I'm a data scientist. I can understand that saying things about peoples' roles that you might think are innocuous could cause you to give out more information than you realize, but, in the first round, there's less risk in doing so since there's less 'objective' evidence to assess peoples' statements against. We're all just kind of shaking the tree to see what falls out and make as good a guess as we can until the next round where we'll have more than just each other's words to go off of.
Anyway, I'm currently thinking that the witches are Whad and Trudeau...my argument for Whad still stands, and going back I see that trudeau started out positing that Whad is town with no evidence other than "ONLY TOWN WHAD OPENS WITH A 2 POINT BULLET SPEECH," which is weak at best (as Lady Gauss noticed at the time). Then, ignoring the doubt surrounding that conclusion, trudeau goes on to say a little later, "Yeah we decided whad was town," in response to ika asking what peoples' reads are, then quickly accusing ika of being "on" something to distract from the baselessness and non-consensus of that assertion. So, my take is that trudeau is smoke-screening, giving whad a town pass and hoping it seeps in just as quickly as they can obfuscate with wild, capitalized riffs/accusations to avoid having to argue the validity of their claims. Whad is then free also attack other players to keep the conversation off of the two of them with a certain level of name-clearing they never actually earned.