Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Tuesday, January 12, 2016


The brave and shocking letter written by Laura Witheridge, whose younger sister Hannah was murdered with David Miller on Koh Tao in Thailand, has as predicted caused a rumpus in Britain with just about every major media outlet covering the story – from the red tops to the heavies, from Sky to the BBC.

The reaction from Thailand has so far been muted. The Government could keep quiet while continuing to express sympathy - the best course. 

It could retaliate with anger and scorn and counter claim, the most common course when it is under accusation, or the authorities could simply say nothing.

The Thai media has remained muted, but it’s early days.

Laura has since muted her letter slightly without giving a reason. The quote from an unnamed Thai saying: ‘Why are you so bothered?  You can just go home and make another one,” and other quotes like this have gone.  Why? Perhaps she thought they were over the top.

But what she wrote on Facebook, judging by the reaction was not only brave but reflected the unspoken views of thousands.

‘Unspoken?’ The fact is that correspondents in Thailand rarely cover the darker side in Thailand until cases like Hannah come to the fore, and in many ways as a foreign correspondent based out of Thailand for 25 years I was forced to by circumstance coupled with my horror at what was really happening in the crime world in Thailand to tackle it head on myself.

Internet brought changes that meant that I could no longer operate as an independent (freelance) journalist flying the flag of conveniences of  ‘The Times’ and ‘London Evening Standard’ for whom I was the accredited correspondent. In journalism to have a realistic income working this way it was always necessary to sell the same story or investigation on several continents.  

Daily Express

The net put paid to that.

While foreign correspondents preferred to remain somewhat lofty writing on world issues, which of course I had to as well, and plunging to the depths writing about crime and criminals often to me appeared to be beneath them.

This reminded me of course of the film ‘The Paper’ and in particular a scene where tabloid newspaper exec Henry played by Michael Keaton who. when working on a tabloid in New York is turned down for a job on the 'New York Sentinel' (New York Times obviously)  which 'covers the world, replied: “I don’t really f…g care. I don’t live in the f….g world. I live in f…g New York City!’   

Though his reply is a bit longer than that.

For all their sins, and there have been many, British tabloids at their best carried out ‘citizen journalism’ and I was in Thailand where lots of Brits were getting shot, clubbed to death, defrauded etc.

Now social media has taken this to the '‘enth’' degree and Laura’s voice is one which can be heard massively because now newspaper and television newsrooms have to watch the social media.

Apart from the severe doubts over the guilt of the two young Burmese for the murders there are other questions that still need to be answered. 

Why was Scotland Yard so keen to rubber stamp the Thai Police enquiry?  What were the circumstances which led to the Foreign and Commonwealth office 
issuing statements ‘from the families’ supporting the Thai Police investigation? 

And indeed how could they do that if British police were only in Thailand as observers, had no powers to investigate, and could only draw their conclusions from what Thai police told them?

Or indeed are we being lied to?  Did Scotland Yard and Norfolk Police in fact assist? They did after all send a Scenes of Crime officer along.  

And, if their findings were so supportive of the Royal Thai Police, why are the Thai police being widely criticized by DNA experts for their atrocious handling of the case?

Of course Scotland Yard has to co-operate with the Thai Police. How else can they nab British villains in Thailand? 

But the statement from the families was clearly pushed by advice from the Yard and the FCO was used as the conduit.

Norfolk Police pictire release - wtth the Witheridges
at coirrt in Samui
Should not actually the British government take a stronger line rather than rely on watered down travel advisories which hardly everybody, not least 23-year-olds ever reads.

Because, as Sue Jones, the mother of Kirsty Jones, who was raped and murdered in Chiang Mai  in 2000 says, the fate of Hannah and the reaction of the Thai authorities is all too familiar. 

Sue Jones also had to face one of those ‘impromptu’ press conferences. Chiang Mai police ran the investigation into the death of Kirsty. 

Sue Jones
It started as a shambles and continued in the same vein. 

Eventually the Department of Special Investigations had to take it out of the hands of the Thai Police, who, it is widely believed know who the killer was.

Sue Jones was continually reminded not to upset Thai feelings.

Said Sue last night: “It's the lack of respect and empathy that gets me the most and their disregard for human life, especially white women. We were promised the earth when there. But as soon as we left everything went back to normal“I can completely understand how Laura is feeling. I wonder how David Millers family faired when they were out there.”


  1. Has somone summoned you to maje changes to this statement? Looks that way

    1. I have not made changes to her statement. She has.

    2. Sorry AD. I meant has she been summoned to make changes

  2. Witheridge has more than "slightly muted her letter", she has made 3 very substantial retractions. Why would someone with such a direct connection to the investigation do that? There would normally be two reasons, either the allegations were fabricated by her or she feared a defamation law suit. Obviously her being sued in the UK by Thai authorities is never going to happen so perhaps she needs to explain herself.

    1. No Boob, there is a 3rd reason. She may have been "got at;" threatened - retract, or else.
      Oh I know she is back in the UK and supposedly safe from Thais, whether they be legal representatives or simply thugs - but never say never.
      I don't see how she could face a defamation suit - she hasn't exactly named these Thais who allegedly made those comments to her, has she?
      Still, you won't hear a word against the regime or the country, will you Boob?

    2. There still seems no outright shout for the Burmese lads innocence, only what we all already know. Thai police are corrupt. This is history, not news. I feel there is a hidden agenda here with under table deals being done. It happens every day in UK courts. plea bargaining just to keep the statistics up to date.

    3. I agree with you Bob, only one sensible explanation here but Mr Drummond doesn't want to point it out for some reason

    4. The sensible explanation is rather obvious Graham. She was told to. She has no fear of a libel suit even if (as they have) police, courts etc threaten it.She has clearly got onet thing wrong. Thai police do not need to pay the media to attend such a press photocall. Her whole letter has now been removed. I have no doubt it was written from deep down though. She has had no war with Thailand.

    5. It's obvious that she got some advice to retract her allegations, Andrew, my point is why did she need to be given that advice? Her comments were clearly not just a (very understandable) emotional outburst, it was a deliberately composed statement that someone thought better of after it was published.

    6. Boob - you write the biggest load of tosh under the sun.
      This poor girl has obviously been "got at," a.k.a. "nobbled," & you cannot see it?
      She no more needs to explain herself than I need to explain myself.
      These Thai filth are the biggest scum on the Planet Earth.

  3. She made no retraction. She did redact her earlier statement and one can only speculate as to why. There are many reasons she could have done so besides those you have suggested Bob. Had she retracted them, that is made a statement saying that she took those words back or that she was in error then perhaps you comment might have validity. For now, all we have is the removal of some statements that were inflamatory. Given that she is a person who has seen her sister senselessly murdered, a complete failure of justice to be served and she would like justice to be served I am sure there are many reasons she removed them. I can personally state that I had a friend murdered in Thailand and was told similar things I am quite sure that we she stated was not fabricated. It was probably ill-advised to make it public though.