CONCLUSION: Applying Occams' Razor
Occam was a brilliant 14h century theologian who came up with a strategy since adopted by Newton and the scientific world for solving problems.His methodology was reductionist; since unproven claim adds doubt to an explanation, Occam reasoned that, short of positive proof, when the outcome was not certain, that the best explanation was the one with the fewest unproven assumptions. In brief, the simplest explanation is the best.
If we apply this strategy, given that we do not know positively who killed Seth Rich, we find that the theory of the police and the parents has the fewest assumptions: Rich as attacked by robbers in a dangerous neighborhood, struggled, and perhaps as he sought to flee, was shot in the back to silence him.
It may not be true but given that no explanation is based on solid evidence, it has the virtue of requiring the fewest unsupported assumptions.
All the other alternative theories involve a myriad of assumptions and the conspiracies. One or the other may be true, but given the lack of evidence, Occam's Razor instructs us to reject complex explanations which require many leaps of faith.
The explanation with the most assumptions is the latest reiteration of the old alt-right narrative, which now adds to a conspiracy of the police, possible the FBi for refusing to investigate, as has been suggested, the parents who are either involved in the complex conspiracy web or have been deceived (yet another assumption), and now, with the unchecked claim by an unknown source, the hospital staff.
Also assumed in this version is that Rich lied to his parents and friends about both his job and his support for Clinton, that he stole the damaging emails of both Clinton and Podesta, and that he then leaked them to Wikileaks. In this complex version, with a wide web of conspirators, Occam's razor would grow dull cutting away the unsupported assumptions.
Am I biased? Yes. I am biased for the simplest explanation with the fewest leaps of faith, given the absence of evidence. I am also biased to honor those who say we do not have any evidence but this is what we think happened, and that is the police and the parents. I am biased against those who report mere claims as facts. I favor those who openly admit, as I do,as the police and parents do, that there is no evidence, despite what various people have asserted, based on many unknown and anonymous sources of unconfirmed claims about evidence "seen" but not presented(unlike Watergate where Woodward and Bernstein knew their informant, the#2 head of the FBI, but kept his name secret).
Any of the versions may be true, but until we have evidence, it is imperative that we reject claims, especially those based on unknown sources, that come without evidence. It is imperative that we keep an open mind and not become partisans of claims unconfirmed merely because they are reported as facts.
Claims asserted as facts are, judgment by the standards of journalism, fake newsIn a world of deceit, and in the absence of evidence, it is critical that we keepan open mind. Anything is possible, but until we know for certain, it is wise to leap to conclusions based on what we wish to be true.
Occam's razor is a preventive logic that protects us from leaping to conclusions based on personal bias.
The only bias that we can honor is the bias for accuracy, for honest reporting, and for the logic of accepting the explanation that requires the fewest leaps of faith. Until we know with certainty who murdered Seth Rich, that is the humblest, simplest, and most honest strategy.
The police explanation, tho not my preference, has the merit that it is the only one that is based not on claims of evidence, none of which has ever been confirmed, but on a lack of evidence, leaving only a theory based simple logic of a robbery gone wrong. It may not be the truth, but at least the police and the parents are not making claims based on evidence "seen" but not presented.
And I would add that I am also biased to believe that of the all the claimants, the alt-right, the Republican lobbyist, the Russians, Julian Assange, and even some progressives, the parents, more than any, want the truth not for political reasons,which all the others most likely have, but to bring their son's murderer(s) to justice, to have the closure to this deep and unimaginable pain by knowing that those who took their son from them have been caught and justice has been served.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
