Arrested foreigners uncooperative with Phuket police after Russian woman dies in balcony fall

[NativeBob]

another lovely thai journalism + Google translate + somehow re-written. masterpiece of rubbish.

[hotchilli]

4 hours ago, Geoffggi said:

Thailand the Hub of Balcony Falls .................

Hub of sex, drugs, alcohol and balcony falls.

[Moonlover]

53 minutes ago, itsari said:

The courts can prove you guilty if you remain silent . 

Of course they can and frequently do. 

 

59 minutes ago, itsari said:

The IRA members arrested years ago would refuse to talk .

That instigated a change in UK law .

 

What change in the law? 

 

'The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems'.

 

This right is attributed to the rulings of An English judge, Sir Edward Coke back in the 16th century, long before the IRA came along.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#:~:text=The right to silence is,of the world's legal systems.

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Moonlover

[Wagga]

1 hour ago, riverhigh said:

Peaceful, loving cannabis dope smokers, I doubt it. Grabbing hair and fighting on the balcony, more like your typical crackheads. Add the fact that no one could be found at the scene of the crime indicates that our "Peaceful, loving cannabis dope smokers" had done a runner, and for good reason!!

Please show me where the wording in the other post says anything about "Peaceful, loving cannabis dope smokers" ???

[NativeBob]

12 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Hub of sex, drugs, alcohol and balcony falls.

inset.????

[shackleton]

Check the 3 others heads for a bald patch case solved ????

[ronster]

Show them the Joe Ferrari interrogation video while they wait !

[kidneyw]

4 hours ago, Phil1975 said:

Clutching hair

Sure beats "clutching at straws."

[bradiston]

38 minutes ago, itsari said:

UK , USA . Must be more with out taking time 

If you are struggling to think , look up the case of Genovevo Salinas for a US Supreme court decision 

The UK made law changes to put a stop to the IRA members when arrested to remain silent . 

 

 

Salinas initially agreed to talk to the police but in response to one question, opted to remain silent. Initially found not guilty, he was retried and found guilty after the details of his initial interrogation were revealed to the jury, including his silence, and got 20 years. Some have commented this implies you can be found guilty on the basis not only of what you say, but on what you don't say. I guess "No comment" might suffice.

 

But this was a case that really revolved around detailed arguments over the 5th Amendment. But it seems to me it's impossible to conclude with any certainty that he was convicted at the second trial solely because of the jury becoming aware of his silence during interrogation. Of course, he shouldn't have been interviewed without legal representation. But hell, this is Texarse. Yeeha!

[itsari]

51 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Of course they can and frequently do. 

 

What change in the law? 

 

'The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems'.

 

This right is attributed to the rulings of An English judge, Sir Edward Coke back in the 16th century, long before the IRA came along.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#:~:text=The right to silence is,of the world's legal systems.

 

Things do change over time and the right to silence is one of them 

[itsari]

11 minutes ago, itsari said:

Things do change over time and the right to silence is one of them 

Law change was proposed by John Major . Recent history could you say 

I remember the time of the change as well 

[sawadee1947]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

looking at three theories

Now guess which is the easiest way to close the book?????

[itsari]

1 hour ago, ronster said:

Show them the Joe Ferrari interrogation video while they wait !

That would be interpreted as witness intimidation 

[Regyai]

5 hours ago, itsari said:

Refusing to talk in many countries is a admission of guilt .

and in a lot of others a sign of measured wisdom 

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, bradiston said:

No they can't. Not on the basis of silence. If they are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty, it hardly matters if you talk or not, but the case still has to be made, method, motive and means. Sure, some go to the grave and never confess. But people aren't convicted on the basis they refused to talk. On the basis of a beyond reasonable doubt verdict, maybe. And just to point out, there are no jury trials in Thailand. And take a look at the 5th amendment in the USA. Does taking it immediately imply guilt?

The concept of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is not the yard stick here as in many western countries: Although the principal is alluded to, it is spelt out in such words

The legal system of Thailand is based upon civil law. Under Thai criminal law, an accused is innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests with the public prosecutor. The defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt. 

Should an accused be convicted of committing an offence, he or she will be subject to the punishment as prescribed by law. The basic provisions governing criminal offences can be found in Thailand’s Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.   

Edited June 3, 2022 by RJRS1301

[Rimmer]

Multiple off topic, bickering and just plain rude posts removed also replies

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, tandor said:

..if she pulled out hair; chances are she has skin scrapings under her nails; and the perpetrator scratches..a Court Warrant will give them the authority to detain, examine and take what samples they need for forensic analysis. 

Hahahahaa....  I'm sure that the RTP will be grateful for your investigative advice!

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, itsari said:

Refusing to talk in many countries is a admission of guilt .

100% garbage.  Name one.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[malibukid]

the usual trash that come to Thailand.  lock them up, they well talk.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

none of us know why or how this occurred, or how we react in similar circumstances. Facts I have found are better than speculation 

This is Thaivisa, facts don't go down well here...posters' uninformed speculation rules!

Edited June 3, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, itsari said:

The courts can prove you guilty if you remain silent . 

They can also find the accused not guilty even if they remain silent.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, itsari said:

6 hours ago, nchuckle said:

Which countries have that written into their legal constitution? 
I’m struggling to think of any of note.

UK , USA .

Exercising one's right to remain silent is not regarded as an admission of guilt in UK or US courts!

[bradiston]

32 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

The concept of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is not the yard stick here as in many western countries: Although the principal is alluded to, it is spelt out in such words

The legal system of Thailand is based upon civil law. Under Thai criminal law, an accused is innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests with the public prosecutor. The defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt. 

Should an accused be convicted of committing an offence, he or she will be subject to the punishment as prescribed by law. The basic provisions governing criminal offences can be found in Thailand’s Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.   

Surely if "the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt" to secure a not guilty verdict, then it follows to secure a conviction, the evidence must be beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't quite follow the rest of your post, eg

 

"Although the principal is alluded to, it is spelt out in such words"

 

Meaning what exactly? And

 

"The legal system of Thailand is based upon civil law. Under Thai criminal law..."

 

?

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, NativeBob said:

another lovely thai journalism + Google translate + somehow re-written. masterpiece of rubbish.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, kidneyw said:

Sure beats "clutching at straws."

Apparently not.

[RJRS1301]

21 minutes ago, bradiston said:

Surely if "the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt" to secure a not guilty verdict, then it follows to secure a conviction, the evidence must be beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't quite follow the rest of your post, eg

 

"Although the principal is alluded to, it is spelt out in such words"

 

Meaning what exactly? And

 

"The legal system of Thailand is based upon civil law. Under Thai criminal law..."

 

?

In many  western countries  "beyond reasonable doubt " is stipulated and announced to juries at the beginning of trail and when juries are sent to consider verdicts.

No such stipulation exists in Thai Law. It is "given the benefit" which is different.

As for the legal system, "based on civil law" that is how it is stipulated in the legal language of law schools here. It is based on civil not common law principals

Common law is defined as a body of legal rules that have been made by judges as they issue rulings on cases, as opposed to rules and laws made by the legislature or in official statutes.(Civil Law)

I should stated NOT spelt out in law, I missed the "not " in my post.

Edited June 3, 2022 by RJRS1301

[roo860]

7 hours ago, tandor said:

..if she pulled out hair; chances are she has skin scrapings under her nails; and the perpetrator scratches..a Court Warrant will give them the authority to detain, examine and take what samples they need for forensic analysis. 

Thanks Columbo.

[itsari]

29 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Exercising one's right to remain silent is not regarded as an admission of guilt in UK or US courts!

Wrong

[bradiston]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

In many  western countries  "beyond reasonable doubt " is stipulated and announced to juries at the beginning of trail and when juries are sent to consider verdicts.

No such stipulation exists in Thai Law. It is "given the benefit" which is different.

As for the legal system, "based on civil law" that is how it is stipulated in the legal language of law schools here.

I should stated NOT spelt out in law, I missed the "not " in my post.

There are no jury trials in Thailand but maybe that's beside the point. You would hope the judge(s) you appear before are aware of the principle of "giving the benefit" and its execution. But how is it evaluated?

 

And I would really like to know what "benefit of the doubt" was given to the 2 Burmese convicted of the murder of the 2 English tourists on Koh Thao when so much of the evidence was disputed, tampered with and considered unreliable. At what point would the judge call a halt to the proceedings, call the prosecutor into his chambers and totally roast his nuts off for bringing the whole legal system into disrepute, and throw the case out lock stock and barrel? Because that's what should have happened. And there's no jury of 12 there to be the final arbiters of the evidence and the verdict.

 

 

[RJRS1301]

10 minutes ago, itsari said:

Wrong

Is silence an admission of guilt UK?

 

 

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination.

Is silence an admission of guilt UK?

 

 

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination.

 

The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. It is used on any occasion when it is considered the person(s) being spoken to is under suspicion of having committed one or more criminal offences and consequently thus potentially being subject to criminal proceedings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales