No.
Date
I could not believe that the court would admit the statement as evidence. When they did I began to realise why all the people. I. had spoken to had said that no-one can
wis. a doug
a.
case in Thailand
a
19 don't know, and have never known these two men, infact, the only "evidence""
linking me
me to them is that one of them said that a certain. "Ah ming" gave him instructions. I wish to point out that
christian name...
which in
Hong Kong is as common as Eng hand.
These two men also allegedly identified from photo. This photo was not provided to the thai court.
As I have all the time in the world at the moment, I
"Ah ming is John is in
one
have
in
me
interested ghy gone over these statments and feel you might be
Thoroughly
A
in some of have
why. is it that months after being arrested did these men.. suddenly decide to make new statments. Bas there any incentive offered to them by the police ? Is it a coincidence that these.. statements appeared at the same time
B
as
as M
a
my
trial started?
It appears that these two witnesses were being led on, as, although they say this is meant to be a unsolicitated statement. they continually refer to questions asked, but which are not included in the statement. Also, that the narcotics liason officer at the Dutch Embassy refers to this. interrogation.
Regarding the photo. Firsty no photo was provided with the statements to prove that they are actually identifying even if the photo was of me, how do I know that the witnesses are not being influenced by promises of their sentence in
C
me
and
8mm
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.