PM Yingluck's lawyer insists NACC hear more witnesses on rice case

[webfact]

PM's lawyer insists NACC hear more witnesses on rice case

BANGKOK, 24 April 2014 (NNT) – A lawyer defending Prime Minister Yingluck in the charge related to the rice pledging scheme has asked the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to allow more witnesses to testify for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Bancha Parameesanaporn, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s lawyer, submitted a letter to the NACC requesting that the latter summon four more witnesses in defense of the Premier over the charges of negligence of duty and failure to stop corruption in the rice subsidy program.

The lawyer said that hearing testimonies from additional witnesses would not delay the inquiry process, but would, instead, give the NACC more useful details on the case.

The NACC earlier decided to hear only 3 out of the 10 witnesses proposed by Miss Yingluck. The three witnesses were Commerce Minister Niwatthamrong Bunsongphaisan, Deputy Commerce Minister Yanyong Phuangrach, and Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong.

The anti-graft agency gave a reason that the seven other witnesses who were unheard were irrelevant to the case and those 3 witnesses had already provided sufficient information.

-- NNT 2014-04-24

[aussieinthailand]

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

[Gunna]

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

No point in having more witnesses saying she was chairman of the Rice Scam, but didn't attend most meetings and didn't know what was happening,

ie how much money was being diverted to Hong Kong and Dubai.

Also why PT still refuses to let anyone check the accounts, other than saying all the money has gone and now we are left with a mountain of rotting rice and can only sell this years crop at a further massive loss.

I see she isn't calling any rice farmers as witnesses

[ginjag]

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

She has had all the time in the world. Shin stalling tactics only intimidation, "be kind to me " she wasn't kind to Thailand, she had time to put that right.

Remember near 3 years ago when the populous were getting restive over her polices she said "please give us more time" and look what they came up with more corruption.

Sort this woman out once and for all please.

[fab4]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

[slapout]

The legal team instead of calling for more defense cronies to be heard may want to do a plea bargin, for miss Yingluck, she has shown and fairly well proven her incompentancy for the position/job for which she has drawn pay over and above her worth, so a better approach may be a passioned plea as to, lack of understanding of the duties to which she was entrusted. Otherwise, she has a real problem with her ability to hear, observe, read, digest facts, and make rational decisions.

Otherwise, she needs to be put into a nice institution where she can also be prevented doing harm to herself. Just designate that her minders are to be the Shin family and her cronies, she has allowed to crawl out of the sewer to support her. Then ask her again, who is running this government.

[ginjag]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

She was chairperson, responsible for what happened if she forwarded the accounts and minutes of meetings that would be near all needed.

What witnesses ?? none really wanted at this hearing. She had time--AND YOU KNOW IT why are you siding with the corrupt policy ??? give it a rest.

[Thait Spot]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

You should write a book.

Pure fiction

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[robblok]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

This is not a trial dear fab4, that comes later and then she can have all the witnesses she wants. I believe the point I am making has been made countless times.

Anyway YL is stalling in all cases so I can understand them wanting some speed. YL wants to stall in the hope to postpone it until new ellections are held and she can again use more power to obstruct investigations and she might even then become immune from prosecution (just like that senator that shot someone could not be prosecuted until senate ended)

[Nickymaster]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

If you use common sense the decision should have been made. Has she been negligent? Of course she has. She has no clue what is going on in the scheme. Never attended any meetings. Not bad for somebody who is the PM and IN CHARGE of this trillion baht spending mess. She had numerous warnings from all over the globe to change it. She never ever listened to any advise from people outside the Shin clan. Now there are billions of dollars of losses and no money for the farmers.

I respect your loyalty for the corrupt Shins but this time they clearly went too far.

[tezzainoz]

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

Maybe the witnesses where really not what they say they where

just more stooges to work up the red mob

May be you not read they have already given reasons why the others are not needed as witnesses

But you of course know better and want to be a lunch time hero

[Thaddeus]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

If this case does go to trial, I'm sure that the court would recognise those witnesses.

Question is, would she?

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

Surely this depends, to some extent, on the process involved:

- Do they just stand there are speak openly and uninterrupted for 20 minutes, then leave. Or,

- Do they have to speak on specific points only, then leave, or

- Do the commissioners ask questions on the points raided by these 'witnesses'?

[h90]

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

because it is about the time and the case is pretty clear. Yingluck will want another 600 witnesses who have nothing to say, so the NACC can ask witnesses for another 10 years.

[Mango Bob]

How do they know that the witnesses are irrelevant to the case. They know what they are going to say? First you need to hear from them.

[Ricardo]

If the NACC feels that there is enough evidence, then Yingluck will no doubt have her day in court, and as many witnesses as her defence-lawyers want to call.

But right now they are merely collecting information, and trying to decide is there sufficient evidence to forward the case to court, there's no point holding the whole trial twice, unless one is merely attempting to delay the ignominy of having the caretaker-PM in court on a charge of negligence in carrying-out her duties.

But perhaps her lawyers feel that there might be a case to answer, so just want to play-for-time, and hope that some deal can eventually be struck ?

[thesetat2013]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

Their irrelevance is not known to you as the reasons. Maybe these 7 had nothing to do with this scheme and were only to be used as character witnesses. You dont know. Yet you allege wrongdoing in a courtroom based on your own bias. Shame on you!

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ginjag]

How do they know that the witnesses are irrelevant to the case. They know what they are going to say? First you need to hear from them.

They need the books, the records, the accounts, the meetings minutes, who recorded the minutes of the meetings.

Meeting open................minutes of the previous meeting-then seconded.................agenda for today ( Items put forward to the chairman after the last meeting ended).

All these items discussed and noted. ........................any other business.........................meeting closed.

Each meeting to be recorded usually by the secretary.

ALL these meetings/records are usually all that are needed at this stage as everything to see should be written.

The findings if wrong will be forwarded to a court to deal with. THEN witnesses can come forward to back up any matters.

Maybe one or two items I have overlooked but this was my recollection of my days as chairman for an organization.

Edited April 24, 2014 by ginjag

[Robby nz]

The EC have already been more than fair with her.

They have allowed lawyers to represent her given her all the evidence through them which the EC have said is against all the rule and sets a dangerous precedent for future cases.

They have given her a 15 day extension to "prepare evidence" which is now being used by her lawyers to attack the NACC.

[WhizBang]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

Leaders, lead. Followers, follow. Puppets dance.

Don't let the door hit you and the fanny on the way out Poo.

Nuf said.

[losworld]

Probably just trying to protect the lives of the witnesses.

[JesseFrank]

So 4 more witnesses today, where it were only 2 more just a few days ago. After this 4 there will be a request for another 2 and then again 3 an then again............................

Jump on the bandwagon guys because we're in for a looooong ride

Edited April 24, 2014 by JesseFrank

[sweatalot]

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

No point in having more witnesses saying she was chairman of the Rice Scam, but didn't attend most meetings and didn't know what was happening,

ie how much money was being diverted to Hong Kong and Dubai.

Also why PT still refuses to let anyone check the accounts, other than saying all the money has gone and now we are left with a mountain of rotting rice and can only sell this years crop at a further massive loss.

I see she isn't calling any rice farmers as witnesses

It is normal that courts decide what witness they decide to hear.

It is also a well known strategie of lawyers to demand to hear as many witnesses as possible in order to win time - not to attain more clarity.

Time that has been won this way could be used to hide evidence or to delude.

So it is very understandable that courts try to limit the number of witnesses

This applies also to the NACC which is no court.

Edited April 24, 2014 by sweatalot

[Local Drunk]

Right, the whole thing is that they (the government) are going down in flames and they (the government) want it to look as bad as they can to the western press. So they cry to the foreign press and say "We had more witnesses and they weren't heard."

Stop trying to go down on the BBC and the rest of the world: you'll just gag, spit it out and lose.

[bigbamboo]

I agree that the NACC should allow Yingluck to be able produce more witnesses so there are no doubts she has had a fair hearing.

This isn't the DSI.

[ramrod711]

What is the NACC afraid of? 3 out of 10 allowed,

Considering the seriousness of the case, shouldn't all witnesses be heard therefor stopping any possible protests latter? and supporting justice.

Mr. Bancha Parameesanaporn, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s lawyer, submitted a letter to the NACC requesting that the latter summon four more witnesses in defense of the Premier over the charges of negligence of duty and failure to stop corruption in the rice subsidy program.

I wonder why Yingluck and Bancha couldn't have been addressing this issue while she was touring the north on the taxpayers tab, "not clinging to power"

[Scamper]

Another day and another attempt by Pheu Thai to drag the NACC through a public trial. Pheu Thai has attempted - as with the Constitutional Court - to reverse the optics. From Pheu Thai's point of view - it's the NACC that is on trial, not Yingluck. The tactics are working to a point, though not to the degree that Pheu Thai clearly hopes. Pheu Thai have been successful in delaying the investigation. But Pheu Thai hopes that they can delay it - perpetually. It needs to be reiterated that Yingluck is the one who is on trial, but Yingluck is also it seems the last person who wants to be a witness. This ditsy defense - conducted entirely through facebook - is meant to indicate something beyond a schoolgirl's passive interest in a case - let alone her own - but fails massively, stunningly, in the arena of public opinion. She indicates a cavalier disdain for the process. It shows. The public gets that part of it. They get it in Vista Vision. But that kind of attention elicits nothing close to admiration. It just looks awful.

[WoopyDoo]

Yingluck.... are you incapable of taking a hint?

Here is the answer to the same demands you have put to the NACC countless times now.... and the answer won't change.

The answer was and still is......

NO!

[smedly]

""The lawyer said that hearing testimonies from additional witnesses would not delay the inquiry process, but would, instead, give the NACC more useful details on the case.""

more useful lies

[Local Drunk]

Do the NACC really have right to decide when they have enough information from the defence? One could be forgiven in thinking that a decision has already been made and any evidence is irrelevant - let's face it, they've already decided the evidence of 7 witnesses is irrelevant.

It looks as if they have adopted the tactics of their predecessors, the AEC.

I really want to puke when I see your support of this government... Yes, I indeed assume that the evidence is overwhelming and there is no reason to hear other witnesses. She's guilty and that's that.