The document discusses the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and analyzes it using the technique of analysis of competing hypotheses. Multiple hypotheses are presented for who may have been responsible, including the Pakistani government led by Musharraf, Islamic extremist groups, or Bhutto's family members. The author believes Musharraf likely had full involvement in the assassination due to his desire to maintain power and his actions after Bhutto's death, such as washing away the crime scene and bringing in investigators he knew would find no evidence. The discussion of this case increased the author's interest in conspiracy theories.

1. Analysis of Competing Hypotheses is when someone is working with basically
insufficient data. This was the case in the Benazir Bhutto assassination. There could
be many theories brought up on the death of Bhutto but they could have been narrowed
down with a competent analyst asking questions about the death. There were multiple
accounts of using this technique in the case though. Many competing hypothesis were
created that led to the government being responsible, Islamist extremist groups may
have been responsible, and possible family members were also brought up in the
hypothesis. My problem with this is there was never a direct correlation of them all
together. One has to think of every possibility when using the technique of competing
hypotheses. There could have been a deal made with the family by the government
because the harsh death of her brother. Or it could have been a correlation with the
government and the Extremist group. This was never taken into account. The Pakistan
military is essentially an unstoppable power within the confinements of their own
country. For this reason, this case takes me back to last week’s discussion on the Luna
case. With Pakistan holding power much like the FBI, it would not take much for them
to get something done horrifically and cover it up. These discussions have developed a
new found love of conspiracy theories for me and using these techniques has made me
really paranoid of larger powers. This may be reasoning for me coming to the
hypothesis that Musharraf had full involvement in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I
encourage negative feedback from my fellow students and also my professor. I am
striving to further develop my skills in analyzing intelligence.
Case of Benazir Bhutto
Fact: Bhutto had charges on her that were of corruption in five different cases.
Possibility:
1. The charges were of no significance to her being assassinated.
2. Someone had a personal vendetta against Ms. Bhutto because she did
not get justice in her cases.
Probability: The charges of corruption were of no significance to the reason she was
assassinated but only a hindrance in her political career.
Fact: Bhutto was blamed for the death of her brother my Fatima, her sister.
Possibility:
1. Fatima hired someone to assassinate Ms.Bhutto because she held her responsible for the
death of her brother.
2. Fatima did not have anything to do with the assassination but was emotionally distraught with
Bhutto
Probability: Fatima did not do anything to cause the death of her sister but was very still
emotionally charged and blaming her for their brother’s death.
Fact: Musharraf was a rival with Bhutto and did not agree with what she was
trying to do with Pakistan. Also, Musharraf was accused of rigging the elections by
Bhutto.
Possibility:
1. Musharraf decided to take it into his own hands and get her assassinated.
2. Musharraf was one of many who despised her but would never attempt to kill anyone.

2. Probability: Musharraf did not want Bhutto bringing democracy to Pakistan and wanted
to remain the military leader, thus having involvement in the assassination.
Fact: Radical Islamists are against having women as leaders and were in an
ongoing war with the United States trying to keep democracy out, which she was trying
to bring to Pakistan.
Possibility:
1. Radical Islamists had already found homage in Pakistan due to the United States driving them
out of other countries,so it was an easy and profitable target for them.
2. Radical Islamists did not have any connection to the Bhutto death but were framed from the
incident because of their reputation.
Probability: Radical Islamists were not the planners of the attack but were working close
with someone to execute the attack on their behalf.
Fact: The crime scene was washed away by Musharraf’s men and before an
investigation could be done.
Possibility:
1. Musharraf needed all evidence gone so it could not be traced anywhere back to his
subordinates.
2. Musharraf just wanted to start cleaning everything up for the sake of the citizens.
Probability: Musharraf knew something about the assassination and needed any
evidence linked to his people gone, so he washed down the streets and cleared
everything.
Fact: Musharraf the day after cleaning down the streets, called Scotland Yard
to investigate the scene.
Possibility:
1. Musharraf wanted to get to the bottom of what happened and tried to figure out who was
responsible.
2. Musharraf purposely brought them in because he knew they would find no evidence.
Probability: Musharraf brought them in to draw attention away from accusations and
because he knew they would not find anything significant.
Fact: Pakistan Government released communications by the suspected
assassins of the Islamic Extremist group.
Possibility:
1. Everyone was accusing Musharraffor the assassination so he wanted to honestly look for the
real killers of Bhutto.
2. This was purposely intercepted by Musharraf from the people hired to kill her.
Probability: Musharraf purposely got the government to do intelligence work on these
two because he hired them to send men to kill her.
It is probable that Musharraf did not want to lose his role in a military led
country. It is also probable Musharraf hired Islamic extremist to assassinate
Benazir Bhutto and placed the blame on them after the assassination to renounce
any involvement in the matter.