Two Tourists In Pai Shot By A Police Officer

[seonai]

Regardless of what the situation ... the 'plain clothes policeman' was wrong. A simple arguement does not justify killing/shooting/hurting...

So Sabaijai has evidence that ''Reisig changed her story (for the 3rd or 4th time) to match that of anonymous witnesses, after self-confessed coaching by the DSI'' ...

Where may I ask did he get this information...

[sabaijai]

Regardless of what the situation ... the 'plain clothes policeman' was wrong. A simple arguement does not justify killing/shooting/hurting...

So Sabaijai has evidence that ''Reisig changed her story (for the 3rd or 4th time) to match that of anonymous witnesses, after self-confessed coaching by the DSI'' ...

Where may I ask did he get this information...

Check my previous posts, it's all there, Seonai. Several other members have pointed out how Carly has changed her story, as as her erstwhile champion.

Nothing personal at all, bryangriffin, only interested in the facts. The DSI witnesses are only two among many that were on the scene that night. Of course every Pai witness is tainted, etc. The biases are evident all around.

[thaigene2]

The biases are evident all around.

Yep, they sure are Sabaijai..

Especially from the endless "I hate Carly Club" posters..

[barky]

Now you are accusing the DSI of fitting up the evidence.

Source for that notion is Carly herself.

And you're the newbie who has chosen the name of a semi-famous suicidal Qantas pilot as a nick, and have posted only four times, all in this thread. So how do you happen to be an expert on the case?

Oh really. I thought the source was someone who Carly spoke to in Pai. At least that is your earlier comment.

I joined up to look at this thread after it was brought up in a bar. I'm a semi expert having read now pages 1 to 75, plus all the stuff on CBC, the Canadian papers and the Nation in Bangkok.

As you have this info first hand from Carly no doubt you'll be leaping along to the court to testify or is it a case of 'Its more than my jobs worth'.

Your reference to 'semi-famous suicidal Quantas pilot' is lost on me btw.

And my last and final point on this thread is this. Two independent witnesses and forensic science have already discredited the police story here. It was clearly made up. It is already established that that Ms C is some sort of 'cookie' I (ie she was figting over a dog) but that is irrelevant to the whole story - that two unarmed innocent people were gunned down by a policeman, who to all intents and purposes was drunk. Sounds like you have some personal issue with this girl.

Well said, and I agree. What you have said is the bottom line. No matter what these two did or did not do, they did not deserve what they got. Any reasonabe, fair minded, caring and sensible human being would agree with you. But, as I have stated a while ago, we must remember where we are and remember the kinds of beings we are dealing with here. These curs almost always get away with committing the most heinous crimes on there own kind let alone no-count aliens. Just expecting, or asking for justice here will be totally ignored by almost the entire community. The only, repeat, only way to get any semblance of justice and to greatly reduce the continued assaults and murders on western expats and visitors by the cops and some in the general community here is to use retaliatory means. By that I mean western governments have got to stop sitting on their hands and stop thinking they are dealing with reasonable, fair minded, even Christian valued people. They are not. Make the Thai government /economy/police pay the price for murder. They must demand and get their pound of flesh. If western goverments (Canadian in this case) do little or nothing, then you can absolutely expect this sad event to be repeated many, many times over.

[sriracha john]

The biggest Thai news story of the day, that being the announcement by PM Samak that the extra-judicial drug killings are to recommence, featured prominently in all the main Thai and Western media publications, hasn't yet made it to the News clippings section of Thailand's most read internet forum. Something definitely wrong there.

Try the

1,053 posts and

27,409 views

at

Bringing Thaksin To Account, Extra judicial killings

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92482

Edited February 23, 2008 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

There's that specific thread running in General; a PM request to mod for movement to News Clipping might work?

Personally, I prefer single threads whenever possible on topics, so perhaps more ideally an updated revision to the cited link's thread title.

"Bloating" doesn't seem to affect thread readership/interest.

It's not been the case in this thread, for example.

[BarryMan]

The biases are evident all around.

Yep, they sure are Sabaijai..

Especially from the endless "I hate Carly Club" posters..

That is a very simplistic outlook. What Sabaijai was looking to do is establish a credible account of exactly what happened leading UP TO the shootings. That Carly and Leo were shot is indisputable, horrific, and the officer should be prosecuted fully, but what led up to this is in no way no clear. Carly's changing versions on this story are so different from one day to the next that she has proven herself a completely unreliable witness.

Why hasn't their been any inquiry into how her story changed from "I was walking down the street catching up with my best friend on good times gone by, no arguments, I was just wearing face paint, when this crazy guy came up, hit me, then shot Leo as he tried to protect me, turned, and shot me (paraphrasing all quotes here, but the meaning is the same as original reports)." The local and international media ran with that story as the definitive account of what happened.

That version changed to her most recent account to match up with DSI eyewitness testimony in which she admitted that she had been slugging her boyfriend over not feeding the dog when the officer arrived, he came up, shot her FIRST and then Del Pinto.

What reasonable explanation is there to explain how a woman could confuse who was shot first? How could her two accounts possibly differ so much? That first account was so detailed "Then he turned, took aim, fired at me", and all of it stitched out of whole cloth if the NHCR accounts are to be taken as the last word. And why is the fact that she told a completely false version of events to everyone, including Del Pinto's family (unless she purposefully lied to AD in a bid to throw off the media, then I would assume she told this same bogus version of events from her hospital bed to the Del Pintos), viewed as acceptable?

There are NO black and whites in this one. There is no "I hate Carly Club" with a mission statement to drag her name through the mud, but there also shouldn't be a club that says 'I blindly support everything she says despite the evidence to prove that she has a black record in that town and that she quite obviously lied in the initial account she gave of what happened that night.'

Yes, the cop is wholly responsible for his actions that night; forensics have proven that to me, there is more than a strong case against him based on that alone for those concerned about Thai justice to rest easy. But those interested in getting a clear view of what led up to that incident would like to hear a rational explanation of these things and they don't need to be viewed in the simplistic context of "Noble Tourist Vs. Insane Cop." For some people it doesn't matter, as the end shootings speak the loudest, and I can understand that completely, but I'd like to understand this incident in its full context and take in facts regardless of whether they conform to the biases -- indeed, all too evident -- that certain people have brought to their interpretation of this case.

[Boo]

I thought it had been established that carly had not been provided with an interpretor & that the cops had fuen translate even though he isn't a fully fluent in english or aware of how to translate properly? was mention of it a few posts back i recall. add that with being drunk or tipsy & I wouldn't take her first testimonies as anything more than hung over, scared, confused, in pain & probably on some kind of pain releif & being questioned without an official translator. i.e not worth a lot imo.

[A_Traveller]

Just to add to Boo's point here, Fuen (sp?) was quoted at the time as saying something like, I paraphrase from memory, 'we weren't doing anything which deserved this reaction'. I seem to recall KerryD(?) noting this and since no one had anything meaningful to add it slipped off the collective radar until the fuller statements were made, under affirmation.

So as far as I can see the charge {against Ms Reisig & Fuen} of hiding or making deliberately misleading statements doesn't hold up, especially given the reality of anyone's cognitive state after such an event.

I do find it a little strange that some take the view, that, virtually uniquely in my experiences here, the police are not viewed with, shall we say, wary concern in Pai, especially if one finds oneself 'on the other side of the evidential barrier'.

Regards

[sabaijai]

I thought it had been established that carly had not been provided with an interpretor & that the cops had fuen translate even though he isn't a fully fluent in english or aware of how to translate properly? was mention of it a few posts back i recall. add that with being drunk or tipsy & I wouldn't take her first testimonies as anything more than hung over, scared, confused, in pain & probably on some kind of pain releif & being questioned without an official translator. i.e not worth a lot imo.

One could also say that the greater the time lapse following a crime, the less reliable the testimony is, ie, the more concocted it is likely to become. What about Reisig's earlier statement that she could remember nothing before the actual shooting?

Personally I tend to believe what I heard the week of the shooting direct from eyewitnesses on the scene whom I've known for years. Statements from anonymous witnesses, from the defendant and from the (potential) plaintiff may now be linked to political gaming involving national vs provincial, PPP vs coup regime and who knows what else.

If there are or were witnesses in Pai keeping quiet out of fear of the Pai police, there may now be just as many avoiding public statement out of fear of Bangkok strongarming.

[sabaijai]

The biases are evident all around.

Yep, they sure are Sabaijai..

Especially from the endless "I hate Carly Club" posters..

That is a very simplistic outlook. What Sabaijai was looking to do is establish a credible account of exactly what happened leading UP TO the shootings. That Carly and Leo were shot is indisputable, horrific, and the officer should be prosecuted fully, but what led up to this is in no way no clear. Carly's changing versions on this story are so different from one day to the next that she has proven herself a completely unreliable witness.

Why hasn't their been any inquiry into how her story changed from "I was walking down the street catching up with my best friend on good times gone by, no arguments, I was just wearing face paint, when this crazy guy came up, hit me, then shot Leo as he tried to protect me, turned, and shot me (paraphrasing all quotes here, but the meaning is the same as original reports)." The local and international media ran with that story as the definitive account of what happened.

That version changed to her most recent account to match up with DSI eyewitness testimony in which she admitted that she had been slugging her boyfriend over not feeding the dog when the officer arrived, he came up, shot her FIRST and then Del Pinto.

What reasonable explanation is there to explain how a woman could confuse who was shot first? How could her two accounts possibly differ so much? That first account was so detailed "Then he turned, took aim, fired at me", and all of it stitched out of whole cloth if the NHCR accounts are to be taken as the last word. And why is the fact that she told a completely false version of events to everyone, including Del Pinto's family (unless she purposefully lied to AD in a bid to throw off the media, then I would assume she told this same bogus version of events from her hospital bed to the Del Pintos), viewed as acceptable?

There are NO black and whites in this one. There is no "I hate Carly Club" with a mission statement to drag her name through the mud, but there also shouldn't be a club that says 'I blindly support everything she says despite the evidence to prove that she has a black record in that town and that she quite obviously lied in the initial account she gave of what happened that night.'

Yes, the cop is wholly responsible for his actions that night; forensics have proven that to me, there is more than a strong case against him based on that alone for those concerned about Thai justice to rest easy. But those interested in getting a clear view of what led up to that incident would like to hear a rational explanation of these things and they don't need to be viewed in the simplistic context of "Noble Tourist Vs. Insane Cop." For some people it doesn't matter, as the end shootings speak the loudest, and I can understand that completely, but I'd like to understand this incident in its full context and take in facts regardless of whether they conform to the biases -- indeed, all too evident -- that certain people have brought to their interpretation of this case.

Yes Barryman, that's my point precisely. No one here is saying Sgt Maj Uthai should have shot the tourists or that they in any way deserved to be shot. Questioning testimony from all sides is in no way an 'apology' for the crime or its alleged perpetrator. Presuming that Reisig is automatically a trustworthy witness when she has a history of prevarication (not to mention aggression and violence, relevant in the light of eyewitness statements saying she attacked Uthai first) defies legal logic.

[A_Traveller]

It must be remembered that we all have to deal with data at a level of abstraction, so when someone makes claims about the veracity of their sources, it should be noted that the same conduit reported on the 13th of January herein from personal knowledge that the charges brought against the police officer at that time were one for murder, and one for attempted murder. Unfortunately that report is in disagreement with the statements made during the hearings where it acknowledged that the officer had not been subject to any formal charging process.

Regards

[seonai]

Post #1877 'as as her erstwhile champion' - can you clarify please Sabaijai?

[LoveDaBlues]

Regardless of what the situation ... the 'plain clothes policeman' was wrong. A simple arguement does not justify killing/shooting/hurting...

So Sabaijai has evidence that ''Reisig changed her story (for the 3rd or 4th time) to match that of anonymous witnesses, after self-confessed coaching by the DSI'' ...

Where may I ask did he get this information...

Check my previous posts, it's all there, Seonai. Several other members have pointed out how Carly has changed her story, as as her erstwhile champion.

Nothing personal at all, bryangriffin, only interested in the facts. The DSI witnesses are only two among many that were on the scene that night. Of course every Pai witness is tainted, etc. The biases are evident all around.

I would be shocked if Carly's story DIDN'T change. She was drunk and got shot! Of course her mind would be playing tricks. The only reliable witness (possibly) is Fuen.

The basic facts and forensics should be enough to convict the pathetic little man with a big gun.

[Boo]

I would say the two non-pai resident thai people who came forward of their own accord to give evidence were the most reliable.

IMO even though the people of pai may not be scared of the police & "know what really happened" as none of them are coming forward to defend uthai or even just make statements against carly & her behavior in the interest of background, I'm gonna just stick with believing the chaing mai witnesses for the time being.

[LoveDaBlues]

I would say the two non-pai resident thai people who came forward of their own accord to give evidence were the most reliable.

IMO even though the people of pai may not be scared of the police & "know what really happened" as none of them are coming forward to defend uthai or even just make statements against carly & her behavior in the interest of background, I'm gonna just stick with believing the chaing mai witnesses for the time being.

Yes, I'd agree with this; forgot about those 2 as I haven't been following this thread.

I just hope the relatives involved 'keep up the pressure' and this crime doesn't go unpunished.

[LaoPo]

I would say the two non-pai resident thai people who came forward of their own accord to give evidence were the most reliable.

Were they sober at the time of the late night shooting..... ?

LaoPo

[bryangriffin]

I would say the two non-pai resident thai people who came forward of their own accord to give evidence were the most reliable.

IMO even though the people of pai may not be scared of the police & "know what really happened" as none of them are coming forward to defend uthai or even just make statements against carly & her behavior in the interest of background, I'm gonna just stick with believing the chaing mai witnesses for the time being.

Yes, I'd agree with this; forgot about those 2 as I haven't been following this thread.

I just hope the relatives involved 'keep up the pressure' and this crime doesn't go unpunished.

Totally agree. The Pai witnesses, according to Andrew Drummond in the Nation, gave uncannily similar testimony. They also claimed that it was Leo and Carly who were fighting.

It's also quite clear that when Carly spoke to reporters she did not want to mention any fighting - and technically was correct when she denied fighting Leo. She did not want to involve Fune at all.

In her first interview she said the policeman shot Leo twice and the second shot, he shot down on Leo (same as forensics say) She said the policeman hit her first - as do the independent witnesses.

That really only leaves one major discrepancy and that is the order of the shooting. I can easily see how she could make that mistake, but I'll leave that to the shooting experts to explain.

As for the Pai witnesses I dont think many people believe they are seriously going to give evidence against their local policeman.

Perhaps Sabaijai can enlighten us as to where these witness statements are now btw. Because they have never been aired here, apart from Sj's reported accounts of them. Doe he mean what was written in the Nation?

Its pointless going endlessly on about Carly Reisig as some people seem to want to do. She has given evidence she is out of it now.

[kat]

I would say the two non-pai resident thai people who came forward of their own accord to give evidence were the most reliable.

IMO even though the people of pai may not be scared of the police & "know what really happened" as none of them are coming forward to defend uthai or even just make statements against carly & her behavior in the interest of background, I'm gonna just stick with believing the chaing mai witnesses for the time being.

Yes, and the original Pai witnesses had her fighting with Leo, not Fuen, which also seems to be a major diversion from how the story now stands from both Carly and the independent witnesses. If this is substantiated by the placement of forensics, then it will also follow that many people were revising the story from the beginning, not just Carly.

[sabaijai]

I would say the two non-pai resident thai people who came forward of their own accord to give evidence were the most reliable.

Were they sober at the time of the late night shooting..... ?

LaoPo

They were seen drinking at Be-Bop till it closed. I doubt anyone at the scene was sober.

[BarryMan]

I thought it had been established that carly had not been provided with an interpretor & that the cops had fuen translate even though he isn't a fully fluent in english or aware of how to translate properly? was mention of it a few posts back i recall. add that with being drunk or tipsy & I wouldn't take her first testimonies as anything more than hung over, scared, confused, in pain & probably on some kind of pain releif & being questioned without an official translator. i.e not worth a lot imo.

Boo, you misunderstood my point. You were referring to the testimony that Carly gave police. I don't know about that and haven't read a reliable report on that. What I'm referring to however are her accounts of the events of that night as relayed to AD, whose level of English is top-notch and on whom translation difficulties can not be blamed.

For those who remember only minor variations from story to story, let me refresh your memory on exactly how this terrible evening has morphed in the varying accounts given by Reisig:

First report:

"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. We had never met him before, never seen him before. We were unarmed and walking down the road after a good night out.

"He was dressed in plain clothes, a white T-shirt. Leo shouted at him, 'You can't hit her!' and pushed him away from us. Then the man went to his motorbike 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 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.

"I blacked out and when I came to I saw Leo lying dead on the road beside me. My lungs filled up with blood and I couldn't breathe.

(The next report comes after Reisig's reputation in Pai began to attract attention and once reporters started asking themselves the logical question that they should have been asking from the beginning: Why would the policeman walk up and attack two backpackers without provocation? Her story at this point was beginning to unravel, and her memories started to get conveniently "foggy" at this point) :

Ms Reisig adamantly stuck to her claim that Police Sergeant Major Uthai Dechawiwat was the one who struck the first blow early last Sunday morning as she was walking from the Be-Bop bar in Pai to the Bamboo Bar.

“Things are a bit foggy. I can’t quite remember what happened before the incident, But I can remember everything very clearly from the time that man hit me in the face.

“Leo and I were always messing around and play fighting noisily. We might have even been yelling at each other, play-fighting - but not in anger, it was just our way of kidding around, having fun. We never fought in anger. But even if we were fighting, we weren’t hurting anybody else. It didn’t give anyone the right to shoot us.

(And then, the most recent and I'm guessing final word from Reisig on what happened that night, so unlike both of the prior versions as to seem like they were relayed by a different person entirely.):

Reisig told the court she was on the ground and had been fighting with her boyfriend Ratthapon because she said he had failed to feed her Labrador dog 'Magic'. Leo had tried to separate the couple when a man she knew as Sgt Uthai approached.

"He came and kicked me in my side as I was trying to get up. He was shouting in Thai and pointing a gun at me. I pushed the gun away then he hit me over the head with the gun and I fell to my knees. As I fell he shot me just below the chest.

"I looked up and saw Leo was shouting 'Stop! Stop!' He had his hands in the air. The policeman fell back over a motorcycle then recovered and he fired twice.

After the first time Leo put his hands to his stomach and went down. Then he shot down at Leo as he fell." ---

Yes, I can appreciate that situations of extreme stress and the physical trauma she suffered could account for her having forgotten some of the details of what happened, but I don't believe for a moment that any level of stress would make you forget the order in which you and your companion were shot, details such as whether or not an argument had taken place leading up to it etc. Her two initial accounts, taken down and put in the record by AD, makes it pretty clear to me that she lied. Why pointing this out makes one an "apologist" for the Thai police is beyond my ken. Would it have not been in the best interest of everyone seeking justice in this case for her to have told the truth from the beginning and not to have given a false account to everyone, including the family of the deceased?

Forensics convinced me on this case, not the eye witness testimony.

Edited February 25, 2008 by BarryMan

[bryangriffin]

I thought it had been established that carly had not been provided with an interpretor & that the cops had fuen translate even though he isn't a fully fluent in english or aware of how to translate properly? was mention of it a few posts back i recall. add that with being drunk or tipsy & I wouldn't take her first testimonies as anything more than hung over, scared, confused, in pain & probably on some kind of pain releif & being questioned without an official translator. i.e not worth a lot imo.

Boo, you misunderstood my point. You were referring to the testimony that Carly gave police. I don't know about that and haven't read a reliable report on that. What I'm referring to however are her accounts of the events of that night as relayed to AD, whose level of English is top-notch and on whom translation difficulties can not be blamed.

For those who remember only minor variations from story to story, let me refresh your memory on exactly how this terrible evening has morphed in the varying accounts given by Reisig:

First report:

"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. We had never met him before, never seen him before. We were unarmed and walking down the road after a good night out.

"He was dressed in plain clothes, a white T-shirt. Leo shouted at him, 'You can't hit her!' and pushed him away from us. Then the man went to his motorbike 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 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.

"I blacked out and when I came to I saw Leo lying dead on the road beside me. My lungs filled up with blood and I couldn't breathe.

(The next report comes after Reisig's reputation in Pai began to attract attention and once reporters started asking themselves the logical question that they should have been asking from the beginning: Why would the policeman walk up and attack two backpackers without provocation? Her story at this point was beginning to unravel, and her memories started to get conveniently "foggy" at this point) :

Ms Reisig adamantly stuck to her claim that Police Sergeant Major Uthai Dechawiwat was the one who struck the first blow early last Sunday morning as she was walking from the Be-Bop bar in Pai to the Bamboo Bar.

"Things are a bit foggy. I can't quite remember what happened before the incident, But I can remember everything very clearly from the time that man hit me in the face.

"Leo and I were always messing around and play fighting noisily. We might have even been yelling at each other, play-fighting - but not in anger, it was just our way of kidding around, having fun. We never fought in anger. But even if we were fighting, we weren't hurting anybody else. It didn't give anyone the right to shoot us.

(And then, the most recent and I'm guessing final word from Reisig on what happened that night, so unlike both of the prior versions as to seem like they were relayed by a different person entirely.):

Reisig told the court she was on the ground and had been fighting with her boyfriend Ratthapon because she said he had failed to feed her Labrador dog 'Magic'. Leo had tried to separate the couple when a man she knew as Sgt Uthai approached.

"He came and kicked me in my side as I was trying to get up. He was shouting in Thai and pointing a gun at me. I pushed the gun away then he hit me over the head with the gun and I fell to my knees. As I fell he shot me just below the chest.

"I looked up and saw Leo was shouting 'Stop! Stop!' He had his hands in the air. The policeman fell back over a motorcycle then recovered and he fired twice.

After the first time Leo put his hands to his stomach and went down. Then he shot down at Leo as he fell." ---

Yes, I can appreciate that situations of extreme stress and the physical trauma she suffered could account for her having forgotten some of the details of what happened, but I don't believe for a moment that any level of stress would make you forget the order in which you and your companion were shot, details such as whether or not an argument had taken place leading up to it etc. Her two initial accounts, taken down and put in the record by AD, makes it pretty clear to me that she lied. Why pointing this out makes one an "apologist" for the Thai police is beyond my ken. Would it have not been in the best interest of everyone seeking justice in this case for her to have told the truth from the beginning and not to have given a false account to everyone, including the victim of the deceased?

Forensics convinced me on this case, not the eye witness testimony.

Well that all sounds fairly fair except your conclusion. I totally agree with your last sentence though. Though perhaps Sabaijai will now say the forensics, like the DSI, are making it up as well. The DSI are after all together with Dr.Pornthip at the Ministry of Justice.

We havent yet heard from Sabaijai a definitive account of what the locals are saying. Does it coincide with what they are reported as saying in the Nation as reported by AD. Or does he have a knew version which wil l tell us more than CS is a pathalogical liar. Or indeed is it beyond all oor ken.

[A_Traveller]

The problem with all this is clarity of sources. There were a whole number of 'exclusive' interviews here, in Canada as well, which looked suspiciously like a cut and paste {quite possibly legally} from others, with innuendo, and editorialising adding to the mix, especially the further one got from the source. As I noted above no one posting here has a lock on the truth nor the real train of events which occurred. In principal forensics, provide a independent baseline to work from, key elements in the police officer's tale appear to be at odds with the forensic data {trajectories for example}.

By the by, perhaps we could have a discussion about the body-builder claims, pregnancy claims, {bullet within a few centimetres of the foetus} etc al. Oh, come to think of it we have, but oddly that doesn't warrant repetition. Hm... odd that.

On another tack did anyone really get to the bottom of the oft-quoted 'face painting' or was that a mistranslation of the eye surrounding tattoos?

Regards

PS Loath as I am to make personal references as one who can confirm Churchill's thought Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result I would comment that to expect clarity from those unaccustomed to such a situation would seem to be asking a lot.

Edited February 25, 2008 by A_Traveller

[sabaijai]

There are photos of Reisig taken the day and the night of the shooting that show that her face was painted. Not to be confused with the permanent face tattoo one sees in the hospital photos. One set of photos were taken by a mutual friend in Pai earlier that day, the other taken by the Pai police at the crime scene. I haven't seen any of the pics myself but quite a number of people in Pai have seen them.

[Danielle]

There is a new article up at the link below. I'm a bit confused because the article begins with "But..." so it seems like I am missing the first part of the article, but I couldn't immediately find it.

http://www.chiangmainews.com/ecmn/viewfa.php?id=2121

Trigger Happy

But in addition to local eye witnesses who had supported Uthai's side of the story, a couple from out of town had been present at the scene that night. After seeing Uthai's statement in the Thai media, they came forward to give their account to members of the National Human Rights Commission and officers of the Bangkok-based Department of Special Investigation, explaining they had been afraid to testify before police in the northern region.

According to the couple, Carly Reisig was fighting with her Thai boyfriend, and Leo had been trying to separate the two when Uthai intervened, kicking Reisig and pointing his pistol at her. After Reisig tried to push the gun away, he shot her in the chest; then turned to Del Pinto, shooting him in the face and the stomach. At the time, said the witnesses, Del Pinto had his hands in the air, yelling at Uthai to "Stop! Stop!" The results of forensic testing backed up their account, with Thai forensic expert, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan, declaring: "It's just not possible, what the police say. Evidence shows that the gunman was above Leo when he was shot in the head."

It was only a few weeks after the incident, when a team comprising members of the NHRC, officers from the DSI and a foreign journalist escorted Carly Reisig and her Thai boyfriend to Pai that they discovered no charges had ever been laid against Sergeant Uthai, contrary to police claims. Under their supervision, he was finally charged with murder and attempted murder at the provincial court in Mae Hong Son. His trial is still pending.

With two Canadians involved in the shooting, reporters were all over the story, and it was plastered across both Thai and English language newspapers in the days that ensued. The embassy got involved, as did the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), not to mention the devastated family of John Leo Del Pinto. Thailand's international reputation was at stake, a factor which would certainly have prompted the DSI to clean up quickly.

But though justice may still be served in this case, it is tragic that there is frequently lack of redress when Thailand's own people fall victim to the crimes of authority figures. In cases of police misconduct, errant officials too often enjoy a shocking level of impunity. Countless stories have come to light of gross police misconduct across the nation - excessive force, brutality, torture and murder - including those that have surfaced recently in the media, of repeated offences by Captain Nat Chonnitiwanich and the Border Police Patrol. In most cases of this kind, the perpetrators are either never charged for their crimes at all, or acquitted on technicalities. "It's only in high profile incidents, or ones in which the most determined plaintiffs are involved, that cases are ever seen through to trial," says Nick Cheesman of the Asian Human Rights Commission. Others simply fade into oblivion, never to be heard of again.

One of the most blatant cases in point is that of Human rights lawyer and Chairman of the Muslim Lawyers Association, Somchai Neelapaijit, who 'disappeared' after he was seen being forced into his car in Bangkok in March 2004. Somchai was a vocal opponent of the declaration of martial war on Thailand's southernmost provinces and had been defending five individuals who had been tortured by police. Five police officers were soon identified as being involved in the abduction and damning telephone evidence was submitted to the court, but later deemed inadmissible. Four of the accused were acquitted, and only one was convicted (of coercion and assault) and sentenced to three years in prison. On January 13th, 2006, then-Prime Minister Thaksin admitted that government officials were involved in Somchai's 'disappearance' and told the lawyer's wife that he had been taken to Ratchaburi. It is not known how he came by the information, nor was he never pressed by the DSI or any other investigative body to reveal as such.

In a far less publicised case, that of 17 year old Pharadon Manit from Phuket, the victim's relatives are still waiting for retribution. The boy's father, Siam, says that members of the metropolitan police had hidden alongside the highway to view a motorcycle gang race. He claims that they were drinking, and opened fire on Pharadon as he and his girlfriend - not members of the biker gang - drove by, shooting him in the hip and cervix. According to Siam, rescue workers arrived at the scene but the police were initially unwilling to let them take Pharadon to the hospital. He died shortly afterwards.

The next day, Siam and roughly 100 irate villagers set up a blockade on a major bypass road, halting traffic for four hours, until the Superintendent of Phuket City Police Station came to negotiate with them. He assured them that the suspect would not be allowed to leave the province and would be suspended from duty while the investigation was underway, but they refused to leave until he agreed to a list of additional demands, including that the officer who shot Worawut be dismissed from the police force and pay compensation to Pharadon's family.

That was in April 2007. Following the incident, the officer responsible for Pharadon's death was transferred to Krabi, not dismissed as promised, and in June the same year, he was promoted from Sergeant to Sergeant Major. No trial date has as yet been assigned to the case, and no compensation has been paid to the victim's family.

Cases of this kind are not an anomaly in Thailand. In fact, for many years the subject of police reform has been on the national agenda, without much success. The roots of today's police system go back as far as the 1950s, when the police force was set up by General Phao Sriyanond, a former army general who emerged as a powerful figure after the 1947 coup. Phao saw the police force as a fast route to personal power and fortune, and he created it to serve as such. It carried out paramilitary operations, ran the drug trade, carried out 'forced disappearances' and murders, and was used as a base of political power by Phao and his comrades. In 1980, the Administrative Committee recognised that "the police department is hated and despised by all outside of it" for its acts of corruption and severe human rights abuses. But when Thaksin Shinawatra, himself a former police colonel, came to power in 2001, the power of security forces was extended even further. In his statement announcing his 'war on drugs' policy, Thaksin quoted his predecessor, General Phao, saying: "There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do." He was referring not so much to ability, as impunity. And in August 2003, Thaksin went as far as to implicitly encourage security forces to commit extra-judicial acts of violence when he said: "From now on, if their trafficking caravans enter our soil we won't waste our time arresting them; we will simply kill them."

In January 2007, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont's military government recognised that powerful policing reforms were needed, and stated that it would work to make those changes materialise. Later that year, the government set up a committee to investigate extrajudicial killings that occurred in 2003 during Thaksin's 'war on drugs'. After an investigation that spanned five months, the committee published a report which was never made public, but allegedly stated that 2,819 people were killed between February and April 2003. Of those deaths, 1,370 were related to drug dealing, 878 were not. At least 571 more were killed with no clear rhyme or reason. Despite many assurances that the murderers would be brought to justice, the committee has so far been unable to prosecute even a single one, and police reform has once again been taken off the national agenda.

Today, there are still few channels through which Thai victims of police transgressions can seek justice. The DSI, which was established as a quasi-independent agency, was nevertheless from the beginning overseen by a policeman and, in many cases, has proved ineffectual at bringing those responsible for human rights abuses to justice. Although the Witness Protection Office was established under the justice ministry, its duties fall by default to the police. Small wonder that trials are frequently overturned for lack of evidence, says Nick Cheesman, with witness protection largely in the hands of the police. "There is so much fear and intimidation amongst Thai people when dealing with any case involving a police officer," he explains. "Police officers have good local networks, so they generally know when someone starts asking questions, and so most people are reluctant to come forward to give evidence against them. And who can blame them? When you're faced with a choice of either accepting a bribe or possibly being tortured to death, it's not surprising that most witnesses buckle."

A case which vividly illustrates the climate of fear in which Thai witnesses live is that of Kalasin Province, in North Eastern Thailand. Kalasin is particularly sinister for its sheer scope: the Asian Human Rights Commission alone has identified some 24 killings between 2004 and 2006. The true number is thought to be far higher - some bodies have never been found; others have been reduced to ashes before proper identification. In many of the cases, victims were young or underage individuals accused of motorbike theft, drug dealing or other small crimes. Add to this the cruelty of the methods employed (many of the victims were tortured to death, and had their testicles burned, crushed or electrocuted) and things start to look very ugly indeed.

With the sole exception of Kietisak Thitboonkrong's case, the DSI has not deemed the Kalasin killings to be worthy of their attention. After examining the evidence in Kietisak's case, DSI officials conceded that there appeared to be a pattern amongst the Kalasin killings, including similarities in the way ropes had been tied around the necks of the victims and in the methods used to cover up the crimes. However, despite ongoing investigations, strong evidence against the police and repeated calls by human rights organisations for the prosecution of those involved, no officers have as yet been charged for the crimes.

When Kietisak was 16 years old, he was charged with motorcycle theft, and despite his claims that he had been tortured and his confession forced, was sentenced to one year in jail. After serving his time, he returned to Kalasin and went to live with his grandmother, Sa, not far from the local police station. On 16th July 2004, when he didn't come home, a neighbour told Sa that he had again been arrested for motorcycle theft. The next day, the police took her to watch Kietisak being interrogated at the public prosecutor's office. That was the last time she saw Kietisak alive. The next day, the police called her to say that his bail had been posted by a municipal official. She went to wait at the police station for her grandson's release, but at around 5 p.m. the police told her to go home and that they would contact her when he was free to go. Roughly an hour later, Kietisak called her and told her in a trembling voice: "They didn't tell the truth to you Grandma. They are going to take me away and kill me. Hurry come and help me, I'm on the second floor." After that the line went dead.

At the police station, Sa was told by a high ranking police officer that Kietisak had already been released. She could hear her grandson crying out from above, but the police refused to allow her up to the second floor.

A few days later, on July 26, a police officer came to tell Sa that Kietisak's body had been found some 30 kilometres away. Witnesses who had seen his body being recovered said that the boy's feet were not dirty, despite the fact that the surrounding area was muddy due to the monsoon weather. Sa took the body to the Central Institute of Forensic Science in Bangkok, who told her that Kietisak had been tortured to death. His body appeared to have been dragged along the ground by the neck and by handcuffs, causing deep cuts on his wrists. His body was covered with wounds and his testicles had been crushed.

On 29th July, the police phoned the witness whose phone Kietisak had borrowed to call his grandmother. They told her that the phone was police property and that she was to tell that to anyone who asked her about it. When she replied, "I'll say whatever I saw," she was told "Go ahead. If you talk, you'll hang like that kid."

So what makes the perpetrators of such crimes, holders of authority positions, behave in such a way? "Violence is a basic drive of mankind," says Dr Paritat Silpakit of Suan Prung Psychiatric Hospital. "And the fact that policemen carry guns makes it more likely that they will express violence through that medium." He also believes that stress and other mental problems play a role in some cases of police violence. "Many policemen are under a great deal of stress due to the nature of their work and relative lack of remuneration, and in some cases it gets to the point that they no longer control their reaction. That is not to excuse the violence, but it can help to explain it." Because of Thailand's gender and cultural norms, Dr Paritat believes it is difficult for male police officers to admit to having emotional issues and so, instead, many of them deal with their problems by drinking. "By WHO standards, probably as much as 50 per cent of Thai policemen suffer from alcohol problems, but sadly, hardly any of them come to seek help," he says.

Cheesman agrees that stress may play a role in police misconduct, saying the dependency of the Thai police on self-financing naturally breeds stress and corruption, but he maintains that the problem runs deeper than this, and that it is not so much individuals who are to blame for police atrocities, but the very system itself and the policies that keep it in place that are at fault. "Thailand's historical background has caused policing problems to become very firmly entrenched. The same in-built problems have existed since 1950, and the culture of fear means that nobody wants to take these issues head on - so the system just keeps on replicating itself."

These stories, and the scores of others like them, are clear evidence that Thailand's police system needs a major overhaul. But exactly what needs to be done to institute the necessary changes? The AHRC believes the solution must include a combination of legal and institutional reforms, the establishment of an entirely independent complaints mechanism for victims and witnesses, and an increased onus on superior officers to take responsibility for the acts of their subordinates. But most of all, says Cheesman, it is essential that the Thai government don't ignore the dark elements in its security agencies. "When you go about denying that atrocities happen, how do you understand the concept of crime itself?" he asks. "When the state declines to take responsibility for an accurate record of criminality, declines to deal appropriately with those acts that do occur, declines to create a historical basis for what happened, then how do we understand events in 20 years time? And how do we establish what has been learned from them?"

Recently, Thailand's newly elected Interior Minister, Chalerm Yubumroong, also a former a police officer, announced that he would be launching the third phase of the 'war on drugs' - a war in which over 2000 people have so far been killed, many of them by police officials. His announcement comes in the light of statements by anti-drug organisations that the war has done nothing to solve the problems associated with narcotics - only forced them underground. But not one member of Thailand's new government has yet voiced any concern about those countless acts of violence committed by members of Thailand's security forces, nor any intention to bring them to justice. It seems, for now at least, that denial will remain the government's preferred tactic and the real criminals will remain at large, protected by their badges and the guns at their sides.

[seonai]

Goog God I am shocked. And absolutely stunned at such an informative piece being in a Thai publication!!! Well done John Thaw...

Speechless

[bryangriffin]

I thought it had been established that carly had not been provided with an interpretor & that the cops had fuen translate even though he isn't a fully fluent in english or aware of how to translate properly? was mention of it a few posts back i recall. add that with being drunk or tipsy & I wouldn't take her first testimonies as anything more than hung over, scared, confused, in pain & probably on some kind of pain releif & being questioned without an official translator. i.e not worth a lot imo.

One could also say that the greater the time lapse following a crime, the less reliable the testimony is, ie, the more concocted it is likely to become. What about Reisig's earlier statement that she could remember nothing before the actual shooting?

Personally I tend to believe what I heard the week of the shooting direct from eyewitnesses on the scene whom I've known for years. Statements from anonymous witnesses, from the defendant and from the (potential) plaintiff may now be linked to political gaming involving national vs provincial, PPP vs coup regime and who knows what else.

If there are or were witnesses in Pai keeping quiet out of fear of the Pai police, there may now be just as many avoiding public statement out of fear of Bangkok strongarming.

Now we are really in the realms of fantasy. 'Political gaming, national police, PPP' Get a grip. National police have never been involved. Where do the PPP and the coup regime come into this? Bangkok strong arming by the Thai Human Rights Committee. This is unadulterated cr*p and you should know better. Take a read of the Chiang Mai city life article. There is the reality.

[Briggsy]

seonai Posted Today, 2008-03-01 02:39:58

Goog God I am shocked. And absolutely stunned at such an informative piece being in a Thai publication!!! Well done John Thaw...

Speechless

To be fair to the Thai English-language press, all the stories in this Chiang Mai City News piece have been printed in the Bangkok Post at one time or another either in the News section or the Perspective or Outlook sections.

What the piece does is demonstrate a pattern of behaviour to show the reader the culture of impunity that the police here enjoy. So it's not surprising to find these pieces as they have been written regularly in many publications.

What is surprising is when a Thai publication undertakes investigative journalism of police misbehaviour and publishes the results of the investigation without waiting for an official police statement. These stories are rare indeed. This is not the case here as these stories are all the subject of ongoing or concluded investigations.

[bryangriffin]

seonai Posted Today, 2008-03-01 02:39:58

Goog God I am shocked. And absolutely stunned at such an informative piece being in a Thai publication!!! Well done John Thaw...

Speechless

To be fair to the Thai English-language press, all the stories in this Chiang Mai City News piece have been printed in the Bangkok Post at one time or another either in the News section or the Perspective or Outlook sections.

What the piece does is demonstrate a pattern of behaviour to show the reader the culture of impunity that the police here enjoy. So it's not surprising to find these pieces as they have been written regularly in many publications.

What is surprising is when a Thai publication undertakes investigative journalism of police misbehaviour and publishes the results of the investigation without waiting for an official police statement. These stories are rare indeed. This is not the case here as these stories are all the subject of ongoing or concluded investigations.

Absolutely true, but they are printed and forgotten about, and no-one follows them to their proper conclusion. Of course if you do you'll always get the conspicary theorists in the tourism business.

[bryangriffin]

seonai Posted Today, 2008-03-01 02:39:58

Goog God I am shocked. And absolutely stunned at such an informative piece being in a Thai publication!!! Well done John Thaw...

Speechless

To be fair to the Thai English-language press, all the stories in this Chiang Mai City News piece have been printed in the Bangkok Post at one time or another either in the News section or the Perspective or Outlook sections.

What the piece does is demonstrate a pattern of behaviour to show the reader the culture of impunity that the police here enjoy. So it's not surprising to find these pieces as they have been written regularly in many publications.

What is surprising is when a Thai publication undertakes investigative journalism of police misbehaviour and publishes the results of the investigation without waiting for an official police statement. These stories are rare indeed. This is not the case here as these stories are all the subject of ongoing or concluded investigations.

Absolutely true, but they are printed and forgotten about, and no-one follows them to their proper conclusion. Of course if you do you'll always get the conspicary theorists in the tourism business.

Chiang Mai Citylife has been setting new standards in journalism here for quite some time and still keeping the advertising. No mean feat. John Thaw (Guess this could be John Shaw)