Kingpower Talks Back!

[daveh]

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

You are correct, it is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt as many seem to think it is.

You are assuming that all evidence has been presented when only a single video has been shown. I agree with you that it is not probable to make an identification from the video posted, but who says that's the only video? KP has access to other videos in their shop more than likely showing much better images of the faces of the couples. They only posted the video showing the theft, not the video showing the identification.

People keep stressing that they were wearing "different clothes", when in fact they changed their "outerwear" according the KP. This only means they put on a jacket, this does not disprove they are not the couple in the store.

I would hope that KP does not have access to the surveillance videos not in their shops. So I really don't expect them to post video of the guy dumping the wallet or the couple donning jackets.

If the couple detained truly were a couple, then why were they not sitting together?

I agree that all in all, there probably isn't enough evidence to convict them of this theft, but that certainly doesn't mean they are not guilty. I do think there is enough evidence to find against them in a civil case should KP decide to sue them for defamation of character. After all, they have no evidence at all that KP did anything wrong, only the police and their agents.

Dave.

[CRUNCHER]

Does anyone have any idea why they supposedly threw the wallet in the bin?

Because if they had the idea of retrieving it later, they would not be able to as the cleaners are forever emptying the bins at the airport to make sure some idiot doesn't place a bomb in one like was done years ago by the Pattani crowd.

Having seen his wife approached by police, one possibility for disposing of the wallet in this way is that he wanted to avoid being caught with it in his possession. I.e. getting rid of the evidence. Just my thought.

[LaoPo]

I really don't see why this should deserve it's own topic since the video and the explanation has been showed AND discussed into great detail at the main topic.

It's also not the point; the point is -guilty or not guilty- the extortion of enormous amounts of money from the people involved, apart from the fact that they were kept against their will, missed their plane and the amounts are not proportionate to the products involved, whether KP is/was involved or not.

The cases are absurd and would create ENORMOUS bad publicity for the shop owners and (airport/police) staff in every other major airport in the world.

It's very bad publicity -again- for Thailand.

LaoPo

I usually find myself in agreement with most of your posts, but this time I have to disagree. From what I saw of the footage and read of the statements, those people were thieves. They stole the property of someone else; in this case King Power. In my opinion, they deserved what they got. When it comes to theft, it shouldn't matter whether it's a dime or a dollar; the only thing limiting a thief is what he/she thinks they can get away with. If they're willing to steal a dollar, you can bet that they'd steal $1,000 if they thought they could get away with it.

Maybe it's just the way I was raised; but I cannot tolerate a thief. I have no sympathy for a thief what-so-ever. It's tourists like them and other vermin that give the decent farang a hard road to travel.

Thank you.

IMO there are different issues playing here:

1. people stole something (assuming that they did, but there was no court-case so: no prove beyond doubt)and if they're caught they should face the LEGAL consequences. I have no idea what a penalty would be if such a case is taken to court but it could be a stiff penalty, ordered by a Thai Judge. Period.

How much would a Thai have to pay if he stole something in a shop or shopping Mall ?......GBP 8.000 ?

2. The thieves were extortioned OUTSIDE the law, by whomever or whoever. That's against the law in any given country.

3. Kingpower did everything to try and prove the theft after the allegations of extortion. That's their good right.

It would however been a class act if they would have distanced themselves from the extortion and the people who committed the crime of extortion.

They did not and that's disgusting. They only swept and cleaned their own street and let the real crooks get away with the extortion....ready to do it again.

Why didn't Kingpower condemn the extortion ?

Unfortunately, -some- people do indeed steal, worldwide and every day. No excuse for them but to crucify and extort those thieves -OUTSIDE OF THE LAW- is another crime for which there is no excuse.

It's up to everyone to decide which one is more disgusting...the thief or the extortionist.

I know.

LaoPo

[CRUNCHER]

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

Edited July 9, 2009 by CRUNCHER

[ukrules]

(a) Go the system and spend XX years in a sh!tty thai prison...because YOU ARE guilty:

Are you really so stupid to believe that you will spend years in prison for stealing a handbag or any other petty crime ?

[Datsun240Z]

(a) Go the system and spend XX years in a sh!tty thai prison...because YOU ARE guilty:

Are you really so stupid to believe that you will spend years in prison for stealing a handbag or any other petty crime ?

Not if they can shake money from ya!

[caf]

As they were not apprehended leaving the store with the stolen goods there is no case to answer.

CCTV footage alone is not sufficient to convict in a proper court of law.

End of.

According to the statement from KP there was other evidence, as they found the wallet.

Or, rather, they said they found the wallet! Conveniently, they didn't find it on the suspects or see who dropped same in the bin, assuming that it was dropped in the bin. To me, it looks like KP are just desperately trying to cover their backsides. No stolen property found on the 2 suspects, their clothes didn't match the video (so out comes the "changed clothes" fantasy), and no supporting evidence of any kind that the 2 people arrested had anything at all to do with the incident in KP's shop.

Could it be that KP are simply throwing out some red herrings, so that if the sh*t really does hit the fan, they can simply say that it was just a case of mistaken identity?

And how did they fit a complete change of clothing in their hand luggage?

[caf]

As they were not apprehended leaving the store with the stolen goods there is no case to answer.

CCTV footage alone is not sufficient to convict in a proper court of law.

End of.

According to the statement from KP there was other evidence, as they found the wallet.

My first thought would be did they find it on the suspects?

If K.P are fabricating evidence to cover their rear's,false statments,fake cctv,posting this cctv on the web was a big mistake for them.

Any expert with this sort of tech could tell if it's fake or if it's really that couple!

Surely if the british couple have seen this and (if innocent) knowing this is a fake would be seeking a big court date with K.P to

get their £8000 back and then some!!!

Just can't see K.P digging a bigger hole for themself's only to find an expert filling the hole with them in it!

Don't believe that K.P had anything to do with what happened after the police were involved!

Are you talking about Thai courts or western courts. Do you live in thailand

[caf]

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

You've not sat in on a thai court case, have you?

[stumonster]

to crucify and extort those thieves -OUTSIDE OF THE LAW- is another crime for which there is no excuse.

what proof is there of extortion except for the statement by the ingrams ?

we already know that the 200,000 baht they paid for bail was available for them to collect with the correct paperwork .

[loong]

to crucify and extort those thieves -OUTSIDE OF THE LAW- is another crime for which there is no excuse.

what proof is there of extortion except for the statement by the ingrams ?

we already know that the 200,000 baht they paid for bail was available for them to collect with the correct paperwork .

The statement obtained from the Sri Lankan

[Serpico]

The Airport cops want a piece of the tourism scams.

They are simply exploiting a minor infraction so they can line their pockets with hundreds of thousands of Baht in cash.

It's a dumb idea to defraud/terrorize visitors in the internet age.

Victims now can find each other, worldwide and coalesce against you or your business if you don't act ethically.

State departments worldwide are considering a travel advisory for Thailand.

If this is the way Thai Police operate, then tourists should be warned.

Weather it's scam bars in Pat Pong(run by cops) or the cigarette butt cops on Silom and Sukhumvit, to the Police running the gem scam, or the Thong Lor Police doing random searches of Farangs....

They have no respect for visitors or their country.

It's a shakedown by corrupt Police, plain and simple...and it's hurting this country.

[stumonster]

to crucify and extort those thieves -OUTSIDE OF THE LAW- is another crime for which there is no excuse.

what proof is there of extortion except for the statement by the ingrams ?

we already know that the 200,000 baht they paid for bail was available for them to collect with the correct paperwork .

The statement obtained from the Sri Lankan

in which he said the ingrams were extorted

people seem to be quite firm on what rules should apply to the determination of the ingrams guilt or innocence for shoplifting, but then discard those same rules when it comes to determining if they were extorted/scammed .

[loong]

to crucify and extort those thieves -OUTSIDE OF THE LAW- is another crime for which there is no excuse.

what proof is there of extortion except for the statement by the ingrams ?

we already know that the 200,000 baht they paid for bail was available for them to collect with the correct paperwork .

The statement obtained from the Sri Lankan

in which he said the ingrams were extorted

people seem to be quite firm on what rules should apply to the determination of the ingrams guilt or innocence for shoplifting, but then discard those same rules when it comes to determining if they were extorted/scammed .

What does the smiley face next to "in which he said the ingrams were extorted" ?

Yes, In his statement the Sri Lankan said the couple were extorted.

I'm sure that the couple have proof of the money being transferred, so what was it for?

Actually, I'm not sure that many, if any have determined the couple's innocence, yet many have determined them to be guilty.

I have access to the same statements etc as everyone here and I have only determined that we cannot possibly know whether the couple are innocent or guilty of shoplifting. We have seen a poor quality video in which a couple probably stole a wallet. Anyone who claims to be able to positively identify the couple from that video is a liar. If I showed a video of an Asian/Farang couple taken from that angle and such poor quality, I challenge anyone to find that couple in a place like the airport. Especially with some difference in clothing.

Maybe they are guilty, I don't know, but I would certainly not convict them on a pixellated video and flimsy statement from King Power.

[johnsonspot]

A couple of things on this:

1) KP don't have to prove anything to us. We are not the judge or jury. Why would they trot out all their evidence for public consumption? I think they've proven that they had every reason to call security and have the couple taken into custody. What happens beyond that is not KP's business nor their responsibility...even in Thailand.

2) Just in case some of you have forgotten, this is Thailand. Your f*#king British laws don't apply here. I agree with those posters that the couple are lucky they could buy their way out of facing the Thai legal system. Maybe now they will <deleted> and get on with their lives sans ripping people off. Frankly, I hope they DO return to Thailand and insist on their innocence, but I seriously doubt if they will. In the meantime, I see no reason to avoid going into KP shops.

[grantbkk]

IMHO King Power Duty Free is certainly feeling the effects of the bad press. I left the country from Suvarnabhumi on Monday and caught the action firsthand. There were plenty of potential customers but only two Asian tourists with masks were shopping in any of the stores on the concourse until it got a little busier around the "F" security area. There were scores of sad looking King Power representatives watching the parade of passengers shuffling to their flights.

When I returned Thursday evening not one customer was browsing in the arrival area. They should put red lines demarcating the retail space so those that are unfamiliar with the scope and reach of King Power's government influence can safely avoid a potential arrest and subsequent shakedown scam. TOT probably should take the lead when they get back from their latest worldwide junket with their families.

[stumonster]

Yes, In his statement the Sri Lankan said the couple were extorted.

I have not seen a statement where the Sri Lankan claims the couple were extorted.

We have seen a poor quality video in which a couple probably stole a wallet. Anyone who claims to be able to positively identify the couple from that video is a liar. If I showed a video of an Asian/Farang couple taken from that angle and such poor quality,

Andrew Drummond claims to have seen other video footage and says it is the same couple

[Hawk]

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

The guy obviously hasn't seen a court in action. The prosecution simply say that you stole a wallet, then you have to prove that you didn't. Then it gets nasty for you as KP will find a dozen witnesses who saw you put the wallet in your bag. The witnesses are told what to say before they go into court, they will lie as they work for KP and their jobs depend upon it.

So, you won't have a legal leg to stand on, you will be found guilty, whether you did it or not, and to top things off, your sentence will indeed be much harsher for wasting the courts time.

Also, courts in Thailand do not use juries, for small cases, just a single judge, and he is literally your jury, judge and executioner all rolled into one. You don't stand a chance.

[ThaiEye]

An 8,000 pound 'fine' for two people in lieu of going to prison for shoplifting a produce of much value (in Thailand anyway).

According to www.thaiprisonlife.com the average prison sentence for shoplifting at airport duty is a year (cut by half on pleading guilty). I think they are quite fortunate.

Edited July 10, 2009 by ThaiEye

[KASABIAN]

6 months to a year laying on a floor with 70 odd other inmates you can't have a conversation with, farting, scratching their balls and breathing their exhaled air is a snip at 8 grand not to have to go through that hel_l.

[jackspratt]

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

The guy obviously hasn't seen a court in action. The prosecution simply say that you stole a wallet, then you have to prove that you didn't. Then it gets nasty for you as KP will find a dozen witnesses who saw you put the wallet in your bag. The witnesses are told what to say before they go into court, they will lie as they work for KP and their jobs depend upon it.

So, you won't have a legal leg to stand on, you will be found guilty, whether you did it or not, and to top things off, your sentence will indeed be much harsher for wasting the courts time.

Also, courts in Thailand do not use juries, for small cases, just a single judge, and he is literally your jury, judge and executioner all rolled into one. You don't stand a chance.

Can you point out a country that does use juries in "small" cases?

Certainly Australia, UK and the US do not.

[samran]

maybe I've missed it, but have the British couple made a statement regarding the CCTV footage? Or have they gone quiet?

Edited July 10, 2009 by samran

[LaoPo]

I don't know if this has been posted yet but this kind of messages is of great influence in Scandinavia with it's more than 750.000 tourists to Thailand.

Warning: Suvarnabhumi-Scam with terrible consequences

http://www.scandasia.com/viewNews.php?coun...mp;news_id=5547

In the same link someone provided a search in Google:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

Kingpower doesn't seem to understand that the whole case isn't -by far- anymore about someone who stole something -or not-, it's about the follow up extortion (also confirmed by the Danish Embassy with one of their citizens, a Lady, who was forced to pay more than GBP 4,500) and the word -extortion- will be remembered.

Not the theft.

LaoPo

[robblok]

maybe I've missed it, but have the British couple made a statement regarding the CCTV footage? Or have they gone quiet?

Im sure those British criminals are keeping silent. In the good ol days they would have send them to Australia for punishment.

On the serious side im not sure if they are guilty or not but not responding to the CCTV footage does make them look guilty in my eyes.

Myself i'm terrified by the Thai police, if they pull a stunt on you your F****ed. So far i haven't had any problems with them at all and they seem not too bad. Still it does scare me they wield a lot of power.

[LaoPo]

Myself i'm terrified by the Thai police, if they pull a stunt on you your F****ed. So far i haven't had any problems with them at all and they seem not too bad. Still it does scare me they wield a lot of power.

Everybody should!

I've seen a lot of big mouths here on TV, throughout the years, and a lot of Farang Judges screaming: he/she is guilty...put them in prison, but ANYBODY could land in a Thai jail, innocent!

Let me tell a story here which could happen to everybody:

About 25 years ago I had been working in BKK for a week with a very well known factory and known by every single taxi/tuk tuk driver in BKK. On my way to Hong Kong (via very old Don Muang) I was stopped at the passport control.

The guy looked very nasty at me, called a few other brown chaps and they took me...through all kinds of corridors and finally into a room with 4 or 5 guys in brown, with a fan at the ceiling, no aircon (funny I remembered that) and grilled me for 2 hours about every step I made in BKK since my arrival, 5 days earlier, why, how long, with whom, which factory, which hotel - show receipt of payment, where did you eat..... etc. etc. etc.

I was scared to death and the first thought that crossed my mind was: "someone put drugs in my suitcase" because that was the only thing that could have possibly happened, why would they otherwise stop and grill me, being a normal businessman ? I didn't buy anything on the airport, nor any souvenirs in town, nothing!

Not one word WHY they stopped me for the entire 2 hours.

It was hot and I was completely soaked and becoming more and more frightened. After a long time the leading officer shouted at me:

YOU!!!.............no hep entry stamp in passport. HOW COME ??

:D

How the <removed> would I know ?

In those days the passport boys were sitting behind a kind of wooden very high desk (them sitting a lot lower on the other side) who took your passport, study it for a long time and than handed it back to you, closed. Impossible to see what they were doing.

The particular guy in my case didn't stamp my passport with an entry stamp and now they took me to the arrival hall again, passport control, had to stand in line again, with 2 brown guys next to me (...) and had my passport stamped, but not before he changed the date on the stamp, back to the arrival day

That was all but if could have ended a lot worse for me.

The only thing you can do is stay polite at all times and cooperate as much as possible.

That doesn't change my believe: one should be afraid for the police.

LaoPo

[jupiler]

I apologize to King Power for my thoughts.

Looks like professional crooks to me.

Did you read about how they changed clothes, sat separately, and he had the stolen goods on him although she took it??

Change clothing, thats not unusual on an airport, when you come from 30°C and you travel to a country where its only 15°C.

Sitting separately, maybe they had a fight before. And don't wonna talk to eachother.

The people they can see on the pictures whats happening realy for 100%, well they have extremely good eyes.

Its allmost impossible to see, if she realy took the wallet. Because, when she steps in to the shop, she allready has something in her hand.

[Datsun240Z]

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

The guy obviously hasn't seen a court in action. The prosecution simply say that you stole a wallet, then you have to prove that you didn't. Then it gets nasty for you as KP will find a dozen witnesses who saw you put the wallet in your bag. The witnesses are told what to say before they go into court, they will lie as they work for KP and their jobs depend upon it.

So, you won't have a legal leg to stand on, you will be found guilty, whether you did it or not, and to top things off, your sentence will indeed be much harsher for wasting the courts time.

Also, courts in Thailand do not use juries, for small cases, just a single judge, and he is literally your jury, judge and executioner all rolled into one. You don't stand a chance.

I'm not curious if "the judge" would be part of the plan to, with under the table money

[Datsun240Z]

It's apparent that some posters do not understand law nor understand that evidence in a court of law is used by the prosecution to prove their case.

It should not be in a proper functioning legal system, although often is the case in Thailand, up to the accused to prove their innocence. It is up to the prosecution to build a case, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty.

That's how it works. They have not been able to do so in this case to my knowledge.

That the couple were not apprehended while leaving the store with the item, that the cctv footage is inconclusive, that the couple were apprehended in the food court in different clothing, that the couple were not found in possession of the item, and many other factors, ensure the prosecution may not have had sufficient evidence to get a prosecution.

Very plausible scenario, hence the subsequent extortion and lack of due process.

Quite simple and any decent lawyer would have p*ssed this case if the prosecutors were even foolish enough to take it to court.

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

The guy obviously hasn't seen a court in action. The prosecution simply say that you stole a wallet, then you have to prove that you didn't. Then it gets nasty for you as KP will find a dozen witnesses who saw you put the wallet in your bag. The witnesses are told what to say before they go into court, they will lie as they work for KP and their jobs depend upon it.

So, you won't have a legal leg to stand on, you will be found guilty, whether you did it or not, and to top things off, your sentence will indeed be much harsher for wasting the courts time.

Also, courts in Thailand do not use juries, for small cases, just a single judge, and he is literally your jury, judge and executioner all rolled into one. You don't stand a chance.

Can you point out a country that does use juries in "small" cases?

Certainly Australia, UK and the US do not.

The Netherlands for instance.

[Datsun240Z]

Myself i'm terrified by the Thai police, if they pull a stunt on you your F****ed. So far i haven't had any problems with them at all and they seem not too bad. Still it does scare me they wield a lot of power.

Everybody should!

I've seen a lot of big mouths here on TV, throughout the years, and a lot of Farang Judges screaming: he/she is guilty...put them in prison, but ANYBODY could land in a Thai jail, innocent!

Let me tell a story here which could happen to everybody:

About 25 years ago I had been working in BKK for a week with a very well known factory and known by every single taxi/tuk tuk driver in BKK. On my way to Hong Kong (via very old Don Muang) I was stopped at the passport control.

The guy looked very nasty at me, called a few other brown chaps and they took me...through all kinds of corridors and finally into a room with 4 or 5 guys in brown, with a fan at the ceiling, no aircon (funny I remembered that) and grilled me for 2 hours about every step I made in BKK since my arrival, 5 days earlier, why, how long, with whom, which factory, which hotel - show receipt of payment, where did you eat..... etc. etc. etc.

I was scared to death and the first thought that crossed my mind was: "someone put drugs in my suitcase" because that was the only thing that could have possibly happened, why would they otherwise stop and grill me, being a normal businessman ? I didn't buy anything on the airport, nor any souvenirs in town, nothing!

Not one word WHY they stopped me for the entire 2 hours.

It was hot and I was completely soaked and becoming more and more frightened. After a long time the leading officer shouted at me:

YOU!!!.............no hep entry stamp in passport. HOW COME ??

How the <removed> would I know ?

In those days the passport boys were sitting behind a kind of wooden very high desk (them sitting a lot lower on the other side) who took your passport, study it for a long time and than handed it back to you, closed. Impossible to see what they were doing.

The particular guy in my case didn't stamp my passport with an entry stamp and now they took me to the arrival hall again, passport control, had to stand in line again, with 2 brown guys next to me (...) and had my passport stamped, but not before he changed the date on the stamp, back to the arrival day

That was all but if could have ended a lot worse for me.

The only thing you can do is stay polite at all times and cooperate as much as possible.

That doesn't change my believe: one should be afraid for the police.

LaoPo

That's a big hassle for a small thing LaoPo ! I find even today the immigration officer is doing what they want. Last time, I got about 8 days to short on my 60 day tourist stamp, I noticed later, but to late.

[jackspratt]

None of us knows how a court would interpret the evidence because none of us is looking at what a court would see. A lot would depend on how the prosecution presents it's case and how it attacked by the defence. None of us can assess the demenour of the witnesses and form an impression of their truthfulness. We don't even have all the facts that might be presented to a court.

For example it appears they were interviewed by police, but we do not know whether or not they were shown the CCTV footage. If so did they admit or deny it was them? If they did admit it was them the CCTV footage would be strong evidence.

The rest is circumstantial.

Sitting at different tables - not usual behaviour

Change of clothing - the exact details of this need further explanation. Did, for example, they have the clothing shown on the CCTV footage in their possession.

Ingram leaving the restaurant instead of going to see what the police wanted with his wife - very odd behaviour.

The stolen property being found along his line of flight.

We simply do not have all the details of the circumstantial eveidence. How this comes out in court could have would have a bearing on the outcome. A conviction is quite possible and so is an aquittal. There would certainly appear to be a prima facie case.

Most of us, myself included, draw our conclusions on less evidence than a court would have, which is just as well as we don't have to decide whether they are guilty or not. At this point in time I am satisfied they did it, but if I got more information I would be quite prepared to change my view. Even if aqitted by a court this does not mean they did no do it. It means the prosecution could not prove it's case.

I give my views based on whether they did or did not do it not whether they are legally guilty or not. Since this is not going to court that will never be known.

The guy obviously hasn't seen a court in action. The prosecution simply say that you stole a wallet, then you have to prove that you didn't. Then it gets nasty for you as KP will find a dozen witnesses who saw you put the wallet in your bag. The witnesses are told what to say before they go into court, they will lie as they work for KP and their jobs depend upon it.

So, you won't have a legal leg to stand on, you will be found guilty, whether you did it or not, and to top things off, your sentence will indeed be much harsher for wasting the courts time.

Also, courts in Thailand do not use juries, for small cases, just a single judge, and he is literally your jury, judge and executioner all rolled into one. You don't stand a chance.

Can you point out a country that does use juries in "small" cases?

Certainly Australia, UK and the US do not.

The Netherlands for instance.

Yes, the Netherlands for instance has minor cases heard by a single judge, or sometimes a panel of 3 judges.

Is that what you were trying to tell us?

http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/netherlands/courts/courts.php