Nine face perjury charges after court rejects bid for retrial

[rooster59]

Nine face perjury charges after court rejects bid for retrial

By TAWEE APISAKULCHART 
THE NATION

 

Jomsap Saenmuangkhot, a former teacher, talks to reporters yesterday after hearing the Supreme Court’s decision not to order a retrial into the fatal hit-and-run accident in which she was originally convicted and jailed, but later acquitted.

 

THE SUPREME Court yesterday threw out a former teacher’s request to seek a fresh trial into a 2005 fatal road accident in which she was convicted and jailed.

 

At least nine persons involved in the review petition now risk facing perjury charges. 

 

Pol Colonel Pairoj Kujiraphan, the deputy chief of Nong Bua Lamphu police and the head investigator into the teacher’s case, said he would consult his supervisors on possible legal proceedings against those supplying false information.

 

“I think at least nine persons have resorted to perjury,” he said, without naming anyone. 

 

At the centre of the case is Jomsap Saenmuangkhot, a former teacher, who maintained she was innocent even after the Supreme Court convicted her over the fatal accident in 2013 and after she had served her jail term. 

 

 

She petitioned the court seeking a retrial into her case. 

 

But her last hope to overturn the guilty verdict against her was dashed yesterday after the Nakhon Phanom Court announced that the Supreme Court had found no grounds to allow a fresh trial. 

 

The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence and witnesses presented by Jomsap earlier this year in support of her petition were unconvincing. 

 

According to the court, Jomsap did not even allow Sap Wapi – the man who had come forward three years ago claiming to be responsible for the fatal accident – to speak during the review of evidence to determine if a retrial was warranted.

 

 

A witness who spoke up in favour of Jomsap during the review also changed her statements several times. Another witness, meanwhile, did not show up to give testimony on the day of the accident while the case was being investigated, but later claimed she had witnessed what had happened.

 

Sap’s statement, which was presented during the review, also looked unconvincing as he claimed he was driving on the day of the accident to buy eucalyptus. But as the accident took place at 8pm it was an unlikely time for such business, the court said.

 

“I am sad but I will respect the court’s decision,” Jomsap said yesterday after hearing the Supreme Court’s decision. 

 

Jomsap said she would try to accept her fate and ask the government to consider rehiring her as a government teacher. 

 

She lost her job as a teacher because of the guilty verdict against her in the hit-and-run accident. 

 

The Court of First Instance convicted her in 2006. The Court of Appeals gave her the benefit of the doubt in 2009. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the Court of Appeals’ ruling, convicting her and giving her a jail term. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30331902

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-18

[greenchair]

It is natural that the man who did it would not come to the court, because he puts himself in danger of going to prison. I thought the court could supena a reluctant witness. 

I feel really sorry for her. 

[Bob12345]

6 minutes ago, greenchair said:

It is natural that the man who did it would not come to the court, because he puts himself in danger of going to prison. I thought the court could supena a reluctant witness. 

I feel really sorry for her. 

I didn't follow this case, but my question would be: what happened to Sap Wapi after he came forward to be the one who did the hit and run?

Was he prosecuted for it? 

 

How i read this article, and assuming Thailand has a legal system that works, it looks like Sap Wapi might have made a confession just to help Jomsap.

As long as his confession is not convincing he might as well be paid off by Jomsap's family to take the fall or just mentally ill.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Bob12345 said:

I didn't follow this case, but my question would be: what happened to Sap Wapi after he came forward to be the one who did the hit and run?

Was he prosecuted for it? 

 

How i read this article, and assuming Thailand has a legal system that works, it looks like Sap Wapi might have made a confession just to help Jomsap.

As long as his confession is not convincing he might as well be paid off by Jomsap's family to take the fall or just mentally ill.

The family were seeking compensation so he came forward to pay compensation. 

She did show proof that he drove a truck the same colour as hers. 

And the licence plate had the same numbers but different letters  (I think ). In addition he lived in the same town as the accident and she lived a couple of hours away. 

She did show proof that she purchased things at a shop in her home town. Funnily enough his truck was destroyed and the ownership papers destroyed right along with it. It might be that the judge addressed all of this but it wasn't advertised. Sap Wapi was never prosecuted. But as far as I know did pay compensation to the family. 

In our country we could send to England for an independent inquiry. But I don't think that's possible in Thailand. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Bob12345 said:

I didn't follow this case, but my question would be: what happened to Sap Wapi after he came forward to be the one who did the hit and run?

Was he prosecuted for it? 

 

How i read this article, and assuming Thailand has a legal system that works, it looks like Sap Wapi might have made a confession just to help Jomsap.

As long as his confession is not convincing he might as well be paid off by Jomsap's family to take the fall or just mentally ill.

Yes it could still be that she is guilty or not.. I havent seen the evidence. But its a strange case.. like greenchair says the truck has been destroyed and the ownership papers... that makes it quite suspicious. If I was a judge I would have my doubts too. 

 

Proof you buy things.. how.. a bill.. if it was CCTV .. dated and all the sure. There is a good chance she bought this guy off to take the fall because she wants her job back and would have gotten a lot of compensation from her former job. 

[OneZero]

My God this turning into a soap opera. But based upon other stories I've heard I sure as hell would not give benefit of the doubt to the RTP or a legal system willing to work hand in glove with them.

 

 

[pookiki]

I will be the first to admit that I am often perplexed by the workings of the Thai legal system. However, in this case, the police did not act to charge and bring Sap Wapi to trial after he admitted to culpability in the 'civil' matter.  Without the police taking action to charge Sap Wapi in the 'criminal' case, the Supreme Court is without a sufficient mandate to find that exculpatory evidence exists to reverse Jomsap's conviction.  One must also consider that the families' acceptance of compensation in the 'civil' matter does not necessarily represent the necessary 'quantum of proof' to establish guilt in a criminal matter.

[farcanell]

18 hours ago, greenchair said:

It is natural that the man who did it would not come to the court, because he puts himself in danger of going to prison. I thought the court could supena a reluctant witness. 

I feel really sorry for her. 

 

19 hours ago, rooster59 said:

According to the court, Jomsap did not even allow Sap Wapi – the man who had come forward three years ago claiming to be responsible for the fatal accident – to speak during the review of evidence to determine if a retrial was warranted.

I suppose the onus is on the convict to provide the evidence for a retrial, yet it seems that she did not produce the witness to provide the needed evidence.... that’s not the courts fault.

 

that said.... fairness, justice, thailand... Not surprisingly, I’m not surprised. 

[greenchair]

16 hours ago, pookiki said:

I will be the first to admit that I am often perplexed by the workings of the Thai legal system. However, in this case, the police did not act to charge and bring Sap Wapi to trial after he admitted to culpability in the 'civil' matter.  Without the police taking action to charge Sap Wapi in the 'criminal' case, the Supreme Court is without a sufficient mandate to find that exculpatory evidence exists to reverse Jomsap's conviction.  One must also consider that the families' acceptance of compensation in the 'civil' matter does not necessarily represent the necessary 'quantum of proof' to establish guilt in a criminal matter.

It is a bit of a conundrum, not being an expert but I think they could not charge him for the crime that she is currently convicted of. 

Another conundrum is if the Supreme gave her the innocent verdict, by not confessing in the court he could just as likely recant and say he had nothing to do with it after the verdict. Which would not go well for the supreme court. 

 

[greenchair]

21 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes it could still be that she is guilty or not.. I havent seen the evidence. But its a strange case.. like greenchair says the truck has been destroyed and the ownership papers... that makes it quite suspicious. If I was a judge I would have my doubts too. 

 

Proof you buy things.. how.. a bill.. if it was CCTV .. dated and all the sure. There is a good chance she bought this guy off to take the fall because she wants her job back and would have gotten a lot of compensation from her former job. 

The truck and ownership papers were destroyed about a week after she filed her case. Some of the witnesses were intimidated being told they themselves would be prosecuted. I vaguely remember sap Wapi did not turn up at the first hearing. Perhaps her and her lawyers downfall was that they tried to prove her innocence whilst trying to keep sap Wapi out of the spotlight. If they had have pushed harder on his guilt they might have won. I think there was cctv image that she was in her town at the time. She had a receipt and the shop owner as a witness 

So her evidence was 

Cctv  she was elsewhere.

She was at school for that morning. And the town was 2 hours away so she would have to go there and back. But she was home with her family early evening. 

I think she got her eyebrows done or got a haircut and had a witness. 

A receipt from that day.  

Proof the 2 trucks had similar plate numbers. 

Her truck had a scratch on the left side but the accident was on the right and there was no damage to her vehicle. 

His truck was mysteriously destroyed along with the ownership papers about a week after she filed her case. 

Sap Wapi paid compensation to the family admitting that he did it. 

Against her 

Sap Wapi didn't show up. 

The witness to the accident only showed up after she was released and filed the case so the judge consider it hearsay.