Attorney appeals court ruling on 2010 Bangkok Central World Arson

[webfact]

Attorney Appeals Court Ruling On 2010 CTW Arson


Photo: KAOSOD English

BANGKOK: -- Attorney of the Criminal Court is appealing the verdict which acquitted 2 Redshirts protesters previously accused of assisting the arson attack on Central World shopping mall in central Bangkok in 2010.

Parts of Central World (CTW) was burned down in the final day of Redshirts mass protests which had been occupying Bangkok′s financial district until they were brought down by military operation on 19 May 2010.

The case is a deeply political one. The government of the time, along with the Democrat Party and the Yellowshirts, accused Redshirts protesters as "terrorists" who set fire to the mall and other buildings as retaliation against the crackdown. The Redshirts denied any involvement, and insisted that the mall was burned down by "third hand party" that attempted to place the blame on Redshirts.

The court ruling in March 2013 which had not only acquitted Mr. Saichol Paebua, 31, and Mr. Pinit Channarong, 29, but also set them free from their imprisonment, was a blow against the anti-Redshirts factions who have been using the CTW case as an example of the Redshirts′ alleged plan to ′Burn Down The City′ (Phao Baan Phao Muang).

Now, as the attorney is appealing the said verdict, Mr. Pinit said he hoped the attorney will give them fiarness. He said he had not considered plan to sue the prosecutor in his case for wrongly accusing him, since he is preparing to ordain as a monk for 29 days - the number of his age - to make good karma for his parents.

Nonetheless, he said he still felt anger for those who accused him of ′burning down the city′ and caused him to be imprisoned for almost 3 years. He hoped that the 20 remaining Redshirts who are still imprisoned for their alleged crimes during the 2010 protests would be free soon.

Full story: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNM01UZ3lNVGc1TkE9PQ==

-- KHAOSOD English 2013-06-22

[waza]

Looks like the government has founds a billion baht to help the redshirt criminals..........

"Some of the red shirts detained since May 2010 are finally receiving support from the Yingluck Shinawatra-led government. The Nation reports that the cabinet has “approved Bt46 million to bail out 57 red-shirt activists and supporters remanded in connection with the 2010 political unrest and riots.” Four others have been acquitted. The cabinet decision was required as the so-called Justice Fund had insufficient funds."

"As for the procedure of handing out compensation money for the Redshirts who were imprisoned longer than the court′s judgment and those who were kept in prison long after their cases were dismissed, Ms. Thida said total compensation fund would stand at 19,700,000 baht and would be dispatched to 77 Redshirts."

But that's not enough, the redshirts will hold a rally to protest for a blanket amnesty for their members. All in all it doesn't look like this will go far, but one can only hope rule of law is followed and justice is served.

[winstonc]

amazing how you can use taxpayers monet for bail it seems only in amazing thailand,,,,,,,

[webfact]

Appeal against acquittal of CentralWorld suspects
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Public prosecutors have appealed against the acquittal of two red shirts accused of setting fire to CentralWord on May 19, 2010, the attorney-general said yesterday.

Attorney-General Pairat Kangwansura said an appeal against Saichon Paebua, 31, and Pinij Channarong, 29, was submitted to the Appeals Court on June 13. The South Bangkok Criminal Court had acquitted the two suspects.

Pairat said public prosecutors had witnesses who saw the two walking into CentralWorld with some equipment as others were fleeing from the shopping mall. The witnesses claimed the two were entering the mall with criminal intent.

Meanwhile, defence lawyer Akom Ratanapojanart said he had yet to receive a copy of the appeal, but was confident that the defence would be able to dispute the evidence, adding that the witness testimonies would hold no weight in court.

"The information is obviously not convincing enough or else the court would have convicted the two defendants," the lawyer said.


-- The Nation 2013-06-22

[whybother]

Just because 2 individual red shirts were acquitted does not mean that it wasn't red shirts that burnt down the building.

[NongKhaiKid]

" The information is obviously not convincing enough or else the court would have convicted... "

Seems reasonable to me, there just couldn't be any other explanation, could there ?

[hellodolly]

" The information is obviously not convincing enough or else the court would have convicted... "

Seems reasonable to me, there just couldn't be any other explanation, could there ?

Well being as the courts are more and more being brought under control by the PTP that might be the reason for the decision. The courts just doing what they were told to do.

So let us see now the red shirts did not try to burn down the Central World shopping center in 2010 and they did nothing wrong in the time they were illegally camped out in effect shutting down Parts of the business district in Bangkok. There was some mysterious black shirt people mixed in with them causing all the trouble. Never mind they were illegally there themselves. Has there been any charges brought against them for the invasion of a hospital.

Has there been any compensation to all the small business owners they forced to shut down?

Edit

Why couldent they have been like their dummy red shirt partners here in Chiang Mai and just burned up a fire engine. That sure tought us a lesson. It was a little dubious the intellectual level until they did that then we knew the lights were on with them but no one was home.

Edited June 22, 2013 by hellodolly

[tootall]

Just because 2 individual red shirts were acquitted does not mean that it wasn't red shirts that burnt down the building.

The red shirts do not do anything wrong-they just can't understand why they get blamed for things. It is always some one else who is guilty. Such bull

[nicknostitz]

" The information is obviously not convincing enough or else the court would have convicted... "

Seems reasonable to me, there just couldn't be any other explanation, could there ?

Well being as the courts are more and more being brought under control by the PTP that might be the reason for the decision. The courts just doing what they were told to do.

<snip>

Actually, no.

The reason that those two were acquitted was that the prosecution could simply not come up with any evidence linking those two to the burning of Central World.

Saichon Paebua was arrested about two weeks after the burning of Central World, on Sanam Luang. His arrest was based on a photo taken by an employee of Central World, who was also the only witness who placed Saichon inside Central World during the arson. The only problem with that image (and therefore with the witness) was that the image has shown a thin man without tattoos on his arm, while Saichon is a stocky man with tattoos on his arms. Saichon had these tattoos already long before his arrest - they were not made during his incarceration (i have known him for a long time, before his arrest).

Saichon was a Red Shirt guard from the Sanam Luang group, and well known by police and security forces. A main reason for his arrest was that it was well known that he ran away from home at a young age, that his family did not care for him, that he is of low IQ, and easily intimidated. And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image.

Pinit was an ordinary protester, not a guard. On May 19, when the protests were stopped, he went first to Wat Patum, then, when he got scared, tried to get into the police hospital, which he couldn't, and escaped from the explosions and gunfire into Central World, where he was arrested with other protesters. There is no witness linking him to the arson, no forensic evidence whatsoever, no photos other than him being arrested.

I have followed this trial very closely, and have been at most trial dates in the court room. I cannot understand how this case could ever come to the trial in the first place, as the evidence could not even be described as flimsy.

Edited June 22, 2013 by nicknostitz

[thhMan]

Take the shirt off and they are terrorists... just the same as jet ski operators, tuk tuk drivers and so forth

Thailand has enjoyed living in its own filth for so long now, that the clean up job is going to be a very hard task and hopefully Thailand can bite the bullet and get on with some sort of democracy and justice.

[Baerboxer]

" The information is obviously not convincing enough or else the court would have convicted... "

Seems reasonable to me, there just couldn't be any other explanation, could there ?

Well being as the courts are more and more being brought under control by the PTP that might be the reason for the decision. The courts just doing what they were told to do.

<snip>

Actually, no.

The reason that those two were acquitted was that the prosecution could simply not come up with any evidence linking those two to the burning of Central World.

Saichon Paebua was arrested about two weeks after the burning of Central World, on Sanam Luang. His arrest was based on a photo taken by an employee of Central World, who was also the only witness who placed Saichon inside Central World during the arson. The only problem with that image (and therefore with the witness) was that the image has shown a thin man without tattoos on his arm, while Saichon is a stocky man with tattoos on his arms. Saichon had these tattoos already long before his arrest - they were not made during his incarceration (i have known him for a long time, before his arrest).

Saichon was a Red Shirt guard from the Sanam Luang group, and well known by police and security forces. A main reason for his arrest was that it was well known that he ran away from home at a young age, that his family did not care for him, that he is of low IQ, and easily intimidated. And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image.

Pinit was an ordinary protester, not a guard. On May 19, when the protests were stopped, he went first to Wat Patum, then, when he got scared, tried to get into the police hospital, which he couldn't, and escaped from the explosions and gunfire into Central World, where he was arrested with other protesters. There is no witness linking him to the arson, no forensic evidence whatsoever, no photos other than him being arrested.

I have followed this trial very closely, and have been at most trial dates in the court room. I cannot understand how this case could ever come to the trial in the first place, as the evidence could not even be described as flimsy.

"And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image."

How do you know this - were you present at his arrest and subsequent questioning?

"Actually, no" - do you know for sure that the courts are not under any pressure from the current government?

[waza]

" The information is obviously not convincing enough or else the court would have convicted... "

Seems reasonable to me, there just couldn't be any other explanation, could there ?

Well being as the courts are more and more being brought under control by the PTP that might be the reason for the decision. The courts just doing what they were told to do.

<snip>

Actually, no.

The reason that those two were acquitted was that the prosecution could simply not come up with any evidence linking those two to the burning of Central World.

Saichon Paebua was arrested about two weeks after the burning of Central World, on Sanam Luang. His arrest was based on a photo taken by an employee of Central World, who was also the only witness who placed Saichon inside Central World during the arson. The only problem with that image (and therefore with the witness) was that the image has shown a thin man without tattoos on his arm, while Saichon is a stocky man with tattoos on his arms. Saichon had these tattoos already long before his arrest - they were not made during his incarceration (i have known him for a long time, before his arrest).

Saichon was a Red Shirt guard from the Sanam Luang group, and well known by police and security forces. A main reason for his arrest was that it was well known that he ran away from home at a young age, that his family did not care for him, that he is of low IQ, and easily intimidated. And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image.

Pinit was an ordinary protester, not a guard. On May 19, when the protests were stopped, he went first to Wat Patum, then, when he got scared, tried to get into the police hospital, which he couldn't, and escaped from the explosions and gunfire into Central World, where he was arrested with other protesters. There is no witness linking him to the arson, no forensic evidence whatsoever, no photos other than him being arrested.

I have followed this trial very closely, and have been at most trial dates in the court room. I cannot understand how this case could ever come to the trial in the first place, as the evidence could not even be described as flimsy.

Seem he will be ample rewarded for it..........

Pinit: I want to go home to Isaan and open a shop with the compensation money that I will hopefully receive from the government. But before I turn to any business plans, I want to become a monk for a little while. I was inspired in prison and need to do it.

[nicknostitz]

"And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image."

How do you know this - were you present at his arrest and subsequent questioning?

"Actually, no" - do you know for sure that the courts are not under any pressure from the current government?

I have confirmed the act of intimidation by several sources intimate with the proceedings. This is only one of the many similar such cases after Rajaprasong. I think Human Rights Watch also mentioned many such cases.

The image on which Saichon's arrest was based upon was also used in the court as evidence - it shows a completely different person. The *only* witness who placed Saichon into Central World was the person who took the photo.

The court has refused numerous requests for release on bail for the two over these three years, in which also MP's of the current government vouched for them. This is hardly a court which is intimidated by the current government.

Just because some might have preferred a guilty verdict, does not mean that an acquittal means a conspiracy. Before going off on such conspiracy theories, i would suggest to follow these cases in the court room. In Thailand the public is allowed to observe trials - that means you are also allowed to do that.

Matter of fact is - the prosecution had no evidence whatsoever linking those two to the arson of Central World, and the court judged based on this lack of evidence.

Simple as that.

[scorecard]

" The information is obviously not convincing enough or else the court would have convicted... "

Seems reasonable to me, there just couldn't be any other explanation, could there ?

Well being as the courts are more and more being brought under control by the PTP that might be the reason for the decision. The courts just doing what they were told to do.

<snip>

Actually, no.

The reason that those two were acquitted was that the prosecution could simply not come up with any evidence linking those two to the burning of Central World.

Saichon Paebua was arrested about two weeks after the burning of Central World, on Sanam Luang. His arrest was based on a photo taken by an employee of Central World, who was also the only witness who placed Saichon inside Central World during the arson. The only problem with that image (and therefore with the witness) was that the image has shown a thin man without tattoos on his arm, while Saichon is a stocky man with tattoos on his arms. Saichon had these tattoos already long before his arrest - they were not made during his incarceration (i have known him for a long time, before his arrest).

Saichon was a Red Shirt guard from the Sanam Luang group, and well known by police and security forces. A main reason for his arrest was that it was well known that he ran away from home at a young age, that his family did not care for him, that he is of low IQ, and easily intimidated. And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image.

Pinit was an ordinary protester, not a guard. On May 19, when the protests were stopped, he went first to Wat Patum, then, when he got scared, tried to get into the police hospital, which he couldn't, and escaped from the explosions and gunfire into Central World, where he was arrested with other protesters. There is no witness linking him to the arson, no forensic evidence whatsoever, no photos other than him being arrested.

I have followed this trial very closely, and have been at most trial dates in the court room. I cannot understand how this case could ever come to the trial in the first place, as the evidence could not even be described as flimsy.

Funny how you seem to know everybody.

[nicknostitz]

Funny how you seem to know everybody.

Are you accusing me of lying here?

[scorecard]

"And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image."

How do you know this - were you present at his arrest and subsequent questioning?

"Actually, no" - do you know for sure that the courts are not under any pressure from the current government?

I have confirmed the act of intimidation by several sources intimate with the proceedings. This is only one of the many similar such cases after Rajaprasong. I think Human Rights Watch also mentioned many such cases.

The image on which Saichon's arrest was based upon was also used in the court as evidence - it shows a completely different person. The *only* witness who placed Saichon into Central World was the person who took the photo.

The court has refused numerous requests for release on bail for the two over these three years, in which also MP's of the current government vouched for them. This is hardly a court which is intimidated by the current government.

Just because some might have preferred a guilty verdict, does not mean that an acquittal means a conspiracy. Before going off on such conspiracy theories, i would suggest to follow these cases in the court room. In Thailand the public is allowed to observe trials - that means you are also allowed to do that.

Matter of fact is - the prosecution had no evidence whatsoever linking those two to the arson of Central World, and the court judged based on this lack of evidence.

Simple as that.

Quote: "Matter of fact is - the prosecution had no evidence whatsoever linking those two to the arson of Central World, and the court judged based on this lack of evidence."

Wow, your everywhere, and you (you) know for a fact that the prosecution has no evidence.

[nicknostitz]

Quote: "Matter of fact is - the prosecution had no evidence whatsoever linking those two to the arson of Central World, and the court judged based on this lack of evidence."

Wow, your everywhere, and you (you) know for a fact that the prosecution has no evidence.

After sitting through more than a year of countless court dates during the trial period, listening to almost all the prosecution witnesses, and the few dates i could not attend having had colleagues telling me what and how the witnesses i missed have testified, and watching the videos and images presented as evidence, i can comfortably state that the prosecution has presented no evidence whatsoever linking the two to the arson of Central World.

Which is why the court acquitted them of the charges.

Again - simple as that.

[jaidam]

One would need to be a true believer of coincidence to conclude that the red shirts did not burn central world.

To acknowledge that

1) the red shirts disabled all security cameras in the area

2)the red shirt leaders on stage gave orders to burn central world to cheering crowds

3)dozens of other buildings around the country were burned by red shirts on the same day

and then to conclude that it must have been the army that burned it in order to discredit the red shirts?

Any decent journalist/reporter remains objective and reports only what they have seen/witnessed, otherwise its worthless propaganda.

[nicknostitz]

One would need to be a true believer of coincidence to conclude that the red shirts did not burn central world.

To acknowledge that

1) the red shirts disabled all security cameras in the area

2)the red shirt leaders on stage gave orders to burn central world to cheering crowds

3)dozens of other buildings around the country were burned by red shirts on the same day

and then to conclude that it must have been the army that burned it in order to discredit the red shirts?

Any decent journalist/reporter remains objective and reports only what they have seen/witnessed, otherwise its worthless propaganda.

Eh, the question here is not who burned Central World (you may notice that have not commented here on that), but why the two accused were acquitted. Just because you believe that the Red Shirts have burned Central World (and it is more than likely that they did) does not mean that false charges can be filed against any Red Shirt protester.

[lee b]

2010 wow that went fast

[khunken]

One would need to be a true believer of coincidence to conclude that the red shirts did not burn central world.

To acknowledge that

1) the red shirts disabled all security cameras in the area

2)the red shirt leaders on stage gave orders to burn central world to cheering crowds

3)dozens of other buildings around the country were burned by red shirts on the same day

and then to conclude that it must have been the army that burned it in order to discredit the red shirts?

Any decent journalist/reporter remains objective and reports only what they have seen/witnessed, otherwise its worthless propaganda.

Eh, the question here is not who burned Central World (you may notice that have not commented here on that), but why the two accused were acquitted. Just because you believe that the Red Shirts have burned Central World (and it is more than likely that they did) does not mean that false charges can be filed against any Red Shirt protester.

I'm not one to accuse the courts of bias, not am I accusing you of lying.

But every time you appear on one of the threads here you either defend some red shirts &/or make accusations against some yellow shirts. Yet you deny your bias.

You obviously have a lot more knowledge than any poster on TV of the various players in the various shirt groups. If you were a bit more impartial, I wouldn't accuse you of 'colouring' your judgement.

[Thai at Heart]

One would need to be a true believer of coincidence to conclude that the red shirts did not burn central world.

To acknowledge that

1) the red shirts disabled all security cameras in the area

2)the red shirt leaders on stage gave orders to burn central world to cheering crowds

3)dozens of other buildings around the country were burned by red shirts on the same day

and then to conclude that it must have been the army that burned it in order to discredit the red shirts?

Any decent journalist/reporter remains objective and reports only what they have seen/witnessed, otherwise its worthless propaganda.

Eh, the question here is not who burned Central World (you may notice that have not commented here on that), but why the two accused were acquitted. Just because you believe that the Red Shirts have burned Central World (and it is more than likely that they did) does not mean that false charges can be filed against any Red Shirt protester.

I'm not one to accuse the courts of bias, not am I accusing you of lying.

But every time you appear on one of the threads here you either defend some red shirts &/or make accusations against some yellow shirts. Yet you deny your bias.

You obviously have a lot more knowledge than any poster on TV of the various players in the various shirt groups. If you were a bit more impartial, I wouldn't accuse you of 'colouring' your judgement.

Is it beyond the the realms of possibility that they fitted up two innocent blokes? Someone did it, just apparently not these guys? Edited June 22, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[khunken]

One would need to be a true believer of coincidence to conclude that the red shirts did not burn central world.

To acknowledge that

1) the red shirts disabled all security cameras in the area

2)the red shirt leaders on stage gave orders to burn central world to cheering crowds

3)dozens of other buildings around the country were burned by red shirts on the same day

and then to conclude that it must have been the army that burned it in order to discredit the red shirts?

Any decent journalist/reporter remains objective and reports only what they have seen/witnessed, otherwise its worthless propaganda.

Eh, the question here is not who burned Central World (you may notice that have not commented here on that), but why the two accused were acquitted. Just because you believe that the Red Shirts have burned Central World (and it is more than likely that they did) does not mean that false charges can be filed against any Red Shirt protester.

I'm not one to accuse the courts of bias, not am I accusing you of lying.

But every time you appear on one of the threads here you either defend some red shirts &/or make accusations against some yellow shirts. Yet you deny your bias.

You obviously have a lot more knowledge than any poster on TV of the various players in the various shirt groups. If you were a bit more impartial, I wouldn't accuse you of 'colouring' your judgement.

Is it beyond the the realms of possibility that they fitted up two innocent blokes? Someone did it, just apparently not these guys?

Very possible that they are scapegoats. I'm sure Jatuporn, Arisman & co know who did it. But they probably are happier to see someone fitted up rather than betray their mates.

[nicknostitz]

I'm not one to accuse the courts of bias, not am I accusing you of lying.

But every time you appear on one of the threads here you either defend some red shirts &/or make accusations against some yellow shirts. Yet you deny your bias.

You obviously have a lot more knowledge than any poster on TV of the various players in the various shirt groups. If you were a bit more impartial, I wouldn't accuse you of 'colouring' your judgement.

I can give you quite a simple answer on that. As this forum here is predominantly and rabidly anti-red shirt, there is need for factual balance. On New Mandala, for example, i have argued many times in the comment section with people that at times are more Red than the Red Shirts. One of the issues that regularly came up was people denying the existence of the armed militants under the Red Shirts. Which, as you may remember, i have never denied.

Sometimes, i have the impression that i am called "biased" here mostly because so many posters on this forum are so extremely anti-Red Shirt that they themselves lost any balance. The basic problem is that not just the interpretation of facts are problematic, but even facts are denied.

This here is a typical example - i have given factual statements on this case. If you go back and look at how both the Bangkok Post and the Nation have reported on this case, none of my statements are contradicted by both papers. Yet, still - while you have been more polite than some others here - still the questions comes up of me being "colored".

Anyhow, can we back to the case, please, so that this doesn't yet again turn into a topic discussing me?

[waza]

These guys have been found not guilty in a court of law and we must accept that judgement, if the prosecution feels some evidence has been overlooked then they can appeal. Simple as that.

I once saw pictures and footage taken in Central before the fires while the security guards were there, and it looked like someone had packed items under the escalators and lifts. One would assume such a practice would have created a fire hazard. I haven't been able to locate those pictures since.

Like Nick I would assume the fire was lit by the reds or red sympathisers but what I cant get my head around is why they would do this after the central management provided them with support during their occupation.

Edited June 22, 2013 by waza

[khunken]

I'm not one to accuse the courts of bias, not am I accusing you of lying.

But every time you appear on one of the threads here you either defend some red shirts &/or make accusations against some yellow shirts. Yet you deny your bias.

You obviously have a lot more knowledge than any poster on TV of the various players in the various shirt groups. If you were a bit more impartial, I wouldn't accuse you of 'colouring' your judgement.

I can give you quite a simple answer on that. As this forum here is predominantly and rabidly anti-red shirt, there is need for factual balance. On New Mandala, for example, i have argued many times in the comment section with people that at times are more Red than the Red Shirts. One of the issues that regularly came up was people denying the existence of the armed militants under the Red Shirts. Which, as you may remember, i have never denied.

Sometimes, i have the impression that i am called "biased" here mostly because so many posters on this forum are so extremely anti-Red Shirt that they themselves lost any balance. The basic problem is that not just the interpretation of facts are problematic, but even facts are denied.

This here is a typical example - i have given factual statements on this case. If you go back and look at how both the Bangkok Post and the Nation have reported on this case, none of my statements are contradicted by both papers. Yet, still - while you have been more polite than some others here - still the questions comes up of me being "colored".

Anyhow, can we back to the case, please, so that this doesn't yet again turn into a topic discussing me?

If you noticed that my post didn't refer to the case in question. I'm guilty of going off-topic I admit.

I tried going through some of your writings on the New Mandala blog. I didn't get too far before the bias shone out so I gave up.

I don't know if these two individuals were just scapegoats or not and you are perfectly entitled to pick holes in the evidence against them. Given the level of BIB corruption and the ease of tampering with witnesses, I have little confidence that the real arsonists will ever be brought before a court, despite the facade of various rewards being offered by some 'influential people'.

One final thought: do you actively partake in these trials because of 'human rights abuses' or because red shirt defence lawyers like to use your 'evidence'?

[Thai at Heart]

I'm not one to accuse the courts of bias, not am I accusing you of lying.

But every time you appear on one of the threads here you either defend some red shirts &/or make accusations against some yellow shirts. Yet you deny your bias.

You obviously have a lot more knowledge than any poster on TV of the various players in the various shirt groups. If you were a bit more impartial, I wouldn't accuse you of 'colouring' your judgement.

I can give you quite a simple answer on that. As this forum here is predominantly and rabidly anti-red shirt, there is need for factual balance. On New Mandala, for example, i have argued many times in the comment section with people that at times are more Red than the Red Shirts. One of the issues that regularly came up was people denying the existence of the armed militants under the Red Shirts. Which, as you may remember, i have never denied.

Sometimes, i have the impression that i am called "biased" here mostly because so many posters on this forum are so extremely anti-Red Shirt that they themselves lost any balance. The basic problem is that not just the interpretation of facts are problematic, but even facts are denied.

This here is a typical example - i have given factual statements on this case. If you go back and look at how both the Bangkok Post and the Nation have reported on this case, none of my statements are contradicted by both papers. Yet, still - while you have been more polite than some others here - still the questions comes up of me being "colored".

Anyhow, can we back to the case, please, so that this doesn't yet again turn into a topic discussing me?

If you noticed that my post didn't refer to the case in question. I'm guilty of going off-topic I admit.

I tried going through some of your writings on the New Mandala blog. I didn't get too far before the bias shone out so I gave up.

I don't know if these two individuals were just scapegoats or not and you are perfectly entitled to pick holes in the evidence against them. Given the level of BIB corruption and the ease of tampering with witnesses, I have little confidence that the real arsonists will ever be brought before a court, despite the facade of various rewards being offered by some 'influential people'.

One final thought: do you actively partake in these trials because of 'human rights abuses' or because red shirt defence lawyers like to use your 'evidence'?

Forget any bias. Neither side is ever completely innocent.

If i sympathise with the fact that poor farmers have been shafted for 50 years in Thailand, whilst a select group of people in Bangkok have been granted oligopoly licences, that is in my opinion.

The rural poor here do have a legitimate grievance, and I say it, having worked in agriculture export for many years. The split is utterly inequitable, and no government has solved yet a way to break down the system. Thaksin has screwed it completely, but all the others have been guilty of screwing the little guy for years.

Does that make me red, communist or just honest in my opinion? The army are a scourge on this country. The long established amaart have robbed this country blind.

They don't pay their share back to society, and believe that this is in some way, the natural way of the world. This will change, inevitably, hopefully through political change.

Do I blame the reds for fighting? Not one bit. How they did it was wrong, but this country does need a social shake up, but Thaksin is not the man to deliver it.

What we get fed from the nation and the bangkok post is so selective, it bears no relation to reality. The rice mess is a screw up, but actually what they have managed to export is the hom Mali, which use produced in the poorest parts of isaaan. Why haven't governments paid to irrigate isaan instead of chasing generic crops from the middle of the country? Politics and kick backs and base laziness for 50 years.

Apparently this price for that type is sustainable. It's throwing 15k to the irrigated generic stuff that is actually the real problem. This is precisely on these facts where we , as English speakers, are fed half a story.

So, they fitted up some patsies ( hardly unheard of in Thailand), and they are declared innocent. This is a massive problem for central because their insurance won't pay without a guilty party.

Where does the connected central ownership turn for a resolution under this government?

Today nowhere. Their support of the dems is set on stone, so unfortunately, they will not get their patsies to deliver to the insurance company. They are today part of the pissed off previously entitled through their long term allegiance. That's politics.

Would you prefer two innocent guys go to jail just so central can get paid?

Edited June 22, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[rixalex]

Do I blame the reds for fighting? Not one bit. How they did it was wrong, but this country does need a social shake up, but Thaksin is not the man to deliver it.

I think your question do i blame the reds for fighting, and your statement how they did it was wrong, could quite easily fool a reader into thinking that this was some sort of a genuine uprising by the reds off the back of their own genuine feelings. Whilst the reds undoubtedly do have genuine feelings of discontentment and frustration that are well justified in my opinion, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that what happened in 2010 would have ever happened had one man not had his assets frozen, and had one man not thrown his considerable resources behind organizing and paying people to protest on his behalf, under the faux banner of democracy and human rights.

Now you may argue that Thaksin simply enabled the downtrodden poor, and gave them the opportunity that they had been waiting many years for, but there are plenty of examples in other countries around the world in which the poor common man has stood up for their rights by taking to the streets, in a spontaneous and genuine manner. Doesn't take much money to stand on a street corner. No organizing or funding required. All it takes is just a sincere up-swell of real heartfelt emotion and feeling shared by hundreds of thousands of like-minded people.

There is nothing genuine or heartfelt about the red shirt movement. If the money dried up, that would be it. They waited until there was a corrupt multi-millionaire politician willing to pay them to do his dirty work. Dressing up what they have done (not accusing you) as something noble and sincere is an insult to all the many millions of other disadvantaged and poor Thais who have suffered just as much as the reds over the years, but who did not allow themselves to become a part of this rich man's sham.

[khunken]

I'm not one to accuse the courts of bias, not am I accusing you of lying.

But every time you appear on one of the threads here you either defend some red shirts &/or make accusations against some yellow shirts. Yet you deny your bias.

You obviously have a lot more knowledge than any poster on TV of the various players in the various shirt groups. If you were a bit more impartial, I wouldn't accuse you of 'colouring' your judgement.

I can give you quite a simple answer on that. As this forum here is predominantly and rabidly anti-red shirt, there is need for factual balance. On New Mandala, for example, i have argued many times in the comment section with people that at times are more Red than the Red Shirts. One of the issues that regularly came up was people denying the existence of the armed militants under the Red Shirts. Which, as you may remember, i have never denied.

Sometimes, i have the impression that i am called "biased" here mostly because so many posters on this forum are so extremely anti-Red Shirt that they themselves lost any balance. The basic problem is that not just the interpretation of facts are problematic, but even facts are denied.

This here is a typical example - i have given factual statements on this case. If you go back and look at how both the Bangkok Post and the Nation have reported on this case, none of my statements are contradicted by both papers. Yet, still - while you have been more polite than some others here - still the questions comes up of me being "colored".

Anyhow, can we back to the case, please, so that this doesn't yet again turn into a topic discussing me?

If you noticed that my post didn't refer to the case in question. I'm guilty of going off-topic I admit.

I tried going through some of your writings on the New Mandala blog. I didn't get too far before the bias shone out so I gave up.

I don't know if these two individuals were just scapegoats or not and you are perfectly entitled to pick holes in the evidence against them. Given the level of BIB corruption and the ease of tampering with witnesses, I have little confidence that the real arsonists will ever be brought before a court, despite the facade of various rewards being offered by some 'influential people'.

One final thought: do you actively partake in these trials because of 'human rights abuses' or because red shirt defence lawyers like to use your 'evidence'?

Forget any bias. Neither side is ever completely innocent.

If i sympathise with the fact that poor farmers have been shafted for 50 years in Thailand, whilst a select group of people in Bangkok have been granted oligopoly licences, that is in my opinion.

The rural poor here do have a legitimate grievance, and I say it, having worked in agriculture export for many years. The split is utterly inequitable, and no government has solved yet a way to break down the system. Thaksin has screwed it completely, but all the others have been guilty of screwing the little guy for years.

Does that make me red, communist or just honest in my opinion? The army are a scourge on this country. The long established amaart have robbed this country blind.

They don't pay their share back to society, and believe that this is in some way, the natural way of the world. This will change, inevitably, hopefully through political change.

Do I blame the reds for fighting? Not one bit. How they did it was wrong, but this country does need a social shake up, but Thaksin is not the man to deliver it.

What we get fed from the nation and the bangkok post is so selective, it bears no relation to reality. The rice mess is a screw up, but actually what they have managed to export is the hom Mali, which use produced in the poorest parts of isaaan. Why haven't governments paid to irrigate isaan instead of chasing generic crops from the middle of the country? Politics and kick backs and base laziness for 50 years.

Apparently this price for that type is sustainable. It's throwing 15k to the irrigated generic stuff that is actually the real problem. This is precisely on these facts where we , as English speakers, are fed half a story.

So, they fitted up some patsies ( hardly unheard of in Thailand), and they are declared innocent. This is a massive problem for central because their insurance won't pay without a guilty party.

Where does the connected central ownership turn for a resolution under this government?

Today nowhere. Their support of the dems is set on stone, so unfortunately, they will not get their patsies to deliver to the insurance company. They are today part of the pissed off previously entitled through their long term allegiance. That's politics.

Would you prefer two innocent guys go to jail just so central can get paid?

Well you have said a lot there almost sounding like a Nick Nostitz defender.

I don't agree with much of what you say which is just the old 'Amart' screwing the population simplistic attitude. Many of the priviliged companies support the new 'Amart' if that's the correct hackneyed term.

Handing out huge unsustainable subsidies to 'farmers' is not the way to tackle inequity anywhere. Plus it's questionable that the real needful farmers have benefitted very much, certainly not in comparison with the big boys, millers & warehouse owners - even leaving out the various ways of skimming & cheating. There are better direct ways to help poor farmers and giving them assistance in improving their crop yields and getting away from the mono-crop culkture which the rice subsidy encourages.

The army are a scourge but not nearly as much as the police which have a huge negative effect on the morals, ethics & honesty of many citizens.

Your last sentence is ridiculous and sounds like a typical Saturday night beer-filled comment.. If you had taken the time to read what I posted, I said that they were probably scapegoats. I have never said that I would want any innocent person set up.

As for the comments about Central and the insurance claim for the arson of Central World, yes, they should be paid. I don't know what you mean by 'patsies deliver to the insurance company' More gibberish. You should know by now that the Crown Property Bureau not only owns the land on which Central is situated but is the main shareholder in the Insurance Company involved too. Sort of 'Amart' vs 'Amart' to the simplistic way of thinking.

You should have prefaced your post with 'A rant'.

[rubl]

Actually, no.

The reason that those two were acquitted was that the prosecution could simply not come up with any evidence linking those two to the burning of Central World.

Saichon Paebua was arrested about two weeks after the burning of Central World, on Sanam Luang. His arrest was based on a photo taken by an employee of Central World, who was also the only witness who placed Saichon inside Central World during the arson. The only problem with that image (and therefore with the witness) was that the image has shown a thin man without tattoos on his arm, while Saichon is a stocky man with tattoos on his arms. Saichon had these tattoos already long before his arrest - they were not made during his incarceration (i have known him for a long time, before his arrest).

Saichon was a Red Shirt guard from the Sanam Luang group, and well known by police and security forces. A main reason for his arrest was that it was well known that he ran away from home at a young age, that his family did not care for him, that he is of low IQ, and easily intimidated. And that it was exactly what happened: after his arrest he was intimidated into accepting the charges, and into admitting that he was the person in the image.

Pinit was an ordinary protester, not a guard. On May 19, when the protests were stopped, he went first to Wat Patum, then, when he got scared, tried to get into the police hospital, which he couldn't, and escaped from the explosions and gunfire into Central World, where he was arrested with other protesters. There is no witness linking him to the arson, no forensic evidence whatsoever, no photos other than him being arrested.

I have followed this trial very closely, and have been at most trial dates in the court room. I cannot understand how this case could ever come to the trial in the first place, as the evidence could not even be described as flimsy.

Over the last three years we have had various conflicting 'statements' from posters here about the time the fire started, restarted and when the area was possibly secured. Wat Patum seems to have become 'scary' later in the evening / night. Around 7 or 8PM CWT seemed to be on fire to the extend of no longer allowing anyone to stay inside.

May I ask at what time k. Pinit was arrested in CWT?

Edited June 22, 2013 by rubl