Helen Pavara defends Kratik over Tangmo case boat photo
Helen Pavara reveals after speaking with Kratik that she never sent Kwan Usamanee boat photo to police, urging tipsters to reveal their real names.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Helen Pavara discussed the Tangmo case boat evidence with Kratik for two consecutive days.
- Kratik firmly denied submitting the photo of Kwan Usamanee boat to the police.
- Kratik stated her phone was seized and she underwent nearly 24 hours of police interrogation.
- Helen challenged anonymous tipsters using initials to reveal their identities, promising public financial support.
The high-profile Tangmo Nida drowning case has sparked renewed public discussion online following allegations that Kratik Idsarin provided a specific boat photograph to investigating officers, claiming it was the incident vessel. It was later revealed that the image actually featured a boat belonging to actress Kwan Usamanee, leading to heavy criticism.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
Recently, actress and TV personality Helen Pavara, who had a two-day conversation with Kratik regarding the controversy, shared her perspective on the matter. According to Helen, Kratik strongly denied being the source of the leaked photograph, insisting that investigators obtained the evidence independently and questioning where the police acquired it.
"I never sent any evidence. The police went and found the evidence themselves. During that time, the police took my phone for two days and interrogated me back and forth for almost 24 hours. Therefore, Kratik was not the one who retrieved that photo."
Helen clarified that her stance is based on logic and reality rather than taking sides. She also expressed skepticism toward individuals who continue digging up and linking various elements of the closed case, suggesting that such actions are often driven by online engagement and ratings rather than genuine pursuit of justice, as other topics might fail to attract viewers.
In terms of legal proceedings and closed court cases, bringing up past evidence or unverified claims on social media frequently generates massive digital engagement. However, relying solely on veiled initials and rumor-mongering without concrete proof or legal accountability exposes commentators to potential defamation liabilities, which forms the core of Helen Pavara's critique regarding anonymous whistleblowers.
Concluding her remarks, Helen challenged individuals who continuously drop cryptic hints and initials to step forward and reveal their true identities instead of hiding behind ambiguity. She expressed confidence that if such individuals face legal lawsuits for speaking out, the public and online followers who closely follow the case would willingly provide financial backing for their legal defense.
Source: Thairath Entertainment
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment