The person who wrote this has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They know nothing about statistics. This is absolutely NOT A RANDOM SAMPLE. You can't start with 7 dead people and work your way backwards. This is like shooting at the side of a barn. Then afterwards going up and drawing a circle around where you bullets landed and calling yourself a sharpshooter.

The mathematical probably that these 7 people would be dead IS 100% BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY DEAD.

And he lies about these being suspicious deaths.

4/18: John Jones, lawyer who defended Assange, run over by train.

This guy was in a mental facility, went out walking and threw himself in front a train. A clear suicide.

6/22: John Ashe, .....day before he was going to testify on DNC and Clinton.

This is a lie, this guy was not scheduled to testify against Clinton. He himself was on trial and the next day was a minor preliminary court date.

6/23: Mike Flynn,48, died day he reported on Clinton Foundation (COD unknown).

He died of a heart attack. He was an editor at Breitbart, he wrote about Clinton all the time. The odds of him writing about the Clinton Foundation were 100%

7/10: Seth Rich, DNC staffer, shot twice in back. Assange offered $20K reward.

Yay, our first actual murder.

7/25: Joe Montano,47, DNC, heart attack, died day before convention.

He suffered from hypertension and had a heart attack. Not suspicious.

8/01: Victor Thorn, author of books exposing Clintons, gunshot wound.

His books on the Clintons were 8 years previous. He committed suicide on his birthday according to his family. Supposedly he told his son he was going to do it.

8/02: Shawn Lucas, DNC process server, lethal combination of drugs.

A process server. Seriously? The guy who skills included delivering a piece of paper? What's next the parking lot attendant? A waitress in Iowa? An Uber driver?

"Mr. Charnin starts with his supposition "

"The analysis assumes"

^^ and therein lie the problems.

Researchers and investigators NEVER begin with assumptions or suppositions. However, they may begin with EVIDENCE and then suppose or assume from there to explore theories.

Charnin should stick with what he knows -- math.

That is so creepy. These poor kids.

How come no uproar from Monica petersons death How come we don't hear from out government Any updates on that investigation

You watch our senator from the ball game ( forgot his name). Will be gone in the long wrong as well

WHY is this in PG? Go to v/sethrich

Yup. And the math becomes easier when factoring in Media silence and/or cover-up and/or character assassinations.

barbell fell on neck day before he was going to testify on DNC and Clinton.

Still cracks me up.

I can't see this website without javascript.

Problem solved. http://archive.is/GzJUQ

Oy vey they are using math against us.

Same thing with the JFK murder. An actuarial study done a few years after the assassination put the odds at trillions to one that so many witnesses associated with case could have died in the span of a few years. In other words, it was a deep state hit.

There were 7 suspicious deaths (assumed to be homicides) in 3 months. The probability is virtually ZERO it is a coincidence given so many suspicious deaths in such a short period of time. 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?

Puts it into the larger "DEATH MATRIX" of the election.