..........maybe there was something on the phone they didn't want anyone to see....how about that ? .....
Certainly one possibility. Bit stupid to think wiping the phone wouldn't be noticed though...
..........maybe there was something on the phone they didn't want anyone to see....how about that ? .....
Certainly one possibility. Bit stupid to think wiping the phone wouldn't be noticed though...
.....possibly whatever was on there went over that consideration .........
Such as..?
.....use your imagination ......
I think: without wiping the phone he certainly would have been convicted as a murderer, the evidence visible to everyone.
Yes. OP's brother went to a lot of trouble to get the phone wiped. Of course, between him wiping the phone, and Aimee removing Reeva's bag without permission, both siblings showed little respect for the crime scene or Reeva. I'd be interested to know if any OP supporters would be happy with that if their own sister/daughter/friend had been shot dead in suspicious circumstances, and then they found out the killer's brother and sister had been busy at the crime scene removing and/or tampering with evidence...I think: without wiping the phone he certainly would have been convicted as a murderer, the evidence visible to everyone.
BIB But "our" sources of information are exactly the same as "yours". So logically that can't follow can it?
Oh dear. Are you implying that Carl went to all that trouble to delete the contents and sync it with his own computer because there was nothing incriminating on it? You can find it all innocent if you like, but there comes a time when defending the indefensible gets tiresome. I trust if a loved one of yours get shot dead, you'll show the killer the same unwavering loyalty and support that you've shown OP, even when the killer's family remove evidence from the crime scene.Why? what was on it that would show he was a murderer?
CNN`s approach was the total opposite of what you are claiming, to the point where I wondered if it was an editorial decision based on `hero tragically shoots love of his life in case of mistaken identity` making a better storyline than `jumpy jerk shoots first, asks questions later'.
As for outrage, yes it is outrageous what he did. Like all his supporters you appear to find his predicament the central tragedy of this story, not the woman with everything to live for dying on his toilet cubicle floor, all because of his exaggerated fears and his knee-jerk reactions.
Oh dear. Are you implying that Carl went to all that trouble to delete the contents and sync it with his own computer because there was nothing incriminating on it? You can find it all innocent if you like, but there comes a time when defending the indefensible gets tiresome. I trust if a loved one of yours get shot dead, you'll show the killer the same unwavering loyalty and support that you've shown OP, even when the killer's family remove evidence from the crime scene.
Oh dear. Are you implying that Carl went to all that trouble to delete the contents and sync it with his own computer because there was nothing incriminating on it? You can find it all innocent if you like, but there comes a time when defending the indefensible gets tiresome. I trust if a loved one of yours get shot dead, you'll show the killer the same unwavering loyalty and support that you've shown OP, even when the killer's family remove evidence from the crime scene.
BIB - And no matter how many lies OP has told, or how many times he has shown himself to be aggressive and manipulative - there are posters on here who will still say "Oh, he was upset" - or "But you don't know how you'd react in the same situation" - or "Poor love was distraught/depressed/stressed" - and simply come up with one excuse after another to justify his bad behaviour. Some people will never see him in a negative light, unless perhaps he shoots dead one of their loved ones.
You shouldn't be casting judgement then...IMO anyone who invests high emotion in this case is in the very worst position to cast judgement.
I think: without wiping the phone he certainly would have been convicted as a murderer, the evidence visible to everyone.
IMO anyone who invests high emotion in this case is in the very worst position to cast judgement.
Your post mis-characterises what other posters are saying. I think the attitudes of the two groups of posters would be better summed up as:
- those who take everything as proof of guilt and believe everything negative they read no matter what the provenance, it seems
- those who don't think the state made it's case and are cautious about jumping to conclusions about a person they don't know based on uncertain evidence contained in media reports
BIB - I don't see either of those groups here.Your post mis-characterises what other posters are saying. I think the attitudes of the two groups of posters would be better summed up as:
- those who take everything as proof of guilt and believe everything negative they read no matter what the provenance, it seems
- those who don't think the state made it's case and are cautious about jumping to conclusions about a person they don't know based on uncertain evidence contained in media reports
BIB - I don't see either of those groups here.
I see one group who doesn't believe OP's ridiculously far-fetched fairytale (not helped by all his lies) and the other group desperately searching for any possible explanation to explain away the Grand Canyon sized holes in OP's version/versions.
As for me, I've never claimed to be impartial. I watched the entire trial and believe OP deliberately killed Reeva and got away with murder, no doubt helped by his brother and sister removing evidence from the crime scene.