2 minutes ago, proton said:

You don't usually need evidence here, circumstantial evidence is still evidence though.

Correct, people have been convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. Unless some other facts (or actual evidence) comes to light it seems highly unlikely that the CPS would deem there was a 'realistic prospect of conviction'?

34 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"You don't usually need evidence here..."

Yes, you do.

 

"...circumstantial evidence is still evidence though".

What circumstantial evidence are you guessing that they have and, if there is some, why wouldn't the British police have used it?

 

 

No real evidence the Burmese 2 were guilty on Kho Tao. This guy looks as guilty as hell, they just can't prove it.

The plod should have swooped by Knightsbridge on the way to Heathrow and picked up Boss to stand trial for the killing of a Thai policeman.  Would have been a lot of red faces at the airport. Oh no, we didn't really want him back - he welly lich man.

On 2/14/2023 at 9:01 AM, Dcheech said:

She was found in 2004, then identified in March of 2019

 

March 2019?!!!!   Four years later they decide to investigate?!   What The -deleted- !   

If you read the whole article it seems they've been waiting for permission from the Thai authorities and of course delays due to travel restrictions 

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Based on no charges or evidence?  Yeah, right.

Based on he is a murder suspect, they can keep you in jail for a while to question you.

Given the invidious choice, I'd rather do porridge in a British prison than a Thai one. In his position, I'd think it wise to book a return to Blighty.

17 hours ago, kimamey said:

If you read the whole article it seems they've been waiting for permission from the Thai authorities and of course delays due to travel restrictions 

If you read the whole article, no way to prove they have been waiting any longer than this last year, more likely a couple months. What they wanted to do during covid, or did do, is moot, no way to prove they did anything, only their word. 

Why one has doubts. According to the plod themselves, the victim was taken to the spot and dumped, already dead. This was done by an SUV. Cause of death most likely suffocation. All of this, from the initial investigation & autopsy 19 years ago, although released to the public six years back. --Yorkshire Post if interested-. 
 

Which brings us back to Why the sitting on thumbs for three years, ten months, if they already knew this, ID'd the victim & could pull records identifying the husband? Lot of late night car door slamming at Kirkby Overblow to police, or just getting bladdered at The Phoenix Inn?  

20 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

23 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Based on no charges or evidence?  Yeah, right.

Based on he is a murder suspect, they can keep you in jail for a while to question you.

No, they cannot keep anyone in jail just for questioning unless they arrest and charge that person.  They can consensually question persons of interest, that's all, they cannot detain them without charges and those parties do not have to respond to any questions.

22 hours ago, proton said:

23 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"You don't usually need evidence here..."

Yes, you do.

 

"...circumstantial evidence is still evidence though".

What circumstantial evidence are you guessing that they have and, if there is some, why wouldn't the British police have used it?

 

 

Expand  

No real evidence the Burmese 2 were guilty on Kho Tao. This guy looks as guilty as hell, they just can't prove it.

"No real evidence the Burmese 2 were guilty on Kho Tao".

Based on the evidence, the court thought otherwise.

 

"This guy looks as guilty as hell, they just can't prove it".

Exactly, everyone thinks that he looks guilty as hell, and he may well turn out to be, but without any evidence at all, which is the case now, he isn't even in a position to be charged, never mind guilty as hell.

15 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, they cannot keep anyone in jail just for questioning unless they arrest and charge that person.  They can consensually question persons of interest, that's all, they cannot detain them without charges and those parties do not have to respond to any questions.

They can keep you at the police station for a certain time if they suspect something and want to question you. You don't have to answer any of their questions. If they don't find anything more they have to let you go, if they find more things they can ask for additional time to keep you there.

25 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

44 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, they cannot keep anyone in jail just for questioning unless they arrest and charge that person.  They can consensually question persons of interest, that's all, they cannot detain them without charges and those parties do not have to respond to any questions.

Expand  

They can keep you at the police station for a certain time if they suspect something and want to question you.

Not against the will of the person they can't, unless they are arrested and charged!

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not against the will of the person they can't, unless they are arrested and charged!

Under what jurisdiction are these timescales?

 

If it's UK, they can hold you up to 24 hours without charge (but after arrest). For a serious alleged offence, they can apply to hold you for 36 > 96 hours, again without charge. I expect it gets more complicated when Thailand is involved, but it can be 48 hours here without charge and again longer with a court application.

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not against the will of the person they can't, unless they are arrested and charged!

Yes they can.

 

15 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

27 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not against the will of the person they can't, unless they are arrested and charged!

Yes they can.

No, they cannot without arresting and charging them with something.

18 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

29 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not against the will of the person they can't, unless they are arrested and charged!

Under what jurisdiction are these timescales?

Which timescales?   Police cannot detain anyone against their will unless they arrest them.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Which timescales?   Police cannot detain anyone against their will unless they arrest them.

Arrest yes. Charge no. Arrest needs only reasonable grounds of suspicion of any involvement in a crime. Charging needs a reasonable expectation of a conviction.

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, they cannot without arresting and charging them with something.

.

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, they cannot without arresting and charging them with something.

Arresting yes, to charge somebody they have more time to do so.

the uncooperative husband david armitage is teaching at kanchanaburi rajabpat university.