This is kind of mind-blowing to me. First case in my lifetime where a US corporation appears to have murdered someone for political reasons. Has this happened before? I assume it has but it's very rare.
Not a US corporation but when it came to light that French defense contractor Thomson-CSF (now Thales) had bribed Taiwan official to award them a defense contract, no less than six whistleblowers died, three of them defenestrated; most famously Thierry Imbot, who fell from the fourth story closing his window shutters on a windy evening, supposedly the night before he was to meet a journalist.
He was shot and there aren't any double blind studies that prove that police are capable of reliably distinguishing self inflicted wounds from non-self inflicted wounds.
Yes, the point is that unless they actually take the time to do something like that, you might see that the victim has no residue on their hand and could not have shot themselves.
> The article we're commenting on, where a friend attests he was told explicitly that any "suicide" is fowl play.
Isn't there obvious reporting bias here? People typically don't go around saying "btw I'm going to kill myself, if that happens assume it's not foul play", so it shouldn't be too surprising that people kill themselves even though they said they wouldn't. Moreover people who actually tell people they're going to kill themselves likely will receive intervention (eg. suicide watch/hospitalization), which further drives up the relative rate of people committing suicide "unexpectedly".
If you dismiss all the evidence "supporting this theory" (your words) then obviously you wouldn't find anything that supports it.
Evidence does not have to be perfect. Even biased evidence should update your priors. There is evidence supporting this theory. It doesn't mean it is definitely true.
> If you dismiss all the evidence "supporting this theory" (your words) then obviously you wouldn't find anything that supports it.
Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that vaguely conforms to the narrative of "he got killed by boeing", regardless of how shaky it is.
>Evidence does not have to be perfect. Even biased evidence should update your priors. There is evidence supporting this theory. It doesn't mean it is definitely true.
This feels like a motte and bailey. You claim that we should update our priors even based on biased evidence, but I never claimed otherwise. My previous comment merely pointed out the issues with taking statements like "if anything happens don't assume it's a suicide" at face value. Moreover the comment I was replying to wasn't merely claiming that we should update our priors, it was that the evidence in question was "plenty, together with the obvious motive, to form an opinion". That's a much stronger claim.
> Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that
I literally said one must update their priors, not just "accepting" it. Or maybe updating priors is a form of "acceptance", but now you claim it isn't a problem:
> You claim that we should update our priors even based on biased evidence, but I never claimed otherwise
The comment you replied to just answered your question: "is there anything supporting this theory". Presumably everyone here knows basic Bayesian probability, or at least knows how to weigh supporting evidence without just blindly accepting it. Claiming otherwise seems to be rather uncharitable interpretation of the comment you replied to.
> Sure, it's nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt"
To the extent that I do not think it would even be admissible in court in many (all?) states. Hearsay, not under oath, not cross-examinable. Just as possible she misunderstood the dark joke of an obviously suicidal and self-reflective man as people like you and me at Boeing literally arranged to have someone killed lmao.
I can basically only think of more plausible explanations: coincidental victim of murder, suicidal due to stress of whistle-blowing, witness misheard, witness misunderstood, witness made it up…
I can really hear the bottom of the barrel being scraped around here lately.
It doesn't benefit Boeing because of all of this brainless conspiracy thinking, and his allegations over the past 5 years had nothing to do with the current 737 MAX stuff. It was all 787 related which by all reports has been a successful, safe aircraft. The horse has been out of the barn, his words were reported in the NYTimes years ago. Assassinating him now had no upside for Boeing and large downside because of all this predictable inane speculation.
It's far more likely that he simply changed his mind after making the statement attributed to him than it is Boeing would arrange for him to be murdered five years after the fact.
Not "Boeing" in its official capacity, but it has a lot of executives and shareholders, only one of which needs to have the hubris to think they can get away with it. That seems a lot more likely.
Yes with their stock at a near record low for the decade, now is certainly the time for Boeing's largest shareholders (Vanguard and Blackrock) to take decisive action by inexplicably murdering someone five years too late to make a difference, and who - if left alive - could have potentially been the single most effective means for the shareholders to take revenge on the executives responsible for the company's demise. Jesus christ.
You're not responding in good faith. It just takes one person--one out of thousands of people--who is thinking criminally instead of rationally. Of course it's not going to be "Vanguard" (again not a person!) But it might very well be a low-level VP who thinks they will go to jail if this person is allowed to testify.
And so statistically this seems a lot more likely than this otherwise stable person committing suicide for no reason and after having an explicit discussion with their family about it.
In criminal law this sort of nonsense is explicitly inadmissible in court. It's why during the OJ Simpson criminal trial it was not possible for the defense to do anything more than point out inconsistencies with the chain of evidence: they could not say that it pointed to or was in any way evidence of a conspiracy. (In other words: you can't just say "it could be something else" because that's facile, easy to do, and has no means of disproof. So fucking prove it would be a useful rule to adopt.)
Anyway, I'll be more charitable since this isn't court and you aren't a lawyer, but the substance of my point remains: even the circumstantial evidence does not appear to support murder. Certainly if it were murder it would be revenge, given that the whistle was blown five years ago, and the whistleblower will have provided sworn affidavits and is unlikely to be the difference between conviction and freedom for any individual.
Moreover your insinuation of "a low-level VP" worrying about the testimony seems be totally euphemistic. Do you have any evidence that any one individual or number of individuals might be facing jail time as a result of the whistleblower's testimony, and could somehow avoid it without their direct testimony under cross-examination?
I'm glad you've moved away from the insinuation that it might be a shareholder somehow taking it out on the guy for no reason, at least. Now you have all of your work ahead of you to explain how and why a Boeing executive would be motivated to murder someone five years after the fact when the damage is very probably already done.
> And so statistically
Suspect what you're about to say is going to be nothing to do with statistics
> this seems a lot more likely than this otherwise stable person
Just so we're clear, you think that this…
"A Boeing executive committed or arranged a premeditated murder in public in broad daylight, five years after the fact, and made it look like suicide."
…is more probable than this…
"A whistleblower killed himself."
Let's simplify it a bit: given 100 cases of whistleblowing, do you think you would see greater incidence of murder/violence perpetrated on the whistleblower, or greater incidence of the whistleblowers experiencing meaningfully deterioration of mental health?
What about this one[^1]? Murder as well? What about Ian Gibbons? Elizabeth Holmes presumably killed him?
I did say "appears," but this is some Epstein levels of "coincidence." I'm not really a conspiracy-theory type, but I mean c'mon. Does anyone believe that Epstein killed himself?
Yes, I do. Like you, I found the circumstances of Epstein's death incredibly suspicious and thought it was a murder. But the more information that has come out, the more it looks like it was a typical prison suicide. [The latest AP article](https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-jail-suicide-pris...) is pretty good.
>Two weeks before ending his life, Jeffrey Epstein sat in the corner of his Manhattan jail cell with his hands over his ears, desperate to muffle the sound of a toilet that wouldn’t stop running.
If you believe Epstein was murdered you are in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of very gullible or very simple minded people. Upon a cursory review of both the facts of the matter and the very best arguments conspiracists can copy and paste, it is self-evident that he killed himself.
> And the cameras just happened to be out of order when he chose to kill himself of course.
I know you think this is really brilliant invective, but it just reveals that you don't know what you're talking about.
Epstein was being monitored by guards and cameras in part because he had already tried to kill himself once. (I suppose you don't dispute that?)
The cameras you're referring to are the specific cameras with his cell door in their FOV. MCC New York had a history of such lapses, and the cameras were seized and analysed by the FBI. No evidence was found of anything other than the US prison system being shitty.
But more importantly there were functioning cameras showing the entrance to Epstein's block from the accessible communal area an assassin would have used for entrance/egress. From the DOJ report:
> Thus, anyone entering or attempting to enter Epstein’s SHU tier from the SHU common area would have been picked up by that video camera.
And would make the two guards who admitted falsifying reports… the worst patsies in history? And presumably the FBI and DOJ are in on it too? And the camera footage showing nobody entered his block is fake too?
It's so achingly dumb. HN has a really awful conspiratorial leaning these days, it's completely baffling to me.
> And would make the two guards who admitted falsifying reports… the worst patsies in history?
Maybe in 5 or 10 years, they get paid off. History teaches that truth isn't available immediately or at the time. The world is a rough place and I can wait to be convinced. As patsies, they are possibly the best, given the outcome today.
> And presumably the FBI and DOJ are in on it too?
Now you're just reaching.
> It's so achingly dumb.
Ah, the sideways name calling. Good luck with that.
I will be explicit: if, after reading the DOJ report and reviewing the facts of the case, you believe that Epstein was murdered, then your critical thinking is sub-normal. An average police officer would grok this.
If a powerful individual had:
1. Much to lose in the event of Epstein cooperating (he wasn't), and,
2. The means to arrange a complex assassination (in a prison, in solitary confinement, and -- I repeat that this is a matter of fact for which you have zero repudiation -- without being seen by the security cameras which were active and monitoring the entrance to Epstein's block from the communal entrance), and,
3. The public knowledge that Epstein had weeks earlier attempted to commit suicide (I literally cannot believe I'm having to enumerate this)…
… why wouldn't you simply pressure Epstein to commit suicide and obviate the insane risk of detection or mishap in a scheme to murder him that would, at a minimum, require either the cooperation of multiple heretofore uncontrolled/unknown operatives within the prison, in addition to the brokering and lifting being done by a proxy (i.e.: at least 3 people, probably closer to 5-10, all of whom would be highly brittle points of failure both during and after the operation)?
Or find a way to provide him with the mysterious extra bed sheets[^1] if he were intending on doing it anyway? You know, perhaps on an unmonitored telephone call[^2] made to his "mother" (dead for years) immediately prior to the suicide?
Sorry, but yes you are dumb if you think Epstein was murdered in prison. You are knowingly taking a position unsupported by fact, considered and rejected by thousands of more qualified investigators from across the judiciary, and the best you can appear to do is accuse me of not being gentle in my treatment of your utterly inane conjecture.
You are leaping to the most exciting conclusion and rejecting the myriad simpler ones supported by the overwhelming evidence. Each of the following is inescapably a simpler and more likely explanation for his death than him being murdered:
1) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to deteriorated mental health,
2) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to his fear of being mistreated or murdered by an inmate (he's a pedophile in prison etc.),
3) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to his fear of being murdered by a guard in the employ of people he might betray,
4) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to his fear of loved ones being murdered at the behest of people he might betray,
5) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to being provided the means by guards operating at the behest of people he might betray,
6) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide due to befriending a guard who took pity on him or to whom he promised or arranged financial reward himself (yes, it's more likely Epstein was motivated to essentially pay for his own suicide than someone murdered him in his prison cell, sigh),
7) He succeeded in his second attempt at suicide because he was pressured by external forces capable of harming those he loved.
It's just staggering that you cannot evaluate this properly. I don't want to be unkind, I'm sure you're very smart and a lovely person, but I would encourage you to discuss this with any lawyer, prosecutor, or investigator you might have access to and go through the facts line by line. You should absolutely be alarmed that you are out of step with so many informed individuals on this, even before considering people like me who are simply 50th percentile with logic.
> It's easy when your world view hinges on the fact that responsible adults are running the world.
Or when you look at the reams of evidence supporting a verdict of suicide and the other side has conspiratorial non-arguments like this.
If any of you get selected for jury duty I would encourage you to please show an adult this thread so you can be recused on grounds of mental incapacity.
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but it does not seem accurate to categorize this as a fringe theory. According to a Insider poll conducted in 2019, over 40% of respondents thought that he was killed and less than 20% were convinced that he committed suicide. I also think it is inaccurate to categorize the issue as having sharp clarity in either direction as you are doing.
Sorry but lol at Insider being your source for robust polling of the American zeitgeist. In 2019 Certus put the figure of Americans believing he was murdered at 35%, with the remainder believing it to be suicide or "don't know".
"Don't know" is the critical thing here: there aren't too many more crazy conspiracists who could be shown the overwhelming evidence of suicide and conclude that it was murder.
And, of course, irrespective: literally any thinking person who can read the DOJ report will immediately conclude that it's suicide. It's just inarguable (hence the arguments in this thread being mainly "b-b-b-b-but shadowy cabal of powerful people!!!1" and not anything to do with, for example, Epstein already having attempted suicide once, or the camera footage showing nobody entering his block, etc.
I used it as an example of polling, as I thought it was merely an interesting poll result, but I never said I had any given opinion of the source. I looked up the Certus Insights poll you've mentioned, which also had interesting results. The results were that 37% believed it was likely suicide and 35% believed it was likely murder. That is a 51.3% vs 48.6% split for those who did not respond that they were unsure. These two figures are quite close. To add to that, the Certus poll found that over 30% each of Democrats, Independents and Republicans believed it to be murder. That is not a tiny fringe as you claimed it to be.
As an aside, I don't believe that most of the 1/3 of each party's members that were polled think that there is some sort of "dark cabal". That is just you baselessly projecting, just as was your unnecessary projection of opinion of using an Insider poll.
It isn't interesting or useful because conspiracists fail to interpret "don't know" or "unsure" appropriately given the context of polling. It doesn't mean "I have reviewed the facts and I am undecided".
> Certus poll found that over 30% each of Democrats, Independents and Republicans believed it to be murder.
I believe the Certus poll found that of those who believed him to be murdered, that was the split along political lines.
> That is not a tiny fringe as you claimed it to be.
Three in ten is a tiny minority – winning a vote with 70% would be considered a landslide – but you're right it's a scarily high number of loudmouthed imbeciles.
The good news is that you don't have to worry! Adults are in charge! Hundreds of thousands of smart, capable people are employed to investigate things like this, and will cheerfully tell you that it's far more likely that the unmonitored and illicit phone call made by Epstein directly before his suicide was him being told to have another go or risk the lives of friends or loved ones. (What with that being fucking orders of magnitude easier to do than having a hitman break into solitary confinement in a prison.)
> just as was your unnecessary projection of opinion of using an Insider poll.
Business Insider is right up there with Yahoo Answers for robust, disinterested polling data.
The sentence that you snarkily attempted a grammatical correction on, does not contain a grammatical mistake. Considering the text of your comments contained in this exchange, with the sparse attempts at employing correct grammar, I'd recommend against attempts at grammatical correction like this in the future.
Since it is not clear that English is your first language due to your poor grasp of my comment, the sentence in question contains "it" in reference to the circumstance of the death, as an object of the verb "believed", not the person of Epstein. The phrase "it was murder" is a complement to the verb "believed", meaning that subject of "Democrats, Independents and Republicans", had an belief that what occurred (it) was murder.
Also, the percentages I mentioned, which were cited in the linked page, do not represent the split along political lines, but represent a separate percentage for each, as I said. Since you also don't seem to recall elementary arithmetic, 40% + 32% + 33% = 105%, not 100%.
How is it self-evident? I agree that evidence of a murder is not conclusive but evidence of a suicide is virtually nonexistent. What facts in this case are consistent with suicide but not with murder?
2. Source? Was this footage ever published? It also doesn't rule out someone inside the prison killing him which is much easier to arrange.
3. The article you linked doesn't confirm the video exists. It says that some officials said it existed but then it wasn't found when searched for. And in any case first suicide attempt is not inconsistent with murder.
4. Current and past New York City's Chief Medical Examiners were both present during the autopsy and strongly disagree over the results.
> Now you go. Tell me what evidence you have of murder. Address all of my points. Read the DOJ report.
Read my original message again. I'm not saying there is a solid evidence of murder. I'm saying there's no solid evidence of suicide that would rule out murder, so you can't say that "suicide is self-evident".
I don't know anyone who doesn't believe he was killed. It's a narrative of the popular culture. eg Clinton's bj in the whitehouse or Xi Ping disappearing people or any organization that does an internal audit to find no wrongdoing.
It is fundamental to this discussion that the narrative you describe is fringe (credible polling puts it at around 30% uptake) and directly contradicted by both the evidence and conclusions reached by the institutions required to evaluate said evidence (DOJ, FBI).
It is a narrative in the same way as flat earthism or QAnon are narratives. We should be careful to not imply equivalence ("both sides"-ing) to the situation: there is reality, and then there is a group of people who either do not possess the facts (many people in this thread, for example), or are unfortunately not capable of grasping them for whatever reason.
> Clinton's BJ was in popular culture before the conviction.
Clinton was credibly and publicly accused by an individual, and had a long history of such accusations.
> Pointing to a legal case is moving the goalpost.
My point is that there is no equivalence between Clinton and Epstein, but I don't think you were drawing any really, you were just saying (I think?) that they were both narratives that took hold prior to the facts being established and conclusions reached.
> It is not and does not.
Just sit down and try to write the narrative of what happened and you might see what I mean:
1. Was it the guards, or a professional assassin?
2. If guards: how were they identified? Who put them on the right shift at the right time? Who else helped? How did the benefactor of the scheme know that the guards wouldn't grass on the approach? How did the benefactor of the scheme find the guards and approach them? When the guards walked into the room, how did they restrain Epstein without injuring him or leaving behind any DNA evidence? Did they tie the bedsheets together before or after the murder? How would they be remunerated given the scrutiny on them and their associates from the FBI? Why would they admit to falsifying logs and draw more attention to themselves rather than engineering an excuse less likely to draw huge scrutiny?
3. If professional assassin: how did they get in without being seen on the security cameras monitoring the single point of entrance/egress from Epstein's block? How did they get into the prison through multiple layers of security? Were the guards also paid off? How did the assassin restrain him without injuring him or themselves? Why would you go to the trouble of infiltrating a prison - which is after all an axiomatically hard thing to do – when the guy had already tried to hang himself weeks earlier?
4. General: why do you discount the conclusions of the DOJ psychologist who reviewed Epstein's prison records and evaluations and concluded that it was suicide? Why would a shadowy figure trying to kill Epstein not simply pressure him from the outside by threatening his family (given that they apparently have the capacity to infiltrate a prison facility utterly unnoticed)? Why would you conclude that Epstein's first suicide attempt was sincere but his second was not? Why would you leave it until after he was suicidal and by all accounts uncooperative with the authorities to kill him rather than killing him at a time when it was both easier to achieve and less clear that he would not cooperate? Why do you think the FBI found no cause for suspicion in the testimony of the guards, if you think they did it or were in the loop?
People who spout conspiratorial nonsense with conviction and a poor grasp of the facts / ability to reason are the very reason conspiracy theories propagate. You might be a brilliant mind in other areas, but you should know that to the 70% of the population who do not believe that Epstein was murdered, you are in broadly the same bucket as someone who believes they saw Elvis alive in Hawaii a few weeks ago.
may be she just knew less incriminating shit. Could also be that one death as an example, to keep her in line from saying anything too incriminating (against somebody who's capable of orchestrating a prison "suicide").
Not in your lifetime but wasn’t Jefferson murdered by the banks for wanting to ban interest on the dollar? Same for President Jackson, he was shot but not killed for the same reason.
There's mounting evidence that someone could had dismissed safety to get more profits, and then some planes fell off the sky. That could escalate to involuntary manslaughter quickly.
