NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 the girls parents knew she did not have licence but still bought her car or alloewed her to buy one they should be brought before same court for aiding this awfull event 3 out of 10 It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did. Very bad reading comprehension and making things up in lieu of stating the known facts. Please read all +700 posts on all related threads before talking sh!te. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I read newspaper accounts of two crash survivors who were visited by the family of the girl early on... They each got a few paragraphs in the newspaper. The most notable thing I remember from their comments was both saying, at least according to the newspaper, that they just wanted to put the episode behind them and they didn't plan to sue the girl's family. That was then... Afterwards, who knows... They will happily accept interim financial recompense from the family in lieu of the insurance company award. It's the Thai way. Getting an ambulance chasing lawyer to go for bigger bucks is NOT the Thai way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 the girls parents knew she did not have licence but still bought her car or alloewed her to buy one they should be brought before same court for aiding this awfull event 3 out of 10 It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did. Very bad reading comprehension and making things up in lieu of stating the known facts. Please read all +700 posts on all related threads before talking sh!te. OK, let's stick to known facts. Who owns the car? Until you can answer that question how can "It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did." be accepted as fact. Face it, if the parents did buy the car, they will try to hide that as it will make them criminally liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 It doesn't matter if I murder a whole family and their dog, if I walk into the kitchen and there drop a knife on my foot, that event in of itself is an accident. Why is this concept so hard to understand for people? Her supposed lack of a license etc doesn't change the nature of the event. Do you accept that some accidents are easier avoided than others? When people do something that they know to be dangerous, like driving under the influence, or driving underage, and an accident occurs because of it, nobody is saying that it was intentional, but they are saying that it could have been avoided by following laws and using common sense. If you ignore these two things, and bad stuff happens, you can't just say "well i'm sorry but i didn't mean for this to happen" and expect others to say "Yes we know you didn't. Don't worry, we are not blaming you. Accidents happen and all that". Well i wouldn't say that. Some people here clearly would. Well said rixalex, although some will never get it. I havent seen anyone suggest that the result of this collision was intended. Having said that, the bit where she went and obtained the car, got into the drivers seat, started the engine, disengaged the handbrake, engaged the gears, clutch, throttle and moved off along a road or soi somewhere. In doing so she has had to steer the car, accelerate, brake & negotiate her way through the traffic. At some point she drove up onto the motorway, paid a toll perhaps? ALL OF THIS WAS INTENDED. Then the vehicle was driven along the tollway doing x, y & z. (All of which were intended actions) Perhaps some of the x,y & z may have been things which a prudent and propper person may NOT have done. Then as a result of this carelessness, recklessness, complete disregard for the law, whatever you want to call it, there is an aweful collision (albeit unintended) & 9 lives are snuffed out. Other people are injured. Sure the actual result of her actions were unintended, but its all the intended stuff that led up to the end result that need to be answered for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 This girls family is so important in Thailand that no names have been mentioned! I also saw a clip on tv of the girl and some of her family, and the video was made blocky so you could not recognise them. Conclusion: some people really are above the law and are untouchable. Pay attention at the back. The family name and their pictures have been published in print and electronic media since a few days after the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 It doesn't matter if I murder a whole family and their dog, if I walk into the kitchen and there drop a knife on my foot, that event in of itself is an accident. Why is this concept so hard to understand for people? Her supposed lack of a license etc doesn't change the nature of the event. Do you accept that some accidents are easier avoided than others? When people do something that they know to be dangerous, like driving under the influence, or driving underage, and an accident occurs because of it, nobody is saying that it was intentional, but they are saying that it could have been avoided by following laws and using common sense. If you ignore these two things, and bad stuff happens, you can't just say "well i'm sorry but i didn't mean for this to happen" and expect others to say "Yes we know you didn't. Don't worry, we are not blaming you. Accidents happen and all that". Well i wouldn't say that. Some people here clearly would. The legal term and the charge, at least in America is "reckless indifference". Clearly not an accident and does not establish intent, but intent is not necessary for a crime to have been commited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I read newspaper accounts of two crash survivors who were visited by the family of the girl early on... They each got a few paragraphs in the newspaper. The most notable thing I remember from their comments was both saying, at least according to the newspaper, that they just wanted to put the episode behind them and they didn't plan to sue the girl's family. That was then... Afterwards, who knows... They will happily accept interim financial recompense from the family in lieu of the insurance company award. It's the Thai way. Getting an ambulance chasing lawyer to go for bigger bucks is NOT the Thai way. Do you really expect the insurance company to cover an incident where the driver was under-age and unlicenced? Every insurance policy has myriad exclusions, usually in tiny little print to save paper, and expressed in obscure legalese jargon, that give the insurer (the party of the first part) the right to refuse claims by the insured (the party of the second part) or the injured (the party of the third part) and also written in some of the longest sentences ever written (at least in the 20th century or later) in the English language (be that US or UK English) and with many bracketed inclusions, the sole aim being to make the comprehension and understanding, by the party of the second part, almost impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 It doesn't matter if I murder a whole family and their dog, if I walk into the kitchen and there drop a knife on my foot, that event in of itself is an accident. Why is this concept so hard to understand for people? Her supposed lack of a license etc doesn't change the nature of the event. Do you accept that some accidents are easier avoided than others? When people do something that they know to be dangerous, like driving under the influence, or driving underage, and an accident occurs because of it, nobody is saying that it was intentional, but they are saying that it could have been avoided by following laws and using common sense. If you ignore these two things, and bad stuff happens, you can't just say "well i'm sorry but i didn't mean for this to happen" and expect others to say "Yes we know you didn't. Don't worry, we are not blaming you. Accidents happen and all that". Well i wouldn't say that. Some people here clearly would. accidents--this word is used in the west--as in England-there was an accident last night on the A18, reported deaths. A ,fatal crash occurred, I think sounds better, until the court decides it was an accident, or- incident is also better. Accident to my thinking is bad to state if it was not accidental. One other point, if you had a temporary drivers licence you had to be accompanied by a licence holder until you passed your test (learners licence) and L plates were attatched to the front and rear of the car. Learners were not allowed to drive alone. Motor cycles were exactly the same but could drive solo. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 This girls family is so important in Thailand that no names have been mentioned! I also saw a clip on tv of the girl and some of her family, and the video was made blocky so you could not recognise them. Conclusion: some people really are above the law and are untouchable. You are quick to come to a conclusion without having any knowledge about why it was done. Law forbids them to show the name... Please post you new conclusion now when you know the real reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I know of several cases where the police didn't take any commission at all, were not interested in it either. Not saying that it doesn't happen either of course, just that it doesn't happen every time by far Debt contracts signed which the BIB enforce with the threat of criminal proceedings are also rare, only for idiots who don't know the law. One of the bigger differences between civil law and criminal law in Thailand is that there is (normally) no compensation to have in criminal cases. Opening up a criminal case and the one who does it won't even get compensated for his lawyers costs... Doesn't sound attractive. A threat with criminal proceedings in this case, where the police already have opened up a criminal proceedings case sounds a bit hollow to me Our recent case agaisnt an ex employee we split into 2 parts, the criminal side has already been dealt with at negotiation at the court and we got compensation, the civil case is still ongoing for more compensation, not all of the acts were criminal hence the two cases. The civil side is very slow moving as she is denying it (or rather she knows she will have to pay and is delaying the inevitable), civil matters can be dealt with without the need for court if both parties agree and can be done quickly, when the court gets involved though it is a long drawn out process. Some say that it is good I don't know but yes, compensation is still negotiated sometimes even if it actually isn't applicable in criminal cases, that's why I used (normally). Thais would think that it is good, the negotiations speeded up solution and monetary compensation for the affected party is good... You will eventually get compensation from the civil case, do you wish you haven't pressed it by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Double post Edited January 7, 2011 by MikeyIdea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The only thing that bothers me with that statement is the "lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water". If you've *just* fallen out of a car going at 100kmh (i'm not sure what speed they were going), would you be yelling for water? Full circle... first we question if the girl was injured or is really sorry. Now we question a victims statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The only thing that bothers me with that statement is the "lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water". If you've *just* fallen out of a car going at 100kmh (i'm not sure what speed they were going), would you be yelling for water? Full circle... first we question if the girl was injured or is really sorry. Now we question a victims statement? I question whatever doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIEFOFFICER Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 You lot are a sad bunch. You all cry for justice, but are ready to pass your own judgement on this girl before she has been properly convicted. And before you all get on your high horses about me defending her, I'm not..I'm quite happy for a court to decide whether she is guilty or not after reviewing all the facts and evidence (and not from reading newspaper reports like the wannabe judges on this forum) Listen to yourselves almost baying for blood.. "lock her up, throw away the key" you say.. thank god you are not part of the legal system in any country. This whole thing is a tradgedy.. for all involved. totster Admirable sentiments with which one would agree.The problem is not however the people baying for blood for they are obviously wrong. The general issue is whether the rich and privileged should continue to evade justice in Thailand.In this particular case we must await the outcome though all sadly the signs are that the traditional patterns will apply. It is also interesting why this case has raised so much heat among ordinary Thais at this particular time. So your comment about those who bay for blood is well made, but the truth is you have also missed the main point as the dead victims families would tell you. TIT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkk_mike Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 On the flip side, I haven't heard a single authority say anything about charging the van driver with anything....at least as yet... I can't think of many countries where the police launch criminal prosecutions against dead people. What we have here is a girl who was driving without a licence (which in Thailand is apparently almost as common as riding a motorbike without a helmet, just not as obvious...) She was speeding on the motorway. (The limit on the expressways is 80 I believe - but I also believe that you could probably count on one hand the number of cars not exceeding that by a pretty wide margin when traffic's not heavy - especially if you exclude the left hand lane.) I'm not saying she didn't drive recklessly. She almost certainly did or she wouldn't have been charged as the police have seen the traffic camera footage. (But I know I drove like an idiot in my early 20s - with a licence.) Of course she is probably the cause of the accident (based on the charges), and it was a terrible tragedy, especially in regard to the victims being highly educated and often their family's "golden child", especially in the case of the 27yo PhD. However, the media witch-hunt because of her last name reminds me of nothing more than the Bonfire of the Vanities. This is NOT the same as the guy who drove his car into a bus queue... That was pre-meditated murder. This is a teenage girl who was simply a bad driver. After the accident, she didn't help the victims... which isn't good, but she was apparently injured herself, and almost certainly in shock. Unlike most people's expectations on here, she turned up for the police summons without mysteriously disappearing out of the country despite her family connections. She has apologised for causing the accident, and the victims will get compensated. (Any compensation for the victims will probably be for a significantly higher amount than normal in Thailand, if only because the estimated earning power of the victims is that much higher than the average Thai. Whether the insurance company pays the compensation or the family has to pay it itself, or it's a mix is down to whether the insurance company decides that the publicity for not paying is worse than the cost of paying out... Legally, a driver without a licence is almost certainly not covered.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I know of incident a couple of months ago, a guy shot an killed another guy(both Thai), the shooter spent a few days in jail while the family gathered some money, they paid 400K, the other family accepted the deal, and the guy walked. Anyway, these things don't just happen in Thailand, it happens a lot places. I was told the police acted more or less as negotiators between the parties involved, and that was it, finished. Anyway, good posts above and below by both NanLaew and Totster. This is the way things are in a number of regions in the world, it's not just Thailand. The police not only act as negotiators. If the payout isn't readily available, a debt contract is signed which the BIB enforce with the threat of criminal proceedings. THEY ALSO TAKE A COMMISSION! I know of several cases where the police didn't take any commission at all, were not interested in it either. Not saying that it doesn't happen either of course, just that it doesn't happen every time by far Debt contracts signed which the BIB enforce with the threat of criminal proceedings are also rare, only for idiots who don't know the law. One of the bigger differences between civil law and criminal law in Thailand is that there is (normally) no compensation to have in criminal cases. Opening up a criminal case and the one who does it won't even get compensated for his lawyers costs... Doesn't sound attractive. A threat with criminal proceedings in this case, where the police already have opened up a criminal proceedings case sounds a bit hollow to me I think you are wrong on the matter of debt contracts - I know of 2 Thai-Thai cases where debt contracts were in place, the payments were made at a police station (minus "tax") and if missed the threat was that the criminal case would proceed. The first was a killing where the offender was to pay the family B1000/month for 8 years and was in the BKK area. The second was a theft of a gold chain and 18K gold kangaroo ornament (my wife's). The chain was recovered but the ornament had been thrown away because it was not "real" gold, the thief paid it off over 12 months, and my wife inflated its value to cover the rightfully expected police commission. My comments on this are no way related to the honda/van accident. From what I hear, debt contracts are still rare, the police have nothing to come with for someone who doesn't want to join. If the police wants to press criminal charges let them, not your court costs There is only a debt contract if the victim wants to have one, if she wants one and benefit from one, then service was good Point is, it is not pushed on anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 the girls parents knew she did not have licence but still bought her car or alloewed her to buy one they should be brought before same court for aiding this awfull event 3 out of 10 It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did. Very bad reading comprehension and making things up in lieu of stating the known facts. Please read all +700 posts on all related threads before talking sh!te. OK, let's stick to known facts. Who owns the car? Until you can answer that question how can "It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did." be accepted as fact. Face it, if the parents did buy the car, they will try to hide that as it will make them criminally liable. Because.... it was stated quite early by several media outlets just after the accident that it was her FRIENDS car and the girl even states that when commenting on the over publicized picture of her leaning on the guard rail with her phone She claims was calling the cars owner (her friend) about the insurance. These are the facts as published. Go google 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) I read newspaper accounts of two crash survivors who were visited by the family of the girl early on... They each got a few paragraphs in the newspaper. The most notable thing I remember from their comments was both saying, at least according to the newspaper, that they just wanted to put the episode behind them and they didn't plan to sue the girl's family. That was then... Afterwards, who knows... They will happily accept interim financial recompense from the family in lieu of the insurance company award. It's the Thai way. Getting an ambulance chasing lawyer to go for bigger bucks is NOT the Thai way. Do you really expect the insurance company to cover an incident where the driver was under-age and unlicenced? Every insurance policy has myriad exclusions, usually in tiny little print to save paper, and expressed in obscure legalese jargon, that give the insurer (the party of the first part) the right to refuse claims by the insured (the party of the second part) or the injured (the party of the third part) and also written in some of the longest sentences ever written (at least in the 20th century or later) in the English language (be that US or UK English) and with many bracketed inclusions, the sole aim being to make the comprehension and understanding, by the party of the second part, almost impossible. We are talking about the VICTIMS insurance claims and payouts. Once again, in earlier media reports, the minibus owners (BMTA operated) have already stated that financial recompense for the passengers is just a formality. Do you understand the term Fully Comprehensive auto insurance as it applies to a commercial operator? If there's one significant change in Thailand in the 20-odd years since I fell from the sky, it's the fact that auto insurance is mandatory and that the majority of Thai car owners do make sure they have it. The primary reason is of course, it short-circuited the usual sitting round the table at the cop shop while the police 'mediated' who paid for what after the inevitable fender-bender (have you seen the way they drive here???!!!). It's also why 'no claims bonus' means buggerall in Thai auto insurance! Edited January 7, 2011 by NanLaew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 the girls parents knew she did not have licence but still bought her car or alloewed her to buy one they should be brought before same court for aiding this awfull event 3 out of 10 It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did. Very bad reading comprehension and making things up in lieu of stating the known facts. Please read all +700 posts on all related threads before talking sh!te. You are right that it wasn't her car she had the accident in, it wasn't her familys car either, fortunately But The girls internet alias is so ununual that any discussion if we talk about the same person is a waste of time... And she opened up an account on the Honda City club web site several months before the tragic accident.. And she opened up a new thread only a couple of days from her 16th birthday. What was the topic she choose? ไปรับรถมาเมื่อวานค่ะเห่อมาก - Bai rap rot ma mowan ka, hoe maak - Went to fetch (the - my) car yesterday ka, very happy (proud) You don't specify whose car it is when you write like this in Thai so she doesn't write if it is her car or someone elses car but I would not have opened up a thread on the Honda City club website because I had fetched someone elses car if I had been 16 years old... The car she opened up a thread about is not in her name of course, but is it important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 the girls parents knew she did not have licence but still bought her car or alloewed her to buy one they should be brought before same court for aiding this awfull event 3 out of 10 It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did. Very bad reading comprehension and making things up in lieu of stating the known facts. Please read all +700 posts on all related threads before talking sh!te. You are right that it wasn't her car she had the accident in, it wasn't her familys car either, fortunately But The girls internet alias is so ununual that any discussion if we talk about the same person is a waste of time... And she opened up an account on the Honda City club web site several months before the tragic accident.. And she opened up a new thread only a couple of days from her 16th birthday. What was the topic she choose? ไปรับรถมาเมื่อวานค่ะเห่อมาก - Bai rap rot ma mowan ka, hoe maak - Went to fetch (the - my) car yesterday ka, very happy (proud) You don't specify whose car it is when you write like this in Thai so she doesn't write if it is her car or someone elses car but I would not have opened up a thread on the Honda City club website because I had fetched someone elses car if I had been 16 years old... The car she opened up a thread about is not in her name of course, but is it important? It was VERY important to her as she tried hard online to impress the Korean boy-band lookalike, Honda City driving young hi-so guy she was hoping to get cosy with later.... You didn't start this senseless speculation but I could not resist adding to it. Now I know where the red Honda City* came from. * the mysterious 'third' car in the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 There are some more odds and ends today in the news media....and I don't see a separate thread or any update of them here.... --a police official says the teenager's car has been identified as belonging to a woman, "the friend," but police aren't sure yet of the relationship between the girl and the woman/friend (that's what the media report says...don't ask me....) --The mother of one of the injured victims says the van's insurance company has agreed to pay 150,000 baht to each of the patients. The insurance company covering the car driven by the teenager would be responsible for medical expenses exceeding that amount, but not more than 1 million baht. --two crash victims remain in the hospital now. --And, on the question of whether Thailand's laws do or don't allow for parents to be held criminally responsible for the acts of their children, the deputy commander of the police Metropolitan Bureau gives yet another interpretation... They seem to change the information/detail on this with every new reference, to it's hard to tell <deleted> is the situation. The latest: "The children's protection law says parents should be held accountable if they support a child to commit an offence." But, the police still don't believe there's evidence to hold the parents responsible in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) the girls parents knew she did not have licence but still bought her car or alloewed her to buy one they should be brought before same court for aiding this awfull event 3 out of 10 It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did. Very bad reading comprehension and making things up in lieu of stating the known facts. Please read all +700 posts on all related threads before talking sh!te. You are right that it wasn't her car she had the accident in, it wasn't her familys car either, fortunately But The girls internet alias is so ununual that any discussion if we talk about the same person is a waste of time... And she opened up an account on the Honda City club web site several months before the tragic accident.. And she opened up a new thread only a couple of days from her 16th birthday. What was the topic she choose? ไปรับรถมาเมื่อวานค่ะเห่อมาก - Bai rap rot ma mowan ka, hoe maak - Went to fetch (the - my) car yesterday ka, very happy (proud) You don't specify whose car it is when you write like this in Thai so she doesn't write if it is her car or someone elses car but I would not have opened up a thread on the Honda City club website because I had fetched someone elses car if I had been 16 years old... The car she opened up a thread about is not in her name of course, but is it important? It was VERY important to her as she tried hard online to impress the Korean boy-band lookalike, Honda City driving young hi-so guy she was hoping to get cosy with later.... You didn't start this senseless speculation but I could not resist adding to it. Now I know where the red Honda City* came from. * the mysterious 'third' car in the accident. Nope, you are wrong on all accounts The car she posted about was not red, nor was it in any way involved in the accident. But the problem is that she did open the account using her very unusual internet alias long time before the accident happened and she did it just around her 16th birthday. You will have to be able to read Thai to read it though. Forum users can't delete old threads, perhaps she and her parents were lucky after all Addition: Added link and last line Edited January 7, 2011 by metisdead Not to post URL links to other forums . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 And from today's article in The Nation: Police are also trying to determine the role played by the female owner of the white Honda driven by the girl when it hit the van on the elevated tollway on December 27. They will soon decide whether to take action against the unnamed woman.Thammasat will hold meritmaking ceremonies for the victims on January 10 at its Rangsit campus and on January 14 at its original campus near Sanam Luang. Thammsatappointed lawyers and the relatives will take part in meetings to discuss legal action against the girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Nope, you are wrong on all accounts The car she posted about was not red, nor was it in any way involved in the accident. But the problem is that she did open the account using her very unusual internet alias long time before the accident happened and she did it just around her 16th birthday. You will have to be able to read Thai to read it though. Forum users can't delete old threads, perhaps she and her parents were lucky after all Addition: Added link and last line Oh... privy to the online thoughts of this girl now are we? As I said, you are just perpetuating the silly speculation and I thought I would have fun with it too. Then you take what I just said as fact and denounce it. Silly. Here's a fact I remember borrowing my mates dad's car when I was 16 so I could take a girl home after sleepover after the Saturday night dance. I was a stud but did not have a car or a license. Couldn't have this girl thinking I was a car-less country bumpkin now could I? My parents never knew she was in the same house and my mate's dad never knew we borrowed his car. Being 16 is a lot of mostly irresponsible fun. Always has been... always will be. Sorry the 'red car' point went way over your head. The 'accident investigator' claimed very, very early in this play that due to red paint being found on the CIVIC, he suggested that a third, red vehicle had been involved but didn't stop. Read some of the legacy threads on this and you will get a handle on it. Edited January 7, 2011 by metisdead Not to post URL links to other forums . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Nope, you are wrong on all accounts The car she posted about was not red, nor was it in any way involved in the accident. But the problem is that she did open the account using her very unusual internet alias long time before the accident happened and she did it just around her 16th birthday. You will have to be able to read Thai to read it though. Forum users can't delete old threads, perhaps she and her parents were lucky after all Addition: Added link and last line Oh... privy to the online thoughts of this girl now are we? As I said, you are just perpetuating the silly speculation and I thought I would have fun with it too. Then you take what I just said as fact and denounce it. Silly. Here's a fact I remember borrowing my mates dad's car when I was 16 so I could take a girl home after sleepover after the Saturday night dance. I was a stud but did not have a car or a license. Couldn't have this girl thinking I was a car-less country bumpkin now could I? My parents never knew she was in the same house and my mate's dad never knew we borrowed his car. Being 16 is a lot of mostly irresponsible fun. Always has been... always will be. Sorry the 'red car' point went way over your head. The 'accident investigator' claimed very, very early in this play that due to red paint being found on the CIVIC, he suggested that a third, red vehicle had been involved but didn't stop. Read some of the legacy threads on this and you will get a handle on it. What am I denouncing? Something I never said? Something you never said? Or are you imagining I wrote something I never did? If I open up a thread here on ThaiVisa, then I cannot go and delete it 6 months later, Now go to the link and read the thread that the girl posted just around her 16th birthday and tell me what you think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 HISOBOKO??? I didn't get it the first time before I saw that term referenced here... But now I do... I guess if the shoe fits, wear it... Maybe there's a movie deal in the future here.... Un-Licensed to Kill?? Or perhaps a TV reality show... Driving With Fast Cars.... Nope, you are wrong on all accounts The car she posted about was not red, nor was it in any way involved in the accident. But the problem is that she did open the account using her very unusual internet alias long time before the accident happened and she did it just around her 16th birthday. You will have to be able to read Thai to read it though. Forum users can't delete old threads, perhaps she and her parents were lucky after all Addition: Added link and last line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newermonkey Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Just curious... how much do the police get paid off for a case like this? 600,000 1M ? just what are the going rates these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Everyone's been 16 or 17 at one point in their lives... But not everyone has been 16 or 17 driving without a driver's license, in another person's car (apparently), speeding on the highway and getting into an accident that kills 9 people. Are we having fun now? Being 16 is a lot of mostly irresponsible fun. Always has been... always will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanLaew Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 LOL Where's the 'shaking my head in disbelief and walking away' emoticon when you most want it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyIdea Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 HISOBOKO??? I didn't get it the first time before I saw that term referenced here... But now I do... I guess if the shoe fits, wear it... Maybe there's a movie deal in the future here.... Un-Licensed to Kill?? Or perhaps a TV reality show... Driving With Fast Cars.... Nope, you are wrong on all accounts The car she posted about was not red, nor was it in any way involved in the accident. But the problem is that she did open the account using her very unusual internet alias long time before the accident happened and she did it just around her 16th birthday. You will have to be able to read Thai to read it though. Forum users can't delete old threads, perhaps she and her parents were lucky after all Addition: Added link and last line If you searched on the internet for "HISOBOKO" the day after the accident, then you got very few responses. It's really really rare. The coincidence of someone else opening up an account with that name and then post what was posted just before her 16th birthday, long before the accident happened should be one in a billion something Serious question: What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts