Chemical issues relating to Kim’s case.

In the previous update  we reported on the opinions expressed by the US ambassador on the Thai legal system. In this update we relate to some of the strange things we have come across in Kim’s case. This is the first in a series of such revelations.

The evidence presented by the prosecutor at the trial in June 2011 focused very much on the testimony provided by forensic chemist Ms Kanyanun Kongpasaniroj at the Office of the Narcotics Control Board .

It was stated that a “recipe” for making methamphetamine had been found on the premises. However, such a recipe was never listed among the items taken from Kim’s house in connection with Kim’s arrest. So the first question that arises is: Where did it come from?

If one follows the various stages of this recipe you should by rights end up with 120-150 grams. According to the prosecutor the “recipe” was the one used to produce the Ice. But if this recipe was used, why did it only produce 53 grams instead of 120-150 g?

During the weeks to come we will publish information provided by a highly skilled chemist with many years of experience in chemical processing who has recently joined out team. You will find some of his findings quite staggering.

We will return to our chemist’s review and critique of the testimony, but a question that is becoming more and more relevant is: Was there ever any methamphetamine produced in Kim’s house? Or did Thomas Lilius bring the 53 grams into the house and drop then into the mixture he had spent all day cooking?

At the trial the defense asked to examine the results of the TLC tests as well as for the results of Gas Chromatography

In connection with finalizing Kim’s appeal we requested a sample of the 53 grams that are claimed to have been found in Kim’s laboratory, in order to have the material tested in an independent laboratory so as to verify the results or refute them. It should also be noted that the lab at the Office of the Narcotics Control Board is not granted the standard of ISO. This implies there might be problems with their quality control. In response to our request defense attorney Mr Chakrit Paradeemireklap explains:

- The forensic department does not have such results or even if they have one, they will not release it to us. We fought with the forensic officer in the court requesting her to present all the lab documents to the court. The day after, the lady from forensic department presented a letter from her superior to the court that they cannot present such documents due to the confidentiality and national security. With respect to the samples of the substances, it states clearly in the report submitted to the court that all the test substances were used (exhausted). Thus, there is no chance for us to get them either.

The obvious question is: How can a judge ever find Kim guilty if the most important evidence is withheld from examination by the defence - AND that it evidently no longer exists. This information is of course a central issue in Kim’s appeal. And an imortant issue is: Who decided to discard the evidence?

A rather interesting parallell situation exists between Kim’s case and that of two Swedish journalists in Ethiopia. First of all the ambassador in Addis Abbeba attended the entire trial to show that Sweden takes fair trials seriously. At Kim’s trial a junior representative attended only part of the trial. When the Ethiopian prosecutor refused to release certain evidence Sweden’s PM Mr Reinfeldt  prostested publicly. When the prosecutor in Thailand refused to release information the Swedish state was not even aware of this breach of human rights.

It reminds one of George Orwell’s Animal Farm where it is stated that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".