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

[Thaiisnotrequired]

It was stated quite clearly by the court from the off-set. She was required to attend the first presentation. She did not, and was represented by her lawyers. It was stated clearly that no paperwork pertaining to the case prosecution would be made available to her lawyers after the second required presentation, and that she was risking numbers of witnesses and representatives in her defence if she did not attend. She did not! She was granted extra time when she finally did attend, and that time is now being asked for extension.

In all kindness MADAM.... sod off. You had your opportunity, but chose to hide in Chiang Mai.

Accept the court ruling..... and walk away with your head held high, before you hit a crisis and walk with your head in the chopping block!....

[BillyBobThai]

The court today ruled that Yingluck is clearly innocent due to deminished capacity.

[gabruce]

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.

Very true. More time can be useful. In fact aren't they now claiming that the missing rice was just a clerical error. Somehow related to too much rice being withdrawn from the warehouses and being stored in private facilities. (my theory is that the rice was sold earlier, and has now been replaced with cheaper rice. They just got caught out before.) It's also relevant that the NACC is not a court, and it is close to one. Why aren't the lawyers detailing exactly what the witnesses would be bring to the case? I don't know the rules about this, and maybe it's possible that the witnesses have nothing relevant.

[robertson468]

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 and I had seen the evidence, we would be in a position to make an informed comment. As it is, I certainly have not and doubt very much you have which makes your commend an UNinformed comment and irrelevant.

[tingtongteesood]

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.

Baa baa Fab sheep have you any wool ?

No sir no sir the Shin's took it all.

[jcb2001]

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.

Right on! Very serious offenses facing YL. Thrown out of office? Definitely. Given a prison sentence? Most definitely. Should she abscond? Probably.

[Rich teacher]

This commission has shown their ineptitude and bias before.

"The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100."

Thaksin was convicted under under Section 100, Subsection (1), of the National Counter Corruption Organic Act, BE 2542 (1997)

[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.

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.

Witnesses not wanted at this hearing? You're just confirming what I posited. If and when corruption in the rice subsidy scheme is found and it is proved that Yingluck was responsible for it then I will give it a rest. In the meantime I will continue to question the kangaroo court quality of the NACC.

If that's OK by you and your camp followers, that is.

Edited April 24, 2014 by fab4

[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.

Baa baa Fab sheep have you any wool ?

No sir no sir the Shin's took it all.

Oh come on, how old are you?

[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.

If you and I had seen the evidence, we would be in a position to make an informed comment. As it is, I certainly have not and doubt very much you have which makes your commend an UNinformed comment and irrelevant.

If you read carefully you would see that I wasn't arguing about the evidence. I was questioning the authority of, what is in effect, a prosecutor, determining that the Yingluck had provided enough information in support of her defence.

How would they know what is enough?

Likewise if you don't even understand the gist of my argument how can you decide that is uninformed and irrelevant?

[Ulic]

She may be guilty, others may be guilty. 10 witnesses does not seem a huge number even if it is possibly

a little repetitive. Sound more like "we have already made up our mind, lets not waste any time"

Poor form when the history of political accountability in court usually take years, and often never never.

Just ask Suthep.

[Wombat6]

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.

Get real....it is just another attempt to delay the hearing (ie...one witness conveniently had to go overseas which led to a delay) If these witnesses are important to the case, Yinglucks Lawyer can always obtain Statutory declarations from these witnesses and present them to the Court. If the Court thinks they have credible evidence , they could be called later..

[Wombat6]

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 and I had seen the evidence, we would be in a position to make an informed comment. As it is, I certainly have not and doubt very much you have which makes your commend an UNinformed comment and irrelevant.

If you read carefully you would see that I wasn't arguing about the evidence. I was questioning the authority of, what is in effect, a prosecutor, determining that the Yingluck had provided enough information in support of her defence.

How would they know what is enough?

Likewise if you don't even understand the gist of my argument how can you decide that is uninformed and irrelevant?

The NACC obviusly know more about things than you do and can make the comment that they believe they have sufficient material to proceed with a hearing. so that does make your comments as uninformed and irrelevant.

[Thaddeus]

Have any of these witnesses figured out yet that not only are they helping to dig her grave, they are digging their own.

[sweatalot]

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 and I had seen the evidence, we would be in a position to make an informed comment. As it is, I certainly have not and doubt very much you have which makes your commend an UNinformed comment and irrelevant.

If you read carefully you would see that I wasn't arguing about the evidence. I was questioning the authority of, what is in effect, a prosecutor, determining that the Yingluck had provided enough information in support of her defence.

How would they know what is enough?

Likewise if you don't even understand the gist of my argument how can you decide that is uninformed and irrelevant?

When her guilt is proven 100 % then whatever information she could give to support her defence would be enough. Logic!

[The Deerhunter]

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

Fake witnesses perhaps?

[smedly]

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 and I had seen the evidence, we would be in a position to make an informed comment. As it is, I certainly have not and doubt very much you have which makes your commend an UNinformed comment and irrelevant.

If you read carefully you would see that I wasn't arguing about the evidence. I was questioning the authority of, what is in effect, a prosecutor, determining that the Yingluck had provided enough information in support of her defence.

How would they know what is enough?

Likewise if you don't even understand the gist of my argument how can you decide that is uninformed and irrelevant?

The court has the power to allow or not allow witnesses, what would be the point of having 30 people on a bus giving eye witness accounts to an accident if they are all saying the same thing or having 10 doctors testifying in court as expert witness all saying the same thing - the court has control over what is admitted and by whom and whether it is relevant

There is no power in numbers at a court hearing, she has seen the evidence against her it is up to the court to decide who is relevant to the case

We all know that the people YL is calling will be nothing more than a group of circumstantial scripted liars offering nothing more than vocal testimony - that is no defence

[outsider]

Additional witnesses who have been 'prepped' perhaps?