Brit accused of murdering Thai woman finally extradited from Spain to 'face justice'

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Extradition hearings are not about the veracity of the prosecuting evidence.

Spain has set laws on when extradition can be enforced. Guilt or innocence is not a factor.

They check if there is enough evidence. If it does not pass the threshold there will be no extradition. So according to the judges there is more then enough for a case. 

[Mr Meeseeks]

10 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Extradition hearings are not about the veracity of the prosecuting evidence.

Spain has set laws on when extradition can be enforced. Guilt or innocence is not a factor.

I have stated this on numerous occasions. 

[Kwaibill]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:27 PM, scubascuba3 said:

i wonder why he is being "uncooperative" personally this case is very fishy, he allegedly just meets this girl then kills and dismembers her, what's the motive? most likely a jealous ex boyfriend involved

Several courts were involved in the decision to extradite him.

What is "fishy" about it?

He has a legal representative on location, who presumably has more information about the case and education in the process than arm chair lawyers.

[cleopatra2]

3 minutes ago, Kwaibill said:

Several courts were involved in the decision to extradite him.

What is "fishy" about it?

He has a legal representative on location, who presumably has more information about the case and education in the process than arm chair lawyers.

I have no problems with the extradition. However i question is legal representative in going to Strasbourg when not completing all domestic avenues first.

[Kwaibill]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:03 AM, rodknock said:

well at least Thailand has not exacuted any one in many years.

the bad part is if he is sentenced to death he might wish they did that the way things are in prison.

probably to late for covid vaccination.

Read the full article. Thailand had to sign an agreement that the prisoner would not be mistreated nor be executed before Spain would release him to Thai custody.

[scubascuba3]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

What is more gullible is to total disbelief your displaying. Perhaps as its one of your kind. You really think that multiple courts in Europe would extradite him based on flimsy evidence. Says a lot about you. Judging from your armchair without having seen what judges have seen, thinking they are incompetent and dont understand Thailand.

 

Anyway who says murderers are smart, the crime might have happened in a moment of rage and then he had to deal with it. Lots of stress not clear thinking. I bet after the trail if he is convicted you will say its a fake trial. Some people are impossible to convince.

I don't know why you keep saying stupid things like "one of your kind", maybe he's a roid head with pin legs like you so one of your kind

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

I don't know why you keep saying stupid things like "one of your kind", maybe he's a roid head with pin legs like you so one of your kind

He is a Brit like you who loves being with hookers. You have often stated you did the same. So that is why i said one of your kind. Maybe you feel some kinship or so. I just don't get it why you think that a professional judge knows less then you do. One that has all the evidence presented to him. Even more so it was not just one judge.

 

For the record not roid head and certainly no pin legs but puny calfs. 

[chickenslegs]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:03 AM, rodknock said:

well at least Thailand has not exacuted any one in many years.

the bad part is if he is sentenced to death he might wish they did that the way things are in prison.

probably to late for covid vaccination.

I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this has been mentioned already.

 

Last execution of a murderer here was as recently as 18 June 2018.

https://www.amnesty.or.th/en/latest/news/134/

 

[The Hammer2021]

On 7/13/2021 at 9:21 AM, Acharn said:

I think Thailand has a treaty with Great Britain to send long-term prisoners to serve their sentences in their home countries. I know they have such a treaty with Australia. Not sure about America, but suppose they do.

Not the UK

[cleopatra2]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

He is a Brit like you who loves being with hookers. You have often stated you did the same. So that is why i said one of your kind. Maybe you feel some kinship or so. I just don't get it why you think that a professional judge knows less then you do. One that has all the evidence presented to him. Even more so it was not just one judge.

 

For the record not roid head and certainly no pin legs but puny calfs. 

The Thai authorities only have to provide prima facia evidence of rebuttal presumption . This does not even reach the bar of preponderance of evidence never mind beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In a criminal trial the presumption is one of innocence , rebuttal presumption reverses this to one of guilt.

[robblok]

29 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The Thai authorities only have to provide prima facia evidence of rebuttal presumption . This does not even reach the bar of preponderance of evidence never mind beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In a criminal trial the presumption is one of innocence , rebuttal presumption reverses this to one of guilt.

What i read online is indeed that the judge does not look at innocent or guilty. Not their job but they do check if the evidence is strong enough to justify extradition. So if there was no case and no strong evidence he would never have been extradited. 

 

 

[cleopatra2]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

What i read online is indeed that the judge does not look at innocent or guilty. Not their job but they do check if the evidence is strong enough to justify extradition. So if there was no case and no strong evidence he would never have been extradited. 

 

 

Evidence to justify extradition does not equate to strong evidence.

 

please link to state prima facia presumption rebuttal does not apply.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by cleopatra2

[robblok]

57 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Evidence to justify extradition does not equate to strong evidence.

 

please link to state prima facia presumption rebuttal does not apply.

 

Of course the defendant has the right to rebut evidence and put up a defense. What I am saying is that there is sufficient evidence according to the court to extradite. During the trial in Thailand the guy can put up a defense. I never denied that at all. What i said is that there must be sufficient / strong evidence before they extradite someone.

 

Like i said before they don't judge they just look at the evidence if it is sufficient and fits the requirements. That in itself is a test. Does not mean that this guy is guilty or that he cannot mount a defense. But it does means that there is sufficient evidence fo a trail unlike what people here claim that there is a weak case / no real evidence. Then the guy would never have been extradited.

 

[Kwaibill]

2 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have no problems with the extradition. However i question is legal representative in going to Strasbourg when not completing all domestic avenues first.

I expect because the handwriting was on the wall after numerous appeals, and was already receiving denials from "domestic" venues.

Strasbourg would have been a last resort measure  to halt the extradition.

Part of a counselor's job is to judge the liklihood of a procedure's success.

Spanish high court had already ruled.

According to some articles they are pretty much never reversed.

I think Strasbourg took a pass on a purely technical excuse, the lack of a further appeal, which is possible to pursue but almost guaranteed moot for less than Constitutional issues, which an accuse murderer from Stoke does not qualify as.

Part of my interest is because my mother was from Stoke-On-Trent.

[Kwaibill]

Interesting that there seems no interest on the part of the UK to weigh in on this bloke's behalf at this point.

[riclag]

What a shame,no one deserves to be murdered ! I hope if it's convicted it gets the max!

To bad the Brits have to waste their tax money on supporting it for the duration of its existence !

 

[cleopatra2]

19 minutes ago, Kwaibill said:

I expect because the handwriting was on the wall after numerous appeals, and was already receiving denials from "domestic" venues.

Strasbourg would have been a last resort measure  to halt the extradition.

Part of a counselor's job is to judge the liklihood of a procedure's success.

Spanish high court had already ruled.

According to some articles they are pretty much never reversed.

I think Strasbourg took a pass on a purely technical excuse, the lack of a further appeal, which is possible to pursue but almost guaranteed moot for less than Constitutional issues, which an accuse murderer from Stoke does not qualify as.

Part of my interest is because my mother was from Stoke-On-Trent.

legally you can only go to the Strasbourg court once all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The failure to comply with this requirement left the court with no alternative.

It would be interesting to know why Lookers legal team did not use the Spanish final appeal.

[cleopatra2]

27 minutes ago, robblok said:

Of course the defendant has the right to rebut evidence and put up a defense. What I am saying is that there is sufficient evidence according to the court to extradite. During the trial in Thailand the guy can put up a defense. I never denied that at all. What i said is that there must be sufficient / strong evidence before they extradite someone.

 

Like i said before they don't judge they just look at the evidence if it is sufficient and fits the requirements. That in itself is a test. Does not mean that this guy is guilty or that he cannot mount a defense. But it does means that there is sufficient evidence fo a trail unlike what people here claim that there is a weak case / no real evidence. Then the guy would never have been extradited.

 

from what is publicly known it looks a weak case.  

 

The court agreeing to extradite , does not mean that they are in possession or have seen more compelling evidence.. The burden of proof in extradition proceedings are a lot lower than in criminal trials.  

[Kwaibill]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

legally you can only go to the Strasbourg court once all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The failure to comply with this requirement left the court with no alternative.

It would be interesting to know why Lookers legal team did not use the Spanish final appeal.

You have totally ignored the explanation previously given, and your statement re:"can only go" is incorrect.

Point the first, Amparo is adjudicated in the Spanish High Court. They have already ruled on extradition, and historically do not reverse.

Second point is that anyone can appeal to Strasbourg.

Looker's legal team filed with it, a jurisdictional court tasked primarily with protecting human rights.

Looker's rights have not been abridged. The Right's tribunal chose an easy out based on a technicality, i.e. the lack of a fruitless appeal to an almost byzantine Spanish judicial system, rather than getting embroiled in a low profile, i.e. beneath their customary purview, case. If you wonder, then fully read about the elements of a story.

As others have remarked, including myself, this case has been subjected to the scrutiny of numerous judges, magistrates, and legal defense beagles.

Looker's real legal travails begin now. The delaying tactics re: extradition are done.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Kwaibill
Typo

[robblok]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

from what is publicly known it looks a weak case.  

 

The court agreeing to extradite , does not mean that they are in possession or have seen more compelling evidence.. The burden of proof in extradition proceedings are a lot lower than in criminal trials.  

But you think that what you publicly know is all. You do understand that all the police forces in the world never give out all the information to the public. Because that means the defendant can prepare stories to counter all evidence. So what you know is qiute probably not the same as what the judges who saw the evidence know. So your saying that all those courts let him get extradited with weak evidence. Sorry I have more faith in the professionals then what is given in newspapers.

[cleopatra2]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

But you think that what you publicly know is all. You do understand that all the police forces in the world never give out all the information to the public. Because that means the defendant can prepare stories to counter all evidence. So what you know is qiute probably not the same as what the judges who saw the evidence know. So your saying that all those courts let him get extradited with weak evidence. Sorry I have more faith in the professionals then what is given in newspapers.

I am now in possession of the Thai authorities case against looker

 

It is alleged Looker killed the victim on the night 1st to 2nd November in the Hotel room.

When Looker checked out the next day he asked a porter to help carry his suitcase. The porter stated the suitcase was very heavy and required two persons to carry.to the van in which he drove away in.

The victim had not be seen leaving the room.

A room cleaner reported a pillow missing and the bedsheets had blood on them.

 

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Kwaibill said:

You have totally ignored the explanation previously given, and your statement re:"can only go" is incorrect.

Point the first, Amparo is adjudicated in the Spanish High Court. They have already ruled on extradition, and historically do not reverse.

Second point is that anyone can appeal to Strasbourg.

Looker's legal team filed with it, a jurisdictional court tasked primarily with protecting human rights.

Looker's rights have not been abridged. The Right's tribunal chose an easy out based on a technicality, i.e. the lack of a fruitless appeal to an almost byzantine Spanish judicial system, rather than getting embroiled in a low profile, i.e. beneath their customary purview, case. If you wonder, then fully read about the elements of a story.

As others have remarked, including myself, this case has been subjected to the scrutiny of numerous judges, magistrates, and legal defense beagles.

Looker's real legal travails begin now. The delaying tactics re: extradition are done.

Article 35 of the convention requires all domestic remedies to have been exhausted before it can consider a case.

 

Under Spanish law Looker failed to appeal a Audiencia  Nacional decision ( i think this was the one after the assurances from Thai authorities) . He mistakenly appealed a Constitutional Court decision on 

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, Kwaibill said:

Interesting that there seems no interest on the part of the UK to weigh in on this bloke's behalf at this point.

The British did not wish to extradite him to the UK, but requested the Spanish to seek assurances about the death penalty.

[Kwaibill]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The British did not wish to extradite him to the UK, but requested the Spanish to seek assurances about the death penalty.

Brits may get him back anyway, if tried, convicted, and sentenced.

I seem to recall some such arangement for long term convicted subjects.

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, Kwaibill said:

Brits may get him back anyway, if tried, convicted, and sentenced.

I seem to recall some such arangement for long term convicted subjects.

The Thai authorities gave assurances they would not seek the death penalty , but could not rule out the death penalty being the resultant sentence. They further stated that if given the death sentence  there was always the possibility of a request of it being commuted.

 

for clarification this info is coming from court documents.

Edited July 15, 2021 by cleopatra2

[Barb2001]

As a friend of Shane’s I would i say don’t believe everything u read in the paper!

[scubascuba3]

39 minutes ago, Barb2001 said:

As a friend of Shane’s I would i say don’t believe everything u read in the paper!

Keep us updated how it goes, usually story goes quiet like it jas done the last few weeks

[Danderman123]

On 7/13/2021 at 11:22 AM, Mr Meeseeks said:

He bought stones from the local stone shop. 

 

Stone shop?

 

there are really shops that sell stones large enough to weigh down a body?

 

 

[josephbloggs]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Stone shop?

 

there are really shops that sell stones large enough to weigh down a body?

 

 

Yes.

[Danderman123]

On 7/13/2021 at 10:12 AM, robblok said:

There are articles stating he was in a van with her being dropped off at Kanchanaburi.

 

On 7/15/2021 at 6:02 PM, cleopatra2 said:

I am now in possession of the Thai authorities case against looker

 

It is alleged Looker killed the victim on the night 1st to 2nd November in the Hotel room.

When Looker checked out the next day he asked a porter to help carry his suitcase. The porter stated the suitcase was very heavy and required two persons to carry.to the van in which he drove away in.

The victim had not be seen leaving the room.

A room cleaner reported a pillow missing and the bedsheets had blood on them.

 

Sounds like conflicting stories.