Bhumibol Adulyadej

On 15 June 1946, American Chargé d'affaires Charles Yost met with Foreign Minister Direk Jayanama, who had just had an audience with the new king, Bhumibol Adulyadej. In his report to the US State Department, Yost noted,

King Bhumiphol... informed the Foreign Minister that he considered the [widely circulated] rumors [on the late King's death] absurd, that he knew his brother well and that he was certain that his death had been accidental... What the King said to Direk does not necessarily represent what he really believes, it is nevertheless interesting that he made so categorical a statement to the Foreign Minister.^[4]

In 1948, Pinit Intaratood, who had just been appointed as the police officer in charge, went to the Villa Vadhana in Lausanne to question King Bhumibol. During the inquiry, the king looked gloomy, so Pinit decided to ask for forgiveness. The king was smiling and says:

I can't, even for a moment, stop missing him. I would have thought that we will never be apart throughout my lifetime. It was our destiny. I've never thought of being the king, [I] only want[ed] to be his brother.^[8]

However, in a 1980 BBC documentary, Bhumibol stated that although the court ruled that the death was 'proven' not an accident, "one doesn't know." He noted in English:

The investigation provided the fact that he died with a bullet wound in his forehead. It was proved that it was not an accident and not a suicide. One doesn't know. ... But what happened is very mysterious, because immediately much of the evidence was just shifted. And because it was political, so everyone was political, even the police were political, [it was] not very clear.

I only know [that] when I arrived he was dead. Many people wanted to advance not theories but facts to clear up the affair. They were suppressed. And they were suppressed by influential people in this country and in international politics.^[9]

Sulak Sivaraksa

Sulak Sivaraksa, a prominent conservative and monarchist, wrote that Pridi's role in the event was he protected a wrongdoing royal, and prevented an arrest of a person who destroyed the evidence.^{[10]: 5–6} He wrote a Facebook post in 2015 claiming: "in truth, the murderer of King Rama VIII is not Pridi Banomyong. That person is still alive, even though not intending in doing so."^[11]

Seni Pramoj and the Democrat Party

Seni Pramoj and the Democrat Party spread rumours that Pridi was behind the death. Yost noted in a US State Department communication:

"... Within forty-eight hours after the death of the late King, two relatives of Seni Pramoj, first his nephew and later his wife, came to the Legation and stated categorically their conviction that the King had been assassinated at the instigation of the Prime Minister (Pridi Phanomyong). It was of course clear that they had been sent by Seni. I felt it necessary to state to both of them in the strongest terms, in order to make it perfectly clear that this Legation could not be drawn into Siamese political intrigues, that I did not believe these stories and that I considered the circulation at this time of fantastic rumors un-supported by a shred of evidence to be wholly in-excusable. The British Minister informed me this morning that he had also been approached by several members of the Opposition to whom he had stated that he accepted the official account of the King's death and that he would not be drawn into any further discussion of the matter.^[4]

Pridi Banomyong

On 14 June 1946, Yost met with Pridi Banomyong and made the following report to the US State Department:

"[Pridi spoke] very frankly about the whole situation and ascribed the King's death to an accident, but it was obvious that the possibility of suicide was at the back of his mind. [Pridi] was violently angry at the accusations of foul play leveled against himself and most bitter in the manner in which he alleged (without doubt justly) that the Royal Family and the Opposition, particularly Seni Pramoj and Phra Sudhiat, had prejudiced the King and especially the Princess Mother against him."^[4]

Plaek Pibulsonggram

After overthrowing Pridi Banomyong in a coup, Field Marshal Plaek Pibulsonggram told US Ambassador Edwin Stanton that he "personally doubted whether Pridi was directly involved for two reasons: firstly, ... Pridi is a very clever politician and secondly, ... he has a 'kind heart'." Pibul concluded to the Ambassador that "he did not think [Pridi] would cause anybody to be murdered. Pibul's wife, present in the meeting, seconded her husband's observations. However, Pibul noted that it was possible that Pridi had covered up or destroyed some of the evidence to protect the successor, Bhumibol Adulyadej.^[4]

Keith Simpson

Keith Simpson, a forensic pathologist who investigated the king's death, found it highly unlikely that the death was due to suicide, noting that:

• The pistol was found by the king's left hand, but he was right-handed.
• The direction of bullet fired was not inward towards the centre of the head.
• The wound, over the left eye, was not in one of the elective sites, nor a "contact" discharge.
• The king was killed while lying flat on his back. Simpson noted that in twenty years' experience he had never known of any suicide shooting while lying flat on the back.^[2]

William Stevenson

An account of the death is given in William Stevenson's The Revolutionary King, written with the co-operation of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. This account exculpates those executed and suggests that Ananda Mahidol was murdered by Tsuji Masanobu. Masanobu was a former Japanese intelligence officer who had been active in Thailand during the war and, at the time of Ananda Mahidol's death, was hiding out in Thailand for fear of being prosecuted for his war crimes.

Stevenson's account is that Ananda Mahidol could not have killed himself, either by suicide or by accident. He was found lying on his back in his bed, not wearing his glasses, without which he was almost blind. He had a small bullet wound in his forehead and a somewhat larger exit wound in the back of his head. His pistol, an M1911 given him by a former US Army officer, was not nearby. The M1911 is not especially prone to accidental discharge; it will fire only if considerable pressure is applied to the safety plate at the back of the butt at the same time as the trigger is depressed. It is a heavy pistol and awkward to use by an untrained person. It would have been almost impossible for Ananda Mahidol, a frail 20-year-old, to lie on his back and shoot himself in the forehead with such a weapon. Had he done so, the impact, according to forensics experts, would have blown his skull apart, not caused the small wounds seen by many witnesses. Stevenson writes that no cartridge case was found, and subsequent inquiries ordered by King Bhumibol, but suppressed by later governments, found that the Colt had not been fired.^[12]

Rayne Kruger

Another account, which concluded that Ananda Mahidol's death was the result of suicide, was explored by journalist Rayne Kruger in his book, The Devil's Discus.^[13] The book is banned in Thailand. However, a website^[14] by a Thai writer has provided a summary of Kruger's arguments, and it links to other material about the death. Kruger, who had unprecedented access to members of the inner circle of the Thai royal family (although these contacts had to remain unidentified), drew the conclusion that Ananda's death was most probably an 'accidental suicide'. Thus, said Kruger, it appears the sad, most likely accidental, death of the young king was exploited for the purposes of a political vendetta, and that three innocent victims were executed to maintain the façade.

Paul Handley

Paul Handley, author of a biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, wrote that either suicide or an accidental shooting by Prince Bhumibol was responsible for the king's death:^{[15]: 77–78} "I have no idea whether Ananda shot himself or was killed by Bhumibol, the two possibilities most accepted among historians. If the latter, I clearly term it an accident that occurred in play".^[16]

Royal Monogram of King Ananda Mahidol