Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
ren hoek

Jeffrey Epstein: there is definitely nothing to see here folks, I am feeling very sleepy, I think I'll take a nice nap.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

There is no smoking gun if that is the question. 

I'd equate it to something like a guy knows his wife is cheating on him based on everything he has observed. He hasn't seen her do it and she hasn't admitted it, but all the signs are there. 

Except in this case there is a medical examiner who indicated the manner of death was suicide. 

So, in your example, it'd be like the guy's gut telling him that his wife is cheating on him even though a private investigator followed the wife and found no indication that she was cheating. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Beef Ravioli said:

The news media needs to go down! Hopefully this coming to light will get some of the crap out of that industry! 

The entire news industry needs to "go down" because it failed to expose a criminal? Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zow said:

Except in this case there is a medical examiner who indicated the manner of death was suicide. 

So, in your example, it'd be like the guy's gut telling him that his wife is cheating on him even though a private investigator followed the wife and found no indication that she was cheating. 

Um, yeah no.   So let's see...I want to murder someone and want to make it look like a suicide..and I am really really good at doing that...Sooo I go ahead and do that but I cannot fake the suicide well enough to fool a ME?   Then what's the point?

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Um, yeah no.   So let's see...I want to murder someone and want to make it look like a suicide..and I am really really good at doing that...Sooo I go ahead and do that but I cannot fake the suicide well enough to fool a ME?   Then what's the point?

So in Max Power's analogy the wife is just incredibly good at cheating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zow said:

Except in this case there is a medical examiner who indicated the manner of death was suicide. 

So, in your example, it'd be like the guy's gut telling him that his wife is cheating on him even though a private investigator followed the wife and found no indication that she was cheating. 

The second level of facts also put the examiner's findings into question.

The guy who observed the autopsy reported the broken bones in the neck which is "more consistent with strangulation than suicide". So we have that.

I believe they said 6% of suicides by hanging show broken bones, but they also indicate that when people jump off objects and have a fall before they die which leads to that number.

Epstein was old,  but not old enough to call his bones brittle to the point where leaning forward on a noose would cause that damage.

He was in a cell designed to eliminate suicides, yet this genius figured it out. 

And I'd bet that PI is the one kicking it with the wife. 

Edited by Max Power
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The entire news industry needs to "go down" because it failed to expose a criminal? Come on.

Hopefully it can serve a catalyst for the MSM to prioritize their loyalties or values. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Hopefully it can serve a catalyst for the MSM to prioritize their loyalties or values. 

Who or what in the MSM do you think is not properly prioritizing their loyalties or values?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:
12 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The entire news industry needs to "go down" because it failed to expose a criminal? Come on.

Hopefully it can serve a catalyst for the MSM to prioritize their loyalties or values. 

That's not going to happen as long as we have a POTUS threatening to dismantle libel protections for the free press.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zow said:

So in Max Power's analogy the wife is just incredibly good at cheating?

 I don't know if you are playing devil's advocate but what is your take on video camera issue. Still a lot of unanswered questions there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

That's not going to happen as long as we have a POTUS threatening to dismantle libel protections for the free press.

 I don't disagree. But it's also the main stream media not willing to be the a bigger man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Max Power said:
14 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

That's not going to happen as long as we have a POTUS threatening to dismantle libel protections for the free press.

 I don't disagree. But it's also the main stream media not willing to be the a bigger man

Why should the MSM risk being dismantled? Or, to put it another way, why do you think a private business has an obligation to place the moral values of others above the interests of the owners and shareholders of the company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Max Power said:

 I don't know if you are playing devil's advocate but what is your take on video camera issue. Still a lot of unanswered questions there.

I genuinely don't know a ton about the situation other than the general gist of the ME report and the rampant calls that it's a conspiracy. So, I was trying to prompt more specific and additional information than the general "this seems fishy"* sentiment that has been clear. I do appreciate your response to my other post above because you provided specifics and gave me some information that I didn't know. 

 

To answer your actual question, I'll try to find out more information. I have personally been a part of several dozen incidents within jails and prison - where sometimes there is video footage and sometimes now - so I do think I can speak a bit on it as well when I have the opportuntity to learn more about what you're referencing. 

 

*Not a direct quote from anybody but instead my descriptive summary of the previous general claims made by a variety of posters.

Edited by Zow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The entire news industry needs to "go down" because it failed to expose a criminal? Come on.

Ok, there is some hyperbole here. I figured people would have understood what I meant, I figured incorrectly. No, not the entire news industry.
 

Those that are involved in coverups, fake news, half truths, one sided takes....you know what? I would be alright with ALL of it coming down and starting over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:

Why should the MSM risk being dismantled? Or, to put it another way, why do you think a private business has an obligation to place the moral values of others above the interests of the owners and shareholders of the company?

I was only saying the MSM shouldn't have squashed the story and their reasoning behind it being to still be able to get feel good stories from the royal family is a poor answer IMO.

I'd rather they roast people when the evidence is there than play nice in order to have access later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

I was only saying the MSM shouldn't have squashed the story and their reasoning behind it being to still be able to get feel good stories from the royal family is a poor answer IMO.

I'd rather they roast people when the evidence is there than play nice in order to have access later.

The story being the suicide? Or his alleged pedophilia (ephebophilia?) Or?

If it is the suicide then that is really not a type of story the media excels at covering. There are few actors. Aceess to them may be restricted. With no smoking guns, few or no leaks the story is bound to fall from page one rather quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zow said:

I genuinely don't know a ton about the situation other than the general gist of the ME report and the rampant calls that it's a conspiracy. So, I was trying to prompt more specific and additional information than the general "this seems fishy"* sentiment that has been clear. I do appreciate your response to my other post above because you provided specifics and gave me some information that I didn't know. 

 

*Not a direct quote from anybody but instead my descriptive summary of the previous general claims made by a variety of posters.

Yeah, no worries. I forget that some people dont follow this as close as I do.

So that basics are...

2 cameras recording the cell didnt work that night. They are at CIA headquarters currently to be examined. No report of any other cameras in the whole facility malfunctioning that night. 

The guards didnt check in on Epstein that night. Falsified documents that they did. Guards might not be actual guards and may be prison employees getting OT.

Cell was designed to prevent suicides.

Clothing for suicidal individuals was made to prevent this. We dont know what he was wearing though.

He had a cellmate that was moved just before - I believe this is unverified.

And now we have someone who had an inside scoop on the guy saying it was probably murder.

Just a lot not adding up here. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Zow said:

Except in this case there is a medical examiner who indicated the manner of death was suicide. 

 

Yeah, these Dr’s never lie, are never bought, never threatened, never blackmailed, etc. to say what someone tells them to say. 

Or murder is never made to look like a suicide. 

We have a suspect who is on suicide watch but somehow is able to commit suicide anyways. 
 

That suspect is able to take down a lot of people with his testimony(Republicans and Democrats, etc) and suddenly he does not exist anymore. 
 

I’m not buying the suicide theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

we have someone who had an inside scoop on the guy

Unnamed sources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, msommer said:

The story being the suicide? Or his alleged pedophilia (ephebophilia?) Or?

If it is the suicide then that is really not a type of story the media excels at covering. There are few actors. Aceess to them may be restricted. With no smoking guns, few or no leaks the story is bound to fall from page one rather quickly.

The story that ABC squashed was with Virginia Guffrie, an alleged victim. The one in the photo with Prince andrew. The ABC reporter said they dug deep and had a lot to expose on the situation years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beef Ravioli said:

Yeah, these Dr’s never lie, are never bought, never threatened, never blackmailed, etc. to say what someone tells them to say. 

Or murder is never made to look like a suicide. 

We have a suspect who is on suicide watch but somehow is able to commit suicide anyways. 
 

That suspect is able to take down a lot of people with his testimony(Republicans and Democrats, etc) and suddenly he does not exist anymore. 
 

I’m not buying the suicide theory. 

Bolded: He was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Beef Ravioli said:

You are correct. He was taken off suicide watch which has been questioned by many. 

I thought I read an explanation from someone on Twitter (expert) who said him being taken off of the watch wasn't uncommon and was pretty standard protocol, as you don't leave folks on watch for very long.  Don't remember who it was though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, adonis said:

I thought I read an explanation from someone on Twitter (expert) who said him being taken off of the watch wasn't uncommon and was pretty standard protocol, as you don't leave folks on watch for very long.  Don't remember who it was though.

I remember this argument made in this thread by HF, I believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, msommer said:

I remember this argument made in this thread by HF, I believe

Possibly, if so an expert on this topic made the argument on twitter right around the time of death, or a day or two after

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 11:10 AM, Henry Ford said:

Accidental death policies do not.

Edit: for instance, I have a little over a million in life insurance.  But there's another million in accidental death & dismemberment insurance that's much cheaper.  So if I hung myself, it would behoove my wife to contact an expert and hire him to give an opinion that it was murder.

I would do nothing, take out no policies, which might encourage my wife to accidentally kill or dismember me.  The temptations are already high without adding financial incentive into the mix.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I would do nothing, take out no policies, which might encourage my wife to accidentally kill or dismember me.  The temptations are already high without adding financial incentive into the mix.

This is why I have security cameras in my home "to watch the dogs while I'm at work."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain this viral thing going around by Trump lovers where they say Epstein didn’t kill himself?

Do they think Hillary ordered it or something? 

I’m unfortunately out of their loop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

Can anyone explain this viral thing going around by Trump lovers where they say Epstein didn’t kill himself?

Do they think Hillary ordered it or something? 

I’m unfortunately out of their loop. 

It involves believing that the Clintons and Obama still control the Justice Department. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It involves believing that the Clintons and Obama still control the Justice Department. 

Do these people even realize that Trump was big buddies with Epstein? Or that he has a questionable history pertaining to young girls (beauty pageants) and women in general? 😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard there was an "Epstein didn't kill himself" college gameday sign. 

In reality it's the lack of media coverage that is keeping this story alive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

The 1st Amendment gives media outlets the right to choose not to run a story.

That's why it's Congress to investigate rather than the DOJ. Congress can decide whether to propose a Constitutional Amendment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The 1st Amendment gives media outlets the right to choose not to run a story.

Part of the questioning will include if they knew of any continuing human trafficking involving Epstein. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Max Power said:
12 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The 1st Amendment gives media outlets the right to choose not to run a story.

Part of the questioning will include if they knew of any continuing human trafficking involving Epstein. 

How would anyone be able to prove that a journalist is lying when they say "No" to that question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

How would anyone be able to prove that a journalist is lying when they say "No" to that question?

Robach and crew investigated it. Congress now wants to get some facts behind Robach's claims. 

If crimes were not reported due to financial or personal reasons, that is something that should be brought to light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:
10 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

How would anyone be able to prove that a journalist is lying when they say "No" to that question?

Robach and crew investigated it. Congress now wants to get some facts behind Robach's claims. 

If crimes were not reported due to financial or personal reasons, that is something that should be brought to light. 

American journalists are not, and should not be, required to publish the names of suspected-but-uncharged criminals.

If that's what Republicans are going for, then the hearings will be a complete traveshamockery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 9:10 AM, Zow said:

Except in this case there is a medical examiner who indicated the manner of death was suicide. 

So, in your example, it'd be like the guy's gut telling him that his wife is cheating on him even though a private investigator followed the wife and found no indication that she was cheating. 

Found no indication, or reported no indication.  Clearly that cheating strumpet just added the P.I. to her list of dalliances to influence the report.  that trollop, that wanton, that slattern, is there no end to her depravity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

American journalists are not, and should not be, required to publish the names of suspected-but-uncharged criminals.

If that's what Republicans are going for, then the hearings will be a complete traveshamockery.

They owe it to the victims and the public to at least turnover their findings. Which I believe the news does have an obligation to relay potential crimes to the police.

This was Jeffery Epstein. An already convicted pedophile. He went back to doing the stuff that got him in trouble the first time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Max Power said:
9 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

American journalists are not, and should not be, required to publish the names of suspected-but-uncharged criminals.

If that's what Republicans are going for, then the hearings will be a complete traveshamockery.

They owe it to the victims and the public to at least turnover their findings. Which I believe the news does have an obligation to relay potential crimes to the police.

Wait, now you're saying that Robach is the bad guy here? She's the star witness for Republicans, and you're saying that she should have called the police -- even though the victim that she interviewed was perfectly capable of doing so on her own behalf?

(And that doesn't even touch on what would happen to the entire concept of journalism if victims could no longer trust reporters with confidential information.)

Your post is a further illustration of exactly why these hearings will be a farce. Republicans can't prop up Robach as a victim......while simultaneously saying that she had an obligation to contact the police.

The bottom line here is that journalists should not be forced to do illegal police work or to violate the Constitutional rights of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Wait, now you're saying that Robach is the bad guy here? She's the star witness for Republicans, and you're saying that she should have called the police -- even though the victim that she interviewed was perfectly capable of doing so on her own behalf?

(And that doesn't even touch on what would happen to the entire concept of journalism if victims could no longer trust reporters with confidential information.)

Your post is a further illustration of exactly why these hearings will be a farce. Republicans can't prop up Robach as a victim......while simultaneously saying that she had an obligation to contact the police.

The bottom line here is that journalists should not be forced to do illegal police work or to violate the Constitutional rights of others.

Robach isnt the bad guy. Why are you making this partisan? It isnt a partisan issue. It's human trafficking and sex crimes against children. 

ABC chose not to expose it and some more children were likely harmed in the 3 years Epstein roamed free.

I dont understand why you have a problem with congress asking questions.  If you can look the other way during these horrible crimes, I have no sympathy for anyone involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Max Power said:
19 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Wait, now you're saying that Robach is the bad guy here? She's the star witness for Republicans, and you're saying that she should have called the police -- even though the victim that she interviewed was perfectly capable of doing so on her own behalf?

(And that doesn't even touch on what would happen to the entire concept of journalism if victims could no longer trust reporters with confidential information.)

Your post is a further illustration of exactly why these hearings will be a farce. Republicans can't prop up Robach as a victim......while simultaneously saying that she had an obligation to contact the police.

The bottom line here is that journalists should not be forced to do illegal police work or to violate the Constitutional rights of others.

Robach isnt the bad guy. Why are you making this partisan? It isnt a partisan issue. It's human trafficking and sex crimes against children. 

First off, I'm not the one making it partisan. You are the one who referenced a report by right-wing media member Megyn Kelly -- a report in which Republican Kevin McCarthy demanded answers from ABC News. I haven't seen any evidence that this is a nonpartisan effort from Congress.

Second, you just implied that Robach should have turned over her findings to the police.

How do you think that would impact her testimony? Do you think that she would be willing to be helpful to whatever narrative you think McCarthy may be trying to weave here?

If you truly believe that journalists "owe it to the victims to at least turn over their findings" "to the police" (your words), then how can you not think Robach is a bad guy here? Or do you think that such an obligation should only rest on the journalist's employer? If so, how is that supposed to work? Should media outlets be required to have staffers trained in police work who confiscate and analyze every reporter's notes, and then just categorically turn over all those notes to the government, even when an alleged victim doesn't want that to happen? If so, do you think that might be problematic in terms of finding reporters willing to work under such authoritarian conditions? And how would such journalists even be able to do their jobs at all, since the public would know that journalists could no longer be trusted to keep their stories confidential?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only browsed this last page of this thread, but are you guys also discussing Prince Andrew's TV interview? What a disaster that was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EYLive said:

What a disaster that was.

He's not sweating it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the actual Kelly-McCarthy interview.

- Kelly asks a couple good questions that McCarthy doesn’t answer (3:11). He’s not interested in other news organizations and he has no interest in talking to anyone in law enforcement. McCarthy has no answer.

- No news organization should appear before any lawmaker to explain their editorialization or reporting. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNBC just reported that the two guards who were supposed to check on him were arrested this morning.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.