I wasn't trying to be a conspiracy theorist. I was mainly wanting to point out that what is being passed off here as evidence and proof is completely circumstantial (and therefore not that hard to "fake" since the bar seems so low). It's hardly, as presented "air tight" (i.e., anyone reasonable would have obvious doubts).
I don't see anything CT about it. The "facts" here are "thin" at best. If I'm surprised at anything, it's that they didn't toss in the usual "...and the suspect has no social media presence..." (which I guess makes you a bad person, that not being on SM is in itself a crime?)
