Crime Jeffrey Epstein Dead

[hillelslovak87]

Some of the richest most powerful people definitely think everything is A-OK. They can get people murdered regardless of security.

A painting in one of their banks. They have a golden safety net and all the pleasure in the world while we get nothing.

This shit is pathetic on the level of some idiot trying to show how the Star Wars prequels are the secret genius work of George Lucas.

https://vigilantcitizen.com/siniste...-symbols-found-on-the-bank-of-america-murals/

The dipshits who run this symbology and numerology quack site don't even know the names of the fucking paintings!!!

"Barbwires, nets and soldiers on the streets tell the viewers that this period of turmoil is also one of oppression. The nun does not seem very pleased either."

You're free to listen to these conspiracy idiots, I would rather take Ben Long's word on his frescoes.

Here's a little tip - Those naked people? They represent liberation, with those below them wearing the masks and uniforms of their roles. It was pretty stark and controversial for Long, since it was his first secular work ever.

 

[MMAisGod]

I changed my vote to "Murder or Suicide both sound possible" from just suspecting suicide.

The nature of his broken neck, and the way that the initial excuses have snowballed (similar to lies the Trumps told about the Trump Tower meeting) are incredibly suspicious. First, they said the guards were on major overtime, so they were exhausted. Then, we were told they simply violated protocol by not checking on the half hour timetable. Then we were told they somehow didn't check his cell for hours despite doing other duties. Then we were told they were asleep the whole shift, and falsified those records!

Incidentally, we were told he was taken off suicide watch just days before the incident despite that he already attempted suicide just six days earlier when there was no reason to believe his mind would have changed under these conditions. Oh, and conveniently, his cell mate had been transported out just before they deliberately didn't check his cell. Also conveniently, turns out there won't be any video of his suicide! Cameras didn't capture it!

Jesus Christ. That's too many coincidences for me. Either he paid them off to facilitate a window where he could kill himself, or he was straight up murdered.

This where I'm at with it now too. I mean, there are coincidences, and there's this. Just way, way, way too many coincidences and convenience to believe the original story (multiple). Not sure what can or can't be proven, but 2+2 doesn't equal 5.

 

[MikeMcMann]

He probably shouldn't talk shit about an autopsy he's unfamiliar with....

Well to be fair his main point was about the type of injury and how or how not it could occur.

His seeing the body would have nothing to do with that type of assessment. Its like saying jumping off a curb can't cause that type of trauma death but jumping off a building can. That distinction can be made by the type of injury sustained.

What I want now is to hear from a large number of other such professionals. Hopefully a news agency will poll them to see if this view is widely held or isolated or part of a coin flip.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Since the beginning of this inquiry I have suggested the two theories I was leaning most towards were gross negligence or purposeful negligence. i now lean further towards purposeful negligence.

Purposeful negligence has two potential paths;

- knowing he wants to kill himself and simply getting out of the way and ensuring he has the time and materials to complete it. This could be a form a Prison Justice in letting the phile kill himself, and why get in the way of that? Or it could be set up by inside or outside people.

- allowing someone (another inmate, other) to get at him to perpetuate, aid or coerce the suicide.


Of those two options I tend towards the first one, them providing the opportunity and then getting out of the way. The question then is why?

 

[Fawlty]

Well to be fair his main point was about the type of injury and how or how not it could occur.

His seeing the body would have nothing to do with that type of assessment. Its like saying jumping off a curb can't cause that type of trauma death but jumping off a building can. That distinction can be made by the type of injury sustained.

What I want now is to hear from a large number of other such professionals. Hopefully a news agency will poll them to see if this view is widely held or isolated or part of a coin flip.

I don't know why you'd want to hear from a large number of people who didn't do the autopsy. You're taking a guy at his word who went on freaking Fox to cast doubt on it. Where is the part where you show some confidence in the medical examiner who actually did the thing? Not a sexy enough finding?

 

[phoenixikki]

"The headache for Andrew intensified as a 2011 article in Vanity Fair resurfaced in which a friend talked about trying to persuade him to stay away from Epstein.

A source told the magazine that they begged Andrew to cut Epstein off but the duke allegedly replied: 'Stop giving me a hard time. You're such a puritan.'

The conversation 'descended into a screaming match' before Andrew said: 'Leave me alone. Jeffrey's my friend. Being loyal to your friends is a virtue. And I'm going to be loyal to him,' it was claimed."

Prince Andrew could have chosen the Dana White approach and simply said Epstein was never my friend. But no, he wouldn't cut Epstein off because his lust for young girls was too strong, allegedly.

 

[The Merchant]

He probably shouldn't talk shit about an autopsy he's unfamiliar with. But it's Fox, typical.

Dude you're the ultracrepidarian not the doctor.

 

[Happy Man]

"The headache for Andrew intensified as a 2011 article in Vanity Fair resurfaced in which a friend talked about trying to persuade him to stay away from Epstein.

A source told the magazine that they begged Andrew to cut Epstein off but the duke allegedly replied: 'Stop giving me a hard time. You're such a puritan.'

The conversation 'descended into a screaming match' before Andrew said: 'Leave me alone. Jeffrey's my friend. Being loyal to your friends is a virtue. And I'm going to be loyal to him,' it was claimed."

Prince Andrew could have chosen the Dana White approach and simply said Epstein was never my friend. But no, he wouldn't cut Epstein off because his lust for young girls was too strong, allegedly.

Yeah, and the satanist occult aspects of it too.

But lust is a big factor.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I don't know why you'd want to hear from a large number of people who didn't do the autopsy. You're taking a guy at his word who went on freaking Fox to cast doubt on it. Where is the part where you show some confidence in the medical examiner who actually did the thing? Not a sexy enough finding?

I cannot figure out why you would be so quick to throw out and dismiss decades of proper and good jurisprudence and investigation techniques?

Outside experts in specialty fields and subject matters have ALWAYS been sought to opine on controversial cases. There is clearly a question of whether such bone breaks in the neck should be common or expected or not and to what degree they should be expected. It is not enough to merely say 'it is possible' and to jump to 'therefore likely' as it can be 'possible' but at the same time 'improbable' or 'unlikely'.

I don't just want to hear from the police investigators that 9/11 was not a controlled demolition. I also want to hear from the outside subject matter experts (engineers, etc) how ridiculous those CT's are based on their speciality in the field. Both are important in quashing irrational CT's for those open to evidence and who are not irrational Cter's.

Again this is not about jumping to any conclusion, it is simply about corroboration. Corroboration is a good thing, is it not?

I think we should all agree that an exhaustive investigation is required here, to dot all the I's and cross all the T's and not just to seek the first bit of evidence to say 'nothing to see here... time to move on'.

One of the most strange displays I think i have seen since this started was when the 'suicide' finding was first released, was how many people seemed to be saying 'there it is, game over, lets move on', as if it was not being labeled a suicide since it started. The question, for most was NEVER was it suicide or not, as that was the leading theory I saw discussed. But rather was it aided suicide, purposefully or thru neglect. So in no way does the finding of 'suicide' equal, game over, time to move on. But many seem so eager to run with that for some strange reason.

I see no reason to not want to hear from experts who deal with such suicides often and if they say this type of neck break is possible but only should be expected 1% of the time that is a very different answer then its expected and happens 50% of the time. That data point is meaningful, unless your mind is already made up.

 

[JonesBones]

I cannot figure out why you would be so quick to throw out and dismiss decades of proper and good jurisprudence and investigation techniques?

Outside experts in specialty fields and subject matters have ALWAYS been sought to opine on controversial cases. There is clearly a question of whether such bone breaks in the neck should be common or expected or not and to what degree they should be expected. It is not enough to merely say 'it is possible' and to jump to 'therefore likely' as it can be 'possible' but at the same time 'improbable' or 'unlikely'.

I don't just want to hear from the police investigators that 9/11 was not a controlled demolition. I also want to hear from the outside subject matter experts (engineers, etc) how ridiculous those CT's are based on their speciality in the field. Both are important in quashing irrational CT's for those open to evidence and who are not irrational Cter's.

Again this is not about jumping to any conclusion, it is simply about corroboration. Corroboration is a good thing, is it not?

I think we should all agree that an exhaustive investigation is required here, to dot all the I's and cross all the T's and not just to seek the first bit of evidence to say 'nothing to see here... time to move on'.

One of the most strange displays I think i have seen since this started was when the 'suicide' finding was first released, was how many people seemed to be saying 'there it is, game over, lets move on', as if it was not being labeled a suicide since it started. The question, for most was NEVER was it suicide or not, as that was the leading theory I saw discussed. But rather was it aided suicide, purposefully or thru neglect. So in no way does the finding of 'suicide' equal, game over, time to move on. But many seem so eager to run with that for some strange reason.

I see no reason to not want to hear from experts who deal with such suicides often and if they say this type of neck break is possible but only should be expected 1% of the time that is a very different answer then its expected and happens 50% of the time. That data point is meaningful, unless your mind is already made up.

JAQing off again.

 

[all caps]

I cannot figure out why you would be so quick to throw out and dismiss decades of proper and good jurisprudence and investigation techniques?

Outside experts in specialty fields and subject matters have ALWAYS been sought to opine on controversial cases. There is clearly a question of whether such bone breaks in the neck should be common or expected or not and to what degree they should be expected. It is not enough to merely say 'it is possible' and to jump to 'therefore likely' as it can be 'possible' but at the same time 'improbable' or 'unlikely'.

I don't just want to hear from the police investigators that 9/11 was not a controlled demolition. I also want to hear from the outside subject matter experts (engineers, etc) how ridiculous those CT's are based on their speciality in the field. Both are important in quashing irrational CT's for those open to evidence and who are not irrational Cter's.

Again this is not about jumping to any conclusion, it is simply about corroboration. Corroboration is a good thing, is it not?

I think we should all agree that an exhaustive investigation is required here, to dot all the I's and cross all the T's and not just to seek the first bit of evidence to say 'nothing to see here... time to move on'.

One of the most strange displays I think i have seen since this started was when the 'suicide' finding was first released, was how many people seemed to be saying 'there it is, game over, lets move on', as if it was not being labeled a suicide since it started. The question, for most was NEVER was it suicide or not, as that was the leading theory I saw discussed. But rather was it aided suicide, purposefully or thru neglect. So in no way does the finding of 'suicide' equal, game over, time to move on. But many seem so eager to run with that for some strange reason.

I see no reason to not want to hear from experts who deal with such suicides often and if they say this type of neck break is possible but only should be expected 1% of the time that is a very different answer then its expected and happens 50% of the time. That data point is meaningful, unless your mind is already made up.

Why do you feel like you need to explain your position to people who have a vested interest in making sure you have no position but the one you're told to have? Fuck all that.

 

[JonesBones]

Why do you feel like you need to explain your position to people who have a vested interest in making sure you have no position but the one you're told to have? Fuck all that.

Because he is obtuse and thinks that wall of text will change anything.

I'm just waiting for another post of his summarizing his theories that we have heard a dozen times.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It was a qoute directly taken from an article, about Epstein.

I'll have to check it out.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It was a qoute directly taken from an article, about Epstein.

Yeah, iits the same guy - former president of Harvard as well.


Lawrence Henry Summers (born November 30, 1954) is an American economist, former Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist of the World Bank (1991–93),[1][2][3] senior U.S. Treasury Department official throughout President Clinton's administration (ultimately Treasury Secretary, 1999–2001),[2][3][4] and former director of the National Economic Council for President Obama (2009–2010).[2][3] He is a former president of Harvard University (2001–2006),[3][5] where he is currently (as of March, 2017) a professor and director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.[3][6][7]

 

[MikeMcMann]

Why do you feel like you need to explain your position to people who have a vested interest in making sure you have no position but the one you're told to have? Fuck all that.

I find both sides of the CT issue interesting.

You have those who want to rush and label this a conspiracy and no amount of information will change their view as they simply do not care to see it.

But on the flip side you have those who want to rush and label this as 'nothing to see here' and were doing so before any information was in or data was in and have followed that up at every stage with 'why do we need data' as they simply do not care to see it.

As @Anung Un Rama pointed out it almost seems to be the new hipster type reply to show how cool and out in front of things you are by taking a position before data is in.

I mean, we can all do it. Its not edgy or cool to jump to the 'its not a conspiracy' side of the equation. It is almost always going to be the right side, so its a safe gamble. But they act like it is wrong if others will not, without data, make the same jump. And I will bet they will act as if enlightened and 'smarter than' if the findings and data once finally in, supports no conspiracy as if the position of saying 'I want to see the data' equals doubt or belief in the conspiracy, when it does not.

 

[all caps]

As @Anung Un Rama pointed out it almost seems to be the new hipster type reply to show how cool and out in front of things you are by taking a position before data is in.

I actually tried explaining what it is, but nobody believes me <Lmaoo>

 

[Son of Jamin]

Since the beginning of this inquiry I have suggested the two theories I was leaning most towards were gross negligence or purposeful negligence. i now lean further towards purposeful negligence.

Purposeful negligence has two potential paths;

- knowing he wants to kill himself and simply getting out of the way and ensuring he has the time and materials to complete it. This could be a form a Prison Justice in letting the phile kill himself, and why get in the way of that? Or it could be set up by inside or outside people.

- allowing someone (another inmate, other) to get at him to perpetuate, aid or coerce the suicide.


Of those two options I tend towards the first one, them providing the opportunity and then getting out of the way. The question then is why?

So risking your job and potential career by allowing a high-profile prisoner and phile escape justice and removing much hope of his accomplices being brought to justice is the most likely path?

 

[sangreporsangre]

The will that he had just signed has been leaked online:

Spoiler

 

[MikeMcMann]

So risking your job and potential career by allowing a high-profile prisoner and phile escape justice and removing much hope of his accomplices being brought to justice is the most likely path?

the belief behind the concept of prison justice, something practiced in prisons all around the world particularly when it comes to crimes like philia, is that the prisoner is NOT escaping justice when he is killed or allowed to kill himself in prison for committing such crimes. They believe it is the ultimate form of justice and they must do it.

This is not just limited to inmates killing inmates but also to guards turning a blind eye to allow it to happen as they find some criminals in their midst not worth protecting.

So while we, outside the prison, might be super vested in seeing him survive and get his days in court, they just don't GAF. They are not going to rush and go out of their way to protect him and if they are late for their rounds, he was delivered the wrong sheets, etc, oh well.

it is just one theory that is very consistent with normal prison MO.

 

[trident]

Whitney Webb has done some exhaustive research into many of the relationships overlapping this situation.

Found this interesting:

In 2015, a few years after Epstein’s release from prison following his conviction for soliciting sex from a minor in 2008, Barak formed a company with Epstein with the chief purpose of investing in an Israeli start-up then known as Reporty. That company, now called Carbyne, sells its signature software to 911 call centers and emergency service providers and is also available to consumers as an app that provides emergency services with access to a caller’s camera and location and also runs any caller’s identity through any linked government database. It has specifically been marketed by the company itself and the Israeli press as a solutionto mass shootings in the United States and is already being used by at least two U.S. counties.

Israeli media reported that Epstein and Barak were among the company’s largest investors. Barak poured millions into the company and it wasrecently revealed by Haaretz that a significant amount of Barak’s total investments in Carbyne was funded by Epstein, making him a “de factopartner” in the company. Barak is now Carbyne’s chairman.

The company’s executive team are all former members of different branches of Israeli intelligence, including the elite military intelligence unit, Unit 8200, that is often likened to Israel’s equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/