I think there are at least two mutually exclusive conclusions we...

I think there are at least two mutually exclusive conclusions we can eventually arrive at:

1. It was deliberate and due to insider knowledge; or
2. It was a coincidence.

Now, in order to arrive at option 1, we would need to find evidence of BOTH insider knowledge AND a demonstration that insider knowledge is what made the person(s) make a trade. If we prove those things, we can exclude 2.

Until we prove, with evidence, that 1 is true we need to come to ANOTHER conclusion, which from our exclusive outcomes we can say it is 2 - a coincidence.....

OR we can arrive at a non-exclusive (and the most honest) point and say "I don't know".

So.....I am unable to demonstrate 1. I am also unable to exclude 1 and arrive at 2, so I need to arrive at our last option of "I don't know"

This is the application of logic. Applying light critical thinking, I am leaning towards.....well, trades are made every day, this particular trade (if it even happened - is there actual evidence of the trade, anyone??) did not raise any eyebrows at the time. It's most probably a coincidence, or may be a made-up story.

Then I go and do normal things with my day, go for a walk, maybe go for a drink and dinner with friends later on and make plans for the weekend.

What is your process?