POLICE MUST HAVE KNOWN – BUT STILL THEY TRIED TO DISCREDIT FOREIGN VICTIM-
The 32-year-old Southern Thai man accused of the rape of a 19-year-old Dutch model after her birthday party in a Thai beach resort last year had previously been convicted and jailed for MURDER!
“The woman had dinner with the Thai suspect and a foreign man. Later she told the foreign man to return to the hotel before heading off with the suspect.”
 |
| Above – The prosecutors statement |
Above- the original ‘Evil Man from Krabi’ video which had 500,000 plus hits
The follow up video below
Police Rebuttal (in Thai)
Thai Police ‘The Truth’!
Comment: This however has not helped a 20-year-old Scots woman who fled Nakhon Sri Thammarat after she said she was raped in the city. She admitted that she was drunk at the time. Followers of the case might have got the impression that police thought she was fair game as she was comatose.
Finally one Thai view of the ‘Evil Man in Krabi’ video. He thinks the father should be arrested for making the video. Foreigners must follow Thai law. He thinks the father is Australian. And then says if his own daughter was raped in England he would not do a video which would damage tourism and harm the economy. He would leave it to police. This is a classic case illustrating a massive clash in cultures. He is falsely under the impression that such a video would do damage in the UK (There would be no need to make one) and that the British would defend their country rather than the victim. He uncover his ears and then he will discover Britain’s fiercest critics are the Brits. Its a national pastime. In fact is there was an Olympic Gold for whingeing about one’s own country the Brits would get it!
If you are in a hole, the last thing you do is to start digging.
The police and tourist authorities do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot all the time
Can someone explain to me why Thais just don't get this.
Nincompoop is a good word. The guy has been confusing the interests of tourism with the rule of law. Probably because he knows why he nearly got away with it. Three years jail, to be reduced on appeal, maybe he'll do 6 months.
In the west if we have a problem we can go to the police and if we have a problem with the police we can go to their commanding officer, ombudsman or even local member of parliament. In Thailand you have nobody. You go to a higher ranked policeman and all your likely to face is a larger bribe, go to a local official and he cannot do anything as the police will just ignore him. This website has classic examples. What happened to that Irish guy with he children who got locked in the well? Or the American guy who had his view blocked by an illegally built block of condos? Both were said to have incorruptible police handling their cases. So far nothing has happened as in the first case local police were involved and in the second local officials. When both the local officials and police are corrupt, who can you turn to for help?
Andrew, no way, the Yanks are the best. We are borne, and live the idea of freedom.
Doi,
They just don't care. They have little liberty, thus no need to protect it.
One problem is that they have too much liberty in the sense that they flout the rule of law and many moral codes. But why do they get their pr so wrong?
Good point about the Thai perspective, AD.
The Thai looks at the monetary affects of bad publicity and not the rule of law. As you correctly allude, making someone lose face is the most heinous of crimes in their culture. Don't name and shame
Leaving it the police would work in the UK as far as evidence gathering is concerned. Though the difficulty always is that there may be a lack of sympathy for the alleged victim. The sometimes insensitive and aggressive questioning in court is due to the confrontational approach used by defence barristers. That's a problem with an adversarial system though it has benefits in other areas. Thais dislike conflict. As you say, a clash of cultures.
Btw AD The Krabi man remix was nauseating , but thanks for it. So is the evil man in jail now its been disclosed (Thanks AD for follow up ) he was breaking parole? Or still on bail?
I'd like all travelers to be aware of this crap attitude of women deserving attacks for being drunk and having fun.
In my western country they prefer jury members aren't aware of prior offences because they'd supposedly be prejudiced by that knowledge. So the victim's sexual history will be raised in court but not the defendant's rape history.
Not true. Neither previous offences relating to the alleged rapist nor alleged victim are allowed to be disclosed What is allowed is for both counsel to examine the victim's background and history and activities (excluding court history). There is of course no jury system in Thailand.
Only if you change my meaning. I said the victim's "sexual history", so nothing to do with courts. It suits the prosecution to raise her consensual liaisons if they are using a consent defence, though it's still characterizing the person based on history prior to the incident.
David, I'm not changing your meaning. You referred to "offences" and neither offences by the alleged rapist or victim are allowed. The defendant's "rape history" can and often is examined, provided that no offences are referred to.
Taking out the word"offence" in your post and the incorrect reference to the defendant's rape history, and your piece would then be accurate. Though there would not be much left for you to comment on, would there? .Better to have checked your facts on how jury trials work.
Last reply…
Doi, I didn't say the victim's offence history was allowed, so you have introduced a strawman there. Though you're probably wrong anyway, the jury isn't deciding the guilt or innocence of the victim so the same prejudice argument doesn't apply. Imagine an expert medical witness with a malpractice offence on their record, of course the opposing side can question them about that. The victim isn't particularly special, just another witness to the prosecution and sometimes non-existent (6 foot under).
Then you talk about a rape history that doesn't involve offences (?). Obviously I was referring to the common knowledge understanding that the defendant's offence history is hidden from the jury.
Frankly, David. you don't understand how the uk system works. It's not all perry mason and sherlock holmes. talk to people who are in the legal system and get your facts straight. you are just using unsubstantiated arguments to support a badly expressed personal opinion of a system you clearly no little about. barristers would make mincemeat out of you in a court of law.