36 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You seem to be ignoring the fact that, at this stage, there is apparently no evidence against him, nor any testimony from the victim, yet.   The case isn't closed, though.

I am sure that his confession would have been enough, had they wished it to be.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

40 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You seem to be ignoring the fact that, at this stage, there is apparently no evidence against him, nor any testimony from the victim, yet.   The case isn't closed, though.

I am sure that his confession would have been enough, had they wished it to be.

With no other evidence, no, it would not be, it wouldn't even be enough for the prosecutor to issue an indictment, the case would not get to court without evidence.   

 

What if he retracted his confession? 

4 hours ago, aussienam said:

Why keystone cops? This is what happens nearly everywhere else in the world.  If there is insufficient evidence to lay charges then police have no choice.  Arbitrary detention of suspects attracts legal issues. Then then the public backflip and criticize police for holding people without enough evidence.  

They had a confession to this case and he admitted to previous crimes, yet still released him. You are way off track here! They can catch you for DUI here Friday and keep you locked up until Monday when the courts open! 

6 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

OTOH victim could have some 'friends' that will arrange some justice for her.

I hope so.

They let him out so he could vote ????

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

With no other evidence, no, it would not be, it wouldn't even be enough for the prosecutor to issue an indictment, the case would not get to court without evidence.   

 

What if he retracted his confession? 

The Burmese on Koh Tao retracted the confession. There was little to no evidence against them. Didn't seem to have too many problems getting the conviction. But then, they did a load of DNA tests in that case, didn't hear of any being done here. I wonder if they've checked his phone records, all CCTV in the area, her body for his DNA? His body for her DNA? I doubt it.

 

Like I said, it depends on who is being prosecuted.

22 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

4 hours ago, aussienam said:

Why keystone cops? This is what happens nearly everywhere else in the world.  If there is insufficient evidence to lay charges then police have no choice.  Arbitrary detention of suspects attracts legal issues. Then then the public backflip and criticize police for holding people without enough evidence.  

Expand  

They had a confession to this case and he admitted to previous crimes, yet still released him. You are way off track here! They can catch you for DUI here Friday and keep you locked up until Monday when the courts open! 

"They can catch you for DUI here Friday and keep you locked up until Monday when the courts open!"

Only if they have evidence, something that has been stated as lacking in this woman's case.   Confessions can be retracted!

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"They can catch you for DUI here Friday and keep you locked up until Monday when the courts open!"

Only if they have evidence, something that has been stated as lacking in this woman's case.   Confessions can be retracted!

And was the video evidence of his vehicle withdrawn too? I did not hear that his confession was retracted.. did you? Set him free to perpetrate further violence on women seems to be supported here!

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

42 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

With no other evidence, no, it would not be, it wouldn't even be enough for the prosecutor to issue an indictment, the case would not get to court without evidence.   

 

What if he retracted his confession? 

Expand  

The Burmese on Koh Tao retracted the confession. There was little to no evidence against them.

There was enough evidence initially to get an indictment, something that does not happen with no evidence as in this case, so far.   And this case has not been closed.

does victim supposed to provide positive ID of the suspect? let's all murderers go free then!

5 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"They can catch you for DUI here Friday and keep you locked up until Monday when the courts open!"

Only if they have evidence, something that has been stated as lacking in this woman's case.   Confessions can be retracted!

Expand  

And was the video evidence of his vehicle withdrawn too? I did not hear that his confession was retracted.. did you? Set him free to perpetrate further violence on women seems to be supported here!

You mean CCTV evidence of his vehicle just being in the area?   That's not evidence of an attack and sure wouldn't get an indictment from the AG's office without anything else.   

 

You think that the police have evidence against him although they have stated that, without the woman's testimony, they haven't?

 

I did not say that his admission had been retracted, I said that it could be, meaning that if he had, there would be no case against him, so far.

4 minutes ago, MasterBaker said:

does victim supposed to provide positive ID of the suspect? let's all murderers go free then!

Why not if the police have no evidence against the accused, as they claim in this case?

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I did not say that his admission had been retracted, I said that it could be, meaning that if he had, there would be no case against him, so far.

So you advocate releasing him on the premise he might retract his confession.... give him a chance to go get another one?

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's to do with evidence and the chances of getting a conviction if he pleaded not guilty. With apparently no evidence against him for the attack and no testimony from the woman, no prosecutor would indict him.

What about his admission that he did it?

Just now, jacko45k said:

So you advocate releasing him on the premise he might retract his confession.... give him a chance to go get another one?

No, I didn't say that, either.   

 

If the police have nothing more than an initial admission in the police station, no empirical evidence against him and no testimony from the woman, then they have no case and no prosecutor would issue an indictment so there would no legal justification for the police to detain him.   It does not matter what you, me or anyone "feels" about him, prosecutors need to see evidence.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 It does not matter what you, me or anyone "feels" about him, prosecutors need to see evidence.

There was evidence, a confession is evidence!

2 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's to do with evidence and the chances of getting a conviction if he pleaded not guilty. With apparently no evidence against him for the attack and no testimony from the woman, no prosecutor would indict him.

What about his admission that he did it?

What about it?   With nothing else, the case wouldn't get anywhere. He could just stand up in court and say, "no, I did not do it", and with no other evidence he'd be getting a taxi home.

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

There was evidence, a confession is evidence!

No, it is not and, on it's own, it is not enough evidence to indict.  He can retract it!

6 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

What about his admission that he did it?

Be careful, you will get 'sad' emoticons !????

8 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

What about his admission that he did it?

Perhaps he was known to be a persistent liar 

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, it is not and, on it's own, it is not enough evidence to indict.  He can retract it!

Yes it is, usually the best evidence there is! Most certainly a person can be charged based on a confession. We also have evidence of the guy being there at the time of the incident. He didn't retract the confession .... !

24 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There was enough evidence initially to get an indictment, something that does not happen with no evidence as in this case, so far.   And this case has not been closed.

You seem incredibly supportive of the Thai police. I wonder how you'd feel if it was your wife/daughter that was attacked. Would you still be apologising for them releasing someone who confessed to not only this crime, but gave his motive and even admitted to other crimes as well?

1 minute ago, Excel said:

Perhaps he was known to be a persistent liar 

Unlike the Thai Police?

Just now, jacko45k said:

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, it is not and, on it's own, it is not enough evidence to indict.  He can retract it!

Yes it is, usually the best evidence there is! Most certainly a person can be charged based on a confession. We also have evidence of the guy being there at the time of the incident. He didn't retract it.... !

A confession, in isolation, is not evidence, never mind "the best there is" as it can be retracted at any time, leaving the prosecution with no case.   No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession.

 

CCTV evidence of his being in the area, and nothing more, is not evidence of his attacking her.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

A confession, in isolation, is not evidence, never mind "the best there is" as it can be retracted at any time, leaving the prosecution with no case.   No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession.

 

CCTV evidence of his being in the area, and nothing more, is not evidence of his attacking her.

But it is not 'in isolation' is it? There is evidence placing him at the scene. If he has confessed also, that is enough to hold him while a case is developed. He can be held for 48 hrs.  

Your statement 'No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession' cannot be supported. People have been executed based on confessions! Corpus delicti does not apply here as there is evidence of a crime, an injured woman.

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You seem incredibly supportive of the Thai police. I wonder how you'd feel if it was your wife/daughter that was attacked. Would you still be apologising for them releasing someone who confessed to not only this crime, but gave his motive and even admitted to other crimes as well?

I'm not "supportive of the Thai police", I am supportive of justice.  My feelings about this case are irrelevant, the only thing that matters to a prosecutor, or to a  court, is evidence and in this case, so far the police have said that they have none.

 

"..how you'd feel if it was your wife/daughter that was attacked".

How would you feel if, say, your son/brother/father was accused of this attack and the police tried to take him to court with no evidence against him, as in this case?   

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

How would you feel if, say, your son/brother/father was accused of this attack and the police tried to take him to court with no evidence against him, as in this case?   

If he had confessed, as in this case, and been placed at the scene, they can certainly detain him for me!

A similar thing happened to a friend of mine a while back. 

After being advised of the hassle she would have to go through to get legal justice, she took the option of financial compensation and her partner administering some local justice.

 

Things haven't changed much since then. 

11 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

A confession, in isolation, is not evidence, never mind "the best there is" as it can be retracted at any time, leaving the prosecution with no case.   No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession.

 

CCTV evidence of his being in the area, and nothing more, is not evidence of his attacking her.

Expand  

But it is not 'in isolation' is it? There is evidence placing him at the scene. If he has confessed also, that is enough to hold him while a case is developed. He can be held for 48 hrs.  

Your statement 'No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession' cannot be supported. People have been executed based on confessions! 

It is in isolation.  There may have been CCTV of him in the area but that is not evidence of his attacking the woman.   

 

"Your statement 'No prosecutor will ever indict based on nothing more than just a confession' cannot be supported".

Sorry, but it's a fact, that you don't agree does not mean it cannot be supported.  No prosecutor/AG would indict solely on an admission with no other evidence at all.

 

"There is evidence placing him at the scene".

Not exactly, there was CCTV of his vehicle being in the area, there has been no mention of his "being at the scene of the attack" specifically.   There may have been other people/vehicles seen in the area also, they are not being accused of the attack, are they?  My point being that someone's presence in the area is not evidence of their being the attacker.

 

"People have been executed based on confessions!"

I'm sure that you can name just one that has been indicted and executed based 100% on a confession and no other evidence whatsoever?

23 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

If he had confessed, as in this case, and been placed at the scene, they can certainly detain him for me!

Where, specifically, did it state that "he was placed at the scene of the attack"?   Wasn't his vehicle just seen in the area?