Right now, Thomas Markle Sr. could be guilty of some of the most disgusting acts imaginable, and because of Meghan Markle, Thomas Markle Jr and The Sun’s actions, he could potentially end up walking free…. even if he is guilty. The chain of custody of the alleged evidence matters! If the integrity of that evidence has been compromised, it could have serious consequences for any potential prosecution. Thomas Markle Jr. discovered the alleged material among his father’s belongings. He later enlisted a private IT technician to examine three computer hard drives before the devices were formally examined by Philippine authorities. Meanwhile, The Sun published an extensive exclusive about the material and Meghan Markle’s story made a statement implicating her dad. Who had access to these computers? Were files copied, moved or altered? Were proper forensic safeguards followed? Did anyone associated with The Sun handle the original devices or receive copies of the files? If Meghan's silence in 2019 was motivated by a desire not to jeopardize an investigation, what changed? And if she believed the authorities were investigating these serious allegations for seven years, did she ever follow up to establish whether that investigation actually existed? And before anyone dismisses the importance of chain of custody, consider these actual court decisions: 1. Matter of M.S. (New York, February 2026) New York’s highest court rejected the admission of videos allegedly depicting child sexual abuse because they had not been sufficiently authenticated. The videos had been recovered from a third party who claimed to have hacked into security cameras. The court reversed the resulting Family Court orders. 2. United States v. Zhyltsou (2014) A federal appeals court overturned a criminal conviction after prosecutors failed to sufficiently authenticate digital evidence linking an online account to the defendant. 3. RCBC Bankard Services v. Oracion (Philippines, 2019) The Philippine Supreme Court ruled that electronic documents lacking the required authentication were inadmissible. These cases involved different circumstances and legal systems, but they demonstrate something important: Evidence must meet legal standards of authenticity and reliability, regardless of how disturbing the allegations are. The question isn’t simply what was allegedly found. It’s whether investigators can prove where it came from, who controlled it, and whether it remained intact. That is why chain of custody matters. Justice for victims must never come at the expense of due process. Both matter.