Australian Arrested And Charged With Sexually Abusing A 7-Year-Old Thai Boy

[Buchholz]

The accused:

Manager News (Thai) - Nov. 9, 2012

http://www.manager.co.th/Crime/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9550000137203

[DocN]

I stumbled onto this last week...by accident...but found it an interesting watch.

http://youtu.be/IEt3-kuVl5Y

Let me say this:

the guy in the OP is innocent until proven guilty. Too many people have been set up, falsly accused of many things (not only pedophillia) so...once he is convicted, let's hope he get's his punishment.

Even if he is convicted, I would always let justice take it's course and I am always and at all times against the death- penalty, for any crime!

No- the point "imagine you be a father...would you think the same" doesn't count! I am NOT a father, so I have no clue!

But...I had a girlfriend back in Germany and she was a rape- victim. Not even she wanted to see the guy dead, who did that to her and that should teach everybody a lesson. If the victim can forgive, who am I to ask for retribution.

And before some have a go at me: just trying to think about a problem in depth and come to different conclusions, does not make me an apologist. I hope, if he did, what he is accused of, they will lock him away.

'nuff said!

[MEL1]

I can't believe how many people are living in the world of assumption here when nothing is proven yet, and there is no guilty verdict or sentence.

You're all so so wise when it comes to law aren't you?

NNOOOTTTTT!

Pathetic, I say. Totally pathetic precursor judges of no information, ye great assumers.

-mel.

[MEL1]

What puzzles me is why, if the AFP knew about him beforehand, he was allowed to travel to Thailand. If that is the case then they should be condemned for allowing the abuse of the 7-year old.

I, like Gentleman Jim, am absolutely disgusted at Blether's posts accusing those who do not jump on the 'hang him high' bandwaggon as pedophiles or pedophile supporters. This is a symptom of a sick mind.

Normal rules of justice allow for an accused to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. If he is guilty, he should be punished to the extent of the law. I have no time for pedophiles but a similar strong dislike for wild west 'justice'.

I'm afraid not. Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt. Assumption of innocence is limited to the jury when the accused is in the court room and in front of a jury during trial. If one thinks about it, the justice system could not effectively function any other way. The accused, in this case, has been tried by the Court of Thai Visa and found guilty ... by some, anyway.

Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt?

What?

Which rock did you surface from out under?

Seriously, which country are you from? Show me your country's justice system rule which quotes normal rules are to presume guilt!

You're scary in your outlook.

-mel.

[theblether]

I stumbled onto this last week...by accident...but found it an interesting watch.

http://youtu.be/IEt3-kuVl5Y

Let me say this:

the guy in the OP is innocent until proven guilty. Too many people have been set up, falsly accused of many things (not only pedophillia) so...once he is convicted, let's hope he get's his punishment.

Even if he is convicted, I would always let justice take it's course and I am always and at all times against the death- penalty, for any crime!

No- the point "imagine you be a father...would you think the same" doesn't count! I am NOT a father, so I have no clue!

But...I had a girlfriend back in Germany and she was a rape- victim. Not even she wanted to see the guy dead, who did that to her and that should teach everybody a lesson. If the victim can forgive, who am I to ask for retribution.

And before some have a go at me: just trying to think about a problem in depth and come to different conclusions, does not make me an apologist. I hope, if he did, what he is accused of, they will lock him away.

'nuff said!

So the Australian police set this guy up? They randomly kicked down his door, stole his electrical devices, planted paedophilia on them, sent an advert of a naked 15 year old to the press in his name blah blah.

Give it a rest......it's getting pathetic.

[khunken]

What puzzles me is why, if the AFP knew about him beforehand, he was allowed to travel to Thailand. If that is the case then they should be condemned for allowing the abuse of the 7-year old.

I, like Gentleman Jim, am absolutely disgusted at Blether's posts accusing those who do not jump on the 'hang him high' bandwaggon as pedophiles or pedophile supporters. This is a symptom of a sick mind.

Normal rules of justice allow for an accused to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. If he is guilty, he should be punished to the extent of the law. I have no time for pedophiles but a similar strong dislike for wild west 'justice'.

I'm afraid not. Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt. Assumption of innocence is limited to the jury when the accused is in the court room and in front of a jury during trial. If one thinks about it, the justice system could not effectively function any other way. The accused, in this case, has been tried by the Court of Thai Visa and found guilty ... by some, anyway.

Not quite. I agree with your last sentence, but normal rules of justice here in Thailand (& Australia) presume innocence. No jury trials here as I'm sure you know, but no one is presumed guilty before trial. How the Thai police treat an accused is a different story as money speaks louder than any legal niceties with the BIB.

[lizardtongue]

Nice work AFP.

---------- What about giving some cdedit to the Thai police for their part

You must be new to Thai Visa.

Thai police seem to spend a great deal of time apprehending people who "slipped through the fingers" of police in other countries and in assisting police from other jurisdictions , as in this case, but of course it would kill some people to acknowledge that.

"On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conducted a search warrant at the man's residential address in Sydney seizing electronic devices. AFP officers subsequently referred information about the man's suspected activities to the Royal Thai Police, as information obtained identified the man was currently in Thailand," the AFP said.

The way this reads (to me) is that the Australian Federal Police whilst conducting a search of this guys property (who at the time was on holiday in Thailand), identified that he was responsible for sexually assaulting the Thai lad (whilst in Thailand), subsequent inquiries revealed that the man was still in Thailand.

The AFP then passed the information (evidence) on to the Royal Thai Police, all they had to do was to 'pick him up' the only fingers he was going to slip through would have been the Thai police/customs!

Prompt action by the AFP prevented this predator from escaping, also prevented lengthy and costly extradition process, that is assuming the Thai kid had come forward and reported it, and the Thai police had traced the perpetrator back to Australia!

Agree with you credit where credit is due WELL DONE AFP!

[MaxYakov]

What puzzles me is why, if the AFP knew about him beforehand, he was allowed to travel to Thailand. If that is the case then they should be condemned for allowing the abuse of the 7-year old.

I, like Gentleman Jim, am absolutely disgusted at Blether's posts accusing those who do not jump on the 'hang him high' bandwaggon as pedophiles or pedophile supporters. This is a symptom of a sick mind.

Normal rules of justice allow for an accused to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. If he is guilty, he should be punished to the extent of the law. I have no time for pedophiles but a similar strong dislike for wild west 'justice'.

I'm afraid not. Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt. Assumption of innocence is limited to the jury when the accused is in the court room and in front of a jury during trial. If one thinks about it, the justice system could not effectively function any other way. The accused, in this case, has been tried by the Court of Thai Visa and found guilty ... by some, anyway.

Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt?

What?

Which rock did you surface from out under?

Seriously, which country are you from? Show me your country's justice system rule which quotes normal rules are to presume guilt!

You're scary in your outlook.

-mel.

Third rock from the sun, just like (presumably) you. I should have written 'the justice system' rather than just 'justice'. In your case it probably would not have made any difference what I wrote past the second sentence.

The Wiki entry ( http://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence ) for 'Presumption of Innocence' begins with this paragraph (citations, hyperlinks and some underlining have been removed):

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted".

Note that it says: "The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial" (emphasis mine). Also note that is only "recognised by many nations".

Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else). This is what keeps jail guards in employment and bail bondsmen in business. Anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial, will see my point.

Edited November 10, 2012 by MaxYakov

[khunken]

What puzzles me is why, if the AFP knew about him beforehand, he was allowed to travel to Thailand. If that is the case then they should be condemned for allowing the abuse of the 7-year old.

I, like Gentleman Jim, am absolutely disgusted at Blether's posts accusing those who do not jump on the 'hang him high' bandwaggon as pedophiles or pedophile supporters. This is a symptom of a sick mind.

Normal rules of justice allow for an accused to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. If he is guilty, he should be punished to the extent of the law. I have no time for pedophiles but a similar strong dislike for wild west 'justice'.

I'm afraid not. Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt. Assumption of innocence is limited to the jury when the accused is in the court room and in front of a jury during trial. If one thinks about it, the justice system could not effectively function any other way. The accused, in this case, has been tried by the Court of Thai Visa and found guilty ... by some, anyway.

Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt?

What?

Which rock did you surface from out under?

Seriously, which country are you from? Show me your country's justice system rule which quotes normal rules are to presume guilt!

You're scary in your outlook.

-mel.

Third rock from the sun, just like (presumably) you. I should have written 'the justice system' rather than just 'justice'. In your case it probably would not have made any difference what I wrote past the second sentence.

The Wiki entry ( http://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence ) for 'Presumption of Innocence' begins with this paragraph (citations, hyperlinks and some underlining have been removed):

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted".

Note that it says: "The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial" (emphasis mine). Also note that is only "recognised by many nations".

Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else). This is what keeps jail guards in employment and bail bondsmen in business. Anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial, will see my point.

That is a total distortion of what Wiki says. Just because a person is arrested or detained for questioning does not in any way remove the presumption of innocence up to the verdict. In most justice systems even being found guilty is not the final verdict if the accused appeals. The fact that TV posters ignore the presumption of innocence is sad & only reflects on their misplaced viewpoint.

The correct term to apply to someone arrested or detained is 'the alleged perpetrator'.

[MaxYakov]

I'm afraid not. Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt. Assumption of innocence is limited to the jury when the accused is in the court room and in front of a jury during trial. If one thinks about it, the justice system could not effectively function any other way. The accused, in this case, has been tried by the Court of Thai Visa and found guilty ... by some, anyway.

Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt?

What?

Which rock did you surface from out under?

Seriously, which country are you from? Show me your country's justice system rule which quotes normal rules are to presume guilt!

You're scary in your outlook.

-mel.

Third rock from the sun, just like (presumably) you. I should have written 'the justice system' rather than just 'justice'. In your case it probably would not have made any difference what I wrote past the second sentence.

The Wiki entry ( http://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence ) for 'Presumption of Innocence' begins with this paragraph (citations, hyperlinks and some underlining have been removed):

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted".

Note that it says: "The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial" (emphasis mine). Also note that is only "recognised by many nations".

Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else). This is what keeps jail guards in employment and bail bondsmen in business. Anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial, will see my point.

That is a total distortion of what Wiki says. Just because a person is arrested or detained for questioning does not in any way remove the presumption of innocence up to the verdict. In most justice systems even being found guilty is not the final verdict if the accused appeals. The fact that TV posters ignore the presumption of innocence is sad & only reflects on their misplaced viewpoint.

The correct term to apply to someone arrested or detained is 'the alleged perpetrator'.

Gee, don't I get presumption of innocence w/r to the alleged distortion of the Wiki entry? It's more likely that the Wiki entry itself is distorted, doncha think? Thanks for apprising me of the correct term for the '[un]usual suspect'. Now, would the 'the' be capitalized as 'The alleged perpetrator'? I prefer the short form: 'perp', but maybe that's just me.

Signed: A Person of Disinterest

Edited November 10, 2012 by MaxYakov

[MEL1]

What puzzles me is why, if the AFP knew about him beforehand, he was allowed to travel to Thailand. If that is the case then they should be condemned for allowing the abuse of the 7-year old.

I, like Gentleman Jim, am absolutely disgusted at Blether's posts accusing those who do not jump on the 'hang him high' bandwaggon as pedophiles or pedophile supporters. This is a symptom of a sick mind.

Normal rules of justice allow for an accused to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. If he is guilty, he should be punished to the extent of the law. I have no time for pedophiles but a similar strong dislike for wild west 'justice'.

I'm afraid not. Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt. Assumption of innocence is limited to the jury when the accused is in the court room and in front of a jury during trial. If one thinks about it, the justice system could not effectively function any other way. The accused, in this case, has been tried by the Court of Thai Visa and found guilty ... by some, anyway.

Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt?

What?

Which rock did you surface from out under?

Seriously, which country are you from? Show me your country's justice system rule which quotes normal rules are to presume guilt!

You're scary in your outlook.

-mel.

Third rock from the sun, just like (presumably) you. I should have written 'the justice system' rather than just 'justice'. In your case it probably would not have made any difference what I wrote past the second sentence.

The Wiki entry ( http://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence ) for 'Presumption of Innocence' begins with this paragraph (citations, hyperlinks and some underlining have been removed):

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted".

Note that it says: "The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial" (emphasis mine). Also note that is only "recognised by many nations".

Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else). This is what keeps jail guards in employment and bail bondsmen in business. Anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial, will see my point.

To quote you again, you say, "Note that it says: "The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial" (emphasis mine). Also note that is only "recognised by many nations".

Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else). This is what keeps jail guards in employment and bail bondsmen in business. Anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial, will see my point."

------------- wiki says quite clearly, "The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted."

How do you get "only many nations"?, when wiki cleary says many nations? Do you think many is only a few?

Then you say it doesn't give the accused the benefit of the doubt - which it clearly states it does.

Did you every study comprehension?

You have a bizarre opinion of what clearly states the accused is treated as innocent until proven guilty, and not as you finish with, "Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else)."

-mel.

[khunken]

Max YaKov:

Gee, don't I get presumption of innocence w/r to the alleged distortion of the Wiki entry? It's more likely that the Wiki entry itself is distorted, doncha think? Thanks for apprising me of the correct term for the '[un]usual suspect'. Now, would the 'the' be capitalized as 'The alleged perpetrator'? I prefer the short form: 'perp', but maybe that's just me.

Signed: A Person of Disinterest

OK, alleged distortion. Better? For a person of disinterest, you have had a lot to say on this thread. No, I don't think that the Wiki entry is distorted. Incidentally, perpetrator is just the generic term - in this case it's 'the alleged pedophile' (or pedo if you prefer). I'm not trying to be arrogant - just argumentative.

[chooka]

Nice work AFP.

---------- What about giving some cdedit to the Thai police for their part

Oh yes Somchai answered the phone and spoke to a detective in Australia who called to inform them of what the guy was up to. Nice work BIB..

[MaxYakov]

I'm afraid not. Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt. Assumption of innocence is limited to the jury when the accused is in the court room and in front of a jury during trial. If one thinks about it, the justice system could not effectively function any other way. The accused, in this case, has been tried by the Court of Thai Visa and found guilty ... by some, anyway.

Normal rules of justice are to presume guilt?

What?

Which rock did you surface from out under?

Seriously, which country are you from? Show me your country's justice system rule which quotes normal rules are to presume guilt!

You're scary in your outlook.

-mel.

Third rock from the sun, just like (presumably) you. I should have written 'the justice system' rather than just 'justice'. In your case it probably would not have made any difference what I wrote past the second sentence.

The Wiki entry ( http://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence ) for 'Presumption of Innocence' begins with this paragraph (citations, hyperlinks and some underlining have been removed):

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted".

Note that it says: "The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial" (emphasis mine). Also note that is only "recognised by many nations".

Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else). This is what keeps jail guards in employment and bail bondsmen in business. Anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial, will see my point.

To quote you again, you say, "Note that it says: "The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial" (emphasis mine). Also note that is only "recognised by many nations".

Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else). This is what keeps jail guards in employment and bail bondsmen in business. Anyone who has been arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial, will see my point."

------------- wiki says quite clearly, "The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted."

How do you get "only many nations"?, when wiki cleary says many nations? Do you think many is only a few?

Then you say it doesn't give the accused the benefit of the doubt - which it clearly states it does.

Did you every study comprehension?

You have a bizarre opinion of what clearly states the accused is treated as innocent until proven guilty, and not as you finish with, "Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt (and often neither does anyone else)."

-mel.

I stated: only "recognised by many nations". Meaning not all nations, implying that one should check the local laws.

I stated: Until that trial occurs, the justice system, in practice, does not give the accused the benefit of the doubt ... you omitted the crucial, in practice, to make your point, I suppose. There are differences between principle and practice. That having been said, how would you propose to enforce or ensure the presumption of innocence principle outside-of or prior-to the criminal trial?

Did I 'every [sic] study comprehension'? I don't know (not sure if I comprehend the question), but I did have a quick course in spelling. Now please stop mangling what I write and attempting to use the result to support your case.

[MaxYakov]

Max YaKov:

Gee, don't I get presumption of innocence w/r to the alleged distortion of the Wiki entry? It's more likely that the Wiki entry itself is distorted, doncha think? Thanks for apprising me of the correct term for the '[un]usual suspect'. Now, would the 'the' be capitalized as 'The alleged perpetrator'? I prefer the short form: 'perp', but maybe that's just me.

Signed: A Person of Disinterest

OK, alleged distortion. Better? For a person of disinterest, you have had a lot to say on this thread. No, I don't think that the Wiki entry is distorted. Incidentally, perpetrator is just the generic term - in this case it's 'the alleged pedophile' (or pedo if you prefer). I'm not trying to be arrogant - just argumentative.

Thanks. I should have signed it: "Not a Person of Interest", apparently, to eliminate the ambiguity. Cheers!

PS: I forgot to mention the presumption of innocence principle at it applies to farangs in Thailand ... or do I really have to go there?

Edited November 10, 2012 by MaxYakov

[Beetlejuice]

SCUM OF THE EARTH !!!! Lock him up and throw the key away so he can rot with the other pedo's.

We don`t know for sure.

It is possible and I mean possible with a capital P, that this guy was elaborately set up.

For example, I often give the local kids in my area some pocket money, but when doing so I ALWAYS, take my wife with me or ensure that the childrens parents are present when I hand the children money, than just smile and walk away.

Of course there are some sick, twisted, perverted monsters around that really do deserve to be burned at the stake, but also, elderly naive farang, in the company of children = possible exploitation and extortion.

To be fair and to ensure that this guy does receive real justice whether he is guilty or not, I do hope that the police and the courts will take all that I have mentioned above into consideration.

[sirchai]

The investigation began in October after Thai police received a tip-off from AFP detectives.

​ The tip came from one of my father in law's buffaloes.

[chooka]

Police intelligence units in Australia had allegedly uncovered the photos on the internet and the information was passed on to the AFP, who then contacted Thai authorities.

Potterton denies the charges.

"I'm disgusted with the Australian Federal Police's sending of photos of a non-sexual nature regarding my time in Thailand and letting the Thai police (know) that they should possibly act on this," Potterton told AAP at the police headquarters.

"It is reprehensible behaviour by the Australian Federal Police."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2012/11/09/21/00/australian-facing-thai-pedophile-charges

[softgeorge]

Something doesn't sound right - he's just returning home now after 2 weeks in Thailand, yet, they seized material (presumably with evidence) in Australia two weeks ago, presumably before the alleged offence had taken place. Thy guy was stupid enough to leave evidence of his planned activities? Thanks for stitching yourself up

Based on your post, I can't help wondering what kind of monitoring the AFP is doing on individuals. Was he individually targeted for some reason or was he part of a general monitoring effort? Can any of you Aussies comment on the state of the police state in, pardon the expression, down under?

The police had already executed a warrant on his home in Australia and located evidence. As he was in Thailand they called the thai authorities to grab him. I don't know why as they could have nabbed him when he got off his flight in Sydney. The AFP seem to like letting other countries grab and prosecute the crooks saves money and time.

[cbrer]

What did the RTP do?

Type his name into a database and that's it?

Seems he went to board his flight, his name popped up in whatever computer system they use and then they just walked over and detained him.

It would have been much better if they had gone out and detained him before he molested the 7 year old boy. Which may have been possible depending on the time of the information sent from Australia.

As it seems from looking at it, the RTP did nothing but walk up to an alarm going off.

[GentlemanJim]

Police intelligence units in Australia had allegedly uncovered the photos on the internet and the information was passed on to the AFP, who then contacted Thai authorities.

Potterton denies the charges.

"I'm disgusted with the Australian Federal Police's sending of photos of a non-sexual nature regarding my time in Thailand and letting the Thai police (know) that they should possibly act on this," Potterton told AAP at the police headquarters.

"It is reprehensible behaviour by the Australian Federal Police."

http://news.ninemsn....dophile-charges

Would someone care to explain what is going on? Perhaps one of the hang em high brigade knows everything. I am getting confused. In the article above, the Thai police say the charges relate to a photograph at a public waterfall in which some kids are nude, primarily a 15 year old boy. What is the story about the Australian in the OP supposedly raping a 7 year old boy? (for which many people on here want to immediately chop his balls off) None of that is mentioned in the linked news article from Chooka.

Edited November 10, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[ttelise]

This article in the Sydney Morning Heral indicates that Potterton sent home an image of a 15 year old boy. I guess things were discovered after that.

"A Sydney man has been arrested in Thailand on paedophile-related charges after Australian Federal Police (AFP) allegedly intercepted photographs emailed to Australia.

Ian Potterton, 51, was detained by Thai authorities on Thursday before boarding an Australian-bound flight at Bangkok's International Airport after a short holiday in Thailand, a Thai police official from the Anti-Human Trafficking Division said.

On Friday, Potterton arrived at Crime Suppression Division Headquarters wearing blue jeans and a chequered blue shirt, his hand bandaged after spending a night in hospital receiving treatment for bronchitis and pneumonia.

Senior Thai police said the charges related to nude photographs of a 15-year-old Thai boy sent to Australia.

Advertisement

Potterton denies the charges, saying the pictures are of a "non-sexual nature" and he's the victim of over-zealous policing."

http://www.smh.com.a...1109-293j4.html

He says he is the victim of over zealous policing. Now you know he is a guilty lying scum bag. Dude had to really cross line to get someone's attention on something like this in Thailand.

[GentlemanJim]

This article in the Sydney Morning Heral indicates that Potterton sent home an image of a 15 year old boy. I guess things were discovered after that.

"A Sydney man has been arrested in Thailand on paedophile-related charges after Australian Federal Police (AFP) allegedly intercepted photographs emailed to Australia.

Ian Potterton, 51, was detained by Thai authorities on Thursday before boarding an Australian-bound flight at Bangkok's International Airport after a short holiday in Thailand, a Thai police official from the Anti-Human Trafficking Division said.

On Friday, Potterton arrived at Crime Suppression Division Headquarters wearing blue jeans and a chequered blue shirt, his hand bandaged after spending a night in hospital receiving treatment for bronchitis and pneumonia.

Senior Thai police said the charges related to nude photographs of a 15-year-old Thai boy sent to Australia.

Advertisement

Potterton denies the charges, saying the pictures are of a "non-sexual nature" and he's the victim of over-zealous policing."

http://www.smh.com.a...1109-293j4.html

He says he is the victim of over zealous policing. Now you know he is a guilty lying scum bag. Dude had to really cross line to get someone's attention on something like this in Thailand.

What a fascinating post from an alleged lawyer. What a pity the legal profession don't take such a candid approach when being paid by a scumbag lying client to defend them

Edited November 10, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[ttelise]

This article in the Sydney Morning Heral indicates that Potterton sent home an image of a 15 year old boy. I guess things were discovered after that.

"A Sydney man has been arrested in Thailand on paedophile-related charges after Australian Federal Police (AFP) allegedly intercepted photographs emailed to Australia.

Ian Potterton, 51, was detained by Thai authorities on Thursday before boarding an Australian-bound flight at Bangkok's International Airport after a short holiday in Thailand, a Thai police official from the Anti-Human Trafficking Division said.

On Friday, Potterton arrived at Crime Suppression Division Headquarters wearing blue jeans and a chequered blue shirt, his hand bandaged after spending a night in hospital receiving treatment for bronchitis and pneumonia.

Senior Thai police said the charges related to nude photographs of a 15-year-old Thai boy sent to Australia.

Advertisement

Potterton denies the charges, saying the pictures are of a "non-sexual nature" and he's the victim of over-zealous policing."

http://www.smh.com.a...1109-293j4.html

He says he is the victim of over zealous policing. Now you know he is a guilty lying scum bag. Dude had to really cross line to get someone's attention on something like this in Thailand.

What a fascinating post from an alleged lawyer. What a pity the legal profession don't take such a candid approach when being paid by a scumbag lying client to defend them

There in lies one reason I have not handled a criminal case in 17 years of practice. Something about pedophiles that really pisses me off. Maybe because I have 17, 16, and 1 years old daughters.

You gotta admit the overzealous Thai prosecution statement gives one pause.

Edited November 10, 2012 by ttelise

[GentlemanJim]

The Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-faces-thai-paedophilia-charges-20121109-293j4.html

No mention of 7 year old boy rapes, no mention of Australian police issuing arrest warrants. It mentions a photograph at a public place of kids swimming nude, the photo was discovered by AFP and sent back to RTP. AFP say the man faces charges under Thai Law???

Well guilty of whatever or not, I think there is enough confusion to be glad we didn't shoot him, chop his balls off and leave him to die and rot don't you think Blether? Wow, thank God there is a legal system and judges and courts and things to determine guilt. To think some of you wanted the guy buggered senseless for years in prison and by the western media accounts he may have just taken a photo at a public waterfall close to where he was staying. The key thing here is just like you lot, I have no idea what happened, and it certainly cannot be determined by the media accounts as the stories are poles apart.

now about this apparently ludicrous (as thought by some) idea of waiting for court decisions, is anybody now perhaps swayed a little by that civilized concept?

[softgeorge]

Police intelligence units in Australia had allegedly uncovered the photos on the internet and the information was passed on to the AFP, who then contacted Thai authorities.

Potterton denies the charges.

"I'm disgusted with the Australian Federal Police's sending of photos of a non-sexual nature regarding my time in Thailand and letting the Thai police (know) that they should possibly act on this," Potterton told AAP at the police headquarters.

"It is reprehensible behaviour by the Australian Federal Police."

http://news.ninemsn....dophile-charges

Would someone care to explain what is going on? Perhaps one of the hang em high brigade knows everything. I am getting confused. In the article above, the Thai police say the charges relate to a photograph at a public waterfall in which some kids are nude, primarily a 15 year old boy. What is the story about the Australian in the OP supposedly raping a 7 year old boy? (for which many people on here want to immediately chop his balls off) None of that is mentioned in the linked news article from Chooka.

Might have something to do with Australian media V's Thai Media. Agree the only ones mentioning a 7 yr old are the Thais.

[geriatrickid]

Not rubbish......carry on blind to the reality if you wish.

Now we have people doubting the Oz police on this thread, quite frankly, unbelievable.

Police investigators can make mistakes that often end in wrongful accusations. That is why we have a court system to weigh the evidence.

Police officers are baised in the assumption that everyone is guilty. Their job is to to gather the evidence to show someone is guilty. That is their bias. It is an accepted role. Time and time again, the police have been shown to suppress exculpatory evidence or to not present the full facts of a case. The courts know it. The courts role is to ensure that justice is done and that is why the court system is biased in favour of the rights of an accused. When there is doubt. it goes in favour of the accused. This is how the justice system works in the developed world. You make the assumption that if the police accuse someone, then that person has to be guilty. Those of us that believe in the concept of the rule of law prefer to allow the courts to make the decision.

How anyone can comment on the guilt or innocence of the accused in this case is beyond me. The facts have not been established. There has been no court hearing, nor verification of the allegations. Holding the position that the evidence must be reviewed and that the courts must be allowed to do their job is hardly an endorsement of illegal activity.

[theblether]

Not rubbish......carry on blind to the reality if you wish.

Now we have people doubting the Oz police on this thread, quite frankly, unbelievable.

Police investigators can make mistakes that often end in wrongful accusations. That is why we have a court system to weigh the evidence.

Police officers are baised in the assumption that everyone is guilty. Their job is to to gather the evidence to show someone is guilty. That is their bias. It is an accepted role. Time and time again, the police have been shown to suppress exculpatory evidence or to not present the full facts of a case. The courts know it. The courts role is to ensure that justice is done and that is why the court system is biased in favour of the rights of an accused. When there is doubt. it goes in favour of the accused. This is how the justice system works in the developed world. You make the assumption that if the police accuse someone, then that person has to be guilty. Those of us that believe in the concept of the rule of law prefer to allow the courts to make the decision.

How anyone can comment on the guilt or innocence of the accused in this case is beyond me. The facts have not been established. There has been no court hearing, nor verification of the allegations. Holding the position that the evidence must be reviewed and that the courts must be allowed to do their job is hardly an endorsement of illegal activity.

At no point have I denied this man or the 93 year old paedophile their right to their day in court.

I maintain that these threads are polluted by paedophile apologists and paedophiles.

This man has admitted sending a photo of a naked 15 year old Thai boy via email.............I now ask our esteemed membership to give me a credible reason why a 51 year old Australian man would feel the need to fly to Thailand to take photos of naked children.

Edited November 10, 2012 by theblether

[Thai at Heart]

Is all they really have him on is a picture of a waterfall with some kids in the picture?

Something missing here surely?

[theblether]

The Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.a...1109-293j4.html

No mention of 7 year old boy rapes, no mention of Australian police issuing arrest warrants. It mentions a photograph at a public place of kids swimming nude, the photo was discovered by AFP and sent back to RTP. AFP say the man faces charges under Thai Law???

Well guilty of whatever or not, I think there is enough confusion to be glad we didn't shoot him, chop his balls off and leave him to die and rot don't you think Blether? Wow, thank God there is a legal system and judges and courts and things to determine guilt. To think some of you wanted the guy buggered senseless for years in prison and by the western media accounts he may have just taken a photo at a public waterfall close to where he was staying. The key thing here is just like you lot, I have no idea what happened, and it certainly cannot be determined by the media accounts as the stories are poles apart.

now about this apparently ludicrous (as thought by some) idea of waiting for court decisions, is anybody now perhaps swayed a little by that civilized concept?

Courts are okay with you when it's white men are involved, when it's brown people you want to start campaigns against "murdering grandmothers".

Your hypocrisy makes me sick.

So you can answer the question too.........this man has admitted sending a photo of a naked 15 year old boy by email.

No courts required now, he's admitted it..........give me a credible reason why a 51 year old Australian man would feel the need to fly to Thailand to take photographs of naked children.