Graft buster rejects Yingluck’s more witness request



BANGKOK: -- Request by ex-Premier Yingluck Shinawatra for eight more witnesses to defend her in the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) against alleged malfeasance and corruption involving the rice-pledging scheme was rejected.

The request, submitted to the NACC on June 10 by her lawyer Norawit Laleang, asked the graft buster to allow eight witnesses to testify in her defence in the rice case.

The NACC has considered the request at its meeting on Thursday and disapproved it, citing concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict.

Among the eight witnesses are from the private sector Sumeth Laomoraporn, chairman of CP Intertrade Co, and Pichai Chunhavachira, an independent accountant.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/graft-buster-rejects-yinglucks-witness-request/


-- Thai PBS 2014-06-20

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Yingluck is still stalling the courts, perhaps she should also ask the guys she met at the Four seasons to be character witnesses too.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Is that the British legal system? Let a defendant parade an unlimited number of witnesses, regardless of relevancy, in front of the court, the sole purpose being to create confusion of issues and lengthen the entire trial?

I don't think so. A court is always within its power to limit the number of witnesses. In every trial I have been involved with, the judges try to pare down the witness lists, so that redundant, irrelevant, and undisputed testimony is not presented. Moreover, a party may only call one expert witness in each speciality area. It would be unfair to allow multiple experts in duplicative fields to testify, because it makes it appear that their opinions have more credibility than they should. The two witnesses in the article appear to be expert witnesses - one to testify in accounting and another to testify in the commodities market. How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas?

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Bring them all in--lets have a thousand to try to complicate things, Show all the books dear, show all the accounts dear, you were the chairperson that hardly attended meetings, but you are still responsible for any discrepancies ---present or not.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

You make an excellent point.

I do wonder if this is a set up however for a witness to be sick or what ever and a delay tactic ?

She must be very stressed, about the whole rice episode thingo.

Witnesses should always be allowed, with the current situation I don't think anyone (witness) will put their head in a noose...

Apart from the usual responses from those determined to see a Shinawatra punished, having been frustrated for 8 years now, can anyone of a less corrosive attitude explain how the request for additional witnesses would have a "potential impact on the political conflict".

One would have thought that as all political activities have been banned there is no political conflict to be impacted. If anything, this kind of action will only store up resentment which will surface at a later date.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Is that the British legal system? Let a defendant parade an unlimited number of witnesses, regardless of relevancy, in front of the court, the sole purpose being to create confusion of issues and lengthen the entire trial?

I don't think so. A court is always within its power to limit the number of witnesses. In every trial I have been involved with, the judges try to pare down the witness lists, so that redundant, irrelevant, and undisputed testimony is not presented. Moreover, a party may only call one expert witness in each speciality area. It would be unfair to allow multiple experts in duplicative fields to testify, because it makes it appear that their opinions have more credibility than they should. The two witnesses in the article appear to be expert witnesses - one to testify in accounting and another to testify in the commodities market. How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas?

The Thai legal "system" is probably as far removed from the British Legal system as you could get.

"How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas"

How do you know otherwise? We don't know, and we're hardly likely to find out from the sources provided.

Apart from the usual responses from those determined to see a Shinawatra punished, having been frustrated for 8 years now, can anyone of a less corrosive attitude explain how the request for additional witnesses would have a "potential impact on the political conflict".

One would have thought that as all political activities have been banned there is no political conflict to be impacted. If anything, this kind of action will only store up resentment which will surface at a later date.

In other words give her every witness she requires--delay as much as possible--deny as much as you can--if not later repercussions ??? it's all politically motivated--in Yinglucks words Quote " I never did any wrong" or very similar.

Pathetic post to try to play down her role in the scam. No one wants to see anyone punished, but if they are guilty Shins or not let the courts decide.

If the lady has done no wrong, then there is no problem.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Is that the British legal system? Let a defendant parade an unlimited number of witnesses, regardless of relevancy, in front of the court, the sole purpose being to create confusion of issues and lengthen the entire trial?

I don't think so. A court is always within its power to limit the number of witnesses. In every trial I have been involved with, the judges try to pare down the witness lists, so that redundant, irrelevant, and undisputed testimony is not presented. Moreover, a party may only call one expert witness in each speciality area. It would be unfair to allow multiple experts in duplicative fields to testify, because it makes it appear that their opinions have more credibility than they should. The two witnesses in the article appear to be expert witnesses - one to testify in accounting and another to testify in the commodities market. How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas?

The Thai legal "system" is probably as far removed from the British Legal system as you could get.

"How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas"

How do you know otherwise? We don't know, and we're hardly likely to find out from the sources provided.

Are you suggesting that none of the witnesses she has provided so far knew what they were talking about?

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

This isn't a court case, but an investigation to determine if a court case is warranted for, and as far as I remember this is the 3rd time that the lawyer request more witnesses.

The NACC are as corrupt as the rest of them. There own agenda like every public body in Thailand has.

She used the wrong tactic to delay.

She should ask Suthep how he does it.No doubt he would be happy to help!

".................The NACC has considered the request at its meeting on Thursday and disapproved it, citing concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict..................."

Says it all very succinctly.

Nothing to do with Justice, it's all about political expediency.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Is that the British legal system? Let a defendant parade an unlimited number of witnesses, regardless of relevancy, in front of the court, the sole purpose being to create confusion of issues and lengthen the entire trial?

I don't think so. A court is always within its power to limit the number of witnesses. In every trial I have been involved with, the judges try to pare down the witness lists, so that redundant, irrelevant, and undisputed testimony is not presented. Moreover, a party may only call one expert witness in each speciality area. It would be unfair to allow multiple experts in duplicative fields to testify, because it makes it appear that their opinions have more credibility than they should. The two witnesses in the article appear to be expert witnesses - one to testify in accounting and another to testify in the commodities market. How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas?

The Thai legal "system" is probably as far removed from the British Legal system as you could get.

"How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas"

How do you know otherwise? We don't know, and we're hardly likely to find out from the sources provided.

The accounts--the books -the banks--the meetings records, Meeting open--minutes of the previous meeting--seconded---items for debate--any other business--meeting closed.

A secretary will type the minutes of each meeting, and the record kept to refer to if needed.

Do they still have the meetings records ???

When you have all these you do not need any back up really as the legit meeting will reveal all. But do allow a few witnesses to back up the records. NOT a long list of crawlers.

Thaddeus post # 11

Are you suggesting that none of the witnesses she has provided so far knew what they were talking about?

The fact is that they probably mislaid their script, thus they couldn't remember their lies lines.

".................The NACC has considered the request at its meeting on Thursday and disapproved it, citing concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict..................."

Says it all very succinctly.

Nothing to do with Justice, it's all about political expediency.

Thaksins famous words were --"it's all politically motivated"

Citing many reasons -the remainder are not posted.

She used the wrong tactic to delay.

She should ask Suthep how he does it.No doubt he would be happy to help!

--Suthep, anybody else you want to divert the topic with. Pathetic.

The delay has been ongoing 3 years and well you know it--the cover up is more like it not so much delay.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

The last time she tried to get ' witnesses ' heard and was rejected it was indicated they were not witnesses in the true sense but rather seeking to speak to her good character.

Good character isn't evidence as to whether someone is guilty or not only mitigation which isn't usually produced until a finding of guilt.

Just because YL might be a ' wonderful human being ' doesn't mean she isn't capable of wrongdoing even if just by omission.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

You make an excellent point.

I do wonder if this is a set up however for a witness to be sick or what ever and a delay tactic ?

She must be very stressed, about the whole rice episode thingo.

One would certainly hope so!

Why ban these witnesses from testifying ? We don't want any excuses coming back saying she was not given a fair go.

Rather than dragging in these spare witnesses to prove that Yingluck wasn't guilty of dereliction of duty despite not bothering to attend a single meeting of the Rice committee that she made herself chairwoman of, she should call in David Copperfield and Dynamo. Sleight of hand and illusion urgently needed, seeing as the facts are damning.

No issue here. She's going down lads.

Fortunately, not on me, unlike the desires of some freaks around here who wish such.

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Is that the British legal system? Let a defendant parade an unlimited number of witnesses, regardless of relevancy, in front of the court, the sole purpose being to create confusion of issues and lengthen the entire trial?

I don't think so. A court is always within its power to limit the number of witnesses. In every trial I have been involved with, the judges try to pare down the witness lists, so that redundant, irrelevant, and undisputed testimony is not presented. Moreover, a party may only call one expert witness in each speciality area. It would be unfair to allow multiple experts in duplicative fields to testify, because it makes it appear that their opinions have more credibility than they should. The two witnesses in the article appear to be expert witnesses - one to testify in accounting and another to testify in the commodities market. How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas?

The Thai legal "system" is probably as far removed from the British Legal system as you could get.

"How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas"

How do you know otherwise? We don't know, and we're hardly likely to find out from the sources provided.

The fact she tries to complicate and conceal everything speaks for itself! Doesn't it? Like her brother....a charade of 100 so called witnesses will not help her escape consequences.

Yingluck's massive naievty, or ill-knowledge, is shown in the fact she is still here.

She was in Chiang Mai, on countless occasions, and had the opportunity to flee and fly off to somewhere near the Middle-East.

But no, she's above it all... so she believed. Now she's under lock and key, and going nowhere far at all. I pity her naievty somewhat, about as much as I pity the fly I swotted that just landed on my beer glass!

At least her son can visit her, after she's locked up. Motherly instincts.. awwwww bless.

Edit: Feel free to call me a lunt.

Witch hunt basically! Matthews Hopkins never died by the look of things.

Looks Like poor old YING is all out of LUCK!!!

Why ban these witnesses from testifying ? We don't want any excuses coming back saying she was not given a fair go.

Again, this is NOT a court case, it is only an investigation to decide whether there should be a court case. Having multiple witnesses all saying the same thing is not good for this case. The investigators of this case are well within their agenda to cut out all the bullshit.

I remember her...!