Thai Troops Likely Shot Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi: Inquest

[oldsailor35]

"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?

Sometimes i wish i could believe propaganda as easily as you can .

[oldsailor35]

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

"Nail" Suthep ! he was the real boss, AV was just his "yes man"

[oldsailor35]

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

Nail Suthep, he was the real boss. AV was just his "yes man"

Edited May 29, 2013 by oldsailor35

[oldsailor35]

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?

The army were only carrying out the orders of Khun Suthep the real hard man

[spectrumisgreen]

"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?

So a court acting under a Red Shirt government passes a 'twas them' verdict on soldiers acting under a Yellow Shirt government during (sometimes) violent protests led by Red Shirts.. go figure...

[oldsailor35]

Mr. Polenghi is one of more than 90 deaths that resulted from the political violence in April-May 2010, when the Redshirts occupied central Bangkok to demand a parliamentary dissolution and new election, but were met with military operation directed by then-PM Abhisit Vejjajeeva.

So there we have it the truth at last.

All the deaths resulted from the red shirt riots sponsored by who?

That being the case the one who sponsored the riots is in fact the one responsible for all the deaths and of course the injuries and damage as well.

In the case of the unfortunate Mr. Polenghi ; I understand he was wearing black surely something that would from a distance have identified him with the armed wing of the red shirts, the men in black.

He was carrying a camera which from a distance could have been mistaken for a weapon, (and oh yes the camera along with his wallet was stolen from his body by the caring humanitarian reds who went to his aid)

Given these two things alone it is hardly surprising he could have been a target for the army.

However there is in fact nothing proven that it was the army who shot him.

Only that the round he was hit with was of the type the army used, but then it was also the type that the reds used.

And that the shot came from the direction of the army.

Hardly conclusive evidence of murder.

Me must not forget that all this went on under a state of emergency which tends to change the law somewhat.

Add to that the present PM"s recent statement that "The law must be obeyed"

And who was breaking the law, the army the Govt of the reds?

Yep, and the army were trying to control them with Tear Gas, Water Cannon and Rubber Bullets................Bulldust! if you are not out to kill, why use live ammunition ?

[oldsailor35]

..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)

As I thought here come the excuses, lets try some eye witness accounts

"The inquest today at the Criminal Court into the killing of Italian journalist Fabio came to a controversial decision, rejecting two out of the three main witnesses considered to be very important in establishing who actually shot Fabio.

The judges said “that their testimony was considered redundant to the trial”

Despite claims by the then Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban that Fabio was killed by a grenade launched from what he called a terrorist position and that Fabio died side-by-side with a soldier, the inquest revealed that Fabio was in fact killed by a high-velocity bullet possibly from an M16 as used by the Thai army.

Witnesses, photographs and video evidence have all proved that Suthep Thaugsuban version of how Fabio died was just pure fabrication.

Numerous reports, including one by the the CPJ all noted that Fabio was shot. The autopsy results showed that Fabio died from a high-velocity bullet that entered the heart, and caused damage to his lungs and liver.

An important and valuable statement was made by the American freelance documentary film maker Bradley Cox, he told the court “that he did not see or hear any single gunshot from where the red shirt protesters were, but clearly heard shots from the Lumpini and Sala Daeng sides, where military were zeroing in.” Bradly added, that earlier on the morning of May 19, troops fired sporadically from behind a barricade into areas 200 meters away that were controlled by red-shirted protesters for the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, or UDD.

Bradley, said both he and Fabio had taken footage of a protester shot in the leg around 10:45 a.m. About 15 minutes later, Bradley said, sensing a lull in the shooting, he moved away from a barricade controlled by the UDD and into a nearly empty road to investigate a commotion among protesters approximately 30 to 40 meters away. Bradley said Fabio followed a few steps behind. While they both ran down the road, Bradley said he felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing a minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Fabio sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him.

Fabio was wearing a blue helmet with the word “Press” written across the front and back, and a green armband indicating that he was a working journalist.

“My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same gun,” said Bradley, adding that he didn’t hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Fabio. “I don’t know who shot me or Fabio, but if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. …Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody.”

A taxi motorcyclist by the name of Kwanchai Sowapas had also told the court “that it was army soldiers who shot Polenghi, because he saw them on that side, some 70 metres away from him and some 30 to 40 metres from the Italian photo-journalist.”

The last witness German journalist Michel Maas who was also shot by the military told the Criminal Court judges today that the bullets all came from the direction of the military side."

http://www.fabiopolenghi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=2&limitstart=7

But then again it could have been the UDD with a stolen M16, yeah, right

Like I said before, he was in a free fire zone with 2 sides trying to kill each other. With bullets flying from all over the place and him being right in the center, there was a high chance of him getting shot with a 50/50 chance he'd get hit by either side.

I feel bad for him family that he died but he was in a warzone by his own choice.

Just like the young nurse who was shot and killed by the army.

[Briggsy]

Still waiting on any kind of punishment for the soldiers, police, border police and paramilitary militias who committed cold-blooded murder in '73, '76, 92, '03 (War on Drugs), '04 (Tak Bai) etc.

This ruling, which only came about as part of political manouevring, will be the only crumb the deceased's family are going to get.

[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?

JESUS GIVE IT UP ALREADY a court of law has made its verdict and has said the bullet came from the Government, END OF

Not that we did not know already and this is now multiple court judgments which clearly now shows the government was shooting innocent people.

You guys just dont give up with your anti red shirt and anti thaksin retoric

EVIDENCE IS IN BOYS ACCEPT IT.

I didn't say that this bullet didn't come from the army.

But I don't believe that there was "no evidence of any other group in the area", given that there are many reports of red shirts shooting back at the army around this time, and there was also a BBC video of a red shirt shooting at the army in Lumpini park while the army were moving in.

[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.

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?

When a court has facts to base a verdict on it does not have "to believe". Or would you happily accept it when a court "believes" that you killed your neighbour and sentences you to 25 years based on accounts from witnesses that liked your neighbour that they "did not see anybody else"?

[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?

Sometimes i wish i could believe propaganda as easily as you can .

Are you saying that the BBC video and reports from other journalists is propaganda? And you only read reports from red shirt publications, don't you?

[whybother]

Just like the young nurse who was shot and killed by the army.

And you're going on about believing propaganda!

[oldsailor35]

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."

Assuming I'm reading your quote only reply correctly yes it says they face murder charges but that doesn't mean that a court will find that it is murder. As for the fact no military officials have been prosecuted I would think that if a court finds that Abhisit and Suthep aren't guilty of murder on the grounds that the actions of the military were outside their rules of engagement then the next obvious step would be to charge whoever fired the shot, if they can be found. I seem to remember seeing that military personnel can't be subject to court action but I don't know if that's true.

Maybe in Thailand, but in the rest of the world, they can be charged and often are.

[whybother]

Yep, and the army were trying to control them with Tear Gas, Water Cannon and Rubber Bullets................Bulldust! if you are not out to kill, why use live ammunition ?

.

They used live ammunition because protesters were using live ammunition.

[spectrumisgreen]

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

Whoever pulled the trigger, that's pretty much the only label you could put on it!! 'Collateral damage'? Is that how you'd see it if it were someone close to YOU lying dead in the street???

Edited May 29, 2013 by spectrumisgreen

[jayboy]

Just like the young nurse who was shot and killed by the army.

And you're going on about believing propaganda!

I don't think the murder of civilians in Wat Pathum has come to trial yet but the view the army was guilty of abuse is very far from propaganda.I appreciate you are rattled by today's court finding but it is always better to embrace the truth.

[hellodolly]

"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?

Who gives a dump. He was in a war zone and reporters all over the world are getting shot in war zones. It is a dangerous job and they know it going in. They are not a stupid lot. They know the risk and are willing to take it.

I know it sounds terrible but the way some people carry on is actually doing a disservice to them for their choice in making a living.

Family is different they are bound to hurt but they should not dishonor his choice of making a living by seeking to lay the blame elsewhere.

[oldsailor35]

"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?

Sometimes i wish i could believe propaganda as easily as you can .

Are you saying that the BBC video and reports from other journalists is propaganda? And you only read reports from red shirt publications, don't you?

NO! but still not convinced about the "so called grenade" remember the lie from Khun Suthep regarding a grenade, which he claimed killed the Italian.

[whybother]

Just like the young nurse who was shot and killed by the army.

And you're going on about believing propaganda!

I don't think the murder of civilians in Wat Pathum has come to trial yet but the view the army was guilty of abuse is very far from propaganda.I appreciate you are rattled by today's court finding but it is always better to embrace the truth.

Rattled?? Why would I be rattled?

[Frank James]

The Government in power at the time of the occupation displayed gross incompetence in the handling of the prolonged demonstration. To let ANY group occupy the center of your capitol city for two months before taking action, and then to do so in such a violent, extreme manner...words fail me. In any civilized country, this thing would have been allowed for a very limited time (one week max), and then cleared away by any means necessary.

The politics in this country is a sickening mess. Red vs Yellow, Hi-so vs No-so, it all makes Thailand a mockery.

[whybother]

NO! but still not convinced about the "so called grenade" remember the lie from Khun Suthep regarding a grenade, which he claimed killed the Italian.

Here is some good propaganda for you:

Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/19/roundup-chandler-vandergrift-canadian-journalist-wounded-in-bangkok/

Canadian journalist Chandler Vandergrift (left) lies wounded near injured Thai soldiers after they were hit by a grenade on May 19, 2010 in Bangkok, Thailand.

http://wodumedia.com/crackdown-in-bangkok/canadian-journalist-chandler-vandergrift-left-lies-wounded-near-injured-thai-soldiers-after-they-were-hit-by-a-grenade-on-may-19-2010-in-bangkok-thailand-athit-perawongmethagetty-images/

[whybother]

The Government in power at the time of the occupation displayed gross incompetence in the handling of the prolonged demonstration. To let ANY group occupy the center of your capitol city for two months before taking action, and then to do so in such a violent, extreme manner...words fail me. In any civilized country, this thing would have been allowed for a very limited time (one week max), and then cleared away by any means necessary.

The politics in this country is a sickening mess. Red vs Yellow, Hi-so vs No-so, it all makes Thailand a mockery.

Actually, they tried to bring the demonstration to an end after a month, but that's when the red shirt's militia was brought out.

[khunken]

Just like the young nurse who was shot and killed by the army.

And you're going on about believing propaganda!

I don't think the murder of civilians in Wat Pathum has come to trial yet but the view the army was guilty of abuse is very far from propaganda.I appreciate you are rattled by today's court finding but it is always better to embrace the truth.

I have never seen anything like the truth from your posts. Proto Fascists was a real gem.

No court has ruled on the deaths in the Wat but you pre-judge it as murder.

I accept the court's findings, vague as they are. What is sickening is to see the grieving Polengi relatives being used by the red shirts as sort of guinea pigs to add to the DSI's targeting of the opposition..

[jayboy]

Just like the young nurse who was shot and killed by the army.

And you're going on about believing propaganda!

I don't think the murder of civilians in Wat Pathum has come to trial yet but the view the army was guilty of abuse is very far from propaganda.I appreciate you are rattled by today's court finding but it is always better to embrace the truth.

I have never seen anything like the truth from your posts. Proto Fascists was a real gem.

No court has ruled on the deaths in the Wat but you pre-judge it as murder.

I accept the court's findings, vague as they are. What is sickening is to see the grieving Polengi relatives being used by the red shirts as sort of guinea pigs to add to the DSI's targeting of the opposition..

Another rattled apologist for repression.Slow but surely the truth is emerging.The earlier claims of Suthep on the incident have been exposed as a grotesque lie

The irony is that nobody is suggesting, certainly not me, that elements in the redshirts were free of blame.

Edited May 29, 2013 by jayboy

[monkeycountry]

From other news sources:

"A Thailand representative for Human Rights Watch, Sunai Pasuk, said the
finding (in the OP) highlighted the need to hold the military to account for the 2010
deaths, not just the politicians.

"According to Human Rights Watch's research, there was no order given to
shoot unarmed civilians, so the commanders and soldiers on the ground should be
held accountable," Mr Sunai said.""

Now remember that the red shirts usually hold HRW in high regard. In it's eagerness to hold the soldiers on the ground responsible, the HRW just confirmed that no order was given to shoot unarmed civilians, implying the soldiers decided on their own and should therefore be prosecuted. If no such order was given, then how can AV and ST be convicted of murder? They could of course have given an order to shoot armed "civilians", and perhaps be prosecuted for murdering those, but according to the red shirts themselves, none of the dead or wounded were armed (except for the dead soldiers), which rules out prosecuting AV and ST for murdering armed "civilians" as well. The only option left is to charge AV and ST for ordering the army to kill fellow soldiers, but somehow I doubt even the red shirts will try to charge them with that :-)

I think someone just scored an own goal here :-)

[khunken]

Quote by Jayboy:

.

Another rattled apolgist for repression.Slow and surely the truth is emerging.

No it's not unless you mean red shirt 'truth'. I suppose you think if you keep repeating the word it might become accepted.

You are the apologist for PTP & red shirt repression. Real truth would be finding the instigator of the violent protests & riots in 2009 & 2010. But that, to quote Al Gore, would be 'An inconvenient truth'.

Edited May 29, 2013 by khunken

[Halion]

Total nonesense and a verdict based on wishfull thinking ,ignorance and suposition. How do they get to these high positions with an IQ similar to their hat size. Greed, arrogance and manipulation spring to mind.

[bigbamboo]

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?

Given where he was, dressed as he was and the situation that was unfolding I would call it foolhardy.

[Robby nz]

You are right Jayboy the truth is slowly emerging.

As I posted way back :

Mr. Polenghi is one of more than 90 deaths that resulted from the political violence in April-May 2010, when the Redshirts occupied central Bangkok to demand a parliamentary dissolution and new election, but were met with military operation directed by then-PM Abhisit Vejjajeeva.

All the deaths RESULTED FROM, got that?

And who started the political violence that led to all these deaths?

Hay, love the way you manage to get in an insult or few with every post.

[Anon999]

Like I said before, he was in a free fire zone with 2 sides trying to kill each other. With bullets flying from all over the place and him being right in the center, there was a high chance of him getting shot with a 50/50 chance he'd get hit by either side.

I feel bad for him family that he died but he was in a warzone by his own choice.

What part of this do you not understand?

Documentary Film Maker Bradley Fox:

“that he did not see or hear any single gunshot from where the red shirt protesters were, but clearly heard shots from the Lumpini and Sala Daeng sides, where military were zeroing in.”

if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. …Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody.”

If you insist on quoting then at least copy and paste and do not make it up to suit your own argument. Bradley's quote, "said Bradley, adding that he didn’t hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Fabio. “I don’t know who shot me or Fabio," you then selectively quote the part following my quote totally distorting the truth.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Anon999