5 ms·
Nobody prominent is involved. This case is so larded with misplaced expectations. We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may
by tootie 5y ago
Nobody prominent is involved. This case is so larded with misplaced expectations. We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated and no reason to think Maxwell has any compromising information if they were. And even if both those assumptions are true there's no reason they'd be pertinent to her trial. Her trial which is happening likely because the prosecutor couldn't force a plea.
- lostlogin 5y ago> We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated Isn’t that a reason to follow the case?
- tootie 5y agoWe don't know if there are prominent people involved in every case in every courtroom in the world. Maybe Bill Clinton has been stalking Bushwick stealing bikes for the last 5 years. Probably not though. Meanwhile the most recent ex-president is directly implicated in trying to upend democracy and lying about deliberately spreading covid at the White House.
- shadowgovt 5y agoNot in the US. The US audience doesn't really care about the UK royal family. And in the UK, the media is constrained by stronger libel laws such that they'll sit on their haunches in terms of reporting on things in the case until they are considered factual enough to withstand a UK libel suit. Allegations thrown about in a foreign court of law don't meet that bar.
- kranke155 5y agoWhat? This case is all over Uk media
- cheeseomlit 5y agoEpstein's murder and subsequent cover-up strongly imply that other prominent people were involved
- mcculley 5y agoWhat makes you so confident that Epstein was murdered?
- kranke155 5y agoHave you looked into it? I mean even the author of Skeptic magazine went through it and thought it was very credible that he was murdered.
- mcculley 5y agoYes. I have read about it. I have skepticism about it. I am wondering how anyone could be so confident.
- arpstick 5y agoI mean....
- mcculley 5y agoI understand the uncertainty and skepticism over the claims of the prison. I am intrigued by the confident assessment.
- tootie 5y agoAgain. Zero proof. Think about all the dots to connect for it to be a murder and how few for it to be a suicide. He had absolutely every reason to be suicidal and the evidence says it's very likely. For it to be murder we have to assumed a giant chain of events for which we have proof of none. * Very powerful people procured his services for something illegal <- Maybe, no proof * Epstein had incriminating evidence on those powerful people proving their illegal activities <- Maybe, no proof, requires above unproven point to be true * Powerful people knew what evidence he had, believed he would leverage it to reduce his punishment <- Maybe, no proof, requires all above unproven points to be true * Powerful people hired ninjas to invade the detention center, evade all the cameras (all but one camera was working and recorded the approaches to his cell), murder Epstein to make it look exactly like a suicide, leave no traces, no witnesses <- Maybe, getting pretty ludicrous by now
- sakopov 5y ago> Nobody prominent is involved. I don't know how you operate, but when I hear that the royal family is implicated, I immediately start to wonder who else is involved and not dismiss the case all together.
- arpstick 5y agoOkay, then there is no reason to ban this twitter user at all, because there are plenty of ways to follow this trial and have the public decide for themselves what they think.