Bleacher Bum East

@ JD... JD you're correct. My opinion is speculation, but it's speculation that is speculated from a lifetime of experience. Indeed an indictment is possible, but I can't see it happening.

"My opinion is speculation, but it's speculation that is speculated from a lifetime of experience."

Hmmmm, if that meme is picked up on these threads, you guys will never hear the end of it.

Som nam na . . .

Chris Ware is/was David's friend and was understandably distraught the day following the crime. However, is there any chatter about what he says happened on that night of the crime? If so, what has be been saying? It would be interesting to get another on-the-scene farang's spin on events, rather than just cryptic one-liners from Sean.

• Where they were, who they were with, and what happened the night of the murder up until they both ended up on the beach
• Did they arrive on the beach together or separately?
• Was there any conflict with anybody—Farang or Asian tourist/ex-pat, local or visiting Thai, migrant worker, etc.— no matter how minor, the evening of the murder or previous evenings
• Had anybody—Farang or Asian tourist/ex-pat, local or visiting Thai, migrant worker, etc.—shown any unreciprocated interest in Hannah

This is very interesting.

Although it's something that could be expected in an investigation ...

It raises many questions and has many potential implications.

Or it could be a simple procedural matter.

What the reasons for the visit are and what will be asked and answered we probably will never know.

But I would love to be a fly on the wall.

BTW it does appear that there is a right to remain silent under Thai law ...

http://www.thailandlaw.org/what-should-i-do-if-i-got-arrested-in-thailand.html

If I were going to issue "real-world" travel advisory for Thailand, it would be the following:

Real World Travel Advisory for All Tourists in Thailand

• Don't ride a motorbike unless you know what you are doing
• Don't ever cause a Thai man (or any Thai person) to lose face, especially publicly, because retribution will be certain, will come as a surprise, and will be way out of proportion to what you would ever expect
• Don’t ever get into a fight with a tuk tuk or motorbike taxi driver, a ladyboy, or a young Thai man . . . if you do then you will be fighting a minimum of 5 people within seconds, most with weapons of some sort (a ladyboy’s high heels being the most lethal)...basically just never get into a fight in Thailand, because you will not win.
• Don't do anything stupid that you wouldn't do in your home country

Special Advisory for Female Travelers in Thailand

These precautions should be SOP for ladies traveling anywhere in the world, not just in Thailand:

• Don't wave your handbags around when walking on the street
• Don't get in taxis, tuk tuks or on motorbike taxis alone late at night
• Don't wander isolated places alone anytime at night
• Keep an eye on your drink in tourist areas so nothing gets slipped into it
• Don’t get extremely drunk unless you’re in the company of more than one good friend, and
• Don’t box yourself into a situation alone with a man that you can’t get out of

Special Advisory for Male Travelers in Thailand

• Don't ever go into a Thai karaoke joint--the kind with ladies out front (I'm not talking about Beer Bars, those are fine if you observe the previous rule) without a good Thai friend . . . and even then, don't go
• Keep an eye on your drink in Bar Beer areas (the ones with ladies), or anywhere you go with a lady from these bars, to make sure you don’t get slipped a Mickey (I would bet that a vast majority of the balcony leaps and men who go to sleep and don't wake up come from this).

If you follow these rules, then I believe Thailand is safer than almost any other country you could visit, including my home country for sure. I personally have very little fear for my safety at any time of the day, in any area of Thailand . . . as long as I follow my own rules (which I don't always do and have learned the hard way why I should).

I know this because I have traveled extensively for long periods of time in "third-world" and "developing" countries, and because I have cumulatively spent more than a decade in Thailand

Note -

For people stating DNA doesn't prove murder. The correct statement is DNA by itself (alone) doesn't.

Means

Motive

Opportunity

Those alone are enough to get a conviction. Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence.

This is not accurate, and if somebody following the case believes this then they will be mislead.

In fact, "means, motive and opportunity" are not in and of themselves sufficient to establish guilt and should not be enough to get a conviction in a fair trial.

The prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted on the opportunity with the required level of intent.

More detail for anybody interested:

So what does the prosecutor need to prove?

The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that each element of a particular crime are present beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every crime has it's own specific elements (for example, rape requires non-consensual sexual penetration), but all crimes have these general elements in common that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The commission of the acts that constitute the crime (actus reus)

2. The required criminal intent, i.e. state of mind (mens rea)

3. The required intent and the act happened at the same time

4. The act caused the harm that is prohibited by society (extreme example---if you shoot somebody after they are dead it isn't murder)

If any of these elements is missing, then there is no crime.

Means, motive and opportunity are ways to help prove or disprove these elements, they are not the elements themselves.

If the prosecution can prove means, motive and opportunity, then that will greatly help establish his case, but not prove it.

If the defense can disprove means or opportunity, then that will probably be fatal to the prosecution's case (motive is never an essential element of a crime---but if it's present it helps the prosecution, if it's not present it helps the defense).

But means, motive and opportunity without proof that the defendant acted on the opportunity will not meet the burden of proof in a fair trial.

BTW with respect to DNA in this case ... if it was found in semen inside the body, then that would prove that the act of sexual penetration occurred, but not prove that it was non-consensual. However, the prosecution would argue that the fact that Hannah was also murdered leads to a reasonable inference that it was non-consensual sex ... the defense would then argue there is no proof the sex and the murder happened at the same time... etc. etc. etc. with the judge having to decide whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven his case of non-consensual sex beyond a reasonable doubt.

PS I'm not sure what is meant by "Exculpatory evidence is often required to prevent conviction on a case built solely circumstantial evidence." If you're saying that a defendant has to prove that he did not have the means, motive, or opportunity, that would only be true if the prosecutor had already proven all of the elements before any defense was offered, and even then there would be many other ways to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

An interesting read except for the fact that this is the Thai Justice system where the thinking is, erm, shall we say somewhat different to the systems they borrowed and then adapted their laws from to suit the particular Thai mindset. The translated words may be similar but the interpretation and understanding of legal principles as we from the West know them are quite different. Not only that but the interpretation of the laws, which are written in language which is often wide open to interpretation, is simply down to the judge on the day. Precedent barely exists at all, discovery is non existent, lawyers - when you can find an honest one - are never sure of the interpretation of the law either and it changes like the wind, racism and status is often an element in conviction and sentencing. Basically a long way different from the Justice systems from countries with a longer history of law and the same rules just don't apply.

@timewilltell

I can't disagree with anything you say . . . mainly because I don't have much experience observing the Thai justice system in action, which it seems like you do.

But I believe that if this goes to court there will be two "trials" happening simultaneously.

The first will be the trial of the accused, in which the Thai justice system will be applied by the judge(s) to determine whether to convict or acquit.

The second will be the "trial of the trial", in which the basic elements of a fair trial will be applied by experienced observers to determine if the trial was fair and the result was just.

In order for non-experienced observers to follow this second "trial" and determine for themselves if the trial was fair, it is helpful to accurately understand what the basic components of a fair trial consist of.

One of those components is the elements of a crime and the burden of proof that a prosecutor must carry . . .

That's what I was trying to communicate with my post, not what I think will actually happen at the trial---which I can't speak to for lack of experience.

Here's something interesting about how the legal system in Thailand works that is not the same as many other places, at least as I understand it:

The prosecutor is not allowed to be involved in the investigation at all.

He cannot even interview the suspects...or review all the evidence the police have collected such as CCTV footage, etc.

The police conduct the investigation and give the prosecutor a file to be used in charging and prosecuting the suspects.

They choose what goes into the file and what does not go into the file.

The prosecutor does not see anything that is not put into the file.

The prosecutor has three choices: 1) charge the suspects and take the case to trial using the information in the file,2) officially decide not to prosecute the case, or 3) send the case back to the police and request them to conduct further investigation.

In this case, the prosecutor keeps sending the case back for further investigation, while the police keep stating publicly that the investigation is closed and there is no public evidence of further investigation (although that does not mean one isn't happening).

At least publicly, there appears to be a standoff.

Maybe the DSI will be the way the standoff is broken.

The DSI has had its own issues previously, but it has a new person in charge.

We'll see.

Does the PM have that authority to interefere with old cases?

I have seen several statements he has made that he spcifically does not want to interfere in the judicial system

praising the police and promising them a bonus, is into the same as cracking in to old cases

Praising the police and rewarding them is in no way similar interfering in the Judiciary.

It is a way to deal with rifts between the military and the police

I completely agree with what JD said in his second sentence, and think that is a large part of the internal dynamic at play in this case.

Whether self-appointed or elected, civilian or military, no leader can maintain control and govern without some level of internal political and external public support.

The PM may have taken power in a coup, but he still needs that support.

The PM has many different things to balance in achieving and maintaining his support—including internal power politics, vested interests, Thai public opinion, the economy including tourism and foreign investment, international opinion, etc. They all affect his ability to effectively achieve his agenda, so they all matter to him whether he admits so publicly or not.

The PM has said that one of his intentions is to “bring the people together” and stop the bickering within Thailand. Two of the groups that have previously had friction are the military and the police.

The PM needs the political and practical support of the police—at least some of them with influence; they are a key part of his government and he cannot govern and achieve his agenda without them.

The PM saw the Koh Tao investigation as an opportunity to embrace the police and gain their support, so he took a chance and endorsed the investigation and initial results.

If at the end of the day, the investigation makes the PM look good, then that will have positive ramifications for all the things he cares about, and his initial endorsement of the police and their investigation will have paid off.

But if at the end of the day the PM is made to look bad and there is negative effects on Thai public support, international support, the economy due to a drop in foreign investment and tourism, etc., then he absolutely will care about those negative effects, and there will be serious internal ramifications whether we ever see or hear about them or not.

It is too early to tell what will happen. If the end results are good, then the preliminary missteps may be forgotten. If they are not, then they will linger for quite a while.

Since the prosecutor hasn't even accepted a case yet, there is currently no way to know how this will all end.

The PM saw the Kho Tap case as a way to embrace the police?

what?

before the police chief was "promoted" the case was going in an entirely different direction, was it not?

before rhe police chief was "promoted" the PM was laughing about girls wearing bikini's not being safe, did he not?

The PM may not look at tourism websites, or even Thai Visa, but from all the advertising I have seen about "beautiful exotic Thailnd"

it is always white girls in bikini's

perhaps next to all those ads, should be the video clip of the PM laughing about a raped and mulitlated face of a British girl, next to those ads of the white girls frolicking in their bikini's?

you think that is what the PM meant, when he "appointed" a new police chief?

I think exactly what I said.

Passion against injustice is important to fight injustice.

But so is an objective look at the reality of a situation where a potential injustice may occur.

If you have the first without the second, you may end up hurting your cause more than you help it.

The PM had just named a new national police chief (not the one you are referring to).

For many reasons that go far beyond this case, he needs the support of his chosen police chief and other high ranking officers.

He could not afford to alienate his newly appointed police chief and the police force by publicly undermining the Koh Tao investigation.

In my last post and this post, I didn't characterize this as a good thing . . . I just stated my view of reality to help provide some perspective about what may be going on behind the scenes.

What goes on behind the scenes could have a major impact on the outcome of this case.

If someone really wants to help and not just rant, it is important to understand what is happening as well as rally for the cause.

That's my opinion.

I was not referring to you.

I have not insulted you.

Do you really believe that the Burmese 2 murdered the tourists?

I think they did. A trial will determine guilt or innocence.

"A trial will determine guilt or innocence."

Maybe.

A fair trial will determine guilt or innocence.

A trial that does not include the basic components of fairness will only determine conviction or acquittal.

If there is a trial, a bright spotlight will be on the judge and prosecutor. And many experienced observers will be making their own judgment on whether the trial was fair and the result was just.

Does the PM have that authority to interefere with old cases?

I have seen several statements he has made that he spcifically does not want to interfere in the judicial system

praising the police and promising them a bonus, is into the same as cracking in to old cases

Praising the police and rewarding them is in no way similar interfering in the Judiciary.

It is a way to deal with rifts between the military and the police

Read the post again

"nobody should have..."

And no it is not criminal negligence.

Another interesting issue and challenge for the prosecution that could have been easily avoided:

I agree that allowing civilians onto a crime scene in that way is not criminal negligence, because criminal negligence is a legal term that does not apply here.

But there is another legal term that would directly apply . . .

In event, while many people in the public are understandably outraged that this would happen, the people that should be the most angry about it are the prosecutor, the high ranking police officers, and any non-police investigation person who was allowed onto the crime scene.

The prosecutor and high ranking officers should be outraged because by allowing civilians onto the crime scene, it has opened the door for the defense attorney to raise doubt about every single piece of evidence found at the scene.

This means that if and when they do bring the killers to court, they could potentially lose their conviction and let the killers go free because of this mistake.

And any civilian who was allowed onto the crime scene should be angry, because their entering the scene has probably subjected them to being called as a witness at trial, and possibly even more scrutiny than that.

This applies to any non-police investigation person that entered the crime scene after the murders, not any one particular individual.

Hope they are not relying on the confession as that has been retracted.

Under claims of torture.

Not the only claim of such a nature made surrounding this case.

A judge will weigh the recantation against the confessions. Nobody has suggested that torture happened when the HRC commissioner spoke with them

It doesn't require physical torture to make a confession inadmissible or unreliable ... threats of death or physical harm are more than enough ... and according to the accused Burmese men, those threats were made before the meeting with the HRC commissioner occurred (made at the time of the interrogation) and if true they would have still felt at extreme risk, so the threats were still very relevant to any "confession" made at that time.

The issue is really whether the judge(s) believes these threats were made. If he does, then he probably will not/and should not admit any confessions into evidence. If he does not believe that death threats were made, then you are right, the judge will weigh the confessions against the recantations but only after the defense has a chance to cross-examine the HRC commissioner (I think the confession to the Rohingya interpreter is and should be doomed just because of the issues surrounding the interpreter without even getting to the issue of death threats, etc.).

If the confessions are admitted into evidence, the other thing the judge will hear evidence on in determining their credibility is how consistent the confessions are with the rest of the evidence ... i.e. whether things could have happened the way they were "confessed" to have happened.

There's no reason that the HRC commissioner and team could not be called to testify that I am aware of.

Edit in response to your edit. I don't think that the judges would question an HRC commissioner's credibility. It is not going before a jury, where people can be bamboozled.

But I admit these are not cut and dried issues . . . so we'll see what happens if these confessions are introduced. I honestly don't know how they would in reality be introduced, cross-examined, and assessed. We'll find out if it goes to trial, but the prosecution would have a tough job on this issue.

Again EO, The story as posted isn't a rerun. It is the story from the 7th. Perfectly valid when the discussion turns to the HRC.

That you are not using ignore as claimed comes as no surprise, nor does your still being in Thailand 4.5 years after I first saw you talking about leaving.

The Thai Human Rights Commission accepted a petition submitted by the accused’s parents last week, in which they ask the commission to look into allegations that the two men were forced into their confessions.

To the police. There's no such allegations about the confessions to the HRC.

At the time the two accused Burmese men met with the HRC and allegedly "confessed":

• They had not yet retracted their confessions made during interrogation to an unreliable interpreter
• They were meeting with a Thai authority figure who they did not know and did not trust
• If their stories of death threats made against them are true, they were still in fear of their life if they did not maintain their "confessions"

So the confessions to the HRC officer are suspect for many of the same reasons as the confessions during interrogation.

In addition, if these "confessions" are to be entered into evidence in court, then the HRC commissioner would need to appear as a witness and be the one testifying to the confessions, and he would then be subject to cross-examination by the defense lawyers. I think the likelihood of that happening is extremely slim for many reasons.

So I don't think that anything the Burmese men said to the HRC commissioner will be included in the prosecution's case if he brings charges, and even if it is it won't be considered credible beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW for an HRC commissioner to have publicly commented on an interview with these men made in his official capacity raises its own set of questions and a good defense lawyer would use this to cast doubt on his own credibility as witness if he did testify.

The Salad Concept just opened a new branch down towards Miguel's ... I like their Shitake Mushroom and Tomato Basil soups ... also have Pumpkin.

Also O'Malley's for their Potato Sausage soup ... also have tomato and mushroom soups which I haven't tried.

Soups at the Irish Pub are pretty good as well...They have Roast Tomato and Capsicum. Pea and Ham, Potato and Leek, Coconut and Pumpkin...and you get good bread to go with it.

And I like the Chicken Tortilla soup at Miguel's also

I am sure they will have a lot to say now they are home. These guys are professionals. If the man on the street can smell a rat then they will see it a million miles away

I wouldn't expect to hear anything from the British government right away.

They would much rather not have to make any public reports/statements that conflict with or criticizes the results of the Thai investigation.

So if they do have conflicting information or harsh criticisms, they will keep them close to the vest right now and see how the process plays out in Thailand ... at least until there is a formal charge and possibly even until after a trial and verdict (which may be why they pushed the coroners inquiry into January).

At the same time they will be nudging/pushing the Thai authorities behind the scenes in the right direction by making them aware of what they know and/or processes they think are unfair to try and get the Thai authorities to do the right thing on there own.

Only if all else fails and it appears a travesty of justice is likely to happen will they issue a critical report to the public.

Of course all of this is assuming they actually have conflicting information ... if they don't and they've been satisfied the DNA testing was reliable, then they will simply issue a cause of death report and let the results stand as they come out.

This is my guess how it will play out ... and yes it is a guess.

I think for issues like this, what the British investigator observers are actually doing, etc., speculation is harmless and interesting.

We'll see how it plays out.

I will never return to Thailand.

It is not safe for foreigners and, it isn't worth the risk.

I liked it, and I didn't like it; but once was enough.

I do not like the direction the country is going in

You claimed you were actually here.

Am I surprised you lied? No.

you arent good enough to bait me

But you did in fact claim you were here Steve Fong, correct?

So one of your comments was obviously not true.

Why make BS comments?

By doing so you clutter up the thread with comments that do nothing to advance the discussion, undermine your own credibility and by implication undermine the credibility your side of the debate, and give ammunition needlessly to those on the other side of the debate.

I will never return to Thailand.

It is not safe for foreigners and, it isn't worth the risk.

I liked it, and I didn't like it; but once was enough.

I do not like the direction the country is going in

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, which may be shared by many and that will have an impact on Thailand.

But I have a different and much more experienced opinion than you . . .

I will spend much time in Thailand, feel very safe doing so, and hope against hope that the country will begin to take incremental steps forward, starting with fair trial in the current case, as well as further investigation. Even if that doesn't happen, I still find more positives to being here than negatives---and don't say I have rose-colored glasses, I know and understand much more about the negatives than you could ever hope to imagine.

If I were going to issue a "real-world" travel advisory for Thailand, it would be this:

• Don't ride a motorbike unless you know what you are doing
• Don't ever cause a Thai man (or any Thai person) to lose face, especially publicly, because retribution will be certain, will come as a surprise, and will be way out of proportion to what you would ever expect
• Don't ever go into a Thai karaoke joint--the kind with ladies out front (I'm not talking about Beer Bars, those are fine if you observe the previous rule) without a good Thai friend (and even then, don't go)
• Don't do anything stupid that you wouldn't do in your home country

If you follow this advisory, then Thailand is safer than almost any other country you could visit, including my home country for sure.

I know this because I have traveled extensively for long periods of time in "third-world" and "developing" countries, and because I have cumulatively spent more than a decade in Thailand.

PS I will say that female travelers in the Southern Islands and in Bangkok especially need to take precautions like they would traveling anywhere: Don't wave your handbags around when walking on the street, don't get in taxis alone late at night, don't wander isolated places alone at night. But this should be SOP for female travelers anywhere in the world.

Maybe they were asked, but there professionalism meant they did not want to attend the circus side show....I am sure they observed from distance and there report is on the desk of the PM.

When the British report is made public, I wonder what the consequences for Thailand will be.........Harsh and severe words for one, and I think far, far more...time will tell.

I find it odd that considering the British homicide detectives just happen to be in town, that they weren't invited to observe or participate in this DNA testing. Considering they have the DNA from the victims I would think it would have been important to have them involved and testing too. What a farce this whole investigation is.

It was a blatant omission agreed but if the investigators thought there was even a jot of merit to the collection transporting and actual results I am quite positive they would have participated.

The British lads wouldn't be bothered at appearing at a public, childish farce I shouldn't think

Even it the British investigative team was invited, they never would have attended.

The reason is that if they publicly (or even privately) participated in these tests, it would be implicitly stating that they have given them their stamp of approval.

They will not put their credibility on the line, or lend legitimacy to the tests, in this way unless they can be 100% certain that all of the samples involved and testing methods, facilities and personnel are 100% reliable.

They could in fact be reliable, but the Brits don't know that for sure. And if they aren't 100% sure, they won't be involved.

BTW for this same reason, I think the British team is more than happy to be labeled "observers" while in Thailand. If they are considered to be part of the investigative team, that means they will be considered partially accountable for the outcome. Which they do not want.

The circus continues. I bet it would not be hard for enterprising UK officers to get a real sample of this worm's DNA.

What would they do with it? They can't interfere in Thailand's domestic issues.

Yeah God forbid that the families in the UK would actually want to find out the truth behind who killed their loved ones instead of this pathetic spectacle they are being subjected to.

Got it!!

Violate Thai sovereignty to not be able to prove anything?

Because you know it all and this whole investigation has just been perfect from the beginning. The police accusing the friends of the victims and planting shorts in their luggage, the crime scene being violated by people who were accused by the police and then cleared by a flimsy alibi, the taxi driver forced to give a false witness by the police, the Burmese guys testing negative, the official translator being a local street vendor, all of this and so much more just screams such a perfect investigation that the UK police had to come here and get involved for what reason again? Tell me...

You have read too much on csila and they don't correct their conspiracy theories when proven wrong.

Also I have stated that the case has flaws.

Police involved because the family asked and then Cameron asked. Involvement limited to observing

"Involvement limited to observing"

You continue to say this JD but that doesn't make it true.

The UK observers/investigators may or may not be limited to "observing" while they are in Thailand. There are many reasons for even the British side to state publicly that this is all they are doing. And what falls within the realm of "observing" will be for them and their Thai counterparts to determine.

As an easy example, are observers allowed to ask questions, request information on what protocols have been followed, examine evidence reports, etc.? Or are they required to sit in silence and listen to what is spoken to them and take what is given to them? I highly doubt it's the latter. But what they are actually doing nobody knows but them and their Thai counterparts.

In any event, "observation" is probably the main form of investigation. And simply by listening and observing, experienced investigators like those sent from England can learn more than laymen like ourselves could ever imagine.

And whatever they are doing in Thailand, I am certain that what they are doing back in England is an investigation. That investigation will ultimately include their observations while in Thailand. And they will reach their own conclusions about whether the process has been fair and thorough and the real rapists and killers have been identified.

What if anything regarding those conclusions, and the evidence and support they have for them, will ever be released to the public depends on many factors.

We'll just have to wait and find out what happens.

I think that one of the things that Hannah and David's families via the British government, people in the media, on social media and all of the Thai people can legitimately request is that the investigation include some basic things that any fair and thorough investigation would include, so everyone in the public can be confident that justice has been served and the killers are caught and unable to do this again.

In my opinion, Touch DNA is the single most important item that should have been investigated which the public has been given no information about to date (Not that they should have been given this information, just that they haven't been).

All the talk has been of DNA from semen on/in Hannah’s body and saliva on a cigarette butt. But it is highly likely, in fact almost certain, that there is Touch DNA on Hannah’s clothing and possibly David’s, as well as on the handle of the hoe, on the cell phone, etc., and that there was Touch DNA on Hannah’s body and possibly David’s as well.

If Touch DNA gathering and testing has not been done already, it still could be (on the clothes and murder weapon at least). And if the Thai forensics lab does not have the latest technology and capability, I think there are a few guys in town right now that do.

For all we know, a through and professional Touch DNA investigation has already been conducted. But if it hasn't been done, any objective observer would say it should be. And the prosecutor should request it to be done as well.

There is a video of them running a cotton bud over the handle of the hoe whilst on the beach not sure if they got any reults from that.

at 1.14

SE:

They could have gotten results from those swabs, but if they did they haven't announced it publicly (again no requirement they do so).

From what I've read it is highly likely that Touch DNA would have been on the hoe as well as Hannah's clothing and body, as well as David's body if he was dragged into the sea. So there should be some results somewhere showing the DNA of who grabbed the hoe, touched Hannah's clothing, held her down to subdue and rape her, dragged David to the sea, took the phone, etc.

The bodies, clothing, hoe, phone etc. did not need to be tested on the island, they could have been sealed and transported to the forensic lab for extensive testing.

DNA from the clothing would have been lifted with tape or by using a scraping method, and from hard surfaces using swabs or the kind of technology described here:

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/techknow/blog/2014/2/18/better-than-csi-hightechdnavacuumcrackscoldcase.html

I know I saw a video of this at some point, but can't seem to find it.

http://www.dnaforensics.com/touchdna.aspx

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/SimplifiedGuideDNA.pdf