Two Tourists In Pai Shot By A Police Officer

[brahmburgers]

Being involved in, is it, 3 public altercations in short time and the last one ends in a needless death not worthy of

being considered a likely cause of the incident. In her own words it seems one of her stories is someone just come

up and punched her in the face and shot one of the 3 of her boyfriends. Seems everyone of her boyfriends some how

ended up in a in public ruckus. I do not know whether to consider it the dumb bleach blond luck of it all, or that she was twice the size of the local populace made her invincible or just dumb luck and coincidental.... I sure am open for reasonable explinations of this recent spate of bad luck that seem to follow her. Maybe in a manly way Uthai was in the run for #4, could this be the real unseen reason for what happened? Run off or kill the competition!

Believe little of what you see and not much of what you hear!!!!

Whether or not Carly was a pain in the ass is not the issue. There are rowdy men and women of all nationalities. I've clashed with more than a few Thai women who have turned instantly in to screaming horrors. Does that give me the right to grab a gun and shoot them?

The issue is primarily whether that off-duty cop can justify shooting two people. Even if he were offended or moderately threatened (which I personally doubt) - that's not an excuse for deadly force. The only justification for the deadly force that was used - is direct and dire threat of serious bodily harm.

[kat]

Yes. Drummond does have some authority on this case and has been in regular contact as I haved pointed out.

He has been with with the Human Rights Commissioner Surasee Kosolnavin and DSI all week. The hints I have made could not have been clearer

The remark about the bullet wounds WILL be a judicial one. Andrew Drummond has also been with Dr. Pornthip and was specifically invited into this investigation.

Your very prejudicial context for the tragedy -that it was all Reising's fault - is also not true if witnesses now are to be believed.

In the Jones case Thai police falsely arrested a Karen hill guide for the murder. The torture of the hill tribe guide and the attempt at procuring sperm from him resulted in protest and his direct release. But of course you would know that. He also produced the payment dockets with showed some £12,000 had been sent to enable Andrew Gill to get out of custody. Of course you would know that too.

Carly is currently with Drummond and the DSI. Your reference to casket chasing journalism is crass. Its a case of real journalism against mere blogging.

Thanks for that update, Claymore, and for providing such salient details into the Jones case. I am glad to know that Pornthip, Drummond and DSI are working on this case, and I look forward to refocusing on details of this case that can be substantiated with factual and objectively verifiable information.

[snip]

[sabaijai]

I've not seen Andrew here in Pai, and we know each other (he used to phone a colleague in CM every so often asking 'Any dead Brits?' and we met on another high-profile murder case in Thailand seven years ago), so am a bit surprised I've not bumped into him at the usual places one would expect to see a reporter on this case. Nor have any of my contacts mentioned seeing him. But Pai is pretty crowded this weekend, he could easily slip around unnoticed.

Just off the phone. He laughed when I read this to him. I think he uses Thai contacts up there. Says the expression was not 'Any dead Brits?' but 'Any Brits in the sh_t!" Says that judging by your Avatar you might be going to pieces. But says at least you will know he was right about Kirsty Jones! Keep on strumming.

Right about Kirsty Jones? I hadn't realised Andrew Drummond had solved the case, or that it had been solved at all. If so, my congratulations to you, or rather, to Mr Drummond.

My informant confirms the refrain was 'Any dead Brits?', alternating with the other phrase.

Enjoy Chinese New Year

Thanks for that. Been off this web for a while. Arkady hitting the nail constantly again. AD says by the way you failed the test on two points and dont expect to see him at the usual places. Surpised that you have so close connection to Pai u have not spotted the obvious.

Leo Del Pinto is 5ft 8', considerably shorter than Carly.

Also believes your one way campaign to discredit Carly Reisig may look a bit silly at the end of the day and totally irrelevant.

Whatever happens dont expect to read truth in the Pai Post.

Message to Danielle. Pse take 24 hour break from this site. The solution to this case is in the bullet wounds.

Claymore, once again you're positing yourself and Andrew Drummond as the ultimate authorities on the facts of this case. Why is that? Do you and Drummond have some special insight or access that no one else does? If so, let's hear it. Otherwise yours is just another viewpoint, no more valid than anyone else's here.

'The solution to this case is in the bullet wounds.' Quite a pronouncement. A rhetorical solution perhaps, but not necessarily a judicial one. Still, whatever the forensics say about the wounds, they say nothing about the context for the tragedy, and many observers find that of equal relevance. For casket-chasing journalism, of course, it won't pay the bills.

And what about the Jones case? In what way was Drummond 'right' about it? Still waiting for an answer there. I assume it would be another 'solution' without any actual adjudication?

Yes. Drummond does have some authority on this case and has been in regular contact as I haved pointed out.

He has been with with the Human Rights Commissioner Surasee Kosolnavin and DSI all week. The hints I have made could not have been clearer

The remark about the bullet wounds WILL be a judicial one. Andrew Drummond has also been with Dr. Pornthip and was specifically invited into this investigation.

In the Jones case Thai police falsely arrested a Karen hill guide for the murder. The torture of the hill tribe guide and the attempt at procuring sperm from him resulted in protest and his direct release. But of course you would know that. He also produced the payment dockets with showed some £12,000 had been sent to enable Andrew Gill to get out of custody. Of course you would know that too.

Carly is currently with Drummond and the DSI.

Thanks for the references. Glad to hear Dr Pornthip is on the case.

OT re the Jones case, it remains unsolved, as the Gill payment doesn't prove a thing other than that the police were bribed to release him. It doesn't say he was guilty of the crime. Deductive fallacy.

Your very prejudicial context for the tragedy -that it was all Reising's fault - is also not true if witnesses now are to be believed.

A crass misrepresentation, never said anything of the kind. Have said all along the policeman should be prosecuted. There are remote causes and proximate causes, and bullet wound forensics cannot reveal both.

[BarryMan]

Yes. Drummond does have some authority on this case and has been in regular contact as I haved pointed out.

He has been with with the Human Rights Commissioner Surasee Kosolnavin and DSI all week. The hints I have made could not have been clearer

The remark about the bullet wounds WILL be a judicial one. Andrew Drummond has also been with Dr. Pornthip and was specifically invited into this investigation.

Your very prejudicial context for the tragedy -that it was all Reising's fault - is also not true if witnesses now are to be believed.

In the Jones case Thai police falsely arrested a Karen hill guide for the murder. The torture of the hill tribe guide and the attempt at procuring sperm from him resulted in protest and his direct release. But of course you would know that. He also produced the payment dockets with showed some £12,000 had been sent to enable Andrew Gill to get out of custody. Of course you would know that too.

Carly is currently with Drummond and the DSI. Your reference to casket chasing journalism is crass. Its a case of real journalism against mere blogging.

Well I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out who "Claymore" is. I had it figured out once I realized that Mister Drummond was the kind of journalist who would write letters to the editor apologizing for reporting on relevant facts. I thought it was just a matter of time before he began posting here anonymously and so he has -- and already had been.

Drummond may very well have been right from the start on this case (if there is any merit to these claims of eyewitnesses under human rights protection), but he could just as easily have been wrong. He is certainly a tabloid-style news writer, as evidenced from his very first piece in which he interviewed the father of the woman murdered in Kanchanaburi. Judge, jury and executioner as well as journalist. He couldn't possibly have had enough facts then to make that distinction, but he ran with it anyway to make for a sensationalist story. Call it "giving the readers what they want," but don't call it journalism. Real journalists don't apologize for reporting facts in letters to the editor and they don't prejudice a story from their very first report on a complex case.

Also, it's irresponsible of Drummond to suggest that locals are tarring Carly Reisig for no good reason. The thing that makes this case so complex is the fact that she has a history of drunken violence with police -- hold on DamianMavis before you jump to your keyboard, she has admitted as much. She had an indisputably terrible reputation. And her version of events, though they didn't change, did slightly "dim"

From Drummond's sensational debut story: "There never was a fight. That is not true. John was my ex-boyfriend, but still my best friend. We had nothing to argue about. We had been drinking in the Be-Bop bar in Pai and were heading for a last drink at the Bamboo Bar near the bridge. We were walking together. My Thai boyfriend Fuen was walking slightly behind."

And then also from Drummond, once Reisig's character was brought into question by OTHER reporters bringing up her sketchy past: “Things are a bit foggy. I can’t quite remember what happened before the incident, But I can remember everything very clearly from the time that man hit me in the face."

That is where the "baseless" Internet rumor that Carly changed her story comes from. I think that Drummond might be feeling the heat of Internet writers coming on the scene to question his journalism after enjoying his salad days for so long when he could file sensationalist stories and nobody would question it.

Anyway, I've been silent on this blog due to the large portion of nonsense that has appeared, but I am very curious to hear more on Andrew Drummond having had access to the forensics. Well? What were the results? Mr. Drummond tends to be quite prudish when it comes to revealing this secret store-house of information he has. I'm sure he's holding his cards close to his chest in the interest of a great pay off but hopefully he keeps his readers' interests in mind and comes forward with what will no doubt be the conclusive evidence in this case -- the forensics.

[kat]

"That is where the "baseless" Internet rumor that Carly changed her story comes from. I think that Drummond might be feeling the heat of Internet writers coming on the scene to question his journalism after enjoying his salad days for so long when he could file sensationalist stories and nobody would question it."

Here is something that is not questioned, and is quite "sensationalist" on its own: a drunk, off-duty police officer fired three "accidental" shots into the kill zones of two unarmed people, and then ran away with nothing more than a tiny scratch. There are no other details that are greater than these; if you think about it, everything else is secondary, in that they have no meaning apart from this fact.

"Anyway, I've been silent on this blog due to the large portion of nonsense that has appeared, but I am very curious to hear more on Andrew Drummond having had access to the forensics. Well? What were the results? Mr. Drummond tends to be quite prudish when it comes to revealing this secret store-house of information he has. I'm sure he's holding his cards close to his chest in the interest of a great pay off but hopefully he keeps his readers' interests in mind and comes forward with what will no doubt be the conclusive evidence in this case -- the forensics."

I think the withholding of information has more to do with the family building a case that can be fairly heard than simply feeding the readership on demand. If it were the latter, than a purely sensationalist reporter would've thrown out meat to the masses by now.

*added color for my comments

Edited February 7, 2008 by kat

[sabaijai]

I've edited and deleted several ad hominem posts, including my own, to try and bring the discussion back to facts and speculation directly related to the case. Comments on moderation have also been removed. At this point I will leave the moderation of this thread to several other mods. If you have comments about moderation, please contact mods/admin directly.

[A_Traveller]

Sabaijai, respect for that decision, and may I take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions herein, even if I don't always agree with them.

Regards

[A_Traveller]

Damian, it is to be hoped you will reconsider your position on this thread, your contributions, whilst strongly worded, often raise issues which need to remain in focus.

Regards

[kat]

Yeah, and I'm glad to see that he is still here. Good - don't leave.

[lannarebirth]

"Anyway, I've been silent on this blog due to the large portion of nonsense that has appeared, but I am very curious to hear more on Andrew Drummond having had access to the forensics. Well? What were the results? Mr. Drummond tends to be quite prudish when it comes to revealing this secret store-house of information he has. I'm sure he's holding his cards close to his chest in the interest of a great pay off but hopefully he keeps his readers' interests in mind and comes forward with what will no doubt be the conclusive evidence in this case -- the forensics."

I think the withholding of information has more to do with the family building a case that can be fairly heard than simply feeding the readership on demand. If it were the latter, than a purely sensationalist reporter would've thrown out meat to the masses by now.

*added color for my comments

I hope that's true , what you've said kat. The application of the law is subjective here and is often tried in the court of public opinion. If important information were to surface too soon, IMO, information to counter it (whether true or not) would appear almost immediately, with the intent to obfuscate. Too much wrong information in the public discourse serves the interests of the guilty in this interactive media driven age..

[kat]

Totally agree, and in Thailand, it's just common sense. But, that is only my speculation.

[meadish_sweetball]

Please observe the forum rules while posting.

The rules in full can be found here: Forum Rules

and the following are broken frequently. Please take your time to read the rules and make sure your posts comply before submitting, that way we can keep moderation to a minimum.

1) You will not use thaivisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, referencing prostitution (including bargirls and barboys), referencing suicide, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

2) Posting another members personal details, photos or web site details is forbidden and will result in being banned. Excessive, aggressive posts against other members, moderators and admin; or flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is best defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, rants, and/or for launching personal attacks, insulting, being hateful, useless criticism, name calling, swearing and other bad behavior or comments meant to incite anger.

Do not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or any attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants. The word, or its derivative, "trolling", is used to describe such messages or the act of posting them.

5) Discussion of moderation issues, actions or moderation policies concerning individual cases are not allowed in the forums. Such comments should be directed to a moderator or administrator, and not discussed on the forum.

This topic evokes strong emotions. This is understandable, but in order to keep the discussion on topic, do make your best efforts to discuss in a calm manner.

Thank you.

[Arkady]

I find it also intriguing that Claymore's biggest fan 'Arkady' also disappeared for a while, but re-appeared to cheer on Claymore just 15 minutes after his comeback. Mmmmmmm....all looking rather fishy..

What is the point you are trying to make Stephen? In criticizing your Nation article I confined myself to the aspects that are pertinent to this thread and thought it quite fair. I assure you I am neither Andrew Drummond, nor Claymore and have no contact with them on or off line.

[Briggsy]

Excellent post, lannarebirth. Using the media to obfuscate the issue, put up smokescreens and distractions and smear the victim is a commonly used tactic particularly here where the media is so quick to slavishly print as pseudo-fact whatever anyone with a jot of power says without any questioning. It is extremely rare to hear of anyone charged with contempt of court or perverting the course of justice for discussing the details of a case in the press.

Generally the best way to go about reaching a just resolution is to build a comprehensive case without holding a press conference at every step.

One obvious exception to this recently was the woman in Saraburi who had her arm chopped off by an off-duty policeman. The police refused to investigate the matter until the media were involved. This is not the case here in the Pai case though.

[Claymore]

Drummond may very well have been right from the start on this case (if there is any merit to these claims of eyewitnesses under human rights protection), but he could just as easily have been wrong. He is certainly a tabloid-style news writer, as evidenced from his very first piece in which he interviewed the father of the woman murdered in Kanchanaburi. Judge, jury and executioner as well as journalist. He couldn't possibly have had enough facts then to make that distinction, but he ran with it anyway to make for a sensationalist story. Call it "giving the readers what they want," but don't call it journalism. Real journalists don't apologize for reporting facts in letters to the editor and they don't prejudice a story from their very first report on a complex case.

Also, it's irresponsible of Drummond to suggest that locals are tarring Carly Reisig for no good reason. The thing that makes this case so complex is the fact that she has a history of drunken violence with police -- hold on DamianMavis before you jump to your keyboard, she has admitted as much. She had an indisputably terrible reputation. And her version of events, though they didn't change, did slightly "dim"

From Drummond's sensational debut story: "There never was a fight. That is not true. John was my ex-boyfriend, but still my best friend. We had nothing to argue about. We had been drinking in the Be-Bop bar in Pai and were heading for a last drink at the Bamboo Bar near the bridge. We were walking together. My Thai boyfriend Fuen was walking slightly behind."

And then also from Drummond, once Reisig's character was brought into question by OTHER reporters bringing up her sketchy past: “Things are a bit foggy. I can’t quite remember what happened before the incident, But I can remember everything very clearly from the time that man hit me in the face."

That is where the "baseless" Internet rumor that Carly changed her story comes from. I think that Drummond might be feeling the heat of Internet writers coming on the scene to question his journalism after enjoying his salad days for so long when he could file sensationalist stories and nobody would question it.

I am very curious to hear more on Andrew Drummond having had access to the forensics. Well? What were the results?

--------------------------

All a bit of waffle this but I remember the Kan case very well. Policeman shoots boyfriends, runs down girlfriend, drags her body under car and as she is clinging to pylon shot her three times chest neck and face. Not even the Church Times can write that in an unsensational way. The most sensational copy was what the father said in court. What interview?

I dont think Andrew D is going to break any news here. But he has been providing a few guidelines thru me. He is an invited observer. I think he is now in Mae Hong Son. Was in Pai again yest. Just cant tel u u before the event. As a rule he does not use pseudonyms like everyone here. He was

invited by NHRC (who always seeks out sensationalist reporters I guess. I wont hv bn the first time he has been invited as observer.) I think he will now agree however Carly has changed her story because there is a new one.

[Claymore]

Yes. Drummond does have some authority on this case and has been in regular contact as I haved pointed out.

He has been with with the Human Rights Commissioner Surasee Kosolnavin and DSI all week. The hints I have made could not have been clearer

The remark about the bullet wounds WILL be a judicial one. Andrew Drummond has also been with Dr. Pornthip and was specifically invited into this investigation.

Your very prejudicial context for the tragedy -that it was all Reising's fault - is also not true if witnesses now are to be believed.

In the Jones case Thai police falsely arrested a Karen hill guide for the murder. The torture of the hill tribe guide and the attempt at procuring sperm from him resulted in protest and his direct release. But of course you would know that. He also produced the payment dockets with showed some £12,000 had been sent to enable Andrew Gill to get out of custody. Of course you would know that too.

Carly is currently with Drummond and the DSI. Your reference to casket chasing journalism is crass. Its a case of real journalism against mere blogging.

Well I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out who "Claymore" is. I had it figured out once I realized that Mister Drummond was the kind of journalist who would write letters to the editor apologizing for reporting on relevant facts. I thought it was just a matter of time before he began posting here anonymously and so he has -- and already had been.

Drummond may very well have been right from the start on this case (if there is any merit to these claims of eyewitnesses under human rights protection), but he could just as easily have been wrong. He is certainly a tabloid-style news writer, as evidenced from his very first piece in which he interviewed the father of the woman murdered in Kanchanaburi. Judge, jury and executioner as well as journalist. He couldn't possibly have had enough facts then to make that distinction, but he ran with it anyway to make for a sensationalist story. Call it "giving the readers what they want," but don't call it journalism. Real journalists don't apologize for reporting facts in letters to the editor and they don't prejudice a story from their very first report on a complex case.

Also, it's irresponsible of Drummond to suggest that locals are tarring Carly Reisig for no good reason. The thing that makes this case so complex is the fact that she has a history of drunken violence with police -- hold on DamianMavis before you jump to your keyboard, she has admitted as much. She had an indisputably terrible reputation. And her version of events, though they didn't change, did slightly "dim"

From Drummond's sensational debut story: "There never was a fight. That is not true. John was my ex-boyfriend, but still my best friend. We had nothing to argue about. We had been drinking in the Be-Bop bar in Pai and were heading for a last drink at the Bamboo Bar near the bridge. We were walking together. My Thai boyfriend Fuen was walking slightly behind."

And then also from Drummond, once Reisig's character was brought into question by OTHER reporters bringing up her sketchy past: “Things are a bit foggy. I can’t quite remember what happened before the incident, But I can remember everything very clearly from the time that man hit me in the face."

That is where the "baseless" Internet rumor that Carly changed her story comes from. I think that Drummond might be feeling the heat of Internet writers coming on the scene to question his journalism after enjoying his salad days for so long when he could file sensationalist stories and nobody would question it.

Anyway, I've been silent on this blog due to the large portion of nonsense that has appeared, but I am very curious to hear more on Andrew Drummond having had access to the forensics. Well? What were the results? Mr. Drummond tends to be quite prudish when it comes to revealing this secret store-house of information he has. I'm sure he's holding his cards close to his chest in the interest of a great pay off but hopefully he keeps his readers' interests in mind and comes forward with what will no doubt be the conclusive evidence in this case -- the forensics.

You seem to have some issues here. Reisig's reputation was brought into question only by Drummond. No other reporters.

You also seem to have some hidden issues with AD. They cannot be about the Kan case because that was reported exceedingly well and it was the publicity which prevented it being pushed under the carpet. He is friends of the family to Vanessa to this day and has visited them in the UK. Perhaps D's stories are the only ones people remember. He is not rich. Not has that ever been his motive. He might seem that however to Stephen Cleary.

If you cannot find real issues on previous stories then stick to what D is writing on this one. He is quite open to criticism and correction.

His letter to the Nation was made in best intentions and with sincerity. Your answer that real journalists dont do that is quite nonsensical.

Carly Reisig gave evidence today in Mae Hong Son . The initial DSI investigation is over. Now its up to the PM. That he says is the last word. There will be stuff up on the next tonight and u can all start over

[Claymore]

There is no such thing as a tabloid newswriter btw. Most of the D Tel are ex tabloid writers. It is the ability to write for any type of publication and still keep the truth which is the test of a journo.

Your conception of the business is exceedinly outdated.

[BarryMan]

There is no such thing as a tabloid newswriter btw. Most of the D Tel are ex tabloid writers. It is the ability to write for any type of publication and still keep the truth which is the test of a journo.

Your conception of the business is exceedinly outdated.

In reference to the Kanchan killing: I only mentioned that because of its inclusion in AD's first story on the Pai killing. He interviewed the father of the woman killed in that story. That prejudices the story from the start. It turns out now that AD may have indeed been more right than wrong about that, but he had no way of knowing that when no evidence was in on the case. It appears even now not to be a loss of face killing, but rather drunken rage. (In sum, I wasn't critiquing reports on that case, you misunderstood my post).

Also, since when do good journalists write letters to the editor apologizing for reporting on relevant facts? They just don't. Show me a case where a respectable journalist has done that.

But these points are of course secondary - AD has received enough public flack on that, which shows that people are discerning about the news they read. Putting these points aside and looking at the larger picture I was pleased to read Drummond's new report, just uploaded on the Nation:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/02/08...al_30064725.php

Finally we're getting to some truth on this one. Reisig has dramatically changed her story from initial accounts, as I expected she would -- she originally said there was no fight, that they were having a great time and the officer approached for no reason, which sounded like and has now been confirmed as utter rubbish -- but finally we have a) actual eyewitnesses (with I assume no ties to Pai) and forensics! The new version of events makes sense, which the first version did not, and credit where it's due to Drummond for getting both of these eyewitness accounts, and especially for getting Pornthip on record to say that the cop's version of events doesn't hold water - that Del Pinto must have been shot while he was on the ground.

I have never been supportive of the idea of the cop getting away with this crime. The only thing I wanted was a more accurate explanation of how this thing got started. Reisig's initial claims to Drummond just did not make sense and his wholehearted acceptance of them without having eyewitness testimony irked me. Now we have eyewitness testimony and forensics to back a different and more sensible version of this crime up. Again, credit where it's due for Drummond being the one to report those facts. I hope he is as careful and reliant on reliable sources as he was in this latest story in all the future stories he files on this one. This was a much better report than his initial filings.

With this evidence, the cop should go away for first degree murder. Pai will have a black eye, as it appears that a multi-layered attempt at a cover-up has taken place there. I fully admit being wrong about that. I did not see that coming, and others who I'm sure will soon swoop from the rafters to tell me "I told you so" did. Forensics don't lie as a general rule and forensics show that Uthai's version was impossible. I just didn't see the possibility that the other Pai eyewitnesses would tell outright lies and report coached stories in order to save one lowly sgt. major. Why do that at the expense of tourism, especially in a place where the higher ranking cops are likely the ones who own guesthouses etc in the region? But now all signs point to the fact that I was totally wrong. I fully admit that and look forward to seeing justice done in this terrible case.

Sabaijai, I am interested in hearing from you about the local reaction to this new information.

[A_Traveller]

I'll not copy paste the article, but suffice it to say that for me the most disquieting thing is to read the Human Rights Commissioner comment that 'There are reports that the policeman had been charged with murder and attempted murder, but no such charges were placed. They have, however, been put to the officer today and we will be referring the case to the governing board of the DSI and recommend they take over the investigation.'.

Edited from article:- The witnesses, {a young man and woman from Chiang Mai who have sought protection from the National Human Rights Commission} who identities were not revealed, told the DSI Sgt Uthai Dechawiwat had intervened while Carly Reisig was fighting her Thai boyfriend. The officer kicked Reisig, then hit her with his pistol, but she pushed it away, and he shot her in the chest. He then shot her friend Leo Del Pinto, 24, twice. They claimed del Pinto had his hands in the air and was yelling at the officer to "Stop! Stop!" They said Sgt Uthai was drunk.

The Article is written by Andrew Drummond and is a 'Special to The Nation'

Regards

[Danielle]

Some of the information in the article is obviously upsetting for me, especially the imagery of Leo with his hands up asking for Uthai to stop. It bothers me that the charges were not placed until now, unlike what the past news articles would lead one to believe. I'm also confused about the whole "suspects who admit guilt are allowed to walk free" thing followed by Uthai pleading not guilty.

It's good to see that something is happening, though.

[Arkady]

Here is the whole article from today's Nation for those who haven't seen it.

Canadian woman tells court of fatal shooting in Pai, Mae Hong Son -Damning new evidence has emerged in the case of two Canadians shot by a policeman in the northern town of Pai last month after two eye-witnesses to the drama sought protection from the National Human Rights Commission. The witnesses, a young man and woman from Chiang Mai, told the NHRC they were scared to give evidence to police in the North, so the commission helped them gave their account of the fatal shooting to officers from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) in Bangkok. The witnesses, who identities were not revealed, told the DSI Sgt Uthai Dechawiwat had intervened while Carly Reisig was fighting her Thai boyfriend. The officer kicked Reisig, then hit her with his pistol, but she pushed it away, and he shot her in the chest. He then shot her friend Leo Del Pinto, 24, twice. They claimed del Pinto had his hands in the air and was yelling at the officer to "Stop! Stop!" They said Sgt Uthai was drunk. The witnesses' account is greatly at odds with the police report of the drama in the early hours of January 6. Sgt Uthai has claimed the two tourists attacked him after he confronted them about a fight and that his gun discharged accidentally.

News of the witnesses came out yesterday when Reisig, 24, went to Mae Hong Son Court to testify about the shootings. She was escorted to the court by officers from the DSI. Sgt Uthai was summonsed to answer charges of murder and attempted murder. He pleaded not guilty to both. Reisig told the court she was on the ground and had been fighting with her boyfriend Ratthapon because she said he had failed to feed her Labrador dog 'Magic'. Leo had tried to separate the couple when a man she knew as Sgt Uthai approached. "He came and kicked me in my side as I was trying to get up. He was shouting in Thai and pointing a gun at me. I pushed the gun away then he hit me over the head with the gun and I fell to my knees. As I fell he shot me just below the chest. "I looked up and saw Leo was shouting 'Stop! Stop!' He had his hands in the air. The policeman fell back over a motorcycle then recovered and he fired twice. After the first time Leo put his hands to his stomach and went down. Then he shot down at Leo as he fell."

The new evidence had been gathered by a special team made up of members of the Human Rights Commission led by former public prosecutor Surasee Kosolnavin and officers of the DSI, under Colonel Piyawate Kingkate. Commissioner Surasee said: "What is the most telling point of all is that police have give evidence that the bullet which hit Carly Reisig also hit Leo Del Pinto. It is not possible. So we are starting from that point and going back. "There are reports that the policeman had been charged with murder and attempted murder, but no such charges were placed. They have, however, been put to the officer today and we will be referring the case to the governing board of the DSI and recommend they take over the investigation." Also involved is Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan, Thailand's top independent pathologist, who has been studying post mortems carried out in Calgary, Alberta and Chiang Mai. Dr Pornthip has already rejected police claims Leo Del Pinto was shot from below as he was falling to the ground. "It's just not possible, what the police say. Evidence shows that the gunman was above Leo when he was shot in the head." she said at the Maharaj Chiang Mai hospital after studying medical records.

by Andrew Drummond

Special to The Nation

[Arkady]

Now we know that Uthai wasn't released on bail at all, since he wasn't even charged with a crime. It seems that the Pai police just pretended to charge him, even though the regional commander told the media he had ordered them to charge him with murder and attempted murder.

The article appears to reveal many new twists and turns. Carly's testimony is very different from what she said before and Fuen's role and position relative to the shooter and the victims appears very different. His testimony would now appear critical, since it no longer appears that he was walking some distance behind Carly and Leo. I wonder if the Chiang Mai hospital can corroborate that Carly was hit on the head. If she was hit on the head with a gun hard enough to make her fall to her knees, she would have got at least a nasty bruise.

What is highly positive is that the DSI is now involved and might get authority to take over the investigation from Pai police. It is also very good news that, Dr Pornthip, is on the case. (She is not actually an independent pathologist as the article says. She is the DSI's chief pathologist but that makes her independent of the police as the DSI is part of the Justice Ministry.) It seems that Pornthip has already found major discrepancies between the police story and the forensics. The police have managed to rebuff her presentation of forensic evidence in the past (notably in the Hangthong Thammawatana case) but in this case she is dealing with a small provincial police station, not a billionaire murder suspect. So the odds in her favor are better.

I would still not underestimate the ability of the police to obstruct justice but I feel there is new hope.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Arkady

[kat]

Some of the information in the article is obviously upsetting for me, especially the imagery of Leo with his hands up asking for Uthai to stop. It bothers me that the charges were not placed until now, unlike what the past news articles would lead one to believe. I'm also confused about the whole "suspects who admit guilt are allowed to walk free" thing followed by Uthai pleading not guilty.

It's good to see that something is happening, though.

Now we know that Uthai wasn't released on bail at all, since he wasn't even charged with a crime. It seems that the Pai police just pretended to charge him, even though the regional commander told the media he had ordered them to charge him with murder and attempted murder.

The article appears to reveal many new twists and turns. Carly's testimony is very different from what she said before and Fuen's role and position relative to the shooter and the victims appears very different. His testimony would now appear critical, since it no longer appears that he was walking some distance behind Carly and Leo. I wonder if the Chiang Mai hospital can corroborate that Carly was hit on the head. If she was hit on the head with a gun hard enough to make her fall to her knees, she would have got at least a nasty bruise.

What is highly positive is that the DSI is now involved and might get authority to take over the investigation from Pai police. It is also very good news that, Dr Pornthip, is on the case. (She is not actually an independent pathologist as the article says. She is the DSI's chief pathologist but that makes her independent of the police as the DSI is part of the Justice Ministry.) It seems that Pornthip has already found major discrepancies between the police story and the forensics. The police have managed to rebuff her presentation of forensic evidence in the past (notably in the Hangthong Thammawatana case) but in this case she is dealing with a small provincial police station, not a billionaire murder suspect. So the odds in her favor are better.

I would still not underestimate the ability of the police to obstruct justice but I feel there is new hope.

I find the fact that charges weren't actually filed to be extremely revealing of the Thai police. They actually fabricated their whole approach to this case. I never take any pronouncements from the police at face value, but this information now casts a light on previous cases and those to come. Fairly incredible, because no one would've known if they weren't challenged with resources to involve the DSI, NHRC, and Pornthip.

I also find it disturbing that Carly's story is so different, for many reasons. I have no doubt about the most important details and how they correspond to the forensic findings, but I question why she altered her story so dramatically. It is obvious that she was trying to protect someone - either herself or Fuen.

The fact that she was on the ground fighting, hit with a gun in the head, and then shot before Leo is quite a dramatic change. I think the witnesses who came forward and testified with DSI will have the maximum credibility at this point if what they say corresponds the best with forensics. Based on Pornthip's comments about the angle of the bullet, it sounds like their story is the most believable. ** It will also be interesting to see how or if all the other eye witness accounts contradict the forensic profile that will come out. This will be a very instructive case for many reasons, not the least of catching the police in a lie about filing charges, and secondly a good comparative basis of what will be two different independent forensic investigations in comparison to the police: Calgary and Pornthip. It's not clear to me who did the analysis in Chiang Mai.

*typos

**added

Edited February 8, 2008 by kat

[Stephen Cleary]

Yeah, thanks a lot to Mr Drummond for this splendid article. Differs amazingly from his first one.

I too, find it so disturbing that the victim has changed her story of events - Press vs Judge. That my friend Mr Drummond is already illegal! The original report she gave to you and the press is completely different to her story in court! She can, by law, be imprisoned just for that - that is an illegal offense. If you don't believe me, ask one of your prosecutor/ highly ranked govt officer buddies who has a degree in Thai law.

My original editorial column on 'sensationalist journalism' now stands firm in relation to Mr Drummonds first article on the incident.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

sen·sa·tion·al·ism /sɛnˈseɪʃənlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-sey-shuh-nl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

1. subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Stephen Cleary

[A_Traveller]

^ This has to rate as a bizarre recapitulation of events. indeed it strays close to misdirection.

In this case there were discrepancies noted at the outset, your exclamation pointed comment aside, which in my view is legally questionable. since it would be within the purview of the defence to query her changed position, though they'd still have to reconcile the additional testimony and the forensic crossmatchs as reported herein.

In addition it should be noted that this version from, apparently both multiple witnesses, and supported by forensic research points to a violent attack by the officer, who discharges his weapon 3 times, in two separate aimed actions. The Police appear not to have charged the officer at the time, and this was only done at the hearing, despite authoritative claims to the contrary.

As opposed to messenger attacks, the message itself should be carefully reviewed, and subjected to thorough analysis. Something that will take time and effort by all parties.

Regards

[Arkady]

I am curious to know what is the tautological "illegal offense" that Carly committed by giving a different version of events in court compared to what was quoted in the press. If the version she related in court turned out to be untrue, then she would be guilty of perjury but how can she be held criminally responsible for what is printed about her in newspapers? Should she also be charged for misleading the police and Thai reporters into believing she was pregnant?

Witnesses and suspects often change or withdraw completely the evidence and confessions they have given to the police by the time they get to court. I have never seen them charged with an offence for doing this, although technically giving a false statement to police could be an offence, if it can be proved that it was deliberate and not a result of imperfect recollection. In this case, we don't even know what she told the police who came to take her statement in the Chiang Mai hospital.

If an offence has been committed by being quoted or perhaps misquoted in the press, it seems relevant to this thread. She will have trouble changing her statement from this point and it will be interesting to see how it gels with what Fuen and the new witnesses say and the forensic evidence. The witnesses who gave statements to the Pai police all said that they couldn't see what happened behind the parked cars, so their testimony as it stands will not be of much use to anyone.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Arkady

[brahmburgers]

If Uthai is now charged with serious offenses, is he now also in custody? If not, he is a prime candidate for running in to the rice paddies and disappearing - as so often happens (ok, mostly with accident-prone bus drivers).

I respect the two from Chiang Mai (my guess is they're farang) who stuck it out and recently testified. they risked injury and are still be in danger, even if they're under some sort of protection. They could have easily skirted the issue, but they didn't - and it's a testament to their courage and sense of doing what's right. That's why I seriously doubt they're Thai.

Was Carly's testimony influenced by the two from Chiang Mai? - who gave statements first? and how in touch was Carly and the other two - enough to corroborate their stories? These are some points the defense may mention - in an attempt to show collusion.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

I too, find it so disturbing that the victim has changed her story of events - Press vs Judge. That my friend Mr Drummond is already illegal! The original report she gave to you and the press is completely different to her story in court! She can, by law, be imprisoned just for that - that is an illegal offense.

While it may be different in Thailand, the person's mental state is usually considered before charging them with making a false statement. You may not like her, she may be obnoxious but in the present instance it is highly likely the gunshot wound, head injury (the blow to the head by the officer's gun) and the sight of her friend being gunned down may have led to post traumatic stress syndrome and memory loss of the actual event. She also suffered a loss of consciousness and possibly a traumatic brain injury.

Post traumatic stress can alter memories. Traumatic brain injusries can alter memory. Some people who have experienced memory loss are known to fill in the missing gaps with false memories. The process is know as confabulation. Confabulation is not a deliberate process. The person actually believes their version of events. As time passes memories of the actual event may return. Links to a few articles on the topic of post traumatic stress are below and traumatic brain injury are below.

The key to what determining what actually happened lies with the Thai boyfriend and the witnesses. If their version matches the forensic evidence then it is likely true.

"Confabulation also often results from a tendency to engage in gap filling, which, in turn, may be secondary to memory loss or intra/inter-cerebral disconnection."

http://www.brainmind.com/Confabulation.html

A minor impact can disrupt brain activity. Usually the person's reaction is to be dazed and confused. Often there is total recovery. Those who continue to suffer with the consequences of head injury need special care to facilitate in their rehabilitation. These injuries may cause subtle or even major changes in personality and behavior in an individual, such as irritability, anxiety, depression, memory problems other psychological and possible physical difficulties.

http://www.bisociety.org/about.cfm

"Symptoms of TBI

Dr. Warden said that symptoms of TBI include difficulty paying attention, headaches, dizziness, balance problems, and memory problems, among other things. "One of the ways in finding out they have had a traumatic brain injury is that they don't remember a period of time around the actual injury, so they may have been momentarily confused, stunned, unable to remember completely, or have brief, frank loss of consciousness," she said.

http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?arti...&issueID=87

Edited February 8, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Tolley]

It seems the truth is emerging and the truth is even more disturbing than what most posters here believed.

A nasty grubby execution of two foreigners by an out of control drunk off duty policeman.

Apologists for the police behaviour may want to review their opinions.

[Danielle]

Yeah, thanks a lot to Mr Drummond for this splendid article. Differs amazingly from his first one.

I too, find it so disturbing that the victim has changed her story of events - Press vs Judge. That my friend Mr Drummond is already illegal! The original report she gave to you and the press is completely different to her story in court! She can, by law, be imprisoned just for that - that is an illegal offense. If you don't believe me, ask one of your prosecutor/ highly ranked govt officer buddies who has a degree in Thai law.

My original editorial column on 'sensationalist journalism' now stands firm in relation to Mr Drummonds first article on the incident.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

sen·sa·tion·al·ism /sɛnˈseɪʃənlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-sey-shuh-nl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

1. subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste.

The victim's story changing is the only disturbing thing about that article that you find worth mention?