I don’t find this suspicious in the least, I think it just adds on to his legacy as a major asshole.
Any mention of to whom he bequeathed his extensive video library?
I’m on team suicide but, it should be noted that the drug trade is possibly a half a trillion dollars business, worldwide. And if you figure that the mafia/cartel groups who run it also have gambling, girls, arms, and probably some other income sources, then even if you subdivide the business out over a few different organizations, you’re looking at some groups with the ability to finance NASA and the CIA.
Bribing a guard is unlikely to be a success. A pretty large number of people can’t murder another person. And, as said, even just bribing someone to shut off or break a camera is fairly likely to leak.
But if you’re a multi-billion dollar business that needs to be resistant to leaks then sending a loyal worker to go take a job at a Federal prison, to be ready to intercept and deal with likely snitches could well be worth doing. The ROI could be fairly high (I don’t know that it is, since I don’t know how common this sort of case would be nor the level of information liable to be at risk from the capture of someone on US soil and nor do I know if there are a small enough number if prisons worth targeting for it to be with doing).
In this sort of case, though, you’re really looking at a professional hitman, loyal to his boss. It’s no more a conspiracy than it is for a CIA agent to go chat up someone at a bar. It’s just the job.
It’s relatively unlikely but, if we’re pre-supposing wealthy, connected criminals, then we’re not dealing with street corner drug dealers with an IQ of 65. You’re talking people who might know someone criminal, who are the sort to think about building sonar-resistant submarines:
Dealing with global mafia is more like countering an enemy foreign power with a trained (small) military force, possibly trained spies and moles, and an R&D unit equivalent to someplace like the military and intelligence forces of Guatemala.
Mexico would possibly lose to their cartels if it wasn’t for American aid.
The Phantom Menace was released during Clinton’s presidency. Coincidence?
Meesa say yes.
From NBC News:
Two witnesses signed affidavits declaring that Epstein “signed it willingly” and that he was “of sound mind and under no constraint or undue influence” at the time.
And he offed himself two days later. In jail. I think that fact invalidates the claims of the witnesses, and thus the will itself.
Unless the suicide conclusion by the ME can be disproven. Who would bear the burden of proof here?
I guess you are assuming committing suicide means he wasn’t of sound mind? I think in his position, if he knew he was going down that he may have rationally preferred death.
And even if he offed himself because of depression, it could have had a sudden onset. And it isn’t like he did something odd with his will - it sounds pretty standard. Wonder what the previous one did with his assets?
For anyone doubting the method he used, it seems pretty similar to the recent death of fashion designer Kate Spade. Last year she committed suicide by hanging herself from a scarf tied to a doorknob. The distance from a top bunk to the floor is probably twice the distance of a doorknob to a floor. It definitely seems feasible that he could have done it the same way.
There’s a suspicious number of Does involved in this case. Makes you wonder. :dubious:
d&r
Again, the issue is not a question of whether self-hanging can be done in this way. We know from many instances that it can.
The issue is whether a broken bone is common in such situations.
A (quite telling) aside:
After his hellish 2008 Club Fed ordeal, Mr. Child Fucker commissioned a mural of himself in a prison scene.
[
](Alan Dershowitz, Devil’s Advocate | The New Yorker)
And from Business Insider:
Those names are aliases used to protect the privacy of the victims.
I guess that means Epstein was a Buck?
Duh.
Curious, then, why you wondered.
I believe his d&r means duck and run. Whoosh!
The only conclusion I can draw is that it’s suspicious how victims are having their identities protected. Something seems fishy there!
I guess.
If they are testifying and providing evidence and are afraid of being “silenced”, then it makes sense. A lot of very rich and very powerful people could be implicated, and “accidents” can be “arranged”.
That’s why we have a Witness Protection system.
I would think so as well, I’m not sure what anyone would find suspicious about it.