The description of the article in the South China Morning Post that was issued on this blog earlier today was inaccurate. The passage should have read:
The SCMP also quoted a police source as saying that Vicky tried to catch an airport bus in Tung Chung, that she was seen in a Tung Chung bus an hour after she left home, and that her employer hired a car to search for her.
Please accept our apologies for the error. The original post has been corrected.
Addendum: As the article cites “sources”, then “the police” and finally “a statement” (the police statement), whether or not these sightings were the same is unclear. Vicky was also “seen in Tung Chung” – whether on or off a bus is uncertain, as is whether this sighting was a repetition of one of the two mentioned above.
Again we apologise for the error.
Further Addendum: According to the reporter, there was only one sighting and one bus, but more than one source reporting the sighting.
If the employer saw “VICKY” leaving their place, and as they know that this is a sensitive matter, why should they hire themself a private car, “WHY DID THEY NOT REPORT IMMEDIATELY TO THE AUTHIRITIES”? Why did they have to wait for more than 24 hours before reporting?
“VICKY” also mentioned earlier to a friend that it seems that the whole house was with a video cam, even her own room… does it mean that with the 12 years she is working with this employer, they still don’t trust’s in her?! I wish that the authorities had checked the videos taken?
I wish that all those people who could be a potential witness will be strong and have the courage to come out and tell what you really knew. We should not really leave this case abandoned without any result.
God Bless Us All!
[...] Her alleged boarding of a bus in Tung Chung (located nearby Discovery Bay) was suspicious as pointed out by the blog.I wish other communities in Hong Kong would be as responsive and proactive as this Discovery Bay [...]