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

Off Topic post Removed - 28 May 2012 is way way off topic

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.

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.

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 ?

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!

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.

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 ?

No, you can put them on the other side of the world and trying their best to stay out of this.

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,

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

Please continue here:

Lawyers appeal against death sentences over murder of British tourists in Thailand
BY PANARAT THEPGUMPANAT AND PAIRAT TEMPHAIROJANA

BANGKOK: -- 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