Who Killed Epstien?

So, one POS gets what he deserved so that dozens can get away? That sounds like a good deal to you?

 

It's the whole internet now. Because Epstein's "suicide" was fully expected and predicted by those marginalized as "conspiracy theorists". But you know, one feature of a good theory is that it makes accurate predictions.

 

Either you're incredibly short-sighted or you're happy about the coverup. Epstein is one piece of filth among many. His death means that many others will probably get away with their crimes.

 

A normal rational person can easily predict his suicide. Going from being a wealthy guy to a prison where inmates play pick up the soap with him being the mommy is enough to cause him to off himself.

 

You assume that he would spill the bean. I say he probably wouldn't have given that he never even hinted at doing so all these years.

 

A normal rational person can easily predict the suicide of a man who owned a PEDOPHILE ISLAND and had blackmail on some of the most powerful people in the world. Who had a history of getting a slap on the wrist, had just started naming names (which easily could have gotten him immunity or at least another slap on the wrist). He didn't kill himself the first time he was arrested, because he knew he could get off. And he had reason to think he could do it again.

 

But he did.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3762768/posts

 

Sometimes the truth is staring you in the face, but you want to make something else out of it and look for it elsewhere. I'm willing to bet even if the authority did actually come to a conclusion that Epstein did commit suicide, the conspiracy theorists would never let it go. Same with the birthers.

 

Oh? WTF is "freerepublic"? Some nut blog site? If Epstein spilled his gut, then why aren't there additional arrests?

 

Absolutely.Conspiracy theorists will never let it go, for example non-existent Russian collusion, Mueller report,which is only called Mueller"s,it was written by Weissman etc...the number of liberal conspiracy theorists on this forum is just incredible.

 

When evidence stares you in the face, dispute the source (that's called an Ad Hominem, BTW). I'm sure you will only accept the word of "mainstream" people, the kind that Epstein had blackmail on and so of course want this story to die. This was also posted before he died. I guess you missed that part.

Because he was killed before he spilled his guts.

Consider this, because it is key: It makes absolutely no sense that he wouldn't talk in exchange for a light sentence when he had that card to play, but would instead commit suicide. Riddle me that one, Batman.

 

Please do yourself a favor and Google search the meaning of an Ad Hom.

I deal with facts, not fantasies. Get back with me when there are concrete evidence, witnesses, and convictions are handed out.

So what?

He had more that a decade to "spilled his guts" but didn't do so. The last time he was about to head to jail, he most certainly didn't "spilled his guts" then. Perhaps he was dumb but if he had evidence, he should have had an "insurance" policy so if he was killed, everything would be released to prosecutors. But alas, nothing exists.

Because perhaps, he had NO card to play.

 

Great idea.

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

IOW, exactly what you did by dismissing the evidence with a "some nut blog site" answer. You attacked the source instead of the argument.

No, you deny facts when they aren't spoon fed to you by the MSM.

Really? You don't understand the significance? It's pretty damn obvious. If it was posted prior to his death, then it wasn't someone making stuff up for a "conspiracy theory" because there was no need to explain a death that hadn't happened yet.

Clearly, he never needed to. He was able to buy/blackmail his way out of it.

Weird, I thought you said you dealt in facts. But I'm just seeing assumptions.

Are you denying that he had blackmail on powerful people?

"The International Business Times reported that papers filed in a 2006 lawsuit alleged that Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places on his property to record sexual activity with underage girls by prominent people for criminal purposes, such as blackmail."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

 

Wrong. Attacking you would be an Ad Hom, not attacking the blog. In this case YOU are the one making the argument. Point out where I have attacked your character.

The investigators have not make any arrests other than Epstein, so what make you think that a bunch of anonymous posters on the internet would know any better than they do.

So what? Those posts have nothing to do with anything. What do those posts have anything to do with his death? nothing, nada, zilch.

Prove it

Nope. I deal in facts. And the facts are, thus far investigators have not mentioned foul play in his death, no matter how you wish it be. Thus far, there haven't been conclusive evidence/proofs that any of those people on his list, other than Epstein, is guilty of child rape.

Where is the evidence and or proof? Because if he DID have any of evidence, he would have had an "insurance" policy for an occasion such as this.

Look up the meaning of "alleged."

 

I repeated an argument made by the cited source. But you're obviously just trying to weasel out by splitting hairs. The point is, you attacked the source instead of what it said, and that is a fallacy regardless of what you want to call it. I'm not going to play semantic games.

Investigators haven't made any arrests YET. Dude hasn't even been dead half a week. And the FBI just raided his island today.

Duh. Exactly. They don't have anything to do with his death because he wasn't dead. The relevance is what he was going to do had he lived.

Oh, come the hell on. You think he got a sweetheart deal like that by not at least paying someone off? Now I know you can't be serious.

Oh yeah, all those people went to Pedophile Island to not rape children.

Maybe his insurance policy got burned while he was indisposed. Or maybe he didn't think he would need it. Looking at the smirk this POS constantly had on his face tells you he thought he was untouchable. Hubris breeds carelessness.

Wow. Just wow. You're just going to deny everything. I'm starting to think you have some interest in seeing the MANY people who went to pedo island get away with it. Bill, is that you?

 

That you see witch hunts or can produce a few stats concerning sentencing irregularities does not mean this:
"
Ddyad said: ↑
Do you think its okay for "law enforcement and justice employees" to break the laws if they think it will advance justice? And do you deny that they do that?"

 

You sure as hell don't understand what an Ad Hom means because you have just committed one. You are full of assumptions. Without any other evidence, I'll stay with the suicide track. I'm sure even if the official ruling is suicide, you will go on with your conspiracy theory.

 

Don't worry, they're still going to investigate all of epstein's pals, so trump is still nervous. He'll end up trying to scapegoat Barr if the heat gets too much.

 

They'll be lobbying for sainthood for their obese orange hope next.

 

Next, he'll be calling the investigation into epstein's death a witch hunt.

 

Trump has nothing to be nervous about, a whole lot of Democrats, including Old man Billy however do.

 

So, is THIS an ad hominem?

 

Considering the DOJ is in charge of that prison and he is head of the DOJ

 

My impression is that Barr is there to protect the institutions he now runs.
I doubt that he has any interest in cleaning them up.

 

May well be that Epstein was allowed to kill himself.