A Coroners open verdict doesn't imply guilt, it simply means there is an incomplete picture where a range of options exist but none can be proven conclusively. In this particular case, the stumbling block is the absence of UK based toxicology reports.

 

Toxicology reports carried out in the UK by Dr Simon Elliott found that Mr Whitaker had traces of methamphetamine, ketamine, diazepam and alcohol in his urine.

Blood samples taken from Mr Whitaker’s body were destroyed in Thailand before they could be tested in the UK.

 

The open verdict pertains to the actual cause of death. Suicide or not.

 

 

 

No, here, read this:

 

23. Inquest verdicts
23.1 Possible verdicts include:
•
natural causes;
•
accident or misadventure;
•
he or she killed him/herself (i.e. suicide);
•
unlawful killing;
•
lawful killing;
•
industrial disease; or
•
open verdict (where there is insufficient evidence for any other verdict).
23.2 Alternatively, the coroner can give a narrative verdict which sets out the facts surrounding the death in more detail and explains the reasons for the decision.
 

http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=63613&type=full&servicetype=Attachment

 

Apologies that I can't be bothered to format it all.

 

 

Correct an Open Verdict was recorded because the cause of death could not be established with 100% certainty although the UK Police Inspector had no reason not to believe the cause of death was unassisted suicide.

 

I've had friends and acquaintances die from drug overdoses and the cause of death is usually recorded as heart failure to save the family grief. I believe this verdict helped soften the blow a little for the poor guy's family.

 

the op mentions thailand having 2 police forces & the word corruption in the same sentence.

 

this i feel was a warning from a foreign policeman to be aware that this may have been done to set an example to those contemplating breaking such serious laws to be prepared ($$$$) in the event of arrest by the bad police or else.