'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[Buchholz]

Private investigative report on Japanese cameraman

The Nation

Police have received a private investigative report on a Japanese cameraman killed last April in connection with the political mayhem, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said on Tuesday.

Reuters has commissioned the report on the death of cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto who covered the April 10 anti-riot operations for the news agency, Chalerm said.

"I believe Reuters did not share the report with the previous government because of differing opinions on the cause of death," he said.

He said the report had 60 pages drawn a similar conclusion to the police inquiry that state officials were suspected to have involved in the killing of Muramoto.

-- The Nation 2011-12-06

Interesting that this report has been handed over just before Abhisit and Suthep are to be interviewed.

Apparently, the investigation was no longer illegal now and that company that did the investigation is ok now with releasing their confidential report.

I was given for the company's failure to share the information was that under Thai law it had been illegal for them to commission a third-party investigation into Hiro's death, and that when commissioning the report, their agreement with the company that handled the investigation was that it would remain confidential.

http://webcache.goog...lient=firefox-a

"Apparently, the investigation was no longer illegal now and that company that did the investigation is ok now with releasing their confidential report"

I don't suppose it's ever crossed your mind that the Democrats might have been economical with truth (they have previous) when explaining this to Reuters as a reason to suppress a report which went against their (amended once already) own version of events?

Then, I'd be interested in seeing what Reuters discovered itself in terms of the illegality of the action (simple enough to check the laws on their own) and also what the company itself has said about the confidentiality (also simple enough to do) of their reports.

Given Thailand's propensity for disallowing foreigners to do much of anything in Thailand (particularly something like a criminal investigation) and also the type of investigations that the company Control Risk conducts for all their clients, both reasons seem highly plausible and both would seem fairly straight forward to verify.

.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Buchholz

[Oberkommando]

I wonder where Chalerm's "belief" on the reason for Reuters not releasing it earlier came from, because it differs so much from the reasons that Reuters gave Marshall in the earlier quote.

"Reuters says didn't share Hiro report because it conflicted with army's denial of blame. That's exactly why they SHOULD have shared it."

Tweet from Marshall himself @zenjournalist

[Buchholz]

I wonder where Chalerm's "belief" on the reason for Reuters not releasing it earlier came from, because it differs so much from the reasons that Reuters gave Marshall in the earlier quote.

"Reuters says didn't share Hiro report because it conflicted with army's denial of blame. That's exactly why they SHOULD have shared it."

Tweet from Marshall himself @zenjournalist

Is Marshall changing now what Reuters told him and do you have a link for that Tweet as it conflicts with what my linked quote from Marshall's website when he says what Reuters told him?

.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Buchholz

[webfact]

Deputy PM: Reuters Hires Investigators to Probe Cameraman's Death

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said foreign news agency Reuters has hired private investigators to look into the death of its Japanese cameraman and those investigators' 60-page report, which puts blame on government officials, is now in the hands of the police.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said he was notified by the Japanese police that United Kingdom-based news agency Reuters has hired international investigators to look into the cause of death of its Japanese cameraman during a military crackdown on red-shirt protesters near Khok Wua Intersection on April 10 last year.

He added the Royal Thai Police have received a 60-page investigation report from the private investigators which indicated that government officials are responsible for the cameraman's death.

The deputy PM believes the investigators did not submit the report to the previous administration because they have a different approach to probing the case.

Meanwhile, Chalerm denied influencing the police to call forward former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban, who was in charge of the Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation, to give further testimonies, saying that the request was made by the public prosecutor.

He refused to comment on the possibility of a Cabinet reshuffle in the near future, but said he did not think he will be replaced.

-- Tan Network 2011-12-06

[phiphidon]

Then, I'd be interested in seeing what Reuters discovered itself in terms of the illegality of the action (simple enough to check the laws on their own) and also what the company itself has said about the confidentiality (also simple enough to do) of their reports.

Given Thailand's propensity for disallowing foreigners to do much of anything in Thailand (particularly something like a criminal investigation) and also the type of investigations that the company Control Risk conducts for all their clients, both reasons seem highly plausible and both would seem fairly straight forward to verify.

.

What illegal action? The private investigation or the shooting of Murimoto or what?

As far as private investigations go, the sister of Fabio Palenghi, another journalist allegedly shot by the army, carried one out with the aid of the BBC, even to the extent of an interview with the DSI, so it can be done. Incidentally worth watching Tharit squirming with embarassment when, after a years "investigation" he tries to tell the lady that the DSI still didn't know where or when Polenghi died only to be told exactly when and where by the same lady. When asked about the incident after the sister plainly said that Tharit knew the details but was obviously lying. I wouldn't disagree. Oh and Sansern claiming that the army didn't only fire live bullets in the live fire zone and as for the Abhisit interview extracts.............

[Oberkommando]

Incidentally worth watching Tharit squirming with embarassment

There's not many things more satisfying than catching a Thai out with their lies.

[sparebox2]

"He said the report had 60 pages drawn a similar conclusion to the police inquiry that state officials were suspected to have involved in the killing of Muramoto."

The key word here is SUSPECT. Like Ah Gong, you have to prove yourself not be able to operate a weapon to prove your innocent.

[Buchholz]

Then, I'd be interested in seeing what Reuters discovered itself in terms of the illegality of the action (simple enough to check the laws on their own) and also what the company itself has said about the confidentiality (also simple enough to do) of their reports.

Given Thailand's propensity for disallowing foreigners to do much of anything in Thailand (particularly something like a criminal investigation) and also the type of investigations that the company Control Risk conducts for all their clients, both reasons seem highly plausible and both would seem fairly straight forward to verify.

.

What illegal action? The private investigation or the shooting of Murimoto or what?

The illegal action Marshall said Reuters told him and posted earlier:

the company's failure to share the information was that under Thai law it had been illegal for them to commission a third-party investigation into Hiro's death

As far as private investigations go, the sister of Fabio Palenghi, another journalist allegedly shot by the army, carried one out with the aid of the BBC, even to the extent of an interview with the DSI, so it can be done.

In Thailand, just because something has been done once, it is no clear indication of its legality. Additionally, it would seem the investigations were conducted differently with hiring a private investigative firm differing from a media outlet and also meeting openly with Thai authorities to discuss it. It seems like the Reuters investigation was more clandestine, although we won't know if that was the case until seeing the previously confidential and now not confidential Control Risk company's investigation.

Given countless other examples where foreigners are prohibited from doing this, that, and the other in Thailand, it does seem quite plausible that it is illegal. Still, as said, it would seem simple enough to discover it's true legal status if Reuters disbelieved the reason.

.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

Then, I'd be interested in seeing what Reuters discovered itself in terms of the illegality of the action (simple enough to check the laws on their own) and also what the company itself has said about the confidentiality (also simple enough to do) of their reports.

Given Thailand's propensity for disallowing foreigners to do much of anything in Thailand (particularly something like a criminal investigation) and also the type of investigations that the company Control Risk conducts for all their clients, both reasons seem highly plausible and both would seem fairly straight forward to verify.

.

What illegal action? The private investigation or the shooting of Murimoto or what?

The illegal action Marshall said Reuters told him and posted earlier:

the company's failure to share the information was that under Thai law it had been illegal for them to commission a third-party investigation into Hiro's death

As far as private investigations go, the sister of Fabio Palenghi, another journalist allegedly shot by the army, carried one out with the aid of the BBC, even to the extent of an interview with the DSI, so it can be done.

In Thailand, just because something has been done once, it is no clear indication of its legality.

Given countless other examples where foreigners are prohibited from doing this, that, and the other in Thailand, it does seem quite plausible that it is illegal. Still, as said, it would seem simple enough to discover it's true legal status if Reuters disbelieved the reason.

.

"In Thailand, just because something has been done once, it is no clear indication of its legality".

And then you say

"it would seem simple enough to discover it's true legal status if Reuters disbelieved the reason"

So it's not that easy then, is it?

Enough, let's just wait and see what comes out.

[hammered]

The most interesting thing will be how the Thai media deals with this issue and whether information in the report will be available to them either in summary or totality

[sparebox2]

The most interesting thing will be how the Thai media deals with this issue and whether information in the report will be available to them either in summary or totality

Never heard of censorship law?

[Buchholz]

What illegal action? The private investigation or the shooting of Murimoto or what?

The illegal action Marshall said Reuters told him and posted earlier:

the company's failure to share the information was that under Thai law it had been illegal for them to commission a third-party investigation into Hiro's death

As far as private investigations go, the sister of Fabio Palenghi, another journalist allegedly shot by the army, carried one out with the aid of the BBC, even to the extent of an interview with the DSI, so it can be done.

In Thailand, just because something has been done once, it is no clear indication of its legality.

Given countless other examples where foreigners are prohibited from doing this, that, and the other in Thailand, it does seem quite plausible that it is illegal. Still, as said, it would seem simple enough to discover it's true legal status if Reuters disbelieved the reason.

.

"In Thailand, just because something has been done once, it is no clear indication of its legality".

And then you say

"it would seem simple enough to discover it's true legal status if Reuters disbelieved the reason"

So it's not that easy then, is it?

It is easy for Reuters to check the criminal code AKA true legal status.

.

[whybother]

Meanwhile, Chalerm denied influencing the police to call forward former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban, who was in charge of the Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation, to give further testimonies, saying that the request was made by the public prosecutor.

So they've given evidence before. I wonder what new evidence they can give after this much time.

[sparebox2]

It was after all a "Life Firing Zone". Would anyone journists expect less risk?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Troops-put-up-Life-Firing-Zone-sign-on-Rajprarop-R-30129418.html

http://soi1114.blogspot.com/2010/05/live-fire-in-bangkok.html

Edited December 6, 2011 by metisdead
Removed URL to another forum.

[animatic]

The report uses all the usual qualifiers, like :

"were suspected"

"is likely"

"of a similar type"

etc etc.

These comments will get past the company attorney board,

but certainly not close to "beyond reasonable doubt".

There is nothing but circumstantial evidence and anecdotal comments

being analyzed and put forward as supposition. I wish there was more.

Chalerm this dog don't hunt.

Edited December 6, 2011 by animatic

[hammered]

The report uses all the usual qualifiers, like :

"were suspected"

"is likely"

"of a similar type"

etc etc.

These comments will get past the company attorney board,

but certainly not close to "beyond reasonable doubt".

There is nothing but circumstantial evidence and anecdotal comments

being analyzed and put forward as supposition. I wish there was more.

Chalerm this dog don't hunt.

Its about pressure and about challenging a position pushed very heavily by the state side. This is all part of a poltical game linke din with some very serious happenings and things that were once off the table are being put on and things that once would never be challenged are beign challlenged. Politics is about perceptions as is power.

The one thing this report does from the leaked verbatim part is takes out completely the AK47 claim. We should also remember that we havent seen the whole thing. That in itself will be intresting. Considering the body it seems to aim blame at, will we and more to the point the Thai people ever get to see it fully.

As for court cases. Who knows. Cases are usually built on multiple parts and we dont know what witnesses will say yet, if any case comes to court which I would doubt personally.

Edited to add: people have been convicted in Thai courts on circumstantial evidence and sent to jail

Edited December 6, 2011 by hammered

[whybother]

It was after all a "Life Firing Zone". Would anyone journists expect less risk?

http://www.nationmul...R-30129418.html

http://soi1114.blogs...in-bangkok.html

Depends on whether the journalists could see a month into the future.