Murder at Phraw.

March 7, 1969. The Office of the Public Prosecutor decided not to prosecute a case in the Court of Appeal. In the place of the crime, there was only one witness to accuse the defendant and he saw him only for a moment in dim light. It was a commonly held belief that the witness could not identify the perpetrator. In addition, the witness confirmed that the accused was drunk and unconscious. In fact, the defendant was arrested because he was stranger.

Murder at M.Phraw.

February 13, 1969. It was impossible that the suspect who committed the murder slept at the home of the village headman.

Murder at M.Phraw.

January 30, 1969. Thawee doubted that the second defendant, who was his client, was guilty, because he tried to cover up the verity, which may adversely affect the case. And Thawee believed that Nual bribed the police to smear his client.

Murder at Phraw.

January 24, 1969. Badin and Thawee noted that during the identification of the suspect, the police did not bring the one, only witness. (event continued from the notes in the document number MM-1-21-335).

Murder at Phraw.

January 24, 1969 Tawee said that in this case the essence was that the village headman needed to convince the subdistrict headman to retract his statement given to the police. In addition, the defendant also provided information that initially he suspected that Mai Nual might be a killer. But because he used bribery in order to be released, the police decided to detain the two accused who were from other places instead.

Murder in Amphur Phraw.

January 10, 1969. Moerman observed at the trial. Thawee was the defense lawyer and Pat was the judge. The first testimony was the wife of the deceased and the second witness was the son-in-law of the deceased, he had stolen 20,000 Baht from the deceased. In the hearing at the court, the defendant was brought forward for identification by witnesses. Thawee asked the witnesses for a detailed description of the house and asked the first witness why she carried a torch, even though it was in evening. In fact, the witness testifed that she carried only a lamp, and noteably she provided accurate details regarding the defendant's clothing. The second witness did not notice the dress of the defendant when he had happened to meet the defendant. He also shared the reason he became a witness was because the police said that if he identified the accused, then he would be released.

Murder at Myang Phraw.

January 17, 1969. The subdistrict headman, who stayed at home the night of crime, became an important witness. He saw the defendant run from the crime scene, not wearing a shirt. But the defendant pleaded that on that day he wore a purple shirt. Thawee solicited the subdistrict headman to testify at once. However, he noted that the police took special with care him. It might be possible that the subdistrict headman would be forced by the police to be a false witness.