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

[glenmohr]

It is a bit of a red herring mentioning DNA.

There was no DNA.

A senior policemen told me as much, he told me it was all used up soon after it left the headman;s fridge

[Gang Warily]

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.

U need to go further into that link to read the true accrediation under 'scope' which was as BLQS stated

I did, months ago; you on the other hand didn't before publishing your utterly... how should I put it?... unreliable articles. You are wrong in pretty much everything you inflict unto the public, and I don't think you care.

Now, after using Ian Yarwood and Suzanne Buchanan as sources and publishing an article basically stating the same things as the one in the OP (minus grossly defamatory allegations against Andy Hall) you appear to want to distance yourself from them, the proverbial **** hit the fan and you don't want to be seen on the wrong side because you know they'll rip you apart the instant you stop being useful for their agenda.

The director of the lab has stated this as a fact - see attachment which you did not seem to find. As the interpretation of these forms seems to be the subject of some speculation one has to take his emphatic written statement to that affect as the real situation. From there click on scope of testing. Irrespective, accredited or not, it is the claim that the lab did not work with the ISO specs that is the main issue. The sources were not Ian Yarwood or Buchanan. Their report came a day after mine with the andy hall gunge added in. Go Compare. http://webdb.dmsc.moph.go.th/ifc_qa/dbqa/default.asp?iID=FDDJLL

[JLCrab]

I would have other descriptive words but I try to obey the Forum Rules.

[boomerangutang]

I don't know what's worse about witch hunts, how completely beyond the realm of justice they are or the self-righteous zeal of those who perform them.

Investigating the crime adeptly or looking in to the real possibility of illegal money transfers-for-favors would be called a 'witch hunt' by insiders who don't want any thorough investigation. Yet, for the general public (who pay the salaries/tools of inspectors) not investigating would be called 'not doing one's job' or worse.

The ONLY inspectors involved in this crime are RTP. RTP are paid by taxpayers to, among other things, protect the public - Thais and non-Thais. If RTP don't do their jobs then they are essentially endangering the public. For example: enabling the original prime suspects to run free, without ever questioning them again, is enabling probably dangerous men to mingle carefree with the public. Where are Hannah's clothes? Did they ever get checked for residue? (.....by a lab not affiliated with RTP, one hopes)

RM video points to at least one as being a perp. His uncle plainly lied by saying he himself was RM. The uncle also broke the law by withholding crime evidence (CCTV) from inspectors. There are a bunch of other illegal/underhanded things, but it's hard to know details because RTP continue to not do their jobs.

All crime investigations could be called 'witch hunts' by those who want to stymie investigations. Obviously, they're hiding things.

[JLCrab]

stander, on 30 Jun 2016 - 16:03, said:

^

'Another related aspect. True story:'

^

Can you share any links you may have to this true story?

Sherry Ann Duncan case apparently. Google it since we are not allowed to link to the Bangkok Post here.

That one's interesting but doesn't seem to be the one with the real perp heading to Miami.

[Bkk Brian]

Some new information from Ian Yarwood. This should clear up some of the significant matters on accreditation. Ian is talking to APALC the main accreditation body for Thai labs based in Australia. Sent to them yesterday.

[metisdead]

Off-topic, threatening, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

[TheLobster]

Apparently my previous post was deleted after a certain member suggested that most posters on the forum couldn't spell DNA.

I would like to confirm as a consistent poster for the B2 that I believe that the evidence against them is flawed and that I can spell DNA or Deoxyribonucleicacid without using Google.

I first carried out DNA sequencing in 1987 and have a related degree so would consider myself qualified to post on this subject ?

So to conclude there is no credible DNA evidence whatsoever .........

[B166ER]

....unaccredited postings from a lab here where one tickles the plastic keys lavishly. The continuous obfuscation of the truth attenuate real justice. That kid (yew know whew) has a myriad of suboptimal repugnant pronouncements of his lascivious behavior posted for all to read if so inclined. I'm as one would expect, not astonish by this certitude. I'm "gut instinct" wise he's not the actual maleficent prognosticator of the B'2's quandary. This whole debauched affliction has been one ongoing snap ones fingers to the left while you look to the right....the truth is out there....it's only a matter of how to extrapolate the real story of "what went down '....

[StealthEnergiser]

The police lab is accredited.

PolCert.jpg

How did you obtain this ?

can you provide a link for verification ?

[DiscoDan]

Desperate times next they will be saying APLAC and BQLS have been paid of by the Mafia with their bottomless pit of cash.

[StealthEnergiser]

Desperate times next they will be saying APLAC and BQLS have been paid of by the Mafia with their bottomless pit of cash.

Who is they ?

[Bkk Brian]

Desperate times next they will be saying APLAC and BQLS have been paid of by the Mafia with their bottomless pit of cash.

Weird statement considering it was the Director of BQLS that has provided the latest information and thrown into doubt the accreditation. Here's what he said on the 27th June 2016:

"The Laboratory of Toxicology Sub Divison and Biochemistry Sub Division Institute of Forensic Medicine gets accreditation on the scope DNA testing on Jan 29, 2015 or 4 months after the occurrence Koh Tao Case."

Further

The accusation not show accreditation symbol on the report is irrelevant to the requirement, since during that time the laboratory is not accredited for DNA testing"

This was in response to an Ian Yarwood initial complaint of which can be found on his twitter feed.

Until this is cleared up by somebody in authority such as APLAC then I suggest that nobody can say with 100% certainty on whether the lab was accredited or not.

Also its status either way does not diminish the failings outlined in the second complaint.

[boomerangutang]

Thai officialdom, using bureaucracy, can smother anything they want nixed. Similarly, they can use bureaucracy to justify anything they want to justify.

Bureaucracy feeds on itself. Same for officialdom, same for those with accreditation degrees hanging in their offices. For example: I have had conversations with Thai attorneys. One will state unequivocally that A + B = M. The next attorney will be just as sure that A + B = F, and so on. If a uncertified (un-accredited) farang like myself pipes up in such discussions, and suggests that A + B = C, then I'm snickered at as having no knowledge of the topic. Later, if it's then proven that A + B does in fact = C, then it's old hat, and the attorneys can readily justify why they wrong at earlier times. ("I didn't say that" "I thought you said....") ha ha ha.

re; the Ko Tao case: Officialdom, including judges, will only see what they want to see. If a finding (like accreditation of a lab) doesn't dovetail with officialdom's game plan (nailing the scapegoats), then they can readily disregard it in a Bkk minute. Perhaps the accreditation avenue will yield positive results, but I'm rather cynical.

Yet there can be other avenues to proving the scapegoats are indeed scapegoats. One that I've been harping about (on this thread) is; the strong possibility of a money trail. How hard would it be to subpoena data from bank(s) showing account activity from several key players in this case? If there were no resistance, that should take no longer than 3 days, with near zero costs. If all parties were cooperative, it could take a half day. If nothing awry shows up, then there's no smoking gun and it's done. If some questionable transfers show up, then further probes would be in order.

[stander]

I've just gotten off the phone with Dr Triyarith, who runs that lab as shown in the attachments He's very interested in what is being said about this. I'm going to send him the link and perhaps he'll join the conversation and we can put the misinformation to bed re the DNA evidence in this case.

Maybe you can help Juno2016 with this.

I think Moonsterk is on hoilday

[Srikcir]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

[denkiblue555]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

[DiscoDan]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

[Bkk Brian]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

* 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)

Yes absolutely amazing

[denkiblue555]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

A million people contaminating a crime scene would make a very large difference, just as the way DNA is acquired, transported, secured, and made available for further testing makes a difference. But I am sure you already know that.

[Rayk]

I'm pretty sure Suthon Vongsheree stopped reading the letter of complaint after the first lines because he doesn't really give a shit.

[DiscoDan]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

* 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)

Yes absolutely amazing

the defense sent a letter to prosecutors for evidence relating to the above, the prosecution did not reply, the next course of action should have been to request a court order by the judge for the prosecution to hand over the evidence the defense failed to do this.

[DiscoDan]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

A million people contaminating a crime scene would make a very large difference, just as the way DNA is acquired, transported, secured, and made available for further testing makes a difference. But I am sure you already know that.

The Dna that had them convicted was found inside the victims no body was walking inside the victim

[denkiblue555]

see above.....

A million people could of walked over the crime scene it would make no difference as the DNA they were convicted with was found inside the victim and not on the beach.

A million people contaminating a crime scene would make a very large difference, just as the way DNA is acquired, transported, secured, and made available for further testing makes a difference. But I am sure you already know that.

The Dna that had them convicted was found inside the victims no body was walking inside the victim

Re-read what I wrote.

[denkiblue555]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

* 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)

Yes absolutely amazing

the defense sent a letter to prosecutors for evidence relating to the above, the prosecution did not reply, the next course of action should have been to request a court order by the judge for the prosecution to hand over the evidence the defense failed to do this.

Doesn't change the fact that all those procedures were not followed - now why would that be?

[Bkk Brian]

Isn't the controversary of accreditation of the labs that allegedly found a DNA match between the accused and the crime scene really a minor issue?

The handling and lack of chain of custody of the DNA samples was widely criticized, the missing wine bottle and cigarette butts as well as the female victims clothes, all said to have carried vital DNA evidence, were missing entirely from the trial. DNA from the accused was never found on the murder weapon.

All the prosecution offered on DNA was their forensic report that claimed there was a match between the DNA swabs obtained from the accused and the crime scene before the suspects were arrested on unrelated charges before being questioned about the murders. The defense could not independently confirm such a match as there was no chain of custody of DNA that would tie it to the crime scene. If the police lab did two tests from the same DNA swab from the accused, of course there would be a match.

All of this as well as the contamination of the alleged crime scene and much more - yet the whole case against the defendants was built on DNA sample 'links', resulting in 2 young men being sentenced to death.

Absolutely amazing really.

* 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)

Yes absolutely amazing

the defense sent a letter to prosecutors for evidence relating to the above, the prosecution did not reply, the next course of action should have been to request a court order by the judge for the prosecution to hand over the evidence the defense failed to do this.

The above was prepared by experts after the trial to form an official complaint and no doubt to be used in the Appeal, it is of little relevance that a court order was not sought for something they did not have all the facts to at the time.

Whats more relevant is that your implying that its ok to convict based on those failings which the prosecution did not even bother replying to.

An appeal is regarded on points of law and facts that were in the trial, if those complaints are upheld then the Appeal judges when making their decisions will need to consider very carefully if they still consider the police lab of being up to international standards and whether they still believe the DNA evidence to be sound.

I wouldn't!

[DiscoDan]

The prosecution has to convince the judge they are guilty the defense have to prove they are innocent if judges accept a 1 page report in Thailand then thats all the prosecution needs,

Robert Holmes the "ex barrister" who was at the trial when dna evidence was given said it was the defenses job to seek a court order and that is what a defense team would have done in any other case, but they failed to do it like they failed to call Jane Taupin to the stand.

And according to one of the defense lawyers this letter was given to Ian Yarwood the property lawyer for reference and was not to be acted on, as another lawyer was dealing with it seems Ians ego is more important than the B2s freedom as it know seems he has put a spanner in the works and upset the defense teams plans.

If you read after pretty much every bullet point it says not provided so if it was not provided how do you know the lab did not follow procedures?

[denkiblue555]

The prosecution has to convince the judge they are guilty the defense have to prove they are innocent if judges accept a 1 page report in Thailand then thats all the prosecution needs,

Robert Holmes the "ex barrister" who was at the trial when dna evidence was given said it was the defenses job to seek a court order and that is what a defense team would have done in any other case, but they failed to do it like they failed to call Jane Taupin to the stand.

And according to one of the defense lawyers this letter was given to Ian Yarwood the property lawyer for reference and was not to be acted on, as another lawyer was dealing with it seems Ians ego is more important than the B2s freedom as it know seems he has put a spanner in the works and upset the defense teams plans.

If you read after pretty much every bullet point it says not provided so if it was not provided how do you know the lab did not follow procedures?

Because, if the procedures were followed then it would have been provided.

Especially important in this case due to this DNA (connection) being so crucially relied on in the face on an overwhelming lack of evidence connecting the 2 accused to the brutal murders.

[Bkk Brian]

The prosecution has to convince the judge they are guilty the defense have to prove they are innocent if judges accept a 1 page report in Thailand then thats all the prosecution needs,

Robert Holmes the "ex barrister" who was at the trial when dna evidence was given said it was the defenses job to seek a court order and that is what a defense team would have done in any other case, but they failed to do it like they failed to call Jane Taupin to the stand.

And according to one of the defense lawyers this letter was given to Ian Yarwood the property lawyer for reference and was not to be acted on, as another lawyer was dealing with it seems Ians ego is more important than the B2s freedom as it know seems he has put a spanner in the works and upset the defense teams plans.

**If you read after pretty much every bullet point it says not provided so if it was not provided how do you know the lab did not follow procedures?

** Bold: Exactly hence the significance of the lab needing to prove they did and supply the necessary documents, do you think they will ever be produced?

Your other points on what Robert said are taken from facebook posts and completely out of context and irrelevant especially considering you are referring to Robert Holmes who was one of the authors of the complaint that we are discussing, you really cant have it both ways.

[DiscoDan]

The prosecution has to convince the judge they are guilty the defense have to prove they are innocent if judges accept a 1 page report in Thailand then thats all the prosecution needs,

Robert Holmes the "ex barrister" who was at the trial when dna evidence was given said it was the defenses job to seek a court order and that is what a defense team would have done in any other case, but they failed to do it like they failed to call Jane Taupin to the stand.

And according to one of the defense lawyers this letter was given to Ian Yarwood the property lawyer for reference and was not to be acted on, as another lawyer was dealing with it seems Ians ego is more important than the B2s freedom as it know seems he has put a spanner in the works and upset the defense teams plans.

**If you read after pretty much every bullet point it says not provided so if it was not provided how do you know the lab did not follow procedures?

** Bold: Exactly hence the significance of the lab needing to prove they did and supply the necessary documents, do you think they will ever be produced?

Your other points on what Robert said are taken from facebook posts and completely out of context and irrelevant especially considering you are referring to Robert Holmes who was one of the authors of the complaint that we are discussing, you really cant have it both ways.

Do you have a link to proof Robert authored this letter that was copied ?