Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I can't say I'm surprised.

He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.

Being murdered before you can inform on people is hardly wild as far as conspiracies go. Not a single mole man involved (for better and for worse). Additionally, the whole point of being put on suicide watch is that uh it isn't possible to commit suicide. This is either a case of an absolute fluke of cosmic incompetence from the guards or the dude was murked so he wouldn't talk about his wealthy customers.

Maybe. Maybe not. The thing about a rich guy with lawyers is that a rich guy with lawyers can argue he was attacked, and that he didn't attempt suicide. Which is exactly what he did. No one believes him as far as I know, but obviously lies can swing in courts of law when you're rich and have lawyers to point out technicalities. Prisons do not have a universal ability to put a prisoner on psych watch. I mean, incompetent security guards isn't a stretch. They're prison security. They're all either washed out police cadets, retired cops, or fired cops. Incompetence is by and large how they ended up in that job (to a degree).

Never attribute to malice what can be easily attributed to stupidity. Maybe someone killed Epstein. That wouldn't surprise me, but there's no point wildly assuming it.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Which is either incompetence on behalf of the guards or deeply suspicious. Why would he share cells with someone likely to kill him? Why would that person have the means to do so? Why wouldn't the guards keep a tight watch?

And anyway, we have trials for a reason. Go think about that .

Suspicious? Maybe. Conclusive? Hardly. Again, we're talking about a vile piece of that many people would gladly kill and make the world a better place. You don't have to resort to conspiracies by the rich and powerful when you have such an obvious motive for the guards to look the other way and let him get what he deserves. I mean, if I was guarding him on suicide watch there's no way in hell I'd intervene to stop him from doing what he should have done decades ago. And if some of the other inmates want to help him do it, well, good for them.

And sure, we have trials for a reason. The state can not legally kill someone without a trial, no matter how much they deserve it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shed a single tear over his death, or live in a fantasy world where the only reason anyone could possibly want to kill a child rapist who arranged victims for other child rapists is political convenience.

I think the “we have trials for a reason” point is made with the tacit assumption that the state, or powerful people involved with the state, are in some way the actual culprits here.

But I agree with you that it’s more plausible that no one bent over backwards to “save” him when the time came. The issue is, facing trial would have probably been a worse fate, which seems to be what the man himself thought — hence the suicide. But maybe his guards didn’t think of that?

 Manchu wrote:
I think the “we have trials for a reason” point is made with the tacit assumption that the state, or powerful people involved with the state, are in some way the actual culprits here.

Sure, and obviously as a matter of policy we need trials. But even if Trump himself, acting as the most powerful representative of the state, had walked up and shot Epstein in front of a crowd of witnesses I wouldn't shed a single tear over that piece of rapist. Horribly wrong process, 100% right outcome.

Have you ever heard of Ken McElroy?

I mean, it would be easy just to say “No it is always better to do things the lawful way” but it can be more complicated than that, especially when people don’t have total confidence in lawful channels.

But the narrative in this case had pretty much been, Epstein escaped justice in FL but he won’t this time around.

You could say, justice caught up with him in a certain sense. But in a larger sense, you could also say he escaped it.

It’s an open question, IMO.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

TheOpposition wrote:

Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.

So why do so many British seem to love and speak only fondly of the Royal Family, is it just when their in American and don't want to air dirty laundry?

Tradition, kings are as Epitome to the political identity to them as emperors are anathema to us swiss.

For the vast majority, this is nonsense.

Public opinion for the queen is largely positive, because most folks think a constitutional head of state is better than a political one and she's kept completely out of politics her entire life, but public opinion of the rest of the family predominantly ranges from indifference to scathing outside of the real hard core loyalists who are a dwindling number. The royal list was massively slashed and estates began to pay taxes in recent memory specifically as a result of plummeting public opinion.

Even where support for the royal family, more realistically simply for the monarch, is strong, it's generally connected to other nostalgic enthusiasm for tradition or to duty. I've never heard anyone justify hereditary power as the 'epitome' of anything. Of anything good, anyway. I guess there might be aomeone out there who simply thinks monarchs are brilliant as an idea, but I've never encountered one.

What you described is exactly what i meant, it is part of the political identity and Epitome in the way of it supposedly beeing better then a voted in politician.

Fair enough. Just an odd use of epitome, then.

TheOpposition wrote:

Goodwill for the Royals is mainly generated by the Queen because she has been a steady presence for so long. Hopefully when she dies, more people will wake up to the idea that Royalty is fethed
and should be abandoned.

Yea their are also Russians who think that "Stalin was a strong leader" who "led the country to victories against the Nazis". WWII is over.

That doesn't change the fact it's true.

Its also not relevant.

Seems the Mayor of New York is pressing for a full investigation at least.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think the “we have trials for a reason” point is made with the tacit assumption that the state, or powerful people involved with the state, are in some way the actual culprits here.

Sure, and obviously as a matter of policy we need trials. But even if Trump himself, acting as the most powerful representative of the state, had walked up and shot Epstein in front of a crowd of witnesses I wouldn't shed a single tear over that piece of rapist. Horribly wrong process, 100% right outcome.

Which risks rather throwing a spanner into the process of fully investigating his crimes and all the people who joined him. You don't seem to understand that people aren't sad for Epstein himself. Nobody cares that you "wouldn't shed a single tear" because that's irrelevant in every way.

I think the important thing now is to make sure the conspiracy theory of your choice is taken as gospel by the public.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Which risks rather throwing a spanner into the process of fully investigating his crimes and all the people who joined him. You don't seem to understand that people aren't sad for Epstein himself. Nobody cares that you "wouldn't shed a single tear" because that's irrelevant in every way.

You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.

 Peregrine wrote:

You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.

I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.

Or just convinced that having to find a new job is a fair price to pay for ridding the world of a truly awful person. It's not like prison guard is a highly prestigious and well paid profession where you'd have to be insane to give up a job, even if they were fired for failure to stop him from killing himself it wouldn't be too hard to find another job. And that's without assuming that someone gives them a job as a thank you for sending Epstein to hell.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I can't say I'm surprised.

He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.

Being murdered before you can inform on people is hardly wild as far as conspiracies go. Not a single mole man involved (for better and for worse). Additionally, the whole point of being put on suicide watch is that uh it isn't possible to commit suicide. This is either a case of an absolute fluke of cosmic incompetence from the guards or the dude was murked so he wouldn't talk about his wealthy customers.

Or option 3: he raped children and deserved to be killed, and someone did it.

Which is either incompetence on behalf of the guards or deeply suspicious. Why would he share cells with someone likely to kill him? Why would that person have the means to do so? Why wouldn't the guards keep a tight watch?

And anyway, we have trials for a reason. Go think about that .

Yep, we definitely have trials for a reason. And the last time he was on trial for raping kids and providing access to other people to rape kids, he walked off with a slap on the wrist and went right back to it.
Good thing we have trials, eh?

With any luck, investigations into the pile of related information will continue and bring down a lot of people.

But his death could easily be
- he was murdered by people with an interest in seeing him murdered, hopeful that things would stay buried
- he was murdered by people who didn't want to see him walk out with another slap on the wrist and go back to business as usual (said business being child rape)
- he offed himself to get out of dealing with the trial and years of vilification that await him or vaguely possibly out of guilt (though that seems unlikely after decades of it).

At this point, I don't really care which resulted in his death, as long as the system chases down his connections.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.

I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.

Current reporting is that Epstein was left alone after his cellmate was moved (which wasn't procedure), was not checked on every 30 minutes as procedure said he should be, and had been removed from psyche-watch prematurely which didn't get an explanation in the report I read today. One I read last week said his lawyers got him out.

Someone is definitely on suspension, and might well lose their job. Whether this was stupidity or someone trying to give Epstein the chance to off himself remains unreported and probably won't be for awhile.

I'm a huge fan of the implicit argument that now we'll never know what really happened, 'cause apparently we need the word of a paedophile/rapist to substantiate the words of the - very much alive - complainants.

 Peregrine wrote:

Or just convinced that having to find a new job is a fair price to pay for ridding the world of a truly awful person. It's not like prison guard is a highly prestigious and well paid profession where you'd have to be insane to give up a job, even if they were fired for failure to stop him from killing himself it wouldn't be too hard to find another job. And that's without assuming that someone gives them a job as a thank you for sending Epstein to hell.

While I'll grant that last part is quite possible, the only other jobs that would take this guy is Burger Flipping and Wal Mart. Also, no, he's an idiot to sacrifice a Federal job, you know, the ones that still have health care and pensions. Even if your position there is gak, you can move laterally to another department and then up. Once you're out for something like this? GL/HF.

Also, let's remember two things here:

1) The word of Epstein alone, in the absence of any other evidence, is of very little value. The Pizzagate idiots seem to think that all Epstein had to do was say "the Clintons did it it" and instantly god-emperor Trump would finally throw them in prison. In reality the testimony of a single witness against a defendant saying "no, I didn't do it" is an extremely weak case even in ideal circumstances, and anyone accused by Epstein would easily demolish his credibility with the argument that he has a lot of incentive to lie and accuse as many powerful targets as possible in an attempt to escape his own prison sentence. That falls well short of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the evidence that could support an accusation (videos, testimony from other witnesses, etc) is not lost just because Epstein is dead.

2) Having Epstein killed to silence him just creates another witness (or witnesses) to the crimes of the wealthy and powerful. And anyone involved has an easy plea bargain in exchange for evidence against the wealthy and powerful if the investigation ever comes down on them. So what are they going to do, have the guard who looked the other way commit suicide by shooting himself three times in the head? And then have the shooter killed? And so on forever, constantly killing more people to prevent them from testifying? The plan ends up looking like a house of cards where any failure is catastrophic and there are so many potential points of failure that it becomes almost inevitable.

Conclusion: killing Epstein to silence him is a significant risk for questionable gain. It's possible, but we need a lot more evidence before it becomes more likely than someone killing him (or looking the other way) because he's a child rapist who deserved to die.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Or just convinced that having to find a new job is a fair price to pay for ridding the world of a truly awful person. It's not like prison guard is a highly prestigious and well paid profession where you'd have to be insane to give up a job, even if they were fired for failure to stop him from killing himself it wouldn't be too hard to find another job. And that's without assuming that someone gives them a job as a thank you for sending Epstein to hell.

While I'll grant that last part is quite possible, the only other jobs that would take this guy is Burger Flipping and Wal Mart. Also, no, he's an idiot to sacrifice a Federal job, you know, the ones that still have health care and pensions. Even if your position there is gak, you can move laterally to another department and then up. Once you're out for something like this? GL/HF.

the guard would have to be pretty blinded by hate to not want this man to spill his guts in court about his accomplices. Let him kill himself after the trial.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
While I'll grant that last part is quite possible, the only other jobs that would take this guy is Burger Flipping and Wal Mart. Also, no, he's an idiot to sacrifice a Federal job, you know, the ones that still have health care and pensions. Even if your position there is gak, you can move laterally to another department and then up. Once you're out for something like this? GL/HF.

There are a lot of jobs that would take someone with limited qualifications that are better than minimum-wage retail or fast food. And, again, that's assuming that being fired is considered a bad thing and nobody says "oh, you're the guy who ensured Epstein didn't weasel out of paying the price for his crimes, sure I'll give you a chance".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

balmong7 wrote:
the guard would have to be pretty blinded by hate to not want this man to spill his guts in court about his accomplices. Let him kill himself after the trial.

Or they just saw an opportunity, an opportunity which might not happen again in the future, and looked the other way without bothering to think about the perfect strategy for maximizing information gain.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Which risks rather throwing a spanner into the process of fully investigating his crimes and all the people who joined him. You don't seem to understand that people aren't sad for Epstein himself. Nobody cares that you "wouldn't shed a single tear" because that's irrelevant in every way.

You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.

It's not at all unreasonable to suspect that a wealthy person panicked and ordered his assassination, considering how much protocol was apparently broken for such a high-profile case. Especially not if it was just some mid-level dork who couldn't be entirely sure that they wouldn't be made to take the fall. Your vehement opposition to this idea coupled with the bloodlust oozing from your posts is just weird.

 LordofHats wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.

I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.

Current reporting is that Epstein was left alone after his cellmate was moved (which wasn't procedure), was not checked on every 30 minutes as procedure said he should be, and had been removed from psyche-watch prematurely which didn't get an explanation in the report I read today. One I read last week said his lawyers got him out.

Someone is definitely on suspension, and might well lose their job. Whether this was stupidity or someone trying to give Epstein the chance to off himself remains unreported and probably won't be for awhile.

With my experiance with prison guards, I severely doupt they cared what he did. They never do.
What is likely is that if a guard was at fault, it was laziness, not malice.

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's not at all unreasonable to suspect that a wealthy person panicked and ordered his assassination, considering how much protocol was apparently broken for such a high-profile case. Especially not if it was just some mid-level dork who couldn't be entirely sure that they wouldn't be made to take the fall. Your vehement opposition to this idea coupled with the bloodlust oozing from your posts is just weird.

See above re: the reasonableness of killing Epstein to silence him. It would mean taking a significant risk in exchange for the minimal gain of silencing someone who is already utterly lacking in credibility as a witness in court and extremely unlikely to get anyone convicted. On the other hand, it is well known fact that people in prisons don't like child rapists and unfortunate "accidents" often happen to them. It's not impossible for it to be a deliberate silencing, but currently that theory has no credible evidence to support it. You might as well argue that the round earth conspiracy had Epstein killed because he had convincing evidence that the earth is in fact flat and the truth had to be suppressed.

As for bloodlust, perhaps the better question is why you're so upset by the idea of a child rapist being killed. Do you think that Epstein is a sympathetic victim here? Do you disagree that he deserves to die for his crimes?

 Peregrine wrote:

As for bloodlust, perhaps the better question is why you're so upset by the idea of a child rapist being killed. Do you think that Epstein is a sympathetic victim here? Do you disagree that he deserves to die for his crimes?

I certainly disagree, and fully agree that the enthusiasm for murder that you're displaying is bizarre.

 Hollow wrote:

TheOpposition wrote:
"Assisted Suicide". I know a lot of Brits use this forum just curious what you guys think about Andrew getting named.

Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.

but you all do it with style...jack the ripper, sherlock holmes, the whole nine yards of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

There are a lot of jobs that would take someone with limited qualifications that are better than minimum-wage retail or fast food. And, again, that's assuming that being fired is considered a bad thing and nobody says "oh, you're the guy who ensured Epstein didn't weasel out of paying the price for his crimes, sure I'll give you a chance".

No, they really would not. Because getting fired by the Fed means you're blackballed pretty much everywhere. Think 'dishonorable discharge'. You have to understand how most places would view getting fired by the Fed, where supposedly it's impossible to get fired.

I'll take "what is Occam's Razor?" for $1,000, Alex.

 Manchu wrote:
Have you ever heard of Ken McElroy?

I mean, it would be easy just to say “No it is always better to do things the lawful way” but it can be more complicated than that, especially when people don’t have total confidence in lawful channels.

But the narrative in this case had pretty much been, Epstein escaped justice in FL but he won’t this time around.

You could say, justice caught up with him in a certain sense. But in a larger sense, you could also say he escaped it.

It’s an open question, IMO.

It really can't be more complicated that that, or else there's little point in having lawful channels at all.

The system fails. Often. Justice is frequently not served. It's still superior to the alternative. I mean, do people really believe that the powerful were held to account before they had scumbag lawyers and corrupt judges to keep them free? We established rules and a system to enforce them because the Peregrine Method inevitably leads to an unending cycle of revenge violence and wilful negligence, and the people who suffer as a result almost never deserve it.

If Epstein was killed, his killer/s must be apprehended, charged, and convicted, because nobody has the right to take life except as a final resort in defence of themselves or others unable to defend themselves(and before someone tries to gotcha me with war and state executions - I don't support either of those either). If Epstein was able to kill himself because of neglect or incompetence, those responsible must be investigated, charged, and convicted, because the next time someone dies in their custody it might not(and almost certainly won't) be a child-rapist.

And even for those rejoicing that the evilbadman is dead, how about sparing a thought for his victims? A lot of people who went through horrible traumas as children at the hand of this filth or his chums put themselves at great physical and emotional risk in the hope that he would face some kind of justice, and perhaps ensure others would as well, and his "suicide" has robbed them of the former certainly, and made the latter far less likely.

I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?

Previously, I thought we were discussing (a) but looking back over the comments above it seems closer to (b).