Wrong to speculate on killing motive

1. Police investigate the alleged crime and assemble evidence against any suspects and determine whether they have evidence to arrest.

2. Police forward a criminal case to prosecuting authorities.

3. Prosecuting authorities determine whether there is a prima facie to answer and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

4. If both aspects are met, then the suspect is charged.

5. The suspect is charged with the offence and detained in custody or bailed.

6. The court case begins.

7. Prosecuting counsel presents its case and defending counsel presents its case.

8. The court, in whatever form, deliberates on finding and either acquits of finds guilty

9. The court passes sentence on a guilty finding.

The point at which motive can properly be revealed or established, given all the facts, is the court stage, No 7. There is no place for wild speculation at the investigative stage. Indeed, the motives for such pronouncements, especially by politicians, must be highly suspect. 

The full perversity and inappropriateness of Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung’s utterings can be truly revealed by comparing him to the police minister in the UK. The current Home Secretary is Theresa May, MP, and the possibility of her commenting in the press about the motive of a suspect in an ongoing investigation is so in the realm of fantasy as to be impossible to imagine.

So why is it considered acceptable behaviour in Thailand? Perhaps one of your readers might enlighten me to the functioning of the Thai legal system and what is deemed appropriate and inappropriate.

John Patterson

Bangkok