跑馬地紙盒藏屍案, 好想知真相（2）

想問下巴打，當年一直話佢上訴到去倫敦樞密院
但我搵過PCA送返high court嘅judgment list
係冇呢單case
https://www.judiciary.hk/jud/library/en/pca_judgments_list.pdf
我相信個list由開埠mark到回歸前，應該係最齊
如果我冇理解錯，即係佢當年1976 dismissed之後
冇辦法令到樞密院受理佢單案？
因為我係一篇訪問11哥嘅訪問見到
11哥好似話佢俾唔起訴仲費？
咁其實單case係直頭冇樞密院呢回事？
https://www.hkfbs.org.hk/static/publications/aj2013.pdf
27頁
Interview with The Hon Ronny Tong Ka Wah,
S.C. Member, Legislative Council, HKSAR

It has been said that you decided not accept any criminal cases
after the case of Au-Yeung Ping-Keung v The Queen. Why
would you have such a decision?
The case was seemingly a case of injustice. The appeal of the
case was dismissed and legal aid in Hong Kong at thta time
did not cover the expenses to appeal to Privy Council in UK. I
remembered vividly that Mr. Au-Yueng was crying, telling me he
was innocent when I went to visit him in the cellar of the court.
At that moment, I truly believed it was unnecessary for him to lie
when all appeal avenues had been exhausted. His words made me
feel very uncomfortable with the injustice in the legal system. I
had been asking myself if it was my fault that led to such injustice
as criminal offence was not my specialty.

唔係串你
呢個世界真係有好多“怪人”
有人可能有HSAM(超憶症)
可以記住自己成世人遇到的事
包括幾廿年前的某一日食過d咩見過咩人
有人可能有視盲 即係又睇到野 又睇唔到野
又可能好似隔離post有位巴打幻想唔到影象
重點係好多時佢地都唔會知自己同其他人唔同(可能我都有d野唔同但我自己都唔知)

睇晒本書內容

如果入面既料係正確

只可以話死者既死同間雪糕店一定有關

疑點多到爆, 如果疑點利益歸於被告根本唔應該入到罪

淨係雪糕店工場門要密碼先開到,而歐陽係唔知密碼已經好疑點......(但睇其他報導就話係鎖匙而歐陽係有)

所以咁多年咁多報導但都有出入, 想知真相睇怕要直接翻查法庭記錄先可信

巴打喺邊度返工？

我有提出過初期都會搵附近店舖做初步搜證先
但反而走遠路查電器行
或者係警方辦案出問題

不過條更新人士 比佢草到個支那婆已經執到啦

因為死者身上發現到銅碎紙碎？

大鐵閘1條
大鐵閘上的小門1條
大鐵閘後的木門1條
工場我鐵門用密碼

仲好似有後門
唔知係入雪糕店定工場的後門

我覺得係因為電視機紙箱
當年冇咩人買得起，所以集中係電器行刮料

我都搵唔到, 好可能係PC認為冇ground直接唔受理
除非有errors in law / in facts / in judgement / 有新證據, 否則法庭係非常唔願意受理經過Jury定罪既appeal, 尤其呢單野已經定罪左兩次
其實第二次appeal, 個ground已經完全唔夠strong

做in-house, 已經唔識打官司

55，基本上都係鎖定雪糕鋪嘅人
的確有機會唔係佢做
但佢庭上又唔否認得佢一個在場

如果套入依家咁重視程序
真係9成9打得甩

都話條友PR好撚勁㗎啦
由40幾年前到依家都仲喺度搵人宣傳自己冇做

就算佢有冇做都好，D手段真係勁呢

唔講咁多了，條傻鳩又要屈我打飛機

警探於案發時抵達現場
在該飲品店內找到一疊報紙
剛巧是失去一張八月十三日的一頁
由此可證明蓋在屍體上的一張報紙可能是該疊報紙上失去的一頁

12月定1月份先查證關係梗係大啦
如果案發當日即查
雪糕店證人好可能記得自己係咪最後走
看更(其實有冇出現過？)的證供亦都會較可信 假如法官否定口供的原因唔係作供時間相距太遠

就算佢有冇做，條友咁有吉士就02年出冊就直接開記招話自己被屈啦，人都出咗嚟都仲要縮龜

去到14年先出嚟攞尾彩話自己比人屈，又唔知點解咁多殘體content farm撐佢冇做

條尾彩狗同米水狗真係冇撚分別，唔怪得係都要沖出嚟屈鳩人

我反而有另外一個睇法
呢單case令人希虛之處在於, 當時所謂第一單科學鑑証無令到歐陽係完全冇疑點下定罪, 亦冇另佢脫罪
如果換著今日既科技, 唔考慮法律上爭議點, 基本上歐陽有做過, 99.99%入罪, 如果佢冇做過, 99.99%脫罪, 有幾可有冤案
咁當然, 以當時既證據水平, 套用今日既標準, 好大機會打得甩, 唔係因為程序, 而係咁既單單靠咁既材料, 你仲夠膽話beyond reasonable doubt?唔好話打, 連告都浪費時間

佢咁夠膽講明話自己冇罪, 已經違反左假釋條件, 要即使返入去坐

後段 i mean搵到份報紙嘅時間唔重要

因為一早搵到張報紙，班差佬都唔針住間嘢嚟查，真係傻鳩到呢

即刻