The Abby Choi Trial Has Moved Past the Forensics. Now the Fight Is Over Who Did What.

On Day 31 of the Abby Choi trial, the prosecution called Dr Kwok Ka-kei, a senior doctor in forensic pathology. After her testimony, the prosecution had called all its witnesses. The three defendants, former husband Alex Kwong Kong-chit, former father-in-law Kwong Kau and former brother-in-law Anthony Kwong Kong-kit, all denied murder. All three have admitted preventing the lawful burial of a body. The case has entered the defence case.

Dr Kwok’s testimony separated injuries inflicted before death from post-mortem handling.

Dr Kwok concluded that Choi had seven antemortem injuries to the head. She estimated that Choi had been struck on the head about seven times. On the right side of the skull, a blunt-force impact caused a depressed fracture that formed a hole and damaged skin, bone and brain. Facial fractures caused internal bleeding. Blood flowing into the nose and mouth could cause death by asphyxiation from her own blood in about five minutes. Even without asphyxiation, severe head trauma of that kind would be fatal within an hour. This fixes the cause of death on violence to the head, not on the handling of the body.

Post-mortem findings point to a different set of acts. Choi’s legs were cut with a sharp instrument after death. Most of the skin and muscle on the left leg had been removed. The legs were kept frozen in a refrigerator. The head in the large soup pot in the kitchen had flesh that separated easily from bone, which indicates the flesh had been cooked. There was red blood on the head. In the residue of the small soup pot, police found nine rib fragments and fragments of the right shoulder joint and scapula. They believe these were cut with a sharp instrument. In a grey plastic box in the shower area, police found human tissue, a beef knife, a kitchen knife, a circular saw and other tools soaked in water.

In court, these details help the jury assign acts to people. Who touched which object? Who was present where? Who knew about which step? Fingerprints, palm prints and the distribution of exhibits answer those questions.

Earlier testimony by identification officers and fingerprint experts showed that fingerprints matching Anthony Kwong were found on the refrigerator, adhesive tape, plastic bags, the blue-and-white striped canvas in the large bedroom, and the English instruction manual and maintenance booklet for the electric saw. Fingerprints or palm prints matching Kwong Kau were found on newspapers, cardboard near the living-room window and the Chinese instruction manual for the saw. Alex Kwong’s fingerprint was on a telecommunications service contract. The defence did not dispute these fingerprints.

The fingerprints are not disputed. Their interpretation is. The prosecution must prove more than contact with an object. It must prove that the contact was part of a common criminal plan. That is the evidential line between murder and preventing lawful burial. The burial charge does not require proof of who struck the fatal blow. Murder does.

The defendants’ pleas therefore became the focus. Anthony Kwong and Alex Kwong admitted preventing lawful burial before trial. Kwong Kau did not admit at first. He changed his plea to guilty during the trial. All three deny murder. On handling the body, criminal liability is no longer in dispute. On murder, each gives a different account.

The sharper conflict came in the defence case. Testifying in his own defence, Anthony Kwong identified his younger brother Alex as the person who killed Choi. He said he only drove the car and did not know about the attack. He described Alex having an emotional breakdown in the car. The jury will weigh that testimony against the fingerprint distribution, the scene examination, communications records and other witnesses. One defendant’s attempt to shift responsibility is not proof of fact. The court will test it in cross-examination.

The jury also changed size. One juror withdrew on health grounds, and the judge granted the application. Eight jurors remain. The trial is expected to last 45 days. For jurors, that means weeks of evidence, forensic photographs and contradictory testimony from defendants. The court must keep the trial fair while carrying that load.

The legal framework remains the same. Murder requires the prosecution to prove an unlawful killing, the required intent and the absence of a valid defence. Preventing lawful burial concerns improper handling of a corpse. The three defendants admit the second charge. They do not admit the first. Murder requires a higher standard of proof of intent and conduct. The jury must judge the facts and evidence under the judge’s directions. Before a verdict, the word “killer” is a prosecution allegation, not a fact established by the court.

The case also raises a question for writers and readers. Media reports use words such as “dismemberment”, “cooking” and “electric saw” far more often than those words add information. In the forensic testimony, “the flesh separated easily from the bone, indicating it had been cooked” matters because it separates antemortem injury from post-mortem handling. In circulation, the phrase can become sensory shock. Fingerprint evidence faces the same compression. Public discussion turns it into “a fingerprint means murderer”. The trial asks whether the contact was part of a common plan.

The trial continues. The forensic testimony has separated the cause of death from the handling of the body in court. The three defendants admit handling the body and deny murder. The focus now is the fatal act and the proof of common criminal intent. The jury has not reached a verdict. Until it does, the court record, not the headline, is the only reliable account.