News Forum - Police torture case in court today, main charges denied

[Thaiger]

Today the 7 police officers accused of the suffocation death caught on video of a suspect in custody at the Nakhon Sawan police station had their day in court. Pol Col Thitisan “Jo Ferrari” Utthanaphon admitted that he assaulted the suspect, but claimed his death was an accident and denied the strongest charges of murder and torture against him. In fact, all 7 officers confessed or plead guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture, likely because a conviction is punishable by the death penalty.  The case is being tried by the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and […]

The story Police torture case in court today, main charges denied as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[mickkotlarski]

Keep squeezing him. I truly hope that an unbiased investigative group can not only get confessions from this evil individual but bring to light connections that made his mini empire. 

This case has an enormous importance in not only trying a criminal that was employed to serve and uphold the law but exposing the weakness of a failing state and how to take some brutal and vital steps in combating it.

One of my biggest complaints with the last several governments is how they turn a blind eye to the corrupt, lazy and inefficient public servants that drag an entire nation through the mud for the personal riches they truly don't need.

 

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Thaiger said:

In fact, all 7 officers confessed or plead guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture, likely because a conviction is punishable by the death penalty

I don't want to nit-pick, but I think you mean they pled 'NOT guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture, likely because a conviction is punishable by the death penalty'.

[Stonker]

46 minutes ago, mickkotlarski said:

Keep squeezing him. I truly hope that an unbiased investigative group can not only get confessions from this evil individual but bring to light connections that made his mini empire. 

This case has an enormous importance in not only trying a criminal that was employed to serve and uphold the law but exposing the weakness of a failing state and how to take some brutal and vital steps in combating it.

One of my biggest complaints with the last several governments is how they turn a blind eye to the corrupt, lazy and inefficient public servants that drag an entire nation through the mud for the personal riches they truly don't need.

Pleading guilty and confessing would guarantee the death penalty - it's mandatory under Section 189(5).

[janchangtha]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

I don't want to nit-pick, but I think you mean they pled 'NOT guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture, likely because a conviction is punishable by the death penalty'.

The general standard of writing in The Thaiger is very low. Obviously hardly any news stories are proofread, not even by the authors themselves. Understandable if written by a local, but native English speaking "professional" writers really should do better. Punctuation is also all over the place in most cases

 

[JohninDublin]

Strange that they approved the request for the victims father to become joint prosecutor. Didn't realise he was even a lawyer.

I'm presuming that for Joe Ferrari to take an interest in the victim, he must have been pretty hardcore. That in turn suggests that his father would have known what his son was up to, and is quite likely complicit in his sons activities. Presuming that lawyers ethical standards are the same in TH as most western jurisdictions, Lawyers are not normally allowed to act for any side in a case where there is a reasonable prospect they may be called as witnesses.

[Naanlaew]

Those are quite a series of assumptions. So is it the victim's fault too ?

[Stonker]

35 minutes ago, janchangtha said:

The general standard of writing in The Thaiger is very low. Obviously hardly any news stories are proofread, not even by the authors themselves. Understandable if written by a local, but native English speaking "professional" writers really should do better. Punctuation is also all over the place in most cases

Agreed, but God Almighty - writing that "In fact, all 7 officers confessed or plead guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture, likely because a conviction is punishable by the death penalty" when NONE of them have "confessed or plead guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture" isn't just bad punctuation !

[Stonker]

39 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Strange that they approved the request for the victims father to become joint prosecutor. Didn't realise he was even a lawyer.

I'm presuming that for Joe Ferrari to take an interest in the victim, he must have been pretty hardcore. That in turn suggests that his father would have known what his son was up to, and is quite likely complicit in his sons activities. Presuming that lawyers ethical standards are the same in TH as most western jurisdictions, Lawyers are not normally allowed to act for any side in a case where there is a reasonable prospect they may be called as witnesses.

I don't see how what the victim's father knew about his son's unproven activities can make any possible difference or be of any relevance.  His son isn't on trial and his guilt or innocence of anything is of absolutely no relevance to the trial.

- and what could his father possibly be a witness to in the trial, unless the defence is that he committed suicide so he might be asked if his son was suicidal???

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Naanlaew said:

Those are quite a series of assumptions. So is it the victim's fault too ?

It would help if you could identify the person you are questioning.

[palooka]

8 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Strange that they approved the request for the victims father to become joint prosecutor. Didn't realise he was even a lawyer.

This isn't one of those odd Thai culture rights that seem to come out of left field every now and then is it?

[Mudshark]

Quote

The father of the victim who was suffocated to death requested to be added as a joint prosecutor trying the case, and as neither the defence lawyers nor the prosecutor objected, the court approved his request.

The cover story is being prepared. A face saving conviction, but on lessor charges, convenient bail and jail time. It has to look good. The only question; how much 'per diem', to cover living expenses, does the dad get to help prosecute this case?! 

[Jason]

Let's hope justice is served.....

[JohninDublin]

8 hours ago, palooka said:

This isn't one of those odd Thai culture rights that seem to come out of left field every now and then is it?

I wouldn't know. I just thought there were plenty of reasons why it shouldn't have happened.

[avantgarde_a_clue]

10 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I wouldn't know. I just thought there were plenty of reasons why it shouldn't have happened.

What reasons could there be?

[avantgarde_a_clue]

On 11/20/2021 at 3:08 AM, Stonker said:

Agreed, but God Almighty - writing that "In fact, all 7 officers confessed or plead guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture, likely because a conviction is punishable by the death penalty" when NONE of them have "confessed or plead guilty to the charge of murder by means of torture" isn't just bad punctuation !

Shocking grammar, they employ so many ppl and this slips through the cracks

 

[JohninDublin]

52 minutes ago, avantgarde_a_clue said:

What reasons could there be?

Conflict of Interest to begin with. But Lawyers are like doctors and are discouraged from acting for their own family particularly in criminal matters because there can be lack of objectivity.

[JohninDublin]

On 11/19/2021 at 4:17 PM, Stonker said:

I don't see how what the victim's father knew about his son's unproven activities can make any possible difference or be of any relevance.  His son isn't on trial and his guilt or innocence of anything is of absolutely no relevance to the trial.

- and what could his father possibly be a witness to in the trial, unless the defence is that he committed suicide so he might be asked if his son was suicidal???

I've decided to give you parole from my block prison.

So to deal with the question in hand, I shall begin by saying that I'm not taking sides against, but comomg to my own conclusions based on what I've read so far.

So the story is Joe Ferrari was trying to extort 2 mill from him. On that basis, I think its highly likely that this was an intelligence led event. It seems highly unlikely to me that this was some poor sap that was snapped up from that street at random. JF had to have had a reason for thinking that he had 2 mill. More to the point, he would have known that anyone with that sort of cash legitimately in TH, would have had influence and that he was unlikely to get away with doing this to an upright citizen. Of course that does not mean he was a dealer, but what are the chances that the intelligence was wrong? It makes sense to me that JF believed that the man was a dealer. Of course, the beauty of the plan as far as the cops are concerned, is that if he is a dealer and they rob him. he can't complain to the cops. It's nearly the perfect crime.

It being the case that they believe him to be a dealer, and he quite likely is, it seems likely to me the next phase is to assess his value in deciding how much you want to extort from him. It would be a waste of time trying to extract 2 mill from him if he was just a street level dealer. On the other hand, they don't want to let him get away with say, 100k, if they see he has flaunted wealth, he wears a Rolex, lives in a big house, drives Mercedes S-class etc. 

These are what I believe should be the thought patterns of JF and his team. Clearly you can surmise from the wealth that he has accumulated over the years, that he is experienced and well practised at this. But those are my thoughts as a cop. It will be a key part of the defence to vilify the victim. Calling him a drug dealer when there is no evidence of this will not go down well. So here's a question for you: Do you think that in all the circumstances that JF thought he was a dealer, or do you think JF acquired his wealth by extorting random victims from the street. 

Now I have to think like the father. Note that nobody AFAIK has so far denied that the man was a dealer. Imagine your in his position and you see what JF sees and particularly, enough ostentatious wealth to make you believe you can extort 2 mill. Do you think you might not be wondering how your son has got so rich? Do you think might be able to avoid asking questions of your son? Do you think that if he lied to you, he would be able to convince you that he won the lottery three times this year? 

Of course, all my thinking on this is predicated on the idea, that JF's intel was accurate. So now, as the father you are in the witness box, and among the first questions asked will be "How long was your son a dealer"? If you answer that you don't or didn't know, immediately they attack your credibility. "How could you have not known"? "Did he ever give you any gifts paid for with his drug money"?  "If you did know, why didn't you turn him in"? "Isn't it true that your reason for wanting to prosecute this case is because you don't want people to discover how involved with your son's dealings"?

Remember you are a lawyer and therefore an intelligent man as well as being the victims father. You've probably represented dealers at some time so you will know a lot of the signs. Do you think that if your son was earning a nefarious living, though you may not know exactly what it is that he does, that you will not suspect that whatever it is, it will not be illegal?

When this case comes before the court, as well as the 7 accused, the victim will also be put on trial. 

But in addition to all that, if it ever comes out that there were irregularities in the trial and suspicions of exculpatory evidence being suppressed, I can imagine that his co-prosecutor and the defence will be only too happy to point the finger at Dad - a grieving father that wants revenge and will do whatever he can to get it. 

During he meantime another thought occurs to me: JF could not have got to where he is today without the assistance of his superiors. I don't doubt that metaphorically speaking, he knows where many bodies are buried. I have this dreadful feeling that this case is being set up to fail.

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, avantgarde_a_clue said:

Shocking grammar, they employ so many ppl and this slips through the cracks

"grammar" !

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I've decided to give you parole from my block prison.

So to deal with the question in hand, I shall begin by saying that I'm not taking sides against, but comomg to my own conclusions based on what I've read so far.

So the story is Joe Ferrari was trying to extort 2 mill from him. On that basis, I think its highly likely that this was an intelligence led event. It seems highly unlikely to me that this was some poor sap that was snapped up from that street at random. JF had to have had a reason for thinking that he had 2 mill. More to the point, he would have known that anyone with that sort of cash legitimately in TH, would have had influence and that he was unlikely to get away with doing this to an upright citizen. Of course that does not mean he was a dealer, but what are the chances that the intelligence was wrong? It makes sense to me that JF believed that the man was a dealer. Of course, the beauty of the plan as far as the cops are concerned, is that if he is a dealer and they rob him. he can't complain to the cops. It's nearly the perfect crime.

It being the case that they believe him to be a dealer, and he quite likely is, it seems likely to me the next phase is to assess his value in deciding how much you want to extort from him. It would be a waste of time trying to extract 2 mill from him if he was just a street level dealer. On the other hand, they don't want to let him get away with say, 100k, if they see he has flaunted wealth, he wears a Rolex, lives in a big house, drives Mercedes S-class etc. 

These are what I believe should be the thought patterns of JF and his team. Clearly you can surmise from the wealth that he has accumulated over the years, that he is experienced and well practised at this. But those are my thoughts as a cop. It will be a key part of the defence to vilify the victim. Calling him a drug dealer when there is no evidence of this will not go down well. So here's a question for you: Do you think that in all the circumstances that JF thought he was a dealer, or do you think JF acquired his wealth by extorting random victims from the street. 

Now I have to think like the father. Note that nobody AFAIK has so far denied that the man was a dealer. Imagine your in his position and you see what JF sees and particularly, enough ostentatious wealth to make you believe you can extort 2 mill. Do you think you might not be wondering how your son has got so rich? Do you think might be able to avoid asking questions of your son? Do you think that if he lied to you, he would be able to convince you that he won the lottery three times this year? 

Of course, all my thinking on this is predicated on the idea, that JF's intel was accurate. So now, as the father you are in the witness box, and among the first questions asked will be "How long was your son a dealer"? If you answer that you don't or didn't know, immediately they attack your credibility. "How could you have not known"? "Did he ever give you any gifts paid for with his drug money"?  "If you did know, why didn't you turn him in"? "Isn't it true that your reason for wanting to prosecute this case is because you don't want people to discover how involved with your son's dealings"?

Remember you are a lawyer and therefore an intelligent man as well as being the victims father. You've probably represented dealers at some time so you will know a lot of the signs. Do you think that if your son was earning a nefarious living, though you may not know exactly what it is that he does, that you will not suspect that whatever it is, it will not be illegal?

When this case comes before the court, as well as the 7 accused, the victim will also be put on trial. 

But in addition to all that, if it ever comes out that there were irregularities in the trial and suspicions of exculpatory evidence being suppressed, I can imagine that his co-prosecutor and the defence will be only too happy to point the finger at Dad - a grieving father that wants revenge and will do whatever he can to get it. 

During he meantime another thought occurs to me: JF could not have got to where he is today without the assistance of his superiors. I don't doubt that metaphorically speaking, he knows where many bodies are buried. I have this dreadful feeling that this case is being set up to fail.

Maybe if you read the charges you'd see that there are no mitigating circumstances or "exculpatory evidence" possible - none of your speculation is of any relevance at all to the charge or the offence, nor is there any jury to influence.

Sorry, but this is a rabbit hole I'm not interested in going down.

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Conflict of Interest to begin with. But Lawyers are like doctors and are discouraged from acting for their own family particularly in criminal matters because there can be lack of objectivity.

That's simply not correct - you're confusing judges / jury who may have a "conflict of interest" and are meant to be objective with the prosecution / defence lawyers who aren't, by definition.

[JohninDublin]

13 hours ago, Stonker said:

Maybe if you read the charges you'd see that there are no mitigating circumstances or "exculpatory evidence" possible - none of your speculation is of any relevance at all to the charge or the offence, nor is there any jury to influence.

Sorry, but this is a rabbit hole I'm not interested in going down.

It is for comments like this that I really regret removing the block on you. How do you know that there is no exculpatory evidence excluded when there has yet be a trial?

[Stonker]

24 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

How do you know that there is no exculpatory evidence excluded when there has yet be a trial?

Because I've read the charge, as I suggested you do.

[JohninDublin]

13 hours ago, Stonker said:

That's simply not correct - you're confusing judges / jury who may have a "conflict of interest" and are meant to be objective with the prosecution / defence lawyers who aren't, by definition.

Yet again in a post, you show ignorance on legal matters. Where did you get your law degree? Watching Judge Judy?

So let me tell you about my own personal experience. Some years ago, I was obliged to sue a former business partner for an outstanding debt. I went to a local solicitor who agreed to take the case. The following day they phoned me and told me they could no longer represent me. They had since I spoke to them, discovered that my opponent had been represented by them in the past. Thus they had a conflict of interest. They required his permission to be allowed to represent me, and he refused.

Notwithstanding my own experience, I can think of many scenarios where lawyers have potential conflicts of interest, and that is the key phrase. It only needs to be a potential conflict for them to be disqualified. 

I really don't know what I find most frustrating in your posts, your ignorance or your refusal to admit that you might possibly be wrong. Regardless, it's the same story repeatedly with you. I thought that a few days in Ignore Prison might get you to reflect on this, but you are clearly a recidivist. Under the circumstances you are hereby sentenced to Ignore Prison for life without Parole.

[Stonker]

9 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

So let me tell you about my own personal experience. Some years ago, I was obliged to sue a former business partner for an outstanding debt. I went to a local solicitor who agreed to take the case. The following day they phoned me and told me they could no longer represent me. They had since I spoke to them, discovered that my opponent had been represented by them in the past. Thus they had a conflict of interest. They required his permission to be allowed to represent me, and he refused.

Notwithstanding my own experience, I can think of many scenarios where lawyers have potential conflicts of interest, and that is the key phrase. It only needs to be a potential conflict for them to be disqualified. 

I really don't know what I find most frustrating in your posts, your ignorance or your refusal to admit that you might possibly be wrong. Regardless, it's the same story repeatedly with you. I thought that a few days in Ignore Prison might get you to reflect on this, but you are clearly a recidivist. Under the circumstances you are hereby sentenced to Ignore Prison for life without Parole.

Of course lawyers can have a 'conflict of interest'. In your case, their conflict of interest was because they'd represented the person you were suing - nothing to do with whether they're "objective" or not as that isn't their job.

You seem to have an equally unusual idea of the 'ignore' function .