"No matter what the verdict, I believe the pressure will be on security agencies right after the verdict delivery. They would have to take care of the peace of the country and comply with the laws. There is a possibility both sides might object to the verdict,"

Why would this be?

Independent political scientist Sukhum Nualsakul said if the court finds Thaksin guilty, PAD should be pleased and reduce its opposition against the government. However, the party would be unlikely to stop protesting against Thaksin's nominee while it continues to demand a change in Thai politics -

I really wonder what the verdict will be then....

On the other hand, if the court says Thaksin is not guilty, the government would be encouraged to go ahead with its work, despite the number of cases against Thaksin yet to come. In the meantime, the PAD would continue to rally, he said.

Why would a "not guilty" verdict "encourage" the government?

I thought they are no nominees of Mr.Taxin?

Sombat Thamrongtanyawong, president of the National Institute of Development Administration, said if the court declares he is not guilty, Thaksin could come back to defend himself in the other cases he faces. His supporters would also be encouraged and have reason to back him. Even though the People Power Party was dissolved, the MPs could get together and join another party.

- The Nation -

I really start to wonder what the heck is in the making here....!

Source:

I really start to wonder what the heck is in the making here....!

The evidence is at least as strong as in the 2001 Asset Concealment case, but the court influences have reduced a lot to the point where it is almost politically implied to give a guilty verdict (in the 2003 decision on assets, it was politically motivated to do the reverse).

Can't see any real possibility of anything other than guilty.

But the punishment will be where both sides might object.

the court influences have reduced a lot to the point where it is almost politically implied to give a guilty verdict

I have been noticing this.

Is it any use having "rule of law" if such influences cannot desist ?