Right so I'll try to approach this with some caution because I know how quickly these threads spiral into unfalsifiable territory.
That said, the statistical clustering is genuinely hard to dismiss outright. When you look at high-profile cases over the past few decades, the timing does raise legitimate questions about whether we're dealing with coincidence or something more systematic. The problem is confirmation bias is absolutely brutal in this domain - we remember the suspicious deaths and forget the dozens of witnesses who testified just fine.
What I'd want to see before drawing conclusions is an actual base rate comparison. How many people who testify against powerful figures die beforehand versus those who don't? Nobody ever does that calculation properly.
The Jeffrey Epstein case is the obvious elephant in the room and I genuinely don't know what to make of it. The surveillance failures alone are remarkable. But "remarkable" isn't the same as "orchestrated."
What specific cases are people actually looking at here? Because grouping wildly different situations together is how you end up with a narrative rather than an investigation.