You should probably look up the definition of the word "fact." You use it improperly.
As for your bad faith, in order to get to that paragraph you cited, you had to skip over about 15 paragraphs chock full of evidence that he had major sexuality issues. His wife believed he was gay. His dad, apparently, had called him that. He had a lot of homophobia in his past, and mental instability and drug use.
What they never found was any evidence of Islamist leanings that pre-dated the day of the attack. He apparently used to tell people he was a member of Hezbollah and Hamas (both are enemies of ISIS), so there's that. He said that his actions were triggered by something that happened six weeks prior, but that event had not happened when he started planning the attack more than two months prior. His story about his motivations had varied considerably, and none of his family members suggested that he was a
As for what you've cited from his wife's trial . . . I mean, that was her lawyer's take. He was supposed to create reasonable doubt. I am skeptical that what you have pasted there is accurate, because most of that evidence would be likely inadmissible as hearsay. I mean, maybe they had non-hearsay evidence but they can't testify about what they were told so your strategy of "believe the killer during his killing spree" was not followed there. Likewise, I don't know how they would have introduced cell phone evidence demonstrating that the selection of the Pulse was based on the lack of security. Anything written by him would be inadmissible hearsay, unless it was written on the day of and then we're back to the same problem.
