Graft buster rejects Yingluck's more witness request

[coma]

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.

Show me WHERE I referred to it being a "court case".

[gemini81]

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.

Good for nothing but a laugh is all she is.

[gemini81]

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

Corrupt, spoiled airhead hunt, more like it.

Don't need to hunt, as she wasn't even clever enough to hide! Haha.

[zaphod reborn]

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.

Actually, the court trials I have been involved with in Thailand are quite similar to court trials in the UK, or bench trials in the US. I was replying to a post which suggested that the parties to a trial should be allowed to run amok, calling an unlimited number of witnesses. That's plain idiotic, unrealistic, and doesn't occur anywhere in the world. Sorry to rain on your red parade.

[ginjag]

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.

Show me WHERE I referred to it being a "court case".

Testifying ???

[Mango Bob]

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

What the hell does that suppose to mean? Sounds like some lame excuse.

[ginjag]

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

What the hell does that suppose to mean? Sounds like some lame excuse.

Hi M BOB, another photo copy of Fab smile.

It sounds to me like the lame excuse is coming from Yingluck, why defend her if she was the chairperson she has to take the rap. unless you think "she did nothing wrong"

[eish]

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

it the type of kangaroo court that is of importance.

[GuestHouse]

No chance of her brother taking the stand in her defence?

Thaksin thinks, PTP act, Yingluck takes the consequences.

[Mango Bob]

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

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

What the hell does that suppose to mean? Sounds like some lame excuse.

Hi M BOB, another photo copy of Fab alt=thumbsup.gif> smile.

It sounds to me like the lame excuse is coming from Yingluck, why defend her if she was the chairperson she has to take the rap. unless you think "she did nothing wrong"

Every thing is Red and Yellow to you. Instead try to answer my question what the hell is concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict Have to do with calling for additional witnesses. And please don't give another lame excuse.

[ginjag]

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

it the type of kangaroo court that is of importance.

Not another implant ?? flocking to defend.

[ginjag]

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

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

What the hell does that suppose to mean? Sounds like some lame excuse.

Hi M BOB, another photo copy of Fab alt=thumbsup.gif> smile.

It sounds to me like the lame excuse is coming from Yingluck, why defend her if she was the chairperson she has to take the rap. unless you think "she did nothing wrong"

Every thing is Red and Yellow to you. Instead try to answer my question what the hell is concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict Have to do with calling for additional witnesses. And please don't give another lame excuse.

Sorry if you cannot read or remember I am of no colour, told you 50 times--you have this thing tattooed in your head.

Whoever made the statement hell knows , all I know is that they are collating everything together-I assume that they have all the scam evidence they need, and wish only any other important statements to add.

They don't want all and sundry adding to the stack of papers--Yingluck has had ample time to write down anything that will help her---LIKE 3 years of experience but never chaired the rice committee meeting ???

Have you heard of the PTP Shin excuse --Politically motivated ??? Think they want to keep the objections to a minimum and get the case sorted, without too much political interference/conflict, as it is a touchy subject to some people. Maybe you Bob.??

[Thailand]

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.

This really is becoming a bit embarrassing and disconcerting.

I suppose I should be flattered to have some much attention from you but you really must desist and it can only end in tears for you and we don't want that do we.

We simply don't have enough in common to make a go of it.

Let it go. I am sure someone more suitable will come along- one day!

[sjaak327]

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.

Considering Yingluck wasn't even PM three years ago, I fail to see how the delay into her case could be three years !

[antimedia]

The only reason they post these stories is so the beloved reds can have a say, been pretty quiet lately without their distorted input. They are like a hungry pack of dogs going at a single bone when you dangle a story in front of them.

[ramrod711]

Perhaps she could have called every witness she desired, had she responded in a timely manner instead of going on a 3 month tour of northern Thailand at the taxpayers expense. She was asked to appear, she refused, probably should have been jailed then but the terrorists came to blockade the NACC, burn coffins, throw feces and beat monks so there was a bit of a delay until the new sheriff came to town.

[ginjag]

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.

Considering Yingluck wasn't even PM three years ago, I fail to see how the delay into her case could be three years !

Were not to a month or two Mr. clever clogs.--defending her are we.??

[sjaak327]

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.

Considering Yingluck wasn't even PM three years ago, I fail to see how the delay into her case could be three years !

Were not to a month or two Mr. clever clogs.--defending her are we.??

I am not defending anyone, the post I responded to dealt with Yingluck delaying an inquiry about her role in the rice scheme. That inquiry isn't three years ongoing, hence her delaying it couldn't possibly be ongoing three years, plain common sense.

[thumper101]

This is an investigation not a court case... If she is found guilty, she will be referred to the courts for trial... Then she can call all these 'so called' witnesses from the start and she will be granted them.

However, as an investigative body, I think what they should have done was to allow the witnesses on the condition that they understand and agree that their individual testimony will be thoroughly investigated as separate elements in the case and if their claims can NOT be substantiated 100%, then they will face up to 20 years in prison.

Then we will see how many of the 8 extra witnesses go through with it. I have the sneaky feeling that all will bail and leave her looking even more guilty of rigging false witnesses.

I certainly would not put my personal liberty at stake for someone who will not care what happens to me.... That would take a huge sycophantic gesture or a shitload of money under the table.

Edited June 20, 2014 by thumper101

[ginjag]

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.

This really is becoming a bit embarrassing and disconcerting.

I suppose I should be flattered to have some much attention from you but you really must desist and it can only end in tears for you and we don't want that do we.

We simply don't have enough in common to make a go of it.

Let it go. I am sure someone more suitable will come along- one day!

Read # 46 it tell you all.

I have a clear conscience , just trying to highlight the wrongs of your Shin clan, nothing more. Sorry but YOU are the one that is embarrassing yourself, look at the % who disagrees with your s and the other PTP apologists.

Why defend them at every turn ?? Attacking me for what, wanting Thailand clean after all these years of decay.

You thrive on the attention, with your stupid remarks--as in bringing Suthep into the topic. I notice you are the one to cry along with Yingluck, sorry no sympathy---Karma.

[Mango Bob]

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

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

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

What the hell does that suppose to mean? Sounds like some lame excuse.

Hi M BOB, another photo copy of Fab alt=thumbsup.gif> smile.

It sounds to me like the lame excuse is coming from Yingluck, why defend her if she was the chairperson she has to take the rap. unless you think "she did nothing wrong"

Every thing is Red and Yellow to you. Instead try to answer my question what the hell is concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict Have to do with calling for additional witnesses. And please don't give another lame excuse.

Sorry if you cannot read or remember I am of no colour, told you 50 times--you have this thing tattooed in your head.

Whoever made the statement hell knows , all I know is that they are collating everything together-I assume that they have all the scam evidence they need, and wish only any other important statements to add.

They don't want all and sundry adding to the stack of papers--Yingluck has had ample time to write down anything that will help her---LIKE 3 years of experience but never chaired the rice committee meeting ???

Have you heard of the PTP Shin excuse --Politically motivated ??? Think they want to keep the objections to a minimum and get the case sorted, without too much political interference/conflict, as it is a touchy subject to some people. Maybe you Bob.??

The General told us to be happy I finding it very hard to do.

p.s. You still gave me a yellow excuse.

[Thailand]

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.

This really is becoming a bit embarrassing and disconcerting.

I suppose I should be flattered to have some much attention from you but you really must desist and it can only end in tears for you and we don't want that do we.

We simply don't have enough in common to make a go of it.

Let it go. I am sure someone more suitable will come along- one day!

Read # 46 it tell you all.

I have a clear conscience , just trying to highlight the wrongs of your Shin clan, nothing more. Sorry but YOU are the one that is embarrassing yourself, look at the % who disagrees with your s and the other PTP apologists.

Why defend them at every turn ?? Attacking me for what, wanting Thailand clean after all these years of decay.

You thrive on the attention, with your stupid remarks--as in bringing Suthep into the topic. I notice you are the one to cry along with Yingluck, sorry no sympathy---Karma.

Just let it go, you will feel much better for it. I simply don't fancy you.

There I have said, and I was trying to let you down easily but you wouldn't have it.

[fab4]

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.

Why is it a pathetic post - because it doesn't fit in with your mindset?

You didn't answer the question - why will the request for more witnesses have a potential impact on the political conflict when there is no political conflict? You can't answer that (as there is no sensible answer) so you resort to attacking the post.

To be perfectly honest your reply did not suprise me in the least. Same old, same old.

Edited June 20, 2014 by fab4

[fab4]

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?

Where did I suggest that? I didn't. Next.

[GeorgeO]

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

I would probably agree with you if she had submitted all of the names of the relevant parties from the start, but she didn't. She submitted names of witnesses, many of whom it subsequently turned out were unavailable to testify, so she then turned to alternative names, ad nauseam, in an attempt to stall the legal process.

What the courts are saying is that they gave her every opportunity from the start to call her witnesses, but now the stalling game is being brought to an abrupt end...!!

[Thailand]

Not quite on topic but the color has been raised.

True Visions are distributing their new bonus card nationwide to all subscribers irrespective of political persuasion, maybe they know something?

Cracked me up when I saw the name, be a few having hissy fits when they receive them!

It's the "True RedCard"!

[ginjag]

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

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

Hi M BOB, another photo copy of Fab alt=thumbsup.gif> smile.

It sounds to me like the lame excuse is coming from Yingluck, why defend her if she was the chairperson she has to take the rap. unless you think "she did nothing wrong"

Every thing is Red and Yellow to you. Instead try to answer my question what the hell is concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict Have to do with calling for additional witnesses. And please don't give another lame excuse.

Sorry if you cannot read or remember I am of no colour, told you 50 times--you have this thing tattooed in your head.

Whoever made the statement hell knows , all I know is that they are collating everything together-I assume that they have all the scam evidence they need, and wish only any other important statements to add.

They don't want all and sundry adding to the stack of papers--Yingluck has had ample time to write down anything that will help her---LIKE 3 years of experience but never chaired the rice committee meeting ???

Have you heard of the PTP Shin excuse --Politically motivated ??? Think they want to keep the objections to a minimum and get the case sorted, without too much political interference/conflict, as it is a touchy subject to some people. Maybe you Bob.??

The General told us to be happy I finding it very hard to do.

p.s. You still gave me a yellow excuse.

Think in your state of mind it is difficult.

What is this stupid remark about Yellow ?? because I am not putting over in my posts stuff that favours Yingluck the posts are all yellow.

Your brainwashed into denial of Shins lousy government--your problem mate.

[fab4]

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.

Actually, the court trials I have been involved with in Thailand are quite similar to court trials in the UK, or bench trials in the US. I was replying to a post which suggested that the parties to a trial should be allowed to run amok, calling an unlimited number of witnesses. That's plain idiotic, unrealistic, and doesn't occur anywhere in the world. Sorry to rain on your red parade.

OK, because of your experience with court trials in Thailand you can definitively state that court trials are similar to the UK. Perhaps if you were involved in some of the more "political" trials you may have a different viewpoint.

Nowhere in the post that you are referring to is there any reference to an unlimited number of witnesses - you were the only one to mention that. You then go on to make assumptions about this case from the little information we have provided by a frankly pathetic press, so please don't take it to heart if I ignore your "experience".

Edited June 20, 2014 by fab4

[BillyBobThai]

It will not be long before we hear an old tune re-appear.

[ginjag]

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.

Why is it a pathetic post - because it doesn't fit in with your mindset?

You didn't answer the question - why will the request for more witnesses have a potential impact on the political conflict when there is no political conflict? You can't answer that (as there is no sensible answer) so you resort to attacking the post.

To be perfectly honest your reply did not suprise me in the least. Same old, same old.

could well have learned the same old same old from you. your the one defending don't forget, I am an onlooker, yingluck is the one that's stalling, see most other posts, you want to argue about Kelly's armhole for what . nothing to answer to you or debate she is either guilty (looks like ) or not, but her defence is a joke. Your silly questions about one or two more witnesses and a topic /interpretation of -however it was written is your only response to a PM who acted illegally.