Court acquits redshirts accused of torching Bangkok shopping mall

[tbthailand]

This verdict didn't say that red shirts didn't burn down Central World. It just said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict these two of doing it.

It says that they are innocent. See, that is the way the law works.

[djjamie]

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

wow.. 3 years in prison for not committing a crime?

But they were Red Shirts so in the mind of many TV members they had to be guilty

Well done for seeing a terrorist for a terrorist. I completely agree as well. To a point.

Don't forget that of the 14% of the population that support(ed) the terrorist organization only 7% were fanatical so your not completely correct.

I pity the other 7% that only supported the red shirts because they offered a carrot called unsustainability that never made them rich as was promised.

We can't fogret that 7% were ignored by the PTP when that 7% didn't suit the agenda.

Edited September 4, 2014 by djjamie

[laocowboy2]

what I will never understand in Thailand is how the prosecution can appeal an acquittal. that has to be the most backwards idea in any court system.

It does exist elsewhere under certain circumstances.

Certainly in Italy

[tbthailand]

The insurance underwriters have a pretty good idea who did it, but we can't say. Other than to say that the owners are pretty pleased with their refurbished shopping mall courtesy of the insurance companies. However, if the guilty verdict had been upheld then the insurance companies would not have had to pay out as the fire would then be deemed to be due to riot for which cover is excluded. We do not think the fire was started by the rioters and the rioters also did not turn off the fire hydrants outside not long before the fire started.

Right. The insurance companies paid out for the fire knowing it was deliberately lit by the owners ???????????????

I don't think he is claiming that the owners burned it down.

You know who owns CW, don't you?

[whybother]

This verdict didn't say that red shirts didn't burn down Central World. It just said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict these two of doing it.

It says that they are innocent. See, that is the way the law works.

It says they were acquitted because of lack of evidence. Not "No evidence", just lack of evidence.

[whybother]

You know who owns CW, don't you?

CP Group own it. Not sure how that's relevant though.

You're actually thinking about who owns the land.

[bridge2bridge]

Excellent verdict! The whole world knows that the torching of Bangkok shopping malls was carried out by yellow shirt thugs and made to look like it was done by the elderly peaceful protesters demonstrating for democracy! Maybe there is hope for equal justice yet

PEACEFUL my ASS.

[Baerboxer]

Excellent verdict! The whole world knows that the torching of Bangkok shopping malls was carried out by yellow shirt thugs and made to look like it was done by the elderly peaceful protesters demonstrating for democracy! Maybe there is hope for equal justice yet

Must be nice to live in your own little world and know everything

My aunty in Hackney didn't know the yellow shirts really did it to frame the UDD terrorists. Did you ask every one else in world but her?

Absurd - and to be pitied if you really believe what you have written.

Oh, my aunty said to say she thought those elderly peaceful protesters demonstrating for democracy that were dressed in black looked well for their age, you know the ones with the assault rifles.

[Baerboxer]

This verdict didn't say that red shirts didn't burn down Central World. It just said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict these two of doing it.

It says that they are innocent. See, that is the way the law works.

It says they were acquitted because of lack of evidence. Not "No evidence", just lack of evidence.

Correct. The should be acquitted if there is not sufficient evidence to prove they did it. It does not mean that all red shirts are innocent of this crime.

[catweazle]

Aaaaaand the winner is......?

[whybother]

posted incorrectly ...

Edited September 4, 2014 by whybother

[khunken]

You know who owns CW, don't you?

CP Group own it. Not sure how that's relevant though.

You're actually thinking about who owns the land.

Slight correction Whybother - the Central Group owned Central World and it's replacement.

The issue of the accused spending 3 years in jail is because the UDD didn't consider them important enough to raise the bail money to free them.

[whybother]

You know who owns CW, don't you?

CP Group own it. Not sure how that's relevant though.

You're actually thinking about who owns the land.

Slight correction Whybother - the Central Group owned Central World and it's replacement.

The issue of the accused spending 3 years in jail is because the UDD didn't consider them important enough to raise the bail money to free them.

Yes. Sorry ... Got confused because Central's Retail Development arm is "Central Pattana" (CPN).

[FangFerang]

If 'none of the witnesses saw the defendants at the scene', then I wonder on what grounds they were in jail for nearly three years...

Scape goatus maximus.

PS: There has been a persistent rumor that only one mall had insurance that covered political conflict in their policy, being the one that was burned. Because it's a rumor, of course it may be untrue. Many accuse the red shirts of being idiots, unable to orchestrate a clever attack (so many dud grenades tossed at the PDRC, an empty coffee shop riddled with gunfire, etc. etc). The malls are glass and steel. The attack showed that the perpetrators hit the very few vulnerable spots in a highly coordinated attack, and turned off the fire hydrants before the assault (somehow miraculously knowing the firefighters could not turn the hydrants on). This means someone knew the minute details of the firefighting infrastructure, had looked at the architectural plans, could read the plans, and knew the materials in specific areas that could be combustible. As in the US and UK, if it cannot be proven the owners torched the place, the policy must be paid. It takes a court decision to stop that process because insurance companies make money by collecting premiums, not paying benefits

So, either the red shirts are a LOT smarter than most people admit, or someone else did it.

I, for one, do not like either idea at all......to me, it's all another BLC (blue diamond case).

A-freaking -mazing Thailand.

Edited September 4, 2014 by FangFerang

[tbthailand]

You know who owns CW, don't you?

CP Group own it. Not sure how that's relevant though.

You're actually thinking about who owns the land.

Slight correction Whybother - the Central Group owned Central World and it's replacement.

The issue of the accused spending 3 years in jail is because the UDD didn't consider them important enough to raise the bail money to free them.

they were denied bail.

[rickirs]

what I will never understand in Thailand is how the prosecution can appeal an acquittal. that has to be the most backwards idea in any court system.

Such a judicial process is not uncommon.

Many countries have protections against double jeopardy as a constitutional right such as Pakistan, South Africa, South Korea, and the United States where prosecution is forbidden a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a conviction, even if new evidence is presented. It is also similarly codified in countries like Uganda, Sri Lanka, Tanzania.

Double jeopardy also is not permitted in countries like England, Wales, China, India, Japan, and Italy beyond the point of “final acquittal” or “final conviction,” usually at a supreme court level so long as new and relevant evidence is produced. Thailand falls into this category.

[fab4]

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

The mere fact that they were charged in the first place despite lack of evidence should tell you what happens when the UDD and the Courts meet but that obviously passed you by. Doesn't quite fit in with your narrative does it?

[fab4]

This verdict didn't say that red shirts didn't burn down Central World. It just said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict these two of doing it.

It says that they are innocent. See, that is the way the law works.

It says they were acquitted because of lack of evidence. Not "No evidence", just lack of evidence.

Correct. The should be acquitted if there is not sufficient evidence to prove they did it. It does not mean that all red shirts are innocent of this crime.

It also does not mean ANY redshirts were guilty of this crime.

[fab4]

Well done for seeing a terrorist for a terrorist. I completely agree as well. To a point.

Don't forget that of the 14% of the population that support(ed) the terrorist organization only 7% were fanatical so your not completely correct.

I pity the other 7% that only supported the red shirts because they offered a carrot called unsustainability that never made them rich as was promised.

We can't fogret that 7% were ignored by the PTP when that 7% didn't suit the agenda.

7% this, 15 Principles that, The Good General this, Red Shirt Terrorists that,

Please let it stop......................

[Tatsujin]

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

The mere fact that they were charged in the first place despite lack of evidence should tell you what happens when the UDD and the Courts meet but that obviously passed you by. Doesn't quite fit in with your narrative does it?

You're quite right, it's very biased as we never see any Dems or PDRC or whoever in Court for things they didn't do, right? Only poor innocent non-violent Thaksin supporters. Cos that wouldn't fit your narrative either.

[whybother]

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

The mere fact that they were charged in the first place despite lack of evidence should tell you what happens when the UDD and the Courts meet but that obviously passed you by. Doesn't quite fit in with your narrative does it?

They probably thought they had sufficient evidence. People get charged with things all over the world and then get acquitted. That doesn't always mean that the prosecution shouldn't have tried the case.

[fab4]

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

The mere fact that they were charged in the first place despite lack of evidence should tell you what happens when the UDD and the Courts meet but that obviously passed you by. Doesn't quite fit in with your narrative does it?

You're quite right, it's very biased as we never see any Dems or PDRC or whoever in Court for things they didn't do, right? Only poor innocent non-violent Thaksin supporters. Cos that wouldn't fit your narrative either.

You come up with a "democrat party" or PDRC member that has been accused of a crime with no evidence who spends 3 years plus in jail after having bail refused repeatedly, then you might have something worthwhile to share.

In the meantime........................

[ginjag]

Take a good look at all these incidents---Yingluck/Family/red shirts/ --re courts.(and others) lack of evidence ??? who provides EVIDENCE ?? what are the police supposed to do, wait for it to turn up ?? I am afraid there is something seriously wrong here. Hasn't most posters noticed this--yes. things like element of doubt, or we did not get them red haanded, or bit of a prickly subject when connected persons are involved....................hope things change because all this x police handling is very suspect in the least..

[Bangmod]

So the influence of Thaksin is still in the courts

[AleG]

Correct. The should be acquitted if there is not sufficient evidence to prove they did it. It does not mean that all red shirts are innocent of this crime.

It also does not mean ANY redshirts were guilty of this crime.

Good thing that there's ample photographic and video evidence of Red Shirts setting the place on fire (after threatening to do just that, to Central World and many other places), but that doesn't stop you from claiming they didn't do it, does it?

[djjamie]

Well done for seeing a terrorist for a terrorist. I completely agree as well. To a point.

Don't forget that of the 14% of the population that support(ed) the terrorist organization only 7% were fanatical so your not completely correct.

I pity the other 7% that only supported the red shirts because they offered a carrot called unsustainability that never made them rich as was promised.

We can't fogret that 7% were ignored by the PTP when that 7% didn't suit the agenda.

7% this, 15 Principles that, The Good General this, Red Shirt Terrorists that,

Please let it stop......................

I notice you still cannot rebut any of my claims.

The Rubics's cube lives on…...

<EDIT> Toot, toot.

Edited September 4, 2014 by djjamie

[Thailand]

Take a good look at all these incidents---Yingluck/Family/red shirts/ --re courts.(and others) lack of evidence ??? who provides EVIDENCE ?? what are the police supposed to do, wait for it to turn up ?? I am afraid there is something seriously wrong here. Hasn't most posters noticed this--yes. things like element of doubt, or we did not get them red haanded, or bit of a prickly subject when connected persons are involved....................hope things change because all this x police handling is very suspect in the least..

You must have seen this coming?

It was obvious deals were being done between the old and the new.This the way they do things here,not going to change for a very long time.

[GeckosDiving]

Excellent verdict!The whole world knows that the torching of Bangkok shopping malls was carried out by yellow shirt thugs and made to look like it was done by the elderly peaceful protesters demonstrating for democracy! Maybe there is hope for equal justice yet

And the Dumb Ass Post go's too !!

But this isn't new !!!!

[fab4]

Correct. The should be acquitted if there is not sufficient evidence to prove they did it. It does not mean that all red shirts are innocent of this crime.

It also does not mean ANY redshirts were guilty of this crime.

Good thing that there's ample photographic and video evidence of Red Shirts setting the place on fire (after threatening to do just that, to Central World and many other places), but that doesn't stop you from claiming they didn't do it, does it?

Well I'll look forward to prosecutions of any red shirt members who have been clearly identified and proved to be responsible. Can't say fairer than that - there are prosecutions in the pipeline I take it, after all it's been 4 years?

Oh, and how are the prosecutions going of those red shirts who were revealed in the new footage "clearly showing red shirt supporters torching Central World" that ex dem MP Sirichoke Sopha unveiled on "Blue Sky" TV back in January? It's just that I've heard nothing more about that - surely he gave the footage as evidence to the authorities?

[bangrak]

OK guys, let's set this straight, Thai citizens walk where they want (except on Royal/military/official grounds), and when they want (except when there's a curfew in a war zone), and when they are dressed modestly (red is a colour as any other one) and behave properly, there is no reason to accuse them, prosecute them, and put them in jail, clear? As for their personal preference not to be walking around with a poodle on a line (very seldom and so suspicious too), but to carry around some Molotov cocktails, gasoline jerrycans or gas canisters, it might look odd but means nothing special in itself, it can f.i. be the peacefull expression of some different, creative attitude, following sympathetic ideas formulated by their peacefull leaders, and allows no-one to draw hasty conclusions about the aim of such persons, clear again? And when those same persons would be somewhat later running fast in a same direction, opposite to the one some kind of fire seems to have started, it can be just out of a joyfull mood, having suddenly discovered the pleasure it can be not to walk around carrying heavy, possibly hazardous, loads, as in a kind of enlightment, is that enough a reason to suspect such people to have been involved in any kind of bad or illegal action, no way, is that clear too? Or do you want to make a problem because some of them were smokers? What a narrow mind! I rest my case. Oooh, it's sometimes difficult for many of you on TV to understand simple, basic things, pfff!