Japanese Cameraman Muramoto Not Killed By Thai Army: DSI

[webfact]

Muramoto not killed by Army: DSI

By The Nation

It has been finalised that Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto was not killed by security officials in a redshirt rally in April last year, and further investigation to find out who killed him will continue for another year, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said yesterday.

After the year is up, the DSI investigation might be put on hold, said DSI directorgeneral Tharit Phengdit. The case could be reopened any time if new evidence became available, up to a limit of 20 years as is standard for murder investigations, he said.

"A Japanese diplomat will meet DSI agents next week, when we will inform them of all the information," he said.

He said the Japanese authorities and Muramoto's relatives did not accept or dismiss the DSI's explanation that his bullet wound was consistent with an AK47 rifle, a weapon not commissioned by the Royal Thai Army.

"They just listened and acknowledged the explanation," he said.

Relying on statements from a trajectory expert, the DSI insisted that all 13 victims killed during the clash between soldiers and red shirts at Khok Wua intersection on April 10 last year were killed by 7.62mm bullets. Such bullets came from weapons not in commission with the Army.

-- The Nation 2011-03-24

[londonthai]

do we expect japanese to believe that? "all 13 victims killed during the clash" ? I don't think so. Another whitewash.

don't think they want "will inform them of all the information", but the truth.

Edited March 24, 2011 by londonthai

[ianf]

do we expect japanese to believe that? "all 13 victims killed during the clash" ? I don't think so. Another whitewash.

don't think they want "will inform them of all the information", but the truth.

Why do you assume it is a whitewash? Ballistics experts can identify, in most cases, the type of weapon used. Also in this case, the reds were 100 percent active as a violent and para force. They wanted deaths to serve their own nasty political ends. Don't forget that politics in this country is extremely dirty. Abhisit's attempts at cleaning it up is bound to meet the strongest resistance and the red demos were a huge throw of the dice. Murder was always inevitable and now the truth is out, off course the reds will shout 'foul play' and the 'impartial' (sic) observers on this board will try and outsmart everyone.

[RKASA]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

[animatic]

Embarrassing the government with deaths to make it fall A.S.A.P. was the obvious main aim of the rallies for some on that side of the game. Who actually pulled the triggers may remain a mystery, but that people would die during this rally was clear from before it even started up. To that end they are trying to still make that noodle stick to the political wall, but it is too ala dente to do it.

[truethailand]

do we expect japanese to believe that? "all 13 victims killed during the clash" ? I don't think so. Another whitewash.

don't think they want "will inform them of all the information", but the truth.

Why do you assume it is a whitewash? Ballistics experts can identify, in most cases, the type of weapon used. Also in this case, the reds were 100 percent active as a violent and para force. They wanted deaths to serve their own nasty political ends. Don't forget that politics in this country is extremely dirty. Abhisit's attempts at cleaning it up is bound to meet the strongest resistance and the red demos were a huge throw of the dice. Murder was always inevitable and now the truth is out, off course the reds will shout 'foul play' and the 'impartial' (sic) observers on this board will try and outsmart everyone.

Of course the army shot nobody... Abhisit trying to clean up politics..the truth is out...impartial observers These defenders of last years atrocities need to accept the dirty deeds committed...on both sides. Not just the reds

[animatic]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

2 possible reasons.

1 ) they aren't too bright

2 ) they might have thought that they could make the government fall before it got into an investigation, they take over, and then they could white wash it themselves if it even got that far.

Ballistics is about the marks of bullets and their deformations relative to the weapons used.

Forensics or Medical Forensics is about the affects on objects and beings of those projectiles and what happens after they hit something. ie what type of hole does a particular bullet make entering when fired at x distance, and what typer of exit wound if it exits, and what happens in between and what ancillary affects it has on the target and it's environment. And also coupling that to any media, such as CCTV or photos or news cameras, and/or eye/ear witness accounts to determine what happened.

In this case they would have nothing resembling a 'pristine environment' and if the bullet exited the person it would be lost from a ballistics viewpoint. Using DNA if that bullet is found it might have been matched to the victim, but there was no reports of a successful forensic search of the riot scene for anything.

So, by the obvious constraints the forensic and ballistics teams are under, it is improbable that much more than what they have stated CAN be found out.

Edited March 24, 2011 by animatic

[Cnxforever]

of course the army did not not kill anybody all the protesters, civilians on the temple grounds and journalists "ran" into the bullets - as the arrogant wannabe PM Suthep suggested recently.

Nobody has ever been held accountable for all the other hundreds of civilians killed by the Thai army over the years - did anybody expect anything else than a whitewash by the coup appointed DSI Chief?

[truethailand]

An acquaintence here once explained this to me... 'When pressed in a corner Thais will say anything but if you want to know the truth, take what the Thai person said and then think about the opposite of what was said and you will be a damm sight closer to the truth'... and in a lot of cases it as proved to be correct for me

“The toll on the media has been heavy, while many others have only narrowly escaped death,” says the press freedom organisation Reporters Without Borders. “We are stunned and outraged by the indiscriminate nature of this assault, which shows that the Thai authorities made little attempt to protect journalists in their desire to suppress the Red Shirt opposition.”

It adds: "We call for an independent investigation into Fabio Polenghi’s death, including an autopsy and a ballistic study carried out in a transparent manner and, if necessary, with the help of foreign experts.”

Transparent, Thai Authorities are not.

[KireB]

The Red movement badly needed its own 'Democracy Monument Massacre'. Video footage clearly shows people being shot form behind by armed elements walking along with the Reds who attacking the army! Basically the Reds attacked the army at every possible moccasin that day, all documented on TV! The scenes looked like Braveheart scenes, but no one died! This happened at night near the Monument. After the killings, the reds went straight to the hospitals and snatched the bodies and paraded these around Bangkok for a couple of days. Logic 101! Who needed these casualties and who didnt (seen in the perspective of what happened that week)?

[animatic]

Legal Dictionary

bal·lis·tics

Pronunciation: b&-'lis-tiks

Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction

1 a : the science of the motion of projectiles (as bullets) in flight

b : the flight characteristics of a projectile (as a bullet)

2 : the study of the processes within a firearm as it is fired

If no bullets were recovered, then there can be no specific ballistic evidence only conjecture.

Without a bullet then you have the comparison of entree exit woulds type of damage done, and coupled to visual evidence if any you might determine the position of the victim and possibly the shooter. But lacking the visual element, it becomes supposition about the position of the two. To some extent you can tell what relation the victim had in space to the shooter, high, low, left, right, and to some extent near, far.

]But if the victim was momentarily inclined forward the entree exit could make it seem the shooter was 14 stories up, when he was 1 story up.

Similarly if the victim was inclined backward a shooter on floor 14 could look to have been on ground level. You see the difficulty here.

fo·ren·sic Pronunciation: f&-'ren-sik, -zik Function: adjective Etymology: Latin forensis public, forensic, from forum forum

1 : belonging to, used in, or suitable to the courts or to public discussion and debate

2 : relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge

(as of medicine or linguistics) to legal problems <forensic pathology> < forensic experts>

— fo·ren·si·cal·ly adjective

Applying scientific technique to finding facts for legal admission. The problem is if evidence is not available it limits what can be factually stated.

Edited March 24, 2011 by animatic

[ib1b4]

Where has the article which the director general Tharit Phengdit said we are for the people not the government, where as he stater there initial findings that the 13 deaths were caused by soldiers ,Proving the DSI is not driven by the government.

[ib1b4]

Where has the article which the director general Tharit Phengdit said we are for the people not the government, where as he stater there initial findings that the 13 deaths were caused by soldiers ,Proving the DSI is not driven by the government.

Sorry the article was We serve the public, not the government

[animatic]

The Red movement badly needed its own 'Democracy Monument Massacre'. Video footage clearly shows people being shot form behind by armed elements walking along with the Reds who attacking the army! Basically the Reds attacked the army at every possible moccasin that day, all documented on TV! The scenes looked like Braveheart scenes, but no one died! This happened at night near the Monument. After the killings, the reds went straight to the hospitals and snatched the bodies and paraded these around Bangkok for a couple of days. Logic 101! Who needed these casualties and who didnt (seen in the perspective of what happened that week)?

Means, motive and opportunity.

• Who has the skills and tools to do something.

• Who benefits and who doesn't by an action or crime.

• Who is in the right place and the right time to do something.

All three need to come together for a crime to be prosecuted.

Motivation is what is lacking here for the Muramoto killing by the army. There is no benefit to killing a foreign cameraman with press pass for the army, none at all.

The army was obviously seeing that the riots were meant to provoke them and cause a scene to bring down public opprobrium, and they were obviously trying to not let this happen. But after their commander was killed by a hand grenade (what red supporter will now say the army grenaded their own leader?) things got more out of control, but certainly the cameraman was no clear threat to any soldier even in the worst situation.

Too many other cameramen all around for one to suddenly be a PR threat enough to kill him. They could have just grabbed him and hauled him away and taken his tapes....

No motivation all for the army to kill him .

But plenty of motive to make it look that way by the other side...

Means :

There were war weapons seen on the Red side.

Motive:

The Reds needed to bring down the government and stifle the army to do it and create a public uprising against them both

Opportunity:

They had created a riot scene in a large open area with plenty of cover and buildings that could be used for snipers or grenade launchers etc.

Of course I am not saying that no one was killed by the army during the whole course of the rally / riots, but at this stage, ie the 1st actual riot evening, the motivation was clearly not there for the army side. Argue all you want about the bullet types etc, one of the 3 main points or prosecution is completely missing and actually inverse. It was very strong on the other side.

Edited March 24, 2011 by animatic

[scorecard]

The Red movement badly needed its own 'Democracy Monument Massacre'. Video footage clearly shows people being shot form behind by armed elements walking along with the Reds who attacking the army! Basically the Reds attacked the army at every possible moccasin that day, all documented on TV! The scenes looked like Braveheart scenes, but no one died! This happened at night near the Monument. After the killings, the reds went straight to the hospitals and snatched the bodies and paraded these around Bangkok for a couple of days. Logic 101! Who needed these casualties and who didnt (seen in the perspective of what happened that week)?

Plus, don't forget the Sae Daeng factor. Was this rebel army officer (who should have been court martialled several times for several very serious offences in the past), was he operating alone? No, he had quite a sizeable team of rebels and lamebrains with him with a multitude of weapons and ammunition. Do you think he would have any hesitation to kill anybody, any side, which seemed to benefit his radical goals? No.

[random]

I just sent my staff to but some whitewash for the factory walls, but it appears the dems have been and bought it all up, and strangely there is a big waft of bullshit in the air this morning.

[AZBill]

So the Thai army has no access to other types of weapons? When I was in the US military and covert operations were undertaken we certainly didn't use standard issue M-16s at the time! This is all a coverup. Do you really think the government is going to come out and say the killed a foriegn journalist? Esrecially this government that lies every time its lips move!

[Buchholz]

Fabio Polenghi

Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto

[Buchholz]

So the Thai army has no access to other types of weapons? When I was in the US military and covert operations were undertaken we certainly didn't use standard issue M-16s at the time!

What weapons did you use during your experiences with secret U.S. military expeditions?

[Bagwan]

An acquaintence here once explained this to me... 'When pressed in a corner Thais will say anything but if you want to know the truth, take what the Thai person said and then think about the opposite of what was said and you will be a damm sight closer to the truth'... and in a lot of cases it as proved to be correct for me

"The toll on the media has been heavy, while many others have only narrowly escaped death," says the press freedom organisation Reporters Without Borders. "We are stunned and outraged by the indiscriminate nature of this assault, which shows that the Thai authorities made little attempt to protect journalists in their desire to suppress the Red Shirt opposition."

It adds:

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

RWB may profess to support libertarian causes but to some they appear to support organisations that lean towards the left of the political spectrum and their stance may not be seen as impartial. What sort of protection were the Thai authorities supposed to provide? Keeping the media folk behind barriers at a safe distance would lead to accusations of 'suppression of 'the truth'. Wouldn't the Thai attitude as in many things be 'up to you' or to paraphrase an expression that the Reds might remember, "I am not any reporter's father'. Playing the blame game is just pointless hot air since nobody will tell the truth and the process achieves nothing. Does anybody believe that anybody from a 2nd Lieutenant right up to Abhisit ordered Pte. Somjai to deliberately kill a reporter? I would hope that none of the Red leaders would give such an order either. In armed conflicts casualties occur and any realistic verdict of a Coroner's Court would record death by misadventure.

[cloudhopper]

NO bullets recovered from 13 bodies or the scenes of their deaths. Is that believable?

[jayboy]

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

RWB may profess to support libertarian causes but to some they appear to support organisations that lean towards the left of the political spectrum and their stance may not be seen as impartial. What sort of protection were the Thai authorities supposed to provide? Keeping the media folk behind barriers at a safe distance would lead to accusations of 'suppression of 'the truth'. Wouldn't the Thai attitude as in many things be 'up to you' or to paraphrase an expression that the Reds might remember, "I am not any reporter's father'. Playing the blame game is just pointless hot air since nobody will tell the truth and the process achieves nothing. Does anybody believe that anybody from a 2nd Lieutenant right up to Abhisit ordered Pte. Somjai to deliberately kill a reporter? I would hope that none of the Red leaders would give such an order either. In armed conflicts casualties occur and any realistic verdict of a Coroner's Court would record death by misadventure.

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

All that is being asked for is a proper accounting.We have not seen this and as we know from the recent earthquake tragedy the Japanese will generally keep their concerns to themselves.But they will not forget.

We know the Thai military's reputation for lying and cover ups.That's fact not speculation.

[Thaddeus]

I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

I can think of at least one Thai politician who is....... oh no, sorry, you said reasonable didn't you.

[whybother]

NO bullets recovered from 13 bodies or the scenes of their deaths. Is that believable?

I could believe that there were no bullets recovered from the scenes. It's not like they could cordon of the area around bodies and do investigations at the time.

As to bullets recovered from the bodies. I'm sure some would have passed through, but wouldn't think that all of them would.

[KunMatt]

I just sent my staff to but some whitewash for the factory walls, but it appears the dems have been and bought it all up, and strangely there is a big waft of bullshit in the air this morning.

Anyone who saw any of the terror riots last year can not deny that the Red leaders lied about everything they did and turned it into propaganda for their own agenda, for example the classic "We are not terrorists, we are peaceful protestors" banner they stood under while shooting grenandes into the BTS station killing innocent civilians who had absolutely nothing to do with the riots, and then when being told about the deaths they had just caused all of the reds were dancing and partying.

So why is it so difficult to believe that they might be responsible for the death of this cameraman?

[arrowsdawdle]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag">False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public...

[arrowsdawdle]

Embarrassing the government with deaths to make it fall A.S.A.P. was the obvious main aim of the rallies for some on that side of the game. Who actually pulled the triggers may remain a mystery, but that people would die during this rally was clear from before it even started up. To that end they are trying to still make that noodle stick to the political wall, but it is too ala dente to do it.

Got the carte before the tooth, multiple times.....al dente.

[exbelg]

ahahha, thailand so funny

it is not us, it is them

maybe next year we will say who

[lungmi]

The Red movement badly needed its own 'Democracy Monument Massacre'. Video footage clearly shows people being shot form behind by armed elements walking along with the Reds who attacking the army! Basically the Reds attacked the army at every possible moccasin that day, all documented on TV! The scenes looked like Braveheart scenes, but no one died! This happened at night near the Monument. After the killings, the reds went straight to the hospitals and snatched the bodies and paraded these around Bangkok for a couple of days. Logic 101! Who needed these casualties and who didnt (seen in the perspective of what happened that week)?

Means, motive and opportunity.

• Who has the skills and tools to do something.

• Who benefits and who doesn't by an action or crime.

• Who is in the right place and the right time to do something.

All three need to come together for a crime to be prosecuted.

Motivation is what is lacking here for the Muramoto killing by the army. There is no benefit to killing a foreign cameraman with press pass for the army, none at all.

The army was obviously seeing that the riots were meant to provoke them and cause a scene to bring down public opprobrium, and they were obviously trying to not let this happen. But after their commander was killed by a hand grenade (what red supporter will now say the army grenaded their own leader?) things got more out of control, but certainly the cameraman was no clear threat to any soldier even in the worst situation.

Too many other cameramen all around for one to suddenly be a PR threat enough to kill him. They could have just grabbed him and hauled him away and taken his tapes....

No motivation all for the army to kill him .

But plenty of motive to make it look that way by the other side...

Means :

There were war weapons seen on the Red side.

Motive:

The Reds needed to bring down the government and stifle the army to do it and create a public uprising against them both

Opportunity:

They had created a riot scene in a large open area with plenty of cover and buildings that could be used for snipers or grenade launchers etc.

Of course I am not saying that no one was killed by the army during the whole course of the rally / riots, but at this stage, ie the 1st actual riot evening, the motivation was clearly not there for the army side. Argue all you want about the bullet types etc, one of the 3 main points or prosecution is completely missing and actually inverse. It was very strong on the other side.

I agree, I clear analysis of the "facts" we can know. Animatic sets out the logic of plausibility , based on what we can know. The best approach for some posters here.

[samjaidee]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

2 possible reasons.

1 ) they aren't too bright

2 ) they might have thought that they could make the government fall before it got into an investigation, they take over, and then they could white wash it themselves if it even got that far.

Ballistics is about the marks of bullets and their deformations relative to the weapons used.

Forensics or Medical Forensics is about the affects on objects and beings of those projectiles and what happens after they hit something. ie what type of hole does a particular bullet make entering when fired at x distance, and what typer of exit wound if it exits, and what happens in between and what ancillary affects it has on the target and it's environment. And also coupling that to any media, such as CCTV or photos or news cameras, and/or eye/ear witness accounts to determine what happened.

In this case they would have nothing resembling a 'pristine environment' and if the bullet exited the person it would be lost from a ballistics viewpoint. Using DNA if that bullet is found it might have been matched to the victim, but there was no reports of a successful forensic search of the riot scene for anything.

So, by the obvious constraints the forensic and ballistics teams are under, it is improbable that much more than what they have stated CAN be found out.

Ballistics is, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law:

1) a: the science of the motion of projectiles (as bullets) in flight

b: the flight characteristics of a projectile (as a bullet)

2) the study of the processes within a firearm as it is fired

American Heritage Science Dictionary:

The scientific study of the characteristics of projectiles, such as bullets or missiles, and the way they move in flight.