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