That's actually not always true. A real criminal "mastermind" would always try to extract as much information out of their "client" to squeeze as much out them as they can if and when they need to. Maybe I've watched too many Sopranos clips and true crime episodes but the biggest risk is almost always put upon the person who seeks out the services of these nefarious fucks. That's why crime doesn't pay or whatever.
Exactly this. If I were a filthy SWATer-by-hire like this guy claims to be, I'd want to get as much info out of the client as possible. This way, if I get caught, I can fuck them over too. This creates a sort of Mutally Assured Destruction scenario. If you fuck-a me, I fuck-a you. Therefore, hopefully, you no fuck-a me.
So since this thread is already filled to the brim with basically useless speculation: why not add my own?
I can see both sides here. On the one hand, why the fuck would you choose to "out" Patrick S. Tomlinson as your client if he wasn't actually your client? This guy does not matter to the world whatsoever. Outside of here and that eccentric gentleman Owen A. Forrems, no one knows who the fuck this guy is. Surely if this person wasn't hired by Fatrick to SWAT himself, he'd choose someone more notable to "out" and put pressure on them.
However, it's just as likely that it's a Pat troll that hired this guy while posing as Pat. I mean, it makes sense, especially when people were already betting that Patrick was SWATing himself. It throws a fun chaotic wrench into the works. "LMAO, this guy will eventually out Pat, especially if I promise payment and then don't deliver! Haha, this is fun and I love dick!" It's gay ops at a high level (of gayness).
Fact is, making statements to the affirmative or negative is a bad call when we're playing with half a deck. It is, quite literally, a he-said, he-said scenario. Until we see some fucking receipts (which should be somewhere) we essentially know nothing.