Thai Girl Involved In Tragic Tollway Accident Says That She Is Sorry

[jfchandler]

Oz, thanks for your posts above... I hadn't seen or remembered seeing the victim account you referred to above...

Re the DL, I wasn't trying to make any argument or take any position re her having or not having a CA DL...

After hearing all the talk about that, I was curious to see if, based on her age, what she would have been eligible to do in CA...

It appears she could have gotten some kind of instructional permit or provisional license if she was in CA previously.... But, I don't think having or not having that makes much difference re her situation here....

Although, for farang, I gather the Thai police and rental car agencies and such will generally accept valid driver's licenses from other countries, and/or international driving permits. But if it's a Thai citizen who might hold one of those from abroad but then, based on age, isn't eligible to be driving here, then what???

It's all a lot of speculation, however. The police have said she doesn't have a (presumably Thai) driver's license and wasn't legal for driving here. What she had or didn't have from CA, who knows?

[whybother]

I think that we all react in a different way if we are involved in a car crash. The fact that one injured person asked or did not ask for water does not mean anything. The fact that the girl looked rather unconcerned and was using her phone does not mean much either. She could very well be contacting the car's owner, or her family,....or even tweet.. Don't forget she is a teen, with other reactions that grown up can have in such a situation

Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water.

Is there any proof as to when the photo was taken?

[Who, me ?]

I think that we all react in a different way if we are involved in a car crash. The fact that one injured person asked or did not ask for water does not mean anything. The fact that the girl looked rather unconcerned and was using her phone does not mean much either. She could very well be contacting the car's owner, or her family,....or even tweet.. Don't forget she is a teen, with other reactions that grown up can have in such a situation

Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water.

Is there any proof as to when the photo was taken?

You wrote :

if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water.

Why would that be unlikely? It all depends of the extends of the injuries. And this is not known, unless I missed something.

[jfchandler]

It seems that might not be such a good thing, from a liability point of view...

The legal liability, I'd think, would rest with the owner of the crashed car... But it wasn't the car's owner apparently who let the girl use it... It was another party who apparently had no legal involvement with the car (just a loaner). How would Thailand's wonderful legal system sort that one out? It seems to add just another layer of complication and potentially, obfuscation.

Allowing cars to be driven by underage persons is a crime, punishable by imprisonment and fines. The penalties are higher in cases in which accidents occur.

But kill people in an accident and you get to go home... at least for now...

Crashed Honda lent out

By The Nation

The sedan driven by the underage girl involved in a tollway accident that killed nine van passengers last week belongs to a woman who owns a garage and lent it to a third person, police said yesterday.

Witchuta Worrakhajit has been summoned by police for an interview about her ownership of the white Honda Civic, which was registered in Phuket but brought to Bangkok. Police will also question her about her relation to the third person and the underage girl.

Allowing cars to be driven by underage persons is a crime, punishable by imprisonment and fines. The penalties are higher in cases in which accidents occur.

A witness said Witchuta was rarely present at her garage on Lat Phrao Road, and that the Honda was among many cars she lent to garage clients free of charge during repairs of their vehicles.

-- The Nation 2011-01-08

The Thot Plickens.

Does this possibly mean that the girls car was in for repairs?

edit: ie her parents knew she was driving, but didn't necessarily know it was someone else's car.

[whybother]

I think that we all react in a different way if we are involved in a car crash. The fact that one injured person asked or did not ask for water does not mean anything. The fact that the girl looked rather unconcerned and was using her phone does not mean much either. She could very well be contacting the car's owner, or her family,....or even tweet.. Don't forget she is a teen, with other reactions that grown up can have in such a situation

Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water.

Is there any proof as to when the photo was taken?

You wrote :

if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water.

Why would that be unlikely? It all depends of the extends of the injuries. And this is not known, unless I missed something.

IMO, it would be unlikely. I have seen lots of people injured, and I don't remember one situation of someone saying anything like "Help me, I'm injured. And bring me some water."

Maybe later, they might ask for or be offered some water, but it is not the sort of thing that (in my experience) someone yells for when they are on the ground yelling for help.

[jfchandler]

Other media have a report this morning focusing on the role that the Thammasat Univ. legal team will play in the case...

Some interesting tidbits....

--The Thammasat guy says no seat belts were in the van.

--The legal team is inviting the victims' families to court next Friday to acknowledge their rights and allow the legal team to represent them.

--According to the Thammasat guy, police and the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection have 30 days to consider whether the girl's background, family environment and community surroundings could have influenced her to commit a criminal act or not.

(Personal comment here.... HAHAHAHAHAHA..... Yes, the police surely are going to make that kind of finding in this case. )

If inquiries show she was subject to improper living conditions, any penalty of imprisonment would be commuted for other forms of punishment. She could be put under probation or sent to the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection. The process is applicable if the accused is aged under 18. There is no jail penalty if the accused is under the age of 15. The law is not intended to jail a child especially for a first offense.

Re the civil process, the Thammasat guy said the law is clear that if the wrongdoer is under 20, his or her family needs to take responsibility.

Edited January 8, 2011 by jfchandler

[Who, me ?]

I think that we all react in a different way if we are involved in a car crash. The fact that one injured person asked or did not ask for water does not mean anything. The fact that the girl looked rather unconcerned and was using her phone does not mean much either. She could very well be contacting the car's owner, or her family,....or even tweet.. Don't forget she is a teen, with other reactions that grown up can have in such a situation

Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water.

Is there any proof as to when the photo was taken?

You wrote :

if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water.

Why would that be unlikely? It all depends of the extends of the injuries. And this is not known, unless I missed something.

IMO, it would be unlikely. I have seen lots of people injured, and I don't remember one situation of someone saying anything like "Help me, I'm injured. And bring me some water."

Maybe later, they might ask for or be offered some water, but it is not the sort of thing that (in my experience) someone yells for when they are on the ground yelling for help.

OK, I do respect your opinion. And it quite a valid point, as you have seen lots of persons injured. But It is YOUR opinion.

With all my respect, it does not make it a "rule".

[whybother]

OK, I do respect your opinion. And it quite a valid point, as you have seen lots of persons injured. But It is YOUR opinion.

With all my respect, it does not make it a "rule".

Correct. It is my opinion. It does not make it a rule.

My statement above:

"Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water."

is not really aimed to be specifically at the fact that he asked for water, but more that everything a witness says goes to their credibility. You can't ignore one part that might not make sense, and completely believe another part.

[Who, me ?]

OK, I do respect your opinion. And it quite a valid point, as you have seen lots of persons injured. But It is YOUR opinion.

With all my respect, it does not make it a "rule".

Correct. It is my opinion. It does not make it a rule.

My statement above:

"Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water."

is not really aimed to be specifically at the fact that he asked for water, but more that everything a witness says goes to their credibility. You can't ignore one part that might not make sense, and completely believe another part.

True! Now the problem will be to get accurate statements and testimonies from all involved, and to eventually find out what really happened.

[waza]

OK, I do respect your opinion. And it quite a valid point, as you have seen lots of persons injured. But It is YOUR opinion.

With all my respect, it does not make it a "rule".

Correct. It is my opinion. It does not make it a rule.

My statement above:

"Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water."

is not really aimed to be specifically at the fact that he asked for water, but more that everything a witness says goes to their credibility. You can't ignore one part that might not make sense, and completely believe another part. In addition, in my experience it is normal for someone who has suffer shock to ask for water, personally I would ask for water and a smoke.

Actually when you consider that this poor guy would have had a surge of adrenaline, the fight, flight response, it would be normal for him to have a dry mouth. Due to the bodies response of shutting down the digestive system and diverting tthe blood to the muscles and the rapid breathing, shouting for help. Therefore, I can see why he would be calling for water, I dont see that as abnormal in any way.

Edited January 8, 2011 by waza

[whybother]

OK, I do respect your opinion. And it quite a valid point, as you have seen lots of persons injured. But It is YOUR opinion.

With all my respect, it does not make it a "rule".

Correct. It is my opinion. It does not make it a rule.

My statement above:

"Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water."

is not really aimed to be specifically at the fact that he asked for water, but more that everything a witness says goes to their credibility. You can't ignore one part that might not make sense, and completely believe another part.

Actually when you consider that this poor guy would have had a surge of adrenaline, the fight, flight response, it would be normal for him to have a dry mouth. Due to the bodies response of shutting down the digestive system and diverting tthe blood to the muscles and the rapid breathing, shouting for help. Therefore, I can see why he would be calling for water, I dont see that as abnormal in any way.

He might possibly have had a dry mouth (given your description), but that same reaction would have meant that he would ignore his dry mouth.

You don't run from a bear yelling "give me some water".

edit: talking about "this poor guy" doesn't make his statement any more valid. I sympathise with him. He must be traumatised having been thrown from a vehicle going at 100kmh. I hope he recovers to full health.

Edited January 8, 2011 by whybother

[rixalex]

You don't run from a bear yelling "give me some water".

Isn't this about your reaction after a trauma, rather than during?

Perhaps after having ran a couple of kilos and having lost the bear back at the pass, a nice cool glass of water would be just the ticket.

[waza]

OK, I do respect your opinion. And it quite a valid point, as you have seen lots of persons injured. But It is YOUR opinion.

With all my respect, it does not make it a "rule".

Correct. It is my opinion. It does not make it a rule.

My statement above:

"Actually, the fact that a witness (one injured person) says he asked for water does mean something. It says something about the credibility of the witness (or his memory) if it's unlikely that he would have actually asked for water."

is not really aimed to be specifically at the fact that he asked for water, but more that everything a witness says goes to their credibility. You can't ignore one part that might not make sense, and completely believe another part.

Actually when you consider that this poor guy would have had a surge of adrenaline, the fight, flight response, it would be normal for him to have a dry mouth. Due to the bodies response of shutting down the digestive system and diverting tthe blood to the muscles and the rapid breathing, shouting for help. Therefore, I can see why he would be calling for water, I dont see that as abnormal in any way.

He might possibly have had a dry mouth (given your description), but that same reaction would have meant that he would ignore his dry mouth.

You don't run from a bear yelling "give me some water".

No where does it state the during the accident (or running from a bear) did he call for water, only after when he was laying on the ground. This is not unusual, in my experience I have found asking foir pain relief and water were the most common requests, asking for a smoke runs a poor third.

[whybother]

You don't run from a bear yelling "give me some water".

Isn't this about your reaction after a trauma, rather than during?

Perhaps after having ran a couple of kilos and having lost the bear back at the pass, a nice cool glass of water would be just the ticket.

No. His reaction (as he states it) was "he was on the ground yelling for help and water".

[jfchandler]

Guys, give the water thing a rest... :jap:

[whybother]

Guys, give the water thing a rest... :jap:

Do you mean "believe his statement and forget about inconsistencies"?

[rixalex]

No. His reaction (as he states it) was "he was on the ground yelling for help and water".

The trauma of his injuries wasn't over, but the trauma of having his life snuffed out, like those dead bodies lying around him had, was. Unless of course he thought he would die from his injuries. I think the fact though that he was asking for water (allegedly), suggests otherwise.

[rixalex]

Guys, give the water thing a rest... :jap:

Do you mean "believe his statement and forget about inconsistencies"?

It's not an inconsistency. It was an unusual request, but unless you can put yourself exactly in his situation, i don't see how you can fairly judge.

[Nisa]

"And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby..."

Mission Impossible 6: witness statement as reported Page 9

"............he fell out before or during the 360 spin. He remember lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water. He clearly remembers seeing the 16 year old outside of her car and with her phone. At the time, he wasn't aware that she was the one who was involved in the accident. She didn't come to help any of the injured. "

How do you spell "callous indifference"? How much medical training do you need to ask "Can I help?"?

Interesting given the fact she was trapped in her car until rescue workers freed her.

I haven't seen anyone else besides you state that she was trapped in her car, BUT the witness statement doesn't gel for me and doesn't really match the timing (IMO).

I have fallen off my bike a couple of times. I've injured myself playing sport many times. I've been in pain. I never even thought about yelling for water. Water only came into it when someone else offered it to me ("You should have a drink of water") once I had settled down a bit.

I can't believe she could casually get out of her car, walk over to the wall and lean on it to start posting on Facebook (as some people have suggested) or even to call family or friends. She would be in shock. She would take several minutes to get out of her car, or get out quickly and rush around looking at what has happened, at least to the car she was driving.

I would suggest that the photo was taken some time after the accident, and the witness doesn't know what he remembers.

It was reported a couple times in the news regarding her being trapped in the car.

[jfchandler]

I mean, the water thing's been argued back and forth pretty much to death... There's no resolution to be had... What else is there to say on the subject...

[whybother]

Guys, give the water thing a rest... :jap:

Do you mean "believe his statement and forget about inconsistencies"?

It's not an inconsistency. It was an unusual request, but unless you can put yourself exactly in his situation, i don't see how you can fairly judge.

It is an unusual request and one I haven't seen in regard to my own injuries or others injuries that I have seen. People don't lie on the ground after some sort of accident/incident and "yell for help and water and remember seeing the girl on the phone."

There might be more to what he said. It might not have been reported that 20 minutes had passed before he asked for water. But the way it was reported, he was just thrown from the vehicle and was lying there yelling for water.

If it was 20 minutes after the accident that the girl was on the phone, would that make a difference to peoples reaction to the photo?

[Nisa]

Actually, while no one would accuse me of particularly defending the girl, I have been a bit mystified by the Thai reaction to the photo that was published of the girl after the accident...

I was upset about the accident and the severity of the deaths and injury. But the Thais seemed to be MORE offended by the fact they saw, via the photo, the girl fiddling with her phone after the accident. I know there was some accusation she was texting or posting.... but the family has said she was contacting the owner of the car or others... Frankly, I'm not sure we'll ever know which is the truth about that... Given that, does anyone really know enough with certainty about what she was doing to be able to judge that act was callous disregard?

At least, it certainly seems plausible that after such an accident, if I were a 16 year old girl and I had a phone, I'd certainly want to be calling or texting someone to say HELP or OH MY GOD or some such thing.

I know some have said, well, why wasn't she doing something to help the victims... And while I understand that sentiment, I try to remember that she's a 16 year old girl, not a paramedic, not a nurse, not a policeman. And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby...

All in all, the phone deal, since I really don't know what she was doing at that time, ranks pretty low on my list of things to be upset or concerned about in this case compared to everything else.

"And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby..."

Mission Impossible 6: witness statement as reported Page 9

"............he fell out before or during the 360 spin. He remember lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water. He clearly remembers seeing the 16 year old outside of her car and with her phone. At the time, he wasn't aware that she was the one who was involved in the accident. She didn't come to help any of the injured. "

How do you spell "callous indifference"? How much medical training do you need to ask "Can I help?"?

Interesting given the fact she was trapped in her car until rescue workers freed her.

Is it a sure fact that she was trapped in the car ?

I have troubles to understand why a rescue worker would free a uninjured person from a car and would not pay the slightest attention to a injured person, on the road, begging for help! Moreover, why this rescue worker would disappear from the injured person's sight as soon as the uninjured one has been freed?

It is as factual as everything else that has been reported in this case by the newspapers.

How do you know how many rescue workers were on the scene at the time? How could they know the extent of her injuries? (By the way, she was injured and hospitalized for at least 5-days after the incident and appeared in a wheel chair when she met with victims 4 or 5 days after the accident). It is a priority to get people out of trapped vehicles after an accident and if people are stable and not going to get worse without roadside medical attention there is little to do for them but wait for transport and attend to those with more urgent needs such as those trapped in a vehicle. You are making a lot of assumptions in your post regarding who was being treated first, how many medical, rescue and police were on the scene at a specific time.

[Who, me ?]

Guys, give the water thing a rest... :jap:

Do you mean "believe his statement and forget about inconsistencies"?

It's not an inconsistency. It was an unusual request, but unless you can put yourself exactly in his situation, i don't see how you can fairly judge.

It is an unusual request and one I haven't seen in regard to my own injuries or others injuries that I have seen. People don't lie on the ground after some sort of accident/incident and "yell for help and water and remember seeing the girl on the phone."

There might be more to what he said. It might not have been reported that 20 minutes had passed before he asked for water. But the way it was reported, he was just thrown from the vehicle and was lying there yelling for water.

If it was 20 minutes after the accident that the girl was on the phone, would that make a difference to peoples reaction to the photo?

Yes it would........ It would make me ask: "Where are the rescue workers who already freed this girl from her car, and did not take care of this injured person yet?"

Edited January 8, 2011 by Who, me ?

[Orac]

Crashed Honda lent out

By The Nation

The sedan driven by the underage girl involved in a tollway accident that killed nine van passengers last week belongs to a woman who owns a garage and lent it to a third person, police said yesterday.

Witchuta Worrakhajit has been summoned by police for an interview about her ownership of the white Honda Civic, which was registered in Phuket but brought to Bangkok. Police will also question her about her relation to the third person and the underage girl.

Allowing cars to be driven by underage persons is a crime, punishable by imprisonment and fines. The penalties are higher in cases in which accidents occur.

A witness said Witchuta was rarely present at her garage on Lat Phrao Road, and that the Honda was among many cars she lent to garage clients free of charge during repairs of their vehicles.

-- The Nation 2011-01-08

The Thot Plickens.

Does this possibly mean that the girls car was in for repairs?

edit: ie her parents knew she was driving, but didn't necessarily know it was someone else's car.

Or, to speculate even further, the girls car was in for repair because it had been damaged in a previous accident????

[TAWP]

I don't know how injured she was as I saw some photos of her, which appeared to show her sitting against the median/rail and texting. Sorry, texting immediately after this horrific accident shows a bit like it was not a big deal to her.

TheWalkingMan

That is utter hogwash. I have been involved in a semi-serious accident in Thailand where the car I traveled in was damaged enough so it could not be driven away due to structural damage of the whole rear. The first thought I had when I kicked out the door and got out was to notify relatives. And if I had been severely hurt and stuck I would have sent message saying that too...I'd rather have a chance to say good bye in any way than leave them without some message of affection...

[Nisa]

Guys, give the water thing a rest... :jap:

Do you mean "believe his statement and forget about inconsistencies"?

It's not an inconsistency. It was an unusual request, but unless you can put yourself exactly in his situation, i don't see how you can fairly judge.

It is an unusual request and one I haven't seen in regard to my own injuries or others injuries that I have seen. People don't lie on the ground after some sort of accident/incident and "yell for help and water and remember seeing the girl on the phone."

There might be more to what he said. It might not have been reported that 20 minutes had passed before he asked for water. But the way it was reported, he was just thrown from the vehicle and was lying there yelling for water.

If it was 20 minutes after the accident that the girl was on the phone, would that make a difference to peoples reaction to the photo?

It is also my understanding that you don't give somebody water after an accident. Again, if there was nothing to be done for him (without a doctor & hospital evaluation) and with all the other injured and trapped people needing help that is likely why he was not being tended to. In all likelyhood the photo of the girl was taken a good deal of time after the accident as the person who took the photos (there were many this person took) wasn't helping people, rescue workers had to free the girl from the trapped car and it makes little sense that somebody would stumble upon the scene snapping photos while injured were lying all over the place or trapped in vehicles screaming for help. It is obvious emergency people were on the scene at this point and given the response time in Thailand would make these pictures a good deal after the accident ... not to mention the police had already started their questioning of her since they had asked her to get her insurance information and contact her parents and the resulting photo is a picture of her doing just that as has been stated by her, her mother and her step-brother. If people were lying around needing attention at this point, I doubt the police would be dealing with insurance at this point. And if they were, then one would think this would be more of an issue than an injured 16-year old girl likely in shock not giving attention to them.

[Nisa]

Crashed Honda lent out

By The Nation

The sedan driven by the underage girl involved in a tollway accident that killed nine van passengers last week belongs to a woman who owns a garage and lent it to a third person, police said yesterday.

Witchuta Worrakhajit has been summoned by police for an interview about her ownership of the white Honda Civic, which was registered in Phuket but brought to Bangkok. Police will also question her about her relation to the third person and the underage girl.

Allowing cars to be driven by underage persons is a crime, punishable by imprisonment and fines. The penalties are higher in cases in which accidents occur.

A witness said Witchuta was rarely present at her garage on Lat Phrao Road, and that the Honda was among many cars she lent to garage clients free of charge during repairs of their vehicles.

-- The Nation 2011-01-08

The Thot Plickens.

Does this possibly mean that the girls car was in for repairs?

edit: ie her parents knew she was driving, but didn't necessarily know it was someone else's car.

Or, to speculate even further, the girls car was in for repair because it had been damaged in a previous accident????

Yea, the car was lent by a garage to a 'third person" because the girls car was in for repairs????????????????????????????????????????????

[TAWP]

Unless the girl is seeing holding and/or drinking water in the picture the water-thing is a red herring used by some unscrupulous people to try to throw mud at the girl. If someone screams 'give me water' and I have none, I suppose you would call me 'cold' or 'indifferent' too...with that logic I hope all of you *always* give money to beggars...surely you are not heartless people... :whistle:

[Nisa]

Unless the girl is seeing holding and/or drinking water in the picture the water-thing is a red herring used by some unscrupulous people to try to throw mud at the girl. If someone screams 'give me water' and I have none, I suppose you would call me 'cold' or 'indifferent' too...with that logic I hope all of you *always* give money to beggars...surely you are not heartless people... :whistle:

No doubt the poor man was in shock too and had likely been told he could not be given water as I am fairly certain you don't give water to somebody after an accident until an actual doctor/hospital has determined the extent of the injuries and if the person will need surgery.

[Nisa]

• Do not give food or water to a victim of a serious injury or accident.
• Call for an ambulance as soon as possible
• Never treat an injured person beyond your capabilities, you could do cause more damage, if you do not know the proper treatment seek trained help