• 
• 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the death sentence of gynaecologist Dr Wisut Boonkasemsanti for killing and dismembering Phassaporn before flushing body parts down a toilet six years ago.

Q : Which piece of evidence confirmed to police investigators that Dr Wisut was the real suspect?

A : I've to tell you that this case was complicated because Dr Wisut had filed a police compliant that his wife went missing. It was tough because we had to change his image from an aggrieved party to a suspect. The investigation was complicated because there was no evidence and police had no authority to search Dr Wisut's home because he was the aggrieved party.

Q: At what point did the police start to suspect Dr Wisut and believe he might know something about his wife's disappearance?

A : The investigation at first was based on the belief that his wife went missing. Then we became suspicious while investigating the case. At last, Major-General Saritchai Anekwiang and fellow investigators searched for more evidence and obtained the footage at Oishi Restaurant showing Dr Wisut holding Dr Phassaporn while walking her out. That was the start.

Q: What made you think you would get this evidence at the Oishi Restaurant?

A : It's an investigation technique. Dr Wisut lived around the Chulalongkorn University area which has many restaurants. One of these would have closed-circuit security cameras, so police made great efforts to check the tapes until we found it here.

After we saw that picture, we had to analyse it. We knew that the couple was having divorce-related problems, disputes, and did not live in the same house. Dr Wisut had asked to see her many times before and she would avoid being alone with him for fear of assaults.

That picture of Dr Wisut holding Dr Phassaporn while walking her out was not right, it was not normal of two people who were having problems and divorcing each other. So that was the starting point.

We further investigated why they were holding onto one another. We asked witnesses and workers at the restaurant and they too wondered why Dr Phassaporn looked disoriented.

Dr Wisut told us she was drunk from drinking punch. When we checked back with the restaurant, they insisted they did not sell alcohol drinks but only fruit juices. That was the first suspicion.

Then, no one had ever seen Dr Phassaporn again and that was the last time they were together so we wondered if this action could be an evidence for the prosecution. I happened to find a Supreme Court verdict about something similar.

A husband did not get along with his wife and people saw them last together before the wife disappeared. So the court sentenced [the husband] for illegal detention because she was definitely taken but [he] could not be punished for murder because the body was not found.

We thus used this as the case's starting point. I then ordered the case from the Phyathai police station where Dr Wisut file a missing person complaint to the Pathumwan police station where the picture of the couple walking out of the restaurant was found.

The first charge filed was illegal detention, which changed his status to suspect and authorised us to require and search for evidence, according to the Criminal Code.

Q: They had both been arguing all along. What was the last straw that led the doctor to do this?

A : There were so many reasons that we investigated and, frankly speaking, during the investigation we were asked not to reveal some tarnishing details to the public.

There were many things that pointed to Dr Wisut having a motive, especially the divorce lawsuit or whatever. We checked who would benefit from Dr Phassaporn's death and found Dr Wisut would.

This is a principle in crime cases. If Dr Phassaporn had gone missing for more than three years, she would be considered missing by the Civil Code and Dr Wisut would be the manager of their assets and everything and even have the right to marry another woman.

So, we had to target Dr Wisut and see what suspicious behaviours he had.

Q: The most difficult thing in this case was that there was no murder weapon and body found. People then wondered that, without two such key evidence, how could the case proceed?

A : There was tremendous pressure during the time. Dr Wisut was a famous person and there were pressures from doctors. Dr Wisut was a good man but we had to perform our duty searching for evidence.

If one murders another person, he won't do it for others to see. He would seek an isolated place where no one could see it. Without witnesses, we had to find circumstantial evidence.

I had studied Supreme Court verdicts and saw that in some cases the court had handed punishments in the cases, where although there were no witnesses, the trial investigation had brought before the court circumstantial evidence that pointed to the defendants as the wrongdoers.

We therefore looked for circumstantial evidence.

Q: How long did it take to dismember the body, according to police investigation?

A : I was told by an expert practitioner that those with medical expertise could finish it within an hour.

Q : From news reports, there were two spots, a dormitory of Chulalongkorn University and a room at Sofitel Hotel, for disposing off the body. Reports said one spot was not enough to dispose off the parts?

A : There were many body parts, some weighed 3,300 grams. Portions were disposed until one spot could no longer take anymore. But the parts retrieved from Sofitel were not as important as those found at the Chulalongkorn dormitory.

Q : Dr Wisut has denied the charges from the first day until now.

A : I interrogated Dr Wisut until we became close. He has denied all along but there was nothing to back his denials. In this case, Dr Wisut refused to give testimony in the police investigation but we could talk on everything, but when we interrogated him, he gave no testimony.

Q : Talking to Dr Wisut until you became friends, what attitude and personality did have before the police?

A : He was reserved and very polite. It was strange that three months before he was arrested, we sat on the same table at a wedding party along with Dr Jermsak Pinthong and Dr Wisut cut a fish served there in pieces for other guests.

The investigation was long until we bonded. At our latest meeting, I told him yesterday that I only did my job and my sympathy went for him and he wais me, very politely.

Q : Talking more and more with Dr Wisut, as the chief of the case investigation, did you feel confident?

A : Yes, I was confident. The evidence emerged one by one especially the night that he stayed at Witthayaniwet (Chulalongkorn University's dormitory), where we proved he went to dismember the body and found blood stains.

I tried to locate the next-door guest but couldn't reach the person until later.

We found a guest, who was sleeping next door, who had wondered why the toilet had flushed all night in Dr Wisut's room.

When dismembered, the body must be flushed all night. We also found he had purchased like a dozen of toilet paper rolls. Even those who suffered severe diarrhea could only use up to two rolls.

But that witness was not in the country, or we could have more information.

Q : From an investigation aspect, what did you learn from this case?

A : The lesson from this case was [we should look at] the divorcing issue, and another thing was that we can create a benchmark emphasising that in some cases, even without witnesses, clear circumstantial evidence can lead the court to punish the defendants.

This is a warning to future criminals and in cases of rape and murder who try to cover up the crimes nowadays. I warn you that if you commit such a crime, don't think you are going to get away with it.

This case used a lot of forensic evidence as proof to convince the court because (the evidence were) straight-forward as they could not be bought to cheat or lie.