# A prediction from theory

Poe's law occasionally pops up with even the best of us. I think smilies need to just pop up automatically if you are in a good mood when you post.

I think it best to just leave it lay as is.

I will be following this advice, thank you.

but I do think it is flawed because as Mick says, people do commit suicide in prison, especially when facing such huge charges.

I do appreciate that such an event does not prove a conspiracy. It will, of course, cause a conspiracy theory.

There is still, however, a statistical norm of a person in such a situation killing themselves. If it happens, when determining how improbable the sequence of events is, I will multiply that probability with the statistical norm of the FBI killing someone in custody (what would the latter be, 1/10?). The killing of the brother I am simply putting down to American anger.

If Dzhokhar dies, it does not make it a conspiracy. His risk of death is high, he is probably a suicide risk. Qed, you may be committing a post hoc fallacy here, saying because a coin came up heads twice, there must be a conspiracy if it comes up heads a third time.

No I am not. You don't understand statistics.

Consider two dice, one normal, and one biased towards 6.

I pick one dice at random and throw it twice. We get six and then six again.

I bet you that if I throw six again, the dice in question is the biased one.

Would you take the bet? That is, would you bet that the dice is in fact the the normal one?

The issue is the probability of a sequence of improbable events. A sequence of unusual events is unlikely.

No I am not. You don't understand statistics.

Consider two dice, one normal, and one biased towards 6.

I pick one dice at random and throw it twice. We get six and then six again.

I bet you that if I throw six again, the dice in question is the biased one.

Would you take the bet? That is, would you bet that the dice is in fact the the normal one?

The issue is the probability of a sequence of improbable events. A sequence of unusual events is unlikely.

Why haven't you answered my question directly yet, sir?

No I am not. You don't understand statistics.

Consider two dice, one normal, and one biased towards 6.

I pick one dice at random and throw it twice. We get six and then six again.

I bet you that if I throw six again, the dice in question is the biased one.

Would you take the bet? That is, would you bet that the dice is in fact the the normal one?

The issue is the probability of a sequence of improbable events. A sequence of unusual events is unlikely.

But your analogy assumes that there is a biased die (a conspiracy).

And your suggestions that 1 in 10 prison deaths are FBI murders seems entirely baseless.

I have no statistics to hand or evidence upon which to base this remark, my intuition leads me to assume guilty parties are more likely to commit suicide in prison than innocent parties. An innocent party has hope and will want a chance to clear their name. Doesn't help work this one out though. It's quite paradoxical. I can tell you that my most favourite cousin was beaten by police, questioned by Special Branch, and - shall I say - suicided in a high security cell. Coroner returned a verdict of suicide but the family will always have doubts, particularly as he had cuts and bruises around the neck which were a sign of struggle. He was fighting for his life. Call it a change of mind on his own behalf, half way through the act, or call it cold blooded murder.
If the Boston suspect is thoroughly guilty I believe he'd be more likely to kill himself. If he is innocent I believe he'd be more likely to be 'suicided'. In either event the coroner will return suicide as the reason for death, and no one will ever know - that's the 'neat' and paradoxical thing about death in custody.

Last edited:
I have no statistics to hand or evidence upon which to base this remark, my intuition leads me to assume guilty parties are more likely to commit suicide in prison than innocent parties. An innocent party has hope and will want a chance to clear their name. Doesn't help work this one out though. It's quite paradoxical. I can tell you that my most favourite cousin was beaten by police, questioned by Special Branch, and - shall I say - suicided in a high security cell. Coroner returned a verdict of suicide but the family will always have doubts, particularly as he had cuts and bruises around the neck which were a sign of struggle. He was fighting for his life. Call it a change of mind on his own behalf, half way through the act, or call it cold blooded murder.
If the Boston suspect is thoroughly guilty I believe he'd be more likely to kill himself. If he is innocent I believe he'd be more likely to be 'suicided'. Either way the coroner will return suicide as the reason for death, and no one will ever know - that's the 'neat' and paradoxical thing about death in custody.
I disagree. It could be looked at the opposite way. There are many instances of people on remand attempting suicide only for later to be found not guilty. Similar when there have been miscarriages of justice. To profess your innocence often means you give up your chances of parole. An innocent person may be more likely to despair especially when faced with the shit conditions on remand.

Off topic
Sorry! Couldn't resist the quote . I empathise with your deprived urban storey all be it from a long time white biker dude perspective. In that sub culture I've rode and been in the company of some "rum types." I personally have, as friends, a few thieves an attempted rapist (drunk twat) and four murderers. One was a drug dealer who blew a kids liver out with a scatter blaster over a 500 quide debt...ffs. One was "prospecting" in a gang who drove the motor at a "manslaughter". The other two were brothers in the same gang who head shot that All England Hells Angel on his way home from the Bull Dog Bash. Although, through lack of evidence, the actual shooter of the four convicted was never identified I've got a pretty good idea of who it was. I'm sure the police have too but logic and assumptions don't make evidence.

What I'm getting at is, like me, you side stepped the gang cultures even though it was around you. Something you had to deal with and accept as part of the environment. I can see from your writing, somethig I personally struggle with, your an intelligent guy and like myself could have easily been drawn into a life that could have risked ones liberty.

Like myself, in an environment like that, I'm sure your no innocent but it sure makes for a great scholarship in the university of life

Boodles, when you hang yourself from a short distance, the method of death is strangulation, not having one's neck snapped which is more instantaneous. As a result of the method of death being slower, people have time to react. Some may regret the finality of the choice and try to stop it. More often natural reflexes take hold, and you try to fight the cord/belt/rope/whatever. Nail marks at the throat are very consistent with that. Unless you restrain yourself physically, which honestly looks worse to the untrained eye.

Last edited:
And your suggestions that 1 in 10 prison deaths are FBI murders seems entirely baseless.

I was being ironic. The lower the probability, the less the likelihood that this death in FBI custody was random.

But your analogy assumes that there is a biased die (a conspiracy).

Different die represent different competing hypotheses. The jury will be considering at least two.

Different die represent different competing hypotheses. The jury will be considering at least two.

Would still like to know how you are better qualified than my buddy to assert what is blood and what is paint...

Would still like to know how you are better qualified than my buddy to assert what is blood and what is paint...

I am one of those members who tend to discount eyewitness testimony, due to its notorious unreliability.

I am one of those members who tend to discount eyewitness testimony, due to its notorious unreliability.

I asked him about the blood and whether or not people who thought it was paint were justified in thinking that. Here is his response;

"[My first name], it is so easy for some people to sit behind a computer screen and guess what happened. That was real blood. I spent literally fifteen straight hours addressing wounds and cleaning up those who were hurt from the blasts, including some that have been labeled "crisis actors" by unstable conspiracy theorists. If there was fake blood or paint, somebody in the hospital would have told someone. It's as simple as that. I know real blood. I'm trained. They are not. That was real blood."

We're not talking an eyewitness who was there for a brief moment; we're talking an hour eyewitness who worked with your alleged "fake blood" for hours.

There is difference in 'eye witness' reports. Especially when you are dealing with experts. Say my best friend both witness a dog attack on a child. She might report that it was a large black dog, if someone asked her if it was pit, she might well say, "It could have been'. Whereas, I would might ID the same dog as lab, rottie, chow cross. I would notice things like the shape of the ears, the tail and how it was carried, whether or not it had any brown on it.

Where are there any eyewitness observers that claim it was paint? Remember that few folks, outside of medical profession have seen real blood. We see fake blood on TV and in the movies.

When it comes to eyewitness statements each witness tells the storey in a different way. However, the narrative remains the same...." a dog bit a child several times" and "a big dog attacked a child". Both said differently but describing the exact same thing. Coincidentally, if both witness statements are verbatim it's a sign of collusion and usually a lie.... just saying

Remember that few folks, outside of medical profession have seen real blood.

Surely anyone who has ever been cut has seen real blood?

I am one of those members who tend to discount eyewitness testimony, due to its notorious unreliability.

Have you put your tail between your legs and run off? Still waiting for your response to the quote from my friend.

Right so the trial is due to start today. Have any moves been made yet by the military to claim jurisdiction? TPTB only have a few months to kill him now. Oh the tension is killing me ;-)

Right so the trial is due to start today. Have any moves been made yet by the military to claim jurisdiction? TPTB only have a few months to kill him now. Oh the tension is killing me ;-)
Where did you get that the trial starts today?

Surely anyone who has ever been cut has seen real blood?
Yes but unless they were part of the medical profession, would they be able to actually be sure it was blood, i.e. was it 'official'?

Yes but unless they were part of the medical profession, would they be able to actually be sure it was blood, i.e. was it 'official'?

You are comparing apples and oranges here. No one on the conspiracy side has addressed my friend who says it was real blood. He helped victims and saw them running into the hospital, including one that has been featured in a lot of photos that are scrutinized by the conspiracy theorists has "fake." What's the excuse from the conspiracy theorists here?

You are comparing apples and oranges here. No one on the conspiracy side has addressed my friend who says it was real blood. He helped victims and saw them running into the hospital, including one that has been featured in a lot of photos that are scrutinized by the conspiracy theorists has "fake." What's the excuse from the conspiracy theorists here?
I was only replying in the context of Cairenns post that "few folks, outside of medical profession have seen real blood." I am not suggesting it was fake blood at Boston, merely noting the extremes that some go to to impugn evidence from witnesses who do not tow the official line... but I only say that in general terms and not in relation to Boston as I am not aware of any actual witnesses who said it was fake blood.

I was only replying in the context of Cairenns post that "few folks, outside of medical profession have seen real blood." I am not suggesting it was fake blood at Boston, merely noting the extremes that some go to to impugn evidence from witnesses who do not tow the official line... but I only say that in general terms and not in relation to Boston as I am not aware of any actual witnesses who said it was fake blood.

Well look before you leap. That is what this entire thread has been about. Or are you such a contrarian that you feel you need to stick up for a completely untenable position. I'll say again, what paint do you know has the viscosity of blood, the same color as blood when wet, AND dries to a maroon-ish brown as blood does? I mean the OP stated as such. Did you not see half his posts?

Have you put your tail between your legs and run off? Still waiting for your response to the quote from my friend.

Everyone is (probably) going to get the opportunity to humiliate me in the near future. Remember that I said that if this trial runs to completion and a guilty verdict if found, I will not accept the claim that there was a conspiracy in Boston. For me, and many others I hope, the conspiracy theory will be debunked.

I have found a way by which we can avoid debating the issue for now. As Mike has pointed out, even discussing it is libelous. So lets not for now. This is what respected members have advised me.

You, unlike the rest of us, know 100% that I am wrong. So you know you will be getting a shot at me. Just be patient.

Everyone is (probably) going to get the opportunity to humiliate me in the near future. Remember that I said that if this trial runs to completion and a guilty verdict if found, I will not accept the claim that there was a conspiracy in Boston. For me, and many others I hope, the conspiracy theory will be debunked.

I have found a way by which we can avoid debating the issue for now. As Mike has pointed out, even discussing it is libelous. So lets not for now. This is what respected members have advised me.

You, unlike the rest of us, know 100% that I am wrong. So you know you will be getting a shot at me. Just be patient.

This has nothing to do with the trial. This has to do with your comment that you are discounting my friends first-hand encounter with the injured.

Well look before you leap. That is what this entire thread has been about. Or are you such a contrarian that you feel you need to stick up for a completely untenable position. I'll say again, what paint do you know has the viscosity of blood, the same color as blood when wet, AND dries to a maroon-ish brown as blood does? I mean the OP stated as such. Did you not see half his posts?
Perhaps you should take your own advice about looking and leaping. The OP did not state as much. The OP if you read it was about the trial being changed to a military style or secret or some such like or Dzhokhar dying before the end.

A cornerstone of a valuable scientific theory is the ability to make predictions. I have a theory of what happened in Boston, gleaned from the ample visual material. Rather than waste our time debating this theory, I am going to make a prediction, and if this prediction fails, I will reject the theory. This prediction is so outrageous, that if it comes true, you must take seriously the theory.

The case is soon to be heard in a civil trial (i.e., a trial by a jury of peers, as in Law and Order). The evidence of the state will be available to all. Jeff and the Corcoran's will be questioned by the defense. I expect Dzhokhar will receive excellent legal council.

If my theory is valid, this trial cannot take place as afore described.

Blood wasn't even mentioned until post 6 or 7.

Oh so you did read it! Then you saw all his erroneous claims and how they were efficiently debunked with no effort. Bravo.

Oh so you did read it! Then you saw all his erroneous claims and how they were efficiently debunked with no effort. Bravo.
I don't miss much. I wouldn't have my super status if I did

But if Dzhokhar does die before or during trial, you must accept a conspiracy.

Why was he not killed at the scene of his capture? The perfect opportunity.

Why was he not killed at the scene of his capture? The perfect opportunity.
Why do you expect anyone to know that answer? Or are you 'just asking questions?'

Why was he not killed at the scene of his capture? The perfect opportunity.

Counter
• They did try!
First we have this.

and then
He has multiple gunshot wounds, the most severe of which appears to have entered through the left side inside of his mouth and exited the left face, lower face. This was a high-powered injury that has resulted in skull-base fracture, with injuries to the middle ear, the skull base, the lateral portion of the C1 vertebrae [sic], with a significant soft-tissue injury, as well as injury to the pharynx, the mouth, and a small vascular injury that’s been treated.
Content from External Source
• Recall that his brother was brutally killed, his friend killed in FBI custody, and the original suspect found floating dead in the Boston river.
Refinement
• Why was Dhzhorkar not killed in the Beth Israel hospital? (This is the same hospital that us skeptics claim covered up "fake" amputations, etc.)

• Why was Dhzhorkar not killed in the Beth Israel hospital? (This is the same hospital that us skeptics claim covered up "fake" amputations, etc.)

So, my friend who works at one of the Boston area hospitals is lying about those injuries being real, then?

...
• Why was Dhzhorkar not killed in the Beth Israel hospital? (This is the same hospital that us skeptics claim covered up "fake" amputations, etc.)

Why would "they" hire dozens of actors and risk jeopardizing the whole conspiracy operation if "they" did any little mistake instead of simply exploding two amateur bombs and sacrificing a bunch of innocents for the greater good? Were "they" actually worried about the innocent civilians wellness and hired those stunt actors in order to guarantee that no innocents were hurt? Regarding planning and costs, which of the options is better and cheaper?

Regarding killing the younger brother, "they" planned and executed a f**ing complex plan. If "they" wanted someone dead, it would happen. There would be no trying, only accomplishing.

Recall that his brother was brutally killed, his friend killed in FBI custody, and the original suspect found floating dead in the Boston river.
Refinement

• and it was a bunch of college kids that confused him for the pics of dzorkah. He was never an 'original suspect'. Your statements aren't facts, they are opinion or rumor. Give us some links (evidence) for those statements.

Last edited:

Boston.com
Seeing a photo of one of the Marathon bombing suspects dead was cathartic, said one law enforcement official who saw the picture.

Passing it around was a rare chance “to revel” while other officers searched for Tsarnaev’s brother, Dzhokhar, the official said. “Mission accomplished. We’re halfway there. Justice is served.”
Content from External Source

He was never an 'original suspect'. Your statements aren't facts, they are opinion or rumor. Give us some links (evidence) for those statements.
You are correct and I was wrong. He was never an 'original suspect'.

Thank you for calling me on this.

The Tsarnaev brothers were the only 2 suspects in this case publicly announced by the FBI. Any other suspects were from Internet communities.

Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
127
Views
11K
Replies
66
Views
6K
Replies
239
Views
18K