Epstein didn't kill himself meme

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Just think of all the ones that were bagged and taken to the basements of pizza shops then they killed them selves by shooting them self in the back of their heads.

We’re not bringing back the Pizzagate stuff are we?

[Dirgelast]

Of course he killed himself, not to redeem himself but to take the coward way out.

All the rest is just nonsense talk to redirect his links to trump to a "democrat cover up", what is just your run of the mill american bullshit that has been going on for a while.
On the other end incels aka trump supporters most be enjoying the idea that they can dominate and abuse women.

You probably would have let Epstein babysit for your kids.

[Acidbaron]

Thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't some serious doubt. I'm not saying there was any kind of democrat/gop cover up. I would argue that the pressure to shut him up came from the wealthy clients he was going to reveal, who came from both sides of the political aisle.

Why i point into the direction of those who benefit from this confusion. The Trump camp is not new to this sort of behaviour of misinformation to sew just enough doubt and confusion that it works in their favour.

I have no doubt that both republicans and democrats had their way with young under aged girls, however Trump is in office now Clinton is not and is no longer politically relevant it is a dynasty that isn't gaining power and influence any more. Bill had quite a few missteps however donald is widely know for this kind of behaviour as he couldn't be more misogynistic if he tried.

[Donatello Trumpi]

Not really though. Squashing a discussion with " does it even matter because nobody will do anything about it" absolutely does nothing to further discussion.

I agree. Its also the obvious ones who want to bury this story with their defeatist attitude.
Like, they want to keep themselves from having cognitive dissonance, so they chose the easy and cowards way out of pretending he just offed himself, everything's fine..

[Templar 331]

Two cameras failed. The only two that had vision on his cell.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, or so I'm told.

Look up how CCTV cameras work. They BOTH didn't just "malfunction" - they made the vision unreadable. The footage is constantly viewed in real time, and recorded. Which means they aren't static cameras left unviewed by humans until needed - they are watched 24/7, so it wouldn't be something that was already broken and just discovered. It would be working just fine until it needed to be obscured.

And TWO cameras. The only two watching the cell. You really have to let that sink in.

https://ipvm.com/reports/are-your-cctv-cameras-broken

Oh look at that CCTV cameras fail. How do you come up with the idea that cameras can't break just because they are supposed to watch Jeffery Epstein?

So both got sleepy and nodded off on 30 minute watch duty? I get that we're just talking about coincidences, and I know that this will never be investigated, but ignoring the litany of out-of-the-ordinary circumstances that surrounded Epstein's death is just comical.

https://apnews.com/b609668da05c4ac5bbc9aa50c9e6b6d2

The person said that the Metropolitan Correctional Center’s Special Housing Unit was staffed with one guard working a fifth straight day of overtime and another who was working mandatory overtime.

Did you not read what I wrote?

The solution they've come up with is to "mandatory" everyone to come in and work 16 hours a day, often times on their days off.

This isn't just a few ours over a shift, this is literally double time for days at a time.


So tell me, who killed Epstein? Everyone just keeps saying he was assassinated but no one has brought proof or allegations against anyone who could have done it. Who strangled him? The two sleeping guards? Other inmates who are locked in their cells for the night? If someone from outside the block made it in we'd have cameras of their passing into the area. So who was it?

[Northern Goblin]

Clearly the Royal Family got James Bond to do it, just to keep Prince Andrew's nose clean.

That's more credible than any Clinton theory.

[cubby]

Correlation doesn't equal causation, or so I'm told.

Going for the pithy award? Too bad your ignorance walked in and ruined it. This isn't correlation of data. Correlation results from taking some data points and claiming they are the proximate cause of the event. Which this isn't. You really need some kind of education in this subject before you go for "gotcha" points and end up looking like an idiot.

We're talking about suspicious behavior and events surrounding the death of a someone who could have destroyed a lot of powerful people. We're not saying the cameras killed him, lol - only that the cameras malfunctioning point to a larger issue of doubt to Epstein's suicide. If you have questions, just ask, but stop embarrassing yourself with words you clearly don't understand.

https://ipvm.com/reports/are-your-cctv-cameras-broken

Oh look at that CCTV cameras fail. How do you come up with the idea that cameras can't break just because they are supposed to watch Jeffery Epstein?

How do you come up with the idea that I said that? I love people like you, putting words in people's mouths and then making them defend it. Stop with your bullshit. If you're confused about what I actually said, go back and read it a few times. When you're ready for a real conversation, let us know.

So tell me, who killed Epstein? Everyone just keeps saying he was assassinated but no one has brought proof or allegations against anyone who could have done it. Who strangled him? The two sleeping guards? Other inmates who are locked in their cells for the night? If someone from outside the block made it in we'd have cameras of their passing into the area. So who was it?

Isn't it obvious? Don't you know by now? Obviously no one knows who did it. Or even if it was murder. We're just discussing the unusual circumstances surrounding his death.

It's like you're just watching this conversation drift by and imagining things to respond to. Amazing.

- - - Updated - - -

Why i point into the direction of those who benefit from this confusion. The Trump camp is not new to this sort of behaviour of misinformation to sew just enough doubt and confusion that it works in their favour.

I have no doubt that both republicans and democrats had their way with young under aged girls, however Trump is in office now Clinton is not and is no longer politically relevant it is a dynasty that isn't gaining power and influence any more. Bill had quite a few missteps however donald is widely know for this kind of behaviour as he couldn't be more misogynistic if he tried.

In this case I would argue that it in everyone's best interest that Epstein not make it to trial. I don't see one side pushing it more than another, with the addition of other sides as well - rich/powerful who aren't in the political limelight. You notice how his client list is basically nonexistent now? The whole thing is blown over, and with the suicide label attached to his death, everyone can let it go.

[Templar 331]

Going for the pithy award? Too bad your ignorance walked in and ruined it. This isn't correlation of data. Correlation results from taking some data points and claiming they are the proximate cause of the event. Which this isn't. You really need some kind of education in this subject before you go for "gotcha" points and end up looking like an idiot.

This entire topic is a correlation argument. Two cameras failed, two corrections officers were sleeping, and a high profile criminal dead in a cell. These facts don't have to be related to each other but you people seem to think they do without any proof other than it all happened at the same time.

We're talking about suspicious behavior and events surrounding the death of a someone who could have destroyed a lot of powerful people.

And there's your problem and why you are so biased. You are already looking for something and any little detail that hasn't been proven to be related is your proof.

We're not saying the cameras killed him, lol - only that the cameras malfunctioning point to a larger issue of doubt to Epstein's suicide. If you have questions, just ask, but stop embarrassing yourself with words you clearly don't understand.

I did ask. What did you do?

Look up how CCTV cameras work. They BOTH didn't just "malfunction" - they made the vision unreadable.

You came up with some bullshit argument about how they "BOTH didn't just 'malfunction'" and then proved that they did! I then linked an article saying that CCTV security needs proper maintenance or else they will malfunction. What happened with these two cameras? A FUCKING MALFUNCTION! Do you know what malfunction means?

https://www.google.com/search?client...4dUDCAo&uact=5

How do you come up with the idea that I said that? I love people like you, putting words in people's mouths and then making them defend it. Stop with your bullshit. If you're confused about what I actually said, go back and read it a few times. When you're ready for a real conversation, let us know.

Look above.

Isn't it obvious? Don't you know by now? Obviously no one knows who did it. Or even if it was murder. We're just discussing the unusual circumstances surrounding his death.

It's like you're just watching this conversation drift by and imagining things to respond to. Amazing.

Read the title of the thread and stay on the forbidden subject....

[cubby]

This entire topic is a correlation argument. Two cameras failed, two corrections officers were sleeping, and a high profile criminal dead in a cell. These facts don't have to be related to each other but you people seem to think they do without any proof other than it all happened at the same time.

No, the entire argument is a coincidence argument. Correlation is a data driven metric. You're arguing that the faulty cameras caused the death. We're arguing that the faulty cameras are an indication of a suspicious death. When you realize the difference, you can thank me.

And there's your problem and why you are so biased. You are already looking for something and any little detail that hasn't been proven to be related is your proof.

The only biased I see is your desire not to ask reasonable questions. I'm merely looking at the events and circumstances of his death. All of which is highly suspicious to any reasonable mind. It's not our fault yours isn't.

I did ask. What did you do?

Huh?

You came up with some bullshit argument about how they "BOTH didn't just 'malfunction'" and then proved that they did! I then linked an article saying that CCTV security needs proper maintenance or else they will malfunction. What happened with these two cameras? A FUCKING MALFUNCTION! Do you know what malfunction means?

https://www.google.com/search?client...4dUDCAo&uact=5

People who feel the need to link word definitions have usually already lost the argument. You've also seemed to have lost track of the overall point. The issue wasn't the malfunction, it was how it happened and when. I've explained it once already, so either ask if you're confused or go back up and read it again. The point is that the malfunction would have been immediately visible, because of the nature of CCTV cameras.

Look above.

I think you need to start looking around....

Read the title of the thread and stay on the forbidden subject....

My point has always been that the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death are suspicious. The cameras, the guards, the highly biased medical examiner who said it wasn't suicide (yes, I'm calling my own point biased - intellectual honesty is important, you should try it), and the fact that Epstein was in a position to expose a number of wealthy/powerful people make the entire event questionable.

We're all having a nice conversation about a suspicious death. You're swinging hard and missing on silly things when you could just be honest and admit some of the circumstances are odd.

[Templar 331]

You're arguing that the faulty cameras caused the death.

No where did I ever make that claim.

I've explained it once already, so either ask if you're confused or go back up and read it again. The point is that the malfunction would have been immediately visible, because of the nature of CCTV cameras.

I did fucking ask.

Please explain.

You just keep throwing out this bullshit argument of "that's just the way it works." Link a source that backs up what you've said because I can't seem to find anything coming close to your explanation.

We're all having a nice conversation about a suspicious death.

And now you're being disingenuous.

Agreed. Epstein was more than likely killed. The amount of damaging information he has on the rich and powerful seemed enormous. The way he died is highly suspicious, and the investigation into it will never get off the ground.

The only guarantee we have is that if Epstein was killed, we'll NEVER know who did it.

This is blatant conspiracy nonsense.

You're swinging hard and missing on silly things when you could just be honest and admit some of the circumstances are odd.

I did....

Weird? Absolutely. Proof of murder? You're a freaking lawyer, tell me would these circumstances hold up in court?

[cubby]

No where did I ever make that claim.

Of course you did. Your ridiculous correlation argument. Or whatever you were trying to do with that. YOU made the correlation argument, or tried to pin it on us. We made the suspicious activity argument. It's not our fault you don't know what you're talking about.

I did fucking ask.

And I explained. Then you argued incorrectly. And linked a definition. Cute. If you're still confused, shout - we'll help.

You just keep throwing out this bullshit argument of "that's just the way it works." Link a source that backs up what you've said because I can't seem to find anything coming close to your explanation.

Now I'm not following what you're asking. Is this about the cameras?

And now you're being disingenuous.

Lol, um, no. This is you not understanding the conversation. ALL I've ever done is have this conversation about a suspicious death (if you continue to disagree - and lie - please point to where I haven't been doing this - otherwise we'll await your apology). You're the only one that seems to be disingenuous. Unless you think nothing about his death is suspicious.

This is blatant conspiracy nonsense.

Again, no. See above if you're still confused. Questioning the circumstances of an event is not "conspiracy nonsense". What is nonsense is your arguments in this conversation.

I did....

Fair enough - my bad on that one.

[Jehct]

epstein did kill himself all investigations have concluded this, its weird this is mostly from trump supporters to accuse clinton, even though trump was partying with epstein ar mar a lago.

oh also william barr trumps sycophant attorney general ruled it a suicide.


Why do so many people online lack critical thinking?

Lol that's awesome. Yea I guess I'm not one of the "Trump supporters" that is making that accusation. I think anyone that is connected to him and that went to the island or on his plane could have been involved in his murder. Do you really think all the things that happened ( guards asleep, only his cameras werent working, etc. ) are just mere coincidence? I think you are the one lacking critical thinking. Taking Barr's word also.. thats fucking rich as hell lolololol

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. Its also the obvious ones who want to bury this story with their defeatist attitude.
Like, they want to keep themselves from having cognitive dissonance, so they chose the easy and cowards way out of pretending he just offed himself, everything's fine..

Yea dude. It's very easy to take that position. "Oh well the good boys at the government told me this is what I need to believe so I believe it!"

It's sad nobody can see the situation and say thats wayyyyyyyyyyyy too many coincidences for this to be the true outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly the Royal Family got James Bond to do it, just to keep Prince Andrew's nose clean.

That's more credible than any Clinton theory.

I hear Prince Andrew had a cool puppet collection lol

[Kaleredar]

If compelling evidence to this matter concerning a suspect develops, then by all means pursue it.

Otherwise... what does all this random speculation accomplish? People aren't even in agreement over who to be mad at. Hillary? Trump? Obama? This is literally a case of "a guy might have known some stuff about an indeterminate group of people and also might have been in a disclosive mood and therefore might have been killed for it." This isn't some crime where a perpetrator is obvious and they're skirting legal justice, like with Kremlin political rivals "conveniently" drinking polonium or "falling on bullets" or what have you and can point to it as an egregious cover up to spare an identifiable party.

And if the counter to that is "well no evidence WILL turn up because they did too good of covering up their tracks! BE ANGRY AT THEM!" then you're literally asking for people to just exist in a state of anger, directed at nothing in particular.

[cubby]

If compelling evidence to this matter concerning a suspect develops, then by all means pursue it.

Otherwise... what does all this random speculation accomplish? People aren't even in agreement over who to be mad at. Hillary? Trump? Obama? This is literally a case of "a guy might have known some stuff about an indeterminate group of people and also might have been in a disclosive mood and therefore might have been killed for it." This isn't some crime where a perpetrator is obvious and they're skirting legal justice, like with Kremlin political rivals "conveniently" drinking polonium or "falling on bullets" or what have you and can point to it as an egregious cover up to spare an identifiable party.

And if the counter to that is "well no evidence WILL turn up because they did too good of covering up their tracks! BE ANGRY AT THEM!" then you're literally asking for people to just exist in a state of anger, directed at nothing in particular.

I would respectfully disagree - although you do make a compelling argument for "why bother if nothing can come of it".

However, some discussions are worth having just for the sake of having them. I'm not looking to be mad at any one group - frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they worked in cahoots in this particular endeavor - Epstein was poised to take down all walks of rich/powerful life, dems and gop and don't-give-a-shits.

I'm pretty sure the "might have known some stuff..." part is an absolute certainty. The first set of clients were set to be released shortly after his death. We know Bill and Donald were clients of his, so the political spectrum is irrelevant (i.e. no one group would have suffered more, etc.). But it's practically a guarantee that he had the dirt of hundreds of the rich and powerful and every incentive to plea down. That's a dangerous combination when trying to stay alive.

And while I would bet the most amount of my money that we'll never, EVER, find the killer or those responsible (if he was killed), it's still an interesting conversation to have. At least IMO.

[Kaleredar]

I would respectfully disagree - although you do make a compelling argument for "why bother if nothing can come of it".

However, some discussions are worth having just for the sake of having them. I'm not looking to be mad at any one group - frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they worked in cahoots in this particular endeavor - Epstein was poised to take down all walks of rich/powerful life, dems and gop and don't-give-a-shits.

I'm pretty sure the "might have known some stuff..." part is an absolute certainty. The first set of clients were set to be released shortly after his death. We know Bill and Donald were clients of his, so the political spectrum is irrelevant (i.e. no one group would have suffered more, etc.). But it's practically a guarantee that he had the dirt of hundreds of the rich and powerful and every incentive to plea down. That's a dangerous combination when trying to stay alive.

And while I would bet the most amount of my money that we'll never, EVER, find the killer or those responsible (if he was killed), it's still an interesting conversation to have. At least IMO.

Sure, but without accurate people to turn one's... ire, I guess... on, then like I said it's just speculation to "whodunnit" without ever knowing whether you're right or, perhaps more importantly, wrong; you can't exclude people with any accuracy.

And inaccurately targeted outrage can be very damaging. Someone might start to spin that it was orchestrated by some completely innocent party, and that "the lack of evidence against them is actually evidence that they DID do it and covered it up!" And then you have all of this unfounded outrage directed at an innocent party. That's the danger of these conspiracy theory-type deals. And it's not like one has some sort of "commanding information" that would exonerate them, if every facet of this case has been tossed out as being covered up or lied about or intentionally orchestrated some certain way, literally any piece of conjecture starts to hold as much weight as what actually happened.

Any "conspiracy" can prove itself if it tries hard enough. Which is why I don't like pursuing them.

[Jehct]

Any "conspiracy" can prove itself if it tries hard enough. Which is why I don't like pursuing them.

Not too sure about that line there.. Flat Earth ( super debunked ), Lizard people ( LOL ) - Hollow Earth ( uber Lol ) - yea gonna have to say those definitely never proved themselves right..

[Kaleredar]

Not too sure about that line there.. Flat Earth ( super debunked ), Lizard people ( LOL ) - Hollow Earth ( uber Lol ) - yea gonna have to say those definitely never proved themselves right..

They “proved” themselves to the people that believe them. And any evidence that dispels their nonsensical theories is, like I said, either chalked up to cover-ups, lies, or that it was intentionally made to look that way.

Show a flat earther (though let the record show I think only ~1% of flat earthers are actually serious, and the majority are just trolls) a picture of the earth and what do they tell you? That it was faked. That the astronauts were mislead or are liars. That if they were taken up to an altitude able to see the curvature of the earth that it’d be due to lensed windows.

I mean if I was to say that... I don’t know, Oprah... had him killed, by merit of some string of connections, how are you going to say I’m wrong? By saying that the “official statement” is to be utterly disregarded and with no obvious person upon whom to place the blame of a cover up beyond “some people wanted it done,” how are you to tell me I’m wrong? What facts do you know that exonerate Oprah, if we’re to believe any facts we’ve heard are orchestrated lies? And then say enough people become so incensed about the “injustice and coverup of it all” that someone goes after Oprah about it. What did that rage at the “cover up” accomplish, then, except harming a party whose guilt or innocence you decided for yourself?

Like I said, if there is credible evidence to follow up on, them by all means do so. If someone within the prison system or who is close to the case believes there was foul play, let them come forward and receive all due protection in the matter. I’m not advocating ignoring actual leads, I’m advocating against conspiracy theory armchair judication.

Being whipped up into a frenzy at nothing specific, while asserting that anything you’re told about it that you don’t want to hear is a lie, only serves for people to choose whichever narrative they want to follow and believe that. It actively hampers the disclosure and discovery of the truth.

[ParanoiD84]

Seen so many hilarious ones at reddit they keep giving.

[rogueMatthias]

The idea it was Clinton is just some meme/conspiracy theory that shouldn't be taken seriously.

..but, c'mon, he CLEARLY didn't kill himself.

His cellmate was transferred from his room that day (despite him having to have one at all times)
Both security cameras stopped working that day,
Both guards checking on him both fell asleep at the same time,
The guards were proven to have falsified records
Numerous top pathologists have said that the autopsy findings were far more consistent with "homicidal strangulation" rather than suicide.
His hyoid bone broke, which is very rare in hangings, and almost impossible in any ways that people can hang themselves in a prison cell.

You're really telling me this doesn't sound dodgy at all, and that this is just some "right wing conspiracy"? It plays like a bloody scene from a gangster movie.

[Saucexorzski]

I think he was killed. I haven't a clue who had him killed. There are far to many powerful folks he had ties too that, that we know of. Im sure what we can see is just a screen for what we can not.