[TV’s Frink said:]

You’ve got to be kidding.

So now there is disagreement, and of course I’m questioning it. When everyone is in agreement, there’s
nothing to question. Now that the agreement has (temporarily?) evaporated, you bet I’m questioning it.

If I use your own logic Frink, I should believe that TN1 is still guilty because there isn’t complete consensus. Since there is no complete consensus that N1 is indeed TN1, I should now believe that it is him?

It can’t be both ways, can it?