Home»The Rabin Assassination» Yigal Amir |

# The Rabin Assassination: Yigal Amir

The tables that proved to be statistically significant of the previous
page used one of three key words for Rabin: *Yitzhak-Rabin*, *Assassination-Rabin*, or *Y. Rabin*.
Here we try to see if each of these three key words
are associated with the five Shabak people involved, one way or another, in the assassination.
These five Shabak people are *Karmi Gillon*, the head of the Shabak in 1995, *Yigal Amir*, the person arrested and convicted of the assassination, *Avishai Raviv*, the
provacateur of Yigal Amir, *Yoram Rubin*, bodyguard to Rabin, and *Yoav Kuriel*, the
Shabbak agent
who seems to have known what happened and was later himself killed.

We use four key word sets for each of the five people: the first name, the last name, the first name and last name, and the initial of the first name prefixed to the last name. Thus each of the five Shabak people have associated 3 groups of 4 subexperiments each. And since there are five Shabak people, there are total of 15 groups of 4 subexperiments each. Formally, we test the Null hypothesis of no Torah code effect against the alternative that each of the 15 groups of 4 subexperiments has at least one subexperiment with results supporting an encoding. With expected number of ELSs set to 50, the probability that a text from the ELS random placement text population would have as good as a score statistic as that produced by the Torah text is 19.5/10,000.

None of the individual subexperiment groups for this compound experiment produced p-values that are spectactularly small. But many of them produced p-values that are in the range of a one or a few out of 100 and it is this which accounts for the small p-value for the compound experiment.

As there are many results that could be shown, we select the most significant one for
each of the five Shabbak people. We begin with Yigal Amir. The best result was for the
key word set: *Y. Amir*, *Assassination*, and *Yitzhak-Rabin*.
With expected number of ELSs set to 50, the probability that at text from the ELS random placement
text population would have as compact table as that produced by the Torah text is 131.5/10,000.

We next show the most significant result for Karmi Gillon. His best result was for the key
word set: *Yitzhak-Rabin*, *Assassination*, and *Karmi*. With expected number
of ELSs set to 50, the probability that a text from the ELS random placement text population would
have as compact a result as that produced by the Torah text is 98/10,000.

We next show the most significant result for Yoram Rubin. His best result was for the key
word set: *Yitzhak Rabin*, *Assassination*, and *Yoram*. With expected
number of ELSs set to 50, the probability that a text from the ELS random placement text population
would have as compact a result as that produced by the Torah text is 102.5/10,000.

We next show the most significant result for Yoav Kuriel. His best result was for the
key word set: *Assassination-of-Rabin*, *Yoav*, and *Kuriel*. With
the expected number of ELSs set to 50, the probability that a text from the ELS random placement
text population would have produced as compact a result as that produced by the Torah text is
312/10,000.

We finally show the results for Avishai Raviv. His best result used the key words *Yitzhak Rabin*, *Assassination*, and *Avishai*. With the expected number of
ELSs set to 50, the probability that a text from the ELS random placement text population would
have produced a table as compact as that produced by the Torah text is 731.5/10,000. Under the
protocol we were using, his is the worst least significant result.