Two Tourists In Pai Shot By A Police Officer

[Arkady]

Armed and dangerous psychopathic killer on loose in Pai - protected by local mafia. I think travel advisories warning of this should go out on websites of embassies and travel guide publications (in addition of course to the usual valuable advice about respecting the monarchy and not patting Thais on the head). The killer is still roaming freely around Pai and now has even more psychological problems than before and more reasons to be out binge drinking. We don't know how many poor Thais and stateless hill tribe folk may have been gunned down by him and his pals and just reported as self defense, accidental discharges or the favorite "silence killings" by other mobsters.

[sabaijai]

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.

It appears probable. A source here in Pai says Carly told her she was pressured by the DSI to alter her story to conform with that of the anonymous witnesses from Chiang Mai. The witnesses may also have been pressured, but at any rate, yes their statements came first. The agenda is to make a show of a national/international intervention in local police politics, and in recruiting Drummond to their cause the DSI/UNHRC have the perfect mouthpiece.

No one here in Pai seriously believes the anonymous witnesses in Chang Mai have anything to fear from the Pai police. Despite their initial support of Uthai's version, according to all the information available here, the Pai police chief is anxious to be rid of Uthai and have all responsibility laid at his feet (rather than theirs).

I'm curious to know whether the Canadian forensics report concurs with Dr Pornthip's assessment of the details, or whether it's just her interpretation? I'm not passing judgment on her talents, she's obviously very professional and well respected. Just wondering what the Canadian conclusion may have been as regards firing upwards/downwards etc.

At any rate it's the sociological context for the tragedy that interests me most, and forensics doesn't address that interest. The incident has now been raised to a political level, so expect the facts to evolve accordingly.

[BarryMan]

Armed and dangerous psychopathic killer on loose in Pai - protected by local mafia. I think travel advisories warning of this should go out on websites of embassies and travel guide publications (in addition of course to the usual valuable advice about respecting the monarchy and not patting Thais on the head). The killer is still roaming freely around Pai and now has even more psychological problems than before and more reasons to be out binge drinking. We don't know how many poor Thais and stateless hill tribe folk may have been gunned down by him and his pals and just reported as self defense, accidental discharges or the favorite "silence killings" by other mobsters.

Arkady, your coffee is too strong this morning. By all accounts, even that of, "Claymore", Uthai was not a problem cop. Known to drink but "one of the better" cops in Pai, was the way Claymore put it. Without getting into the particulars of this one and the widely varying eyewitness accounts that are out there about what led up to the shootings, it would seem that this was an isolated killing and that there is no need for you to get hysterical and suggest that embassies and travel guides start warning people of the dangers of Pai. There have been no similar murders there in recent memory (again if you can PROVE to me that I'm wrong, please do so) and there's no reason to think that Uthai, with the spotlight so completely centered on him now, would risk doing ANYTHING to intensify that spotlight.

[Arkady]

Armed and dangerous psychopathic killer on loose in Pai - protected by local mafia. I think travel advisories warning of this should go out on websites of embassies and travel guide publications (in addition of course to the usual valuable advice about respecting the monarchy and not patting Thais on the head). The killer is still roaming freely around Pai and now has even more psychological problems than before and more reasons to be out binge drinking. We don't know how many poor Thais and stateless hill tribe folk may have been gunned down by him and his pals and just reported as self defense, accidental discharges or the favorite "silence killings" by other mobsters.

Arkady, your coffee is too strong this morning. By all accounts, even that of, "Claymore", Uthai was not a problem cop. Known to drink but "one of the better" cops in Pai, was the way Claymore put it. Without getting into the particulars of this one and the widely varying eyewitness accounts that are out there about what led up to the shootings, it would seem that this was an isolated killing and that there is no need for you to get hysterical and suggest that embassies and travel guides start warning people of the dangers of Pai. There have been no similar murders there in recent memory (again if you can PROVE to me that I'm wrong, please do so) and there's no reason to think that Uthai, with the spotlight so completely centered on him now, would risk doing ANYTHING to intensify that spotlight.

I will double check the strength of my morning brew but I have a problem with the system that allows the killer to be free and probably armed in Pai, let alone possibly still working as a policeman. Apart from the likelihood of intimidating witnesses and trying to fabricate evidence, it does appear that he might be mentally unstable and have a serious drink problem. No, I am not at all sure that he would not attempt to intimidate witnesses or fabricate evidence. As for taking the risk of committing further acts of violence, it is far from clear that his recent grotesque acts of violence were the result of a rational process of weighing up risks and benefits beforehand. So why would you expect him to start doing that now when he may be feeling desparate that the NHRC, DSI and Pornthip are getting involved?

I'd say putting him on remand in Mae Song Hong or Chiang Mai to await trial would make a lot of sense but I understand the expat establishment in Pai is highly protective of its image.

[sibeymai]

The upwards/downwards trajectory of the bullet as determined by forensics should give a good indication of the credibility of the police version of events.

More significant though, judging from the recent statements made in court, is the fact that Leo apparently never touched the gun whereas the police claim there was a struggle for the weapon.

If Leo's prints are not on the gun it would seem conclusive that the police version of events is a pack of lies.

[sabaijai]

Armed and dangerous psychopathic killer on loose in Pai - protected by local mafia. I think travel advisories warning of this should go out on websites of embassies and travel guide publications (in addition of course to the usual valuable advice about respecting the monarchy and not patting Thais on the head). The killer is still roaming freely around Pai and now has even more psychological problems than before and more reasons to be out binge drinking. We don't know how many poor Thais and stateless hill tribe folk may have been gunned down by him and his pals and just reported as self defense, accidental discharges or the favorite "silence killings" by other mobsters.

Arkady, your coffee is too strong this morning. By all accounts, even that of, "Claymore", Uthai was not a problem cop. Known to drink but "one of the better" cops in Pai, was the way Claymore put it. Without getting into the particulars of this one and the widely varying eyewitness accounts that are out there about what led up to the shootings, it would seem that this was an isolated killing and that there is no need for you to get hysterical and suggest that embassies and travel guides start warning people of the dangers of Pai. There have been no similar murders there in recent memory (again if you can PROVE to me that I'm wrong, please do so) and there's no reason to think that Uthai, with the spotlight so completely centered on him now, would risk doing ANYTHING to intensify that spotlight.

I will double check the strength of my morning brew but I have a problem with the system that allows the killer to be free and probably armed in Pai, let alone possibly still working as a policeman. Apart from the likelihood of intimidating witnesses and trying to fabricate evidence, it does appear that he might be mentally unstable and have a serious drink problem. No, I am not at all sure that he would not attempt to intimidate witnesses or fabricate evidence. As for taking the risk of committing further acts of violence, it is far from clear that his recent grotesque acts of violence were the result of a rational process of weighing up risks and benefits beforehand. So why would you expect him to start doing that now when he may be feeling desparate that the NHRC, DSI and Pornthip are getting involved?

I'd say putting him on remand in Mae Song Hong or Chiang Mai to await trial would make a lot of sense but I understand the expat establishment in Pai is highly protective of its image.

Uthai isn't in Pai, last I heard, rather placed at an inactive post in another district in MHS.

[meadish_sweetball]

The upwards/downwards trajectory of the bullet as determined by forensics should give a good indication of the credibility of the police version of events.

More significant though, judging from the recent statements made in court, is the fact that Leo apparently never touched the gun whereas the police claim there was a struggle for the weapon.

If Leo's prints are not on the gun it would seem conclusive that the police version of events is a pack of lies.

I'm not so sure that the lack or presence of Leo's fingerprints can be used to prove anything.

First of all, we cannot be certain that the fingerprints on the gun have been collected in proper order, unless that has been stated and I've missed it? The routines of the Thai police in this regard sometimes is irregular or lacking from personal experience.

Second, if Uthai brought the gun with him when he fled the crime we don't know what he did with it in the meantime. Third, can we trust with absolute certainty there was no tampering with the gun afterwards to add fingerprints?

But let's say that prints were collected in good order, and let's assume Leo did struggle for the gun. Can we be sure that he would have left identifiable fingerprints in the struggle? I have no special knowledge of forensics, but I still suspect there must be a degree of uncertainty there.

Again, assuming there was a struggle - maybe Leo's hands were constantly on the outside of the policeman's hands. And even if he did gain some kind of temporary hold of a part of the gun, maybe his fingertips never entered into contact with the weapon.

[sibeymai]

Granted it could be possible that no prints may be left on the gun during a struggle. Please substitute the word "possible" for "conclusive".

ie. "If Leo's prints are not on the gun it would seem possible that the police version of events is a pack of lies."

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Leo's name is back inthe press again in Canada as a footnote to the latest murder of a Canadian citizen in Thailand. Unfortunately the Canadian press hasn't reported the story on Dr. Pornthip's findings at least thus far. Still the latest article will help keep both murders in the spotlight hopefully increase public pressure on the Canadian government to make certain both crimes aren't swept under the rug.

Link to the Canada.com article on Dale Henry's murder containing remarks about Leo Del Pinto's murder.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...645&k=67064

[Foggy Bottom]

Hi all

I've received some info's from posters via personal messages that were not solicited, and respect the privacy of them, but have been drawn towards posting a public response here in the thread.

I will confess that I have never thought other than that the shootings were unjustified - regardless of all the hype about being drunk, off duty etc. the facts seem clear enough that Uthai's life was not in danger, and he had no requirement to use lethal force. Anyone who has received official training in firearms, in any country, will also be aware that the official stance is always that armed personnel should fire single aimed shots at each threat (outside of a warzone), and should only use sufficient force as is needed to subdue the threat.

With most modern service-grade weapons, that is exceptionally rarely more than one shot, and then usually only needed against highly competant & motivated combat personnel, fanatics, or drug-crazed unstoppables.

Such weapon discharges must always be (and here I quote (from memory) from the UK government's regulations for members of the UK Armed Forces) -

A weapon may only be fired in order to -

(1) - Protect the life of the person firing when there is clear, present, and imminent threat to their life.

(2) - Protect the life of another who is under the protection of the person firing and the conditions at (1) exist

(3) - Protect property or installation which are under the guard of the person firing and the conditions at (1) apply to the property or installation.

(4) - Prevent the target from discharging a firearm or triggering or firing an explosive device believed to threaten under rules 1-3 above.

(5) - Fulfill a direct order from a superior which shall include a designated target and the number of shots to fire. Such an order must fulfill one of the requirements above when given outside an official combat zone.

Different rules apply to Northern Ireland and to regions designated as combat zones.

The exact wording may be slightly at variance with the printed instructions for armed personnel that HMG give to all members of the Armed Forces, but the meaning is the same. I do have my HMG Armed Forces standing instructions card buried somewhere under the stairs - if anyone needs me to verify exact wording, I'll dig it out, otherwise, let's focus only on the intent of the instructions.

The above instructional intent is, I believe, fairly standard all around the world. Anything different would bring fairly heavy criticism within the UN (at least) and potential trade and diplomatic sanctions.

All that said, does it apply to the Royal Thai Police? Does their training and standing instructions compare / comply with the intent of the UK's instructions?

Are any members of the Farang liason unit to the Thai Police (CTTR) following this thread? Can they seek and post clarification regarding the above? Can they at least confirm that the Thai Police are not permitted carte blanche regarding carrying and discharging their firearms?

Unfortunately, what I believe is happening nowadays, is that around the world, too many news stories are displaying incidents of "overkill" with regard to preventing suicide bombers triggering devices, and similar circumstances / stories, which is leading armed personnel everywhere to subconciously and incrementally escalate how they react to each successive event. It is also, I believe, causing a tension and nervousness amongst armed personnel the world over, that makes them more likely to apply deadly force, than they would have been say ten years ago. I state this opinion in my capacity as a Foreign Correspondent primarily concerned with military topics, and with governmental, political, and business topics as a secondary role. Continual research and observation over the last decade show me a clear trend of increased force amongst armed personnel, in how they deal with potential threats outside of "live combat zones".

I am extremely concerned about allegations that the "pinnacles" of Thai investigation have coerced Carly and the witnesses into a damning match-up of testimony - could this be a Hollywood influence either in triggering unsubstantiated allegations, or in causing actual witness-coaching, if true? I am also reminded of the old adages about needing someone to be made an example of, to prevent future occurrences, and of sacrificial lambs offered as appeasements to the angry God of public opinion.

From the first reading of Andrew's report of the evidence-giving a couple of days ago, I have thought long and hard about the charges against Uthai and his plea of not-guilty. Uthai will be fully aware that such a plea, if found incorrect, will take him to death row, and that a plea of guilty would get him only a reduced life sentence. It is the way it works in Thailand.

It seemed incongruous therefore that an experienced police officer would go down the not-guilty route, whether he did it or not, knowing the circumstances of sentencing and aware of the media and other attention being given to the case. The risk of a death sentence is just too great in a case where so many vested and big-money interests are involved (tourism revenues, national image, higher ranks' self-preservation etc.).

The only reason I can see for such a plea, is that he genuinely and unshakably believed he acted in self-defence, and that, to him, his actions were therefore not murder and attempted murder. Perhaps he has a few rabbits to pull out of the hat when the case goes to trial?

Furthermore, I can only speculate that (before the trial starts) he may be hoping for the return and aquittal of Thaksin, who together with Samak, would give leniency to police convictions in order to protect themselves from investigations into extrajudicial killings in the War on Drugs, Tak Bai, and other incidents during the Thai Rak Thai reign. Perhaps with the removal of an Army led government, and the return of a police-sympathetic civilian one, he feels the odds for sweeping the case under the rug have increased, and he wants it on record that he considers himself not-guilty? I stress, this is all purely speculation, but is based on the "pyramid of sin" that is commonly believed to exist, from the lowest ranks to the top of government.

The only thing of which I am sure, is that hysterical speculating and side-taking will not assist or advance the case to either party's advantage. Nor will it sway the mass of public opinion (other than amongst TV members). But what it will do, is polarise and divide the resident foreigners community, in a way which that community cannot afford during the forthcoming government's tenure.

I am fairly sure the new nationalist government will be actioning a backlash against foreign business and residents, in retaliation for what they will have seen as farang support for the coup, the CNS, and the ousting of Thaksin. They will also look unfavourably upon any perception of the foreign community attempting to change the status quo in the Kingdom, or to interfere with their time-tested practices and systems, such as police autonomy and immunity. I therefore urge posters here to be a little more circumspect in how and what they post - don't give the new government an axe to grind.

Gaz

Edited February 10, 2008 by Gaz Chiangmai

[Claymore]

snip

I dont think AD is under any illusion as to what happen at the end of the day

[Claymore]

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.

It appears probable. A source here in Pai says Carly told her she was pressured by the DSI to alter her story to conform with that of the anonymous witnesses from Chiang Mai. The witnesses may also have been pressured, but at any rate, yes their statements came first. The agenda is to make a show of a national/international intervention in local police politics, and in recruiting Drummond to their cause the DSI/UNHRC have the perfect mouthpiece.

No one here in Pai seriously believes the anonymous witnesses in Chang Mai have anything to fear from the Pai police. Despite their initial support of Uthai's version, according to all the information available here, the Pai police chief is anxious to be rid of Uthai and have all responsibility laid at his feet (rather than theirs).

I'm curious to know whether the Canadian forensics report concurs with Dr Pornthip's assessment of the details, or whether it's just her interpretation? I'm not passing judgment on her talents, she's obviously very professional and well respected. Just wondering what the Canadian conclusion may have been as regards firing upwards/downwards etc.

At any rate it's the sociological context for the tragedy that interests me most, and forensics doesn't address that interest. The incident has now been raised to a political level, so expect the facts to evolve accordingly.

I'm sorry Sabaijai. U again refer to the Socialogial context for the tragedy. We merely want to know how 3 bullets went amiss accidentally.

Please declare your interest! Because so many people must know who r in Pai

[Claymore]

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.

It appears probable. A source here in Pai says Carly told her she was pressured by the DSI to alter her story to conform with that of the anonymous witnesses from Chiang Mai. The witnesses may also have been pressured, but at any rate, yes their statements came first. The agenda is to make a show of a national/international intervention in local police politics, and in recruiting Drummond to their cause the DSI/UNHRC have the perfect mouthpiece.

No one here in Pai seriously believes the anonymous witnesses in Chang Mai have anything to fear from the Pai police. Despite their initial support of Uthai's version, according to all the information available here, the Pai police chief is anxious to be rid of Uthai and have all responsibility laid at his feet (rather than theirs).

I'm curious to know whether the Canadian forensics report concurs with Dr Pornthip's assessment of the details, or whether it's just her interpretation? I'm not passing judgment on her talents, she's obviously very professional and well respected. Just wondering what the Canadian conclusion may have been as regards firing upwards/downwards etc.

At any rate it's the sociological context for the tragedy that interests me most, and forensics doesn't address that interest. The incident has now been raised to a political level, so expect the facts to evolve accordingly.

That seems quite outrageous that THRC are fitting up witnesses. I will ask AD to pass it on with ur permission. Dont think THRC need him as a mouthpiece though.

Canadian forensics show same entry wounds and path of bullets btw. From my own experience though witnesses in any town,amphur, or tambon in Thailand are fearful about giving evidence to police.

[taxexile]

The only reason I can see for such a plea, is that he genuinely and unshakably believed he acted in self-defence, and that, to him, his actions were therefore not murder and attempted murder. Perhaps he has a few rabbits to pull out of the hat when the case goes to trial?

i'm sure he already knows how the trial will end , or how much time he will have to serve before he is quietly let out , which is why he is pleading not guilty.

Edited February 11, 2008 by taxexile

[Arkady]

Armed and dangerous psychopathic killer on loose in Pai - protected by local mafia. I think travel advisories warning of this should go out on websites of embassies and travel guide publications (in addition of course to the usual valuable advice about respecting the monarchy and not patting Thais on the head). The killer is still roaming freely around Pai and now has even more psychological problems than before and more reasons to be out binge drinking. We don't know how many poor Thais and stateless hill tribe folk may have been gunned down by him and his pals and just reported as self defense, accidental discharges or the favorite "silence killings" by other mobsters.

Arkady, your coffee is too strong this morning. By all accounts, even that of, "Claymore", Uthai was not a problem cop. Known to drink but "one of the better" cops in Pai, was the way Claymore put it. Without getting into the particulars of this one and the widely varying eyewitness accounts that are out there about what led up to the shootings, it would seem that this was an isolated killing and that there is no need for you to get hysterical and suggest that embassies and travel guides start warning people of the dangers of Pai. There have been no similar murders there in recent memory (again if you can PROVE to me that I'm wrong, please do so) and there's no reason to think that Uthai, with the spotlight so completely centered on him now, would risk doing ANYTHING to intensify that spotlight.

I will double check the strength of my morning brew but I have a problem with the system that allows the killer to be free and probably armed in Pai, let alone possibly still working as a policeman. Apart from the likelihood of intimidating witnesses and trying to fabricate evidence, it does appear that he might be mentally unstable and have a serious drink problem. No, I am not at all sure that he would not attempt to intimidate witnesses or fabricate evidence. As for taking the risk of committing further acts of violence, it is far from clear that his recent grotesque acts of violence were the result of a rational process of weighing up risks and benefits beforehand. So why would you expect him to start doing that now when he may be feeling desparate that the NHRC, DSI and Pornthip are getting involved?

I'd say putting him on remand in Mae Song Hong or Chiang Mai to await trial would make a lot of sense but I understand the expat establishment in Pai is highly protective of its image.

Uthai isn't in Pai, last I heard, rather placed at an inactive post in another district in MHS.

The police said he had been posted to another district in Mae Hong Song Province 40 km from Pai. If the post is inactive, that seems to allow him to spend most of his time in Pai where he presumably still lives, even if it is now claimed that the inactive post is more than 40 km from Pai. I don't see how that prevents him from intimidating witnesses, fabricating evidence or indeed reduces the risk that he will go on the lam. If an ordinary Thai were accused of a similar crime, he would definitely be banged up to await trial but the risk of a police suspect intimidating witnesses etc is much higher.

[Arkady]

1. Re Thai Police rules of engagements. I have never seen any rules quoted about when Thai police may open fire. I am sure they exist but are not taken seriously by the police, judiciary or anyone else. Police often shoot at fleeing robbery suspects in crowded Bangkok streets, spraying bullets all over the place, when the only threat to life is the actions of the police themselves. Innocent bystanders wounded or killed in this way (or their relatives) are invited to apply for compensation and that is the end of the matter.

I knew a British army officer stationed in Northern Ireland years ago who said that unused ammunition was quietly taken from firing ranges, so that troops could fire more rounds than they had to account for after shooting incidents on the streets. Nothing is foolproof even in squeaky clean, gun free Britain.

2. Re sacrifial lamb (i.e. Uthai) to be offered as an apeasement to the angry God of public opinion. I don't understand this at all. This case is not getting any coverage in the Thai media and there doesn't seem to be any Thai public opinion on it at all. You may be confusing it with the case of the Border Patrol Police gang. Foreign public opinion outside this thread is extremely muted, restricted to waning coverage in local media in Canada, which is not a very important trading partner for Thailand.

3. Re guilty plea could lead to death row. With the wholehearted support of his superiors and the ability to intimidate witnesses etc he is more likely to have thought that a non-guilty plea would give him to a good chance to walk. This would almost certainly be the case, if the victims were poor Thais, and could still easily happen. How many policemen convicted of murder have you heard of actually being executed in Thailand over the last couple of decades? I can't think of one. Usually their "exemplary" police records are taken in account in the sentencing process, resulting in life rather than death. In the worst cases, like Pol Lt Gen Chalor Kerdthes, who committed an unimaginably barbaric murder of a mother and her young son after torturing them for weeks, the sentence is normally later commuted to life, also citing the officer's past record. If things really go against him, Uthai could still change his plea but so far it would have made nil sense to plead guilty. Whether he thinks he acted in self defense or not is irrelevant and is unlikely to have entered into the thinking of those advising him.

4. Re Uthai might hope that the future return of Thaksin or the current Samak administration might be more favorable to police suspects. On a macro level Thaksin and Samak are indeed likely to favor police more than the outgoing military appointed Sarayud administration. On the other hand the Sarayud administration's plans to reform the police were mere posturing. Nothing happened and it was business as usual for the police. Thaksin, Samak, Chalerm etc are all known to be very volatile and on the micro level it is not easy predict what they would think or do about an individual case of this type.

5. Re possible backlash against foreign businesses residents in retaliation for what they (PPP) will see as farang support for the coup, the CNS, and the ousting of Thaksin. I don't understand the logic of this at all. All Western countries were highly critical of the coup and the Western press annoyed the junta repeatedly by portraying Thaksin as a highly popular democratically elected leader who was unfairly ousted. Asian countries that have undemocratic systems were the most sympathetic towards the junta. Why would PPP crack down on all foreign businesses and residents, if they wanted to get at farangs anyway? There are more Asian foreigners here than farangs and in business ownership Americans are to a large extent untouchable because of the Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations.

I would not discount more sentiment that could be interpreted as xenophobic from the new government. The crack downs on short stay visas and on land ownership were initiated by the Thaksin government and it should not be a surprise if the PPP government continues with them. The Foreign Business Act "reforms" were the Saruyud government's knee jerk reaction to the sale of Shin Corp by Thaksin. Maybe the PPP government will go ahead and tighten it up because, while the economy is doing badly, taking cheap shots at foreigners always scores points. On the other hand, they might not, since the legislation was aimed to block a loophole used by Thaksin himself. Anyway the Commerce Ministry has already informally enforced the proposed amendments. Try registering a new company controlled by foreigners through preference shares! TRT and Thaksin's attitude towards foreigners was actually quite complex. They obviously favored Chinese and other Asians over farangs but were willing to give big concessions to farangs, if they thought it would benefit them e.g. Thaksin's attempt to push through the US FTA by opening up the financial sector to Americans with no restrictions at all. After being so warmly welcomed in the UK and being allowed to buy a football club, hopefully Thaksin's attitude towards farangs has changed.

None of this seems to be a reason for the foreign community to be cowed into craven silence when foreigners are killed by police in suspicious circumstances. Who else will speak up for the victims? However, if we were aware of your identity, we could certainly follow your wishes and refrain from speaking out in the event that you or any of your loved ones inadvertently became a victim of a similar incident in the future. Perhaps you could leave a living will to that effect with TV's administrators.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Arkady

[Briggsy]

In support of Arkady's excellent post above, Somchai Wisetsingh who killed 2 tourists in Kanjanaburi in an arguably worse crime than the Pai case under discussion here, pleaded not guilty, told a complete pack of lies in court and his death sentence was immediately commuted. So there is very little incentive for Uthai to plead guilty.

[BarryMan]

An excellent post from Gaz. While I don't agree with every point here, I would say that he (?) has furthered this discussion quite a bit with the points he raises. Notes in blue

I will confess that I have never thought other than that the shootings were unjustified - regardless of all the hype about being drunk, off duty etc. the facts seem clear enough that Uthai's life was not in danger, and he had no requirement to use lethal force. Anyone who has received official training in firearms, in any country, will also be aware that the official stance is always that armed personnel should fire single aimed shots at each threat (outside of a warzone), and should only use sufficient force as is needed to subdue the threat.

Spot on about Uthai shooting two unarmed civilians. The trajectory of the bullets gleaned from forensics, apparently both Canadian and Thai (I say "apparently" as the Canadian results appear only in a second-hand account -- ie Pornthip via AD. Pornthip is a strong second-hand source, of course, but still the Canadians have yet to make public their findings), compounds Uthai's guilt in this. He would seem to have been guilty of excessive force from the very beginning for shooting two unarmed civilians.

Are any members of the Farang liason unit to the Thai Police (CTTR) following this thread? Can they seek and post clarification regarding the above? Can they at least confirm that the Thai Police are not permitted carte blanche regarding carrying and discharging their firearms?

To the best of my knowledge there are defined rules for the discharging of weapons. Something like they can only discharge one bullet and that only when their lives are in danger. Certainly there must be something on the books that takes carte blanche away from them. The matter of how strictly these laws are enforced is a completely different kettle of fish. I could be wrong but I doubt it's like in the US (and I assume elsewhere) where discharging your weapon once means an afternoon full of filling out paperwork etc. As I believe has been said elsewhere, many cops in the States, the majority, reach the age of retirement without having shot anyone over years of service. For those that do shoot people, it's not a matter taken lightly. This is a world away from that though and who knows what comparable stats look like in Thailand.

Unfortunately, what I believe is happening nowadays, is that around the world, too many news stories are displaying incidents of "overkill" with regard to preventing suicide bombers triggering devices, and similar circumstances / stories, which is leading armed personnel everywhere to subconciously and incrementally escalate how they react to each successive event. It is also, I believe, causing a tension and nervousness amongst armed personnel the world over, that makes them more likely to apply deadly force, than they would have been say ten years ago. I state this opinion in my capacity as a Foreign Correspondent primarily concerned with military topics, and with governmental, political, and business topics as a secondary role. Continual research and observation over the last decade show me a clear trend of increased force amongst armed personnel, in how they deal with potential threats outside of "live combat zones".

Very interesting perspective. On the Foreign Correspondent bit, I notice in your posting here a level-headed approach that would be quite refreshing to see in reports on this crime as well. (If you're not already on the case on this one and you're in Chiang Mai -- Mods: not a bid to extract personal information, simply gleaning that from user's name -- I'd like to suggest that you consider it.

I am extremely concerned about allegations that the "pinnacles" of Thai investigation have coerced Carly and the witnesses into a damning match-up of testimony - could this be a Hollywood influence either in triggering unsubstantiated allegations, or in causing actual witness-coaching, if true? I am also reminded of the old adages about needing someone to be made an example of, to prevent future occurrences, and of sacrificial lambs offered as appeasements to the angry God of public opinion.

I've wondered from the get-go why Pai citizens, the entire Pai police force, Mae Hong Son investigators et al would go to all this trouble to cover up for one errant sergeant major. Claymore likened Pai to the "Wild West", well it would seem more logical for the sheriff to call for the rope for this lowly sergeant major than to invite a whirlwind with a cover-up. That still hasn't been satisfactorily answered. Also, Reisig's testimony has changed so much that it points to the possibility that she was indeed given the suggestion to match accounts with the eyewitnesses. Again, this is not to take away from the fact that forensics show that Uthai shot Del Pinto while he was on the ground, but to suggest that the story might not be as cut and dry as has been presented in Mae Hong Son. Certainly there is quite a gray area surrounding the events that led up to the fatal shooting of Del Pinto.

From the first reading of Andrew's report of the evidence-giving a couple of days ago, I have thought long and hard about the charges against Uthai and his plea of not-guilty. Uthai will be fully aware that such a plea, if found incorrect, will take him to death row, and that a plea of guilty would get him only a reduced life sentence. It is the way it works in Thailand.

It seemed incongruous therefore that an experienced police officer would go down the not-guilty route, whether he did it or not, knowing the circumstances of sentencing and aware of the media and other attention being given to the case. The risk of a death sentence is just too great in a case where so many vested and big-money interests are involved (tourism revenues, national image, higher ranks' self-preservation etc.).

The only reason I can see for such a plea, is that he genuinely and unshakably believed he acted in self-defence, and that, to him, his actions were therefore not murder and attempted murder. Perhaps he has a few rabbits to pull out of the hat when the case goes to trial?

An excellent point and one I hadn't considered prior to reading your post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Kanchan case, I believe the cop initially confessed to the crime, no doubt thinking that he would save his neck from execution, but later withdrew that confession once it became clear that he could still be charged with murder and potentially face death. Although in his case, he ended up not facing the death penalty, that does seem to be the common operating logic in cases such as this. If Uthai felt he didn't have a hope, he would be likely to plead out this case. That he hasn't does suggest that he might have a few rabbits to pull out of his hat indeed.

The only thing of which I am sure, is that hysterical speculating and side-taking will not assist or advance the case to either party's advantage. Nor will it sway the mass of public opinion (other than amongst TV members). But what it will do, is polarise and divide the resident foreigners community, in a way which that community cannot afford during the forthcoming government's tenure.

I agree, and certainly I have been guilty of what you mention here about speculation (hopefully not hysterical, but I allow that it may well have been at times, or seemed so) and side-taking. I hope more users here take your lead and post thoughtful and balanced comments on this case.

I am fairly sure the new nationalist government will be actioning a backlash against foreign business and residents, in retaliation for what they will have seen as farang support for the coup, the CNS, and the ousting of Thaksin. They will also look unfavourably upon any perception of the foreign community attempting to change the status quo in the Kingdom, or to interfere with their time-tested practices and systems, such as police autonomy and immunity. I therefore urge posters here to be a little more circumspect in how and what they post - don't give the new government an axe to grind.

Well this is probably off topic, but you and I part ways here. I think if anything that the foreign community, with some minor exceptions, was largely in opposition to the coup and certainly the foreign press was (Economist, WSJ, etc, vocally so) and that if anything the PPP's arrival on the scene will be welcomed as a move forward from the economic nationalism of the Surayud government. That government turned back the clock on Thai-foreign relations, and from all I've heard from Samak's government, they are looking to undo some of that harm and rebuild investor confidence in Thailand. (And no, I'm not happy in the least that Samak is PM, but I am happy that the junta days are over... for now).

[BarryMan]

Claymore, if you would be so kind as to pass along the following question to AD I would appreciate it:

Concerning his latest report on the Del Pinto case. The following paragraph baffles me:

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."

I've looked at past reports of this story and I can't find a single one with the police saying that the bullet that hit Reisig also hit Del Pinto.

Am I missing something? Have the police made this claim only to investigators but not the press?

[Claymore]

Claymore, if you would be so kind as to pass along the following question to AD I would appreciate it:

Concerning his latest report on the Del Pinto case. The following paragraph baffles me:

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."

I've looked at past reports of this story and I can't find a single one with the police saying that the bullet that hit Reisig also hit Del Pinto.

Am I missing something? Have the police made this claim only to investigators but not the press?

Yes you are right this claim has not been made by the police to the press. But it is a claim which DSI and NHCR told AD they discovered during their investigations.

That both Carly and Leo were in the line of the same bullet. Carly is claiming that the bullet which hit her is still in her and she wants it removed when she returns to Canada. Seems a bit odd that they wd not take the bullet out.

[Claymore]

Claymore, if you would be so kind as to pass along the following question to AD I would appreciate it:

Concerning his latest report on the Del Pinto case. The following paragraph baffles me:

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."

I've looked at past reports of this story and I can't find a single one with the police saying that the bullet that hit Reisig also hit Del Pinto.

Am I missing something? Have the police made this claim only to investigators but not the press?

Yes you are right this claim has not been made by the police to the press. But it is a claim which DSI and NHCR told AD they discovered during their investigations.

That both Carly and Leo were in the line of the same bullet. Carly is claiming that the bullet which hit her is still in her and she wants it removed when she returns to Canada. Seems a bit odd that they wd not take the bullet out.

Actually there appear to be several aspects to this case which have not yet come out (some of which were edited out for space) some of which Drummond has held back. Actually the Nation complained about having five stories in one when he filed one long piece. They split the story in two - one the court appearance and NHCR findings and 2 Pornthip's view on the case. Jim Pollard is doing the subbing I believe!

I think he is rather saving ammunition for use when Stephen Cleary's cronies start writing Letters to the Ed again. A milestone will be this Wednesday I think when Thai NHRC meet.

[Foggy Bottom]

Many thanks for the support Barry - I know some people see things differently from me, but that is what makes life (and discussion boards) interesting, isn't it?

I agree the bit below was off topic and apologise to the moderators for that. If I can close discussion of it by simply explaining that in the first 2-3 months after the coup, a large portion of resident farangs were vocal in their support of ousting Thaksin, and even if their opinions of the CNS changed over time, the hardliners will remember the initial reactions and accord blame where none is due.

If anyone wants to discuss this further, could they open a topic somewhere with a title along the lines of "potential government backlash over post-coup farang glee" and PM me the link - let's close this side-topic here and keep the thread on course.

Gaz

An excellent post from Gaz. While I don't agree with every point here, I would say that he (?) has furthered this discussion quite a bit with the points he raises. Notes in blue

I am fairly sure the new nationalist government will be actioning a backlash against foreign business and residents, in retaliation for what they will have seen as farang support for the coup, the CNS, and the ousting of Thaksin. They will also look unfavourably upon any perception of the foreign community attempting to change the status quo in the Kingdom, or to interfere with their time-tested practices and systems, such as police autonomy and immunity. I therefore urge posters here to be a little more circumspect in how and what they post - don't give the new government an axe to grind.

Well this is probably off topic, but you and I part ways here. I think if anything that the foreign community, with some minor exceptions, was largely in opposition to the coup and certainly the foreign press was (Economist, WSJ, etc, vocally so) and that if anything the PPP's arrival on the scene will be welcomed as a move forward from the economic nationalism of the Surayud government. That government turned back the clock on Thai-foreign relations, and from all I've heard from Samak's government, they are looking to undo some of that harm and rebuild investor confidence in Thailand. (And no, I'm not happy in the least that Samak is PM, but I am happy that the junta days are over... for now).

[Claymore]

Claymore, if you would be so kind as to pass along the following question to AD I would appreciate it:

Concerning his latest report on the Del Pinto case. The following paragraph baffles me:

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."

I've looked at past reports of this story and I can't find a single one with the police saying that the bullet that hit Reisig also hit Del Pinto.

Am I missing something? Have the police made this claim only to investigators but not the press?

Yes you are right this claim has not been made by the police to the press. But it is a claim which DSI and NHCR told AD they discovered during their investigations.

That both Carly and Leo were in the line of the same bullet. Carly is claiming that the bullet which hit her is still in her and she wants it removed when she returns to Canada. Seems a bit odd that they wd not take the bullet out.

Perhaps I should emphasise this is important because police say the shooting was an accident. It would be difficult to believe that he accidentally shot two people, so they claimed one bullet hit them both.

Of course if you look at it this way it would suggest that he would have had to have shot Del Pinto first and Carly would have had to have been behind him.

That's really throwing the cat amongst the pigeons.

[opengoal]

Can anybody confirm that all the police officers involved in previous despicable crimes are actually still behind bars and not let out and relocated to other provinces with a pension.

[brahmburgers]

what's the story from Carly's Thai boyfriend? he's the one who was allegedly play-fighting with Carly (rolling on the pavement) - and that's what probably prompted the cop to go ballistic. The cop sees a Thai man wrestling with a farang woman (whom he already knew was a rowdy) - the cop probably doesn't know it's play fighting and is angry that a Thai man is wrestling on the ground (and losing?) to a rowdy farang woman. Plus the fellow Thai man is probably being yelled at by her. How face losing is that?!

Whether or not that's the igniting scenario, I'm curious to know whether that Thai man will give witness in court. An earlier news report, days after the event, had him saying things (by Carly's hospital bed?) that indicated he was very angry at the rogue cop's harmful alcohol-fueled action that night.

As to Thai opinion: I venture that the majority of Thais who've heard of this case - write it off in one sentence, in effect: 'a randy farang girl who acts disrespectful to a cop deserves whatever she gets in retaliation (no matter that the cop was off-duty and in plainsclothes).' In Thailand, loss of face is more dire (more subject to revenge) than physical harm.

As for 'Rules of Engagement' with Thai law enforcement. Chalk it up on a level with 'rules of driving' for the general Thai public. Sure, some cops may actually know the rules regarding when it's justified to fire their service weapon - but so what. Cops drink and are emotional like most everyone else, so they'll do pretty much what they want. That's my (one person's) take on how things happen in the real world, anyway.

Edited February 12, 2008 by brahmburgers

[Arkady]

I've wondered from the get-go why Pai citizens, the entire Pai police force, Mae Hong Son investigators et al would go to all this trouble to cover up for one errant sergeant major. Claymore likened Pai to the "Wild West", well it would seem more logical for the sheriff to call for the rope for this lowly sergeant major than to invite a whirlwind with a cover-up. That still hasn't been satisfactorily answered.

I think that you are looking at this from a Western perspective. There are many cases that indicate that it is virtually standard procedure for Thai police to cover up for other ranks in crimes committed against any one regarded as lower down the food chain than them. There are very good reasons for this, notably the fact that even other ranks, particularly senior sergeants, are likely to have a lot of information about corruption that could be very damning to the layers above them. The system will collapse if senior police are seen to be hanging juniors out to dry, unless, like the Border Patrol Police gang, they have totally overstepped the mark and there is no choice. An isolated killing of a foreigner without high level Thai connections is sadly not likely to have been seen as overstepping the mark.

[Claymore]

but can we take is as fact that they try to reach for the gun,

I don't know where you acquired that fact , erco.

okay, you are right. most of the 'facts' we just hear from the sensationalist story teller Andrew Drummand. we can not really rely on that.

so is my bad to take the following statements into account.

reisig : "... and got his gun, and Leo tried to get it away from him. "They had a struggle for the gun, then the man got control of the gun ..." (quoted from the nation article "SURVIVOR'S CLAIM Cop 'executed my best friend'")

Sgt-Major Uthai / Case investigator Pol Lt-Colonel Sombat Panya : "...Uthai pointed his service pistol to threaten away both foreigners, but del Pinto tried to snatch the pistol from him. After a scuffle, shots were fired and the couple went down." (quoted from same source)

because both side talking about a struggle/scuffle i thought we could take it as fact.

but, okay this is also old news. on a biased reporting of Andrew Drummond where als Ms. Reisig not told him the truth but for a catchy headline he believed her.

then the court Ms. Reisig told a complete other story. and this new version we also know only from Andrew Drummand, who i don't give so much credit.

but have a look at the new version:

"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 ..." (source Andrew Drummond:"Canadian woman tells court of fatal shooting in Pai - Feb 8 2008"

okay, in this version a struggle or scuffle for the gun is not mentioned, but she claimed that she pushed the gun away. there is a little chance that she was doing that without using her hands in direction to the gun, that she just blow some air on it or whatever or do some magical spell (remember the name of that lovely dog who didn't get his supper?), all without getting physical to push the gun away. so she never reach for the gun? we don't know.

before, in the earlier version Ms. Reisig was also talking about that "“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. “A man came up to me on the road near Pee Dang’s Restaurant and hit me for no reason. “My face was painted with face paint, for fun, but I don’t know why he hit me." (source andrew drummond: Canadian survivor describes how ‘best friend’ was executed by Thai policeman) in the new version she was fighting on the ground with her thai boyfriend and del pinto was trying to help.

also very different is the chronology according to her how the three shots have been fired. old version "then the man got control of the gun and stepped back and shot Leo directly in the face. “Leo fell to the ground and the man pointed the gun at his heart and fired a second shot. Then he turned around to me and aimed for my heart and shot me in the chest." her new version "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.”

so there is no more match in both side stories about the struggle/scuffle for the gun between del pinto and the police officer. but she also not revoke her old statement about the struggle. it just don't get mentioned anymore. but we don't know if she leave out that point or if that have been done by Andrew Drummond.

and there is still something odd Leo was shouting ‘Stop! Stop!’ He had his hands in the air. The policeman fell back over a motorcycle then recovered...

so del pinto had his hand in the air, was it gesture of capitulation or boxer position, then something must have been happend, because why the police man had to revover himself from a fall over a motorcycle? a magic spell again with out any physical contact to the police officer or still the struggle about the gun she was talking before?

This FYI from the family of Leo Del Pinto

We have been following the articles and news updates written by Andrew Drummond, along with reader comments through Letters to the Editor and various Thai blogs. Some people are calling Andrew Drummond a 'sensationalist', which could not be further from the truth. The true sensationalists are the ones who are claiming there are no safety concerns for tourists in Thailand and try to pass this off as an "unfortunate incident". The Del Pinto family has gone through a tragedy that no other family should experience. Andrew's reporting along with the hard work the Canadian media has brought more truth and attention to this story than ever would have happened had it been left to the Thai government alone. Some readers are claiming Carly Reisig has changed her story and her account of the incident has been inconsistent. Having gone through official Thai documentation and written witness statements, it is the Thai police officer's story that does not add up, and that is why the National Human Rights Commission is involved. Our experience with the Pai police has been unpleasant to say the least and it is more than apparent they have attempted to protect "one of their own" at all costs. It has taken the involvement of the DSI, National Thai Human Rights Commission and journalists such as Andrew Drummond to get any semblance of truth and justice in this case so far. Andrew is not presenting a biased opinion, the facts are speaking for themselves; one innocent, unarmed Canadian was murdered in cold blood and another barely escaped with her life because of a reckless and aggressive off-duty police officer. The ignorance of the reader's who are outspoken against Andrew Drummond's reporting will only lead to many more tourists being at risk in Thailand.

- The Del Pinto Family

Calgary, Canada

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

c/o Ross Fortune

Del Pinto Family Spokesperson

[Arkady]

Can anybody confirm that all the police officers involved in previous despicable crimes are actually still behind bars and not let out and relocated to other provinces with a pension.

You probably refer to the rumours surrounding the Kanchanaburi murderer. I don't think any one here is in a position to confirm or deny these but he clearly had very high level support from influential figures in Kanchanaburi Province to allow him to hide out for several months. So who knows? I do remember one story not too long ago where warders of a prison in the Northeast were letting a convicted house breaker out at nights to practice his trade in return for a cut of the proceeds. In the 90s it was discovered that a prisoner of the wrong identity had served a couple of years in prison because he was being paid by the real convict to serve time on his behalf. But these isolated prison leaks don't prove the point.

[BarryMan]

Claymore, if you would be so kind as to pass along the following question to AD I would appreciate it:

I've looked at past reports of this story and I can't find a single one with the police saying that the bullet that hit Reisig also hit Del Pinto.

Am I missing something? Have the police made this claim only to investigators but not the press?

Yes you are right this claim has not been made by the police to the press. But it is a claim which DSI and NHCR told AD they discovered during their investigations.

That both Carly and Leo were in the line of the same bullet. Carly is claiming that the bullet which hit her is still in her and she wants it removed when she returns to Canada. Seems a bit odd that they wd not take the bullet out.

Perhaps I should emphasise this is important because police say the shooting was an accident. It would be difficult to believe that he accidentally shot two people, so they claimed one bullet hit them both.

Of course if you look at it this way it would suggest that he would have had to have shot Del Pinto first and Carly would have had to have been behind him.

That's really throwing the cat amongst the pigeons.

The police are sealing up the case against Uthai if they've sworn to that. They're bringing it into "magic bullet" territory. Were the bullets fired at Del Pinto recovered?

Being that the one fired at Reisig is still IN her (why wasn't it removed? I had guessed proximity to her heart and the risk of medical complications... maybe the hospital didn't want to be at risk of a malpractice suit if something happened, and/or because her insurance had run out), this would seem like the kind of thing that is easily disprovable. More to the point, it's something that the police have pulled out of their hats at the eleventh hour and contradicts earlier accounts they had given to the press.

I can't recall a case in recent memory, and maybe I just have a bad memory, where there have been such wide discrepencies between the initial accounts given to the press and the accounts later sworn to in court, especially on both sides.

In the favor of the defence, it would seem we have the drastic change of testimony in Reisig's account of things. I would think in a western court, and surely here too, that going on the record giving an account in which something as unforgettable as the order of the shootings differs from your sworn statement would be enough to lose or seriously harm your credibility as a witness... That change could be brought in by the defence and the suggestion made that she was coached into changing her testimony so it matched up with that of eyewitnesses. Her sworn testimony differs from her initial version on two of the most important aspects of the entire episode: she initially said there had been no argument (her and Leo were getting caught up on old times, walking peacefully along), and now says there had been (though it is now said to involve Fune, the Thai boyfriend -- a non-player in the first version of things -- and be about her dog), also that she was sitting vs. standing, and the order of shootings. Now she says she was shot first, rather than Del Pinto being killed first and the gun being turned on her, which she recounted in detail in the first account given to AD. There was also no mention of Del Pinto having thrown up his hands and pleaded with Uthai to stop. Those two accounts are a mile apart.

Also, Reisig's past. If Del Pinto is widely regarded in Pai as having been a great guy who everyone liked and the best character reference that could be had for Reisig, who had been there longer (correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Del Pinto returning to Pai after having been away for a while?) is silence, and most of those given have been negative, then that's not so great and could have provided the police with some sort of mitigating factors. Sure in other cases the police will unduly slander surviving witnesses in the interest of saving themselves, that happens all over the world, but there seems to have been enough on the ground testimony, plus Reisig herself going on record regarding one altercation involving a cop, to have her character factor into a judge's interpretation of events.

BUT it would have only been a strong case if the following hadn't utterly undone the above: the forensics (I think it is now safe to say that since the Canadian officials have not disputed Pornthip's account that their findings were the same and Del Pinto was shot while he was on the ground) and now the changing version of police events related to the bullets fired during the shooting. While the above information provides some interest in establishing the events that led up to this murder, and certainly means that there are some shades of gray and no clear reliable version of what happened has been offered, these final two points would seem irrecoverably damning.

Any idea when this is going to trial? My guess is we have yet to see the final twist.

[GungaDin]

Today's report from the court.

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

10/10 to Andrew Drummond.