'Leaked' Reports Blame Thai Military For Some Crackdown Deaths

[webfact]

'Leaked' reports blame military for some crackdown deaths

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Documents supposedly leaked from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) appear to place the blame for most of the deaths in the April-May military crackdown firmly on the military.

The set of documents, purported to be investigation reports by the DSI, covered the deaths of 16 people killed in demonstrations between April and May. The reports conclude that the deaths of at least 13 of these victims were "likely caused by soldiers" deployed and acting on duty.

The reports, obtained by The Nation from a reliable source who asked not to be identified, were cross-checked and confirmed as being authentic by at least one witness, German photographer Nicolas Nostitz, who was interrogated by the DSI.

The 10 case reports covering 16 deaths include a DSI conclusion that the death of Japanese photographer Hiroyuki Muramoto of Reuters News Agency on April 10 "likely occurred from the actions of Army officer(s) acting on their duty".

After considering evidence and statements by many, the reports also concluded that three of six deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram on the evening of May 19 were also "likely the work of [security] officers carrying out their duties".

All 10 leaked reports, which cover 16 deaths, contained detailed accounts by witnesses, and most of the investigations were concluded in November.

In the case of the action at Wat Pathum Wanaram, the document cited five soldiers-cum-witnesses who admitted having fired live ammunition towards the temple area on that fateful evening.

Witness No 32, a Special Forces soldier whose name is withheld by The Nation, stated that he "fired warning shot(s) towards the wall of Wat Pathum Wanaram" with an M16A2 rifle.

While none of the five admitted causing any deaths or injuries, some witnesses cited in the report claimed they actually saw soldiers shoot some of the six people who died.

Civilian witness No 25, whose name is withheld by The Nation, stated: "The witness saw soldiers on the Skytrain track shooting towards the medical-aid tent [in front of the temple] and saw Ms Kamolkaet [Akhad] and another medical volunteer being shot at in the tent, and [they] later died. The other person's name was later discovered to be Mr Akaradet Kankaew."

Another witness, No 23, said he was shot and injured three times by six men in camouflage uniform on the Skytrain track. "The men on the track shot another round but missed me," he was quoted on page 8 of the report.

The report also stated that among evidence in the temple case were recorded "moving pictures" of the incident and forensic reports revealing that a number of wounds were sustained from high-speed bullets fired from a high angle.

In the case of Japanese photographer Muramoto, the report contained a witness account stating that bullets were seen fired from the soldiers' line towards Muramoto with light flashing from the gun barrels. This matched the last part of the video footage from Muramoto's camera, which identified him as being in a crowd of red shirts when he fell.

Witness No 3, a police officer who was near Muramoto, was quoted in part of the report: "The witness saw soldiers placing rifles aimed at the body-level of the witness. At that moment, he heard a sound of a hard object hitting the ground and [he] saw a foreign reporter - later identified as Mr Hiroyuki Muramoto, who was carrying a large video camera - falling on his back on the footpath with his head pointing towards Satriwitaya School's gate."

The source of the leaked report also told The Nation that all the files, both in Thai and English, would be uploaded on a yet-to-be-identified site by today.

-- The Nation 2010-12-24

[whybother]

.... appear to place the blame for most of the deaths in the April-May military crackdown firmly on the military.

The set of documents, purported to be investigation reports by the DSI, covered the deaths of 16 people killed in demonstrations between April and May. The reports conclude that the deaths of at least 13 of these victims were "likely caused by soldiers" deployed and acting on duty.

How does 13 deaths "place the blame for most of the deaths in April May ... firmly on the military"? Weren't there 90 deaths. 13 out of 90 is not most.

I'm sure there are more, but it's a misleading statement based on reports from only a small number of deaths.

[Emptyset]

.... appear to place the blame for most of the deaths in the April-May military crackdown firmly on the military.

The set of documents, purported to be investigation reports by the DSI, covered the deaths of 16 people killed in demonstrations between April and May. The reports conclude that the deaths of at least 13 of these victims were "likely caused by soldiers" deployed and acting on duty.

How does 13 deaths "place the blame for most of the deaths in April May ... firmly on the military"? Weren't there 90 deaths. 13 out of 90 is not most.

I'm sure there are more, but it's a misleading statement based on reports from only a small number of deaths.

Agree with you, it seems to suggest that most deaths during the protests were down to the military (which I'm pretty sure they were but many will be hard to prove), when actually he's only talking about 13 out of 16 of the reports he's seen. However, we should remember that the military says they didn't kill anyone, so that must cast some serious doubt on these supposedly "leaked" documents.

[Emptyset]

My last sentence was obviously sarcastic before anyone accuses me of being "disingenuous" again.

[whybother]

Agree with you, it seems to suggest that most deaths during the protests were down to the military (which I'm pretty sure they were but many will be hard to prove), when actually he's only talking about 13 out of 16 of the reports he's seen. However, we should remember that the military says they didn't kill anyone, so that must cast some serious doubt on these supposedly "leaked" documents.

Have the military said they have never killed anyone, or have they said they aren't responsible for any deaths?

I think the documents are probably legit, but I'd like to see the reasons as to why the soldiers were shooting down into the wat.

Haven't these leaked documents been reported on 2 or 3 times over the last couple of months (including on a couple of threads in TV).

[AZBill]

Not possible! The government said it wasn't them but the "men in black." The Thai government would never lie

[Emptyset]

Agree with you, it seems to suggest that most deaths during the protests were down to the military (which I'm pretty sure they were but many will be hard to prove), when actually he's only talking about 13 out of 16 of the reports he's seen. However, we should remember that the military says they didn't kill anyone, so that must cast some serious doubt on these supposedly "leaked" documents.

Have the military said they have never killed anyone, or have they said they aren't responsible for any deaths?

I think the documents are probably legit, but I'd like to see the reasons as to why the soldiers were shooting down into the wat.

Haven't these leaked documents been reported on 2 or 3 times over the last couple of months (including on a couple of threads in TV).

Yes, many times and they're still in denial despite already being aware that documents were being leaked. The latest denial comes courtesy of Sansern: “I can categorically deny that the army has killed or hurt any Red Shirts or protesters, including the Japanese journalist,” he says. “Killing those persons would bring us no benefit whatsoever.”

http://asiancorrespondent.com/43962/thai-military-we-have-not-hurt-or-killed-any-reds/

They said they were shooting into the wat because there was a gunman inside, but nobody inside the temple can confirm that. Mark Mackinnon who was present at the wat, said on twitter: "It was dark, I couldn't see everything, but I walked and ran through all parts of temple several times. I saw slingshots, clubs, no guns. Thai report says soldiers shot at from inside temple. I saw fireworks launched towards soldiers from just outside Wat, no gunmen inside."

[Thailand]

Ooops.

It wasn't us.

[asiawatcher]

It never cease to amaze me how in crowds of thousands, there are army firing at people and how could they miss? I mean, get real, talk about a turkey shoot! Then to find by eye witness accounts they saw guys in camouflage uniforms firing directly at people who was to say they were not rubber bullets? None of this has an consequence or reality. Then the DSI have found 13 (of the 91!!!!) were attributable to army! Big freakin' deal ...

You go to protest and hold a city to ransom for more than a month and expect when it finally goes too far and army are called in - people are not going to get hurt or die? Please - go back to the farm, tend to the buffalo and look after your children. It is far safer than trying to pick up 500 Baht a day from a criminal who never really paid anything from his pocket, because he took it all from you in the first place and you still can't see it! Sad - really sad.

Edited December 24, 2010 by asiawatcher

[ChiangMaiFun]

Not possible! The government said it wasn't them but the "men in black." The Thai government would never lie

Indeed... maybe they are colour blind? looks like some of those guys 'in green' were 'black' - surprise, surprise

[Emptyset]

It never cease to amaze me how in crowds of thousands, there are army firing at people and how could they miss? I mean, get real, talk about a turkey shoot! Then to find by eye witness accounts they saw guys in camouflage uniforms firing directly at people who was to say they were not rubber bullets? None of this has an consequence or reality. Then the DSI have found 13 (of the 91!!!!) were attributable to army! Big freakin' deal ...

You go to protest and hold a city to ransom for more than a month and expect when it finally goes too far and army are called in - people are not going to get hurt or die? Please - go back to the farm, tend to the buffalo and look after your children. It is far safer than trying to pick up 500 Baht a day from a criminal who never really paid anything from his pocket, because he took it all from you in the first place and you still can't see it! Sad - really sad.

I see some are still pushing the line that they put their lives on the line for extra pocket money. There are plenty of criticisms you could make against the red shirts based on fact, so why use that one, which seems to me to be no more than rumour designed to discredit them?

Why can't some accept that soldiers were responsible for most - not all - but most of the killings, because that's what the evidence points to? Maybe they were justified in most, if not all, of their actions, we don't know, until we see specific evidence for every killing. But, for me, it's not necessarily about the violence, more the competing ideals & justifications. I mean, the government might have put down a fascist movement, but it wouldn't necessarily make all the killings justifiable. Similarly they might have put down a democracy movement, but a democracy movement with guns. Even if, for the sake of argument, the red shirts were a democracy movement, does that make the violence conducted on their part justifiable under these circumstances? Probably not... imo the killings by the state in no way legitimate the red shirts, but nor does the violence on their part necessarily make their movement less justified. However, as Thaihome pointed out the other day, if there were evidence that their leaders planned to get people deliberately killed, it'd be a different matter. But it'd only discredit the leaders, not the movement itself nor the ideals at stake.

[whybother]

I see some are still pushing the line that they put their lives on the line for extra pocket money. There are plenty of criticisms you could make against the red shirts based on fact, so why use that one, which seems to me to be no more than rumour designed to discredit them?

Why can't some accept that soldiers were responsible for most - not all - but most of the killings, because that's what the evidence points to? Maybe they were justified in most, if not all, of their actions, we don't know, until we see specific evidence for every killing. But, for me, it's not necessarily about the violence, more the competing ideals & justifications. I mean, the government might have put down a fascist movement, but it wouldn't necessarily make all the killings justifiable. Similarly they might have put down a democracy movement, but a democracy movement with guns. Even if, for the sake of argument, the red shirts were a democracy movement, does that make the violence conducted on their part justifiable under these circumstances? Probably not... imo the killings by the state in no way legitimate the red shirts, but nor does the violence on their part necessarily make their movement less justified. However, as Thaihome pointed out the other day, if there were evidence that their leaders planned to get people deliberately killed, it'd be a different matter. But it'd only discredit the leaders, not the movement itself nor the ideals at stake.

I think most of the argument on TVF (and probably elsewhere) is based around the definition of "responsible for".

[wackysleet]

.... appear to place the blame for most of the deaths in the April-May military crackdown firmly on the military.

The set of documents, purported to be investigation reports by the DSI, covered the deaths of 16 people killed in demonstrations between April and May. The reports conclude that the deaths of at least 13 of these victims were "likely caused by soldiers" deployed and acting on duty.

How does 13 deaths "place the blame for most of the deaths in April May ... firmly on the military"? Weren't there 90 deaths. 13 out of 90 is not most.

I'm sure there are more, but it's a misleading statement based on reports from only a small number of deaths.

They are talking about the reports of the 16 cases purported to have been investigated and the figure of 13 does represent most.

Perhaps there will will be more revelations about the remaining deaths that will alter the figures but at the moment they are correct.

[somo]

.... appear to place the blame for most of the deaths in the April-May military crackdown firmly on the military.

The set of documents, purported to be investigation reports by the DSI, covered the deaths of 16 people killed in demonstrations between April and May. The reports conclude that the deaths of at least 13 of these victims were "likely caused by soldiers" deployed and acting on duty.

How does 13 deaths "place the blame for most of the deaths in April May ... firmly on the military"? Weren't there 90 deaths. 13 out of 90 is not most.

I'm sure there are more, but it's a misleading statement based on reports from only a small number of deaths.

They are talking about the reports of the 16 cases purported to have been investigated and the figure of 13 does represent most.

Perhaps there will will be more revelations about the remaining deaths that will alter the figures but at the moment they are correct.

Correct. They blame the soldiers for 13 out of 16 deaths. That is NOT to say the other three were down to the redshirts but are yet to be determined. So far it is 13-0 to the army and 3 unknown. Pretty damning as the investigators are part of the administration responsible.

[rubl]

begin removed, still in original post ...

Yes, many times and they're still in denial despite already being aware that documents were being leaked. The latest denial comes courtesy of Sansern: �I can categorically deny that the army has killed or hurt any Red Shirts or protesters, including the Japanese journalist,� he says. �Killing those persons would bring us no benefit whatsoever.�

http://asiancorrespondent.com/43962/thai-military-we-have-not-hurt-or-killed-any-reds/

They said they were shooting into the wat because there was a gunman inside, but nobody inside the temple can confirm that. Mark Mackinnon who was present at the wat, said on twitter: "It was dark, I couldn't see everything, but I walked and ran through all parts of temple several times. I saw slingshots, clubs, no guns. Thai report says soldiers shot at from inside temple. I saw fireworks launched towards soldiers from just outside Wat, no gunmen inside."

Probably about 60+ deaths will be attributed to soldiers shooting straight (i.e. resulting in a kill). The rest either shot or attacked with grenades by 'unknowns'.

Not easy for any army to admit, read up on Iraq and Afghanistan for example. It did happen, regrettable, maybe avoidable. Having said that the provocation by red-shirts and the 'unknown black shirts' on April 10th made is nearly impossible to avoid further deaths. Too many newsflashes, especially around 14 - 19th of May talk about 'exchange of gunfire'. Interesting, against unarmed, bare-handed 'peaceful protesters'.

Provocation started in March already, inconsistency as well:

"“We will storm the places where soldiers camp out. We’ll shake the fence. We’ll cut the barbed wire. We’ll march through the barricades. We’ll march for democracy!” a leader of the “Red Shirt” protesters, Nattawut Saikua, shouted to the crowd. “This is where we’ll end military suppression. This is where we’ll create democracy.”"

and

“It is not our aim today to use violence. We’ll be visiting these soldiers as friends,” said another protest leader, Veera Muksikapong. “They would know that we come in good will.”

from the 27th of March http://asiancorrespondent.com/30358/reds-go-over-the-army/

Edited December 24, 2010 by rubl

[Emptyset]

begin removed, still in original post ...

Yes, many times and they're still in denial despite already being aware that documents were being leaked. The latest denial comes courtesy of Sansern: �I can categorically deny that the army has killed or hurt any Red Shirts or protesters, including the Japanese journalist,� he says. �Killing those persons would bring us no benefit whatsoever.�

http://asiancorrespo...illed-any-reds/

They said they were shooting into the wat because there was a gunman inside, but nobody inside the temple can confirm that. Mark Mackinnon who was present at the wat, said on twitter: "It was dark, I couldn't see everything, but I walked and ran through all parts of temple several times. I saw slingshots, clubs, no guns. Thai report says soldiers shot at from inside temple. I saw fireworks launched towards soldiers from just outside Wat, no gunmen inside."

Probably about 60+ deaths will be attributed to soldiers shooting straight (i.e. resulting in a kill). The rest either shot or attacked with grenades by 'unknowns'.

Not easy for any army to admit, read up on Iraq and Afghanistan for example. It did happen, regrettable, maybe avoidable. Having said that the provocation by red-shirts and the 'unknown black shirts' on April 10th made is nearly impossible to avoid further deaths. Too many newsflashes, especially around 14 - 19th of May talk about 'exchange of gunfire'. Interesting, against unarmed, bare-handed 'peaceful protesters'.

Provocation started in March already, inconsistency as well:

"“We will storm the places where soldiers camp out. We’ll shake the fence. We’ll cut the barbed wire. We’ll march through the barricades. We’ll march for democracy!” a leader of the “Red Shirt” protesters, Nattawut Saikua, shouted to the crowd. “This is where we’ll end military suppression. This is where we’ll create democracy.”"

and

“It is not our aim today to use violence. We’ll be visiting these soldiers as friends,” said another protest leader, Veera Muksikapong. “They would know that we come in good will.”

from the 27th of March http://asiancorrespo...-over-the-army/

"Not easy for any army to admit"... right, no one will be prosecuted on the army side, maybe that's why they should just issue a blanket amnesty? Well... I'm against it, I'd rather all those at fault pay, but I can see red shirt militants paying but no one on the side of the state, least that's how it looks right now. To avoid further fury over "double standards" maybe that's the best way? Though you could argue that Thai history keeps repeating itself because no one ever pays for their crimes. Chamlong and Suchinda both received amnesties after 92', but were both equally culpable? Definitely not.

[Insight]

Given how much evidence has been doctored and misrepresented as of late (video clips featuring judges, audio clips etc), it will be interesting to see if there's any claims of this leaked report being altered.

The witness accounts might line up, but given that none of the soldiers have actually confessed and instead the conclusion seems to be based on eyewitnesses sighting people in camouflaged clothing on the skytrain tracks, I have my doubts.

[Pi Sek]

Well, these reports are what we've all been waiting for. Since the DSI investigations were concluded in November, it's time that they were publicised... so good!

If the reports are genuine (I hope they are and I can't why they wouldn't be, but am a bit skeptical due to the misrepresentation of truth from, well, all sides!), we now have a candid answer to 16 of the 91 cases... let's hope the other 75 cases are concluded and results publicised soon, which won't be easy as I'm sure we can all appreciate.

Note however that, in addition to the deaths being "likely caused by soldiers" deployed, the reports say...

acting on duty

What does this actually mean? Self defence? Or in uniform?

I'm looking forward to seeing that Web URL for the full leaked reports before it gets shut down!

6 months ago, not many people saw both sides as wrong, they tended to back one side over the other quite unreservedly. Now I see it's only Jatuporn and Sansern!

[Emptyset]

Given how much evidence has been doctored and misrepresented as of late (video clips featuring judges, audio clips etc), it will be interesting to see if there's any claims of this leaked report being altered.

The witness accounts might line up, but given that none of the soldiers have actually confessed and instead the conclusion seems to be based on eyewitnesses sighting people in camouflaged clothing on the skytrain tracks, I have my doubts.

Reuters got hold of similar reports a couple of weeks ago, they claim they were leaked directly from the DSI and not by the UDD. They say the UDD were given parts of the reports initially but they got the full DSI reports before Jatuporn got hold of them. Obviously an insider wants the truth out there, for whatever reason. But only a few reports leaked so far, maybe other reports incomplete, inconclusive or point to black shirt involvement in the deaths? (Because why just leak these reports? Why not leak all the reports that point to military culpability?) I don't know. Suppose we'll find out given time.

[Orac]

Note however that, in addition to the deaths being "likely caused by soldiers" deployed, the reports say...

acting on duty

What does this actually mean? Self defence? Or in uniform?

It could also mean under orders which has significant implications however we need to wait for these reports to be published in full. Surely, since they are complete and subject to so much controversy, the sooner they are officially released the better.

[Pi Sek]

Note however that, in addition to the deaths being "likely caused by soldiers" deployed, the reports say...

acting on duty

What does this actually mean? Self defence? Or in uniform?

It could also mean under orders which has significant implications however we need to wait for these reports to be published in full. Surely, since they are complete and subject to so much controversy, the sooner they are officially released the better.

Well, the CRES's orders were quite clear, or least at the public version of them was; the army was to clear the main protest site using rubber bullets and tear gas. Live rounds were only to be fired into the air above protesters’ heads and the only personnel with live ammunition were to be the officers at the rear of the formation.

So the blame can't really be placed on the govt/CRES, unless it is found that the publicised orders were not the same orders given to the army. That means, if these orders weren't followed, the blame must rest with the army - i.e. the generals, the CO of the soldiers present (obviously if the CO was killed immediately, the 2IC has to shoulder some responsibility) or the soldiers themselves, for disobeying their orders... at whichever level the orders changed.

[ballpoint]

Of course the army killed some of them, if not most. That was the whole aim of the reds' April policy - take out officers, shoot a few of their own, cause fear and hate on both sides. After that, all that was required was for occasional real gunfire from the red side, and many news agency reported "an exchange of gunfire", so don't try and tell us that none of the reds were armed, in amongst all the fireworks and rockets to continue the situation. You must admit it was masterly planning on the reds side. By keeping the gunmen largely hidden after April, most witnesses could truthfully say that they saw no armed protestors, and the army would be demonised by the general public. Let's not forget though, that the reds have many of the old "dirty tricks" instigators of previous army crackdowns and brutalities on their side, a fact not often acknowledged by their supporters. Let's also not forget that we are talking about 91 deaths, not all of them red, out of tens of thousands of protestors. The reds, and many of their supporters here, would have us believe that the army went around blasting at anything that moved, indiscriminantly firing into groups of protestors. A "fact" that is very easily revealed to be a lie by the extremely low casualty to protestor ratio - and I'm not trying to be callous here, just making a point. It's also very revealing that, despite the enormous number of mobile phones equipped with still and video cameras in the country, there is very little documented evidence of any of the accusations, as per the events in Iran earlier in the year.

Interestingly, they (the reds and their supporters here) tried a similar approach in "Black Songkran" 2009, where the same accusations about indiscriminant military shooting at protestors was made, most famously by "I'm not their leader, and it's not all about me" Thaksin in several interviews with the Western media. When challenged to produce bodies, or even evidence in the form of bullet marked trees and buildings, things went quiet. They obviously learned from that and made damned sure there were bodies to be found this time around.

[fxe1200]

Nobody never will be held responsible!

Did anybody heard until today, that those responsible for the Tak Bai Massacre on October 25th 2004 had been held responsible for their doing??? 85 people died. I did not hear anything!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tak+bai&aq=f

Nobody within the military will get charged for whatever they do, or is being leaked. Those responsible (will) live with new paperwork and pension at an undisclosed location, or "work" at an "inactive post" with full salary.

T.I.T

Edited December 24, 2010 by fxe1200

[wackysleet]

Of course the army killed some of them, if not most. That was the whole aim of the reds' April policy - take out officers, shoot a few of their own, cause fear and hate on both sides. After that, all that was required was for occasional real gunfire from the red side, and many news agency reported "an exchange of gunfire", so don't try and tell us that none of the reds were armed, in amongst all the fireworks and rockets to continue the situation. You must admit it was masterly planning on the reds side. By keeping the gunmen largely hidden after April, most witnesses could truthfully say that they saw no armed protestors, and the army would be demonised by the general public. Let's not forget though, that the reds have many of the old "dirty tricks" instigators of previous army crackdowns and brutalities on their side, a fact not often acknowledged by their supporters. Let's also not forget that we are talking about 91 deaths, not all of them red, out of tens of thousands of protestors. The reds, and many of their supporters here, would have us believe that the army went around blasting at anything that moved, indiscriminantly firing into groups of protestors. A "fact" that is very easily revealed to be a lie by the extremely low casualty to protestor ratio - and I'm not trying to be callous here, just making a point. It's also very revealing that, despite the enormous number of mobile phones equipped with still and video cameras in the country, there is very little documented evidence of any of the accusations, as per the events in Iran earlier in the year.

Interestingly, they (the reds and their supporters here) tried a similar approach in "Black Songkran" 2009, where the same accusations about indiscriminant military shooting at protestors was made, most famously by "I'm not their leader, and it's not all about me" Thaksin in several interviews with the Western media. When challenged to produce bodies, or even evidence in the form of bullet marked trees and buildings, things went quiet. They obviously learned from that and made damned sure there were bodies to be found this time around.

What a cynical biased viewpoint.

[random]

Well, these reports are what we've all been waiting for. Since the DSI investigations were concluded in November, it's time that they were publicised... so good!

If the reports are genuine (I hope they are and I can't why they wouldn't be, but am a bit skeptical due to the misrepresentation of truth from, well, all sides!), we now have a candid answer to 16 of the 91 cases... let's hope the other 75 cases are concluded and results publicised soon, which won't be easy as I'm sure we can all appreciate.

Note however that, in addition to the deaths being "likely caused by soldiers" deployed, the reports say...

acting on duty

What does this actually mean? Self defence? Or in uniform?

I'm looking forward to seeing that Web URL for the full leaked reports before it gets shut down!

6 months ago, not many people saw both sides as wrong, they tended to back one side over the other quite unreservedly. Now I see it's only Jatuporn and Sansern!

Well it seems my facts were indeed factual after all, whoda thunk it

That nasty japanese photographer was such a threat

[whybother]

.... appear to place the blame for most of the deaths in the April-May military crackdown firmly on the military.

The set of documents, purported to be investigation reports by the DSI, covered the deaths of 16 people killed in demonstrations between April and May. The reports conclude that the deaths of at least 13 of these victims were "likely caused by soldiers" deployed and acting on duty.

How does 13 deaths "place the blame for most of the deaths in April May ... firmly on the military"? Weren't there 90 deaths. 13 out of 90 is not most.

I'm sure there are more, but it's a misleading statement based on reports from only a small number of deaths.

They are talking about the reports of the 16 cases purported to have been investigated and the figure of 13 does represent most.

Perhaps there will will be more revelations about the remaining deaths that will alter the figures but at the moment they are correct.

It doesn't say most of the deaths out of the 16 reported. It says most of the death "April-May military crackdown".

Documents supposedly leaked from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) appear to place the blame for most of the deaths in the April-May military crackdown firmly on the military.

I am sure that reports of all the deaths will show that the army killed a lot of them. But it's not like the army was fighting against innocent unarmed protesters, is it?

[Insight]

Given how much evidence has been doctored and misrepresented as of late (video clips featuring judges, audio clips etc), it will be interesting to see if there's any claims of this leaked report being altered.

The witness accounts might line up, but given that none of the soldiers have actually confessed and instead the conclusion seems to be based on eyewitnesses sighting people in camouflaged clothing on the skytrain tracks, I have my doubts.

Reuters got hold of similar reports a couple of weeks ago, they claim they were leaked directly from the DSI and not by the UDD. They say the UDD were given parts of the reports initially but they got the full DSI reports before Jatuporn got hold of them. Obviously an insider wants the truth out there, for whatever reason. But only a few reports leaked so far, maybe other reports incomplete, inconclusive or point to black shirt involvement in the deaths? (Because why just leak these reports? Why not leak all the reports that point to military culpability?) I don't know. Suppose we'll find out given time.

This just in:

DSI chief: red shirt crackdown investigation report never concluded that soldiers were behind deaths that happened

Guess who I believe.

[Emptyset]

Given how much evidence has been doctored and misrepresented as of late (video clips featuring judges, audio clips etc), it will be interesting to see if there's any claims of this leaked report being altered.

The witness accounts might line up, but given that none of the soldiers have actually confessed and instead the conclusion seems to be based on eyewitnesses sighting people in camouflaged clothing on the skytrain tracks, I have my doubts.

Reuters got hold of similar reports a couple of weeks ago, they claim they were leaked directly from the DSI and not by the UDD. They say the UDD were given parts of the reports initially but they got the full DSI reports before Jatuporn got hold of them. Obviously an insider wants the truth out there, for whatever reason. But only a few reports leaked so far, maybe other reports incomplete, inconclusive or point to black shirt involvement in the deaths? (Because why just leak these reports? Why not leak all the reports that point to military culpability?) I don't know. Suppose we'll find out given time.

This just in:

DSI chief: red shirt crackdown investigation report never concluded that soldiers were behind deaths that happened

Guess who I believe.

The fact that you believe the DSI chief over Reuters says enough I think.

[Insight]

The fact that you believe the DSI chief over Reuters says enough I think.

Snarky comment...? And how did Reuters know for sure they had received the report from a genuine member of the DSI?

Just another case of reds distorting the truth to spread hate.

[Emptyset]

The fact that you believe the DSI chief over Reuters says enough I think.

Snarky comment...? And how did Reuters know for sure they had received the report from a genuine member of the DSI?

Just another case of reds distorting the truth to spread hate.

Because they (Reuters) are not stupid? I think we've seen enough of Jatuporn's faked evidence by now to know when it's fake and when it's plausible. Look, what is your position here? Why is this surprising to you? You believe Sansern's line that the soldiers didn't kill anyone because they wouldn't want to harm the Thai people? I think most reasonable people, whichever side they're more sympathetic to, agree there were faults on both sides, that soldiers were likely responsible for the majority of deaths, but that certainly doesn't excuse the behavior of the protesters or their leaders either. However for some it's definitely a case of "four legs good, two legs bad." - on both sides. I'm not being critical here because you obviously support the government, I feel equally irritated by reds who claim the men in black were "agent provocateurs".