Cocaine blues for the clowns in brown II

According to recent reports, the panel of prosecutors hurriedly put together as a regime mechanism to deal with the political fallout of the effort to exonerate Red Bull scion Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya, has recommended “charges of cocaine abuse and reckless driving causing death…”. Yes, the things that were all mentioned in reports in 2012. The police and prosecutors have come full circle.

Described as a “dramatic turnaround,” the posterior covering was sensational. Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) spokesman Prayut Petcharakhun “explained” that in dropping all charges, “Nate Naksuk, deputy attorney-general responsible for cases with justice complaints, had initially made a sound decision against arraignment based on available evidence and witnesses.” That is, of course, a pile of buffalo manure.

How high?

Prayut then further “explained” that the evidence by Sathon Wicharnwannarak, a Chulalongkorn University physics lecturer “who worked for forensic police, [and] had concluded that the speed of the Ferrari at the time of the crash was about 177kph. However, the conclusion had not been included in police investigative report relating to the case.” Now why was that? Most would guess that pressures, influences and greased palms might have been involved.

An what of the “alleged cocaine abuse?” OAG’s Prayut “said that a blood sample taken from Mr Vorayuth’s blood on the day of the crash indicated that he had abused cocaine. However, police had not raised the matter in their past investigative report…”. What a surprise!

Neither did police and prosecutors include “the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol because a test showed the Red Bull scion must have drunk after the crash — because his blood alcohol level was so high, he would have been unable to drive.” Yeah, right.

Prayut went on to describe all the omitted stuff as now somehow being “new evidence” that “justified the fresh investigation in the hit-and-run case.” See above for buffalo manure. The hopelessness of this claim of “new evidence” is shown to be manure in a Bangkok Post report that notes that “the new evidence involved the statements made by two experts … at the time of the fatal crash.”

Perhaps the only piece of reasonably good news is that a committee will “look into the financial transactions of people involved to determine if any irregularities were present.” That may not reveal much as most corruption money goes up the line. But at least the panel has thought of it.