Federal statement on Jeffrey Epstein's death dated day before he was found dead | Hacker News Reader

Federal statement on Jeffrey Epstein's death dated day before he was found dead

standard.co.uk

30 pointssaubeidl22 comments

The fine article just says that the statement was "dated" the day before Epstein's death. Well, dated how? By a machine timestamp, or by a hand-entered date at the top of it?

The easiest way to have this happen is to have a human type the date, and have them make a mistake. (Ever put the wrong date on a check?) But there's not enough info in the article to know if that's a possibility here.

And there's plenty of reason to think it was something other than suicide. Two checks in a row got skipped, and two cameras malfunctioned, all in the same night? And someone mistyped the date on the statement? All just coincidence? That seems... improbable.

So, while I can see that there could be an innocent explanation, I'm not convinced that there is one.

Is this a credible source?

Here's another one:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/epstein-files-reveal-prosecuto...

I believe they are all coming from the same post on Reddit

More news sources does not increase reputability. Most of them are social media bottom feeders and forgot how to do the basics of journalism

The file is on the department of justice website for you to see with your own eyes.

What exactly do you need?

The question is: is the date mismatch an accident or is it not.

> question is: is the date mismatch an accident or is it not

Literally what I need. Context. Whether errors like this are common in this format. If anyone has noted this before.

There's not really a credentialed source that can tell you what will be inherently speculative.

Either it was a clerical error or it wasn't. Sometimes that happens. Did it happen this time?

> There's not really a credentialed source that can tell you what will be inherently speculative

There are absolutely quality sources that can walk through the uncertainties and the contexts. A secondary source based on The Daily Mail is not that. (Most ad-only sources won’t have the resources for that.)

It's raining outside and you're looking out the window asking for an expert to give you the context for how damp it is.

The FBI says, it's no more damp than it always is. A third party says, this is uncharacteristically damp.

A neutral credentialed source gives you uncertainty: we see dampness of varying rates throughout history and you should consider the climate you're in in order to understand how damp it really is.

Great. Now what do you do with that? Go outside and determine whether you need a coat.

No one will be able to tell you what this means without more evidence.

> It's raining outside and you're looking out the window asking for an expert to give you the context for how damp it is

No, the mountains are misty and I’m asking if it’s snow or a storm. The number of armchair experts on DoJ process on the internet right now may only have been recently matched by the banking experts during the SVB collapses.

Reasonably. This is the Newspaper Formerly Known as the Evening Standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Standard_(London_newspaper...).

That said, in this case you can just check yourself.

The weirdest part is it says Epstein was "found unresponsive in his cell and pronounced dead shortly thereafter." That just doesn't seem like the words you'd use to describe a hanging suicide. (Would you really write that the dangling body was "found unresponsive...")

I think a fun thought experiment is, "If this is indeed a cover up and he's still alive, how would you find where is currently is?" If he's still dead, I think finding the truth might still be valuable for historical and closure purposes, but not as valuable as the "still alive" scenario.

I think "he was murdered by agents of the state before he could reveal anything damaging to the ruling class" is more likely than "he faked his own death and lives on an island somewhere".

It seems hard to square that with the fact of the files being released, or indeed of the FBI being able to obtain files in the first place. You'd have to suppose that "the ruling class" expected/expects to be able to tank vast hordes of deeply obsessed Internet randoms poring through all that data, but not be able to tank Epstein himself speaking publicly.

On the other hand, as far as I can recall, nothing significant happened after the Panama Papers, so.

Yeah, I think murdered is clear but by agents of the state isn't. There are loads of people who'd want him dead.

Eh, dying was only going to make the whole mess higher profile.

If they wanted it to stay quiet, throw him in solitary and don’t allow any visitors until he dies of old age.

I don't think they're implying it's likely. Just that it's more likely than the other scenario.

Another oddity is if you look at photos of the body he was strangled by a narrow thing like a wire, but the sheets wrapped around his neck were not like that at all, and the beds were too low. It seems pretty clear someone strangled him with something like a wire then put the sheets around and hung him up as best they could.

Some more details from the recent CBS article:

>Thomas told investigators he discovered Epstein in his cell shortly after 6:30 a.m. on Aug.10 and that he "ripped" Epstein down from the hanging position.

>Investigators asked what happened to the noose.

>"I don't recall taking the noose off. I really don't," he replied. "I don't recall taking the thing from around his neck."

>Noel, who remained standing at the cell entrance, told investigators she saw Thomas lower Epstein to the floor but did not see a noose around his neck.

>The noose Epstein allegedly used has never been definitively identified. According to the inspector general's report, a noose collected at the scene was later determined not to be the ligature used in Epstein's death.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-files-jail-cell-death-v...

Could be spook speak — conveniently omitting that he was (perhaps) made to be unresponsive by one conspirator; then stating that he was found unresponsive by another; then omitting that he was (perhaps) killed while unresponsive (if not before); and then stating that he was pronounced dead.

> The weirdest part is it says Epstein was "found unresponsive in his cell and pronounced dead shortly thereafter."

What says that? I don't see the document linked to in that article at all. The article seems to essentially be spam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com