I have credible witnesses.

For WHAT?

Those who lived there during the whole dog situation, who knew why the dog was burned and who made that decision.

No, that's part of the FACT part that everyone agrees on.  Oh, for crying out loud.

You resemble your Avatar more and more with each post.

I can and will doubt stories that conflict with established events and settings,

Ha ha.  Even though it is only "established" in your own mind, since you weren't there.

Who am I more likely to believe, a whole group of people who lived in Boston at the time, or a nameless, faceless accuser with nothing but hot air and events that don’t match the eye witness accounts? 

That's true but that doesn't mean that you asked the right (or all of) the questions needed.  Much of what you testify personally (and know from friends) is probably true, but it's just not the whole story.  We're just picking apart the holes and facts which aren't verified.

Speculation is unverified or unsupported notions, whereas an accusation is the allegation of a wrongdoing. An accusation may be speculative.

Yes, an accusation may be speculative, but speculations are not necessarily accusations.  You're assuming that every speculation is an accusation ... and indeed an accusation rooted in speculation would be unjust.  At best it may be labeled a suspicion.  But you keep claiming that people speculating about various activities are making accusations, when they are not, or, rather, not all of them are.

Am I ACCUSING Pablo of using witchcraft?  No.  Am I speculating that he might be?  Absolutely.  That's the difference.

SPECULATION->SUSPICION->ACCUSATION

So, for instance, we see Joe Biden fondling all kinds of young girls.  He's under suspicion of perversion due to speculation that his motives maybe something other than affection and insensitivity to "private" space.

Articulating suspicions is not only permitted but sometimes required.  So, for instance, if we see an effeminate priest, we might tell people, "Watch out for that priest ... in case he's a pedophile."  We've had that discussion here before.  People have a right to be cautious and to advise caution for others.  Now, if you were to say, "I know him to be a pedophile." or "He is a pedophile." then you cross a line.

We are with this thread basically saying, "Watch out for Pablo, as there may very well be dark forces in play."  As with the pedophile example, it is not permitted but even required for us to sound the alarm bells.

Meanwhile, a thread about whether the irrelevant Pablo is a warlock for the equally irrelevant Boston seminary will surpass 11,000 hits in 1/6 the time, and shows no signs of slowing down.

Well, if for one don't think it's irrelevant.  OLMC (Father Pfeiffer, Pablo, etc.) have shredded the moral unity of a Resistance movement.  People point to the OLMC disaster as showing bad fruits, etc.  And some people are directly affected by being stuck in that cult, including some people here on CI and people that others of us here on CI know.

But the reason it's gone on so long is due the fact that MartinChavez won't stop defending Pablo, and matches post for post any and all suspicions articulated about Pablo.  So it creates a long back-and-forth.  Sometimes thread dynamics have more to do with how many people are contesting it than with the importance of the subject.  If someone were to post a thread about Our Lady being immaculately conceived, it might receive one or two or zero responses ... because it's uncontested by anyone and non-controversial.