Graft buster chases metropolitan police over delay in Red Bull heir's hit-and-run case in September 2012
 

 

BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has formally asked the Metropolitan Police Bureau (MPB) for clarification over why its investigation team did not file speeding charge against a heir of Red Bull energy drink in the hit-and-run accident that killed a police officer in September 2012.

 

It said the failure to prosecute the heir, Vorayuth Yoovidhya, for speeding charge caused the statue of limitation of the charge to expire.

 

The formal request was submitted to MPB acting commissioner Pol Lt Gen Sanit Mahathavorn by the NACC’s Office of the Corruption Suppression in Public Sector.

 

The office asked for testimonial documentation previously given by Pol Maj Gen Kris Piakaew, former commander of the MPB’s fifth division, and his investigation team after they were accused  of malfeasance in office for their failure  to charge Vorayuth of speeding within the legal time frame, thus resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitation to refile the charge against the energy drink heir.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/graft-buster-chases-metropolitan-police-delay-red-bull-heirs-hit-run-case-september-2012/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-12

I can tell you the answer that question; corruption. Also, incompetence at every level and zero empathy. 

8 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

I can tell you the answer that question; corruption. Also, incompetence at every level and zero empathy. 

 

Yep, any sincere probe would definitely be looking into the bank accounts of the officers involved/responsible.

 

That being said, couldn't Prayuth Article 44 away the Statute of Limitation on this case if he wanted to?

Because red bull gives you wings and he has well and truely flown the coup (sic)

Hope the graft busters are fit and fast runners as they've a lot of chasing to do.

scrap the statute

Not to worry, help is on the way, delayed help to be sure, but help.

 

PM Prayut says Thailand will be corruption-free in 20 years

A few brown paper bags involved here me thinks. 

Disgusting

 

Maybe there was not enough evidence of speeding. We're there any speed traps? Was there any radar equipment on the road where the alleged speeding took place? We're there any expert witnesses that could testify that the car was speeding?

Maybe there was just no solid evidence to proceed with the charge.

 

 

51 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

Maybe there was not enough evidence of speeding. We're there any speed traps? Was there any radar equipment on the road where the alleged speeding took place? We're there any expert witnesses that could testify that the car was speeding?

Maybe there was just no solid evidence to proceed with the charge.

 

 

Did the red bull family get to you too?

2 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

Did the red bull family get to you too?

 

To be honest his argument is fair enough - there is no direct evidence of speeding. 

 

That said, the secondary evidence is clear - the damage to the car and the motorcycle is clear evidence that the Ferrari was exceeding the speed limit not by a little but significantly - But, to prove that conditions would need to be recreated or expert witnesses would need to be called in... this would be highly costly and a non-starter. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

Maybe there was not enough evidence of speeding. We're there any speed traps? Was there any radar equipment on the road where the alleged speeding took place? We're there any expert witnesses that could testify that the car was speeding?

Maybe there was just no solid evidence to proceed with the charge.

 

 

What about the solid evidence of :

1) the damage to the front end of his Ferrari. 

 2) the damage to the police motorbike. 

3) The damage to the policeman's body that he dragged under the car. 

4) An admission by the criminal Red Bull heir that he indeed hit the policeman while he, the policeman, was riding his motorcycle.

All these questions you ask are NoBrainers as the evidence is there. The only thing missing is the punk that caused all the damage.

32 minutes ago, ratcatcher said:

What about the solid evidence of :

1) the damage to the front end of his Ferrari. 

 2) the damage to the police motorbike. 

3) The damage to the policeman's body that he dragged under the car. 

4) An admission by the criminal Red Bull heir that he indeed hit the policeman while he, the policeman, was riding his motorcycle.

All these questions you ask are NoBrainers as the evidence is there. The only thing missing is the punk that caused all the damage.

 

Damages to the front end of his Ferrari and the motorbike prove impact - The admission corroborates the impact. 

 

Regardless of how obvious to everyone it is the the Ferrari was being driven well beyond any speed limits there is no proof that speed limits were exceeded.

 

Scientific recreation could be used to establish speed within reasonable range of doubt. 

Expert witness testimony 'could' be brought to confirm speed limits were exceeded based on the evidence (damage).

 

BUT, as it stands, and as frustrating as it is this is not a 'NoBrainers' when faced with a legal defence - Courts have to rely on facts, which can be proven either absolutely or under testimony. 

 

 

Prosecution could perhaps spend their time more usefully securing a conviction...... something which they are more certain will stick. 

 

 

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by richard_smith237

One thing for sure,if you have plenty money,getting away with

murder,on and off the road is easy. it has happen too many

times already,and will continue.

regards worgeordie

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Damages to the front end of his Ferrari and the motorbike prove impact - The admission corroborates the impact. 

 

Regardless of how obvious to everyone it is the the Ferrari was being driven well beyond any speed limits there is no proof that speed limits were exceeded.

 

Scientific recreation could be used to establish speed within reasonable range of doubt. 

Expert witness testimony 'could' be brought to confirm speed limits were exceeded based on the evidence (damage).

 

BUT, as it stands, and as frustrating as it is this is not a 'NoBrainers' when faced with a legal defence - Courts have to rely on facts, which can be proven either absolutely or under testimony. 

 

 

Prosecution could perhaps spend their time more usefully securing a conviction...... something which they are more certain will stick. 

 

 

It's a nice theoretical argument, but we all know its not the case. A rice farmer would have already been found guilty of all charges, including speeding. The red bull heir will never spend a single.day in court.

9 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

It's a nice theoretical argument, but we all know its not the case. A rice farmer would have already been found guilty of all charges, including speeding. The red bull heir will never spend a single.day in court.

 

Of course, and I agree that its highly likely that this case has been handled with deliberate negligence and will continue to embarrass Thailand's legal system.

 

Which is why the prosecution (and 'Graft Busters') need to be concentrating on something with a far better chance of conviction...  rather than saying 'if it was a rice farmer' - which isn't really a particularly sound basis for a legal argument. 

 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Damages to the front end of his Ferrari and the motorbike prove impact - The admission corroborates the impact. 

 

Regardless of how obvious to everyone it is the the Ferrari was being driven well beyond any speed limits there is no proof that speed limits were exceeded.

 

Scientific recreation could be used to establish speed within reasonable range of doubt. 

Expert witness testimony 'could' be brought to confirm speed limits were exceeded based on the evidence (damage).

 

BUT, as it stands, and as frustrating as it is this is not a 'NoBrainers' when faced with a legal defence - Courts have to rely on facts, which can be proven either absolutely or under testimony. 

 

Prosecution could perhaps spend their time more usefully securing a conviction...... something which they are more certain will stick. 

 

I think you are missing the point. The issue is not whether he was guilty, the issue was why was he not charged. When you are charged with an offence in Thailand, the police can then take as long as they/Courts like to get enough evidence together - it aint the West. But because he was not charged, the statute time limit ran out and now he cant be charged. Clearly this was the plan - and why the police involved were sacked/demoted.

 

But maybe what will happen now is that they are charged and found guilty of an offence that results in them going to jail and their reward money being confiscated.  The reason being so that other police in the future think twice about doing the same thing when a policeman is killed/injured.  Of course for you or me or a Burmese that will not be a problem (for them to cover up), but such an outcome this time (jail and money confiscated) would be a good thing.

 

8 hours ago, Bob9 said:

I think you are missing the point. The issue is not whether he was guilty, the issue was why was he not charged. When you are charged with an offence in Thailand, the police can then take as long as they/Courts like to get enough evidence together - it aint the West. But because he was not charged, the statute time limit ran out and now he cant be charged. Clearly this was the plan - and why the police involved were sacked/demoted.

 

But maybe what will happen now is that they are charged and found guilty of an offence that results in them going to jail and their reward money being confiscated.  The reason being so that other police in the future think twice about doing the same thing when a policeman is killed/injured.  Of course for you or me or a Burmese that will not be a problem (for them to cover up), but such an outcome this time (jail and money confiscated) would be a good thing.

 

 

Very good point...  

Edited September 13, 20169 yr by metisdead
Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording.

it has <deleted!> to do with speeding, this idiot killed a policeman he hit him from behind and continued to drive while this poor man was dragged for a considerable distance under the car, he then had a look and fled the scene, if this had happened in the west he would be in jail, it is quite honestly a disgrace but I am not going to blame the current administration as they were not involved at the time, this bull statute of limitation needs to be abolished, if Prayuth wants to enact article 44 with some meaning then now is the time but I doubt he has the balls................but still he is not to blame for this

Edited September 13, 20169 yr by metisdead
Profane acronym removed.

If u r rich, quickly commit any crimes in these 19 years cos Thailand will be corruption free in the 20th year cos Prayuth said so.

Why not just forget about him. Let him flip the middle finger at society, it's in keeping with the whole judicial system, the masses expect no less.

In the UK the police have six months to summons/charge someone with speeding, and even before charge have to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence, giving them up to 5 1/2months to gather the evidence..

 

They have to satisfy the prosecuting authority, the CPS, that there is a reasonable chance of securing a conviction or the CPS will discontinue the case.

 

If UK police can do all this in the restricted time, maybe Thai police could follow this model, but much less political interference in UK policing.

Prayuth has Article 44 which trumps everything, use it to reinstate the charges on your mates spoilt little brat

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Damages to the front end of his Ferrari and the motorbike prove impact - The admission corroborates the impact. 

 

Regardless of how obvious to everyone it is the the Ferrari was being driven well beyond any speed limits there is no proof that speed limits were exceeded.

 

Scientific recreation could be used to establish speed within reasonable range of doubt. 

Expert witness testimony 'could' be brought to confirm speed limits were exceeded based on the evidence (damage).

 

BUT, as it stands, and as frustrating as it is this is not a 'NoBrainers' when faced with a legal defence - Courts have to rely on facts, which can be proven either absolutely or under testimony. 

 

 

Prosecution could perhaps spend their time more usefully securing a conviction...... something which they are more certain will stick. 

 

 

The police had charged him with speeding......the SoL had enabled him to evade this charge......I'm thinking the cops have some evidence of his speeding....I'm sure they would not have done so without this knowledge....after all....he is a well connected person.

... because life is cheap, and some have deep pockets !

Speeding is all well and good, but how about the more serious events? Such as vehicular homicide, not even having to go to police station, being given permission to go to Singapore for the flu (I thought Thailand was touted as a "medical hub"). Speeding was the least of his crimes, but I suppose you have to start somewhere.....

18 hours ago, Reigntax said:

Because red bull gives you wings and he has well and truely flown the coup (sic)

clever double entendre

Why did it have to be a speeding charge? Surely there's a "Reckless driving" charge within Thai traffic regulations? And it's easier to prove, with circumstantial evidence such as how far the body was dragged, skid marks on the road, damage to vehicle, eyewitness accounts etc taken into account, with the high speed deemed to be reckless in a built up area with a 60km/h speed limit...in initial reports the witnesses to the excessive speed were other police officers and taxi drivers. But unfortunately once the pressure from above started and the bribes rolled in, their memories failed them...

10 hours ago, NoBrainer said:

Maybe there was not enough evidence of speeding. We're there any speed traps? Was there any radar equipment on the road where the alleged speeding took place? We're there any expert witnesses that could testify that the car was speeding?

Maybe there was just no solid evidence to proceed with the charge.

 

 

All this would have come out months ago, fact is they were waiting for the statute of limitations 

the fact nothing came out tells you it's a cover up