frederick5

Fresh evidence in Somchai's case

By The Nation

Published on February 17, 2010

The Senate yesterday voted to accept 11 items of defence evidence to be used in the prosecution case of former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, who was indicted for abuse of power related to the botched anti-riot operation on October 7, 2008.

The fresh evidence was not included in the report submitted by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which formed the basis for the prosecution.

In yesterday's inquiry session, Somchai submitted a writ arguing that the prosecution proceedings be aborted on grounds that the NACC had failed to notify him about its investigation and the subsequent indictment, which paved the way for impeachment on top of criminal accountability.

Senate Speaker Prasobsook Boondech, in his capacity as the prosecution inquiry chairman, ruled to strike down the defence writ and justified his decision by saying that the Senate had no mandate to render judgement on how the NACC did its job.

"Under the Constitution, the Senate is obliged to activate and draw conclusions on the prosecution inquiry after the NACC has submitted its report determining the cause for the action," he said.

After examining the evidence, the Senate has until next Tuesday to hear the opening statements of the prosecution and defence teams, and should have the inquiry completed by March 15.

To impeach Somchai, the upper chamber must muster at least 90 votes or three-fifth of the 150 seats.

If impeached, Somchai would be penalised with a five-year ban against holding political office.

The fresh defence evidence includes a picture of Angkhana Radabpanyawuth's corpse, which will be used as proof that not all casualties were caused by teargas used for crowd control.

The other key evidence is the prosecution's review of the criminal proceedings, which includes Office of the Attorney General's objection that the NACC report focused too much on the flaws of the anti-riot operation and had not factored in the merits.

The defence also wants to highlight a police report explaining why it was necessary to rein in the crowds.

-- The Nation 2010-02-17

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

I want to know who the idiot was that signed the contract that prevented them from being laboratory tested

Whoever was in power in 2003

BANGKOK: -- (AFP) -

Thailand had already spent at least 21 million dollars on between 700 and 800 of the detectors since 2003.

Judges life will be sh*te if they do not do what is right and dismiss the case.

Why would they return the ill-gotten gains and theft of taxpayers' money to a convicted criminal fugitive on the run?

That's not right.

As for the safe houses; that's in regards to the threats on the judge's lives from one of the criminal fugitive's henchman.