HILLS RIDDLE 

Lady of the Hills husband says he’s ‘bored of it all’ as he faces fresh probe over mysterious murder of Thai bride wife

EXCLUSIVE

Robin Perrie

 

British cops are preparing to quiz David about how Lamduan came to be murdered and dumped in the Yorkshire Dales, near to where they lived. Pictured, with their children Charlena and George. Credit: NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD

 

WHEN the body of Lamduan Seekanya was found face down in a freezing hillside stream, it sparked a horrifying murder mystery that has rumbled on for 16 years.

 

Now, her Brit ex-pat husband says he is ready to answer questions from police as they launch a fresh probe over how the Thai bride came to be killed and dumped in a remote spot in the Yorkshire Dales.

 

And after The Sun tracked David Armitage down to his remote home in Thailand – where he moved after she vanished - he made his position over her death perfectly clear.

 

“I’m bored with it all,” he said. “I just want to get on with work.”

 

Lamduan became known as “the Lady of the Hills” after cops were unable to identify her for years.

 

Her body half-naked body was found near the Pennine Way in 2004 – even though she had no shoes on and wasn’t dressed for hiking.

 

Full story: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11096896/lady-of-the-hills-lamduan-seekanya-husband-murder-thai-bride-wife/

 

-- THE SUN 2020-03-06

sad story this one, the UK police obviously bungled the original investigation let's hope they do a good job this time

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Now, her Brit ex-pat husband says he is ready to answer questions from police as they launch a fresh probe over how the Thai bride came to be killed and dumped in a remote spot in the Yorkshire Dales.

It's always a mistake to talk with the police, they're just looking for you to incriminate yourself.

Don't ever talk with them unless they arrest and caution you, they aren't your friends.

If they do arrest you the only answers should be, I don't think I was there, I can't remember, I don't know and no.

 

Doesn't matter if you'r innocent or guilty, protect yourself first.

 

Edited March 6, 20206 yr by BritManToo

41 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It's always a mistake to talk with the police, they're just looking for you to incriminate yourself.

Don't ever talk with them unless they arrest and caution you, they aren't your friends.

If they do arrest you the only answers should be, I don't think I was there, I can't remember, I don't know and no.

 

Doesn't matter if you'r innocent or guilty, protect yourself first.

 

Normally id disagree with you but having seen too many docu's about wrong convictions where cops got it wrong and got false confessions. This has happend in almost all countries, Netherlands, UK and more so in the USA (bigger country so it happens more). 

 

In this case I hope they find evidence against the guy as it seems a simple case of him killing her. Unlikely that someone else did it. Hope justice for this woman comes out but with a case that old its hard.

If they talk to you are you should say is I want to speak to my attorney Police are not your friends TIT

1 hour ago, robblok said:

 

In this case I hope they find evidence against the guy as it seems a simple case of him killing her.

And this is exactly why he shouldn't answer police questions!

You have already convicted him. 

What would the police think?

New detection methods, DNA testing, forensics etc etc all could give new evidence...

He's been lucky so far but maybe his time is over!

17 minutes ago, newatthis said:

And this is exactly why he shouldn't answer police questions!

You have already convicted him. 

What would the police think?

Probably the same, with good reasons. In most cases like this its problems in relations. So for his own good he should not talk to the police. However i think he is guilty and I hope they find hard evidence against him. Not talking also has its risks.

"Bored with it all" seems like a weird expression to use in a matter like this.

I know if someone murdered my wife I would never be bored by it.

8 minutes ago, rwill said:

"Bored with it all" seems like a weird expression to use in a matter like this.

I know if someone murdered my wife I would never be bored by it.

He probably means, "I'm fed up with the police trying to convict me of the crime for 16 years".

Because, let's face it, they aren't investigating anyone else, and probably never did.

Edited March 6, 20206 yr by BritManToo

2 hours ago, newatthis said:

And this is exactly why he shouldn't answer police questions!

You have already convicted him. 

What would the police think?

 

British police will investigate thoroughly, especially given the publicity surrounding the case now.

 

Developments in modern forensics give them much more opportunity for irrefutable evidence - one way or another. 

 

The results of their investigations may lead to charges, which if laid, will be sent with all evidence reported, to the Crown Prosecution Service who will decide whether to prosecute or not. If they go ahead then a trial will be held.

 

So I don't think anyone is convicting him before he's tried. But this happened a longtime ago and police are re-investigating the cold case and want to interview him. His "I'm bored with all this" is an interesting reaction; as was his decision to move to rural Thailand. 

 

The real hope is justice for the unfortunate victim.

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It's always a mistake to talk with the police, they're just looking for you to incriminate yourself.

Don't ever talk with them unless they arrest and caution you, they aren't your friends.

If they do arrest you the only answers should be, I don't think I was there, I can't remember, I don't know and no.

 

Doesn't matter if you'r innocent or guilty, protect yourself first.

 

This is advice that is given to citizens in the USA. THankfully, other systems work differently. In the UK, for instance, although you have the right to remain silent, you are expected to raise a defence during interview if you want to rely on it in court later.

41 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

This is advice that is given to citizens in the USA. THankfully, other systems work differently. In the UK, for instance, although you have the right to remain silent, you are expected to raise a defence during interview if you want to rely on it in court later.

In the UK,

...... you conveniently missed out you are expected to raise a defence during interview WHILE UNDER ARREST .....

Only after arrest and with a lawyer present, are they entitled to question you, before arrest you 'Don't talk to the police'.

If you're in a foreign county, and the UK police come out to talk with you ..... 'Don't talk to the police'.

Let them extradite you back to the UK first (which they won't be able to do without evidence).

 

I'm fairly certain I have a lot more experience with UK law, UK police, arrest and police questioning than you.

Which is why you wrote that nonsense.

 

Edited March 6, 20206 yr by BritManToo

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Normally id disagree with you but having seen too many docu's about wrong convictions where cops got it wrong and got false confessions. This has happend in almost all countries, Netherlands, UK and more so in the USA (bigger country so it happens more). 

 

In this case I hope they find evidence against the guy as it seems a simple case of him killing her. Unlikely that someone else did it. Hope justice for this woman comes out but with a case that old its hard.

If you are right, he must have had a ruddy big rucksack.

Curious at what work he needs to get on with.

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

In the UK,

...... you conveniently missed out you are expected to raise a defence during interview WHILE UNDER ARREST .....

Only after arrest and with a lawyer present, are they entitled to question you, before arrest you 'Don't talk to the police'.

If you're in a foreign county, and the UK police come out to talk with you ..... 'Don't talk to the police'.

Let them extradite you back to the UK first (which they won't be able to do without evidence).

 

I'm fairly certain I have a lot more experience with UK law, UK police, arrest and police questioning than you.

Which is why you wrote that nonsense.

 

Bit of history there,eh?

I am sure that the suspect in the case is well aware of the phrase "No comment".  The usual response of those who are guilty as charged.  At this point the Thai police would simply get on with torturing the guy until he admits to anything, including eating babies for breakfast. 

 

Obviously I bow to Britman's greater personal knowledge of police arrests and questioning.  Not that I haven't been arrested, charged, had my fingerprints taken and spent a night in a cell, because I have, albeit many years ago now.  But I wasn't facing a murder charge, that is a totally different ball game.  It also means the police are held to far greater scrutiny and that they need real evidence before asking the CPS for permission to charge the suspect.

 

The colder the case, the harder it is to find hard physical evidence and so the police would clearly be seeking a confession.  Maybe if they do travel to Thailand to interview him, they could borrow some "kit" from the Thai police and an instruction manual of how to proceed.  That should deal with the "boredom" aspect of the case and have him pleading to be extradited to the UK ! 

A troll post has been removed.

8 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Curious at what work he needs to get on with.

He works in a university as a teacher. I know exactly where he is. I tracked down and spoke to several of his relatives about a year ago. He wouldn't speak to me despite requests through his supervisor at the uni. At the very least there are questions to be answered.

 

Rooster

9 hours ago, BritManToo said:

In the UK,

...... you conveniently missed out you are expected to raise a defence during interview WHILE UNDER ARREST .....

Only after arrest and with a lawyer present, are they entitled to question you, before arrest you 'Don't talk to the police'.

If you're in a foreign county, and the UK police come out to talk with you ..... 'Don't talk to the police'.

Let them extradite you back to the UK first (which they won't be able to do without evidence).

 

I'm fairly certain I have a lot more experience with UK law, UK police, arrest and police questioning than you.

Which is why you wrote that nonsense.

 

 

wrong.........

You can be interviewed prior to arrest voluntarily, and the caution will be read to you.

P.A.CE. act 1984.

Why have I been asked to attend an interview under caution?

If you have been asked to attend an interview under caution it will be because we believe that there are grounds to suspect that you have committed a criminal offence. This does not mean that we believe that you are guilty and will automatically prosecute you; it means that the evidence we have obtained to date indicates that you may be involved in the offence and able to assist with enquiries.

The purpose of the interview will give you the opportunity to provide an explanation of the events. However, if we find any evidence during the interview that you have committed an offence, you may be prosecuted.

If you have nothing to hide why would you object?

 

Edited March 6, 20206 yr by laosnative

5 minutes ago, laosnative said:

You can be interviewed prior to arrest voluntarily, and the caution will be read to you.

You do understand what 'voluntarily' means?

It means you can say NO ........ so we're back to .........

 

The levels of stupidity in many posts is astounding.

The husband of the 'lady of the hills' has absolutely nothing to gain from speaking to the UK police, but he does have his freedom to lose.

Edited March 6, 20206 yr by BritManToo

Just now, BritManToo said:

You do understand what 'voluntarily' means?

It means you can say NO.

 

The levels of stupidity in many posts is astounding.

Stop talking nonsense.

Yes, you can say no, but if you are innocent this is a chance to confirm it.

If you say no, do you really think this is going to help them not to look harder at you?

If you are guilty then of course you are going to say no.

Then wait for the early morning call.......

 

15 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It's always a mistake to talk with the police, they're just looking for you to incriminate yourself.

Don't ever talk with them unless they arrest and caution you, they aren't your friends.

If they do arrest you the only answers should be, I don't think I was there, I can't remember, I don't know and no.

 

Doesn't matter if you'r innocent or guilty, protect yourself first.

 

I would talk to the Police and tell them everything I know , hoping it would help them catch the killer .

   You would lie to keep your wifes Killer out of jail, that doesnt surprise me 

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You do understand what 'voluntarily' means?

It means you can say NO ........ so we're back to .........

 

The levels of stupidity in many posts is astounding.

The husband of the 'lady of the hills' has absolutely nothing to gain from speaking to the UK police, but he does have his freedom to lose.

Yes, he should serve time in jail , if he committed the crime 

Yes, he can continue to avoid justice , though looks like his days are numbered 

47 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You do understand what 'voluntarily' means?

It means you can say NO ........ so we're back to .........

 

The levels of stupidity in many posts is astounding.

The husband of the 'lady of the hills' has absolutely nothing to gain from speaking to the UK police, but he does have his freedom to lose.

No, he is a suspect and a prime suspect at that , and as such has his freedom to maintain, by providing the investigating officers with an honest account of what transpired all those years ago, confirming his innocence, should that be the case.

If, however, he is guilty the loss of freedom I suspect, will come his way, whether he takes your advice and refuses to cooperate or not.

And, I suspect that we see this scenario from different viewpoints, maybe down to differing past involvement with crime and its investigation and outcomes. 

Edited March 6, 20206 yr by laosnative

12 minutes ago, laosnative said:

No, he is a suspect and a prime suspect at that , and as such has his freedom to maintain, by providing the investigating officers with an honest account of what transpired all those years ago, confirming his innocence, should that be the case.

If, however, he is guilty the loss of freedom I suspect, will come his way, whether he takes your advice and refuses to cooperate or not.

And, I suspect that we see this scenario from different viewpoints, maybe down to differing past involvement with crime and its investigation and outcomes. 

I'm gonna put you on ignore, no point in a discussion.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Edited March 6, 20206 yr by BritManToo

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm gonna put you on ignore, no point in a discussion.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Pity you cannot put the UK police on ignore......eh?

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I'm gonna put you on ignore, no point in a discussion.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Could you just not answer the points he made ?