British man accused of brutally murdering Thai girlfriend faces extradition from Spain

[BritManToo]

Would point out DNA evidence only proves you were there.

If you already admit to being there, there is absolutely no reason for DNA evidence at all.

 

Any girl you take home from a bar, will have your DNA all over her, and her DNA all over you (and the room).

 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Based on Thai police DNA evidence which as we know from Koh Tao, is notoriously unreliable, at best.

 

However, the evidence would not have been presented at the extradition hearing, only the case appealing against extradition from the defence. 

 

The judge ruling on that would not have been deciding based on the actual evidence in the case.

Of course its based on actual evidence. Your getting desperate to defend the undependable. I mean because they got it wrong in Koh Tao they got it wrong here. I mean that would mean for every mistake in the US (and there have been quite a few high profile cases) that all of them are wrong. Seems your bias knows no ends.

[robblok]

Just now, BritManToo said:

Would point out DNA evidence only proves you were there.

If you already admit to being there, there is absolutely no reason for DNA evidence at all.

 

Any girl you take home from a bar, will have your DNA all over her, and her DNA all over you (and the room).

 

But not always under the nails in certain amounts, plus if the stones in the suitcase are the similar as what you bought things all of a sudden start to look different. There is no need to have camera evidence of a murder. Often enough evidence stacked up would prove the point. 

 

Lets wait and see what they have on this guy.

 

For now DNA under nails (depends a bit on how much but if a lot its really damming)

Stones bought by him are similar to those in the suitcase

He was the last with her

 

Many murders have no direct evidence but still get convicted. No need to have a murder on tape or a confession. If there is enough evidence then someone gets convicted anyway. (as they should)

[ChipButty]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Would point out DNA evidence only proves you were there.

If you already admit to being there, there is absolutely no reason for DNA evidence at all.

 

Any girl you take home from a bar, will have your DNA all over her, and her DNA all over you (and the room).

 

All over her face

[Mr Meeseeks]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Of course its based on actual evidence. Your getting desperate to defend the undependable. I mean because they got it wrong in Koh Tao they got it wrong here. I mean that would mean for every mistake in the US (and there have been quite a few high profile cases) that all of them are wrong. Seems your bias knows no ends.

You're wrong and straw clutching now. Bias? You mean like your bias against Brits all over this and other threads?

 

The judge in this extradition case would not be presented with the actual evidence the Thai police have. 

 

The hearing would have been purely about the decision to extradite not whether the evidence indicates guilt, that will be up to the Thai court to decide. 

[scubascuba3]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

https://theibizan.com/british-man-murder-thai-dancer/

 

Following a police search of the accommodation Looker had been staying in around that time, Police took DNA samples from several items including nail clippers and a toothbrush, and matched DNA found in the victim’s nails.

 

Looks like pretty damming evidence and the fact that the courts approved. But then again someone like would stick up for a guy like him. Birds of a feather and all. 

It's up to the court to decide if he's guilty not you, i suspect that evidence will turn out to be garbage.

 

So what's the motive for murder? come on let's see what you can make up

[robblok]

28 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

It's up to the court to decide if he's guilty not you, i suspect that evidence will turn out to be garbage.

 

So what's the motive for murder? come on let's see what you can make up

That is what you expect yet real judges have seen the evidence already and decided that there is a case. I guess you know it better then actual judges who actually seen the evidence. Its always fun to see armchair detectives think they know it better then professionals. I am talking about EU judge and Spanish one. 

 

I have no idea what the motive for murder is, I would never murder anyone so its a bit hard for me to think of reasons why. Though having said that i watched plenty of documentaries about murder in the UK and US and my country to know that reasons are often not logical. Some people have a short fuse especially if drinking who knows. In my mind there is no rational reason to murder someone. 

 

Unless he is totally deranged (and there are people like that) im sure he did not take her to Kanchanaburi with the idea to kill her. Most probable a fit of anger or something like that. 

[robblok]

3 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

You're wrong and straw clutching now. Bias? You mean like your bias against Brits all over this and other threads?

 

The judge in this extradition case would not be presented with the actual evidence the Thai police have. 

 

The hearing would have been purely about the decision to extradite not whether the evidence indicates guilt, that will be up to the Thai court to decide. 

That is not true at all, they check the evidence to see if there is a case. You can look it up online. If there is no good evidence they won't extradite someone. So yes your clasping at straws.

 

Not sure what Bias you think i have against Brits besides that I think they (in general with exceptions of course) love their alcohol a lot. 

 

 

[scubascuba3]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is what you expect yet real judges have seen the evidence already and decided that there is a case. I guess you know it better then actual judges who actually seen the evidence. Its always fun to see armchair detectives think they know it better then professionals. I am talking about EU judge and Spanish one. 

 

I have no idea what the motive for murder is, I would never murder anyone so its a bit hard for me to think of reasons why. Though having said that i watched plenty of documentaries about murder in the UK and US and my country to know that reasons are often not logical. Some people have a short fuse especially if drinking who knows. In my mind there is no rational reason to murder someone. 

 

Unless he is totally deranged (and there are people like that) im sure he did not take her to Kanchanaburi with the idea to kill her. Most probable a fit of anger or something like that. 

Poor motive Columbo, a fit of anger isn't really a motive otherwise he'd have a history of violence, or maybe roid rage, you know what guys taking anabolics get.

 

Either way Columbo best to stop guessing now and wait for the court case

[robblok]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

Poor motive Columbo, a fit of anger isn't really a motive otherwise he'd have a history of violence, or maybe roid rage, you know what guys taking anabolics get.

 

Either way Columbo best to stop guessing now and wait for the court case

You asked me to guess so then commenting on me guessing is a bit strange. Then again you have some hobbies that could lead to mental problems you know from all that unprotected xxx. Maybe you should check it out because first asking someone to speculate and then commenting on that is not a smart thing.

 

But yea who knows could be roid rage its rare but it can happen.  But in general violence after alcohol happens more. They did mention the roid rage but not sure if that is a fact or not. They said he did stuff like that in the past but not sure if gossip is evidence. Some people are indeed more susceptible to the effects of steroids on their mood, in general the same people who turn into mr Hyde after drinking alcohol. Its a small part of people so can't rule it out.  

 

Still not sure why the guy would be taking steroids while on holiday. people who use steroids usually take them when they workout. Its not as if you can be on steroids permanently. So in general people don't use it when they are on a holiday. 

 

 

[Logosone]

Looker bought the same stones that were used to weigh down the suitcase containing the body.

 

Case closed.

 

Guilty.

[Mr Meeseeks]

47 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is not true at all, they check the evidence to see if there is a case. You can look it up online. If there is no good evidence they won't extradite someone. So yes your clasping at straws.

 

Not sure what Bias you think i have against Brits besides that I think they (in general with exceptions of course) love their alcohol a lot. 

 

 

No, they do not have access to the evidence. They are merely ruling on the extradition request.

 

The deepest they will go is if there is a case to answer based on what Thai Police have told them; something similar to what we know that the Thai Police have DNA evidence and that there's a bunch of circumstantial evidence to go along with it.

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

No, they do not have access to the evidence. They are merely ruling on the extradition request.

 

The deepest they will go is if there is a case to answer based on what Thai Police have told them; something similar to what we know that the Thai Police have DNA evidence and that there's a bunch of circumstantial evidence to go along with it.

Yes that is what it means to have access to the evidence. What do you expect that they send up the DNA so the European court can check it ?

 

So what your saying is that the Thai police is faking evidence on international warrants. That would lead to an quick end to any extraditions in future. 

 

So the court have ruled that based on the evidence the Thais have a case that should be tried. So unlike what you say that there is no case the experts who have seen all the evidence (not actual evidence but listed what the Thais have) seem to think there is enough of a case. 

[Smithson]

Does anyone remember the first American to be extradited here? It was a murder case also.

[Logosone]

5 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Why would you buy stones from a shop? ????‍♂️

 

Surely stones are freely available about the place if one is inclined to look hard enough.

 

 

Indeed, why would a tourist buy stones from a shop? And why would the same stones be found in the suitcase containing the body? What a freakin' mystery.

 

Cause he's a pyschopath killer who dismembered a girl's body and wanted to weigh it down with stones. Or do you think he was building a Zen garden in his hotel room?

[Ralf001]

6 hours ago, BobinBKK said:

His DNA and everyone else's on her and in her ????

 

[ChipButty]

8 minutes ago, Smithson said:

Does anyone remember the first American to be extradited here? It was a murder case also.

I suppose you are going to tell us

[Ralf001]

28 minutes ago, Smithson said:

Does anyone remember the first American to be extradited here? It was a murder case also.

Killed a Kiwi fella didn't he ?

[AlexRich]

8 hours ago, robblok said:

https://theibizan.com/british-man-murder-thai-dancer/

 

Following a police search of the accommodation Looker had been staying in around that time, Police took DNA samples from several items including nail clippers and a toothbrush, and matched DNA found in the victim’s nails.

 

Looks like pretty damming evidence and the fact that the courts approved. But then again someone like would stick up for a guy like him. Birds of a feather and all. 

Given he was in some sort of sexual relationship with her DNA proves very little. It would be different if he were a stranger to her, but that’s not the case. They will need more than that to secure a conviction. 

[AlexRich]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

 

Indeed, why would a tourist buy stones from a shop? And why would the same stones be found in the suitcase containing the body? What a freakin' mystery.

 

Cause he's a pyschopath killer who dismembered a girl's body and wanted to weigh it down with stones. Or do you think he was building a Zen garden in his hotel room?

Would have made more sense to bury her in the jungle. More difficult to find a buried body. Weighing down in water is always a bit of a risk. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, AlexRich said:

Given he was in some sort of sexual relationship with her DNA proves very little. It would be different if he were a stranger to her, but that’s not the case. They will need more than that to secure a conviction. 

He bought the same rocks as that were used in the suitcase with the body. All these things together point to him.  It depends a bit how much was found under the nails. If a lot then he is done for.

[AlexRich]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

He bought the same rocks as that were used in the suitcase with the body. All these things together point to him.  It depends a bit how much was found under the nails. If a lot then he is done for.

No doubt he’ll be convicted if extradited. It would be interesting to know his criminal history.

[Logosone]

3 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Would have made more sense to bury her in the jungle. More difficult to find a buried body. Weighing down in water is always a bit of a risk. 

 

I'm guessing since he's killing women he's maybe not the best decision maker.

 

He's wanted for two more killings in Thailand btw.

[AlexRich]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

I'm guessing since he's killing women he's maybe not the best decision maker.

 

He's wanted for two more killings in Thailand btw.

Wow. That’s incredible, do you have any links to that? There are many decent expats in Thailand, but some real scumbags too.

[Smithson]

13 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Would have made more sense to bury her in the jungle. More difficult to find a buried body. Weighing down in water is always a bit of a risk. 

I'll keep that in mind 

[HAPPYNUFF]

I had occasion to be in the Supreme Court of my country, as a witness.  I was  waiting in the   public gallery and was seated next to a  Judge, from  the District (lower) court, whom I  knew.   I commented how the  jury members  seemed  intent on listening to the evidence being presented,, they were all sitting motionless,  and  commented  on this to the judge. His reply. "not really, their all bone from the  backside up you know"".  I have  often heard the expression  of jurors   as being 12 people of limited intelligence, with little, if any knowledge of the law, apart from   their TV shows  nonsense,  ,able to be swayed by the pure  bulldust sprouted by   able defence lawyers, and also  have had  prosecuting  lawyers  tell me they  oppose  female jurors   on   trials   relating to sexual assault cases, as    women  take the attitude... that wouldnt happen to me,,,Id show the sod what for if he tried anything.    Not   really my opinion, just relating what others have told me.

[ChipButty]

Why do they have to keep referring to her as a "Bar Girl" 

[Boycie]

Looker has landed.

 

[The Hammer2021]

On 5/28/2021 at 9:48 AM, Neeranam said:

Why not? 

Few do. Contiditions are tortuous. There are delays, mistreatments, assaults lack of support, malnutrition, illness, emotional and psychological damages and lack fair play.

[The Hammer2021]

On 6/2/2021 at 3:25 PM, ChipButty said:

Why do they have to keep referring to her as a "Bar Girl" 

Did she work in a bar? Plenty of my friends do as staff, service staff, waitress, entertainment, dancers, etc etc. No shame in it. I worked in a bar...I was a bar man...,