Joe Ferrari case: Death of suspect was by asphyxiation, not drug overdose

[tomacht8]

3 hours ago, animalmagic said:

Fully understand your point of view.  However, it is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an intent to kill in the mind of the person who committed the killing.  The suspect has already stated that he did not intend to kill but to elicit information; it all depends on how the judge and the system assess that.

I'm not defending the actions of any of the people involved, simply stating that the intent must be proven to be successful with a charge of murder.

There are some people here who fall for this bogus "intention" argument in Joe's defense.

 

In order to be punishable, it is necessary that the perpetrator had at least a conditional killing intention, i.e. approved or accepted the death considered possible, but not allowed himself to be dissuaded from carrying out the act. Because of the generally higher inhibition threshold for killing, a comprehensive overall assessment of all objectively and subjectively significant circumstances must be carried out in each individual case, why the perpetrator has overcome this inhibition threshold. In this context, the aim and the motives for the offense, the way in which the offense was carried out, the danger emanating from the offense, the level of knowledge of the offender and his / her psychological state must be taken into account.

 

In Joes case 3 murder criteria are fulfilled. Greed, cruelty and cover up.

 

The realization of murder marks is crucial. These can be divided into three groups. The first and third groups concern perpetrator-related characteristics of murder, the second group crime-related characteristics of murder. In the first group, the pure motivation of the perpetrator is decisive. Here the perpetrator always commits murder when he takes the life of another person for low motives. These include lust for murder, satisfaction of the sexual instinct, greed and other low motives.

 

Greed

Greed represents any unusual, unhealthy and morally objectionable increase in the pursuit of profit at any price. Characteristic is the unbridled, ruthless pursuit of profit "at any price", including that of a human life. A further prerequisite is that the victim's assets increase immediately, at least as he imagines, through the killing or that there is otherwise no prospect of an immediate increase in assets.

 

In the case of the crime-related characteristics of the murder of the second group, a certain way of committing the crime and thus a certain unworthy behavior of the crime is viewed as particularly reprehensible. A total of three variants can be distinguished here.

 

Cruelty

It is cruel to inflict particularly severe physical or mental pain - which goes beyond what is necessary for the killing as such, measured in terms of the severity, duration and repetition of the cause of the pain. In doing so, action must be taken out of a callous, ruthless disposition. Torture, burning, starvation or dying of thirst.

 

After all, killing is always punishable as murder if the objective is reprehensible. This is related to another offense, which reveals the reprehensible degree of the perpetrator. This third group of murder traits includes:

 

Concealment intention

The intention to cover up is understood to mean the endeavor to prevent or make it more difficult to become aware of the predicate offense, whether internal or external, to evade threatened criminal prosecution or to evade another person. It is irrelevant for what reasons the predicate offense should be covered. For this reason, the avoidance of consequences under criminal law is also a permissible target of concealment.

 

[Bluespunk]

On 8/31/2021 at 4:40 AM, webfact said:

The incident happened while Jirapong - in after a drugs bust - was being

tortured.

[Bluespunk]

On 8/31/2021 at 4:50 AM, JoePai said:

Simple case of Suicide

Death by cop anyway...

[bristolgeoff]

I have no idea what will happen now.will they get off or be charged or not.Ijust wait and see now

[SomchaiCNX]

What about the doctor involved? Suspended, license revoked? Should be moved to Bangkok Hilton and work there for a while they short of medical people over there.

Oh yes, he just got another candidate, another police doctor that should join his team.

Edited September 1, 2021 by SomchaiCNX

[tomacht8]

48 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

What about the doctor involved? Suspended, license revoked? Should be moved to Bangkok Hilton and work there for a while they short of medical people over there.

Oh yes, he just got another candidate, another police doctor that should join his team.

Recommendation: Read other sources as well to better understand the process.

 

In short:

Joe and his gang of plastic bag murderers brought the dead victim in the close Princ Paknampo Hospital by car at 1:30 pm. They told the doctors there the lie, that they followed the drug addict victim for 10 minutes and then he allegedly collapsed.

The doctors inserted a tube into his bladder to obtain urine for drug screening as claimed by Pol Thitisant.

 

At 7.20pm, they transferred the victim to Sawanpracharak Hospital since he required specialists and was involved in a drug case.

 

Doctors at Sawanpracharak Hospital listed the death as possible drug abuse since they found substances in his urine. They also wrote it could be caused by asphyxiation.

 

In some cases where the causes of death are not known at the time, an autopsy must be conducted.

Although the victim's body was cremated, the hospital must have earlier conducted an autopsy but the results were not known immediately.

 

After the murder video became public, the investigators probably dig out the autopsy report.

Edited September 1, 2021 by tomacht8

[metisdead]

Posts trolling about road accident victims have been removed. 

[animalmagic]

2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

There are some people here who fall for this bogus "intention" argument in Joe's defense.

 

In order to be punishable, it is necessary that the perpetrator had at least a conditional killing intention, i.e. approved or accepted the death considered possible, but not allowed himself to be dissuaded from carrying out the act. Because of the generally higher inhibition threshold for killing, a comprehensive overall assessment of all objectively and subjectively significant circumstances must be carried out in each individual case, why the perpetrator has overcome this inhibition threshold. In this context, the aim and the motives for the offense, the way in which the offense was carried out, the danger emanating from the offense, the level of knowledge of the offender and his / her psychological state must be taken into account.

 

In Joes case 3 murder criteria are fulfilled. Greed, cruelty and cover up.

 

The realization of murder marks is crucial. These can be divided into three groups. The first and third groups concern perpetrator-related characteristics of murder, the second group crime-related characteristics of murder. In the first group, the pure motivation of the perpetrator is decisive. Here the perpetrator always commits murder when he takes the life of another person for low motives. These include lust for murder, satisfaction of the sexual instinct, greed and other low motives.

 

Greed

Greed represents any unusual, unhealthy and morally objectionable increase in the pursuit of profit at any price. Characteristic is the unbridled, ruthless pursuit of profit "at any price", including that of a human life. A further prerequisite is that the victim's assets increase immediately, at least as he imagines, through the killing or that there is otherwise no prospect of an immediate increase in assets.

 

In the case of the crime-related characteristics of the murder of the second group, a certain way of committing the crime and thus a certain unworthy behavior of the crime is viewed as particularly reprehensible. A total of three variants can be distinguished here.

 

Cruelty

It is cruel to inflict particularly severe physical or mental pain - which goes beyond what is necessary for the killing as such, measured in terms of the severity, duration and repetition of the cause of the pain. In doing so, action must be taken out of a callous, ruthless disposition. Torture, burning, starvation or dying of thirst.

 

After all, killing is always punishable as murder if the objective is reprehensible. This is related to another offense, which reveals the reprehensible degree of the perpetrator. This third group of murder traits includes:

 

Concealment intention

The intention to cover up is understood to mean the endeavor to prevent or make it more difficult to become aware of the predicate offense, whether internal or external, to evade threatened criminal prosecution or to evade another person. It is irrelevant for what reasons the predicate offense should be covered. For this reason, the avoidance of consequences under criminal law is also a permissible target of concealment.

 

I see what you are trying to say but it is neither a 'bogus' argument nor a defence of the accused; it is stating simple facts.

You quote greed, cruelty and cover up as being 3 murder criteria.

Greed - in this case the greed was in trying to get info from the deceased in order to make profit from it.  As the victim actually died it became impossible to make any profit as this was dependent on him staying alive and giving the necessary info to the accused.

Cruelty - this was a technique, similar to water boarding, intended to force the victim to give up info which he could not do as the cruelty ('torture').  The torture resulted in hypoxia and increased levels of CO2 in the victim and this can cause death even if the plastic bag is removed and the asphyxiation torture ceases.

Cover up - the cover up began after the perpetrators realised they had screwed up big time.

 

None of the factors you quote prove an intent to kill before the torture commenced, in fact the desire to profit from the torture suggests the perpetrators wanted and needed the victim to stay alive.

Personally I would be happy for all the perpetrators to be found guilty of murder and punished accordingly, however the facts of the case may not provide the necessary proof beyond reasonable doubt.

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

There are some people here who fall for this bogus "intention" argument in Joe's defense.

 

In order to be punishable, it is necessary that the perpetrator had at least a conditional killing intention, i.e. approved or accepted the death considered possible, but not allowed himself to be dissuaded from carrying out the act. Because of the generally higher inhibition threshold for killing, a comprehensive overall assessment of all objectively and subjectively significant circumstances must be carried out in each individual case, why the perpetrator has overcome this inhibition threshold. In this context, the aim and the motives for the offense, the way in which the offense was carried out, the danger emanating from the offense, the level of knowledge of the offender and his / her psychological state must be taken into account.

 

In Joes case 3 murder criteria are fulfilled. Greed, cruelty and cover up.

 

The realization of murder marks is crucial. These can be divided into three groups. The first and third groups concern perpetrator-related characteristics of murder, the second group crime-related characteristics of murder. In the first group, the pure motivation of the perpetrator is decisive. Here the perpetrator always commits murder when he takes the life of another person for low motives. These include lust for murder, satisfaction of the sexual instinct, greed and other low motives.

 

Greed

Greed represents any unusual, unhealthy and morally objectionable increase in the pursuit of profit at any price. Characteristic is the unbridled, ruthless pursuit of profit "at any price", including that of a human life. A further prerequisite is that the victim's assets increase immediately, at least as he imagines, through the killing or that there is otherwise no prospect of an immediate increase in assets.

 

In the case of the crime-related characteristics of the murder of the second group, a certain way of committing the crime and thus a certain unworthy behavior of the crime is viewed as particularly reprehensible. A total of three variants can be distinguished here.

 

Cruelty

It is cruel to inflict particularly severe physical or mental pain - which goes beyond what is necessary for the killing as such, measured in terms of the severity, duration and repetition of the cause of the pain. In doing so, action must be taken out of a callous, ruthless disposition. Torture, burning, starvation or dying of thirst.

 

After all, killing is always punishable as murder if the objective is reprehensible. This is related to another offense, which reveals the reprehensible degree of the perpetrator. This third group of murder traits includes:

 

Concealment intention

The intention to cover up is understood to mean the endeavor to prevent or make it more difficult to become aware of the predicate offense, whether internal or external, to evade threatened criminal prosecution or to evade another person. It is irrelevant for what reasons the predicate offense should be covered. For this reason, the avoidance of consequences under criminal law is also a permissible target of concealment.

 

The intention. is not bogus. It is part of the criminal code. 

The act and intention need to be simultaneous. The prosecution will have to prove that the intention was to kill the suspect either at the start or during the act. 

The defense will obviously point out the cpr and transfer to hospital as supporting evidence for there being no intention to kill. 

My understanding is that the criminal code for murder does not use the term reckless indifference 

 

I am aware that NSW use similar approach has you have stated for constructive murder. 

Do you know of a state/jurisdiction that use the conditional murder as you describe. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by cleopatra2

[tomacht8]

3 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

I see what you are trying to say but it is neither a 'bogus' argument nor a defence of the accused; it is stating simple facts.

You quote greed, cruelty and cover up as being 3 murder criteria.

Greed - in this case the greed was in trying to get info from the deceased in order to make profit from it.  As the victim actually died it became impossible to make any profit as this was dependent on him staying alive and giving the necessary info to the accused.

Cruelty - this was a technique, similar to water boarding, intended to force the victim to give up info which he could not do as the cruelty ('torture').  The torture resulted in hypoxia and increased levels of CO2 in the victim and this can cause death even if the plastic bag is removed and the asphyxiation torture ceases.

Cover up - the cover up began after the perpetrators realised they had screwed up big time.

 

None of the factors you quote prove an intent to kill before the torture commenced, in fact the desire to profit from the torture suggests the perpetrators wanted and needed the victim to stay alive.

Personally I would be happy for all the perpetrators to be found guilty of murder and punished accordingly, however the facts of the case may not provide the necessary proof beyond reasonable doubt.

When you look at the whole process, death is not surprising if you cut off someone's air supply for 5-6 minutes. If the victim wasn't a world-famous free diver, it is clear to everyone that after 4,5,6 minutes the whole thing has to end in death. In the end, the possible death was accepted approvingly. It is then irrelevant what Joe said or thought during or after the murder. Also the motive to brutally torture someone to either extort money or to get bonus points for their own career. The method of killing also shows the perversion. And finally the cover-up tactics and all the lies. Let's see what the end of the charge is. For me it is a bestal torture murder.

[animalmagic]

34 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

When you look at the whole process, death is not surprising if you cut off someone's air supply for 5-6 minutes. If the victim wasn't a world-famous free diver, it is clear to everyone that after 4,5,6 minutes the whole thing has to end in death. In the end, the possible death was accepted approvingly. It is then irrelevant what Joe said or thought during or after the murder. Also the motive to brutally torture someone to either extort money or to get bonus points for their own career. The method of killing also shows the perversion. And finally the cover-up tactics and all the lies. Let's see what the end of the charge is. For me it is a bestal torture murder.

My question would be  - does the video actually show the amount of time the air supply was cut off for?

If the air supply was verifiably cut off for the period you state then the charge of murder, and the possibility of it being the verdict, is strengthened as any normal person, even Thai police officers, would expect death to be the result of that action.  If, however, the air supply was not totally cut off for all that period then it adds credence to the finding of torture gone wrong and possibly manslaughter.

For me I am not confident in the legal system anyway and they should all be charged with further offences relating to the torture and attempted cover up in order that the perpetrators can at least be found guilty of lesser charges if anything goes wrong with the main charge.  The video shows them all committing several serious offences and they should therefore be charged with all of them.

[kingkenny]

Clearly didn't use a Bag for Life.

[RJRS1301]

7 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

Clearly didn't use a Bag for Life.

Sick man ????

[Kwaibill]

On 8/31/2021 at 10:53 AM, itsari said:

Joe the policeman has made a public statement on why he thought five extra bags were required . 

The way i understood the statement from him was that he wished to be sure that the accused being interrogated would not recognize him . That just does not add up in my mind . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it worked, didn't it? The suspect hasn't made a positive ID. ...

Edited September 1, 2021 by Kwaibill
Typo

[tomacht8]

6 hours ago, animalmagic said:

My question would be  - does the video actually show the amount of time the air supply was cut off for?

If the air supply was verifiably cut off for the period you state then the charge of murder, and the possibility of it being the verdict, is strengthened as any normal person, even Thai police officers, would expect death to be the result of that action.  If, however, the air supply was not totally cut off for all that period then it adds credence to the finding of torture gone wrong and possibly manslaughter.

For me I am not confident in the legal system anyway and they should all be charged with further offences relating to the torture and attempted cover up in order that the perpetrators can at least be found guilty of lesser charges if anything goes wrong with the main charge.  The video shows them all committing several serious offences and they should therefore be charged with all of them.

It was 6 minutes.

https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/40005544

[cleopatra2]

19 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

It was 6 minutes.

https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/40005544

The statements given in the article is somewhat confusing. Whilst I agree with the plastic bag will probably convict them.

 

The culprits wanted to extort 2 million baht ( actual words spoken on video is wheres the goods) 

 

Then the prosecutor alleging the culprits intended to kill. 

 

The issue here is if extortion was motive then this makes intention to kill improbable. You cannot extort money from a dead person. 

 

The more reasonable conjecture would be an  initial intention to extort..leading to intention to kill when the extortion attempt failed.

Finally an attempt to back out after the realization of the consequences of their actions. ( administration. Of cpr and transport to hospital) 

[tomacht8]

32 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The statements given in the article is somewhat confusing. Whilst I agree with the plastic bag will probably convict them.

 

The culprits wanted to extort 2 million baht ( actual words spoken on video is wheres the goods) 

 

Then the prosecutor alleging the culprits intended to kill. 

 

The issue here is if extortion was motive then this makes intention to kill improbable. You cannot extort money from a dead person. 

 

The more reasonable conjecture would be an  initial intention to extort..leading to intention to kill when the extortion attempt failed.

Finally an attempt to back out after the realization of the consequences of their actions. ( administration. Of cpr and transport to hospital) 

I think with 6 plastic bags on his head, and the breathing air cut off for 6 minutes without a break ...

 

What else could the victim have done to avoid his own death?

 

There was no break in there. The victim didn't even had a chance to say anything.

 

He was cruelly and willingly suffocated to death. To the bitter end. For 6 minutes!!!

No one survives such a long period of time.

 

Something like that is murder and not an "accident" while torturing a person with an "unfortunate" result of death. Due to the method and the length, the dead was deliberately accepted.

 

And then the whole cover-up aftermath: They had to go somewhere with the corpse. They couldn't throw him on the street. There is still the victim's girlfriend as a witness. So off to the hospital and there the lies told to the doctors. Then the destruction of the CCTV recordings.

 

Let's see what comes out of it.

[gilamonster]

FYI    Joe Ferrari was once posted at the soi 9 police station and was especially unpleasant, per TWO gf.  He and a clique of his acolytes were transferred OUT for unknown reasons

[gilamonster]

Soi 9 police station in Pattaya

[ChipButty]

Did they get an ambulance or just throw him on the back of a truck? must be more video evidence in the yard at the police station

[cleopatra2]

17 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

I think with 6 plastic bags on his head, and the breathing air cut off for 6 minutes without a break ...

 

What else could the victim have done to avoid his own death?

 

There was no break in there. The victim didn't even had a chance to say anything.

 

He was cruelly and willingly suffocated to death. To the bitter end. For 6 minutes!!!

No one survives such a long period of time.

 

Something like that is murder and not an "accident" while torturing a person with an "unfortunate" result of death. Due to the method and the length, the dead was deliberately accepted.

 

And then the whole cover-up aftermath: They had to go somewhere with the corpse. They couldn't throw him on the street. There is still the victim's girlfriend as a witness. So off to the hospital and there the lies told to the doctors. Then the destruction of the CCTV recordings.

 

Let's see what comes out of it.

He actually died 24 hours later

[Artisi]

17 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

I think with 6 plastic bags on his head, and the breathing air cut off for 6 minutes without a break ...

 

What else could the victim have done to avoid his own death?

 

There was no break in there. The victim didn't even had a chance to say anything.

 

He was cruelly and willingly suffocated to death. To the bitter end. For 6 minutes!!!

No one survives such a long period of time.

 

Something like that is murder and not an "accident" while torturing a person with an "unfortunate" result of death. Due to the method and the length, the dead was deliberately accepted.

 

And then the whole cover-up aftermath: They had to go somewhere with the corpse. They couldn't throw him on the street. There is still the victim's girlfriend as a witness. So off to the hospital and there the lies told to the doctors. Then the destruction of the CCTV recordings.

 

Let's see what comes out of it.

please point me to the report re CCTV file being destroyed.

[tomacht8]

52 minutes ago, Artisi said:

please point me to the report re CCTV file being destroyed.

Asked why he removed CCTV cameras from the room where the incident took place, Thitisan merely said he was inexperienced and had not been thinking clearly.

 

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/the-high-rolling-career-of-joe-ferrari-top-cop-in-corruption-spotlight/

[tomacht8]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

He actually died 24 hours later

How do you come to this assumption?

 

He was dead after being tortured with plastic bags. Resuscitation was obviously in vain. He was officially pronounced death in the hospital.

[Artisi]

2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Asked why he removed CCTV cameras from the room where the incident took place, Thitisan merely said he was inexperienced and had not been thinking clearly.

 

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/the-high-rolling-career-of-joe-ferrari-top-cop-in-corruption-spotlight/

Being removed and destroying the CCTV files are two different things. 

[tomacht8]

1 minute ago, Artisi said:

Being removed and destroying the CCTV files are two different things. 

Yes. It is not clear in the report what exactly he removed. Whether he just unscrewed the cameras or removed the entire system including the hard drives.

But it was noticed that he removed something. Hence the question to him.

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

How do you come to this assumption?

 

He was dead after being tortured with plastic bags. Resuscitation was obviously in vain. He was officially pronounced death in the hospital.

Interestingly, I was given a rundown on Friday evening folowing his arrest, this was from 

a very reliable source, a lot of what I was told differs from what is currently being said / reported, of course the information may not have been completely accurate at that time, but certainly raises questions to what is what and who do you believe. 

[metisdead]

A post with content that was copy and pasted from the Bangkok Post has been removed. 

[tomacht8]

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

Being removed and destroying the CCTV files are two different things. 

On Thursday night, responding to media questioning, Colonel Thitisan did, however, admit to being responsible for the removal of CCTV footage from the station at Nakhon Sawan after the death of the drugs suspect.

 

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2021/08/29/fears-that-ferrari-joe-will-evade-justice/

[cleopatra2]

3 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

How do you come to this assumption?

 

He was dead after being tortured with plastic bags. Resuscitation was obviously in vain. He was officially pronounced death in the hospital.

He was resuscitated and died at the 2nd hospital