it is far easier to confirm with a source (most of whom are former staff) that they never heard of or encountered any police report or court sentencing (&c. &c.) than for them to confirm the identity of a specific furry mentioned in a specific date's minutes.
as i recall, the BCAEA's minutes (listed only for the dates of 2020/03/06 to 2020/12/17) only became available early this year, and their 2019 minutes are yet unavailable. many of the currently-listed minutes are still hidden behind a staging error that requires some creative problem-solving to bypass.
i guess in a shorter way of saying: even if a source did share their suspicions of the person's identity, i can't accept just testimony as sufficient evidence, and the evidence is usually inaccessible.
so, WRT your questions: because the claims have differing standards of proof; and no, evidently, they did not.
good questions!
it is far easier to confirm with a source (most of whom are former staff) that they never heard of or encountered any police report or court sentencing (&c. &c.) than for them to confirm the identity of a specific furry mentioned in a specific date's minutes.
as i recall, the BCAEA's minutes (listed only for the dates of 2020/03/06 to 2020/12/17) only became available early this year, and their 2019 minutes are yet unavailable. many of the currently-listed minutes are still hidden behind a staging error that requires some creative problem-solving to bypass.
i guess in a shorter way of saying: even if a source did share their suspicions of the person's identity, i can't accept just testimony as sufficient evidence, and the evidence is usually inaccessible.
so, WRT your questions: because the claims have differing standards of proof; and no, evidently, they did not.
i hope this helps!