Autopsy confirms death of key witness in Red Bull heir’s case was accidental

 

 

A second autopsy, conducted on the body of Julachart Mardthong, a key defence witness in Red Bull heir’s hit-and-run case, has confirmed a police report that he died in an accident and that there was no foul play.

 

The finding was disclosed at a news conference this afternoon (Monday) by Pol Lt-Gen Prachuab Wongsook, commissioner of 5th Region Provincial Police, Dr. Bannakit Lojanaphiwat, Dean of the Medical Science Faculty at Chiangmai University and Associate Professor Dr. Kanda Mekjaidee, Chief of the Forensic Science Department at the same university.

 

Pol Lt-Gen Prachuab said that Mr. Jurachart sustained a fractured skull, a broken brain stem, shattered spleen and six broken ribs, with bleeding in the stomach and brain.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/autopsy-confirms-death-of-key-witness-in-red-bull-heirs-case-was-accidental/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2020-08-04

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

8 minutes ago, webfact said:

A second autopsy, conducted on the body of Julachart Mardthong, a key defence witness in Red Bull heir’s hit-and-run case, has confirmed a police report that he died in an accident and that there was no foul play.

I didn't know an autopsy could confirm that a death was an accident. Only in Thailand can autopsies confirm intent! 

Amazing Thailand.

phew  glad  thats been  "sorted"

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Pol Lt-Gen Prachuab said that Mr. Jurachart sustained a fractured skull, a broken brain stem, shattered spleen and six broken ribs, with bleeding in the stomach and brain.

when you get hit by a cement truck head on what do you expect.

Concrete overdose.

1 hour ago, bodga said:

phew  glad  thats been  "sorted"

Yes

The autopsy can identify his injuries that likely caused death, and also confirm that there is no bullet wound, but as Fex points out above that should not be inferring anything else about intent.

Did they do toxicology? 

Edited August 3, 20205 yr by DoctorG
tox add

LOL. Yeah, sure it was. You needed an autopsy to tell he was in an accident? Uh, duh. But the accident was planned.

a broken brain stem,

 

Now I know they are joking

14 minutes ago, brucegoniners said:

LOL. Yeah, sure it was. You needed an autopsy to tell he was in an accident? Uh, duh. But the accident was planned.

So you think he planned his own death by driving smack into the back of another motorbike while under the influence?? 

 

Dont need an autopsy to work that one out....just watch the video!

3 hours ago, Fex Bluse said:

I didn't know an autopsy could confirm that a death was an accident. Only in Thailand can autopsies confirm intent! 

That statement doesn’t hold any water generally speaking. There’s quite a few cases in which an autopsy can determine whether someone died accidentally/due to suicide or murder. Let’s say they find someone with a bullet hole in his head. If it was suicide then the wound will show all the hallmarks of a contact shot, plus there will be gunshot residue on the hand he used in places that are consistent with the angle at which the bullet entered the head etc. as opposed to a bullet that entered at the back of the head or a fatal knife wound in the back.

 

In this particular case the injuries he sustained are consistent with a motorcycle crash, if they did examine the blood as well they would’ve found any poisons or the likes and since the deceased was the one who hit the other bikes from behind it’s pretty safe to say that it was either an accident or maybe a suicide, but not foul play. 

Edited August 4, 20205 yr by pacovl46

3 hours ago, webfact said:

A second autopsy, conducted on the body of Julachart Mardthong, a key defence witness in Red Bull heir’s hit-and-run case, has confirmed a police report that he died in an accident and that there was no foul play.

Of course it did wouldn't have expected any other verdict - What caliber was it ............LOL

23 minutes ago, ChipButty said:

a broken brain stem,

 

Now I know they are joking

A brainstem can snap...

And the other guy involved? What were his injuries? Does anyone know or does he also exhibit the same injuries consistent with a head on collision with a cement truck?

Wouldn’t have expected any other outcome but this one, after all, this is Thailand. Where anything can be done by those in the know and the privileged few.

The majority of people knew what the outcome was going to be before the autopsy took place 

1 hour ago, findlay13 said:

Yes

Of course, I was surprised!  My grandmother used to quote, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we do deceived."

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Autopsy confirms death of key witness in Red Bull heir’s case was accidental

 

As clear as the evidence may appear…the ever-vigilant People’s General feels there may still be tomfoolery afoot.

 

Therefore, as the government’s self-appointed 'Autopsy-Verifier-in-Chief', the General will personally conduct a third autopsy on the second autopsy…that resulted from...the first autopsy. He will be assisted by the Honorable 'Vice-Autopsy-Verifier' Prawit who, with many dead friends, has a wealth of experience confirming whether of not someone is actually dead.

 

Once the subject's death is officially confirmed...he will be eligible to be released on bail.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 20205 yr by Hayduke

I thought it was a guy who lost control of his motorbike a few days ago? Or am I confused? Why is there a car in the picture?

Well, I was under two impressions, which are/were...

 

#1 That this guy was a witness on Boss's side, and not for the general public's. He was testifying that the car wasn't going fast, or that the cop suddenly pulled in front of poor Boss, who couldn't stop.

#2 That one of the main reasons for the autopsy was to determine that this guy died AFTER becoming a witness, so as to show that the RTP / Boss's lawyers aren't using the testimony of someone who was already dead before testifying, if that makes sense.

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

That statement doesn’t hold any water generally speaking. There’s quite a few cases in which an autopsy can determine whether someone died accidentally/due to suicide or murder. Let’s say they find someone with a bullet hole in his head. If it was suicide then the wound will show all the hallmarks of a contact shot, plus there will be gunshot residue on the hand he used in places that are consistent with the angle at which the bullet entered the head etc. as opposed to a bullet that entered at the back of the head or a fatal knife wound in the back.

 

In this particular case the injuries he sustained are consistent with a motorcycle crash, if they did examine the blood as well they would’ve found any poisons or the likes and since the deceased was the one who hit the other bikes from behind it’s pretty safe to say that it was either an accident or maybe a suicide, but not foul play. 

If I intentionally run someone down with a vehicle, will the autopsy be able to indicate whether it was an accident?

An autopsy can not confirm whether an accident or not....

 

injuries causing death...

 

how can pathologist determine if he was off the road or ran into something or something ran into him? 
 

that is not their job.... 

 

This statement treats the public as stupid...

4 hours ago, Fex Bluse said:

I didn't know an autopsy could confirm that a death was an accident. Only in Thailand can autopsies confirm intent! 

..perhaps they left out those key-words..'consistent with'.

Only a Coroner can make that finding once an Inquest has been opened, witness evidence etc heard and examined.

When will they ever learn here!

Lesson 1. Reporters and Police are not Coroners.

RIP.

Your Grand mother was quoting a famous Scottish author, Sir Walter Scott, let's give him credit

 

"Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,’ is a very ‘Shakespearean’ phrase, however, it is not from Shakespeare. It comes from an early nineteenth century Scottish author, Sir Walter Scott, best selling writer of novels, plays, and poems."

Apart from the autopsy confirming that there was no 9mm hole to the victims head....what possible other cause of death could of autopsy find?

There are some coincidences which truly are to large to just be coincidences...

 

If it was not a coincidences, surely the testimony of a witness who whilst all this is going on is out getting legless and killing himself in a drink driving incident does not exactly solid. The other strange thing was his family said they never even knew he was there, or involved.

4 hours ago, webfact said:

A second autopsy, conducted on the body of Julachart Mardthong, a key defence witness in Red Bull heir’s hit-and-run case, has confirmed a police report that he died in an accident and that there was no foul play.

You can tell where this is going by them probing a deceased persons body.
Why not bring the living witness into a quiet room, strap a lie detector to him and then start asking some difficult questions?

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

That statement doesn’t hold any water generally speaking. There’s quite a few cases in which an autopsy can determine whether someone died accidentally/due to suicide or murder. Let’s say they find someone with a bullet hole in his head. If it was suicide then the wound will show all the hallmarks of a contact shot, plus there will be gunshot residue on the hand he used in places that are consistent with the angle at which the bullet entered the head etc. as opposed to a bullet that entered at the back of the head or a fatal knife wound in the back.

 

In this particular case the injuries he sustained are consistent with a motorcycle crash, if they did examine the blood as well they would’ve found any poisons or the likes and since the deceased was the one who hit the other bikes from behind it’s pretty safe to say that it was either an accident or maybe a suicide, but not foul play. 

Shows the danger of jumping to a conclusion without properly examining the evidence and all the options of how that evidence could have been caused. Contact shot and gunshot residue only shows that the gun was in contact with the head and not whose hand was on the trigger. Gunshot residue can be transferred after death by the perpetrator. The CCTV "evidence" could have been manufactured and the injuries from the "accident" could have been caused by a number of incidents. Only by eliminating all the other possibilities can you be confident how the injuries were sustained. I would be calling for, interviewing and taking statements from all the witnesses to the collision, gathering CCTV evidence from other cameras on the route from the bar to the collision scene, and taking statements from staff and customers at the bar. That would constitute part of a thorough investigation, especially with all the "coincidences" that occurred.