posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:53 PM
This is indeed a tragic event. Any time a child dies, for any reason, it is a tragedy in my view. Very saddening.
On the matter of this topic specifically though, some questions:
1) What is the hypothesized motive on the part of the bankers? Simple revenge seems unlikely because the executive and his news organization, as well
as the story itself and the case, still exist. So the motive would then become, "to send a message." Which leads to another question...
2) How would he know who was sending the message? All he knows is that his nanny snapped and murdered his two children. Why would he suspect anyone
else's involvement? Why would he specifically link the tragedy to the banking case, or his network's reporting of it? So if "sending a message"
was the motive, the message hasn't exactly been conveyed, has it? Which leaves, "shaking him up so badly as to preoccupy him" as the motive.
3) Why would they go to this much trouble simply to distract the man? Why not simply poison him, fabricate false charges against him, outright kill
him directly, or generate legal trouble for his company? If we are to believe they have the power to brainwash a woman who reportedly loved these
children into murdering them all just to distract a businessman from running his news corporation, then we must also believe they are more than
capable of these other measures. But moreover...
4) Why would they target him rather than the investigators, attorneys, or even individual reporters more closely associated with and directly
responsible for the report and the case? Are they not much more of a direct threat to them than this man, several times removed, from the case? The
only remaining possibility I can fathom is that the message was not intended for him, but for others. "Cross us, and even your families aren't safe.
We know this won't change anything, but it may prevent you from taking similar measures in the future." But again...
5) Why not go after those more intimately involved with and responsible for the case instead? Because his family would be higher profile and the
message would be more widely circulated? That's the only reason I can conceive of for such a conspiracy, in light of all the other factors.
6) How would the intended targets of the message know who "they" were? From their perspective, a nanny killed those children... not some shadowy
group of elites and bankers with the power to brainwash her into doing so. Unless some secret communique to both he and other corporate heads somehow
accompanied these tragic events, how could they ensure their message was effectively sent, and that this wouldn't simply be seen as the tragic act of
a disturbed or otherwise ill woman?
The most logical and rational speculation in my opinion - in the absence of evidence to the contrary at least - is that that's all it was. We must
carefully consider all of the known variables and possibilities in cases such as this, and examine them rationally, skeptically, and deductively. And
if the hypothesis of a conspiracy doesn't make logical sense, then in the absence of any compelling evidence to that effect, we cannot and must not
assume that a conspiracy was at work in my view, simply because it's more interesting or might give some semblance of meaning to such a horrific act.
This does not mean that it wasn't. Merely that we refrain from assumptions not borne out by evidence, until such evidence exists.
As always, I could be wrong.