It’s understandable to question how such different individuals and cases are being grouped together, especially when their motives, circumstances, and available evidence vary significantly. Some of these cases are well-documented, while others remain subject to debate or differing interpretations. Raising questions about consistency and evidence is valid, but it’s also important to rely on verified information and avoid assuming equivalence without clear justification. A more productive discussion might focus on the specific details of each case rather than treating them as a single category.
