Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul has complained about her molar abscess (a Prachatai reader doctor J suggests that it is probably 'TMJ disorder' or temporomandibular joint disorder) which has made it difficult for her to speak or to eat.

Dr J you are now being cited as an authority on Da's illness. How do you feel about that? Have you ever examined her? Have you ever even seen her? Could you please furnish the basis of your "diagnosis" of Da's illness, rather than some vague reference to "the Thai press", as though they were medical authorities?

This business of the Criminal court refusing appeals of its own rulings is utterly absurd and makes a laughing stock of the Thai courts... or would if their abuses hadn't such serious consequences.

As for the Appeals court answering Da's petition for medical relief with "no because you are a bad person"... that's an answer worthy of an inquisitor not a judge.

The hair splitting of the Constitutional court rounds out the united front of the "legal" system against someone "everyone knows is guilty"... of what?

Secret trials make that impossible to determine.

This is disgraceful. It makes it very hard to take the court system in Thailand seriously.

Surely nobody takes the Thai judicial system seriously.

But no matter, the Thai judges take themselves seriously enough to make up the credibility gap.

Or so they think.

Come the day, I suspect that some judges are going to find themselves enjoying the same hospitality they have inflicted on others. I for one will shed no tears.

Som nam na.

The evidence of intention

Darunee’s statements are recounted (based, significantly, on mp3 and video recordings made by two police officers named in the text of the court decision), who or what specifically she refers to by various phrases is interpreted by the court through the use of a series of phrases such as “meaning” (หมายถึง) and “insinuate” (เปรียบเปรย), among others. Darunee does not mention King Bhumipol, Queen Sirikit, or Prem Tinsulanonda. So the first half of the text of the court decision follows a pattern in which Darunee’s statements are quoted, and then assigned meaning by the court. The court, in other words, alleges that she is referring to specific individuals. At this point, the text of the decision is primarily about the sheer content of Darunee’s speech.

“Even though the defendant does not clearly mention any individual by name, the fact is that the prosecutor has brought evidence that makes it possible to interpret that the defendant meant the King and Queen Sirikit”

“The defendant does not clearly state who she means by the term ruling class, but after examining all of her spoken statements, (we) are confident that this saying of the defendant refers to the monarchy”

In the next to last paragraph, the court decision notes that Darunee herself said that she did not have the intention to slander or insult the monarchy, but that the court’s review of evidence did not match up with this claim.

On the basis of the court’s interpretation of the meaning of Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul’s statements, she was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Reports so far indicate that she is suffering greatly in prison.

Darunee did not slander or defame the royal family. She stated it was not her intention to do so. The court agreed that she did not slander or defame the royal family, but asserted that she did intend to do so.

Darunee was jailed for eighteen years for a "thought crime" imputed to her by a judge or judges. They read the tea leaves, or gazed into their crystal ball.

No wonder the trial was secret. I might be as ashamed of myself too if I were party to something like this. I might do my best to keep it covered up.