1,661. Reference : MM-1-21-341

Seduction case from M. Fang.

| April 4, 1969. Pat provided information to Moerman that many girls were willing to prostitute themselves. Mrs. Kham Mun was an agent who pushed the girls into prostitution. Mrs. Cham was brought along to accompany the girls and give them peace of mind, as they were from the same village. But she was not taken into be prostitution because of her age. The Thai court was inclined to believe in the guilt of the defendant, and that the plaintiff would not lie in order to slander the defendant. But the case was different. | Punch card

1,662. Reference : MM-1-13-81

House number HH84

| House number HH84 (Junta) | Punch card

1,663. Reference : MM-1-13-82

House number HH85

| House number HH85 (Methaw En) | Punch card

1,664. Reference : MM-1-21-342

Seduction case from M.Fang.

| April 3, 1969. Sompol suggested that the focus of this case was in three parts: 1) The judge believed that the victim voluntarily entered prostitution and the parents knew that their daughter was willing to do so; 2) The court believed the reason Mrs. Cham and Mr. Sao claimed was the reason that the defendant had entered into litigation; 3) the judge believed that that reason that the husband of Kham Mun, employed as a taxi driver, took her from the Fang district to Chiang Mai was to get passengers as usual. And for Kham Mun to travel to Bangkok to buy auto parts was also normal. | Punch card

1,665. Reference : MM-1-13-83

House number HH86

| House number HH86 (Mai Phimpha) | Punch card

1,666. Reference : MM-1-21-343

Seduction case from M.fang.

| March 26, 1969. During the inquiry with Mrs. Cham, Moerman took notes and taped her words carefully. Mr. Chid, a neighbor of Cham, testified that on the scene Cham and Kam were walking along together, but they did not meet accidentally. In addition, the statement of the village headman, Singha, showed that he, himself, witnessed the loan between Mr. Saikham (Kham Mun's husband) and Mr. Sao (Cham's husband). | Punch card

1,667. Reference : MM-1-13-84

House number HH87

| House number HH87 (Ai Pun) | Punch card

1,668. Reference : MM-1-21-344

Seduction case from M.Fang.

| 26 March 1969. Mr. Saikham, the first defendant, said that he drove to pick up Ms. Cham and Amporn to send them to the bus station. Ms. Kham Mun, the second defendant, said that she accidentally met all three persons (Kham Mun, Cham, Amporn). She went to Bangkok to buy auto parts. Bodin, however, noted that it was not coincidence that all three people rode the bus to Bangkok on the same day. In addition, expenses for travel and accommodation together cost more than the spare auto parts, which the defendant claimed that it necessary to buy in Bangkok. | Punch card

1,669. Reference : MM-1-21-345

Seduction case from M. Fang.

| March 26, 1969. The issue of the case was to prove whether the defendant was a broker prostituting women into sexual services. In fact the reason the defendant of the lawsuit sued was because Ms. Kham Mun did not give enough money to the father of the girl (Amporn). | Punch card

1,670. Reference : MM-1-21-346

Lok Lo : Phuying.

| 19 February 1969. The father of the young girl who was a victim alleged that the defendant deceived his daughter into prostitution, but it was generally known that she was engaged in prostitution in Bangkok. This was voluntary. However, the litigation took place because her father demanded more money from the defendant. | Punch card