Bangkok: Ms. Sasikan Wattanachan, former deputy government spokesperson, has raised concerns regarding the standards of forensic evidence in Thailand. She expressed her worries on her personal Facebook page, highlighting that the analysis of some high-profile cases appears to benefit certain groups rather than adhering to international scientific standards. This concern follows an analysis by Professor Hermann Stephan, a renowned expert in accident simulation, who identified significant weaknesses in Thailand’s fact-finding process, potentially impacting public confidence.

According to Thai News Agency, Professor Stephan’s analysis underscores that while international standards prioritize transparency, re-examination, and expert independence, the Thai system is more reliant on individual opinions than on a structured process. This reliance has resulted in highly variable outcomes in some cases, deemed unacceptable in more developed countries.

One striking example cited is an accident case from over a decade ago, where a reported speed of 177 kilometers per hour became the ‘evidence’ leading to heavy societal judgment against the defendant. Upon re-evaluation, Stephan, using virtual speed testing software and a real crash test, found the figure to be significantly inaccurate. Errors stemmed from the use of non-original clips, incorrect reference points, and excessive time calculations, which inflated the result far beyond the actual speed.

Ms. Wattanachan pointed out that the inaccuracies were not due to individual errors but rather a systemic issue that allows high-profile cases to be manipulated for personal gain. This is facilitated by a lack of transparency in evidence interpretation and the creation of figures that are not verified by international standards. She emphasized that such practices are eroding public confidence in the system. The core issue, she noted, is a ‘systemic problem’ that permits scientific evidence to be distorted, leading to societal misjudgments before the truth is fully established.

The former spokesperson stressed that the concern extends beyond inaccurate figures. The real danger lies in a system where one person’s opinion can transform into a national fact without a robust, scientifically validated mechanism. This systemic flaw, she suggests, is what truly undermines public trust in the judicial process.