Thai Troops Likely Shot Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi: Inquest

[webfact]

Thai troops likely shot Italian journalist: inquest

BANGKOK, May 29, 2013 (AFP) - Thai soldiers are believed to have shot an Italian photographer who was killed during mass opposition street protests in Bangkok in 2010, an official inquest found on Wednesday.

The probe by a criminal court in the Thai capital, however, was unable to identify the individual who fired the bullet that struck Fabio Polenghi, a freelance photographer who was covering the two-month-long demonstrations.

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

"The court ruled that Fabio Polenghi died from a wound from a gunshot which came from the direction where security forces were working to regain control of the area but could not identify the shooter," she added.

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

His sister Elisabetta Polenghi said the ruling was "positive but it is not the solution".

"Now I'm expecting that something really happens and the ones who are responsible have to get a kind of penalty," she told reporters.

Her lawyer said that he would file a criminal complaint with the Justice Ministry's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) against Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was prime minister at the time.

"Now we have the official ruling from the court, I, as a legal advisor and lawyer of the Polenghi family, will go to the DSI to file a complaint against former prime minister Abhisit," said the lawyer, Karom Pornpolklang.

Police told the inquest they believed security forces shot Polenghi during the demo, in which tens of thousands of Red Shirts brought central Bangkok to a standstill with demands for snap elections.

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

Abhisit and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban face murder charges in connection with the deadly crackdown, officials announced in December. No military officials have been prosecuted.

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

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

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2013-05-29

[whybother]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

He was shot on May 19 2010 near Lumpini Park. Where there was footage caught by BBC of gunmen shooting at soldiers, and where reporters and soldiers were injured by grenades thrown by "protesters".

What evidence do they need to show that another group was in the area?

[animatic]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

He was shot on May 19 2010 near Lumpini Park. Where there was footage caught by BBC of gunmen shooting at soldiers, and where reporters and soldiers were injured by grenades thrown by "protesters".

What evidence do they need to show that another group was in the area?

That wouldn't support the narrative they want put out.

[webfact]

Court rules Polenghi killed by bullet from state authorities
By Digital Media

BANGKOK, May 29 – Bangkok's Criminal Court ruled today that Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi was killed in the May 19, 2010 political upheaval in the capital by a bullet fired from the direction of government authorities.

According to the court, the state authorities occupied an area from Sala Daeng to Rajdamri intersections and the high velocity bullet that shot through Mr Polenghi’s heart, lung and liver came from that direction but it could not be determined who fired it.

The incident took place during the military crackdown on Red Shirt demonstrators who staged a massive protest against the Abhisit Vejjajiva government in Bangkok’s busiest commercial centres and nearby roads.

Mr Polenghi was pronounced dead at the nearby Police Hospital at 11.30 am that morning, the court said.

Karom Polpornklang, the plaintiff's attorney, said Mr Polenghi’s sister, Elizabetta, has yet to decide if she would file the case in an international court.

The late Italian journalist’s mother and sister also appeared at the court today.

Ms Polenghi welcomed the court’s verdict but said her family seriously wanted to know who the shooter was.

Mr Karom said he would forward the court’s verdict to the Department of Special Investigation to add to the case against Mr Abhisit and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban who were charged with ordering the murder of the people. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-05-29

[ratcatcher]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

[webfact]

Thai inquest finds army responsible for 2010 Italian journalist shooting

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court on Wednesday concluded that the military shot an Italian journalist who was killed while covering Bangkok's bloody anti-government protests in 2010.

"Based on the evidence, the bullet that killed the victim was the same type used that day by the security forces," the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court said.

"The court therefore believes the bullet that killed the victim came from the security forces, but we do not know who fired the bullet." The court’s ruling concluded an inquest into the death of Fabio Polenghi, who was shot dead while covering the military crackdown of May 19, 2010 on anti-government protesters.

Polenghi’s mother and two sisters, who attended the inquest, were "satisfied" with the finding, their lawyer Karom Polpornklang said.

"They will now proceed to push a case against Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban who were responsible for ordering the crackdown," he said.


-- The Nation 2013-05-29

[jayboy]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

[PREM-R]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

He was shot on May 19 2010 near Lumpini Park. Where there was footage caught by BBC of gunmen shooting at soldiers, and where reporters and soldiers were injured by grenades thrown by "protesters".

What evidence do they need to show that another group was in the area?

Links to back up your claim?

[Nickymaster]

"Based on the evidence, the bullet that killed the victim was the same
type used that day by the security forces," the Southern Bangkok
Criminal Court said.


"The court therefore believes the bullet that killed the victim came
from the security forces, but we do not know who fired the bullet."

And we all know that in Thailand it is impossible for an outsider to get hold of army/police weapons.. Therefor it MUST have been the army..

[Nickymaster]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

So the army and protestors where murdering each other?

Or do you mean that the army was murdering the protestors and the protestors fired back in self-defense?

[jayboy]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

So the army and protestors where murdering each other?

Or do you mean that the army was murdering the protestors and the protestors fired back in self-defense?

No I am simply commenting on the finding of the court this morning, namely the killing by the Thai army of the Italian journalist.

[gl555]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

So the army and protestors where murdering each other?

Or do you mean that the army was murdering the protestors and the protestors fired back in self-defense?

No I am simply commenting on the finding of the court this morning, namely the killing by the Thai army of the Italian journalist.

You stand right in the middle of a free fire zone with two sides trying to kill each other, there's a 90% chance you're going to get shot, with a 50% chance of getting hit by one side or the other.

I'm pulling percentages out of my ass of course but I think you get the picture.

[Nickymaster]

"Now we have the official ruling from the court, I, as a legal advisor
and lawyer of the Polenghi family, will go to the DSI to file a
complaint against former prime minister Abhisit," said the lawyer, Karom
Pornpolklang".

Wasn't Robert Amsterdam (Thaksin's lawyer) "helping" the Italian family?

Aah ok so now they go the DSI...(Thaksin's friends).

I am sure Thaksin has NOTHING to do with all of this.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Nickymaster

[tomross46]

Are we sure the weapons were used by the boys in green?

In early 2010 6000 M16 ammo and explosives were stolen from an Army Depot.

[PREM-R]

Are we sure the weapons were used by the boys in green?

In early 2010 6000 M16 ammo and explosives were stolen from an Army Depot.

OP ""The court ruled that Fabio Polenghi died from a wound from a gunshot

which came from the direction where security forces were working to

regain control of the area but could not identify the shooter," she

added"

[MikeOboe57]

"The court therefore believes [...]"

A verdict based on belief. Seems this is becoming a habit with Thai criminal courts in the recent trials concerning the Red Riot 2010.

[kimamey]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

That may be what you call it but from a legal standpoint it will depend on the specific country. This being Thailand it won't be called murder of course and I've no idea what the definition of murder or it's Thai language equivalent is.

Murder is usually intentional, unlawful killing. Whether this was unlawful will depend on the emergency regulations in place and their legality and whether they were adhered to. The intent part is a problem as the person responsible isn't known so I would assume that maybe video evidence if there is any might be needed. It could just have been bad luck which is always possible when in a situation like this. Being a journalist in these types of situations is dangerous and it's always a tragedy when someone trying to bring us the facts loses their life.

It may have been murder or not but it will undoubtedly be difficult to sort out the facts.

[Nowhereman60]

There was rouge soldiers with weapons who just wanted to shoot at anyone. He was running from them why the hell did they shoot at him. They were firing wildly down the street not caring who was in the way of the bullets.

[amore]

"The court therefore believes [...]"

A verdict based on belief. Seems this is becoming a habit with Thai criminal courts in the recent trials concerning the Red Riot 2010.

A verdict based on the facts put before the inquest.

I can't quite work this out yet, perhaps you can help. First of all during the Abhisit period a number of posters on this forum had the opinion that all Judges were whiter than white and could no wrong especially if they found against a member of the UDD or PTP.3 Years later, the Judges still can do no wrong when in the recent inquests they couldn't really tell if the Army were responsible for killing someone and say so in their verdict.

Yet the minute they find that the Army is responsible for the death of an civilian all kinds of excuses are dragged out as to how these very same Judges are suddenly mistaken in their verdicts.

Any thoughts?

[Thai at Heart]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

I agree, it is a very sad event.

However, I just saw pictures of the incident in the other paper, and he was wearing a black t-shirt, carrying a black rucksack, and wearing a light blue motorcycle helmet with "press" written on the front and back of it. Along with that he had a facemask on, and goggles, presumably to protect from tear gas.In another picture he appears to be wearing green cargo pants. I would suggest that this is hardly high visibility gear to identify yourself as a member of the press.

I do not know the in's and outs of the exact details of how far he was away from the troops, but wearing that combination at even 30 metres would not make him readily identifiable as either a foreigner or a member of the press, I am sad to say.

All very sad, and yes, it's pretty likely that he was killed by a bullet from the army, but intent is a very difficult thing to prove in this situation.

[kimamey]

"The court therefore believes [...]"

A verdict based on belief. Seems this is becoming a habit with Thai criminal courts in the recent trials concerning the Red Riot 2010.

A verdict based on the facts put before the inquest.

I can't quite work this out yet, perhaps you can help. First of all during the Abhisit period a number of posters on this forum had the opinion that all Judges were whiter than white and could no wrong especially if they found against a member of the UDD or PTP.3 Years later, the Judges still can do no wrong when in the recent inquests they couldn't really tell if the Army were responsible for killing someone and say so in their verdict.

Yet the minute they find that the Army is responsible for the death of an civilian all kinds of excuses are dragged out as to how these very same Judges are suddenly mistaken in their verdicts.

Any thoughts?

A good point.

Maybe the answer is the same as that for the sudden change from Abhisit being just a puppet of the military to the military murdering people just because he told them to. Clearly the military were far more scared of Abhisit in 2010 than they were of Thaksin in 2006.

In the case of the DSI Tarit has admitted they are open to government pressure in their decisions.

I don't know the answer to your question as this all seems so muddled.

[PREM-R]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

That may be what you call it but from a legal standpoint it will depend on the specific country. This being Thailand it won't be called murder of course and I've no idea what the definition of murder or it's Thai language equivalent is.

Murder is usually intentional, unlawful killing. Whether this was unlawful will depend on the emergency regulations in place and their legality and whether they were adhered to. The intent part is a problem as the person responsible isn't known so I would assume that maybe video evidence if there is any might be needed. It could just have been bad luck which is always possible when in a situation like this. Being a journalist in these types of situations is dangerous and it's always a tragedy when someone trying to bring us the facts loses their life.

It may have been murder or not but it will undoubtedly be difficult to sort out the facts.

OP "Abhisit and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban face murder charges in

connection with the deadly crackdown, officials announced in December.

No military officials have been prosecuted."

[Nickymaster]

"The court therefore believes [...]"

A verdict based on belief. Seems this is becoming a habit with Thai criminal courts in the recent trials concerning the Red Riot 2010.

A verdict based on the facts put before the inquest.

I can't quite work this out yet, perhaps you can help. First of all during the Abhisit period a number of posters on this forum had the opinion that all Judges were whiter than white and could no wrong especially if they found against a member of the UDD or PTP.3 Years later, the Judges still can do no wrong when in the recent inquests they couldn't really tell if the Army were responsible for killing someone and say so in their verdict.

Yet the minute they find that the Army is responsible for the death of an civilian all kinds of excuses are dragged out as to how these very same Judges are suddenly mistaken in their verdicts.

Any thoughts?

..they assume the army is responsible because the bullet was the same spec as used by the army....

Knowing that the Reds have taken hundreds of weapons from the (trigger happy... ) army, they still assume that these bullets are ONLY used by the army.

This is what puzzles people.... (I believe)

[animatic]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Sadly he was dressed in the clothes resembling one of the documented sides in the conflict.

Black shirt; as worn by the believed actual opposition shooters " The Ronin aka Men In Black."

Sad to say and condolences to his family,

but he was very foolish to dress like that at this place and time.

Secondly,

it is not at all a fact that ONLY the armed security forces

have access to high velocity weapons in Thailand.

Weapons were taken weeks earlier on TV at the Shinsat Uplink Station.

it is KNOWN that army weapons were in Red Shirt hands.

Third;

the likely 'type of bullet' as shown by the wound,

and 'belief that no one else was there but security forces',

is apparently the only evidence this inquest was using,

so when they say

'believed to have been' this is not a definitive answer,

versus the believable ;

'person or persons unknown with a high velocity weapon'.

That is the ONLY actual finding they have so far.

Other than a politically expedient best guess.

Edited May 29, 2013 by animatic

[PREM-R]

So you are suggesting that one, or more, of these elusive 'men in black' were happily lodged with the Thai troops and shooting towards the protesters camp? It states in the OP that the gunshot that killed the reporter "came from the direction where security forces were working".

[aguy30]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

"The court ruled that Fabio Polenghi died from a wound from a gunshot which came from the direction where security forces were working to regain control of the area but could not identify the shooter," she added.

"there was no evidence of any other group in the area"- No evidence doesn't prove that there wasn't someone else with an M-16 in the area, such as a non military gunman or concealed sniper?

So without any doubt we can ASSUME that it was the army. Thailand's equivalent of CSI has taken a huge leap of faith in making that determination. Wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in any real legal system.

The proper conclusion that would have drawn in a country with a real legal system is that it is impossible to determine who or even what group fired the shot, based on the evidence available.

[Nickymaster]

So you are suggesting that one, or more, of these elusive 'men in black' were happily lodged with the Thai troops and shooting towards the protesters camp? It states in the OP that the gunshot that killed the reporter "came from the direction where security forces were working".

Could be. As we all know, Thailand Waives The Rules

[Nickymaster]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

"The court ruled that Fabio Polenghi died from a wound from a gunshot which came from the direction where security forces were working to regain control of the area but could not identify the shooter," she added.

"there was no evidence of any other group in the area"- No evidence doesn't prove that there wasn't someone else with an M-16 in the area, such as a non military gunman or concealed sniper?

So without any doubt we can ASSUME that it was the army. Thailand's equivalent of CSI has taken a huge leap of faith in making that determination. Wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in any real legal system.

The proper conclusion that would have drawn in a country with a real legal system is that it is impossible to determine who or even what group fired the shot, based on the evidence available.

Don't forget that the courts had a lot of pressure from the Italian family, Robert Amsterdam (Thaksin's lawyer), DSI and Thai police..

[Cnxforever]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

I agree, it is a very sad event.

However, I just saw pictures of the incident in the other paper, and he was wearing a black t-shirt, carrying a black rucksack, and wearing a light blue motorcycle helmet with "press" written on the front and back of it. Along with that he had a facemask on, and goggles, presumably to protect from tear gas.In another picture he appears to be wearing green cargo pants. I would suggest that this is hardly high visibility gear to identify yourself as a member of the press.

I do not know the in's and outs of the exact details of how far he was away from the troops, but wearing that combination at even 30 metres would not make him readily identifiable as either a foreigner or a member of the press, I am sad to say.

All very sad, and yes, it's pretty likely that he was killed by a bullet from the army, but intent is a very difficult thing to prove in this situation.

It is the responsibility of any authorities carrying deadly weapons with life amunition to identify if you pose a threat or not and the measures they take have to be in relation to that threat. Shooting unarmed opponents (civilians and soldiers) is a crime.It does not matter what you wear!

In any civilized country with responsible acting armed forces - you as a soldier and you alone are responsible if you murder an unarmed civilian. The "I was just following orders" excuse has no value anymore since 1945 - the end of the Nazi regime where those responsible for mass murder tried to use the very same excuse to justify their horific crimes.

During our basic training in the armed forces we where instructed by army laywers that if any superior should give us an order which is against the law the order can be refused and the the superior officer will be held responsible in a court of law.

The law applies to all. Just because some people think their government gives them tax payers money to waste, puts them into a uniform and hands them deadly weapons they are above the law - well they need to think again.

We have to asume the court reviewed all evidence and heard Thai and foreign witnesses - the ruling now opens the door to bring those responsible of ordering the deadly crackdown to justice. This should not only include the responsible politicians but military leaders.

Of course this is Thailand and the only thing this ruling will be used for is as a bargaining tool by politicians. If anybody would take the law serious in this country - all laws passed by the coup leaders - including an amnesty for themselves - would be declared void by the highest civilian court and they would rot in prison by now for high treason.

But we all know nothing is going to happen!

In which country can you get away with murdering unarmed civilians by stacking them onto an army truck suffocating them and not a single person has ever been held accountable!

Edited May 29, 2013 by Cnxforever

[CrisRMenumate]

Is it just me or is it a happy coincidence that Khunying Porntip was pushed aside one week before this ruling was made? there is no clear evidence as to who shot this guy or anyone else. For sure some people were shot by the army, doing their job, after the people in the area were warned for two weeks that the area was going to be cleared by military with live rounds. For sure some people were shot by red/black shirts and others taking advantage of the confused situation to conduct their own mayhem around Bangkok. But no one can say for sure who shot whom, where and when, especially not just on the basis of "belief" that only a certain group were in a certain area and that the ammunition used was similar to the type used by a certain group. This is no more than circumstantial and proves nothing in this case. As usual, to the victors goes the spoils and the opportunity to rewrite the truth to suit their needs. Having watched much of the stupidity over the course of the period from early March through to May 20th it is apparent who was breaking the law and why the military was needed to regain control over the city/country's valuable strategic assets. If a bunch of thugs did this in downtown London, Paris, Washington or anywhere else there would not have been 2 months of negotiation and discussion, they would have been cleared out by the police and military/national guard in days. That it was let go on for so long merely shows that there was back-room power brokering going on to see who could gain most from the opportunity. The fat lady ain't singing yet, this isn't over!