Comment by lukifer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukifer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

While I agree, I think it’s worth teasing apart the “They” in this line of thinking. The conspiracy/Illuminati narratives imply a singular, unified cabal of power, which is a very difficult thing to achieve. But I think is more likely, is a loosely coupled system of mutual benefit with many players and imperfect knowledge, but all of whom are incentivized to (or selected for) not rocking the boat too much.

Elizabeth Warren’s quote comes to mind: “The first rule of DC is that insiders don’t criticize other insiders.” I suspect the kernel of truth to conspiracy theories is that various private cabals, from fraternities to Skull & Bones to Bilderberg, act as trust and secrecy filters, selecting for those who know where their bread is buttered, and therefore can be trusted by various elites, who have common interests despite being in direct competition for power, influence, and resources (“honor among thieves”). There need not be a singular group of robed masterminds; just the amorally ambitious pursuing their own interests.

In the case of Epstein, it appears that NY Dept of Corrections and the coroner must both be colluding to make the suicide narrative plausible.

There must be some level of coordinated pressure exerted on both of these offices for neither to highlight the inconsistencies.

What would be more concerning: a governmental agency or a non-governmental organization having this kind of power?

When two Saudi teenagers were found bound together in the Hudson had their deaths ruled a suicide, my confidence in the integrity NYC coroners office died.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/two-saudi-sisters-found-dead-i...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/03/us/saudi-sisters-hudson-river...

Classifying obvious murders as suicide often happens if intelligence services have a stake in the investigation. That doesn't mean they want to bury the case. They could try to do an investigation above the "pay grade" of the local cops who otherwise would have a mandate.

Well, they were apparently being abused by their family, had applied unsuccessfully for asylum, and were (or thought they were) about to be deported to Saudi Arabia. They had told people that they would kill themselves if they were forced to go back. They had spent weeks maxing out their credit cards staying in luxury hotels and shopping. They had run out of money the day before they died, and were seen hours before their bodies were found at a park on the bank of the river praying. Also they weren't bound in any way that would have caused them to drown - they had apparently taped themselves together, possibly to keep their bodies from floating apart.

I mean, it's possible that they were murdered. But it's not unreasonable to conclude from the available facts that it was suicide. Do you have access to additional facts that would dispute that conclusion?

Or it's just incentives: if they rule the case is a suicide, it's closed and they can move on with their lives, while if they rule it's a homicide, it opens up a whole criminal investigation and media circus, they'll have a lot of attention on them, they'll have to testify at the trial, there are potential career repercussions if they're wrong (i.e. no conviction), there are potential personal repercussions if they're right and various powerful people would like to see that fact buried, etc. If there's any ambiguity at all, better just lie low and go with the conclusion that means the least work and risk.

HN tends to attract people who believe in finding the Truth with a capital T, but the majority of the world does not function like that. Most people are more concerned about personal costs and benefits and how a given action will affect them. The abstract Truth out there is immaterial; they just don't care, and save their energy for things that matter more to them. Explains a lot about the media, politics, corporate scandals, and so on.

"What would be more concerning: a governmental agency or a non-governmental organization having this kind of power?"

If there is such a organisation, then it certainly would be not either private or government, but both connected.

This is the crux of it; inevitably, government institutions and individuals in important positions are perfectly capable of quietly trading favors and taking action off-books. And in the other direction, private citizens and groups can have pressure applied on them, directly or indirectly, by mechanisms of government.

No, it doesn't - it was a federal prison and the NY DoC has nothing to do with it. And no, even if you buy into the idea that he was killed, there is no collusion needed to make it a plausible narrative, you just have to have the strangulation done competently enough to look like hanging.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com