Since I already commented to your comments in my comments on your original post, here I will just politely note three things:

1. I pointed out that, given the ambiguities in the write-up of the article that you posted, I thought that it was possible that the story was less cut-and-dried than you had originally suggested.
2. Because a possible counter-explanation, however unlikely, means something cannot be prima facie evidence of one explanation, I retracted my original suggestion that said events were prima facie evidence of wrong-doing.
3. Somewhere along the way, you seem to have decided that I was trying to explain that said counter-explanation was likely, perhaps more likely than that there was simply a lot of wrong-doing going on.
   That third bit? Didn't happen.
   
   I am henceforth not going to bother defending a position that I did not take.