Aldhouse pleas ‘not guilty’ to Phuket murder charge

Phuket Gazette -

Lee Aldhouse was extradited from the UK to stand trial in Phuket. Though confessing to killing former US Marine Dashawn Longfellow, Aldhouse entered a plea of not guilty to the murder charge this week.

PHUKET: British national Lee Aldhouse entered a plea of not guilty this week for the murder of former US Marine Dashawn Longfellow in Phuket in 2010.

Aldhouse was presented to the Phuket Provincial Court on Wednesday and formally charged with murder. The maximum penalty under the charge is death.

“He has been charged with premeditated murder under Section 288 of the Thai Criminal Code. The penalty for that charge is death or a term of imprisonment of 15 to 20 years,” Tawan Suknirundorn, the public prosecutor assigned to the case, confirmed.

However, Mr Tawan explained that his understanding was that the death penalty would not be considered as an option in the sentencing if Aldhouse were found guilty, as he had already confessed to stabbing Mr Longfellow.

“Mr Aldhouse entered a plea of not guilty to the court on December 26,” defending lawyer Somkiet Pornpromma confirmed to the Phuket Gazette.

“However, on February 18, at 1:30 pm, both parties will be in court to set the trial date,” Mr Tawan said. “On that day, the judge will ask Mr Aldhouse again if he chooses to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.”

Source: http://www.phuketgazette.net/phuket_news/2012/Aldhouse-pleas-not-guilty-to-Phuket-murder-charge-19841.html

-- Phuket Gazette 2012-12-30

Interesting.

Must know how weak the evidence against him is, or his money is going to work for him.

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

He's really just arrived a few weeks ago. Takes time to go through everything with your lawyer, make negotiations etc.

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

Won't make much of a difference. He will not get the death sentence, after a few years in jail here he will go to the UK for the rest of his punishment, and there he'll be released after a few years. Whether he is convicted to 10, 20 or even life, in the end the outcome to him will be the same.

Interesting to see he's been charged with the same offence as Khun Abhisit.

Section 288 Whoever, murdering the other person, shall be imprisoned by death or imprisoned as from fifteen years to twenty years.

Section 290 Whoever, causes death to the other person by inflicting injury upon the body of such person without intent to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.

Jimi007, regardless Aldhouse could be as guilty as sin but there are other people who have escaped Thai justice and are free men in the west, why? Because they didn't step on American toes. Nothing about Wikileaks, I'm just saying it's not a big old gentlemen's agreement between the UK and Thailand.

I won't disagree. But when some guy on steroids picks a fight with a decorated US Marine and loses, then stabs him in the back, I would hope my government, the Thai Government and the British Government would want to see justice served...

True comment this. But one can wonder if he did kill a Mr average Joe USA tourist would justice been served the same way?

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

Won't make much of a difference. He will not get the death sentence, after a few years in jail here he will go to the UK for the rest of his punishment, and there he'll be released after a few years. Whether he is convicted to 10, 20 or even life, in the end the outcome to him will be the same.

It makes a huge difference. Sentence is halved when a guilty plea is entered.

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

Won't make much of a difference. He will not get the death sentence, after a few years in jail here he will go to the UK for the rest of his punishment, and there he'll be released after a few years. Whether he is convicted to 10, 20 or even life, in the end the outcome to him will be the same.

It makes a huge difference. Sentence is halved when a guilty plea is entered.

Isn't it amazing to the see the amount of people who obviously have no clue of the case or the legal system, yet seem to think they are some sort of experts!

An early guilty plea could mean the difference of around 10 years prison time should it get to sentencing, yet apparently it makes no difference!

Amazing.

Edited December 30, 201213 yr by cbrer

Isn't it amazing to the see the amount of people who obviously have no clue of the case or the legal system, yet seem to think they are some sort of experts!

I repeat . . . much like yourself it seems . . .

Where does it seem that?

A post or quote of something non-factual, if you will.

Edited December 30, 201213 yr by cbrer

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

Won't make much of a difference. He will not get the death sentence, after a few years in jail here he will go to the UK for the rest of his punishment, and there he'll be released after a few years. Whether he is convicted to 10, 20 or even life, in the end the outcome to him will be the same.

It makes a huge difference. Sentence is halved when a guilty plea is entered.

Isn't it amazing to the see the amount of people who obviously have no clue of the case or the legal system, yet seem to think they are some sort of experts!

An early guilty plea could mean the difference of around 10 years prison time should it get to sentencing, yet apparently it makes no difference!

Amazing.

You obviously did not read my reply, only picked out a part of it.

It makes no difference because after a few years in a Thai prison he will be moved to the UK, and after a few years in prison there he will be released. So whether convicted to 5, 10, 20 or life, he will not do more than 5 in any case.

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

Won't make much of a difference. He will not get the death sentence, after a few years in jail here he will go to the UK for the rest of his punishment, and there he'll be released after a few years. Whether he is convicted to 10, 20 or even life, in the end the outcome to him will be the same.

It makes a huge difference. Sentence is halved when a guilty plea is entered.

So? He will do about 5 years in jail, whether is convicted to 5, 10, 20 or life. So it may look like 1/2 sentence is a big gain, in the end it will be no different to Lee.

It makes no difference because after a few years in a Thai prison he will be moved to the UK, and after a few years in prison there he will be released. So whether convicted to 5, 10, 20 or life, he will not do more than 5 in any case.

Utter hogwash.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I can only suggest that you spend at least one minute researching your 'ideas' before trying to post them in some sort of factual manner.

Edited December 30, 201213 yr by cbrer

Stupid fool.

Plead guilty, get a reduction in sentence and go home to UK where social security awaits.

Dangerous move on his part.

Won't make much of a difference. He will not get the death sentence, after a few years in jail here he will go to the UK for the rest of his punishment, and there he'll be released after a few years. Whether he is convicted to 10, 20 or even life, in the end the outcome to him will be the same.

It makes a huge difference. Sentence is halved when a guilty plea is entered.

So? He will do about 5 years in jail, whether is convicted to 5, 10, 20 or life. So it may look like 1/2 sentence is a big gain, in the end it will be no different to Lee.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Could you please stop spamming the thread with such falsities?

I suggest people put the following into google:

"UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984."

This couldn't be further from the truth. Could you please stop spamming the thread with such falsities?

I suggest people put the following into google:

"UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984."

Finding it necessary to answer twice to the same post?

Let's see in 5 years time shall we. Oh, and you'd do good to check the definition of spamming. Giving one's opinion in a thread is not part of that.

Finding it necessary to answer twice to the same post?

Quoted posts being 132 and 133.

Hmmmm.

Plus it (they) was (were) so incorrect that it (they) needed correction so people don't actually believe such nonsense.

Let's see in 5 years time shall we.

See what?

Oh, and you'd do good to check the definition of spamming. Giving one's opinion in a thread is not part of that.

Posting lies as facts isn't giving one's opinion.

You read up on it yet?

Google what I gave and click on the first link. It's a basic, non-complex break-down, so it should be okay.

Still trying to get a dead horse somewhere?

In 5 years time we'll see where he is.

Still trying to get a dead horse somewhere?

In 5 years time we'll see where he is.

We will see but pleading guilty brings a 50% reduction in sentence. Its an admission of guilt and remorse in the eyes of the courts here.

He might get 10 years reduced to 5 years.

Either way, if he truly has 5 million baht in the bank as the papers have reported, he will have a very easy time of it.

You cant hate the player in this instance, hate the game that is Thailand.

Still trying to get a dead horse somewhere?

In 5 years time we'll see where he is.

I thought you were on about how little difference him pleading guilty or will will mean to his eventual release.

In five years he will probably have just returned to the UK to finish his sentence. What's all your agro about that?

Still trying to get a dead horse somewhere?

In 5 years time we'll see where he is.

We will see but pleading guilty brings a 50% reduction in sentence. Its an admission of guilt and remorse in the eyes of the courts here.

He might get 10 years reduced to 5 years.

Yup, minus time served (2 1/2 years already, if I'm not mistaken).

Regardless, he will have half his sentence to serve in the UK, so pleading guilty and getting a 50% reduction in sentence will be a huge factor to the time he will serve in total.

It is actually a big issue with UK nationals imprisoned in Thailand for drug offenses and serving huge sentences. Other nationals can be repatriated and then the courts at home will resentence them according to the country's sentencing guidelines, which in most cases will be only a year or two extra if that. This isn't the case with the UK where a repatriated prisoner will have to serve half of their original sentence when they return. If that sentence is 50, 60, or 99 years for drugs offenses here then it adds up to a lot of time to serve in the UK, where other nationals in other EU countries will be released.

For example the case of Michel Connell. The 19 year old who was famously caught smuggling in 3400 ecstasy tablets and sentenced to 99 years. He was very fortunate to appeal the the sentence successfully and got it reduced first to 30 years then to 20 years. A great result. He was repatriated to the UK after 8 years served in Thailand. With 12 years to go of his sentence he is currently serving the final 6 in the UK before he will be eligible for parole there. Those with 50+ year sentences that haven't won appeals have a long time ahead of them, repatriated or not. Many in fact choose not apply for repatriation as they believe that serving their sentence in Thailand, where they may only serve 12-20 years before being released and deported is better than being repatriated and still having to do half their sentence in UK jails, which would be a much longer time/entence. A bit off topic I know, but interesting, and linked to Lee Aldhouse as he will likely be a prisoner either being repatriated or choosing not to.

Edited December 30, 201213 yr by cbrer

Still trying to get a dead horse somewhere?

In 5 years time we'll see where he is.

We will see but pleading guilty brings a 50% reduction in sentence. Its an admission of guilt and remorse in the eyes of the courts here.

He might get 10 years reduced to 5 years.

Yup, minus time served (2 1/2 years already, if I'm not mistaken).

Regardless, he will have half his sentence to serve in the UK, so pleading guilty and getting a 50% reduction in sentence will be a huge factor to the time he will serve in total.

It is actually a big issue with UK nationals imprisoned in Thailand for drug offenses and serving huge sentences. Other nationals can be repatriated and then the courts at home will resentence them according to the country's sentencing guidelines, which in most cases will be only a year or two extra if that. This isn't the case with the UK where a repatriated prisoner will have to serve half of their original sentence when they return. If that sentence is 50, 60, or 99 years for drugs offenses here then it adds up to a lot of time to serve in the UK, where other nationals in other EU countries will be released.

For example the case of Michel Connell. The 19 year old who was famously caught smuggling in 3400 ecstasy tablets and sentenced to 99 years. He was very fortunate to appeal the the sentence successfully and got it reduced first to 30 years then to 20 years. A great result. He was repatriated to the UK after 8 years served in Thailand. With 12 years to go of his sentence he is currently serving the final 6 in the UK before he will be eligible for parole there. Those with 50+ year sentences that haven't won appeals have a long time ahead of them, repatriated or not. Many in fact choose not apply for repatriation as they believe that serving their sentence in Thailand, where they may only serve 12-20 years before being released and deported is better than being repatriated and still having to do half their sentence in UK jails, which would be a much longer time/entence. A bit off topic I know, but interesting, and linked to Lee Aldhouse as he will likely be a prisoner either being repatriated or choosing not to.

Sounds like your very happy that low life's get their sentences reduced by one way or another.

Cber, what 2 and a half years already served are you talking about? Wasn't he held in the UK on an unrelated issue? If so, then that won't count.

Sounds like your very happy that low life's get their sentences reduced by one way or another.

Nope.

Though judging each case separately, I would be happy that that 19 year old with special needs who was originally given 99 years from bringing 3,400 E's in his suitcase is back in the UK prison system and will be out after 14 years, the final 6 being in his own country.

Cber, what 2 and a half years already served are you talking about? Wasn't he held in the UK on an unrelated issue? If so, then that won't count.

He was originally, I believe it was something like a 3 month sentence for breach of parole or similar. The application for extradition was made almost immediately and it runs concurrently to any sentence he was serving at the time.

If you have any source to show that the 2 1/2 years he was in custody in the UK since the Extradition process began (with the UK acknowledging the official Extradition request) than please give us a look. Though I would be very surprised if you can back up your claim in any way.

Edited December 30, 201213 yr by cbrer

Sounds like your very happy that low life's get their sentences reduced by one way or another.

Nope.

Though judging each case separately, I would be happy that that 19 year old with special needs who was originally given 99 years from bringing 3,400 E's in his suitcase is back in the UK prison system and will be out after 14 years, the final 6 being in his own country.

Special needs.

Cber, what 2 and a half years already served are you talking about? Wasn't he held in the UK on an unrelated issue? If so, then that won't count.

He was originally, I believe it was something like a 3 month sentence for breach of parole or similar. The application for extradition was made almost immediately and it runs concurrently to any sentence he was serving at the time.

If you have any source to show that the 2 1/2 years he was in custody in the UK since the Extradition process began (with the UK acknowledging the official Extradition request) than please give us a look. Though I would be very surprised if you can back up your claim in any way.

I guess it's difficult for some to differentiate between a claim and a question. Usually the question mark gives a clue.

I doubt his extradition and bail offences sentence will be concurrent. He would only be given credit for time served on the extradition process once his bail breach sentence was completed. That is the norm and I do know quite a bit on sentencing principles.

But as you don't know it doesn't really matter, just curious.

Cber, what 2 and a half years already served are you talking about? Wasn't he held in the UK on an unrelated issue? If so, then that won't count.

He was originally, I believe it was something like a 3 month sentence for breach of parole or similar. The application for extradition was made almost immediately and it runs concurrently to any sentence he was serving at the time.

If you have any source to show that the 2 1/2 years he was in custody in the UK since the Extradition process began (with the UK acknowledging the official Extradition request) than please give us a look. Though I would be very surprised if you can back up your claim in any way.

I guess it's difficult for some to differentiate between a claim and a question. Usually the question mark gives a clue.

I doubt his extradition and bail offences sentence will be concurrent. He would only be given credit for time served on the extradition process once his bail breach sentence was completed. That is the norm and I do know quite a bit on sentencing principles.

The time served is taken as the time he has served in custody from when the original request was first acknowledged. This runs concurrently to any sentence he was serving at the time.

I could be wrong on the date as I haven't checked to make sure, but believe it was in August 2010.

Time served in custody on the extradition warrant: 2 1/2 years.

Not sure what you're having trouble with tbh.

Edited December 30, 201213 yr by cbrer

Sounds like your very happy that low life's get their sentences reduced by one way or another.

Nope.

Though judging each case separately, I would be happy that that 19 year old with special needs who was originally given 99 years from bringing 3,400 E's in his suitcase is back in the UK prison system and will be out after 14 years, the final 6 being in his own country.

Special needs.

Yes, Michael suffers from autism.

I'm glad you find it funny.

Edited December 30, 201213 yr by cbrer

Cber, what 2 and a half years already served are you talking about? Wasn't he held in the UK on an unrelated issue? If so, then that won't count.

He was originally, I believe it was something like a 3 month sentence for breach of parole or similar. The application for extradition was made almost immediately and it runs concurrently to any sentence he was serving at the time.

If you have any source to show that the 2 1/2 years he was in custody in the UK since the Extradition process began (with the UK acknowledging the official Extradition request) than please give us a look. Though I would be very surprised if you can back up your claim in any way.

I guess it's difficult for some to differentiate between a claim and a question. Usually the question mark gives a clue.

I doubt his extradition and bail offences sentence will be concurrent. He would only be given credit for time served on the extradition process once his bail breach sentence was completed. That is the norm and I do know quite a bit on sentencing principles.

The time served is taken as the time he has served in custody from when the original request was first acknowledged. This runs concurrently to any sentence he was serving at the time.

I could be wrong on the date as I haven't checked to make sure, but believe it was in August 2010.

Time served in custody on the extradition warrant: 2 1/2 years.

Not sure what you're having trouble with tbh.

What I'm having trouble with you that you can't answer.

Sentence does NOT start from the date of application for extradition, unless he was being held for ONLY that matter. He was being held on unrelated charges/issues. When he did that time he would be free to leave.

However, if he was not released at the completion of that time served for those offences then from that time on he would be given credit for time served.

The only way he will be given credit for the time re extradition is if that was the only reason he was being held.

That is according to the principles in sentencing.

I'm not going to argue the sentencing principles with you as I know what I'm talking about. So, as you do not know of when he was finished with the previous sentence then there is no point discussing it further.