Murder at Phraw.

January 29, 1969. The District Court judge released the defendant because the evidence was insufficient for impeachment. However, the court clerk gave information to Moerman that the case would be sent to the Court of Appeal. On 30 January 1969, Moerman met with Thawee and discussed the case. Thawee said that the case might be submitted to the Court of Appeal, but he would win the case in the Court of First Instance because the it was possible that the prosecutor could make an offer to him.

Murder at Phraw.

January 24, 1969. Moerman noticed that there was a possibility that the case might be dismissed because of insufficient evidence. In fact, the defendant was arrested because he had a previous criminal record.

Murder at Phraw. Post-case discusstion W. Mippat.

February 18, 1969. Pat and Moerman discussed the judgement on the murder at the Court of First Instance. Pat believed that the second defendant was guilty, but must be waiting to hear the decision of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. They then discussed the various dilemmas encountered during the testimonies at the trial, such as that of the police investigation and the defendant's words about the color of his shirt worn in the crime scene.

Case of guaranteeing a loan, interrupted by plea of insanity for carrying a gun.

March 26, 1969. A man holding a gun burst into the meeting (?). But because of imperfect consciousness, the court ordered suspension of the sentence. 26 and 29 March 1969. The former assistant manager of Bangkok Bank had signed a loan contract of suretyship with the bank. But he did not know that the contract was a contract of suretyship.

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.

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.