FirstAlerts

Two Men Sentenced Over Windsor Watch Robbery

Massinissa Tellia received seven years and nine months and Ayman Zanati 12 months over the theft of a Patek Phillipe watch taken from a man's wrist in Windsor.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 14, 2026, 6:36 a.m. ET
Developing

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

More on this incident

Two men have been at Reading Crown Court over the robbery of a watch in Windsor. According to the Slough Observer, Massinissa Tellia, 31, of Church Street, Chalvey, was to seven years and nine months in prison, and Ayman Zanati was to 12 months imprisonment. The case concerned two counts of robbery. Police say the pair took a Patek Phillipe watch from a man's wrist as he walked through Windsor with his family on July 6, 2025, the Slough Observer reported. Tellia was also tried for a second count of robbery, which was investigated by the Metropolitan Police. An investigating officer said Tellia had targeted victims in two separate robberies, using force and intimidation to steal high-value property, according to the same report. The investigating agencies were Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police. The fact record available does not set out how each defendant answered the charges, and no further stage of the proceedings is recorded.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 315 Aug 2026, 12:39current

    Added the Chester Standard's reporting on Bradley Thompson's 14-year drugs sentence, the Merseyside Police investigation and the additional drug and criminal-property charges.

  2. Version 215 Aug 2026, 05:59

    Replaced the internal-process phrase "The fact set does not establish any connection between the two proceedings" with reader-facing attribution to the published reports ("Neither report links the Windsor case to the Arizona case"), and rephrased the maximum-sentence note to attribute it to the reports rather than the source compilation. All figures, names, dates, charges and duelling sentence and conduct accounts remain as given, each attributed to the outlet that reported it.

  3. Version 114 Aug 2026, 10:33current

    First published.

  4. Version 114 Aug 2026, 10:23current

    First published.

  5. Version 114 Aug 2026, 10:36current

    First published.

  6. Version 114 Aug 2026, 10:26

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.