it doesnt make sense to assume that seargent44 was innocent
it makes sense to assumed that the first death ross was innocent, because there was no reason for him not to be
so by assuming that roos was innocent, this makes seargent44 a traitor as a result
it logically makes sense to assume that seargent44 was a traitor so I don't understand why you denied this and didn't look into it more

it doesnt make sense to assume that seargent44 was innocent it makes sense to assumed that the first death ross was innocent, because there was no reason for him not to be so by assuming that roos was innocent, this makes seargent44 a traitor as a result it logically makes sense to assume that seargent44 was a traitor so I don't understand why you denied this and didn't look into it more