First of all, that line is blatant speculation. Last I checked, this was supposed to be an investigation of available information, not a narrative. In a number of places in this “report,” they’ve gone to great lengths to not just report on his alleged behavior, but to actually make determinations about his personality and intent. They’ve inserted emotions and motives when we can’t possibly have any knowledge of that. Well, if they cared that much about determining his personality, maybe they should have interviewed people who knew it best over his 74 years. But they didn’t.
Second of all, they later claim to have emails, texts, and photos from the midst of the “Thompson matter” and well after. Soooo, which is it? Was he more careful or not? Or does it just depend on what point they needed to make on any given paragraph?
Someone earlier asked me about why he even had multiple phones, since it was presented as an example of secretive behavior. Here was my response: He had multiple phones so he could utilize multiple carriers, because some carriers had better service than others depending on the country he was in at any given time. Dad handed over his phones to office staff countless times for technical help. He was never afraid to do so. He was also not the only person on staff to have had multiple phones, including Ruth Malhotra, as I recall.
My intent with these posts is to show why I believe the report to be insufficient and suspect. There are clear cases of speculation and of giving details placed out of context in order to paint their picture.
DEFENDING RAVI 