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

[scubascuba3]

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

I always carry a small screwdriver and some scissors in my shower bag! Always something needs fixing in Thai hotel rooms.

yeah but he'd need a large saw or small chain saw, unlikely to be in his shower bag, plus Mr DIY was sold out

[lightsidecat]

On 7/13/2021 at 8:38 AM, 4MyEgo said:

They convinced the presiding Judge in Spain with the below guarantee.

 

"I have given strict instructions to avoid any accidents to the suspect's life or property. People must trust the legal process to continue correctly.

 

That was obviously the clincher for the Judge.

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

27 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

39 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Who said that the staff remembered everyone?   Perhaps they just remember the not-exactly-a-disappearing-into-the-crowd-type of occupant of the room who brought a brass back, asked for assistance to move an unusually heavy suitcase on checkout, stole a pillow and left bloodstained sheets.  Perhaps the hotel keeps records of items missing from rooms and those who registered in those rooms.

Expand  

Exactly, the hotel staff are unlikely to remember everyone. 

Thus it is feasable that the woman left unnoticed. 

"Exactly"?   What do you mean?   I wasn't agreeing with you!   Obviously.

 

The staff are very likely to remember those that give them cause to remember them!    Just as this man did.

 

"Thus it is feasable that the woman left unnoticed".

 You mean the woman who was found dead in his suitcase with his DNA under her fingernails?

Edited August 30, 2021 by Liverpool Lou

[retsdon]

In Thailand, if for whatever reason you're in the frame you're for the high jump.The facts will fit the case. That's just how it works.

[robblok]

2 hours ago, retsdon said:

In Thailand, if for whatever reason you're in the frame you're for the high jump.The facts will fit the case. That's just how it works.

But if they don't have to they won't put in hard work. So framing someone who is out of the country and then trying to convince a foreign court based on false evidence is not something that they will do work for nothing and dangerous too.

 

The parents of the lady have no pull poor people so its not as if they can pressure the police to solve this. 

 

So the only reason for the police would be if the guy really has all the evidence against him

 

Evidence of him and the lady checking in the hotel

Evidence of an identical suitcase to the one of looker where she was found in

The porter who remembered it took 2!!! people to lift the suitcase (not a normal thing stands out hence he remembers it)

Blood stains in the hotel room and missing pillow

DNA under her nails depending on how much it could be of her fighting him off 

Stones similar to the one looker bought in the suitcase.

 

On itself all those things are not damming but put them together and it paints a pretty grim picture of Looker murdering the poor woman. 

 

Tell me why would the police frame someone who is not even in Thailand and start such a time consuming work intensive high risk case JUST to frame someone especially when the family are dirt poor farmers without any pull. 

 

Just does not add up to frame someone you need incentive and if you do you take an easy target not someone in an other country with foreign judges checking evidence to see if there is a case.

 

Not to mention that her clothes the ones she was wearing on the night she disappeared were found on her body. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9636635/British-man-accused-murdering-Thai-prostitute-stuffed-suitcase-face-justice.html

Edited August 30, 2021 by robblok

[Danderman123]

47 minutes ago, robblok said:

But if they don't have to they won't put in hard work. So framing someone who is out of the country and then trying to convince a foreign court based on false evidence is not something that they will do work for nothing and dangerous too.

 

The parents of the lady have no pull poor people so its not as if they can pressure the police to solve this. 

 

So the only reason for the police would be if the guy really has all the evidence against him

 

Evidence of him and the lady checking in the hotel

Evidence of an identical suitcase to the one of looker where she was found in

The porter who remembered it took 2!!! people to lift the suitcase (not a normal thing stands out hence he remembers it)

Blood stains in the hotel room and missing pillow

DNA under her nails depending on how much it could be of her fighting him off 

Stones similar to the one looker bought in the suitcase.

 

On itself all those things are not damming but put them together and it paints a pretty grim picture of Looker murdering the poor woman. 

 

Tell me why would the police frame someone who is not even in Thailand and start such a time consuming work intensive high risk case JUST to frame someone especially when the family are dirt poor farmers without any pull. 

 

Just does not add up to frame someone you need incentive and if you do you take an easy target not someone in an other country with foreign judges checking evidence to see if there is a case.

 

Not to mention that her clothes the ones she was wearing on the night she disappeared were found on her body. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9636635/British-man-accused-murdering-Thai-prostitute-stuffed-suitcase-face-justice.html

What is indisputable is that he left the hotel alone with a heavy suitcase, and the dead woman was found in Kanchanaburi in a heavy suitcase. 

 

The odds of the woman having left the hotel alone, being killed outside the hotel by someone else, and then someone else happening to have a big heavy suitcase and hiding her body in it are very small. 

 

[scubascuba3]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

What is indisputable is that he left the hotel alone with a heavy suitcase, and the dead woman was found in Kanchanaburi in a heavy suitcase. 

 

The odds of the woman having left the hotel alone, being killed outside the hotel by someone else, and then someone else happening to have a big heavy suitcase and hiding her body in it are very small. 

 

Easy job to prove suit case is the same by looking at CCTV

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Easy job to prove suit case is the same by looking at CCTV

That is why its said the suitcase is IDENTICAL in the evidence given to the Spanish. 

 

Sure a Ex-Thai BF killed her and then with a stroke of luck used the same suitcase as looker. I mean what are the chances. Was it not your theory that an Ex-Thai BF killed her ? 

 

Also no doubt that the suitcase had to be lifted by 2 men so I am sure Looker just had some weight disks in there as us bodybuilders always travel with our gym kit. ????

[scubascuba3]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is why its said the suitcase is IDENTICAL in the evidence given to the Spanish. 

 

Sure a Ex-Thai BF killed her and then with a stroke of luck used the same suitcase as looker. I mean what are the chances. Was it not your theory that an Ex-Thai BF killed her ? 

 

Also no doubt that the suitcase had to be lifted by 2 men so I am sure Looker just had some weight disks in there as us bodybuilders always travel with our gym kit. ????

I haven't read all the stories of the supposed evidence, i guess it will come out in court and they can decide rather than the Mrs Marples on here

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

I haven't read all the stories of the supposed evidence, i guess it will come out in court and they can decide rather than the Mrs Marples on here

Not supposed evidence, real evidence from the Spanish court not newspaper articles. Evidence reviewed by Spanish judges the whole real trial data of his extradition hearings. So the evidence is of a far higher grade then that in news articles.

 

These are court reports. If you really want to know just read and you will see they have good reason for his extradition. 

 

Of course the court will decide but no need to be mrs Maple here as this is a summary made by judges of evidence and events. 

 

https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/51568-19-looker-v-hiszpania-decyzja-europejskiego-523271229

Edited August 30, 2021 by robblok

[scubascuba3]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not supposed evidence, real evidence from the Spanish court not newspaper articles. Evidence reviewed by Spanish judges the whole real trial data of his extradition hearings. So the evidence is of a far higher grade then that in news articles.

 

These are court reports. If you really want to know just read and you will see they have good reason for his extradition. 

 

Of course the court will decide but no need to be mrs Maple here as this is a summary made by judges of evidence and events. 

 

https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/51568-19-looker-v-hiszpania-decyzja-europejskiego-523271229

That court report doesn't sound solid to me

 

"He had murdered a Thai woman, aged 27, on the night of 1-2 November 2014, while she had been in his hotel room in Bangkok" 

 

So she was murdered in Bangkok?

 

As for DNA is it possible that was caused during the short time long time what ever it was?

[cleopatra2]

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"Exactly"?   What do you mean?   I wasn't agreeing with you!   Obviously.

 

The staff are very likely to remember those that give them cause to remember them!    Just as this man did.

 

"Thus it is feasable that the woman left unnoticed".

 You mean the woman who was found dead in his suitcase with his DNA under her fingernails?

Exactly

Staff are likely to remember people who attract their attention. 

A Thai woman leaving alone would not attract any attention. 

[cleopatra2]

33 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not supposed evidence, real evidence from the Spanish court not newspaper articles. Evidence reviewed by Spanish judges the whole real trial data of his extradition hearings. So the evidence is of a far higher grade then that in news articles.

 

These are court reports. If you really want to know just read and you will see they have good reason for his extradition. 

 

Of course the court will decide but no need to be mrs Maple here as this is a summary made by judges of evidence and events. 

 

https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/51568-19-looker-v-hiszpania-decyzja-europejskiego-523271229

The extradition court of facia prima evidence is an easy bar to reach. 

The court accepts without question the evidence as fact. It is not the jurisdiction of an extradition court to judge the case but merely ascertain that the accused as a to answer

Edited August 30, 2021 by cleopatra2

[Tanomazu]

5 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Nobody had actually stated it is the same suitcase. Only identical or similar. 

 

Have we any evidence he owned the same brand of suitcase. 

 

There must be hundreds of that type and brand of suitcase in Thailand. 

Bit of a moot point since we know he bought the same exact stones that were used to hide the body.

 

You explain his stone shopping how exactly?

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Bit of a moot point since we know he bought the same exact stones that were used to hide the body.

 

You explain his stone shopping how exactly?

No 

We have a witness statement to that effect. 

Early in the investigation there was a witness statement saying she left with an American in a taxi heading to kanchanburi. 

 

Witness statements are not always accurate. 

[Tanomazu]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

No 

We have a witness statement to that effect. 

Early in the investigation there was a witness statement saying she left with an American in a taxi heading to kanchanburi. 

 

Witness statements are not always accurate. 

And what evidence do you have to doubt the witness who declared this man bought stones at her shop, that were the exact same stones that were used to hide the body? Anything concrete that makes that witness statement inaccurate, or just the generic, witnesses are not always accurate?

[Danderman123]

46 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

That court report doesn't sound solid to me

 

"He had murdered a Thai woman, aged 27, on the night of 1-2 November 2014, while she had been in his hotel room in Bangkok" 

 

So she was murdered in Bangkok?

 

As for DNA is it possible that was caused during the short time long time what ever it was?

No one disputes that the woman was murdered in a Bangkok hotel. 

[cleopatra2]

12 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

And what evidence do you have to doubt the witness who declared this man bought stones at her shop, that were the exact same stones that were used to hide the body? Anything concrete that makes that witness statement inaccurate, or just the generic, witnesses are not always accurate?

It is not the defense burden. 

The burden belongs to the prosecution. 

I do not know if Looker is guilty or not, only he knows that. 

 

It is fact that witnesses are inaccurate in what they recall. 

[cleopatra2]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No one disputes that the woman was murdered in a Bangkok hotel. 

At present Looker disputes

[Tanomazu]

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is not the defense burden. 

The burden belongs to the prosecution. 

I do not know if Looker is guilty or not, only he knows that. 

 

It is fact that witnesses are inaccurate in what they recall. 

It is also fact that unless there is specific and particular evidence that a witness statement is inaccurate that witness statement will be admitted as credible evidence.

 

Whilst it is the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Looker is guilty, it is very much the defense lawyers' job to show that evidence which incriminates their client is not accurate. Unfortunately I have not seen evidence that the witness who says she saw Looker buy the stones that were used to hide the body is not credible.

 

 

[scubascuba3]

21 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No one disputes that the woman was murdered in a Bangkok hotel. 

in earlier threads it was discussed that they went to kanchanaburi together, pretty sure based on a newspaper

Edited August 30, 2021 by scubascuba3

[scubascuba3]

30 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

And what evidence do you have to doubt the witness who declared this man bought stones at her shop, that were the exact same stones that were used to hide the body? Anything concrete that makes that witness statement inaccurate, or just the generic, witnesses are not always accurate?

a bald big man bought some stones, could of been any farang, 90% look like that

[Tanomazu]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

a bald big man bought some stones, could of been any farang, 90% look like that

Yes, unfortunately the witness said it was Looker specifically.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

in earlier threads it was discussed that they went to kanchanaburi together, pretty sure based on a newspaper

There was an eyewitness early in the investigation claimed the victim left with a American In a taxi going to kanchanaburi. 

 

This later transpired to be incorrect. You may recall the Swiss guy who at one point was arrested. 

 

Looker left the hotel alone at 09:30 am o. 2nd November by rented minivan to HuaHin. The driver stating Looker departed at Big C Prachinburi. 

[cleopatra2]

3 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Yes, unfortunately the witness said it was Looker specifically.

It is known as witness confirmation bias. 

The witness on receiving additional information convinces himself of a previous event must be correct

[Tanomazu]

11 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is known as witness confirmation bias. 

The witness on receiving additional information convinces himself of a previous event must be correct

Eye witness identification is exceptionally powerful in court. That is why it is so often relied on.

 

If this witness says it was Looker who bought her stones then this is powerful evidence if true.

 

Whilst confirmation bias does happen you would have to provide evidence that this witness was influenced by an interviewer with pre-conceived notions about the crime. Do you have any evidence for this? If not then this witness identification will stand as powerful evidence in court that Looker bought the exact same stones that were used to hide the body.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Tanomazu

[DrJack54]

Slightly off topic. I'm not familiar with European countries......where are good places to be incognito.

So did Mr Looker travel to Spain via Malaysia? 

[Tanomazu]

29 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

in earlier threads it was discussed that they went to kanchanaburi together, pretty sure based on a newspaper

From the very beginning Thai police have made clear, in written submissions, that the victim was killed in Bangkok. See the actual decision by the European Court of Human Rights:

 

"On 3 November 2015, the Thai authorities lodged a request with the Spanish authorities for the applicant’s provisional arrest, with a view to his extradition. The Thai Government sent to the Spanish authorities a report prepared by the Thai police, which contained a summary of the evidence gathered against the applicant in respect of the crimes that he had allegedly committed.

 

He had murdered a Thai woman, aged 27, on the night of 1-2 November 2014, while she had been in his hotel room in Bangkok. The woman had worked as a prostitute in a bar, and she had been recorded by video cameras leaving the bar with the applicant on the night in question. They had also been witnessed entering the hotel together. The next day the applicant had checked out of the hotel and had asked a bellboy to help him carry his suitcase outside. The bellboy later reported that the suitcase had been very heavy and that two persons had been needed to carry it to the van in which the applicant had then driven away. The woman had not been seen leaving the room. One of the hotel’s cleaners had declared that some of the applicant’s bedroom sheets had had bloodstains on them and that one of the pillows had been missing.

 

https://www.stradalex.com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_51568-19

 

The above refers to Looker's hotel room specifically, where the bedroom sheets had bloodstains and one of the pillows was missing, obviously because it was drenched in blood and removed by Looker.

[scubascuba3]

33 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Yes, unfortunately the witness said it was Looker specifically.

they could line up 5 bald guys and the witness might start having doubts

[cleopatra2]

15 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Eye witness identification is exceptionally powerful in court. That is why it is so often relied on.

 

If this witness says it was Looker who bought her stones then this is powerful evidence if true.

 

Whilst confirmation bias does happen you would have to provide evidence that this witness was influenced by an interviewer with pre-conceived notions about the crime. Do you have any evidence for this? If not then this witness identification will stand as powerful evidence in court that Looker bought the exact same stones that were used to hide the body.

I agree that in court eyewitness testimony is powerful. It is also the most unreliable. 

Back in the US 1984 a person. was convicted of rape on the basis of 5 eyewitnesses. 

Later with advancements of DNA he was proven innocent.