[ericfrenkiel]

Epstein didn't kill himself.

Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors."

His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

[onlyrealcuzzo]

This happens MUCH less today than at any time in the past. Only 2 generations ago, stuff like this was happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world. This was basically what justice used to be.

The world is not fair. There is little justice. But it's more fair and just than it's ever been before, by far. Maybe we've taken a step back in the last 10 years. It's hard to say. But compared to even 50 years ago, we are so far ahead it's unbelievable. 100 years, and it's basically a different world.

[mannykannot]

Well, that seems to be a fact, but it is not a reason to not regard it as suspicious, and not a reason to not investigate.

[elfexec]

> This happens MUCH less today than at any time in the past.

Really? You know this how?

> Only 2 generations ago, stuff like this was happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world.

And it magically stopped?

> This was basically what justice used to be.

As opposed to justice now being what money can buy?

> But it's more fair and just than it's ever been before

I disagree. The world is just as fair and just as it's ever been before. This is just recency bias like how the enlightenment crowd painted the period before them as the "dark ages" where no learning or progress was made.

> But compared to even 50 years ago, we are so far ahead it's unbelievable.

Maybe if we cherrypick some parts or aspects.

> 100 years, and it's basically a different world.

Humans are still humans.

Things aren't as terrible as you think they were. Things aren't as terrible today as some think. Things aren't as great as some think they were. Things aren't as great today as some think.

[Ohn0]

"America" is different than "everywhere in the world"

[ASalazarMX]

No, it isn't. Money corrupts, and if anything, being the first economic power, USA is rife with corruption, although not brazenly obvious; i.e., you don't bribe politicians, you contribute to their campaigns.

[pvarangot]

Each place is different in its own way, so replace America for whatever and this will be true. If you think "America" is less corrupt than the rest of the world I'll have to disagree.

A lot of corruption in the rest of the world serves the American government interest of the interest of American corporations. America "is in it" as much as everybody else.

Like, to be blunt, Americans are snorting most of the cocaine from Latin America and having sex with most of the children in Thailand. That doesn't mean those children will wrap themselves in American flags or shoot guns after being fucked, but if you follow the money the trail ends in America and no one is doing anything to stop this. People get killed and raped in the trafficking and cocaine business all the time and I would call that pretty corrupt.

[dmix]

There’s plenty of data showing that conditions have improved around the world.

There were way more socialist and right wing dictators in the 1970s. Even in the early 90s than today.

Extrajudicial killings, independent courts, poverty via failed economic ideologies or resistance to adopting modern industry/markets, etc has all significantly declined and conditions have improved.

The world will always need constant maintenance and good things stagnant and need reforming. History has a habit of repeating itself but rarely to the same degree of failure as lessons do get learned and quality of life always increases.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

Where?

Germany today definitely seems better than Nazi Germany -- copy that for almost all of Europe.

Japan today is definitely better than Tojo.

Russia today is probably better than Soviet Russia. Maybe it's worse. It's still bad.

Copy that for China, but I can't imagine it's worse than Mao. South East Asia seems a lot better off without the Khmer Rogue running around.

Isis is fucking up the middle east and MBS is terrible, but at least women have some rights and their courts aren't an absolute complete joke anymore.

I don't know much about India -- but it definitely seems like it's improving vs the recent past.

I don't really know anything about South America or Africa or Australia -- but if you think there was more justice in the Aztec or Inca Empires than there is today, you're mistaken.

Sure, things are way worse in some pockets I guarantee -- see Syria.

The world as a whole is getting better and fairer. And if you think anywhere in the world wasn't killing people on a regular basis for political motives and getting away with it Scott Free, I think you should read about Kingdoms and Empires and Slavery and Feudalism -- you know, the things civilazation ran on until relatively recently. And if you think "Modern Day Slavery" is anywhere near as bad as "Real Slavery" -- again, you're completely mistaken.

Go back 300 years, and you could kill your wife almost anywhere for almost any reason. Nevermind "Royalty" being able to get away with anything.

[josefx]

> Germany today definitely seems better than Nazi Germany

Meanwhile we had to drop a lawsuit against the NPD because the most vocal and hateful all turned out to be law enforcement. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, especially with the AFD reaching a nice 14% support.

> Copy that for China, but I can't imagine it's worse than Mao.

Blindly killing and starving your population for a rebuild from "scratch" vs. systematic eradication and organ harvesting. I am not sure if that counts as improvement, of course we get cheap crap from it so you might count it as a win.

> Isis is fucking up the middle east and MBS is terrible, but at least women have some rights and their courts aren't an absolute complete joke anymore.

Now if only some weird self styled world police stopped starting wars every few decades under the pretense of bringing peace. There are decades old pictures where the smoking ruins still looked a lot more western then they do now.

> Go back 300 years, and you could kill your wife almost anywhere for almost any reason.

And yet at least in Germany there were explicit laws covering "self defense against ones wife"[1]. While parsing that text hurt my brain (old German spelling + old German letters) the law text itself doesn't seem to paint the man involved in a good light from the start. So one attempt to find a law text in a language I can read and one success vs. "almost anywhere for almost any reason" - maybe I should play the lottery.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Criminalis_Carolin...

[onlyrealcuzzo]

Sodomy is still illegal today in most of the world.

There's a difference between what is law and what's enforced.

I.E. it was illegal to mistreat your wife in Germany 300 years ago, but how often did the women win against the man compared to today? How often did they even bring up a case vs today? We don't know. But I'm skeptical it was even close to as fair as today.

[kowolkian]

Holding up Epstein’s likely murder as evidence of progress is deeply fucked up. I hope you have values.

[dwaltrip]

They aren't holding it up as evidence of progress...

[dr_dshiv]

Kind of impressive, and nice in a way - - since it is so obviously corrupt and we become aware of it because the case is so high profile. Makes you wonder who pulled it off and how often things like it occur.

[root_axis]

The attorney general confirmed it was a suicide, so if we're to believe it was actually a surreptitious murder, it goes all the way to the top.

[notJim]

You mean AG Barr, whose father hired Epstein as a 20-year-old college dropout to teach calculus and physics at a prestigious prep school? https://hillreporter.com/the-ties-that-bind-jeffrey-epstein-...

[akersten]

Considering his involvement in Iran-Contra and deliberate derailing of Congressional oversight, I wouldn't believe a word the current attorney general says.

Especially because the case disappearing is clearly convenient for people personally connected to the AG, or to whom the AG owes a favor.

[totalZero]

Not to mention that the AG runs the Bureau of Prisons.

Epstein was in Barr's custody.

[voldacar]

It is quite possible he was taken off suicide watch so he could... commit suicide. It wouldn't have to be a murder in the technical sense

[trhway]

the video of the first "suicide attempt" was lost too - due to technical error, accidentally erased or some "Oopss!" like this...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-jail-cell-video...

[colordrops]

Of course it goes to the top. Just look at Epstein's cohorts.

[zepto]

Assisted suicide?

[kgwxd]

Or maybe the attorney generals public statement is confirmed suicide, as to not be suicided himself, but meanwhile reaching out to uncorrupt allies that can investigate the murder wide-eyed-optimist-face?

[roenxi]

Epstein might still be alive and the whole thing some sort of elaborate witness protection scheme to protect him from all of the people who want him dead. So there might not be corruption all the way to the top.

Corruption seems like an easier explanation though.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

This sounds like the plot of Michael Crichton's next thriller.

[LgWoodenBadger]

Michael Crichton generally wrote sci fi. Maybe you mean John Grisham or John LeCarre, or similar.

[mhh__]

I think it's more likely that he or people around him pulled strings so he could kill himself rather than he be killed.

[wwweston]

If he's powerful enough to pull strings to kill himself, why wouldn't he pull strings to disappear?

If I want a conspiracy theory involving Epstein's power here, it's going to be that this is how you disappear if you're powerful enough, and the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" is correct not because his death wasn't a suicide, but because it's not his death.

[mhh__]

Disappearing is a lot harder than offing yourself.

[GhostVII]

What actual evidence do you have that he was murdered? I think it is much more likely that someone who was going to be in prison for the rest of his life, and who previously attempted suicide, killed himself rather than being murdered by someone in the prison. There is footage of the guards falsifying time sheets, so to me it seems like a pretty clear case of negligence. I recall reading an FBI report about the suicide, where they said that they watched footage of the outside of the cell at the time of his suicide, but I can't find it back.

[Waterluvian]

Great claims require great evidence. Your claim makes me increasingly skeptical, but I require a lot more.

What is the best, least crackpot looking resource to dig into the _facts_?

[grey-area]

The cctv footage existed, it has now been ‘accidentally deleted’.

The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small. So on the contrary the great claim requiring evidence is that this was a completely normal suicide in prison. Where is the evidence this video was deleted by mistake?

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/10/us/09reuters-peop...

[thomasfedb]

What surprises me is that said CCTV system/sever is not currently in the hands of a IT forensics specialist. It's hard enough to wipe data intentionally, it much be even harder to loose it irrevocably by accident. I would be quite surprised if the footage cannot be at least partially recovered given the right resources.

[grey-area]

I don’t know what happened, but do find it very odd cctv was wiped, and is not recoverable.

[gizmo385]

> The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small.

You're claiming that the chances of this are infinitesimally small comes off a bit tautological. It kind of feels like you're /saying/ it's infinitesimally small because /if/ that were in fact true, it /might/ help your claim.

[galangalalgol]

Accidentally deleting video of not one but two separate events along with the backups of that video seems pretty far fetched, but how often are they asked to recover video from hours ealier? Maybe the buffer period is just way too short and it is incompetence?

[grey-area]

I have no claim, I have no idea what happened, but I do know that video footage of prison cells where prisoners killed themselves does does not disappear by accident, saying it dies in such a high profile case alone requires quite a high burden of proof (I.e, the prison burned down, there was an unexpected solar storm). If there is no obvious explanation, the most likely one is it was deleted deliberately.

[jcranmer]

> I do know that video footage of prison cells where prisoners killed themselves does does not disappear by accident

How do you know that?

To me, this is like saying "backups of important data do not become unrecoverable by accident." Except backups (and CCTV footage) is routine, high data volume, and very usually uninteresting, so something going wrong can very easily be missed. And things can go wrong with relatively high frequency--I would not be surprised if most attempts to restore from backups failed.

[azinman2]

Yes grey-area is begging the question.

[nrdvana]

I’ve seen numerous accounts that the prison is understaffed and under budgeted. I’m not surprised at all that they would lose footage if they’re out of drive space and don’t have enough eyes to keep up with the error logs.

Also if you missed the latest news stories, they did save the footage for one of them but were given the wrong cell number so they had footage for the wrong floor.

This is just the general level of disorder and incompetence you can expect when you decide not to give a thing the level of funding it needs.

[shadowgovt]

> The chances of this happening on a high profile case are infinitesimally small

Even if they are ([citation needed] on the claim that the high profile nature of the case decreases the odds of mechanical accident), infinitesimally small events can still happen once. The fact they happened at a time most inconvenient for holding a wealthy man accountable doesn't change the nature of probability.

[grey-area]

Sure it’s perfectly possible, just really improbable, that he happened to kill himself when the video happened to be deleted.

[shadowgovt]

I've heard it happens far more often in the US prison system than it should, regardless of profile.

[Waterluvian]

I hear you. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of a crime. You've got your reasoning inverted. "Show me the evidence that there isn't a giant space walrus on the far side of Neptune. Otherwise we must conclude there is one. "

I'd like links to sensible aggregate sources and discussion. I don't want to have the discussion here.

[ehsankia]

So if, for example, a crime happens with 10 witness, and all 10 witness start dying one by one, will you simply say that there is no evidence the crime and forget about it?

In this case, there may not be any bulletproof evidence, but everything around the case that could've gone wrong has gone wrong, to the point where it's no longer statistically plausible to be a mistake. Everything in the system had redundancy yet every part of the system "failed".

There were two guards, yet they were both "asleep". They were supposed to check him every 30m yet they didn't check him for hours exactly when he killed himself. He had attempted suicide yet he wasn't on suicide watch. His cell mate was taken away. All the footage and backup were lost.

I guess the closest evidence so far is that the autopsy shows more homicide than suicide, but that isn't much.

Yes, it is indeed a conspiracy theory at this point, but unlike what the internet will have you believe, "conspiracy" != "crackpot theory".

[shadowgovt]

I'd be more convinced if there weren't reasonable explanations for every one of these facts already in the public record. At this point, were this an actual criminal trial, proof of homicide is way far out there.

Further, if someone powerful was worried he'd implicate them, killing him is a terrible way to keep the secret. With him dead, his effects and possessions are now no longer subject to Constitutional privacy protections and the FBI can go over them at its leisure to string together a case against his accomplices or any who used his "services" to arrange illegal sexual encounters.

(... civil trial burden of proof is mere "preponderance of evidence," and IIUC his estate is seeking civil trial, so they may win that case, make of that what one will).

[ehsankia]

That's assuming someone hasn't already gone and taken out whatever proof there was from his island. There have been drone footage taken by people showing how things were taken from his mansion.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/08/13/computer-r...

[jancsika]

> They were supposed to check him every 30m yet they didn't check him for hours exactly when he killed himself.

"Hours" means at least 4x longer than the normal period Epstein would have waited for the guards check in on him. Even at the 45 minute point it would be clear to Epstein that the guards were late.

Basic logic would dictate that a guy desiring to commit suicide would make an attempt exactly when it seemed likely to him the guards weren't going to show up for awhile.

So we have two options-- either Epstein was intent on committing suicide (in which case the timing is unremarkable) or he wasn't (in which case the timing is highly suspect). Given that we don't know Epstein's state of mind, and as you point out we don't have much of anything as corroborating evidence, we cannot make heads or tails of the timing. And this is the problem with conspiracy theories. It's simply too tempting to overlook that and jump to the branch that adds more intrigue to the conspiracy.

I find it useful to build a simple gate before jumping to unlock further contemplation. For example, perhaps I read about a statement from a guard claiming they were told not to check on Epstein during that time. Or even a report of some suspicious activity or event at the location that happened around the same time the regular checking procedure got interrupted. Having that gate there ensures that I don't accidentally let unrelated yet intriguing facts fill in for the corroborating evidence I desire.

[travmatt]

You greatly overestimate the competency of the modern bureaucracy if your best evidence is presenting a series of lapses as a well executed conspiracy. You cannot honestly use the phrase ‘statistically implausible’ because you most likely have no statistics nor idea how often such lapses occur. You’re trying to dress up a weak theory with much more rigor than is actually present.

[rdiddly]

Just for the record, absence of evidence can be evidence of a crime: evidence-tampering. And anyway, an absence of evidence isn't exactly exonerative either, especially if a plausible narrative exists to explain the absence. And there are several here.

It's a matter of probabilities. Surveillance video was prematurely destroyed, twice in a month, in separate incidents and in different ways. Oh and both of those incidents involved the same subject. That is statistically improbable, similar in category if not in actual magnitude, to getting struck by lightning twice. At the very least that should justify and support an investigation kicking into overdrive mode to find direct evidence. And if no such evidence is found, it may nonetheless end up being used as part of a prosecution. Interesting coincidences are always pretty persuasive.

[Supermancho]

Debating that there wasn't a conspiracy is different than debating if he killed himself (which can't be proven). So far, there has been a coordinated effort to obscure accountability and records. This is SOP for the US Federal Government, when trying to hide misdeeds from the US population. Typically, we only get windows into what happened later when political opponents need ammunition or decades later when there are deathbed admissions.

[Waterluvian]

Again, _any_ solid links about this discussion? The main tell tale sign of crackpots is that they'll tell you a big earful of conspiracy. If they had a solid case they'd just share a link to a solid case. A link with analysis filled with references all the way down to primary sources.

I'm always so dissatisfied when I ask for evidence for these things.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Of course there's no solid evidence.

But there are also serious questions that need to be answered - a very, very long list of serious questions about very important and influential people involved in some very suspicious events that culminated in some very rare and unusual security lapses.

Linking anyone asking those questions to "crackpots" is simply disingenuous.

[Supermancho]

There is no scientific way to organize a "solid case" and there is no legal avenue with the federal handwashing that has already been stated (ie it was the guards who simply failed to check up, and criminally falsified records).

A classic denialist position is to require a social process and specific outcome in order to challenge their beliefs, in the face of context. Not that it will change our society, in either case.

[ben509]

His name is Bert, and he's just visiting Neptune, it's not like he lives there.

[dctoedt]

> Show me the evidence that there isn't a giant space walrus on the far side of Neptune. Otherwise we must conclude there is one.

That's a nice, more-memorable riff on Russell's Teapot [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[Waterluvian]

Thanks for sharing! I knew this was "a thing" but I don't usually know the names of all these logic and philosophy things.

[dctoedt]

We could call it Blakey's Walrus?

[grey-area]

A giant space walrus is not in question. What is in question is why video showing a suicide was deleted.

Do you have any explanation for that?

[remarkEon]

I've got no "facts" for you, but, and I've said this before here, if Epstein was about to testify in court about organized crime or a murder allegedly committed by a Mafia member no one here would be questioning the idea that he was murdered.

That he was in deep with very, very powerful people for a long time that are in the public eye we now somehow have to apply greater scrutiny to the evidence. Just, gobbledygook.

Perhaps we should realize that there really isn't much difference between the Mafia and generational political families.

[briandear]

The claim that he killed himself should also require evidence.

[lkschubert8]

I think the idea is that "destruction" of evidence (the initial suicide tape), failure to gather evidence (specific cameras not operating the night of his death) and failure of protocol (him somehow being able to strangle/hang himself as a high profile person hours off of suicide watch) while not evidence are definitely cause for suspicion.

[at-fates-hands]

A lot of the evidence seems to be anecdotal. I've heard multiple interviews of people who have worked in various functions over the years at MCC where Epstein was being held.

All have noted how tight the security is (its often referred to as the "Gitmo of the East"), how so many failures would have to occur for him to be able to do what he did without anybody seeing it happen, or not have someone realize he was trying to kill himself and stop it.

I remember an interview with a high level jail admin and when asked about Epstein and what happened, he just laughed. The host asked why he was laughing and he basically said, "I worked there for 15 years, no way this happens with the security they have there. Someone was paid off or it was an inside job. There's no doubt in my mind when I consider the kind of people Epstein was linked to."

[Waterluvian]

Can you provide links to _anything_ you just said?

[malvosenior]

Epstein's was the first suicide in MCC in 21 years:

https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/suicide-supposedly-nearly-impo...

[Waterluvian]

Not asking for pieces of evidence. I'm asking for a well-produced case linking lots of evidence.

[malvosenior]

You're going to have to put the (many) pieces together yourself. The people who would normally be responsible for doing this (the media, the government) are the same people working to suppress the story. And yes, there is plenty of evidence for this (Amy Robach hot mic, Acosta's "intelligence owns him" quote, destroyed video tapes, the plea deal Epstein got...),

[jacquesm]

What point is there to ask for something that you know does not exist?

[ww520]

Funny how the players are all intertwined in the loss of the suicide video.

https://i.redd.it/6pg6wj8toy941.png

[dguaraglia]

Not in the picture: the President of the United States and very close friend to Epstein, Donald Trump.

[ww520]

Are you saying Donald Trump work with James Comey's daughter Maurene Comey (the assistant prosecutor for the Epstein's case) to destroy the suicide video?

[dguaraglia]

No. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of conspiracy theories trying to link people who had at best tangential relationships with Epstein with his demise, but somehow manage to ignore that literally the most powerful man on planet Earth had a lot to lose from Epstein's indiscretions becoming public.

It's interesting how conspiracy theories seem to always have a very particular... 'conservative' bias.

[ww520]

So the Russian collusion conspiracy is a "conservative" bias. That's pretty interesting.

[dguaraglia]

I don't want to use HN to discuss politics, but notice that the 'Russian collusion conspiracy' is not a conspiracy theory. Donald Trump Jr himself published the emails setting up a meeting with a Russian lawyer which - he admitted - was supposed to yield information that'd help his father in the election. That makes it the very definition of a real conspiracy, right?

[krick]

We all kind of know that, yet it still remain just a "conspiracy theory" which no decent person will dare to publicly acknowledge. Yeah, another one.

[alexis_fr]

“Suicide” is also a totally unfounded accusation on paar with a conspiracy theory: There isn’t a single proof of suicide. Yet all the newspapers repeated it gullibly until social media made it impossible to ignore the opposite. So why wasn’t this affirmation entirely disqualified first hand?

At best, the doctor can affirm that Epstein died. Little more. Suicide is associating a storytelling, a blatantly lying storytelling in the face of the public as long as no proof of intent was even available when the suicide was affirmed. We basically know nothing on the circumstances of his death, so the suicide word was more than unfounded.

[pastor_elm]

occam's razor says you're wrong.

[harry8]

You toss a coin 8 times and are told you get 8 heads, you wanted tails, the person reporting this to you wanted heads on each occasion. By occam's razor is 8 heads a simpler explanation than you were lied to?

One toss, you couldn't really detect much smell. But 8? Does it stink?

Any one of these things, camera footage x2, cell mate, suicide watch removal, plea deal, guards asleep x2, association with the current president, Bill Clinton, actual royalty, just for starters... and we can keep going with these coincidences.

Any one, fine, happens. Any three, ok, weird, but not totally outside expectation. But we're kind of beyond that. It just stinks. If it's all just a massive coincidence that all these independent things "just happened" that needs support because it seems the assumption that all those events are independent is shaky, at best. Shaky by occam's razor heuristic.

0.9^8 is less than 50%

So it should be looked at closely on principle. With or without support from occam's razor.

[lkschubert8]

Occam's razor isn't a law, just a heuristic.

[zamalek]

Irrespective of the trueness or falseness of this, it is completely off-topic.

[JasonFruit]

It is off-topic, but that's not uncommon on HN — and it's certainly one of the most important points that can be made from the Epstein case.

[tptacek]

This comment is downvoted, but shouldn't be: "Epstein didn't kill himself" clearly is off-topic for the thread, and the resulting "discussion" ate the whole thread. 'zamalek is absolutely right.

[pen2l]

What's wrong with being a little bit off-topic every now and then as long as it's somewhat interesting?

For a lot of us, HN is a big part of our lives, it's our water-cooler place where we come to chat and wind down. I was myself curious to hear what folks here thought of the "Epstein didn't kill himself" trope.