It came as little surprise that deputy national police chief Srivara Rangsibrahmanakul has been viewed as a villain by the same group of people who despise and curse the Italian-Thai Development Plc boss Premchai Karnasuta for his illegal hunting trip in Thungyai Naresuan wildlife sanctuary, which resulted in the killing of several protected wildlife species, in particular a rare leopard.
Graffiti and paintings of the leopard with a message that reads "The leopard must not die in vain" have popped up on walls in Bangkok and elsewhere to keep the hunting case from fading from public attention until justice is done or is seen to be done. The "Don't Want Srivara" hashtag has gone viral on social media as public mistrust in him gathers steam.
Pol Gen Srivara is overseeing the investigation into the illegal hunting case against the four members of Mr Premchai's group, with Mr Premchai being the main suspect. The others include a female cook, a hunting guide and a close aide of Mr Premchai. But the way in which he has handled the case from the beginning leaves much to be desired.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.
As the public hailed Wichien Chinnawong, the chief of Thungyai Naresuan wildlife sanctuary, for his courage in arresting an influential figure like Mr Premchai and his integrity in rejecting the tempting "anything you want" offer made by the wealthy businessman to let his party off the hook, Pol Gen Srivara dropped a bombshell with his allegation of negligence against Mr Wichien for not collecting entrance fees from Mr Premchai's party for their supposed nature study trip into the game reserve. He then quickly made an about-turn when he felt the heat on social media.
The video clip showing the deputy national police chief kowtowing to Mr Premchai at the Thong Phaphum police station when the latter showed up to acknowledge the charges against him raised both public uproar and big questions over whether he could handle the case without bias after his uncommon public display of respect to the suspect.
But this controversial clip pales in comparison to the way he reprimanded a police captain at Thong Phaphum police station for accepting the complaint of animal cruelty filed against Mr Premchai by forest rangers. The charge was later withdrawn after it was discovered that wildlife was not protected by the law on cruelty against animals.
The police officer was put on probation for not exercising sufficient caution in accepting a complaint.
However, critics have pointed out that it has been standard practice for police to accept complaints without much caution or bothering to check with the law book whether the complaints are acceptable or not.
The question is why the deputy police chief was tough with the poor police officer only on Mr Premchai's case, and not many other cases?
His treatment of Mr Wichien when he was again grilled by the police last week regarding the evidence collected at the crime scene by rangers has also been called into question. Mr Wichien's legal adviser was bluntly told by Pol Gen Srivara that he had no business attending the interview and should leave the room.
The question is why a legal adviser could not be present with Mr Wichien, who is not a suspect and who, according to the constitution, is entitled to the presence of a lawyer during an interrogation by the police?
The deputy police chief's claim that the police must make sure that they have a watertight case against Mr Premchai and, hence, need to repeatedly question some of the arresting forest rangers and recheck their incriminating evidence does not sound convincing at all.
Instead, what the police under Pol Gen Srivara's supervision have been doing has given the impression that they are making a straightforward case more complicated. Hence, the suspicion of foot-dragging.
Let us take a another look at all the charges against Mr Premchai, probably with more to be brought against him as promised by Pol Gen Srivara.
Pedestrians walk past graffiti calling for justice in the Thungyai Naresuan hunting case on a wall near the head office of Italian-Thai Development. (Photo by Nattapol Lovajkij)
My point is that we have been distracted by the police away from the big question, which is: Did or didn't Premchai shoot the leopard? And if not him, which of his party was responsible?
Only the evidence related to this charge can pin him down for killing the leopard. The other evidence, such as the knives, the cooking pots and the cutting board are just a sideshow which, I believe, is being used to distract attention from the main question.
My question is: Do the police have evidence to prove who fired the gun which killed the leopard? The group's claim they were there on a nature trip is nonsense, because guns were brought into the sanctuary without the knowledge of forest rangers. And there is no doubt that the guns, including a hunting rifle and a double-barrel shotgun, all belong to Mr Premchai.
So who fired the guns among the three men? One must wonder whether the police checked for gunshot residue (GSR) on the hands and clothes of the three, especially Mr Premchai, after their arrest. A GSR check can be carried out by an instant identification kit which offers answers in seconds. Or it can be done by a forensic lab by examining skin swabs and clothes under a microscope to look for tiny particles.
So far, police have remained silent about this. Although a positive GSR test does not prove who shot the leopard, it would show who shot the gun or was in close proximity when it was fired. If one shot was fired that killed the big cat, then only one of the three was the shooter.
The charge of illegal hunting of protected species should be the top priority. The rest of the charges are secondary, such as the African tusks found in Mr Premchai's house or the possession of a gun which cannot be legally registered. With them all bundled together, it becomes too easy to lose sight of what really matters. And, if that happens, the leopard will indeed have died in vain.