3 year old Thai girl sexually assaulted by foreign man in Phuket

[Dan O]

5 hours ago, Sig said:

It's interesting about that. I'd agree with you that he should know better. It's drilled into Americans like we can all repeat the Miranda warning word for word! "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...") I've met a lawyer just recently who has practiced for 20+ years and has defended many clients in sex crimes as well. But regardless of the crime, he told me that it is a VERY rare person who can keep their mouth shut and most people say things that they shouldn't and can be used against them, even innocent people. The police can be very good at questions that lead a person to say stupid things that they wouldn't otherwise ever say. Or they might give perfectly good answers, but they could look bad and appear to be incriminating even though one is completely innocent. Best policy, shut up and don't talk to ANYONE except your lawyer.

First off the Miranda rights aren't applicable in Thailand although its smart to not talk and get a lawyer. 

 

I always find it incredibly interesting that when a Thai commits these acts the police are very slow to react and if its at school its covered up. But if a foreigner is anywhere near the situation or involved everyone is quick to jump on it and convict them.

[WDSmart]

If he's guilty, he deserves to be locked up for a long, long time. But I would think the girl, even being only three years old, would be able to identify the person who did this to her. That would be the most important evidence.

[Sig]

23 hours ago, Dan O said:

First off the Miranda rights aren't applicable in Thailand although its smart to not talk and get a lawyer. 

 

I always find it incredibly interesting that when a Thai commits these acts the police are very slow to react and if its at school its covered up. But if a foreigner is anywhere near the situation or involved everyone is quick to jump on it and convict them.

Did I ever say that American Miranda rights are applicable in Thailand? No. I didn't. I didn't even imply that. Not sure why you felt the need to make that comment.... You seem to have completely missed my point, especially since you mention that and then go on to make the point I was making. 🤔
 

[BritManToo]

On 9/25/2024 at 5:22 PM, ChipButty said:

Foreigners are getting some stick on their FB page, painting all farangs with the same brush 

No white foreigners mentioned in the OP.

More likely it was an Asian from a neighbouring country.

[Dan O]

58 minutes ago, Sig said:

Did I ever say that American Miranda rights are applicable in Thailand? No. I didn't. I didn't even imply that. Not sure why you felt the need to make that comment.... You seem to have completely missed my point, especially since you mention that and then go on to make the point I was making. 🤔
 

Did you even need to bring Miranda rights into the discussion, no? Did I say you stated that, no? Did I imply you stated that, no! I made a statement to clarify the issue. Sorry if you got butt hurt by people replying on an open forum. 

[Since2008]

Not saying he didn’t do it. But they did state there was 2 others there partying… there is no attention on them? We don’t know if they were Thai guys or anything?? There is so many sick stories you hear, it could even be possible it was them and they’ve imposed threats of more of same or worse if the poor kid doesn’t just say “farrang”! All complete speculation I know , but when it talks about him visiting with wife often, just seems a bit off somewhere. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[FruitPudding]

That poor kid needs to go to social services. Literally everything about her family sounds awful. 

 

Am I the only one skeptical about this mysterious foreign man?

 

 

Edited September 29 by FruitPudding

[bristolgeoff]

In any country that is something that no one should ever do,don,t know about thai family and reason for it.But if he was known and charged  the local  people would sort that out and he would never be found again anywhere

[Sig]

On 9/27/2024 at 10:25 PM, Dan O said:

Did you even need to bring Miranda rights into the discussion, no? Did I say you stated that, no? Did I imply you stated that, no! I made a statement to clarify the issue. Sorry if you got butt hurt by people replying on an open forum. 

Nobody is "butt hurt", except perhaps you. No need to apologize when it seems pretty clear that you are not particularly feeling apologetic. It comes across as "butt hurt" and highly disingenuous. Not saying you are, only saying it comes across that way.

Did I "even need to bring Miranda rights into the discussion"? No. Did I say that I needed to? No, I didn't. Was it relevant to the comment that I was replying to? Yes, very much so. Did you bother reading the comment that I was replying to, in order to understand why I may have brought it up? I don't know, but it doesn't appear so.

If you were only trying to clarify the issue, my bad for misunderstanding your intention. Other than chalking it up to toxic social media sort of nonsense, it was quite confusing as to why you would feel the need to critique my comment with what seemed like an unneeded correction, stating that a right in American law would not apply in Thailand. I figured that's a given that anyone would grasp. My somewhat lengthy comment before had much more context, which I felt made my point quite clear already. You reiterated my point after your critique of what you felt was the unnecessary injection of Miranda rights into the conversation, even though I believe it was relevant, due to the original comment to which I was replying. Since I felt like my comment was exceedingly clear, your "statement to clarify" seemed like an out of place, overly critical and unneeded comment that I took to be like the typical kind of critical toxic crap seemingly spawning everywhere on social media (of which this forum is so commonly a perfect example). If that wasn't your intention, I'm sorry for misinterpreting your comment.

[Dan O]

51 minutes ago, Sig said:

Nobody is "butt hurt", except perhaps you. No need to apologize when it seems pretty clear that you are not particularly feeling apologetic. It comes across as "butt hurt" and highly disingenuous. Not saying you are, only saying it comes across that way.

Did I "even need to bring Miranda rights into the discussion"? No. Did I say that I needed to? No, I didn't. Was it relevant to the comment that I was replying to? Yes, very much so. Did you bother reading the comment that I was replying to, in order to understand why I may have brought it up? I don't know, but it doesn't appear so.

If you were only trying to clarify the issue, my bad for misunderstanding your intention. Other than chalking it up to toxic social media sort of nonsense, it was quite confusing as to why you would feel the need to critique my comment with what seemed like an unneeded correction, stating that a right in American law would not apply in Thailand. I figured that's a given that anyone would grasp. My somewhat lengthy comment before had much more context, which I felt made my point quite clear already. You reiterated my point after your critique of what you felt was the unnecessary injection of Miranda rights into the conversation, even though I believe it was relevant, due to the original comment to which I was replying. Since I felt like my comment was exceedingly clear, your "statement to clarify" seemed like an out of place, overly critical and unneeded comment that I took to be like the typical kind of critical toxic crap seemingly spawning everywhere on social media (of which this forum is so commonly a perfect example). If that wasn't your intention, I'm sorry for misinterpreting your comment.

Its an open forum. You don't like what others post then don't post or scroll past it. Pretty passive aggressive reply and unnecessary. You have a good day now