4 ms·

What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury?

What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? Being on a flight log is evidence you were on a flight. Jury's (or Judges if you don't want a Jury) decide guilt. With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers.

tablespoon 4y ago
>> Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. > What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? OK then: being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here. It can prove other types of crimes that aren't relevant to this discussion.
- DigiDigiorno 4y ago
  Perhaps the types of crimes the that deal with underaged trafficked girls on planes and/or islands? This wasn't the manifests of a grand canyon sight seeing plane.
  - Nevermark 4y ago
    > "Perhaps [...]" Suspicion of crime isn't crime. Actual crimes without enough evidence are not prosecutable. Lots of people come into association with crimes, criminals, or simply suspicious circumstances, who have not actually committed a crime.
    - DigiDigiorno 4y ago
      Your quote used the one unnecessary word and converted the rest to an ellipsis. (I do find it funny that you did "Perhaps [...]" rather than "Perhaps . . . ." or "Perhaps [anything]", it's like, the point I was making can be reduced to the abstract notion of trailing-off dialogue lol) "Perhaps" is a cheeky way to introduce my response to the "being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here" part by providing the obvious types of crimes it would provide evidence for. (Like, if someone asks "Why isn't the elevator moving" and someone responds "perhaps it is because you didn't press the floor button"). I wasn't using it as some sort of way to convey support of action based on mere suspicion. Perhaps you missed that?
      - Nevermark 4y ago
        > With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers. Perhaps I do misunderstand. What I get from rereading the thread is you entertained the possibility of investigative action based on suggestive association (people riding on a plane associated with crimes). If that isn't a correct characterization, please correct me! That low of a bar for investigative action would give prosecutors quite a weapon to harass almost anyone they wanted to target. Even a clearly dead end investigation can seriously impact someone's life and reputation. The phrase "probable cause" isn't "suggestive association with cause" for a reason.
        DigiDigiorno 4y ago
        We kind of went on a tangent because my response was a bit too pedantic. I am just surprised, to my knowledge, nothing came of the manifests. I don't think they were a nothing burger. Epstein's "Lolita Express" plane had a manifest of passengers for years of trips. Certain figures show up many times on flights with Epstein and his girls. Certain people on the list, or at least their spokesmen, publicly denied flying there (at least at first, eventually, the denials started including more and more caveats). A lot of celebrities went to Epstein's New York parties, but the private plane is different. You have a select few individuals on a convicted pedophile's plane, a plane used to transport the underaged women. Like, if it was Pablo Escobar's drug plane flying back and forth from his drug island, is it there probable cause to investigate the passengers activities on the plane and island? Perhaps that is too extreme of a comparison, I do not know what the investigators know. Maybe they did investigate and determined it to be benign. I am just saying I am surprised nothing came of it. I am also surprised nothing came of Epstein's hundreds of cameras at his properties... I read Giuffre's book draft (when it was in evidence in one of the cases). I know it is just her word, but it just seems like Epstein recorded so many things, that I am surprised that no one was prosecuted including no-named people. Also, it is an extremely disturbing read, a lot of it is even pre-Epstein, I had no idea she was trafficked multiple times (google FBI Ron Eppinger) Outside of the legal investigation, I am not even sure what Occam's razor would suggest here. The FBI seized computers and camera systems from his properties. I think it is unlikely everything found was benign. Only the recruiter of sex trafficked minors was prosecuted (outside Epstein). This probably biases my view, I feel there was a lack of investigating going on, so maybe I am too biased to have a reasonable opinion on the manifests.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >>>> Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. >>> What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? >> OK then: being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here. It can prove other types of crimes that aren't relevant to this discussion. > Perhaps the types of crimes the that deal with underaged trafficked girls on planes and/or islands? It's a crime to traffic an underaged girl, it's also a crime to have sex with one, it might even be a crime to knowingly fail to aid one, but it isn't a crime to be on the same plane as one or on a plane that previously transported one. The manifest only proves the thing that isn't a crime. It's also weird that you responded to me with crimes like statutory rape, when I already addressed that the manifest wasn't evidence of that, and the comment of yours I was responding to was talking about crimes (e.g. skipping house arrest) that aren't relevant. Also, in the US at least, crimes have to be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," and "he was on the plane of guy who was guilty" doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> What if the crime was violating house arrest? Were any of the people on the logs under house arrest at the time? > What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? Then the log is evidence, but alone pretty weak evidence, definitely not sufficient for a conviction and likely not even enough, on its own to meet the probable cause standard ton sustain a charge. > Being on a flight log is evidence you were on a flight. Which generally isn't a crime. > Jury's (or Judges if you don't want a Jury) decide guilt. But, long before that, judges decide whether there is probable cause to even sustain charges, and you haven't really painted a map of anything that would suggest that that exists for anyone. > With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers Making criminal investigations of particular individuals public prior to charges is generally a breach of protocol. Maybe they were investigated, and insufficient evidence to charge was found. Maybe there are still notionally open investigations stuck at dead ends waiting for a break. You are surprised by something that is completely your own assumption.
- DigiDigiorno 4y ago
  I responded below to a different comment if you want to continue the conversation. We may have to just agree to disagree, because I think your perjury point is, at best, a bad guess, and at worst, disingenuous because we are not a jury with this fact pattern and thus cannot come to a conclusion either way. I'll add I think it is a bad guess because, all things being equal, if under oath you said you weren't on a plane, and the flight's manifest comes to evidence with your name on it in one or more flights... if I was a juror, that is enough evidence for me (without counter evidence as I implied with "all things being equal". There are ways to argue against it, like dementia/Alzheimer's for intent or someone with the same name for the underlying fact, but that is adding information to the situation). This is particularly subjective, but I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who reasonably doubts the accuracy of a passenger manifests. I am a lay person when it comes to manifests, so perhaps they are casually-written documents that aren't taken seriously. I view them as quite the opposite (mistakes are possible, but evidence of the contrary would be needed).

tablespoon 4y ago

>> Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. > What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? OK then: being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here. It can prove other types of crimes that aren't relevant to this discussion.

DigiDigiorno 4y ago
Perhaps the types of crimes the that deal with underaged trafficked girls on planes and/or islands? This wasn't the manifests of a grand canyon sight seeing plane.
- Nevermark 4y ago
  > "Perhaps [...]" Suspicion of crime isn't crime. Actual crimes without enough evidence are not prosecutable. Lots of people come into association with crimes, criminals, or simply suspicious circumstances, who have not actually committed a crime.
  - DigiDigiorno 4y ago
    Your quote used the one unnecessary word and converted the rest to an ellipsis. (I do find it funny that you did "Perhaps [...]" rather than "Perhaps . . . ." or "Perhaps [anything]", it's like, the point I was making can be reduced to the abstract notion of trailing-off dialogue lol) "Perhaps" is a cheeky way to introduce my response to the "being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here" part by providing the obvious types of crimes it would provide evidence for. (Like, if someone asks "Why isn't the elevator moving" and someone responds "perhaps it is because you didn't press the floor button"). I wasn't using it as some sort of way to convey support of action based on mere suspicion. Perhaps you missed that?
    - Nevermark 4y ago
      > With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers. Perhaps I do misunderstand. What I get from rereading the thread is you entertained the possibility of investigative action based on suggestive association (people riding on a plane associated with crimes). If that isn't a correct characterization, please correct me! That low of a bar for investigative action would give prosecutors quite a weapon to harass almost anyone they wanted to target. Even a clearly dead end investigation can seriously impact someone's life and reputation. The phrase "probable cause" isn't "suggestive association with cause" for a reason.
      - DigiDigiorno 4y ago
        We kind of went on a tangent because my response was a bit too pedantic. I am just surprised, to my knowledge, nothing came of the manifests. I don't think they were a nothing burger. Epstein's "Lolita Express" plane had a manifest of passengers for years of trips. Certain figures show up many times on flights with Epstein and his girls. Certain people on the list, or at least their spokesmen, publicly denied flying there (at least at first, eventually, the denials started including more and more caveats). A lot of celebrities went to Epstein's New York parties, but the private plane is different. You have a select few individuals on a convicted pedophile's plane, a plane used to transport the underaged women. Like, if it was Pablo Escobar's drug plane flying back and forth from his drug island, is it there probable cause to investigate the passengers activities on the plane and island? Perhaps that is too extreme of a comparison, I do not know what the investigators know. Maybe they did investigate and determined it to be benign. I am just saying I am surprised nothing came of it. I am also surprised nothing came of Epstein's hundreds of cameras at his properties... I read Giuffre's book draft (when it was in evidence in one of the cases). I know it is just her word, but it just seems like Epstein recorded so many things, that I am surprised that no one was prosecuted including no-named people. Also, it is an extremely disturbing read, a lot of it is even pre-Epstein, I had no idea she was trafficked multiple times (google FBI Ron Eppinger) Outside of the legal investigation, I am not even sure what Occam's razor would suggest here. The FBI seized computers and camera systems from his properties. I think it is unlikely everything found was benign. Only the recruiter of sex trafficked minors was prosecuted (outside Epstein). This probably biases my view, I feel there was a lack of investigating going on, so maybe I am too biased to have a reasonable opinion on the manifests.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >>>> Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. >>> What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? >> OK then: being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here. It can prove other types of crimes that aren't relevant to this discussion. > Perhaps the types of crimes the that deal with underaged trafficked girls on planes and/or islands? It's a crime to traffic an underaged girl, it's also a crime to have sex with one, it might even be a crime to knowingly fail to aid one, but it isn't a crime to be on the same plane as one or on a plane that previously transported one. The manifest only proves the thing that isn't a crime. It's also weird that you responded to me with crimes like statutory rape, when I already addressed that the manifest wasn't evidence of that, and the comment of yours I was responding to was talking about crimes (e.g. skipping house arrest) that aren't relevant. Also, in the US at least, crimes have to be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," and "he was on the plane of guy who was guilty" doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> What if the crime was violating house arrest? Were any of the people on the logs under house arrest at the time? > What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? Then the log is evidence, but alone pretty weak evidence, definitely not sufficient for a conviction and likely not even enough, on its own to meet the probable cause standard ton sustain a charge. > Being on a flight log is evidence you were on a flight. Which generally isn't a crime. > Jury's (or Judges if you don't want a Jury) decide guilt. But, long before that, judges decide whether there is probable cause to even sustain charges, and you haven't really painted a map of anything that would suggest that that exists for anyone. > With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers Making criminal investigations of particular individuals public prior to charges is generally a breach of protocol. Maybe they were investigated, and insufficient evidence to charge was found. Maybe there are still notionally open investigations stuck at dead ends waiting for a break. You are surprised by something that is completely your own assumption.

DigiDigiorno 4y ago
I responded below to a different comment if you want to continue the conversation. We may have to just agree to disagree, because I think your perjury point is, at best, a bad guess, and at worst, disingenuous because we are not a jury with this fact pattern and thus cannot come to a conclusion either way. I'll add I think it is a bad guess because, all things being equal, if under oath you said you weren't on a plane, and the flight's manifest comes to evidence with your name on it in one or more flights... if I was a juror, that is enough evidence for me (without counter evidence as I implied with "all things being equal". There are ways to argue against it, like dementia/Alzheimer's for intent or someone with the same name for the underlying fact, but that is adding information to the situation). This is particularly subjective, but I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who reasonably doubts the accuracy of a passenger manifests. I am a lay person when it comes to manifests, so perhaps they are casually-written documents that aren't taken seriously. I view them as quite the opposite (mistakes are possible, but evidence of the contrary would be needed).