The Criminal Court has scheduled the first witness examination in the ‘Am Cyanide’ case, with the mother of ‘Koi’, the deceased, testifying as the first witness.
The Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road has scheduled a hearing to examine the plaintiff’s witnesses in the case of the death of Koi or Ms. Siriporn Khanwong, in which Ms. Sararat Rangsitwutthaphon or Am Cyanide is the first defendant, Pol. Lt. Col. Witun Rangsiwutthaphon is the second defendant, and Ms. Thanicha Eksuwanwat or Lawyer Patch is the third defendant. Today, Mr. Decha Kittiwittayanan, the victim’s lawyer, traveled to the court with Koi’s mother and Mr. Rapee Chamnanruea, the coordinator of the Am Cyanide victim case.
Lawyer Decha revealed that today is the first day of the plaintiff’s witness examination, with Ms. Koi’s mother as the first witness on his side. In total, the plaintiff’s side has called in 89 witnesses, including academics, police, government and private officials, as well as various material evidence. The court has sch
eduled 20 examinations for the plaintiff’s witnesses.
Personally, I am confident in the work of the police led by Pol. Gen. Surachet Hakpal, who was in charge of the case at that time, and the public prosecutor, including various evidence in the case file, which has many files, I am confident that the defendant is unlikely to escape because the evidence is quite strong, starting from the issue of ordering cyanide and using it, including finding cyanide in Am’s car and Koi’s body, including the cyanide bottle, various circumstantial evidence that confirms the same thing, and the CCTV clip that is strong enough to convict the defendant.
As for whether Lawyer Patch filed a complaint under the Enforced Disappearance Act with the public prosecutor, will it affect the case? Lawyer Decha stated that the Enforced Disappearance Act and this case are not related. As far as he can remember, before the case was filed, Lawyer Patch had already filed the complaint to the court, but the court dismissed the complaint and o
rdered a separate discussion. Therefore, the issue under the Enforced Disappearance Act is not related to this case. The only issue in this case is whether Am poisoned Koi and stole her property. As for the second defendant, who is a police officer and Am’s husband, did he have a part in destroying evidence to help Am? As for the third defendant, Lawyer Patch, there is an issue of whether he was the one who ordered the second defendant or Am’s husband to destroy evidence. There is a chat conversation that states that if there is no evidence, the case will be dropped and the court can dismiss the case.
As for the issue that Lawyer Patch argued that the police arrested Am unlawfully, it is unlikely to affect the case because in the previous witness examination, Am confessed that the police had made the arrest legally and one of the witnesses admitted this issue.
Koi’s mother said that she felt relieved that there was a team of lawyers to help with the case. She personally still believes in justice because the
re were both a team of lawyers and Mr. Rapee to help, as well as many people giving her encouragement. Therefore, she is confident that she will receive justice. As for Lawyer Patch’s previous words that he was confident that Am would be acquitted of this case, the mother said that she was not worried and still had confidence in the case. However, when she arrived at the court early in the morning, she asked Koi to help her succeed in this case and she believed that Koi had not gone anywhere and was always by her side. As for whether she had talked to Am before, the mother said that she had talked to Am from the beginning to tell her to confess, but Am did not confess and did not talk to her at all. She also had an indifferent expression towards her, thinking that Am herself did not show any signs of remorse.
Mr. Rapee revealed that he would like to thank the media for not forgetting this case. He made a general observation that the lawyer telling his client to destroy evidence, claiming that if there is no
evidence, the court will dismiss the case, is an act that violates the lawyer’s ethics and morality. In fact, it is the duty of a general lawyer to help find the truth and fight for him to receive appropriate punishment. He also wanted to tell the people involved that ‘If you row a boat for a thief to sit in, you will receive the same karma.’ He was confident that what he did would definitely come to him. He could not know how the law would reach him. He would not overstep the court’s authority. He would accept whatever the court considers.
Later, Lawyer Patch traveled to the Criminal Court to join the first witness examination in the death case of Ms. Siriporn Khanwong or Koi. Lawyer Patch traveled with a team of 7 lawyers. Lawyer Patch revealed that he had been ready for this case for a long time. The court’s hearing date may have been a bit late, so it may not have been satisfactory for many people. He confirmed that today he was fully prepared for the case, as can be seen from the team of lawyers who cam
e with him. His side called about 10 witnesses. Of these, Lawyer Patch claimed that he had invited famous witnesses to testify in court, such as Pol. Gen. Surachet Hakpal and Kanchai Kamnerdploy. It is expected that the witness examination will take place until September. As for the outcome of the case, he asked the court to decide. He and his team of lawyers only have the duty to present facts from another perspective that the plaintiff did not present to the court. He will reserve the issues for argument in court, but they may be about CCTV or other relationships.
Regarding the allegations that Lawyer Patch was involved in having the defendant destroy evidence, Lawyer Patch insisted that he was not involved and added that the duties of a lawyer are limited by the legal framework. However, he believes that there was something in the process that made Am confess as well.
Regarding the issue of the Enforced Disappearance Act that Lawyer Patch had previously brought up, Lawyer Patch stated that even though th
e arrest was an improper arrest, it did not disrupt the investigation process. The public prosecutor still had the authority to file a lawsuit as usual. Previously, he had already proceeded with the Enforced Disappearance Act and it was under consideration by the public prosecutor.
For the previous interview that Lawyer Patch said that this case is definitely over, Lawyer Patch explained that it actually means that this case is over for his legal team. Also, on the issue that he was accused of speaking out to influence the case, he would not comment on this matter anymore. But what he said before, he only looked at the overall picture.
Mr. Phudit Thonphonlin, a lawyer for Lawyer Patch, revealed that in the past, Lawyer Patch had performed his duty as a lawyer according to professional principles in giving advice to the defendant to deny because in reality the defendant was not involved. However, the details of the case must first be investigated for a while. Then within 1-2 weeks, the direction of the defen
se will be known as to how it should be fought.
Source: Thai News Agency
