and learned later from the retired Australian barrister of Jane’s involvement.

I submit that Michael Miller’s statement is logical and reasonable but only if based in part on: assumptions that the Thai police are honest and competent and the Thai defence lawyers were prepared; and upon the inference that Jane Taupin could not help the defendants. Once those assumptions and that inference are removed the statement ceases to appear so logical and reasonable.

The Decision of the Samui Provincial Court
I respect the decision of the Court but, with the greatest respect, I disagree with some of the important findings.

Having said that I also wish to point out that many Western Courts make mistakes with forensic evidence. No one should be under any illusion that judges in the UK, the USA or Australia are immune from being blinded by science. Indeed, Mark Trowel QC refers on his Facebook page to an article “FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades” by Spencer S Hsu in the Washington Post on 18 April 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...310_story.html ; www.facebook.com/MarkTrowellQC

In Australia there is the infamous case of Lindy Chamberlain (dingo at Ayers Rock case) who had been convicted on the strength of dubious forensic evidence that was later discredited but only after she had spent considerable time in jail.

In my opinion, the defence team did enough to win but it should not be at all surprised that they lost. Going to court is like going to the casino. Many things are unpredictable. Luck and chance play a huge role. It was vital that the defence team increased its odds and put forward its strongest possible defence which involved calling Jane Taupin.

According to the Great Yarmouth Mercury, Andy Hall said that the defence team was totally taken by surprise by the verdicts. In quotes: Reaction to guilty verdict in Hannah Witheridge murder trial - News - Great Yarmouth Mercury The retired Australian barrister who had been trying to advise the defence team was not at all surprised even though he too disagreed with the verdicts.

In my opinion, and with the greatest of respect to the Court, the so-called “DNA evidence” should have been ruled as inadmissible. The police and prosecutor had none of the alleged original mixed DNA samples that they said were recovered from Hannah’s body. In the circumstances, all the “results” flowing from such samples could not be verified or tested by the defence team. It matters not that the prosecutor says that he had “amplified” DNA as one cannot be sure of the original source. It would be easy for the police to simply compare the DNA taken from cheek swabs of the defendants then compare it with other amplified DNA that was sourced from cheek swabs taken from the defendants. That will ensure a “match” but it won’t be a match of the defendants to any original mixed semen samples.

If similar “DNA evidence” has been presented in the UK, Canada, the USA or Australia it would have been promptly ruled as inadmissible – and for very good reason.

Without the so-called “DNA evidence” the prosecution case collapses. Yes, there is circumstantial evidence that the defendants were in the vicinity of the crime scene but so were hundreds of other people. The only thing that is suspicious is that Wai Phyo agrees that he picked up A mobile phone, although there is a plausible explanation. Hearsay evidence was presented suggesting that police had A phone that was David’s but I am not even sure that the phone the police referred to was the same phone that Wai Phyo said he recovered from the beach.

The appeal papers will scrutinise the decision in great detail but one other important observation is that the evidence of defence witness Worawee Wiyawuth MD might have been misconstrued at page 38 of the judgment. It is said that Worawee testified that the police laboratory operated in keeping with international standards. In fact, he was silent on the question of whether the police laboratory operated in keeping with international standards in this case. With respect, the court’s conclusion was not supported by Worawee’s evidence.

The Appeal
On Friday, 5 February 2016 the retired Australian barrister met with the defence team and Andy Hall who acted as interpreter.

As a result of that meeting the defence team now has a reasonable understanding of the DNA evidence and all the defects in the prosecution case that have been identified by the two Australian barristers and two Australian DNA experts including Jane Taupin.

Fortunately, everyone now seems to be in agreement on how to proceed and communication has improved. The English language documents that have been drafted need to be carefully and accurately translated into Thai. It is not even necessary for the Thai defence team to have a 100% understanding of their contents. The appeal is be decided “on the papers”.

If the appeal is successful it will be as the result of some tireless pro bono work performed by four Australian experts in law and DNA. They might just save the defendants and thereby also salvage the reputations of the Thai defense team.



Ian Yarwood – Solicitor

AUSTRALIA

@IanYarwood_Law (Twitter)

Channel 4 in the UK have a programme next Wednesday at 10pm.

"Murder in Paradise"

Murder in Paradise - All 4

I will be sure to fly over to England from Thailand just to catch it.

Watch it on the Channel 4 android app "ALL4"

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

I will be sure to fly over to England from Thailand just to catch it.

No need, it'll be on http://www.channel4.com/programmes/catchup:)

Ok, ok, I will watch it then. I was just trying to aggravate tax.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Ok, ok, I will watch it then. I was just trying to aggravate tax.

Just call him a tight Yorkshire [at][at][at][at] and tell him Leeds UTD are shite, that should do the trick. No offense Tax

I was just trying to aggravate tax.

well, you didnt !!

..... and sadly, yes, leeds united are shite.

A Thai court has accepted the final possible request to extend the appeal deadline for two Burmese migrant workers sentenced to death for the murder of a pair of British backpackers on Thailand’s Koh Tao island in 2014.

The court accepted the request from the Lawyers Council of Thailand on Tuesday, moving the deadline to May 23, said Aung Myo Thant, a lawyer for an investigation team formed by the Burmese Embassy in Bangkok.

“We have requested an extension for the appeal deadline because we have not yet finished gathering all the information we need for the case. We will continue gathering information since the request has now been accepted. But the court has warned that this is the last time [that such a request would be granted],” Aung Myo Thant told The Irrawaddy.

This is the fourth time the lawyers, acting on behalf of the convicted Burmese migrant workers, have requested an extension since the initial one-month deadline to appeal their verdict, which expired on Jan. 24.

On March 25, members of the Lawyers Council of Thailand and the Burmese Embassy investigation team went to the prison where Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin are being held to collect information, but the interpreter was denied access to the prison, thereby delaying the process and prompting lawyers to request an extension for the appeal deadline.

“Lawyers were allowed to see the two men, but the interpreter was not,” said Aung Myo Thant, adding that this was “legally wrong.”

“The defendants are Burmese, and the members of the Lawyers Council of Thailand are unable to communicate with them directly without an interpreter,” Aung Myo Thant said, while noting that the two appellants appeared to be in good health.

A court in Koh Samui sentenced Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin, both 22, to death on Dec. 24, 2015, for allegedly killing two British backpackers, David Miller, 24, and Hannah Witheridge, 23, on the island of Koh Tao. The murder occurred in September 2014.

The subsequent investigation by Thai authorities has been plagued by claims of malfeasance, including evidentiary irregularities and claims by the defendants that they were tortured while in detention.

Thai Court Sets Final Appeal Deadline for Koh Tao Murder Case

And never again will I set foot on Thai soil.

Originally Posted by Chittychangchang

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

I will be sure to fly over to England from Thailand just to catch it.

No need, it'll be on http://www.channel4.com/programmes/catchup:)

Dead link here. Anyone have a link that works?

^ Delete the hyphen at the end. The rest is fine.


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/catchup

https://eztv.ag/ep/146278/murder-in-...20p-x264-hdtv/

Originally Posted by Baas Babelaas

And never again will I set foot on Thai soil.

How many times are you gong to post this?

Who gives a fcuk?

Originally Posted by Luigi

Originally Posted by blue

Having said that I would like to confirm that I do indeed hate all immigrants, they cause a hugely disproportionate amount of problems for any society unfortunate enough to host them.

Fair point. Just look at the toubles White Europeans caused societies when they 'migrated' to their lands.

Overlordship isn't really like immigration (illegal or otherwise) is it?
The power relationship is so different...