Epstein's Private Calendar Reveals Prominent Names, Including CIA Chief
wsj.com
wsj.com
- When Epstein was placed in the Security Housing Unit (SHU), the jail informed the Justice Department that he would have a cellmate and that a guard would look into the cell every 30 minutes. These procedures were not followed on the night he died.
- On August 9, Epstein's cellmate was transferred, and no replacement was brought in.
- The evening of his death, Epstein met with his lawyers, who described him as "upbeat".
- CCTV footage shows that the two guards failed to perform the required institutional count at 10:00 p.m. and recorded Noel briefly walking by Epstein's cell at 10:30 p.m., the last time the guards entered the tier where his cell was located.
- Through the night, in violation of the jail's normal procedure, Epstein was not checked every 30 minutes.
- The two guards assigned to check his cell overnight, Noel and Michael Thomas, BOTH fell asleep at their desk for about three hours and later falsified related records.
- Two cameras in front of Epstein's cell also malfunctioned THAT night.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeffrey_Epstein#:~:te....
"I am in perfect health and have no intent of commiting suicide."
after one talks about a subject like this, lol.
The closest I can come is believing staff were paid off to let him do so, but I can only imagine the sorts of heads that would have rolled on his open and honest testimony. Yeah.
Which sucks, because there are very real conspiracies out there, and the others are very often employed for cover. See also MiB / LSD experiments, where you dress up as Hasidic diamond merchants and visit whistleblowers with gargantuan amounts of experimental psychedelics. "Ha ha this guy thinks aliens are probing everyone"
Epstein, for his part, yeah, I agree, probably was actually part of a conspiracy, a fall guy for an entirely government run honeypot. However, I don't have any reason to think this is all true.
What?
Conspiracy theories work specifically for seeing the trend over time.
For example, I have no memory for what I ate yesterday, but I can recall news stories from as far back as the 80s which corroborate malfeasance decades later.
Did you know that John McCain was a filthy grifting criminal who was involved in the savings and loan scandal, was a complete coverer for the Iran Contra debacle, and the CIAs BCCI money laundering scheme for their importing of drugs through Mena Arkansas, which was shielded by Bill Clinton, and for being a CIA minion was awarded the next POTUS position...
Look into BCCI and a name you might be familiar with, Khoshoggi not the dismembered journalist by MBS, but his relative who was the arms dealer that sold his yacht to... donald trump. Who bragged about the purchase on nightly entertainment TV.
"It's a big club, and you aint in it" -- George Carlin.
The CIA runs the USA, and the drug trafficking and child trafficking industry, and Israel runs the CIA... Guess who was handling Epstein ;; Maxwell (AKA mossad)
Damn, this is actually true. I just visited Wikipedia, and I did not expect what I learned there. I thought Jamal Kashoggi was just some journalist. I never looked into him.
Turns out:
-He worked at the Saudi equivalent of the CIA
-He's the cousin of Dodi Al Fayed (the billionnaire who died in the car crash with Princess Diana)
-He's the nephew of billionnaire arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi, who sold Donald Trump a $200M yacht
-His grandfather was the personal doctor of the king of Saudi Arabia
-Considering the amount of noise the US made about him, I also expected him to be a US citizen. But no, he wasn't even a US citizen. I've never in my whole life seen the US govt care this much about a foreigner dying abroad, even if they work for a US company.
-George Soros' Open Society Foundation sued the Saudi government over his death
I know HN is the sort of place where you get flagged for voicing your suspicions without linking some establishment-approved source that gives its blessing on a particular narrative. So I'll just say this: it feels to me me that this is a very surprising background for a mere journalist.
The next conspiracy will be AI code that is delivering information that cant be debunked regardless how (un)true.
Thats the AI we fear.
no, I'm neither from US nor overly informed about politics there but I would have expected to have heard about it from Trump's allies when the two where butting heads
And dont get me started on the group that GHWB ran in vietnam... whats that guys name from the massacre? oh yeah, the head of DHS after it was created.
according to this Fox News article [1] his suicide was the first in 21 years.
1: https://www.foxnews.com/us/epstein-new-york-lockup-suicides
The only remarkable coincidence here was that the cameras were malfunctioning. It's highly improbable that a jail camera system would be designed in a way that it can be switched off by frontline guards with no evidence of tamper.
/s
Highlights the focus being on the wrong part of the story (his death), when the events of his life are what need most scrutiny and tireless investigation.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Correctional_Cent...
"Epstein told lawyers that cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione ‘roughed him up’" -https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/epstein-told-lawyers-that-cell...
"Ex-officer who shared cell with Jeffrey Epstein convicted of quadruple murder" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/07/jeffrey-epst...
It’s also worth noting that it was the cellmate’s lawyer who asked that the camera footage of their cell be preserved.
Lastly, Epstein trying and failing to kill himself seems more likely than that particular cellmate trying and failing to kill Epstein.
I don’t think what really happened will ever be clearer than mud, unfortunately.
Were these procedure followed at every other time?
The clear implication of the sentence “These procedures were not followed on the night he died.” is that the procedures were generally followed at all other times. But it is only implied, not explicitly stated, which is the kind of weaselly language used when someone is trying to convince others of something when they don’t have enough facts to present.
> If that site was known to have guards that didn't follow procedure, then maybe that was the reason that it was selected.
Yes, that’t true. Was that site known for that? Also, that’s not the argument originally presented, as I explained above; you’re jumping from argument to argument.
I'd agree that it is one reading of it, but it can also be read as simply stating a fact about the night in question. Whether the procedures were often neglected does not change the fact that a procedure to avoid suicides was not followed when they could have made a difference.
If it had been written as "These procedures were not followed on just the night he died.", then I would agree with you.
Any statistics for noncompliance at any sizable organization are going to be non-zero due to the law of large numbers. That is just evidence that they exist and do things. The baseline for comparison here shouldn't be zero, it should be the normal statistics for compliance.
I just don't think it is good for public discourse to use out of context statistics, even (and especially) if they are right, because it emboldens others to do the same when they are wrong.
(again, I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying these arguments aren't statistically rigorous)
No idea.
It just seems a poor defence of the events of that particular night by also stating that it's a common problem.
As a bad analogy, if a murder suspect was found to be carrying an illegal weapon on the night in question, it would hardly work in their defence for them to state they often carried an illegal weapon.
"...In 2020, associate Jean-Luc Brunel was arrested and charged with the rape of minors by French prosecutors. He later died from an apparent suicide before his trial could proceed..."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/12/the-secret-cyc...
"At one point, a fellow-inmate beat him in his cell. (Armstrong suspects that it may have been an assassination attempt.)"
Martin recently wrote an interesting book about banker and politician meddling in Russia.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/russia...
I'm arguing that "two broken cameras" means nothing without context.
From what I've read that was debunked. Initial reports said two cameras could not recover footage but one of them was later restored. No one know how long it was malfunctioning. No cameras were ever pointed at his cell, these were just cameras in the vicinity and there was plenty of recovered footage for the corridor showing that no one approached his cell
They had a backup that incredibly also had a "technical problem".
"Jail CCTV erased by 'technical errors'" - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51053205
That seems like the only remaining "plot hole", from a technical perspective.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-jail-cell-fo...
"FBI studies two broken cameras outside cell where Epstein died" - https://web.archive.org/web/20200622111206/https://www.reute...
You should make a new account titled "PlausibleDeniability".
At the very least, a very persistent Devil's advocate.
I have seen enough Law & Order episodes to know contract killings are always done by a prisoner already inside the wing.
As this was a prisoner know to cajole with a past US President, and also the current US President at the time, a professional and competent police investigation would take it further.
Like say...Could it be possible the cell of another inmate was left open by accident? Any other inmates present at the time known to kill people by strangulation? Tracking the bank accounts and private life of the characters closely related to the events at the time? Like prison guards, lawyers, prison administrators and inmates? Anybody suddenly taking trips to Dubai and Vegas?
On another topic, helping a monster to do the right thing is, in a moral sense, not that bad. Maybe by cashing out his holdings, the victims can be helped. So, much good will also happen.
You would think so, but: https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-prisons-new-jerse...
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/795004811/video-outside-cell-...
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/795004811/video-outside-cell-...
For example, how often are cell mates transferred? How common is it for a prisoner to go a night without a cell mate? How often do guards actually do mandated checks (versus what they say since apparently they falsify records at least sometimes)?
I can imagine this being a murder, but I can also imagine an environment where “mandated” checks are just a box on a form that gets checked with no connection to reality.
One base rate we might have is the number of suicides that happen at this facility (apparently almost none) which does lend some credence to the murder theory.
I feel the facts you highlight would be more convincing if there was public information we could use to put them in context (and hey maybe there, if someone knows about it, please share).
If guards never do their checks, an average prison camera fails once a month, and prisoners spend on average 1 night every 3 weeks without a cell mate, it puts the GPs facts in a certain light. If the base rates for those events are higher or lower, it puts in a different light.
The fact that Epstein was “high profile” is another fact to consider but I don’t see why it would obviate considering other data.
>>> “William Burns, director of the Central Intelligence Agency since 2021, had three meetings scheduled with Epstein in 2014, when he was deputy secretary of state, the documents show. They first met in Washington and then Mr. Burns visited Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan.”
It implies Epstein was meeting with the CIA chief, when the actual revelation was that he was meeting with the Secretary of State (which is probably equally noteworthy)
No, this isn't right. Burns was the Deputy Secretary of State. At the time, John Kerry was Secretary of State.
FWIW, when I first read the headline, I interpreted it to mean the current CIA director, as news headlines usually refer to former officials as "former" or "ex-".
Which is why these people were meeting with him like he was a well-connected financier.
The people who were meeting with him weren't checking his bank account balances to see if he was really a billionaire or how he got his money.
Of course that's absolute nonsense there's a absolutely no organization out there that would benefit from elevating the most prominent and clearly nuts conspiracy theories in order to discredit other conspiracy theories by association.
One day around 2015 or 2016, I remember seeing a ton of "FLAT EARTH!" graffiti that appeared out of nowhere all over Emeryville. That's another one that's always struck me as weird and maybe astroturfed.
But yea, if you actually critically review them, some are more plausible than others.
It's very weird that a theory that involves a conspiracy is automatically (linguistically) linked to falsehoods imagined by crazy people. It seems to me that somebodies conspired to make all conspiracy theories look bad so that they can participate in even more conspiracies without people credibly calling them out :D
There's another comment in this thread saying that the CIA popularized the term or sth. I have no power of foresight to determine whether that's true or not. But it would definitely have been to their benefit.
Hell from 2008 onwards Epstein was a conflicted child sex trafficker. Hardly an unimpeachable target.
There really were some genuine conspiracies. P2 in Italy is a prominent one.
But that doesn’t make every conspiracy theory correct or even most of them.
It's also unclear in this case what specific claims you are saying were widely derided. I saw a lot of claims based on observation that were not widely derided, and a few unreasonable claims that relied on unavailable specificity and were mostly just a political attack (X political figure knowingly committed Y specific crime). Again, your criticism appears to be predicated on a worldview where there are two immutable teams: People who completely believe all theories that involves conspiracy, and people who completely disbelieve all theories that involve conspiracy.
Provide a recommendation for a more neutral tone? That was the intent.
I was pointing out the purposeful use of the word "popularized" over "invented" or "created" or "made up", as it's written in poor reproductions of this conspiracy theory, because the verbiage a popular way to discredit the entire point.
Epstein is likely a real conspiracy. However I do believe most people he engaged with didn’t know what was going on. My best guess is that he was a CIA operative who was useful due to his reach.
No, for these things to be true is not necessary that everyone keep quit. They can just be discredited or labeled as "conspiracy theorists", or not heard and reproduced by the media. The ones with proof can be labeled as hackers and leakers and persecuted like Assange and Snowden. We see this happening all the time.
It was not so much a conspiracy theory, but lots of people knew about him but were told to keep quiet.
"The Met stated that the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
It's perfectly possible to be a "Tom Brady is the most amazing quarterback" crank. Hey, maybe you're right. But no one wants to hear about it and the vast majority of everyone is happy to live with a little bit of ambiguity, or they don't care.
Put concisely, "speaking out" without any knowledge is among the most annoying things a person can do.
The story itself is the only real story.
Who got this story done? What is the goal? Who is being thrown under the bus and who isn't? Is it anticipatory misdirection because something else is about to come out and can't be controlled?
etc etc
https://twitter.com/gumby4christ/status/1491847630275629057?...
I don't agree with his Covid vaccination statement (though I can relate to it), as there are always going to be parts of society that are not able to be vaccinated, so it seems unnecessary for those who abstain out of choice to remove themselves from society (N.B. his quote was that they should have the decency to remove themselves from society, not so much "be removed").
The exact same script can be repeated for the person who is now Goldman's Chief Counsel and was the counsel at the White house. He was making her travel arrangements and we are told they are just casual acquaintances.
Take it as you will
.. Why hasn't someone been arrested yet??
There's the mundane answer: Because the wealthy and powerful are above the law and exempt from the normal mechanisms of accountability. And the more introspective, deeper one: Because enough of the rest of society believes that it has no choice or has something to gain by remaining complicit with a system run by Epstein & Friends, enough that that system can even reveal parts of its own nature to us and continue to chug along unabated.
The lists alone don't give enough information to tell which people on them were there for the normal rich guy stuff and which were there for the sex trafficking.
Very large number of politicians from all sides including Trump and Clintons, royalties like prince Andrew of UK, academia like MIT Media lab, business and tech tycoons like Bill Gates and Elon Musk were exposed to be involved with a guy proven to be a pedophile and supplier who conveniently died under the supervision of the law enforcement. Now we have the CIA chief. Not to mention the endless scandals among the religion power figures and institutions.
And yet, it's the "plebs" who are to lose their right to privacy to "save the children". At least we have the Reddit poweruser and Epstain colaborator Ghislaine Maxwell alive and in custody, I guess.
Maybe we should have open access to all communications of people with power?
I guess it's not a popular opinion.