Koh Tao DNA evidence used to condemn Burmese to death tested by an unaccredited lab

[webfact]

DNA evidence used to condemn Burmese to death tested by an unaccredited lab



SAMUI: -- On December 24th 2015 the chief judge presiding over the Koh Tao murder trial handed Zaw Lin, 22 and Wai Phyo, 22 the death penalty. His decision, that the pair were guilty of murdering Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, and raping Hannah Witheridge, was based solely on DNA evidence he said.

It has now emerged according to a Thai accreditation body that the police laboratory used to conduct the DNA analysis was not internationally accredited to carry out the tests.

This shocking fact came to light after Australian Lawyer Ian Yarwood wrote to Suthon Vongsheree, the Director of the Bureau of Laboratory Quality Standards with a letter of complaint questioning the qualifications of the Laboratory of the Toxicology Sub-Division of the Institute of Forensic Medicine Police General Hospital.

In his response to the letter Suthon told Yarwood that the Police General Hospital in Bangkok did not receive accreditation until January 2015, four months after the vital DNA testing on the Koh Tao murders took place.

Not only does this make the DNA evidence highly questionable but begs the question as to why Scotland Yard were supportive of the Thai police investigation – with only the assurance of Scotland Yard to go on the families of the victims were also supportive of the investigation, although since then the father of one of the victims has changed his mind.

The supporters of the two Burmese boys, who have proclaimed their innocence since retracting confession they say was beaten out of them, have become increasingly frustrated by the defence team’s reluctance to make the complaint.


Ian Yarwood

After months of waiting for a letter to be sent, one supporter finally demanded to know why nothing was being done and was told it was a question of money as one of the leading members of the defence team felt he was unable to continue to work on a pro bono basis.

Three weeks ago $5000 AUS was sent on the understanding the letter, that had been drafted by an Australian Barrister some months ago, would be sent as a matter of priority, however, no letter was sent.

Fearing that no letter would ever be sent Ian Yarwood took it upon himself to get the ball rolling, much to the relief of a group of the boys supporters one of whom lost all faith in the defence team even prior to the verdict as well as Andy Hall of the MWRN who led the defence team in the trial run on funds donated from the public and came out in public support of the two men by demanding a fair trial.

“Most people who have followed this case believe that Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo are victims and have been used as scapegoats to cover up what really happened on the night of the horrific crimes, but few know our concerns over the defence team and the so called support from Andy Hall and his team” said one supporter who asked not to be named.

“We have been concerned about the legal case for a long time, and with all of the evidence that is now in the public domain I think it is fair to say that people around the world are questioning how it was even possible for this case to be lost by the defence.

We have two men on death row for committing crimes for which there was no motive, no witnesses, no CCTV footage, none of their DNA on the murder weapon and now we find the lab that provided the DNA evidence was not accredited with international standards, how is this even possible in a capital murder case?” she went on “this whole situation has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, we have Andy Hall who has raised over 2


Andy Hall

million baht for case costs but hardly any of those funds have been accounted for, he chose and led the defence team who are now widely believed to have done a terrible job and other than visiting the Burmese men once last July, once on the day before the verdict was read and only twice this year after being badgered my members of our team, once has to ask how much as a Human Rights activist he can be after only seeing the now convicted men four times in one year after his team let them down so badly.

We are now starting to question what we are really faced with here, is this a cover up by the real perpetrators of the crime who are rumoured to have paid off everybody or the total incompetence of the defence team?”

One thing we do know for sure is that Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo sit on death row, the worst possible outcome for once two optimistic men who were convinced the team representing them would prove their innocence. Far from that the team have bungled the entire defence, did not call a DNA expert who flew in from Australia to testify and now seemingly have completely omitted to call into question the qualifications of the DNA lab from where the death blow to the boys emerged.

Andy Hall, while perhaps not being solely responsible for the outcome, did choose the legal team put in place to defend the boys, so he must take some responsibility for their diabolical performance but then as the some of the very same lawyers are representing him in his Natural Fruit case he must have put himself in a rather precarious position when attempting to lead the team, but having said that, then we are looking at a vast conflict of interest which means he should never have appointed that team in the first place or at least not have been in charge of the case.

In my opinion there can only be a few reasons why the defence team performed this badly, they are either utterly, even unfathomably incompetent, are scared of the so called ‘men of influence’ on the islands, have been corrupted or simply do not wish to see the two men free or political, diplomatic or loss of face issues. The whole thing has become a total joke that would actually be funny if two Burmese men’s lives along with those of their families had not been decimated by this case. What it is doing to the families of the victims is beyond my comprehension”. She said.

It remains to be seen if the defence team will ever file the promised letter of complaint and of course if the outcome of the appeal that was only filed after the defence team asked for four one month extensions will do anything to help the hapless men in jail.

The first appeal will be read by region 8, the same three judges who were happy to hand down the death penalty on a capital murder charged based on DNA evidence provided by a laboratory that did not, it now seems, have the required international accreditation.

Beyond that of course there is the chance of a second appeal if the first one fails, this time at the Supreme Court, something to hold on to for the men but is possibly 5 to 8 years away.

The member of one support group who spoke to us said “words simply fail me at this point, I just hope there is somebody out there who can find a way to clear this mess up for the sake of the two convicted men, the distraught families and friends of the victims and the sanity of those who continue to support the boys, but at this point have no idea what to even say to them, it’s a situation that could not be made up even in the minds of those with the wildest of imaginations, the whole thing is utterly unbelievable.”

Source: http://www.samuitimes.com/dna-evidence-used-to-condemn-burmese-to-death-tested-by-an-unaccredited-lab/

-- Samui Times 2016-06-29

[Thian]

It went to a lab in Singapore afaik.

I stop following this nonsense, can't believe a word of it.

[NongKhaiKid]

A ' shocking fact ', No, not in the least.

Even if this story is wrong the Thai authorities have made every challenge seem credible because of their hamfisted approach from Day 1.

[canuckamuck]

The very definition of the term travesty of justice.

I have to admit, that I was extremely dubious about the defence team, particularly the Thai Lawyers. Considering that to win this case they would have to cause very high level people to eat their words. And other very powerful people to be exposed. Which would be career suicide and perhaps worse.

[StealthEnergiser]

It went to a lab in Singapore afaik.

I stop following this nonsense, can't believe a word of it.

"According to the newly published report the appeal questions why the police claimed that DNA samples from the crime scene were sent to Singapore where it was determined the suspects were Asian but later stated this had been revealed in a Thai lab and the samples had in fact never been sent to Singapore."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/921678-koh-tao-murders-appeal-reveals-shocking-new-evidence-suggesting-unfair-trial-and-wrongful-conviction/?p=10808025

[StealthEnergiser]

Australian lawyer gives new hope to Burmese men convicted of the Koh Tao murders

An Australian Lawyer has shed a glimmer of hope into the otherwise dismal lives of the two Burmese men awaiting execution on death row in Thailand’s notorious prison, Bangkwang, AKA the Bangkok Hilton.

Zaw Lin, 22 and Wai Phyo, 22, were handed down the death penalty on Christmas Eve 2015 for the murders of Hannah Witheridge and David Miller in September 2014, crimes the two men say they did not commit. The two men have many supporters around the world who continue to campaign to prove their innocence and regularly post on social media, however one man, Ian Yarwood has taken one step further by penning and open complaint letter to Khun Suthon Vongsheree the Director of The Bureau of Laboratory Quality Standards, Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health Thailand.

The letter, which follows. highlights the issues surrounding the DNA testing that the chief judge in the case said he solely based his guilty verdict on and asks for an investigation into the handling of the DNA that was the centre of the verdict and sentence.

This complaint is a very serious matter as it not only affects the defendants in this case but also casts real doubt upon the operations of the Accredited Laboratory and its ability to conduct DNA analysis and interpret DNA profiles in criminal trials in Thailand.

it reads as follows

Dear Khun Suthon Vongsheree

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF KOH SAMUI PROVINCE v ZAW LIN & WAI PHYO – BLACK NUMBER CASE 2040 /2557

INTERNATIONAL LABORATORY ACCREDITATION COOPERATION (“ILAC”) – ISO 17025

ACCREDITED LABORATORY THE SUBJECT OF THIS COMPLAINT:

SUB-DIVISION OF BIOCHEMISTRY INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE POLICE GENERAL HOSPITAL (“Accredited Laboratory”)

I refer to my initial facsimile letter and email dated 13 January 2016 and our subsequent exchange of emails on various dates in May 2016.

I confirm that I understand that the Bureau of Laboratory Quality Standards (“BLQS”) granted accreditation to the Accredited Laboratory.

I note that BLQS is a signatory to Mutual Recognition Arrangements (“MRAs”) with both ILAC and Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Inc (“APLAC”), which MRAs provide inter alia that BLQS is to have a complaints procedure.

I confirm that it took 132 days for you to reply to my initial email and that you did so only after Mr Michael Fraser, APLAC Secretary wrote to you twice at my request. In the circumstances, I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this current email to

Mr Fraser. I also request that you provide me with an acknowledgment at your earliest convenience confirming receipt of this email. I understand that it might take some time to conduct an investigation but, with respect, an acknowledgment of receipt should not take 132 days.

I note that the reason you provided for your delayed response was that I wrote to the BLQS general email address rather than to your direct email address. With respect, I do not find this reason very satisfactory but I will send this email to both the BLQS general email address and to your direct email address.

I note from one of your emails that you stated that you do not know who I am. I advise that I happen to be an Australian legal practitioner and an Australian citizen who was born in South East Asia and who has spent a considerable amount of time traveling in South East Asia in general and in Thailand in particular. I am not a Thai lawyer and I do not “act” for the two Burmese defendants, Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo in my position as a legal practitioner. The last sentence has a specific meaning for the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia. The defendants are not my clients but I used my letterhead in my first letter for your ease of reference.

I advise that I do have express oral authority from the defendants to write this notice of complaint, which authority I obtained via some of their prison visitors. Mr Fraser kindly advised me that oral authority is sufficient. As you can imagine it is impossible for the defendants to communicate with me via emails or facsimile machines. Mail to and from the prison is also censored. In the circumstances, I do not have authority evidenced in writing.

I advise that, to the best of my knowledge, some of the Thai lawyers who represented the defendants in their trial and in their appeal are in the process of preparing a separate letter of complaint. I do not know how long it will take the Thai lawyers to complete that task or whether they will ever complete the task so in the meantime it seemed appropriate for me to send this notice of complaint given that the defendants have been languishing in prison for more than 600 days now.

Please note that any complaint from the Thai lawyers is likely to be more comprehensive than this notice of complaint as I do not have and I am not permitted to have: copies of any documents filed as evidence in court; and a copy of the so-called “transcript” from the court. I expect that the Thai lawyers will be providing copies of these documents and transcripts to you. However, I trust you will agree that you should be able to conduct an investigation without this supporting material especially as you should be able to obtain copies of the Accredited Laboratory’s documents from the Accredited Laboratory itself.

It is worth noting that there is no verbatim transcript of the proceedings in Thai courts, unlike in most Western courts. It appeared that the secretaries of both ILAC and APLAC were unaware of this until I brought it to the attention of Mr Fraser in May 2016. The “transcripts” produced by Thai courts consist of what the relevant judge records as a mere paraphrase of the answers of witnesses and without the important context of the questions that the witnesses were answering. In the circumstances, one can easily appreciate that such a transcript has very limited use for your investigation or for any possible further investigation that APLAC might wish to conduct.

The most important document that the prosecution produced to the court was a “DNA table” which according to the prosecutor demonstrated matches between DNA found on the female victim and the DNA of the defendants. I do not have that table and I have not sighted the table. However, I advise that I did discuss the table with the Melbourne DNA expert Jane Taupin who was at court in September 2015 but who was never called to give evidence – a serious mistake by the defence lawyers. Jane Taupin told me that she was shown the table by the defence lawyers but that in her expert opinion she considered that the table was quite meaningless.

I have been advised by Jane Taupin and others that the documents produced by the Accredited Laboratory for this trial lacked any stamps from a relevant Accreditation Body (ie BLQS). I have been advised by the Secretary of ILAC, Ms Jennifer Evans that as such they are referred to as “Unendorsed Reports”, which might or might not have been produced under the auspices of the ISO 17025 accreditation.

NOW TAKE NOTICE THAT this notice together with my email/letter of 13 January 2016 serve as a formal complaint to BLQS regarding the procedures of the Accredited Laboratory.

The defendants in this case were found guilty of murder by the Koh Samui Court on the 24th December 2015 and sentenced to death. The basis of their conviction depended on key DNA evidence and the interpretation and conclusions resulting from analysis conducted by the Accredited Laboratory. The defendants complain the procedures carried out and the interpretations reached were completely flawed in that they did not comply with international standards for DNA analysis as prescribed pursuant to ISO 17025, BLQS Supplementary Guidelines and other standards prescribed for both analysis and conclusions such as SWGDAM Guidelines, ILAC Guide 19 and the International Society for Forensic Genetics.

PARTICULARS

* No original mixed semen samples were ever made available to the defence for independent examination. The police and prosecutor only ever made “amplified” DNA evidence available to the defence but without the original samples one could not be sure of the original source. Only 5 microlitres of the original mixed semen would have been necessary for the test so there was no valid reason that none was made available to the defence lawyers.

* No case file notes were provided (ISO 17025:2005 reference 4.13.2; ILAC Guide 19 section 3.5 Records; BLQS Supplementary Guidelines)

* No chain of custody of the forensic samples was ever proved by the prosecution, which meant the prospect of contamination, substitution, change of condition and misidentification could not be excluded.

* Records were not produced to allow another scientist to reach the same conclusion from the data (ISO 17025: 2005 reference 4.13.2; SWGDAM 2010; ILAC Guide 19 section 3.5)

* Standard operating procedures were not provided (SWGDAM 2010; ILAC Guide 19)

* Validated statistical methods were not provided (SWGDAM 2010; ISFG 2012)

* Statistical methods were not used at all; neither the likelihood ratio or RMNE or any other method (ISFG, 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)

* Statistical weight for inclusions not provided (SWGDAM 2010, section 4.1)

* Neither technical nor administrative reviews provided (SWGDAM 2010)

* Analytical thresholds for DNA profiles not provided (SWGDAM 2010)

* Types of DNA mixtures not described – resolvable (major and minor contributors) or unresolvable (ISFG 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)

* Assumptions of numbers of contributors not described (ISFG 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)

* Low level DNA not described (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)

* Assumption of ‘drop out’ not described (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)

* Description of artefacts not provided (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)

* No statistical databases provided (SWGDAM 2010 section 4.5)

* Saliva not identified from female deceased (ILAC Guide 19 Sections 4.8 and 4.9)

* Accreditation status of the Accredited Laboratory was not documented or noted on provided documents (ILAC Guide 19 Section 4.9)

* The Accredited Laboratory in its evidence and lack of supporting documentation, has incorrectly interpreted the comparison of reference samples with medical samples. It did not conduct any statistical analysis in reaching its conclusions and thus breached all accepted International DNA testing protocols.

Furthermore, the Unendorsed Report provided to the court by the Accredited Laboratory consisted of a one page table replete with date changes, alterations, crossings out and devoid of any accreditation stamps, clearly in contravention of the standards provided in ISO 17025.

Further, the Accredited Laboratory conducted a comparison of reference samples to medical samples from the female deceased, and reached a conclusion of a match despite there being no data regarding the match nor provision of an explanation as to what criteria it relied upon to reach such a conclusion. The interpretation of DNA profiles is based on an assumption of the number of contributors (which is never assured) and the statistical probability of the frequency of each allele and its permutations and combinations. Also if low level, there should be estimates of ‘drop out’ probability. This is a far more complex issue than simply ‘matching’ alleles in reference samples and crime scene samples which appears to be what has happened in this matter, contrary to all International DNA testing protocols.

As an example of the incorrect interpretation of the DNA profiles, from the DNA table produced for the analysis of the medical samples, where there are 2 contributors to the ‘anal’ swab, at vWA there is an ’18’ allele, which neither defendant could have contributed. So either one or both of the defendants would be excluded according to any international guidelines. There is a possible ’18’ at vWA for the vaginal sample, but it is not designated – for whatever reason. This may/may not have been considered to be an artefact, however without case notes it cannot be determined

Moreover, the Scientific Crime Detection Division Royal Thai Police laboratory (a second police laboratory) conducted the analysis of the reference samples from the defendants as well as that of 3 cigarette butts alleged to connect the defendants to the female deceased. This laboratory is not accredited by BLQS yet the Accredited Laboratory used data from the latter to compare with the medical samples from the female deceased.

Finally, it should be noted that the entire analysis of the medical samples from the female deceased was completed in less than 12 hours. Such a time frame is unrealistic if the relevant ISO 17025 and ILAC standards have been complied with.

This complaint is a very serious matter as it not only affects the defendants in this case but also casts real doubt upon the operations of the Accredited Laboratory and its ability to conduct DNA analysis and interpret DNA profiles in criminal trials in Thailand.

Further, could you please advise whether or not the Accredited Laboratory conducted its testing in this matter under the auspices of its accreditation by BLQS given that the DNA table produced by the Accredited Laboratory was an Unendorsed Report. Could you also please advise whether you think it appropriate for the Accredited Laboratory to produce Unendorsed Reports as evidence in trials of murder and rape.

To that end, the defendants in this matter require you to investigate the facts in this case and to report your findings.



Yours faithfully

Ian Yarwood LLB, B Com

Admitted to the Supreme Court of Western Australia

& the High Court of Australia

I advise that I intend to forward copies of the court judgment in this case in Thai script and an English translation to your office and to the APLAC Secretary in the near future as supplementary material in support of this complaint.

Source: http://www.samuitime...oh-tao-murders/

-- Samui Times 2016-06-25

[Happy Grumpy]

There is no hope.

It could have been tested by the Burmese Roti seller/translator and would still have been deemed admissible.

The 'evidence' matters not a jot in this case.

Welcome to Thailand and Thais.

[Briggsy]

The defence has to play by the rules here.

The prosecution including the police can do anything they want, rules be damned.

The judges refer and defer to higher powers to receive the verdict they are supposed to come to.

Best chances of a modicum of justice are pressure from Burmese government, constant international embarrassment and negative press for Thailand in the media and most importantly a power shift in national politics away from the Surat Dems under Suthep Theuaksubahn.

Don't hold your breath.

[SOTIRIOS]

....always the case....

...truth is their enemy.....

...we really seem to be in some type of 'moral warp' here......

...greed....lies....evil....rule........

....and if you are good.....or truthful....you are bad..........

[yellowboat]

This is such a miscarriage of justice. There are more holes in this case (prosecution side) than in my sock drawer.

[maoro2013]

Convicted without a shred of evidence is what happened.

[ThaiTony2]

This is the first time and I must admit I'm surprised that they are bashing Andy Hall. Every step that I had followed I thought he was the only one that stood up for these 2 young men. To me that equated to doing a good job but apparently not everyone feels the same toward Andy. I hope he doesn't get discouraged by this latest bashing but instead takes note and comes back even more equipped and effective.

[AleG]

It went to a lab in Singapore afaik.

I stop following this nonsense, can't believe a word of it.

I agree, you shouldn't believe a word of that "article".

The 29 June 2015 accreditation date is the one for the latest anual renewal of the accreditation, if you go to this link you will see that the lab (#215 in the list) first accreditation dates to 2013.

All the controversy surrounding this case is a house of cards built on unwarranted assumptions, baseless speculation and outright lies (as the one I just pointed at), now this edifice is crumbling and this "activists" can't throw each other under the bus fast enough.

[Norvid]

This is the case where all right and all wrong is mixed and twisted, unfinished, forgotten, and lies flying around like odour from week old dead body.

Wrong police investigation, wrong people released from custody, wrong evidence, wrong scapegoats, wrong DNA testing, wrong testimonies, wrong defence team, wrong perpetrators, wrong British "investigation", wrong assumption of guilt, wrong verdict and wrong country to seek justice.

[Briggsy]

This is the first time and I must admit I'm surprised that they are bashing Andy Hall. Every step that I had followed I thought he was the only one that stood up for these 2 young men. To me that equated to doing a good job but apparently not everyone feels the same toward Andy. I hope he doesn't get discouraged by this latest bashing but instead takes note and comes back even more equipped and effective.

Bashing Andy Hall or disassociating the defence from the Thai defence team at the initial trial who appeared to baulk (under no doubt very severe informal pressure)? Remember Andy Hall is only assisting here, he is not a lawyer and cannot take part in defence proceedings.

[Srikcir]

It went to a lab in Singapore afaik.

I stop following this nonsense, can't believe a word of it.

I agree, you shouldn't believe a word of that "article".

The 29 June 2015 accreditation date is the one for the latest anual renewal of the accreditation, if you go to this link you will see that the lab (#215 in the list) first accreditation dates to 2013.

LabAccreditation.jpg

All the controversy surrounding this case is a house of cards built on unwarranted assumptions, baseless speculation and outright lies (as the one I just pointed at), now this edifice is crumbling and this "activists" can't throw each other under the bus fast enough.

Clearly not accredited for 2014.

How is that excused?

[spidermike007]

The B2 are innocent as the day is long. More than likely, they have never committed a crime in their entire lifetimes, and were just hard working, honest kids, who worked for the wrong, serial killing scumbag, and got framed, because his family is far, far above the law.

Of course, the police and every other institution connected with this case has bungled the entire process. That does not matter. A decision was made a long time ago, to implicate and prosecute these poor guys. Transparency, and proper protocols were not something we could have expected out of the incompetent people involved in the prosecution. It is apparent to the vast majority of the observers, that this is the case, and that they are innocent.

[AleG]

It went to a lab in Singapore afaik.

I stop following this nonsense, can't believe a word of it.

I agree, you shouldn't believe a word of that "article".

The 29 June 2015 accreditation date is the one for the latest anual renewal of the accreditation, if you go to this link you will see that the lab (#215 in the list) first accreditation dates to 2013.

LabAccreditation.jpg

All the controversy surrounding this case is a house of cards built on unwarranted assumptions, baseless speculation and outright lies (as the one I just pointed at), now this edifice is crumbling and this "activists" can't throw each other under the bus fast enough.

Clearly not accredited for 2014.

How is that excused?

Link to the accreditations list: http://webdb.dmsc.moph.go.th/ifc_qa/dbqa/default.asp?iID=LEFIF

First accreditation date 24/01/2013 expiry date 23/01/2015

What year lies between 2013 and 2015?

Link to latest accreditation date 29/01/2015, expiration date 28/01/2517.

[Oxx]

The 29 June 2015 accreditation date is the one for the latest anual renewal of the accreditation, if you go to this link you will see that the lab (#215 in the list) first accreditation dates to 2013.

LabAccreditation.jpg

Could you explain what this image is, please (preferably giving a link)?

Does it refer to international accreditation, or to local accreditation (e.g. Thailand's Bureau of Laboratory Quality Standards)?

The original article specifically says that the laboratory was "not internationally accredited". (Italics mine.)

[Sydebolle]

This case will haunt Thailand for a very, very long time and has literally killed tourism in the region. I am neither forensic specialist nor a DNA-expert but from what I read, heard and understood the only verdict of any decent court would have to include the possibility of a mistrial and this was never considered.

As nobody has an interest to execute the two Burmese boys to start with the objective must be a different one; could be serving as stand-ins for the real culprits? Almost two years have passed, millions of whatever currency have been burnt and nobody wants to call the kettle black!

[Jai Dee]

A post containing a link to Facebook has been removed from this thread.

When posting updates/comments please stay within the forum rules:

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person to suffer harm. It does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either in a drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand.

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.

These restrictions are put in place by the above publications, not Thaivisa.com

In rare cases, forum Administrators or the news team may use these sources under special permission.

Be advised content from CSI LA is not deemed as a credible news source. Posts containing content from CSI LA will be removed.

As Facebook is not an accredited source of information, the information posted on a Facebook page could be construed as defamatory. Thailand has tough Libel laws and to save members from any harm the posts will be removed. Please do not link to or post content from Facebook sites.

Should members continue to post content from CSI LA or Facebook, you will be suspended or banned from the Forum.

[Bkk Brian]

Have to admit things are certainly not clear on the accreditation. One the one hand you have a Thai Authority website displaying evidence of the lab in question being regulated and even Andy Hall apparently being satisfied that it was.

On the other hand you have Khun Suthon Vongsheree the Director of The Bureau of Laboratory Quality Standards, Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health Thailand giving out this message

"In his response to the letter Suthon told Yarwood that the Police General Hospital in Bangkok did not receive accreditation until January 2015, four months after the vital DNA testing on the Koh Tao murders took place."

One would assume if that was incorrect reporting then Suthon would have already set the wheels in motion for liable action. So either he is giving out false infomation or the website is displaying false information?

If it was not accredited and they went by their own Thai internal procedures we can see why in court the DNA report lacked an official stamp.

​Either way it does not diminish the serious and flawed failings as highlighted in the complaint:

* No original mixed semen samples were ever made available to the defence for independent examination. The police and prosecutor only ever made “amplified” DNA evidence available to the defence but without the original samples one could not be sure of the original source. Only 5 microlitres of the original mixed semen would have been necessary for the test so there was no valid reason that none was made available to the defence lawyers.

* No case file notes were provided (ISO 17025:2005 reference 4.13.2; ILAC Guide 19 section 3.5 Records; BLQS Supplementary Guidelines)
* No chain of custody of the forensic samples was ever proved by the prosecution, which meant the prospect of contamination, substitution, change of condition and misidentification could not be excluded.
* Records were not produced to allow another scientist to reach the same conclusion from the data (ISO 17025: 2005 reference 4.13.2; SWGDAM 2010; ILAC Guide 19 section 3.5)
* Standard operating procedures were not provided (SWGDAM 2010; ILAC Guide 19)
* Validated statistical methods were not provided (SWGDAM 2010; ISFG 2012)
* Statistical methods were not used at all; neither the likelihood ratio or RMNE or any other method (ISFG, 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)
* Statistical weight for inclusions not provided (SWGDAM 2010, section 4.1)
* Neither technical nor administrative reviews provided (SWGDAM 2010)
* Analytical thresholds for DNA profiles not provided (SWGDAM 2010)
* Types of DNA mixtures not described – resolvable (major and minor contributors) or unresolvable (ISFG 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)
* Assumptions of numbers of contributors not described (ISFG 2006; SWGDAM, 2010)
* Low level DNA not described (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)
* Assumption of ‘drop out’ not described (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)
* Description of artefacts not provided (ISFG, 2006 and 2012)
* No statistical databases provided (SWGDAM 2010 section 4.5)
* Saliva not identified from female deceased (ILAC Guide 19 Sections 4.8 and 4.9)
* Accreditation status of the Accredited Laboratory was not documented or noted on provided documents (ILAC Guide 19 Section 4.9)

Hardly a safe conviction based on the above!

[denkiblue555]

It went to a lab in Singapore afaik.

I stop following this nonsense, can't believe a word of it.

I agree, you shouldn't believe a word of that "article".

The 29 June 2015 accreditation date is the one for the latest anual renewal of the accreditation, if you go to this link you will see that the lab (#215 in the list) first accreditation dates to 2013.

LabAccreditation.jpg

All the controversy surrounding this case is a house of cards built on unwarranted assumptions, baseless speculation and outright lies (as the one I just pointed at), now this edifice is crumbling and this "activists" can't throw each other under the bus fast enough.

Clearly not accredited for 2014.

How is that excused?

Link to the accreditations list: http://webdb.dmsc.moph.go.th/ifc_qa/dbqa/default.asp?iID=LEFIF

First accreditation date 24/01/2013 expiry date 23/01/2015

What year lies between 2013 and 2015?

Link to latest accreditation date 29/01/2015, expiration date 28/01/2517.

I wouldn't expect a Thai list to include the fact it was unaccredited if that were the case. I am no expert, and neither are you Mr AleG, so perhaps we should take note of what 'DNA experts' say in this case.

It has been utter bulldust from the beginning, this case. Anyone who watched it from the start can see that. Forget about assumptions and speculation - just look at the simple facts regarding crime scene contamination, DNA samples being 'used up', chain of custody, lack of CCTV, inappropriate police procedure, and I am sure an increasing list of other standard procedures which were not followed.

Why anyone would not want a fair and just trial before 2 people receive the death penalty is beyond me.

I understand people not wanting to 'rock the boat', but seriously.......

[JLCrab]

I get a kick reading all this stuff on here from people who probably could barely spell DNA 2 years ago.

If there was DNA available, even if from a Thai lab whose accreditation was out of whack, to show that the 'real killers' did it, then there would persons on here and elsewhere who would probably say that the lack of accreditation should be taken into account by the Judges, but that such DNA should still be admissible in a Court of law.

[denkiblue555]

I get a kick reading all this stuff on here from people who probably could barely spell DNA 2 years ago.

If there was DNA available, even if from a Thai lab whose accreditation was out of whack, to show that the 'real killers' did it, then there would persons on here and elsewhere who would probably say that the lack of accreditation should be taken into account by the Judges, but that such DNA should still be admissible in a Court of law.

Nah, far too many implications if certain procedures had not been followed, in this or any other situation where complex international standards of operation are required. That is the whole point of ISOs.

As most people are not experts, adherence to standard procedures provides evidence that things were done properly in a 'legal manner'. Otherwise any thinking person would simply ask themselves "why were established procedural standards not met?".

[Dexlowe]

There are so many different accreditation agencies - all very confusing. And we're not told which international accreditation agency Mr Suthon was referring to. Trying to search the various agencies is an exercise in frustration and futility - some require membership, while in others it's a dead end. The link AleG gives above is for the Thai Ministry of Public Health, while Mr Suthon refers to international accreditation. From a strictly legal sense, is this notable? Is the Thai accreditation acceptable in a Thai court of law, as compared to international accreditation? Or more or less acceptable?

Regardless, the way the evidence was handled and the lies that have been told (e.g., sending the DNA samples to Singapore) are wholly and completely sufficient grounds to warrant a fresh trial.

As for Andy Hall - I guess he needs to answer his critics - he's caught between a rock and a hard place and it's of his own doing, so I for one would like to hear from him. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to him - just want the facts, nothing more, when any kind of a cloud is raised -- he still remains a hero in my eyes, but he can't let this criticism go unanswered.

[DLang]

- just want the facts, nothing more,

Wrong country, bud,

[JLCrab]

I get a kick reading all this stuff on here from people who probably could barely spell DNA 2 years ago.

If there was DNA available, even if from a Thai lab whose accreditation was out of whack, to show that the 'real killers' did it, then there would persons on here and elsewhere who would probably say that the lack of accreditation should be taken into account by the Judges, but that such DNA should still be admissible in a Court of law.

Nah, far too many implications if certain procedures had not been followed, in this or any other situation where complex international standards of operation are required. That is the whole point of ISOs.

As most people are not experts, adherence to standard procedures provides evidence that things were done properly in a 'legal manner'. Otherwise any thinking person would simply ask themselves "why were established procedural standards not met?".

And yet you have no problem giving your expert opinion as to what could be admitted in any Court or not.

[hlj]

if the brown envelope is thick enough the judges has all the evidence needed to sentence the 2 B men

[Bkk Brian]

For those who are accusing people of lying or the article being incorrect here is the document and source from Khun Suthon Vongsheree the Director of The Bureau of Laboratory Quality Standards, Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health Thailand where he states the lab was not accredited.

Normally one would think that he would give credible information??? (doc taken from Ian Yarwoods twitter feed)