> So if you have a set of experts saying "Epstein killed himself," even if those experts have conflicts of interest and/or were appointed by those with CoI, a l

> So if you have a set of experts saying "Epstein killed himself," even if those experts have conflicts of interest and/or were appointed by those with CoI, a lot of journalists will defer. Journalists don't make claims that they can't back up. On net, I think this is for the best. Journalists upholding this code is what gives us useful, credible news. > But I wish there was more nuance in coverage sometimes, to acknowledge that something weird or shady is going on while acknowledging there's no evidence for anything in particular. I think conventional reporting on Epstein's death features all the anomalies but stopped making claims when the trail of evidence ran cold. If you can't provide any evidence that the guard was paid to look the other way, that's sadly where the story ends. However, a really cool and interesting phenomenon is what happens to people at interesting stages of their lives. People who have kept secrets sometimes feel shame or pity when they realize they're dying or when they have children. So we could end up with some surprising revelations in the century to come.