3 ms·

Questioning official narratives by broadcasting your own unsubstantiated theories, made up from your armchair, is indeed poisoning the system. The most reliabl

by tlb 7y ago

Questioning official narratives by broadcasting your own unsubstantiated theories, made up from your armchair, is indeed poisoning the system. The most reliable way to find out how someone was killed is to examine the body, talk to all the people the victim had contact with, etc. There's a whole profession devoted to doing that, and they're about to go into action. When they announce their findings, there'll be some real information upon which to base theories. But at this point, any theory is baseless. The NYT is careful not to float any theories, as we should all be.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
Since you are pointing the finger at me specifically, I will point out that nothing I've said so far is at all "unsubstantiated." Even if a thorough medical examination shows that Epstein did indeed kill himself without any outside assistance, the facts in this case are: a.) Epstein's trial held the possibility of releasing extraordinarily incriminating details about dozens or even hundreds of wealthy & powerful figures, b.) Given a.), huge swathes of people correctly predicted ahead of time that there was a risk Epstein would die before seeing the inside of a courtroom (this was widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" at the time), c.) Epstein had already been found grievously injured and placed on suicide watch, d.) Given b.) and c.), to not have Epstein under constant, redundant surveillance is "incompetence" of such a staggering extent that it suggests willful negligence, e.) Given that Epstein's death probably marks a convenient clean break for many of the people mentioned in a.), it is entirely reasonable to raise the possibility that one or more of them with the power & influence to do so helped bring d.) about. At this point, the processes which were at place in MCC and the decision-making which led to the lax monitoring of Epstein are far more important than any medical details surrounding his actual death.

by tlb 7y ago

AndrewBissell 7y ago

Since you are pointing the finger at me specifically, I will point out that nothing I've said so far is at all "unsubstantiated." Even if a thorough medical examination shows that Epstein did indeed kill himself without any outside assistance, the facts in this case are: a.) Epstein's trial held the possibility of releasing extraordinarily incriminating details about dozens or even hundreds of wealthy & powerful figures, b.) Given a.), huge swathes of people correctly predicted ahead of time that there was a risk Epstein would die before seeing the inside of a courtroom (this was widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" at the time), c.) Epstein had already been found grievously injured and placed on suicide watch, d.) Given b.) and c.), to not have Epstein under constant, redundant surveillance is "incompetence" of such a staggering extent that it suggests willful negligence, e.) Given that Epstein's death probably marks a convenient clean break for many of the people mentioned in a.), it is entirely reasonable to raise the possibility that one or more of them with the power & influence to do so helped bring d.) about. At this point, the processes which were at place in MCC and the decision-making which led to the lax monitoring of Epstein are far more important than any medical details surrounding his actual death.