Army Rebuttals On Six Deaths At Bangkok's Wat Pathum

[webfact]

Army rebuttals on six deaths at Wat Pathum

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Army has issued a three-point statement aimed at rebutting a witness statement at the judicial inquest on the six deaths at Wat Pathum.

The six were shot dead in connection with the crowd control operations on May 19, 2010 in the wake of the Ratchaprasong rallies involving the red shirts.

The Army statement said although forensic checks found the six were shot with .223 bullets used in M-16 and Trevor assault rifles which were a standard issue in the military service, riot forces had reported three incidents, on April 10, 13 and 15, about 62 stolen assault rifles and almost 2,000 rounds of ammunitions

In regard to the witness testimony about the absent of a crossfire between the forces and the men in black around the elevated rail track, the on-the-scene report clearly stated about gun attacks from the ground to where the forces were deployed on the elevated track.

The traces of bullet shot from the ground level hitting the first pillar of the track, counting from the Chalerm Phao Junction to Wat Pathum, still remain in evidence.

The Army had forces deployed on the elevated track but did not fully occupy the track as alleged because of gun attacks aimed at disrupting such deployment.

The judicial inquest on the six deaths continues after hearing the first prosecution witness on Monday.

-- The Nation 2012-06-20

[tlansford]

Some rebuttal.

[DiamondKing]

IN the REAL world DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people but of course this will be a cover up as usual here in Thailand

DK

[dominique355]

IN the REAL world DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people but of course this will be a cover up as usual here in Thailand

DK

DNA? Who could DNA prove who held the gun and pulled the trigger?

[SuneeTH]

The six were NOT shot dead by the Army.

They ran toward the bullets.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/49819/thai-deputy-pm-reds/

[animatic]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

Edited June 20, 2012 by animatic

[WhizBang]

IN the REAL world DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people but of course this will be a cover up as usual here in Thailand

I must be dim witted, so could you please explain to me and everyone else reading this thread, exactly HOW DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people.

Thank you in advance for your superb knowledge of DNA and forensics and for enlightening the masses.

[tlansford]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

[saltandpepper]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

[tlansford]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

because it is absolute BS / spin.

[bigbamboo]

IN the REAL world DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people but of course this will be a cover up as usual here in Thailand

I must be dim witted, so could you please explain to me and everyone else reading this thread, exactly HOW DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people.

Thank you in advance for your superb knowledge of DNA and forensics and for enlightening the masses.

Some people have been watching too much CSI....!

Can't be too critical. The Americans still can't decide who killed one man and that was nearly fifty years ago.

[lovetotravel]

Sorry to be disrespectful, not intended at all. But if you were in the middle of this, you would have known the risks involved. You take your chances, you get the consequences.

[ozzieman05]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

because it is absolute BS / spin.

so you must work for the Australian labour party

If someone speaks the truth damm them and say its all BS

[whybother]

The traces of bullet shot from the ground level hitting the first pillar of the track, counting from the Chalerm Phao Junction to Wat Pathum, still remain in evidence.

Doesn't that debunk the theory that no one was shooting back?

Sent from my shoe phone

Edited June 20, 2012 by whybother

[animatic]

As I noted some have their minds pre-decided.

Fortunately most of them get weeded off juries early on.

[davidstipek]

IN the REAL world DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people but of course this will be a cover up as usual here in Thailand

I must be dim witted, so could you please explain to me and everyone else reading this thread, exactly HOW DNA and forensics would clearly show who killed those people.

Thank you in advance for your superb knowledge of DNA and forensics and for enlightening the masses.

Some people have been watching too much CSI....!

Can't be too critical. The Americans still can't decide who killed one man and that was nearly fifty years ago.

You need to read Mary's Mosaic by Peter Janney. It will totally end all doubt of who Shot and Murdered "One Man Nearly 50 Years ago" and why. If you do not have access to book I have in Chiang Mai.

This should help you find the book:

ISBN-10: 1-61608-708-0 / ISBN-13: 978-1-61608-708-1

Actually should be required reading for all Political Science Majors. Then they too could use as reference to how MIB might well have been trained here, and by who... since they were stationed here before during and after the fact. Just a thought but it really fits together, completely and with very, very few untied or loose ends.

Might even help with understanding the current Post also...

Edited June 20, 2012 by davidstipek

[tlansford]

As I noted some have their minds pre-decided.

Fortunately most of them get weeded off juries early on.

sometimes observant members should just observe.

Edited June 20, 2012 by tlansford

[hellodolly]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

Because it dosen't make Thaksin a hero and he has no rebuttal other than a inane statement that has nothing to do with reality.

[tlansford]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

Because it dosen't make Thaksin a hero and he has no rebuttal other than a inane statement that has nothing to do with reality.

or because it is just the normal propaganda pushed out here which has nothing to do with reality.

[lannarebirth]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

It;s not really a matter of establishing reasonable doubt. While it is certainly possible that the Army could have fired on these people it is certainly unlikely. In establishing guilt the generally followed rules are to establish means, motive and opportunity. I can't speak to the military's means or opportunity but they certainly had no motive, That distinguishes them from Thaksin's Red and Black Shirt Army that were all too willing to kill their own in the furtherance of their interests as was shown previously.

Edited June 20, 2012 by lannarebirth

[rubl]

Because it dosen't make Thaksin a hero and he has no rebuttal other than a inane statement that has nothing to do with reality.

or because it is just the normal propaganda pushed out here which has nothing to do with reality.

"2012-05-18: Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

...

We don't have the man who killed Fabio. We don't have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven't identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

... "

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3222

So tell me, any more 'clear' evidence'

[rubl]

are you dizzy after all that?

It;s not really a matter of establishing reasonable doubt. While it is certainly possible that the Army could have fired on these people it is certainly unlikely. In establishing guilt the generally followed rules are to establish means, motive and opportunity. I can't speak to the military's means or opportunity but they certainly had no motive, That distinguishes them from Thaksin's Red and Black Shirt Army that were all too willing to kill their own in the furtherance of their interests as was shown previously.

"While it is certainly possible that the Army could have fired on these people it is certainly unlikely"

Not sure there. The army was cleaning up, had encountered 'peaceful protesters' shooting at them and lobbing grenades on them. If they thought they'd see a potential danger they'd shoot. Army training you know. Difficult to really blame them. If only specially trained police squads could have been involved, but then the police force was bypassed because of inactivity/lack of performance/various other reasons which also seems to have giving some the chance to create havoc to further their case.

To conclude blame those who provoked this violence

[noitom]

Many believe that there was involvement by the Thahan Phran in these deaths in 2010. Kind of like the dirty tricks group of the army. Also the Thahan Phran has been down south for almost ten years ferreting out and killing assumed leaders.

[KireB]

What I always miss in these discussions about 'the army did it', is the definition of the army. The government forces in Thailand are highly fragmented and there are fractions that have openly supported the red shirts and their conning paymaster in the desert! Army General Seh Deang is (was) a prime example of this!

Most criminal or terrorist elements in Thailand are connected to either the police, military or para military, so it is absolutely possible that a part of the army was responsible for what happened in this temple.

The main questions are of course: which part and who send (and paid) these killers!

[lovetotravel]

Because it dosen't make Thaksin a hero and he has no rebuttal other than a inane statement that has nothing to do with reality.

or because it is just the normal propaganda pushed out here which has nothing to do with reality.

"2012-05-18: Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

...

We don't have the man who killed Fabio. We don't have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven't identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

... "

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3222

So tell me, any more 'clear' evidence'

Crystal clear? That's the problem with all this. It's really hard to place the blame. Other than on the protesters who were told to disperse and didn't. Again, you take your chances, you get the consequences. The real criminals are the red leaders who got all these poor people to do thier bidding.

[Roadman]

are you dizzy after all that?

It;s not really a matter of establishing reasonable doubt. While it is certainly possible that the Army could have fired on these people it is certainly unlikely. In establishing guilt the generally followed rules are to establish means, motive and opportunity. I can't speak to the military's means or opportunity but they certainly had no motive, That distinguishes them from Thaksin's Red and Black Shirt Army that were all too willing to kill their own in the furtherance of their interests as was shown previously.

"While it is certainly possible that the Army could have fired on these people it is certainly unlikely"

Not sure there. The army was cleaning up, had encountered 'peaceful protesters' shooting at them and lobbing grenades on them. If they thought they'd see a potential danger they'd shoot. Army training you know. Difficult to really blame them. If only specially trained police squads could have been involved, but then the police force was bypassed because of inactivity/lack of performance/various other reasons which also seems to have giving some the chance to create havoc to further their case.

To conclude blame those who provoked this violence

I concur. It is not only "Army training" that anybody is going to shoot back its also the very first rule of your own survival.

I recall when the Army was moving into secure the area to start to set up "the live shooting zone" there was footage of the front line troops that were moving in. They were terrified and there were two directions they were all looking - forward at the ground scene they were to take and secure and also up at the surrounding buildings. It was not half obvious what they were concerned about - it was whether their own Army snipers had taken out <edit> snipers, or at the least that they had any points where they were established well lined up within their cross hairs.

Agree. But without your PC writting and more from my straight forward don't tell me bullsh!t stance that the Thaksin lovers on here provoke - the blame belongs with the fugitive convicted criminal <edit> in Dubai who led and financed the whole deal. The sooner that Thailand can get rid of this <edit> clutch on Thailands governance the sooner Thailand can move on with true reconciliation and dealing with the urgent issues (like the true Reds poverty concerns) that this country desperately needs

Edited June 21, 2012 by soundman
Excessive harsh language.

[Curt1591]

Forensic investigation, by the politically unpopular Dr Pornthip, indicated that the shots were fired from the BTS platform. The army says it wasn't up there. So, we can assume that the ever ready "mysterious dark figures" sneaked past the army, climbed up there and did the deed.

Works for many!

[birdpooguava]

I concur. It is not only "Army training" that anybody is going to shoot back its also the very first rule of your own survival.

I recall when the Army was moving into secure the area to start to set up "the live shooting zone" there was footage of the front line troops that were moving in. They were terrified and there were two directions they were all looking - forward at the ground scene they were to take and secure and also up at the surrounding buildings. It was not half obvious what they were concerned about - it was whether their own Army snipers had taken out <edit> snipers, or at the least that they had any points where they were established well lined up within their cross hairs.

Agree. But without your PC writting and more from my straight forward don't tell me bullsh!t stance that the Thaksin lovers on here provoke - the blame belongs with the fugitive convicted criminal <edit> in Dubai who led and financed the whole deal. The sooner that Thailand can get rid of this <edit> clutch on Thailands governance the sooner Thailand can move on with true reconciliation and dealing with the urgent issues (like the true Reds poverty concerns) that this country desperately needs

Videos of army snipers positioned on rooftops around the area, photos showing army snipers on the BTS with their guns aiming at the temple, army bullets taken out of dead medical volunteers, videos of army snipers continuing to fire when their commander is shouting at them to stop, videos of soldiers firing on protesters & then shouting out instructions in Cambodian....oh the innocence!

[animatic]

I guess when logical statements of reality go up against the party line,

the only choice is to attempt to diminish the person stating them,

repeatedly, and hope others might believe the attempted diminution.

Of course that is a last ditch attempt at distraction that rarely works.

There is a lot of attempts by the boiler room boys to skew the message

away from the bad for PTP stories and spin it off to something more

on the talking points passed down from above.

Perception Management 101.

Diminish in the minds of others those who make good arguments

against the points you want made.

[Insight]

Many believe that there was involvement by the Thahan Phran in these deaths in 2010. Kind of like the dirty tricks group of the army. Also the Thahan Phran has been down south for almost ten years ferreting out and killing assumed leaders.

Are you sure you want to go there?

Do you know who is responsible for the Thahan Phran force you mention?

Note that they have also been spotted recently camped out at Dusit Zoo car park, overseeing the red rally outside parliment and wearing red themselves.