Evidence given to court over temple deaths was one-sided: Thai lawyer

[webfact]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
Evidence given to court over temple deaths was one-sided: lawyer


Bundit

BANGKOK: -- Veteran lawyer Bundit Siripant, the manager of Seni Pramoj Advocates and Solicitors, has been in charge of many important cases for the Democrat Party. With new challenges ahead for the party, notably a Criminal Court inquest that found soldiers responsible for the death of six people at Wat Pathum Wanaram during political turmoil in 2010 when Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was prime minister, The Nation's Hataikarn Treesuwan spoke to him about how he will deal with the case.

Are you surprised at the court ruling that six people were killed by soldiers?

No, because the prosecutor never asked Abhisit [Vejjajiva, the former PM] and the previous government what evidence they had, while the other side gave everything.

The report of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, led by Kanit na Nakhon, concluded that there was a gunfight between "men in black" and security officials in Wat Pathum Wanaram. The court ruling did not mention the men in black, [it] just simply said officials fired. That's obviously from the one-sided evidence.

The court has no right to call or request particular documents. It is not the court's duty. The court considers matters according to the witnesses and evidence submitted during the police investigation, while the prosecutors did not bring military officers or other witnesses to testify in a way that was useful for consideration.

Most of the case tended to be similar to this. I predicted this could make trouble for Abhisit, as he was not in a position to give his account to the prosecutor.

If he were still in power, he could have given his account or asked the prosecutor to put his information in the case?

Yes, he could commission me in the legal team to provide the other side of the information. If so, the outcome of the ruling would have been in our favour. We have the report of the [Kanit] commission, [and of the Department of Special Investigation]. The 110-page DSI report signed by its chief Tarit Pengdit even mentioned "men in black". In fact, the DSI has concluded the case and submitted it to prosecutors and it is already in the court. Ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was charged as the leader, together with the "men in black". Why didn't the prosecutor propose these reports to the court in this case?

Is it possible to bring these reports to the court? Or can they only be presented by the prosecutor?

Yes, it depends on the intention. If I were a lawyer for a plaintiff and wanted him to be jailed, I could just simply ignore some important evidence, so that person would be jailed, definitely. This is the nature of prosecution, so, to be fair, [they] should give a chance to the former government.

The current government should have a policy to do this?

Why would they want to do that? The prosecutors' evidence is in favour of them. But this is not a final judgement. The court ruling just said soldiers fired at them, but who exactly [did this] and who made such instructions to the soldiers? This ruling is very far from Abhisit and Suthep (Thaugsuban, former deputy PM). I think it will be similar to the case of Phan Khamkong [a taxi driver shot dead at an Airport Link station on May 15, 2010].

If the government files charges against Abhisit and Suthep, we will file a case back of [making] a false charge. [The former leaders] did not make any instruction to soldiers to kill people. It was not a policy. Every instruction was made in writing. We can prove that.

As the court ruled out "men in black" being involved in these deaths, does the ruling have implications for other cases?

Not at all, as the court ruled it was the duty of inspectors to find out more - who ordered the [troops to] fire and who exactly fired. If they point a finger at us, we will say we did not get involved. There was a high possibility that the "men in black" were at the scene. Like the case of Phan Khamkong, we have many points to argue in factual and legal aspects. The procedure is very long and takes time. Our main argument is that the DSI has no authority to file the case - it should be a task for the anti-graft body, since Abhisit and Suthep were holders of political positions then.

Have these moves by the prosecutor and DSI made trouble for you?

I don't mind what they do. Abhisit and Suthep are ready to face trial. Both of them don't want the so-called reconciliation law. If we are sued, we'll sue back; that's it. We don't know whether the prosecutor will agree with the DSI. We have already told them that the DSI had no authority and if the prosecutor follows suit, they will take the same risk. I think the prosecutor is mature enough, they should not follow the DSI's lead.

Do you think they want to bring the former PM to jail?

Of course they want that, but both of them aren't frightened. In my profession as a lawyer, if I know my clients are wrong, I have no faith to defend them. If I know they are innocent, I have a will to help them. This is my spirit.

But the red shirts said Abhisit's hands were dirty with blood.

That's what they said, but I believe more than 60 per cent of those people know the former prime minister is innocent. He was smeared - they know, [or] why don't they know?!

If Abhisit and Suthep survive this, will it be because of an "angel" lawyer or an "invisible hand" interfering with the legal process?

I don't believe in the "invisible hand". Neither of them has ever consulted or asked me to lobby any judges. If we lose, we would appeal to an upper court. We have faith in the rule of law. Don't talk about the "invisible hand" - it does not exist. My hand might have some part, but all in all, because they are innocent. They did not order [troops] to kill the people.

At the end, if there is no way out, is it possible to cut an arm (Suthep) to save the head (Abhisit)?

I've never had such an idea.


-- The Nation 2013-08-13

[NongKhaiKid]

One sided in Thailand, especially with this government ? No, preposterous

[Thai at Heart]

They don't have a defence lawyer to present the other side?

Huh?

[yourauntbob]

So time and again we find out the military bullets were what killed people but the governments hands are clean. I know, the men in black stole army rifles and shot the journalists, Seh Daeng, and the people in the temple. The government did nothing wrong, stop spreading lies!

Ok, so before all of TV jumps on me I am no fan of the reds, yellows, whites or anyone else. When they shut down the government, airports, city streets or anything else they (all above) look like children that never learned how to share.

[moe666]

They don't have a defence lawyer to present the other side?

Huh?

It sounds a bit like the grand jury system in the states were they submit evidence that there is enough probable cause to go to court, the defense can ask questions but cannot defend his client

[Curt1591]

How does one present evidence of not doing something?

[tingtongteesood]

The government action may not have been perfect but it was definitely warranted, and when the reds were heavily armed and had no qualms about using them, what did you expect the government to do ? The reds were repeatedly told to go home, they were warned action would be taken, they were rude, violent, stubborn and billigerent, they were warned to leave repeatedly but decided to fight. The deaths were unfortunate but they had to be stopped, setting fire to all those buildings showed the Red terrors true colours. You can argue all you like that the arsonists weren't reds, however one of their 'leaders' told them to burn down buildings and that's what happened, I blame the Red shirts 100% for each and every death during their rampage of terror...

[Nickymaster]

The DSI (Tharit) is a truly amazing department. When Abhisit was in power they went after the reds and Thaksin, now they go after Abhisit.

And of course they have no intention to investigate the largest corruption scam in Thai history, the rice scheme. Haven't even made one comment about it.

Amazing Thailand.

[ianf]

I think this highlights the Thai mentality. Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that Abhisit did not order the shootings as prescribed above. Thai people trust the military more than they trust the police or the politicians. The Thai mentality is to lie in your face and repeat the lie often enough so not only do they believe it, you do too. Anyone who believes the red version must be wearing a very large pair of blinkers.

[Calimotty]

So many wannabe political scientists on this channel, still better than the Simpsons.

[boomerangutang]

The impression is that the judges are just blobs of humans sitting there. Can''t they ask questions and demand more thorough evidence? Or do they just sit there twiddling their thumbs?

When cases go before the US supreme court, or any other court in farang lands, the judges can and do take an active role - asking probing questions, etc. I guess here in Thailand, it's like so many other things: there's a required outcome, and all the preamble is just theatrics.

btw, I've been dealing with 2 Thai lawyers recently, re; 2 different cases. Both score high on the flake meter.

[HyperRai]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

[scorecard]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

Because the military were better armed than the protestors (?), does that instantly make the military guilty?

Or am I misunderstanding your point? please share.

[MaiChai]

I always believed that the evidence needs to be strong enough to convict or come to a conclusion. In a western court you would tie up the ballistics with a gun and then who used that gun. surely If you can't prove which gun shot which bullet, then you can't say for sure who shot who? thus no case and no conclusion?

[OzMick]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

Can we define "better"? The use of explosive rounds such as M-79 and RPG were strictly confined to the protesters. They are much more lethal than rifle rounds, if a bit indiscriminate, likely causing much more collateral damage. Is that "better"?

Edited August 13, 2013 by OzMick

[arthurwait]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

What's that got to do with it ?

[MrSlatersParrot]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

Can we define "better"? The use of explosive rounds such as M-79 and RPG were strictly confined to the protesters. They are much more lethal than rifle rounds, if a bit indiscriminate, likely causing much more collateral damage. Is that "better"?

A handful of people were blown up by persons unknown (mib?!) however some 2000 were injured from rifle rounds. A question of degree perhaps!?

120,000 rounds were discharges by the army along with 2500 sniper rounds but all on the dems side are in denial like the leader of the human rights committee opining that those killed at the temple died elsewhere but were transported somehow into the temple to make the army look bad.uh-huh?!

[MAJIC]

"But the red shirts said Abhisit's hands were dirty with blood"

And what about Thaksins hands dirty with Blood? 2500 to 3000, deaths of alledgedly Drugs Dealers slaughtered,in 2003, which Amnesty International claim,a large percentage of them were innocent. Does this count,or just the already mentioned Cherry Picking excuses,to cover up for the Red Shirts,? So far I have yet to hear of any prosecutions pending for these atrocities,from the man who ordered the slaughter! who has too many prosecutions,he will personally not face up to already,and to expect anything other than using the uneducated Red Shirts for the usual,protection is the ultimate of naivity for the the Red Shirts.

[MAJIC]

The government action may not have been perfect but it was definitely warranted, and when the reds were heavily armed and had no qualms about using them, what did you expect the government to do ? The reds were repeatedly told to go home, they were warned action would be taken, they were rude, violent, stubborn and billigerent, they were warned to leave repeatedly but decided to fight. The deaths were unfortunate but they had to be stopped, setting fire to all those buildings showed the Red terrors true colours. You can argue all you like that the arsonists weren't reds, however one of their 'leaders' told them to burn down buildings and that's what happened, I blame the Red shirts 100% for each and every death during their rampage of terror...

Correct!

[whybother]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

 

Can we define "better"? The use of explosive rounds such as M-79 and RPG were strictly confined to the protesters. They are much more lethal than rifle rounds, if a bit indiscriminate,  likely causing much more collateral damage. Is that "better"?

 

A handful of people were blown up by persons unknown (mib?!) however some 2000 were injured from rifle rounds. A question of degree perhaps!?

120,000 rounds were discharges by the army along with 2500 sniper rounds but all on the dems side are in denial like the leader of the human rights committee opining that those killed at the temple died elsewhere but were transported somehow into the temple to make the army look bad.uh-huh?!

How many of those 2000 were injured by red shirt's rifle rounds?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

As mentioned a few posts prior, the Reds and/or MIB had at least one RPG, and used it to kill at least one innocent (the woman at the train platform). All but the staunchest Red apologists agree that the Reds had military among them - some, but not all dressed in black clothing. If you've got rogue military in your ranks, you're going to have military weapons also. So, the conclusion of the jurists or whomever, saying 'the bullets were fired from military weapons' - is moot.

Where did the money come from, which supported the commandeering of downtown Bkk? There were reports of heaps of cash being channeled to Red leaders from overseas (Dubai?) at that time. Follow the money.

[OzMick]

C`mon Folks, do you realy believe some protestors where better armed than the Military?

Can we define "better"? The use of explosive rounds such as M-79 and RPG were strictly confined to the protesters. They are much more lethal than rifle rounds, if a bit indiscriminate, likely causing much more collateral damage. Is that "better"?

A handful of people were blown up by persons unknown (mib?!) however some 2000 were injured from rifle rounds. A question of degree perhaps!?

120,000 rounds were discharges by the army along with 2500 sniper rounds but all on the dems side are in denial like the leader of the human rights committee opining that those killed at the temple died elsewhere but were transported somehow into the temple to make the army look bad.uh-huh?!

Only a handful, that's all right then, still a "peaceful protest". As to "persons unknown" one is certainly known, as he confessed, but it now seems he may be innocent as the DSI is unsure if he was wearing a hat.

If so many rounds were fired for so few injuries, does that not indicate there were many deliberate misses, intended to frighten protesters and prevent their criminal actions. After all, when an armed militia starts an insurrection against a legitimate government (despite what the "protesters" were LEAD to believe) casualties are almost certain to occur. That there were so few indicates amazing restraint, by the RTA.

The use of explosive rounds in an urban environment filled with non-combatants is hardly restraint.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts removed, this is about evidence given to court over the temple deaths, not a rehash of the whole red shirt occupation of Bangkok.