But at this point, I do feel that it is best for us to move on to Day 2, we have pretty much wrung out what we could out of this one, and people are getting tired. And you make a more viable suspect than most.

For starters, the game I proposed had two questions - 'Who' and 'Why", but your answer to the second was pretty much a non-response. A 'hunch' is completely intangible, and even were I the type to trust things like hunches, instinct or even 'common sense', which I am not, still I would be forced to accept that you are yourself not scum for your hunch to have any value. Because when giving tangible reasons, it doesn't matter whether the one who proposes them is town or scum, the reasoning can be evaluated on its own merits. Your hunch, however, cannot. I would have to take your justification entirely on trust, which I have no reason to do.

Now, when I proposed my original plan, the step 2 I was considering was either pressing the person with the most finger pointed toward - which is you, with 3 - or if that didn't work, go for the person with the weakest argument, which, again, is you with your hunch. I would even be tempted to call it an evasion, which I warned from the onset would lead me to attempt to lynch people, except that I've seen enough townie mistakes to suspect there is a very real possibility it was simply a poor decision.

Either way, you end up as my favoured suspect. And the fact that after Isaac poked a hole in your argument, you basically fell to "not all of my hunches are wrong" is something I find suspicious. Now, I enjoy lynching Isaac as much as the next guy, possibly more, but an argument where anything above a 0% success rate entitles you to continue with your plan is downright absurd. Random chance alone would net you a better result than 0%.