First off, if Cesar Sayoc is guilty and is not a patsy, then I will honestly admit that I was wrong. I have been wrong before, it doesn’t hurt. I approach everything from the desire for truth. I was attentive to the claims of Christine Ford, but after listening to her testimony, while compelling, it did not have the sort of truth markers I look for in any testimony such as 1) corroborating testimony (in excess of the highly subjective “I believe her” statements) 2) evidence 3) enough details of the crime so that the accused can either refute or confirm 4) contemporary claims supporting the accusation 5) a pattern of behavior of the accused that is consistent with the claims of the accuser). Ford offered none of these, so I did not believe her, especially as the politics benefited one party over the other
The identity of the hoaxer and I hesitate to call him a bomber since none of the so-called bombs went off or were even capable of going off. The carefully worded description of the bombs by DOJ as capable of “reacting” with heat or friction could be anything. Toilet paper will “react” when exposed to sufficient degrees of heat or friction. It is legal double-speak that allows them to charge him with transporting and mailing explosive materials, that’s all. It in no way suggests that these were actually capable of exploding.