Evidence in cabbie's death 'points to security forces'

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- A Department of Special Investigation (DSI) official told the Criminal Court yesterday that a taxi driver killed during Bangkok unrest in May 2010 was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers.

Sanporn Chaiyao, who is a DSI investigator, said he and |officials from the Justice Ministry's Central Institute of |Forensic Science twice examined the location where Phan Khamkong, a taxi driver from Yasothon, died on May 15, 2010, during a crackdown by security forces. He also questioned| some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident.

Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet normally fired from weapons issued to government security forces. The official said some witnesses claimed security force members were responsible for the death.

The taxi driver, who took part in a street protest by the red shirts, was killed near the Ratchaprarop Airport Link station.

Yesterday's hearing was part of a court trial held at the request of public prosecutors into a number of deaths during the unrest in which the perpetrators remain unknown.

Another DSI investigator, Pol Lt-Colonel Anon Untarichan, told the court yesterday he was assigned to investigate the death of a boy during the 2010 unrest. He said it was found the victim was killed when a van was repeatedly shot at near the Airport Link station. According to the official, the van's driver, who was injured in the shooting, was among those questioned about the incident.

Anon said a photographer from Nation TV handed a video recording of the van shootout to the DSI investigators. A one-minute video clip of the incident was played during yesterday's court hearing.

The court continues with the hearing of more witnesses this morning.

-- The Nation 2012-07-18

Identify the model of the "powerful gun" and I could purchase the exact same model within a few days without being a member of the "security forces"

.

and the witnesses make no difference to you i suppose.

they were probably 'pretend security forces' anyway.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

Hopefully they will be cross examined and be able to prove that they were where they claimed to be.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect App

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

If you have ever been involved with a criminal investigation in Thailand, you would realize how rare it is for witnesses to make such statements, against normal citizens, let alone authorities. They are usually either paid off or scared off.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

If you have ever been involved with a criminal investigation in Thailand, you would realize how rare it is for witnesses to make such statements, against normal citizens, let alone authorities. They are usually either paid off or scared off.

Which highlights the vagrances with reliability of witnesses...with paid for joining the paid off and scared off.

The much more concrete evidence of ballistics and the video indicating a "powerful gun" was used is, as demonstrated in post # 2, hardly conclusive of who was responsible.

I hope the investigation comes up with something more definitive.

.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

If you have ever been involved with a criminal investigation in Thailand, you would realize how rare it is for witnesses to make such statements, against normal citizens, let alone authorities. They are usually either paid off or scared off.

Chalermed

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

yes

there was a video recording so hopefully they can be identified through that.

but of course people have already surrendered to the thought process of 'bad guy with army weapon and people being paid to play false witness'.

Does anyone know what the cabbie was doing when he was shot? I take it he wasn't dropping off a fare....

Was the van traveling at high speed towards a military line / position with the intent of smashing through the line? or had the van taken a wrong turning and he was asking soldiers for directions?

The role of the van and its occupants needs to be explained in order to see if, as alleged the army's decision to shoot the van was 'justifiable' as it posed a direct threat to their lives or if it was the cold blooded murder of a Thai citizen trying to find his way home.

same pathetic responses from the same people, yes the army killed nobody, they were not even there with their blanks, no live ammunition but that didn't matter anyway as everyone there deserved to be shot blah blah blah ad infinitum,

No doubt if this was a yellow shirt shot then all the witnesses would be stellar and it would be impossible for someone else to buy such a weapon,. he was a nice guy that had just been to 7/11 for his old mother as she needed some milk and he was murdered in cold blood on his way back

some of you need to catch on to yourselves, it is quite sad really that relatively intelligent men can't see past the end of your noses. As for witnesses you will see that the van driver is a witness after having been shot also, and there is a recording of the incident, hey maybe speileberg was paid to make the video, he is secretly a red

If all the above sounds far fetched it is no more far fetched that the drivel written in this thread up to now

Then there is alway the typical Thai way of solving crime: Intimidate someone into confessing.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

yes

there was a video recording so hopefully they can be identified through that.

It seems the video didn't capture the who, only the after effects to indicate it was a powerful gun.

As stated, hopefully something more definitive is uncovered.

.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

yes

there was a video recording so hopefully they can be identified through that.

It seems the video didn't capture the who, only the after effects to indicate it was a powerful gun.

As stated, hopefully something more definitive is uncovered.

.

why did you edit my post?

anyway, the video possibly did capture the who..who knows.

as long as they can prove that they were there it should be ok.

If the redmob had not marched on Bangkok and threatened to burn the whole city down, had not threatened to kill all the 'elites', had accepted the offer of early elections, had accepted the polite requests to leave the capital after several months of remarkably unrestricted protest, had not been carrying guns, machetes, petrol bombs, grenades, and had dispersed peacefully in the manner that other peaceful demonstrations have peacefully dispersed for centuries, nobody would have died. Nobody.

Breaking down the total death-toll and micro-analysing each individual death as a way of blame, misses the central point that nobody would have died at all if the protest had dispersed after a few weeks or even a month. The question is why they did not disperse, why they were armed and why redmob leaders were saying that upping the stakes would benefit their cause.

They all died because Thaksin wanted an act of forced mass-martyrdom to shock the working-class nationally into action and to catalyze his planned overthrow of the democratic system of constitutional-monarchy. He miscalculated public sentiment and many innocent people on both 'sides' died because of his insane actions.

same pathetic responses from the same people, yes the army killed nobody, they were not even there with their blanks, no live ammunition but that didn't matter anyway as everyone there deserved to be shot blah blah blah ad infinitum,

No doubt if this was a yellow shirt shot then all the witnesses would be stellar and it would be impossible for someone else to buy such a weapon,. he was a nice guy that had just been to 7/11 for his old mother as she needed some milk and he was murdered in cold blood on his way back

some of you need to catch on to yourselves, it is quite sad really that relatively intelligent men can't see past the end of your noses. As for witnesses you will see that the van driver is a witness after having been shot also, and there is a recording of the incident, hey maybe speileberg was paid to make the video, he is secretly a red

If all the above sounds far fetched it is no more far fetched that the drivel written in this thread up to now

The truly pathetic drivel is your post indicating posters have said things in this thread that haven't been said.

Perhaps you should try to be less emotional to avoid ranting. Quoting specific posts would be a good start and addressing specifically what was said.

.

If the redmob had not marched on Bangkok as a large armed group

i got as far as "as a large armed group"

get real yunla

Identify the model of the "powerful gun" and I could purchase the exact same model within a few days without being a member of the "security forces"

.

The men in black have rob / stolen lots of "security forces" weapon. The killing gun could be one of them.

Case drop due to doubt. Next case please.

same pathetic responses from the same people, yes the army killed nobody, they were not even there with their blanks, no live ammunition but that didn't matter anyway as everyone there deserved to be shot blah blah blah ad infinitum,

No doubt if this was a yellow shirt shot then all the witnesses would be stellar and it would be impossible for someone else to buy such a weapon,. he was a nice guy that had just been to 7/11 for his old mother as she needed some milk and he was murdered in cold blood on his way back

some of you need to catch on to yourselves, it is quite sad really that relatively intelligent men can't see past the end of your noses. As for witnesses you will see that the van driver is a witness after having been shot also, and there is a recording of the incident, hey maybe speileberg was paid to make the video, he is secretly a red

If all the above sounds far fetched it is no more far fetched that the drivel written in this thread up to now

The truly pathetic drivel is your post indicating posters have said things in this thread that haven't been said.

Perhaps you should try to be less emotional to avoid ranting. Quoting specific posts would be a good start and addressing specifically what was said.

.

So you didn't post that you could buy one of these weapons within a few days? You didn't question the validity of the witnesses without knowing the first thing about the witnesses? Others did not post that witnesses are bought off, and your posting history denies that any protestor was killed by the army.

Like I say, Drivel, I mentioned no names but you took offence to it, weird eh?

same pathetic responses from the same people, yes the army killed nobody, they were not even there with their blanks, no live ammunition but that didn't matter anyway as everyone there deserved to be shot blah blah blah ad infinitum,

No doubt if this was a yellow shirt shot then all the witnesses would be stellar and it would be impossible for someone else to buy such a weapon,. he was a nice guy that had just been to 7/11 for his old mother as she needed some milk and he was murdered in cold blood on his way back

some of you need to catch on to yourselves, it is quite sad really that relatively intelligent men can't see past the end of your noses. As for witnesses you will see that the van driver is a witness after having been shot also, and there is a recording of the incident, hey maybe speileberg was paid to make the video, he is secretly a red

If all the above sounds far fetched it is no more far fetched that the drivel written in this thread up to now

The truly pathetic drivel is your post indicating posters have said things in this thread that haven't been said.

Perhaps you should try to be less emotional to avoid ranting. Quoting specific posts would be a good start and addressing specifically what was said.

.

So you didn't post that you could buy one of these weapons within a few days? You didn't question the validity of the witnesses without knowing the first thing about the witnesses? Others did not post that witnesses are bought off, and your posting history denies that any protestor was killed by the army.

Like I say, Drivel, I mentioned no names but you took offence to it, weird eh?

I take offense to posts that do nothing but forum bash with a broadside shot that adds absolutely nothing to the thread.

Your latest effort is mildly better by at least responding to a specific post.

I challenge you to substantiate your claim that my posting history denies any protester was killed by the army. As I've not, it's just baseless nonsense on your part.

My post about the weaponry being obtainable in Thailand without being a member of security forces is not drivel, it's reality.

To state that simply because it's a powerful gun points to security forces denies that reality.

.

As far as I remember (it is quite a while), the van was driven into the area where the sign "Life fire zone" (army made the spelling mistake, not me) was hung. The area is near Soi Rang Num (in between Din Daeng & Ratchpasong)

Army was all over the place with heavy weapon and live bullets.

A van drove up, the army try to stop it (yelling from a distance while take cover in bunkers), but it didn't stop, so they spray the van like swiss cheese.

When the van finally stop, the drive was injured, and a boy (under 18) was found dead the van.

There was no prove if they boy died due to the shooting, as the army on the spot claim that the boy was dead already/anyway.

There was some video footage which appeared briefly in the news, and also footage by the army spoke man discounting the claim (and excuses and doubt, etc).

When I have time, I shall do some searching for the video clip.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

yes

there was a video recording so hopefully they can be identified through that.

It seems the video didn't capture the who, only the after effects to indicate it was a powerful gun.

As stated, hopefully something more definitive is uncovered.

.

the video possibly did capture the who..who knows.

While possible, I would have expected the OP to indicate that...rather than...

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet"

.

same pathetic responses from the same people, yes the army killed nobody, they were not even there with their blanks, no live ammunition but that didn't matter anyway as everyone there deserved to be shot blah blah blah ad infinitum,

No doubt if this was a yellow shirt shot then all the witnesses would be stellar and it would be impossible for someone else to buy such a weapon,. he was a nice guy that had just been to 7/11 for his old mother as she needed some milk and he was murdered in cold blood on his way back

some of you need to catch on to yourselves, it is quite sad really that relatively intelligent men can't see past the end of your noses. As for witnesses you will see that the van driver is a witness after having been shot also, and there is a recording of the incident, hey maybe speileberg was paid to make the video, he is secretly a red

If all the above sounds far fetched it is no more far fetched that the drivel written in this thread up to now

The truly pathetic drivel is your post indicating posters have said things in this thread that haven't been said.

Perhaps you should try to be less emotional to avoid ranting. Quoting specific posts would be a good start and addressing specifically what was said.

.

So you didn't post that you could buy one of these weapons within a few days? You didn't question the validity of the witnesses without knowing the first thing about the witnesses? Others did not post that witnesses are bought off, and your posting history denies that any protestor was killed by the army.

Like I say, Drivel, I mentioned no names but you took offence to it, weird eh?

I take offense to posts that do nothing but forum bash with a broadside shot that adds absolutely nothing to the thread.

Your latest effort is mildly better by at least responding to a specific post.

I challenge you to substantiate your claim that my posting history denies any protester was killed by the army. As I've not, it's just baseless nonsense on your part.

My post about the weaponry being obtainable in Thailand without being a member of security forces is not drivel, it's reality.

To state that simply because it's a powerful gun points to security forces denies that reality.

.

So the DSI have done a full investigation and made a conclusion, are you doubting the validity of the investigation? Are you saying the investigation was flawed or even corrupt?

If you believe the DSI are not competent or even corrupt, do you then also agree that any investigation by the DSI into Thaksin, his family, TRT, PTP, the red shirts can also be flawed or even as a result of corruption within the DSI?

Now I will st you a challenge, I look forward to seeing your picture in a few days with a high powered weapon that you have just purchased in Thailand, they are easily available according to you (although quite why that means someone would want to buy one, and then shoot up a van is beyond me, the army did it we both know this, even you deep down haha)

I'm keeping an open mind about the whole thing and hoping that the truth will emerge.

However that article is incredibly devoid of either proof or fact.

The case continued.

While possible, I would have expected the OP to indicate that...rather than...

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet"

The "OP" is a news article.

.

snip

While possible, I would have expected the OP to indicate that...rather than...

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet"

.

Wow, must be captured using high speed camera and high speed film.

While possible, I would have expected the OP to indicate that...rather than...

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet"

.

i was talking about video evidence of the witnesses being there, i'm not sure how that quoted statement relates to that possibility.

same pathetic responses from the same people, yes the army killed nobody, they were not even there with their blanks, no live ammunition but that didn't matter anyway as everyone there deserved to be shot blah blah blah ad infinitum,

No doubt if this was a yellow shirt shot then all the witnesses would be stellar and it would be impossible for someone else to buy such a weapon,. he was a nice guy that had just been to 7/11 for his old mother as she needed some milk and he was murdered in cold blood on his way back

some of you need to catch on to yourselves, it is quite sad really that relatively intelligent men can't see past the end of your noses. As for witnesses you will see that the van driver is a witness after having been shot also, and there is a recording of the incident, hey maybe speileberg was paid to make the video, he is secretly a red

If all the above sounds far fetched it is no more far fetched that the drivel written in this thread up to now

Carra you are right - the army was there with live ammunition firing at some pockets of well lets just call them less than passive demonstrators - in fact the army even puts up 'live fire' signs in some areas to warn everyone of their intent.

Given that back drop i think it would be interesting to look at the circumstances of all the people involved in the incident just prior to the shooting.

BTW about the headline which implies - the security forces shot a cabbie - which is misleading. Did the security forces know he was a cabbie or did they know him as a demonstrator. In which case -security forces shoot demonstrator is less emotive and more accurate as a headline.

snip

So the DSI have done a full investigation and made a conclusion, are you doubting the validity of the investigation? Are you saying the investigation was flawed or even corrupt?

If you believe the DSI are not competent or even corrupt, do you then also agree that any investigation by the DSI into Thaksin, his family, TRT, PTP, the red shirts can also be flawed or even as a result of corruption within the DSI?

Now I will st you a challenge, I look forward to seeing your picture in a few days with a high powered weapon that you have just purchased in Thailand, they are easily available according to you (although quite why that means someone would want to buy one, and then shoot up a van is beyond me, the army did it we both know this, even you deep down haha)

Your logic doesn't make sense.

The fact is: Thaksin is super corrupted. I have proof as he is confirmed convicted and jail by Thai judges.

This fact is: Army are not there to kill people (especially children). Their order were to shoot only at legs. I have video of solider shooting a Canadian journalist legs.

Throw petrol bombs, rocks etc at millitary units, they might shoot you. Try and kick a dog, it might bite you........that's life.