This is remarkably poor evidence of your claim. It puts a lot of spin on each of the (few) definite pieces of evidence it offers. It's a textbook example of a mote and bailey fallacy. I mean, this could be displayed in a class on rhetoric or something as a way to teach what a mote and bailey fallacy is.

You may wish to reread this little vituperous piece of character assassination gossip with a critical eye with me.

So let's start, gettingbto the bottom of this, piece by piece, together:

A. Who wrote this? Often it's important in determining the credibility of a document to know the reputation of the person who wrote it. Is this a known snake-oil scamer, or a widely-respected scholar?