[cbsmith]

> The chance they died is 100%.

There you go. Because it is after the fact, it's a given. It's not surprising that you can find a connection of some kind between them after the fact. Just because you can, after the fact, draw the connection, doesn't change the probability that they are dead.

[jjk166]

But the suggestion of foul play against boeing whistleblowers was made before the second boeing whistleblower died. The connection was pre-existing.

And that is quite irrelevant to the question of what are the odds either of them, in isolation, would die under suspicious circumstances.

[cbsmith]

I was unaware of such prediction, but it's unsurprising. In that case, it's the probability of one dying, which was no more unlikely than the first one.

...and of course, people have said this about whistleblowers and witnesses who testify thousands of times. It'd be weird if one of those forecasts didn't come true once in a while.

[jjk166]

> In that case, it's the probability of one dying, which was no more unlikely than the first one.

Yes, and that probability is very low. Approximately 1% based on actuarial data.

> ..and of course, people have said this about whistleblowers and witnesses who testify thousands of times.

Because it did indeed happen many times. Hence why things like the witness protection program have been set up.