Phuket’s Kwaeng Court has unveiled its full ruling, absolving a Swiss man named Urs Fehr, accused of kicking a woman doctor on the steps of Yamu beach on the night of February 24 this year. The court decided in favor of the 45-year-old defendant, citing insufficient evidence presented by the complainants to substantiate the claimed physical assault.
The decision, delivered on Tuesday and made public on Wednesday, centers around the events of that fateful night at Yamu beach in Phuket’s Thalang district. Mr. Fehr, who also goes by David, was alleged to have kicked Dr. Thandao Chandam, 26, in the back while she and a friend enjoyed the full moon from the beach steps near Fehr’s rented villa.
Mr. Fehr initially insisted he had mistaken the doctor and her friend for trespassers on his property, adding that he had slipped on the steps. According to the freshly released ruling, video footage depicted Dr. Thandao turning her face to the right and backward, seemingly towards Mr. Fehr as he approached them.
The court pointed out that had Mr. Fehr truly kicked Dr. Thandao, she would be able to irrefutably confirm the attack and provide details, especially since the scene was decently lit by the full moon. Yet, the footage contradicted her police testimony that the kick caused her to tumble forward, as it showed her walking away serenely from the scene.
Further fueling the court’s skepticism was the absence of any reaction from Dr. Thandao to question Mr. Fehr’s motive for the alleged attack—something the court said one would typically do if no prior conflict existed. Additionally, the police report mentioned that Dr. Thandao was sitting on the second step up from the beach, posing logistical issues. If Mr. Fehr had stood on the top step, he couldn’t have reached her with a kick; if on the second step, she should have been able to provide specific details about the supposed assault, the court noted.
Adding to the court’s doubts, the testimony of the doctor and a public prosecutor—co-complainants—stated that the alleged kick injured Dr. Thandao. However, their witness, another doctor, hadn’t examined Dr. Thandao personally but only relied on a picture and an unofficial nurse’s report. The prosecutor also failed to bring the nurse who took the photo as a witness to testify in court.
Given the absence of definitive evidence and Mr. Fehr’s continued denials, the court extended him the benefit of the doubt. Dr. Thandao’s claim of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was similarly dismissed. According to court-quoted experts, PTSD typically arises from life-threatening or severely injurious experiences, or sexual abuse.
To wrap up, the court on Tuesday also revoked its previous order, thereby lifting the travel ban on Mr. Fehr, allowing him to leave the country.
Can’t believe he got acquitted. This feels like an example of expat privilege.
He was acquitted because there wasn’t enough evidence. The court has to follow the law, not emotions.
But the victim’s testimony should count for something. The system seems biased.
I agree, Annabelle. Her testimony might have been enough if she were a local.
What a bizarre case. If there’s video footage, why wasn’t it clearer about what happened?
Probably because it was unclear or ambiguous. The court must have done its due diligence.
Or it could be that the video was conveniently interpreted to his advantage. Courts aren’t always fair.
The ruling makes total sense to me. Without concrete proof, you can’t convict someone. Innocent until proven guilty.
True, but too often ‘insufficient evidence’ is used to let guilty people off the hook.
That’s a risk we take to protect the innocent. Would you rather see innocent people convicted?
Exactly, Greg. Better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person suffer.
I found it odd that the doctor didn’t react to the alleged kick. That does raise questions about her story.
If Mr. Fehr really slipped, why didn’t he apologize right away instead of being so defensive?
Maybe he panicked, thinking they’d accuse him of assaulting them on purpose.
But if you’re innocent, why be defensive? It makes him look more suspicious.
Exactly, Claire. Innocent people usually try to clear things up immediately.
Why was the travel ban lifted? He could still be guilty. Now he can just leave the country without consequences.
I think it’s telling that they didn’t produce key witnesses. It’s almost as if the prosecution wanted to lose.
The nurse and the other doctor not testifying is definitely suspicious.
Exactly. Why place so much importance on third-party testimonies?
The PTSD claim seems exaggerated. People throw that term around too lightly nowadays.
Maybe, but trauma affects people differently. It shouldn’t be so quickly dismissed.
Funny how this kind of stuff always seems to happen to foreign guys. It’s like they’re out to get us.
That’s a bold assumption. Just because he’s foreign doesn’t mean he’s being targeted.
Maybe, but it happens often enough that it makes you wonder.
Why are we so quick to defend men like Fehr and forget about victims? Dr. Thandao’s story deserves more empathy.
Seems like another case of ‘he said, she said.’ Courts have to stay impartial and stick to evidence.
I’m just happy justice prevailed. Innocent until proven guilty – can’t stress that enough.
True, but justice for whom? The victim must feel utterly let down.
Thai courts are notoriously corrupt. Who knows what happened behind the scenes?
That’s a broad generalization. Not all court decisions are corrupt.
We’ll never truly know what happened that night. It’s all just lost in translation and cultural differences.
Or maybe Fehr bought his way out. Money talks everywhere.
The whole case feels fishy. But without clearer evidence, it’s hard to say what justice exactly would be here.
At least he’s free to leave now. If he was innocent, keeping him wouldn’t be fair.