Dramatists like to imagine lies being raised up in scenarios to be tried and tested, as in a crucible, under the highest standards of skepticism. The dramatic idea is to strip away all extraneous details and confounding incentives until the verity of the characterization by some character reveals a profound character choice.
... the fantasy of having proof of a 2nd shooter provides a simple key that redefines the event in a way that unlocks a different indexical chain of legally necessary cause-and-effect.
A lot of the enjoyment of the sleuthing-style conspiracy theories comes from accessing a similar space to lying: "I have singular access to an ephemeral event whose existence is unquestioned yet whose character will directly and unalterably determine the choices of an untold number of people."
Something like the JFK assassination involves an event that is treated like an index for a bunch of administrative shuffling (POTUS dies -> new POTUS) and the fantasy of having proof of a 2nd shooter...
I am very old and I think the number one sign of maturity is realizing that there is no value in determining who is "at fault" for something bad. You should definitely have strong boundaries and never allow bad behavior in your projects or social circles, but ultimately what you support is what will make the most impact
To be clear, I think that writers should have something like a "no zero days" standard, if it can be humanely implemented, but I believe such a thing is basically irrelevant to the breakthrough capacity of some writers to massively overproduce.
I am coming around to the view that 10x variance is possible in writers, but it has less to do with the ability to avoid left-tail variance ("no zero days") and more to do to the ability to capture windfalls from right-tail variance.
Humanist interested in the consequences of the machine on intellectual history.