BANGKOK BOMB SUSPECTS RELEASED, INVESTIGATION BACK

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 002006

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EAP/MLS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/05/2017
TAGS: PGOV PINR PTER ASEC KDEM TH
SUBJECT: BANGKOK BOMB SUSPECTS RELEASED, INVESTIGATION BACK
TO SQUARE ONE

REF: A. BANGKOK 01081 (BANGKOK BOMB CASE REMAINS STALLED)

B. BANGKOK 00657 (BANGKOK BOMB INVESTIGATION HEADS
TOWARDS CRASH LANDING)

C. BANGKOK 00234 (INSIDE THE BANGKOK BOMBING
INVESTIGATION)

D. BANGKOK 00059 (JANUARY 4 DIPLOMATIC CORPS
BRIEFING ON THE BANGKOK BOMBINGS)

Classified By: Political Counselor Susan M. Sutton. Reason 1.4 (b,d)


1. (C) Summary. The Royal Thai Police (RTP) have released
the only two suspects charged in the New Year's Eve Bangkok
bomb attacks, with a senior police official publicly stating
that the investigation would have to "start over." The story
behind the misidentification of these two suspects and police
mismanagement of this case highlights long-standing RTP
shortcomings as well as undercuts any definitive statements
by security officials that either "political figures" or
separatist insurgents from the South were behind the bombs.
The investigation appears to be at a dead end for now. End
Summary.


A STRUGGLING INVESTIGATION
--------------


2. (C) Reftels highlighted security officials' struggle to
find and prosecute those behind the deadly, multiple-site
bomb attacks on New Year's Eve in Bangkok. Police and other
contacts have detailed a long list of impediments to the
investigation, including unclear delineation of investigatory
responsibilities, shifts in leadership, poor on-the-ground
cooperation, inadequate evidence collection and analysis, and
pressure by senior government officials on working-level
officers to "prove" that political figures, and not southern
insurgents, were responsible for the attacks.


LET'S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE!
--------------


3. (C) Following nearly two months of stumbles in the
investigation, police officials on February 20 released
close-circuit television (CCTV) photos from at least two of
the attack sites, and asked for public assistance in
identifying potential suspects caught on these tapes. This
public appeal followed a week of speculation over claims
leaked by police officials that CCTV footage had positively
identified Thawalsak Paenae--an ethnic Malay Muslim studying
at Ramkhamheang University in Bangkok, and allegedly wanted
for separatist crimes in the South--as present at the Seacon
Square Mall bomb site on the night of the attacks. (Note: As
reported in ref A, officers in the Ministry of Justice's
Department of Special Investigations (DSI),strongly deny
this assertion, citing video analysis done with the
assistance of Danish police as disproving the suspect is
Thawalsak. End Note.) On March 12, newly promoted National
Police Commissioner Sereepisuth Taeneeyaves told reporters
that the RTP had positively identified three suspects from
Seacon Square and were pursuing arrest warrants.

THIS IS WHERE THE STORY GETS WEIRD
--------------


4. (C) On March 22, the case appeared to take a long-awaited
step forward. The Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for
two unnamed men identified in the CCTV footage from Seacon
Square, with further warrants expected for another man and
two women. On that same day, Pratya Preechevej reported to
the police, saying that he was one of the suspects caught on
tape, but protesting his innocence in the bombing. He said
that his sister and several friends were the other people in
the publicly released footage from New Year's Eve. Pratya, a
food vendor working near Seacon Square, contended that he and
his friends had gone to the mall to see a movie that evening
and had no connection to the bomb attacks.


5. (C) On the evening of March 22, Pratya and Yutthapong, the
other male "suspect," were interviewed by police for at least
six hours. The following morning, the two suspects held a

BANGKOK 00002006 002 OF 002


press conference, again professing their innocence, but this
time denying that they were the men seen in the CCTV footage.
Both men went out of their way to note that the "suspects"
identified by police looked remarkably similar to them, but
wore clothing and hair styles different than their own.
Several senior RTG officials, including Sereepisuth and even
Army Chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin soon added their voices to
the public debate, by saying that Pratya and Yutthapong were
not the bombers, but merely resembled them. Given that the
warrants issued detailed no names--just the photos--it
appeared that the police could continue to pursue these new,
doppelganger suspects.

"WHAT WE SAID WAS UNTRUE"
--------------


6. (C) But Pratya apparently failed to play his part. On
March 24 he spoke with reporters again--without police
present--and said that he and Yutthapong "are the men" on the
CCTV footage; "everybody knows what we said at the press
conference (with police the previous day) was untrue."
Pratya reportedly explained that police had promised to drop
the arrest warrants if he and Yutthapong agreed to say that
they were not the individuals in the CCTV photo. The police,
however, had failed to make good on this promise, so Pratya
reached out to reporters to set the record straight. In
response to this plea for assistance, on March 26 MOJ Permsec
Charan Phakdi-Thankakul publicly called for police to drop
the charges against the two men and suggested that they file
a request with the criminal court to void the warrants for
their arrest. Pratya and Yutthapong subsequently filed a
petition to the Criminal Court, asking that the warrants be
withdrawn.

DOWN THE (ORWELLIAN) RABBIT HOLE
--------------


7. (C) Police retribution was swift. On March 28, police
charged Pratya and Yutthapong on five criminal counts
stemming from the bombing, including attempted murder and
terrorism, two charges that could result in the death
penalty. The Criminal Court, citing the ongoing police
investigation, denied their motion to have arrest warrants in
their names dropped. Instead, both men were detained, again,
by police and held at Prawet police station. A police
official involved in the investigation denied that the filing
of charges was retaliation for Pratya and Yutthapong's
complaints to the Criminal Court.


8. (C) Finally, four days later on April 2, police officials
dropped charges against Pratya and Yutthapong, citing
"insufficient evidence." Rather than admit any mistakes in
the case, Deputy Police Commissioner Patcharawat told
reporters that "the two men still aren't considered innocent.
We just don't have enough evidence and can't charge them."
MOJ Permsec Charan, on the other hand, said that the police
should "be ashamed."

COMMENT
--------------


9. (C) RTP officials appear to have done their best to uphold
their long-standing public image as heavy-handed and
semi-competent, particularly in their treatment of suspects.
The filing of criminal charges against Prayat and Yutthapong
on March 28 was a particularly naked act of retaliation, even
for the RTP. The apparent desire of investigators to search
for a silver bullet to identify suspects--CCTV
footage--rather than pursue a careful, committed
investigation of evidentiary leads reflects both the poor
nature of evidence collection following the blasts, and an
overemphasis on "easy" technology. The Bangkok bomb
investigation remains a dud and the conduct exhibited in this
part of the case should inspire caution and skepticism
towards any RTG assertions about "whodunit."
ARVIZU