It looks suspicious, true, but it inconveniently looks suspicious along precisely the axes that one could expect from simple prison negligence, which is rife in the American systems. This is a real "horses and zebras" situation.
Prison negligence seems unconnected from investigative journalism....why is no one interested in Epstein's crimes?
Plenty of people are interested in Epstein's crimes. The FBI is still chasing evidence discovered during investigation of those crimes (mostly because it could tie to other people's crimes, and mostly without interference from Epstein's estate, since dead people have no Fifth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure).
But if the question on the table is "Was Epstein killed to eliminate the possibility he'd implicate others in his criminal confessions," the answer is "Probably not."
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.
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…
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.
It's likely Epstein was tied up with CIA. Once they enter the picture, everything's fair game. https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligenc...
I think some intelligence agency (even money CIA or Mossad) was using Epstein's tapes of powerful people engaged in pedophilia as kompromat to blackmail powerful men into being subservient to their interests.
Was? Still are would be the better conclusion. Fair bet that many elected officials on both sides are still compromised by this.
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…
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.
This seems plausible. But if this is true, then why haven't their been more successful suicides at this prison?
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.
> 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…
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 s…
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.
That's a weak argument. One conspiracy theory was proven false so they must all be false? Does that apply to scientific studies, too?
Pardon the bluntness, but your argument is equally weak. > Whenever I hear an overwhelming chorus of "that's conspiracy theory!" what I hear is "don't look too closely! You might find something!"
That's not an argument. My argument was the preceding statement. Maybe you should work on identifying what is and is not an argument before attempting to formulate your own.
>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?