British husband of the Thai ‘Lady of the Hills’ bailed - video

[PETERTHEEATER]

17 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The intrigue surrounding the “Lady of the Hills” continues to captivate the nation,

I for one am hanging on every thread.......

[rocketboy2]

19 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

"It wasn’t until a cold case review launched in 2016 that hope resurfaced. With scientific advancements, investigators managed to piece together crucial details, suggesting Lamduan had been killed."

 

Maybe keeping it under their hats in the hope that the perpetrator might trip himself up somehow by revealing facts that nobody else knows?

 

 

Yes, could be.

[Briggsy]

37 minutes ago, PomPolo said:

Oohh someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.  No I am not or ever have been a duty solicitor, but I can actually read! Bail conditions can be set pre-charge and often are so you are incorrect there.

Given he has another relationship and work here it would not be beyond the realm of possibility he might want to leave sounds like they have nothing on him he may want to go to Laos that has less favourable extradition with the UK so wondering if the passport is in his bail conditions is valid I would say

Did not get out of the wrong side of bed.

 

I was trying to understand why you believe the UK police have withheld his passport. I now understand you believe "he may want to go to Laos with less favourable extradition". It doesn't address my question but actually it tells me a lot.

 

Thanks.

[Frankie baby]

What points the finger at David Armitage is his lack of cooperation from the very start of the investigation as shown in the British documentary posted on this forum. The same lack of willingness was also evident when interviewed by the Thai police.

Hence this guys been tying his own noose. Lets hope further evidence comes to light one way or another or this case will dry up.

 

[Chongalulu]

3 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Actually the UK used an Interpol Blue Notice. This led Thailand to revoke his permission to stay. This led to his detention in the IDC. This led to his return to the UK. It was not of his own volition

Thank you for your overall reply and this. I understood that although his visa was revoked and although requiring him to leave (he didn’t appeal?) the news on here at the time was that could be to anywhere else. I guess he chose UK because it was easier and was confident there would not be the evidence to convict him (or he didn’t do it)? 

[Briggsy]

3 minutes ago, Chongalulu said:

Thank you for your overall reply and this. I understood that although his visa was revoked and although requiring him to leave (he didn’t appeal?) the news on here at the time was that could be to anywhere else. I guess he chose UK because it was easier and was confident there would not be the evidence to convict him (or he didn’t do it)? 

I also read that. It may have been speculation on this forum rather than fact. However, on a news site it stated that no other country would have allowed him to board or enter if he did board due to an Interpol Blue Notice.

 

Also it is notoriously hard, if not impossible to get out of IDC to the airport without a booked flight to the country of one's passport. Previously they insisted on a direct flight if one existed.

 

Bearing in mind these two facts, I read the speculation that he could choose where to go with deep scepticism. And then he flew to the UK and was arrested on arrival.

 

I think he never had the choice of where to fly to.

[Samh]

6 hours ago, Mickboy said:

Did he completely develop amnesia and forget his wife existed while Yorkshire police were scratching their heads by the stream and just move to thailand to start a new life hmm ? 

 

Must have been trying to piece it all back together with the cops before getting bail because it was all so foggy at the time ?.

How many wives walk out on husbands? Mine did. Should have I reported that to the police.

[Samh]

"Officers are now actively seeking out anyone who may have known the couple during their time living in Sprotborough, South Yorkshire, and Preston, Lancashire, between March and October 2004. The investigation hinges on piecing together their lives before Lamduan’s untimely demise." Why didn't they do that when they first discovered who she was and the husband became the suspect. 21 years on they want people to provide informaton on the couples life style.

[toho]

5 hours ago, kuzmabruk said:

Maybe she was working the streets of the UK and they were not a happy couple.   Many possibilities in life. 

If you do not know what happened, then I suggest that you keep your big mouth shut instead of making the assumption that she was maybe working in te street. Maybe her parents are also following this article. You have a daughter? Why  are you doing this? Maybe you have used street ladies too much yourseld? Or probably affected by reading The Sun or similar dirty tabloid, full of shady accusations?

[Chongalulu]

15 minutes ago, Samh said:

How many wives walk out on husbands? Mine did. Should have I reported that to the police.

My wife ran away with my best friend some time ago. I still miss him…

[Dogmatix]

5 hours ago, Briggsy said:

I am afraid we will have to disagree on this one.

 

The police may well have very little or they may have a lot. "Released on bail" at the very least tells us they have some incriminating evidence but it may not be enough to charge or they may have enough to charge but are still waiting for further information. Or there may be others involved in any crime they are seeking to incriminate before charging David Armitage (unlikely but theoretically possible). The point is they have chosen to use bail rather than just release him.

 

This case is absolutely still live and under investigation. Bail can be extended for up to 12 months as investigations continue. And then he can be rearrested.

 

Clearly they have circumstantial evidence but not enough after many years of investigation to charge him. He didn't confess.  So they have to give him bail.  They didn't apply for extradition from Thailand.  Thailand just used the Interior Minister's discretion to revoke his visa which doesn't require evidence or a specific reason.  Danger to public safety or morality is enough.  He was hiding in plain sight in Thailand under his own name.

[Briggsy]

4 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Actually the UK used an Interpol Blue Notice. This led Thailand to revoke his permission to stay. This led to his detention in the IDC. This led to his return to the UK

It was not led by Thailand or the Thai Interior Minister. The process of return to the UK was initiated by the UK's Interpol Notice. Far more efficient than an extradition process which may have failed due to lack of concrete evidence.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Samh said:

How many wives walk out on husbands? Mine did. Should have I reported that to the police.

And mine (and abducted my 2 children and dog at the same time),

I did try to report it to the police but the desk sergeant told me to "go away and grow some balls"

 

This was in 2009, never seen any of them since, I really miss that dog.

[Jonathan Swift]

8 hours ago, Homburg said:

Guilty by accusation?  What if this guy is innocent?  His life has already been destroyed without a trial. 

Do you think before you post? Where do you go for facts and information? You certainly have a limited view of the world through your little keyhole. Even if you could see more than a keyhole's worth You don't know all the facts. You don't know the evidence. You don't know that his life has been destroyed. For him to have been arrested there has to be probable cause, sufficiently clear  evidence to suggest guilt and sufficient for a likely conviction.  Under the law he is presumed innocent until convicted. That's how every free country's system works. There is a balance between the concern for the  safety of the general public against suspected violent criminals and the protection of the rights of the accused. He has been released on bail and is out and about. His life is certainly not destroyed. If he had been arrested and charged in Thailand, yes, that would be "destroyed". You're welcome. Good luck with your further education. 

[hotandsticky]

17 minutes ago, Jonathan Swift said:

Do you think before you post? Where do you go for facts and information? You certainly have a limited view of the world through your little keyhole. Even if you could see more than a keyhole's worth You don't know all the facts. You don't know the evidence. You don't know that his life has been destroyed. For him to have been arrested there has to be probable cause, sufficiently clear  evidence to suggest guilt and sufficient for a likely conviction.  Under the law he is presumed innocent until convicted. That's how every free country's system works. There is a balance between the concern for the  safety of the general public against suspected violent criminals and the protection of the rights of the accused. He has been released on bail and is out and about. His life is certainly not destroyed. If he had been arrested and charged in Thailand, yes, that would be "destroyed". You're welcome. Good luck with your further education. 

 

 

For anyone reading this.......the UK doesn't have the American "probable cause"; the UK police need "reasonable grounds for suspicion" to make an arrest.

[BritScot]

8 hours ago, Briggsy said:

I am afraid we will have to disagree on this one.

 

The police may well have very little or they may have a lot. "Released on bail" at the very least tells us they have some incriminating evidence but it may not be enough to charge or they may have enough to charge but are still waiting for further information. Or there may be others involved in any crime they are seeking to incriminate before charging David Armitage (unlikely but theoretically possible). The point is they have chosen to use bail rather than just release him.

 

This case is absolutely still live and under investigation. Bail can be extended for up to 12 months as investigations continue. And then he can be rearrested.

I think if they had evidence he would not have got bail, he would of been remanded. In serious cases in the uk its not easy to get bail unless conected to the elite and remember he has been living in Thailand so has foreign connections. I think they have little to no evidence and that is why he got bail. This however doesn't mean he didn't do it but in the same breath it doesn't mean he did.

[MicroB]

6 hours ago, PomPolo said:

It's a fair point the article doesn't say but I would imagine with his connection to Thailand that would have been part of the bail conditions.

 

His goose is cooked in Thailand. Elsewhere, its made clear he had "retired" 2 years ago. But 12 months ago, the BBC World Service doorstepped him leaving work. Thailand revoked his visa, he then failed to file an appeal.

[Briggsy]

10 minutes ago, BritScot said:

I think if they had evidence he would not have got bail, he would of been remanded.

As he was not charged, can you explain how he would have been remanded? Is this something new in the UK, remanded without being charged? Wasn't that called internment?

[proton]

10 hours ago, rocketboy2 said:

 

Out on bail.

So they have nothing on him then.

 

 

Apart from not reporting his wife missing and lying about her running off with another man, who was never found. Very typical of a spouse murder case.

[BritManToo]

27 minutes ago, BritScot said:

I think if they had evidence he would not have got bail, he would of been remanded. In serious cases in the uk its not easy to get bail unless conected to the elite and remember he has been living in Thailand so has foreign connections. I think they have little to no evidence and that is why he got bail. This however doesn't mean he didn't do it but in the same breath it doesn't mean he did.

In the UK  you can get compensation for unlawful arrest, depending on length of time held in custody. 3 nights in a holding cell got me 7,000 pounds.

 

If they don't have a good case or it's unlikely the CPS will proceed, the police let them out ASAP in order to minimize the compensation claim against the police. I'm thinking there is no evidence, so they likely wouldn't have held him overnight, it's the number of nights that costs them the money.

[merlin4174]

8 hours ago, Chongalulu said:

My assessment is that he was arrested so he could be interviewed under caution. They clearly have very little,if anything against him otherwise they would have sought to have him remanded in custody.

He was not hiding in Thailand but living openly under his own name but clearly police in UK had insufficient to have him extradited. I understand he arrived in UK of his own volition? 

Unless they can get him to incriminate himself I reckon they'll not have enough to secure a successful prosecution 

He did not return to England of his own volition, His Thai residency visa was revoked so he had to return to England. Also he had avoided all contact with his wife's family while in Thailand. You would think he would at least have informed them that they had split up if he had nothing to hide.

[pacovl46]

10 hours ago, thesetat said:

Exactly, They arrest him for the womans murder yet have no evidence to prove it. Just because the man did not report her missing does not make him guilty of murdering her. 

It does raise enough suspicion that he knew she was dead though simply because he never filed for divorce after all that time as well as returning to Thailand and living there after. The difficult part will be for the prosecutors to prove undeniably he actually killed her though. 

Well, let's just say it's extremely unusual that you wouldn't call the cops when your wife goes missing when you have no clue as to what happened to her and that makes it extremely suspicious behavior! 

 

But you're right about it getting difficult to prove. I highly doubt there's DNA evidence left after 2 decades. 

 

He'll need a proper explanation, though, as to why he didn't inform the police. 

 

[BumGun]

11 hours ago, bogozy said:

He is innocent? 

 

Of course he is, until the court says otherwise.  It's the same tragedy when people assume guilt over rape or child porn or murder whatever, for now the dude IS innocent.

 

Presumption of innocence should be a fundamental right 😞  This is what happens when the internet piles on with guilty until innocent

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-64943465

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8718345/Sister-boy-17-killed-falsely-accused-rape-shares-ordeal.html

 

https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/19/man-took-life-fake-rape-claim-left-living-hell-7397912/

[Purdey]

I still haven't seen anything that says how she was murdered. 

Why were her parents not concerned that their daughter was not contacting them?

Did his family in the UK never visit or call them?

Bit of a puzzle.

[GroveHillWanderer]

59 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I still haven't seen anything that says how she was murdered. 

Why were her parents not concerned that their daughter was not contacting them?

Did his family in the UK never visit or call them?

Bit of a puzzle.

 

It's not known how she was killed - the original autopsy couldn't establish a cause of death.

 

However, according to a BBC article, "A cold case review was started in 2016 and scientific advances meant police were able to piece together a more detailed picture of who she was and concluded she had been killed."

 

And her parents were concerned - they were the ones that initially reported her missing (something which her husband never did).

 

I'm not sure what you mean about his family visiting or calling them - his family didn't know she was missing as he told everyone (including their children) that she'd returned to Thailand.

[kennypowers]

This video is very poor journalism. He was never "hiding out" anywhere. He was fully employed, on a visa, living with his kids in Thailand. Despite him being the obvious suspect, there has never been a shred of evidence linking him to a murder. The body showed no signs of trauma or bruising or historic abuse. No phone calls, letters or suspicious arrangements have ever been traced. No one saw the two of them walking in the hills, despite that being a popular trail. No one witnessed arguments or fighting around the time of her disappearance. No one saw him acting suspiciously, moving a large object late at night, hiring a van, et. The logistics of carrying her and dumping her there would present a very difficult task, and one where someone would likely to see or suspect something. The fact is, the police have nothing and never have. Indeed, the police have been so focussed on him as the suspect that they may have overlooked other potential avenues of enquiries such as the involvement of other men (a clandestine life in the UK), a mental health episode, and even the possibility of her death being linked to two similar murders of women in the same area. If she was murdered, I really hope they do catch the perpetrator, and if he did it I hope they prove it. I hope her kids get the closure they deserve and that she can rest in peace. However, I fear that while his move to Thailand looks suspicious, in context of their unhappy marriage at the time it may not be. We don't know what their conversations and plans were at the time, or what was going in the relationship (affairs, money demands for family, etc). This write up has some additional information: https://truecrimediva.com/lamduan-armitage/

[GroveHillWanderer]

13 hours ago, rocketboy2 said:

 

Out on bail.

So they have nothing on him then.

 

 

Being released on bail doesn't mean, "they have nothing on him." It just means they aren't ready to charge him yet.

 

According to the Crown Prosecution Service website, bail can be granted under 3 sets of circumstances:

 

"1. Where there is as yet insufficient evidence to charge a suspect and they are released pending further investigation.

 

2. Where the police consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge, but the matter must be referred to the CPS for a charging decision.

 

3. Where it is no longer necessary to detain a suspect to secure or preserve evidence or obtain it by questioning, yet the police are not in a position to charge."

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail

[rocketboy2]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

Being released on bail doesn't mean, "they have nothing on him." It just means they aren't ready to charge him yet.

 

According to the Crown Prosecution Service website, bail can be granted under 3 sets of circumstances:

 

"1. Where there is as yet insufficient evidence to charge a suspect and they are released pending further investigation.

 

2. Where the police consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge, but the matter must be referred to the CPS for a charging decision.

 

3. Where it is no longer necessary to detain a suspect to secure or preserve evidence or obtain it by questioning, yet the police are not in a position to charge."

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail

 

Bla,  Bla,  Bla,

They have jack <deleted> on him.

They are just trying to smoke someone out.

Do you realize the crime was over 20 years ago.

what's the new evidence ?