Evidence is evidence no matter from where it is derived, if it can be supported so be it

Evidence is evidence from wherever it comes. If it can be proved then what's the problem.

This guy is basically saying what they have provided is not to be trusted.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the NACC was the subject of regular grenade attacks while they carried out their investigation, as well as harassment of their members.

Research like this shouldn't be used to convict politicians. It is open to political abuse.

Better they get hard proof of the specific actions of Yingluck than using general opinion of the effects of her policy.

Come on!! What do TDRI get paid for? They produce reports based on their own research. What you are saying is that they should be able to absolve themselves of any accountability ie we can say what we like but it can't be used as any form of truth or evidence in court of law. You'll be suggesting next that TDRI should be able to sue the NACC for defamation!

Not at all. The policy itself is not the issue. The issue is when yingluck knee it wasn't working to the stated aim and what she did about it and whether that constitutes negligence. It is about the absolute details of what she did, not the rights or wrongs of the policy.

Citing a research document as proof of something is not really how it is done. Research is rarely without any bias.

They should call him personally to give his personal opinion.

Its like citing from the economist or the guardian. Same story, different view.