← Back to context

Comment by frumplestlatz

1 day ago

Except that all you’d be doing is creating a trail of physical evidence demonstrating a felony conspiracy — and a frankly stupid one at that.

4 comments

frumplestlatz

Reply
bronson  1 day ago

From recent news it seems unlikely these guys are interested in behaving rationally.

  • frumplestlatz  1 day ago

    It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

    - Who decided to threaten the whistleblower and why?

    - Who approved such an idiotic idea?

    - Who determined his home address?

    - Who flew the drone, timed to capture photos of the whistleblower while on his way to/from his home?

    - Who took the drone photography, printed out the images, and wrote a threatening note?

    - Who then took all that and physically posted it on his door?

    That’s a very involved process, with substantial risk, with no realistic upside. None of the incentives are aligned with the behavior. It simply doesn’t make sense.

    Applying Occam’s razor, it seems a lot more likely to be fabricated — that’s a scenario in which incentives actually align with the behavior.

    In practice, that shouldn’t make a difference to the investigation; given the physical evidence, they should investigate in great detail the origin of the threat — regardless of whether it’s a hoax or real.