72701 said:
Aoey, Krong and his brother wanting to know Wine's secret whereas Baikao said it's okay, when she sees that Wine's uncomfortable. All that matters to her is that Wine's a good person. Why couldn't Krong be the same? Wine should leave him even if they had the chance to be together.
I can't explain Aoey, but for Kong, he originally wanted to know because he's a judge and if he's going to cover for her, it's only fair that he knows, but then he later changed his mind because Wine wanted to break up with him if he found out. Now it just looks like lie after lie. It would be perfect if everyone can be like Baikhao. She wants to know, but she respects Wine's right to privacy. However, unlike Kong, she's not emotionally invested in Wine. She can accept Wine for who she is because it doesn't make that big a deal to her, whereas Kong is romantically involved with her and not knowing something that big seems like a lack of trust in him.
I haven't seen Saturday's episode yet so I can't comment on it, but I think [attempted?] rape and murder is a huge deal regardless if it was self defense or not. I'm not well versed in Thai law, but I believe claiming self defense can be really tricky. Money and power aside, I believe it would be hard to claim self defense if there aren't any witnesses or evidence to support it. Thai police don't just take people's word for it. And if it's ruled self defense, there are 2 types that it can fall under: justifiable and unjustifiable self defense. If it's ruled justifiable self defense, then she/they would have been exhonorated and life goes on. Unjustifiable self defense still carries some prison time. I believe in Thailand, it has to be reasonable force for it to be justifiable self defense. For example, if you were attacked by someone with a knife, you can defend yourself with a knife. If you were attacked by a gun, you can defend yourself with a gun, but if you were attacked by a knife and you killed your attacker with a gun, it's considered overkill or whatever the legal term is. Since that man was unarmed (judging from the previews), it might have been ruled unjustifiable self defense (or murder depending on his family's hue and cry/money). However, he was in the act of causing harm and they were kids, so I don't know if that would have carried any weight in the eyes of the law. As kids, they might not/wouldn't have known all that. To them, murder would have been murder, and since they covered it up (I'm assuming), it looks bad for them unless they have evidence or a witness to back them up.
Sorry, only from Ep. 1-18!