RSS

Tag Archives: suspicious deaths

Seth Rich/JFK Mortality Probability Calculator

Richard Charnin
Updated: 7/15/17

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

It’s not just about Seth Rich. Applied Mathematics indicates a virtual 100% probability of a cover-up.

Assume a random group of 10,000 DNC/Wikileaks related individuals:
-There were 8 suspicious deaths (5 homicides) in 3 months from April 2016.
The probability of at least 5 homicides in 3 months is 1 in 6.5 million.
– There were 12 suspicious deaths (8 homicides) in 15 months since April 2016.
The probability of at least 8 homicides in 15 months is 1 in 3.4 million.

2016
4/18: John Jones, lawyer who defended Assange, run over by train.
May : Michael Ratner (Wikileaks NY lawyer), cancer.
6/22: John Ashe, ex-UN official, barbell fell on neck. He was going to testify on DNC and Clinton.
6/23: Mike Flynn,48, died day he reported on Clinton Foundation (unknown).
7/10: Seth Rich, DNC staffer, shot twice in back.
7/25: Joe Montano,47, DNC, heart attack day before the DNC convention.
8/01: Victor Thorn, gunshot wound, author of books on Clintons.
8/02: Shawn Lucas, DNC process server, lethal combination of drugs.
Oct : Gavin McFayden (Wikileaks founder), cancer.
2017
May : Peter Smith, GOP operative, found dead from asphyxiation in a Minnesota hotel room just days after talking to the Wall Street Journal about his efforts to obtain Hillary’s Clinton’s missing emails. Suicide?
May : Beranton Whisenant, prosecutor investigating DNC, found dead on Hollywood, FL beach.
July: Klaus Eberwein, former Haiti Government official found dead in a motel room with a gunshot wound to the head. Was to testify on Clinton Foundation connection to Haitian earthquake charity.

How many DNC voter data admins were there? How many DNC process servers? How many HRC biographers? How many Assange lawyers? How many Wikileaks founders? How many UN officials preparing to testify? How many DNC officials? How many investigative reporters on the Clintons? Are any of these deaths being investigated? Any suspects?

What is the probability that in a random group of N DNC/Wikileaks related individuals, n would die unnaturally in T years given group mortality rate R? Three (R, n, T) of the 4 parameters are known constants. The only unknown is N, the number of individuals in the study.
The expected number of unnatural deaths: E = N*R*T

The  Poisson distribution function calculates the probability of rare events. The probability of n homicides when E are expected is P = poisson (n,E,false).

There were 7 suspicious DNC/Wikileaks deaths in 3 months:
n = 7
R = 0.0002 (DC homicide rate; 135 homicides/681170 pop.)
T = 3 months (0.25 Year).
N = relevant DNC/Wikileaks population.
E = N*R*T =N*0.0002*0.25 (expected number of homicides).

Assume N = 1,000 DNC/Wikileaks related  persons, then for
n=3 homicides: P= 1 in 52 thousand
n=4 homicides: P= 1 in 4.2 million
n=5 homicides: P= 1 in 422 million
n=6 homicides: P= 1 in 51 billion
n=7 homicides: P= 1 in 7.2 trillion

Assume: n=7, T= 0.25 (3 months), R=0.0002 and
N= 500, P = 1 in 902.1 trillion
N= 1,000, P = 1 in 7.2 trillion
N= 3,000, P = 1 in 3.6 billion
N= 10,000, P = 1 in 1.1 million

Since N is unknown, let’s view a SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS table over a range of N for n=5,6,7,8,9:

Probability of n homicides in a random group of
n 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
5 0.02% 0.31% 1.41% 3.61%
6 0.00% 0.05% 0.35% 1.20%
7 0.00% 0.01% 0.08% 0.34%
8 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.09%
9 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%

The analysis assumes the 7 DNC/Wikileaksdeaths were all homicides. If they were a combination of  homicides,  accidents,  suicides and heart attacks, we need to use a weighted mortality rate. This is conservative since “accidents” and “suicides” were likely homicides. The heart attack was also highly suspicious.

………………..National Weighted for T=.25 (3 months)
COD………. n Rate……… Rate
Accident.. 2 0.00038 0.00076
Suicide…. 1 0.00012 0.00012
Homicide. 3 0.00005 0.00015
Natural?.. 1 0.00173 0.00173 heart attack/cancer
Total…….7 0.00228 0.00039

For n=7, N= 1000, R = 0.00039, T = 0.25 (3 months)
Probability: P = 1 in 60 billion.

For n=5 homicides, N=1000, T= 0.27 (14 weeks), R = 0.00005
P = 1 in 275 billion

For n =7 (5 homicides, 2 heart attacks), N=1000, T= 0.25, R = 0.00052
P = 1 in 8 billion.

For n=9 (5 homicides, 2 heart attacks and 2 cancers):
R=0.0008, N=1000, T=0.5 (6 months)
P = 1 in 2.5 billion.

There were n=6 suspicious DNC/Wikileaks deaths in T=5 weeks (0.10 years). Mortality rate R=0.0002. Assuming a random group of N individuals, the probability that it was just a coincidence is
N Probability
500  1 in 900 trillion
1000 1 in 14 trillion
3000 1 in 20 billion
30000 1 in 32000

You can run the spreadsheet calculator for any combination of N, n, R and T. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1htajNqLQrV9M4jmwWUN7MweelfN2ZCwr8KB-YeO7r10/edit#gid=0

https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance

Probability of 0-7 homicides in a random group of 40,000 over 3 months

No automatic alt text available.

No automatic alt text available.

JFK WITNESS DEATHS
In 1964-78, there were an estimated 1500 JFK-related material witnesses, of whom 122 died suspiciously. Seventy-eight(78) of the 122 were officially ruled unnatural. Of the 78, 34 were homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides and 4 unknown. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths: 2.7E-31 (1 in a million trillion trillion).

Just 12 accidents and 3 suicides were expected statistically, therefore approximately 60 of the 78 unnatural deaths were likely homicides.

Of the remaining 44 “natural” deaths (heart attacks, sudden cancers, other), approximately 25-30 were homicides based on the total number of expected deaths. Therefore, there were 85-90 homicides among the 122 suspicious deaths. For 10,000 witnesses, Probability: 5.5E-47

<https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/edit#gid=3

Simkin JFK Index of 656 key individuals: 44 homicides, Probability = 4.7 E-60 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/edit#gid=81

 
9 Comments

Posted by on May 20, 2017 in 2016 election, JFK, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

A math-phobic troll claims that JFK-related witness deaths are NOT suspicious

A math-phobic troll claims that JFK-related witness deaths are NOT suspicious

Richard Charnin
Jan.24, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Carmine Savastano claims that the official, ruled causes of 100+ JFK-related witness deaths are not verifiable. But he goes even further: he states the deaths caused by homicide, accident, suicide, heart attack and sudden cancer are NOT suspicious. He demands that I post references to all the coroner’s reports. I told him that since he wants proof, he should just get them himself. This charlatan is transparent and completely illogical – a classic troll.

He is effectively calling great researchers incompetent in their books and articles on convenient JFK-related witness deaths: Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura, John Simkin and Craig Roberts, etc… Carmine is parroting his mentor John McAdams. But his comments are even more out of touch than McAdams.

The 122 JFK Calc witnesses official and estimated true cause of death:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Graphical proof of a conspiracy:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

The Facebook thread:https://www.facebook.com/groups/JFKED/permalink/1541586816108007/

Carmine Savastano
Ah Richard…More insults, no evidence. I am noticing a pattern. What you have concluded means little without evidence to prove it. Well take that up with those who doubt it. I doubt your sources based on the evidence that can be verified.

Richard Charnin
Let’s pursue your statement in general. Provide us with evidence in the JFK assassination (do not include Judyth Baker’s evidence) that you consider to be verifiable and proven. Also display another list of evidence that you consider unverifiable and unproven. Cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
instead how about she answers questions repeatedly asked instead of having others attempt to change the subject. Speculation is not my style. So is there evidence or not? It is a simple proposition. I am not claiming anything I cannot prove. I do not like making multiple lists as some do. Just evidence. I have offered the problems they can be addressed reasonably or you can insult and ignore reasonble questions. Simple really. Since I have not made the book with unproven claims I do not need to prove them. Have you got those coroner’s reports yet? The evidence is in these threads, easy to find if you look.

Richard Charnin
we would like to know what conclusions you have come to. Surely, there must be some evidence that you consider proven and verifiable and other evidence which is not. With all of your experience in investigating the claims of JFK researchers and others, as an intelligent critic you must have some opinions on this matter. You have already claimed that evidence heretofore presented (by myself and Judyth, for example) is unverifiable and unproven, right? So give us two lists: Column A- proven; Column B – unproven. We like Chinese food.

Carmine Savastano
Well I do appreciate the compliment even if it was sarcasm, that may be the nicest thing you have ever said to me. Levity aside, I consider significant amounts of evidence proven. I am happy to discuss them at length. However, is it too much to ask that Judyth answers the many questions others and I have posed before we change the subject?

Carmine Savastano
How about a few?

Richard Charnin
Do not discuss them at length. Just give us a list. With sources, please. I would say give us as much as you can, and not limit the number to just a few.

Carmine Savastano
Lists do not offer background and context. No if you want a list that might be possible when I get a few answers. Speaking of lists, did you review all the coroner’s reports? Perhaps you can answer a question while I wait for Judyth? Us? I see some are hungry to attack something, I fear you shall have to wait. I am waiting for my answers still, so you will have to as well.

Richard Charnin
You can list them in a sequence of chapters over the next day or two, as if you are writing a book.

Richard Charnin
Don’t ask me about the coroner’s reports. I asked YOU questions. Please do not try to divert from the issue at hand.

Carmine Savastano
Why thanks, how nice of you. You answer a question perhaps I will too.
No Richard you failed to answer them, now you presume to ask. Amusing.

Richard Charnin
You are still in avoidance and changing the subject. Please respond to MY questions. You may proceed.

Carmine Savastano
Still the same question, since you do not wish to answer it, shall I then conclude you did not read the coroner’s reports? Thus, the natural deaths are not contended by evidence. Just hypothesis, which is fine, it is possible, just not conclusive.

Richard Charnin
You are still in avoidance and changing the subject. Please respond to MY questions. You may proceed. You can read the coroner’s reports yourself. In fact, include them. Cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
It is charming how you seek to turn this around. Yet it is you and JVB who will not offer evidence and answer questions. The subject never changed you just seek to change it.

Richard Charnin
Now, that you have attempted to change the subject, the onus is on YOU to cite the evidence of verifiable and unverifiable claims SPECIFICALLY. And please cite YOUR sources.

Carmine Savastano
Yes richard because its not about Judyth, you, or me, its about what evidence we have to prove our claims. Im still waiting. Here is my evidence that contends your claims. Care to comment? Seeking to make it about me will not prove your claims. Try as you might. Citations are in the article Are many Suspicious deaths supported by Evidence?
(A rebuttal of “A closer look at the HSCA list of 21 deaths” by Richard Charnin) http://tpaak.com/new-blog/2014/12/20/are-many-suspicious-deaths-supported-by-evidence
Some claim a large and expansive list of deaths related to the Kennedy assassination. This is in addition to the expansive plot that often accompanies such claims. That is evidence I support, want more?

Richard Charnin
I am not turning anything around. I asked you to enlghten us with some examples of verifiable and unverifiable evidence – and to cite your sources. Are you prepared to do that? You are the one who is expounding as if you are expert on verifiable and unverifiable evidence. Let’s see what you have. What is verifiable? What is not? And cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
It is cited in the article. Here is more evidence.
http://tpaak.com/new-blog/2015/1/14/a-question-of-time
This supports Oswald did not know until november 19th, which does not support the story offered.

A Question of Time
Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been employed at the Texas School Book Depository without learning of the job from Ruth Paine. This infers he did not plan to be in the Depository in November. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrells changed the parade route on November 18th, not just before. Howeve…
TPAAK.COM

Richard Charnin
Just a summary list will suffice. Column A and Column B with a statement and a link We want to see very quickly where you stand..

Carmine Savastano
Keep asking I will keep posting articles. The evidence is listed already under References. I like lists with context. I support and you can verify the sources.

Carmine Savastano
So do you have answer on the coroner’s reports? Wikipedia? How about the dozens of unproven sources prior cited from JVB’s book. Since you want to discuss evidence let everyone do so, or admit perhaps there are some problems.

Richard Charnin
Carmine, let me help you since beneath your calm veneer, you appear to be on the verge of a state of panic. Here is the list of names in JFK Calc with the official cause of 122 unnatural and suspicious deaths. You have asked me to verify the information which I have gotten from lists drawn by Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura.John Simkin and Craig Roberts. I also have provided a link to the 21 deaths noted by the HSCA: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/jfk-witnesses-a…/ .

Now you have the list of 122 names. If you want to REFUTE THE OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH then I suggest that YOU go through each coroner’s report. After all, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIM THAT THE LIST WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. RIGHT? SO GO RIGHT AHEAD AND PROVE YOUR CASE:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Carmine Savastano
Hah, Though you are a panic, I need not fear losing composure over unproven claims. So have you read the coroner’s reports? If not how do you claim the deaths were not natural as the attending coroner stated they were? I like primary evidence not secondary hypothesis.

Richard Charnin
Again, Carmine, please read my comments. I asked you to provide a list of what you believe to be unverifiable and verifiable evidence. TWO COLUMNS, with a link to support your case. CAN YOU PROVIDE THIS MENU?

Carmine Savastano
If you did not bother to review the medical evidence in each case how can you be so sure of your figures? Would that not infer errors are likely form making prior assumptions that could inflate the list unnecessarily?

Carmine Savastano
Richard, you have ignored my questions for days, answer a few and maybe I shall indulge your latest demand, or just try to change the subject because you cannot answer the question. Did you read the coroner’s report?

Richard Charnin
Must I spell it out for you? Create a spreadsheet of claims with these column headings: Claim (Evidence)- Verifiable- Unverifiable- Link

Carmine Savastano
Must I explain it requires verifiable evidence not your best guess to prove a death was mysterious? That all the lists in the world not based on verifiable evidence prove nothing. If the body of evidence does not support something it remains unproven.

Richard Charnin
The official, ruled cause of deaths are not verifiable? Prove it. The onus is on you to get the coroner’s reports for the 122 and try and refute ALL the researchers I have listed above. Now go to it and stop diverting. This is not a joke. But your avoidance is HILARIOUS.

Carmine Savastano
Yes it is verifiable. Its your list , your burden of proof. You are hilarious. You should have read them, if you chose not to, not my problem. So do you admit that 50 natural deaths were listed as not without full verification using the medical files?

Richard Charnin
I got the list from articles and books written by Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura. John Simkin and Craig Roberts. NOW ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT THEY ALL USED UNVERIFIABLE DATA? ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THEY ARE AMATEUR RESEARCHERS? ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT JOHN MCADAMS IS CORRECT IN HIS DISMISSING THIS EVIDENCE SINCE YOU APPARENTLY AGREE WITH HIM? ARE YOU A MCADAMS WANNABEE?

Carmine Savastano
That is wonderful. Books are secondary sources. For the most accurate I would suggest medical files and primary sources. I claim anything beyond primary verifiable evidence is not verifiable. Lists do not prove things, evidence does. Better evidence gives more accurate results. Authors can use interpretation which can change the facts from as they were originally stated. It does not matter who wrote the book. Remember its not about them, you , or me, but evidence.

Richard Charnin
Carmine Savastano, get ready for Part II. I am seriously thinking of posting the contents of this thread on other JFK groups and on my blog. You will experience deja vu as you are about to be humiliated once again.

Carmine Savastano
Richard I am aware you have been talking about me for some time. I’m more than ready for your next article. Post away. I have nothing that I regret saying. So perhaps check the coroner’s reports, while your busy attempting label me whatever the latest claim is.

Judyth Baker
For those who would like a simple explanation of what Richard has done, let’s show all of you why “coroner’;s reports” are not necessary in Charnin;s work. I’ll take the example of a tsunami. In that one event, an unusual number of people llost their lives. It was a head count and no coroner’s report was needed for each victim. The unusual number of deaths spiked the statistics: you could see a correlation and everybody knew this was a ‘tsunami’ related phenomenon: all those deaths. Now, apply this to the Kennedy assassination statistics for those who had any link to the Kennedy assassination and the EXPECTED number of deaths. The spike is there. It’s a relative ‘tsunami” event. It doesn;t matter about quibbling about whether a death was declared natural or not. It doesn’t matter if a coroner lied or not or was pressured to cover up a fact or two. It has to do with the raw death count. The raw death count is outrageously out of proportion to the normal expected death count. Charnin shows you just how high that spike goes–and here we have non-statisticians quibbling about coroners’ reports. They’re out of their league and embarrassing themselves.

Judyth Baker
Maybe I’ll use “this is Judyth” a lot more, just to get their panties in a bunch, LOL!

Carmine Savastano
Judtyh here is why you are wrong. The attending medical expert knows more than you and Richard claim to and have actually seen the conditions of the body and tested them. So without contending primary evidence its your best guess. No matter who likes it or endorses it.

Richard Charnin
So Carmine, are you saying that the officially ruled homicides, accidents, suicides, sudden cancers and heart attacks are different from the coroner’s reports? Then go get the official causes of death. What is the purpose of the coroner’s report if it is not to indicate the official cause of death? You have totally embarrassed yourself and can no longer be considered credible in anything you say. If I may be frank, your statement is not just wrong, it is STUPID – even more so than anything McAdams has ever written on this subject. So here is the deal. YOU go through ALL 122 coroner reports for the OFFICIAL causes of death. Then compare each of the 122 to the OFFICIAL cause of death that a dozen JFK researchers have noted and which are included in the JFK Calc database. For the official causes of death, you need to look at column H in this JFK Calc tab. Now go to work. PROVE YOUR POINT. PROVE THAT I AM WRONG. PROVE THAT THE CAUSES OF 122 DEATHS LISTED IN JFK CALC ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CORONER’S REPORTS. YOU SAID IT.NOW PROVE IT.

Carmine Savastano
No Richard you are. Hence your feasibly incorrect list.

Richard Charnin
Carmine, let’s put an end to this madness. Let’s get down to the basics. You appear to be confused by your repetitive demands to see the coroner reports. You apparently do not comprehend that suspicious deaths include two categories: unnatural and natural.

There were 122 suspicious deaths, of which 78 were OFFICIALLY RULED UNNATURAL: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown. Of the other 44 OFFICIALLY RULED NATURAL deaths, 25 were due to heart attacks and 19 due to other causes (cancer, etc.) Only 17 UNNATURAL deaths were statistically EXPECTED among the 1400 JFK-related witnesses based on the weighted average unnatural death rate (0.000247).

Only 2 homicides were expected based on the 0.000084 average homicide rate. The probability of 34 homicides is 1.57 E-31 (1 in 6 million trillion trillion). Those were the OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths is even lower: 2.76E-62 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).

Based on the STATISTICAL EXPECTATION of each cause of death, I calculated an ESTIMATE of the TRUE CAUSES OF DEATH: 86 HOMICIDES, 8 ACCIDENTS, 3 SUICIDES,4 UNKNOWN, 10 HEART ATTACKS, 6 CANCERS AND 5 OTHER NATURAL. I distinguish between the OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH and the estimated TRUE cause of death. BUT AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE, EVEN ASSUMING THE OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH, THE PROBABILITIES ARE ZERO. Therefore, the estimated true cause of death is essentially a moot point even though it illustrates that the OFFICIAL CORONER REPORTS do not reflect the ACTUAL CAUSE OF DEATH.

Do you get it now, Carmine Savastano? Or will you remain in your current state of ignorance and naivete? Will you continue to persist in your insane demand that I provide coroner’s reports for each of the 122 deaths when the OFFICIAL CAUSE OF THESE DEATHS HAS BEEN PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE SINCE 1978?

Carmine Savastano
Richard, all you need is to prove with the primary evidence that you are correct. According to it not your claims you are not. Unless you assess all the relevant evidence to prove your claims. I did not mistake your claims. Suicides are unnatural not suspicious because you claim they are, 24 accidents not suspicious, 4 unknown, not suspicious, add the 44 natural deaths you never bothered to look into and that makes 72 deaths by natural or unnatural means, not suspicious without substantial proof. Unnatural means do not definitively mean suspicious, See the difference yet? I read your article just fine. Try mine. Yours is a hypothesis, not based on all the primary evidence.http://tpaak.com/…/are-many-suspicious-deaths-supported&#8230;
Are many Suspicious deaths supported by Evidence?
(A rebuttal of “A closer look at the HSCA list of 21 deaths” by Richard Charnin) Some claim a large and expansive list of deaths related to the Kennedy assassination. This is in addition to the expansive plot that often accompanies such claims. Yet would a successful plot include the need to el…
TPAAK.COM

Richard Charnin
Suicides and accidents and heart attacks are not suspicious? Carmine Savastano, you have lost your last chance to redeem yourself. YOU ARE TOTALLY WITHOUT A CLUE. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO POSTING YOUR COMMENTS ON MY BLOG FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE THAT FACT.

Carmine Savastano
No unless there is evidence or someone bothers to regard the medical report to prove it. Not because you claim it. Even in capital letters. Please do, then something might seem reasonable on your blog.

Richard Charnin
Judyth is right. Coroner reports are a RED HERRING. It is the spiking of deaths during periods when the individuals died before they were called to testify that is apparently beyond the capacity of Carmine’s intellect to process – like the deaths of 7 TOP FBI officials:

Improbable Timing of Witness Deaths https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-at-hsca/

Suspicious deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and in 1977-78 (HSCA). In 1977, seven top FBI officials due to testify at HSCA died in a 6 month period, five from heart attacks, one from an accidental gunshot and one from an accidental fall.

7706 LOUIS NICHOLS Former #3, responsible for JFK investigation; heart attack
7706 REGIS KENNEDY Confiscated films of assassination; heart attack
7708 JAMES CADIGAN Document expert; died from a fall in his home
7708 ALAN BELMONT Liaison to Warren Commission; natural causes
7710 J.M. ENGLISH Head of Forensic Sciences Laboratory; heart attack
7710 DONALD KAYLOR Fingerprint chemist;bogus Oswald “print” on rifle; heart attack 7711 WILLIAM SULLIVAN Headed Division 5 (Counter-espionage); Gunshot accident

The timing of the 7 deaths is powerful proof of a conspiracy beyond any doubt, since it is focused on a specific group within a very short time interval. The HSCA did not mention any of these deaths in its claim that the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000 trillion to one odds of 18 material witness deaths in three years was invalid.

For each of the four scenarios, we calculate probabilities assuming a) 7 heart attacks, b) the official cause of deaths (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents); c) 4 homicides and 3 heart attacks; d) 7 homicides. The official cause of death may not be the actual cause; heart attacks and cancer can be induced. In order to calculate the probability of witness deaths we need the mortality rates for each cause of death.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on January 24, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , ,

Executive Action: JFK Witness Deaths and the London Times Actuary

Executive Action: JFK Witness Deaths and the London Times Actuary

Richard Charnin
Feb. 25, 2013
Updated: June 11, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

The 1973 film Executive Action depicted a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan, who played CIA operatives involved in the plot, were resisted in their efforts to have the film made by mainstream Hollywood producers. The movie reveals how Kennedy’s progressive agenda and peace initiatives were a threat to the establishment. He refused to invade Cuba, was seeking detente with the Soviet Union, planned to pull all troops out of Viet Nam by 1965, break up the CIA, eliminate the Federal Reserve and promoted the civil rights movement. Congress passed the Test Ban Treaty a few months before the assassination. In other words, he was doing his job.

At the end of the film, it was revealed that an actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated the odds of 18 material witnesses dying within three years of the JFK assassination. as 1 in 100,000 TRILLION.

“In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died – six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes”.

Assuming the data and calculation methodology were essentially correct, then it was clear proof of a conspiracy and refuted the Warren Commission conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin.

The London Sunday Times
There has been much controversy about the actuary’s calculation. Apparently, no one at the Sunday Times even recalls the actuary’s name. And even more strange, the Times legal manager did not provide the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) the actuary’s calculation assumptions or methodology. He claimed that the problem was not clearly defined. The HSCA compounded the obfuscation when their statistician claimed that the witness universe was unknowable and therefore the calculation was not valid.

In a response to a letter from the HSCA in 1977, London Sunday Times Legal Manager Anthony Whitaker wrote: Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times editorial staff after the first edition – the one which goes to the United States – had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: it was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied -correctly – that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower.

Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter – hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize. None of the editorial staff involved in the story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened, you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

The actuary’s identity was hardly material? It was and still is very material. No one on the editorial staff remembered his name? Really? And we are supposed to believe that? Only the actuary could explain his interpretation of the problem and method of calculation. Those statements made no sense; nothing else the Times legal manager said should have been taken at face value.

In fact, Whitaker misrepresented what is essentially a simple mathematical problem: to determine the probability of a given number of unnatural deaths over relevant time interval within a given population group.

His first error was to provide an incomplete and misleading statement of the problem. The U.S. population is not relevant; the number of JFK-related witnesses is. The “short period of time” is not specific. He misrepresented the essential goal of the probability analysis by not considering the frequency of unnatural deaths.

His second error was one of omission. Unnatural death mortality statistics and probability calculations used by the actuary were not provided to the HSCA. Was it because they would show that the calculation was plausible and essentially correct?

Whitaker claimed that he asked the actuary to calculate the probability that 15 names included in the Warren Commission Index would die within a “short” period. One must assume that the actuary assumed unnatural deaths and utilized corresponding unnatural mortality rate(s) in his calculation. Even if the Times editor did not specify unnatural deaths, it does not follow that the actuary was oblivious to the distinction.

In fact, the actuary’s calculation was confirmed assuming 552 witnesses, the number who testified at the Warren Commission. Is it just a coincidence that at least 30 Warren Commission witnesses (listed in the JFK Calc database with links to their testimony) died unnaturally and/or suspiciously or that scores of others died mysteriously at convenient times just before they were due to give testimony at the Garrison/Shaw trial, Church hearings and HSCA?

It is important to re-emphasize that Whitaker said not a word about unnatural deaths. In any case, his response settled the matter. The HSCA’s designated “statistical expert” just added to Whitaker’s obfuscation.

HSCA Obfuscation
In her HSCA testimony, statistical expert Jacqueline Hess dismissed the actuary’s odds as being invalid, claiming that it was “unsolvable”. Hess said she consulted with actuarial experts who told her “you cannot establish any kind of universe” of material witnesses. This was pure disinformation. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/hess.htm.

The claim that the odds were impossible to calculate was a ruse, just like the Single Bullet Theory (SBT).

The 552 Warren Commission witnesses is a KNOWN UNIVERSE. At least 30 died suspiciously from 1964-78. Fourteen (14) deaths were RULED unnatural: 4 homicides, 6 accidents and 4 suicides. Just one or two would normally have been expected based on UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES.. The probability of 14 RULED UNNATURAL deaths is 7E-07 (1 in 1.4 MILLION). But the 10 “suicides” and “accidents” were LIKELY homicides. The probability of 14 HOMICIDES is 3.9E-14 (1 in 25 TRILLION).

The 552 Warren Commission witnesses IS a subset of the approximately 1400 JFK-related witnesses named in the reference Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination.

The probability analysis is straightforward; it is not a theoretical exercise. It is mathematical proof of conspiracy based on factual data: 552 Warren Commission witnesses, at least 20 unnatural deaths, published mortality rates and use of the Poisson probability function. The numbers and probabilities speak for themselves. This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.

Hess conveniently left out scores of mysterious, unnatural deaths in her list of 21 witnesses. She noted five that were questionable. But even the “natural” deaths were suspicious. For example, Jack Ruby died just before his second trial, 29 days after being diagnosed with cancer. He claimed that he was injected with a virus. Thomas Howard, Ruby’s lawyer, died of a heart attack at age 53 in March 1965. There was no autopsy. Howard met with two reporters, Jim Koethe and Bill Hunter, in Ruby’s apartment on Nov. 24, 1963. The reporters were murdered. All three died within 16 months of the meeting.

Hess did not include David Ferrie and Eladio del Valle. David Ferrie supposedly had a brain aneurysm that was ruled a suicide – the day after his release from protective custody. He had just been named as a witness by New Orleans D.A. Garrison in the Clay Shaw trial. Ferrie associate del Valle was also sought by Garrison. He was murdered on Feb. 21, the same day as Ferrie.

Hess neglected every one of the 20 deaths of prospective HSCA witnesses! She gave a convoluted excuse in response to a question as to why she did not include George De Morenschildt, Oswald’s close friend (and intelligence operative) who allegedly shot himself the day he was notified that he was to be interviewed by HSCA. Nor did she mention the seven (7) high level FBI officials who died within a six-month period in 1977 – just before they were due to testify at HSCA. The probability is ZERO. Apparently, HSCA-related deaths were immaterial. But as mentioned above, even her list of 21 witnesses in the 1964-1967 period did not include at least 25 others.

Hess claimed that the actuary concluded that on 11/22/63 the odds of 15 witnesses being dead in three years was 1 in 10 to the 29th power (1 in 10,000 TRILLION TRILLION). That is obviously an incorrect statement. The actuary calculated the odds as 1 in 100,000 trillion (1 in 10 to the 17th power). He presumably used the Poisson probability function of rare events – the perfect mathematical tool for the problem (see below). One in 100,000 trillion is E-17, or 0.0000000000000001. Hess appears to have been anything but a “statistical expert” otherwise she would have done the calculations herself.

In spite of their efforts, the HSCA was forced in a “limited hangout” to conclude that both the JFK and Martin Luther King murders were conspiracies. Acoustic evidence indicated a 96% probability that at least four shots were fired. At least one came from the grassy knoll, indicating at least two shooters. That should have closed the book on the Warren Commission’s physically impossible, irrational Magic Bullet Theory. But the 50-year old myth is still presented as gospel by the mainstream media and overwhelming scientific ballistic, acoustic, video, medical, eyewitness and mathematical evidence of suspicious deaths is ignored.

The HSCA noted just 21 witness deaths. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/jfkdeaths.htm

These tables and graphs prove a conspiracy beyond any doubt: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Bugliosi’s Calculation

Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi tried to refute the actuary in his book Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He cited Robert M. Musen, vice president and senior actuary at Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Musen calculated the odds of 15 people out of 2,479 in the Warren Commission Index dying within a three-year period, assuming a median age of 40, to be 98.16%.

But there are two major problems with Musen’s calculation.
1- The index includes names of individuals who had no connection whatsoever to the assassination, such as George Washington and many others. Only 552 witnesses testified in person or by deposition.

2- Musen did not consider unnatural deaths. Even assuming an inflated 2479 witnesses, approximately 7 unnatural deaths would be expected over a three year period.

So how did the actuary calculate the probability? If he/she assumed 459 witnesses, then given 18 deaths (8 homicides, 3 accidents, 2 suicides, 3 heart attacks, 2 natural causes) and the 0.000207 total weighted mortality rate, the probability is 9.96E-18 or 1 in 100,000 trillion.

In fact, there were at least 47 suspicious deaths in the three years following the assassination. The actuary did not include Oswald and Ruby – and at least 20 others. The JFK witness spreadsheet database shows that at least 42 of the 47 deaths were unnatural (homicide, accident, suicide, unknown).

Using the .000831 unweighted unnatural death rate, the odds that at least 47 would die unnaturally within 3 years is E-25 or 1 in 10 trillion trillion.

The JFK Calc spreadsheet database consists of 122 material witnesses who died unnaturally or suspiciously from 1964-78. Researchers claim there were many more. Of the 122, 78 were officially ruled unnatural (34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown). The other deaths were a combination of suspicious heart attacks, sudden cancers and unknown causes.

But a statistical analysis of expected deaths for various causes indicates there were actually close to 90 homicides (the number of officially ruled deaths by accident, suicide and heart attack far exceeded the expectation).

The probability of 34 OFFICIAL RULED HOMICIDES among 1400 JFK-related individuals from 1964-78 is 1.57E-31 =1 in 6 million trillion trillion using the average 0.000084 homicide rate.

The probability of 78 OFFICIAL RULED UNNATURAL DEATHS is ZERO:
P= E-62= 1/trillion^5 = ZERO using the JFK-weighted average unnatural rate.
P= E-27= 1/trillion^2 = ZERO using the unweighted national average unnatural rate.

Another way of looking at it is to ask how many unnatural deaths were required in the 15 year period (assuming 1400 material witnesses) to obtain a probability of less than 1% (beyond a reasonable doubt). The answer is 30. As the number of deaths increase, the probability rapidly approaches ZERO. But there were over 80.

In 1964-78, there were at least 67 deaths of approximately 1100 material witnesses who were called to testify at the Warren Commission, Clay Shaw trial, Church Senate Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Given that 28 deaths were homicides, the probability is 2.3E-26 (1 in 40 TRILLION TRILLION).

Warren Commission apologists have suggested that there were 25,000 witnesses interviewed without providing a list. How many were material? Only about 1400. But even assuming 25,000, the probability of at least 26 homicides in three years is 1 in 490 BILLION. So much for the bogus 25,000 witnesses argument.

This is a challenge to those who still claim that the deaths do not prove a conspiracy: To substantiate that claim, they must refute the data (i.e., the Warren Commission witness list), the unnatural mortality rates and the use of the Poisson formula.

Source: U.S. National Center for Health Statistics
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html

This graph shows the long-term trend in U.S. homicide rate. Note that in 1963 the rate was approximately 6 per 100,000 (0.000062 is used in the homicide probability calculation).

There were different categories of witnesses: 1) 121 eyewitnesses who gave depositions to the FBI (51 said the shots came from the area of the Grassy Knoll, 32 from the Texas Book Depository, 38 were unsure), 2) witnesses called by the 1964 Warren Commission, 3) Jim Garrison/Clay Shaw trial, 4) Senate Intelligence (Church) Committee, 5) House Select Committee (HSCA) and 6) 1400+ JFK-related witnesses.

The timings of the deaths make it all the more suspicious. At least 22 died within one year of the assassination (Warren Commission). At least 16 died in 1977 (including SEVEN FBI officials) just before they were due to testify at HSCA. Using this information, we can calculate probabilities of these unnatural, suspicious deaths for each witness category.

Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination is a comprehensive study of 50 deaths by Richard Belzer and David Wayne (published April 2013).

The mathematical analysis of the scores of suspicious, unnatural deaths related to the assassination is further proof of a conspiracy – beyond any doubt. This is a comprehensive spreadsheet database of suspicious unnatural witness deaths, probability calculations, Warren Commission, Garrison/Shaw trial and HSCA witnesses. A plausible universe of 1400+ JFK-related witnesses is presented in the Who’s Who in the Kennedy Assassination reference.

Mark Lane debunked the Warren Commission in his book and film: Rush to Judgment.

The Poisson Probability Distribution

The expected number N of unnatural deaths in time period T is approximated by a simple formula: N = R * W * T, where R is the unnatural mortality rate, W the number of witnesses and T the number of years in the study.

The Poisson function is useful for calculating the probability that a certain number of rare events will occur over a specified period of time. For instance, the probability that 10 customers will walk into a store from 10-11 am, given an average arrival rate of 5 per hour for that time period. Or that 2 accidents will occur at a busy intersection next month, given an average of 1 per month.

In the JFK analysis, the Poisson function is used to calculate the probability that a number of witnesses would die unnaturally (suicide, murder, accident, unknown cause, etc.) over various time periods. Historical mortality statistical tables show that the average 1964-78 unnatural death rate R is approximately 0.000822.

The Poisson probability function is:
P(n) = a^n * exp(-a)/n!
where a = the expected number of unnatural deaths = R*N*T

Key witness categories
1 Unnatural deaths vs. suspicious natural deaths 1964-78
2 Investigation witnesses sought: Warren, Garrison, Church, HSCA (1100 est)
3 Investigation witnesses who died in 1964-78 (67)
4 Approximate number of JFK-related witnesses (1400+)
5 Eyewitnesses (121)

– The unnatural death rate is used in the analysis.
– ZERO probability of unnatural deaths in all categories.
– 51 Warren Commission eyewitnesses claimed that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, 32 from the Texas Schoolbook Depository and 38 had no opinion: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
Their recollections were dismissed by the Warren Commission as simply being “mistaken”. Parkland Hospital doctors initially reported entrance wounds to the neck and head which were confirmed years later in the Zapruder film.

Ruby’s Visitors

Ruby shot Oswald on Nov. 24, 1963. But how many know that three people who met in Ruby’s apartment that day died within one year, two unnaturally and one naturally.
– Bill Hunter, a reporter, shot by a policeman in April 1964 – ruled an accident.
– Tim Koethe, another reporter, was killed in Sept. 1964 by a blow to the neck.
– Tom Howard, Ruby’s first lawyer, died from a heart attack in March 1965.
The probability of the three deaths in one year: 1 in 300 million!

7 Mysterious FBI Witness Deaths

In 1977, seven top FBI officials died in a six month period just before they were scheduled to testify at the House Select Committee on Assassinations(HSCA).
. William Sullivan- Head of counter/espionage. Predicted death. Hunting accident.
. James Cadigan- Document expert; previously testified to WC. Accidental fall.
. Regis Kennedy- Heart attack the day he was to testify.
. Louis Nichols- Former #3, worked on JFK investigation. Heart attack
. Alan Belmont- Liaison to Warren Commission; Long illness.
. Donald Kaylor Fingerprint expert. Heart attack.
. J.M. English- Head of Forensic Sciences Lab. Heart attack.

Suspicious Timing of Other Witness Deaths

Jack Ruby died in Jan, 1967, just 28 days after being diagnosed with cancer in prison. He claimed that he was injected with cancer cells. In this press conference, Ruby claimed a government conspiracy to murder JFK.
Ruby: “Everything pertaining to what’s happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had- that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I’m in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.”
Reporter: “Are these people in very high positions Jack?”
Ruby: “Yes.”

In Feb. 1967, David Ferrie was found dead in his apartment shortly after he was named as a defendant by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison in the Clay Shaw trial. Ferrie was an associate of Oswald, Shaw, Guy Banister and anti-Castro Cubans. Ferrie left two suicide notes. He was held in protective custody until Feb. 21, 1967 and was found dead in his apartment the next day.

Ferrie associate Eladio del Valle was also sought by Garrison. He was murdered on Feb. 21 by gunshot and struck in the head by an axe.

Guy Banister, an ex-FBI agent with ties to Ferrie and Oswald, died in 1964, supposedly from a heart attack.

Maurice Gatlin was also sought by Garrison. He was a pilot who worked for Guy Banister, an ex-FBI agent in New Orleans connected to Ferrie, CIA, Carlos Marcello and Oswald. Gatlin died in a fall from the 6th floor after suffering a “heart attack”. The death was ruled an accident.

Clay Shaw denied he was CIA and was acquitted. He died a few years later from sudden cancer. There was no autopsy. CIA Director Richard Helms later admitted under oath that Shaw was a CIA contractor.

The following individuals were sought by the HSCA. All died unnaturally. Once again, the probability is ZERO…
– Charles Nicoletti, mob hit man and possible JFK shooter, was found dead from gunshots the day before he was scheduled to be contacted.
– John Paisley, Deputy Director of the CIA, was “about to blow the whistle” (shotgun ruled suicide).
– George DeMohrenschildt, a friend of Oswald with CIA contacts, had previously testified at the Warren Commission. He was found dead the day before he was scheduled to be contacted (shotgun ruled a suicide).
– Johnny Roselli, a powerful Mafia figure, was found in a drum off the coast of Miami. He told investigative reporter Jack Anderson that Ruby was ordered to silence Oswald and testified before the Senate.

Data Sources
The reference Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination by Michael Benson, presents vital information on each of more than 1,400 individuals (from suspects to witnesses to investigators) related in any way to the murder of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Based on years of research, it uses a wealth of data sources and a detailed analysis of the Warren Commission’s twenty-six volumes. The volume includes entries on virtually all suspects, victims, witnesses, law enforcement officials and investigators involved in the assassination.

In Crossfire assassination researcher Jim Marrs lists 103 individuals related to the assassination who died mysteriously from 1963-1978. Lee Harvey Oswald is not on the list but should be.

Warren Commission apologists who troll the online forums jump through illogical hoops in their attempts to debunk the probability calculations. But their arguments just prove the case for conspiracy. They agree that the math is correct, but argue that the data is invalid. They claim that the 1400+ witnesses and scores of unlikely deaths were self-selected and not a random group. Of course it is not a random group – by definition. That is precisely the point.

Witnesses who were called to testify before the 1964 Warren Commission, the 1969 Clay Shaw trial and the 1977 HSCA investigation were obviously not self-selected. Neither were the 1400 in the “Who’s Who” reference; they were all related in some way to the JFK assassination – suspects, victims, witnesses, law enforcement officials and investigators. It is not just a coincidence that an impossible number of them died unnaturally. There are only a few dozen that were missed in the “Who’s Who”, but even some of these died unnaturally. The only rational conclusion is that the JFK-related witnesses had information that would lead to the perpetrators.

There were at least 122 suspicious deaths among an estimated 1400 JFK material witnesses. At least 78 were ruled unnatural: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown. Given the 1964-1978 national average unnatural mortality rate, 17 unnatural deaths would be expected. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths is ZERO But how many “accidents”, “suicides” and suspicious “natural” deaths were actually homicides? The probabilities would be lower still.

The reference Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination describes approximately 1400 individuals who were related in any way to the assassination; 95 are included in JFK Calc But the other witnesses that are not included in Who’s Who are very relevant.

It is important to note that the 1964-78 average homicide rate (1 in 12,000) was much lower than accidental deaths (1 in 1,600) and suicides (1 in 7,700). An analysis comparing unnatural JFK witness deaths to the expected number is not nearly as dramatic as comparing homicides. Nationally, homicides comprised 10% of unnatural deaths. But there were 34 ruled homicides among the 78 unnatural deaths (44%). If the analysis was restricted to homicides, the mathematical proof would be simpler and more powerful.

Unnatural Official Deaths; National Average Rates (1964-78)
Homicide (34): 0.000084 (1 in 12,000)
Accident (24): 0.000594 (1 in 1,600)
Suicide (16): 0.000130 (1 in 7,700)
Unknown (4): 0.000014 (1 in 100,000)

Natural Death Rates
Heart Disease (25): 0.004913 (1 in 200)
Cancer: (6) 0.001991 (1 in 500)
Other: (13) 0.004461 (1 in 1000)
Total (44): 0.010197 (1 in 100)

 
7 Comments

Posted by on February 25, 2013 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,