As far as I can tell, nobody in the history of the Internet has ever laid out a coherent argument that connects the "reasons" presented to the public evidence and then justifies the charges. (For at least most of the points, there's one obvious piece of public evidence, and in every one of these cases I find the charge patently ridiculous. And Tim testified that he was not shown any private evidence nor told that there was any; and all of his interlocutors steadfastly refused to even address the question of whether there existed any private evidence, while insinuating that the question itself was somehow harassing.)