The Witch in the House
Statistically speaking, at what point exactly do we see any "dwindling odds of coincidence" first kick in? I ask this telling question of the New York Times, who claim today: "Dwindling odds of coincidence" in the story of the investigation of Donald Trump's possible personal involvement in Russian interference with the most recent USA presidential election.
How many claimed mere coincidences render the defence of multiple coincidence unlikely?
I asked the same question in my ThinkerMedia book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret".
Sometimes it is rational and fair to undertake a witch hunt.
A fair "witch hunt" is not necessarily an oxymoron if it involves gathering existing, and discovering new, independently verifiable facts on a specific topic regarding one criminal or deviant suspect. Arguably it's not oxymoronic, just so long as those verifiable facts are weighed fairly with others that offer an alternative explanation. Under such conditions, the conclusions you merely propose are likely to take veracity-led knowledge forward. The results should raise telling questions that defendants and their champions should answer. Reluctance to answer is as incriminating as any indefinite "no comment" response.