[charlysisto]

Although some of these hypotheses are vaguely plausible I think it is outrageous to lay all the suspicion on a potential victim. I'm not saying we should be naive and take everything for granted in this story but the least we can do is assume he's telling the truth before advocating the devil - specially in regards of a mothers death.

Also :

+ if it was holidays or a child he wouldn't have left in a rush : those departure should arguably be prepared in advance

+ "Technological details" are very vague and sounds like something he overheard but didn't understand or know how to use.

+ the throwaway account means nothing and could very well plead in his favour : he's not sure he wants to spend time attacking his company so he stays anonymous before taking a rushed decision.

+ not checking his email is consistent with not having the dongle !

[MrQuincle]

> but the least we can do is assume he's telling the truth before advocating the devil - specially in regards of a mothers death.

Thanks for your counterarguments. I of course admit that my assumptions are assumptions and henceforth definitely not airtight. However, I just wanted to say that I would have never actually responded to that question itself with how I commented on HN, just to be safe.

[charlysisto]

I am biased because I read HN daily and kind of assume everybody does - including the author of the story. Which is silly...

Nevertheless I strongly believe in the presumption of innocence, even outside of court, as a general moral rule we owe to others.

Outrageous might of been a little strong though :)

[Chris2048]

Who's "advocating the devil"?

It's only outrageous if you act on the suspicion.

[cyphar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

[Chris2048]

Playing devils advocate might not be the correct term, as the suspicion seems genuine.