But he doesn't have any money. So, we just give him some money, then have him give it right back to us, wouldn't that work? I don't know, that might make it look kind of implausible that's he's at fault, like the only reason he did it is because we arranged it all and told him what to say and what to do and who to take the money from and who to give it to. I know, we'll give the money to someone else to give to him, then tell him to give it back to us. Wait, can't we just skip the middleman and give the money directly to ourselves, blaming it on him? And actually why does there even need to be any money in the first place? We can just say there was some money, somewhere, and it'd be the same difference. And that way we could even maybe use the technique on people who aren't mentally ill. That would really widen our field of targets. No, no shortcuts, this is a big case. We have to do it by the book.