If your insights are so relevant to the case, why were you not called as a witness in either the Mngeni or Dewani trials? Seems strange for the prosecutors to omit such a useful witness, does it not?
We'll take your comments as a compliment. If we give the impression of being part of a PR campaign, then that means we must come across as quite professional and knowledgeable on the case.
With regard to an impending civil suit (yet more baseless speculation on your part), may I suggest that you don't hold your breath?
The balance of probabilities means that a court needs to find it more likely than not (call it 51%) that he was involved in the crime. A civil suit may have succeeded in a case like OJ Simpson's, where the evidence fell just short of the "beyond reasonable doubt" benchmark, but such a suit would definitively stand no chance of success with Dewani, given the lack of any credible evidence linking him to the crime and irrefutable evidence proving that the allegations were made up by self serving criminals.