Editor Comment:

The man is, of course, innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. He hasn't admitted anything. It would be unjust to accept one side of any unproven case. In taking the child to the complaints office to go through the circumstances again, the mother seems to be overlooking the potential trauma to the child. The police have nothing to do with the complaints office. Other readers have also jumped to conclusions, with one even suggesting castration. Fortunately for the innocent and the guilty, readers have no say in determining just outcomes.

Editor Comment:

I guess you don't have a justice system. The man is innocent until proven guilty. The mother's claims have to be established as fact in court.

Editor Comment:

There was no need for the girl to be present at the complaints office, kobee. If the accusations are true, the young girl and the effect on her should be of prime concern. If you don't understand that, perhaps your life experience is limited.

Other readers have also made presumptions about this case. Guesswork is unsuitable in comments, especially where a charge as serious as rape has been laid. We intend to let justice take its course in establishing whether this man is guilty or innocent and suggest that readers do the same.

Editor Comment:

The main point is, Martin, that ''pontifications'' about a case like this one are unwise. It was probably a mistake from the beginning to allow comments. My only assumption is that readers will make too many of them, as you did from the moment that you took VFaye to be male. Now you assume I have little or no personal experience. Another reader suggests having two daughters makes him/her better qualified. We don't plan on ''whacking'' at any party - it may surprise you to learn that we never do. We also don't intend to allow passions to subsume principles. We took the trouble to contact the police from the beginning, which at least gave us a reasonably balanced account. My point is that none of us know all the facts in this disturbing case, which is why it's best left as a matter for the court. My apologies for wasting your time, and the time of other readers.

Editor Comment:

The first section of your post deals with this case as though a crime has been committed. A Doctor of Psychiatry may be able to make that assumption. A journalist cannot. Bear in mind that the mother went to the Damrungtam office to complain about police inaction. Yet the police have arrested and charged the man. The mother either did not know about the man's arrest, or neglected to pass on that piece of information. That's an unusual set of circumstances. It's safe to make only one assumption: that the storekeeper denies the charge.

For once, possibly for the first time, your response on an issue adds confusion rather than clarity.

Your write: ''You seem quite willing to judge the Mother on her decision to take the girl to confront her accuser . . . ''

We are actually talking about the mother taking the child to a provincial complaints office to brief the media. The storekeeper was not present. The police were not present. And you write ''her accuser''. Just what has the child been accused of?

I agree that the child's welfare is paramount. You write: ''The specifics of the child's emotional state can't be judged by you or anyone else without the proper training and time with her. It is a possibility that the outcome could be positive and is even likely. I question what just outcome for her you see here? What justice can there ever be for a nine year old who has faced this? What is important and you don't see fit to publish is that this girl is put in touch with someone who specializes in this kind of trauma as soon as possible. Since there is no mention of it in your article or pontifications I am forced to assume it has not been done.''

I wish we knew about that too, Martin. My advice hasn't been sought. (I am a journalist, not an oracle). We agree that the girl's welfare is of paramount importance in this real-life case. But please let me repeat . . . It's safe to make only one assumption: that the storekeeper denies the charge.

Perhaps I should remind you of one sentence you also wrote, having made some comments that of course I agree with: Publish or don't publish, its up to you.

Editor Comment:

Phuketwan took the view that regular journalistic balance was required before posting our article, so we called the police officer involved. Most other news outlets did not, and ended up with articles, at least at first, providing just the mother's one-sided perspective. The mother is the only source for virtually all the incriminating information available so far. The man clearly denies what she says is true. We don't know what the result was of the hospital test, or why it was - unusually - forwarded to Bangkok. We don't know why the mother complained to Phuket officials that police had failed to act, yet failed to mention that she knew the man had already been arrested and charged. Any assumption that any offence occurred is therefore wrong in principle and in fact, and not a suitable topic for supposition, guesswork or debate. All this can be gleaned from the article, but reading it without allowing passion to usurp principle seems to be a difficult thing, even for intelligent readers. Opinions must have validity, kobee. Just having one is not enough.