Ampon: Uncle SMS

23 September 2011

The Prosecutor Witness No.1: Mr.Somkiat Krongwattanasuk, Prosecutor

Judge, Chanatip Mueanpawong, arrived at the courtroom at 10 AM.
 
Somkiat testifies that during the incident time, he was working as a personal secretary for the former Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva. On 19 May 2010 12:13 PM, a short message was received by his mobile phone number 0814255599. The vulgar message talks about the queen. The witness then took a picture of the phone screen to be used as an evidence, where the sender's number appears +66813493615.
 
Somkiat further testifies that there were 4 messages in total from the aforementioned phone number and each time the message refers to either the king or the queen in a malicious manner. He has taken photos of all of them.
 
Later, he reported it to the police along with the photo evidences. By the time he did this, he still did not know the sender details. However, he was informed later of the suspect's name (name pronounced), once he got arrested. He and the suspect did not know each other before.
 
Witness replied to the cross-examination question by the defendant's attorney that Mr.Somkiat's number was first opened 4 years ago and used for both personal and professional propose. His number is quite widespread as it is a direct public complaint channel to the Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva. In the past, there have been many complaint calls.
 
Prior to the reception of the messages, Somkiat had never seen nor been contacted by the number +66813493615.
 
The judge finds the attorney's question not relevant to the case, therefore no recording was made.
 
According to another cross-examination question from the defendant's attorney, Somkiat had proceeded with the police report after 4 short messages on the 28 June 2010. The court recorded that because it deemed relevant to the judgement.
 
The hearing finished at 10:15 AM and lasted in total 15 minutes. It was attended by about 20 observers consisting of 5-6 children aged between 5-11, who are the relatives of the defendant, media and other supporters.

The Prosecutor Witness No.2: Pol. Capt. Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai, Defendant's Investigator and One of the Arrest Officers

Upon the termination of Mr. Somkiat Krongwattanasuk's round, Pol. Capt. Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai succeeded as the second witness at 10:30. Another judge, Pattawan Songkampon, is present.
 
Pol. Capt. Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai testifies that during the incident, he had the post as squad leader of the Crime Suppression Division and the Investigator and arrest person of the defendant. On 18 June 2010, he received an order from Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet Tamsutee to investigate a case, in which the suspect sent short messages (SMS'es) with insulting content to the monarchy to the Prime Minister's secretary's mobile phone.
 
Pol.Capt. Sakchai claims that he can't remember the name and the phone number anymore so the prosecutor asked if the number ended with 3615, with which he agreed through recalling vageuly.
 
The testimony goes on. He was only informed that the text had an insulting characteristic but he actually did not get to see the text himself. He knows that the text was sent to the number ending with 5599 belonging to Mr.Somkiat several times in the course of May-month.
 
After receiving the order, he then began the investigation process by requesting information from the Total Access Communication Company (or DTAC). The response from the company was that this number had already been suspended and there was no usage in June. Besides, he does not know if the number was using a pre-paid or monthly post-paid service.
 
Moreover, he was also the one who tracked the IMEI number and found out that the number was used with a phone with the IMEI number 358906000230110 and the SMS'es were sent from around Wat Dan Samrong. According to the telephone usage log, the messages were sent consinuously one after another then it stopped as if the sim card had been removed. Later, he reported this to the Pol.Lt.Col Teeradet then he (Teeradet) proceeded the case to True Corporation Company to keep track of the IMEI number to see if the IMEI number was used with other phone numbers. It is then found that the IMEI number is currently matched with the number ending with 4627 of True Corporation.
 
Pol.Capt. Sakchai also explains that Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet asked for cooperation from True Corporation Company once again to examine the whole usage of the number ending with 4627. According to the log he got, it can be understood that both the number -3615 and -4627 shared similar geographical area of operation. In addition, it is noted that the number -4627 was registered by the husband of Ms.Korawan, the defendant's daughter.
 
As following, the witness sought the phone numbers that number -4627 regularly contacted to and found that it was Ms.Piyamat's and Ms.Korawan's numbers that were the most often. Consequently, he invited Ms.Korawan for an interrogation and got confirmed that the number -4627 belonged to the defendant. The house of the defendant is located in the Soi Wat Dan Samrong 2 and that was where they visited and found the defendant.
 
Pol.Capt. Sakchai explained that the defendant's house is a rental house. Ms.Korawan had testified that the defendant lived with Ms.Piyamat, his daughter.
 
Later, an investigation committee was established. It obtained an arrest warrant from the court and the witness was one of the arrest team. At the arrest, the police officers have confiscated 5 items including a Motorola phone with the matching IMEI number. The defendant confessed that the phone belonged to him and that previously the phone was broken and he had it fixed at Imperial Samrong around May 2010
 
Pol.Capt. Sakchai responded to the cross-examination question of the attorney that the distance between Imperial Samrong and defendant's house is approximately 4 Kilometers.
 
There are other 4-5 questions posed by the attorney but were not permitted by the judge under irrelevance ground. Those questions are “Was the number -4627 in the wife's phone and not in the defendant's phone on the day of arrest?” “On the evidence Jor 6 Page 10 about the examination of the number -4627, is it said anywhere on the document if the number -4627 had sent SMS'es to the secretary?” “According to the document Jor 6, the text 'GSM on net' is present, is it possible that the SMS'es were sent online?” “According to the document Jor 5 that says number -3615 was only used to send SMS, was it checked what the other numbers this number sent to were?”
 
Nevertheless, The judge records what the attorney asked about the IMEI number in the end. The last or the 15th digit of the IMEI number in the prosecutor's documents do not match. That is, on the document Jor 8,10,11, the last number is 6 but on the document Jor 5,6, it is 0. Pol.Capt. Sakchai does not know that the last digit of the IMEI number can be used for verification propose.
 
Afterwards, the prosecutor reexamined the witness about the IMEI number, Pol.Capt. Sakchai testifies that he has already informed his boss about the different last digit. Then the prosecutor asked if the company told them to only look at the first 14 digits, Pol.Capt.Sakchai said yes.
 
The witness hearing finished at about 12:30. Total duration is about 2 hours.

27 September 2011

The Prosecutor Witness No.3: Mr.Chumpon Poonkasem, Legal Manager, DTAC Company
   
Judge Chanatip Mueanpawong, Judge Anukoon Nakrueangsri and Judge Pattawan Songkampon arrived at the courtroom at 10:00 AM.
 
Chumpon testifies that during the incident he was a legal manager of Total Access Communication Company or DTAC. Police officers from the Technology Crime Suppression Division have sent him a request to look at the usage log of May 2010 of the number ending with -3615. He printed the information from computer into hard copy then sent it back as requested.
 
Chumpon says that he has checked and found that the said number had contacted via text messages with the number -5599 on 9,11,12,15 and 22 May 2010 but he does not know the contents.
 
In July, police officers came to examine the IMEI number that was used with that number. The IMEI number discovered was 358906000230110. After that, he got invited to testify in this trial.
 
Chumpon further testifies that the number -3615 used the pre-paid service from DTAC.
 
Then, the attorney cross-examines Chumpon and he said the first file he sent on request to the police was only the usage log without IMEI number but it was a second letter that asked for the IMEI in particular and he responded to it. When the attorney asks about whether or not he knows if a foreign phone was used in Thailand, could the IMEI number change/be changed, Chumpon says he does not know.
 
However, on the matter of the IMEI number changing, the judge did not record seeing that it is not useful for the trial.
 
The hearing of this witness finished at 10:50.

The Prosecutor Witness No.4: Mr.Thammanun Imtua, Admin Officer, DTAC Company (The person who checked the usage data of the number -3615)

After Chumpon finished his hearing, Mr.Thammanun Imtua, Admin officer of DTAC Company, Age 36, begins his at 10:55. All three judges, Chanatip Mueanpawong, Anukoon Nakrueangsri and Pattawan Songkampon, are present.
 
Thammanun testifies that during the incident, he was an admin officer of DTAC company in charge of storing phone usage data in the computer database. He received a letter from the  Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) asking to check the phone usage of May 2010 of the number -3615. He, then, created a file containing the requested information and submitted to Mr.Chumpon Poonkasem for his signature.
 
Thammanun clarifies that the first time the IMEI number was not checked but when another request came, he checked it.
 
Thammanun also explains that the last digit of the IMEI number is not significant because the DTAC company always puts 0 at the end.
 
In response to the cross-examination, Thammanun said he got order from Mr.Chumpon Poonkasem and the IMEI number is important because it identifies the model and the brand of each phone. The judge did not record about the IMEI. Thammanun also sees that the IMEI number cannot be changed or modified.
 
When the attorney asked about the Check Digit number or the last digit number used to verify if the whole IMEI number is authentic, Thammanun testifies that he does not know about the Check Digit number.
 
11:45 the hearing of Mr.Thammanun Imtua ended

The Prosecutor Witness No.5: Mr.Chakrapan Chumponpakdi, Government Coordinator, True Corporation Company

Judge Chanatip Mueanpawong sees that we should continue all 4 witnesses from the prosecutor's side within the morning session to save time and to protect the defendant's benefits.
 
At 11:50 O'clock, Chakrapan, 47 years of age, testifies that he works as a government coordinator at True Corporation Company and has the duty to check the mobile phone usages. He was assigned by the Techlogy Crime Suppression Division in May 2010 to check the usage of the mobile phone number ending with -4627. It showed that this number was registered on 7 March 2009 but the owner is unknown.
 
What he had to check were including the incoming and outgoing calls, time of calls, location of calls, IMEI number and service provider used. The IMEI number was 35890600023011x. The last digit is sometimes found 0 but the other times 2 and the reason is that the detabase and the result screen show different number. In addition, Chakrapan said that modifying the IMEI number for the imported phones is an old system and is not practiced anymore in the present days because newer phones are universally designed.
 
Cross-examined, Chakrapan explains that IMEI modification can be done by any mobile shops.
 
According to the prosecutor's reexamination, Chakrapan insisted that the to the IMEI verification process only requires the first 14 digits.
 
The hearing of Mr.Chakrapan Chumponpakdi ended at 12:30

The Prosecutor Witness No.6: Pol.Col. Siripong Timula, Expert on Technological Forensic Science of the Techlogy Crime Suppression Division

 Pol.Col. Siripong testifies that he was an investigator of the Technology Crime Suppression Division in charge of investigating this case. He has taken forensic trainings on computer crimes and computer and mobile phones evidences. During the time of incident, he was working as the director of the Computer Crimes Investigation and Analysis Center and he was also the one who made a request letter to True Corporation Company asking for the information about the number -4627.
 
In May 2010, the witness received an order from his boss to investigate a case where a person sent monarchy-insulting SMS'es to the number -5599 of Mr.Somkiat Krongwattanasuk. After investigation, it is found that the number was only used to sending SMS'es and could be assumed that the sender only bought the phone sim card exclusively for that particular propose.
 
Pol.Col. Siripong clarifies on the IMEI number that the last digit could vary. The verification can be, nevertheless, done with the first 14 digits and leaves the last one of small insignificance. The first 14 digits of IMEI number indicate:
 
The first 6 digits are country code
The next 2 are the telephone producer company
The next 6 are the model serial number
 
Pol.Col. Siripong further says that the IMEI number cannot repeat itself but can be changed at phone kiosks/shops. The change will also have an impact on the database.
 
Later, for the cross-examination questions, Pol.Col. Siripong testifies that he knows that there are applications on the internet that are used to track IMEI numbers but we cannot reply on them for a more complicated search. Besides, he also insisted that the company would always put 0 in the last digit anyway.
 
The attorney requests the permission from the judge to open such program so that the witness could prove the result between the website www.numberingplan.com and the program the police used. The result was that the IMEI number ending with 6 was the correct number that belongs to the defendant's phone and can lead to all accurate information. The number 0 in the prosecutor's paper evidence as well as all other numbers does not yield any results. Pol.Col. Siripong assured that they only used the first 14 digits during the investigation.
 
Furthermore, Pol.Col. Siripong says that he does not know the formula used to calculate the last digit from the first 14. The attorney has tried to use the formula with the first 14 digits of the IMEI number from the prosecutor's evidence and found the 15th digit number 6 not 0. In the meantime, the judge was also trying the formula himself with his own phone.
 
The witness hearing finished at 1:45 pm.

28 September 2011

The Prosecutor Witness No.7: Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet Thammasutee, Investigator.

Judge Chanatip Mueanpawong and the other two, judge Anukoon Nakrueangsri and judge Pattawan Songkampon, arrived at the courtroom at 9.50 am.
 
Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet Thammasutee, age 38, testifies that he works at the Division 1 Crime Suppression Division as deputy super intendant. He has the duty to investigate and arrest the suspects. He also partook in the investigation of this lese-majeste case under the order of his commander.
 
He was informed that there were some short messages sent from the number -3615  to the number -5599, which belonged to the secretary of the PM, Abhisit Vejjajiva during 9-22 May 2010. He together with Pol.Col. Siripong Timula and Pol.Capt.Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai have tracked the number and found that the user had already suspended the number. Therefore, the IMEI number was used and as it appeared, the IMEI number 358906000230110 was also used with the prepaid number -4627.
 
Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet also says that when using the IMEI number, only 14 digits are checked, while the last one has no significance. Then they sent a request to True Company to find out more details of the user of that number. They have discovered that there was a regular contact between that number and the number -5928, which was later found to belong to Ms.Korawan Chotipichitchai. Ms.Korawan was, hence, asked to cooperate in the crime investigation. So an appointment was made for the interrogation at the Division 1 on 23 June 2010. She said that the number -4627 belonged to the defendant. During the interrogation, personal information like the siblings of Ms.Korawan was revealed as well.
 
Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet testifies that the number -3615 and -4627 were used alternatively. When found that the resident of the defendant was in the same neighborhood as the location where the SMS'es were sent, they made an investigation report and submitted to the investigators at the Technology Crime Suppression Division so that they could request for an arrest warrant from the court and report to the commander to proceed with the arrest. A search and arrest warrant were issued on 3 August 2010. When the police officers reached the site, they found the defendant at home with his wife and children , which could be described as a small rental apartment. The arrest was done under the lese-majeste charge. In the arrest report, the defendant said that he had been a lone user of this white Motorola phone, the evident no.1, already for a long time.
 
During the cross-examination, Pol.Lt.Col. testifies that there was no special procedure in the cases during the political violence. He also added that he has 15-year experience on investigation.
 
Furthermore, Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet states that Pol.Col. Siripong Timula was the one who collected all documents, which are the phone logs from DTAC and True Company. These documents were forwarded to him. Once he is done with the documents, he forwarded them further to Pol.Capt.Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai, the investigator.
 
The hearing goes on. The localisation of the SMS'es did not only come from the cell site but also from the CI number. In the report, CI 23672 specifies the location between Soi Wat Dan Samrong 14-36, from which the SMS'es were sent.
 
As for the coverage of True Company, Pol.Capt.Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai from the investigation team used a mobile-phone-like device and did not refer from the cell site.
 
The hearing of this witness finished at 10:55. Total duration is 1 hour 5 minutes.

The Prosecutor Witness No.8: Pol.Lt.Col. Narong Maenmuean, Investigator.
   
After the hearing of Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet Thammasutee is done, the last witness of the prosecutor's side begin his hearing at 11:00 AM.
 
Pol.Lt.Col. Narong, 51 year-old, testifies that during the incident he was an investigator at the Technology Crime Suppression Division when Mr.Somkiat Krongwattanasuk came to report the case on 8 June 2010 with pictures of the mobile phone screen.
 
He further testifies that after the commander established an investigation committee, he was assigned as a witness/evidence collector. He, therefore, has come up with witnesses including Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet Thammasutee, who provided the information obtained from DTAC on the IMEI number (358906000230110) and the information obtained from True Corporation on the phone number used with that IMEI number (0858384627).
 
Pol.Lt.Col. Narong testifies that he has seen that Pol.Capt.Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai's statement was in accordance with that of Pol.Lt.Col. Teeradet Thammasutee so he sent a letter to True and DTAC to ask for more evidences and got them back.
 
After Pol.Lt.Col.Teeradet had discovered that the number -4627 had been in regular contact with the number -5928 belonging to Ms.Korawan, Pol.Lt.Col. Narong arranged an appointment with her to testify.
 
Besides, he also got cooperation from 2 linguistic experts in identifying lese-majeste texts.
 
Pol.Lt.Col. Narong says that the defendant was arrested with 2 charges, which are the article 112 of the Penal Code and the Computer-related Crimes Act, which are denied by the defendant. However, the defendant had admitted that he owned the phone. There have been 3 rounds of interrogation then after that he decided to prosecute him because all evidences were pointing at him either as the perpetrator or the eye-witness.
 
Then, the attorney cross-examines the witness. Pol.Lt.Col. Narong said he couldn't remember if the confiscated phone had a Thai keyboard.
 
The attorney asked if the defendant appeared to have an aggressive characteristics or an anti-royalist attitude during the arrest. Pol.Lt.Col. said he did not, however, the judge did not record it because he sees that it is not important.

The last prosecutor witness' hearing finished at about 12:00 PM

Defense witnesses

30 September 2011

The Defense Witness No.1: Ms. Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen,  Defendant's Lawyer

The judge panel was complete. Judge Chanatip Mueanpawong, Judge Anukoon Nakrueangsri and Judge Pattawan Songkampon arrived at the courtroom at 9:45 AM
 
The prosecutor was changed. The most senior prosecutor that usually posted questions to the witness in the previous hearings is not present today. However, 3 less senior prosecutors, who were seen sometimes in the previous hearings, are here today. The most senior of the three does not participate in the witness questioning.
 
Ms.Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen testifies that as an attorney of this case, she has done research on technological evidences like text-messaging and consulted with some telecommunication experts, including both academics on telecommunication from Technology Institute and professors opening courses on mobile phone reparation, but none of them could give testimony in the court.
 
According to her research, Poonsuk learned that the IMEI number of each phone could be changed or modified easily by a device called ‘Flashbox’ and a particular program that is sold and taught widely in phone reparation schools. The experienced mechanics could change the IMEI number within half to one hour under the condition that this must be done in accordance with the existing numbers in the system. If they already know the number, the process can be done right away.
 
Poonsuk submits two document evidences to the court. The first document is taken from the website Wikipedia, which explains the definition of IMEI number that 10% of the IMEI numbers are not specified and the definition of the last digit together with Thai translation. The other document is a coursebook on how to chance/modify the IMEI number also showing the meaning of the last IMEI number digit and the formula to find it.
 
Poonsuk further explains about the website ‘Numberingplan’, which is used to check IMEI numbers that was referred to and tried by the 6th witness of the prosecutor, Pol.Col. Siripong Timula. This website is acting like a database and can identify the correct IMEI number. Nevertheless, it cannot tell the number of the repetition of each IMEI number and if the last digit is inaccurate, it does not yield the result either.
 
Next is the cross-examination by the prosecutor. The people that Poonsuk referred to in the beginning were an academic on telecommunication in an education institute and a person who is experienced in teaching mobile phone reparation and IMEI number modification for many years. After that, the prosecutor objected the information from Wikipedia on the ground of unreliability. Poonsuk agreed that anyone could write on Wikipedia but it was backed up by academic references and that part is reliable enough.
 
The cross-examination continues. The prosecutor asked what would be the reason people have their IMEI number changed. Poonsuk answered that there are 2 main cases where users usually have their phone’s IMEI number changed. First, in the past mobile phones from abroad with the IMEI number from other countries could not function in Thailand, therefore, it is changed to a common number, which is shared by many users.
 
The second is the case of criminals changing the IMEI number in order to avoid being found and prosecuted.
 
However, the judge did not record the part about the modification of IMEI number because he sees that it is irrelevant.
 
The hearing of this witness finished at 10:10

The Defense Witness No.2: Mr.Ampon T., Defendant
 
The complete judge panel is consisted of Judge Chanatip Mueanpawong, Judge Anukoon Nakrueangsri and Judge Pattawan Songkampon. After the hearing of Ms.Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, the defendant’s attorney, Mr. Ampon, the defendant, moved to testify humbly at 10:15 AM
 
Ms.Poonsuk helps read out the oath for the defendant as he has a poor eyesight and cannot read by himself.
 
Ampon testifies that his job was taking care his grandchildren and taking and picking them up to/from school after having stopped working as a logistic driver for decades. He lives in a small rental room with his wife and his grandchildren. His house is situated on Soi Wat Dan Samrong 17.
 
He further said that he did not send the text messages and neither know the number -5599, which belongs to Mr.Somkiat, nor -3615, which belongs to the sender. Then, he explained how he was arrested by the police officers that during the arrest, the arrest warrant was shown and he has voluntarily surrendered 2 mobile phones to the officer and was not forced to do so.
 
His phone was sometimes left at home and sometimes carried along, when he takes his grandchildren to school. Even sometimes when he is at home, he does not carry his phone all the time and there is a number of people who come and go in his house.
 
The first time he saw the text messages, he felt very sorry. Ampon was speaking with teary eyes that he loved the king and always remained loyal to the monarchy. He has even signed the royal guestbook at Siriraj hospital and paid respect to the body of the King’s sister himself too.
 
Answering the cross-examination questions from the prosecutor, Ampon clarifies that the only number he used was the number -4627 used with a white Motorola phone.
 
Ampon was crying pretty much the whole time towards the end of the hearing. When the prosecutor tried to bring some relevant documents for Ampon to see and approve, the attorney opposed that because Ampon cannot see well. The prosecutor then did not want to continue asking any questions related to the documents and declared out of questions.
 
The hearing finished at 10:30 lasting for only 15 minutes.

The Defense Witness No.3, A (Fictitious name), Defendant’s Granddaughter.

The full judge panel begins the hearing of this juvenile witness at 10:35 AM using the same room no. 801. A social worker was there to help ask questions and take care of the girl.
 
A, 11 years of age, testifies that she is a granddaughter of the defendant and lives together with the defendant. Her family is consisted of her, defendant, grandmother (defendant’s wife) and 2 other siblings, making it 5 people in total.
 
A confirmed that the defendant often left his phone at home while he took her and her siblings to school. She also added that the defendant took her to sign the royal guestbook at Siriraj hospital during her summer vacation in 2009.
 
She replied to the cross-examination question that at home, apart from the family members, there was no other people coming in and out of the house. She has never seen the defendant send SMS’es to anybody. Moreover, when the defendant wanted to call someone, he would open his phonebook first.
 
The hearing of the last defendant witness finished at 10:45 AM. The total duration was only 10 minutes.