' Bullets Came From Thai Military Side': Witness To The Death Of Italian Journalist 2010

[webfact]

WITNESS TO THE DEATH OF ITALIAN PHOTOJOURNALIST
'Bullets came from military side'
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Shots were fired from the direction of the military on May 19, 2010 as red shirts were being dispersed, German journalist Michel Maas told Criminal Court judges on Friday, taking the stand as the last witness in the case of the death of Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi.

"Bullets came from the direction of the military," Maas, who is based in Jakarta, Indonesia, and works for NOS Radio & Televisi, told the judges.

Maas was on site on May 19 nearly three years ago as the army moved in and he told the court that he was also shot in the back as he tried to flee.

He said he didn't know Polenghi and only learnt about his death while he was hospitalised at Police Hospital for his own bullet wound.

Maas said the bullet that hit him came from the direction of the military. That bullet, which was lodged inside his body for five weeks, was later identified by a Department of Special Investigation's expert as coming from an M16 rifle.

The bullet was given to the DSI as evidence, Maas told the court.

The Criminal Court will on May 29 make a ruling on Polenghi's death. Polenghi's sister, Elisabetta flew in from Italy to be at the hearing and was upset that two other witnesses, including one foreign national who videotaped the moment when Polenghi fell, were not allowed to testify after judges said their testimony was redundant to the trial.


-- The Nation 2013-03-15

[Chrisswe]

With indirect order from Abhisit - Suthep !!??

[bigbamboo]

So one witness is allowed to take the stand but two others, including what appears to be the key one, aren't.

Fishy?

[FarangTalk]

A cowardly act, shooting men in the back as they flee.

[clockman]

Justice is distant bell, rarely heard in Thailand!

[yourauntbob]

It doesnt matter how many witnesses take the stand, half the country is always going to believe that all injuries/fatalities were the result of the men in black. I will die of shock if even one military personnel is convicted of any of their crimes.

[rubl]

With an inquest everybody and his dog is following in as much detail as possible the court says that two foreigners don't need to testify as their testimony would be redundant? How does the court know this? Did those two make statements before which were written down and compared with what others had said?

With some inquests seeing dozens or more 'eye witnesses' testifying we here have a situation where two real eyewitnesses don't need to testify?

Puzzling to say the least.

PS I forsee two camps, one saying that the foreigners clearly saw soldiers aiming/shooting the Italian and the other camp saying that obviously those two saw MiB.

[Katipo]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

[Robby nz]

It doesnt matter how many witnesses take the stand, half the country is always going to believe that all injuries/fatalities were the result of the men in black. I will die of shock if even one military personnel is convicted of any of their crimes.

Why would any of the military personnel be convicted of anything?

They committed no crime they were doing their duty under a state of emergency brought on by the red shirt rioters.

If they fired shots then it would be because they were defending themselves against attack from armed rioters, and yes there were those on the red side who were armed and yes some of the army personnel were shot.

If, as happened, a reporter was shot and killed it is unfortunate but he and the others that were there had been given warning and should have known their lives could be in danger.

[yourauntbob]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

[yourauntbob]

It doesnt matter how many witnesses take the stand, half the country is always going to believe that all injuries/fatalities were the result of the men in black. I will die of shock if even one military personnel is convicted of any of their crimes.

Why would any of the military personnel be convicted of anything?

They committed no crime they were doing their duty under a state of emergency brought on by the red shirt rioters.

If they fired shots then it would be because they were defending themselves against attack from armed rioters, and yes there were those on the red side who were armed and yes some of the army personnel were shot.

If, as happened, a reporter was shot and killed it is unfortunate but he and the others that were there had been given warning and should have known their lives could be in danger.

[rubl]

I assume we're still talking about Thailand with the statement "half the country is always going to believe the death and injuries were caused by MiB" ?

[OzMick]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

I'd say somewhere within 150^o arc of fire. Eyes in the back of your head might narrow it some, or ears that face backwards.

[WhizBang]

 

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

And whose gun?

[Rich teacher]

The orders were for the army to only shoot when in danger, and if required, to shoot at the feet. They were there to deal with '500 heavily armed black clad terrorists.' So they shot foreign journalists in the back who were fleeing the scene with their cameras. Fair enough, they deserved it!

[rubl]

Our rich teacher is right on time to defame the Thai army by stating they shot foreign journalists and suggesting they did this on purpose.

Even the witnesses just say the shots came from a certain direction, or at least seemed to come from a certain direction. As all know only the army carried weapons, so draw your own conclusion. Shooting militants with journalists walking in front? Armed red-shirts? What armed red-shirts? MiB? What Mib?

Anyway, soon we can charge k. Abhisit and Suthep again, but not k. Tarit of course

[yourauntbob]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

I'd say somewhere within 150^o arc of fire. Eyes in the back of your head might narrow it some, or ears that face backwards.

Ok, defend the indefensible if you must but you do realize by now he has figured out the trajectory of the bullet from the angle it entered his body right? Call it math, science or whatever you want, a few not so complex calculations would be able to easily figure out what degree of the 150 possible degrees the bullet came from.

[djjamie]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

Yes, but when your a journalist with a camera you could be taking footage of the military trying to take control of a merciless attack by rioters or you could be photographing the red shirts attacking and killing so it really depends on which way he was facing. I am sure in the heat of the situation he would not be sure. However the video footage would be able to assess this. Red Scum.

[Robby nz]

I seem to remember, and I could be wrong, that I saw in Tele that one of the jurnos that was shot was wearing black clothing.

If my memory is correct then surely that would not be appropriate dress considering what was going on at the time.

[waza]

here is the video that they declared redundant, I remember at the time people were critical of him because he was dressed in black. preferred to be amongst the protesters and had nothing identifying him as press. The first guy to come to his aid steals his camera and the third guy is a Blackshirt.........

http://youtu.be/O23m3DqWb8U

Edited March 15, 2013 by waza

[OzMick]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

I'd say somewhere within 150^o arc of fire. Eyes in the back of your head might narrow it some, or ears that face backwards.

Ok, defend the indefensible if you must but you do realize by now he has figured out the trajectory of the bullet from the angle it entered his body right? Call it math, science or whatever you want, a few not so complex calculations would be able to easily figure out what degree of the 150 possible degrees the bullet came from.

And of course your calculation is based on the assumption that the shot man was standing upright, not looking over his shoulder, and moving directly away from the shooter, rather than at a tangent which makes you much harder to hit. But if you change any one of those variables, the possible range of sources becomes quite large.

Sorry about making your simple world complicated.

[Thereisnoif]

Our rich teacher is right on time to defame the Thai army by stating they shot foreign journalists and suggesting they did this on purpose.

Even the witnesses just say the shots came from a certain direction, or at least seemed to come from a certain direction. As all know only the army carried weapons, so draw your own conclusion. Shooting militants with journalists walking in front? Armed red-shirts? What armed red-shirts? MiB? What Mib?

Anyway, soon we can charge k. Abhisit and Suthep again, but not k. Tarit of course

Shame on you Rubl .

[Bluespunk]

At the time of the shooting there was an attempt to overthrow the state going on. Armed thugs were indiscriminately launching grenades and shooting off guns at civilians, a bunch of reds had dragged a soldier from a vehicle and murdered him, terrorist scum were shooting at the army. The situation was tense and nervy. Should the army have taken more care about why and at whom they shot? Certainly. Should this man have been amongst the reds/black shirt poseurs? He felt the story was worth the risk. I'm sorry he died this way, but when you have nervous/ angry soldiers facing people who hate them bad things can and do happen.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Bluespunk

[waza]

At the time of the shooting there was an attempt to overthrow the state going on. Armed thugs were indiscriminately launching grenades and shooting off guns at civilians, a bunch of reds had dragged a soldier from a vehicle and murdered him, terrorist scum were shooting at the army. The situation was tense and nervy. Should the army have taken more care about why and at whom they shot? Certainly. Should this man have been amongst the reds/black shirt poseurs? He felt the story was worth the risk. I'm sorry he died this way, but when you have nervous/ angry soldiers facing people who hate them bad things can and do happen.

the fog of war

[yourauntbob]

I am unable to use the quote button so

Ozmik

"

And of course your calculation is based on the assumption that the
shot man was standing upright, not looking over his shoulder, and moving
directly away from the shooter, rather than at a tangent which makes
you much harder to hit. But if you change any one of those variables,
the possible range of sources becomes quite large.

Sorry about making your simple world complicated."

Dont worry, you did not make it any more complicated, you simply imagined up details that appear no where in an effort to support your argument. The story states clearly

Maas was on site on May 19 nearly three years ago as the army moved in
and he told the court that he was also shot in the back as he tried to
flee.

At the end of the day, your trying to justify the army shooting people in the streets. Obviously your mind is made up on what happened and are not going to let facts or other points of view interfere with your current perception.

[Thereisnoif]

At the time of the shooting there was an attempt to overthrow the state going on. Armed thugs were indiscriminately launching grenades and shooting off guns at civilians, a bunch of reds had dragged a soldier from a vehicle and murdered him, terrorist scum were shooting at the army. The situation was tense and nervy. Should the army have taken more care about why and at whom they shot? Certainly. Should this man have been amongst the reds/black shirt poseurs? He felt the story was worth the risk. I'm sorry he died this way, but when you have nervous/ angry soldiers facing people who hate them bad things can and do happen.

Shame on you too.

[Bluespunk]

At the time of the shooting there was an attempt to overthrow the state going on. Armed thugs were indiscriminately launching grenades and shooting off guns at civilians, a bunch of reds had dragged a soldier from a vehicle and murdered him, terrorist scum were shooting at the army. The situation was tense and nervy. Should the army have taken more care about why and at whom they shot? Certainly. Should this man have been amongst the reds/black shirt poseurs? He felt the story was worth the risk. I'm sorry he died this way, but when you have nervous/ angry soldiers facing people who hate them bad things can and do happen.

Shame on you too.

Why?

[hellodolly]

At the time of the shooting there was an attempt to overthrow the state going on. Armed thugs were indiscriminately launching grenades and shooting off guns at civilians, a bunch of reds had dragged a soldier from a vehicle and murdered him, terrorist scum were shooting at the army. The situation was tense and nervy. Should the army have taken more care about why and at whom they shot? Certainly. Should this man have been amongst the reds/black shirt poseurs? He felt the story was worth the risk. I'm sorry he died this way, but when you have nervous/ angry soldiers facing people who hate them bad things can and do happen.

Shame on you too.

What does that mean.

[philw]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Edited March 15, 2013 by philw

[rubl]

It means that when soldiers were busy clearing the Ratchaprasong riot site they were still involved in firefights with 'unarmed protesters' who also dropped a few grenades just to emphasize their peaceful attitude.

Only some here call the unfortunate killing of the Italian journalist a murder, most would see that it's more than likely that this was an unfortunate accident similar to the taxi driver who run out to look who was firing.

Of course some will simple continue suggesting that the army had orders to kill and simple shot anyone they didn't like.

BTW how's the request to the ICC progressing? Robert A. representing the UDD in the request to investigate a possible crime against humanity seems awfully quiet these days. Even Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Dr. weng is no longer heard about a temporarily recognition of the ICC to investigate all (that the UDD tells them).

PS I lost count, but how many times now have we rehashed the March to May 2010 period? Did we really get much more information over the last three years? More speculation and hardening in opinions for sure.