Crime Scene Bangkok

[BuckarooBanzai]

Just watched Crime Scene Bangkok on the NatGeo channel. Based primarily on the career of forensic pathologist Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. - I have heard many good and many not so good comments about her on Tv but from what is presented on this show she is quite a courageous lady. Constantly at loggerheads with the police - the police want to maintain full forensic control so that they can always provide the "right" answer. The show paints a very honest and to me accurate picture of how some aspects of Thailand work.

Shows again at 12:00 on Monday March 14 if your interested and most likely additional times as well.

[Grawburg]

english?

[BuckarooBanzai]

english?

Yes.

[REM]

Watching it right now, it's very interesting and informative!!! Gives a good picture of how the police work as well!

[Tropicalevo]

Just watched it. It was inconclusive, but very interesting.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Nisa]

Thanks for this ... she is great!

[dddave]

She gained a lot of notoriety (and enemies) in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. She pissed off a lot of local police and politicians when she came in and took control of what was a chaotic and very dangerous situation. She brought in refrigerated trucks to store bodies safely and instituted a methodical DNA sampling procedure that resulted in the ultimate identification of most of the victims, both foreign and Thai.

Her trademark "Punk" hairstyle didn't win her a lot of admirers among the hi-so set.

[Nisa]

If you miss it on TV ... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Crime+Scene+Bangkok+%28Pornthip+Rojanasunand%29+Part+&aq=f

[dumpling]

A movie about her life has also been made.

[bergen]

Watched it yesterday - interesting!

[Langsuan Man]

I lost respect for her when she supported the Army in it's defense of the GT200 bomb detectors, that were little more than dowsing rods

The affair also calls into question the stance of Pornthip Rojanasunand, the flamboyant Thai forensic pathologist and human rights activist who is currently director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science for Thailand's Ministry of Justice. Dr Rojanasunand said her agency will continue to use the GT200 device although it won't buy any more of them. In the past, she has said the device is not scientific but depends on human operators.

Source:

Thailand's Fake Bomb Detectors

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2305&Itemid=392

[Nisa]

I lost respect for her when she supported the Army in it's defense of the GT200 bomb detectors, that were little more than dowsing rods

The affair also calls into question the stance of Pornthip Rojanasunand, the flamboyant Thai forensic pathologist and human rights activist who is currently director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science for Thailand's Ministry of Justice. Dr Rojanasunand said her agency will continue to use the GT200 device although it won't buy any more of them. In the past, she has said the device is not scientific but depends on human operators.

Source:

Thailand's Fake Bomb Detectors

http://www.asiasenti...2305&Itemid=392

Why because she made money from the company or you believe her motives where not to save lives and limbs? Her recommending the use of a technology that was accepted to work is not her fault and certainly not her job to verify the technology did work. Do you really believe if the military did its due diligence before the purchase the purchase and discovered these things didn't work as claimed that she would have still advocated the investment?

She is a coroner and has nothing to do with the purchase of these things and can only express personal opinions as anyone else with limited knowledge of the technology and only can go by the claims of the army before purchase that the devices would work.

[Langsuan Man]

I lost respect for her when she supported the Army in it's defense of the GT200 bomb detectors, that were little more than dowsing rods

The affair also calls into question the stance of Pornthip Rojanasunand, the flamboyant Thai forensic pathologist and human rights activist who is currently director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science for Thailand's Ministry of Justice. Dr Rojanasunand said her agency will continue to use the GT200 device although it won't buy any more of them. In the past, she has said the device is not scientific but depends on human operators.

Source:

Thailand's Fake Bomb Detectors

http://www.asiasenti...2305&Itemid=392

Why because she made money from the company or you believe her motives where not to save lives and limbs? Her recommending the use of a technology that was accepted to work is not her fault and certainly not her job to verify the technology did work. Do you really believe if the military did its due diligence before the purchase the purchase and discovered these things didn't work as claimed that she would have still advocated the investment?

She is a coroner and has nothing to do with the purchase of these things and can only express personal opinions as anyone else with limited knowledge of the technology and only can go by the claims of the army before purchase that the devices would work.

No, because I don't think that someone who is supposedly grounded in the scientific method would refuse to accept the facts as presented by the Governments own experts. Another situation where face is more important than facts

[Nisa]

I lost respect for her when she supported the Army in it's defense of the GT200 bomb detectors, that were little more than dowsing rods

The affair also calls into question the stance of Pornthip Rojanasunand, the flamboyant Thai forensic pathologist and human rights activist who is currently director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science for Thailand's Ministry of Justice. Dr Rojanasunand said her agency will continue to use the GT200 device although it won't buy any more of them. In the past, she has said the device is not scientific but depends on human operators.

Source:

Thailand's Fake Bomb Detectors

http://www.asiasenti...2305&Itemid=392

Why because she made money from the company or you believe her motives where not to save lives and limbs? Her recommending the use of a technology that was accepted to work is not her fault and certainly not her job to verify the technology did work. Do you really believe if the military did its due diligence before the purchase the purchase and discovered these things didn't work as claimed that she would have still advocated the investment?

She is a coroner and has nothing to do with the purchase of these things and can only express personal opinions as anyone else with limited knowledge of the technology and only can go by the claims of the army before purchase that the devices would work.

No, because I don't think that someone who is supposedly grounded in the scientific method would refuse to accept the facts as presented by the Governments own experts. Another situation where face is more important than facts

So, you claim that after it was discovered they didn't work she still advocated purchasing more ... such as right now she is advocating purchasing more.

I am not sure if there was somebody within the government or military who had suspicions these didn't work before they were purchased but it didn't come out publicly until after they were purchased.

[Langsuan Man]

Dr Rojanasunand said her agency will continue to use the GT200 device although it won't buy any more of them. In the past, she has said the device is not scientific but depends on human operators.

[Nisa]

-

Dr Rojanasunand said her agency will continue to use the GT200 device although it won't buy any more of them. In the past, she has said the device is not scientific but depends on human operators.

Her quote was published before Abhisit ordered a study (February 2010) that determined the devices only identified bombs 20% of the time when tested ... Although Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva originally defended the devices, he later recanted when tests showed that they were completely ineffective at detecting explosives. However, they would still be used in the field at the discretion of the Army, which procured the devices and continue to use them.

And what she said (January 2010) ) was .... Pornthip Rohanasunand, Director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, also defended the use of the GT200 devices, claiming that they were effective when searching for bombs and even nails under water. She said: "I do not feel embarrassed if the bomb detector is proven ineffective. Personally, I have never handled the device myself. But my people have used it and it is accurate every time. Long long time ago, people believed that the Earth is flat and anyone who said otherwise faced execution. Things which are not visible does not necessarily mean they do not exist. "

After the testing she said she knew it was "not scientific equipment" and "We won't buy more, but we won't stop using them either"

However, your input does open my eyes to realize she is like many people (especially Thais) who put faith into things for reasons other than science... even those who are highly intelligent. I still do respect her courage, honesty and dedication.

And FYI, a lot of people were duped by these: On February 27th 2011 the British government told BBC Newsnight that it had helped Global Technical sell the GT200 around the world between 2001 and 2004. Royal Engineers sales teams demonstrated the devices at arms fairs and the Uk Department of Trade and Industry helped two companies sell the GT200 and similar products in Mexico and the Philippines ... It wasn't until January 2010 that they actually banned their export.

I also really have to wonder how often the coroner's office has to do field work in a mine field? And even if they did, it seems insane that they would be responsible for making sure an area is safe before entering but going from the above it sounds like they are.

What she ought to do is be telling people she grew up watching Quincy and his team was never responsible for locating and clearing mines.

source: http://en.wikipedia...._and_background

Edited March 16, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Interesting ... found this video from 2009 showing her team use the device. Also interesting because it appears her office also acts as a CSI & Investgative team in the field ... much beyond the scope of a typical coroner team.

[remiss]

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to use dogs instead of some expensive device that probably has shorter lifespan?

She seems sound though..