Jump to content

Attorney General’s team promises no release of ‘Joe Ferrari’, six other former cops yet


webfact

Recommended Posts

Did he not say "He was just doing his Job" - i.e. Extorting monies of people (regardless if they were a criminal element or not - no matter)  Thereby enriching himself, his team and no doubt seniors - Only in Thailand can a simple lowly paid official amass such a wealth (have a nickname like his) and no one asks any questions .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That's a statement that was not made by the police in the article, whoever decided on the headline made up that little word "yet". 

 

Nowhere in the body of the OP, or the body of the link, was the word "yet" used by the authorities in the context that the OP's headline suggests.

I do believe you will find the headline by association, does in fact become part of the report

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Geoffggi said:
20 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That's a statement that was not made by the police in the article, whoever decided on the headline made up that little word "yet". 

 

Nowhere in the body of the OP, or the body of the link, was the word "yet" used by the authorities in the context that the OP's headline suggests.

Expand  

I do believe you will find the headline by association, does in fact become part of the report

I do believe you will find that the headline, being written by the article's publisher, does not, in fact, become part of the reported police officer's words unless the police are specifically quoted as having said those words.  They weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2021 at 4:46 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

No, they're not, there all in custody, they're not running free!

 

The prosecutors office is not one person so making a decision to indict in 14 days is not unreasonable and that's all they have to decide, whether there's enough evidence to justify proceeding to court with the case. 

 

They are not ruling on the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Yes, I can see it now, "video evidence is tainted and may have been unlawfully acquired" there being no admissions and no other evidence we have to dismiss the case, sorry about that. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...