jfchandler Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 As you pointed out earlier, we obviously have no way of knowing what she needed... I certainly agree about that.. My point was, REGARDLESS of the need, there were multiple good reasons for her to be there... I don't see anything offensive in that notion. Part of my prior life was as a professional public relations director and someone much involved in PR damage control and prevention... My comments were made out of that background and context... There's nothing offensive about that notion... In any kind of disaster/bad situation, those PR kinds of issues usually are part of the aftermath. Happens all the time. But, of course, you're entitled to your opinion... If you accept she needed to be in hospital, I feel your comments about publicity and public relations could be construed by some as offensive, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 On a side note for those that are not aware.......a friend of mine received severe burns to both his wrists when involved in an accident where the airbag released (not sure if they were friction burns or not), he was driving at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I never really looked too hard at the picture of the girl after the accident but when going back to read a news article I saw this picture again and it seems fairly apparent the back of her leg and possible knee are hurt along with scrapes on her arm. Again, not that any of this goes to responsibility for why this accident was so horrific or who holds the blame. Other than that it seems ridiculous to speculate she was doing ANYTHING wrong in this photo especially given reports she was following police instructions. Edit: It also doesn't look like she was texting at the 1/30th of the second this photo takes place. Looks like she is scrolling or talking on speaker phone but again all irrelevant since the whole scandal about this photo was largely based on the bogus Twitter post she was supposed to have made. After that folks just seemed determined to find something wrong with using a phone after an accident ... especially if it might be a Blackberry. She may also have just been looking or scrolling for a number. This is a moment frozen in time and we don't know the few seconds before and after from this image. If I was in her situation I would have called my parents ASAP, and maybe also the parents of people in the car with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) As you pointed out earlier, we obviously have no way of knowing what she needed... I certainly agree about that.. My point was, REGARDLESS of the need, there were multiple good reasons for her to be there... I don't see anything offensive in that notion. Part of my prior life was as a professional public relations director and someone much involved in PR damage control and prevention... My comments were made out of that background and context... There's nothing offensive about that notion... In any kind of disaster/bad situation, those PR kinds of issues usually are part of the aftermath. Happens all the time. But, of course, you're entitled to your opinion... If you accept she needed to be in hospital, I feel your comments about publicity and public relations could be construed by some as offensive, in my opinion. I too question her "need" to be in the hospital as long as she was but it really isn't fair to do since as a minor her injuries/condition cannot be reported by the hospital. So, we have no idea why she was at 3-different hospitals after the accident beyond the having to leave the first due to threats and an unauthorized intruder into her room. If it was not because of a medical reason such as injury, monitoring something or the need to give intravenous medication then I think it was probably the place the mother felt she was most safe given the online lynch mob and death threats. My point is I highly doubt they contracted a PR firm. It doesn't even appear they have contacted an attorney yet based on statements they have made and no mention of one being present at the girl's questioning (at least I didn't see that reported but have been away a few days). Edit: given the earlier reports of her making comments of wanting to die as well as needing to be medicated to sleep ... I really do think the mother made the decision this is where she would be safe. I also questioned her being in a wheelchair but again I doubt this had anything to do with PR but probably a hospital policy ... especially if she was being given drugs to calm and make her sleep. The family has yet to strike me as anything but genuinely remorseful and wanting to do the right thing. However, I am confident this will change now that lawyers are getting involved and the family will need to also protect (defend) themselves as should any person accused of a crime (guilty or not) or being sued. Edited January 8, 2011 by Nisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 As you pointed out earlier, we obviously have no way of knowing what she needed... I certainly agree about that.. My point was, REGARDLESS of the need, there were multiple good reasons for her to be there... I don't see anything offensive in that notion. Part of my prior life was as a professional public relations director and someone much involved in PR damage control and prevention... My comments were made out of that background and context... There's nothing offensive about that notion... In any kind of disaster/bad situation, those PR kinds of issues usually are part of the aftermath. Happens all the time. But, of course, you're entitled to your opinion... If you accept she needed to be in hospital, I feel your comments about publicity and public relations could be construed by some as offensive, in my opinion. If the medical requirement was she stay in hospital, anything further you have added is pure conjecture......so why add it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Geo, I've already explained that... apart from any medical considerations, there are PR considerations... I've said it three times now... And once again as you already acknowledged above, we don't know what her medical need was, since we're not her doctor nor have access to her records. I don't want to engage if continuing IFs over that. As you pointed out earlier, we obviously have no way of knowing what she needed... I certainly agree about that.. My point was, REGARDLESS of the need, there were multiple good reasons for her to be there... I don't see anything offensive in that notion. Part of my prior life was as a professional public relations director and someone much involved in PR damage control and prevention... My comments were made out of that background and context... There's nothing offensive about that notion... In any kind of disaster/bad situation, those PR kinds of issues usually are part of the aftermath. Happens all the time. But, of course, you're entitled to your opinion... If you accept she needed to be in hospital, I feel your comments about publicity and public relations could be construed by some as offensive, in my opinion. If the medical requirement was she stay in hospital, anything further you have added is pure conjecture......so why add it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) No doubt they contacted their lawyer as soon as understanding the gravity of the situation, any good lawyer would also look at the PR aspects of his clients situation. If some PR work is the difference between a lynch mob and a fair trial then PR is a good thing. Realizing what she has done and the need for psychological counseling to deal with it and become coherent for the ordeal yet to come would be valid reason for her to stay in the hospital. Not to elevate her state to that of the gravely injured and dead, but, her condition is also an 'accident victim', and with a seriously heavy mental load to come to terms with, with or without a legal punishment phase to come. Edited January 8, 2011 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Nisa and Geo (below), I'm pretty sure I recall one of the media accounts of her and the family showing up at the police station for their interview earlier in the week indicating they were accompanied by an attorney. But that aside, you don't need to hire a PR firm to get professional PR advice. She has relatives in the Army... They have people in the Army who do such things, and are aware of PR issues.. I certainly don't know what if anything the family has done in that regard. But my earlier comment was, anyone competent in public relations issues certainly wouldn't have disagreed with the girl remaining in the hospital, or perhaps even have suggested it -- totally apart from any medical considerations -- given the magnitude and circumstances of the case. My point is I highly doubt they contracted a PR firm. It doesn't even appear they have contacted an attorney yet based on statements they have made and no mention of one being present at the girl's questioning (at least I didn't see that reported but have been away a few days). Edited January 8, 2011 by jfchandler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini81 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) I never really looked too hard at the picture of the girl after the accident but when going back to read a news article I saw this picture again and it seems fairly apparent the back of her leg and possible knee are hurt along with scrapes on her arm. Again, not that any of this goes to responsibility for why this accident was so horrific or who holds the blame. Other than that it seems ridiculous to speculate she was doing ANYTHING wrong in this photo especially given reports she was following police instructions. Edit: It also doesn't look like she was texting at the 1/30th of the second this photo takes place. Looks like she is scrolling or talking on speaker phone but again all irrelevant since the whole scandal about this photo was largely based on the bogus Twitter post she was supposed to have made. After that folks just seemed determined to find something wrong with using a phone after an accident ... especially if it might be a Blackberry. She may also have just been looking or scrolling for a number. This is a moment frozen in time and we don't know the few seconds before and after from this image. If I was in her situation I would have called my parents ASAP, and maybe also the parents of people in the car with me. I don't think I could think that clearly after a dizzying event like that, to just waltz over to the guardrail and dick around with my phone. I would think I'd faint, vomit, freak out...hard to imagine, but one wonders. Maybe it hadn't sunk into her "innocent" 16 year old mind yet what just occured. Edited January 8, 2011 by gemini81 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 No doubt they contacted their lawyer as soon as understanding the gravity of the situation, any good lawyer would also look at the PR aspects of his clients situation. If some PR work is the difference between a lynch mob and a fair trial then PR is a good thing. But to imply this has occurred where it may not have been the case could certainly have an adverse effect could it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yup! No doubt they contacted their lawyer as soon as understanding the gravity of the situation, any good lawyer would also look at the PR aspects of his clients situation. If some PR work is the difference between a lynch mob and a fair trial then PR is a good thing. Realizing what she has done and the need for psychological counseling to deal with it and become coherent for the ordeal yet to come would be valid reason for her to stay in the hospital. Not to elevate her state to that of the gravely injured and dead, but, her condition is also an 'accident victim', and with a seriously heavy mental load to come to terms with, with or without a legal punishment phase to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Odds and ends... From another newspaper regarding the day she turned herself into police: ... was accompanied yesterday by her parents and a lawyer. Social workers and mental health experts were present during the questioning as required by the child protection law. Families of some of the crash victims observed the proceedings at the Metropolitan Police Bureau where the charges were read out. And, I just noticed, the same newspaper reported a couple days ago that the girl herself was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Nisa and Geo (below), I'm pretty sure I recall one of the media accounts of her and the family showing up at the police station for their interview earlier in the week indicating they were accompanied by an attorney. But that aside, you don't need to hire a PR firm to get professional PR advice. She has relatives in the Army... They have people in the Army who do such things, and are aware of PR issues.. I certainly don't know what if anything the family has done in that regard. But my earlier comment was, anyone competent in public relations issues certainly wouldn't have disagreed with the girl remaining in the hospital, or perhaps even have suggested it -- totally apart from any medical considerations -- given the magnitude and circumstances of the case. My point is I highly doubt they contracted a PR firm. It doesn't even appear they have contacted an attorney yet based on statements they have made and no mention of one being present at the girl's questioning (at least I didn't see that reported but have been away a few days). I agree with you 100 percent except I just don't believe they did this for PR .. at least at this point. If you have any links to an attorney accompanying them, please share. Again I've not been around the last few days but the articles I've seen make no mention of an attorney who would ethically, if not legally, be required to be there when she was questioned. It is highly unlikely they had an attorney there who didn't make some kind of statement UNLESS there is big PR considerations in the work right now. However, I don't condemn anybody in this situation from hiring an attorney (immediately) or a PR firm especially given what has happened here. However, it would skew my thinking of the family's priorities if they immediately felt a need to hire a PR firm. So, I really would like to see if anything was mentioned about an attorney being present. I am actually a bit shocked that one has not come forward since the University has decided to bring in lawyers. (not even sure this would be legal to do in the US .. you can certainly OFFER to pay for people's attorneys but as a third party you cannot appoint attorneys to represent somebody else ... at this point I feel more disgusted about the University bring in attorneys, who I assume will get their cut of any settlement, as opposed to seeing first if the families could work out matters on their own or at minimum letting the families know they can offer legal assistance if needed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWalkingMan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 "Plus, don't forget, according to the family, she has some kind of unspecified chronic medical condition requiring medication..." At 16... acne? TheWalkingMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Odds and ends... From another newspaper regarding the day she turned herself into police: ... was accompanied yesterday by her parents and a lawyer. Social workers and mental health experts were present during the questioning as required by the child protection law. Families of some of the crash victims observed the proceedings at the Metropolitan Police Bureau where the charges were read out. And, I just noticed, the same newspaper reported a couple days ago that the girl herself was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash. Thanks ... Interesting re: the lawyer. Surprised they mention they know this person was their attorney but make no mention of his/her name or any statement from the family or lawyer but know the person was their lawyer. Then again not that surprised given the level of reporting we see here. I have a feeling we will be hearing less from the family and girl as well as seeing victims and families coming together now that attorneys are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Nisa, I've already answered your request for a cite re the lawyer issue above... Attorneys and PR folks would be an absolutely normal thing in the USA... I'm certainly not sure what would be considered "normal" here in such matters, although the family clearly had an attorney with them the day of the police interview -- though as you noted, I didn't see the attorney named nor any public comment from him. Perhaps that is the Thai way at work. Frankly, if I was in anyway involved in such a thing, an attorney would be one of the first people I'd call...or want to call. Interestingly, I asked my Thai wife about the case the other night at some length... And she was already familiar with the crash based on Thai media reports... The thing that bugged her most about it thus far: she felt the girl's family was too late and too slow in going to apologize to the victims and families of the deceased. I do understand her thinking about that, but that issue certainly wouldn't be at the top of my list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Nisa, I've already answered your request for a cite re the lawyer issue above... Attorneys and PR folks would be an absolutely normal thing in the USA... I'm certainly not sure what would be considered "normal" here in such matters, although the family clearly had an attorney with them the day of the police interview -- though as you noted, I didn't see the attorney named nor any public comment from him. Perhaps that is the Thai way at work. Frankly, if I was in anyway involved in such a thing, an attorney would be one of the first people I'd call...or want to call. Interestingly, I asked my Thai wife about the case the other night at some length... And she was already familiar with the crash based on Thai media reports... The thing that bugged her most about it thus far: she felt the girl's family was too late and too slow in going to apologize to the victims and families of the deceased. I do understand her thinking about that, but that issue certainly wouldn't be at the top of my list... It must be a Thai thing in terms of the timing because I read comments about the slowness of the apologies too. Yet, I thought they were fairly timely given the accident happened Monday evening and they (mother and daughter) started meeting with families I believe that Thursday. I even think the mother had met some the previous days. At the Thursday meeting I believe it was said that they had 3-more people to visit (not sure if that was total dead & injured or of those families who lost somebody). I also read a report from one family who was upset because they had the funeral this past week-end and hadn't received any token money or even flowers or any contact. Not to make excuses but the girl's family has got a lot on their plate now and there is a lot of people they need apologizing to. But where I was going with this is that I don't even think an apology would ever take place in the US (except possibly a carefully worded public one). I doubt the families would accept it and it certainly would be used against the girl. An attorney would simply make a statement to wait for the facts to come out and then wait for each family to retain a lawyer (on commission) and deal with them in the back room. In some ways I find Thailand a much more civilized society in terms of dealing with things and how the police are often looking to have the victim made right as opposed to just being concerned with arresting somebody and getting a conviction. Yea, the police often take their percentage of the settlement but then again most Thai's don't pay income taxes and it works out good as you only pay for police work if needed. ;-) Edited January 8, 2011 by Nisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Don't even get started on the subject of the role of the Thai police... But I think it strains credulity to argue "the police are often looking to have the victim made right." Consider the aftermath of the Santika fire... Who's been made right there by the police? And on the arresting/convicting front, I made this argument earlier but no one else seemed to address it here: In a lawful society, whether you like it or not, it is the threat and fear of getting heavily fined or arrested and being sent to jail that at least to some extent helps prevent people from engaging in unlawful behavior, at least of certain kinds... In California in recent years, for example, the police statewide have gone on sustained campaigns to ticket drivers for both failure to wear seatbelts (in one campaign) and talking on the cellphone without a handsfree device while driving (in another campaign). Both were widely publicized and seriously enforced. Police wrote a lot of tickets for both kinds of offenses, and the fines for the tickets were steep...and got steeper for repeat offenders (which of course the police there track, unlike here). Same with parking in handicapped spaces or solo drivers illegally in carpool lanes. Guess what, far far fewer people drive around in CA these days not wearing seatbelts or talking on their cellphones without using a hands-free device...though certainly there are some. But if the police there hadn't seriously taken to enforcing those two laws, which I use just for purpose of illustration, then compliance would be nowhere close to what it is these days... A bit more arresting and convicting around these parts, as a deterrent, might go a long way to preventing a lot of bad things from happening. In some ways I find Thailand a much more civilized society in terms of dealing with things and how the police are often looking to have the victim made right as opposed to just being concerned with arresting somebody and getting a conviction. Yea, the police often take their percentage of the settlement but then again most Thai's don't pay income taxes and it works out good as you only pay for police work if needed. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I never really looked too hard at the picture of the girl after the accident but when going back to read a news article I saw this picture again and it seems fairly apparent the back of her leg and possible knee are hurt along with scrapes on her arm. Again, not that any of this goes to responsibility for why this accident was so horrific or who holds the blame. Other than that it seems ridiculous to speculate she was doing ANYTHING wrong in this photo especially given reports she was following police instructions. Edit: It also doesn't look like she was texting at the 1/30th of the second this photo takes place. Looks like she is scrolling or talking on speaker phone but again all irrelevant since the whole scandal about this photo was largely based on the bogus Twitter post she was supposed to have made. After that folks just seemed determined to find something wrong with using a phone after an accident ... especially if it might be a Blackberry. No wonder she had glass scratches to her bottom, sat in that skirt there was no protection for her posterior. but thats fashion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Insurgents, murder rates, etc are not the topic here, a road accident and the statements of an involved party are. Off topic replies have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Sorry to get off topic here, however, the headline was Thai Girl Involved In Tragic Tollway Accident Says That She Is Sorry, and I think that's a good thing. At least she knows she must apologize. How many times have we been involved in an incident in Thailand where the other party was in the wrong, Thai or foreigner, and that party never apologized, but instead screamed and was rude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsetBkk Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 <snip>How many times have we been involved in an incident in Thailand where the other party was in the wrong, Thai or foreigner, and that party never apologized, but instead screamed and was rude? Hmm, lets see...er, never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts