British Man Arrested in Thailand for 20-Year-Old UK Murder Case

[Nick Carter icp]

8 hours ago, Dcheech said:

It has taken the Brit police twenty years to get off their collective flaccid bums and finally do something. Now, I have always been  impressed by the Thai Police's laziness & general incompetence, but I doubt they can match

The Yorkshire Plod  .... in this case.

 

   The delay was because there was no DNA match at the time , a breakthrough came when the Thai family provided some DNA and there was a match .

   Not the UK's police's fault on this occasion 

[Dcheech]

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

The delay was because there was no DNA match at the time , a breakthrough came when the Thai family provided some DNA and there was a match .

   Not the UK's police's fault on this occasion 

That in 2019. The DNA only confirmed the photo match made by the Thai family.  British Police did came to Thailand to interview the suspect in 2023. He refused to talk. Two years later and here we are.  Granted there has been a lot of late night car door slamming in Kirkby Overblow to police, still.

 

[MangoKorat]

1 hour ago, oldestswinger said:

I don't think that this case is useful in your assertion that British police are only interested in convictions. As I understand it, the Post Office have their own investigative and prosecution teams and therefore the police were not involved.

And the other examples?

[MangoKorat]

11 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Seems like you have a lot of experience in this field. How come the police wanted to question you soo frequently? I assume, that was not totally out of no reason at all. And, of course your lawyer tells you not to talk. That´s what they always do, as that is their way to protect you until enough evidence is piling up against you and there is time for a plea deal. That´s like why, they are called your lawyer, as they are there to protect you.

And the tone of your post shows that you seem to think anyone who the police want to talk to must be guilty. I have also been questioned and eventually charged - the police acting with the flimiest of evidence yet the CPS chose to prosecute.  A weaker person may well have been convicted - I fought and was cleared of all charges.

 

More than that, the judge in my case instructed the police to visit his offices the following week and explain just how they had come to their conclusions as there was some serious malpractice on their part.  I'm not going to do my dirty washing in public but suffice to say, I had reported a problem no less than 14 times - all recorded and the police failed to take action - the judge also wanted an explanation of that.

 

I defended myself and asked the police to provide their records of my complaint to the court as evidence. They failed to do that on 2 occasions (I wonder why) and the judge told them that if they failed to do so a third time, he would throw the case out.

 

It was quite amusing listening to the police trying to wriggle out of the situation - the judge clearly realised that I had been 'fitted up' and was having none of it.

 

We cannot assume that a person is guilty of anything without good, factual evidence - that has happened too many times.

 

Way too many 'kangaroo court' members on this forum.

[BritManToo]

8 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

And the tone of your post shows that you seem to think anyone who the police want to talk to must be guilty. I have also been questioned and eventually charged - the police acting with the flimiest of evidence yet the CPS chose to prosecute.  A weaker person may well have been convicted - I fought and was cleared of all charges.

 

More than that, the judge in my case instructed the police to visit his offices the following week and explain just how they had come to their conclusions as there was some serious malpractice on their part.  I'm not going to do my dirty washing in public but suffice to say, I had reported a problem no less than 14 times - all recorded and the police failed to take action - the judge also wanted an explanation of that.

 

I defended myself and asked the police to provide their records of my complaint to the court as evidence. They failed to do that on 2 occasions (I wonder why) and the judge told them that if they failed to do so a third time, he would throw the case out.

 

It was quite amusing listening to the police trying to wriggle out of the situation - the judge clearly realised that I had been 'fitted up' and was having none of it.

 

We cannot assume that a person is guilty of anything without good, factual evidence - that has happened too many times.

 

Way too many 'kangaroo court' members on this forum.

Very similar to me, judge also suggested I take the police to court for unlawful arrest.

In the end they settled out of court.

[wavodavo]

On 1/27/2025 at 9:59 AM, MangoKorat said:

Circumstantial evidence does not carry the same weight as direct evidence, especially when there is no direct evidence.  For example: you may commit a crime within a building. I may see you walking down the street afterwards and bear witness to that. If there is no evidence that you were actually in the building and no further evidence exists - a conviction would be highly unlikely and almost certainly appealed successfully as unsafe.  Circumstantial evidence is mainly used to back up direct evidence.

 

Juries are more likely to take account of circumstantial evidence than judges are - which is why such convictions are often dismissed at appeal. Juries decide most criminal cases, judges rule on appeals.

You are correct but we don't know if the police have his DNA from her remains and that may be enough to convince a jury to deliver a guilty verdict .

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, wavodavo said:

You are correct but we don't know if the police have his DNA from her remains and that may be enough to convince a jury to deliver a guilty verdict .

If you're living with a woman, then she leaves, how long will your DNA be found on her body/clothes/personal effects?

I'm thinking months, maybe years, I could be wrong.

[Gottfrid]

11 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

And the tone of your post shows that you seem to think anyone who the police want to talk to must be guilty. I have also been questioned and eventually charged - the police acting with the flimiest of evidence yet the CPS chose to prosecute.  A weaker person may well have been convicted - I fought and was cleared of all charges.

 

More than that, the judge in my case instructed the police to visit his offices the following week and explain just how they had come to their conclusions as there was some serious malpractice on their part.  I'm not going to do my dirty washing in public but suffice to say, I had reported a problem no less than 14 times - all recorded and the police failed to take action - the judge also wanted an explanation of that.

 

I defended myself and asked the police to provide their records of my complaint to the court as evidence. They failed to do that on 2 occasions (I wonder why) and the judge told them that if they failed to do so a third time, he would throw the case out.

 

It was quite amusing listening to the police trying to wriggle out of the situation - the judge clearly realised that I had been 'fitted up' and was having none of it.

 

We cannot assume that a person is guilty of anything without good, factual evidence - that has happened too many times.

 

Way too many 'kangaroo court' members on this forum.

Chill, dude. take a mango. Sure, there are cases as you describe, but they will probably stand for maximum 0,5%. Of course have no facts about that, but I am just using common sense, with the believe that a higher percentage would be to visible and cause a lot of people to complain and talk about it.

[Gottfrid]

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If you're living with a woman, then she leaves, how long will your DNA be found on her body/clothes/personal effects?

I'm thinking months, maybe years, I could be wrong.

https://policeandsecuritynews.com/2023/07/26/how-long-does-dna-last-on-different-surfaces/
Fairly good article

[Old Croc]

19 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Before making your comments and attempting to be sarcastic, maybe you should have read the entire thread - especially the statement supplied by another member from North Yorkshire Police where it appears they know nothing about any extradition request - despite what is stated in the report.

 

Here, in a post by MicroB yesterday:

 

A North Yorkshire Police spokesperson said: “We are aware of the detention in Thailand of David Armitage, the husband of Lamduan Armitage. We understand it relates to his visa status and residence in Thailand and is entirely a matter for the Immigration Service of the Royal Thai Police.

“Should Mr Armitage be deported, we understand that he will have a choice as to where he goes, which will include return to the UK. Should that occur, we will again make every effort to speak to him about the investigation."

 

Noboby is trying to be a defence lawyer in support of a fellow countryman, they are simply pointing out the law and the fact that the UK police have been hampered by a lack of evidence in this case from the beginning.  Whilst it seems highly likely that this man killed his Thai wife, there must be evidence and the right person must be convicted.

 

In a case last year, a man spent 17 years in prison for rape based on dodgy evidence. Eventually, DNA evidence proved the rapist was a different person.

Before assuming I had declared this guy guilty of murder perhaps you should read, and try to understand, my post in full.

Conflicting news reports only reinforce my stated opinion that the man should not be presumed innocent by bigoted members nor is there any reported evidence of guilt beyond circumstantial. I read all, not just those that strengthen my opinion. I did not state he was guilty, just indicated there was something further driving the case.

Quoting an entirely separate case is not evidence of anything, but could be considered to be an attempt to mislead.

My sarcasm comes from my observations on this forum, over many years, of posts by some members who flood threads about British miscreants with defensive indignation and projection.

I note you've made 11 posts here for the defense.

[MangoKorat]

1 hour ago, Old Croc said:

I note you've made 11 posts here for the defense.

And in several of those posts I have stated that I believe its highly likely that Mr Armitage is guilty.  My overarching message is that there must be evidence.

 

My posts have nothing to do with his nationality but the story is of particular interest to me as I live in the Yorkshire Dales. 

[MangoKorat]

4 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Chill, dude. take a mango. Sure, there are cases as you describe, but they will probably stand for maximum 0,5%.

It doesn't matter how low the percentage of wrongful convictions is. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. It is unfortunate that sometimes a lack of evidence allows the guilty to go free. I'd rather see that than see innocent people languishing in prisons - or worse.

[MangoKorat]

6 hours ago, wavodavo said:

You are correct but we don't know if the police have his DNA from her remains and that may be enough to convince a jury to deliver a guilty verdict .

DNA evidence can be damning but if the police had DNA, they would be asking for his extradition. However, even if hs DNA was found on her remains, how unusual would it be to find her husband's DNA?

 

The police have a very difficult job in this case.  Most murders are carried out by a person known/close to the victim and there is a reported history of domestic violence in this case but that is not enough to prove a murder charge.  Insufficient evidence has lead to innocent people have been hanged in the past.

 

Thankfully the required evidence standard has been raised in the UK - mainly as a result of such cases and of course, we no longer have the death penalty.

[Jabberwocky]

23 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Plenty of teachers work well beyond the Thai retirement age.  They are unlikely to be given a job if they are over 60 before starting work but if they turn 60 during their employment, its up to their employer.

Ok, than let me know the university and I check it.

[MangoKorat]

5 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Ok, than let me know the university and I check it.

Oh jeez, another 'Post a Link' member.

 

I really can't be bothered, if it makes you happy to think I just made it up - be happy.

 

In the meantinme - read this.

 

https://asq.in.th/question/is-there-an-age-limit-for-teachers-and-work-visas-in-thailand

[Jabberwocky]

3 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Oh jeez, another 'Post a Link' member.

 

I really can't be bothered, if it makes you happy to think I just made it up - be happy.

 

In the meantinme - read this.

 

https://asq.in.th/question/is-there-an-age-limit-for-teachers-and-work-visas-in-thailand

That's not what I want to know. The question here is only if the accused has worked for 20 years at a Thai university (I.e. until the age of 62). If we know the institution, we can ask there.  It was given as an argument for his innocence,and I doubt that it is valid.

 

[Captain Flack]

Off topic post and reply removed.

[MangoKorat]

2 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

That's not what I want to know. The question here is only if the accused has worked for 20 years at a Thai university (I.e. until the age of 62). If we know the institution, we can ask there.  It was given as an argument for his innocence,and I doubt that it is valid.

 

It wasn't given as an argument by me. I simply said that plenty of teachers work beyond 60.