Solve a case and analyze the case.

1, why don't you call?

First of all, how do people looking for mobile phones know which one is a man's wife?

If it is a "wife", according to common sense, it will not ask "Do you know the master?" Even if I asked, I wouldn't use the word "horse".

If the phone book clearly says "wife", why not call? The sender happens to be deaf, so his text message will also be "something happened to your husband."

If the phone book doesn't say "wife", it's even more suspicious.

So it can be judged here that either a person deliberately or someone deliberately murdered him.

Of course, there is another situation, that is, mass sending, so that others can also receive short messages, so that no one will know. But no one consulted his wife about it later.

And even if it is a mass email, can we imagine that if you were an informant, would you use the word "owner"? The expression "the owner of this number" is generally used. The word "owner" is usually used when the "mobile phone" can see the real thing. Therefore, according to common sense, it can be judged that either a man intentionally kills or is intentionally killed.

2. If it's really to save people, why turn it off?

First of all, consider the situation that the mobile phone just has no power. It is unlikely that the mobile phone will die just after sending a text message. Almost does not exist, I think it can be ruled out. Besides, if something really happens, even if there is no electricity, I will definitely call first. If you are deaf, go back to 1 and analyze.

Or if the phone is crushed and the reporter changes the card, then if the card is changed, his problem should not be the "owner".

Moreover, even if the card is changed, the reporter's mobile phone is so dead? Still not calling? Or: after texting, the phone is dead? Unlikely.

Then this person turned off his phone on purpose, or was murdered.

3. SMS itself is too nonsense. It is impossible to say this when something really happens, especially the sentence "two people got off the bus and dragged him away." The purpose of this sentence is obviously to pave the way for future "disappearance". Similarly, "I found his cell phone on the side of the road" is also nonsense.

Broken glass!

Next, analyze whether it is intentional shutdown or murder.

First of all, suppose a man was deliberately murdered, so why inform his wife?

This message is obviously informative. As a killer, is he afraid that others won't know that he killed someone?

Moreover, we haven't received a report of a car accident or a missing report, at least we can suspect that there is no murder.

Then the result is probably that a man did it on purpose!

There is another situation: a real car accident.

A man was accidentally hit by a car because he didn't sleep well.

The messenger next to me just picked up the mobile phone (there is actually a hypothesis here: a male mobile phone is probably in his hand, otherwise why did he run out with it? Let's assume that he is on the phone.

The biggest doubt: why drag people away?

Secondly, the process of "reporting the case" and the content of "short message" are suspicious (as analyzed above, there are intentional and intentional results)

Then, this situation is naturally unreasonable.

Therefore, it is almost certain that this is a man's intention!

PS: After reading the answer on the 3rd floor, I found that I overlooked one point: there is no position in the SMS. Of course, even if this person really doesn't know the location, he should mention it in the text message (for example, he doesn't know the location of the incident). After all, there is so much nonsense! (hereby added _)

In fact, just investigate whether a man is an economic problem or an emotional problem.

Everything happens for a reason. Money and women are the most common problems for men. ...