Thai Probe Says Army Did Not Kill Japan Cameraman

[webfact]

Thai probe says army did not kill Japan cameraman

BANGKOK, February 27, 2011 (AFP) - Thailand's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has concluded the army did not kill a Japanese cameraman shot last year during clashes between troops and protesters, the agency chief said Sunday.

Hiroyuki Muramoto, who worked for Reuters news agency, was shot in the chest by an unknown gunman while covering the political unrest involving soldiers and anti-government "Red Shirt" demonstrators in April.

The DSI initially suggested that security forces may have been involved in his death, but further investigation has contradicted this, DSI head Tharit Pengdit said.

"The forensic reports from a respected doctor found that the AK-47 caused the death of the Japanese cameraman," Tharit told AFP. "The Thai army does not use this kind of weapon."

He added that the earlier findings "were based on witnesses who said the shooting was likely to have come from the military line".

The Bangkok Post newspaper said on Sunday said the DSI was "likely to face questions about why it changed its stance".

It also reported "claims that the army chief of staff paid the DSI head a visit to complain about an initial department finding" that said soldiers should be blamed for the death.

Army spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd denied such a visit took place when contacted by AFP. He also told the Post that the soldiers "did not use AK-47 rifles that day".

The DSI is holding a press conference on Monday morning in relation to the findings, and Tharit said the agency would submit the new evidence to the police, who are making further investigations.

Muramoto, 43, was one of two foreign cameramen killed during the unrest in April and May, among more than 90 people -- mostly civilians -- who died in the clashes. Both sides accused each other of using live ammunition.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-02-28

[londonthai]

swept under the carpet.

the future historians will have a lot of corpses to identify.

"Tharit told AFP. "The Thai army does not use this kind of weapon." ... Army spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd ... also told the Post that the soldiers "did not use AK-47 rifles that day".

looks, like the army spokesman contradicted the head of DSI - ak47 is in the thai arsenal, but was not used on that particular day

[Loaded]

An army general intimidating the DSI and forcing a change to their original findings will impress nobody except other army generals. My opinions of the events on that day are starting to change. The only ones to benefit from this will be the red shirts.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Loaded

[webfact]

Police coroner to explain today why cameraman was shot by AK47 bullet

By The Nation

The Department of Special Investigation's adviser will today explain why the weapon used to kill the Japanese photographer during a clash between soldiers and redshirt protesters on April 10 was an AK47 assault rifle and not an M16, as used by soldiers.

Amphorn Jarujinda, a former chief police coroner, will answer questions on how he concluded, based on autopsy photos, that Hiroyuki Muramoto, who worked for Reuters, was killed by a single bullet from a AK47 assault rifle at Khok Wua Intersection last year.

A commission of 12 highprofile coroners had ruled that all 10 gunshot victims, including Muramoto, appeared to have died from bullets fired by M16 rifles.

The DSI is probing all 91 deaths during the red shirt protests from MarchMay. Amphorn was approached to join in performing postmortems with the 12coroner team, which included two redshirt doctors, but did not due to overseas travel.

M16s are Army standard issue semiautomatic rifles.

Muramoto took a single bullet in his left chest, which severed his heart and went out the back.

Tharit Phengdit, DSI directorgeneral, said it was police investigators who were working on the case based on the hypothesis that AK47 bullets were used.

The DSI had no responsibility to counter a statement by the Pheu Thai Party, which supports and funds the activities and protests of the redshirt movement, that AK47 rifles were secondary weapons and used by certain Army units, he said.

-- The Nation 2011-02-28

[whybother]

swept under the carpet.

the future historians will have a lot of corpses to identify.

"Tharit told AFP. "The Thai army does not use this kind of weapon." ... Army spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd ... also told the Post that the soldiers "did not use AK-47 rifles that day".

looks, like the army spokesman contradicted the head of DSI - ak47 is in the thai arsenal, but was not used on that particular day

Not a contradiction. Just a statement that needs to be looked at in context, or even in the original language. Maybe a clarification is required by asking Sansern "Did they use them any other day?"

[Bagwan]

So 12 'high profile' (whatever that is supposed to mean) doctors say that a M16 was the weapon that fired the fatal bullet while 'a respected doctor' says it was an AK47 - and his opinion was based on looking at photographs! No credibility problem there then - well no more than a lot.

My mind would be comforted if Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. had been involved in the investigation process. This formidable lady lives by a mantra of 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. In spite of not being part of the Establishment she has risen to the top of her tree and few, apart from the Police, would question her credibility.

For those not familiar with this ladies career, the following are extracts from Wikipedia.

Pornthip is presently Director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, in Bangkok. During the Thaksin Shinawatra government, she repeatedly publicly accused the police of abuses.[2] During Thaksin's anti-drug campaign in early 2003, during which more than 2,500 people were killed in what most non-government observers cited as extrajudicial killings, Pornthip claimed that some of these deaths were caused by police.[3] Other sources claim that some of the killings were carried out to silence those who knew which police officials were involved in the drug trade.

n the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Pornthip took charge of the effort to identify victims of the tsunami in the Phang Nga region.[7] She and her team were widely praised for their hard work and dedication,[citation needed] but on January 13, 2005 Police General Nopadol Somboonsab complained that the police's identification centre in Phuket should have charge of all identification operations. Pornthip attributed the intervention to Nopadol's supposed personal vendetta against her.[8] Nopadol was ultimately successful, and the Phang Nga operation was closed down on February 3, 2005.[9

[philw]

So 12 'high profile' (whatever that is supposed to mean) doctors say that a M16 was the weapon that fired the fatal bullet while 'a respected doctor' says it was an AK47 - and his opinion was based on looking at photographs! No credibility problem there then - well no more than a lot.

My mind would be comforted if Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. had been involved in the investigation process. This formidable lady lives by a mantra of 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. In spite of not being part of the Establishment she has risen to the top of her tree and few, apart from the Police, would question her credibility.

For those not familiar with this ladies career, the following are extracts from Wikipedia.

Pornthip is presently Director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, in Bangkok. During the Thaksin Shinawatra government, she repeatedly publicly accused the police of abuses.[2] During Thaksin's anti-drug campaign in early 2003, during which more than 2,500 people were killed in what most non-government observers cited as extrajudicial killings, Pornthip claimed that some of these deaths were caused by police.[3] Other sources claim that some of the killings were carried out to silence those who knew which police officials were involved in the drug trade.

n the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Pornthip took charge of the effort to identify victims of the tsunami in the Phang Nga region.[7] She and her team were widely praised for their hard work and dedication,[citation needed] but on January 13, 2005 Police General Nopadol Somboonsab complained that the police's identification centre in Phuket should have charge of all identification operations. Pornthip attributed the intervention to Nopadol's supposed personal vendetta against her.[8] Nopadol was ultimately successful, and the Phang Nga operation was closed down on February 3, 2005.[9

She also justified the purchase and use of the gt2000 bomb/drug/explosive/troll/ogre/druid/harrypotter detectors..........Thereby ensuring her credibility.

[animatic]

Doctors can only speculate as to what type of rifle fired a bullet that hit a body. And forensics can speculate on angle of entry/exit wounds and the victims position if the scene is not a static crime scene afterwards. This was not the case in this riot zone. No one without actual video footage of the actual shooting can determine definitively where it came from.

A forensic analysis of a bullet can tell one type of rifling from another in many, but not all, cases. An AK-47 fired bullet would not have the same barrel marking grooves as a M-16. So if the earlier 'leaked information' was about 'witness statements', none of whom can actually SEE a bullet in flight, and the update is based on actual ballistics analysis then this is a plausible change. That the Reds side will howl to the high heavens over this is understandable. I'll await todays press conference clarification.

[ExC5Engineer]

There is a hell of lot of difference between a M-16 round and an AK-47 round, sounds like a cover up to me!!

[random]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

[geriatrickid]

My mind would be comforted if Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. .......

The woman has no credibility. You might want to reconsider your position.

I believe the evidence is inconclusive and this is due to the manner in which the evidence was gathered and analyzed.

[Thai at Heart]

I am sure an amateur forensic scientist learns the difference between wounds caused by an AK 47 round and and M 16 round.

I am no ballistics expert, but a complete amateur should be able to tell the difference.

[AZBill]

Oh ok I'm totally convinced now! They'd never lie about a thing like that would they

[Thai at Heart]

My mind would be comforted if Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. .......

The woman has no credibility. You might want to reconsider your position.

I believe the evidence is inconclusive and this is due to the manner in which the evidence was gathered and analyzed.

Agree completely about Porntip.

After GT 2000, what can you say.

[jayboy]

My mind would be comforted if Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. had been involved in the investigation process. This formidable lady lives by a mantra of 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. In spite of not being part of the Establishment she has risen to the top of her tree and few, apart from the Police, would question her credibility.

You must be joking.I realise that Khunying Prnthip is the kind of colourful person that some foreigners latch on to.However her credibility is almost zero.

You are wrong also in believing she is not part of the establishment.

She was badly compromised in the GT200 scandal.

[jayboy]

Doctors can only speculate as to what type of rifle fired a bullet that hit a body. And forensics can speculate on angle of entry/exit wounds and the victims position if the scene is not a static crime scene afterwards. This was not the case in this riot zone. No one without actual video footage of the actual shooting can determine definitively where it came from.

A forensic analysis of a bullet can tell one type of rifling from another in many, but not all, cases. An AK-47 fired bullet would not have the same barrel marking grooves as a M-16. So if the earlier 'leaked information' was about 'witness statements', none of whom can actually SEE a bullet in flight, and the update is based on actual ballistics analysis then this is a plausible change. That the Reds side will howl to the high heavens over this is understandable. I'll await todays press conference clarification.

The usual half baked quasi scientific claptrap but essentially determined by political prejudice.

Wrong also in assuming it is the Red leadership that will lead the charge at this predictable cover up.It's the Japanese Government which will not I think be put off by lies and obfuscation.

[hyperdimension]

I am sure an amateur forensic scientist learns the difference between wounds caused by an AK 47 round and and M 16 round.

I am no ballistics expert, but a complete amateur should be able to tell the difference.

I think we need to really see the difference, and then compare with the wound of the cameraman. Does anyone have photos?

[animatic]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

Only a fool would argue at this time that anyone other than 'person or persons unknown' killed many people that day.

[mstribling]

I am sure an amateur forensic scientist learns the difference between wounds caused by an AK 47 round and and M 16 round.

I am no ballistics expert, but a complete amateur should be able to tell the difference.

You would be surprised.

Although I think the problem is their citing Dr.s reports. Dr.'s can determine the cause of death.

Forensic police detectives can determine the type of munition used.

Military grade munitions are difficult the recognize just by looking at the wounds. There simply devastating.

[BuckarooBanzai]

http://www.absolutea...Royal_Thai_Army

AK-47 Assault rifle used in small numbers mainly by the Thahan Phran

Thahan Phran

The Thahan Phran (ทหารพราน; literally "Hunter Soldiers"; Rangers) is a paramilitary light infantry force which patrols the borders of Thailand

and is part of the Royal Thai Army

(RTA). The Thahan Phran operate in conjunction with the Border Patrol Police (BPP), but are trained and equipped to engage in combat while the BPP is primarily a law enforcement agency.

AK-47 Mostly captured from the Communist Forces in Vietnam war and other from Laos and Cambodia.

[Thai at Heart]

I am sure an amateur forensic scientist learns the difference between wounds caused by an AK 47 round and and M 16 round.

I am no ballistics expert, but a complete amateur should be able to tell the difference.

You would be surprised.

Although I think the problem is their citing Dr.s reports. Dr.'s can determine the cause of death.

Forensic police detectives can determine the type of munition used.

Military grade munitions are difficult the recognize just by looking at the wounds. There simply devastating.

As I said, i am no expert, but you only have to understand a little bit about guns, and read a little to understand that the effect of a M16 round and an AK 47 round is reportedly very different.

[random]

<br />

<br />Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.<br /><br />I<br />

<br />Only a fool would argue at this time that anyone other than 'person or persons unknown' killed many people that day.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Yes, getting on for one year later now and we are still none the wiser, I am sure if there was irrefutable evidence that anyone other than the army shot and killed people we would have seen it by now, people would have been arrested as the Government show all and sundry how squeaky clean they were during the troubles, but since there is an election coming up and the truth will do the dems no favours the truth is being stalled, the truth is being witheld, and in this matter the truth is being changed.

Only a fool would try and argue that the army were not responsible for the slaughter of unarmed civilians that were posing no immediate threat, they even manged to shoot one of their own in the head as he went to help them on viphawadi Road such was their indiscriminate shooting at that time. I stand by my comment.

This is a cover up, the results have been changed

[animatic]

Doctors can only speculate as to what type of rifle fired a bullet that hit a body. And forensics can speculate on angle of entry/exit wounds and the victims position if the scene is not a static crime scene afterwards. This was not the case in this riot zone. No one without actual video footage of the actual shooting can determine definitively where it came from.

A forensic analysis of a bullet can tell one type of rifling from another in many, but not all, cases. An AK-47 fired bullet would not have the same barrel marking grooves as a M-16. So if the earlier 'leaked information' was about 'witness statements', none of whom can actually SEE a bullet in flight, and the update is based on actual ballistics analysis then this is a plausible change. That the Reds side will howl to the high heavens over this is understandable. I'll await todays press conference clarification.

The usual half baked quasi scientific claptrap but essentially determined by political prejudice.

Wrong also in assuming it is the Red leadership that will lead the charge at this predictable cover up.It's the Japanese Government which will not I think be put off by lies and obfuscation.

No included political biased commentary here referencing forensic sciences.

It is based on forensics knowledge, not supposition. If there is not a controlled scene of the crime or documentary evidence of the actual event, then there is nothing but educated speculation about angles of entry and exit, and you need not watch CSI: xxx to understand this. Entry wounds can be quite similar in multiple weapons depending on distance, velocity and type of bullet composition. What would look one way for a near range shot of one weapon might easily resemble a distance shot from another. Internal damage and exit woulds would be of a similar speculative nature.

There can be a lot of ball park ranges and often matching to a weapon under more static and controlled crime scenes, but nothing is as cut and dried as CSI might make you think.... that's TV, not actual forensic science. Not to mention people can load their own ammo with different grain count and type of bullet, to give different characteristics and make it appear a different weapon was used, other than rifling which is hard to fake. But riffling can be obscured by using soft lead that deforms totally on impact removing most evidence of the type of weapon that fired it.

Or a weapon known to be used by your opponents can be used to make it seem they are responsible, as plausible a scenario as any considering the weapons taken from the army just prior to this incident.

This all comes down to 'reasonable doubt',

except for those whose minds are already made up.

Your attempt to label it 'claptrap' it is purely political in nature.

I personally could care less if some army chaps get charged for this, that is not the point of my comments.

Is it possible to determine with certainty who did this? Doubtful.

It's perfectly logical that the Reds will howl, it fits their M.O.,

you used the phrase 'lead the charge', not I.

Edited February 28, 2011 by animatic

[jayjay0]

Doctors can only speculate as to what type of rifle fired a bullet that hit a body. And forensics can speculate on angle of entry/exit wounds and the victims position if the scene is not a static crime scene afterwards. This was not the case in this riot zone. No one without actual video footage of the actual shooting can determine definitively where it came from.

A forensic analysis of a bullet can tell one type of rifling from another in many, but not all, cases. An AK-47 fired bullet would not have the same barrel marking grooves as a M-16. So if the earlier 'leaked information' was about 'witness statements', none of whom can actually SEE a bullet in flight, and the update is based on actual ballistics analysis then this is a plausible change. That the Reds side will howl to the high heavens over this is understandable. I'll await todays press conference clarification.

I have to agree with what you say. After the press conference it will be easier to make a judgment.

It will still be under suspicion if all of a sudden it is a AK-47 gun that killed him. One day should have been enough for that decision. Nine months throws a long shadow over the whole commission.

They would have to be nothing but a bunch of babbling fools.

[Thai at Heart]

Doctors can only speculate as to what type of rifle fired a bullet that hit a body. And forensics can speculate on angle of entry/exit wounds and the victims position if the scene is not a static crime scene afterwards. This was not the case in this riot zone. No one without actual video footage of the actual shooting can determine definitively where it came from.

A forensic analysis of a bullet can tell one type of rifling from another in many, but not all, cases. An AK-47 fired bullet would not have the same barrel marking grooves as a M-16. So if the earlier 'leaked information' was about 'witness statements', none of whom can actually SEE a bullet in flight, and the update is based on actual ballistics analysis then this is a plausible change. That the Reds side will howl to the high heavens over this is understandable. I'll await todays press conference clarification.

I have to agree with what you say. After the press conference it will be easier to make a judgment.

It will still be under suspicion if all of a sudden it is a AK-47 gun that killed him. One day should have been enough for that decision. Nine months throws a long shadow over the whole commission.

They would have to be nothing but a bunch of babbling fools.

An obvious question to ask, is was there any evidence that the reds had AK47s during the end of the Rajprasong mess? We know there were snipers around from both sides, but is there any video or picture evidence of AK47s being used? Anyone find a pic anywhere?

[jayjay0]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

How many unarmed were killed that day many means more than one.

Only a fool would refuse to look at the evidence.

The evidence is surely going to be very suspicious coming this late.

How do you figure the army was responsible. They may of fired the shot but they were not responsible for him being in a war zone or for creating the situation with the illegal seizure of the area.

When if ever will the red shirts take responsibility for there actions.

Explain if you can why the army was there if there was nothing wrong. Yes I know because the police could not do there job. But why would the police have been there if they could have done there job?

You can babble on about the injustice of it all and the mishandling of the poor armed peaceful demonstrators. But ask yourself if they were in your back yard refusing to move turning it into a garbage dump and urging people to burn it down if you didn't give them what they wanted would you say that was OK.

You might want to take another look at where the responsibility for the whole mess really is.

I will give you a clue. There was a lot of money paid by a citizen of several other countries.

[jayjay0]

Doctors can only speculate as to what type of rifle fired a bullet that hit a body. And forensics can speculate on angle of entry/exit wounds and the victims position if the scene is not a static crime scene afterwards. This was not the case in this riot zone. No one without actual video footage of the actual shooting can determine definitively where it came from.

A forensic analysis of a bullet can tell one type of rifling from another in many, but not all, cases. An AK-47 fired bullet would not have the same barrel marking grooves as a M-16. So if the earlier 'leaked information' was about 'witness statements', none of whom can actually SEE a bullet in flight, and the update is based on actual ballistics analysis then this is a plausible change. That the Reds side will howl to the high heavens over this is understandable. I'll await todays press conference clarification.

The usual half baked quasi scientific claptrap but essentially determined by political prejudice.

Wrong also in assuming it is the Red leadership that will lead the charge at this predictable cover up.It's the Japanese Government which will not I think be put off by lies and obfuscation.

No included political biased commentary here referencing forensic sciences.

It is based on forensics knowledge, not supposition. If there is not a controlled scene of the crime or documentary evidence of the actual event, then there is nothing but educated speculation about angles of entry and exit, and you need not watch CSI: xxx to understand this. Entry wounds can be quite similar in multiple weapons depending on distance, velocity and type of bullet composition. What would look one way for a near range shot of one weapon might easily resemble a distance shot from another. Internal damage and exit woulds would be of a similar speculative nature.

There can be a lot of ball park ranges and often matching to a weapon under more static and controlled crime scenes, but nothing is as cut and dried as CSI might make you think.... that's TV, not actual forensic science. Not to mention people can load their own ammo with different grain count and type of bullet, to give different characteristics and make it appear a different weapon was used, other than rifling which is hard to fake. But riffling can be obscured by using soft lead that deforms totally on impact removing most evidence of the type of weapon that fired it.

Or a weapon known to be used by your opponents can be used to make it seem they are responsible, as plausible a scenario as any considering the weapons taken from the army just prior to this incident.

This all comes down to 'reasonable doubt',

except for those whose minds are already made up.

Your attempt to label it 'claptrap' it is purely political in nature.

I personally could care less if some army chaps get charged for this, that is not the point of my comments.

Is it possible to determine with certainty who did this? Doubtful.

It's perfectly logical that the Reds will howl, it fits their M.O.,

you used the phrase 'lead the charge', not I.

Well I totally agree with you except for one line

("those whose minds are already made up.")

It should have read those whose mind is totally closed.

[Robby nz]

It seems the only ones on this forum and indeed in the country who know without a doubt who killed this reporter and everyone else who died are the red shirt supporters.

Notwithstanding their certainty in this case there was a exit wound so the projectile was not recovered and therefore could not be positivly identified.

However there could well be, indeed probably was traces of bullet left in the wound.

This would depend on the type of bullet used, soft point, hollow point, solid point.

For instance a solid point slug will go right through making only a small hole while others will mushroom either staying in the body or making a big exit hole.

The forensic people would know for sure what ammo the army was using on that day and therefore would be able to tell if any traces in the wound came from that type of ammo.

There is also the calibre, M16 = 222, AK47 = 308 or 7.62 if you like.

Those coupled with the type of round would tend to give different wound profiles.

The distance the shot was fired from is also unknown but it could also be reasonable to estimate this by the wound profiles.

There would also have been a limited distance of visibility on the day which would limit the distance the shot could have been fired from.

Put all these things together and a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

But not I suspect with the absolute certainty expressed by the reds.

[jayboy]

A series of frankly rather unconvincing posts seeking to deflect scrutiny of the army's record.Not to be taken seriously as the vast majority politically are motivated , and in some cases incoherent.None seem aware of (or prepared to admit the army's appalling record of violence in Thailand and refusal ever to accept accountability

Key question is the attitude of the Japanese authorities who will I suspect be rather more persistent in seeking the truth, not that our little band of apologists for murder are much interested in that commodity.

[jayjayjayjay]

My mind would be comforted if Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. .......

The woman has no credibility. You might want to reconsider your position.

I believe the evidence is inconclusive and this is due to the manner in which the evidence was gathered and analyzed.

Credible, not credible...... human beings are a messed up species!

Edited February 28, 2011 by jayjayjayjay