LM evidence disputed
- Published: 21 Sep 2012 at 18.00
- Online news:
Judges will rule on Oct 31 in the lese majeste trial of computer expert Surapak Phuchaisang, after hearing defence witnesses on Friday rebut police evidence as not credible enough to convict the defendant.
Mr Surapak, 41, a Bung Kan native, took the stand as a witness in his own trial at the Criminal Court at Ratchadapisek Road. His testimony and that of another computer expert indicated that some of the evidence linking the defendant to the chartges may have been fabricated.Mr Surapak told the court that he owned Viva-Solution, a computer software developer that had been hired by many organisations including True Corp, the Social Development and Human Security Ministry, the Metropolitan and Provincial waterworks authorities, Thai Summit Auto Parts, and Sai Mai police station.He also said he used the e-mail address firstname.lastname@example.org, not email@example.com as the police alleged. He said his Facebook user name was "Rao Rak Oracle" (We Love Oracle), not "We Would ... the Land by a Coup," as alleged.Recalling the day of his arrest, Mr Surapak said he had just came back to his apartment after registering for internet service with 3BB since the apartment internet service was inadequate for his business. He said a police car parked behind him right after he switched off his car engine.Prior to the arrest, he had lived a normal life, not hiding anything, he added.When he got out of the car, he was still on the phone with a client, but a man later identified as a police officer snatched the phone from him. The police displayed a search warrant and asked him to show them his room. He asked the police for his right for access to a lawyer but was refused.The defendant told the court that he told the police the password to open his notebook computer, as it was a BIOS password, not a Windows password. However, this password was the same as those used for his Hotmail and Facebook accounts.He did not see or touch his laptop again.Pol Col Pisit Paoin, deputy commander from the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD), asked him to write down the phrases firstname.lastname@example.org and "We Would ... the Land by a Coup" on a piece of paper. He said he complied as he felt threatened by the police presence.He also signed a document that Pol Col Pisit said was a confession of the Facebook and e-mail account ownership. Mr Surapak said he only took a glance before signing, thinking it was just a search, not the charge stage.He was able to call his relatives and lawyer several hours later, after he was brought to the TCSD office. There, he denied all charges.The defendant explained that usually a temporary internet file or cache file would appear in the first partition of a computer, but the two files that the police provided as evidence to charge him appeared in the second partition.Also, data showing the time of the last access and last modification to a file should be the same, but the police documents did not show this, he told the court.The defendant further said the source post in question (the temporary files) showed that the suspect Facebook page was opened and closed immediately in the same second, something a Facebook user normally would not do."The source post appearing here was developed with freeware and was pasted and saved into the cache file in the third partition of the exhibit computer," said Surapak.He demonstrated to the court how the alleged temporary file saved in HTML form was created. The demonstration showed that a normal Facebook page would appear in the URL as a PHP form, not HTML.He also explained that a smart computer user normally erased the internet cache from time to time to guard against viruses.Most importantly, the...
This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.