The idea is not to accuse, but to post facts and evidence, and let the reader see what the resulting picture is… rather than trying to shove a portrait down their throat.

People who try hard to convince using emotion are usually those without facts to back them up… and, quite frankly, are more likely to be the ones lying… even though they may be the better actors.

This is not a mystery, but rather like one of those forensic puzzles on NCIS: “What is the evidence, and what conclusion can we logically make of it?”

Some people will try to present their “evidence”, and other parties will try to present theirs. But with a little exercise of logic it is often discernable whose evidence has not just more credibility as a source, but also more real evidence behind it. Credibility is a big issue here, so consider the sources. Some are quite disreputable indeed.

From what I have seen from a lot of online postings of evidence, Patrick is clearly on the right track (my opinion, but it’s a good one).

So: where am I going with all this? It is simple: it is not necessary to prove a motive, in order to prove that a crime has been committed. It is useful… but definitely not necessary. In some cases, criminal motives are psychotic and not even understandable by “normal” people.

So to ask Patrick what someone’s motive might be to commit a crime, is rather like asking him to read minds. You won’t get very far that way.