Conspiracies Epstein Dies in Custody - Alleged Suicide, Some Speculate it was a Hit Job

[JGrimez]

No I do think there are international pedophile rings. I just don't think they're part of some uber conspiracy that runs and controls everything and anything.

You're ignoring evidence and connections.

Do you disagree with any of this?:

Epstein trafficked underage girls to his island to be sexually abused.
Bill Clinton & Prince Andrew flew on the plane to his infamous island.
Bill said he only flew with Epstein 4 times but flight logs show 26 times.
Prince Andrew was photographed next to one of the young girls that later accused Epstein.
Ehud Barak was photographed in disguise going into Epstein's NYC townhouse.
Epstein was previously charged with sex trafficking but received an extremely light sentence, because Judge Acosta was told that he was "an intelligence asset".

Those people are some of the most powerful in the world.

Flight logs prove Duke of York's Epstein girl WAS at key locations

It can be revealed that flight logs, obtained by the Daily Mail, show that one of Epstein's victims, 'sex-slave' Virginia Roberts, was flown to London, New York and the Caribbean in 2001.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JessFR]

Let's say I accept all of that, what does it conclusively add up to?

It doesn't add up to murder in my eyes, it adds up to possible murder.

Being a lying scumbag is pretty much a part of the job of being a politician, they're gonna lie and distance themselves from people later found to be disreputable (to say the least).

That doesn't mean they were involved in their activities, it doesn't meant they weren't.

Why should I believe in something without reasonably solid evidence? I'd argue I shouldn't.

Should I disbelieve something because of lack of evidence? Not necessarily, it's only sensible to disbelieve an assertion that is widely contradicted by the evidence.

In this case I don't see evidence widely contradicting the possibility that he may have been murdered, or that powerful individuals may have been in league with him. Neither do I see solid evidence to believe there was a successful conspiracy to murder him.

So why should I take a side yet?

 

[JGrimez]

Let's say I accept all of that, what does it conclusively add up to?

Many more questions that you should be asking.

It doesn't add up to murder in my eyes, it adds up to possible murder.

It actually adds up to "not suicide" or at the very least "officially allowed to commit suicide"

Being a lying scumbag is pretty much a part of the job of being a politician, they're gonna lie and distance themselves from people later found to be disreputable (to say the least).

"to say the least" = the guy was an international child sex trafficker procuring girls for elites, and he was an intelligence asset. Like aren't you even the least bit curious about for who? Are you at least willing to concede and accept this information?

That doesn't mean they were involved in their activities, it doesn't meant they weren't.

Chances are they were (some have been implicated by witnesses). And if they weren't, then chances are that they knew what was going on.

So why should I take a side yet?

You should be on the side of asking more questions, as opposed to persuading others not to speculate.

 

[alasdairm]

why did you bolden an intelligence asset?

do you have proof or evidence of such?

maybe he was but for whom? the lines between intelligence organizations can get very blurry and, as far as i can see, you're taking the word of exactly the kinds of shady, establishment elitists you frequently warn we should not trust...

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

why did you bolden an intelligence asset?

do you have proof or evidence of such?

That's what Acosta said after it surfaced that he gave Epstein a ridiculously light sentence.

According to investigative journalist Vickie Ward -- who has been covering the Jeffrey Epstein case since 2003 -- Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney who cut Epstein a sweetheart plea deal back in 2007, did so because he had been told to "back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade."

"I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," Acosta, who resigned as Secretary of Labor on Friday, reportedly claimed.

Shouldn't this really be the focal point of the discussion? Does this make any coincidence theorists ask questions?

maybe he was but for whom?

Most likely Mossad, or CIA.

the lines between intelligence organizations can get very blurry and, as far as i can see, you're taking the word of exactly the kinds of shady, establishment elitists you frequently warn we should not trust...

The fact is that Epstein got off light the first time. How would that happen?

 

[JessFR]

Taking everything you said as true, exactly how does it add up to "not suicide"?

 

[JGrimez]

Taking everything you said as true, exactly how does it add up to "not suicide"?

I'm sorry I can't continue to spell it out for you any further (until we receive some new information).
But the most obvious tell here is the lack of footage.

My question to you and I hope you'll answer - what do you think about Acosta's comments regarding Epstein being intelligence and his subsequent sweetheart deal?

 

[JessFR]

I think it's unacceptable that intelligence agencies aren't held to more account and transparency.

But that being true isn't evidence he was murdered, or of much of anything.

 

[JGrimez]

I think it's unacceptable that intelligence agencies aren't held to more account and transparency.

But that being true isn't evidence he was murdered, or of much of anything.

Well it's evidence he was engaged in an intelligence operation. Why would there be state-sponsored child sex trafficking and procurement for elites? The only explanation is blackmail.

Or Epstein was engaged in a separate yet unknown intel op and this business with the kids was on the side.

A more than cursory glance at his background plus the dubious events surrounding his demise points strongly towards foul play.

 

[JessFR]

It's proof of nothing more than what it actually is (assuming it's true, I haven't actually verified it). Which is that he was somehow involved in something with intelligence agencies.

The FBI is an intelligence agency among its other rolls, they could have wanted him for something. It could be anything specifically because in itself it says almost nothing.

Evidence that he was given a better deal by request of an unspecified intelligence agency is evidence of nothing more than that. Anything else is your SUBjective interpretation.

 

[alasdairm]

^ right. and who told acosta to back off? exactly the kind of establishment intelligence jg frequently implores us to disbelieve.

alasdair

 

[TheLoveBandit]

It's proof of nothing more than what it actually is (assuming it's true, I haven't actually verified it). Which is that he was somehow involved in something with intelligence agencies.

I saw the same quote JG is referencing - Acosta was told to back off given Epstein was an intelligence asset. Nothing more was provided to elaborate beyond that - no reference to what intelligence group (which acronym? which country? is it real or just someone playing that card for political reasons?).

Evidence that he was given a better deal by request of an unspecified intelligence agency is evidence of nothing more than that. Anything else is your SUBjective interpretation.

And this is also true - that lack of elaboration leaves a LOT of room for speculation and guesswork. But without facts, that's all it is, guesswork that could be accurate or completely off base.

 

[alasdairm]

Well it's evidence he was engaged in an intelligence operation. Why would there be state-sponsored child sex trafficking and procurement for elites? The only explanation is blackmail.

Or Epstein was engaged in a separate yet unknown intel op and this business with the kids was on the side.

theres no evidence he was engaged in any operation. the claim was simply that he was an asset.

you've made your mind up and you're massaging - if not just fabricating - evidence to fit your own conclusion. you get mad when others do that so maybe you need to not do it.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

All it takes to be an intelligence asset is to in some way be of value to intelligence organizations.

You could be a lowly janiter in fucksknowsswhereistan or the people's democratic republic of some place you never heard of, where you're able to copy documents without anyone noticing, and that could make you an intelligence asset.

It could mean something, it could mean nothing.

 

[alasdairm]

It could mean something, it could mean nothing.

indeed.

alasdair

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Whether I or you or Epstein have ever been suicidal before is irrelevant. If you were housed in that prison you would not be able to commit suicide no matter how much you wanted to.

Oh COME on. Let's say I was the guy Vlad Putin the Occupied Government hitman hired to fuck with Estonia's online elections. Trust me, Id' have personal experience that would be quite relevant. Grow up, my friend, get a life and realize that this *is relevant* to the conversation we're having. If it's not personal to you why can't you just be fucking honest? It was a yes or no question. That's all I asked. If it was too personal I was going to totally respect that and go all PC and be like "whoa bro I hope I didn't trigger" but I gain the sense you're being quasi-confrontational in a passive aggressive away. Which isn't manly, it's just not the kind of [cis homosexual male] I happen to be. God how I love applying PC terms to myself I otherwise hate using! (see we can get the same humor some times CUT ME SOME SLACK BRO just answer the question)

You would never get to this point while in prison. There are ways to feed you.

Nope. Didn't do your local research on the NJ judges' ruling. If it is my religious belief that I do not want medical intervention then YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE 1ST AMENDMENT and I seriously suggest you get frequented w/ that one because y'all like the first 2 so very much.

 

[Xorkoth]

In this particular case, I see there being a strong motive for foul play (ultra-rich elites with a whole lot to lose if Epstein talked/the case went to trial), and enough circumstances that seem sketchy to me, that I think there's a strong likelihood there was foul play. Of course I don't know either way, but it seems like some of you are trying really hard to discredit the very idea that it's plausible. I find it highly plausible that someone from among Epstein's "friends" made something happen. Of course, it's also plausible that some inmate killed him (prisoners are known to hate pedophiles from what I understand), or that he did kill himself. But it does seem like a high-profile prisoner who had tried to kill himself, and who would have been able to provide evidence to bring down big-time high-profile serial pedophile activity, would have been watched carefully. It's not like he was some random prisoner, or stole some money or something. The case centered around him could have really made huge waves among some of the elite. The motive is very strong.

Like I said pages ago, I don't often agree with JG, and I'm not going to try to claim I know anything, but my guess would be that there was foul play, if I had to guess based on what I described in this post. I don't think it's getting into wild conspiracy theory to think it's likely.

 

[yepyepwoah]

Slow declass until the prebuescent stuff starts hitting.

God help them when they learn their neighbors are eating babies.

Epstein was given three 12-year-old French girls as a birthday present

High-profile Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre revealed the sadistic birthday present the millionaire allegedly received from a friend in unsealed court documents from a 2015 lawsuit.

www.dailymail.co.uk

She said that the French girls, believed to be sisters, were a gift from Epstein's longtime acquaintance and frequent guest Jean-Luc Brunel.

'Jeffrey bragged after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out,' Giuffre said.

She said she saw the three girls with her own eyes and that Epstein had repeatedly described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex on him. They were flown back to France the next day.

Another civil suit also involving Giuffre alleges that Brunel and Epstein recruited young girls from South America and Eastern Europe to have sex with him.

Epstein invested $1million to help launch Brunel's Miami-based modeling firm MC2, in return for a 'supply of girls on tap', the suit claims.

Brunel allegedly acquired illegitimate visas for underage girls from foreign countries and Epstein housed them at his brother's apartment in Manhattan.

'Jeffrey and Brunel would charge them for rent, forcing them to work for them selling their bodies for money, nude pictures, and even pornography,' Giuffre said in the suit.

'These were what seemed like really nice people with not so nice intentions setting an impression of how the dignified wealth play and behind closed doors they had as much civilized manners as a barbaric chimpanzee in heat.

Epstein was arrested last month on federal charges of orchestrating a sex trafficking ring and abusing dozens of underage girls, whom he paid hundreds of dollars in cash for massages.

You don't really hear much about this charge huh. Kinda like they want you to think it was only him. Those guys are dumb. They have no clue how locked up this allready is.

 

[Xorkoth]

Wow.

 

[JGrimez]

So it seems that his will was written a day before? Written in the evening and the death was the next morning. This could mean:

- He knew they were going to kill him, he said he was attacked weeks earlier.
- He knew he was going to be allowed to kill himself.
- The people that killed him wrote the will which didn't include his brother.