Bob

In at least the US legal profession (and the innumerable television cop shows), "priors" is just a shortened version of "prior convictions." Neither I nor anybody here has a clue about whether this guy is guilty or not of anything. Apparently though, if the Pattaya Daily News can be believed, the gentleman has been accused of some tawdry behavior before. Pletnev article

If, as you say, you've known him for a while, I don't understand his becoming perturbed at the question. Seems strange to me.

If you're talking about barboys in Pattaya, I can't really believe you just said that. Come on, GB, you surely are very familiar with their English language skills. And besides their poor English (in general...not all of the them), it would seem their motivation is quite different. The customer might want to make sure the boy will bottom but the boy is simply trying to earn top (or any) dollar. He'll smile and probably not question anything (unless you try to undertip him!). And, yea, a some of them may very well be intentionally deceptive to get the money (in a sense, I almost don't blame some of them for that as I do believe they generally think that falang are lying bastards anyway...haha).

My use of the word "culture" was, perhaps, slightly wrong. What I was trying to say there (and I'll probably screw it up again) is that there are certain ingrained methods of thinking (or not thinking) at work. Their educational system hardly encourages any analytical thinking and they're also raised to be rather deferential to their elders (thus lessening the chance they're going persist in questioning us in an attempt to obtain a clear understanding). Regardless, while I can understand you saying that both the thai boy and the falang bear responsibility for making sure there is clear understanding between them, I'd still argue that the bulk of the responsibility is on the falang (at least with respect to the average Thai boy a falang is going to run into.....and perhaps even more so with a newer recruit from Isaan or Laos); after all, it is English we're attempting to communicate with and many/most of them are hardly proficient with that language.

Nobody, at least not me, has suggested they are dumb (or not "smart"). Some are, some aren't (just like falang). And while I can understand you're suggesting that it's both parties' obligation to a conversation to make sure the other person understands, I sometimes try to remember that they are speaking a second language that many of them don't know all that well. Even with my bf of almost 10 years - who speaks English rather well - I'm frequently reminded that even we slightly misunderstand each other from time to time (usually due to my use of English idioms and his lack of perfect fluency in English). Some of that - although not a lot - is also caused by the sometimes erroneous way English is taught in Thai schools (even at the university level). As concerns whether the barboys of Pattaya or elsewhere are wily, that's, as they say, another kettle of fish.

Even before I read this sentence, I knew where this story was going. While I agree with you about the need to be "clearer" when discussing such things, the problem really is one really of language and expectations. If you say anything to Thai boys to the effect of "would you like to do 'X'" or "someday maybe we will do 'X'", you're effectively promising them that it will happen. Whether it's partly a language issue or partly cultural (which I suspect plays a role), that's how they perceive it. Thais use certain language to politely say "no" or to express that they don't want to discuss the issue further and many falang often totally miss the nuance (this being somewhat discussed in a recent thread on this board). At the same time, I do think we westerners use certain language (a Thai boy says something like "will you buy me a car" or "will you take me to Hong Kong") to politely say "no" (we say things like "maybe", "you never know", or "maybe someday") and I do think the Thai boys hear more of a "yes" there than we were intending. Almost better to say "I don't think so" or simply to not answer and change the subject.

I've griped repeatedly about that in Chiangmai. There's no concerted effort or central location for falang to find out what's going on around town (although I've found some relevant info on the "Events" tab of the CityNow website on occasion - although most of that is written in Thai). More often than not, I find events by accidentally walking into them or, on occasion, seeing a poster written in Thai that I can read enough of to ask a Thai to verify its meaning. Other than that, I usually read about what already happened in the Chiangmai Mail.

I don't really have a clue. I don't think Cowlings had anything to do with it as he was involved days later (whenever OJ returned to LA). If OJ did it, the prosecutor's timeline had to be wrong. Nobody could do what they say he did, drive home, thoroughly clean up, essentially dispose of all physical evidence (except the one glove Fehrman claims to have found - which, if you really think about it, makes absolutely no sense at all), and appear to be normal and non-perspiring in less than an hour by the limo driver. It makes no practical sense at all. Remember the prosecutor bringing in testimony about the barking dog? Why anybody would pin their theory (that the neighborhood dog barked signaling the moment of the murders) to that type of "evidence" but, once you propose it, you end up eating the foolishness of it. Once that time was set in stone, it was downhill from there. And, unfortunately, it also made no sense that there was essentially no other physical evidence when there should have been a ton of it. I remember a serious and deliberative interview with most of the jurors a week or two after the trial. While many (who got their information from television snippets) thought the jury had to be nuts, my impression from those interviews was that they were generally a very bright group that did what they swore an oath to do. They spoke as if they wanted to find OJ guilty and were sadly disappointed that the evidence presented wouldn't allow them to do it. Oh well, OJ is where he belongs now, at least for a few years.

There were tons of problems with that case. The most glaring problem was the inability of almost anybody to believe anything that came out of the mouth of Detective Mark Fehrman (spelling?). Marsha, the lead prosecutor, was less than brillian [and her assistant Chris (forget his last name) was much better]. But the biggest problem was the timeline. A person who almost decapitates two other people with a knife would be absolutely soaked in blood. Yet, according the prosecutor's timeline, OJ was getting into a limo 45 minutes later and there wasn't blood smeared all over the house or his car (and it would have been detectable with even a cleaning job) nor did they ever find any blood-soaked clothes. A real mystery at least factually (saying that, I personally believe he did it while high on meth but the timeline had to be a couple of hours or more and I believe at least one other person assisted his movements, disposition of his clothing, and showering elsewhere).

If the mamasan has provided some assistance or information at my request, I'd either buy a drink or provide a small tip to the mamasan too; however, when I was into that game, I typically tried to avoid any contact with the mamasan as best I could (especially the pushy or shreaking ones).

It appears that the Thai immigration computers are not at all linked with interpol or the criminal data bases in other countries, a condition that I've blasted in the past. A recent case - where there appears to be some effort by police (not immigration)to deport anyone found in the country who they learn has been convicted of a child sexual offense in their home country is probably a good start (presuming cops have the ability and desire to check into that criminal history when they come in contact with a given falang) but why not stop them from entering in the first place? Hell, I wouldn't want a convicted rapist, murderer, bank robber, etc., to enter the country in the first place. Given that most all of the falang arrested for child rape have a prior criminal record in their home country, it'd be nice to stop them before they had the opportunity to do it again in Thailand.

The judges are selected on a blind-draw basis (i.e., the judge doesn't get to pick the case, it was just luck (good or bad) of the draw. It would violate judicial and/or attorney canons to even attempt to pick a given judge. Regardless, it has happened at least once that I know of (the lawyer brought several cases to file at the same time, the clerk drew the blind draws all at once and laid them out on the counter in a row (innocently violating protocol), and the lawyer sneakily saved the one case he wanted for the one judge - and for that he was later disbarred and the clerks were subsequently ordered to only pull one blind draw at a time and to do that after one case at a time was filed). I do agree with you that Judge Ito made the OJ case worse than it was in the first place by allowing television in the first place and then not controlling his courtroom. But the real problem with the OJ case was it was a news sensational case and that the admissible evidence was rather poor (the prosecutors locked themselves into an almost impossible timeline) and twelve reasonable jurors (who later said they were fairly sure he killed the two victims) commendably followed the law and couldn't find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I was rather dumbfounded to hear (firecat's response in a related thread) that drinks are 300 baht in Soi Prostitute? Damn! Given that, my response is not to not lessen my usual standard of buying a drink and tipping a boy but, simply, to stay the hell out of Bangkok! (I'm cheap)

Sure, it happens on occasion....but "frequently?" I personally don't agree with that description. As to denying a passport to somebody convicted of being a sexual predator, I'm all for it (given the strong likelihood that a child sex offender is going to do it again, maybe this will protect at least a few kids in the other country which apparently doesn't give a damn about who they grant entry to in the first place).

While I don't know what any particular person's practice may be, I do agree with GB that a customer who calls a boy over to his table is clearly expected to do something for the boy. My practice (admittedly limited in the last many years since I've been "hitched") is to buy him a drink and also provide him with at least a minimal tip (a couple of hundred baht or so).

I'd have no problem with that either as long as private conversations existed. There's no doubt that the prosecutor had discussions off the record with the defense counsel (they could have talked many times in an attempt to settle the case) and it's very likely that the judge held the pre-trial hearing in chambers with both counsel present (thus both prosecutor and defense counsel heard what he said there). But unless either the court and/or counsel violated judicial canons or the attorney canons of ethics, there were no (zero) discussions between the judge which were separate with either the prosecutor or the defense attorney. So far, what I gather is that Polanski thought that the 90-day psychiatric study was supposed to be the total amount of time he would spend "incarcerated"; however, that's not what was said at the hearing where he pleaded guilty and anybody can understand that by reading the linked transcript. The involved judge, of course, is dead so my guess is only the defense counsel and the now-retired prosecutor can clear the air.

Wasn't trying to be funny. I actually was trying to elicit from you why you were suggesting that private (off-the-record) understandings or agreements were made by the judge. That's a pretty simple question. Any response to that one?

Lol, TJ. I used to get a kick out of the line which I think (if I recall right) was attributed to trial attorney Gerry Spence. It went something like this: Hell, I've got the same record as Perry Mason....but none of my clients were innocent!

No system is perfect and mistakes are occasionally made but, overall (just my opinion) what we inherited from the English system has worked quite well in 99%+ of all situations. What I was reacting to before was your statement that "Your theory, of course, assumes that what was said in court on the record reflects what was said off the record beforehand." You were suggesting, I gathered, that there was something in this particular case that was said off the record by the judge beforehand? If so, have any particular reason other than tea leaves to believe that? If not, then why say it? I don't have any theories here (other than my personal theory as stated as to why Polanski fled after the psychiatric evaluation). And, heck, I'm even taking Polanski at his word here (at least as to what he said in court under oath).

If it helps, that same statement is made in every hearing involving the provision of a guilty plea (with changes, of course, only for those pleading guilty to offenses that carry a mandatory mininimum prison sentence). So, nothing unusual to me (if it wasn't there, it would be unusual). We're on the same page there. But then to go on to say that "there must unquestionably be a possibility that something might have been privately agreed beforehand" is beyond me. I'm somewhat of a believer that a person's testimony in court is a lot more valuable (i.e., credible) that what he or his lawyer suggests afterwards. There's a possibility of anything happening in a theoretical sense (hey, it's "theoretically possible" that Polanski had sex with the judge!) but I tend not to believe it when there's no evidence of it and it is in direct opposition as to what the persons (Polanski and his lawyer and the prosecutor and the judge) said in court. We're on the same page there too. The only evidence on the table is that there was no sentencing deal. Again, anybody suggesting there was one or might have been would be pure speculation, right? I have no clue what the prosecutor said after the fact in his private testimony. Nor does anyone else except who was present for the testimony or who later read the transcript. I personally wouldn't suggest it supports or doesn't support any position....because I have no basis to say one way or the other. The transcript of the plea hearing seemed absolutely standard and normal to me (i.e., there's nothing out of the ordinary there). I have no issue with the prosecutor for what he said on the record as his statements also seemed rather normal; however, I do take issue with the prosecutor for offering the plea deal to Polanski in the first place. Polanski was allowed to plea to a low-grade felony in exchange for dropping of much serious charges (including child rape) but perhaps that was done (or at least hopefully so) only for the benefit of the 13-year-old.

Unbelievable. You're suggesting judicial misconduct occurred here without any basis to make that claim. What was said and acknowledged in open court is laid out for you on a silver platter. Now, before you suggest that the judge gave private and contrary assurances to Polanski or his lawyer beforehand, why don't you share with us what you know about (1) whether there were any discussions at all by the judge that aren't on the record, and (2) what was said.

Yep, so far, that's all this is about including whatever you heard from the so-called "more than 7 people" who passed on more gossip to you.

If you read the hearing transcript, I'm hoping that you noted that the judge made it very clear (and Polanski responded more than once that he understood) that there was no sentencing deal with him. You do agree that's what was said in court, right? Based on that testimony, how could anyone possibly say that the court or judge was part of some sentencing deal? Even if one argues that the prosecutor suggested to Polanski or his lawyer that only a 90-day sentence would be given, everybody knows that the prosecutor can't limit what the judge decides to do (and, even though Polanski's lawyer surely made Polanski aware of that, it doesn't matter as the judge made it clear to Polanski and Polanski acknowledged under oath in open court that he understood it). And hopefully you noticed that the judge explained clearly to Polanski why he was being sent for the psychiatric study prior to being sentenced (the reason being to determine if Polanski had other history of sexual events with children and/or if he was a sexual predator who was likely to re-offend) and that the judge made it clear that the ultimate sentence would be affected by that report (and, again, Polanski verbally said in court he understood that). My theory....and it's just a theory....is Polanski's choice to flee was based on what he knew after the psychiatric study was completed was the likelihood that the psychiatric report was going to cause him some problems. I would like to read that report but it won't possibly become public until the sentencing occurs. Polanski, like anybody else, ought to pay for what he did.

Just custom and shyness under certain situations. Hell, once I went to House of Male (male sauna) in Chiangmai with my bf of many years(about 5 years at that time) and a falang who had been a close friend of mine for 30+ years. We're standing before our lockers in the locker room and I dropped my underwear to don my swim suit (believe it or not, the bf and I were there only to take a swim). The beloved had a hissy fit and made me quickly wrap a towel around myself before putting on the swim suit. Hell, we were in the locker room of a male sauna and the only people anywhere within sight were the two of us and my other friend who came with us! Go figure!

There's no basis to suggest I said that....as I didn't. When it comes to extradition agreements (treaties), a country has agreed to extradite for a given offense (it doesn't apply to misdemeanors nor does it apply in many cases to "political" offenses)and also agrees not to attempt to "retry" the case. Here, Polanski, expressly contrary to his sworn testimony in court, has been suggesting that he had an agreement with the judge whereby he would only be sentenced to some short period of time; as such, he somehow got the Swiss to look behind the conviction (by guilty plea, of course). Unfortunately, the transcript of the proceedings absolutely contradict what Polanski and his lawyers have been saying and it's absolutely inexplicable to me how Polanski pulled this off [which is why I questioned if somebody on the Swiss end was paid off - given the facts are uncontroverted and there was really no basis (legal, anyway) for the Swiss to deny the extradition]. The testimony of the 13-year-old before the grand jury can be found here: Victim's Grand Jury Testimony Even though the victim's testimony is rather sad (Polanski's giving her champagne, a qualude, asking her to pose nude for photos, getting into a jacuzzi with her without clothes on, and ultimately having his way with her after she said "no"), more pertinent to all of this is the transcript of the proceedings where Polanski pleaded guilty. That transcript can be found here: Guilty Plea Transcript It's just my opinion but nobody ought to form an opinion about the matter without reading those two transcripts. I'd be interested in your opinion after you read them.