"Ich bin nicht dieses böse Monster": Angeklagter Koffermörder sagt, er sei Ziel thailändischer Straßenhustle gewesen

Simon Peter Carman, a 46-year-old Australian former truck driver, has denied being the "evil monster" depicted in media reports regarding the death of a 17-year-old Thai teenager. Speaking from Pattaya Remand Prison, located approximately 150 kilometers south of Bangkok, Carman described himself as the victim of a street hustle that went awry. His account directly contradicts the findings of Thai authorities, who maintain that he murdered Thanchanok Donhomla. Carman stated he has not slept since his arrest, which occurred after he allegedly attempted to flee to Australia following the incident. The death took place in the early hours of June 25 inside Carman’s condominium in Pattaya. The apartment, situated on the 15th floor of a building in the Jomtien district, was rented at a cost of 330 dollars per month. Carman pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, asserting that he acted in self-defense. He claimed that Donhomla threatened him with a pocket knife while demanding money. However, he admitted guilt to the separate charge of moving the deceased woman's body. Pattaya police Colonel Anek Srathongyoo presented the official medical findings, stating that an autopsy revealed Donhomla died from suffocation and a brain injury. The colonel noted there was no evidence of external head trauma. This forensic evidence stands in sharp contrast to Carman’s testimony. During an in-person interview conducted behind glass panels and bars in the prison visitor area, Carman insisted he was "100 percent certain" he did not restrict the teenager's airways. He described seeing her breathe, noting that her ribcage and stomach moved visibly beneath a floral dress. According to Carman, the girl coughed once and dropped the knife, after which he observed that she had stopped breathing. If convicted, Carman faces the possibility of the death penalty. He maintained that he had legitimate reasons for placing the body in a suitcase rather than contacting law enforcement immediately. Both police and Carman agree that Donhomla met with two female friends near Jomtien Beach around 3:00 a.m. Carman described the interaction as brief, stating he intended to return to his condo to sleep. He claimed he did not recall speaking to all three individuals simultaneously. However, visual evidence challenges this narrative. Footage recorded by one of Donhomla’s friends showed the pair walking away holding hands. Additionally, security cameras in the lobby of Carman’s condominium captured the two entering the elevator together while holding hands. The same camera system later recorded Carman wheeling a large suitcase containing the body out of the building. When confronted with these images, Carman admitted he could not explain why they appeared to be holding hands, stating he did not know if Donhomla had followed him. He emphasized that he had not consumed alcohol prior to the incident, refuting assumptions that drinking played a role. Donhomla, known to her family as "Cake," came from a poor family in northeastern Thailand. She had arrived in Pattaya less than a week before her death. Her relatives rejected the notion that she was involved in the city’s sex trade, a common assumption given Pattaya’s reputation for adult entertainment and red-light districts. They stated she traveled to the city solely to visit friends and view the beach. Carman similarly distanced himself from the local nightlife, insisting he lived in the quieter Jomtier area and adhered to personal moral standards. He expressed frustration with his public image, arguing that media portrayals have unfairly branded him as a villain despite his innocence in the killing. The interview with Carman was subject to strict conditions imposed by Thai authorities. Officials reviewed both the transcript of his statements and a draft of the resulting report. No modifications were requested or implemented during this vetting process. Carman’s defense rests on the claim of accidental restraint during a confrontation initiated by the victim, whereas the prosecution relies on forensic evidence of suffocation and the defendant’s subsequent concealment of the body. The case highlights a significant divergence between the suspect’s personal recollection and the physical evidence gathered by investigators.