Two Tourists In Pai Shot By A Police Officer

[Claymore]

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.

Andrew Drummond has been down to Kanchanaburi many times from different newspapers on this, notably after a contributor to ThaiVisa (now banned I hear) based in Kanchnaburi kept calling up the British tabloids expecting a payback. He also has good contacts in the area who wd ring him in a trice if Wisetsingh is spotted. He also has good contacts at a high level in the Corrections Department who he believes wd tip him off. Nevertheless this is by no means beyond the realms of possibility.

[Claymore]

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.

I'm sure your right on your last point. I think you are missing the the local ethos a little and it would maybe help if you knew a little more about how courts operate in Thailand.

The only stories the court will consider are the statements she gave to the DSI and to local police. The local police statement, it will be argued was invalid. She does not speak or read Thai. There was no translator. The person who did the translation was Fune. Both have now given contradictory statements.

But the argument may not even get that sophisticated. Thai courts as a matter of course sit one day a month (unless in v special cases).

There is no cut and thrust from lawyers. Its a bit like the education. Learning by rote. A person gets up says what is prepared and the cross examination is generally polite, though lawyers may smile smugly if they think they have made a point. Hence forensics is much more important than the witnesses.

Thats a dangerous thing in Thailand where forensics can be distorted by the police - as appeared to have happened in this case.

People may remember that in trying to bring a quick conclusion to the Kirsty Jones murder police went out and kidnapped a hill tribe tour guide and tried to masturbate him to secure sperm to introduce to the crime scene evidence.

[BarryMan]

Hence forensics is much more important than the witnesses.

Thats a dangerous thing in Thailand where forensics can be distorted by the police - as appeared to have happened in this case.

How so? From all I've been reading it would seem that the forensic evidence is the most damning evidence of all and was conducted apart from the Pai police by Pornthip and her team (as well as in Canada).

[Arkady]

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.

This does seem odd but I was reading something about the time Ronald Reagan was shot in the lung and a doctor commented that the bullet could have been left there indefinitely without causing harm (all other things being equal I suppose) but they operated to remove it anyway. The immediate threat is bleeding which could be worse if the bullet is not removed. The secondary threat is sepsis which can easily be caused by tiny particles of clothing that bullet carries into the body. Perhaps the position of the bullet made the medical team decide that it was more of a risk to remove it and/or they didn't have the necessary skills. She should be over the risk of bleeding or infection now but another major operation cannot be a nice prospect.

The bullet may not be necessary as evidence as Uthai has admitted the shootings. On the other hand it sounds like he has only admitted firing two shots, one of which went through Leo first and then hit Carly. Then there is the possibility that he will resort to the classic "imaginary shooter" defence which might also make the bullet more important as evidence. Among other cases, the "imaginary shooter" defence was, as Claymore says, used by Pol Sgt Somchai, the Kanchanaburi murderer; Chalerm's son over the nightclub shooting death of a policeman; and the policemen who gunned down a nine-year boy in a hail of bullets during the war against drugs and cleared away all the slugs before Dr Pornthip arrived. "Imaginary shooters" are only seen by defendants who usually only know their nicknames but not their real names, addresses or mobile numbers. Perhaps Carly will have to find a way to get the bullet to Dr Pornthip.

Re the earlier discussion about whether police are allowed to carry guns off duty, I note that Sgt Somchai was also found guilty of two firearms offenses. I can't find any reports that say what the exact offenses were but they may have been related to carrying a gun and ammunition in public without a permit.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Arkady

[Krungthepian]

Today's report from the court.

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

10/10 to Andrew Drummond.

Gunga Din, that story is from last week's court hearing. Last Wednesay in Mae Hong Son. You can see the date in the link to the Nation page.

Also, word from the North (Pang Mapha) is the gunman is still out boozing most nights while still carrying his weapon.

Does anyone know regulations here or abroad in regard to when a policeman is allowed to carry their pistols?

Is there a restriction in the criminal code or police regulations in terms of officers drinking alcohol when they are armed?

We have all seen cops drinking off-duty with guns tucked down the back of their pants, or wherever, but I find it hard to believe they don't have some policy (which they may or may not ignore) that cops involved in shootings have to turn their guns in - especially if charged with a serious offence.

This fella faces charges of murder. Despite Thailand being in the Dark Ages in terms of oversight of the police - perhaps two to three decades behind the Western world in some key aspects such as independent handling of complaints about police - I'm still surprised that lawyers for the victims (Reisig or the del Pinto family), or the DSI, or National Human Rights Commission, can't lodge some application to force this chap to leave his piece at the local station once he's clocked off.

[sabaijai]

Now would be a good time for the Canadian government to make a push either publicly or behind the scenes while the NHRC's request for the DSI to take over the investigation is being considered and the new Thai government has just been installed. All they need to do is express concern about confusion surrounding the initial investigation and that they hope no efforts will be spared to ensure that the investigation will now proceed as efficiently as possible, so as to ensure justice for all parties involved, as well as express general concern for the safety of foreign tourists. I have seen myself in the past that a nudge at the right moment by an ambassador in Thailand can make all the difference. Timing is also enhanced by the revolting stories being revealed about the brutality and corruption of the Border Patrol Police gang (with the complicity of senior police, prosecutors and judges) that have shocked even the Thai public, long enured to the everyday reality of police brutality and corruption. This has put the police and their apologists very much on the back foot for now, although they will no doubt spring back before long.

Now would also perhaps be a good time for the apologists in this thread to review such sentiments as the outrageous "possibly manslaughter" comment and the view raised on several occasions from on the spot that Pai residents found it so laughable that any of them might be afraid to give evidence against the police. It now looks unfortunate for these happy go lucky, fearless folk and their esteemed police force that there might be witnesses that are not Pai residents who can give their evidence to the DSI in Bangkok and be under the latter's protection.

There has been no explanation as to why the Mae Hong Song court freed Uthai without bail but I suppose we have to accept that this is standard practice when a policeman is charged with murdering some one lower down the food chain and not worthy of comment. Like others here, I would like to know what Fuen has said to the police and to the court, if he indeed testified in court. Unlike others I don't think that Carly's changes of story, bizarre though they are, have much bearing on the case, nor do I think her prior behavior or personality are particularly relevant. The forensics are much more important and after that comes the testimony of independent witnesses. Farang Prince said early on that Uthai had screwed himself by claiming to have shot Leo from below and it is now looking as if he may be right. Unlike other prominent cases, the Pai police fortunately don't seem to have had the sophistication or financial resources to distort the forensic evidence to fit their story.

Let's hope that we make it to the next very important stage of the DSI being given authority to take over the investigation.

Thanks Arkady, for that excellent post, as usual.

Correct. It is a case of loud drunks getting executed by a violent trigger happy cop.

As I've posted before; dealing with drunks is a BIG part of a cops job description. This little excuse for a real cop is a murderer, plain and simple. Happens in Thailand all too often. Hopefully, you can visit him in jail someday.

Yes, essentially what we have here according to new evidence are a bunch of disorderly, loud foreigners getting executed by a drunk, disorderly, plain-clothes, off-duty cop. And, if the evidence stands, it will be an execution and attempted execution of foreigners, as the other Thai involved at the incident (Fuen) was untouched.

I don't think 'execution' is the correct term here, as it implies killing by order of someone else (eg, mafia, government, etc). Isn't 'murder' good enough? Not sure there's a crime called 'execution'

Fuen/Feun/Fune, by the way, is Cambodian by birth, not sure he has Thai citizenship although he grew up in Thailand.

[HomeisThai]

People may remember that in trying to bring a quick conclusion to the Kirsty Jones murder police went out and kidnapped a hill tribe tour guide and tried to masturbate him to secure sperm to introduce to the crime scene evidence.

[Claymore]

Hence forensics is much more important than the witnesses.

Thats a dangerous thing in Thailand where forensics can be distorted by the police - as appeared to have happened in this case.

How so? From all I've been reading it would seem that the forensic evidence is the most damning evidence of all and was conducted apart from the Pai police by Pornthip and her team (as well as in Canada).

Sorry you misunderstood. In this case the forensic evidence cannot be distorted because as you say Dr.Ponrthip is on it and her views concur with the dr who did the pm at Chiang Mai Maharaj University and the Canadians. But Dr.Ponrthip arrived on the scene local police were putting a completely different emphasis on forensics.

[Claymore]

Now would be a good time for the Canadian government to make a push either publicly or behind the scenes while the NHRC's request for the DSI to take over the investigation is being considered and the new Thai government has just been installed. All they need to do is express concern about confusion surrounding the initial investigation and that they hope no efforts will be spared to ensure that the investigation will now proceed as efficiently as possible, so as to ensure justice for all parties involved, as well as express general concern for the safety of foreign tourists. I have seen myself in the past that a nudge at the right moment by an ambassador in Thailand can make all the difference. Timing is also enhanced by the revolting stories being revealed about the brutality and corruption of the Border Patrol Police gang (with the complicity of senior police, prosecutors and judges) that have shocked even the Thai public, long enured to the everyday reality of police brutality and corruption. This has put the police and their apologists very much on the back foot for now, although they will no doubt spring back before long.

Now would also perhaps be a good time for the apologists in this thread to review such sentiments as the outrageous "possibly manslaughter" comment and the view raised on several occasions from on the spot that Pai residents found it so laughable that any of them might be afraid to give evidence against the police. It now looks unfortunate for these happy go lucky, fearless folk and their esteemed police force that there might be witnesses that are not Pai residents who can give their evidence to the DSI in Bangkok and be under the latter's protection.

There has been no explanation as to why the Mae Hong Song court freed Uthai without bail but I suppose we have to accept that this is standard practice when a policeman is charged with murdering some one lower down the food chain and not worthy of comment. Like others here, I would like to know what Fuen has said to the police and to the court, if he indeed testified in court. Unlike others I don't think that Carly's changes of story, bizarre though they are, have much bearing on the case, nor do I think her prior behavior or personality are particularly relevant. The forensics are much more important and after that comes the testimony of independent witnesses. Farang Prince said early on that Uthai had screwed himself by claiming to have shot Leo from below and it is now looking as if he may be right. Unlike other prominent cases, the Pai police fortunately don't seem to have had the sophistication or financial resources to distort the forensic evidence to fit their story.

Let's hope that we make it to the next very important stage of the DSI being given authority to take over the investigation.

Thanks Arkady, for that excellent post, as usual.

Correct. It is a case of loud drunks getting executed by a violent trigger happy cop.

As I've posted before; dealing with drunks is a BIG part of a cops job description. This little excuse for a real cop is a murderer, plain and simple. Happens in Thailand all too often. Hopefully, you can visit him in jail someday.

Yes, essentially what we have here according to new evidence are a bunch of disorderly, loud foreigners getting executed by a drunk, disorderly, plain-clothes, off-duty cop. And, if the evidence stands, it will be an execution and attempted execution of foreigners, as the other Thai involved at the incident (Fuen) was untouched.

I don't think 'execution' is the correct term here, as it implies killing by order of someone else (eg, mafia, government, etc). Isn't 'murder' good enough? Not sure there's a crime called 'execution'

Fuen/Feun/Fune, by the way, is Cambodian by birth, not sure he has Thai citizenship although he grew up in Thailand.

True Fune was born Cambodian is now Thai and has full Thai ID. Murder is good enough. Most often execution applies to state ordered killings. But it does not have this exlcusive use.

Some people are happy with execution as one bullet seems to have been fired to kill Del Pinto and a second bullet seems to have been fired to ensure the job was done. He does spell his name Fune btw. Drummond corrected it from Fuen in later stores. He has a website.

[Claymore]

Today's report from the court.

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

10/10 to Andrew Drummond.

Gunga Din, that story is from last week's court hearing. Last Wednesay in Mae Hong Son. You can see the date in the link to the Nation page.

Also, word from the North (Pang Mapha) is the gunman is still out boozing most nights while still carrying his weapon.

Does anyone know regulations here or abroad in regard to when a policeman is allowed to carry their pistols?

Is there a restriction in the criminal code or police regulations in terms of officers drinking alcohol when they are armed?

We have all seen cops drinking off-duty with guns tucked down the back of their pants, or wherever, but I find it hard to believe they don't have some policy (which they may or may not ignore) that cops involved in shootings have to turn their guns in - especially if charged with a serious offence.

This fella faces charges of murder. Despite Thailand being in the Dark Ages in terms of oversight of the police - perhaps two to three decades behind the Western world in some key aspects such as independent handling of complaints about police - I'm still surprised that lawyers for the victims (Reisig or the del Pinto family), or the DSI, or National Human Rights Commission, can't lodge some application to force this chap to leave his piece at the local station once he's clocked off.

Yes getting lots of reports of Soppong (Pang Mapha) now. Here there is a nice little guest house there.

[sabaijai]

Murder is good enough. Most often execution applies to state ordered killings. But it does not have this exlcusive use.

Usage is pretty much exclusive to an ordered killing (state or otherwise) or one that appears to be an ordered killing, as in 'execution-style'. Nothing about this crime fits that description, though I'm sure its use could help sell copy.

Today's report from the court.

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

10/10 to Andrew Drummond.

Gunga Din, that story is from last week's court hearing. Last Wednesay in Mae Hong Son. You can see the date in the link to the Nation page.

Also, word from the North (Pang Mapha) is the gunman is still out boozing most nights while still carrying his weapon.

Does anyone know regulations here or abroad in regard to when a policeman is allowed to carry their pistols?

Is there a restriction in the criminal code or police regulations in terms of officers drinking alcohol when they are armed?

We have all seen cops drinking off-duty with guns tucked down the back of their pants, or wherever, but I find it hard to believe they don't have some policy (which they may or may not ignore) that cops involved in shootings have to turn their guns in - especially if charged with a serious offence.

This fella faces charges of murder. Despite Thailand being in the Dark Ages in terms of oversight of the police - perhaps two to three decades behind the Western world in some key aspects such as independent handling of complaints about police - I'm still surprised that lawyers for the victims (Reisig or the del Pinto family), or the DSI, or National Human Rights Commission, can't lodge some application to force this chap to leave his piece at the local station once he's clocked off.

Yes getting lots of reports of Soppong (Pang Mapha) now. Here there is a nice little guest house there.

Over a dozen actually as AD would know had he been there.

[sabaijai]

Pai reporter's comments out of place in 'letters'

Re: "Pai shootings inspiring 'malicious rants'", Letters, February 10.

Andrew Drummond writes that he finds it "slightly worrying to see certain sections of The Nation, including this page, turning into vehicles for malicious rants by foreigners".

First, let me say that I find it more than "slightly worrying" that the letters to the editor section has become a second home for a journalist to provide colour commentary on the stories he is regularly filing to the same newspaper. A journalist should be objective and confident enough in the facts of his stories to let them speak for themselves. Drummond has opted instead to send two letters to the editor. In the first he apologised for reporting on Carly Reisig's history of having had violent drunken flare-ups with cops in Pai in the past.

Surely, despite Drummond's claims in that letter and in this most recent one, such a history has a direct bearing on this case which involves her, alcohol and a cop. In his second letter, he attacks an opinion columnist, Stephen Cleary, for questioning sensationalist reporting from Thailand. One can assume he saw himself in this critique.

Drummond ended his initial report on this case with the following: "Like the Kanchanaburi case, the killing in the idyllic tourist village of Pai has the semblance of another police 'loss of face' execution." He made this claim based solely on what Carly Reisig had told him and before he could have had a bit of the material necessary to back it up. Even now in the full light of the forensic evidence it seems like this was in no way a "face-saving" killing. Calling that first report "sensationalist" is an understatement.

Now, Carly Reisig has changed her story completely. Almost every detail of the case as she recounted it initially to Drummond has changed. Drummond did not make mention of the night and day difference between his initial report and Reisig's actual testimony. Attempting to deride Cleary, Drummond writes: "Internet bloggers and posters demand an audience and rarely admit they are wrong." And the same can be said about certain foreign correspondents.

Might it be overreaching to suggest that the Thai government might be pressuring its agencies to get this one resolved quickly and with Thailand shown in the best "corruption-fighting" light? And that Carly Reisig was told to fall in line with this new version of events that has come out? Might this explain why her story has changed so drastically? Maybe it is overreaching. Maybe there is no merit to that theory since forensics obviously is showing the policeman's version of events to be unreliable. But it is a possibility, and one that Drummond is sure to ignore. He has taken this case as something akin to a personal mission of his own. Activist journalism can be dangerous in cases where there are no easy black and white answers.

Carl

Bangkok

Source: The Nation, Feb 11, 2008

[yorkman]

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.

End of story in Thailand, no matter how many want to argue the ins and outs of this.

Two naive Canadians, after drink, in the wrong place at the wrong time. Dont wander over to a developing country for fun and a laugh, and expect the same rules apply. That about sums it up, na?

[kat]

...Murder is good enough. Most often execution applies to state ordered killings. But it does not have this exlcusive use.

Some people are happy with execution as one bullet seems to have been fired to kill Del Pinto and a second bullet seems to have been fired to ensure the job was done.

I don't think 'execution' is the correct term here, as it implies killing by order of someone else (eg, mafia, government, etc). Isn't 'murder' good enough? Not sure there's a crime called 'execution'

execution

noun

1. putting a condemned person to death

2. the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it; "they criticised his performance as mayor"; "experience generally improves performance" [syn: performance]

3. (computer science) the process of carrying out an instruction by a computer

4. (law) the completion of a legal instrument (such as a contract or deed) by signing it (and perhaps sealing and delivering it) so that it becomes legally binding and enforceable

5. a routine court order that attempts to enforce the judgment that has been granted to a plaintiff by authorizing a sheriff to carry it out

6. the act of accomplishing some aim or executing some order; "the agency was created for the implementation of the policy"

7. unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being [syn: murder]

Thanks you guys. You responded exactly as I would've if I had the time.

[Arkady]

Pai reporter's comments out of place in 'letters'

Re: "Pai shootings inspiring 'malicious rants'", Letters, February 10.

Andrew Drummond writes that he finds it "slightly worrying to see certain sections of The Nation, including this page, turning into vehicles for malicious rants by foreigners".

First, let me say that I find it more than "slightly worrying" that the letters to the editor section has become a second home for a journalist to provide colour commentary on the stories he is regularly filing to the same newspaper. A journalist should be objective and confident enough in the facts of his stories to let them speak for themselves. Drummond has opted instead to send two letters to the editor. In the first he apologised for reporting on Carly Reisig's history of having had violent drunken flare-ups with cops in Pai in the past.

Surely, despite Drummond's claims in that letter and in this most recent one, such a history has a direct bearing on this case which involves her, alcohol and a cop. In his second letter, he attacks an opinion columnist, Stephen Cleary, for questioning sensationalist reporting from Thailand. One can assume he saw himself in this critique.

Drummond ended his initial report on this case with the following: "Like the Kanchanaburi case, the killing in the idyllic tourist village of Pai has the semblance of another police 'loss of face' execution." He made this claim based solely on what Carly Reisig had told him and before he could have had a bit of the material necessary to back it up. Even now in the full light of the forensic evidence it seems like this was in no way a "face-saving" killing. Calling that first report "sensationalist" is an understatement.

Now, Carly Reisig has changed her story completely. Almost every detail of the case as she recounted it initially to Drummond has changed. Drummond did not make mention of the night and day difference between his initial report and Reisig's actual testimony. Attempting to deride Cleary, Drummond writes: "Internet bloggers and posters demand an audience and rarely admit they are wrong." And the same can be said about certain foreign correspondents.

Might it be overreaching to suggest that the Thai government might be pressuring its agencies to get this one resolved quickly and with Thailand shown in the best "corruption-fighting" light? And that Carly Reisig was told to fall in line with this new version of events that has come out? Might this explain why her story has changed so drastically? Maybe it is overreaching. Maybe there is no merit to that theory since forensics obviously is showing the policeman's version of events to be unreliable. But it is a possibility, and one that Drummond is sure to ignore. He has taken this case as something akin to a personal mission of his own. Activist journalism can be dangerous in cases where there are no easy black and white answers.

Carl

Bangkok

Source: The Nation, Feb 11, 2008

1. As "Carl" said, the forensics are obviously showing the policeman's version of events to be unreliable.

2. No, Carly's alleged or actual history in Pai has no bearing on the case. She and every one else in the country has a right not to be murdered by policemen.

3. Her change of story also has no bearing on the case. She has given evidence once to the Mae Hong Son court and made one statement to the Pai police which is probably inadmissable because there was no accredited interpreter present, as required by law in the case of some one who cannot speak, read or write Thai. We don't even know what the Pai police claim was in the statement and whether it differred from her statement in court or not. Statements reproduced in newspapers are not admissable in court and therefore irrelevant.

4. There has been no sign at all that the Thai government has got involved or shown any interest whatsoever in the case. There have been no aggressive statements from the PM ordering the court to hand down a death sentence to protect tourism revenues, as in the case of the Katherine Horton murder. In fact there has been no public reaction from the government. If "Carl" were correct, why would the government intervene but not want to take the credit? Granted, the DSI is a government agency but then so are the police, the OAG and the courts. The DSI seems to be reacting to pressure from the NHRC which is independent of the government.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Arkady

[Claymore]

Murder is good enough. Most often execution applies to state ordered killings. But it does not have this exlcusive use.

Usage is pretty much exclusive to an ordered killing (state or otherwise) or one that appears to be an ordered killing, as in 'execution-style'. Nothing about this crime fits that description, though I'm sure its use could help sell copy.

Today's report from the court.

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

10/10 to Andrew Drummond.

Gunga Din, that story is from last week's court hearing. Last Wednesay in Mae Hong Son. You can see the date in the link to the Nation page.

Also, word from the North (Pang Mapha) is the gunman is still out boozing most nights while still carrying his weapon.

Does anyone know regulations here or abroad in regard to when a policeman is allowed to carry their pistols?

Is there a restriction in the criminal code or police regulations in terms of officers drinking alcohol when they are armed?

We have all seen cops drinking off-duty with guns tucked down the back of their pants, or wherever, but I find it hard to believe they don't have some policy (which they may or may not ignore) that cops involved in shootings have to turn their guns in - especially if charged with a serious offence.

This fella faces charges of murder. Despite Thailand being in the Dark Ages in terms of oversight of the police - perhaps two to three decades behind the Western world in some key aspects such as independent handling of complaints about police - I'm still surprised that lawyers for the victims (Reisig or the del Pinto family), or the DSI, or National Human Rights Commission, can't lodge some application to force this chap to leave his piece at the local station once he's clocked off.

Yes getting lots of reports of Soppong (Pang Mapha) now. Here there is a nice little guest house there.

Over a dozen actually as AD would know had he been there.

Oh dear. Here we go again. AD has been there many times. First time over 20 years ago I believe. I rather think he is referring to one guest house on the matter.

[Claymore]

Pai reporter's comments out of place in 'letters'

Andrew Drummond writes that he finds it "slightly worrying to see certain sections of The Nation, including this page, turning into vehicles for malicious rants by foreigners".etc etc.

If you wish to include this letter you really should publish the letter on which it was based - and Drummond's answer. Both included below.

Letter 1

Dear Sir,

It’s slightly worrying to see certain sections of the ‘Nation’, including this page, turning into vehicles for malicious rants by foreigners.

First there is the chap from www.thai-blogs.com claiming that in his opinion the ‘supposed murder’ of a North American was manslaughter because the female victim Canadian Carly Reisig,had, ‘according to tens of foreign witnesses living in the area’, a well-known history of violent drunken behaviour which including punching law-enforcers.

Then this chap went on to rant about one-sided Thai-bashing reports in the foreign press. Fair enough, but only one ‘newspaper’ story he cited was actually ever published in a foreign newspaper. The rest came from internet forum posters. The story he got half right said more Brits per capita died in Thailand than in any other holiday destination; an unfortunate fact.

(But that article by the way was written by a travel journalist who writes Thailand guide books, and it was published in ‘The Independent’ newspaper not a ‘British tabloid’, as he claimed)

Nevertheless his soapbox ‘piece’ was followed by a couple of indignant readers’ letters from foreigners of the Carly Reisig had it coming to her’ school of thought, using anonymity as most internet forum posters do.

So now it transpires that it was not foreigners but Thai people from the National Human Rights Committee, who suspected that something was amiss in this shooting. The policeman is NOT the victim of ‘Thai bashing’. The NHRC was NOT prompted by foreign journalists.

Indeed the policeman is more the victim of people, such as Commissioner Surasee Kosolnavin, who care deeply about their country and who have the highest principals. The alleged behaviour of Ms. Reisig, true or untrue, months prior to the event had of course nothing to do with the murder.

Mr. Stephen Cleary the ‘blog-spot man’ is quite clearly proud of his work. Internet bloggers and posters demand an audience and rarely admit they are wrong.

Sometimes I can almost feel their indignant flushes of anger trying to burst out of my laptop.

Not long ago the Nation had to withdraw a blog written by a British Embassy official because the site was being bombarded by malicious posters claiming amongst other things that they had seen the Dip ‘in Soi Cowboy with a $5 whore’.

In his Nation ‘piece’ Mr. Cleary did however ask ‘For a change, I'd like the Western media, ‘ to mention the quite obvious fact that Thailand doesn't always attract the nicest kind of foreigner.’ The western press does this, all too frequently many people complain.

But I would like to repeat his warning. Thailand does not always attract the nicest type of foreigner.

.The Nation’s editors should now be able to detect them.

Letter: 2

No hidden agenda in reports on Pai shooting

Andrew DrummondBANGKOK

Re:

“Pai reporter’s comments out of place in ‘ letters’”, Letters, February 11. Oh dear. I am not going to get involved in a rant here on the letters page. So please take this as my final say.

Yet another anonymous correspondent using the first name “Carl” seems to think there is a hidden agenda in the Pai murder.

Carly Reisig has indeed given different accounts to a reporter who interviewed her in Chiang Mai and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the court.

There is no secret here. Both accounts have been published in The Nation. They are not as different as “night and day” but there are discrepancies, which The Nation has properly recorded and which will remain on file.

What is significant in both cases is that she insists the policeman was shooting down at Leo Del Pinto when the policeman put a bullet through his head. So do two independent witnesses whose testimony I was invited to listen to. Their testimony also fits with the forensic evidence.

The policeman’s claim that he was attacked from above is seriously compromised, even without the evidence of Carly Reisig or the other witnesses.

If Carl is suggesting that the NHRC is rigging the evidence, he should take it up with them. I am not holding a torch for anyone but I do trust the people at the NHRC, who might want to ask Carl what his knowledge is of the case or whether he is just another pundit.

There are similarities to the case in Kanchanaburi (though the personalities are widely different). In both cases, police say they were trying to break up an argument between two foreigners. In both cases, they say they were hit by people bigger than them. In both cases, both foreigners were shot. In both cases, the policemen fled the scene. In both cases, they were given extraordinary support by fellow officers. In both cases, the morals of the female victim were questioned.

Of course, when he went to court, the policeman in Kanchanaburi changed it all and said he was not there at all when the shooting happened. It was done by his informant “Mr Yaa”.

If Sergeant Uthai Dechawiwat was knocked to the ground as he claims, this would certainly put the shooting into the “loss of face” category. That of course was speculation and stated as such.

Readers, I am sure, will make up their own minds on all this.

I’m closing this correspondence as another Canadian has been murdered in Ranong.

[Claymore]

Today's report from the court.

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

10/10 to Andrew Drummond.

This is a little more up to date. Just in from AD Dr. of Physics today in a coma after being shot in Chiang Mai....nationality according to tipster..Canadian!

You heard it here first!

[Arkady]

In a January, 2008 editorial published in Chiang Mai CityLife (submitted in December, 2007),[16] anonymous author "A Tourist" eerily anticipates the January, 2008 shooting in his/her strongly-worded objection to excessive police actions in Pai:

From Wikipedia

"I have noticed another significant change over the last year, which is the reason for writing this letter. The method of law enforcement in this small town needs to be seriously examined....I accept that changes are necessary. I also agree that noise pollution should be carefully monitored and controlled, as should drug abuse and any other illegal acts or unpleasant kinds of behaviour, but we ought not to be scared to leave our homes (or guesthouses)! ... One Saturday in particular remains in my memory, where several police officers decided to inspect a party at a bar in town. I believe that they were looking for drugs. I along with many other tourists was especially shocked to see that one officer was carrying a machine gun...This kind of behaviour is likely to scare tourists and leave very negative impressions on them with regards to Pai town as a holiday destination...The police are also actively confiscating mother (sic) vehicles, testing individuals at random for drugs and alcohol abuse, detaining owners of restaurants and bars for remaining open past the agreed time, and generally making a lot of noise in a relatively quiet town that did not appear to have many problems beforehand....The increased police presence is clearly visible and does not, in my opinion, make Pai town look like a place one would like to visit. There is also a general feeling of unrest here and I feel that it is quite obvious to the tourist travelling through. The police are unapproachable and menacing. This has a strong negative impact on the atmosphere here in Pai town. The previously friendly and welcoming town appears to have changed into a place where everyone is afraid to even walk down the street in case they are accused of doing something wrong. Should the police not be employed to protect civilians? Should they not be approachable in case I or someone else requires some help? They are certainly not even close to doing what a police force is meant to do."

[sabaijai]

I don't think 'execution' is the correct term here, as it implies killing by order of someone else (eg, mafia, government, etc). Isn't 'murder' good enough? Not sure there's a crime called 'execution'

execution

noun

1. putting a condemned person to death

2. the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it; "they criticised his performance as mayor"; "experience generally improves performance" [syn: performance]

3. (computer science) the process of carrying out an instruction by a computer

4. (law) the completion of a legal instrument (such as a contract or deed) by signing it (and perhaps sealing and delivering it) so that it becomes legally binding and enforceable

5. a routine court order that attempts to enforce the judgment that has been granted to a plaintiff by authorizing a sheriff to carry it out

6. the act of accomplishing some aim or executing some order; "the agency was created for the implementation of the policy"

7. unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being [syn: murder]

Yup, last in the line, meaning least supported by common usage.

[BarryMan]

Today's report from the court.

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

10/10 to Andrew Drummond.

This is a little more up to date. Just in from AD Dr. of Physics today in a coma after being shot in Chiang Mai....nationality according to tipster..Canadian!

You heard it here first!

I was just about to respond to Arkady's assertion that Reisig's past and her changing version of events has no bearing on this case - they certainly do. They wouldn't justify the shooting but they could establish a past history that would not reflect on Reisig too well and might point to a series of events whereby she provoked the altercation that led to the shooting and the verdict or subsequent might take that into account. BUT those points are not definitive here given the forensics, and the changing police story of events (which, by going from three bullets fired to two, if accounts of that testimony are correct, is even more of a wild account change than that of Reisig), would be enough anywhere to seal up the case against Uthai.

And as Claymore correctly pointed out, the presentation in Thai courts is far more summary than it is in the west (eg. no complete court transcripts are kept, I believe), so they might not get into the details of the completely different events that Reisig gave to English-speaking reporter AD. If AD had that conversation recorded, or kept notes and is a registered journalist etc. (holds the Thai credentials for that) why wouldn't that be admissable? He could, in theory, be asked to testify and say whether or not the initial version of events Reisig outlined differed at all from her NHCR testimony, and that would create doubt around how convenient it is that Reisig's second and very different testimony fell in line completely with that of the two witnesses. It would suggest witness coaching on the part of the prosecution.

As I said before the forensics is so important in this case that AD won't be called on to testify in that regard, and the case seems pretty well sealed up against Uthai because of forensics.

Ok, looks like I did respond to Arkady.

But my initial reason for hitting reply was to ask: WHAT is this about ANOTHER Canadian shot in Chiang Mai! Could this be some dark joke told to Drummond!? I mean come on, it's only February and that makes three!

Any further details?

[Claymore]

I don't think 'execution' is the correct term here, as it implies killing by order of someone else (eg, mafia, government, etc). Isn't 'murder' good enough? Not sure there's a crime called 'execution'

execution

noun

1. putting a condemned person to death

2. the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it; "they criticised his performance as mayor"; "experience generally improves performance" [syn: performance]

3. (computer science) the process of carrying out an instruction by a computer

4. (law) the completion of a legal instrument (such as a contract or deed) by signing it (and perhaps sealing and delivering it) so that it becomes legally binding and enforceable

5. a routine court order that attempts to enforce the judgment that has been granted to a plaintiff by authorizing a sheriff to carry it out

6. the act of accomplishing some aim or executing some order; "the agency was created for the implementation of the policy"

7. unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being [syn: murder]

Yup, last in the line, meaning least supported by common usage.

Think you're struggling a bit here Sabaijai.

RE: Chiang Mai shooting today. Confirmed it is Canadian aged 50. Currently in coma. Police saying it looks like accident. Canadian Embassy official already at hospital. Couple had checked out of Mandarin Oriental Thara Devi at 8am.

[BarryMan]

In a January, 2008 editorial published in Chiang Mai CityLife (submitted in December, 2007),[16] anonymous author "A Tourist" eerily anticipates the January, 2008 shooting in his/her strongly-worded objection to excessive police actions in Pai:

From Wikipedia

"I have noticed another significant change over the last year, which is the reason for writing this letter. The method of law enforcement in this small town needs to be seriously examined....I accept that changes are necessary. I also agree that noise pollution should be carefully monitored and controlled, as should drug abuse and any other illegal acts or unpleasant kinds of behaviour, but we ought not to be scared to leave our homes (or guesthouses)! ... One Saturday in particular remains in my memory, where several police officers decided to inspect a party at a bar in town. I believe that they were looking for drugs. I along with many other tourists was especially shocked to see that one officer was carrying a machine gun...This kind of behaviour is likely to scare tourists and leave very negative impressions on them with regards to Pai town as a holiday destination...The police are also actively confiscating mother (sic) vehicles, testing individuals at random for drugs and alcohol abuse, detaining owners of restaurants and bars for remaining open past the agreed time, and generally making a lot of noise in a relatively quiet town that did not appear to have many problems beforehand....The increased police presence is clearly visible and does not, in my opinion, make Pai town look like a place one would like to visit. There is also a general feeling of unrest here and I feel that it is quite obvious to the tourist travelling through. The police are unapproachable and menacing. This has a strong negative impact on the atmosphere here in Pai town. The previously friendly and welcoming town appears to have changed into a place where everyone is afraid to even walk down the street in case they are accused of doing something wrong. Should the police not be employed to protect civilians? Should they not be approachable in case I or someone else requires some help? They are certainly not even close to doing what a police force is meant to do."

That is in the Wikipedia entry? Terrible! Between Pattaya's entry and that of Pai, Wikipedia makes it seem as if Pattaya is the place to go relax after your visit to the police state of Pai. I like Wikipedia, but it's obviously easy for someone with an agenda, the time and inclination to spin an entry's content completely.

Sabaijai, perhaps you could take a random sampling of 10 people walking down a Pai street and ask each of them to gauge their level of fear while they're doing so. My guess is the risible assertion that the "previously friendly and welcoming town appears to have changed into a place where everyone is afraid to even walk down the street in case they are accused of doing something wrong" would be proven false pretty quickly.

Notice an update from Claymore on the latest Chiang Mai shooting. An accidental shooting? Any idea who the primary players were in it?

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Would be most grateful for the Wikipedia link as the letter was published in my magazine as mentioned, I would just like to see the context it was used in Wiki. Thanks.

Pim

Yes, too many Canadians shot these days, the embassy must be busy indeed. Local press know nothing yet of the Dhara Dhevi shooting and the hotel is tightlipped, odd. Just my tuppence, but AD has in my opinion gone beyond the par in his involvement in cases...helping families find lawyers, keeping in touch with deceased's family over the years to keep them informed, etc. All this without even sensationalising it! News can by nature be sensational, reporters simply report.

[judgedredd]

The Pai Wikipedia Link - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pai,_Thailand

The Wikipedia article is worth reading, especially a long part of the entry entitled “Controversy over Police Conduct”

Judge Dredd

[kat]

I don't think 'execution' is the correct term here, as it implies killing by order of someone else (eg, mafia, government, etc). Isn't 'murder' good enough? Not sure there's a crime called 'execution'

execution

noun

1. putting a condemned person to death

2. the act of performing; of doing something successfully; using knowledge as distinguished from merely possessing it; "they criticised his performance as mayor"; "experience generally improves performance" [syn: performance]

3. (computer science) the process of carrying out an instruction by a computer

4. (law) the completion of a legal instrument (such as a contract or deed) by signing it (and perhaps sealing and delivering it) so that it becomes legally binding and enforceable

5. a routine court order that attempts to enforce the judgment that has been granted to a plaintiff by authorizing a sheriff to carry it out

6. the act of accomplishing some aim or executing some order; "the agency was created for the implementation of the policy"

7. unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being [syn: murder]

Yup, last in the line, meaning least supported by common usage.

Well, obviously common usage is going to vary by frequency and relevance from place to place. Your argument is largely a semantic one anyway, and as we have shown, an incorrect one as well.

[longway]

7. unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being [syn: murder] Yup, last in the line, meaning least supported by common usage.

Well, obviously common usage is going to vary by frequency and relevance from place to place. Your argument is largely a semantic one anyway, and as we have shown, an incorrect one as well.

i dont think it can be called an execution unless it is shown the policeman planned the shooting in advance.

using the word execution is quite a dramatic term to use and gives the wrong idea about the nature of the killing. at this stage it looks like it was done on the spur of the moment.

[kat]

Again, your point is confusing the difference between an incorrect semantic argument, and your opinion. What you think the word should mean and what it actually means are two entirely different issues. You have a problem with how I have chosen to interpret this incident in relation to this word and the context, which again, is a matter of opinion. I used the word correctly.

WordReference.com/definition/execution: (seven different definitions in total, two different meanings for murder and capital punishment)

2 murder, slaying, execution

unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

Category Tree:

act; human action; human activity

╚action

╚change

╚change of state

╚termination; ending; conclusion

╚killing; kill; putting to death

╚homicide

╚murder, slaying, execution

╚hit

╚fratricide

╚dry-gulching

╚assassination

╚lynching

╚slaughter; massacre; mass murder; carnage; butchery

╚elimination; liquidation

╚parricide

╚contract killing

╚bloodshed; blood; gore

3 execution, implementation, carrying out

the act of accomplishing some aim or executing some order; "the agency was created for the implementation of the policy"

Category Tree:

act; human action; human activity

╚group action

╚social control

╚enforcement

╚execution, implementation, carrying out

4 execution, executing, capital punishment, death penalty

putting a condemned person to death

Category Tree:

act; human action; human activity

╚group action

╚social control

╚punishment; penalty; penalization; penalisation

╚corporal punishment

╚execution, executing, capital punishment, death penalty

╚crucifixion

╚decapitation; beheading

╚electrocution; burning

╚hanging

╚burning; burning at the stake

[longway]

Ok believe what you want. Even that mass of golbedygook differentiates between killing and execution.

Its not semantics, its realising that you dont know what has happened, none of us do.

Its not up to you to call this even a murder. The legal defintion of murder I am sure varies, but it is in the end, a deliberate (and sometimes pre-mediated) killing of another human being for no justifiable reason, and this is determined by the courts. An execution is always pre-planned, and using this term can that take the level of unwaranted speculation even beyond the ridiculous level it is at now. Its not fair on the victim or his family.

Perhaps sticking to facts would be warranted by in in future posts by you and others.

Edited February 13, 2008 by longway

[kat]

Its not semantics, its realising that you dont know what has happened, none of us do.

Its not up to you to call this even a murder. The legal defintion of murder I am sure varies, but it is in the end, a deliberate (and sometimes pre-mediated) killing of another human being for no justifiable reason, and this is determined by the courts. An execution is always pre-planned, and using this term can that take the level of unwaranted speculation even beyond the ridiculous level it is at now. Its not fair on the victim or his family.

Perhaps sticking to facts would be warranted by in in future posts by you and others.

Perhaps then you should vacate this thread, as this isn't the courts, it is a public discussion of the facts as they appear. If you don't know what has happened, as none of us fully understand yet as they have been presented, then you are in no better position to judge what is ridiculous, extreme or unfair, and you should wait until the courts interpret it all for you; I'm sure that should clear everything up.

And, you are certainly in no better position to judge my use of vocabulary, as your inability to understand the word reference demonstrates.

This isn't a newspaper or a legal court. This is a discussion board of what mostly amounts to our opinion, based on facts as they appear. It appears to me, both colloquially and practically, that IF further forensic evidence substantiates what has so far been suggested by removed witnesses and early forensic details, that three different discharges were not accidental but in fact deliberate over unarmed people on the ground or in a state of submission, I am well within the range of using the word EXECUTION within in its proper and intended usage.

Perhaps you should more carefully study the meaning of both execution and speculation including your own before you attempt to me lecture me on what I should or should not be discussing here.