It doesn’t bother me at all. It’s a fact the TV was broken and we will likely never know how it happened. If I were to bet, it’s probably true that one of the boys threw something at it
I think it probably was broken by them accidentally and then the idea formed in their head that they could use it as an alibi or at least an event WA could cite when talking to LE to demonstrate she was busy that day.
I'm not sure how useful the TV repair will be in a trial. It needs something more. I've read the TV repair man's statement, but I want to know:
1. why he was there for 45 mins after telling WA the TV could not be repaired.
2. what was he doing for 45 mins.
3 hear from WA why she still phoned CA to ask whether she should repair or replace the TV despite being told it could not be repaired.
4. how much was the TV worth. If it was a cheap "dorm TV" why was WA upset?
Last edited: