[Projectiboga]

Maybe he dropped dead and she just decided to go too? The one dog may have just been accidential injestion. But the Medical Examiner will figure out most plausible causes. Sad no matter how it happened.

From https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/202...

Hackman and Arakawa were found in separate rooms. The actor was found in a mudroom near his cane, appearing to have fallen, while his wife was found in an open bathroom near a space heater, with an open prescription bottle and pills scattered on the nearby countertop, according to the warrant

[ninetyninenine]

for that to happen randomly is unlikely. And a dead dog too.

[relistan]

The dog that died was locked up and probably died without water. The two that weren’t locked up survived. It’s likely she was in some kind of danger and he had a heart attack trying to deal with it. He was found in the mud room by the door and she was in the bathroom with an open bottle of pills spilled.

[ninetyninenine]

Unlikely. The reasoning all makes sense except for the part about him trying to deal with her danger I don’t see anyone mentioning evidence of that.

But it’s unlikely for so many things to converge like this.

[relistan]

It’s not so many things. It’s two people who died, one of whom was 95 and had a heart condition. With the people dead, the locked up dog died. But people like a good conspiracy.

[ninetyninenine]

If 3 people won the lottery and they all lived in the same place. By probability alone you know something is up. It's not loving a conspiracy it's in actuality knowing reality and knowing how reality works.

[sparky_z]

Lottery wins are supposed to be uncorrelated events. So yes, three winners in the same household means some sort of funny business is likely going on that requires explanation. Something needs to explain the correlation.

Here, there's plenty of possible explanations for why their deaths would be correlated. Especially the dog. If you lock a dog in a place for two weeks, it inevitable that it will be either dead or in serious medical distress when you come back. The one follows logically and tragically from the other. It doesn't change anything about the probability of the initiating event.

If somebody driving a car has a heart attack, and the car crashes into a tree also killing the passenger, you don't say: "what are the chances that Person A would have a heart attack at the exact same time that the Person B was in car accident? That's such an unlikely coincidence. There must be something else going on here."

Analyzing all events as statistically independent, even in situations where they clearly aren't is the opposite of "actuality knowing reality and knowing how reality works". On the contrary, it's one of the most common ways for a statistical analysis to go wrong.