• 
• 

Published on July 29, 2007

 The crime had all the hallmarks of a perfect murder, yet the killer was convicted and sent to death row after unwittingly exposing his own plot. For all the flaws of the Thai justice system, the Supreme Court verdict in the Phassaporn Boonkasemsanti murder case is a landmark decision that sets a new standard for judicial review of ordinary citizens' fight for justice, as well as underlining the deep, dark folly of a man fallen out of love.

Leaving judicial jargon and complex legal issues aside, the high court's ruling read like a Greek tragedy. In 1981, two young gynaecologists fell in love and got married. Wisut and Phassaporn Boonkasemsanti were a model loving couple who built an ideal family with their son and daughter. The husband became a renowned expert on in-vitro fertilisation while the wife had a successful practice.

But the marriage started to unravel in 1998. Wisut saw his lovely wife turning into a pest and Phassaporn cast suspicion on his fidelity. During almost three years of acrimonious marital dispute, police, judges, relatives and family friends were forced to intervene to pacify the estranged couple. They called off divorce proceedings after a settlement, though they remained separated. Afterwards, the two appeared to have poured scorn on one another. Wisut explicitly told his wife in writing that he no longer loved her. Phassaporn retaliated by using the conjugal property to spite him.

On February 20, 2001, Wisut invited Phassaporn out for lunch. Witnesses and security camera footage confirmed the two left the restaurant together. Phassaporn appeared to be clinging to him for support. No one saw or heard from her again.

To this day, Phassaporn's body has not been recovered. Police and prosecutors cannot re-enact the crime with any certainty as to where the murder took place and what weapon or method was used. They have only circumstantial evidence linking Wisut to the murder. The inability to re-enact the crime prompted an initial ruling by public prosecutors to set Wisut free.

The victim's father, Chote Wattanachet, decided to seek justice and filed a criminal lawsuit charging Wisut with first-degree murder, a rare and inspiring example for the Thai justice system. The Office of the Attorney-General subsequently reversed its previous decision and assisted Chote as co-plaintiff.

To the great surprise of law scholars who failed to think outside the box, the Criminal Court decided in October 2002 to commence trial on grounds of blood traces found in the university dormitory room that Wisut checked into on the day the victim was last seen.

Forensic checks confirmed it was Phassaporn's blood. DNA tests also indicated that flesh found in the dormitory cesspool was the victim's, as was flesh found later in the sewers of a Bangkok hotel where Wisut stayed a day after he left the dormitory.

The lower court handed down a guilty verdict in 2003 and sentenced Wisut to death. The Appeals Court confirmed the death penalty in 2005. In the final judicial review, the Supreme Court noted that the defence had rigorously questioned the reliability of DNA tests on decomposed human flesh. But it found no cause to suspect a frame-up against the defendant.

The high court also pointed out that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence. It then ruled on defence evidence for failing to make convincing rebuttals to the circumstantial evidence uncovered by the prosecution. Six days after the victim's disappearance, Wisut went out of his way to falsify two letters to appear like a request by his wife for leave of absence, the verdict said. Witnesses and physical evidence confirmed Wisut's involvement in the two letters, which became the telltale signs linking him to the murder.

The high court outlined the damning evidence, which became available during the appellate review. While in remand, Wisut authorised his son to become the executor of his wife's estate in 2004.

This was tantamount to admitting that Phassaporn was dead, although in court the defence kept raising doubts that the victim might be alive. Reading between the lines, the high court lectured Wisut that he might have eluded capital punishment because of reasonable doubt. His conviction was upheld because he conceded his victim's death.

Wisut has kept his silence about the crime throughout the six-year judicial review. He appears determined to carry the mystery of Phassaporn's death to his grave. But it will take years for the execution of the death penalty and Wisut may see his sentence commuted to life imprisonment if he can secure royal clemency.

Love may be a many-splendoured thing while it lasts. Wisut has become a glaring example of how one can suffer, and make others suffer, from the dire emotional consequences of falling out of love.