- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 8,761
- Reaction score
- 3,312
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That too, if it is the case. But even if it isn't, there is no need to disclose the WB's identity. Saying so is just a distraction strategy by the Trump camp. A WB only TRIGGERS an investigation. When the investigation then largely corroborates what the WB initially brought attention to, what good would it do to disclose his/her identity?
I'm not saying this to you, who gets it right, but to all the Trumpsters here:
Suppose someone murders two or three people. Someone else calls the police's Anonymous Crime-Reporting Phone Line and points to the murderer. The police investigate, and easily conclude, with irrefutable evidence, that the man did murder the victims, and the evidence is more than good enough for the DA to indict him. Say, they find ten other people who saw the murderer do it and are willing to testify about it, his fingerprints are on the murder weapon, the victims fought back and scratched him and bit him, and not only the scratches and bite marks in his body match their nails and dental records, but the material recovered from under their nails is matched 100% do the murderer's DNA; his hair was found in the murder scene and his blood-covered clothes (with blood that matches 100% the victims') were found in his house together with belongings he took from the victims, security camera footage shows him committing the murders with his face clearly seen, all witnesses picked him up unequivocally from a line, his closest associates (including one of his lawyers) went on TV and on press conferences and confirmed that he did it, and the man confessed to it himself and said he'd do it again, and publicly invited others to help him repeat the crime, and so on and so forth.
In this case, the murderer's defense lawyers won't go too far to get a not guilty verdict, if they insist in identifying the anonymous source of the initial tip, claiming that the tipster had a beef against the defender (say, was his scorned and cheated-upon ex-wife). Well, sure, she might have reported him out of revenge... but it doesn't make it any less true that he committed the murders, and it doesn't make the abundant evidence that he did, any less conclusive and compelling. So, revealing the identity of the tipster serves no purpose, and will prevent other future crimes from being anonymously reported.
Which is exactly why a WB's identity must remain hidden. Otherwise, nobody else will ever blow the whistle again.
And let's add to the above, the likelihood that the criminal's brother will kill his ex-wife if it is revealed that she was the initial tipster. Another good reason not to say her name.
Trumpsters - the thinking ones; I suppose they are rare - must know that (the non-thinking ones, a vast majority, will just gobble up whatever the thinking ones feed them), but they will try to obfuscate and focus on the WB anyway in an attempt to discredit the extensive corroboration.
Last edited:
