SBF Found Guilty of Conspiracy, so Jurors Agree with Conspiracy Theories of Prosecutors

By Glen Wallace

I'm not disagreeing with the jurors decision, in fact just the opposite; I think the jurors made the correct decision to convict SBF of conspiracy. I'm trying to correct the image of theorizing about conspiracies by pointing out that prosecutors, including the prosecutors in the SBF case, in order to charge someone with criminal conspiracy, have to be conspiracy theorists. There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist. I'm proud to be a conspiracy theorist myself.

Inevitably, whenever anyone is investigating corruption, if they find evidence of a corruption, the investigator will very often encounter evidence indicating a conspiracy. But because a conspiracy cannot be detected with the senses, since a conspiracy requires a shared thought between two or more people, all claims of a conspiracy existing are necessarily theoretical. A conspiracy claim is necessarily theoretical because no one can read minds or use one's senses to detect what is going on in another persons mind. But for a conspiracy to exist, a shared thought has to occur between two or more people, and we cannot use our senses to detect and determine the nature of shared thoughts; therefore all conspiracies exist theoretically.