Geggster wrote:
You are making a completely logical deduction based on various bits of information. They "fit the bill" to be next, I agree, more than any other team and you could well be right.
You could, however, well be wrong.
We shall see.
Yes - exactly. If I was a betting man, I'd put money on it. However, I'm not.
It is worth noting that this process is exactly what a court of law uses to determine if someone is guilty of a crime. The key question is whether the evidence is 'conclusive proof'. While I agree it isn't (and I think that's your point), I still think the evidence that I have observed, some of which I have chosen to share, is overwhelming, particularly given the dearth of information about anything to the contrary.