Supreme Court rejects sacked teacher’s plea for retrial

[snoop1130]

Supreme Court rejects sacked teacher’s plea for retrial

By The Nation

 

Jomsap Saenmuangkhot

 

The Supreme Court on Friday resolved against launching a fresh trial into a 2005 hit-and-run accident for which a female teacher was convicted.

 

Jomsap Saenmuangkhot, who lost her job as teacher, submitted a request for a fresh trial after serving a jail term over the death of a cyclist in the accident. 

 

Jomsap has maintained she was innocent despite her conviction by the Supreme Court. 

 

Her request for a fresh trial was initially accepted because a man had come forward to claim responsibility for the accident. 

 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no fresh evidence to warrant a fresh trial. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30331877

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-17

[darksidedog]

47 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

Her request for a fresh trial was initially accepted because a man had come forward to claim responsibility for the accident. 

 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no fresh evidence to warrant a fresh trial. 

I had thought there were some active brain cells in the Supreme Court, but clearly I was wrong. When you have a man with a vehicle with the same licence plate number, from a different province, admitting he did it AND paying compensation to the family, I would have thought that was reasonably good evidence to work with. Absolute idiots and another very poor day for the joke that pretends to be justice in this country.

[chrisinth]

Not normally this sympathetic but my heart goes out to this lady, based on the few facts that have been given.

 

How this habit of family compensation (especially when the concerned person is already serving time) to keep guilty people spaced from justice really needs to be rethought in this day and age. If the reported facts are true, this will be the reason the teacher won't get a retrial.

 

All horribly wrong.

[stephen tracy]

"there was no fresh evidence to warrant a fresh trial"... apart from someone else admitting to it.  had she ben rich, she'd never have been prosecuted in the first place. 

[Chris Lawrence]

Look at Red Bull. And he killed a policeman.

[Briggsy]

Something very weird about this case. It is not normal police incompetence or run-of-the-mill corruption. Particularly look at the big shots getting involved with it.

My speculation is :-

1. Someone powerful specifically targetted Ms. Jomsap, set her up and ensured she was imprisoned. Personal or financial dispute??

2. Ms. Jomsap and her vehicle were useful scapegoats because someone powerful was involved in causing death due to reckless driving. Case cannot be reopened because powerful people may be incriminated??

 

Not normal.

[greatwhitenorth]

To admit making an error would cause a huge loss of face. the teacher has much less face to lose. Was there ever any doubt what the outcome would be?

[spidermike007]

4 hours ago, greatwhitenorth said:

To admit making an error would cause a huge loss of face. the teacher has much less face to lose. Was there ever any doubt what the outcome would be?

 

Face is no doubt, the greatest form of weakness, a human can engage in. Many will say it is societal, cultural, etc. No matter. It is the absolute and complete lack of the ability to introspect, and look within for the source of any problem, shortcoming, conflict, or issue. It is the polar opposite of spirituality, and therefore an absolute scourge on Buddha, and all of the precepts he taught. By practicing face, you are denying your spiritual heritage. You are refusing to man up. To take responsibility for your actions. If a man or a woman cannot, and will not take responsibility for their actions, the problems they create, the mistakes they make, and the issues they involve themselves in, what are they? Are they still an adult? Are they a complete individual, if they allow themselves to be limited by such infinitely small social convention? 

 

Who cares what people think of you? For those of us with high self esteem, it just does not matter. Sure, close friends and family. But strangers on the street? Who gives a rat's butt about this? It means nothing what they think, nor what they say about you. They count for nothing. They are just people, and people you do not know, nor will ever see again. Face is rife with self doubt, and by subscribing to this weakness, and man or woman is made a far lesser person. For those of us with high self esteem, we know who we are. What others think, what society thinks, what a guy or gal thinks, means less than zero.

Real men or women, simply own a situation, and take responsibility for their errors or mistakes. Small men, social deviants, or emotional adolescents deflect, obfuscate, attempt to confuse, and do everything in their power to deny that they made a mistake, or that they are responsible in any way, or on any level. They make up narratives about fake news, or alternative facts. Anything to avoid looking within, for the source of the problem. Anything.

 

[greatwhitenorth]

• Max Ehrmann 
  
  Desiderata 
  
  Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
  and remember what peace there may be in silence.
  As far as possible without surrender
  be on good terms with all persons.
  Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
  and listen to others,
  even the dull and the ignorant;
  they too have their story. 

further verses at the link  http://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html

 

I love 70's hippy feel good records too.

[Srikcir]

If reversing lower court rulings by the Supreme Court is dependent on "losing face" within the judicial system instead of upholding the rule of law, the Thai Supreme Court neither serves the constitution nor specifically respect the sovereignty of the Thai people.

It might as well not exist. It fails repeatedly as a check & balance against abuse of people's rights and liberties.

[Baerboxer]

18 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

"there was no fresh evidence to warrant a fresh trial"... apart from someone else admitting to it.  had she ben rich, she'd never have been prosecuted in the first place. 

 

Beggars belief really. To actually say there's no new evidence when she's been released from prison because someone else has no confessed. An intelligent response would've been to immediately quash the conviction and award appropriate compensation. But she's just a normal person, so forget it.

 

There is no notion of morality, justice right and wrong. Just what someone feels like or can be bothered with on the day.

[Langsuan Man]

And there are those who wonder why Yingluck didn't stick around...........