
Epstein Suicide Conspiracies Show How Our Information System Is Poisoned - augustocallejas
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-conspiracies.html
======
tlb
An HN discussion around how information systems become poisoned could be
great. Arguing about the specific conspiracy theories will lead to pointless
flamewars. May I suggest engaging with the former?

~~~
AndrewBissell
Simply engaging the former grants TFA's argument that "poisoning of
information systems" is indeed what is happening with the Epstein suicide, as
opposed to sensible questioning of official narratives.

If I say "our information systems are poisoned by establishment media sources
which converge on talking points like 'Epstein conspiracies are baseless'
without even asking any basic questions about the events" is that in line with
your suggestion?

~~~
tlb
Questioning official narratives by broadcasting your own unsubstantiated
theories, made up from your armchair, is indeed poisoning the system.

The most reliable way to find out how someone was killed is to examine the
body, talk to all the people the victim had contact with, etc. There's a whole
profession devoted to doing that, and they're about to go into action. When
they announce their findings, there'll be some real information upon which to
base theories.

But at this point, any theory is baseless. The NYT is careful not to float any
theories, as we should all be.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Since you are pointing the finger at me specifically, I will point out that
nothing I've said so far is at all "unsubstantiated." Even if a thorough
medical examination shows that Epstein did indeed kill himself without any
outside assistance, the _facts_ in this case are:

a.) Epstein's trial held the possibility of releasing extraordinarily
incriminating details about dozens or even hundreds of wealthy & powerful
figures,

b.) Given a.), huge swathes of people correctly predicted ahead of time that
there was a risk Epstein would die before seeing the inside of a courtroom
(this was widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" at the time),

c.) Epstein had already been found grievously injured and placed on suicide
watch,

d.) Given b.) and c.), to not have Epstein under constant, redundant
surveillance is "incompetence" of such a staggering extent that it suggests
willful negligence,

e.) Given that Epstein's death probably marks a convenient clean break for
many of the people mentioned in a.), it is _entirely reasonable_ to raise the
possibility that one or more of them with the power & influence to do so
helped bring d.) about.

At this point, the processes which were at place in MCC and the decision-
making which led to the lax monitoring of Epstein are far more important than
any medical details surrounding his actual death.

------
dbskdb
Indeed they are poisoned: few ppl trust the mass media.

Because, honestly, as a jailer, how could you f up more than having Epstein
hang himself? A man who, before he hung himself _everone_ thought: “wouldn’t
it be convenient if he got suicided?” Why did we think this way? Let’s see:

-Women who have credibly accused this man have also accused a Prince of the UK - a power structure that it’s known has shielded pedos for decades (BBC, Thatcher’s cabinet, liberal party leader).

\- The sleaziest two presidents since Johnson (or maybe ever!) are involved
with this asshole.

\- His lawyer (Alan Dersowitch), one of the most important constitutional
lawyers in the US, is accused to having been partaken in the abuse. A.D. has
behaved quite bizarrely with his request to unseal and keep sealed court
records.

\- The original court case was sealed!

Also, a la Harvey Weinstein fiasco, everyone in his circle appear to have
known about his peccadillos _with children_

Now he’s conveniently dead. And I’m supposed to prostrate at the NYT, who
didn’t break this story, when they tell me there’s nothing to see?

Ha!

------
AndrewBissell
It's really interesting to watch establishment media congeal around the notion
that _any_ speculation of foul play -- or indeed any deviation from the
official line of "whoops he killed himself lol" \-- is "baseless," to be
placed in a category of "conspiracy theories" alongside chemtrails and
reptilian overlords, a tragic consequence of the internet's proclivity to
spread viral fake news, etc.

I mean, here you had a potential witness who we _know_ may have had the goods
on a member of the British royal family and a former U.S. Senator and state
Governor, just from the slight trickle of documents that have made it out to
the public (in addition to the Miami Herald reporter, we also have conspiracy
nutbar Mike Cernovich to thank for that). Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
had long associations with him. The source of his wealth is an utter black
box, which suggests at the very least an absurdly rich benefactor, if not an
extensive blackmail scheme or even support from some state actor. There's
practically an entire army division's worth of people with their hands on the
levers of power who may have had everything to lose if Epstein made it to
trial. And Epstein himself was an unrepentant sociopath with delusions of
grandeur who hardly fit the profile of a defendant who would off himself.

So far, all we've been told is that he was inexplicably not under 24/7
monitoring, that there may not even be conclusive video evidence of activity
in and around his cell, and the body was taken to a hospital somewhere. And
we're supposed to think it's just _completely off-the-reservation crazy_ to
cast doubt on the official narratives here? Even to think that maybe someone
helped create the conditions at the prison under which it was even _possible_
for Epstein to kill himself?

Literally half the world _predicted_ this would happen in the first place! So
color me a bit unconvinced that what the conspiracy theories really
demonstrate is that the hoi polloi don't know how to distinguish fact from
fiction on the internet. And if Bill Clinton didn't want to feature in those
theories, well, maybe he could have not taken quite so many rides on the
Lolita Express.

Of course, this is all coming from many of the same media sources which spent
the first two years of Trump's presidency barking up the tree of secret
Russian pee tape kompromat and Putin as the secret puppetmaster of Manchurian
Candidate Trump.

------
pmiller2
I’ve been arguing with people about this since it happened. Sure, there are a
lot of people with incentives to kill Epstein, but if you say it’s murder,
then you have to explain how the killer did it _while he was in federal
custody._ Even Trump couldn’t do that without getting caught.

#ClintonBodyCount is particularly absurd, because I’m supposed to believe the
Clintons had all these people killed, with no evidence pointing back to them.
This doesn’t make sense in a reality where Trump can’t even keep one porn star
quiet.

The simplest explanation is that he committed suicide, because he was
prematurely let off suicide watch. Occam’s razor strikes again.

~~~
AndrewBissell
What's the simple explanation for why he was not under constant surveillance
when the whole world knew there was a huge risk he'd wind up dead before
trial?

~~~
pmiller2
Incompetence is probably the simplest, followed by “this guy is a piece of
shit. I don’t care if he kills himself.”

~~~
AndrewBissell
This was the prison that kept El Chapo alive and in custody through his whole
trial. Was the Keystone Kops shift away on vacation while he was there?

------
qwsxyh
Incredible. The NY times have managed to "both sides" this. Genuinely
impressive.

~~~
orwin
They didnt. They said both time, with a different point of view (different
bias if you will), that this is too early to draw conclusion. Any rationnal
person would do the same.

~~~
PavlovsCat
That depends on the conclusion. Concluding that something fishy is going on
here, that's likely murder being covered up and that hard questions need to be
asked of is rational. Assuming someone found dead with bruises on their neck
without even a rope being mentioned killed themselves, and calling it a
suicide from the get go, is not rational, it's not neutral, and accepting it
without a peep is practically siding with killers, whoever they and their
motives may be.

[https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/journos-debunker-mentality-
rus...](https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/journos-debunker-mentality-rush-to-rip-
conspiracy-talk/)

> Witness the mainstream media’s rush to tsk-tsk the deluge of social-media
> speculation in the aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody.
> Within hours of the story breaking, writers at mainstream outlets went
> patrolling the Internet for “conspiracy theories” to debunk, usually with
> that tone of superiority and self-satisfaction that so endears the blue-
> check Twitterati to the American public.

But hey, let's not rush to any conclusions, just to the gatekeeping -- let's
just move on, if we never get back to this, no biggie either. That's not
rational nor noble, it's just saying "not my problem".

------
insickness
> especially with corruption and conspiracy at the heart of our biggest
> national news stories (Epstein, the Mueller Report, mass shootings), and the
> platforms themselves functioning as petri dishes for outlandish, even
> dangerous conspiracy theories to flourish

Now the media uses the word "conspiracy" to try to delegitemize all media,
sources, narratives and stories they disagree with. "Trump posts conspiracy
theory on Twitter." "Without proof, Trump makes claims."

The NY Times pushed the biggest conspiracy of all: Russian collusion.
Bombshell after supposed bombshell fell as the Times and CNN and other anti-
Trump media braced us for the crushing outcome of that would come with the
Mueller report. And then it turned out to be nothing. Zero.

------
P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul
What's worse?

1\. People getting 2-3 narratives from mainstream news sources, one of which
they believe, both of which are often false.

2\. People getting 100 narratives from unknown sources, none of which they
fully believe, a handful they think are plausible, most are false.

It's good to have everyone on the same page believing what is true, horrible
to have everyone on the same page believing what is false. Given that the
mainstream can't be trusted, I'll go with #2.

~~~
ggggtez
Am I getting a false dichotomy here? Why do we need false narratives at all in
the mainstream news? It didn't used to be like that, and there is certainly
some reason to expect falsehoods are not inherent and unsolvable.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Well, when the paper of record's take on the Epstein events is a "what, me
worry?" level of incuriosity, I'd say there's a loooooooooooot of problems to
be solved.

