Thai Army chief says soldiers did not kill 6 Wat Pathum victims

[unanimosity]

Army Chief Says Soldiers Did Not Kill 6 Wat Pathum Victims

By Khaosod Online

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

Submit the weapons used by the soldiers on the bridge for forensic examination - does the court not have the power to insist on this?

This would seem the commonsense solution, then the rifling of the weapons can be matched to the bullets, which I understand are very individual to each weapon. But perhaps it has been done, or maybe I am assuming too much with my commonsense solution?

Common sense? Seriously, where do you think you are? The only way such matching would have validity is if the firearms were confiscated before being returned to the armory that same day, and even then if multiple rounds had been fired after the lethal ones the rifling may have been altered, making a 100% certain match not possible. Even if it were possible, what do you think the chances are, three years after the fact, that ballistics examiners would receive rifles used that day?

[trucking]

The courts ruling is not final, what will you do, have a coup?

It's not over until the fat lady sings.

[Commander Tamson]

Army Chief Says Soldiers Did Not Kill 6 Wat Pathum Victims

By Khaosod Online

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

Submit the weapons used by the soldiers on the bridge for forensic examination - does the court not have the power to insist on this?

This would seem the commonsense solution, then the rifling of the weapons can be matched to the bullets, which I understand are very individual to each weapon. But perhaps it has been done, or maybe I am assuming too much with my commonsense solution?

Common sense? Seriously, where do you think you are? The only way such matching would have validity is if the firearms were confiscated before being returned to the armory that same day, and even then if multiple rounds had been fired after the lethal ones the rifling may have been altered, making a 100% certain match not possible. Even if it were possible, what do you think the chances are, three years after the fact, that ballistics examiners would receive rifles used that day?

Are you arguing or agreeing?

I hate to think of the country that I am now a part of being so morally wrong & corrupt. But is it really any different from any other? Makes me also just want to bury my head in the sand

[Robby nz]

) 6 people were killed inside the temple, which was declared a "safe zone" by the army itself.

forensic testing proved that none of the victims had any traces of gunshot residue on their hands.

c) the army, by their own admission, had sealed off the area so that no one who was armed with ANY type of weapon could enter.

d) there were multiple eyewitnesses who clearly stated that there was no gunfire coming FROM the temple, only INTO the temple.

e) the day after the killings, the army displayed weapons they claim they found inside the temple, but refused to turn them over for any type of forensic testing.

f) along with eyewitness accounts, there were a number of photographs and videos which showed soldiers on the elevated tracks shooting down into the temple.

g) the army has consistently refused to participate in the investigation of ANY inquiry into the death of ANY civilian.

OK point by point.

Correct, but did the reds ever declare it a safe area?

c) There were photos and videos at the time of men in black in positions where they could have shot into the temple, an Army officer is on record as saying they chased men in black away from the area.

d) true, that only proves that someone shot into the temple.

e) Divers retrieved weapons out of the pond, lake whatever you want to call it. Them doing it and the weapons were displayed on television at the time, however they looked like they had been there for some time.

F) BS there were, are no such photos, if you insist that there are please post them.

g) The report of the inquest said that the army's testimony had been discounted because it was not consistent. IE those who gave evidence gave different stories. Which points to there being no collusion between witnesses and they told it as they saw it. No orders given as to what to say.

So therefore the army have participated.

Has there ever been a request to the army to have the weapons of the men in that area tested?

This was an inquest not a trial therefore no one has been found guilty of anything.

[Robby nz]

Submit the weapons used by the soldiers on the bridge for forensic examination - does the court not have the power to insist on this?

This would seem the commonsense solution, then the rifling of the weapons can be matched to the bullets, which I understand are very individual to each weapon. But perhaps it has been done, or maybe I am assuming too much with my commonsense solution?

Common sense? Seriously, where do you think you are? The only way such matching would have validity is if the firearms were confiscated before being returned to the armory that same day, and even then if multiple rounds had been fired after the lethal ones the rifling may have been altered, making a 100% certain match not possible. Even if it were possible, what do you think the chances are, three years after the fact, that ballistics examiners would receive rifles used that day?

Not only can bullets be matched to weapons but also cartridge cases. Every firearm leaves distinctive marks on both and there is no way said firearms can be altered short of destroying them.

Every weapon has an individual serial number and these are normally recorded when weapons are issued so it should be easy to trace each weapon to an individual soldier.

As I posted before, have the army ever been asked to test the weapons used on that day?

Perhaps this is the evidence that the army will produce when it comes to court procedings.

Of course the reds would never believe them anyway.

[Bluespunk]

The courts ruling is not final, what will you do, have a coup?

It's not over until the fat lady sings.

Or the fat man gets his amnesty.

[scorecard]

Didn't the army refuse to answer any questions on this, or provide their guns for analysis? Funny, on the one hand the army chief says it was not the army, and on the other do no cooperate with the investigation which i presume could fairly easily exonerate them from any blame.

I'm not aware of that, please share some details.

[scorecard]

) 6 people were killed inside the temple, which was declared a "safe zone" by the army itself.

forensic testing proved that none of the victims had any traces of gunshot residue on their hands.

c) the army, by their own admission, had sealed off the area so that no one who was armed with ANY type of weapon could enter.

d) there were multiple eyewitnesses who clearly stated that there was no gunfire coming FROM the temple, only INTO the temple.

e) the day after the killings, the army displayed weapons they claim they found inside the temple, but refused to turn them over for any type of forensic testing.

f) along with eyewitness accounts, there were a number of photographs and videos which showed soldiers on the elevated tracks shooting down into the temple.

g) the army has consistently refused to participate in the investigation of ANY inquiry into the death of ANY civilian.

OK point by point.

Correct, but did the reds ever declare it a safe area?

c) There were photos and videos at the time of men in black in positions where they could have shot into the temple, an Army officer is on record as saying they chased men in black away from the area.

d) true, that only proves that someone shot into the temple.

e) Divers retrieved weapons out of the pond, lake whatever you want to call it. Them doing it and the weapons were displayed on television at the time, however they looked like they had been there for some time.

F) BS there were, are no such photos, if you insist that there are please post them.

g) The report of the inquest said that the army's testimony had been discounted because it was not consistent. IE those who gave evidence gave different stories. Which points to there being no collusion between witnesses and they told it as they saw it. No orders given as to what to say.

So therefore the army have participated.

Has there ever been a request to the army to have the weapons of the men in that area tested?

This was an inquest not a trial therefore no one has been found guilty of anything.

And perhaps another point, there were several mentions at the time of weapons in the hands of the red people which had been stolen from various military locations.

[FarangTalk]

The news today from a Bangkok court that there were no armed Red Shirts or their affiliates in Wat Patum temple on May 19th 2010 and that the army, under orders from the then Abhist Vejjajiva-led Thai government, were solely responsible for the deaths of 6 civilians in the temple, should be welcomed by all those seeking a genuine process of truth, justice and reconciliation in Thailand. That it has taken three full years for the truth to begin to emerge reveals the mendacious hand Abhisit’s government played when it set up the flawed Truth For Reconciliation Committee of Thailand (TRCT), giving it almost no legal power to find that truth, refusing it the ability to subpoena witnesses.

Without truth there is no justice. And without justice there can be no real workable amnesty. Some might argue a de facto legal amnesty already exists for the extremist anti-democratic People’s Alliance for Democracy and the groups aligned with them, including Abhisit’s Democrat Party. Abhisit and his former deputy PM, Suthep Thaugsuban, have both been charged with the murder of civilian protesters in 2010, yet arrogantly strut around, even dismissing the court’s bail conditions, assured of their own impunity.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/2013/08/06/guess-which-side-in-thailand-already-has-an-amnesty/

[OzMick]

Civilized countries would never let civil disobedience escalate, or even allow a protest demonstration without a permit, and certainly would not allow such a gathering in the middle of town where emergency services and traffic in general would be severely compromised. Most certainly, they would not allow guns at a demonstration.

Once the protesters were allowed to establish a position it became a tacit approval, they did not confront anyone, did not attack anyone, did not start shooting.

Was it wrong for the protesters to bring arms and establish a defensive position that interfered with the safety of the city as a whole? Absolutely. But it appeared that the gov at that time was operating within the cultural context of avoiding a confrontation and followed a course of inaction. What they failed to understand is that inaction has consequences for which they are responsible. Not to decide is to decide and allowing these people to set up an encampment is fully the fault of the powers that were.

However, being armed in itself presents no threat. The gov apparently made no official requests or negotiations and did not offer any strategy for the citizens to disarm and after being inactive and offering no leadership or plan for resolving the differences, other than trying to agree on a snap election, moved armed soldiers and snipers into a confrontational stance and chose to ignore well established options for non-lethal crowd dispersal, which hardly meets the criteria of civilized.

Your logic seems to be that because a few people dressed in red shirts had guns it excuses the killing of others that fit the same profile whether armed or not, whether they posed a threat cowering behind a wall in a temple or not.

You seem to advocate that killing people because they armed themselves is fine, even if they armed themselves for self-defense. HRW tends to disagree with your notion.

Ridiculous argument. security forces not only have the right to bear arms, it is part of their duty. You suggest their handling of ILLEGALLY ARMED protesters was confrontational which led to armed conflict, but the protesters had no right to be armed especially while committing criminal acts.

Your also suggest that non-lethal means of crowd dispersal should be used. Why should security forces put their lives at risk? The photos clearly showed RTA soldiers with shields and batons just before their commander was killed - after that your non-lethal means is no longer an option.

[khunken]

The news today from a Bangkok court that there were no armed Red Shirts or their affiliates in Wat Patum temple on May 19th 2010 and that the army, under orders from the then Abhist Vejjajiva-led Thai government, were solely responsible for the deaths of 6 civilians in the temple, should be welcomed by all those seeking a genuine process of truth, justice and reconciliation in Thailand. That it has taken three full years for the truth to begin to emerge reveals the mendacious hand Abhisit’s government played when it set up the flawed Truth For Reconciliation Committee of Thailand (TRCT), giving it almost no legal power to find that truth, refusing it the ability to subpoena witnesses.

Without truth there is no justice. And without justice there can be no real workable amnesty. Some might argue a de facto legal amnesty already exists for the extremist anti-democratic People’s Alliance for Democracy and the groups aligned with them, including Abhisit’s Democrat Party. Abhisit and his former deputy PM, Suthep Thaugsuban, have both been charged with the murder of civilian protesters in 2010, yet arrogantly strut around, even dismissing the court’s bail conditions, assured of their own impunity.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/2013/08/06/guess-which-side-in-thailand-already-has-an-amnesty/

Pure hate.

No armed red shirts in the temple? As just about all the people in the temple, aside from a few medics & monks, were red shirt supporters from the protests & riots - it's not surprising that they deny that. That innocent people were shot is uncontested but the proof that the army shot them is purely circumstantial. The court has it's DSI-supplied 'evidence' and that, unfortunately, was what they had to make a judgement on.

The TRCT wasn't perfect but it did make one correct finding. The 2001 assets disclosure mistrial started the country on the slippery slope to becoming so divided. The use of the DSI by the PTP has been far worse than the TRCT in that is has been given instructions to nail Abhisit & Suthep by hook or by crook (very apt).

Without truth there is no justice. I agree with that. But where is the truth about the paymaster, the killers of the colonel, the MIB's involvement, the firing of rocket-propelled grenades from the vicinity of Lumpini Park, the orders to burn & arsonists, etc, etc.

No one is 'strutting around' except in some puerile minds. Abhisit and Suthep are far from being convicted for anything and are accused of the heinous crime of using modern money transfer methods by the same lackey (who incidentally was just as culpable as anyone - if anyone was) who has been responsible for finding anything (the hook & crook bit) he can to get A & S to bend to the amnesty whim of the dear leader.

Abhisit & Suthep will know the ROE given to the army. It's pretty obvious that they know that the ROE didn't include targeting innocent civilians.

BTW posting a link to anything from Amsterdam is worthless.

[GentlemanJim]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Edited August 10, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[philw]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Er...............

Seems the soldiers shot the medics.

Apart from 4 or 5 people on here and the army commander, almost everyone else, probably rather sadly, accepts this.

Let's go forwards and see how the prosecution, for murder, by the soldiers, their officers and commanders proceeds.

This is a welcome first for Thailand in that the RTA may possibly ( but I'm not holding my breath ) be held accountable for the cold blooded murder of unarmed, Thai medical volunteers.

All in accordance with the law.

[tominbkk]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

These protestors were fortified with armed thugs, who had rocket launchers, semi automatics, and other weapons. They were not there to protest, they were there to try and overthrow the government.

Please do not try and candy coat those red thugs.

[philw]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

These protestors were fortified with armed thugs, who had rocket launchers, semi automatics, and other weapons. They were not there to protest, they were there to try and overthrow the government.

Please do not try and candy coat those red thugs.

Er, she was a medic attending to the injured.................in a temple, that had been agreed by both sides to be a safe zone.

[kimamey]

The news today from a Bangkok court that there were no armed Red Shirts or their affiliates in Wat Patum temple on May 19th 2010 and that the army, under orders from the then Abhist Vejjajiva-led Thai government, were solely responsible for the deaths of 6 civilians in the temple, should be welcomed by all those seeking a genuine process of truth, justice and reconciliation in Thailand. That it has taken three full years for the truth to begin to emerge reveals the mendacious hand Abhisit’s government played when it set up the flawed Truth For Reconciliation Committee of Thailand (TRCT), giving it almost no legal power to find that truth, refusing it the ability to subpoena witnesses.

Without truth there is no justice. And without justice there can be no real workable amnesty. Some might argue a de facto legal amnesty already exists for the extremist anti-democratic People’s Alliance for Democracy and the groups aligned with them, including Abhisit’s Democrat Party. Abhisit and his former deputy PM, Suthep Thaugsuban, have both been charged with the murder of civilian protesters in 2010, yet arrogantly strut around, even dismissing the court’s bail conditions, assured of their own impunity.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/2013/08/06/guess-which-side-in-thailand-already-has-an-amnesty/

I'm not sure what your point is as you've just quoted Robert Amsterdam and not made any comment.

The first thing to remember is Robert Amsterdam is a lawyer so whilst he won't, or at least shouldn't lie particularly in court it's his job to present the parts of the truth that support his case and avoid the truth that doesn't. As far as I know he no longer represents Thaksin Shinawatra but I could be wrong and this statement on his website is filed under Thaksin's name. I had a feeling he was now working for the red shirts but I may be wrong.

He's inclined to use flamboyant language such as murder, slaughter and massacre in his written and verbal statements but is much more circumspect when addressing judicial bodies.

He's possibly right to attack the limited powers of the TRCT but the present government has done nothing tas far as know to make giving of evidence an obligation.

He suggest that there is a virtual amnesty for PAD members but I'm sure some have had convictions although it's true they may not be in prison yet.

As for his claim about red shirts in jail those that are guilty of minor offences could be released with the support of the Democrats as they have given their support to amnesty in those cases.

As for Abhisit and Suthep's alleged arrogance I've not seen that but they appear to me as you would expect when all the evidence and verdicts that come out, including this latest one seem to back the view that the deaths occurred at the hands of the military whilst they were not abiding by the ROE.

[GentlemanJim]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Er...............

Seems the soldiers shot the medics.

Apart from 4 or 5 people on here and the army commander, almost everyone else, probably rather sadly, accepts this.

Let's go forwards and see how the prosecution, for murder, by the soldiers, their officers and commanders proceeds.

This is a welcome first for Thailand in that the RTA may possibly ( but I'm not holding my breath ) be held accountable for the cold blooded murder of unarmed, Thai medical volunteers.

All in accordance with the law.

Er.........

Your illustrious leader was found guilty by the judicial system, but that was all a put up wasn't it

[Slip]

Amsterdam is crediting the Thai court with the seemingly impossible task of proving a negative. However, if you scrutinise his source, as biased and rhetorical as it surely seems to be, it does not at any point spin it to his outrageous claim that the court said "there were no armed Red Shirts or their affiliates in Wat Patum temple on May 19th 2010". Spin, spin, more spin, and smoke, and mirrors and b*shit.

[nicknostitz]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Yes, well...

Only problem with your little hypotheses is that in the Truth for Reconciliation Commission *public* hearing on March 29, 2011, on the temple incident the commanding officer of the troops stationed on the BTS tracks has made a slide presentation on his unit's deployment, including exact timing, etc. Naturally he claimed that his troops were fired upon and that they returned fire, but that his troops did not shoot any unarmed protesters.

That basically means that for 2 1/2 years it has been clearly established that troops were stationed on the BTS tracks, and not as previously claimed by Suthep and Anupong, and still by you, that there were no soldiers there.

Khunying Pornthip, who spoke at the same meeting, stated that no gunpowder residue has been found on the hands of the 6 victims.

Even for amateurs it was (and maybe still is) clearly visible in the temple that shots were fired from the BTS tracks at the scene of one of the dead. A bullet grazed a corner of a wall, just to hit another wall 40 cm further away. The trajectory of this bullet points directly to the BTS tracks. If anyone wants to have a look if the evidence is still there (i haven't looked in about two years) - it is the corner right next to the wall pointing at Siam Paragon at Rama I Rd, below the tree.

I have not been at the temple during this incident, therefore i do not know if at the exact time of the fatal shooting of the 6 so called MIB were present. It seems to be quite clear that before such armed militants were present indeed. Armed protesters were indeed legitimate targets of the military, and shooting them would not have raised any eyebrows under the international media (some of whose members were in the temple, and have witnessed the incident, one was even wounded).

But - none of the dead were armed protesters, two were even EMS staff - nurse Kate, and a Por Teck Tueng volonteer, both in their uniforms.

There are harrowing witness accounts, such the one of an old man i interviewed one month after the incident during a commemoration ceremony in the temple, who was crouching and trapped behind a car at that day. Showing his mangled foot, a rather large chunk of flesh missing at the exit wound, he told of his experiences that day, and that he saw the soldiers shooting at him and others. Another was of a young woman who was hiding the whole night behind or in one of the parked cars for fear of her life, who for two years after had to take anti-anxiety medication.

I do not know what Suthep, Abhisit, Anupong or other high ranked CRES members ordered that day (and any other of these days), and i hope one of the relevant trials will shed some light on that issue.

But what i do know is that non-legitimate targets were shot at, injured or killed - by soldiers, as the result of the inquest was.

Some other incidents i had to witness personally, and apart from one single incident in which the military was under fire and returned fire (rather wildly, and hitting a few unarmed guards) during all others the military was not under any threat of armed militants and fired at protesters without any armed militants anywhere around.

[whatthai]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Yes, well...

Only problem with your little hypotheses is that in the Truth for Reconciliation Commission *public* hearing on March 29, 2011, on the temple incident the commanding officer of the troops stationed on the BTS tracks has made a slide presentation on his unit's deployment, including exact timing, etc. Naturally he claimed that his troops were fired upon and that they returned fire, but that his troops did not shoot any unarmed protesters.

That basically means that for 2 1/2 years it has been clearly established that troops were stationed on the BTS tracks, and not as previously claimed by Suthep and Anupong, and still by you, that there were no soldiers there.

Khunying Pornthip, who spoke at the same meeting, stated that no gunpowder residue has been found on the hands of the 6 victims.

Even for amateurs it was (and maybe still is) clearly visible in the temple that shots were fired from the BTS tracks at the scene of one of the dead. A bullet grazed a corner of a wall, just to hit another wall 40 cm further away. The trajectory of this bullet points directly to the BTS tracks. If anyone wants to have a look if the evidence is still there (i haven't looked in about two years) - it is the corner right next to the wall pointing at Siam Paragon at Rama I Rd, below the tree.

I have not been at the temple during this incident, therefore i do not know if at the exact time of the fatal shooting of the 6 so called MIB were present. It seems to be quite clear that before such armed militants were present indeed. Armed protesters were indeed legitimate targets of the military, and shooting them would not have raised any eyebrows under the international media (some of whose members were in the temple, and have witnessed the incident, one was even wounded).

But - none of the dead were armed protesters, two were even EMS staff - nurse Kate, and a Por Teck Tueng volonteer, both in their uniforms.

There are harrowing witness accounts, such the one of an old man i interviewed one month after the incident during a commemoration ceremony in the temple, who was crouching and trapped behind a car at that day. Showing his mangled foot, a rather large chunk of flesh missing at the exit wound, he told of his experiences that day, and that he saw the soldiers shooting at him and others. Another was of a young woman who was hiding the whole night behind or in one of the parked cars for fear of her life, who for two years after had to take anti-anxiety medication.

I do not know what Suthep, Abhisit, Anupong or other high ranked CRES members ordered that day (and any other of these days), and i hope one of the relevant trials will shed some light on that issue.

But what i do know is that non-legitimate targets were shot at, injured or killed - by soldiers, as the result of the inquest was.

Some other incidents i had to witness personally, and apart from one single incident in which the military was under fire and returned fire (rather wildly, and hitting a few unarmed guards) during all others the military was not under any threat of armed militants and fired at protesters without any armed militants anywhere around.

Nick ,

Spot on as always.

The truth must and will come out, no matter how much the RTA lies.

[kimamey]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Yes, well...

Only problem with your little hypotheses is that in the Truth for Reconciliation Commission *public* hearing on March 29, 2011, on the temple incident the commanding officer of the troops stationed on the BTS tracks has made a slide presentation on his unit's deployment, including exact timing, etc. Naturally he claimed that his troops were fired upon and that they returned fire, but that his troops did not shoot any unarmed protesters.

That basically means that for 2 1/2 years it has been clearly established that troops were stationed on the BTS tracks, and not as previously claimed by Suthep and Anupong, and still by you, that there were no soldiers there.

Khunying Pornthip, who spoke at the same meeting, stated that no gunpowder residue has been found on the hands of the 6 victims.

Even for amateurs it was (and maybe still is) clearly visible in the temple that shots were fired from the BTS tracks at the scene of one of the dead. A bullet grazed a corner of a wall, just to hit another wall 40 cm further away. The trajectory of this bullet points directly to the BTS tracks. If anyone wants to have a look if the evidence is still there (i haven't looked in about two years) - it is the corner right next to the wall pointing at Siam Paragon at Rama I Rd, below the tree.

I have not been at the temple during this incident, therefore i do not know if at the exact time of the fatal shooting of the 6 so called MIB were present. It seems to be quite clear that before such armed militants were present indeed. Armed protesters were indeed legitimate targets of the military, and shooting them would not have raised any eyebrows under the international media (some of whose members were in the temple, and have witnessed the incident, one was even wounded).

But - none of the dead were armed protesters, two were even EMS staff - nurse Kate, and a Por Teck Tueng volonteer, both in their uniforms.

There are harrowing witness accounts, such the one of an old man i interviewed one month after the incident during a commemoration ceremony in the temple, who was crouching and trapped behind a car at that day. Showing his mangled foot, a rather large chunk of flesh missing at the exit wound, he told of his experiences that day, and that he saw the soldiers shooting at him and others. Another was of a young woman who was hiding the whole night behind or in one of the parked cars for fear of her life, who for two years after had to take anti-anxiety medication.

I do not know what Suthep, Abhisit, Anupong or other high ranked CRES members ordered that day (and any other of these days), and i hope one of the relevant trials will shed some light on that issue.

But what i do know is that non-legitimate targets were shot at, injured or killed - by soldiers, as the result of the inquest was.

Some other incidents i had to witness personally, and apart from one single incident in which the military was under fire and returned fire (rather wildly, and hitting a few unarmed guards) during all others the military was not under any threat of armed militants and fired at protesters without any armed militants anywhere around.

Nick ,

Spot on as always.

The truth must and will come out, no matter how much the RTA lies.

But will they be held to account for it. Unfortunately at the moment it appears not.

Edited August 10, 2013 by kimamey

[philw]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Er...............

Seems the soldiers shot the medics.

Apart from 4 or 5 people on here and the army commander, almost everyone else, probably rather sadly, accepts this.

Let's go forwards and see how the prosecution, for murder, by the soldiers, their officers and commanders proceeds.

This is a welcome first for Thailand in that the RTA may possibly ( but I'm not holding my breath ) be held accountable for the cold blooded murder of unarmed, Thai medical volunteers.

All in accordance with the law.

Er.........

Your illustrious leader was found guilty by the judicial system, but that was all a put up wasn't it

I've never commented on that jim, and it's off topic but nice of you raise it as a distraction.

Edited August 10, 2013 by philw

[CrisRMenumate]

Quote: "The last chapter in any successful genocide is the one in which the oppressor can remove their hands and say, 'My God, what are these people doing to themselves? They're killing each other. They're killing themselves while we watch.'" Unquote: Aaron Huey. hmmmm sounds applicable.

[Orac]

Quote: "The last chapter in any successful genocide is the one in which the oppressor can remove their hands and say, 'My God, what are these people doing to themselves? They're killing each other. They're killing themselves while we watch.'" Unquote: Aaron Huey. hmmmm sounds applicable.

I can't see how - there were only a handful of people killed so comparing this to a genocide is ridiculous.

That there is some masterplan afoot to exterminate those no good northerners is the stuff of conspiracy fantasists.

[whybother]

Whether or not the military will be found ultimately responsible for Wat Pathum killings ignores the basic fact that a 'civilized' country will not use lethal force against demonstators. Sucn acts are 'extra-judicial' killings.

When said protesters are armed, said "civilized" country will do what is necessary.

How should "civilized" countries deal with armed protesters?

I am not saying that these people killed in the wat were armed, but there were armed protesters that needed to be dealt with.

Civilized countries would never let civil disobedience escalate, or even allow a protest demonstration without a permit, and certainly would not allow such a gathering in the middle of town where emergency services and traffic in general would be severely compromised. Most certainly, they would not allow guns at a demonstration.

Once the protesters were allowed to establish a position it became a tacit approval, they did not confront anyone, did not attack anyone, did not start shooting.

Was it wrong for the protesters to bring arms and establish a defensive position that interfered with the safety of the city as a whole? Absolutely. But it appeared that the gov at that time was operating within the cultural context of avoiding a confrontation and followed a course of inaction. What they failed to understand is that inaction has consequences for which they are responsible. Not to decide is to decide and allowing these people to set up an encampment is fully the fault of the powers that were.

However, being armed in itself presents no threat. The gov apparently made no official requests or negotiations and did not offer any strategy for the citizens to disarm and after being inactive and offering no leadership or plan for resolving the differences, other than trying to agree on a snap election, moved armed soldiers and snipers into a confrontational stance and chose to ignore well established options for non-lethal crowd dispersal, which hardly meets the criteria of civilized.

Your logic seems to be that because a few people dressed in red shirts had guns it excuses the killing of others that fit the same profile whether armed or not, whether they posed a threat cowering behind a wall in a temple or not.

You seem to advocate that killing people because they armed themselves is fine, even if they armed themselves for self-defense. HRW tends to disagree with your notion.

I think you missed that fact that the red shirts USED their weapons. Being blown up by a grenade seems like a pretty serious threat to me.

[rametindallas]

Quote: "The last chapter in any successful genocide is the one in which the oppressor can remove their hands and say, 'My God, what are these people doing to themselves? They're killing each other. They're killing themselves while we watch.'" Unquote: Aaron Huey. hmmmm sounds applicable.

Sounds like what Dr. Thaksin said of the inordinately high number of deaths during his drug crackdown of 2002. 'The drug dealers are killing each other'.

Dr. Thaksin has proven that he is capable of causing the deaths of Thai citizens. You know, 'for the greater good'.

Edited August 12, 2013 by rametindallas

[FarangTalk]

Thanks Nick for your post. Informed and informative.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts commenting on moderation have been removed.

[rubl]

The evidence itself so far has been completely circumstantial, and depending on the charges being considered there is a great degree of doubt. Now, as we do not really know what happened then perhaps we need to use profiling and motivation in order that a decent investigator can pick up the loose ends and see where they lead. So imagine which of the two scenario's bears most chance of being closer to the truth.

scenario 1. " A meets with S when they know everything is finally drawing to a close. A says to S, right what we need now is a final act of violence, perhaps a senseless slaughter of innocents so that during the next elections the PTP will have enough evidence to blame us for crimes against humanity and ensure that we and the soldiers we are about to order to slaughter their own innocent countrymen hiding inside a revered temple area are charged with murder and spend a possible 20 years in prison. What do you think S, had enough of living as a free man, lets kill some innocent women and children just to spite them at the end. I know we treated them with kid gloves for 6 weeks and stood back and let them destroy the city centers economy, but lets have some fun now, and in a final act lets make Thais hate us and our families for generations and with any luck we will do jail time after this undoubtedly guarantees we lose the next election. Lets do it now, something with no ratinal reason or any remote benefit to us, lets just kill innocents for the hell of it!"

OR

Scenario 2. "Man in a hot sandy place speaking to head of a group of mercenaries. ....Good, everything has fallen into place. The spilled blood of our own people has been a sacrifice we had to make but it has worked. the entire population and international media have turned against A and his government. Now we need one last outrageous act of violence. General X will provide you with sufficient uniforms and the deployment positions of the army in the area. Make sure your men are not seen and use the chaos and confusion to mingle and get into position. Don't kill too many, maybe a 10-12 hero's are needed. After this disappear back to Cam and the wire transfer will be done. Everything has worked perfectly, I may contact you again in the future. Now, go and win me a Government and a country."

Faced with the two scenario's I guess the only one who could pick scenario 1 is Chalermlock Holmes himself and/or a member of the legal system with an overflowing lunchbox.

Yes, well...

Only problem with your little hypotheses is that in the Truth for Reconciliation Commission *public* hearing on March 29, 2011, on the temple incident the commanding officer of the troops stationed on the BTS tracks has made a slide presentation on his unit's deployment, including exact timing, etc. Naturally he claimed that his troops were fired upon and that they returned fire, but that his troops did not shoot any unarmed protesters.

That basically means that for 2 1/2 years it has been clearly established that troops were stationed on the BTS tracks, and not as previously claimed by Suthep and Anupong, and still by you, that there were no soldiers there.

Khunying Pornthip, who spoke at the same meeting, stated that no gunpowder residue has been found on the hands of the 6 victims.

Even for amateurs it was (and maybe still is) clearly visible in the temple that shots were fired from the BTS tracks at the scene of one of the dead. A bullet grazed a corner of a wall, just to hit another wall 40 cm further away. The trajectory of this bullet points directly to the BTS tracks. If anyone wants to have a look if the evidence is still there (i haven't looked in about two years) - it is the corner right next to the wall pointing at Siam Paragon at Rama I Rd, below the tree.

I have not been at the temple during this incident, therefore i do not know if at the exact time of the fatal shooting of the 6 so called MIB were present. It seems to be quite clear that before such armed militants were present indeed. Armed protesters were indeed legitimate targets of the military, and shooting them would not have raised any eyebrows under the international media (some of whose members were in the temple, and have witnessed the incident, one was even wounded).

But - none of the dead were armed protesters, two were even EMS staff - nurse Kate, and a Por Teck Tueng volonteer, both in their uniforms.

There are harrowing witness accounts, such the one of an old man i interviewed one month after the incident during a commemoration ceremony in the temple, who was crouching and trapped behind a car at that day. Showing his mangled foot, a rather large chunk of flesh missing at the exit wound, he told of his experiences that day, and that he saw the soldiers shooting at him and others. Another was of a young woman who was hiding the whole night behind or in one of the parked cars for fear of her life, who for two years after had to take anti-anxiety medication.

I do not know what Suthep, Abhisit, Anupong or other high ranked CRES members ordered that day (and any other of these days), and i hope one of the relevant trials will shed some light on that issue.

But what i do know is that non-legitimate targets were shot at, injured or killed - by soldiers, as the result of the inquest was.

Some other incidents i had to witness personally, and apart from one single incident in which the military was under fire and returned fire (rather wildly, and hitting a few unarmed guards) during all others the military was not under any threat of armed militants and fired at protesters without any armed militants anywhere around.

Wasn't there a Mercedes found stuffed with explosives, belonging to the wife of one of the UDD leaders? The poor lady must surely have suffered from nightmares about what could have happened to her.

Anyway I doubt NN has been present and witnessed all, but just seeing vanderGrift and a few soldiers get a grenade lobbed on them and knowing about Col Romkhlau 5 weeks before, It's interesting that none here seems to be willing to understand that soldiers will fire when threatened by the odd militant hiding amongst other, more peaceful protesters.

Nothing new really, three years and still the same discussions.

[nicknostitz]

Wasn't there a Mercedes found stuffed with explosives, belonging to the wife of one of the UDD leaders? The poor lady must surely have suffered from nightmares about what could have happened to her.

Anyway I doubt NN has been present and witnessed all, but just seeing vanderGrift and a few soldiers get a grenade lobbed on them and knowing about Col Romkhlau 5 weeks before, It's interesting that none here seems to be willing to understand that soldiers will fire when threatened by the odd militant hiding amongst other, more peaceful protesters.

Nothing new really, three years and still the same discussions.

Nothing has changed in terms of you and some here trying to defend the indefensible, desperately hanging on to a narrative that was nothing more than propaganda fed to you by a at the time highly censored local media. And, as usual, your ill attempt of humor over the plight of one of the victims is quite simply despicable.

What though has changed during the past 3 years is that we have now the results of the court inquests into approximately 13 (if i remember correctly) of the 90 something dead during the May 2010 violence. 2 of these inquests were ruled inconclusive, the remaining were ruled against the military.

In two of these inquests i have testified (in one more of those i haven't, but was present at the scene) - and in those there were no armed protesters or militants, odd or otherwise, anywhere in the vicinity - as the courts have rightly and justly ruled, based on numerous witness accounts, forensic evidence, videos and photos of the incidents.

Yes - soldiers may fire when "threatened by the odd militant". I have never disputed that there were armed militants during the 2010 violence, and that they were legitimate targets of the military.

But then - one would expect that soldiers would also hit that "odd militant", and not just unarmed protesters, journalists or bystanders.

Faced with the results of the inquests, it would actually be time that something changes in this discussion of 3 years: that you finally might admit of having been proven wrong. Unfortunately though i am convinced that you will continue to ridicule and obfuscate, and insult the memory of all that died in 2010.