Warrant Sought In Connection With Kirsty Jones Murder In Chiang Mai

[chaoyang]

Thailand uses an innocent until proven guilty system, no? I'd refuse too, I'd say demonstrate probable cause and get a court order or tell my why your accusations aren't slander.

Not me. Because I know I didn't do it, I would gladly give a sample and get my name the h*ll out of the equation as fast as possible.

I know that the fellow who made the youtube presentation has been trying to have his voice heard for years -- there was a long thread on the Citylife magazine forum years ago by him -- but clearly the professor was not tested at that time.

If the accusation is just slander, the first step to prove that would be to prove it is not true, and that can be done once and for all by a DNA test -- IF it's not true.

[OzMick]

This guy is NOT a random suspect. It was reported that at the time, his brother was the head of Tourist Police in CM. He was seen outside the guesthouse in company of a Tourist Police officer who was also a suspect, and apparently has a pretty dodgy reputation. This was all covered in an earlier thread about an Australian who has identified him, and has currently left the country in fear of his life.

I can see no reason why it would be unreasonable to ask for a DNA sample to clear him of accusations that have been made publicly, or of asking for a warrant to obtain a sample if/as he has refused.

I fully agree that refusal should not be seen as evidence of guilt, but it is certainly basis for suspicion, given his family connections and the lack of co-operation from the BIB in the past - at least as perceived by UK officers.

DNA evidence is solving old murders all over the world, and there is no statute of imitations for murder.

[jdinasia]

Thailand uses an innocent until proven guilty system, no? I'd refuse too, I'd say demonstrate probable cause and get a court order or tell my why your accusations aren't slander.

Not me. Because I know I didn't do it, I would gladly give a sample and get my name the h*ll out of the equation as fast as possible.

I know that the fellow who made the youtube presentation has been trying to have his voice heard for years -- there was a long thread on the Citylife magazine forum years ago by him -- but clearly the professor was not tested at that time.

If the accusation is just slander, the first step to prove that would be to prove it is not true, and that can be done once and for all by a DNA test -- IF it's not true.

Your last statement does not jive with Thai law at all?

[slapout]

I think there was mention of tissue under the victims fingernails which could also be a avenue for DNA testing/comparison. Semen, tissue sample, placement at scene, would go a long way in bringing the case to the legal system, in most countries with a competent police force. Why am I not surprised at the apparent lack of professional effort put into this case?

[maidu]

Even if a suspect's DNA matches that found on the young woman, that man can claim he had consensual relations with her and was not her murderer.

I remember when this case first broke. I was troubled by the fact that a lovely young woman was murdered, and I'm glad the investigation is not closed. I felt then, and I feel now that Thai authorities would have done next to nothing had not her family members kept at it. Initially, a hill tribe guy was grabbed off the street somewhere and nearly forced (by cops) to confess - because cops wanted a quick and expendable culprit. The whole case is yet another example of how Thai investigators are inept and they only stick with cases if there are compelling pressures to do so - such as VIP Thais involved, and/or insistence of farang and their representative consulates.

[Wallaby]

DNA does not prove guilt. It only shows he was with her. You must have other evidence to corroborate he did the crime. If your wife dies and your DNA is on her do you think that proves you killed her?

If they have enough corroborating evidence then they should just arrest him, but DNA match alone doesn't mean much.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Wallaby

[OriginalPoster]

Thailand uses an innocent until proven guilty system, no? I'd refuse too, I'd say demonstrate probable cause and get a court order or tell my why your accusations aren't slander.

Not me. Because I know I didn't do it, I would gladly give a sample and get my name the h*ll out of the equation as fast as possible.

I know that the fellow who made the youtube presentation has been trying to have his voice heard for years -- there was a long thread on the Citylife magazine forum years ago by him -- but clearly the professor was not tested at that time.

If the accusation is just slander, the first step to prove that would be to prove it is not true, and that can be done once and for all by a DNA test -- IF it's not true.

Your assuming that the DNA test would be done competently and that the police would be neutral in the case.

This guy might be guilty or he might be innocent, I have no idea. But I saw a case from upfront once before where a family of a farang who died in Thailand needed to have someone to blame and turned out to be quite creative at finding ways to keep pressure on the Thai police to nail someone, anyone, to the wall. The facts of that case were a lot different, but what was the same was that the family was thousands of miles away and knew nothing about the facts on the ground, and the only thing that they knew for sure was the the police had initially done a half-assed investigation into the death. In that case it was an American down-and-outer who lost his job in the US, within a short period of time after arriving in Thailand married a Thai girl, and a few months later killed himself by jumping off bridge. The family, completely convinced that their son was a saint and free of emotional issues, decided that they needed to pin the guy's death on the someone, and the Thai wife was the only person that they could imaging might have done it. And when they talked to the Thai wife about the case, she went to pieces and they interpreted her incoherent answers to their questions as being evidence of her guilt. Never did they have any actual evidence of any sort, other than that the stories that they heard about the circumstances of their sons death didn't make sense, yet they manged to put the girl though hell for the next 4 years after that. And the BIB, ever ready to prove that they weren't just sleeping on the job, were perfectly willing to comply. Sympathy for the family is fine, but just because your loved one dies doesn't mean that you have a divine right to take down whatever person happened to be closest to the deceased.

Edited August 13, 2011 by OriginalPoster

[jdinasia]

This guy is NOT a random suspect. It was reported that at the time, his brother was the head of Tourist Police in CM. He was seen outside the guesthouse in company of a Tourist Police officer who was also a suspect, and apparently has a pretty dodgy reputation. This was all covered in an earlier thread about an Australian who has identified him, and has currently left the country in fear of his life.

I can see no reason why it would be unreasonable to ask for a DNA sample to clear him of accusations that have been made publicly, or of asking for a warrant to obtain a sample if/as he has refused.

I fully agree that refusal should not be seen as evidence of guilt, but it is certainly basis for suspicion, given his family connections and the lack of co-operation from the BIB in the past - at least as perceived by UK officers.

DNA evidence is solving old murders all over the world, and there is no statute of imitations for murder.

It isn't unreasonable for the teacher to be asked, He was and said no. His refusal isn't a reason for suspicion either, as it is his civil right. If the police investigating have enough evidence to convince a court to compel a sample then that is what they should do. If they don't .......

[thequietman]

Even if a sample was (forcefully by a PI) obtained from the professor, the sample in evidence is in the care of the authorities. If they don't want to compare, they simply won't cooperate. And it seems they don't want to cooperate.

If this professor is innocent, he is obviously a turd. There is a family on the other side of the world in agony of grief, and his voluntary participation would at least focus their anguish on something else. Maybe they could accept that they will not get closure. But leaving them like this is torture.

in thailand, knowledge is the key. without knowledge you are nothing. you are but the shit on my shoe. in the education field, giving notice about an upcomimg event that we need to know about in school is held back because if we have knowledge then we may be able to dictate the out come. similarly, if this guy gives this info. voluntarily then farrang has control, and that wont do. she is, but a farrang and she is, in turn, the shit on their shoes. grasp reality guys, we are but nothing to the thai police, we are an annoying smear on the windscreen of life that can be rubbed away at any time. i am making plans for the future, i suggest you do also. :jap:

[Cnxforever]

"It is understood the DSI are fearful they may be sued if they take any shortcuts, as the professor is a respected member of the community."

the DSI is fearfull of shortcuts ??? AFTER 11 YEARS ??????

what is a "respected member of the community" - doing at night hanging around outside a cheap guest house?

A respected Thai with money and connections would never even go near such a place.

What a respected member of the community would do is submit to the test to proof his innocence - unless of course......

[geriatrickid]

Some folks are of the belief that a DNA sample assures a conviction. They are mistaken. DNA evidence is a tool. What one sees on the telly is not accurate.

There is an assumption that the original DNA sample in this case is reliable. Criminal investigations rely on biological stains such as body fluids. Preserving biological stain evidence and maintaining the proper chain of custody of the evidence are essential for successful DNA testing. I would be surprised if that was the case here.

More importantly, DNA degrades over time. The disintegration, can be reduced if the samples are collected, and stored under quality conditions. However, this being Thailand, the high humidity and searing temperatures wreak havoc on stainsamples.

egradation of DNA can produce some wanky results. As well, degradation is not always evident.

Another key component of DNA evidence is that someone has to interpret it. Lab technicians can guess as to whether or not all components have been detected and what the patterns are. Even experienced geneticists make some blunders in high end labs. DNA test results are sometimes called speculative because they rely on the interpretation of the analysts, and they are therefore open to alternative interpretations.

There is also the impact of coincidence. For example, multiple source DNA can be picked up in a sample. Due to variables in degradation, one source of DNA may dominate. When that happens, the interpretation of of the mixed samples is entirely subjective.

I like this section from a law review as it sums it up nicely;

In our experience, examination of the underlying laboratory data frequently reveals limitations or problems that would not be apparent from the laboratory report, such as inconsistencies between purportedly "matching"profiles, evidence of additional unreported contributors to evidentiary samples, errors in statistical computations and unreported problems with experimental controls that raise doubts about the validity of the results. Although current DNA tests rely heavily on computer-automated equipment, the interpretation of the results often requires subjective judgment. When faced with an ambiguous situation, where the call could go either way, crime lab analysts frequently slant their interpretations in ways that support prosecution theories.

In consideration of the above, DNA evidence is not necessarily reliable.

Edited August 13, 2011 by metisdead
Font, please use default forum font when posting.

[andrewdrummond]

Some folks are of the belief that a DNA sample assures a conviction. They are mistaken. DNA evidence is a tool. What one sees on the telly is not accurate.

There is an assumption that the original DNA sample in this case is reliable. Criminal investigations rely on biological stains such as body fluids. Preserving biological stain evidence and maintaining the proper chain of custody of the evidence are essential for successful DNA testing. I would be surprised if that was the case here.

More importantly, DNA degrades over time. The disintegration, can be reduced if the samples are collected, and stored under quality conditions. However, this being Thailand, the high humidity and searing temperatures wreak havoc on stainsamples.

egradation of DNA can produce some wanky results. As well, degradation is not always evident.

Another key component of DNA evidence is that someone has to interpret it. Lab technicians can guess as to whether or not all components have been detected and what the patterns are. Even experienced geneticists make some blunders in high end labs. DNA test results are sometimes called speculative because they rely on the interpretation of the analysts, and they are therefore open to alternative interpretations.

There is also the impact of coincidence. For example, multiple source DNA can be picked up in a sample. Due to variables in degradation, one source of DNA may dominate. When that happens, the interpretation of of the mixed samples is entirely subjective.

I like this section from a law review as it sums it up nicely;

In our experience, examination of the underlying laboratory data frequently reveals limitations or problems that would not be apparent from the laboratory report, such as inconsistencies between purportedly "matching"profiles, evidence of additional unreported contributors to evidentiary samples, errors in statistical computations and unreported problems with experimental controls that raise doubts about the validity of the results. Although current DNA tests rely heavily on computer-automated equipment, the interpretation of the results often requires subjective judgment. When faced with an ambiguous situation, where the call could go either way, crime lab analysts frequently slant their interpretations in ways that support prosecution theories.

In consideration of the above, DNA evidence is not necessarily reliable.

Oh dear. I read half way through this without loooking at the name of the poster and guessed immediately this was a GK post.

Perhaps you could start again armed this information, which is out there.

Both British police and ThaI police have the DNA fingerprint of whom they (British) believe is the killer

This I understand is mainly from the sperm.

The sperm may degrade but the DNA profile will not. Its there forever. That is what will be presented in court, not a sperm stain.

The Thai authorities were able to get a DNA profile, but the Home Office lab, presumably using better resources, got an absolute profile.

(This is not the technical term they used but suffice it to say it was more detailed) The Dyfed-Powys police took material back with them.

Dyfed-Powys police said quite emphatically at the time that they had the DNA profile of the killer. They discounted a suggestion that someone else's sperm (from a gay prostitute or katoey) could have been introduced.

[geriatrickid]

Oh dear. I read half way through this without loooking at the name of the poster and guessed immediately this was a GK post.

Perhaps you could start again armed this information, which is out there.

Both British police and ThaI police have the DNA fingerprint of whom they (British) believe is the killer

This I understand is mainly from the sperm.

The sperm may degrade but the DNA profile will not. Its there forever. That is what will be presented in court, not a sperm stain.

The Thai authorities were able to get a DNA profile, but the Home Office lab, presumably using better resources, got an absolute profile.

(This is not the technical term they used but suffice it to say it was more detailed) The Dyfed-Powys police took material back with them.

Dyfed-Powys police said quite emphatically at the time that they had the DNA profile of the killer. They discounted a suggestion that someone else's sperm (from a gay prostitute or katoey) could have been introduced.

Mr. Drummond if you had a problem understanding basic and accepted facts in respect to DNA evidence then I suggest you consider upgrading your knowledge, Mahidol offers a course in lab techniques. What I posted is accepted knowledge. You claim that the police have the "DNA fingerprint" of the killer. Maybe they do, but it would be an impressive accomplishment to have a reliable DNA identification. My understanding is that the stain sample was taken form the deceased's sarong. Here's the problem and I quote from the standardized specimen collection handbook;

"Bacteria begin to degrade biological fluids immediately after deposition. They especially thrive on the rich nutrients present in semen. Ifunchecked, contaminant bacteria can completely destroy DNA and other genetic markers of value. To counteract this phenomenon in all of the above instances in which moist body fluids are collected, it is imperative that the samples be completely dried. After drying, the specimen(s) should be placed into breathable paper bags or envelopes and frozen or refrigerated until submitted to the laboratory for analysis."

Are you stating that the sarong from which the sample was taken complied with the above stated SOP? At best, the DNA will be able to offer an indication of involvement and can eliminate a suspect. If you think that the DNA alone is going to secure a conviction, you are wrong. This is not how evidence is dealt with in court. And that was my point, which you obviously did not comprehend. Of course the police will say they have a reliable DNA analysis. It is part of the investigator's toolkit. No competent detective is going to say , we have a 75% allele match reliability. However, once someone is charged and faces a court date, and the DNA analysis is provided at Discovery, competent defense counel will retain his/her own DNA analysis and that is where the arguments will start. The murder investigation still relies on the ingenuity and skills of experienced investigators. DNA alone cannot be used to secure absolute certainty of guilt. The investigators will have to build the framework that will allow the DNA to be used.

Edited August 14, 2011 by geriatrickid

[ableguy]

What's stopping the police arresting this guy under suspicion of murder just like they did with the farang guest house owner?

He would sue them if innocent, look at all the libel cases that take place among polititions.

[slapout]

I guess the rest of the world will have to wait and see how this, for want of a better term, investigation, turns out. Then are sure to be the various legal proceedings, motions, etc from both sides. I doubt that the majority of the TV members know the complete process the BIB nor other police departments use/follow.

I have known a couple of people who worked 'homicide' in the real world and their stories of unsolved, failed cases, continual education of the police force, etc were mind boggling. I do remember one of them said, "many cases are pursued after a tip, or statement from someone who witnessed or overheard details of the crime". The one thing they did mention that their continued learning, was not in a university classroom but form talks/reviews made by those involved in past successful/unsuccessful prosecutions. This included those involved in the corners office, the evidence, storage/presentation, and those on the scene. Doubt if the want to be Sherlock on TV, have enough access to relevant info to be be bickering over, who is right or wrong, at this point.

[Wallaby]

Oh dear. I read half way through this without loooking at the name of the poster and guessed immediately this was a GK post.

Perhaps you could start again armed this information, which is out there.

Both British police and ThaI police have the DNA fingerprint of whom they (British) believe is the killer

This I understand is mainly from the sperm.

The sperm may degrade but the DNA profile will not. Its there forever. That is what will be presented in court, not a sperm stain.

The Thai authorities were able to get a DNA profile, but the Home Office lab, presumably using better resources, got an absolute profile.

(This is not the technical term they used but suffice it to say it was more detailed) The Dyfed-Powys police took material back with them.

Dyfed-Powys police said quite emphatically at the time that they had the DNA profile of the killer. They discounted a suggestion that someone else's sperm (from a gay prostitute or katoey) could have been introduced.

Mr. Drummond if you had a problem understanding basic and accepted facts in respect to DNA evidence then I suggest you consider upgrading your knowledge, Mahidol offers a course in lab techniques. What I posted is accepted knowledge. You claim that the police have the "DNA fingerprint" of the killer. Maybe they do, but it would be an impressive accomplishment to have a reliable DNA identification. My understanding is that the stain sample was taken form the deceased's sarong. Here's the problem and I quote from the standardized specimen collection handbook;

"Bacteria begin to degrade biological fluids immediately after deposition. They especially thrive on the rich nutrients present in semen. Ifunchecked, contaminant bacteria can completely destroy DNA and other genetic markers of value. To counteract this phenomenon in all of the above instances in which moist body fluids are collected, it is imperative that the samples be completely dried. After drying, the specimen(s) should be placed into breathable paper bags or envelopes and frozen or refrigerated until submitted to the laboratory for analysis."

Are you stating that the sarong from which the sample was taken complied with the above stated SOP? At best, the DNA will be able to offer an indication of involvement and can eliminate a suspect. If you think that the DNA alone is going to secure a conviction, you are wrong. This is not how evidence is dealt with in court. And that was my point, which you obviously did not comprehend. Of course the police will say they have a reliable DNA analysis. It is part of the investigator's toolkit. No competent detective is going to say , we have a 75% allele match reliability. However, once someone is charged and faces a court date, and the DNA analysis is provided at Discovery, competent defense counel will retain his/her own DNA analysis and that is where the arguments will start. The murder investigation still relies on the ingenuity and skills of experienced investigators. DNA alone cannot be used to secure absolute certainty of guilt. The investigators will have to build the framework that will allow the DNA to be used.

I think you are missing Mr Drummond's point. He said the DNA is already in the database. So any degredation of the sample on the sarong because of the passage of time, or whatever, is of no consequence. Well that's how I read his post to mean.

The defence don't need to have a sample from the sarong, we'll I've never been requested by defence for such a thing. They just need to have the DNA fingerprint on the database and the documents to show how the test was conducted and the interpreted. Basically they just go through the evidence to ensure it was interpreted correctly. Though in my limited experience the challenging of DNA is about as rare as getting a bar girl to pay you for sex.

Where a DNA match really helps is when the person denies having any contact with the victim and the DNA indicates otherwise, It is then a credit issue. Though most people charged know they have been in contact with the victim and know there is DNA so just say they had sex and then left.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Wallaby

[andrewdrummond]

Oh dear. I read half way through this without loooking at the name of the poster and guessed immediately this was a GK post.

Perhaps you could start again armed this information, which is out there.

Both British police and ThaI police have the DNA fingerprint of whom they (British) believe is the killer

This I understand is mainly from the sperm.

The sperm may degrade but the DNA profile will not. Its there forever. That is what will be presented in court, not a sperm stain.

The Thai authorities were able to get a DNA profile, but the Home Office lab, presumably using better resources, got an absolute profile.

(This is not the technical term they used but suffice it to say it was more detailed) The Dyfed-Powys police took material back with them.

Dyfed-Powys police said quite emphatically at the time that they had the DNA profile of the killer. They discounted a suggestion that someone else's sperm (from a gay prostitute or katoey) could have been introduced.

Mr. Drummond if you had a problem understanding basic and accepted facts in respect to DNA evidence then I suggest you consider upgrading your knowledge, Mahidol offers a course in lab techniques. What I posted is accepted knowledge. You claim that the police have the "DNA fingerprint" of the killer. Maybe they do, but it would be an impressive accomplishment to have a reliable DNA identification. My understanding is that the stain sample was taken form the deceased's sarong. Here's the problem and I quote from the standardized specimen collection handbook;

"Bacteria begin to degrade biological fluids immediately after deposition. They especially thrive on the rich nutrients present in semen. Ifunchecked, contaminant bacteria can completely destroy DNA and other genetic markers of value. To counteract this phenomenon in all of the above instances in which moist body fluids are collected, it is imperative that the samples be completely dried. After drying, the specimen(s) should be placed into breathable paper bags or envelopes and frozen or refrigerated until submitted to the laboratory for analysis."

Are you stating that the sarong from which the sample was taken complied with the above stated SOP? At best, the DNA will be able to offer an indication of involvement and can eliminate a suspect. If you think that the DNA alone is going to secure a conviction, you are wrong. This is not how evidence is dealt with in court. And that was my point, which you obviously did not comprehend. Of course the police will say they have a reliable DNA analysis. It is part of the investigator's toolkit. No competent detective is going to say , we have a 75% allele match reliability. However, once someone is charged and faces a court date, and the DNA analysis is provided at Discovery, competent defense counel will retain his/her own DNA analysis and that is where the arguments will start. The murder investigation still relies on the ingenuity and skills of experienced investigators. DNA alone cannot be used to secure absolute certainty of guilt. The investigators will have to build the framework that will allow the DNA to be used.

I think you are missing Mr Drummond's point. He said the DNA is already in the database. So any degredation of the sample on the sarong because of the passage of time, or whatever, is of no consequence. Well that's how I read his post to mean.

The defence don't need to have a sample from the sarong, we'll I've never been requested by defence for such a thing. They just need to have the DNA fingerprint on the database and the documents to show how the test was conducted and the interpreted. Basically they just go through the evidence to ensure it was interpreted correctly. Though in my limited experience the challenging of DNA is about as rare as getting a bar girl to pay you for sex.

Where a DNA match really helps is when the person denies having any contact with the victim and the DNA indicates otherwise, It is then a credit issue. Though most people charged know they have been in contact with the victim and know there is DNA so just say they had sex and then left.

Thak you Wallaby. Your interpretation was correct

[geriatrickid]

I think you are missing Mr Drummond's point. He said the DNA is already in the database. So any degredation of the sample on the sarong because of the passage of time, or whatever, is of no consequence. Well that's how I read his post to mean.

The defence don't need to have a sample from the sarong, we'll I've never been requested by defence for such a thing. They just need to have the DNA fingerprint on the database and the documents to show how the test was conducted and the interpreted. Basically they just go through the evidence to ensure it was interpreted correctly. Though in my limited experience the challenging of DNA is about as rare as getting a bar girl to pay you for sex.

Where a DNA match really helps is when the person denies having any contact with the victim and the DNA indicates otherwise, It is then a credit issue. Though most people charged know they have been in contact with the victim and know there is DNA so just say they had sex and then left.

Yes, the police have a DNA sample. However, do you know how reliable that sample is? You are assuming the sample is reliable. I don't doubt for a minute there is some DNA evidence. The issue is how reliable and exact it is. Just a smidgen of contaminant or degradation can impact the sample's reliability. No competent investigator is going to say that the DNA evidence is 75% reliable. That's my point that you are missing. Most police detectives don't understand how alleles are matched up anyway. Defense counsel is entiltled to examine all evidence at a Discovery procedure. This includes seeing the DNA data.

Prudent defense counsel will retain its own DNA expert and conduct its own analysis. One of the reasons the procedure is not "common" is that it is expensive and a great many accused that are confronted with DNA evidence do not have the financial means to retain counsel capable of understanding the weaknesses of the evidence or obtaining the expertise ot review the data. There is a small but growing specialty practice in the USAand UK that acts on behalf of defense counsel. Many of the best analysts that have left low paying public health and government forensic facilities have found lucrative jobs in this area. Instead of earning a pittance unraveling genetic codes for cancer and HIV, they can make some excellent fees punching holes in a prosecution's case.

The results of a DNA analysis are subjective. They depend upon what a skilled expert interprets the patterns and groupings to mean. The most recent example of this is the Amanda Knox trial. She was convicted primarily because of the "DNA fingerprint", Subsequent legal review demolished the DNA analysis. Like this case, the DNA evidence is presented as reliable. The Italian prosecutors supposedly used some of the most advanced forensic procedures, and Italy has some excellent facilities. Yet, defense counsel successfully disputed by the DNA analysis, and the appeals court granted an independent review at their request. Independent experts said in the report filed to the Perugia court that the genetic profile attributed was "unreliable" and could not be attributed with certainty.They said results may have been contaminated, The experts also said the original testing did not follow any of the recommendations of the international scientific community for dealing with "low-copy number" DNA testing, which requires fewer human cells than traditional genetic testing methods.

The news reports from Sources like the Daily Mail present the DNA evidence gathered in this case as clearcut. Who's to know, since no supporting documentation is presented. Not one news source has provided an indication of how the DNA evidence was gathered, secured or analyzed. Evidence gathered in Thailand is often contaminated. Crime scenes are not secured and evidence is not properly handled. Yet, some people are willing to accept that the DNA evidence is reliable. I am not saying the police should tip their hands, but rather that until the evidence is reviewed no one knows if the DNA is actually reliable. This does not mean that the accused Thai isn't guilty. However, the assumption that the DNA will prove him so is not appropriate. This is the aspect of this story that is objectionable. It's bad science.

[chaoyang]

I read somewhere that there was skin under her fingernails from when she fought her attacker. Is that part of the DNA sample? If it is, then that would indicate the contact was not consensual -- clearly of course it was far from it, but as people dispute the meaning of the DNA, skin from a fight would help disprove the ridiculous claim that the act was consensual.

Edited August 14, 2011 by chaoyang

[andrewdrummond]

I read somewhere that there was skin under her fingernails from when she fought her attacker. Is that part of the DNA sample? If it is, then that would indicate the contact was not consensual -- clearly of course it was far from it, but as people dispute the meaning of the DNA, skin from a fight would help disprove the ridiculous claim that the act was consensual.

The professor says he never met the girl, so if her were now to say sex was consensual, that would put the cat amonst the pigeons. As for Geriatric Kid's remarks. Well, they are based on all sorts of suppositions, and red herrings such as the Italian murder. He derides the value of DNA. Dyfed-Powys Police are satisfied they have the real DNA and not just from one sample. I am happy with that. Its quite difficult to argue you case when you have left your sperm on the victim and her clothing. Of course in Thailand anything is possible I suppose. He could argue it was the sperm he left with a prostitute earlier in the day who sold it on to police.

One can always find cases where the DNA fails to pass muster but you have to statistically look at the cases where it has secured convictions.

[Livinginexile]

I think you are missing Mr Drummond's point. He said the DNA is already in the database. So any degredation of the sample on the sarong because of the passage of time, or whatever, is of no consequence. Well that's how I read his post to mean.

The defence don't need to have a sample from the sarong, we'll I've never been requested by defence for such a thing. They just need to have the DNA fingerprint on the database and the documents to show how the test was conducted and the interpreted. Basically they just go through the evidence to ensure it was interpreted correctly. Though in my limited experience the challenging of DNA is about as rare as getting a bar girl to pay you for sex.

Where a DNA match really helps is when the person denies having any contact with the victim and the DNA indicates otherwise, It is then a credit issue. Though most people charged know they have been in contact with the victim and know there is DNA so just say they had sex and then left.

Yes, the police have a DNA sample. However, do you know how reliable that sample is? You are assuming the sample is reliable. I don't doubt for a minute there is some DNA evidence. The issue is how reliable and exact it is. Just a smidgen of contaminant or degradation can impact the sample's reliability. No competent investigator is going to say that the DNA evidence is 75% reliable. That's my point that you are missing. Most police detectives don't understand how alleles are matched up anyway. Defense counsel is entiltled to examine all evidence at a Discovery procedure. This includes seeing the DNA data.

Prudent defense counsel will retain its own DNA expert and conduct its own analysis. One of the reasons the procedure is not "common" is that it is expensive and a great many accused that are confronted with DNA evidence do not have the financial means to retain counsel capable of understanding the weaknesses of the evidence or obtaining the expertise ot review the data. There is a small but growing specialty practice in the USAand UK that acts on behalf of defense counsel. Many of the best analysts that have left low paying public health and government forensic facilities have found lucrative jobs in this area. Instead of earning a pittance unraveling genetic codes for cancer and HIV, they can make some excellent fees punching holes in a prosecution's case.

The results of a DNA analysis are subjective. They depend upon what a skilled expert interprets the patterns and groupings to mean. The most recent example of this is the Amanda Knox trial. She was convicted primarily because of the "DNA fingerprint", Subsequent legal review demolished the DNA analysis. Like this case, the DNA evidence is presented as reliable. The Italian prosecutors supposedly used some of the most advanced forensic procedures, and Italy has some excellent facilities. Yet, defense counsel successfully disputed by the DNA analysis, and the appeals court granted an independent review at their request. Independent experts said in the report filed to the Perugia court that the genetic profile attributed was "unreliable" and could not be attributed with certainty.They said results may have been contaminated, The experts also said the original testing did not follow any of the recommendations of the international scientific community for dealing with "low-copy number" DNA testing, which requires fewer human cells than traditional genetic testing methods.

The news reports from Sources like the Daily Mail present the DNA evidence gathered in this case as clearcut. Who's to know, since no supporting documentation is presented. Not one news source has provided an indication of how the DNA evidence was gathered, secured or analyzed. Evidence gathered in Thailand is often contaminated. Crime scenes are not secured and evidence is not properly handled. Yet, some people are willing to accept that the DNA evidence is reliable. I am not saying the police should tip their hands, but rather that until the evidence is reviewed no one knows if the DNA is actually reliable. This does not mean that the accused Thai isn't guilty. However, the assumption that the DNA will prove him so is not appropriate. This is the aspect of this story that is objectionable. It's bad science.

Forensics have already established the DNA samples are reliable, they can match with the suspect when they find him! Why do you keep harping on about DNS profiling is unreliable...Utter nonsence.

GK I think you should shut up now, you are making a fool of yourself

[jdinasia]

Forensics have already established the DNA samples are reliable, they can match with the suspect when they find him! Why do you keep harping on about DNS profiling is unreliable...Utter nonsence.

GK I think you should shut up now, you are making a fool of yourself

Yes, and no .....

The defense does have the right to have the tests run again by another reliable lab. If they do not match the results of the original tests run by the police ... etc ... then there is room for doubt. The claims that DNA results are subjective are no more true than many of the other things I have seen posted .... BUT they must be able to be replicated. That is true.

[RigPig]

I think you are missing Mr Drummond's point. He said the DNA is already in the database. So any degredation of the sample on the sarong because of the passage of time, or whatever, is of no consequence. Well that's how I read his post to mean.

The defence don't need to have a sample from the sarong, we'll I've never been requested by defence for such a thing. They just need to have the DNA fingerprint on the database and the documents to show how the test was conducted and the interpreted. Basically they just go through the evidence to ensure it was interpreted correctly. Though in my limited experience the challenging of DNA is about as rare as getting a bar girl to pay you for sex.

Where a DNA match really helps is when the person denies having any contact with the victim and the DNA indicates otherwise, It is then a credit issue. Though most people charged know they have been in contact with the victim and know there is DNA so just say they had sex and then left.

Yes, the police have a DNA sample. However, do you know how reliable that sample is? You are assuming the sample is reliable. I don't doubt for a minute there is some DNA evidence. The issue is how reliable and exact it is. Just a smidgen of contaminant or degradation can impact the sample's reliability. No competent investigator is going to say that the DNA evidence is 75% reliable. That's my point that you are missing. Most police detectives don't understand how alleles are matched up anyway. Defense counsel is entiltled to examine all evidence at a Discovery procedure. This includes seeing the DNA data.

Prudent defense counsel will retain its own DNA expert and conduct its own analysis. One of the reasons the procedure is not "common" is that it is expensive and a great many accused that are confronted with DNA evidence do not have the financial means to retain counsel capable of understanding the weaknesses of the evidence or obtaining the expertise ot review the data. There is a small but growing specialty practice in the USAand UK that acts on behalf of defense counsel. Many of the best analysts that have left low paying public health and government forensic facilities have found lucrative jobs in this area. Instead of earning a pittance unraveling genetic codes for cancer and HIV, they can make some excellent fees punching holes in a prosecution's case.

The results of a DNA analysis are subjective. They depend upon what a skilled expert interprets the patterns and groupings to mean. The most recent example of this is the Amanda Knox trial. She was convicted primarily because of the "DNA fingerprint", Subsequent legal review demolished the DNA analysis. Like this case, the DNA evidence is presented as reliable. The Italian prosecutors supposedly used some of the most advanced forensic procedures, and Italy has some excellent facilities. Yet, defense counsel successfully disputed by the DNA analysis, and the appeals court granted an independent review at their request. Independent experts said in the report filed to the Perugia court that the genetic profile attributed was "unreliable" and could not be attributed with certainty.They said results may have been contaminated, The experts also said the original testing did not follow any of the recommendations of the international scientific community for dealing with "low-copy number" DNA testing, which requires fewer human cells than traditional genetic testing methods.

The news reports from Sources like the Daily Mail present the DNA evidence gathered in this case as clearcut. Who's to know, since no supporting documentation is presented. Not one news source has provided an indication of how the DNA evidence was gathered, secured or analyzed. Evidence gathered in Thailand is often contaminated. Crime scenes are not secured and evidence is not properly handled. Yet, some people are willing to accept that the DNA evidence is reliable. I am not saying the police should tip their hands, but rather that until the evidence is reviewed no one knows if the DNA is actually reliable. This does not mean that the accused Thai isn't guilty. However, the assumption that the DNA will prove him so is not appropriate. This is the aspect of this story that is objectionable. It's bad science.

Forensics have already established the DNA samples are reliable, they can match with the suspect when they find him! Why do you keep harping on about DNS profiling is unreliable...Utter nonsence.

GK I think you should shut up now, you are making a fool of yourself

Actually he is not.

Everyone thinks that DNA evidence is irrefutable and I guess under best case scenarios it is pretty damning. People watch TV all the time and believe it. Well it's not !! This reasonably "new" tool used by law enforcement (and a tool that is seen as an absolute positive) is far from it.

The problem is that DNA testing is so complex (in order to be the 99.9% positive it is pictured as) that the average jury could not possibly comprehend it. If DNA evidence is used in a court of law it is automatically assumed the party in question is guilty.

dam_n I have problems explaining the complexity of my job to my bosses, who I might add have been in their positions for longer than me some for 20 odd years or more. What chance do you have of explaining the technicalities of DNA testing to the average "Joe" off the street. Heck he watches CSI too and it must be true !!!

It is my belief that DNA testing is in fact less accurate than fingerprints. But the powers to be (i.e. law enforcement) don't want you to know that, their "new" tool would be all but worthless. Or at the VERY least not the total irrefutably positive conviction tool it is pictured as. This may spawn a cascade of counter trials of people who have been convicted solely on DNA evidence. As GK states most of it (I believe) is subject to interpretation. It is human nature to take the side of whoever is supplying your pay check. Whilst the value of forensics cannot be denied when we start getting convictions solely on it this has to be questioned. Evidence of this sort can be (and has been) tampered with on both sides. It can be and always will be subject to interpretation, both by the person analysing it and the people reliant on that information who without doubt believe that (in this case) a DNA test is irrefutable. IT IS NOT !!!

But few of us have the means or expertise to do it (show it's inadequacies).

People have stated in this forum how easy it would be to collect this guys DNA, it works both ways if you want to secure a conviction !!

Once you hand over a DNA sample to authorities (which could potentially be used as a sample at a later stage for whatever purpose) you have no recourse or means of refuting the "evidence" for whatever at a later date. They don't need to collect it again.

Pressure to find the culprit, the "feeling" you were guilty before of something but got off, someone looking for a promotion.....

The scenarios are limitless.

I for one would not give a DNA sample willingly innocent or not. It takes a brave man to deny giving it if he is innocent because you are automatically presumed guilty for doing so.

Oh well that's my 20c worth.

I also hope they catch the scum that did this and hang him, or better leave him in a Thai jail for life !!!

RP

[jdinasia]

RigPig ----

Unlike many/most countries ... in Thailand you don't have to rely upon the 'understanding' of a jury. The judges in criminal cases should be well versed in forensic DNA evidence.

[chaoyang]

It takes a brave man to deny giving it if he is innocent because you are automatically presumed guilty for doing so.

It is also a means of survival for a guilty man.

[RigPig]

RigPig ----

Unlike many/most countries ... in Thailand you don't have to rely upon the 'understanding' of a jury. The judges in criminal cases should be well versed in forensic DNA evidence.

I wouldn't bet my life on it...would you?

More likely well versed on what they are told (led to believe) DNA evidence is too technical for a judge who "really dosen't give a rat's" to worry about. If he is told "it is " why would he question it. The kids don't even question their teachers in this country in case someone looses face...come on be real !!!

[jdinasia]

RigPig ----

Unlike many/most countries ... in Thailand you don't have to rely upon the 'understanding' of a jury. The judges in criminal cases should be well versed in forensic DNA evidence.

I wouldn't bet my life on it...would you?

More likely well versed on what they are told (led to believe) DNA evidence is too technical for a judge who "really dosen't give a rat's" to worry about. If he is told "it is " why would he question it. The kids don't even question their teachers in this country in case someone looses face...come on be real !!!

In criminal court cases, with a possible death sentence. I would trust the judges to know. Unlike other places where a verdict is expected almost immediately, this isn't the case here. You are relying on one or more professionals not a group of lay-people.

[RigPig]

RigPig ----

Unlike many/most countries ... in Thailand you don't have to rely upon the 'understanding' of a jury. The judges in criminal cases should be well versed in forensic DNA evidence.

I wouldn't bet my life on it...would you?

More likely well versed on what they are told (led to believe) DNA evidence is too technical for a judge who "really dosen't give a rat's" to worry about. If he is told "it is " why would he question it. The kids don't even question their teachers in this country in case someone looses face...come on be real !!!

In criminal court cases, with a possible death sentence. I would trust the judges to know. Unlike other places where a verdict is expected almost immediately, this isn't the case here. You are relying on one or more professionals not a group of lay-people.

ARE YOU FOR REAL???

You would trust a Thai judge to understand the intricacies of DNA testing with your life???

Thai professionals ???

The University standard here is the equivalent of a high school diploma where I come from. My ex didn't even know we had landed on the moon!!!

There are countless traverses of justice here and you would bet your life on the "system" ?

Just look at what is happening here politically and tell me there is justice........

OPEN YOUR EYES please.......

[jdinasia]

If we are discussing a criminal court (or appeals court) knowledge and decisions regarding forensic DNA? Yes. (I would not willingly provide a DNA sample ever, but just due to civil-liberties issues, I would wait to be compelled by the court.) If I were charged in a potential death sentence case, I would do the same thing I would do anywhere. Pay for the very best lawyer possible and be a part of any decisions affecting my fate whenever possible.

Certainly there are "traverses" (sic) of justice here, just like anywhere.

I am sorry that you don't appear to know many Thai professionals, and that your "ex" is ignorant. My partner is Thai, well read, and a top professional in his field. I would trust the court system here regarding DNA more so than I would a jury system in the West.

It is up to you to prove that the criminal court judges that hear cases with DNA forensics/testimony are incapable of understanding it. I can't find any case law that shows they are not.

[chaoyang]

I would not willingly provide a DNA sample ever, but just due to civil-liberties issues, I would wait to be compelled by the court.

So in your experience, what is the likelihood a Thai court would compel a DNA sample in this case?