Taxi driver indicted in grisly double murder

BANGKOK: -- The self-confessed murderer of a woman and her child was yesterday indicted on seven offences, based mainly on his own statements.

Siriphong Kanjananiwit protested his innocence on two charges of sexual molestation of a minor and restraint of freedom. But case prosecutor Yongyuth Srisattayachon said he pleaded guilty to five other charges: two counts of murder, attempted murder, armed robbery at night, hiding and mutilating a body, and carrying a firearm without permission.

The maximum penalties for all his crimes, if he is found guilty, is a death sentence for the double murders, but Yongyuth said it would depend on the judges' decision whether to reduce or commute the death sentence or reduce other penalties given his surrender and confession.

The suspect will appear at a Criminal Court hearing to submit his plea on Monday.

Yongyuth said the key prosecution witness was Phichaya Jongngarmwilai, a daughter of Sunan Srisusan, and a half sister of Cho Makino, a five-year-old born to Phichaya's Japanese ex-husband. The boy was shot four times, decapitated and had body dismembered into 12 pieces. All the body parts were dumped in five plastic bags.

The discovery of the plastic bags on October 12, and the previous discovery of a woman's body on October 10, led to an intensive police investigation, and later to part-time taxi driver Siriphong revealing himself and confessing his crimes.


-- The Nation 2009-11-07

On what grounds was he charged with 'two charges of sexual molestation of a minor'?

Some facts seem left out or they padded the list, as he confessed to the more serious crimes anyway.

Why do Thai's always seem to confess fully to police about their crimes? In America the whole system is setup to deny everything. Every single serious case that is brought before a judge the person pleads 'not guilty', even when the evidence clearly proves their guilty - 'not guilty'. Then most of the time they wait to get offered a deal etc.

Does the Thai system not work that way? Is it something about Thai culture that makes people unable to lie to the cops? I really don't get it.

Thai police can be very persuasive

Do you mean they use violence or other methods that aren't allowed in the west?

From what I can interpret/understand, that if the "guilty" party confesses his/her guilt, they will likely get a reduced sentence of incarceration.

Watch and see what happens on Monday.

The process doesn't sound very different that the US to me. In the U.S. the "not guilty" plea is almost always automatically entered during the arraignment (formal reading of charges). Then, depending on whether were talking about the state or federal level, a plea bargain is agreed to (state) or a downward departure from sentencing guidelines is requested (federal). This is when the "acceptance of guilt" is used by the defense in an attempt to either reduce charges (agree to plead guilty to a lessor defense in the state system) or convince the judge to reduce sentencing (in the federal system.) Plea bargains don't usually happen in the federal system. Percentage wise, very few cases actually go to court.

Yes but prior to all of that you don't have people giving full confessions to the police. They plead their innocence or say nothing at all, on the advice of their lawyers.

In Thailand it seems quite common for people to give full confessions before the arraignment.

This post has been edited by DegenFarang: 2009-11-07 23:47:24

That does seem to be how it's done here. Very different system.

Reminds me of a qoute: "The U.S. system of justice is the worst in the world, except for all the others." (I think maybe originally said about democracy, but works here too)

your extemely naive if you think the police in the west don't use violence - allowed or not

I think the point is it's not as common and widespread in developed countries. I was "the police in the west" for seven years, USA anyway, and I never seen or heard of a confession beat out of someone, well not since the 60's or 70's. May happen in the big cities on occasion. Rampart division of LAPD were notorious for it in 80's and 90's.

Ya Scuba said it better than I could have. While the police may use excessive force when apprehending suspects I don't think there are too many of them beating confessions out of people once they are already in custody.

Still curious if that goes on in Thailand.

No they simply say please confess

20 yrs a police officer and never once saw or heard of it

Hi

Just replying to the following quote

your extemely naive if you think the police in the west don't use violence - allowed or not
[/quote]


I have spent several years in the British Police Service investigating murders and other serious crime. Threats of violence against suspects in order for them to confess does not happen.

All Interviews are tape recorded and sometimes video recorded depending on the nature of the offence.

Police station custody areas are covered by CCTV which has audio.

During interviews a suspect has a right to silence however if they do not say something in interview when they had an opportunity to say so and try to use some excuse later at court the JUDGE can decide if that excuse is believed or not.

A confession alone is hearsay evidence anyway. To convict someone on a confession is likely to be backed up with tangible evidence ie forensic / witnesses etc.

The British system is innocent until proven guilty and in a criminal court the evidence against the suspect must be beyond reasonable doubt so the level of evidence to obtain a conviction for murder is much higher.

Miscarriages of justice did happen in the 70's and 80's but the British judicial system is one of the fairest in the world .IMHP

Just presenting a confession written on the back of a fag packet to a Judge in the United Kingdom is not sufficient but maybe it is in other parts of the world.

In the West a government organision or agent that uses force in order to obtain a confession is a form of torture which is banned by the human rights act which we have in the west.

Thanks

I used to believe that, but then I went to a football match for the first time in my life & was twice assaulted by a little hitler in a special black uniform which caused all the other officers (idly milling around the nearly-empty tube station that I was lawfully attempting to access) to be completely oblivious to the blatant disregard for the law shown by their colleague.

Google 'Only a tiny proportion of complaints against Met riot squad are upheld' for the Telegraph story (why can't I post links???)

When I attempted to have CCTV footage released under the Freedom of Information Act within 2 weeks & 1 day, it was found to be already destroyed "due to procurement delays". London Underground said the time period was 2 weeks; the PCA said it was a month (but used the same excuse) - hrm... Not suprisingly the experience has completely altered my perspective on the Police anywhere as I had obviously assumed the Met would be the best.

It's not exactly the tale of the Guilford Four, but Thailand or elsewhere, it just goes to show *what kind of people* tend to find that particular career appealing (present company excepted )

good, I don't care about criminal scum

It does go on. At least in the upcountry police stations. An electric shock machine with crocodiles clips is the usual tool of choice. Attach clips to the gonads and the perp will be singing like a Canary.

Seriously, it does go on.

This post has been edited by Geekfreaklover: 2009-11-09 02:21:41

?? Huh? Ever hear of rendition?? No? How about 'Water Boarding' ?

Theyuse violence or other methods that aren't allowed here either !

the police are not the judicial system in the UK, the fact we have a fair judiciary would be the reason why there are less miscarriages and why the police need to be spot on with the evidence they provide to the CPS.

When you say you were assaulted, how exactly were you assaulted? were you hit? were you pushed?

As for complaints against the police being upheld you need to understand that there are more false complaints than real complaints and this is why less complaints are upheld. Also if someone that is arrested complains about a police officer the complaint is dropped when a guilty verdict is reached.

We went through a stage (I am ex UK police) where it became normal for a complaint to be made by an arrested person and this would be used a bargaining tool at court, we would normally be approached by the defence lawyer and the prosecutor and get asked to reduce the charge against the offender and they will drop the complaint, as an example they will plead guilty to a section 47 assault and drop the complaint rather than face the court for a section 20 assault which carries a harsher sentence. Of course we always said no as we had the right evidence in court and knew that the Complaints and Discipline dept were good at their jobs also.


To be honest I would think a tiny proportion is about right, probably 15% of complaints would be justified and the rest will be frivolous, the sad this is the people making these pointless complaints lessen the impact of the real complaints. This is in normal policing, yet your comment refers to the Met Riot Squad, I was in similar in my force and the very nature of the work meant you were dealing with large crowds, normally at protests or at football, the majority of them being the 'I know my rights' variety and quick to run off with some snivelling complaint about being pushed in a violent situation.

The fact you describe the officer as 'idly milling around the nearly-empty tube station' and then tell us there was a number of other officers around pretty much show that despite you thinking he was idly milling around there must have been some reason for them to be there, what seems as pointless to you invariably is not pointless to someone with different intelligence than you have (I am using intelligence here not as an insult to you, I mean they have different knowledge about a situation than you have).

As for the Met being the best, wait let me find the right smiley, oh here it is and the fact that this one event has altered you perspective against all police pretty much tell me more about you than the individual that assaulted you, no doubt if you get assaulted or burgaled you will turn to the police and see how they really can operate as opposed to one individual that 'assaulted' you.

I have made the part of your post I'm replying to "bold text"

I honestly think that the UK police do an excellent job overall, some of the best in the world. Your statement though leaves me quite concerned, let's say that a complaint relates to a forced confession, planting of incriminating evidence etc, with the single purpose of gaining a conviction. I struggle to believe that a guilty verdict automatically leads to the complaint being dismissed, somewhat defeats the object.

Hi Judas,

what you are referring to is a different kettle of fish and would be part of the actual court proceeding as opposed to just a complaint against a police officer, coerced evidence or confession under duress would be mounted as a defence to a confession and would be heard in the court and not decided by the police or the police complaints authority.

It would be the same if the defence argued that evidence was planted, this would also be part of the defence in court and if the police lied and were found to be lying in court then they have perjured themselves and the officer would be prosecuted.

This is one of the reasons, as mentioned earlier, that the UK system is good, the court will hear these things, however in the UK a suspect is interviewed on tape, he can have a lawyer present, a lawyer can later try and omit part of an interview if he thinks the interview was oppressive, most major trials have a few days of legal argument without a jury to sort all this out.

what I was referring to was a complaint would be made that you hit someone during the arrest, you would either admit this in court and justify it as reasonable force if it did happen, or deny it if it didn't happen, of course if you said it didn't happen and the offender is found guilty then a court has decided that you did not hit him so there is no complaint anymore so to continue with the complaint would be pointless.

I will say though that ALL complaints are treated seriously and any officer complained about is interviewed about the complaint and any complaint upheld you are dealt with, serious matters such as assault can also be refereed to the CPS and lead to prosecution

In Thailand the offender is so impressed with the efficiency of the police they figure they have no other choice but to confess.

Guess we're kind of veering off topic here, but just to reply to a couple of bkkdangerous's points...

re: assault during arrest, sounds pretty much like you can get away with it then, either they go down and it's brushed away, or it's 'reasonable force' (Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles de Menedez are two recent notable examples that 'reasonable' can often be anything but, both having basically been murdered by the Police with no charges to the officers involved)

re: the old "but I bet you'll need us when you're burgled" line... no, my motorbike was stolen from outside by house in London twice in a 3 month period, the first time with nothing more than a "we're sorry to hear you're a victim of crime" letter and a 2 minute doorstep visit from a 'community' officer, and it was me who had to search for it. Despite the road being well covered by traffic cameras that are happily used to support parking tickets the police didn't think it was worth investigating. The second time it was taken I didn't even bother reporting it (and if I'd caught the little sh1ts that did it I'd not have reported that either...). The only reason many people report a theft these days is to get the crime number for the insurance claim, not because they feel the Police will help them in any real way.

I'm sure as you say the court system's great, never been near one myself, but the Police aren't the Police I grew up knowing, you don't see them 'on the beat', there's hardly any local stations any more and the crime reporting line is an automated service. Not sure when you left the force, but it's changed over the last decade (or less?) as we follow the US model to be less about crime prevention (and almost zero actual crime solving) and more of a government tool for crowd control and suppression of 'undesirable' voices, IMHO.

Incidentally, there was a funny thread in a forum recently about the Tourist Police's black uniforms, with several posters saying they found it odd that they chose a colour that so obviously makes them look more threatening and military, and that no European Police force would choose black because of WW2 connotations etc... had to giggle as I posted pictures of the recently introduced jet black UK Police uniforms