This is a really interesting perspective if anyone doesnt want to open the X link:
Someone makes an accusation of sexual abuse, and their story sounds very credible—because who wouldn’t believe something like that? Only a monster, right? After all, no one would make such an accusation if it weren’t true. That is what a great many people believe—that such an accusation would not be made if it were not true. But I have come across the fact that when something is presented in such a way that any criticism against it is viewed as "monstrous," that is precisely when it should be questioned the most. And when I say "question," I mean that cases like these are precisely the ones that require the most investigation. Let’s start with something some of us have had to do: moving. Thomas Markle was living in Rosarito, Mexico. In early May 2025, he officially moved to the Philippines. Together with his son, Thomas Jr., he settled into an apartment in Cebu City, seeking a more affordable cost of living and medical care following the health issues he was already dealing with. In early 2025, weary of media harassment and seeking a lower cost of living, Thomas decided to permanently leave his home in Mexico and move to the Philippines. Before the trip, he began getting rid of his belongings and packing what remained into four cardboard boxes, which ended up being stored abroad. That is the story Thomas Jr. is telling. But the way those boxes were moved—and who had access to them—is not only unclear; it is also at the heart of the ongoing legal dispute between the Markle siblings. Let’s be clear about one thing: Thomas Sr. didn’t send those boxes, Thomas Jr. did. He took care of it; Thomas Sr. was too ill to do so. Didn’t Thomas Jr. check those boxes? It only makes sense to do so—just look at the shipping cost! Imagine spending all that money, only to discover that your father had filled them with candy wrappers. Now, regarding such a shipment—did no one check the contents of a box as soon as it arrived in the Philippines? I once shipped a box from Spain to Santiago via FedEx... it was incredibly expensive! I had to seal it in the presence of a FedEx representative, and then open it in the presence of a representative from Correos Chile. I had to verify that everything had arrived in good condition and that there were no grounds for a complaint. If Thomas Sr. wanted to transport those boxes—at such a huge financial cost—from Mexico to the Philippines, is it really the case that no one opened them for over a year? Now, has anyone considered a crucial detail in all of this? It was Thomas Jr. who sent the material. So yes, he does run the risk of going to prison. Under the strict legal framework governing international cybercrimes, an individual who transmits child sexual abuse material across borders can indeed face serious criminal charges, regardless of who originally owned the material. So, it’s not enough to just say, "Oops! Look, some material turned up." The issue here is that Thomas Jr. sent those boxes; he was the one with access to them; and he is the one who supposedly discovered something inside them—in a storage unit registered in his own name. Therefore, the question arises: didn’t Thomas Jr. check those boxes before sending them to the Philippines? If he cannot provide a very good explanation, he is in serious trouble. This makes the photograph of Thomas Jr. reporting his father—which has surfaced—highly significant. That also seems strange. Who goes to the trouble of taking photos while reporting a crime like this? Someone trying to create an alibi, perhaps, or looking to absolve themselves of something? A forensic analysis of file creation and modification dates will be the sole factor in determining whether Thomas Jr. remains in the role of an exemplary citizen or becomes an accused party. Now, here’s the thing: one of the issues with Thomas Jr. is his claim that he opened those boxes because he was looking for a phone. Consider this: he reportedly stated that he knew there were old mobile phones among his father’s belongings, as Thomas Sr. was a known hoarder of technology and electronic gadgets—a habit stemming from his time working as a television lighting director. He claims that he opened the boxes for the sole purpose of looking for a used mobile phone to give to the father of his Filipina girlfriend, who needed a device. Interestingly, Thomas Markle Sr. officially retired from Hollywood in 2011 I don’t doubt that a phone from 2011 would still turn on—my Nokia 3310 does. But would it actually work? I had to give up my own Nokia in 2018 because, here in Chile, changes were made to the native GSM/2G network infrastructure, and my SIM card stopped working. It seems Thomas Markle had even older phones... but would they still be functional? Philippines isn’t a developed country, but honestly—isn’t it just being incredibly cheap to gift someone a phone from 2008, or even 2000? Then, I ran into this issue myself: the battery. Lithium-ion batteries from phones dating back to 2011—if left abandoned in boxes for years—undergo a process of extreme chemical degradation. In the vast majority of cases, they swell, become sulfated, or lose their ability to hold a charge entirely, making it impossible to turn on the device without keeping it permanently plugged into a power source or replacing the battery with a new one. I’m currently frantically searching for a battery for my 2013 Galaxy Note 3 which is the one I inherited in 2021 and use as a media player. When a mobile phone (such as the aforementioned LG) spends years stored in a cardboard box in a warehouse in the Philippines—a country with extreme humidity and tropical heat—its battery undergoes an accelerated degradation process. Thomas Jr. alleges that the explicit video appeared on the screen as soon as the device was turned on. In 2011, screens did not feature intelligent auto-play systems upon startup; to view a file, a user had to manually navigate through internal folders or MicroSD cards. And that’s assuming the video app keeps working. Apps often stop working because they are outdated. Well, Thomas Jr. knew that those boxes contained old cell phones... so, he knew that, yet he didn't check them before packing them up? I did a thorough check of the old cell phones at my place—turning each one on—and sent the ones that didn't work off to be recycled. But Thomas Jr. claims he knew nothing about what was in those boxes, even though he also says he knew they contained an old cell phone... So, did he know or didn't he? And as for the letter that MM allegedly received... it’s absurd. It’s complete nonsense. The London Metropolitan Police has no legal power or authority to investigate crimes committed in Rosarito (Mexico) by a U.S. citizen. If anyone had wanted to report Thomas Markle in 2018, the Met would have been the worst place in the world to do so, as they would have had to immediately refer the report to the FBI or the Mexican police (FGR). MM states that the letter reached the Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) unit. This unit of the Met does not investigate ordinary or international sexual offenses; its sole function is the physical protection of—and the assessment of security threats (such as stalkers or terrorists) against—members of the Royal Family. If the Met received that letter in 2018, it did not conduct a criminal "investigation" in Mexico. The only action the RaSP could have taken was to classify the letter as a "reputational or security risk" to the new duchess (who had just married in May 2018) and—in a completely irregular manner (which is why they are currently under internal investigation)—show the letter to Meghan to warn her about the impending scandal. Let this be absolutely clear: an investigation was underway, yet no charges had been filed. According to MM, a letter regarding Thomas Markle—concerning an alleged investigation—was sent to the Met. If MM’s account is accurate, then by handing over a file or letter containing serious accusations made by a foreign national to a third party—in a country other than the one where the person under investigation resides—the police committed a grave violation of UK privacy laws, regardless of the fact that the recipient was the individual’s daughter. This exposes the Metropolitan Police to heavy financial penalties from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and provides a legal basis for Thomas Markle Sr. or his lawyers to file a civil lawsuit against the Met for moral damages, defamation, and the unlawful disclosure of confidential information. The most significant institutional consequence is the damage to Scotland Yard’s public reputation. The British public and legal analysts are sharply questioning why the Royal Protection Command acted as a private public-relations filter for the Sussexes—concealing a report of a serious crime and handing it over to the family, rather than transparently referring the matter to the appropriate international agencies (such as the FBI). There are some truly vile people in this world. If you follow the news from Chile, you’ll know there is a massive controversy regarding the reduction of sentences for individuals convicted of sexual offenses against minors. Since March, 56 such convicts—without any formal judicial review—have managed to secure this benefit, sparking criticism from both the opposition and the ruling coalition. I am currently feeling a level of rage and disgust that you cannot even imagine, because these convicted individuals filed legal petitions for the protection of constitutional rights to obtain this benefit. Disgust and rage—I don’t even want to read the news story; I simply cannot bear it, for reasons that go beyond the scope of this space. However, this accusation against Thomas Markle Sr. is very strange. Even a superficial analysis reveals that the story as we currently know it doesn’t really hold up. Based on my own personal experience, what Thomas Jr. has claimed just doesn’t add up. To me, it makes no sense—because I know what it’s like to send items from one country to another, and I also know what it’s like to own a mobile phone from the 2000s. And if the story of Thomas Jr. already made no sense, the situation with MM is simply absurd—absurd from start to finish. The narrative regarding the family rift from 2018 has been retroactively altered to align with the current scandal of 2026. And that, I believe, is the key detail. Why has MM done this? What is she aiming to achieve? Meghan Markle disclosed information regarding the Metropolitan Police because, in her hierarchy of priorities, clearing her reputation in the face of an accusation as monstrous as abandoning her sick father was infinitely more urgent than upholding Scotland Yard’s internal protocols. Much like in 2021—when she failed to anticipate that the head of the Church of England would publicly refute her claims to safeguard the integrity of his institution—she once again assumed that London’s Metropolitan Police would remain silent so as not to fuel the scandal. This is really ugly