Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Epstein's injuries look more like murder than suicide, noted pathologist says (miamiherald.com)
697 points by AndrewBissell 13 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 397 comments





Epstein’s death seems the most overt taunt about ruling class impunity in my lifetime. Not only in its circumstances, but in the kind of shifting, threadbare cover stories about everyone with whom he was associated. Bill Gates, for example, had staff overlap between his foundation and Epstein, (including one who was named in Epstein’s will!) and was able to diminish these connections in major media outlets with almost no pushback.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...


Epstein's ability to carry in his activities with near impunity during his life seems even more shocking to me. Pretty much everyone knew what this guy was doing for decades.

There is some notion that he may have been operating a honeypot (kompromat factory) for Western intelligence services (particularly CIA or Mossad). That would explain why he was collecting blackmail material and all.

I suppose the null hypothesis is that rich and well-connected people can get away with even open crimes in public for years and years. Weinstein got away with rape for years and years, against well-connected people as well. Epstein was a financier just like Weinstein. They have what you need, and they have the ear of a lot of other well-connected people who need things from him.


> There is some notion that he may have been operating a honeypot (kompromat factory) for Western intelligence services (particularly CIA or Mossad).

Mossad seems to be the most likely player here[1][2]:

> Given the chance to refute Ward’s report, specifically that the Epstein case involved intelligence matters, Acosta did nothing of the sort. Indeed, he functionally admitted that it’s true.

> What then can we conclude at this point? It appears that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in intelligence work, of some kind, for someone—and it probably wasn’t American intelligence either. The U.S. Intelligence Community is lenient about the private habits of high-value agents or informants, but they won’t countenance running sex trafficking rings for minors on American soil, for years. While it’s plausible that Epstein was sharing some information with the FBI—many criminals do so to buy themselves some insurance—it’s implausible that he was mainly working for the Americans.

> Who are the suspects then? It seems awfully coincidental that Epstein’s best pal and business partner for decades has been Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and daughter of the late Robert Maxwell, the media mogul who died under mysterious circumstances in 1991.

> Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and stated: “He has done more for Israel than can today be said."

[1] https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligenc...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell#Israeli_connect...


In the old country, there is a concept of krysha, which technically refers to protection paid to government for protection ( not unlike mafia ), but, for example, in Russia, referred to money paid for protection to the security apparatus.

I find it difficult to believe Epstein had no protectors. Natually, now nonone really knew the guy.


There's some speculation that he maintained his operational security, such as it was, through the threat of exposure or blackmail. That is, he brought prominent and powerful people into his fold, and then he had power over them. It's similar to how spy organizations intentionally place people in compromising situations, like hiring prostitutes for them, and record it on video.

I cannot believe that he didn't have a deadman switch set up just in case something like this happened to him.

Somewhere or wheres, there has to be a couple boxes of hard drives that could burn the world down if they ever came to light. Although I may be being optimistic; the Panama Papers never amounted to anything.


After he was arrested the FBI raided his mansion and took into its possession a large cache of CDs labeled "young <girl's name> with <famous rich person's name>" which he kept in his safe. There were also hints that people visited his private island and his New Mexico ranch (which the FBI bizarrely still has not raided) before he was killed. So they may have confiscated the materials for any dead man's switch.

Also, if Epstein was indeed an intelligence agency cutout then he was surely watched very closely at all times, so there might not have been an opening for him to set one up (or he might have been told in no uncertain terms what would happen if he tried). Or (most likely of all IMO) after the sweetheart 2008 deal he simply thought he was untouchable and above the law, so why would he need to take precautions against being assassinated?


Source?


Yeah, like maybe he has a voice recording of the president saying he likes to grab women by the pussy without their consent...

More likely a video tape of someone grabbing an underage girl somewhere like that without their consent.

My point is, the former already happened, and made zero difference.

> My point is, the former already happened, and made zero difference.

To that particular person. Being personally shameless with corrupt friends does have a way of making one immune to many kinds of blackmail. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who have more shame and better friends that can still be controlled via threats of blackmail.


Even the Regular Joes don't much fancy thinking about their mortality or to ponder they may be caught.

The egotistical usually like it even less. To plan for a dead mans switch, means staring down the abyss that is your own mortality.

I figure for many of these people it's very much out of their character to do so.


Isn't video of putins predecessor with prostitutes part of his rise to power?

Krysha is naturally something that can vanish overnight or turn against you

It's similar to what keeps financial bubbles and Ponzi schemes going: when the money is flowing, nobody asks questions. Epstein threw a lot of money around.

The UK had Jimmy Saville and a similar story. He raised a lot of money for various important people and charities so nobody paid attention to the fact that he appears to have been a serial rapist for decades.


Saville was a friend of Prince Andrew's elder brother, the future King Charles.

Don't overlook the snobbery and friend of royalty aspect. The Windsor boys have been very, um, unlucky in their choice of friends. Despite the fact they have advisors and the secret service keeps tabs on them so they aren't compromised by spies or assassinated.

It really is extraordinary that they were both so unlucky and so badly compromised in this way.


Well, that only gives me an impression that those Windsor boys were simply useless to anyone else.

You are not unlucky - you are simply coming from a powerful family but otherwise useless, so the only people who active try to be your friends are people who can’t be friends to someone useful.


I agree with this notion from Eric Weinstein. This comment was in response to an article by NYT which glossed over the horrors. Of course, this criticism isn't particular to NYT.

>We need a second Church committee. Obviously.

>If you don't want to call for one, then tell us why in an editorial. Why doesn't this recent pattern of state-protected child rape excite you as much as 17th century slavery? This story would sell newspapers & subscriptions. Let it.


Usually very rich people have a strong incentive to hire private firms specialized in minimizing the impact of bad stuff like this, and doing so in a very discreet way.

I am 100% speculating, but I'd guess that's what Jeff Bezos did in relation to his extra-marital affair, and what Bill Gates and others have been doing in relation to Epstein.


> Usually very rich people have a strong incentive to hire private firms specialized in minimizing the impact of bad stuff like this, and doing so in a very discreet way.

I'd be interested in learning about what techniques they use, since they seem like something that ought to be countered.


An interesting comment that I've seen repeated and voted to the top of any post on reddit regarding the Gates-Epstein association is something along the lines of 'Gates is too aloof and nerdy to be interested in the wares that Epstein was peddling.'

I've seen it many times and it has always struck me as the kind of spin that PR firm would write and disseminate.


As someone who's been following the Epstein case for some time and having seen different communities deal with it, I think in the case of Gates a lot of people really looked up to him and refuse to believe that he would do this. There are even comments in this thread about it not being Gates' style.

When you look at the whole Epstein story, the people and the patterns, it's pretty clear that Gates was in a very questionable relationship with Epstein. The MIT donations, the senior Gates employee being the executor of Epstein's will, Gates' denials of knowing Epstein before the NYT article hit and his failure to address his flights with Epstein and meetings at his houses, Gates' email to staff about meeting with Epstein and a "beautiful Swedish woman and her 15 year old daughter, late into the night"...

With Gates in particular a lot of people seem willfully ignorant or have a strong desire not to dig deeper. It was a the same with Matt Gronenig. Prince Andrew, Dershkowitz, Wexner... I think every assumes the worst there but a lot of people are struggling to digest their actual heroes turning out to be much less than they thought.


I agree but what makes it so hard to swallow is that phrase, "be much less than they thought", should really be "be much more than they thought".

I mean, your heroes sometimes turn out to be all that and so many more, horrible things. It's hard to fathom that people can contain good and bad qualities, and after the fact push them aside among "bad people". But if you do this, you won't learn anything, or be watchful of your remaining heroes.

Next time you idolize someone, remember that. They may be more things and those things may not all be pretty.


> I agree but what makes it so hard to swallow is that phrase, "be much less than they thought", should really be "be much more than they thought"

The English Language strikes again. Apologies for wandering off-topic, but to (hopefully) clarify:

You're thinking of less / more in the quantitative sense, suggesting some people have _more_ traits, some of which are unpleasant.

I think GP was using less in the qualitative sense - "a lesser person for lacking moral fiber", if you will.

Both are valid, but contextual ambiguity interferes with interpretation.


Agreed. I just grabbed a hook in the text to latch onto a mindset I think is prevalent. (Closely related to "us vs them", the in-group and the out-group, etc.)

If you see people expressing an opinion that’s useful for the rich and powerful, it’s appealing to imagine that the people expressing that opinion are shills. But I think saying such out loud lowers the quality of discourse. If we go around accusing one people we disagree with of being shills, we aren’t learning or participating in an exchange of ideas, which is the point of a discussion forum like this.

There’s a perfectly sound explanation for those posts that seem “shillish”: sincerely held beliefs that are different from yours. I think fanboyism and ideology motivate a lot more people to argue on the internet than money. If you want proof of this, look at all the teeming masses arguing for all sorts of causes that the rich and powerful don’t care about.


I don't believe that everyone who says this kind of thing is being paid to do so. What I think instead is that this kind of thing is invented by someone who is paid to make up these kind of misdirecting and memetic statements and that they then disseminate these kinds of messages on mediums like reddit where they know that they will propagate.

Another example of these kinds of statements would be "Elon Musk is like a real life Tony Stark." Do I think that every Elon fanboy is paid to say this online? No, of course not. Do I think that Elon Musk like many celebrities has a public image crafted by a PR firm and that this kind of jingo-istic soundbite probably originated from that firm? Absolutely.


There's a middle ground between shills and honest sincerely held beliefs: that of the useful idiot [1]. Those are people who have been manipulated by real shills to sincerely advocate for the shill's ideas. Real shills usually don't have the resources get the results they want on their own, so their goal is to create useful idiots to magnify their efforts.

It's not necessarily relevant to this case, and I agree that calling those people out as such lowers the quality of discourse, but I think it's something important to keep in mind.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot


I think it’s interesting to look at the patterns of historical usage mentioned in the wiki. The phrase always originates with an accusation by party A that party B calls party C useful idiots, but there’s never any evidence backing up the accusation against party B. To me it just seems like a condescending way of dismissing party C - essentially an argument meant to invalidate popular support for party B. It’s not necessarily wrong, but I think without evidence it’s essentially a tactic for party A to deal with the cognitive dissonance arising from their distaste for party B combined with party C’s support for party B.

Now I’m getting in the weeds and questioning the motivations of party A. I suspect this might make party A feel the way party C does when people call them “useful idiots”. And perhaps it demonstrates how this line of questioning is an endless rabbit hole.


> The phrase always originates with an accusation by party A that party B calls party C useful idiots, but there’s never any evidence backing up the accusation against party B.

I think the criteria "that party B calls party C" is actually pretty irrelevant to the concept's usefulness.

> essentially an argument meant to invalidate popular support for party B

In most of the cases where I'd use the term "useful idiot" the "party B" doesn't have much popular support, but is rather engaging in manipulation, disinformation, dishonest propaganda, etc. The realization isn't useful as a dismissal, but rather as a reminder that you need to confront both the idiot's sincere belief along with their ignorance of it's goals, implications, and beneficiaries.


It's shown up in every single HN thread about Gates's ties to Epstein.

Have to say I'm particularly impressed with Reid Hoffman's PR outfit though. By all accounts he was a major Silicon Valley nexus connecting Epstein to Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and others, yet he managed to stay almost completely out of the headlines and even still hosts a show on NPR about the startup scene.


Read "Catch and Kill" by Ronan Farrow, regarding his experience with Weinstein's campaign against the publication of his crimes. It's exactly what you're asking for (the title is the technique's name), It's also a rather entertaining read.

Ronan Farrow also did amazing investigative journalism on Epstein and revealed the extent of Joi Ito, MIT and some of Bill Gates' relationship with Epstein.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer...


Read "trust me, I'm lying" by Ryan Holiday.

Yes and all his books if you live in a high stress environment like politics

Many PR firms offer “crisis management.”

"I'd be interested in learning about what techniques they use"

I suppose it is mostly about connections with people in newspapers etc. and collecting favors from them.


Might be a stretch, but it was interesting to see that around the time of the MIT Media Lab/Joi Ito and Bill Gates connections to Epstein came out, Netflix happened to have a new Bill Gates documentary front and center shortly after. Iirc it was called something like The Brain of Bill Gates and the trailer seemed to paint a positive image of him (didn't watch/don't want to). Maybe it's been up for a while, but it was definitely the centerpiece upon landing for a bit

Gates also did a lot of Twitter advertising for himself right as this happened. Reid Hoffman did a big media push the day his involvement came out as well.

What are you thalking about?

Bezos put all cards on table to avoid being blackmailed.


> (including one who was named in Epstein’s will!)

Not just in his will but named as the executor of his will.


If you think his associates were fucking children or involved in the prostitution ring, just say so.

If you don't think that, well then we do have to hem and haw about how much guilt by association they carry. Because for a lot of people, business connections or rubbing elbows for money with bad people doesn't get much blowback. Just look at Tim Cook gladhanding dictators of nations where homosexuality is outlawed. Or manufacturing in countries with ethnic concentration camps.


I think most people feel that Epstein's associates were involved with the child prostitution ring. Epstein was a child sex trafficker after all. Every person who flew on his plane or visited his houses is suspect and should be investigated.

This is the important time for power. Exercising power in the background, when nobody realises it's happening, is useful.

But when your power base is threatened, when you are wide open and people feel you could go under. That's when you can exhibit that power. When you step forward and pronounce that black is white, and all the press and the politicians nod in agreement.

This entrenches their power. Nobody called them out.


I think the Panama Papers still has it beat.

I feel ike for that Americans feel like temporarily embarrassed millionaires, but not necessarily temporarily embarrassed underage sex traffickers .

I'm not sure I buy that "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" line. People are tribal and will fight tooth and nail to defend their tribe's beliefs, no matter how little it applies to themselves. People know they will never be rich. Almost everyone knows that. I think it's more accurate to say that Americans have poor education in civics and finance, and cling to near-religious dogma as a result.

> People know they will never be rich. Almost everyone knows that.

I don't think the average American knows that until they hit 40, hence the midlife crisis.


As a middle-class person, when I talk to other middle-class people, many make decisions/vote like they are going to be wealthy some day. Actively arguing against their own interests out of this weird fear that it would someday bite them when it's their wealth being taxed etc.

one of the best protections the wealthy have in the US is the poor and middle class voting based on an imagined and unlikely future for themselves.


This is mostly a problem with GOP adherents. The people that actually control and are served by the party are too few to win elections on their own. They have constructed a rhetoric that is meant to appeal to rural working class voters for the sole purpose of winning elections. Hence the phony demonstrations of Christian faith and donning of the trucker cap. The genius is that their failure to execute on promised benefits for all is blamed on the other guys so there is a built in feedback cycle bringing more sheep to the flock every two years.

I think it's more that a lot of the American mythos and our story about ourselves is centered around a combination of individualism and meritocracy, but in a backwards sense where success is kind of assumed to be a sign of merit be it skill, luck, or pluck. That twists the idea of fairness by removing all the collective work and often government work that went into enabling any given business to succeed and thrive.

To paraphrase Watchmen I think we can take Gates off the list of suspects, it just doesn't seem his style.

He may not be a suspect, but it is troubling when someone befriends a known pedophile:

  Mr. Gates started the relationship after Mr. Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.
from the NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...

I have a close relative who is a pedophile. I still give them my time. Don't underestimate human compassion, regardless of your value judgement on it.

Are you saying that Gates was being compassionate toward Epstein? Gates hid the depth of his affiliation with Epstein until this NYT article came out. He knew it was wrong.

Much more likely is that Epstein had dirt on Gates and/or connections Gates wanted.


No, it isn't wrong; guilt by association is not a civilised concept.

And if someone commits a crime then the courts determine an appropriate punishment and that is the end of what gets called 'wrong'.

I'm on board if you don't want to talk to convicted paedophiles - seems reasonable to me - but being judgemental of someone else's relationships is not fair.


Thank you, the way people bring out the pitchforks merely over guilt-by-association is one of the worst parts of social media.

I swear we're going to have to relearn all of the lessons we learned over the centuries of developing civil society, all in the name of some strange utopian perfectionism we're putting on every popular person. Mob justice is rarely good justice.


There are obviously times when mob justice goes too far. I do not think Epstein is one of those cases. He was a sex trafficker for the rich and powerful. His associates should be investigated and their attempts to get the media to bury the story should be pointed out.

I wasn't talking about you per se or even Gates alone, so please don't take it as a personal attack. There's plenty of examples of people taking this guilt-by-association stuff way too far. A popular one is when politicians take a photo with an unsavoury character, even though they took a hundred that night alone, and the media spins it like their buddies.

The Gates case is more complicated, as you mentioned, but the general trend is worrying and I personally wouldn't public tell people I met with Epstein either.


>No, it isn't wrong; guilt by association is not a civilised concept.

When it comes to courts, absolutely.

When it comes to making a judgement call (and also associating with people), it's expected.

You make a choice who you maintain relationships with. You can, and will be judged by the choices you make.


[flagged]


But that's mob justice. I'm not saying you're wrong, but failure of our courts can lead to extraordinarily bad times.

It most definitely will lead to bad times!

That being said, it's not like people are out with actual pitchforks. We're talking about people on the internet criticizing Bill Gates' affiliation with Epstein. Gates is still rich, powerful and free from any real repercussions other than a deserved hit to his reputation (and really, barely even that).

Sadly I think we'll never see true justice since those tasked with it seem completely unwilling to do their job in this case.


Is Gates a close relative of Epstein? Did your relative serve his time?

If so then your example has nothing to lend.


Well, pedophiles are also people. And if they show remorse and moved on (or in therapy) etc. I do not see a problem.

The problem here is just, that apparently he did not moved on at all and just continued undisturbed.


OT maybe, but I wish people would stop using pedophile as if it were a crime.

> Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. [0]

The problem and crime is, when those people act on those attractions and the way society reacts to pedophiles is certainly not helping anyone and I’d assume hindering some of them from seeking or even receiving help.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia


I've known men that have slept with women who were 15 in countries where it was legal. Not only were these men great examples of humanity but they actively helped those less fortunate than themselves.

How do you know what his style is?

You have no idea what gets Bill Gates off.


I tend to be very skeptical of claims of conspiracy and conspiracy theories in general but I've yet to hear a reasonable theory to explain how Epstein could have killed himself in a cell and unit where suicide is made a practical impossibility. A friend in law enforcement related a story about someone on suicide watch who managed to kill himself by eating/shoving massive amount of toilet paper down his throat and then drinking water (which caused the tissue to expand and suffocate him). After that, toilet paper was issued as needed rather than having rolls available in the cells. They go to INSANE degrees to make self-slaughter impossible in these units.

> killed himself in a cell and unit where suicide is made a practical impossibility

Ken White (famous-ish lawyer and notable internet personality) puts it this way: "But your assessment of plausibility is based on your assumptions about how the system works. Those assumptions are, mostly, wrong — naive Dick-Wolf-level law-enforcement-are-competent-good-guys stuff".

Prisons, particularly american prisons, are full of incompetence and casual disregard to human life and dignity. The prison where Epstein died was understaffed, and the guards tasked with watching him had next-to-no training. Epstein had also been taken off suicide watch nine days earlier.

Ken White put together 32 other cases where people died, or almost died in jail because the administration was too incompetent or too indifferent to do anything: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/thirty-two...


The jail that Epstein died in has had one other suicide in the past 40 years. They haven't actually lost someone to suicide 21 years, despite several attempts. They're not incompetent at all at preventing their inmates from committing suicide. So no, the statement that suicide is made practically impossible there isn't based on wrong assumptions, it's very well supported by statistics.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/epstein-new-york-lockup-suicides


"1 suicide and 3 attempted suicides"- that's actually both an insanely low attempt rate and an insanely high completion rate/attempt.

That means that most people didn't even figure out how to attempt one, because the means were taken away.

You should compare with suicides/suicide attempt rates in general population (or general prison population) to make this statement.


https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/health/prison-suicides-massac...

General prison suicide rate is 20/100,000, which is almost identical to the male general population rate in the US (21.1) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...)

I didn't quickly get data on attempt/completion in prison, but the attempt/completion rate is the general pop is ~30 attempts/completion, and the completion rate is dramatically driven up with access to firearms. (https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/) I'd expect to see a lower completion/attempt rate in prison, not a higher one, given the monitoring and reduced access to methods.

I stand by my statement- something is funny with the way they reported that data.


The general prison suicide rate isn't comparable- Epstein was in jail rather than prison, previously already on suicide watch from a supposed attempt and was more importantly possibly the most high profile prisoner of the Millenium.

Again you are comparing apples with oranges. Outside of prison, nothing prevents you from attempting suicide. Whether you succeed or not depends mostly on your resolve and how you do it.

In a perfect prison, suicide attempt should be 0%, not because people are happy, but because inmates should have no way to even attempt a suicide.

If at some point a mistake is made and an inmate manages to kill himself, it will be a 1 attempt/completion and going to the conclusion that prisons make it easy to kill yourself does not seem right.


No that is not a perfect prison. A perfect prison should probably be more like the general population. Unless you think the perfect prison is chained to the wall at all times. And that prison is no place for rehabilitation.

Sure, I thought it was obvious I meant : "in a perfect high-security cell where the goal is to keep the prisoner from killing himself before testifying"

Ehhh, sample size and base rate issues make me question "very well supported by statistics," but it's certainly an argument to the contrary.

"sample size and base rate issues" are only an argument to the contrary if you know the values - otherwise you are just muddying the issue.

I didn't say that was the argument to the contrary.

Just because something is a conspiracy doesn't mean it isn't the most plausible scenario. The theories that a man who as many powerful people wanted dead as Epstein not only beat the odds when it came too attempting suicide but also succeeding is just not plausible. It's just unlikely. It's possible but not probable.

There's such a thing as an irrational bias that something CAN'T be a conspiracy if other scenerios are possible. Many people take pride in "debunking" conspiracies and that ego can make it hard to see a real one right in front of you.


Yep. The hard conspiracy theory - that some rich agent with something to lose took determined action to subvert the prison's protections and assassinate him - doesn't hold water for me.

I am, however, willing to entertain the softer conspiracy theory - that people in prison (prisoners and staff) hate pedophiles and people who enable pedophilia, and the guy was, perhaps, given more opportunity than average to "fix his own problem" by a staff that wasn't going to shed a tear over a dead pedo.


Maybe in some more run-of-the-mill cases, sure. But even the dimmest staff member must have been well aware that this particular pedophile was on the verge of testifying against an entire network of other pedophiles.

If you hate pedophiles so much you're willing to risk your life/career just to let one of them commit suicide, surely you also hate them enough to wait just a little bit longer to prevent a bunch more of them from getting away with it.


They were sleeping through their shift because that's just what prison guards frequently do. They were doing a lot of overtime, partly because the prison is understaffed and partly because you make a lot of money signing up for overtime. They were tired, and nobody watches the watchers.

Why do you think that sleeping through overtime would be a case of the guards risking their life? I doubt they've even been fired.


If nobody watched them, how do we know they slept through their shift, and if they did, how do we know they did it because they were tired and not because somebody asked them to sleep for a while and not worry about a thing, and that part of overtime would be paid at much, much different rate?

> I doubt they've even been fired.

Especially in this situation. We have huge motive, excellent opportunity and unless one of the guards is so stupid as to talk, almost no possibility of detection. A perfect crime, if there's one. Of course, there's no proof of that - maybe Epstein indeed was suicidal. Maybe the guards were just paid to give him an opportunity, not avoid witnessing murder. Who knows. But I don't see how guards sleeping excludes any of that.


This seems plausible. But if this is true, then why haven't their been more successful suicides at this prison?

First, there are lots of suicides in prison. The suicide rate is 4 times higher there than in the general public, and the rate is highest among pre-trial detainees, like Epstein.

Second, people are generally pretty bad at suicide, and the methods most likely to succeed (firearms, drugs, falling) are not available as options.


Why do you think he would witness against anyone? He didn't do that last time as far as I know.

And IF people thought he had dirt on people then I would assume he would at least have a basic dead mans switch that would send out the dirt to the press in case of death; to prevent assassinations. Especially if there was an earlier attempt.


The people he had dirt on may not be the same people that would assassinate him. If the honeypot theory is true, then exposing those people doesn't serve the purpose, but it also wouldn't be much of a problem. What's more problematic is the information that only Epstein had and could testify to.

Also, from Epsteins perspective, actually having a dead man switch versus just letting people assume he has one has exactly the same impact.

So why bother setting one up? If the switch goes off, he will be dead, perhaps there will be retaliation against relatives. How would he benefit?


Guards at this prison have raped and beaten inmates. At least some of them have been convicted. There's no real reason to believe that they would be acting based on some kind of higher-level planning. https://gothamist.com/news/prisoners-endure-a-nightmare-gula...

Assuming they are rational. But it's evident to me that in a lot of cases pedophilia flips a switch in peoples brains and rage completely crowds out reason.

Unless you have no reason to believe the testimony will matter.

It would tarnish reputations at the minimum. Legacy matters to the ultra rich.

Epstein maintained a nice lifestyle with a tarnished reputation.

The softer conspiracy theory is also possible but it lacks a plausible motive given anybody with two brain cells to rub together would know that killing Epstein would be protecting pedophiles.

Why doesn't the hard conspiracy theory hold water for you? The motive is much more reasonable and prison assassinations are hardly some unheard of impossibility especially given the sheer amount of extremely powerful people with a reason to kill him.

When competing theories nessecarily have the prison guards who have been overwhelmingly successful in preventing suicide attempts and somewhat successful in stopping suicides after they get to attempts to hold the idiot ball it stretches credulity. Why haven't more prisoners been suicided if these guard were on such a hair trigger they would murder somebody at the expense of children's safety?

On the other hand compromising a prison guard and blackmailing him into murdering Epstein or else would be trivial for an Epstein associate. I just don't get how enraged prison guard is a remotely more plausible motive than prison guard being given a compelling reason to kill Epstein by an associate. It seems like setting out to prove the conclusion Epstein wasn't killed by the rich.


A semi-soft conspiracy theory could also be that other inmates were paid to make it happen.

The two broken cameras must have been incompetent as well then. Not suggesting a conspiracy, but I wouldn't call it that anyway. Maybe it was just a crime.

Right? The amount of events that lined up in order for this "suicide" to take place are staggering

* Mysterious incident a month before his death where Epstein is found on the ground in his cell with bruising on his neck

* Epstein is taken off of suicide watch for unclear reasons

* Epstein is placed into a cell containing only himself, going against prison regulations

* Epstein is found hanging with a broken hyoid bone, which is seen much more commonly in strangulation

* Both cameras surveying Epstein's cell malfunction

* Periodic 30 minute check-ups not being performed (on one of the most high-profile criminals in the US)

There comes a point where foul-play becomes a more likely explanation than the series of events we are told to believe.


Right, many people here seem to be in denial. Either they can't face the reality we live in, or they are simply shills.

It is 99.9% certain that Epstein was murdered. And not by some random rich person but by a state level intelligence organization.

Another mere coincidence is that his former girlfriend and probable accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of a known Mossad asset.


Add to this the fact that he had been reported as being optimistic about winning his case and had never exhibited suicidal behavior before, even when he was facing a serious sentence

From what I've read, the two broken cameras story is just that "two of the many cameras in the area" were broken. At least one camera was actively recording the area outside his cell and they have the footage and it doesn't show anything interesting.

Yeah but faking footage of nobody entering the cell is waaaay easier than faking footage of a suicide.

If they were going to fake footage why would they have allowed broken cameras? I'd also bet it's not really that easy to get fake footage into their security system even if you could produce it.

any sources on that?


All I see is this:

"The Washington Post reported that 'at least one camera in the hallway outside the cell where authorities say registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself earlier this month had footage that is unusable' and that it is 'unclear whether the flaw in the taping affected a limited duration of the footage or whether it was a chronic problem in the beleaguered Manhattan facility.' "


Yeah the shorter version of Ken "Popehat" White's thoughts are: middle class white people have no fucking idea how shitty the justice system is.

And it's true, based on the replies to this post. No one who says Epstein's suicide was a "practical impossibility" has been anywhere near the justice system. They definitely don't know anyone who has been on the prisoner side of it.


You're acting like Epstein was just another prisoner.

People who know a thing or two about the justice system will explain to you how differently high profile prisoners like Epstein are treated.

But what could I, a middle class white person, know about the subject?

Are you aware that some of us are former prisoners as well?


Convicted terrorists have said that Gitmo and warzones are better than this place. It's also very used to "high profile" prisoners, like El Chapo and accused terrorists picked up in Somalia and transferred back here.

You're right. They are used to it.

They're also used to preventing suicides.

There has only been one other successful suicide in that facility in the four decades it has existed.

Why now? Coincidence?


Because he is the 20th prisoner in federal custody to commit suicide in a year? Because people routinely kill themselves even in supermax jails? Because 4-5 people attempt suicide in that prison every year and it'd be even more surprising if they were perfect at preventing it? Because they weren't allowed to hire new staff since Sessions froze hiring in 2017, until April, and their staffing levels went well down over that time?

Here's the story of a death, not suicide, in an equivalent facility in Chicago - Solebo. He wasn't taking his meds, and nobody knew because the blood samples they'd taken from him were contaminated. Coincidence? And although a judge had ordered twice, six months apart, that he be transferred for proper medical examinations, he wasn't. Coincidence? And every staff member with a medical license was on leave or away the day he was found dead. Coincidence? Does the federal DoC just actually fail that much in that many ways? Yes. All the time.


> Epstein had also been taken off suicide watch nine days earlier.

That's a big reason why this is so suspicious.


It's actually fairly normal to not keep people on suicide watch for very long. Full-blown suicide watch is expensive, but furthermore can stress a patient to the point of actually encouraging suicide. Being unable to sleep because your cell lights are kept on 24/7 and you're constantly getting checked on, the humiliation of having to wear a suicide smock, not having sheets on your bed, etc.

You can argue that this is a crappy system, and I'd agree - but it is the dominant system in US prisons.


I understand your point, however I want to rhetorically ask: expensive relative to what? What's a life worth? What's it worth to keep someone alive where there's very high probability that they alone could be linchpin to bring down a network of bad actors?

> expensive relative to what? What's a life worth?

I absolutely agree - it was stupid and shortsighted to take him off of suicide watch, and better suicide watch programs are needed in general.

My point is more that nothing that much out of the ordinary for American jails happened here. Things happen in US jails every day that, to most people, would seem insane - incompetence and indifference to life are the norm. See my comment above - US jails are run on shoestring budgets with no accountability. People die in jail all the time for causes that were trivially preventable.


I've been in jail and while I fully agree about the poor quality thereof, the argument that 'jail is crap there's your answer' is woefully insufficient; in the worst case, it can be used to foreclose any inquiry in specific circumstances by a sort of reverse concern trolling.

It can be true both that the carceral system is hopelessly corrupt and should be abolished, and also that an individual death within the carceral system was avoidable and hyper-suspicious.


>it was stupid and shortsighted to take him off of suicide watch

Or was it clever, manipulative and a powerful demonstration of knowledge on how events would pan out?


My point is more that nothing that much out of the ordinary for American jails happened here.

This argument holds water if we're talking about an ordinary prisoner, but we aren't. Careers were at stake -- and reportedly have been lost -- over this one in particular.

It made no sense not to give Epstein 24/7 supervision, with everything from (competent) guards outside his cell to dedicated IR cameras looking into it. Nobody is entitled to privacy in prison, so why was it voluntarily given?


Fed prison policy to stop after x days, because most inmates to avoid being written up for things/force a transfer will threaten suicide and play the system.

Relative to the prison staff budget.

Epstein himself was also a consummate con-man and sociopath. If he'd resolved to kill himself, he'd know the things to say to exit suicide watch as smoothly and cleanly as possible.

It is true that prisons are not exactly healthy environments, prison guards are not exactly loving companions, obsessed with inmate's wellbeing, and that many of them are careless and/or incompetent. And sometimes deliberately cruel and criminal. However, the case of Epstein is one of the major scandals of the century. He's not a random stoner police picked up. He's somebody whose name has been on the front pages of every newspaper for months. In this condition, either everybody in the prison system are blithering idiots, or somebody took care that Epstein would be surrounded by specific idiots at specific time. And then plausibly denied all involvement - we have idiots, what can you do. If you start counting how many times government officials used this excuse - we're just idiots, you know, can't blame us - to successfully escape responsibility for corruption, fraud and blatant criminal behavior. True, murder requires special hutzpah - but that also doesn't happen every day. Now it happened.

While I get what you’re trying to say ... the incompetence also makes them especially susceptible to corruption and nefarious influence. So, while accidents happen at a higher rate with incompetent staff ... so do “accidents”.

Ken White == Popehat.

> The prison where Epstein died was understaffed, and the guards tasked with watching him had no training on suicide watches.

This could have been intentional, fyi.


I would wager that those same conditions were true long before Epstein ever set foot in there as well.

So why would you put him there? Continual focus on the environment takes the attention of the exceptionally unusual identity of the prisoner.

Because that's where pre-trial prisoners are held. edit: or he could have gone to the Brooklyn facility, which has the same problems.

Apparently as Epstein arrived or shortly before his death the guards were rotated and two with very little suicide watch experience were present. One was also caught sleeping?

Is a guard sleeping on duty during a night shift surprising to you? As 542458 said, the level of competency that people assume is hilarious. Prison staff are overworked, underpaid, and have miserable jobs.

It was two guards that both fell asleep. Okay that might be coincidence. What about the two cameras that failed at the same time? They should publish failure rates of cameras at that facility.

When was the last time two sets of electronics failed at the exact same time randomly? If there was a voltage spike or something that killed them both how come it didn't affect anything else at the facility? Maybe they were EMP'ed or something? Okay that sounds fantastical, but I hope they do answer questions. There is likely an innocent explanation to all this, but there should be a thorough investigation.


It was probably less a coincidence and more of SOP. The guards probably have to do rounds at set times (every hour, for example) and then post up somewhere between those times and most likely fall asleep, or do a crossword puzzle or whatever to pass the time.

As for electronic failure, I would say it's probably common as well. Just search for "Prison conditions in the united states" or "deterioration of prisons". Our prions are overcrowded and under funded. These things are usually reported in regards to the terrible conditions for prisoners (heating constantly failing, mice/bug infestations, leaking roofs, etc), but this also applies to equipment used by guards. We are talking about facilities running old facilities and equipment with minimum maintenance. Even if the camera's didn't fail (I am not up to date on the story, but I assume they both did?), I would be surprised if the quality of the footage was usable (or if it was even recorded).


What makes you think the cameras were working beforehand? They could have been this way for months or years.

What percentage of cameras on BART trains are working at any given time? When was the last time you tested your backups?


If they had been broken for a long time before this, why would they put the highest-profile prisoner in the entire country in there without fixing them first, or moving him to a cell where the cameras do work?

The simple answer is that's just not how bureaucracies work.

-I don't know how the cameras were installed, but it wouldn't surprise me if the explanation was simply that they were on the same mains circuit - only to have that trip for some reason or the other.

Heck, possibly they were dumping their video onto a recorder in the prison guards' personnel room. Right next to the water boiler. With only one socket within easy reach. Go figure.

(The latter example not being as far-fetched as it may seem; our workshop pager system went down several times a day for this very reason until we cajoled an electrician into fitting another outlet...)


Do you think these low tech security cameras are hooked up to Pager Duty or something so their crack team of IT pros staffed 24x7 can jump into action and fix them?

They were probably broken for years.


24x7 no but 9-5 staff fixing broken cameras in a matter of weeks is probably more typical. Especially considering how many cameras are in this one location and how straightforward it is to keep track of if any cells don't have working cameras.

I'm not saying it's a movie where the moment a camera goes down a 250lb Russian goon comes down and investigates. However cameras not working for years? In the fucking suicide watch cell? You honestly think that's realistic? Honestly those would probably get replaced faster than most cameras...

Maybe there's a few cameras people just forgot were broken and get forgotten about for years but it wouldn't be a typical case if the IT and maintenance team was even half-competent.


Also the cameras just so happened to not have been recording at the time of the incident... doesn't seem coincidental considering his profile and potential to bring down some big name elites

This is the problem with conspiracy theories... Avoidable accidents and conspiracy theories have the same fact pattern, which is an overlap of failure modes that should have been preventable but weren't prevented.

Was the Titanic disaster a tragic accident borne of negligence... or a conspiracy to assassinate John Jacob Astor and make it look like an accident? A lot had to go wrong to make an unsinkable ship sink. Who paid off the watchmen that evening? Why was the captain going so fast? And did one of Astor's rivals gain a contract to sell the steel that... etc., etc.

Occam's razor is important to keep handy, and Occam's razor here should be factoring in that American prisons are designed-by-committee-and-cruelty shit that have needed a massive overhaul for decades.


Good post. I hope they do release the statistics of how often cameras fail at that facility. Two cameras failing in the same time widow feels very unlikely to me unless they're using some really bad ones, which won't surprise me. Would still like to know how that happened.

Sure, two cameras failing at the same time right before he incident seems very suspicious. But is that the case? Seems more likely both cameras were broken and had been for a long time and were never fixed.

How many other cameras in the facility were broken?

If cameras are broken, how would you ever learn that they are broken? Perhaps it would require an important event like a suicide to occur so that you would need to review the tapes and discover the broken cameras.


most likely the power line to the cameras were cut or interfered with. They should both be on the same network and it should not be difficult to disable if knowing about the security system before hand.

It wasn’t, so there goes the silly conspiracy theory.

Not to mention, Epstein had pretty good reason to kill himself outside of anyone who might benefit from it. He was probably facing life in prison for despicable crimes. There's no coming back from that.

There's no coming back from that.

He had “come back from” one conviction before. And with what he knew he could probably have cut a deal, even gone into witness protection. The suicide theory just doesn’t hold water.


I thought the Titanic disaster was pretty well-explained as an accident caused by incompetence and hubris. The ship wasn't "unsinkable"; they just advertised it that way, but it was no match for a big iceberg. The ship was sailing through an area with icebergs, and going fast too, and it was nighttime. IIRC, the captain was in a rush to get to the destination (sorry, it's been a while since I watched Cameron's movie). Really, all it took was the decision to go full-speed through an area with icebergs at night to cause that disaster. Then other stuff afterwards was sheer incompetence and classism, like not fully filling the lifeboats.

Assassinating one person by sinking a whole ship is a pretty crazy way to kill someone; it's surely far easier to just hire someone to club him when he's walking the street somewhere. However, with Epstein, there's no such similarity: he was the only one to die, and since he was locked up in prison, anyone wanting to kill him really didn't have much choice, if they wanted to get him before he testified against someone. And there do seem to be a disturbing number of things that went "wrong" for this to happen.


Addendum: after watching an interesting YouTube video on the disaster, it seems that not filling the lifeboats actually wasn't all that incompetent. A lot of people didn't think the boat was really sinking, and there was another large ship within visual distance which could see them and their flares, and which they were radioing for help, so they thought help was going to be there very shortly if they needed it. Unfortunately, there was some very serious incompetence going on at that ship: the radio operator had gone to sleep for the night, and the captain, despite seeing many flares, decided not to bother investigating. After the disaster, apparently his story changed every time he was asked.

Anyway, I think my point stands: trying to murder someone by engineering a disaster at sea like this is pretty ridiculous; too many things have to go wrong all at the same time, which really aren't under control of any one person or small group. Getting the captain to speed through iceberg territory (and honestly, there weren't that many icebergs, they were just unlucky and happened across a big one), making sure a large iceberg was directly ahead, making sure just enough compartments flooded, making sure the radio operator on the other ship went to bed, making sure the captain of the nearby ship refused to investigate, and finally when help did arrive (and it did), making sure the assassination target somehow wasn't among the survivors. Killing someone in a prison cell where there's no witnesses except a camera or two (that "just happened" to be "malfunctioning") and a couple of guards to bribe is actually realistic and possible, especially if state-level operatives are involved.


You might be interested in the investigation into the death of Sandra Bland, which also found a disturbing number of things going wrong in the Texas jail system. Or probably any other investigation into any jail/prison in the US. A guy died of dehydration in a county jail in Washington. How ridiculous does that sound? (Keaton Farris, if you want to read more about it).

How often do guards fall asleep on duty? How many guards have any reasonable amount of suicide watch experience? These don't sound like anomalies.

The pathologist from the article claims "Epstein suffered multiple fractures in his neck that are more consistent with strangulation than suicide by hanging". This is a forensic claim first, but one that also raises questions about the quality of the system. Mr. White's perspective is interesting, but doesn't speak to the forensics.

Mr. White might raise questions about the argument "Epstein couldn't have committed suicide because of the system", but by highlighting the incompetence in the system he lends plausibility to the idea that someone could gain access to Epstein in order to murder him.


The pathologist from the article, it is important to remember, contradicts the NY ME's report, and has been hired by Epstein's family, who have a wrongful death suit brewing. He's hardly an unbiased source, and unlike the NY ME, he's retired and (while he has a reputation to protect as a human being who cares about such things) he has no career to protect by not screwing up the details on this one.

Bias, reputation, and motive are irrelevant to the claim that "Epstein suffered multiple fractures in his neck that are more consistent with strangulation than suicide by hanging". 1) Did Epstein suffer these fractures? 2) Does established forensic science support that these fractures are more consistent with strangulation? 3) How much more? 4) Is there other evidence that supports the conclusion this was suicide?

The pathologists uses facts and established scientific knowledge to draw a conclusion. Legitimate responses to that conclusion should be factual and scientific. Counter arguments along the lines of the "middle class people don't understand the justice system" or "this guy was paid", however true they may be, don't have any bearing on the neck fractures and if those fractures are consistent with strangulation or suicide.


They are consistent with both, And if the standard were preponderance of evidence and the only evidence on the table where the forensic report, it's two to one odds in favor of homicide by strangulation.

One thing I don't know regarding a medical examiner's job is whether they are supposed to take in additional evidence, and if an ME is required to give one single conclusion. If they are required to give one single conclusion, then it still makes sense that the New York medical examiner would conclude the thing that is more probable in light of circumstances, even if the forensic evidence alone indicates something else is more probable. Because a 25% frequency isn't low enough that one would bet on the 50% frequency event being what occurred in light of the fact that the homicide would have had to happen In a secure and protected facility with an isolated prisoner.

It's almost feels like a Bayesian versus frequentist analysis question.

But in any case, if the medical examiner is required to give a single answer, and their reputation suffers if that answer turns out to be wrong, I would assume that they would factor in mitigating circumstances to allow for the lower probability scenario to outweigh the higher probability scenario in isolation. And the forensics expert who is not responsible for analyzing future cases and may not be constrained to give a single answer is free to answer based on raw probabilities without factoring in circumstances.


>he has no career to protect by not screwing up the details on this one.

Sure he does: he has a career as an expert witness apparently.


Yeah I’m also skeptical of improbable theories... but this one looks, I mean looks, too convenient. Cameras go offline, taken off suicide watch... even if it wasn’t someone physically doing him in, they can drive him to do it by psychological means.

This was one of the highest profile cases in the last decade. That they didn’t have him watched 24x7 is incredible gross negligence or more.

I mean you have low level criminals get more attention when they signal possible self harm than this guy.

PS toilet paper: can’t they get prison safe bidets?


That's because you never hear about the cameras that go offline when nothing interesting happened. It's probably very common.

Yes of course, but normally security would get pinged with alarms especially if the cameras were tagged as critical. In secure environs when they get a camera offline condition they send out people to do the watching.

This is going to sound argumentative and I don't mean it that way.

> normally security would get pinged with alarms especially if the cameras were tagged as critical

Unless you've worked on prison infrastructure before I'm not sure how you could know this with any level of confidence.


>if

Honestly an IT team would MAYBE bother to prioritize these cameras as critical. They only definitely would after something like this happened. It's an easy thing to put on the backburner...


>PS toilet paper: can’t they get prison safe bidets?

This is America: we absolutely refuse to use bidets, no matter how much sense they make.


In 2018, Britain refused to extradite a guy to the US because he would have been held in either this prison or it's Brooklyn equivalent (the one where prisoners were left without heat or electricity in the storm this year), and they said it was too likely that he would commit suicide given the terrible conditions and lack of care (https://gothamist.com/news/prisoners-endure-a-nightmare-gula...). Guards at this prison have been (recently!) convicted of raping or beating inmates. A few years ago a guy was beaten to death and the jail said he'd overdosed - the footage of that has never been seen either, the family is still suing the jail.

Everyone who cared knew that this prison was a hellhole with poor oversight and poor control, long before Eptstein came near it. Nobody in American politics gives a shit that people facing federal charges are (according to the UN) routinely tortured by being held here. The DoJ is "investigating" conditions at these prisons, but since they are also running them, nobody expects much. (https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/mdc-brooklyn-justice-dep...)

The sheer ignorance that drives most of the reaction to Epstein's death is awful. Maybe a little of this righteous outrage could get spent on actually making these prisons the well-run, safe facilities people think they are, but I doubt it will be.


What is "ignorant" is pointing to the prison conditions of the poor and relatively unknown mass of prisoners and then asserting that we should have expected the same thing for Jeffrey Epstein. He was worth hundreds of millions of dollars (allegedly, at least), and when people of that level of wealth are imprisoned at all, it is at some Club Fed facility where they're relatively comfortable and well protected. In fact, we already have an example of how people like Jeffrey Epstein are usually treated in federal prison, because he himself served a stint in one after his 2008 plea deal, and it was nothing like the parade of horrors we are now constantly told is just par for the course for prisoners like him.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. For a start, this facility only holds people who have not yet had a trial. "Normally", wealthy people like him are not held in detention at all while waiting for their trial - like Martha Stewart.

Crazy to think that our justice system is so dysfunctional we can hardly distinguish between malice and incompetence. Conspiracies aside, such dysfunction provide opportunities to those who oversee to just "let it happen".

He was taken off of suicide watch, so he had all the materials he needed to kill himself. Also...every person I've read with working knowledge of that prison has stressed the gross negligence and incompetence there.

This was the same prison that somehow held El Chapo, a serial jailbreaker, in custody throughout his trial. They can be competent when actually motivated to do so.

El Chapo broke out of Mexican prisons where his ability to influence guards/staff is much greater than a US prison. Also, being able to prevent someone from breaking out and preventing someone from killing themselves seem like two different classes of problems. Being good enough to prevent one doesn't necessarily imply being good enough to prevent the other.

fun fact, one of el chapo's attornies signed epstein's trust creation certificate in the days before epstein died.

yeah but every noted pathologist who I've read with working knowledge of the case - which is the one in the linked article - says it looks like murder.

He actually didn't say it was definitely murder, he said suicide was ruled the cause too quickly and they should have waited on DNA testing.

He said much more than that... For example, he pointed out that broken bones are very rare in suicide cases like this, and multiple fractures is even rarer.

This was already stated well before this article by multiples pathologists. While most agreed that they are rare...the rarity decreases with the age of the person.

he had all the materials he needed to kill himself

He is alleged to have hung himself with materials no stronger than tissue paper.


Says who? He was hung with a bed sheet.

Plenty of sources for this e.g. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/08/10/former-mc...

There’s no way that man could have killed himself. I’ve done too much time in those units. It’s an impossibility.

Between the floor and the ceiling is like 8 or 9 feet. There’s no way for you to connect to anything.

You have sheets, but they’re paper level, not strong enough. He was 200 pounds — it would never happen.


The very fact that his article says he was on suicide watch (he wasn't) makes its entire claim wrong. That's the entire premise of the article...you get very thin sheets while on suicide watch (sometimes they even take them away.) Of course he wasn't on suicide watch and had normal sheets.

This interview always bothered me because the author seems to think that hanging yourself necessarily involves hanging from a ceiling...

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why a high profile figure wouldn't have a camera pointed at them 24/7. And a second camera for backup.

Cost, specifically:

$200 camera < Implicated billionaires


The criminal justice / mental health field being what it is, I do not find it surprising in the least that a reviled kiddie-fucker would be allowed, by several levels of people involved, 15 minutes alone, along with plausibly accidental access to a means to kill themselves.

The breaking of the hyoid bone is, in fact, not uncommon in hangings. Nor is the breaking of the cartilage. Nor is hemorrhaging in the face or eyes. Nor is blatant disregard for the fate of a paedophile, who in nobody's right mind could conceivably be innocent.


>The breaking of the hyoid bone is, in fact, not uncommon in hangings. Nor is the breaking of the cartilage. Nor is hemorrhaging in the face or eyes.

You're directly contradicting an expect here. Have any sources to back that up?


And you're blithely accepting the word of an expert who was paid to investigate the official autopsy, on behalf of Epstein's brother?

Have any sources, etc.?


Sources for what exactly? I never said that. What I said is that we have a very well credentialed and highly experienced expert saying A, and then we have random internet guy contradicting him with nothing to support his claims. You think taking what you say at face value would be the reasonable thing to do?

Why wouldn't you take the word of the well credentialed expert that did the actual investigation and pronounced it suicide?

Expert in their field versus random forum commenter is obviously a he said she said.

Not the parent but here's the first google result:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973326

TLDR happens ~25% of the time for males.


That may be 25% of all hangings, but I imagine the rate would be lower for hangings occurred by a 6ft tall person off a 6ft tall bed post.

Yeah, I would be surprised if Epstein had any sort of drop if it was suicide. It's not like he had the means to tie a rope to a fan and kicked the bucket. If he did do it, it would be very ad hoc.

Epstein was taken off suicide watch though.

Edit: the rate of suicide is still pretty darn low, and lots of other stuff worth looking in to. Just pointing out that he wasn't on suicide watch at the time.


It would seem if someone were to murder him, it would be prudent to take him off suicide watch first.

...but surely it's also the case that successful suicide is more likely when someone is taken off of suicide watch, no? Citing this as evidence of malicious intent seems like a reach.

He supposedly tried to kill himself 18 days prior, and he was a witness who could potentially spill the beans on a bunch of wealthy kid fucks (and whoever had blackmail against them, if Epstein wasn't the ultimate top of this pedo pyramid). Yes, not monitoring the arrested billionaire pedophile who had been fucking kids with other billionaires and political figures who control the country, right after a first "suicide" attempt is made, seems sketch as fuck. If they're not complicit in whatever happened, the TLAs would have had an obvious interest in monitoring that cell. Does the federal government not care about knowing if a foreign power has videos of a former President (and quite possibly a sitting one, though we don't have flight records) raping kids, or is the federal government incapable of monitoring a man in prison? I was expecting Epstein to die before trial, but I was still surpised by how brazen it was. This is the most obvious American deepstate murder since Michael Hastings.

So why didn't Epstein arrange so any attempt on his life would result on all the dirt on people being sent out?

Why didn't Epstein tell the prosecution "Holy fuck, people are trying to kill me, I want a protection and a deal and I will tell on everyone" after the first attempt?


I don't know how intelligent Epstein was or how much he knew. It's possible that those CDs they took from his locked safe[0] were the only insurance policy he had:

> Federal agents who searched Epstein's $77 million Upper East Side townhouse in Manhattan also found "in a locked safe ... compact discs with hand-written labels including the following: 'Young [Name] + [Name],' 'Misc nudes 1,' and 'Girl pics nudes,' " according to a new court filing in Epstein's case.

I can't find anything about what was on those tapes, what names were actually written on them, if the were encrypted, or if any followup investigation is being done, but maybe my googlefu is just weak. He certainly could have hired somebody competent enough to write a dead man's switch which would release the files if he didn't run a script every X months, but only if he was intelligent and knowledgable enough to come up with that plan in the first place. He could have known that he had no undeniable evidence left in his hands. He could have taken the first attempt as a message, and thought that keeping his head low and shutting up was his best chance at avoiding further trouble. He could have understood his time was limited while also still supporting the greater mission of the blackmail plot and not being willing to blow the cover on his handlers. These are all speculations, I don't know exactly how the events played out. I'd even give the body-double crowd a ~5% chance of being right (but that's a crit fail on a d20; 5% isn't much). I do feel comfortable saying that Epstein almost certainly photographed a former President raping a child, which screams "state actor blackmail," and it seems highly unlikely to me that such a man wasn't being watched by the TLAs unless they were purposefully turning a blind eye.

[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/08/jeffrey-epstein-called-s...


> the rate of suicide is still pretty darn low,

What is being counted, and how is it being counted?

For example, what has to happen for it to be counted as a death by suicide in that prison? Is it enough for the self injurious act have to occur in the prison, or does the person have to die in the prison?


Should he have been?

That's not the issue with regards to the parent comment. The parent said he couldn't believe someone could kill themselves in a bare cell meant to stop people from suicide, but that's not where he was.

Exactly, thus my question.

What do you mean 'thus your question'? That's the first question everyone has, why would you ask it in an irrelevant chain of replies to someone who wasn't commenting on it in the first place?

I don't know that's the 1st question everyone has.

I do know this meta discussion is unlikely to be worth it, and I am quite happy to move on.


Easy. He wasn't on suicide watch when he did it.

The takeaway from that story for me is that people will go insane lengths to commit suicide, though means nobody would have even thought of, and law enforcement just removes each mechanism as it's discovered.

People kill themselves when under observation all the time.

The people observing are negligent, the systems don't work, people think 5 minute of 15 minute obs are sufficient.

It's not in any way uncommon.

Statistical methodology hides the true numbers. People talk about "suicide" when they should be asking about "suspected self inflicted death".


> It's not in any way uncommon.

Could you put numbers on that? From what I can tell, in the facility where Epstein died, there have been many thousands of people held, and only one recorded suicide in the last 40 years. Do you disagree with this claim, and think there were many more suicides that were not recorded as such? Or do you consider this rate to be "not in any way uncommon"? I could agree with "not impossible", but not with "not uncommon".


> and only one recorded suicide in the last 40 years.

> Do you disagree with this claim

Yes.

It's clearly nonsense to suggest that no-one has caused their own death while in that prison, so we need to ask what is being counted and how it's being counted.

Suicide accounts for at least one quarter of unnatural death in jails. Suicide is the leading cause of death in local jails. Deaths by suicide are consistently higher in jails than in the general population. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/mlj07.txt

Are they talking about NVDRS, or about state reports, or about institution reports? What ICD10 codes are they using?

Are they only including deaths where the person died in the prison and that are ruled by coroners to be suicide? Because these two things alone will remove most deaths from the stats. Or are they including all deaths where the lethal action was completed in the jail, even if the person died later in hospital? Many people will die in hospital, not the prison.

A suicide verdict will require a coroner / medical examiner to be convinced to whatever burden of proof they're using (beyond all reasonable doubt? Preponderance of evidence? balance of probabilities?) that the death was both self-inflicted and that the dead person had the intent to end their life. These are high thresholds, which is why statistical organisations (ONS in UK, CDC in US) don't count death by suicide by only counting verdicts of suicide from coroners.

The vast majority of people talking about this death do not know what type of coronial / medical examiner system is used for deaths that occur in that prison. They don't know what burdens of proof are used. They don't know what a coroner / medical examiner needs to know to find a verdict of suicide. They don't know about the high rates of deaths by suicide among prisoners. They don't know that while, male, middle-aged, sex-offending, inmates are at highest risk of death by suicide. They don't know about the high rates of negligence among prison guards tasked with monitoring people at risk of suicide. And yet, even though they're ignorant of all this, they feel free to make wild speculation that he was murdered.


Probably too late for you to notice this, but thanks for your comprehensive response!

Are we supposed to believe they didn't kill him? They took off suicide watch. The authorities are responsible for his well being. As others have said they go to insane degrees to prevent suicide. It's either death through negligence or active killing. If you take his moment of physical death out of the equation, the story around his legal protection and then lack of it was enough to kill him.

I don't think there's much of a story in the end of the Epstein case. The only people that know aren't going to say anything until it's a footnote in the history books. The conservatives peso hunt comes to a close and metoo had Weinstein. Who knows what crimes they committed against the powers that be, if any. I don't know.


Yeah, outside of Lee Harvey Oswald this guy was the most important prisoner in the history of the USA. The fact that he just "suicided" in prison and we're all supposed to move on and share links about suicide awareness is utter nonsense.

If the corporate media doesn't get to the bottom of this then someone else will, it's just a matter of time. Everyone is so tired of being lied to by authority figures.


Martin Luther King Jr. was almost certainly more important. He was jailed many times, and wrote Letter from Birmingham Jail from one.

> wrote Letter from Birmingham Jail

And it's a great letter. Of interest, it's extremely similar to Civil Disobedience which is a letter Thoreau wrote from jail, and of which King possessed a copy of at the time he wrote his own letter. Related, Gandi carried a copy of Civil Disobedience with him at all times. Thoreau's rejection of US taxing authority was far more influential than most realize, leading to cascading revolutions throughout the 20th century.


The future's already here, it's just not evenly distributed. Plenty of people probably already "got to the bottom of this."

But you and I haven't dug deep enough to find it.


That's a big part of the problem right? We've stratified information access such that special elite groups get to decide what the lowly commoners are allowed to know. We know what's best for them.

In theory this would be fine if we had a rigorous and well tested process for managing dangerous information, but the whole classification system has just been subverted to just hide whatever embarrasses the rich and powerful. It's an illegitimate farce.


> "If the corporate media doesn't get to the bottom of this then someone else will, it's just a matter of time."

If the example of Lee Harvey Oswald is anything to go by, your optimism might be misplaced..


What if it just was a suicide?

If he had dirt on people would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death? Especially if there was a failed murder attempt just weeks before?

And what stops the victims of naming names now? And what would have stopped Epstein of just not talking and just denying?


>What if it just was a suicide?

It makes absolutely no difference.

The only thing they had to do was to keep him alive, and given his health, it was not a hard thing to do. If there were no benefactors, it would've been criminal incompetence. As it stands, incompetence is as likely as if he got killed by an anvil falling from the sky.

To paraphrase: it's as if I gave you a new iPhone to keep for a day, and you returned empty-handed and told me someone stole it from you... because you left it on the edge of the platform at a NYC subway station for the night and (surprise!) it wasn't there in the morning!

In this scenario, it makes no difference whether your friend took it, someone else took it, or it got knocked onto the tracks by accident. What matters is that you ensured that I don't have my phone back.

And that's what happened in the Epstein case. His keepers facilitated his death. The exact manner is irrelevant.


Funny to see this comment getting downvoted when it really gets to the heart of the issue: keeping Epstein alive was crucial to the cause of justice, everyone knew this and that many powerful people had a huge stake in having him silenced, so even if it was suicide his death was willfully facilitated.

Let's take it the other way around and assume it was a murder.

> would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death?

Not being able to do that while in high-security confinment.

> And what stops the victims of naming names now?

Not wanting to die.

> what would have stopped Epstein of just not talking and just denying?

The only way to be sure he would not talk is to definitely prevent him from talking.

Now I'm not saying the murder hypothesis is the correct one, but it still holds water IMHO.


It also sends a clear message to anyone who may know information to keep their mouth shut.

It basically says, "Yeah you can be put on 24/7 security, in a prison cell watched by rotating armed guards and we will still find a way to disable the cameras, get the guards away from you cell, and murder you."


Were cameras disabled???

Yes, both cameras that watched the cell and hallway outside it had "technical difficulties" and there was no recoverable footage around the time of Epstein's death.

The camera showing the hallway outside his cell was working, and showed no one leaving or entering during the time period of his death.

If you have a subscription, here is the source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/investigators-scruti...

The relevant text:

At least one camera in the hallway outside the cell where authorities say registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself earlier this month had footage that is unusable, although other, clearer footage was captured in the area, according to three people briefed on the evidence gathered earlier this month


The problem is that many jails are designed with lots of corridors and halls basically identical.

I assume that recording that nothing happened could be as easy as put a number over a different door, (or pick the equivalent door in a different floor), record for a while, stop, remove the number tag, and swap the records.


Yea, I'm sure the people who designed prison procedures didn't think of that before, rolls eyes

Are those the same people that were unable to notice not one, but two cameras broken pointing to a very special recluse for an undefined amount of time?

We could ask the smartest team of architects in the planet to design the most secure jail in the planet and then put idiots at charge. The security of the jail will vanish in a poof of "I couldn't care less about replacing this broken bulb"


> Are those the same people that were unable to notice not one, but two cameras broken pointing to a very special recluse for an undefined amount of time?

Did the people who design the prison also work there as security guards? Is that what you're asking?

> We could ask the smartest team of architects in the planet to design the most secure jail in the planet and then put idiots at charge. The security of the jail will vanish in a poof of "I couldn't care less about replacing this broken bulb"

What does this have to do with what you wrote? This actually sounds that you're arguing that it most likely was a suicide if everyone was so inept. Let me ask, how many times did something like this happen before, do you think, in the last 40 years or so?


Do you have a source for that, because I've only ever heard that the camera outside his cell did not provide usable footage.

Same, I read all cameras were "malfunctioning"

>Not being able to do that while in high-security confinment.

Why would he not be able to do that? He had access to his lawyer, right? Or why would he not be even more upfront and straight up tell the prosecution that someone tried to kill him and that he would spill everything for protection?


It's not impossible people are just pointing out it was implausible that the highest profile prisoner in the damn prison was the first person to successfully kill themselves in years and years.

A guard got blackmailed or something.


I don't have information that would prove Epstein's death wasn't suicide. Given he was on suicide watch earlier, that doesn't matter much to the situation of those with power acting to conveniently dispose of him.

The Epstein case could still be pursued. But when the government disposes of the star witness, the average person quite reasonably tends to doubt the state is going to give satisfaction, plus the media-driving focus of attention is gone.


>And what stops the victims of naming names now? They might be murdered.

The model who exposed Silvio Berlusconi's rape of her and the "bunga-banga" parties was poisoned with polonium.

https://apnews.com/e7dd3bb17f3e41e297c0ee401d5eae48


> If he had dirt on people would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death?

Considering the circumstances, if you received information from Epstein, what would you do with it? Even if you were brave enough to risk your life in the service of justice, what authority would you even send it to?


Honestly, Glenn Greenwald would probably be where I’d turn to. I’d trust him as a journalist, for sure. There aren’t a ton of them who’ve publicly demonstrated how they handle something of this importance (Woodward and Bernstein are the only other two I can come up with off the top of my head).

Assange - for which I will get hate. He will publish, in full at considerable personal cost. I don't think there are any credible accusations about him doing anything else, ever. You can still hate him for whatever reasons you have and expect him to do just that.

Have you seen Greenwalds thoughts on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

I'm not sure they should still be on that list... Maybe, but there's some doubt. More about them than say Assange, for this purpose which is pretty weird and unexpected to think about.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-wo...

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/bob-woodward-sl...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvrSeiG5mJQ


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/mannin...

Wherin Greenwald describes Woodward as follows:

"Bob Woodward is a servant-journalist for US government officials."

That's not pulling punches. Is it fair?


I mean I could make the claim

"Glenn Greenwald is a servant-journalist for Russian government officials."

with at least as much evidence:

https://arcdigital.media/why-are-internet-radicals-helping-p...

https://www.towleroad.com/2019/05/glenn-greenwald-russia/

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...

Is it fair? I mean calling a journalist an agent of the deep state for publishing leaks given to them is quite a leap... especially given that Greenwald is famous in large part for the same.


I don't think there's any evidence of Greenwald publishing leaks provided by russian officials. Unless you go with the "Snowden is a russian asset" line which I find lacks credibility. Especially given how often it's been used. Lately Hilary is accusing Deomcrat candidates of it, which is, well, exactly in keeping with her character. An observation that is less controversial now than it used to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/22/hillar...

Never heard of towerload before, but wow, that article is comically terrible. Don't believe me? Here's a tweet from nobody making the same claim without evidence.

The arc digitial article (deliberately?) conflates all those idiots running around yelling "The President is a Russian spy!" and saying that is idiotic with not wanting Mueller's report at all as if those idiots were necessary for Mueller to perform his investigation and write a report.

So yeah, making the claim against Greewald. I'm going with "Not Fair" if that's the best evidence there is.

I've seen no credible evidence that Assange worked with russia fwiw (but the NYT article making the accusation had the silliest diagram I've ever seen in lieu of evidence - so silly it looked deliberately so - as a covert protest perhaps..? ymmv incompetence is the usual go to). If I saw some evidence I might well change my mind on that but I'm just not willing to see russians pulling strings without evidence. I believed WMD claims and I hope I learned /something/ from that error.

Quoting the actual content of Mueller's report. Yeah, I'm ok with that when reporting on it myself. Pointing out that Trump can be a horrible person and awful president without being a russian spy and that constant accusations of it are silly, counterproductive, a massive distraction from the duty of the fourth estate and just need to stop now so we can analyse reality is from the competent journalist playbook rather than a russian conspiracy IMHO.

The claim against Woodward has more legs because he gets top secret leaks and there's no investigation, there's no prosecution, there's no outrage and the stories he writes based on the leaks are anything but embarassing to the government. So I guess all that is at least consistent with what Greenwald is saying. I mean an article that embarasses the government based on leaks with woodward as author - that would be inconsistent and you'd have to address that to keep making the case at least. (well it's 1 this way and 5 the other or something - but I haven't seen the 1).

If I wanted to make a criticism of Glenn in the original context it is that he will use whatever you give him for maximum political impact in support of his political views (but will do so with integrity, eg Snowden is a republican and went to Glenn because of his integrity, also Barton Gelmann and deliberately avoided the NYT for burying stories which should have sent alarm bells ringing loud there, I wonder if it did). Is that political impact according to Glenn what you want? But I guess if what you want released embarasses the government, Woodward hasn't got much form since Watergate..?


I believe most of the major (and some of the minor) newspapers offer a SecureDrop instance to transfer confidential information.

So I would send the entirety of the information to every newsroom that could receive it, then pray that I: A) was not the only initial recipient of the Epstein drop and B) that the information I received doesn't contain any content that could be uniquely identified to me.

Afterwards I would sit down and have a long think about how my life got to the point where Epstein is communicating with me personally.


>what authority would you even send it to?

Well, you could send it to various foreign news outlets. I'm sure RT would love it.


Newspaper?

Interesting how Oswald was murdered. And then the murderer conveniently died of cancer soon after. Also interesting how that plot has been made out to be this big mystery with every which way being considered, except for an internal job. The patterns are getting pretty clear now

Every which way is considered because that's what humans do. Everyone wants to be the guy who came up with an original theory to show how clever they are.

Your vague “internal job” accusation is no exception to this.


you're correct

There are already lots of people investigating this independently and a lot of information has been uncovered. I can recommend a podcast that has really good research and is also a very entertaining listen:

https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod

Plenty of crackpot theories abound of course, but the hosts here try to piece things together that are based in fact to get a more plausible understanding of the course of events.


> Everyone is so tired of being lied to by authority figures.

I see very little sign of this. On the contrary, basically anywhere I look I see nothing but rabid enthusiasm for the latest Russia boogeyman story, and utter disdain for any idea that things may not be quite as we're told by the government and media.

I suspect the only reason there happens to be any interest in this story is that it involves children. Considering how relatively carefree the public seems to be on this story, when usually any story involving children and sex results in widespread hysteria and disgust, I think whoever is behind the memory holing of this story is probably feeling pretty comfortable with their ability to control people's perception of reality.


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: