5 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

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.

yeah i already quoted that

19 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

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? 

He left Thailand on the Padang train for Malaysia on 27 November 2014. On 8 June 2017, Looker was arrested in Ibiza, Spain, he had been living in Spain for a long time by then. He most likely did not fly to Spain from Malaysia, but to the UK and then to Spain.

 

Obviously the best place to hide after a serious crime is in a country that has no extradition agreement with the country where you committed the crime, or that are known not to extradite. That was Looker's clear mistake. Rather than Spain he should have considered Venezuela, Bolivia or Ecuador.

 

Another mistake Looker made was to buy decorational stones to weigh down the body. He should have just used material picked off the street in secret. Buying the stones you use to weigh down the suitcase is really exceptionally stupid.

On 7/13/2021 at 3:45 AM, Gandtee said:

You seem to mix with a strange circle of friends.????

I don't think we're that strange on Thaivisa. Sorry AseanNow.  ????

 

More seriously I think it's a good point. Despite what you read in the media people don't usually look 'evil' and if they do they may well not be. My daughter and I used to meet a guy through a club who was a really nice chap who then killed himself. It turned out he was a paedophile who had committed some very serious crimes. You wouldn't guess by looking at him.

9 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

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. 

False eye witness testimony does happen. However, as in the case you refer to above, you would need evidence to show the eye witness statements were wrong.  In this case however the DNA evidence actually implicates Looker in the crime, rather than exonerate him. So it supports the witness statements that implicate Looker.

2 hours ago, robblok said:

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

 

i bet the suitcase was similar, not identical, 90% of cases are similar. I'd like to see photos side by side

There are too many people getting bogged down in legal arguments.

The bottom line is he will be found guilty.

An innocent verdict would indicate the Thai's made a mistake extraditing him, this would result in too much loss of face.

Innocent or guilty the guy is doomed, Thai justice 101!

 

 

5 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

He left Thailand on the Padang train for Malaysia on 27 November 2014. On 8 June 2017, Looker was arrested in Ibiza, Spain, he had been living in Spain for a long time by then. He most likely did not fly to Spain from Malaysia, but to the UK and then to Spain.

 

Obviously the best place to hide after a serious crime is in a country that has no extradition agreement with the country where you committed the crime, or that are known not to extradite. That was Looker's clear mistake. Rather than Spain he should have considered Venezuela, Bolivia or Ecuador.

Ah yes. Think Ronnie Briggs choose Brazil.

1 minute ago, Tanomazu said:

False eye witness testimony does happen. However, as in the case you refer to above, you would need evidence to show the eye witness were wrong.  In this case however the DNA evidence actually implicates Looker in the crime, rather than exonerate him.

The DNA does not implcate him. Looker does not deny being with the victim. It is more than reasonable that his DNA would be present. However if he denied knowing the victim then the DNA would be a problem. 

 

As for eyewitness testimony, who would think that 5 witnesses not only could be wrong but they all identified the same wrong person. 

2 minutes ago, OnTheLash said:

There are too many people getting bogged down in legal arguments.

The bottom line is he will be found guilty.

An innocent verdict would indicate the Thai's made a mistake extraditing him, this would result in too much loss of face.

Innocent or guilty the guy is doomed, Thai justice 101!

 

 

The first court is notorious for convicting. 

Only a number of years ago they convicted where the alleged perpetrators had an alibi

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

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

This is not based on official statements. 

I hope he has had 2 Pfizer jabs.

Best come to Thailand prepared.

37 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

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.

It could not have been drenched in blood from the victim

6 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It could not have been drenched in blood from the victim

Why could it not have been the victim's blood?

Just now, Tanomazu said:

Why could it not have been the victim's blood?

I am saying it could not have been drenched in the victims blood. 

31 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The DNA does not implcate him. Looker does not deny being with the victim. It is more than reasonable that his DNA would be present. However if he denied knowing the victim then the DNA would be a problem. 

 

As for eyewitness testimony, who would think that 5 witnesses not only could be wrong but they all identified the same wrong person. 

That's not the case in this instance. Here we have Looker, according to a witness, buying the same stones that were used to weigh down the suitcase and we have DNA evidence that links him and the murder victim. The DNA evidence does not exonerate him, as in the case with the 5 witnesses that you mentioned.

15 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

It could not have been drenched in blood from the victim

The victim's body was dismembered. Why could the pillow that was removed not have been drenched in the victim's blood?

Just now, Tanomazu said:

That's not the case in this instance. Here we have Looker, according to a witness, buying the same stones that were used to weigh down the suitcase and we have DNA evidence that links him and the murder victim. The DNA evidence does not exonerate him, as in the case with the 5 witness that you mentioned.

The DNA would be significant if Looker denied knowing the victim. 

Since Looker bought her out of the bar it is reasonable to assume they had an intimate relationship. 

It is reasonable in such circumstances for their DNA to transfer. 

 

We have a witness testimony stating he bought stones. The reliability of the witness account has not yet been tested. 

3 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

The victim's body was dismembered. Why could the pillow that was removed not have been drenched in the victim's blood?

The body was not dismembered. 

 

Logically how could a person dismember a body in an hotel room without tools

39 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

i bet the suitcase was similar, not identical, 90% of cases are similar. I'd like to see photos side by side

You can bet what you want but the court has proof it was identical, that is why they mentioned it. You have not seen their evidence. 

 

So now you without proof are disputing the Spanish court that was handed proof. Do you think they would use identical when it was not. That would be really bad for a court case. 

 

6. On 6 November 2014, a man reported that he had found a suitcase in a river. The suitcase, identical to one owned by the applicant, contained the woman's body, as well as several stones and rocks together weighing over 12 kg. 

 

Do you think that the judges would have put it there without asking the same question you did. They do this as professionals and everyone is looking over their shoulders. So to make such a grave mistake would be utterly stupid. Sorry I have more trust in the Spanish court then you do.

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

The body was not dismembered. 

But it says right here:

 

"A British man has been arrested in Spain in connection with the discovery of a dancer’s dismembered body in a suitcase in Thailand three years ago"

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wanted-briton-shane-looker-arrested-over-killing-of-thai-dancer-zgwdc0gdr

 

Why do you think this report is inaccurate?

 

 

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

You can bet what you want but the court has proof it was identical, that is why they mentioned it. You have not seen their evidence. 

 

So now you without proof are disputing the Spanish court that was handed proof. Do you think they would use identical when it was not. That would be really bad for a court case. 

 

6. On 6 November 2014, a man reported that he had found a suitcase in a river. The suitcase, identical to one owned by the applicant, contained the woman's body, as well as several stones and rocks together weighing over 12 kg. 

 

Do you think that the judges would have put it there without asking the same question you did. They do this as professionals and everyone is looking over their shoulders. So to make such a grave mistake would be utterly stupid. Sorry I have more trust in the Spanish court then you do.

A statement saying it is identical is an assertion   not a proof

 

The term identical means similar in every respect. 

Just now, Tanomazu said:

But it says right here:

 

"A British man has been arrested in Spain in connection with the discovery of a dancer’s dismembered body in a suitcase in Thailand three years ago"

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wanted-briton-shane-looker-arrested-over-killing-of-thai-dancer-zgwdc0gdr

 

Why do you think this report is inaccurate?

 

 

Take it from me the foreign press is wrong on this point

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

You can bet what you want but the court has proof it was identical, that is why they mentioned it. You have not seen their evidence. 

 

So now you without proof are disputing the Spanish court that was handed proof. Do you think they would use identical when it was not. That would be really bad for a court case. 

 

6. On 6 November 2014, a man reported that he had found a suitcase in a river. The suitcase, identical to one owned by the applicant, contained the woman's body, as well as several stones and rocks together weighing over 12 kg. 

 

Do you think that the judges would have put it there without asking the same question you did. They do this as professionals and everyone is looking over their shoulders. So to make such a grave mistake would be utterly stupid. Sorry I have more trust in the Spanish court then you do.

Which judges are you referring to

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Take it from me the foreign press is wrong on this point

But it's not just the foreign press, the Thai press was saying the same thing:

 

"The dismembered body of Laxami Manochat also known as ‘Pook’ was found by horrified police a week later on November 9th after a suitcase was pulled out of the Mae Klong River in the western province of Kanchanaburi."

 

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2021/05/29/uk-go-go-murder-suspect-shane-looker-faces-extradition-to-thailand/

 

If that was all inaccurate would love to know why.

Just now, Tanomazu said:

But it's not just the foreign press, the Thai press was saying the same thing:

 

"The dismembered body of Laxami Manochat also known as ‘Pook’ was found by horrified police a week later on November 9th after a suitcase was pulled out of the Mae Klong River in the western province of Kanchanaburi."

 

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2021/05/29/uk-go-go-murder-suspect-shane-looker-faces-extradition-to-thailand/

 

If that was all inaccurate would love to know why.

The dismembered body came from a separate case where a dismembered dog was found in a suitcase. 

You will also find press reports saying the victim was found with dog meat. 

 

If you believe the victim was dismembered. Where and how did this take place. 

 

5 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

But it's not just the foreign press, the Thai press was saying the same thing:

 

"The dismembered body of Laxami Manochat also known as ‘Pook’ was found by horrified police a week later on November 9th after a suitcase was pulled out of the Mae Klong River in the western province of Kanchanaburi."

 

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2021/05/29/uk-go-go-murder-suspect-shane-looker-faces-extradition-to-thailand/

 

If that was all inaccurate would love to know why.

The article imakes basic errors, such as age of victm and date of discovery

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

The dismembered body came from a separate case where a dismembered dog was found in a suitcase. 

You will also find press reports saying the victim was found with dog meat. 

 

If you believe the victim was dismembered. Where and how did this take place. 

 

You're probably right, come to think of it. If he had done it in the hotel room he would have left a much greater mess than the blood that was found. He would have needed tools. Whilst he could have dismembered her in the Hua Hin house where he was found and stayed for a while after the murder it makes no sense, if he was just going to dump the body in a suitcase, why would he dismember her at all? Unless he was a true psycho freak of course.

 

Still does not explain the blood that was left in his hotel room and why items of the bedding were missing though.

13 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

You're probably right, come to think of it. If he had done it in the hotel room he would have left a much greater mess than the blood that was found. He would have needed tools. Whilst he could have dismembered her in the Hua Hin house where he was found and stayed for a while after the murder it makes no sense, if he was just going to dump the body in a suitcase, why would he dismember her at all? Unless he was a true psycho freak of course.

 

Still does not explain the blood that was left in his hotel room and why items of the bedding were missing though.

I do not recall the pillow being found with the victim ( I could be mistaken about this). 

As for the bloodstained, the indications are that it was a small amount. This could be in accordance to the small injury above her eyebrow. 

However I am not aware if any testing being carried out to ascertain if the blood matched the victim, Looker or was blood. 

32 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Which judges are you referring to

The Spanish judges of course they are the only ones so far that seen any evidence as it has not even been to a Thai court. The Spanish judges got a preview of some evidence and based the extradition on that. If they write IDENTICAL then im sure they have seen proof of that. Some pictures are easily included in a casefile you know. 

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

The Spanish judges of course they are the only ones so far that seen any evidence as it has not even been to a Thai court. The Spanish judges got a preview of some evidence and based the extradition on that. If they write IDENTICAL then im sure they have seen proof of that. Some pictures are easily included in a casefile you know. 

Identical means similar in every respect. 

Extradition hearings accept what is asserted as fact. 

The requirement is a low bar. Below that of balance of probabilities.