Koh Tao murder, DNA and saving face – Forensic examinations UK Ltd

[webfact]

Koh Tao murder, DNA and saving face – Forensic examinations UK Ltd

 

 

Forensic examinations UK have been closely following the Koh Tao murders and recently published this article airing their concerns about the DNA evidence:

 

Forensic examinations UK Ltd have been following this case with interest, particularly the concerns with DNA evidence.

 

We have to bear in mind that our forensic services in the UK are second to none and other countries practices and procedures can be slightly different however, two lives have been lost in harrowing circumstances and there are another two at stake, Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo.

 

The question many are asking is, can the DNA evidence support the case? My answer would be absolutely not. The way the DNA evidence was collected and subsequent chain of custody contradicts all the principles of forensic science and does not adhere to any codes of practice.

 

The prosecution have based their assertions on flawed evidence from beginning to end. The crime scene was not secured properly, a lack of chain of custody for documentation and samples, Inconsistency of documentation, handwritten notes which had been scribbled out, no probability statistics from the samples, no documents to support substance/biological nature of the DNA, key samples were used up and not made available for the defence. I am not going to list everything here but you get the general idea!

 

The point is, how can the court accept it as evidence in it’s current form? There are international standards of codes of practice that should be followed.

 

The defence can use this information to lodge an appeal and there is allegedly other evidence which support the fact that Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were at the scene on the night however, If the DNA evidence is so flawed how will we know if other evidence isn’t also flawed?

 

Pornthip Rojanasunand (testified for the defence) Thailand’s well known forensic expert has herself admitted that the crime scene has been poorly managed and the collection of evidence contradicts the principles of forensic science so, why again is it still being accepted?

 

Jane Taupin, an internationally recognised forensic expert who has received several forensic science awards travelled to Thailand expecting to testify but, was never called to give evidence. Jane was working on a Pro Bono basis therefore, cost or integrity would not be the issue here.

 

The Judge’s have been quick to accept the prosecution’s evidence even though there are other things to take into consideration ie; They themselves do not know if they are ISO17025 accredited (the general accreditations to carry out this type of work).

 

They have stated the DNA confirms the suspects are Asian when it is impossible to do that. There are many false statements, errors and lack of judgement in this case.

 

Thailand’s military ruler Prayuth Chan-ocha will not accept criticism of the case which is understandable if you learn about the culture and values of Thailand. It has a history of saving face and this is something that is both traditional and cultural. It is bad manners to criticise and point out people’s errors.

Should this apply to a murder? Is it about “saving face”? The early errors could have stemmed from the fact that with public, political and media pressure to solve the case and bring the people responsible for the murders to justice, error’s of judgement have been made and now it could be about “saving face”.

 

Let’s hope I am wrong.

 

Original article: Forensic Examinations UK

 

Source: http://www.samuitimes.com/koh-tao-murder-dna-and-saving-face-forensic-examinations-uk-ltd/

 

-- © Copyright Samui Times 2016-10-05

[z42]

Immoral, disgraceful, call it whatever you want. The investigation and subsequent were pretty much a blueprint for how not to investigate and try a murder case.

Bottom line is the evidence is absolute toilet and the 2 burmese lads should never have been locked up even for a day

[Jiu-Jitsu]

I'm sure that they mean well, but.... 

 

FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS UK LTD

Company number 10298912

 

Incorporated on

27 July 2016

[impulse]

Cue up the defamation charges...

[yellowboat]

Its a sham and a shame. 

[Khun Han]

The boss of this company is Amanda Foster, a lawyer who specialises in forensic evidence:

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/371027/Amateurs-British-lawyer-slams-Spanish-police-over-probe-into-teen-Tom-Ousby-s-death

 

She previously worked for a company called Hobs Legal Docs (a part of a fairly large, long-established company called Hobs), which provides forensic legal services (among other things). The company is now called Anexys:

 

http://anexsys.com/

 

I found all this out in five minutes of Googling ( I didn't, unlike one poster, stop at the Companies House listing).

Edited October 5, 2016 by Khun Han

[ChrisY1]

I doubt the truth will ever be revealed.....the case was about protection from the 1st week, after the investigating police commander was suddenly transfered

[maoro2013]

How about saving the B2.

 

Forget saving face.

[pumpuy]

I listen that many Thais who live in Ko Tao know who is behind all this .

But they do not want to talk about it ...?!!

Poor Burmese ..

Edited October 5, 2016 by pumpuy

[Mister Fixit]

2 hours ago, Jiu-Jitsu said:

I'm sure that they mean well, but.... 

 

FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS UK LTD

Company number 10298912

 

Incorporated on

27 July 2016

 

The standard of English in which the article is written also leaves a lot to be desired.  Doesn't say a lot for the author when it comes to credibility.

 

I'm not saying that I don't agree with the basics of the article, or that the Koh Tao Two weren't stitched up, but I'd want to read a far more rigorously written and argued article than this, which seems to be basically a regurgitation of what has already been said many times before.   

[AleG]

3 hours ago, Jiu-Jitsu said:

I'm sure that they mean well, but.... 

 

FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS UK LTD

Company number 10298912

 

Incorporated on

27 July 2016

 

The "article" its a subtle offering of services, little more than ambulance chasing really.
 

1 hour ago, Mister Fixit said:

 

The standard of English in which the article is written also leaves a lot to be desired.  Doesn't say a lot for the author when it comes to credibility.

 

I'm not saying that I don't agree with the basics of the article, or that the Koh Tao Two weren't stitched up, but I'd want to read a far more rigorously written and argued article than this, which seems to be basically a regurgitation of what has already been said many times before.   

How about the standards of expertise?

 

"They have stated the DNA confirms the suspects are Asian when it is impossible to do that"

 

Impossible to know if the people came from Asia from their DNA?, then I suppose things like the National Geographic Genographic project that uses DNA analysis to determine not just the regional origin of people living today, but also trace the movement of their ancestors over thousands of years is just a scam...
 

This is just the latest installment of the story of people wanting to capitalize from the murders thanks to a largely manufactured controversy.

[smedly]

nothing new here, I (and others) have been saying this for a considerable time about this case

 

We will of course have certain people who still just don't get it - it is beyond my comprehension why because it is all rather simple - is it stupidity ? or do they have other motives, I honestly have no idea   

[smedly]

 

until they produce the original dna they claim to have tested it is all worthless and useless - it is as simple as that 

Edited October 5, 2016 by smedly

[AleG]

43 minutes ago, smedly said:

 

until they produce the original dna they claim to have tested it is all worthless and useless - it is as simple as that 

 

Yes, as simple as that, but you don't want to know why the defense declined to do it (and contemplate the clear implications of why that happened)
Then you'll say that it's because there was no original DNA to be tested and then I'll ask you to substantiate that claim and then you'll just repeat that there's no original DNA to be tested and so on and so forth.

[Jai Dee]

One flame post and a reply post have been removed from this thread.

 

From the Forum Rules:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[sandrabbit]

The problem with this case is that most of us want the guilt to be proven beyond any doubt as is the norm in most countries we come from and this doesn't appear to have occurred so the result of the court case is continued to be questioned.

[smedly]

42 minutes ago, AleG said:

 

Yes, as simple as that, but you don't want to know why the defense declined to do it (and contemplate the clear implications of why that happened)
Then you'll say that it's because there was no original DNA to be tested and then I'll ask you to substantiate that claim and then you'll just repeat that there's no original DNA to be tested and so on and so forth.

they were unable or unwilling to produce original samples of dna

[stander]

2 hours ago, AleG said:

 

The "article" its a subtle offering of services, little more than ambulance chasing really.
 

How about the standards of expertise?

 

"They have stated the DNA confirms the suspects are Asian when it is impossible to do that"

 

Impossible to know if the people came from Asia from their DNA?, then I suppose things like the National Geographic Genographic project that uses DNA analysis to determine not just the regional origin of people living today, but also trace the movement of their ancestors over thousands of years is just a scam...
 

This is just the latest installment of the story of people wanting to capitalize from the murders thanks to a largely manufactured controversy.

"This is just the latest installment of the story of people wanting to capitalize from the murders thanks to a largely manufactured controversy."

 

It’s just a tedious regurgitation with a unvaried style.

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

so, why again is it still being accepted?

Expediency.

[smedly]

pursuant to international standards, laboratories are required to retain original mixed samples in order that they may retest the sample themselves and in order that any future defence team has an opportunity to retest an original mixed sample. The prosecution and police merely had “amplified” or "already extracted" DNA evidence available but without the original samples one could never be sure of the source.

[hugh2121]

4 hours ago, Mister Fixit said:

 

The standard of English in which the article is written also leaves a lot to be desired.  Doesn't say a lot for the author when it comes to credibility.

 

I'm not saying that I don't agree with the basics of the article, or that the Koh Tao Two weren't stitched up, but I'd want to read a far more rigorously written and argued article than this, which seems to be basically a regurgitation of what has already been said many times before.   

Standard of English is fine.

[maoro2013]

2 hours ago, AleG said:

 

Yes, as simple as that, but you don't want to know why the defense declined to do it (and contemplate the clear implications of why that happened)
Then you'll say that it's because there was no original DNA to be tested and then I'll ask you to substantiate that claim and then you'll just repeat that there's no original DNA to be tested and so on and so forth.

I understood the defence did ask for a sample of the DNA but we're told it was all used up.

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, Mister Fixit said:

 

The standard of English in which the article is written also leaves a lot to be desired.  Doesn't say a lot for the author when it comes to credibility.

 

I'm not saying that I don't agree with the basics of the article, or that the Koh Tao Two weren't stitched up, but I'd want to read a far more rigorously written and argued article than this, which seems to be basically a regurgitation of what has already been said many times before.   

 

We're drifting offtopic, but it's a sad fact of life that spelling standards have fallen dramatically in recent years in all levels of society. Even among journalists, as evidenced by some of the online stuff they put out.

[AleG]

6 minutes ago, maoro2013 said:

I understood the defence did ask for a sample of the DNA but we're told it was all used up.

No, the whole confusion comes from when the defense asked a witness during the trial about the DNA evidence, they were asking the head of the Phang Nga police if he had the samples available and he said no because they had been sent to Bangkok for testing, the part in bold is what gets omitted for the convenience of perpetuating the myth that there is no DNA evidence available.
The fact is it was the defense that declined to have that evidence reexamined when they got the court order to allow them to do so; this whole notion that there's no DNA, or that is only "replicated" DNA is just the Chinese Whisper machine at work.
The fact that the defense didn't include the supposed unavailability of DNA for retesting in their appeal points is all that is needed to show it's all bunk; if it would be true that they were refused to have access to original evidence they would be shouting it from the rooftops, instead of just relying in online rumor mongering to float the idea around.

[AleG]

1 hour ago, stander said:

"This is just the latest installment of the story of people wanting to capitalize from the murders thanks to a largely manufactured controversy."

 

It’s just a tedious regurgitation with a unvaried style.

 

At this stage the story is the story.
Step 1 create controversy, Step 2 benefit from the controversy.
Then the little spinoffs like generating more controversy by looking into the controversy of people benefiting from the controversy or "reporting" on the reaction of people to the controversy.... and so on and so forth.

[Khun Han]

15 minutes ago, AleG said:

No, the whole confusion comes from when the defense asked a witness during the trial about the DNA evidence, they were asking the head of the Phang Nga police if he had the samples available and he said no because they had been sent to Bangkok for testing, the part in bold is what gets omitted for the convenience of perpetuating the myth that there is no DNA evidence available.
The fact is it was the defense that declined to have that evidence reexamined when they got the court order to allow them to do so; this whole notion that there's no DNA, or that is only "replicated" DNA is just the Chinese Whisper machine at work.
The fact that the defense didn't include the supposed unavailability of DNA for retesting in their appeal points is all that is needed to show it's all bunk; if it would be true that they were refused to have access to original evidence they would be shouting it from the rooftops, instead of just relying in online rumor mongering to float the idea around.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thailand-backpackers-murders-defence-lawyers-given-access-evidence-dna-tests-1512330

[AleG]

16 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thailand-backpackers-murders-defence-lawyers-given-access-evidence-dna-tests-1512330

 

The article is quoting what the defense lawyer said the witness said, the same lawyer is also quoted as saying this:
"Nakhon had earlier told reporters that the defence team had received information from British authorities that could prove the innocence of their clients."
Which turned out to be bunk.

[anon4637435435]

Thailand has no respect for life and especially a farang. Apart from the wife as im one of the lucky ones but Its always only for the money that this saving face takes place in my opinion. I wish someone could prove me wrong.

I genuinely thinknthese guys have been taken advantage of. Doesnt take a genius. And admitting mistakes when they occur if in fact they did its also a big thunbs up in my book. 

There is something very wrong here...

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, AleG said:

 

The article is quoting what the defense lawyer said the witness said, the same lawyer is also quoted as saying this:
"Nakhon had earlier told reporters that the defence team had received information from British authorities that could prove the innocence of their clients."
Which turned out to be bunk.

 

No, it turned out to be true. But the judges refused to accept it because it's author (Norfolk Coroner Jacqueline Lake) didn't present it in person and submit herself to cross examination in court!

 

Anyway, from the article I linked:

 

"Police forensic expert Kewalee Chanpan told the court on Samui island that all genetic material tested in a a lab was replicated and saved but that it had deteriorated over time, according to Reuters."

[AleG]

11 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, it turned out to be true. But the judges refused to accept it because it's author (Norfolk Coroner Jacqueline Lake) didn't present it in person and submit herself to cross examination in court!

 

Anyway, from the article I linked:

 

"Police forensic expert Kewalee Chanpan told the court on Samui island that all genetic material tested in a a lab was replicated and saved but that it had deteriorated over time, according to Reuters."

OK, reading comprehension time.
You want to take that statement to mean that no DNA evidence was made available for retesting.

 

The statement is that "all genetic material tested in a a lab was replicated and saved but that it had deteriorated over time", nowhere in that statement it indicates that the original samples are gone or unavailable, only that they are replicated and kept ("replicated and saved") but over time they degrade. It doesn't say that the original material is all gone, that the amount of deterioration would make it untestable, that if there are only replicated samples they'd lack the documentation that would demonstrate provenance or that any of it was refused to the defense for retesting.

The only time I saw a reason given by the defense for not pushing through with an independent reexamination was that they could not control the process, I guess they have a different definition of independent than the rest of the world.
And every single time I have asked some of the people that vehemently believe the DNA evidence is gone, used up or denied to provide any real substantiation for that claim  there is no answer, which goes to show that in that case, and others, the belief has no grounds other than people repeating turning excuses into speculation and then (as always) promoting that into the realm of "fact"