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

[rocketboy2]

7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

Do you know how to read? The CPS information quoted is perfectly clear - being released on bail does not mean there is no evidence against a person.

 

Also, as @Briggsy pointed out, if the police have no evidence against someone, they are "released with no further action" (NFA) - they are not released on bail. 

 

As the article below from a UK legal firm states:

 

 

https://mjrsolicitors.co.uk/services/defence-and-criminal-law/no-further-action/

 

By contrast, if you are released on bail, it means, "the police will continue investigating your case and assessing any evidence that has been collected."

 

https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/what-happens-when-bail-ends

 

 

His still walking the streets of the uk

and has not been charged.

End of for now.

 

[Moonlover]

On 2/6/2025 at 5:10 AM, rocketboy2 said:

 

Out on bail.

So they have nothing on him then.

 

No it does not necessarily mean that. He's out on 'conditional bail'. That usually indicates that they do not have sufficient evidence, as yet, to lay charges. But they'll keep digging.

 

The police in the UK can only hold a suspect in custody for 24 hours. After that they will either be released without charge, or released on  'conditional bail' as in this case.

[rocketboy2]

13 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

No it does not necessarily mean that. He's out on 'conditional bail'. That usually indicates that they do not have sufficient evidence, as yet, to lay charges. But they'll keep digging.

 

The police in the UK can only hold a suspect in custody for 24 hours. After that they will either be released without charge, or released on  'conditional bail' as in this case.

 

The cops are just fishing.

Think bail can be extended up to 1 year.

Reckon they have his passport as a bail condition.

Don't reckon they have anything hard on him, they are just waiting for him to trip himself up in any interview.

Maybe they will make a move to exhume the body for more tests as the next move.

 

His is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Also we are talking about the uk police force here, they couldn't find a happy meal in a Mc Donald's.

But are a dab hand at  face book crimes, by old ladies. 

 

 

 

 

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, rocketboy2 said:

His is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Of course he is. That's a given in the UK justice system.

 

1 hour ago, rocketboy2 said:

Also we are talking about the uk police force here, they couldn't find a happy meal in a Mc Donald's.

But are a dab hand at  face book crimes, by old ladies. 

That's rubbish. The British police are extremely good at investigating cases like this and advancements in forensics have boosted their ability to do so.

 

If he's guilty, they'll find a way proving it.

[Moonlover]

On 2/6/2025 at 4:27 AM, Homburg said:

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

So what are you suggesting? (or implying) That the police drop the investigation against their only 'person of interest' on the off chance that he is not responsible, just to preserve his reputation?

 

An unlikely scenario indeed.

[AnnaBanana]

On 2/7/2025 at 12:12 PM, Moonlover said:

Of course he is. That's a given in the UK justice system.

 

That's rubbish. The British police are extremely good at investigating cases like this and advancements in forensics have boosted their ability to do so.

 

If he's guilty, they'll find a way proving it.

That remains to be seen, and will insure continued interest in this case until it is resolved one way or another.

[Dont confuse me]

No precise cause of death! if he were to say she did a runner back to Thailand a few weeks ago, the authorities might have a problem proving otherwise.

On 2/5/2025 at 10:13 AM, snoop1130 said:

Although a post-mortem examination narrowed her death to a period of one to three weeks before her discovery, the precise cause remained elusive.

 

[BritManToo]

On 2/7/2025 at 12:12 PM, Moonlover said:

If he's guilty, they'll find a way proving it.

Even if they need to make the evidence themselves!

[Chongalulu]

On 2/6/2025 at 3:54 PM, merlin4174 said:

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.

His residence visa was withdrawn but not deported , he could go anywhere else he chose that would accept him. Errr…are you obligated to inform the police if your marriage breaks up? You may need+to acquaint yourself of evidence required to convict. You are not required to prove your innocence and not doing so isn’t evidence against you

[Nick Carter icp]

7 minutes ago, Chongalulu said:

His residence visa was withdrawn but not deported , he could go anywhere else he chose that would accept him. Errr…are you obligated to inform the police if your marriage breaks up? You may need+to acquaint yourself of evidence required to convict. You are not required to prove your innocence and not doing so isn’t evidence against you

 

   He was arrested in Thailand , I doubt that he had any choice of where he was sent to