rockingrobin Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant! My sincere apologeze! Not! Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments. I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedy Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Off Topic post Removed - 28 May 2012 is way way off topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonsterk Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant! My sincere apologeze! Not! Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments. I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact That police had made a statement CCTV "footage from the pier was not relevant," is misleading- as it's meant to be. They did indeed look at footage and discovered nothing from it- that's why it was not relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaPiPuPePo Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 This business with the phone is very muddled. I read the whole buzz feed article and it's not a nail in the coffin, the timeline is not clear, it could have been planted, there's confusion as to the phones, custody of them isn't clear, and no doubt more than that. DiscoDan is wielding this like the hammer of Thor but it's far from conclusive. That it was enough to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean that was anything close to an int'l standard. The vagaries of the investigation and the Thai justice system have been well establish. So DD's several (dozen?) claims based on this are far from convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoDan Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 This is an iphone 4s connected to the investigation. It's not broken. Who's is it? It'certainly not Hannah's: Her phone was pink.Hannah-With-Ware-mob2.jpeg If the scenario you are alluding to is correct it would mean that Chris Ware would be fully aware that the phone police found was not Davids also UKCA would have known this as you claim they confirmed phone belonged to David before the phone that was destroyed was found and WPs arrest. Shall I put them on the they must of been paid off list ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM07 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant! My sincere apologeze! Not! Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments. I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact That police had made a statement CCTV "footage from the pier was not relevant," is misleading- as it's meant to be. They did indeed look at footage and discovered nothing from it- that's why it was not relevant. That is what the RTP says! How about letting some independent agency or...let's say...the defense- team...verify this claim! Just saying "We looked at it and there is nothing to see!" doesn't cut it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant! My sincere apologeze! Not! Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments. I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact That police had made a statement CCTV "footage from the pier was not relevant," is misleading- as it's meant to be. They did indeed look at footage and discovered nothing from it- that's why it was not relevant. What is not indispute is that a senior police officer said the cctv was not examined Another officer said it was examined Now this clealy as been discussed earlier in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun Han Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 This is an iphone 4s connected to the investigation. It's not broken. Who's is it? It'certainly not Hannah's: Her phone was pink.Hannah-With-Ware-mob2.jpegIf the scenario you are alluding to is correct it would mean that Chris Ware would be fully aware that the phone police found was not Davids also UKCA would have known this as you claim they confirmed phone belonged to David before the phone that was destroyed was found and WPs arrest. Shall I put them on the they must of been paid off list ? No, you can put them on the other side of the world and trying their best to stay out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Are they also on the "hours" of reviewed CCTV-footage of the pier, where boats may have left in the early hours of....oh...right...the RTP decided, that footage wasn't relevant! My sincere apologeze! Not! Another mistruth spoken as fact... oh so many.... regurgitations of crappy reporting into " facts" quoted on fb and then re quoted and posted here as arguments. I am not sure what you are trying to say, can you be a bit more specific which mistruth spoken as fact That police had made a statement CCTV "footage from the pier was not relevant," is misleading- as it's meant to be. They did indeed look at footage and discovered nothing from it- that's why it was not relevant. "We have the footage, but we never checked it," Police Colonel Cherdpong said http://news.sky.com/story/1523975/police-never-checked-cctv-after-britons-killed Police Colonel Ruangtong told the court police had indeed checked the CCTV images from the cameras at the port but they had not shown anything http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/koh_tao_murder_trial_defendents_did_not_have_representation_during_interrogations_court_hears_1_4211590 To me the two statements are mutual exclusive, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 This is an iphone 4s connected to the investigation. It's not broken. Who's is it? It'certainly not Hannah's: Her phone was pink.Hannah-With-Ware-mob2.jpeg If the scenario you are alluding to is correct it would mean that Chris Ware would be fully aware that the phone police found was not Davids also UKCA would have known this as you claim they confirmed phone belonged to David before the phone that was destroyed was found and WPs arrest. Shall I put them on the they must of been paid off list ? Sorry I dont follow your reasoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted May 23, 2016 Author Share Posted May 23, 2016 Please continue here: Lawyers appeal against death sentences over murder of British tourists in ThailandBY PANARAT THEPGUMPANAT AND PAIRAT TEMPHAIROJANABANGKOK: -- Lawyers filed an appeal on Monday against the conviction of two Myanmar migrant workers sentenced to death in Thailand for the 2014 murder of two British backpackers on a holiday island, another twist in a case mired in controversy and dispute. Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/919462-lawyers-appeal-against-death-sentences-over-murder-of-british-tourists-in-thailand/ //CLOSED// /Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts