Watching the developments in the hit-and-run saga involving the Krathing Daeng scion is like watching a B-grade mystery movie.
It seems not a day has gone by without an incredible twist in the plot.
The re-emergence of two "key" witnesses who came forward with "additional information" after seven years has caused enough consternation. And just as the public have been demanding clear explanations from the police and the Office of the Attorney General, one of the witnesses became a victim in a fatal accident.
The witness's death raises the question of whether he was silenced. Following the accident, it was reported that his mobile phone had disappeared. Two days later, a man, supposedly a friend of the deceased, turned up to profess that he took the phone, threw away its SIM card and destroyed the equipment.
Why? The man said because the phone contained several photos of him with the dead man which could be discriminatory against his campaign to run for local office. He did not elaborate.
Police will book him for taking another person's property.
I assume most of us already know much of the story revolving around this eight-year saga and have been equally surprised at the Attorney General and police chief's decision to drop the case.
Law professor and vice rector of Thammasat University Prinya Taewanarumitkul was miffed that the justice agencies' action would make teaching law an impossible task. "How are we (as law professors) going to teach students?" he asked during a discussion.
He posed some pertinent questions. Given that this is a very important case being watched closely by the public from the beginning, why was the examination of new witnesses and evidence conducted so quietly? And why were they considered more trustworthy than the initial work by the police's own experts?
He found it unbelievable that Police Sgt Major Wichian Klanprasert was indicted as the second defendant and implicated by two new eyewitnesses, saying the policeman's motorbike cut in front of the Ferrari driven by Vorayuth or "Boss" Yoovidhya, thus directly causing the accident.
The Attorney General's dropping of the case against Mr Vorayuth was mainly based on this evidence. How could such a crucial turn of events be kept hidden from the public's eye until it was exposed in the news, the law professor wondered.
Legally, to be indicted, the accused has to be informed of the charges against him and provided an opportunity to rebut them. But the policeman was given no such opportunity because he was killed in the 2012 accident.
If there was a scapegoat in this case, Mr Prinya mused, the police sergeant major was the one.
Mr Prinya noted that four charges against Mr Vorayuth which came to an end due to the statutes of limitations expiring were under the jurisdiction of the police, but they never were held accountable.
He demanded that the case must reach the courts, and not to be dismissed out of hand with so many questions hanging.
"I'm not asking whether the case could reach court," he said. "My question is: How could we ensure that the case reaches court."
At this point, there's no question what most people think or believe. Clearly, we are all very curious about how the police and the Attorney General's Office came to the conclusion as they did.
I think there's no need to be coy about it, but most people are wondering how much money had changed hands. So far as I can see, not one ordinary person believes the law authorities have acted in good faith.
It's no secret that most people have long entertained the idea that money has been an important factor influencing the police or prosecutors' decisions in many cases under their care. The Krathing Daeng scion case leaves no further doubt in their minds.
While I share a similar belief, I also have one other question.
My question arises out of the fact that this case involves the heads of two prominent law enforcement agencies. As heads of their respective agencies, the police chief and the attorney general cannot feign ignorance about the developments in the case.
I also believe that the two senior officials are not stupid. They knew how people would react if their decision became public. That's why we learned about it from CNN and not any local media outlet.
Also note that the letter dismissing the case was dated early June, not when it was exposed in late July.
The elaborate scheme involving new witnesses and changed testimonies of experts were seemingly thought to be enough to mask the falsehoods that lay underneath. But people obviously have more brain matter and better common sense than the authorities give them credit.
I believe as well that money, while a major factor, was not the only one influencing the officials' decision. With their experience, they must have known they could not come up with a scheme good enough to convince the entire country.
So far both senior officials have not made a public appearance or statement. If I could, I would ask them this question: Who was it that was able to persuade -- or coerce -- them into making such a career destroying decision?