Witness of 2010 temple crackdown deaths 'abducted by military'

[ggt]

She will have undoubtedly undergone an attitude adjustment when she returns to society...if she ever returns...this is Thailand...

[transam]

I hope the West are taking note...............

[Puwa]

The truth is most likely one of the following:

1. Soldiers intentionally shot noncombatants in the safe zone

2. Soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

3. Soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

4. Armed forces other than soldiers shot noncombatants in the safe zone

5. Armed forces other than soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

6. Armed forces other than soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

7. The shootings took place within the safe zone and didn't involve snipers outside

May 2010 was absolute chaos, with weapons all around, many shots fired, and many people hit. Even eyewitnesses don't necessarily know what was going on, although they should absolutely have the opportunity to testify to what they saw without fear for their safety. I don't see how anyone who wasn't there can contribute anything useful by mere conjecture 5 years after the event.

[rubl]

In Thailand there is no need for a junta for that. Speaking out against 'influencial peoples' interest can already be life threatening.

Didn't we have a topic a few days ago about "late Muslim human rights lawyer Somchai Nilapaichit" who disappeared 11 years ago?

BTW as the last weeks we have seen more topics on 'fake' soldiers, I will refrain from further speculating till more info is provided.

you state that as if it is not understood which "party" in Thailand is the most likely to have abducted Somchai...

do you know which group of people that would most likely be?

Either the bad guys, the fake guys or the fake bad guys I guess.

BTW 'understood who most likely' sounds 'almost' sure. Probably based on 'real' evidence ?

So you don't have the ability to think, unless red shirts did it then you tell everyone your thoughts.

Well, thank you for your kind words.

Mind you, tbthailand is good as assuming and suggesting and it's not always easy to figure out which part is truthfull assuming there's truth to be found.

Now since you complained may I assume you 'understand' who 'most likely' have abducted the woman from the topic? Furthermore you can justify with clear statements why such understanding would be 'most likely' correct ?

BTW tbthailand phrased his question very nicely "as if it is not understood" he didn't really say anything definite.

[Linky]

In Thailand there is no need for a junta for that. Speaking out against 'influencial peoples' interest can already be life threatening.

Didn't we have a topic a few days ago about "late Muslim human rights lawyer Somchai Nilapaichit" who disappeared 11 years ago?

BTW as the last weeks we have seen more topics on 'fake' soldiers, I will refrain from further speculating till more info is provided.

you state that as if it is not understood which "party" in Thailand is the most likely to have abducted Somchai...

do you know which group of people that would most likely be?

Either the bad guys, the fake guys or the fake bad guys I guess.

BTW 'understood who most likely' sounds 'almost' sure. Probably based on 'real' evidence ?

So you don't have the ability to think, unless red shirts did it then you tell everyone your thoughts.

Well, thank you for your kind words.

Mind you, tbthailand is good as assuming and suggesting and it's not always easy to figure out which part is truthfull assuming there's truth to be found.

Now since you complained may I assume you 'understand' who 'most likely' have abducted the woman from the topic? Furthermore you can justify with clear statements why such understanding would be 'most likely' correct ?

BTW tbthailand phrased his question very nicely "as if it is not understood" he didn't really say anything definite.

It is quite easy to assume at this point. Read the OP and think a bit. If your honest thinking moves you to think it is the army, like any reasonable person would think given the the facts at the moment then that's fine, just say so and then say it is deplorable if in fact the story is true.

Go on, you know you can say something against the junta.

But if you cannot even do that and continue to grasp at straws then you know what you are.

Regardless of who it turns out did this it is reprehensible but on the information at the moment the junta looks bad and dear leader better get it sorted soon.

[In Town]

As I recall, no soldiers were killed during the crackdown. Is that incorrect?

Ahhhhh so dead bodies but no guns there later when the bodies were picked up..

Of course none of them were armed because there were no soldiers killed.... Oh wait...

Depends on what days you put in that 'crackdown'. On the 10th of April a colonel with some staff died due to a grenade attack. On the 19th of May a few soldiers and Canadian vanderGrift 'only' got badly wounded by a grenade dropped on them.

Right. I agree with you. Colonel Ramalakao (sp?) was killed, apparently, by a small group of disaffected soldiers, but that was well before the crackdown. On the day the Canadian journalist was wounded by a grenade fired by a small group of disaffected soldiers (or perhaps a single soldier); the same group, I suspect, that had earlier fired several grenades on to the roof of the MRT, one of which missed and exploded on the walkway, killing an innocent passerby. These are the only confirmed instances of shooting from the red side at the demo site, I don't believe these soldiers were part of the larger group of red shirts. I think they were followers of Seh Deang, who you may recall was another soldier killed, shot in the head by a sniper while being interviewed by the BBC. I'm pretty sure no shots were fired from the red side, as the soldiers that day were literally holder to shoulder, and it would have been extremely difficult to miss that mass of men if you were shooting at them. So, it is establish that no soldiers were killed during the crackdown, but almost 90 demonstrators were killed, and hundreds wounded.

I know many people would like to believe that the closing of that demonstration was justified, and that there must have been some reason for all the shooting, but the broad facts seem pretty clear. A decision was made to declare the area a "life fire zone" and whether under orders or not, many soldiers opened fire on the demonstrators indiscriminately. It was a tragic event in a country that has experienced too many, and I hope the disappearance of this young women is not that latest in that series of tragedies.

[In Town]

The truth is most likely one of the following:

1. Soldiers intentionally shot noncombatants in the safe zone

2. Soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

3. Soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

4. Armed forces other than soldiers shot noncombatants in the safe zone

5. Armed forces other than soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

6. Armed forces other than soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

7. The shootings took place within the safe zone and didn't involve snipers outside

May 2010 was absolute chaos, with weapons all around, many shots fired, and many people hit. Even eyewitnesses don't necessarily know what was going on, although they should absolutely have the opportunity to testify to what they saw without fear for their safety. I don't see how anyone who wasn't there can contribute anything useful by mere conjecture 5 years after the event.

Sorry, but there were tens of thousands of witnesses to this event. Its actually not too hard to determine what happened. Its just hard for some to admit it.

[jdinasia]

This is pathetic! What kind of country is Thailand turning into? Won't be coming back and telling all I know to stay away. Don't think the world isn't seeing what is going on there! Even my Thai wife doesn't want anything to do with this country anymore.

And yet, here you are posting...

We get it. You moved here for work. Didn't like it. Left.

What will you say if this story turns out to be nothing but hype?

[jdinasia]

The truth is most likely one of the following:

1. Soldiers intentionally shot noncombatants in the safe zone

2. Soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

3. Soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

4. Armed forces other than soldiers shot noncombatants in the safe zone

5. Armed forces other than soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

6. Armed forces other than soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

7. The shootings took place within the safe zone and didn't involve snipers outside

May 2010 was absolute chaos, with weapons all around, many shots fired, and many people hit. Even eyewitnesses don't necessarily know what was going on, although they should absolutely have the opportunity to testify to what they saw without fear for their safety. I don't see how anyone who wasn't there can contribute anything useful by mere conjecture 5 years after the event.

Sorry, but there were tens of thousands of witnesses to this event. Its actually not too hard to determine what happened. Its just hard for some to admit it.

Tens of thousands?

[JAG]

We can always use the red-shirt argument. "She was abducted by red-shirts, masquerading as soldiers, in order to discredit the junta". Turnabout is fair play.

Who knows what happened here, or at the temple back in 2010. The only way the truth would ever be discovered is to have an international inquiry, and that will never happen. Any Thai inquiry into the events of 2010 would suffer from bias.

Who knows what happened at the Temple back in 2010? Perhaps she does,which is why she has been taken?

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

If you read the full article there are a number of anomalies

eg

"We have been too afraid to tell the police."

But happy to go to one newspaper.

And none of the other newspaper have published the story so far.

Try Googling her name and it doesn't appear other than this story

as I saw the thread pop up, I wondered how junta cheerleaders would spin this forced disappearance, ... good job...

Since your so well informed perhaps you could share why this item has suddenly appeared, and this lady has never been mentioned before

in some 5 years since the unfortunate 2010 incident.

[In Town]

The truth is most likely one of the following:

1. Soldiers intentionally shot noncombatants in the safe zone

2. Soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

3. Soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

4. Armed forces other than soldiers shot noncombatants in the safe zone

5. Armed forces other than soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

6. Armed forces other than soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

7. The shootings took place within the safe zone and didn't involve snipers outside

May 2010 was absolute chaos, with weapons all around, many shots fired, and many people hit. Even eyewitnesses don't necessarily know what was going on, although they should absolutely have the opportunity to testify to what they saw without fear for their safety. I don't see how anyone who wasn't there can contribute anything useful by mere conjecture 5 years after the event.

Sorry, but there were tens of thousands of witnesses to this event. Its actually not too hard to determine what happened. Its just hard for some to admit it.

Tens of thousands?

Okay. You are right. It was actually hundreds of thousands, but I didn't want to be accused of hyperbole.

[Thai at Heart]

If this is true, it is truly a disgrace

[JAG]

We can always use the red-shirt argument. "She was abducted by red-shirts, masquerading as soldiers, in order to discredit the junta". Turnabout is fair play.

Who knows what happened here, or at the temple back in 2010. The only way the truth would ever be discovered is to have an international inquiry, and that will never happen. Any Thai inquiry into the events of 2010 would suffer from bias.

the only way to know what "really" happened would be through a witness that was there

it would appear that all involved have been silenced by either redshirt terrorists (I believe) or the army (don't believe)

we actually already know what happened - people in the temple were shot by the army - what is unknown is the justification - I believe the nurse was caught in the crossfire and was killed accidently - that's what happens when in a live fire zone and armed terrorists flee to your location - you get caught up in it from somewhere you thought was reasonably safe

Actually that is not what happens in a properly conducted military operation against terrorists. You do not open fire unless you have clearly identified an individual who is armed, and /or is either firing or about to open fire." Live Fire Zones "are simply a licence to kill unarmed civillians, which apart from anything else is against just about every precept of the internationally recognised Law of Armed Conflict.

However, it appears that the shootings in 2010 served their purpose, in sending a clear message which resonates still.

Edited March 16, 2015 by JAG

[jdinasia]

The truth is most likely one of the following:

1. Soldiers intentionally shot noncombatants in the safe zone

2. Soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

3. Soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

4. Armed forces other than soldiers shot noncombatants in the safe zone

5. Armed forces other than soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

6. Armed forces other than soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

7. The shootings took place within the safe zone and didn't involve snipers outside

May 2010 was absolute chaos, with weapons all around, many shots fired, and many people hit. Even eyewitnesses don't necessarily know what was going on, although they should absolutely have the opportunity to testify to what they saw without fear for their safety. I don't see how anyone who wasn't there can contribute anything useful by mere conjecture 5 years after the event.

Sorry, but there were tens of thousands of witnesses to this event. Its actually not too hard to determine what happened. Its just hard for some to admit it.

Tens of thousands?

Okay. You are right. It was actually hundreds of thousands, but I didn't want to be accused of hyperbole.

100's of thousands witnessed the events at the temple? That's an amazing claim! (totally bogus too)

[Anthony5]

She is for her free speech attitude adjustment, by the people who claim to return Thailand to a democracy

don't be so sure you have your facts right, I'd be more inclined to blame elements of the terrorist redshirts for this abduction or her removal under threat of being silenced - read my above post

If the army wasn't involved, don't you think they would be out in force already denying the claims.

Their silence speaks volumes.

[jdinasia]

She is for her free speech attitude adjustment, by the people who claim to return Thailand to a democracy

don't be so sure you have your facts right, I'd be more inclined to blame elements of the terrorist redshirts for this abduction or her removal under threat of being silenced - read my above post

If the army wasn't involved, don't you think they would be out in force already denying the claims.

Their silence speaks volumes.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

[Anthony5]

She is for her free speech attitude adjustment, by the people who claim to return Thailand to a democracy

don't be so sure you have your facts right, I'd be more inclined to blame elements of the terrorist redshirts for this abduction or her removal under threat of being silenced - read my above post

If the army wasn't involved, don't you think they would be out in force already denying the claims.

Their silence speaks volumes.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

Yeah, it's also called, desperate excuses from an apologist.

[jdinasia]

She is for her free speech attitude adjustment, by the people who claim to return Thailand to a democracy

don't be so sure you have your facts right, I'd be more inclined to blame elements of the terrorist redshirts for this abduction or her removal under threat of being silenced - read my above post

If the army wasn't involved, don't you think they would be out in force already denying the claims.

Their silence speaks volumes.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

Yeah, it's also called, desperate excuses from an apologist.

If you say so. The logical fallacy you used above was the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

You do this often.

[Enoon]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

If you read the full article there are a number of anomalies

eg

"We have been too afraid to tell the police."

But happy to go to one newspaper.

And none of the other newspaper have published the story so far.

Try Googling her name and it doesn't appear other than this story

as I saw the thread pop up, I wondered how junta cheerleaders would spin this forced disappearance, ... good job...

Since your so well informed perhaps you could share why this item has suddenly appeared, and this lady has never been mentioned before

in some 5 years since the unfortunate 2010 incident.

Because, especially post inquest, there was no reason for her to be in the news and, until last May, she was living under a government that did not consider her existence a threat.

The General has only been able to cross through the names on "The List" since last May. Obviously it will have taken a while to "get in the groove" and work his way through it. Some names will have been lower priority and a lot further down "The List" than others. Their position on it, and their treatment, would vary according to different factors. How important/dangerous /innocuous/contentious/inflammatory/high profile/low profile/likely to cause national/international outrage/sympathy, etc.

We don't know how many names are on it, or the criteria, so we can't determine if she is the last of many that we haven't heard about, or the first of many more. Perhaps it's like Pol Pots list (25% of the population) That would please a few on TV. But maybe not those who wear glasses.

[whybother]

Yes, but who can believe those damn foreigners. Just because there are lots of video of Thai soldiers shooting protesters, and thousands of rounds were expended, and their are no pictures of red shirts with guns, alive or dead, doesn't mean the red shirts didn't concoct this whole story. Surely at the behest of Thaksin they were ordered to run into bullets to gain sympathy for the cause? And of course the Red Shirts, with Thaksin's backing, can operate anywhere in the country, and impersonate soldiers with impunity. We should all be very afraid...

Yet there are plenty of pictures of redshirts who are armed and they did kill people. Knowingly posting lies breaks the forum rules.

There are no pictures of armed red shirts shot dead by the military, but a hell of a lot of dead unarmed ones

There were photos of maybe 10 dead protesters. That leaves about 60-70 protesters that were killed where there was no photos, armed or unarmed. Many of those that were killed, were taken to hospitals by their friends. If they were armed, I am sure their friends didn't take the guns to the hospitals with them.

[rubl]

This is the method of operation of military/police/government authority when dealing with those who saw what they should not have seen and those who know what should not be known in third world countries with totalitarian governments. Nothing new here.

If that is your premise, can you explain the 5 year delay?

The malfeasance case brought by the NACC against Abhisit and Suthep only happened last month. Abhisit claimed that Prayut was pulling the strings. No need to, 'disappear,' her until the NACC acted and fingers were pointed.

So, when Abhisit/Suthep had to go to the OAG a few times, in 2013, Dec 12th, 2013 to court and Suthep with gentle prodding brought to court end of May 2014, no fingers were pointed ?

A 'premeditated murder as private persons' case with a criminal court less serious than a charge of 'abuse of power' with the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders and a start of a impeachment procedure?

How odd

[rubl]

Well, thank you for your kind words.

Mind you, tbthailand is good as assuming and suggesting and it's not always easy to figure out which part is truthfull assuming there's truth to be found.

Now since you complained may I assume you 'understand' who 'most likely' have abducted the woman from the topic? Furthermore you can justify with clear statements why such understanding would be 'most likely' correct ?

BTW tbthailand phrased his question very nicely "as if it is not understood" he didn't really say anything definite.

It is quite easy to assume at this point. Read the OP and think a bit. If your honest thinking moves you to think it is the army, like any reasonable person would think given the the facts at the moment then that's fine, just say so and then say it is deplorable if in fact the story is true.

Go on, you know you can say something against the junta.

But if you cannot even do that and continue to grasp at straws then you know what you are.

Regardless of who it turns out did this it is reprehensible but on the information at the moment the junta looks bad and dear leader better get it sorted soon.

Wow, 'any reasonable person'. I guess anyone who has an opinion different from yours doesn't fall in that category?

Still your last sentence I can really agree with. As the USA Envoy already said in his Chula speech, it's all about perception. With many automatically assuming "see, the bad junta again", PM Prayut indeed needs to work on perception, but I fear it won't help much and he better spent time on other things, like any reasonable person would.

[whybother]

There is a suggestion that she was connected to the recent court bombings.

A volunteer medic during the 2010 military crackdown on the red shirts, Nattatida worked alongside Kamonked Akhad, another volunteer, who was shot dead in Pathum Wanaram temple on 19 May 2010. An unconfirmed report says she is connected with “Ms Dear,” a woman accused of planning an explosion in front of Ratchada Criminal Court early this month. Winyat said it could be either incident which led to the detention.

http://prachatai.org/english/node/4865

[rubl]

The truth is most likely one of the following:

1. Soldiers intentionally shot noncombatants in the safe zone

2. Soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

3. Soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

4. Armed forces other than soldiers shot noncombatants in the safe zone

5. Armed forces other than soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

6. Armed forces other than soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

7. The shootings took place within the safe zone and didn't involve snipers outside

May 2010 was absolute chaos, with weapons all around, many shots fired, and many people hit. Even eyewitnesses don't necessarily know what was going on, although they should absolutely have the opportunity to testify to what they saw without fear for their safety. I don't see how anyone who wasn't there can contribute anything useful by mere conjecture 5 years after the event.

Sorry, but there were tens of thousands of witnesses to this event. Its actually not too hard to determine what happened. Its just hard for some to admit it.

Tens of thousands?

The latest trend in urban anti-guerilla warfare. Form in column and march forward. Impress and frighten the opponent with numbers and a monotone drum play and frequent shouts of "vive l'empereur". Step over shot and fallen comrades and march on to glory.

Anyway, the final day may have had 2,000 to 5,000 soldiers active in the Radchaprasong crackdown.

[rubl]

As I recall, no soldiers were killed during the crackdown. Is that incorrect?

Ahhhhh so dead bodies but no guns there later when the bodies were picked up..

Of course none of them were armed because there were no soldiers killed.... Oh wait...

Depends on what days you put in that 'crackdown'. On the 10th of April a colonel with some staff died due to a grenade attack. On the 19th of May a few soldiers and Canadian vanderGrift 'only' got badly wounded by a grenade dropped on them.

Right. I agree with you. Colonel Ramalakao (sp?) was killed, apparently, by a small group of disaffected soldiers, but that was well before the crackdown. On the day the Canadian journalist was wounded by a grenade fired by a small group of disaffected soldiers (or perhaps a single soldier); the same group, I suspect, that had earlier fired several grenades on to the roof of the MRT, one of which missed and exploded on the walkway, killing an innocent passerby. These are the only confirmed instances of shooting from the red side at the demo site, I don't believe these soldiers were part of the larger group of red shirts. I think they were followers of Seh Deang, who you may recall was another soldier killed, shot in the head by a sniper while being interviewed by the BBC. I'm pretty sure no shots were fired from the red side, as the soldiers that day were literally holder to shoulder, and it would have been extremely difficult to miss that mass of men if you were shooting at them. So, it is establish that no soldiers were killed during the crackdown, but almost 90 demonstrators were killed, and hundreds wounded.

I know many people would like to believe that the closing of that demonstration was justified, and that there must have been some reason for all the shooting, but the broad facts seem pretty clear. A decision was made to declare the area a "life fire zone" and whether under orders or not, many soldiers opened fire on the demonstrators indiscriminately. It was a tragic event in a country that has experienced too many, and I hope the disappearance of this young women is not that latest in that series of tragedies.

Goh, 'disaffected soldiers'. First time in almost five years I here the MiB described in that way. Almost as if to distance and shield the peaceful protesters from necessary evil like the renegade general "no one saw me" Seh Daeng and his merry band of killers.

As for indiscriminately, that's still to be proven. Being shot at continuously or having grenades dropped on one doesn't make soldiers happy. Especially at sunset any bright flash may be almost automatically shot at. Understandable, if unfortunate. Collateral damage it's called sometimes. Ugly term and in this case put the blame on those cowardly militants mingling with peaceful protesters.

[rubl]

If this is true, it is truly a disgrace

Which this, the possible abduction, the alleged military involvement or both ?

Personally I think if the abduction is true, in principle it's criminal. If done by the military they should fess up that they've done it under Martial Law. The last would make it a detention. Still deplorable of course.

If done by others it is criminal.

[englishoak]

Clearly the events she was witness to are linked to being abducted in some way.

Will be watching how this one plays out.

[rubl]

We can always use the red-shirt argument. "She was abducted by red-shirts, masquerading as soldiers, in order to discredit the junta". Turnabout is fair play.

Who knows what happened here, or at the temple back in 2010. The only way the truth would ever be discovered is to have an international inquiry, and that will never happen. Any Thai inquiry into the events of 2010 would suffer from bias.

the only way to know what "really" happened would be through a witness that was there

it would appear that all involved have been silenced by either redshirt terrorists (I believe) or the army (don't believe)

we actually already know what happened - people in the temple were shot by the army - what is unknown is the justification - I believe the nurse was caught in the crossfire and was killed accidently - that's what happens when in a live fire zone and armed terrorists flee to your location - you get caught up in it from somewhere you thought was reasonably safe

Actually that is not what happens in a properly conducted military operation against terrorists. You do not open fire unless you have clearly identified an individual who is armed, and /or is either firing or about to open fire." Live Fire Zones "are simply a licence to kill unarmed civillians, which apart from anything else is against just about every precept of the internationally recognised Law of Armed Conflict.

However, it appears that the shootings in 2010 served their purpose, in sending a clear message which resonates still.

The message hasn't come across I think. The peaceful protesters still won't see, hear or know about militants mingling amongst them. One of the characteristics of cannon fodder, I fear.

[rubl]

The truth is most likely one of the following:

1. Soldiers intentionally shot noncombatants in the safe zone

2. Soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

3. Soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

4. Armed forces other than soldiers shot noncombatants in the safe zone

5. Armed forces other than soldiers unintentionally shot noncombatants in the zone

6. Armed forces other than soldiers shot combatants who are now claimed to have been unarmed

7. The shootings took place within the safe zone and didn't involve snipers outside

May 2010 was absolute chaos, with weapons all around, many shots fired, and many people hit. Even eyewitnesses don't necessarily know what was going on, although they should absolutely have the opportunity to testify to what they saw without fear for their safety. I don't see how anyone who wasn't there can contribute anything useful by mere conjecture 5 years after the event.

Sorry, but there were tens of thousands of witnesses to this event. Its actually not too hard to determine what happened. Its just hard for some to admit it.

Tens of thousands?

The latest trend in urban anti-guerilla warfare. Form in column and march forward. Impress and frighten the opponent with numbers and a monotone drum play and frequent shouts of "vive l'empereur". Step over shot and fallen comrades and march on to glory.

Anyway, the final day may have had 2,000 to 5,000 soldiers active in the Radchaprasong crackdown.

Rather than blank out my mistake, let me just acknowledge I made a mistake. I read 'tens of thousands of soldiers', but actually 'tens of thousands of witnesses' was written. Embarrassing, somewhat.

Anyway, it's difficult to guestimate the number of witnesses and the limit to what they saw and didn't see. I still don't think anyone witnessed who dumped a grenade on vanderGrift and a few soldiers. Nearby reporters and journalist did witness the effect though. Same with people dropping, see them drop, but don't see who shot.

Of course between sunset and sunrise no real witnesses except does involved. As some reporters wrote, the militants mostly emerged in the night.