'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower before death

I will be explicit: if, after reading the DOJ report and reviewing the facts of the case, you believe that Epstein was murdered, then your critical thinking is sub-normal. An average police officer would grok this.

If a powerful individual had:

1. Much to lose in the event of Epstein cooperating (he wasn't), and,

2. The means to arrange a complex assassination (in a prison, in solitary confinement, and -- I repeat that this is a matter of fact for which you have zero repudiation -- without being seen by the security cameras which were active and monitoring the entrance to Epstein's block from the communal entrance), and,

3. The public knowledge that Epstein had weeks earlier attempted to commit suicide (I literally cannot believe I'm having to enumerate this)…

… why wouldn't you simply pressure Epstein to commit suicide and obviate the insane risk of detection or mishap in a scheme to murder him that would, at a minimum, require either the cooperation of multiple heretofore uncontrolled/unknown operatives within the prison, in addition to the brokering and lifting being done by a proxy (i.e.: at least 3 people, probably closer to 5-10, all of whom would be highly brittle points of failure both during and after the operation)?

Or find a way to provide him with the mysterious extra bed sheets[^1] if he were intending on doing it anyway? You know, perhaps on an unmonitored telephone call[^2] made to his "mother" (dead for years) immediately prior to the suicide?

Sorry, but yes you are dumb if you think Epstein was murdered in prison. You are knowingly taking a position unsupported by fact, considered and rejected by thousands of more qualified investigators from across the judiciary, and the best you can appear to do is accuse me of not being gentle in my treatment of your utterly inane conjecture.

You are leaping to the most exciting conclusion and rejecting the myriad simpler ones supported by the overwhelming evidence. Each of the following is inescapably a simpler and more likely explanation for his death than him being murdered:

1) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to deteriorated mental health,

2) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to his fear of being mistreated or murdered by an inmate (he's a pedophile in prison etc.),

3) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to his fear of being murdered by a guard in the employ of people he might betray,

4) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to his fear of loved ones being murdered at the behest of people he might betray,

5) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to being provided the means by guards operating at the behest of people he might betray,

6) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to befriending a guard who took pity on him or to whom he promised or arranged financial reward himself (yes, it's more likely Epstein was motivated to essentially pay for his own suicide than someone murdered him in his prison cell, sigh),

7) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide because he was pressured by external forces capable of harming those he loved.

It's just staggering that you cannot evaluate this properly. I don't want to be unkind, I'm sure you're very smart and a lovely person, but I would encourage you to discuss this with any lawyer, prosecutor, or investigator you might have access to and go through the facts line by line. You should absolutely be alarmed that you are out of step with so many informed individuals on this, even before considering people like me who are simply 50th percentile with logic.

[^1]: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/...

[^2]: https://www.businessinsider.com/jail-officials-jeffrey-epste...

> attempted a grammatical correction on

Very relaxed about informal grammar, the point is that this:

"Certus found that of those who believed Epstein to be murdered…"

is materially different to

"Certus found that of those who identify as [political party]…"

You didn't repeat the numbers and I didn't check, so I'll take you at your word that this is not the segmentation Certus meant :)

(See how easy it is to change your perspective to accommodate reality?!)

> Amongst culture.

I don't know what this means.

> Doesn't matter that you don't agree.

It is fundamental to this discussion that the narrative you describe is fringe (credible polling puts it at around 30% uptake) and directly contradicted by both the evidence and conclusions reached by the institutions required to evaluate said evidence (DOJ, FBI).

It is a narrative in the same way as flat earthism or QAnon are narratives. We should be careful to not imply equivalence ("both sides"-ing) to the situation: there is reality, and then there is a group of people who either do not possess the facts (many people in this thread, for example), or are unfortunately not capable of grasping them for whatever reason.

> Clinton's BJ was in popular culture before the conviction.

Clinton was credibly and publicly accused by an individual, and had a long history of such accusations.

> Pointing to a legal case is moving the goalpost.

My point is that there is no equivalence between Clinton and Epstein, but I don't think you were drawing any really, you were just saying (I think?) that they were both narratives that took hold prior to the facts being established and conclusions reached.

> It is not and does not.

Just sit down and try to write the narrative of what happened and you might see what I mean:

1. Was it the guards, or a professional assassin?

2. If guards: how were they identified? Who put them on the right shift at the right time? Who else helped? How did the benefactor of the scheme know that the guards wouldn't grass on the approach? How did the benefactor of the scheme find the guards and approach them? When the guards walked into the room, how did they restrain Epstein without injuring him or leaving behind any DNA evidence? Did they tie the bedsheets together before or after the murder? How would they be remunerated given the scrutiny on them and their associates from the FBI? Why would they admit to falsifying logs and draw more attention to themselves rather than engineering an excuse less likely to draw huge scrutiny?

3. If professional assassin: how did they get in without being seen on the security cameras monitoring the single point of entrance/egress from Epstein's block? How did they get into the prison through multiple layers of security? Were the guards also paid off? How did the assassin restrain him without injuring him or themselves? Why would you go to the trouble of infiltrating a prison - which is after all an axiomatically hard thing to do – when the guy had already tried to hang himself weeks earlier?

4. General: why do you discount the conclusions of the DOJ psychologist who reviewed Epstein's prison records and evaluations and concluded that it was suicide? Why would a shadowy figure trying to kill Epstein not simply pressure him from the outside by threatening his family (given that they apparently have the capacity to infiltrate a prison facility utterly unnoticed)? Why would you conclude that Epstein's first suicide attempt was sincere but his second was not? Why would you leave it until after he was suicidal and by all accounts uncooperative with the authorities to kill him rather than killing him at a time when it was both easier to achieve and less clear that he would not cooperate? Why do you think the FBI found no cause for suspicion in the testimony of the guards, if you think they did it or were in the loop?

People who spout conspiratorial nonsense with conviction and a poor grasp of the facts / ability to reason are the very reason conspiracy theories propagate. You might be a brilliant mind in other areas, but you should know that to the 70% of the population who do not believe that Epstein was murdered, you are in broadly the same bucket as someone who believes they saw Elvis alive in Hawaii a few weeks ago.

In criminal law this sort of nonsense is explicitly inadmissible in court. It's why during the OJ Simpson criminal trial it was not possible for the defense to do anything more than point out inconsistencies with the chain of evidence: they could not say that it pointed to or was in any way evidence of a conspiracy. (In other words: you can't just say "it could be something else" because that's facile, easy to do, and has no means of disproof. So fucking prove it would be a useful rule to adopt.)

Anyway, I'll be more charitable since this isn't court and you aren't a lawyer, but the substance of my point remains: even the circumstantial evidence does not appear to support murder. Certainly if it were murder it would be revenge, given that the whistle was blown five years ago, and the whistleblower will have provided sworn affidavits and is unlikely to be the difference between conviction and freedom for any individual.

Moreover your insinuation of "a low-level VP" worrying about the testimony seems be totally euphemistic. Do you have any evidence that any one individual or number of individuals might be facing jail time as a result of the whistleblower's testimony, and could somehow avoid it without their direct testimony under cross-examination?

I'm glad you've moved away from the insinuation that it might be a shareholder somehow taking it out on the guy for no reason, at least. Now you have all of your work ahead of you to explain how and why a Boeing executive would be motivated to murder someone five years after the fact when the damage is very probably already done.

> And so statistically

Suspect what you're about to say is going to be nothing to do with statistics

> this seems a lot more likely than this otherwise stable person

Just so we're clear, you think that this…

"A Boeing executive committed or arranged a premeditated murder in public in broad daylight, five years after the fact, and made it look like suicide."

…is more probable than this…

"A whistleblower killed himself."

Let's simplify it a bit: given 100 cases of whistleblowing, do you think you would see greater incidence of murder/violence perpetrated on the whistleblower, or greater incidence of the whistleblowers experiencing meaningfully deterioration of mental health?

What about this one[^1]? Murder as well? What about Ian Gibbons? Elizabeth Holmes presumably killed him?

[^1]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article259213078.html