Very good article there...saying that basically we (us "sleuthers") have many of the same investigative tools the Police now use to solve crimes (i.e. the internet!)...
We still don't have a MOTIVE...not one good enough to stand up in a court of law and convict those responsible for TB's murder. :jail: Keep digging!
Motive is not necessary for conviction. The crown must prove that the accused did the act they are accused of, and that it was done intentionally (ie. not by accident, not while mentally incompetent, etc.) Why they did it is not a required element.
Where the case is circumstantial, evidence of a motive often helps the judge or jury accept that the other circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. But if you have a case where there are witnesses who saw a person take out a gun and shoot someone, you can convict without ever getting into why they did it.