Thai man shoots his wife dead before killing herself after she refused to share him with his other wives
CHIANG MAI, THAILAND: A man in Chiang Mai, Thailand shot his third wife dead before killing himself on Saturday (19 July) after a dispute.
According to Thai publication Thaiger, the woman was unaware that the man was still living with his first two wives and had ten children. She wanted to return to her hometown in anger but he refused to let her leave, triggering an argument that turned fatal.
The man's two other wives were apparently present at the time of the dispute and tried to intervene, but they died from their injuries.
The incident took place around 10.15pm in the evening. When police arrived at the scene, they found the bodies of the 43-year-old man and his 36-year-old wife, as well as a 9mm pistol.
According to preliminary investigations, the man had a good relationship with his two wives, and there was a photo showing him posing with them both of them. He also had five children with each of his first two wives. See also Judge Tracie Porter removes Trump name from Illinois ballot
His third wife had been previously married but her husband had passed her away, leaving her with two children.
Investigations are ongoing. The families of the deceased intend to hold a funeral on Monday (21 July). document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", () => { const trigger = document.getElementById("ads-trigger"); if ('IntersectionObserver' in window && trigger) { const observer = new IntersectionObserver((entries, observer) => { entries.forEach(entry => { if (entry.isIntersecting) { lazyLoader(); // You should define lazyLoader() elsewhere or inline here observer.unobserve(entry.target); // Run once } }); }, { rootMargin: '800px', threshold: 0.1 }); observer.observe(trigger); } else { // Fallback setTimeout(lazyLoader, 3000); } });
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
30 minutes ago
- CNA
Prosecution alleges failures by judge in acquitting pair linked to LTA bribery case, seeks review
SINGAPORE: Prosecutors on Tuesday (Jul 22) urged the High Court to relook a high-profile graft case, claiming that a district judge had failed in his judicial duty when he acquitted two men of bribing a Land Transport Authority (LTA) director. Mr Pay Teow Heng, 57, director of Tiong Seng Contractors, and Mr Pek Lian Guan, 60, chief executive and chairman of listed company Tiong Seng Holdings, were acquitted last October of graft charges linked to former LTA deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye. Foo was given five-and-a-half years' jail in September 2021 for taking S$1.24 million in bribes. Mr Pay was accused of giving S$350,000 (US$267,000) to Foo over two occasions in 2017 and 2018 to advance Tiong Seng's business interests with LTA, while Mr Pek was accused of abetting Mr Pay. The lower court judge, District Judge Soh Tze Bian, had acquitted the two men after finding lapses in the statement-taking process by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). He said the investigating officer who took a statement from Mr Pay admitted approaching the interview with a "preconceived notion" that Mr Pay had committed some form of offence. Another investigating officer had used a "cut-and-paste method" to compile a statement he took from Mr Pek. Judge Soh found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the two men beyond a reasonable doubt. On Tuesday, a team of prosecutors led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Alan Loh urged Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon to undertake a "de novo" review of the case. This is a Latin term meaning "anew", and refers to a court considering and reviewing the evidence on record afresh, while giving no deference to the impugned judgment of the court below. It is different from a retrial. In a "de novo" review, the appellate court assumes the role of the first-instance judge at the stage of closing trial submissions, before reaching its own conclusions. MULTITUDE OF FAILURES: PROSECUTION Mr Loh argued that, "given the multitude of failures by the district judge", a de novo review is "not merely warranted but necessary to correct the course of justice". In a hearing lasting more than three hours, Mr Loh submitted, "with respect and with some reluctance", that Judge Soh had failed to discharge his judicial duty. He alleged that Judge Soh had failed to consider material issues or to refer to conflicting evidence about the two men's CPIB statements. Judge Soh had also adopted the defence's written submissions as his own findings, claimed Mr Loh. The grounds of decision by Judge Soh acquitting the men "substantially" adopted the defence's arguments as his own findings, preserving their structure, flow and even choice of words and phrases, said Mr Loh. Mr Loh characterised the way the judge rejected the prosecution's case as doing so with "a sweeping statement". Chief Justice Menon said it was not wrong in and of itself for a judge to adopt the defence's arguments. "A judge may agree with submissions put forth by one side or the other. I myself have come across cases where one side's arguments were bereft of value, and so I agreed with what the other side (said)," he said. However, the prosecution said their complaint was that the lower court judge had adopted the defence submissions without engaging with the prosecution's points. "He copied," said Mr Loh. "He did not refer to our points. He did not even refer to the evidence." He meant that the judge may have relied on defence arguments, but he did not then look at the evidence to satisfy himself that what the defence argued was correct and was actually justified based on the evidence. Mr Pay was represented by lawyers from WongPartnership led by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, while Mr Pek was defended by a team from Drew and Napier led by Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull. Mr Bull pointed to the prosecution's submissions and said they left out lines to show that the judge did apply his mind to the case. Mr Tan said it was not wrong for the judge not to quote the prosecution when "the prosecution submissions (are) bereft of arguments". He said that his client was told he was the victim and that the statement he was giving was to prosecute Foo. "He wasn't even told or aware that he was under investigation, but he was told after his first statement was recorded that his first statement was not good enough," said Mr Tan. He said his client was brought in at 6am and finished recording his statement at 11pm that same day, but was not allowed to go home. Instead, he stayed over at CPIB's premises that night and gave a second statement the next day. Mr Tan said the lower court judge could be seen to be forming his own view in his judgment. "He did not copy," said the lawyer, adding that it "may not be an A grade judgment". Chief Justice Menon said that copying, while in and of itself a "deplorable practice", would not in and of itself satisfy setting aside the judgment. He reserved judgment, saying he needed time and may require another hearing due to the volume of material before him. Judge Soh retired earlier this year. He had been chided by Chief Justice Menon in September 2023 for his "unsatisfactory" judicial practice by lifting large chunks of the prosecution's submissions for his grounds of decision.
CNA
30 minutes ago
- CNA
Jeju Air crash: Did pilots shut down wrong engine before deadly crash?
Latest investigation findings into the deadly Jeju Air crash in December 2024 revealed that pilots mistakenly shut down the left engine, which was operating normally, instead of the right engine, which had been severely damaged by a bird strike before landing. Families of the victims objected to the conclusions, leading to South Korea's investigation body cancelling a planned release to media on Saturday (Jul 19).
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Two men convicted of sexually assaulting woman in hotel; judge rejects consensual sex defence
SINGAPORE: Two men have been convicted of raping or sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room, with the judge rejecting their argument that the sex had been consensual. The first man, 50, was an ex-colleague of the victim. He was convicted of one charge each of molestation, sexual assault and obstructing justice. The second man, 51, had been friends with the first accused for about 20 years and they had previously engaged in a threesome together. He was convicted of six charges including rape, sexual assault, possessing an intimate image and obstructing justice. The pair, both foreign nationals, cannot be named due to a gag order by the court preventing the publication of key information including their professions, nationalities and other details that might identify the victim. The woman had passed out after drinking with the two men, both veterans in her industry, on Feb 26, 2023. This was after the ex-colleague invited her to his hotel room ahead of a planned dinner that never happened. THE WOMAN'S ACCOUNT The woman testified that she had agreed to go up to the hotel room to drop off some sparkling water her ex-colleague had asked her to buy. She also saw it as a networking opportunity. When she got there, she was offered alcohol and drank it while having casual conversation such as chatting about hawker places in Singapore. She said she was asked to drink her glass of gin mix in a "bottoms up" fashion to catch up since the two men had already been drinking all afternoon. When she did so, the older man told her: "When you bottom up, if you don't look the person into the eye, you'll have seven years' bad sex." The woman testified about feeling surprised at this as it was the first time she heard such a thing. She described feeling uncomfortable when the discussion turned sexual and she was asked intimate questions about her boyfriends past and present. She said she did not leave the room as she thought it would be impolite, and did not see any risk of harm as she had a prior professional and amicable relationship with one of them. As the drinking went on, her ex-colleague said the restaurant they had booked for dinner had probably given the reserved table away. She said they could go elsewhere but preferred to go to the original eatery. Around this time, the woman said the men asked her "white wine or red wine?" before plying her with alcohol. After this, her hands started shaking from the amount of alcohol she had consumed and she vomited on the bed before losing consciousness. She began drifting in and out of consciousness and this was her last clear memory. She next remembered vomiting into the sink before sexual acts occurred. She recalled saying "no, no, no" many times but could not move or open her eyes. When she woke up at about 7.45am on Feb 27, 2023, she found blood stains on her underwear and felt weird, suspecting she had been raped. She went to a hospital to get herself medically checked and the hospital later lodged a police report. The prosecution had argued at trial that the two men sexually assaulted the victim knowing full well that she did not consent. The older man took a photo of the woman while she was naked, and without her knowledge, and the two men conspired to obstruct justice by deleting incriminating messages, said the prosecution. The men had admitted to the sexual acts in video-recorded interview statements to the police, and forensic evidence supports the victim's account, said the prosecutors. They added that the men had offered no explanation why the woman would otherwise have accused them of rape. JUDGE ACCEPTS VICTIM'S ACCOUNT The men contested the charges, but Justice Hoo Sheau Peng found that the prosecution had proved its case, in a judgment released on Tuesday (Jul 22). She found the victim firm in her evidence, providing a textured narration of events and not attempting to embellish evidence for bits she found "patchy". Justice Hoo agreed with the prosecution that the woman's conduct at the time was consistent with her account. First, after fully regaining consciousness and forming the view that she had been raped, the victim checked the bin for condoms and repeatedly asked one of the men what had happened. When she returned to the hotel room, she searched online for what to do if she had been raped, the legal consequences of rape, as well as the police's phone number in Singapore. She also visited the hospital once she could to make sure her body was "alright" and made a conscious effort not to wash up in order to preserve evidence. She also tried arranging to meet her ex-colleague to hear his explanation of the night's events. Justice Hoo said the woman's actions all cohere logically with her account of the events, and this is significant as it strikes at the defence's arguments that the woman's account was reconstructed and not based on her recollection. The woman's evidence also cohered with other evidence such as the statements of the two men, closed-circuit television footage from the hotel and the woman's medical examination. MEN'S ACCOUNTS "INCREDIBLE": JUDGE In contrast, Justice Hoo found the ex-colleague's account of the sexual activities "incredible". The man had said that not a single word was uttered by any of them throughout the long series of acts, despite saying earlier that the trio had engaged in a "hearty and long conversation". Justice Hoo also found the deleted texts the ex-colleague had sent to his accomplice an indication of his guilt. She found that the accomplice had shown himself "not to be a credible witness", saying his account of events in a few instances "was simply beyond belief". After the incident, the ex-colleague made Google searches on his laptop for prompts including "do fingers in (vagina) leave dna", "what leaves dna in vagina after sexual activity" and "does shower after sex reduce dna testing". The accomplice had also performed searches online after the incident, such as "trick questions in rape cases" and "polygraph test tips", and visited a webpage titled "Interview Strategies for Sexual Assault and Rape Investigations". "These online searches betray the accused persons' guilty minds," said the judge, adding this was further evidenced by their "incredible explanations for the searches". The victim's ex-colleague was represented by a team from Withers KhattarWong led by Mr Chenthil Kumarasingam, who argued that the acts had occurred with the victim's consent, or that the man was mistaken as to the consent. Mr Kumarasingam had argued that if the woman felt uncomfortable when the conversation turned sexual, she would have said so or left the room. Justice Hoo said this ignores the seniority of the two men in the profession in relation to the victim. It also ignores the fact that her ex-colleague was formerly her superior, and that she respected him and treated him as an elder member in a family. The older man was defended by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Johannes Hadi. Mr Thuraisingam argued that the victim was not unconscious during the sex acts. Instead, she was conscious and consented to the acts, but could not remember doing so due to partial alcohol-induced memory loss. Both men's defence teams argued that the woman had forgotten about the consent she had given to the sexual acts due to the alcohol she had consumed. Justice Hoo rejected this, finding the victim to be an unusually convincing witness, and that there was clearly no valid consent on her part to any sexual activity. She also rejected the men's respective accounts of the events surrounding the sex. She said the accounts were "replete with issues" and that the men had failed to show that the woman validly consented to, or appeared to have consented to the acts. There was no valid consent, or possible appearance of consent, to the sexual activities, she concluded. The men will be sentenced at a later date.
