This is directly related to the recent case that I'm sure you all have been hearing about. I've gotten in a fierce debate about whether it is appropriate to assume someone that the murder of a witness in a high profile case like this one, two days after the trial, is more likely to be due to retaliation or other trial-related motivations, or if it's more likely that it's just a random murder not related to the trial that coincidentally happens right after the trial. I'm the one who thinks it's more likely than not that such a murder 2 days after a trial is related to the trial  


In order to prove this, need to get a set of data points of all witnesses who have been murdered within lets say a year after a trial. Then gather all the reasons for those murders and see what percentage of them were committed out of retaliation against said witness, rather than just coincidental murder for other reasons. Does anyone have any idea how I can gather this set of data?   


I would imagine that this data is likely impossible to gather. At which point, there's another question: given the absence of this data, would you say it's more rational to assume that the killing is coincidental and unrelated, retaliatory/trial-related, or to assume neither outcome