Chaos At Bangkok's Zen After Red Shirt Surrender, Court Hears

[webfact]

Chaos at Zen after red shirt surrender, court hears

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

The afternoon of May 19, 2010 was a time of chaos at Zen department store after red shirts ended their protest and the Army moved into Ratchaprasong.

There was confusion, fire, a hand grenade explosion and different groups of people entering the store, Choophan Anongjanya, Central World's assistant building and area manager recalled yesterday.

Choophan testified in the Criminal Court for a case involving two red-shirt guards accused of setting fire to Central World and Zen department store. He said a group of three to five men, dressed in what appeared to be black ranger uniforms invaded the ground floor of Zen at around 3pm on May 19 last year, not long after red-shirt leaders surrendered to police and soldiers moved in, when the month-long siege in Ratchaprasong ended.

"When [the hurled object] hit the floor, we saw it was a hand grenade and ducked for cover, and then it exploded," he told the two presiding judges. Nine of Choophan's men were injured, with eight taken to hospital.

Choophan told the court he earlier encountered at least three more groups of people: looters stealing and vandalising shops, and smashing windows; three to four hooded men who threw cooking gas tanks into the ground floor of Zen; and 40 to 50 men armed with slingshots shooting at them. They seemed to be unconnected and came from different directions, he said.

Asked later by The Nation if he knew who the people behind the arson were, Choophan said he didn't really know. "Nobody really knows," he said.

The cost of damage incurred by the fire that engulfed Zen department store was also fiercely argued with another witness. Teeraphong Methaphan, 41, director for construction at Central said in the morning Bt700 million of damage was done to Zen department store and tower.

But defence lawyers for Saichon Paebua, 29, and Pinij Jannarong, 27, who face a possible death penalty for alleged arson and causing death due to arson, argued that it was not right for store staff to come up with damage figures without an independent survey.

The defence lawyers will cross-examine Choophan next Tuesday. They told The Nation it would be a grilling.

Shackled defendant Saichon, who has not been granted bail since his arrest a year ago, was seen reading the palm of his fellow defendant, Pinij, who shared a handcuff, and was also shackled, while listening to the trial. Saichon later told a female supporter he owes money to the Corrections Department as he has ordered special food because he can't bear the food given to inmates.

"I want to go home," said Saichon, who is often described by those who knew him as not mentally sound.

The first two witnesses produced by the prosecutors yesterday said they had never seen or met the two defendants before, while the third witness, Choophan, has yet to be asked that question.

-- The Nation 2011-07-20

[Deez]

Could this case be any weaker? What a joke

[SomTumTiger]

Could this case be any weaker? What a joke

Thanks for that insight.

[spermwhale]

Yes really weak case with none of the prosecution witness to date being able to ID the two guys on trial. Are these the best minds in Thailand's legal system? Gives me hope if I'm ever put on trial for a crime here. Of course the defense attorneys are no better.

[whybother]

Just because these 2 can't be definitely identified by employees, doesn't mean that they weren't there or that other red shirts weren't there.

But, it will probably get them off in this case.

[phiphidon]

Just because these 2 can't be definitely identified by employees, doesn't mean that they weren't there or that other red shirts weren't there.

But, it will probably get them off in this case.

This case is about these two men. Several witnesses for the prosecution have failed to identify that these two men were seen at the incident that they were arrested for. If the prosecution can't make its case, the men should be presumed innocent and found not guilty. But not in your mind, judging by your statements. If the prosecution cannot make the case the men go free, they don't "get off" thus implying guilt.

Edited July 20, 2011 by phiphidon

[looping]

Is it correct to publish the names of the witnesses? Maybe they'd be more brave on the stand if their names and employment records weren't published for all to see. After all, these are simple people, easily scared and intimidated, especially by the kind of people who throw grenades into shopping malls.

[renaissanc]

In spite of what Peua Thai says, I don't think we will ever know for sure without any doubt who burned down Centralworld, Zen, etc. Now that PT is in power, any of their guilt will be swept under the carpet. By the time the Shinawatra clan, PT, the Red Shirts, and the UDD are kicked out, we'll all be so old and grey-haired, and our memories of of 2010 will have long faded.

I'm keen to see how many PT politicians end up on the Forbes list of the world's richest people.

[newermonkey]

"I want to go home," said Saichon, who is often described by those who knew him as not mentally sound.

In other words he is a "nutter", so are most of his red shirt friends, so what. if found guilty lets hope the law comes down on him with no mercy, just as he did to the ones he murdered.

[xminator]

"I want to go home," said Saichon, who is often described by those who knew him as not mentally sound.

In other words he is a "nutter", so are most of his red shirt friends, so what. if found guilty lets hope the law comes down on him with no mercy, just as he did to the ones he murdered.

Some day I hope you fall victim to a legal system that comply with your own standards. Presumption of innocence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty

And yet here you are, armchair prosecutor and judge of the fifth order claiming his committed murder, a crime I cant recall his even charged with...

[rubl]

Just because these 2 can't be definitely identified by employees, doesn't mean that they weren't there or that other red shirts weren't there.

But, it will probably get them off in this case.

This case is about these two men. Several witnesses for the prosecution have failed to identify that these two men were seen at the incident that they were arrested for. If the prosecution can't make its case, the men should be presumed innocent and found not guilty. But not in your mind, judging by your statements. If the prosecution cannot make the case the men go free, they don't "get off" thus implying guilt.

I think the 'go free' or 'get off' depends on WHERE the two red-shirt guards were apprehended.

[newermonkey]

"I want to go home," said Saichon, who is often described by those who knew him as not mentally sound.

In other words he is a "nutter", so are most of his red shirt friends, so what. if found guilty lets hope the law comes down on him with no mercy, just as he did to the ones he murdered.

Some day I hope you fall victim to a legal system that comply with your own standards. Presumption of innocence: http://en.wikipedia....l_proven_guilty

And yet here you are, armchair prosecutor and judge of the fifth order claiming his committed murder, a crime I cant recall his even charged with...

he is charged with arson, that fire killed people, in my book that is murder. he was a guard for the reds, all dressed up in his black SAS style uniform. I don't think this character is particularly nice and as I said "IF FOUND GUILTY"

Edited July 20, 2011 by newermonkey

[nicknostitz]

"I want to go home," said Saichon, who is often described by those who knew him as not mentally sound.

In other words he is a "nutter", so are most of his red shirt friends, so what. if found guilty lets hope the law comes down on him with no mercy, just as he did to the ones he murdered.

I have known Saichon for quite a while - since long before the 2010 protests, and photographed him a few times, and talked with him regularly.

Pravit used not the best phrase in his article here when he described Saichon as "mentally unsound", which could lead to the impression as him being a "nutter", as expressed here. Saichon is not what could be colloquially expressed as "a nutter". I would describe him more as of a person of rather low IQ, quite possibly borderline. He is in no way a threatening person, on the opposite - he is shy, easily intimidated, and very friendly.

I also have certain doubts that Saichon actually did what he is accused of here.

The main problem here with this trial is, that the most important thing in any arson trial has to my knowledge never been performed - a proper and independent investigation on the exact causes of the fire. There are many open and yet unanswered questions. Did the builders fulfill the safety requirements in terms of building material, or have, as so often here, safety regulations not been kept? Did Central World regularly check the safety measurements, or, as so often here, nobody checked those?

There is more than enough evidence that Red Shirt protesters have thrown petrol bombs in Central World, and also a few explosives. But i have asked several experts, and they have all said that under normal circumstances those would not have led to such a massive fire. But we don't even know yet anything of the origin of the fire. Why don't we know that? Why has no investigation into the fire been performed?

So far we have neither any witness that pinpointed Saichon or the other accused. We have no photographic evidence that shows Saichon or the other accused as being one of the arsonists. Saichon has been kept in prison for over a year based on evidence that has not yet been displayed in the trial. And as with many other accused incarcerated Red Shirt protesters, there are some serious questions why they were arrested in the first place. I have direct knowledge of several arrested protesters that were accused of crimes they have not committed.

Another case i have direct knowledge about is Manop "Bhet" Charnchangthong - the Red Shirt guard who became famous for carrying weapons to the stage after the April 10 disaster. He was later accused and arrested by the DSI of having wrestled a handgun of a police officer during the SC Park Hotel incident (where Arisaman and Rambo escaped arrest), even though there is clear proof that another Red Shirt guard (now in the underground) has done this.

If there is direct proof of Red Shirts having committed crimes, then of course they have to be convicted in court. But when people are arrested and incarcerated based on insufficient evidence, or no evidence at all, then there is a problem that has to be addressed.

[nicknostitz]

I think the 'go free' or 'get off' depends on WHERE the two red-shirt guards were apprehended.

Saichon was arrested at Sanam Luang a week or two after the dispersal. He was part of a group of guards that were known as the Sanam Luang group. He made before becoming a Red Shirt guard (and when not being a guard), a living doing odd jobs at Sanam Luang. He was not apprehended at Rajaprasong.

[rubl]

I think the 'go free' or 'get off' depends on WHERE the two red-shirt guards were apprehended.

Saichon was arrested at Sanam Luang a week or two after the dispersal. He was part of a group of guards that were known as the Sanam Luang group. He made before becoming a Red Shirt guard (and when not being a guard), a living doing odd jobs at Sanam Luang. He was not apprehended at Rajaprasong.

Thanks, so that's one who may 'go free'. Any idea where the other one was apprehended?

[nicknostitz]

Thanks, so that's one who may 'go free'. Any idea where the other one was apprehended?

Not presently.

Most of the guards i know, i only know them by their nickname, and not their full name. I may know more at a later time.

Lets wait and see of Saichon goes free. There were several trials of Red Shirts i have observed, where i could not see that the prosecution could establish what i would call guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and where investigators have not investigated several elementary points, but where the accused were still convicted. But given the harsh laws on contempt of court i cannot say more.

[tlansford]

Just because these 2 can't be definitely identified by employees, doesn't mean that they weren't there or that other red shirts weren't there.

But, it will probably get them off in this case.

This case is about these two men. Several witnesses for the prosecution have failed to identify that these two men were seen at the incident that they were arrested for. If the prosecution can't make its case, the men should be presumed innocent and found not guilty. But not in your mind, judging by your statements. If the prosecution cannot make the case the men go free, they don't "get off" thus implying guilt.

yes, exactly...

[pisico]

Thanks, so that's one who may 'go free'. Any idea where the other one was apprehended?

Not presently.

Most of the guards i know, i only know them by their nickname, and not their full name. I may know more at a later time.

Lets wait and see of Saichon goes free. There were several trials of Red Shirts i have observed, where i could not see that the prosecution could establish what i would call guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and where investigators have not investigated several elementary points, but where the accused were still convicted. But given the harsh laws on contempt of court i cannot say more.

If there is no photographic evidence presented to the court, and presumably to the public by the Media, do you have any idea what lead to his arrest 2 weeks after the rally was dispersed by the army?

Was there an investigation made that concluded that "he had to be one" of the arsonists? It stands to reason that someone with a low IQ could not carry out the necessary allocations of combustibles and cause such massive fire. I ask these questions of you because (unlike the arm-chair political annalists, prosecutors and judges in this forum), you do have direct knowledge of the alleged perpetrator accused of the crimes.

Could this be that the powers that be at the time needed a culprit to justify the reaction of the army against the demonstrators? I also wonder about the death of Seh Dang: was it ever properly investigated like these two red shirts have been?

[TAWP]

Even if the exact people will not be fingered [for various reasons] we are still getting closer and closer to seeing more and more witnesses fingering the color of the perpetrators and re-affirms the statements that there was several looters in the midst of it all and many of the colored group was indeed armed, of various levels.

[TAWP]

It stands to reason that someone with a low IQ could not carry out the necessary allocations of combustibles and cause such massive fire.

Do tell, how high IQ do a person needs to light a match?

[rubl]

Thanks, so that's one who may 'go free'. Any idea where the other one was apprehended?

Not presently.

Most of the guards i know, i only know them by their nickname, and not their full name. I may know more at a later time.

Lets wait and see of Saichon goes free. There were several trials of Red Shirts i have observed, where i could not see that the prosecution could establish what i would call guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and where investigators have not investigated several elementary points, but where the accused were still convicted. But given the harsh laws on contempt of court i cannot say more.

If there is no photographic evidence presented to the court, and presumably to the public by the Media, do you have any idea what lead to his arrest 2 weeks after the rally was dispersed by the army?

Was there an investigation made that concluded that "he had to be one" of the arsonists? It stands to reason that someone with a low IQ could not carry out the necessary allocations of combustibles and cause such massive fire. I ask these questions of you because (unlike the arm-chair political annalists, prosecutors and judges in this forum), you do have direct knowledge of the alleged perpetrator accused of the crimes.

Could this be that the powers that be at the time needed a culprit to justify the reaction of the army against the demonstrators? I also wonder about the death of Seh Dang: was it ever properly investigated like these two red shirts have been?

To be fair to Nick, as a foreigner having associated with red-shirt guards who may or may not have been involved in the torching of CWT but are accused, is tricky. I don't think Thai law has much interest in 'character witnesses' especially from foreigners in this internal affair, but I may be wrong.

Anyway people have been deported for various acts deemed to be detrimental to law and order in Thailand. I can appreciate that Nick tries to balance on the tightrope

Edited July 20, 2011 by rubl

[whybother]

Just because these 2 can't be definitely identified by employees, doesn't mean that they weren't there or that other red shirts weren't there.

But, it will probably get them off in this case.

This case is about these two men. Several witnesses for the prosecution have failed to identify that these two men were seen at the incident that they were arrested for. If the prosecution can't make its case, the men should be presumed innocent and found not guilty. But not in your mind, judging by your statements. If the prosecution cannot make the case the men go free, they don't "get off" thus implying guilt.

I should have said "they will probably be found 'not guilty' in this case".

I don't know the specifics of the case, like where the 2 were arrested and if there is other evidence that puts them there, so if they are not found guilty, the case against them is obviously weak. Based on the reports of the witnesses in the last couple of days and if that's the best the prosecution can come up with, there seems to be no way they can be guilty.

But I'll stand by my first statement.

Edit: having read further through the thread (ie Nick's comments), the crucial evidence hasn't been submitted yet. If there is no photographic evidence, then I believe they should go free.

Given the evidence given by a couple of the "witnesses", I wonder why they were put on the stand by the prosecution.

Edited July 20, 2011 by whybother

[nicknostitz]

If there is no photographic evidence presented to the court, and presumably to the public by the Media, do you have any idea what lead to his arrest 2 weeks after the rally was dispersed by the army?

Was there an investigation made that concluded that "he had to be one" of the arsonists? It stands to reason that someone with a low IQ could not carry out the necessary allocations of combustibles and cause such massive fire. I ask these questions of you because (unlike the arm-chair political annalists, prosecutors and judges in this forum), you do have direct knowledge of the alleged perpetrator accused of the crimes.

Could this be that the powers that be at the time needed a culprit to justify the reaction of the army against the demonstrators? I also wonder about the death of Seh Dang: was it ever properly investigated like these two red shirts have been?

You ask the right questions.

Basically - intelligence knew most of the regular Red Shirt guards, the backgrounds, names, etc.

Saichon was part of a hardcore guard group, and the were allegations at the time of his arrest of a photo that would have placed him there. Well, as far as i know it was the image of a hooded figure in black, which was far from conclusive. Saichon himself though was very proud to be a guard, but he was not exactly what i would call a leading member of this group (in fact - he was in regular trouble with his friends because of his difficulties with keeping hygiene, such as having regular showers...).

There were many such arrests at the time of guards without what i would call insufficient evidence. Some of course were arrested based on sufficient evidence.

Regarding Sae Daeng...

Well, there were quite a few investigations. Some of the results were discussed in a public hearing of the fact finding commission of the Commission For Truth and Reconciliation. It is quite clear where Sae Daeng was shot from, based on his position while he was shot (based on several witness accounts, including of foreign journalists who were at the scene), and the trajectory of the bullet. The most likely building was the building where McDonalds and Robinson was located, from the 6th or 7th floor. This building was at the time under complete control of the military, and no opportunity for anybody else to get in other than who was let in by the security forces. Nevertheless, the military is stalling, and has also done so during this public meeting. Somchai Hamlaor, who is chairing this sub-committee, has ended this particular session with a very harsh comment to the military, that he expects the military to answer the open questions.

As far as i know nothing has been answered, so far.

By the way, there was one such public hearing where i was very impressed with the officers present. That was the session dealing with the Wat Pratum incident. There, for the first time in public, the military has admitted that special forces were stationed at the BTS tracks, and that the soldiers shot at militants (of course they stated that the soldiers did not fire at ordinary Red Shirts...).

But, regarding Wat Pratum, the evidence is quite clear: soldiers were stationed at the BTS tracks, they fired their rifles, there were militants shooting at the soldiers. There were people killed in the temple, none of them were militants though (evidence is also clear, none of the dead had gunpowder residue on their hands, two had gunpowder residue at the bodies - on at his leg, and another one somwhere else at his/her body). There are/were several marks of bullets in the temple which were clearly shot from the BTS tracks. The problem here is not so much the presence of militants (which would have been legitimate targets), but why people that were not militants (such as Nong Kate) died there.

The only thing that is not exactly clear about Wat Pratum is the exact location of where the victims died, or were shot, as they were removed from the original scene.

There are other more strategical issues about Wat Pratum, which would lead a bit far though here.

[tartempion]

dressed in what appeared to be black ranger uniforms invaded the ground floor of Zen at around 3pm on May 19 last year,

I find it strange no soldiers were around to protect the Ratchaprasong assets after cleaning the grounds from the red shirts.

Som nam na.

[rubl]

dressed in what appeared to be black ranger uniforms invaded the ground floor of Zen at around 3pm on May 19 last year,

I find it strange no soldiers were around to protect the Ratchaprasong assets after cleaning the grounds from the red shirts.

Som nam na.

The full paragraph may explain this, notice the 'not long after'?

"He said a group of three to five men, dressed in what appeared to be black ranger uniforms invaded the ground floor of Zen at around 3pm on May 19 last year, not long after red-shirt leaders surrendered to police and soldiers moved in, when the month-long siege in Ratchaprasong ended."

There's no indication the area was totally 'secured'. After the UDD leaders surrendered there were still lots of bewildered and lost protesters walking around wondering what happened to their cause.

[nicknostitz]

To be fair to Nick, as a foreigner having associated with red-shirt guards who may or may not have been involved in the torching of CWT but are accused, is tricky. I don't think Thai law has much interest in 'character witnesses' especially from foreigners in this internal affair, but I may be wrong.

Anyway people have been deported for various acts deemed to be detrimental to law and order in Thailand. I can appreciate that Nick tries to balance on the tightrope

Actually, no, nothing is "tricky" about my position in this regard.

I am an accredited journalist. I do my job, meaning - i know what i am writing about, and who i photograph. I also have "associated" with militant yellow shirts.

It would be an advantage if more journalists would have done their jobs in the past couple of years other than a small handful of Thai and western journalists. It was and is not exactly difficult to get to know Red Shirt guards, or Yellow Shirt guards. And i believe that when i write about this subject i have to know not just leaders, but guards, ordinary protesters and people of the security forces as well in order to competently write about this subject.

I am not a witness in Saichon's case, i just know him. And what i know about him about his character is well known by police and military as well. And they also know very well what is wrong with his arrest and incarceration.

I know that recently there were rumors that i had difficulties with renewing my visa. Which i hadn't. On the opposite, my visa and work permit were renewed quicker than ever before.

What though is tricky are the regular attempts of character assassination i am subject to, which have made at times life very difficult for me, and for my family. The tightrope is not about me knowing and speaking with people accused of crimes, but that the importance of journalism, especially critical journalism, is not yet completely accepted by certain members of the state here, even though the Thai constitution is quite clear in this matter.

[rubl]

To be fair to Nick, as a foreigner having associated with red-shirt guards who may or may not have been involved in the torching of CWT but are accused, is tricky. I don't think Thai law has much interest in 'character witnesses' especially from foreigners in this internal affair, but I may be wrong.

Anyway people have been deported for various acts deemed to be detrimental to law and order in Thailand. I can appreciate that Nick tries to balance on the tightrope

Actually, no, nothing is "tricky" about my position in this regard.

I am an accredited journalist. I do my job, meaning - i know what i am writing about, and who i photograph. I also have "associated" with militant yellow shirts.

It would be an advantage if more journalists would have done their jobs in the past couple of years other than a small handful of Thai and western journalists. It was and is not exactly difficult to get to know Red Shirt guards, or Yellow Shirt guards. And i believe that when i write about this subject i have to know not just leaders, but guards, ordinary protesters and people of the security forces as well in order to competently write about this subject.

I am not a witness in Saichon's case, i just know him. And what i know about him about his character is well known by police and military as well. And they also know very well what is wrong with his arrest and incarceration.

I know that recently there were rumors that i had difficulties with renewing my visa. Which i hadn't. On the opposite, my visa and work permit were renewed quicker than ever before.

What though is tricky are the regular attempts of character assassination i am subject to, which have made at times life very difficult for me, and for my family. The tightrope is not about me knowing and speaking with people accused of crimes, but that the importance of journalism, especially critical journalism, is not yet completely accepted by certain members of the state here, even though the Thai constitution is quite clear in this matter.

Nick, my post may have been a bit unclear. To be sure I do NOT suggest you should be careful with the company you keep. If that was your impression I apologise. I merely meant that as a foreigner in Thailand some things done or said may be looked upon with less friendly eyes than the same behaviour would be seen in other countries. No more, no less.

[whybother]

What though is tricky are the regular attempts of character assassination i am subject to, which have made at times life very difficult for me, and for my family. The tightrope is not about me knowing and speaking with people accused of crimes, but that the importance of journalism, especially critical journalism, is not yet completely accepted by certain members of the state here, even though the Thai constitution is quite clear in this matter.

Any chance of you setting up a school to teach a few Thai journalists about investigative journalism?

Maybe even a half hour course to tell them how to ask a relevant question?

[pisico]

To be fair to Nick, as a foreigner having associated with red-shirt guards who may or may not have been involved in the torching of CWT but are accused, is tricky. I don't think Thai law has much interest in 'character witnesses' especially from foreigners in this internal affair, but I may be wrong.

Anyway people have been deported for various acts deemed to be detrimental to law and order in Thailand. I can appreciate that Nick tries to balance on the tightrope

Actually, no, nothing is "tricky" about my position in this regard.

I am an accredited journalist. I do my job, meaning - i know what i am writing about, and who i photograph. I also have "associated" with militant yellow shirts.

It would be an advantage if more journalists would have done their jobs in the past couple of years other than a small handful of Thai and western journalists. It was and is not exactly difficult to get to know Red Shirt guards, or Yellow Shirt guards. And i believe that when i write about this subject i have to know not just leaders, but guards, ordinary protesters and people of the security forces as well in order to competently write about this subject.

I am not a witness in Saichon's case, i just know him. And what i know about him about his character is well known by police and military as well. And they also know very well what is wrong with his arrest and incarceration.

I know that recently there were rumors that i had difficulties with renewing my visa. Which i hadn't. On the opposite, my visa and work permit were renewed quicker than ever before.

What though is tricky are the regular attempts of character assassination i am subject to, which have made at times life very difficult for me, and for my family. The tightrope is not about me knowing and speaking with people accused of crimes, but that the importance of journalism, especially critical journalism, is not yet completely accepted by certain members of the state here, even though the Thai constitution is quite clear in this matter.

I take my hat off to you.

Walter Cronkite, in the USA, was considered to be the model of true journalism. He redacted the news 5 days a week for over 40 years in an objective and impartial manner. Only after he retired he divulged his true political leanings: he was a fervent liberal Democrat. However, he understood and professed respect for the public that listened to him and trusted him. The reason he never was biased in his reporting.

As long as you are professional reporting what you see and what you know and learn from the unfolding events and thereafter, that is how you earn the trust of the public. As you have earned mine.

Furthermore, you have risen above intimidation (cloaked as warnings) to put in their place those who have little to talk about other than parroting what others say. You have the life that many do not. Keep it up!

[geriatrickid]

Is it correct to publish the names of the witnesses? Maybe they'd be more brave on the stand if their names and employment records weren't published for all to see. After all, these are simple people, easily scared and intimidated, especially by the kind of people who throw grenades into shopping malls.

Yes it is correct. It is called transparency to ensure that the witnesses exist.