Police says its Koh Tao tourist murder case file solid for prosecution

[NCFC]

Well, Paxman he ain't. These officials wouldn't stand a chance against him!!

how can they possibly make a case when they know atleast one more person was involved ?

There will be no problem to find the this last person. If the to burmanece did it. They know who he is

But will they tell who it is if their families have been threatened by this third party and/or his associates? I guess we will wait and see...

You really think some Thai connected person was hanging out on the beach singing Arkanese songs with a couple of Burmese itinerants?

You have to let it go; everybody wants to blame some rich Thai kid but it ain't gonna happen. The police have got their man.

[bongoz]

There will be no problem to find the this last person. If the to burmanece did it. They know who he is

But will they tell who it is if their families have been threatened by this third party and/or his associates? I guess we will wait and see...

You really think some Thai connected person was hanging out on the beach singing Arkanese songs with a couple of Burmese itinerants?

You have to let it go; everybody wants to blame some rich Thai kid but it ain't gonna happen. The police have got their man.

Weren't they singing Kumbayah?

[intune53]

Some rights groups have voiced concern over the lack of legal representation for the men.

"The suspects have been kept without legal representation. We still don't have lawyers observing the process directly," said Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, a human rights activist.

"So we are suspicious about the judicial process in terms of these alleged confessions."

Police chief Somyot said the suspects had made no request for lawyers.

"They haven't asked for lawyers. If they had asked for lawyers we would have provided lawyers for them as this is their basic right." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/03/uk-thailand-britain-murder-idUKKCN0HS07H20141003

Now suddenly the lead investigator Mag Gen Suwat claims during the interrogation and confession both these boys had a lawyer present and representing them. ( Bkk post article) "Police defend Koh Tao investigation. "

Come on Reuters!BBC?! UK newspapers?-Where are your voices????

We need international reporting on this. Now. First and foremost including today's reporting from Burmese publications, alleging the suspects confessions have been obtained under duress and some migrant's families threatened:

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burmese-suspects-koh-tao-murders-tortured-interrogation-lawyer.html

and

http://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Tom Phillip's from The Telegraph has broken this story this afternoon-at last!!!!

Come on UK press, follow his lead, time is of the essence.

Article includes reference to the petition, allegations of torture, doubts about the DNA testing and confirmation that contrary to police reports, Mark Kent the uk ambassador has not put a seal of approval on the investigation.

http://www.telegraph...ns-murders.html

Please share everywhere.

[Bleacher Bum East]

Well okay then. Should be no problem passing the evidence to the UK coroner for pier review.

Huh????

The evidence? That will not be handed over to anyone else. The defense may have a right to retesting it but the chain of custody will never include people outside the Thai justice system.

Actually, the UK coroner has a very important piece of evidence already.

They have David and Hannah's bodies, which in Hannah's case contains the DNA of the suspects, and in both cases contains evidence of what type of weapon inflicted the wounds, whether they had been drugged, etc.

Therefore, the defense lawyers could take their own DNA sample of the suspects, establish their own provable chain of custody through an independent third party, and send the samples to the UK for comparison with the DNA specimens found on Hannah's body---with the comparison to be done by either the official UK coroner or a highly credible independent lab. Then if the DNA samples did not match, they could use it as part of their defense. In any event, it would put to rest much of the speculation, one way or the other.

In addition, in determining cause of death, the coroner could provide an expert opinion regarding the nature of the wounds and the type of weapons that inflicted the wounds, and could provide a toxicology report on what relevant substances were found in David and Hannah's bodies (I'm not talking about testing them for recreational drugs, but for date rape drugs).

It would be hard to imagine why any good defense attorney would not request this, and why any of the government's involved would not approve and welcome it if they are really after the truth.

I'm not saying one way or another whether the confessions are valid, just what an option for helping establish the truth for all to agree on would be.

No chain of custody is present for the bodies.

I don't believe that is true.

Certainly the Thai police and prosecutors would claim there is a chain of custody with respect to Hannah and David’s bodies all the way up until the time they were handed over to the UK authorities (I presume this is what happened) to be shipped back to England (because if there was no such chain of custody, the Thai authorities would undermine much of their own evidence). And it should not be difficult to establish a credible chain of custody from the time the UK authorities took possession of the bodies and delivered them to the coroner. So assuming everything was kosher on the Thai end, it should not be difficult at all to establish a credible chain of custody of the bodies up until the present time. Maybe this is not an official "always within the Thai police's control" chain of custody, but it is a very credible one that a defense team can use--if the Thai prosecutors want to challenge it they can do so, but I don't think this would be a successful line of attack since the British authorities controlled the bodies at every instance the Thai authorities did not.

The UK coroner can lift all the external DNA found on Hannah’s body, which presumably has already been done. Then the coroner can compare it with new samples of the suspects’ DNA provided by the defense. If they match, then that is very strong evidence in favor of guilt. If they don’t match, then it will appear the confessions are in doubt—especially if the UK coroner finds the DNA of two persons other than the Arakanese suspects on the body.

In any event, it is all about credibility—both in court and in the eyes of public opinion (and both do matter). And it seems that this type of test in the UK is the best way to establish whether the confessions are credible. Why would anyone object to that?

BTW, if the concepts of preservation of evidence and chain of custody were to be applied in the sense found in courts in many countries, then much of the evidence found at the crime scene would be either inadmissible or highly suspect, including the DNA samples taken from Hannah’s body, because of the way the crime scene was trampled (including by a man who was once a suspect). That’s not a judgment about which way the case should swing, it’s just a fact of the law of Evidence in most Western countries (I know this is the case in the U.S., and believe it is true in the UK).

What you believe is irrelevant. As soon as the bodies left custody of the RTP / THAI authorities there is no chain of custody.

The question is whether the separate DNA test of the suspects and comparison by the UK coroner or independent lab with that found on Hannah and David’s bodies should and would be admissible in court. I believe it should be, and it would be in a U.S. or UK court. And yes, belief is relevant, because the admissibility of evidence is not a bright line rule, but a determination by a judge that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that a particular piece of evidence being introduced, in this case the DNA found on Hannah's body,the toxicology reports, the wounds, etc. is what it is claimed to be, i.e. it is authentic.

Chain of custody is one manner of establishing authenticity, as well as for establishing whether there is a sound basis for an expert opinion. But chain of custody is not the only way to establish authenticity. And even if chain of custody is used as the method of establishing authenticity, there can be gaps as long as the person offering the evidence can provide sufficient proof the evidence has not been tampered with outside of the “official” chain of custody (meaning law enforcement officials and their agents).

In all cases, the person introducing the evidence just needs to convince the judge, who decides on admissibility, that the fact-finder (normally a jury) could reasonably find the item of evidence authentic.

In the case at hand, I believe that a judge would almost surely find that there was more than enough evidence to conclude that the bodies had not been tampered with after they came into the custody of British officials for a jury to reasonably conclude any DNA samples the UK coroner removed were authentic. Therefore they would be admitted into evidence.

And I believe a large part of this conclusion would be based on the fact that there was a new chain of custody that could be established by British officials once it came into their custody, each of whom could testify at trial about when the bodies were received, how they were handled, and when they were released, such that a jury could reasonably weigh the evidence of their handling of the bodies and conclude the DNA taken by the UK coroner,and other evidence from examination of the bodies, was authentic (although this is not a law enforcement custodian chain of custody, it is still a verifiable chain of custody, as is used in civil cases, and would be part of the judge's admissibility analysis).

How a Thai judge would rule I have no idea, and I don't know the Thai Rules of Evidence.

But I do believe that the defense should take the samples, the UK coroner should perform the analysis, and the defense should attempt to introduce the results at trial. Afterwards it’s up to the Thai courts to determine admissibility under their own laws and standards.

And I also believe the UK coroner's results should be made public. Since this evidence would be admitted in a Western trial, then it should be part of the public record and inquiry in the UK.

The bottom line is that the chain of custody by the British authorities almost certainly met the standards for admissibility if the murder had taken place under their jurisdiction. So arguing no "chain of custody", and therefore no admissibility of evidence from the bodies once they were in UK authorities possession, is not a genuine search for truth, but a loophole that someone could attempt to use to obscure truth. I don't believe any good judge would allow that to take place.

[Artisi]

There will be no problem to find the this last person. If the to burmanece did it. They know who he is

But will they tell who it is if their families have been threatened by this third party and/or his associates? I guess we will wait and see...

You really think some Thai connected person was hanging out on the beach singing Arkanese songs with a couple of Burmese itinerants?

You have to let it go; everybody wants to blame some rich Thai kid but it ain't gonna happen. The police have got their man.

"The police have got their man."

Probably they have but charged a couple of young Burmese guys instead.

[jdinasia]

Well okay then. Should be no problem passing the evidence to the UK coroner for pier review.

Huh????

The evidence? That will not be handed over to anyone else. The defense may have a right to retesting it but the chain of custody will never include people outside the Thai justice system.

Actually, the UK coroner has a very important piece of evidence already.

They have David and Hannah's bodies, which in Hannah's case contains the DNA of the suspects, and in both cases contains evidence of what type of weapon inflicted the wounds, whether they had been drugged, etc.

Therefore, the defense lawyers could take their own DNA sample of the suspects, establish their own provable chain of custody through an independent third party, and send the samples to the UK for comparison with the DNA specimens found on Hannah's body---with the comparison to be done by either the official UK coroner or a highly credible independent lab. Then if the DNA samples did not match, they could use it as part of their defense. In any event, it would put to rest much of the speculation, one way or the other.

In addition, in determining cause of death, the coroner could provide an expert opinion regarding the nature of the wounds and the type of weapons that inflicted the wounds, and could provide a toxicology report on what relevant substances were found in David and Hannah's bodies (I'm not talking about testing them for recreational drugs, but for date rape drugs).

It would be hard to imagine why any good defense attorney would not request this, and why any of the government's involved would not approve and welcome it if they are really after the truth.

I'm not saying one way or another whether the confessions are valid, just what an option for helping establish the truth for all to agree on would be.

No chain of custody is present for the bodies.

I don't believe that is true.

Certainly the Thai police and prosecutors would claim there is a chain of custody with respect to Hannah and David’s bodies all the way up until the time they were handed over to the UK authorities (I presume this is what happened) to be shipped back to England (because if there was no such chain of custody, the Thai authorities would undermine much of their own evidence). And it should not be difficult to establish a credible chain of custody from the time the UK authorities took possession of the bodies and delivered them to the coroner. So assuming everything was kosher on the Thai end, it should not be difficult at all to establish a credible chain of custody of the bodies up until the present time. Maybe this is not an official "always within the Thai police's control" chain of custody, but it is a very credible one that a defense team can use--if the Thai prosecutors want to challenge it they can do so, but I don't think this would be a successful line of attack since the British authorities controlled the bodies at every instance the Thai authorities did not.

The UK coroner can lift all the external DNA found on Hannah’s body, which presumably has already been done. Then the coroner can compare it with new samples of the suspects’ DNA provided by the defense. If they match, then that is very strong evidence in favor of guilt. If they don’t match, then it will appear the confessions are in doubt—especially if the UK coroner finds the DNA of two persons other than the Arakanese suspects on the body.

In any event, it is all about credibility—both in court and in the eyes of public opinion (and both do matter). And it seems that this type of test in the UK is the best way to establish whether the confessions are credible. Why would anyone object to that?

BTW, if the concepts of preservation of evidence and chain of custody were to be applied in the sense found in courts in many countries, then much of the evidence found at the crime scene would be either inadmissible or highly suspect, including the DNA samples taken from Hannah’s body, because of the way the crime scene was trampled (including by a man who was once a suspect). That’s not a judgment about which way the case should swing, it’s just a fact of the law of Evidence in most Western countries (I know this is the case in the U.S., and believe it is true in the UK).

What you believe is irrelevant. As soon as the bodies left custody of the RTP / THAI authorities there is no chain of custody.

The question is whether the separate DNA test of the suspects and comparison by the UK coroner or independent lab with that found on Hannah and David’s bodies should and would be admissible in court. I believe it should be, and it would be in a U.S. or UK court. And yes, belief is relevant, because the admissibility of evidence is not a bright line rule, but a determination by a judge that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that a particular piece of evidence being introduced, in this case the DNA found on Hannah's body,the toxicology reports, the wounds, etc. is what it is claimed to be, i.e. it is authentic.

Chain of custody is one manner of establishing authenticity, as well as for establishing whether there is a sound basis for an expert opinion. But chain of custody is not the only way to establish authenticity. And even if chain of custody is used as the method of establishing authenticity, there can be gaps as long as the person offering the evidence can provide sufficient proof the evidence has not been tampered with outside of the “official” chain of custody (meaning law enforcement officials and their agents).

In all cases, the person introducing the evidence just needs to convince the judge, who decides on admissibility, that the fact-finder (normally a jury) could reasonably find the item of evidence authentic.

In the case at hand, I believe that a judge would almost surely find that there was more than enough evidence to conclude that the bodies had not been tampered with after they came into the custody of British officials for a jury to reasonably conclude any DNA samples the UK coroner removed were authentic. Therefore they would be admitted into evidence.

And I believe a large part of this conclusion would be based on the fact that there was a new chain of custody that could be established by British officials once it came into their custody, each of whom could testify at trial about when the bodies were received, how they were handled, and when they were released, such that a jury could reasonably weigh the evidence of their handling of the bodies and conclude the DNA taken by the UK coroner,and other evidence from examination of the bodies, was authentic (although this is not a law enforcement custodian chain of custody, it is still a verifiable chain of custody, as is used in civil cases, and would be part of the judge's admissibility analysis).

How a Thai judge would rule I have no idea, and I don't know the Thai Rules of Evidence.

But I do believe that the defense should take the samples, the UK coroner should perform the analysis, and the defense should attempt to introduce the results at trial. Afterwards it’s up to the Thai courts to determine admissibility under their own laws and standards.

And I also believe the UK coroner's results should be made public. Since this evidence would be admitted in a Western trial, then it should be part of the public record and inquiry in the UK.

The bottom line is that the chain of custody by the British authorities almost certainly met the standards for admissibility if the murder had taken place under their jurisdiction. So arguing no "chain of custody", and therefore no admissibility of evidence from the bodies once they were in UK authorities possession, is not a genuine search for truth, but a loophole that someone could attempt to use to obscure truth. I don't believe any good judge would allow that to take place.

No. It would not be admissible in a court after the remains were transferred out of the country. Why are you assuming that the UK maintained custody, much less did so in a manner that would maintain legal custody including transportation of the corpses in a way that maintained physical integrity and in a way that prevented further decay?

Since the FO 'S rep in Thailand stated he was satisfied with the investigation there obviously would be no need for the measures you keep stating are true to have even happened.

[Bleacher Bum East]

Well okay then. Should be no problem passing the evidence to the UK coroner for pier review.

Huh????

The evidence? That will not be handed over to anyone else. The defense may have a right to retesting it but the chain of custody will never include people outside the Thai justice system.

Actually, the UK coroner has a very important piece of evidence already.

They have David and Hannah's bodies, which in Hannah's case contains the DNA of the suspects, and in both cases contains evidence of what type of weapon inflicted the wounds, whether they had been drugged, etc.

Therefore, the defense lawyers could take their own DNA sample of the suspects, establish their own provable chain of custody through an independent third party, and send the samples to the UK for comparison with the DNA specimens found on Hannah's body---with the comparison to be done by either the official UK coroner or a highly credible independent lab. Then if the DNA samples did not match, they could use it as part of their defense. In any event, it would put to rest much of the speculation, one way or the other.

In addition, in determining cause of death, the coroner could provide an expert opinion regarding the nature of the wounds and the type of weapons that inflicted the wounds, and could provide a toxicology report on what relevant substances were found in David and Hannah's bodies (I'm not talking about testing them for recreational drugs, but for date rape drugs).

It would be hard to imagine why any good defense attorney would not request this, and why any of the government's involved would not approve and welcome it if they are really after the truth.

I'm not saying one way or another whether the confessions are valid, just what an option for helping establish the truth for all to agree on would be.

No chain of custody is present for the bodies.

I don't believe that is true.

Certainly the Thai police and prosecutors would claim there is a chain of custody with respect to Hannah and David’s bodies all the way up until the time they were handed over to the UK authorities (I presume this is what happened) to be shipped back to England (because if there was no such chain of custody, the Thai authorities would undermine much of their own evidence). And it should not be difficult to establish a credible chain of custody from the time the UK authorities took possession of the bodies and delivered them to the coroner. So assuming everything was kosher on the Thai end, it should not be difficult at all to establish a credible chain of custody of the bodies up until the present time. Maybe this is not an official "always within the Thai police's control" chain of custody, but it is a very credible one that a defense team can use--if the Thai prosecutors want to challenge it they can do so, but I don't think this would be a successful line of attack since the British authorities controlled the bodies at every instance the Thai authorities did not.

The UK coroner can lift all the external DNA found on Hannah’s body, which presumably has already been done. Then the coroner can compare it with new samples of the suspects’ DNA provided by the defense. If they match, then that is very strong evidence in favor of guilt. If they don’t match, then it will appear the confessions are in doubt—especially if the UK coroner finds the DNA of two persons other than the Arakanese suspects on the body.

In any event, it is all about credibility—both in court and in the eyes of public opinion (and both do matter). And it seems that this type of test in the UK is the best way to establish whether the confessions are credible. Why would anyone object to that?

BTW, if the concepts of preservation of evidence and chain of custody were to be applied in the sense found in courts in many countries, then much of the evidence found at the crime scene would be either inadmissible or highly suspect, including the DNA samples taken from Hannah’s body, because of the way the crime scene was trampled (including by a man who was once a suspect). That’s not a judgment about which way the case should swing, it’s just a fact of the law of Evidence in most Western countries (I know this is the case in the U.S., and believe it is true in the UK).

What you believe is irrelevant. As soon as the bodies left custody of the RTP / THAI authorities there is no chain of custody.

The question is whether the separate DNA test of the suspects and comparison by the UK coroner or independent lab with that found on Hannah and David’s bodies should and would be admissible in court. I believe it should be, and it would be in a U.S. or UK court. And yes, belief is relevant, because the admissibility of evidence is not a bright line rule, but a determination by a judge that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that a particular piece of evidence being introduced, in this case the DNA found on Hannah's body,the toxicology reports, the wounds, etc. is what it is claimed to be, i.e. it is authentic.

Chain of custody is one manner of establishing authenticity, as well as for establishing whether there is a sound basis for an expert opinion. But chain of custody is not the only way to establish authenticity. And even if chain of custody is used as the method of establishing authenticity, there can be gaps as long as the person offering the evidence can provide sufficient proof the evidence has not been tampered with outside of the “official” chain of custody (meaning law enforcement officials and their agents).

In all cases, the person introducing the evidence just needs to convince the judge, who decides on admissibility, that the fact-finder (normally a jury) could reasonably find the item of evidence authentic.

In the case at hand, I believe that a judge would almost surely find that there was more than enough evidence to conclude that the bodies had not been tampered with after they came into the custody of British officials for a jury to reasonably conclude any DNA samples the UK coroner removed were authentic. Therefore they would be admitted into evidence.

And I believe a large part of this conclusion would be based on the fact that there was a new chain of custody that could be established by British officials once it came into their custody, each of whom could testify at trial about when the bodies were received, how they were handled, and when they were released, such that a jury could reasonably weigh the evidence of their handling of the bodies and conclude the DNA taken by the UK coroner,and other evidence from examination of the bodies, was authentic (although this is not a law enforcement custodian chain of custody, it is still a verifiable chain of custody, as is used in civil cases, and would be part of the judge's admissibility analysis).

How a Thai judge would rule I have no idea, and I don't know the Thai Rules of Evidence.

But I do believe that the defense should take the samples, the UK coroner should perform the analysis, and the defense should attempt to introduce the results at trial. Afterwards it’s up to the Thai courts to determine admissibility under their own laws and standards.

And I also believe the UK coroner's results should be made public. Since this evidence would be admitted in a Western trial, then it should be part of the public record and inquiry in the UK.

The bottom line is that the chain of custody by the British authorities almost certainly met the standards for admissibility if the murder had taken place under their jurisdiction. So arguing no "chain of custody", and therefore no admissibility of evidence from the bodies once they were in UK authorities possession, is not a genuine search for truth, but a loophole that someone could attempt to use to obscure truth. I don't believe any good judge would allow that to take place.

No. It would not be admissible in a court after the remains were transferred out of the country. Why are you assuming that the UK maintained custody, much less did so in a manner that would maintain legal custody including transportation of the corpses in a way that maintained physical integrity and in a way that prevented further decay?

Since the FO 'S rep in Thailand stated he was satisfied with the investigation there obviously would be no need for the measures you keep stating are true to have even happened.

There's only one way to find out. Ask and receive testimony about whether a credible chain of custody was maintained and whether the bodies were in good enough shape to examine and take credible samples from. If either is not true, then I agree that this is not an option. But if it is, like I said, why not add it to the body of evidence? It may actually help cement the Thai authorities case and lend them much-needed public credibility. I'm not saying one way or the other what happened, just that all possible evidence should be examined by all parties involved. At this point you've stated your opinion and I've stated mine--and others can form their own. The respective parties will decide for themselves whether to pursue these routes., and the courts will decide whether to admit the evidence if they do.

[visionchaser45]

Yep, as solid as frozen manure. 555

[jdinasia]

Well okay then. Should be no problem passing the evidence to the UK coroner for pier review.

Huh????

The evidence? That will not be handed over to anyone else. The defense may have a right to retesting it but the chain of custody will never include people outside the Thai justice system.

Actually, the UK coroner has a very important piece of evidence already.

They have David and Hannah's bodies, which in Hannah's case contains the DNA of the suspects, and in both cases contains evidence of what type of weapon inflicted the wounds, whether they had been drugged, etc.

Therefore, the defense lawyers could take their own DNA sample of the suspects, establish their own provable chain of custody through an independent third party, and send the samples to the UK for comparison with the DNA specimens found on Hannah's body---with the comparison to be done by either the official UK coroner or a highly credible independent lab. Then if the DNA samples did not match, they could use it as part of their defense. In any event, it would put to rest much of the speculation, one way or the other.

In addition, in determining cause of death, the coroner could provide an expert opinion regarding the nature of the wounds and the type of weapons that inflicted the wounds, and could provide a toxicology report on what relevant substances were found in David and Hannah's bodies (I'm not talking about testing them for recreational drugs, but for date rape drugs).

It would be hard to imagine why any good defense attorney would not request this, and why any of the government's involved would not approve and welcome it if they are really after the truth.

I'm not saying one way or another whether the confessions are valid, just what an option for helping establish the truth for all to agree on would be.

No chain of custody is present for the bodies.

I don't believe that is true.

Certainly the Thai police and prosecutors would claim there is a chain of custody with respect to Hannah and David’s bodies all the way up until the time they were handed over to the UK authorities (I presume this is what happened) to be shipped back to England (because if there was no such chain of custody, the Thai authorities would undermine much of their own evidence). And it should not be difficult to establish a credible chain of custody from the time the UK authorities took possession of the bodies and delivered them to the coroner. So assuming everything was kosher on the Thai end, it should not be difficult at all to establish a credible chain of custody of the bodies up until the present time. Maybe this is not an official "always within the Thai police's control" chain of custody, but it is a very credible one that a defense team can use--if the Thai prosecutors want to challenge it they can do so, but I don't think this would be a successful line of attack since the British authorities controlled the bodies at every instance the Thai authorities did not.

The UK coroner can lift all the external DNA found on Hannah’s body, which presumably has already been done. Then the coroner can compare it with new samples of the suspects’ DNA provided by the defense. If they match, then that is very strong evidence in favor of guilt. If they don’t match, then it will appear the confessions are in doubt—especially if the UK coroner finds the DNA of two persons other than the Arakanese suspects on the body.

In any event, it is all about credibility—both in court and in the eyes of public opinion (and both do matter). And it seems that this type of test in the UK is the best way to establish whether the confessions are credible. Why would anyone object to that?

BTW, if the concepts of preservation of evidence and chain of custody were to be applied in the sense found in courts in many countries, then much of the evidence found at the crime scene would be either inadmissible or highly suspect, including the DNA samples taken from Hannah’s body, because of the way the crime scene was trampled (including by a man who was once a suspect). That’s not a judgment about which way the case should swing, it’s just a fact of the law of Evidence in most Western countries (I know this is the case in the U.S., and believe it is true in the UK).

What you believe is irrelevant. As soon as the bodies left custody of the RTP / THAI authorities there is no chain of custody.

The question is whether the separate DNA test of the suspects and comparison by the UK coroner or independent lab with that found on Hannah and David’s bodies should and would be admissible in court. I believe it should be, and it would be in a U.S. or UK court. And yes, belief is relevant, because the admissibility of evidence is not a bright line rule, but a determination by a judge that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that a particular piece of evidence being introduced, in this case the DNA found on Hannah's body,the toxicology reports, the wounds, etc. is what it is claimed to be, i.e. it is authentic.

Chain of custody is one manner of establishing authenticity, as well as for establishing whether there is a sound basis for an expert opinion. But chain of custody is not the only way to establish authenticity. And even if chain of custody is used as the method of establishing authenticity, there can be gaps as long as the person offering the evidence can provide sufficient proof the evidence has not been tampered with outside of the “official” chain of custody (meaning law enforcement officials and their agents).

In all cases, the person introducing the evidence just needs to convince the judge, who decides on admissibility, that the fact-finder (normally a jury) could reasonably find the item of evidence authentic.

In the case at hand, I believe that a judge would almost surely find that there was more than enough evidence to conclude that the bodies had not been tampered with after they came into the custody of British officials for a jury to reasonably conclude any DNA samples the UK coroner removed were authentic. Therefore they would be admitted into evidence.

And I believe a large part of this conclusion would be based on the fact that there was a new chain of custody that could be established by British officials once it came into their custody, each of whom could testify at trial about when the bodies were received, how they were handled, and when they were released, such that a jury could reasonably weigh the evidence of their handling of the bodies and conclude the DNA taken by the UK coroner,and other evidence from examination of the bodies, was authentic (although this is not a law enforcement custodian chain of custody, it is still a verifiable chain of custody, as is used in civil cases, and would be part of the judge's admissibility analysis).

How a Thai judge would rule I have no idea, and I don't know the Thai Rules of Evidence.

But I do believe that the defense should take the samples, the UK coroner should perform the analysis, and the defense should attempt to introduce the results at trial. Afterwards it’s up to the Thai courts to determine admissibility under their own laws and standards.

And I also believe the UK coroner's results should be made public. Since this evidence would be admitted in a Western trial, then it should be part of the public record and inquiry in the UK.

The bottom line is that the chain of custody by the British authorities almost certainly met the standards for admissibility if the murder had taken place under their jurisdiction. So arguing no "chain of custody", and therefore no admissibility of evidence from the bodies once they were in UK authorities possession, is not a genuine search for truth, but a loophole that someone could attempt to use to obscure truth. I don't believe any good judge would allow that to take place.

No. It would not be admissible in a court after the remains were transferred out of the country. Why are you assuming that the UK maintained custody, much less did so in a manner that would maintain legal custody including transportation of the corpses in a way that maintained physical integrity and in a way that prevented further decay?

Since the FO 'S rep in Thailand stated he was satisfied with the investigation there obviously would be no need for the measures you keep stating are true to have even happened.

There's only one way to find out. Ask and receive testimony about whether a credible chain of custody was maintained and whether the bodies were in good enough shape to examine and take credible samples from. If either is not true, then I agree that this is not an option. But if it is, like I said, why not add it to the body of evidence? It may actually help cement the Thai authorities case and lend them much-needed public credibility. I'm not saying one way or the other what happened, just that all possible evidence should be examined by all parties involved. At this point you've stated your opinion and I've stated mine--and others can form their own. The respective parties will decide for themselves whether to pursue these routes., and the courts will decide whether to admit the evidence if they do.

Under no circumstances would the chain of custody be accepted back into a Thai court. Suggesting otherwise is incredibly naive.

The FO has made a public statement.

[jomcondo]

Most of the time they can nip these murder investigations in the bud by simply stating suicide by hanging or leaping from a building because there is little evidence otherwise.

If the true number of tourist murders came to light, Thailand's tourist industry would be decimated.

Whacking tourists has become the national sport.

[Trouble]

Given The BIBs other statement, I suppose we aren't really allowed to question anything, without the possibility of charges being bought for insulting an official.

Well, I for one question the whole investigative process from the time the bodies were found up to the present. It has been a keystone cops type of operation and I blame a good deal of that on the higher ups wanting their photo ops and press conferences. If through the whole bungled process some of the real investigators who will get no credit have managed to catch the real perpetrators then good for them. Anyone knows that securing the crime scene should have been the first priority but all the photos show everyone under the sun walking around. The handling of the investigation from the get go is a farce by the higher ups and has only reflected what most people on TV think of the Thai police. Surely this proves that allowing people to buy the top jobs does not make for good policing. Too many police generals if you ask me and too many corrupt police on the take to ever make anyone believe they are a real competent police force.

[SteveFong]

Some rights groups have voiced concern over the lack of legal representation for the men.

"The suspects have been kept without legal representation. We still don't have lawyers observing the process directly," said Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, a human rights activist.

"So we are suspicious about the judicial process in terms of these alleged confessions."

Police chief Somyot said the suspects had made no request for lawyers.

"They haven't asked for lawyers. If they had asked for lawyers we would have provided lawyers for them as this is their basic right." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/03/uk-thailand-britain-murder-idUKKCN0HS07H20141003

Now suddenly the lead investigator Mag Gen Suwat claims during the interrogation and confession both these boys had a lawyer present and representing them. ( Bkk post article) "Police defend Koh Tao investigation. "

Come on Reuters!BBC?! UK newspapers?-Where are your voices????

We need international reporting on this. Now. First and foremost including today's reporting from Burmese publications, alleging the suspects confessions have been obtained under duress and some migrant's families threatened:

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burmese-suspects-koh-tao-murders-tortured-interrogation-lawyer.html

and

http://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Tom Phillip's from The Telegraph has broken this story this afternoon-at last!!!!

Come on UK press, follow his lead, time is of the essence.

Article includes reference to the petition, allegations of torture, doubts about the DNA testing and confirmation that contrary to police reports, Mark Kent the uk ambassador has not put a seal of approval on the investigation.

http://www.telegraph...ns-murders.html

Please share everywhere.

Momentum has begun,

the efforts of all social media posters has prevailed

[jdinasia]

Some rights groups have voiced concern over the lack of legal representation for the men.

"The suspects have been kept without legal representation. We still don't have lawyers observing the process directly," said Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, a human rights activist.

"So we are suspicious about the judicial process in terms of these alleged confessions."

Police chief Somyot said the suspects had made no request for lawyers.

"They haven't asked for lawyers. If they had asked for lawyers we would have provided lawyers for them as this is their basic right." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/03/uk-thailand-britain-murder-idUKKCN0HS07H20141003

Now suddenly the lead investigator Mag Gen Suwat claims during the interrogation and confession both these boys had a lawyer present and representing them. ( Bkk post article) "Police defend Koh Tao investigation. "

Come on Reuters!BBC?! UK newspapers?-Where are your voices????

We need international reporting on this. Now. First and foremost including today's reporting from Burmese publications, alleging the suspects confessions have been obtained under duress and some migrant's families threatened:

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burmese-suspects-koh-tao-murders-tortured-interrogation-lawyer.html

and

http://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Tom Phillip's from The Telegraph has broken this story this afternoon-at last!!!!

Come on UK press, follow his lead, time is of the essence.

Article includes reference to the petition, allegations of torture, doubts about the DNA testing and confirmation that contrary to police reports, Mark Kent the uk ambassador has not put a seal of approval on the investigation.

http://www.telegraph...ns-murders.html

Please share everywhere.

Momentum has begun,

the efforts of all social media posters has prevailed

Huh???

The FO has issued a statement.. The case is going to the prosecution.. And the conspiracy theorists have had their legs cut out from under them.

[inutil]

This one you mean?

“We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest developments and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently.

“The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities, but we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way. We remain in contact with them and have asked to be kept closely informed

I believe this is what the industry refers to as 'damning with feint praise'. I speak diplomat so let me explain:

The phrase:"We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest development" means 'we are worried by these latest developments, that we are even acknowledging them in a formal statement to the press instead of ignoring them as we'd rather be doing'.

The phrase: "and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently" means 'and expect the Thai authorities to address the concerns WITH evidence, open to public scrutiny'

"The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities" means exactly that. Its the next word that is a KILLER in the diplomacy world though:

BUT...

This is a direct criticism of either the handling of the case or the handling of the media in the case. There should be no but in this statement. It should read AND followed by lavish praise at the performance and handling of the case by the Royal Thai Police.

"but, we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way" and here is the real knife twist. Two statements on a lack of transparency within a three sentence statement? An interjection on proper procedure? And then a kiss off with a reminder on fairness. Youd have to be deaf or willfully ignorant not to not hear the message here: The foreign office are currently unsatisfied with events... or at the very least the oversight of these events. The very fact they mention these 'concerns' is also incredibly important since it indicates that the foreign office is having to listen to these concerns AND take them seriously. The only statement the FO WANTS to make is, "We are very grateful to the RTP for their invaluable assistance in... baseless and senseless attacks. " Nowhere do they want to talk about being aware of concerns about transparency and fairness. Nowhere do they want to drop the word BUT after having to point out that this is a matter for Thailand to resolve.

Sorry to have to explain the blindingly obvious to you about subtext. Im sure you can in fact read it

Edited October 7, 2014 by inutil

[Unconvinced]

This one you mean?

“We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest developments and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently.

“The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities, but we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way. We remain in contact with them and have asked to be kept closely informed

I believe this is what the industry refers to as 'damning with feint praise'. I speak diplomat so let me explain:

The phrase:"We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest development" means 'we are worried by these latest developments, that we are even acknowledging them in a formal statement to the press instead of ignoring them as we'd rather be doing'.

The phrase: "and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently" means 'and expect the Thai authorities to address the concerns WITH evidence, open to public scrutiny'

"The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities" means exactly that. Its the next word that is a KILLER in the diplomacy world though:

BUT...

This is a direct criticism of either the handling of the case or the handling of the media in the case. There should be no but in this statement. It should read AND followed by lavish praise at the performance and handling of the case by the Royal Thai Police.

"but, we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way" and here is the real knife twist. Two statements on a lack of transparency within a three sentence statement? An interjection on proper procedure? And then a kiss off with a reminder on fairness. Youd have to be deaf or willfully ignorant not to not hear the message here: The foreign office are currently unsatisfied with events... or at the very least the oversight of these events. The very fact they mention these 'concerns' is also incredibly important since it indicates that the foreign office is having to listen to these concerns AND take them seriously. The only statement the FO WANTS to make is, "We are very grateful to the RTP for their invaluable assistance in... baseless and senseless attacks. " Nowhere do they want to talk about being aware of concerns about transparency and fairness. Nowhere do they want to drop the word BUT after having to point out that this is a matter for Thailand to resolve.

Sorry to have to explain the blindingly obvious to you about subtext. Im sure you can in fact read it

You speak diplomat fluently!

Following the Telegraph article, Ambassador Kent is stressing explicitly on twitter that has has made no comment or endorsement of the investigation. Was he not reported (by Thai police?) as saying they had performed with "exemplary professionalism" and that the UK would not interfere, or was that a Thai police claim on the same list as the satisfaction of the Myanmar representatives, the presence of lawyers for the accused, and the chopping and changing regarding the numbers of guilty suspects, murder weapons and mobile phones?

[Jiu-Jitsu]

Some rights groups have voiced concern over the lack of legal representation for the men.

"The suspects have been kept without legal representation. We still don't have lawyers observing the process directly," said Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, a human rights activist.

"So we are suspicious about the judicial process in terms of these alleged confessions."

Police chief Somyot said the suspects had made no request for lawyers.

"They haven't asked for lawyers. If they had asked for lawyers we would have provided lawyers for them as this is their basic right." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/03/uk-thailand-britain-murder-idUKKCN0HS07H20141003

Now suddenly the lead investigator Mag Gen Suwat claims during the interrogation and confession both these boys had a lawyer present and representing them. ( Bkk post article) "Police defend Koh Tao investigation. "

Come on Reuters!BBC?! UK newspapers?-Where are your voices????

We need international reporting on this. Now. First and foremost including today's reporting from Burmese publications, alleging the suspects confessions have been obtained under duress and some migrant's families threatened:

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burmese-suspects-koh-tao-murders-tortured-interrogation-lawyer.html

and

http://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Tom Phillip's from The Telegraph has broken this story this afternoon-at last!!!!

Come on UK press, follow his lead, time is of the essence.

Article includes reference to the petition, allegations of torture, doubts about the DNA testing and confirmation that contrary to police reports, Mark Kent the uk ambassador has not put a seal of approval on the investigation.

http://www.telegraph...ns-murders.html

Please share everywhere.

Momentum has begun,

the efforts of all social media posters has prevailed

Huh???

The FO has issued a statement.. The case is going to the prosecution.. And the conspiracy theorists have had their legs cut out from under them.

Are you actually that obtuse? Do you actually feel that statement is in support of the investigation?? You should try to understand the language of diplomacy. I have a family member who is an Ambassador for a European country. It's as much as they can say publicly.

[littlebw]

Just been on local news here in Leeds UK, Saying police under pressure and could be a set up. Great that it is kept in the news here in the UK

[heyexile]

This one you mean?

“We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest developments and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently.

“The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities, but we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way. We remain in contact with them and have asked to be kept closely informed

I believe this is what the industry refers to as 'damning with feint praise'. I speak diplomat so let me explain:

The phrase:"We are aware of concerns expressed in relation to the latest development" means 'we are worried by these latest developments, that we are even acknowledging them in a formal statement to the press instead of ignoring them as we'd rather be doing'.

The phrase: "and expect the Thai authorities to address these thoroughly and transparently" means 'and expect the Thai authorities to address the concerns WITH evidence, open to public scrutiny'

"The investigation and judicial process remains a matter for the Thai authorities" means exactly that. Its the next word that is a KILLER in the diplomacy world though:

BUT...

This is a direct criticism of either the handling of the case or the handling of the media in the case. There should be no but in this statement. It should read AND followed by lavish praise at the performance and handling of the case by the Royal Thai Police.

"but, we expect it to be conducted in a fair and transparent way" and here is the real knife twist. Two statements on a lack of transparency within a three sentence statement? An interjection on proper procedure? And then a kiss off with a reminder on fairness. Youd have to be deaf or willfully ignorant not to not hear the message here: The foreign office are currently unsatisfied with events... or at the very least the oversight of these events. The very fact they mention these 'concerns' is also incredibly important since it indicates that the foreign office is having to listen to these concerns AND take them seriously. The only statement the FO WANTS to make is, "We are very grateful to the RTP for their invaluable assistance in... baseless and senseless attacks. " Nowhere do they want to talk about being aware of concerns about transparency and fairness. Nowhere do they want to drop the word BUT after having to point out that this is a matter for Thailand to resolve.

Sorry to have to explain the blindingly obvious to you about subtext. Im sure you can in fact read it

You speak diplomat fluently!

Following the Telegraph article, Ambassador Kent is stressing explicitly on twitter that has has made no comment or endorsement of the investigation. Was he not reported (by Thai police?) as saying they had performed with "exemplary professionalism" and that the UK would not interfere, or was that a Thai police claim on the same list as the satisfaction of the Myanmar representatives, the presence of lawyers for the accused, and the chopping and changing regarding the numbers of guilty suspects, murder weapons and mobile phones?

Quite. A little more diplo speak, the Ambassador declined to attend yesterday`s (7th Oct) police press conference.

The man has been misrepresented before. When, a few days ago, he visited the Police Commissioner General in Bangkok to offer British `technical assistance` with the investigation, the purpose of his visit was described as "to offer congratulations" to the PCG on his appointment. The PCG was appointed by the PM on Aug 20th.

[bigjules007]

And don't forget that the day after the RTP were offered assistance from U.K cctv footage experts, they magically produced the 2 Burmese boys.

[jdinasia]

Some rights groups have voiced concern over the lack of legal representation for the men.

"The suspects have been kept without legal representation. We still don't have lawyers observing the process directly," said Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, a human rights activist.

"So we are suspicious about the judicial process in terms of these alleged confessions."

Police chief Somyot said the suspects had made no request for lawyers.

"They haven't asked for lawyers. If they had asked for lawyers we would have provided lawyers for them as this is their basic right." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/03/uk-thailand-britain-murder-idUKKCN0HS07H20141003

Now suddenly the lead investigator Mag Gen Suwat claims during the interrogation and confession both these boys had a lawyer present and representing them. ( Bkk post article) "Police defend Koh Tao investigation. "

Come on Reuters!BBC?! UK newspapers?-Where are your voices????

We need international reporting on this. Now. First and foremost including today's reporting from Burmese publications, alleging the suspects confessions have been obtained under duress and some migrant's families threatened:

http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burmese-suspects-koh-tao-murders-tortured-interrogation-lawyer.html

and

http://www.dvb.no/news/koh-tao-murderers-were-tortured-says-burmese-embassy-lawyer-burma-myanmar/44781

Tom Phillip's from The Telegraph has broken this story this afternoon-at last!!!!

Come on UK press, follow his lead, time is of the essence.

Article includes reference to the petition, allegations of torture, doubts about the DNA testing and confirmation that contrary to police reports, Mark Kent the uk ambassador has not put a seal of approval on the investigation.

http://www.telegraph...ns-murders.html

Please share everywhere.

Momentum has begun,

the efforts of all social media posters has prevailed

Huh???

The FO has issued a statement.. The case is going to the prosecution.. And the conspiracy theorists have had their legs cut out from under them.

Are you actually that obtuse? Do you actually feel that statement is in support of the investigation?? You should try to understand the language of diplomacy. I have a family member who is an Ambassador for a European country. It's as much as they can say publicly.

http://tastythailand.com/british-ambassador-criticizes-thailand-government-for-terrible-flood-management/

Hmmmm strange since the last UK Ambassador criticized the Thai government for not accepting foreign expert help.

[jdinasia]

And don't forget that the day after the RTP were offered assistance from U.K cctv footage experts, they magically produced the 2 Burmese boys.

Huh mean 3 days after they said they would finish....they finished? That is magic??

[MikePhuket1970]

And don't forget that the day after the RTP were offered assistance from U.K cctv footage experts, they magically produced the 2 Burmese boys.

The hole police work is magic.

Hopefully this case get now more world media attention so a couple of good trained detectives

can tear apart the whole bunch of $hit

[bigjules007]

And don't forget that the day after the RTP were offered assistance from U.K cctv footage experts, they magically produced the 2 Burmese boys.

Huh mean 3 days after they said they would finish....they finished? That is magic??

This is the first time ive addressed you jd and it will be the last. Some of your posts border on ridiculous and I for one do not have time to deal with your pro RTP propaganda.

You and your cronies take great pleasure in discrediting all the holes that we are finding in this piss poor excuse for an investigation.

I have been receiving email after email from Thai nationals agreeing that this is a good old fashioned frame up and the rest of the world is starting to pay attention now.

What I do notice is that the more the news agencies are listening and starting to write about this, the more you PRO RTP supporters are appearing, some of you even threatening people.

Like I said to the other wafflers on here, think its beetle juice and the stuttering dodo, this has gone to far now and I think you know it, your posts are futile, we will not be silenced.

Come and get me@ New York, Paris, London, Rome.

Have a nice life.

PS some of your colleagues might need to take advantage of that new telephone helpline the RTP have just set up after this is all said and done.

Shame on you.

[mrtoad]

Given the latest batch of news reports, Telegraph, Guardian etc, it's looking a lot less solid than The BIB thought. I think they were hoping it would all go away after they had got the arrests and made a few statements.

[MikePhuket1970]

Given the latest batch of news reports, Telegraph, Guardian etc, it's looking a lot less solid than The BIB thought. I think they were hoping it would all go away after they had got the arrests and made a few statements.

Remembers me of the early days of my housecleaner,

put the $hit under the carpet as long you can walk over it.

[SteveFong]

focus on what is coming from the public, not the police and prosecution, you know they have their jobs to do, and you know the order they do them in

more importantly,

more and more reporters are on the story now, and more joining in as new evidence is presented

create twitter accounts and start speaking to them directly,

any day, the military authorities may issue an order to close these threads, and that will be all she wrote,

get your back up onto twitter and facebook,

the lid is being blown off the case this week you can see the momentum now that they have lawyers and abuse is being discussed and the third witness is being secreted

[mrtoad]

The issue regarding the 3rd witness is very concerning. If The BIB were to present this case to a court in the west, it would be thrown out as the investigation appears to be totally compromised.

No statement from The BIB at this point will convince me that the investigation has been clean and ethical. Thainess, is not gong to work on the rest of the watching world.

[intune53]

The Independent newspaper is leading their story with:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-murders-amnesty-demands-inquiry-into-allegations-of-torture-of-suspects-9780876.html

"Amnesty International is urging the Thai junta to conduct an independent investigation into allegations that two Burmese workers who “confessed” to the murders of two British backpackers did so under duress and torture."

"Richard Bennett, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Programme Director, said: “The Thai authorities must initiate an independent, effective and transparent investigation into mounting allegations of torture and other ill-treatment by police."

Bring it on!!!!!! These voices will keep shouting for the truth.

Edited October 7, 2014 by intune53

[englishoak]

The Independent newspaper is leading their story with:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-murders-amnesty-demands-inquiry-into-allegations-of-torture-of-suspects-9780876.html

"Amnesty International is urging the Thai junta to conduct an independent investigation into allegations that two Burmese workers who “confessed” to the murders of two British backpackers did so under duress and torture."

"Richard Bennett, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Programme Director, said: “The Thai authorities must initiate an independent, effective and transparent investigation into mounting allegations of torture and other ill-treatment by police."

Bring it on!!!!!! These voices will keep shouting for the truth.

Amnesty International article.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/thailand-must-investigate-police-torture-allegations-and-not-violate-rights-tourist-murder-prob

[MAJIC]

Well okay then. Should be no problem passing the evidence to the UK coroner for pier review.

I dont Think the UK police or government has requested the files and I doubt they will. The ambassador here in thailand is confident the police is doing there work properly

There should be an inquest in the UK.

English victims of crime,would it not be expected to have a English Inquest????

Edited October 7, 2014 by MAJIC