3 ms·

You're right, I was incorrect there - I was confused because he wasn't on the medical team for the autopsy. Looks like he was there as an observer, being paid b

by 542458 7y ago

You're right, I was incorrect there - I was confused because he wasn't on the medical team for the autopsy. Looks like he was there as an observer, being paid by Epstein's family - which also introduces a fairly significant conflict of interest.

mc32 7y ago
Why is it a massive conflict of interest from the family side but not from the state side (their pathologists)? Presumably they both care about careers and reputation.
- 542458 7y ago
  The state pathologists keep getting paid no matter what their conclusions were. Epsiein's family pathologist only gets paid as long as he's involved in the investigation. If he said "Yep, looks like a suicide", the family would have no further use for him. But if he discovers some conspiracy that will take an indefinite amount of time to deal with, he keeps collecting paychecks. Also, this fellow seems to thrive on fame, so even more incentive to find something juicy.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    > The state pathologists keep getting paid no matter what their conclusions were. Naive.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Sort of. The family's hired pathologist is retired. I'm sure he cares about reputation for personal reasons, but it's not like his career is riding on it. (... and thanks to the power of conspiracy theories, he's now got a cemented reputation forever among some circles).
- zentiggr 7y ago
  What does a career or reputation matter when there's billions of dollars floating around, and you can quietly disappear to a fully funded retirement (out of all the spotlights of course) fifteen minutes after you make whatever statement is required of you? Not that I think there's any sort of attempts at influencing the story here...
micmil 7y ago
That is not a conflict of interest in any way, shape, or form.
im3w1l 7y ago
Ok here's a question to chew on. Why would the Epstein family pay to have a pathologist of their own be present? That has to be unusual? Either: They want the truth or they want to distort the truth. In the first case: Why don't they trust the state? In the second: Why do they want to falsely make it to look like a murder?
donedealomg 7y ago
No, it's fine, it's a well-known strategy to ridicule and downplay opponents who come up with facts that hurt you.

by 542458 7y ago

mc32 7y ago

Why is it a massive conflict of interest from the family side but not from the state side (their pathologists)? Presumably they both care about careers and reputation.

542458 7y ago
The state pathologists keep getting paid no matter what their conclusions were. Epsiein's family pathologist only gets paid as long as he's involved in the investigation. If he said "Yep, looks like a suicide", the family would have no further use for him. But if he discovers some conspiracy that will take an indefinite amount of time to deal with, he keeps collecting paychecks. Also, this fellow seems to thrive on fame, so even more incentive to find something juicy.
- danharaj 7y ago
  > The state pathologists keep getting paid no matter what their conclusions were. Naive.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Sort of. The family's hired pathologist is retired. I'm sure he cares about reputation for personal reasons, but it's not like his career is riding on it. (... and thanks to the power of conspiracy theories, he's now got a cemented reputation forever among some circles).
zentiggr 7y ago
What does a career or reputation matter when there's billions of dollars floating around, and you can quietly disappear to a fully funded retirement (out of all the spotlights of course) fifteen minutes after you make whatever statement is required of you? Not that I think there's any sort of attempts at influencing the story here...

micmil 7y ago

That is not a conflict of interest in any way, shape, or form.

im3w1l 7y ago

Ok here's a question to chew on. Why would the Epstein family pay to have a pathologist of their own be present? That has to be unusual? Either: They want the truth or they want to distort the truth. In the first case: Why don't they trust the state? In the second: Why do they want to falsely make it to look like a murder?

donedealomg 7y ago

No, it's fine, it's a well-known strategy to ridicule and downplay opponents who come up with facts that hurt you.