No smoke without fire, no smoke without fire. Haha.
Miss Marple always said so, and Miss Marple is always right.
She said that people have a sense about these things. They're not right about the particulars, but they get the general picture, and well.
And she was right.

Is the reverse also true ? Jane Austen contends so. She says half of love is vanity- you are so delighted that someone should love you, that out of gratitude you go and love them as well. But that ought not to be love in the strictly correct sense. It ought to be falling in love with love. But is there a difference. Does it matter, the object of the love, at all ? Or is love merely another way of relating to yourself ? Jung said so- he said something to the effect that the partner a person chose was a projection of the unexpressed side of their personality.
Ah well. Who knows.

Miss Marple, but Christie's dead now, so that's no help.