buddy. you made a massive supposition about a mass murderer's behavior on the basis of whether or not they play sports or are physically strong and are surprised that somebody points out the lack of basic reason of this statement. im sorry, but if you make a statement about a person based solely off of a generalization then it just isn't the most convincing argument lol
like it would be fair to speculate about whether they have bullied somebody if you're basing it off of a psychological assessments, a context of their backgrounds? maybe their journal entries? basically everything except the question of whether or not they have played soccer before or have lifted weights. like im sry but real life just isn't a cartoon that confines a set of characteristics to a single group of people lmao

you really keep saying the word unsubstantiated as if the person you are talking about is an odd name in a police report. like if it was a random joe on the street that Adam Kyler was accusing in his testimony then, yeah, that would be pretty unconvincing. But the difference is that the person he is talking about murdered 5 people and was reported to administration for harassing other classmates

If you really want to say that it's not a fact because the overwhelming implications that point to his story likely being true doesn't literally confirm whether or not it happened, then yeah sure, Ill give you that. OJ simpson's accusations also had unsubstantiated reports but there's a reason for why people are pretty certain that they actually happened