Thai Troops Shot Italian Photographer: Police

[webfact]

Thai troops shot Italian photographer: police

BANGKOK, July 23, 2012 (AFP) - Government troops are believed to have shot an Italian photographer who was killed during mass opposition street protests in 2010 in Bangkok, police told an official inquest in Thailand on Monday.

Police Colonel Suebsak Pansura, who is heading a team investigating the case, said they had questioned 47 witnesses and experts over the death of Fabio Polenghi and gathered evidence to submit to prosecutors.

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty," he told Bangkok's Criminal Court on the opening day of the inquest.

Polenghi was shot and killed on May 19 2010, the day when soldiers firing live ammunition stormed the anti-government "Red Shirt" protest movement's sprawling rally base in the centre of Bangkok.

Police could not find the bullet which fatally wounded him in the heart, but experts said he was shot by a high-velocity gun. The inquest will attempt to ascertain who was responsible.

Polenghi, 48, was working as a freelance photographer covering the protests in which tens of thousands of Red Shirts brought central Bangkok to a standstill for two months with demands for snap elections.

Street battles between soldiers with rifles and mostly unarmed protesters claimed more than 90 lives and left nearly 1,900 people injured, mainly civilians.

The kingdom, which remains deeply divided by the bloodshed, now has a new government allied to the Red Shirts' hero, fugitive former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, whose sister Yingluck is prime minister.

No soldiers or officials have been prosecuted in connection with the deaths during the unrest, prompting anger from relatives and rights groups, who say those responsible are being protected by a culture of impunity in Thailand.

Yingluck's government said in November there was clear evidence that troops were responsible for the death of another journalist during the unrest, Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto of the Thomson Reuters news agency.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2012-07-23

[animatic]

...Street battles between soldiers with rifles and mostly unarmed protesters...

And this does not successfully imply that ONLY soldiers had high powered rifles.

[rubl]

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty," he told Bangkok's Criminal Court on the opening day of the inquest.

The 'believed to have been' doesn't sound too sure or convincing. As it's part of the conclusion it seems there may not be enough evidence to support this believe and further investigations will be required. IMHO

[richard10365]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

[Ferangled]

...Street battles between soldiers with rifles and mostly unarmed protesters...

And this does not successfully imply that ONLY soldiers had high powered rifles.

No but the report implies that having talked to 47 witnesses & experts, they believe that the Thai troops shot the reporter... no amount of mincing of words changes that.

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty," he told Bangkok's Criminal Court on the opening day of the inquest.

The 'believed to have been' doesn't sound too sure or convincing. As it's part of the conclusion it seems there may not be enough evidence to support this believe and further investigations will be required. IMHO

I think the most relevant piece of information that you both seem to be deliberately missing is that "they had questioned 47 witnesses and experts over the death of Fabio Polenghi and gathered evidence to submit to prosecutors"

The comments made following these investigations are based on these, not inconsiderable number of, 47 statements! The wording used is relevant only to the fact that, as yet, this is evidence and the case has yet to be decided upon by a court of law, hence the use of words like "believed to have been", highlighted in Rubl's post... it's that old innocent until proven guilty premise which I'm sure you'd be raising had the wording been prematurely conclusive.

Clutching at straws springs to mind...

Edited July 23, 2012 by Ferangled

[OzMick]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

9mm and .45 ACP are considered low velocity at around 1250 and as low as 900ft/s respectively compared to 7.62 NATO @ 2700ft/s and 5.56mm NATO at ~3000ft/s. Slow and heavy can transfer as much energy as fast and light(er) and its the energy transfer (shock) that does the damage.

Can a low velocity gun penetrate a heart? Usually it's the bullet, but yes, quite easily - and not necessarily the heart to be fatal.

Which side had them? Both, though not what you would expect from "peaceful protesters."

[Tywais]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

compared to 7.62 NATO @ 2700ft/s and 5.56mm NATO at ~3000ft/s. Slow and heavy can transfer as much energy as fast

Or an AK47 at 2350 ft/s

[GeorgeO]

Regardless of the debate on here regarding what exactly "may have" happened, we find that, once again, we are provided with a very damning headline:

"Thai Army Shot Italian Photographer",

only to find within the text that:

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty".

How does the journalist responsible for this story move from that particular statement to the headline that we have been provided with??

It's sensationalist journalism at its worst, and fails to consider the point that a large quantity of high-velocity military weapons were seized from Army barracks, and that even now, no-one knows where these weapons are, or where they were at the time of the shooting.

So, even if it is concluded that the weapon that was used was a high-velocity weapon, there can never be any speculation that the weapon was in the hands of a soldier, unless there is solid evidence proving that, and there isn't.

BTW, I served in the British military for 22 years, and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that a low-velocity weapon, such as a 9mm pistol, can easily succeed in piercing the heart, and leave the body through a small exit wound; it would, therefore, be very useful to know what size the exit wound was. So even this point is speculative, particularly as there is no forensic evidence on the type of projectile that the unfortunate individual was struck by.

In summary, I support neither side, but I am strongly opposed to conclusions drawn based upon speculation, particularly from a group such as the Police, every single member of which was conspicuous by their lack of action, or even presence, at any time during the unfortunate events of 2010.

[mistitikimikis]

May I also refer to the topic " Late Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi's Case Will Go To Court In July "?

_{^{Here a photo of her to-days interview with local and international press in front of the Bangkok South Civil Court}}

[Moruya]

The situation with this case is that the reporter's widow is aligned with Robert Amsterdam and a Red shirt lawyer. Thaksin's brother in law is the chief of police and Amsterdam also represents Thaksin.

How much more conflict of interest could there be?

How many of the 47 are red shirts?

How many actually saw the reporter at the moment he was shot and can recall which direction he was in relation to the armed forces?

Unfortunately this case now stinks politically.

[philw]

The situation with this case is that the reporter's widow is aligned with Robert Amsterdam and a Red shirt lawyer. Thaksin's brother in law is the chief of police and Amsterdam also represents Thaksin.

How much more conflict of interest could there be?

How many of the 47 are red shirts?

How many actually saw the reporter at the moment he was shot and can recall which direction he was in relation to the armed forces?

Unfortunately this case now stinks politically.

Nice bit of spin..........................

[rubl]

The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty," he told Bangkok's Criminal Court on the opening day of the inquest.

The 'believed to have been' doesn't sound too sure or convincing. As it's part of the conclusion it seems there may not be enough evidence to support this believe and further investigations will be required. IMHO

I think the most relevant piece of information that you both seem to be deliberately missing is that "they had questioned 47 witnesses and experts over the death of Fabio Polenghi and gathered evidence to submit to prosecutors"

The comments made following these investigations are based on these, not inconsiderable number of, 47 statements! The wording used is relevant only to the fact that, as yet, this is evidence and the case has yet to be decided upon by a court of law, hence the use of words like "believed to have been", highlighted in Rubl's post... it's that old innocent until proven guilty premise which I'm sure you'd be raising had the wording been prematurely conclusive.

Clutching at straws springs to mind...

"Questioned 47 witnesses and experts and gathered evidence submitted to the prosecuters". And since there's no case yet, the vague description of 'believe'

For one this is a court of inquiry, so no prosecuters involved as such. Furthermore witnesses should have been clear in what they (believed) to have seen, like 'the army was shooting' for instance. So what else is new? Red colored straws?

[tlansford]

""The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty," he told Bangkok's Criminal Court on the opening day of the inquest."

give me the description of the authorities on duty, and I can find you one in a couple of days (maybe even with the same high-velocity gun...)

...

ah, feels good, ... I think I'm getting in the swing of things now...

[sirchai]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

compared to 7.62 NATO @ 2700ft/s and 5.56mm NATO at ~3000ft/s. Slow and heavy can transfer as much energy as fast

Or an AK47 at 2350 ft/s

The Chinese copies are a little slower........

[Reasonableman]

""The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty," he told Bangkok's Criminal Court on the opening day of the inquest."

give me the description of the authorities on duty, and I can find you one in a couple of days (maybe even with the same high-velocity gun...)

...

ah, feels good, ... I think I'm getting in the swing of things now...

We're really not interested in your mass debating activities, old boy.

[transam]

Troops on the ground had M16's, small high velocity rounds. Black shirts at AK 47's, larger round. 9mm hand gun would have had to be up close. Any good forensic guy involved in an autopsy will advise what did the job.

[Moruya]

The situation with this case is that the reporter's widow is aligned with Robert Amsterdam and a Red shirt lawyer. Thaksin's brother in law is the chief of police and Amsterdam also represents Thaksin.

How much more conflict of interest could there be?

How many of the 47 are red shirts?

How many actually saw the reporter at the moment he was shot and can recall which direction he was in relation to the armed forces?

Unfortunately this case now stinks politically.

Nice bit of spin..........................

Actually I would love for the truth to come about all the deaths as well as how it was both funded and coordinated.

I may have a view on what I would hope the outcome is but the truth is what I want to see.

[animatic]

Unless they can conclusively say any 'active duty army personel' did actually pull the trigger,

it is only conjecture from circumstantial evidence.

That it was a high powered rifle does not in any way mean it was

ONLY an 'active army personel' who pulled the trigger,

since we saw only weeks before men in black, with very high powered rifles,

acting AGAINST the army. The likelihood they 'just retired' during the siege is nil.

Even if there were many unarmed protestors, there were visibly many armed ones.

Plus snipers and counter snipers waiting opportunities.

Sadly no case is made, at this point,

and I WOULD like to know who did it, from any side, conclusively,

but there is a glaring benefit of the doubt / innocent till PROVEN guilty,

hole in this testimony you can drive a truck through.

Edited July 23, 2012 by animatic

[Moruya]

Unless they can conclusively say any current army personel did actually pull the trigger,

it is only conjecture from circumstantial evidence.

That it was a high powered rifle does not in any way mean it was

ONLY an 'active army personel' who pulled the trigger,

since we saw only weeks before men in black, with very high powered rifles,

acting AGAINST the army. The likelihood they 'just retired' during the siege is nil.

Even if there were many unarmed protestors, there were visibly many armed ones.

Plus snipers and counter snipers waiting opportunities.

Sadly no case is made, at this point,

and I WOULD like to know who did it, from any side, conclusively,

but there is a glaring benefit of the doubt / innocent till PROVEN guilty,

hole in this testimony you can drive a truck through.

quite.

And imagine if someone could identify a particular soldier.

If it went to court in most countries it would be kicked out for any number of reasons that have already been posted on

[Bill662]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

take a look at this http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/crackdown_in_bangkok.html

[BuckarooBanzai]

Does not matter red or yellow, people with scopes on their sniper rifles should not have difficulty in seeing who is armed and unarmed.

[nurofiend]

The situation with this case is that the reporter's widow is aligned with Robert Amsterdam and a Red shirt lawyer. Thaksin's brother in law is the chief of police and Amsterdam also represents Thaksin.

How much more conflict of interest could there be?

How many of the 47 are red shirts?

How many actually saw the reporter at the moment he was shot and can recall which direction he was in relation to the armed forces?

Unfortunately this case now stinks politically.

what stinks, is your immediate thoughts that it wasn't the rta when all the evidence points otherwise.

and don't say 'unfortunately' when you don't mean it.

Edited July 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[Buchholz]

Regardless of the debate on here regarding what exactly "may have" happened, we find that, once again, we are provided with a very damning headline:

"Thai Army Shot Italian Photographer",

only to find within the text that:

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty".

How does the journalist responsible for this story move from that particular statement to the headline that we have been provided with??

It's sensationalist journalism at its worst, and fails to consider the point that a large quantity of high-velocity military weapons were seized from Army barracks, and that even now, no-one knows where these weapons are, or where they were at the time of the shooting.

So, even if it is concluded that the weapon that was used was a high-velocity weapon, there can never be any speculation that the weapon was in the hands of a soldier, unless there is solid evidence proving that, and there isn't.

In summary, I support neither side, but I am strongly opposed to conclusions drawn based upon speculation, particularly from a group such as the Police, every single member of which was conspicuous by their lack of action, or even presence, at any time during the unfortunate events of 2010.

The OP headline could have been more factually stated like that of the Associated Press

Thai inquest probes Italian photographer's death

http://www.whbf.com/...ographers-death

which includes the paragraph:

Several investigations, including some by police, determined that many victims were probably killed by soldiers, but no definitive legal findings have been made. Separate public and private investigations into the deaths of the journalists found that evidence suggested they were killed by government forces, but they were not conclusive.

Associated Press - July 23, 2012

.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Buchholz

[Backwoods]

Regardless of the debate on here regarding what exactly "may have" happened, we find that, once again, we are provided with a very damning headline:

"Thai Army Shot Italian Photographer",

only to find within the text that:

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty".

How does the journalist responsible for this story move from that particular statement to the headline that we have been provided with??

It's sensationalist journalism at its worst, and fails to consider the point that a large quantity of high-velocity military weapons were seized from Army barracks, and that even now, no-one knows where these weapons are, or where they were at the time of the shooting.

So, even if it is concluded that the weapon that was used was a high-velocity weapon, there can never be any speculation that the weapon was in the hands of a soldier, unless there is solid evidence proving that, and there isn't.

In summary, I support neither side, but I am strongly opposed to conclusions drawn based upon speculation, particularly from a group such as the Police, every single member of which was conspicuous by their lack of action, or even presence, at any time during the unfortunate events of 2010.

The OP headline could have been more factually stated like that of the Associated Press

Thai inquest probes Italian photographer's death

http://www.whbf.com/...ographers-death

which includes the paragraph:

Several investigations, including some by police, determined that many victims were probably killed by soldiers, but no definitive legal findings have been made. Separate public and private investigations into the deaths of the journalists found that evidence suggested they were killed by government forces, but they were not conclusive.

Associated Press - July 23, 2012

.

Hell even a .357 magnum can pierce chest and heart and exit, without a bullit its hard to make a distinction!

[phiphidon]

Regardless of the debate on here regarding what exactly "may have" happened, we find that, once again, we are provided with a very damning headline:

"Thai Army Shot Italian Photographer",

only to find within the text that:

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty".

How does the journalist responsible for this story move from that particular statement to the headline that we have been provided with??

It's sensationalist journalism at its worst, and fails to consider the point that a large quantity of high-velocity military weapons were seized from Army barracks, and that even now, no-one knows where these weapons are, or where they were at the time of the shooting.

So, even if it is concluded that the weapon that was used was a high-velocity weapon, there can never be any speculation that the weapon was in the hands of a soldier, unless there is solid evidence proving that, and there isn't.

In summary, I support neither side, but I am strongly opposed to conclusions drawn based upon speculation, particularly from a group such as the Police, every single member of which was conspicuous by their lack of action, or even presence, at any time during the unfortunate events of 2010.

The OP headline could have been more factually stated like that of the Associated Press

Thai inquest probes Italian photographer's death

http://www.whbf.com/...ographers-death

which includes the paragraph:

Several investigations, including some by police, determined that many victims were probably killed by soldiers, but no definitive legal findings have been made. Separate public and private investigations into the deaths of the journalists found that evidence suggested they were killed by government forces, but they were not conclusive.

Associated Press - July 23, 2012

.

They might even have added that was this only the FIRST day of the inquest so it's not particularly earth shattering that no definitive legal findings have been made.....................yet

Edited July 23, 2012 by phiphidon

[waza]

Who killed Fabio Polenghi? A two weeks investigation by colleagues and friends of Fabio has cast some light on the circumstances of his killing. Fabio was killed by a bullet in an area where the Black Shirts were using mostly M 79 RPG – one of which severely wounded Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergrift – and M 16 assault rifles. On 19 May, these Black Shirts were occupying the Rajdamri Skytrain station, roughly 425 meters from the place where Fabio was hit. An M 16 is not very precise beyond a distance of one hundred meters, unless equipped with a sharp shooting vision device. ..........

After Fabio was hit on 19 May, man of Asian appearence rushed on the Canon 5 D camera Fabio had dropped when he collapsed. The man took the camera then dragged and helped to carry Fabio out of the fire zone. An investigation among Thai and Foreign journalists shows that this mysterious man is not a journalist, nor a photographer. He could just be a person who seized the opportunity of the chaos created by the shooting to steal a camera worth 4,000 Euros.

http://asiapacific.a...fabio-polenghi/

It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear.

Edited July 23, 2012 by waza

[ttelise]

Regardless of the debate on here regarding what exactly "may have" happened, we find that, once again, we are provided with a very damning headline:

"Thai Army Shot Italian Photographer",

only to find within the text that:

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty".

How does the journalist responsible for this story move from that particular statement to the headline that we have been provided with??

It's sensationalist journalism at its worst, and fails to consider the point that a large quantity of high-velocity military weapons were seized from Army barracks, and that even now, no-one knows where these weapons are, or where they were at the time of the shooting.

So, even if it is concluded that the weapon that was used was a high-velocity weapon, there can never be any speculation that the weapon was in the hands of a soldier, unless there is solid evidence proving that, and there isn't.

In summary, I support neither side, but I am strongly opposed to conclusions drawn based upon speculation, particularly from a group such as the Police, every single member of which was conspicuous by their lack of action, or even presence, at any time during the unfortunate events of 2010.

The OP headline could have been more factually stated like that of the Associated Press

Thai inquest probes Italian photographer's death

http://www.whbf.com/...ographers-death

which includes the paragraph:

Several investigations, including some by police, determined that many victims were probably killed by soldiers, but no definitive legal findings have been made. Separate public and private investigations into the deaths of the journalists found that evidence suggested they were killed by government forces, but they were not conclusive.

Associated Press - July 23, 2012

.

Hell even a .357 magnum can pierce chest and heart and exit, without a bullit its hard to make a distinction!

Forensics can tell difference between a 357 and a high velocity rifle. Maybe a 5.7 X 28 pistol would leave similar tissue damage as high velocity rifle, but I doubt very seriously anyone but Government would have a 5.7.

    "The size and the shape of the temporary cavity depend on the amount of kinetic energy lost by the bullet in its path through the tissue, how rapidly the energy is lost, and the elasticity and cohesiveness of the tissue. The maximum volume and diameter of this cavity are many times the volume and diameter of the bullet. Maximum expansion of the cavity does not occur until some time after the bullet has passed through the target. [Emphasis added.] The temporary cavity phenomenon is significant because it has been found to be the most important factor in determining the extent of the wounding in an individual in regard to the interaction of a bullet with the body. In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insignificant to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    "The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30 times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are a considerable distance from the path of the bullet. Fractures can occur even without direct contact between the bone and a rifle bullet. Positive and negative pressures alternate in the wound, with resultant sucking of foreign material and bacteria into the wound from both entrance and exit.

[Moruya]

The situation with this case is that the reporter's widow is aligned with Robert Amsterdam and a Red shirt lawyer. Thaksin's brother in law is the chief of police and Amsterdam also represents Thaksin.

How much more conflict of interest could there be?

How many of the 47 are red shirts?

How many actually saw the reporter at the moment he was shot and can recall which direction he was in relation to the armed forces?

Unfortunately this case now stinks politically.

what stinks, is your immediate thoughts that it wasn't the rta when all the evidence points otherwise.

and don't say 'unfortunately' when you don't mean it.

Don't tell me what I mean when you haven't a clue.

[waza]

Who killed Fabio Polenghi? A two weeks investigation by colleagues and friends of Fabio has cast some light on the circumstances of his killing. Fabio was killed by a bullet in an area where the Black Shirts were using mostly M 79 RPG – one of which severely wounded Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergrift – and M 16 assault rifles. On 19 May, these Black Shirts were occupying the Rajdamri Skytrain station, roughly 425 meters from the place where Fabio was hit. An M 16 is not very precise beyond a distance of one hundred meters, unless equipped with a sharp shooting vision device. ..........

After Fabio was hit on 19 May, man of Asian appearence rushed on the Canon 5 D camera Fabio had dropped when he collapsed. The man took the camera then dragged and helped to carry Fabio out of the fire zone. An investigation among Thai and Foreign journalists shows that this mysterious man is not a journalist, nor a photographer. He could just be a person who seized the opportunity of the chaos created by the shooting to steal a camera worth 4,000 Euros.

http://asiapacific.a...fabio-polenghi/

It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear.

Hmmm obviously is the wrong word, I think its possible that he was killed by the RTA, its possible he was shot for his camera or its contents too.

[birdpooguava]

Good to see the TV Thaksin haters' Society keeping up Suthep's line that not a single protester was killed by the army. They just shouldn't have run into the bullets.