Army Behind Thai Protest Death: Inquest

[473geo]

<snip>

What surprises me in this situation is how the volley of shots at the van failed to hit the driver, yet one shot appeared to be enough to kill the dead man....this would suggest either he was very very unlucky, or his death by an army bullet was not an accident.

<snip>

Or else it could mean that the army were trying to stop the van and not actually kill the driver...? Which kind of puts this whole "blood-thirsty army on a killing spree" argument to bed.

It doesn't put anything to bed, if they were so accurate that they did not intend to shoot the driver, and did not.........how did they manage to hit the pedestrian?......suddenly become inaccurate for one shot?

No, not really. This is how my thought process went...

1. Van drives towards military checkpoint.

2. The van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers open fire because of fears over a potential car bomb (as per OP).

3. Khun Phan was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire (as per OP).

I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination. So it seems they weren't aiming at the driver (or they would probably have hit him), nor at Khun Phan (who tragically ran out in the stream of a volley of legitimately-fired bullets).

But each of us can make our own assertions, it's clear you've made yours

You have no idea if Khun Phan was 4 meters or 40 metrers from the van, you like many more are painting your own picture and presenting an assertion on how you would prefer things to be....me?..... I have no preference in how the man died in such tragic circumstances, but the clamour on this thread to justify the actions of the RTA without sufficient knowledge tells its own story.

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

Blocked by Red Shirt Government

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

these cables are apparently pre-biased

comments on a different cable from one of the participants.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/556164-bangkok-huge-turnout-expected-at-red-shirt-rally-today/page__st__525#entry5331694

Now, I can easily imagine that some people on the red shirt side would think that provoking the military would be a good idea. There were incidents around bangkok before 10/4 and always away from the protest site.

This is a stupid strategy. It would have been even more stupid for the government - who clearly would have known the same information, right? - to react to any provocations.

Then came 10/4. The dispersal attempted on 10/4 was - at the very best - done at the wrong time of day... just before sundown. A less kind summary would be that the military screwed it up completely not only putting themselves at risk but allowing casualties on their side and causing casualties themselves among the protesters. In any case, right or wrong, the effort to clear protesters should have been done during daylight hours and not at a time when it risked going into the night.

But May 15th is a long time later. The government / military at that time was conducting the final "clearing" of the sites and it was being done with live fire zones and assault weapons - not with normal, internationally accepted methods for crowd control / dispersal.

Geo, the thing about the discussions on 2010 here is that people want it to be black and white, government good, red shirts bad. There were some really bad moments, but there were some amazingly courageous moments during the conflict as well. I think that people don't give the Thai people who were in the thick of it enough credit - be it soldier, police, or protester. There is the moment when the soldiers came out of the apparently abandoned APC on 10/4 and found themselves surrounded by angry protesters. The red guards protected them and escorted them back to where their own military were located. There were the examples of the red shirt protesters who helped and took care of injured security personnel.

What is striking about the debates here is the level of de-humanization that occurs. IMO it is a mental game people play with themselves to justify positions and opinions which are untenable. I'd add that another characteristic is the inability of posters to recognize that basic events actually occurred.

Instead they just chalk up all the problems to Thaksin's grand plan from Dubai and the dumb red buffalo who followed orders because they were paid to. Oops, did I just take a dig at my fellow posters? Sorry guys - not all of you do that.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Or else it could mean that the army were trying to stop the van and not actually kill the driver...? Which kind of puts this whole "blood-thirsty army on a killing spree" argument to bed.

It doesn't put anything to bed, if they were so accurate that they did not intend to shoot the driver, and did not.........how did they manage to hit the pedestrian?......suddenly become inaccurate for one shot?

No, not really. This is how my thought process went...

1. Van drives towards military checkpoint.

2. The van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers open fire because of fears over a potential car bomb (as per OP).

3. Khun Phan was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire (as per OP).

I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination. So it seems they weren't aiming at the driver (or they would probably have hit him), nor at Khun Phan (who tragically ran out in the stream of a volley of legitimately-fired bullets).

But each of us can make our own assertions, it's clear you've made yours

You have no idea if Khun Phan was 4 meters or 40 metrers from the van, you like many more are painting your own picture and presenting an assertion on how you would prefer things to be....me?..... I have no preference in how the man died in such tragic circumstances, but the clamour on this thread to justify the actions of the RTA without sufficient knowledge tells its own story.

" without sufficient knowledge tells its own story"

We just see the news reports, such as they are, at the end of the process. We get a few bits of information - sometimes potentially biased by the source reporting at that.

[Moruya]

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

Don't you have any gainful employment other than trolling around the labyrinths of TV abusing posters with your cockeyed sermons?

The deceased ran from an adjacent building to investigate the noise. It turned out to be a bad choice as it was unfortunately the last thing he did. You try to turn this scenario into one of premeditated murder when you have almost zero facts at your disposal.

The Thai military shot and killed a taxi driver during 2010 "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found Monday, in the first ever ruling on deaths during the country's worst political violence in decades.

Where does it say it was a deliberate act other than in your half cooked mind?

[473geo]

Where does it say it was a deliberate act other than in your half cooked mind?

Refer post 271

[Pi Sek]

473geo

<snip>

What surprises me in this situation is how the volley of shots at the van failed to hit the driver, yet one shot appeared to be enough to kill the dead man....this would suggest either he was very very unlucky, or his death by an army bullet was not an accident.

<snip>

Pi Sek

Or else it could mean that the army were trying to stop the van and not actually kill the driver...? Which kind of puts this whole "blood-thirsty army on a killing spree" argument to bed.

473geo

It doesn't put anything to bed, if they were so accurate that they did not intend to shoot the driver, and did not.........how did they manage to hit the pedestrian?......suddenly become inaccurate for one shot?

No, not really. This is how my thought process went...

1. Van drives towards military checkpoint.

2. The van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers open fire because of fears over a potential car bomb (as per OP).

3. Khun Phan was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire (as per OP).

I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination. So it seems they weren't aiming at the driver (or they would probably have hit him), nor at Khun Phan (who tragically ran out in the stream of a volley of legitimately-fired bullets).

But each of us can make our own assertions, it's clear you've made yours

You have no idea if Khun Phan was 4 meters or 40 metrers from the van, you like many more are painting your own picture and presenting an assertion on how you would prefer things to be....me?..... I have no preference in how the man died in such tragic circumstances, but the clamour on this thread to justify the actions of the RTA without sufficient knowledge tells its own story.

You're right - I have no idea how far away Khun Phan was from the van or what trajectory he was in between the shooters and the van... but that's not my point (please excuse me to not expressing it clearly). My point is that, if the soldiers were out-to-kill, surely they would have killed the van driver.

And, if they weren't out-to-kill, these soldiers at this time couldn't really be described as a "blood-thirsty army on a killing spree". That's not to say that other soldiers, or even these soldiers at an earlier or later time, couldn't be described as such... and, if certain squads were unlawfully shooting/killing people and others weren't, then it may be easier for investigative bodies to identify whom should be held responsible.

I'm not trying to "justify the actions of the RTA without sufficient knowledge", I'm saying that the orders were can't have been "kill 'em all" as the Red Shirt leaders would have us believe. The facts at hand here do show that.

" without sufficient knowledge tells its own story"

We just see the news reports, such as they are, at the end of the process. We get a few bits of information - sometimes potentially biased by the source reporting at that.

Indeed. From the original article (from your favourite, The Nation!), we can see that:

1) the army has accepted firing at the van.

2) there were conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses.

However, The Nation didn't tell us what the civilian witness testimonies said! (Anyone seen any of them on other media?)

[473geo]

Pi Sek

I accept that it is most unlikely that a "kill them all" instruction was issued.......why do you state as the driver of the van was not shot this proves something, from the article we do not even have any information to prove they even hit the van!!...There is so little information to draw major conclusions.......do not go away with the idea that forum members cannot accept there was blame on both sides, that there were rational and irrational people on both sides, just because they do not accept fabrication to further a point. Some of us carry a much broader view of the 'protest' but are often seen to persistently defend one side or the other, usually arising from fabricated rhetoric,accusation, and denial from those less inclined to periferal thinking.

Edited September 22, 2012 by 473geo

[whybother]

Pi Sek

I accept that it is most unlikely that a "kill them all" instruction was issued.......why do you state as the driver of the van was not shot this proves something, from the article we do not even have any information to prove they even hit the van!!...There is so little information to draw major conclusions.......do not go away with the idea that forum members cannot accept there was blame on both sides, that there were rational and irrational people on both sides, just because they do not accept fabrication to further a point. Some of us carry a much broader view of the 'protest' but are often seen to persistently defend one side or the other, usually arising from fabricated rhetoric,accusation, and denial from those less inclined to periferal thinking.

Even though there is little information, you still seem quite intent on blaming the army for everything.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[KireB]

I accept that it is most unlikely that a "kill them all" instruction was issued.......why do you state as the driver of the van was not shot this proves something, from the article we do not even have any information to prove they even hit the van!!...There is so little information to draw major conclusions.......do not go away with the idea that forum members cannot accept there was blame on both sides, that there were rational and irrational people on both sides, just because they do not accept fabrication to further a point. Some of us carry a much broader view of the 'protest' but are often seen to persistently defend one side or the other, usually arising from fabricated rhetoric,accusation, and denial from those less inclined to periferal thinking.

Well written, good to see that you have the ability to reflect upon and attribute to your shortcomings.

[nurofiend]

...

when was it more out of control? when the police had some involvement or when the army got free reign with the SOE?

When the Red Shirts and their friends the MiB decided it was time for a little urban guerrilla, that´s when.

is there a problem with quoting all of my post? especially without clarifying that you have not done so.

it's very bad netiquette.

Edited September 22, 2012 by nurofiend

[473geo]

Pi Sek

I accept that it is most unlikely that a "kill them all" instruction was issued.......why do you state as the driver of the van was not shot this proves something, from the article we do not even have any information to prove they even hit the van!!...There is so little information to draw major conclusions.......do not go away with the idea that forum members cannot accept there was blame on both sides, that there were rational and irrational people on both sides, just because they do not accept fabrication to further a point. Some of us carry a much broader view of the 'protest' but are often seen to persistently defend one side or the other, usually arising from fabricated rhetoric,accusation, and denial from those less inclined to periferal thinking.

Even though there is little information, you still seem quite intent on blaming the army for everything.

Sent from my HTC phone.

No I am raising perfectly valid questions as to why given the information provided nobody can state if the man was unlucky or taken out. As you wish to defend the RTA you take my points as being anti RTA, now I doubt that if the reds had been in control of the check point and an RTA guy was shot that you would have taken the same view.

Which is exactly the point you overlooked in my post above

I accept that it is most unlikely that a "kill them all" instruction was issued.......why do you state as the driver of the van was not shot this proves something, from the article we do not even have any information to prove they even hit the van!!...There is so little information to draw major conclusions.......do not go away with the idea that forum members cannot accept there was blame on both sides, that there were rational and irrational people on both sides, just because they do not accept fabrication to further a point. Some of us carry a much broader view of the 'protest' but are often seen to persistently defend one side or the other, usually arising from fabricated rhetoric,accusation, and denial from those less inclined to periferal thinking.

Well written, good to see that you have the ability to reflect upon and attribute to your shortcomings.

And treat attempted petty snide insults with the contempt they deserve...... .

Edited September 22, 2012 by 473geo

[AleG]

...

when was it more out of control? when the police had some involvement or when the army got free reign with the SOE?

When the Red Shirts and their friends the MiB decided it was time for a little urban guerrilla, that´s when.

is there a problem with quoting all of my post? especially without clarifying that you have not done so.

it's very bad netiquette.

I quoted the question you asked for, you don't like the answer?

[nurofiend]

...

when was it more out of control? when the police had some involvement or when the army got free reign with the SOE?

When the Red Shirts and their friends the MiB decided it was time for a little urban guerrilla, that´s when.

is there a problem with quoting all of my post? especially without clarifying that you have not done so.

it's very bad netiquette.

I quoted the question you asked for, you don't like the answer?

i don't like the fact that you edited my post and ignored other points that i put forward to you, and the other question you ignored.

[AleG]

- deleted for quote limits -

Blocked by Red Shirt Government

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

these cables are apparently pre-biased

comments on a different cable from one of the participants.

http://www.thaivisa....25#entry5331694

Now, I can easily imagine that some people on the red shirt side would think that provoking the military would be a good idea. There were incidents around bangkok before 10/4 and always away from the protest site.

This is a stupid strategy. It would have been even more stupid for the government - who clearly would have known the same information, right? - to react to any provocations.

Then came 10/4. The dispersal attempted on 10/4 was - at the very best - done at the wrong time of day... just before sundown. A less kind summary would be that the military screwed it up completely not only putting themselves at risk but allowing casualties on their side and causing casualties themselves among the protesters. In any case, right or wrong, the effort to clear protesters should have been done during daylight hours and not at a time when it risked going into the night.

But May 15th is a long time later. The government / military at that time was conducting the final "clearing" of the sites and it was being done with live fire zones and assault weapons - not with normal, internationally accepted methods for crowd control / dispersal.

Geo, the thing about the discussions on 2010 here is that people want it to be black and white, government good, red shirts bad. There were some really bad moments, but there were some amazingly courageous moments during the conflict as well. I think that people don't give the Thai people who were in the thick of it enough credit - be it soldier, police, or protester. There is the moment when the soldiers came out of the apparently abandoned APC on 10/4 and found themselves surrounded by angry protesters. The red guards protected them and escorted them back to where their own military were located. There were the examples of the red shirt protesters who helped and took care of injured security personnel.

What is striking about the debates here is the level of de-humanization that occurs. IMO it is a mental game people play with themselves to justify positions and opinions which are untenable. I'd add that another characteristic is the inability of posters to recognize that basic events actually occurred.

Instead they just chalk up all the problems to Thaksin's grand plan from Dubai and the dumb red buffalo who followed orders because they were paid to. Oops, did I just take a dig at my fellow posters? Sorry guys - not all of you do that.

Why would it had been dangerous to disperse a peaceful protests after sundown? You repeat this argument over and over but don't give a rationale.

Besides that Nick Nostitz himself said here in TV that at the time the shooting began the army was preparing to leave the area.

[Fozfromoz]

I accept that it is most unlikely that a "kill them all" instruction was issued.......why do you state as the driver of the van was not shot this proves something, from the article we do not even have any information to prove they even hit the van!!...There is so little information to draw major conclusions.......do not go away with the idea that forum members cannot accept there was blame on both sides, that there were rational and irrational people on both sides, just because they do not accept fabrication to further a point. Some of us carry a much broader view of the 'protest' but are often seen to persistently defend one side or the other, usually arising from fabricated rhetoric,accusation, and denial from those less inclined to periferal thinking.

Well written, good to see that you have the ability to reflect upon and attribute to your shortcomings.

i don't think he was referring to himself

[AleG]

stop with the trolling please. ie (how desperate are you?)

i'm not clutching at any straws nor am i desperate, i say as i see...and i'm saying you can't say the police f'd up in this instance because they didn't get the chance to f up, that 'honour' was given to the army.

as soon as the army were properly involved (SOE) (even though they were pretty much involved from the start, hence the possible misunderstanding of the question), that's when the bodies started hitting the ground, now what does that tell you???

was it better before the army started shooting and killing people amongst large crowds or after?

when was it more out of control? when the police had some involvement or when the army got free reign with the SOE?

When the Red Shirts and their friends the MiB decided it was time for a little urban guerrilla, that´s when.

Happier now?, there's one answer to the three questions. Things got worse after the MiB got involved, the army was around before April 10th, the change in the equation was the MiB,

Edited September 23, 2012 by AleG

[backtonormal]

Please read the red. At anytime in the conflict only a handful of soldiers were killed and that was in one incident in April. Also the only expert appraisal of that incident concludes that the grenade could not have been thrown by the red shirts due to it weight and the distance between them. It was most likely toss in from a short distance to escalate the army response. Before you bitch about my response ask yourself why the army or Dem Gov (of the time) have never provided a report into those soldier deaths.

For those readers not familiar with this particular nugget of BS, the "expert" in question was quoted by, and only by, Robert Amsterdam, Thaksin's propagandist and Red Shirt "lawyer"; refering to the use of hand grenades; as opposed to the grenades fired by a M79 grenade launchers, which the MiB are infamous for their use.

Taking onboard Thaksins BS lawyer as the truth (and you know I dont) I still ask where is the report from Gov of the day or the army. The relevant authorities of the time dare not publish any report which would be ridiculed by foreign experts. Lack of a report into the incident just mirrors the complete lack of progress orchestrated by the Dem government prior to being ousted in the last electionThe report came from an American military specialist not Amsterdam. Please show photos of red shirts firing grenade from said launcher

[backtonormal]

Also the only expert appraisal of that incident concludes that the grenade could not have been thrown by the red shirts due to it weight and the distance between them. It was most likely toss in from a short distance to escalate the army response.

For those readers not familiar with this particular nugget of BS, the "expert" in question was quoted by, and only by, Robert Amsterdam, Thaksin's propagandist and Red Shirt "lawyer"

Thanks for that.

It's quite normal for that poster to post in just such a manner.

It's that type of definitive statement of his that necessitate sorting.

You sir and Aleg, as usual, are avoiding the question. Why did no authority publish a report into the deaths of 6 soldiers when the had over 1 year to do it. Please stop taking snippets of my post as this may indicate an incomplete inaccurate response on my part

[whybother]

You sir and Aleg, as usual, are avoiding the question. Why did no authority publish a report into the deaths of 6 soldiers when the had over 1 year to do it. Please stop taking snippets of my post as this may indicate an incomplete inaccurate response on my part

The government commissioned an independent group to investigate and publish a report. What would an internal report have done? It wouldn't have been believed by a lot of people anyway.

[backtonormal]

You sir and Aleg, as usual, are avoiding the question. Why did no authority publish a report into the deaths of 6 soldiers when the had over 1 year to do it. Please stop taking snippets of my post as this may indicate an incomplete inaccurate response on my part

The government commissioned an independent group to investigate and publish a report. What would an internal report have done? It wouldn't have been believed by a lot of people anyway.

Please send link to independant report.....whoops you may not have one. Not about being believed any report published would have been torn to threads by military experts. Be careful its all unravelling and Thaksins coming home in a trade for Abhisits and Sutheps freedom

Talking of freedom why is your mate Yellow shirt Sondhi still walking free when he got another 3 months jail time. That makes about 24 years of jail time he owes the state and hes walking around scott free. Thaksins 2 years pales against this injustice

[whybother]

You sir and Aleg, as usual, are avoiding the question. Why did no authority publish a report into the deaths of 6 soldiers when the had over 1 year to do it. Please stop taking snippets of my post as this may indicate an incomplete inaccurate response on my part

The government commissioned an independent group to investigate and publish a report. What would an internal report have done? It wouldn't have been believed by a lot of people anyway.

Please send link to independant report.....whoops you may not have one. Not about being believed any report published would have been torn to threads by military experts. Be careful its all unravelling and Thaksins coming home in a trade for Abhisits and Sutheps freedom

<snip>

Maybe you should read the news about the report. I don't currently have a link to it. I am not sure one currently exists.

The independent report is being rejected by the PTP and the red shirts, because it says there were "Men in black" and they were linked to the red shirts.

[backtonormal]

You sir and Aleg, as usual, are avoiding the question. Why did no authority publish a report into the deaths of 6 soldiers when the had over 1 year to do it. Please stop taking snippets of my post as this may indicate an incomplete inaccurate response on my part

The government commissioned an independent group to investigate and publish a report. What would an internal report have done? It wouldn't have been believed by a lot of people anyway.

Please send link to independant report.....whoops you may not have one. Not about being believed any report published would have been torn to threads by military experts. Be careful its all unravelling and Thaksins coming home in a trade for Abhisits and Sutheps freedom

<snip>

Maybe you should read the news about the report. I don't currently have a link to it. I am not sure one currently exists.

The independent report is being rejected by the PTP and the red shirts, because it says there were "Men in black" and they were linked to the red shirts.

Same old same old never miss an opportunity to link them bad men MIB's with the red shirts. A link to a thai website will suffice if you cannot back up your postings

Edited September 23, 2012 by backtonormal

[whybother]

Same old same old never miss an opportunity to link them bad men MIB's with the red shirts. A link to a thai website will suffice if you cannot back up your postings

Are you honestly saying that you don't know about the Reconciliation Report from the TRCT?

[whybother]

Same old same old never miss an opportunity to link them bad men MIB's with the red shirts. A link to a thai website will suffice if you cannot back up your postings

Are you honestly saying that you don't know about the Reconciliation Report from the TRCT?

That explains the content of most of your posts. You should read a bit more.

http://www.thaivisa....tical-violence/

http://www.thaivisa....rom-red-shirts/

http://www.thaivisa....liation-report/

http://www.thaivisa....r-end-yongyuth/

http://www.thaivisa....the-hard-truth/

http://www.thaivisa....or-2010-deaths/

Edited September 23, 2012 by whybother

[backtonormal]

Same old same old never miss an opportunity to link them bad men MIB's with the red shirts. A link to a thai website will suffice if you cannot back up your postings

Are you honestly saying that you don't know about the Reconciliation Report from the TRCT?

That explains the content of most of your posts. You should read a bit more.

http://www.thaivisa....tical-violence/

http://www.thaivisa....rom-red-shirts/

http://www.thaivisa....liation-report/

http://www.thaivisa....r-end-yongyuth/

http://www.thaivisa....the-hard-truth/

http://www.thaivisa....or-2010-deaths/

Which one shows the independent report into the soldier deaths. And reading Nation reports is like an American Democrat having to believe Fox news...they search for a second opinion

Edited September 23, 2012 by backtonormal

[Buchholz]

For those readers not familiar with this particular nugget of BS, the "expert" in question was quoted by, and only by, Robert Amsterdam, Thaksin's propagandist and Red Shirt "lawyer"; refering to the use of hand grenades; as opposed to the grenades fired by a M79 grenade launchers, which the MiB are infamous for their use.

Taking onboard Thaksins BS lawyer as the truth (and you know I dont) I still ask where is the report from Gov of the day or the army. The relevant authorities of the time dare not publish any report which would be ridiculed by foreign experts. Lack of a report into the incident just mirrors the complete lack of progress orchestrated by the Dem government prior to being ousted in the last electionThe report came from an American military specialist not Amsterdam.

ahhhh.... the infamous, and appropriately named, Sargent Witty.

Hired consultant of Amsterdam.

Same, same as "the report came from Amsterdam."

From the thread that covers him and his employer Amsterdam:

http://www.thaivisa....criminal-court/

From the actual report:

This Application includes an expert report by Joe Ray Witty, a Green Beret and Master Sergeant (Retired) of the United States Army, Special Forces. Master Sergeant (Ret.) Witty is a military-trained sniper and an explosives specialist, serving two tours of duty in military combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is currently employed by Los Angeles Police Department SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics)team, where he is a member of SWAT's sniper and breaching cadres. He is also an instructor for the Los Angeles Police Department in crowd control and crowd management, where his responsibilities include the planning and execution of law enforcement response to public demonstrations throughout the greater Los Angeles area.

Master Sergeant (Ret.) Witty reviewed and evaluated the Royal Thai Army's response to the Red Shirt demonstrations in Bangkok in April and May 2010. Based on his study of many hours of video and photographic evidence from the demonstrations, together with a personal examination of the physical sites of the Royal Thai Army's response and numerous witness interviews, he prepared an Expert Report containing the following conclusions, which are supported in detail in the body of his Expert Report:

And then a long list of half-truths and misinterpretations etc.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Buchholz

[whybother]

Which one shows the independent report into the soldier deaths. And reading Nation reports is like an American Democrat having to believe Fox news...they search for a second opinion

If you want a link to the report, you'll need to find it yourself. I don't have it.

[rixalex]

The report came from an American military specialist not Amsterdam.

How can in one breath you decry the lack of impartiality of the Nation, and then, in the next, be putting weight behind Witty?

It's not impartiality per say that you have a problem with, it's impartiality that doesn't go in the direction of your argument

[TheKrayTriplet]

Snip

And then a long list of half-truths and misinterpretations etc.

Ok just for the sake of interest here is a link to the report in full. I won't reproduce it here as it is fairly long but it also contains some very graphic images of the head wounds.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49150728/Expert-Report-by-Joe-Ray-Witty

Could you please point out the long list of half truths and misinterpretations etc that you are saying it contains. I have seen many comments about this report generally disregarding it as tainted evidence because it happens to have been provided by an expert witness who has been paid for his work. Most if not all witnesses are paid for their input. The fact that they are paid does not detract from their input (though I'm sure that those to whom the very sight of "amsterdam" in print brings on apoplexy, will disagree).

I have not seen a rational point by point rebuttal of the report so I look forward to your clarification of the "half-truths and misinterpretations etc".

[Buchholz]

Snip

And then a long list of half-truths and misinterpretations etc.

Ok just for the sake of interest here is a link to the report in full. I won't reproduce it here as it is fairly long but it also contains some very graphic images of the head wounds.

http://www.scribd.co...y-Joe-Ray-Witty

Could you please point out the long list of half truths and misinterpretations etc that you are saying it contains. I have seen many comments about this report generally disregarding it as tainted evidence because it happens to have been provided by an expert witness who has been paid for his work. Most if not all witnesses are paid for their input. The fact that they are paid does not detract from their input (though I'm sure that those to whom the very sight of "amsterdam" in print brings on apoplexy, will disagree).

I have not seen a rational point by point rebuttal of the report so I look forward to your clarification of the "half-truths and misinterpretations etc".

You'll need to consult first with TAWP whose words you are quoting in the post I extracted from that thread.

Short of that, there's any number of shortcomings highlighted in the thread where that Amsterdam report is the topic. Amsterdam's stammering in the Al Jazeera interview regarding the financing of the Reds and other issues in Post # 4 is noteworthy.

Additionally, a review of Post # 298 in this thread can provide insight into the partiality which comes along with Witty's Words.

.