Oh fuck off.

I give up. What's your fucking problem this time?

Dumb conspiracy theory garbage

yookay

This from the dude peddling StormFront’s lies about George Soros

If you think all those circumstances surrounding the death of a guy with tons of dirt on very powerful people isn't at least a little suspicious, and that thinking so is up there with Truthers, I don't know what to tell you, dude.

He was looking at spending the rest of his life in prison, losing all his wealth, his family connections and position in society . A scrawny old formerly-rich white pedophile would not have had a good time of that.

And it’s not like the prevalence of suicide in American prisons is a known issue!

SolRo only believes conspiracy theories about a certain population of people.

O_Z didn't spell Ghislaine right in the tag so it's his fault.

Misspelling people's names is an alpha move.

Don't Drop The Soap, Jizzlane

these vids appeared at the same time, per my eyes. i usually check the hopper 1st, saw this, voted, then saw OZ's berger vid on front page. there are more interesting arguments than hopper-poaching available these days.

Occam's razor still suggests that Epstein killed himself, but the forensic evidence seems to be inconclusive, and maybe he didn't... but seriously, who gives a fuck? If he was murdered, it was because he had a lot of dirt on important people. Well, even if he committed suicide, there are reasons to assume that he had a lot of dirt on important people.

who gives a fuck?!

dunno how "i have tons of dirt" leads to "guess i'll kill myself then." wtf was the dirt for, in this scenario?

Well, if he killed himself, it was because he was going to prison. The dirt is peripheral.

Or maybe, in fact, probably, most of the dirt he had was on himself. Epstein was the top of the food chain in the sex trafficking business. Naming other participants, however famous and powerful, probably wouldn't help him much... people make deals when they have bigger fish to implicate. But maybe Epstein had other secret crimes that might have gotten out, and maybe they still will.

I don't give a fuck, partly because I don't think he was murdered, and if he was, its never going to be established that he was, and if it's established, it's never going to be determined who did it. Its only significance is because it points to bigger secrets.

Well, I think there probably ARE bigger secrets, regardless of what happened to Epstein, and THOSE mysteries just might be solved one day. I do hope someone is looking.

the dirt was peripheral? no, the hypothetical dirt was the get out of jail card. yes, all of that dirt was on him too. but he was already in trouble, so that actually could be a liberatory motivation for exposing said dirt to sunlight: if you're already on the ropes, you have less to lose than the guy who still has a job hawking hypocrisy.

that plus my background assumption of the guy having a strategy of piling up dirt (or what? a profoundly expensive kink? that you're kinkily eager to share with everyone ever cited in People magazine or whatever, despite its egregious illegality?) makes it seem pert weird not to then try to turn it into leverage. "oh! i'm so embarrassed to have generated terabytes upon terabytes of footage of world leaders fucking twelve year olds! what will my mother think? guess i better break my own hyoid."

i agree that epstein ain't the ultimate link in the chain. but to be all "who fuckin' cares about this link" is pretty fuckin weird, bro.

maybe i'm all conspiretarded out, here, but i find your position really confusing. i did start drinking margaritas around 1100 today, tho, so who knows if i know what sense is.

>>>>The dirt was peripheral? no, the hypothetical dirt was the get out of jail card.

No. Definitely not. There was no get out of jail card for Epstein. Not anymore. You get immunity for naming higher ups, and there were no higher ups.

I don't know what he could have gotten for what he knew, but it couldn't have saved his 64 year old ass from dying in prison. Not a chance. He was done for.

Did it stop being 2020, or something? I think a "I won't rat on you, Donnie" would work pretty well.

How would that work? Were not talking about federal charges, so the presidential pardon power doesn't even apply.

Ok, fair point--NY would certainly be a tough place for Trump to work his magic, and maybe nobody up the chain in that state was in his "black book." I don't know anymore how a rescue operation would work. Maybe Epstein didn't either, and felt the noose tightening and bailed out. All the stuff about suddenly being given the opportunity to do so by negligent guards, and cameras being turned off to give him a golden opportunity, etc., COULD be a profound coincidence. Or even, could be something Epstein arranged for by bribing someone, I guess.

I still don't think that's as plausible as someone bribing someone to have him killed, because the fallout from being outed by Epstein would be crushing. Whether or not Epstein had a plan B (i.e., for when plan A fails to keep him out of jail), you'd just need to be powerful and powerfully scared to make it happen. It's the easiest thing in the world for me to imagine maliciousness in jail cops, which would make it easy to bribe (or extort) them into letting this happen. It's also easy to imagine cops deciding to do this all on their own--in jail, everyone, on both sides of the bars, hates a pedophile, and this was the ur-pedo. Further, I wouldn't put it past a pro-Trump guard (i.e., a guard) to endure the cognitive dissonance required to figure that going vigilante might help protect his dear leader.

Ultimately, I applaud your dedication to the proverbial razor. We DO need better evidence. But when you said, in a different response chain...

> An unusual fracture seems like a simpler explanation to me than people from outside the jail coming in to kill Epstein and leaving no evidence. Or someone from inside the jail, who would not be able to avoid suspicion.

...my response is that, while an infiltrator-assassin does seem implausible, none of the cops who were assigned to that shift, and especially not those in charge of his suicide watch and surveillance technology, HAVE avoided suspicion. Certainly not mine. But I think the "blue omerta" has protected them from suspicion; then again, I haven't followed all of this so closely that I know what any of those cops' current dispositions are. But there's been an air of coverup since the whole thing happened, and that itself is a form of evidence. How much it competes with having celebrity pathologists (Baden, who ALWAYS seems to support the local authorities' conclusions, as long as he wasn't hired by the defense https://www.washingtonpost.com./nation/2019/08/13/michael-baden-je ffrey-epstein-autopsy/) announcing that there's nothing to see here is a matter of judgment.

side note, in case anyone's not hip to the trick (while it lasts):

add a final dot to the domain to circumvent the paywall check. now you're not accessing the dot-com "top level" domain, now it's the tippy-toppy dot domain. i'm sure the newspapers will expand their checks into that domain in about the same amount of time it took for them to circumvent the private mode evasion.

thus, before loading a www.washingtonpost.com/blah link, edit the address in the bar to www.washingtonpost.com./blah

>>>I still don't think that's as plausible as someone bribing someone to have him killed, because the fallout from being outed by Epstein would be crushing.

You think so? I don't. Take Donald Trump, for example. Is Jeffrey Epstein somehow more credible than all those women who have accused Trump of Sexual assault? If Epstein had solid evidence, some kind of documentation, one of two things had already happened. Either he destroyed it before he could be arrested, or the government already has it.

What I've heard is that Epstein's cell was in a nortoriously underfunded facility, athe kind of place where technology and pers that he didn't. onel probably fail regularly.

>>>But there's been an air of coverup since the whole thing happened, and that itself is a form of evidence.

No, it's not. When fucked up shit happens, and government agencies are responsible, you will see aggressive PR.

After 40 years, I changed my mind about JFK's murder. I am now convinced that the government wanted the public to believe that Oswald acted alone, even people in the government who didn't believe that. LBJ believed that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, but he directed the government to push the idea that Oswald acted alone, because he wanted to avoid World War III.

Well, I think it's pretty clear now that Oswald acted alone. And even if he didn't, the government pushing the idea that he acted alone is not evidence to the contrary.

The officers responsible for supervising Epstein want you to believe that he wasn't murdered... even if he wasn't murdered.

The difference between Epstein and the Trump rape accusers is that it's purported that Epstein had video evidence. To me it seems pretty obvious that Epstein was part of a honeypot operation. Whether he was working for the CIA or the Mossad or even some other party, who knows?

How much more obvious does a mans murder need to be before we can stop calling it a conspiracy theory? Do we need video of Hillary Clinton tap dancing into his cell with a butcher knife? If just one of the coincidences listed above happened, and led to no one noticing he was dead until hours later, that would still be suspicious as fuck. Instead we have a laundry list of coincidences that led up to his death, a list so fucking ridiculous that it seems like the people behind it don't even fucking care how blatantly obvious it is.

>>>>To me it seems pretty obvious that Epstein was part of a honeypot operation. Whether he was working for the CIA or the Mossad or even some other party, who knows?

A FACT does not begin with "To me it seems pretty obvious" , and it doesn't end with "Who knows?"

Whenever people talk about their laundry list of coincidences leading up to Epstein's death, they never seem to mention that, coincidentally, Epstein had already attempted suicide once. That's the interesting thing about laundry lists. They tend to be edited judiciously.

>>>>The difference between Epstein and the Trump rape accusers is that it's purported that Epstein had video evidence.

Well, unless the video evidence was under the bunk in Epstein's cell, its value as leverage is questionable.

1. He knew he was about to be arrested, so he may have destroyed it.

2. Law enforcement may already have it

3. From jail, he had no control over the evidence. He's not going to be able to lead authorities to the Donald Trump evidence without leading them to a whole lot more Jeffrey Epstein evidence.

> 1. He knew he was about to be arrested, so he may have destroyed it.

This does not compute. "I have shitloads of kompromat, the accumulation of which seems to have been my sole pursuit, in tandem with the actual trafficking, for decades. I better chuck it so that I can neuter myself."

I suppose it works if watching footage of powerful people having sex with kids was all just to satisfy a really expensive kink. A honeypot operation certainly seems more worth the risk.

Again, I applaud your rationality in demanding overt, undisputed evidence for your beliefs; philosophical skepticism is laudable. But this is not an abstract logical exercise, and we have no reason to believe we have all of the information about any of this stuff. Probabilities are involved, so it gets messy. If I trusted the CIA and the NSA and the FBI not to lie more than I do, maybe I'd be content to call the matter settled as well.

> 2. Law enforcement may already have it

In which case, since they haven't told anyone about it, (someone in) LE wanted to suppress it. Perhaps as a favor to someone, perhaps to avoid fallout on some agency, perhaps to avoid a WWIII or revolt, to follow your JFK/LHO example. (Actually, I think we're in WWIII right now, but that's not the point.)

> 3. From jail, he had no control over the evidence. He's not going to be able to lead authorities to the Donald Trump evidence without leading them to a whole lot more Jeffrey Epstein evidence.

We're supposing the evidence would automatically incriminate Epstein. Eh, I'll grant that's probably true, though maybe some kind of precautions were possible if individual videos were all that came to light as opposed to a whole chunk of them.

Anyhoo, his access to the evidence is going to depend on the existence of accomplices. Pretty sure we can all name a big one right off the top of our heads.

I guess I'm just projecting what I think I would do in his shoes, but if he's that fucked, it's time to go scorched earth and give a reporter or someone a lead to the evidence. But going the other way, having an accomplice on the loose means you have a chance of burying the evidence. Didn't it take LE quite a few days before they showed up on the infamous island?

> one of two things had already happened. Either he destroyed it before he could be arrested, or the government already has it.

There is absolutely no reason to believe these are the only 2 possibilities.


> Epstein's cell was in a nortoriously underfunded facility

This in itself is fishy; maybe the most high-profile case of the year gets tossed into a dark corner? Even charitably, that would be worth avoiding so as to avoid this very kind of concern.


> No, it's not. When fucked up shit happens, and government agencies are responsible, you will see aggressive PR.

I'm not talking about PR. I'm talking about an orgy of missing evidence. If I knew of a single bit of uncontroversial evidence that the government wasn't lying, I'd shut up. As I said in an accidental non-response comment, there's not even evidence of the purported 1st suicide attempt.

You seem to think (based on what you said immediately after this) that I am arguing that, because they are saying he killed himself, it ain't true. I am saying that, because they can't show anyone any evidence that it's true, and because I don't have much of a baseline of trust that these are faithful and honest speakers, I've got as much reason to believe they are lying as I do to believe they are telling the truth.

A FACT does not begin with "To me it seems pretty obvious" , and it doesn't end with "Who knows?"


Damn, it's almost as if I wasn't trying to make a statement of fact. The "facts" in this case are so far beyond obfuscated that trying to get a clear image of what happened is going to require some educated guesses. But yeah you know, occams razor, I guess nothing happened and he prolly just killed himself I guess o well.

that start date pushes me toward (b). i'll wager a full gp of evilcoin.

C) plea bargain because trump will be out of office before she gets sentenced

I don't think a commutation will be on the table, in any circumstances.

But I don't think she'll implicate Trump, because that's not going to help her. You make a deal by implicating higher ups. He's not a higher up in this enterprise. She's going to blame Epstein for everything (perhaps justly)and say he abused her (perhaps justly). She'll get a good lawyer, and she may get out some day, and if she keeps her mouth shut, she may expect some discrete help from her old friends when the happy day arrives.

Also, I hope and expect that the security on her will be extraordinary.

but if the guards ignore her for 6x the time window in which they are supposed to check in on her, and then lie about it, during which time she happens to die in a manner which coroners dispute the causes of, we certainly shouldn't suppose she was murdered, that's for sure!

Don't forget both cameras also failing that night, right after the only cellmate gets transferred out.

JET FUEL DOESNT MELT STEEL!!!!!!

What Jizzlane is being charged with is so laughably minor she probably at worst would spend a year or two in jail.

theyre probably the kind of fuckers who tell you it doesnt matter what kind of flour you use in a cake recipe

I ain't saying that it's impossible that somebody had him killed, and it's certain that a lot of people breathed sighs of relief when it was announced he died, but "it figures" doesn't get that far with me. It's not a shock that jail personnel would neglect their duties, nor that jail equipment is shoddy and non-fuctional. It isn't shocking that these two things occur at the same time in the same place: I'm sure that that's the case in holding facilities all over America, constantly.

Come to me with a confession, or communications and bank account transfers ordering that he get whacked, well, we'd be having another conversation. But everything you've cited can be filed under "intriguing, but ultimately circumstantial."

I also don't find it all that implausible that Epstein figured that he just couldn't do time. This wasn't his first attempt, and he bargained hard to stay out of jail the last time he got caught on the wrong side of the law. More than a couple of people in that situation would off themselves.

Well, it's definitely suspicious. What I said was that occam's razor seems to point to suicide, but maybe he was murdered.

An unusual fracture seems like a simpler explanation to me than people from outside the jail coming in to kill Epstein and leaving no evidence. Or someone from inside the jail, who would not be able to avoid suspicion.
Does that prove that he wasn't murdered? It does not.

That was meant to be a reply to "get angry and everything and everyone for every reason" SolRo above. Thought my phone had eaten the reply.

SolRoidRage thinks that even raising an eyebrow at the 3-4 coincidences deserves to be lambasted with the same venom reserved for Truthers and anti-vaxxers, and an opportunity to expose more entries in his black book was lost.

I can only conclude SolRoidRage was a client, and also a pedophile. I will dismiss any coincidences or circumstantial evidence suggesting otherwise.

Okay, SolRoi responding with "Oh, fuck off" was not helpful, but accusing him of pedophilia isn't helpful, either. On the other hand, "SolRoidRage" is pretty good.

You are exactly like the dumb truthers in that your conspiracy theory only has two possible absolutes, one of which is boring reality and the other is a convoluted but carefully planned and perfectly executed diabolical plot that would make a great spy movie. Also that you smear any 'sheeple' that dare question your unassailable deductive logic of "I don't like reality, so here's what I think happened"

And others have mentioned that epsteins death does not mean all his crimes and accomplices get expunged.

You don't like anyone here and nobody likes you.

Why are you still here?

This is a good example why I make a point of not caring about Epstein's death. It gets tangled up with other questions. If Epstein really killed himself, that does not imply in any way that he didn't have accomplices, but you seem to be making that assumption. Indeed, I saw something today about a case building against one of Epstein's famous pals. I didn't read it, so I won't name names without having a solid knowledge of the facts. It would be irresponsible

Oh, fuck that. It's Dershowitz.

The first time Epstein got in trouble with the law, it was in Florida, and Epstein got a reduced charge (prostitution instead of kiddy rape) and work release, the terms of which Epstein simply disregarded without consequences. It was an absurdly generous deal, arranged by a prosecutor who later turned up on Trump's cabinet, and in which Epstein was represented by two lawyers who would later represent Trump in his impeachment trial.

Maybe Epstein was murdered... but this other thing? It definitely happened. It's the real scandal here.

that is definitely a real scandal, but we know who made it happen.

if epstein was murdered, it's actually an even bigger scandal.

there's room in this world for both outrages.

>>>that is definitely a real scandal, but we know who made it happen.

Because it's a fact.

>>>if epstein was murdered, it's actually an even bigger scandal.

And if Michael Jackson faked his own death, that's HUGE!

>>>there's room in this world for both outrages.

Is there? If the last four years have taught us everything, it's that there's a limit on how much outrage you can process at one time.

We have a fact, and we have a conspiracy theory. As conspiracy theories go, it's more credible than QAnon, but it's not a fact, and yet it's the conspiracy theory that gets top billing. It's what we keep talking about.

And as long as it's a conspiracy theory, it's going to have a life of its own. People will fill in the identity of the culprit (t Rump, Killery, Obummer, George Soros) according to their own preference.




The minute I heard that Epstein had killed himself in jail, I knew right away that we would have this conversation.

> If the last four years have taught us everything, it's that there's a limit on how much outrage you can process at one time.

I am a bottomless pit of outrage.

More to the point, whether something is outrageous is independent of how full one's inbox is. So "I'm too busy thinking about other stuff" is a way of acknowledging you can't PROCESS an outrage, but it doesn't make it less outrageous. A split hair, but let's keep the waters clear.

It's clear that either (a) Epstein killed himself and people are frothing over the mouth over a misunderstanding, or (b) he was killed and the evidence has been effectively suppressed. Since it seemed, in typical cop-investigates-cop fashion, that evidence was being suppressed right from the start, I lean toward (b). I don't claim to know exactly what happened, beyond the investigation smelling like a rotten fish. I would think, if (a) were the case, the investigation would be maximally transparent, precisely to avoid conspiretards like me thinking silly things like cops and billionaires are playing by a different set of rules.

argh, fuckin site

I'm starting to think SolRo has the right idea.

I never said it was settled. I acknowledged the possibility of murder right away. I never said it wasn't suspicious. In fact, I said It's suspicious. My confidence is not unshakable.

I'm convinced that having an open mind to all possibilities requires clear, hard guidelines for accepting something as truth. Accepting something as truth without clear evidence is the opposite of having an open mind. Scrimmjob thinks "it's blatantly obvious", which is also the go-to argument of flat earthers.

Both of us have acknowledged the incompleteness of the evidence and the chance of being wrong. You think the available information supports one conclusion, I think a different conclusion is more likely.

I observed that one of the claims you used against Scrimm, the prior suicide attempt, suffers from the same kind of flaws that lead me away from your conclusion. A chief reason we (if I can speak for Scrimm + maybe others on this point) don't find the arguments for suicide to be persuasive is the unanimity of flaws in its support.

Flat-earthers are making an argument in contradiction of clear empirical evidence. Yes, they deny that it's clear evidence, just like I deny that what you're citing is clear evidence. But it's empirical evidence they deny, which is crazy. You are relying on circumstantial evidence (to paraphrase, that he would probably kill himself in this situation) as much as we are (to paraphrase, that others would probably kill him in this situation). Differences in assigned probabilities of truth have led us to different conclusions.

No one can prove their conclusion with the available evidence. But sure, equate us with flat earthers because Scrimm expressed a high level of certainty.

I have some affection for Scrimmjob, because I like when he hosts movie nights. And I'm sure he's smarter than a flat earther, but his argument here I'd identical to a flat earther argument, and he deserves to have it pointed out.

This is not a "you say tomato" thing. I am right and you are wrong, not about the hidden, unknowable truth, but about the appropriate processing of information.

The illuminati are real, but they don't want you to accept simple explanations. They want you to pull at the thread of reality, so that nothing is real and they can sell enough people the DEEP STATE or whatever is comvenient for them.Even if Epstein was murdered, you're never going to solve the crime, you're just going wear another hole in the fabric of reality.

And listen, if the survelience video was deleted, the simpler explanation is still a suicide. You don't know that someone didn't alter the record to cover up the blunder that allowed Epstein to off himself. The so called coincidence doesn't really point to murder.

Well, I've already said why I think Scrimmjob's and my argument's not the same as a flat-earther's. I agree that you're half right about why it's of similar form, and I guess we don't agree about the other half. I think that's been covered.

Then you went off the fucking rails about way bigger shit than Epstein's suicide (viz. Illuminati). I may or may not be inclined to agree with what you just said, but wow did you ever just help yourself to the kind of shit you're excoriating us for doing. gj

For the last time, we're just assigning different probabilities to different possibilities. But I'll say, Occam's razor is an excellent tiebreaker (by its own definition, in fact). It is not a replacement for considering the reliability of the source of information, or of ignoring any of the information; "ceteres paribus" is the razor's grandaddy, and all things here ain't equal, IMO.

I think my needle's about hittin' the cardboard, here.