GroveHillWanderer

Members
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About GroveHillWanderer

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. While it's true that a drugs test is to see whether someone has taken drugs recently and this was about carrying drugs, I think a legitimate question to ask is, if she was intentionally carrying drugs, why would that be? Virtually the only two explanations that make any sense would be that she was involved in trafficking drugs into the country (for sale) or she was a drug user and had them for personal use. Since the amount found (which, according to the original arrest report was only 5 mg, not 250mg and worth about 12 Baht) is totally insufficient to realistically support the idea of drug trafficking, that leaves us with the possibility that they were for personal use. That being the case, a drugs test (although having no bearing on the charges) would been highly revealing in terms of establishing whether she was in fact a current and habitual drug user. And if she wasn't, then that would throw the whole idea of her having carried the drugs with her, into question. I also don't understand your earlier post dismissing the idea that her two earlier lawyers quit because of intimidation and suggesting that maybe they quit either because they didn't believe her story or thought they might not get paid. The first idea just doesn't hold water. Defence lawyers don't abandon their clients just because they have doubts about their guilt - if they did, the majority of criminals in the world would end up without lawyers and this simply isn't the case. As for not getting paid, she has a husband who has a TV career and was willing to put up millions of Baht for bail so money would not appear to be an issue. The first lawyer stated quite openly that he quit because he was scared - what reason or evidence do you have for believing that wasn't true? As far as I can tell, this whole case stinks. The repeated demands for money for the leopard they freed, the way the drugs were found, the discrepancies in the amount, the fact that the drug evidence was not presented in court, a trial that lasted only 3 hours with no defence witnesses, the fact that not one but two defence lawyers quit the case and the third doesn't want to be identified, all point to there being something 'not quite right' about this.
  2. Whoever's story is true I think it's clear from the various accounts plus the video that this was a fairly simple dispute over a bar bill that turned ugly. What sort of 'a lot more' do you think there could possibly be?
  3. While admittedly, "had decided to pay" could mean they hadn't yet done so, it could be that they meant to say they decided to pay and then in fact did go ahead to do so, especially when taken together with the fact that the wife has apparently stated several times in posts on this forum that they did pay the bill for the drinks they'd had. Neither in this interview nor in any of the comments have they said they declined to pay the extra amount outright, they just said they queried it and suggested they should let the tourist police sort it out. So to me, it seems clear that according to their version of events, they did pay the bill - or at least the only one that they believed was legitimately theirs. As for the bartender's version, that was covered fairly extensively in the original report of the incident. In addition, parts of her version can be heard quite clearly in the video.
  4. According to the interview they gave, they did pay the bill for the drinks they had consumed, even though they felt it was excessive.
  5. According to the Thai-Cambodian Extradition Treaty, the two parties are obligated "to extradite to each other, in accordance with the provisions of [the] Treaty, persons who are found in the territory of one of the Contracting Parties who are wanted for trial, prosecution or for the imposition or execution of punishment in the territory of the other Party for an extraditable offence." As part of the supporting documentation, the requesting party must supply "such evidence as would justify that person's arrest and committal for trial, including evidence that the person sought is the person to whom the warrant of arrest refers."
  6. Depends where in Hua Hin you live. I'm at the south end of town and slightly inland - for me it's not a big difference in distance and is a lot easier to get to. No need to fight through all the traffic in town.
  7. The British could only apply for extradition if he was wanted for an extraditable offence in the UK and there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. In terms of an extradition from Cambodia to Thailand, their mutual extradition treaty lays down a process which involves only those two countries. There is no provision or allowance in it for third party involvement (unless that third party has also applied to extradite the same person, of which there is once again, absolutely no sign in this case).
  8. IIRC they were there the first time I visited Hua Hin over 30 years ago (my wife thinks so too). My understanding is they're not supposed to be replaced by anything, the beach is public land and no one should have built there in the first place. .
  9. Again, not sure what is meant by "didn't care." Once they have issued a Red Notice (which I am given to understand they did) then, as mentioned above that's all they can do, they have no powers either to arrest anyone or to force the country where the person is, to do so.
  10. I'm not sure what you mean by "won't touch him." If you mean won't arrest him, then no they won't, because they have no arrest powers. All Interpol does basically is pass on information and act as a liaison between countries if requested. Even if they have issued a "Red Notice" for someone (what is sometimes loosely referred to as an international arrest warrant, although it is no such thing) then as it says on their website, "INTERPOL cannot compel any member country to arrest an individual who is the subject of a Red Notice. Each member country decides for itself what legal value to give a Red Notice within their borders."
  11. Very true - however the poster, as far as I'm aware was taking the view that it was unlikely to be a .38 automatic, as (according to him, at least) they are much less commonly found.
  12. No, I'm not saying any such thing. My post arose from two previous posts. One, as far as I could tell, was questioning the validity of reports of a .38 casing being found by pointing out that it would be unusual to find a casing of that calibre, the second was asking why the size of the casing would make any difference. I was reiterating the point the first poster had made that the size matters because .38 casings are not normally ejected so would not typically be found at the scene of this kind of shooting.
  13. On the contrary, people can most certainly be that dumb. There are any number of TV shows currently on offer that can attest to that. Or just talk to a police officer in almost any country in the world about how dumb some criminals can be.
  14. While the notice on the website is headed 'for businesses' I would simply take that to mean that the information is applicable to businesses (which it is). The wording given below clearly shows that the regulation was also designed to include house owners and heads of household. So it seems to me the original intention was for it to include both private individuals and businesses. It's just that they didn't bother enforcing it for private individuals before, whereas now they are.
  15. He already explained that. A .38 is a revolver round. Revolvers don't eject casings. So if a .38 revolver was used, there wouldn't be any casings left behind unless the shooter tried to reload at the scene and dropped one. Based on the CCTV video, he didnt do that.