Until there's a direct evidences and connection, best way to approach this will be to tag with neutral and later change it as the situation developed.
Honestly, I'm not sure if guesses and assumptions are enough even for a neutral tag. Everything is based on sending 2 random merits, probably and very likely they are really not enough.
Yes, there is a possibility here, as far as I can see both accounts are very interested and active in the Invites & Accounts section, but that's still just a guess.
In this forum, there is never enought evidence to nail anyone, unless the suspect doesn't have what it takes to vindicate themselves. For instances;
- When you connect accounts through their writing style just as FatFork did, we will say it's not an evidence enough. Maybe a coincidence
- When you connect accounts by uncovering direct transactions to someone's address, the forum will say they want to tarnish the user's reputation just like the case of LDL
- When you connect people always transacting with same address they will say that they are colleagues and have been trading for a long time just like John Abraham's case
- When you connect them with social media handle, the accused will say they copy pasted it through bounty application
It is just like that, and no matter how careful you monitor both accounts in question, you cannot successfully connect them but I'm sure both accounts are controlled by same person looking at;
Coincidence of active and exit of both accounts;
Writing method;
From same locality;
The merit flow;
I think a neutral tag is worth it but let the neutral have the weight of neutral. Because some neutral tags are as powerful as red tags due to the tone used in the tag.
I will have to beg to differ on the "never enough evidence to nail anyone" part, though your later part bear some weight of truth; "unless the suspect doesn't have what it takes to vindicate themselves", which can be read as, "unless the suspect can no longer defend themselves as being not guilty".
It is quite established throughout the forum that cases being raised here should be seen on case-by-case basis. And be it we applying the presumption of guilt or the presumption of innocence, both presumptions emphasize of piling evidences up to beyond rational doubt that someone did or did not do something that's being accused. The keyword, for this topic, is "piling evidences".
If we use your instances, sure separately, they are circumstantial. FatFork's writing style can be coincidental [as I've argued it myself], same address of John can be a transaction between colleagues, social media handles can be copied. But if they're piling on top of each other, it'll push the barrier of reasonal doubt. This is why Little Mouse and PP suggested to utilize neutral tag as a marker to remind ourselves about the account while we dig deeper before taking further steps based on the findings.
