OT Jeffrey Epstein Found Dead In Jail - Apparent Suicide

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

everything you've stated is either based on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories based on paranoia suspicions or nothing more than your opinion.
Wrong. Everything I’ve stated is based on the actual circumstances surrounding the case. I used these facts to form my opinion. People are allowed to have opinions you know. I’ve outlined more facts than you have in these discussions, by the way. You generally just hurl insults or speak in very vague terms. Like repeatedly claiming I’m “trying to prove a negative”, for example. Why don’t you expound on that point rather than repeating in over and over?
You can jump up and down all you want and scream murder
Haven’t once done this. I’ve simply pointed out discrepancies and oddities that you yourself can’t seem to debunk.

Why does it hurt your ego so much when I speak on this subject? Seems it really pisses you off and I don’t quite get it. I haven’t thrown out any outlandish claims like you are implying. This is an interesting case with a lot of twists, turns, characters and missing pieces, that’s just the truth of it. If you’ve solved the case, please let us idiots know your findings.
 
Wrong. Everything I’ve stated is based on the actual circumstances surrounding the case. I used these facts to form my opinion. People are allowed to have opinions you know. I’ve outlined more facts than you have in these discussions, by the way. You generally just hurl insults or speak in very vague terms. Like repeatedly claiming I’m “trying to prove a negative”, for example. Why don’t you expound on that point rather than repeating in over and over?

Haven’t once done this. I’ve simply pointed out discrepancies and oddities that you yourself can’t seem to debunk.

Why does it hurt your ego so much when I speak on this subject? Seems it really pisses you off and I don’t quite get it. I haven’t thrown out any outlandish claims like you are implying. This is an interesting case with a lot of twists, turns, characters and missing pieces, that’s just the truth of it. If you’ve solved the case, please let us idiots know your findings.


First off, my ego is just fine thank you...and no, I'm not "pissed off" and why you would assume something about someone you do not know is laughable.

And exactly what "facts" have you presented as you claim?...it's all been "opinion and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory"...and yes, "people are allowed to have an opinion" but even you must admit that opinion without tangible proof carries very little weight. And so if you really want to change my mind on this topic, then post something compelling.

It's actually pretty simple...Do you have any actual proof or not, yes or no. If yes, then please once and for all, provide it....If no, well, I guess I rest my case.
 
First off, my ego is just fine thank you...and no, I'm not "pissed off" and why you would assume something about someone you do not know is laughable.

And exactly what "facts" have you presented as you claim?...it's all been "opinion and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory"...and yes, "people are allowed to have an opinion" but even you must admit that opinion without tangible proof carries very little weight. And so if you really want to change my mind on this topic, then post something compelling.

It's actually pretty simple...Do you have any actual proof or not, yes or no. If yes, then please once and for all, provide it....If no, well, I guess I rest my case.
You have no case to rest. Your only position is that I’m somehow wrong for having an opinion on the matter and getting butthurt when I try to explain it. That’s literally all you’ve done. You haven’t even tried to counter any of the individual points I’ve made at face value. You continually just demand I prove more and more points without actually disproving anything yourself.

Are you really suggesting that since I haven’t personally solved the entire Jeffrey Epstein case that none of my concerns are valid? Lol. I mean, really??

“I’ll kick back and do zero research. Let me know when you’ve solved the entire case. Until then, you’re just an idiot.”

And by the way, I’ve never claimed any of the theories I may have presented to be 100% proven. They’re ideas, I’m speculating based on what bits and pieces are out there. And you really have no right to shit all over me for doing so, especially if your not going to provide any sort of relevant rebuttal about the case itself.
 
Last edited:
My God, what is wrong with you? I'm surprised your fingers did not spontaneously ignite while you were typing.


For the umpteenth time, my "proof" lies with what the coroner found and attested to and I have seen nothing to sway me otherwise.

I've asked you multiple times to actually post sometime to hang your hat on instead of simply claiming that you did. I've also relayed to you more than once that theories/opinions without actual proof are nothing more than that, theories and opinions. If you have some proof, fine...please provide it.

But I'm not surprised that you have now been reduced to feel the need to hurl a purely personal insult, which is typically that last bastion of someone with nothing else to offer up. As far as your last comment, I won't even dignify it with and answer.
 
hurl a purely personal insult
Never happened.

As for the rest, I’m not here to get you on my side. I’m not hard up to start a movement, I’m genuinely interested in other people’s opinions and theories on the subject. That’s what’s so baffling about you. You absolutely refuse to argue about the case itself, you’d rather keep telling me that the things I say are “just my opinion”. Thanks for the hot take. Generally when people say what they think, that’s their opinion.
 
Never happened.

As for the rest, I’m not here to get you on my side. I’m not hard up to start a movement, I’m genuinely interested in other people’s opinions and theories on the subject. That’s what’s so baffling about you. You absolutely refuse to argue about the case itself, you’d rather keep telling me that the things I say are “just my opinion”. Thanks for the hot take. Generally when people say what they think, that’s their opinion.


When people "Say what they think" it is not the same as someone saying "what they know". If you cannot/will not grasp that simple fact, I really don't know what to tell you.

I have "argued the case" and more than once...but if it helps you I'll repeat it one more time. The coroner concluded that Epstein killed himself...that is "fact", and that is my case and my stance and my proof.


And yes, referring to someone as "an idiot" even in the loosest way, is an insult. And if you are implying that I referred or in any way insinuated that you are "an idiot", that's a flat out lie.
 
Last edited:
The coroner concluded that Epstein killed himself...that is "fact", and that is my case and my stance and my proof.
Another coroner that was also present said the injuries looked more consistent with homicide. I found that interesting enough to not completely overlook it.
referring to someone as "an idiot" even in the loosest way, is an insult. And if you are implying that I referred or in any way insinuated that you are "an idiot", that's a flat out lie.
Clearly you’re unfamiliar with the term ‘paraphrasing’. You should look it up, it will prevent future butthurt episodes and/or crying about “personal insults”.
When people "Say what they think" it is not the same as someone saying "what they know". If you cannot/will not grasp that simple fact, I really don't know what to tell you.
Please cite these examples of me saying “I think” or “I know”.
 
Last edited:
When people "Say what they think" it is not the same as someone saying "what they know". If you cannot/will not grasp that simple fact, I really don't know what to tell you.

I have "argued the case" and more than once...but if it helps you I'll repeat it one more time. The coroner concluded that Epstein killed himself...that is "fact", and that is my case and my stance and my proof.


And yes, referring to someone as "an idiot" even in the loosest way, is an insult. And if you are implying that I referred or in any way insinuated that you are "an idiot", that's a flat out lie.
Given that the sentence in question was in quotes, it was pretty obvious that @jonnyboy was insinuating that you consider him an idiot, rather than calling you one.
 
Two other coroners that were also present said the injuries looked more consistent with homicide. I found that interesting enough to not completely overlook it.

Umm, news to me...do you have a link because I sure can't find one?...and were either of these supposed coroners' names signed on the death certificate/autopsy report?...nope, don't think so.

Clearly you’re unfamiliar with the term ‘paraphrasing’. You should look it up, it will prevent future butthurt episodes and/or crying about “personal insults”.

No, I'm quite familiar with the term "paraphrasing" so there's no need for me to "look it up" and so you can stop with the condescending BS.
But to be clear, you were very vague in your post and never made it clear that you were "paraphrasing" and the use of quotation marks means you you were either referring to me as "an idiot" or your were implying that I referred to you as "an idiot", one or the other.
And you can just stop with the "butthurt episodes and/or crying" accusations when you were the one who 2-3 posts earlier complained that I somehow "shit all over you"....seriously?...where do you get this crap from?


Please cite these examples of me saying “I think” or “I know”.

Does this really need explaining?...You kept offering your opinion which translates into "I think..." as opposed to "I know" which translates into something supported by actual facts which I provided.

And with that, I am done with you and this thread.
 
Given that the sentence in question was in quotes, it was pretty obvious that @jonnyboy was insinuating that you consider him an idiot, rather than calling you one.

Well, that would make him wrong, wouldn't it?

If you look again you'll see that I have already acknowledged and addressed that. And I never stated or implied that he was an "idiot".

If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears.
 
Last edited:
Well, that would make him wrong, wouldn't it?

If you look again you'll see that I have already acknowledged and addressed that. And I never stated or implied that he was an "idiot".

If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears.
I like how you vehemently insist you know what paraphrasing is and then follow that by using examples that prove you clearly have no understanding of it. Is this the most complicated troll job ever?
You’re all over the goddamn place dude, you’re a mess. I’m done talking to you.
 
Translation; you're trying to prove a negative.

And sorry, I'm dealing in facts, not paranoid suspicions. Obsess over it all you want but again, until something compelling changes my mind I will not be consumed by conspiracy theories.
Exactly right. It's a simple as this, if you're going to make an assertion be prepared to back it up. Do not require the reader to prove that your assertion is false. My God, we'd be here all day trying to disprove a ton of false assertions.
 
I like how you vehemently insist you know what paraphrasing is and then follow that by using examples that prove you clearly have no understanding of it. Is this the most complicated troll job ever?
You’re all over the goddamn place dude, you’re a mess. I’m done talking to you.
At this point I would advice yankeesince59 to drop it and move on to something productive.
 
Because WHO "told him to hang on ..."? And I'm sure his lawyer should/would have knowledge of this if in fact it had happened.

He "did" what?

I have yet to see actual evidence of any of this....and until I do, I'm not buying into a conspiracy theory.

You are buying into the ridiculous conspiracy that Epstein killed himself.

Billionaires don't kill themselves.

And Epstein didn't kill himself.
 
Dominic Green: Prince Andrew allegations could be 'biggest royal scandal since Edward VIII palled around with Nazis'
By Charles Creitz | Fox News

The friendship between Prince Andrew and the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein could set off a royal scandal of a magnitude not seen since World War II, according to British columnist and editor Dominic Green.

Green, the life and arts editor for Spectator USA, told "The Story" on Thursday that Andrew's widely-criticized BBC interview about his relationship with Epstein and the Duke of York being "essentially fired" from royal duties by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, could spell trouble for the 59-year-old.

When asked about reports that Prince Charles had lobbied the Queen to move his younger brother out of the limelight, Green said: "I can absolutely believe that."

Green said the FBI wants to speak with Andrew as a witness in its ongoing investigations against Epstein, and that the royal has been "completely unable to exculpate himself."

"This has the makings of the biggest royal scandal since Edward VIII palled around with the Nazis," he said.
Green added it is possible that Andrew could try and hold another interview with the media in hopes of negating the blowback from the first interview.

The writer remarked that Andrew has largely been a "spare part" in the British royal apparatus for many years and that his day-to-day activities have gone under the radar compared to that of his mother, elder brother Charles and nephews William and Harry.

Edward VIII ascended to the throne in January 1936 following the death of his father, George V. However, he served less than a year in that role choosing to abdicate in order to marry twice-divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. His younger brother, George VI, became king -- and was succeeded by daughter Queen Elizabeth II.

Months after Edward's abdication, he and Simpson went on a tour of Germany, where they met Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and were photographed giving Nazi salutes.

“They became very close to Hitler,” British journalist Andrew Morton previously told Fox News. “[Edward] sympathized with Hitler. And even after the war, even after all the horrors of the concentration camps, he said to people at dinner parties, ‘Hitler wasn’t such a bad chap.’"

https://www.foxnews.com/world/prince-andrew-epstein-allegations-edward-viii-greene-says
 
Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA data; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser -- enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.

The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. "That's locked," Graham said.

The new evidence concerning the altered document, which was related to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.

The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.

Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document falsely stated that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.

FBI AGENTS MANIPULATED FLYNN FILE, AS CLAPPER ORDERED 'KILL SHOT,' FILING SAYS

Sources told Fox News last month that U.S. Attorney John Durham's separate, ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation -- and that Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry.

Republicans have long argued that the FBI's alleged FISA abuses, which came as the bureau aggressively pursued ultimately unsubstantiated claims of criminal links between the Trump team and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, were politically motivated. In recent months, a slew of unearthed documents have strengthened those claims.

Just nine days before the FBI applied for its FISA warrant to surveil Page, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages previously obtained by Fox News.

The 2016 messages, sent between Lisa Page and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also revealed that bureau brass circulated at least two anti-Trump blog articles, including a Lawfare blog post sent shortly after Election Day that called Trump possibly "among the major threats to the security of the country."

Fox News is told the texts were connected to the ultimately successful Page application, which relied in part on information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele – whose anti-Trump views are now well-documented – and cited Page’s suspected Russia ties. In its warrant application, the FBI assured the FISA court on numerous occasions that other sources independently corroborated Steele's claims but did not clearly state that Steele worked for a firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing despite more than a year of federal surveillance, and he has since sued numerous actors -- including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) -- for defamation related to claims that he worked with Russia.

"OI [Office of Intelligence] now has a robust explanation re any possible bias of the chs [confidential human source] in the package," Lisa Page wrote to McCabe on Oct. 12, 2016. "Don't know what the holdup is now, other than Stu's continued concerns."

It's unclear whether the confidential source in question was Steele or another individual. "Stu" was an apparent reference to Stuart Evans, then the DOJ's National Security Division deputy assistant attorney general. In one previously unearthed and since-unredacted text message, Strzok texted Page that he was "Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA" in late 2016.

Page is not the only Trump official to allege misconduct by the FBI. Last month, an explosive court filing from Michael Flynn’s legal team alleged that FBI agents manipulated official records of the former national security adviser’s 2017 interview that led to him being charged with lying to investigators. Flynn's attorneys demanded the FBI search its internal "Sentinel" system to find more evidence of allegedly doctored files.

Newly released text messages involving text messages between Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed that Page -- who was not present for the Flynn interview -- had apparently made "edits" to the so-called "302" witness report in the case, which was key to Flynn's prosecution on a false statements charge. Page told Strzok on February 10, 2017 that she “gave my edits to Bill to put on your desk.”

Horowitz told congressional lawmakers in an October letter that his investigation and ensuing report were nearing their conclusion.

FBI BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK TEXTS -- PHONE FROM MUELLER DAYS TOTALLY WIPED

The "lengthy" draft report "concerns sensitive national security and law enforcement matters," Horowitz wrote in the letter, adding that he anticipated "the final report will be released publicly with few redactions."

Horowitz noted that he did not anticipate a need to prepare or issue "separate classified and public versions of the report."

"After we receive the final classification markings from the Department and the FBI, we will then proceed with our usual process for preparing a final report, including ensuring that appropriate reviews occur for accuracy and comment purposes," Horowitz wrote in the letter. "Once begun, we do not anticipate the time for that review to be lengthy."
 
It's actually pretty simple...Do you have any actual proof or not, yes or no. If yes, then please once and for all, provide it....If no, well, I guess I rest my case.

How about showing your proof? It will be hard for you, since you're trying to prove a negative, that he wasn't murdered.

Exactly right. It's a simple as this, if you're going to make an assertion be prepared to back it up.

Absolutely. Okay, were you there? Now would be a good time for you to show your pictures of the suicide. You ARE prepared to back it up, aren't you?
 
You are buying into the ridiculous conspiracy that Epstein killed himself.

Billionaires don't kill themselves.

And Epstein didn't kill himself.
Billionaires kill themselves when faced with a life of eating and living with cockroaches, no life outside of steel bars, wearing prison garb, eating crap food and having your butt used as a playground by the biggest and baddest and no young girls to even look at.
What good is his money in a filthy, dreary, depressing prison full of the kind of noises constantly made by low level bad guys, duties such as cleaning toilets and mopping the floor and a bunk mate from hell?
 
You are buying into the ridiculous conspiracy that Epstein killed himself.

Billionaires don't kill themselves.

And Epstein didn't kill himself.

How about millionaires? Do they commit suicide cause it has been reported that Epstein's worth was around $700 million.
 
What good is his money in a filthy, dreary, depressing prison full of the kind of noises constantly made by low level bad guys, duties such as cleaning toilets and mopping the floor and a bunk mate from hell?
I'm sure he would have been completely unable to bribe himself to a tolerable living situation.
 
I'm sure he would have been completely unable to bribe himself to a tolerable living situation.
Not usually able to bribe although it does sometimes happen. When it happens someone usually gets caught and it's all over the news making people think it's a regular occurrence.
 
The two guards are now rejecting a plea deal and denying any wrongdoing. The state wanted them to accept the lesser charges of falsifying documents and publicly admit accountability, according to those close to the case.

https://apnews.com/11ae6142bbb84af49daae80b94f1b4e2

I heard they were shopping for new motorcycles on the internet instead of watching the prisoners. It's almost like they knew they were suddenly coming into large amounts of money.
 
I heard they were shopping for new motorcycles on the internet instead of watching the prisoners. It's almost like they knew they were suddenly coming into large amounts of money.
I read that they were shopping for motorcycles and furniture, but honestly hadn’t thought of it from that angle. It’s notable, if anything. I could almost see it being a comedy sketch.

It seems if it were little ol’ me against the State of New York I’d probably want to hop on the first safe plea deal, especially if I was actually guilty of the neglect of duty and falsification of records I was charged with. It will be interesting to hear their side of the story.
 
Last edited:
Retitle the thread “...and Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself”. :dunno:
 
78579574_1254408868098479_3383392364671270912_n.jpg
 
[QUOTE="MARIS61, post: 4860906, member: 20874[/QUOTE]



Hmmm...yet another fake/CGI picture. How compelling.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top