DNA, fingerprints fail to confirm B30m lottery winner

DNA, fingerprints fail to confirm B30m lottery winner

Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) director Som Promrot, centre, hands an envelop containing the results of DNA and fingerprint testing on the five winning lottery tickets to a police officer during a media briefing to announce the outcome - but they failed to confirm the real owner. (Photo by Pattarapong Chatpattarasill)
Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) director Som Promrot, centre, hands an envelop containing the results of DNA and fingerprint testing on the five winning lottery tickets to a police officer during a media briefing to announce the outcome - but they failed to confirm the real owner. (Photo by Pattarapong Chatpattarasill)

Fingerprints found on five disputed winning lottery tickets worth 30 million baht match those of a retired policeman, but the much-awaited results of DNA tests fail to verify the real owner, as the samples were contaminated with genetic material from other people, forensic experts announced on Friday.

Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) director Som Promrot and his team on Friday afternoon announced the results of the DNA and fingerprint testing on the five contended lottery tickets, which won a first prize in the Nov 1 draw last year.

He said they found DNA from several people on the tickets, resulting in a “mixed DNA profile’’. There was  small amount of genetic material and it could not be used to verify the DNA of a specific person. They also found two trace fingerprints matching those of Pol Lt Jaroon Wimol, the CIFS director said.

Pol Lt Jaroon, 62, a retired police officer in Kanchanaburi, cashed in the five winning tickets in November at the Government Lottery Office, but Preecha Kraikhuan, 50, a teacher at Thepmongkhonrangsi School in Muang district claimed he owned the five-ticket set with the winning number 533726.

Mr Preecha claimed he had bought four sets of tickets, each of five tickets with the same number, from a woman vendor at a market on Oct 31.

Upon arriving home he discovered he had lost one of the five-ticket sets, with the number 533726.  He filed a police complaint.

On Dec 26, Kanchanaburi police investigators sent a letter asking the CIFS to take DNA samples and fingerprints from five people involved in the case.

The five were Pol Lt Jaroon, his wife Ms Lawan, Mr Preecha, and two women lottery vendors, Rattanaporn Supathip and Watcharida Promta.

It was hoped the tests would settle the dispute and clear up lingering public doubt about the real owner.

Five winning tickets. (Photo by Piyarach Chongcharoen)

Pol Maj Gen Kritsana Sapdet, deputy chief of Provincial Police 7 and head of the investigation team handling the lottery case, on Friday declined to comment on the results.

In a phone interview, he told the Bangkok Post he had not yet received official results of the DNA and fingerprint tests from the CIFS. He would comment later.

For the present, his team was awaiting the results of tests on another item of evidence that had been sent to another lab, the Office of Police Forensic Science under the Royal Thai Police Office. The results were expected sometime next week.

This last object was crucial evidence and part of the investigation that he could not reveal in advance, he said.

As the DNA of other people was also found on the lottery tickets, their legitimate ownership remained unclear.

The investigation team would meet again on Monday, Pol Maj Gen Kritsana said.

Pol Lt Jaroon's fingerprints were found on the tickets because he was the one who cashed them in, the police chief said. What investigators wanted to know was whether there were also fingerprints of other people on them, he said. 

Pol Lt Jaroon Wimol, a retired police officer in Kanchanaburi, and his lawyers, show winning tickets. (Photo by Piyarach Chongcharoen)

Preecha Kraikhuan, 50, a school teacher in Kanchanaburi, claims he bought the winning tickets, but lost them. (Photo by Piyarach Chongcharoen)

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (2)