[bigdaddy45]

Logically, it doesnt make sense. If your’e going to kill her, there are much easier ways than taking out a whole plane. Second, this supposed plot would involve the plane crashing, and one of the survivors killing her. if someone on the plane was in on the plot, why would they consent to being on a crashed plane with the chance of getting killed themselves?

Sorry, but sometimes it just is what it is.

[ethical]

Agree. But the autopsy is not playing out that way. Something is being covered up.

[Two Kids' Dad]

What if Kawasaki had been tasked with taking Fuddy out and the plane crash was truly accidental and not sabotage?

[Two Kids' Dad]

Sorry, I meant “Yamamoto”, not Kawasaki.

[MMaschin]

If your’e going to kill her, there are much easier ways than taking out a whole plane. Second, this supposed plot would involve the plane crashing, and one of the survivors killing her. if someone on the plane was in on the plot, why would they consent to being on a crashed plane with the chance of getting killed themselves?

I'm not saying I believe it, but I don't see why someone on the plane needs to be involved.

In the airport, Fuddy is injected, or ingests a toxin that will eventually cause her heart to stop. You would want to administer the toxin when certain that Fuddy was going to be on the plane. Maybe someone walks up to her as her flight is boarding, and thanks her for helping them with something, and simply wants to shake her hand. The toxin does not work immediately - that would result in either medical attention right there at the airport, and a person not diagnosed with a heart condition dying of a sudden heart stoppage, of unknown cause, might raise suspicion. Since the toxin takes awhile to work, and to insure that she can't be rushed to a hospital, the engine of the plane she is about to board is sabotaged. If the plane crashes catastrophically that is ok, and if the pilot is able to make a successful water landing, that too is ok. As long as medical attention can not be provided during the required period that is all that would be required.

The toxin guarantees that Fuddy will not survive, and the plane insures that medical personnel are not able to document her death. No one need be involved accept the person who administers the toxin to Fuddy, and sabotages the engine. Only one or two people, very simple, and very easy.

[GBA]

The intent is plausible deniability and the suspension of disbelief and most casual observers will likely stop their critical thinking with "plane crash", as your comments show.

However, ditching a plane, especially a plane designed to fly and land well at slow speed like Cessna's Caravans, is not the guaranteed death that might be implied by "plane crash".

Even ditching in high speed passenger jets can be survivable, just ask Capt. Sullenberger about his ditching into the icy Hudson where all 150 passengers and 5 crew survived.

So, this could easily be the "perfect" scenario for a hit to clean up loose ends with no collateral damage, where all survive but the target and few bother to look more closely.

The Caravan might have revealed clues as to why its Pratt & Whitney turboprop engine, one of the world's most reliable, would have developed problems, but it was somehow destroyed after it was ditched into the ocean.

Curious...

[butterdezillion]

What if each of the passengers had somebody extra in the water tasked with keeping them safe - like they do in a movie shoot?

[Smokin' Joe]

Maybe the idea was for all of them to be killed in a tragic accident. That would provide cover for hitting Fuddy, because most folks wouldn't thing anyone would be so cold as to take down a planeload of people to just get one.

Yeah, they would. There is a lot at stake.