I have a question, for you and for Ozoner et al.....
Why is it you are so dead set on this idea he is buried somewhere in the construction site? I really want to know!
Do you guys know something you need to share with LE? ! Otherwise, I’m rather curious why are you so adamant about it, because honestly, it seems far fetched to me, jmo.
Otherwise, then its a theory, right?
So, IMO , I suppose anything is possible, but it’s a less plausible theory than something happening to him after he exited the building. Or, that he left with a plan, purposely on his own.
But admittedly I have very few facts, so just a theory and MOO. Thanks for the Interesting discussion though, stimulates the senses.
.
If we are going to look at probabilities, however, we must look at some numbers:
Number of people who died inside a structure never to be seen again: 4,231 (made up)
Number of people who
left last known location never to be seen again:
Compare . Contrast.
WOW - I am away for a few days and the board explodes! Gotta say--thanks to all (even those whose viewpoints differ from mine) for keeping the discussion so active. Haven't caught up completely yet, but wanted to respond to this.
These posts made me realize that I think the key point in which we differ is how we are defining or calculating the relative "probabilities" of each possible scenario. There are basically two approaches you could take:
Approach 1: Look at the number of people who are missing and haven't been found (a large number). Look at the number of people who had been missing and then were later found inside a building (a much smaller number). Conclusion: it's more likely that he got out and went missing in a "usual" or "more likely" fashion?
The problem I have with approach 1 is that it ignores the context of the actual case--i.e.
what we know. It just says "well, there's more X than Y, so it's probably X" without considering the facts of the unique case.
To make an analogy, imagine that an acquaintance of yours suddenly starts spending money on extravagant purchases at a pace that suggests he is a multimillionaire, and that this is is a sudden change. Suppose you also know that this friend, although not rich previously, likes to go to Vegas often, and was there recently. You question whether or not he might have won a jackpot on a slot machine.
Approach 1 would say "well it's extremely hard to win a jackpot on a slot machine, so from a probability standpoint, he probably didn't." But this ignores every bit of contextual evidence you have.
Now allow me to present Approach 2: Clearly, highly unlikely events do happen sometime (and something highly unusual happened to Brian--I think we can agree there). When looking to explain them, we look for the explanation that would require the
fewest conditions in order for it to be true.
Let me give an example that illustrates this. Forget about Brian Shaffer for just a second, and imagine that you are trying to estimate the chances of two different scenarios coming to fruition.
One scenario (let's call it scenario A) would require one very unlikely event (for the sake of demonstration, let's say you put the odds at 0.01% - not likely at all!)
A different scenario (let's call it scenario B) would require four different events/assumptions to be true. Each of these four events is unlikely, but significantly more likely than the one event in scenario A. Again, for the sake of demonstration, let's put the odds at 1% for each of these. Although that's not "likely," it is
100x more likely than the single assumption needed for the first scenario.
Now let's compute the odds of scenario A and B mathematically.
Odds of scenario A =
0.01% (same as the odds of this singular unlikely event)
which is about 1 in 10,000.
Odds of scenario B = 1% * 1% * 1% * 1% = 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.01 = 0.00000001 =
0.000001% which is about 1 in 100 MILLION!
These percentages are not meant to reflect any actual percentages of anything that may have happened that night to Brian, but it illustrates the point. While the individual events in Scenario B are each 100x more likely than the "far fetched" Scenario A, as you string them together, it becomes
exponentially less likely.
I contend that all scenarios in which Brian got out of the bar involve the stringing together of multiple assumptions or unlikely occurrences: He coincidentally happened to leave via a strange exit AND he wasn't seen on camera (by chance) AND he happened to meet foul play that night AND the murderer was never identified AND no body ever turned up AND the assailant decided not to use his credit card AND nobody ever talked despite cash rewards being offered, etc. etc. etc.
While any one of these things in isolation might seem more likely that being hidden in the building, stringing them together leads to the exponential compounding of unlikelihood as demonstrated in my example.
Further, when you employ Approach 2 (taking into consideration the context of the case), you can see how one singular event can explain every single mysterious element of this case, and that would be that he met an accident in a very hidden location within that building (note: it doesn't
need to be the construction site, could be a roof, or some place hidden so well no one has thought to look) and therefore his body has not beed found.
It's an unlikely event, but it's a
singular unlikely event that fits the context of what we know and would explain every mysterious aspect of the case.
And that is why I am so adamant about this.
