I think that the evidence pointed out is not concrete enough to build a legal case.
If you were honest, you would say why. But since you do not, and just offer a blanket denial, it follows that just what you want is to protect the criminal, knowing that he is a criminal. This is called ”accomplicity”.
However, I think what's even more important is the CTA's hand in all this.
Oh, so now you suddenly have such concrete evidence against the ”CTA”, which is merely carrying out the criminal dalai's explicit and public commands!
This shows that you just want to shift and defuse the blame, in order to preserve the ”sanctity” of the cynical, murderous Western geopolitical tool, your ”mahasiddha”.