Flashermac Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 You are presuming the court realises that. Obviously they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 You are presuming the court realises that. Obviously they don't. The court was presented evidence about IMEI number cloning but chose to dismiss that. They instead relied only on the service providers log that said that though Ampon's phone number was not used, the IMEI number of his phone sent the messages. This was the circumstantial evidence, along with the content of the messages and the fact it was sent from the area in which he lived (again from the log) they used to convict him. Certainly problematic and one would think reasonable doubt should have come into question. But as it would be impossible to track down if anyone other than Ampon sent the messages, they convicted him anyway. As another said, people that are dying tend to tell the truth and I believe he was setup. But by who? TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.