Why should they?I said possible. It's not definite and it cannot be proved without witnesses or other meaningful evidence.
One possibility (please note this time: possible) is that they were witnesses to the murder but were threatened by Guede (and a possible accomplice) and were in fear of their lives. The point is, you can't convict someone based on conjecture, or because they act a bit odd.
The prosecution put forward a case of "the sex game gone wrong" scenario - that was disproved, therefore the defence wins.
Your posts have been pretty much saying that they were innocent. I'm saying the evidence says otherwise even if you can't convict for murder.
You are having to postulate unrealistic scenarios to explain their actions.
I am saying it is more likely they are guilty of participating or covering up the murder, and are simply staying quiet, due to lack of evidence for a "beyond all doubt" conviction.
Last edited:
I said possible. It's not definite and it cannot be proved without witnesses or other meaningful evidence. 




