Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 38 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,274,093
About a year ago Virginia Giuffre retracted her allegations against him - said she made a mistake and he didn't rape her. What else has she been lying about?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,140
@1,274,093 (D)
If you read the actual statements by her and Dershiwitz about them dropping their mutual lawsuits against each other (he had countersued her and her legal team numerous times), you'll find the wording very quaint. She never said he didn't rape her, she only said he "might" have not. Another curious fact: Prince Andrew was reported to have made a "significant" donation to Giuffre's charity within days of the announcement. Who knows what other assets changed hands. Dershiwitz couldn't pressure her into silence, so she was paid off. There's no doubt about it.
The guy's been doing this for decades, although he's losing his way and his social connections are running dry, so he's finding himself having to resort to increasingly expensive options to stay out of prison. Social connections are why he's been such an effective attorney for so long. He can pressure and threaten anyone into submission. It really brings to light how much a fraud the upper levels of law are.
A few years back an assistant professor went public about the fact that Dershiwitz had plagiarized a significant amount of content in one of his books. Dershiwitz responded by contacting the school and advising that the school not give the guy tenure, and what a surprise, he didn't get tenure. There's a long list of incidents like this. This is the guy behind Epstein's original sweetheart plea deal.
boof (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,141
@previous (E)
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that Dershiwitz never wrote any of the book, but used a ghost writer that did a bit of plagiarizing. It would explain how he seemed not to be very familiar with the contents of his own book
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,148
Can someone tell me why so many people believe Epstein was killed? I can understand why many would question whether he killed himself. There are many strange and unexpected coincidences that happened to not find the suicide story at least a little suspicious.
But you know what's also suspicious? That he wrote and signed a new will 2 days before. If he knew he was going to be killed, why wouldn't he go public with it in some way or another?
Sounds more likely that the third obvious possibility is most likely: he was let out. Given he was literally let out to walk on beaches for "exercise" in his first prison stay and his otherwise laughably lax time there and the number of people who had quite a lot to lose by having this go to trial and given constant media attention, it seems quite, quite likely that something like this happened. I don't think a guy like Epstein stays alive for decades blackmailing those that he did without a dead man's switch, likely through multiple independent attorneys with copies of the videos he was later discovered to have made in stealth. His whole house had stealth cameras throughout it.
Letting him walk is a big liability, and it's expensive even if no one ever catches him.
Multiple camera failures, multiple guards not checking in, and no indication beforehand that he was suicidal.
The motive is that he had dirt on countless elites in positions of power. The man in charge of US prisons (Barr running the DOJ) was the son of the guy who got Epstein his first job at a high school.1
Lots of motive, means, and convenient coincidences.
> Letting him walk is a big liability, and it's expensive even if no one ever catches him.
He had a large number of billionaires, former head of states, royalty under his thumb. They could've collectively ensured he live out the rest of his life on a nice island resort with a whole harem of 12 year old prostitutes without even digging into their couch for a spare cent.
The rest of the reasons you gave could just as well explain him being let out. Camera failures, Barr, etc. Epstein and Barr coming together was quite viral (okay, lame joke, but their names together always reminds me).
If it were that easy to kill him off, there were a long list of people that would've done that decades ago.
And I've still yet to have anyone give me a compelling reason why he updated his will 2 days before he "died".
What do you think happened? Why didn't they kill him before? Should've happened as I said, years, decades earlier. Would've been a lot easier in so many ways.
I always find it strange so few people seriously talk about the possibility that he was let out. It's almost like the news articles try to frame it as if there were only two options. Already there's been so much about this case that I wouldn't of believed if you or anyone told me. Yet you can read it all in black and white on wikipedia, which viscerally hates anything with the tinge of "conspiracy" to it. When even they can't deny a lot of this happened, it makes me wonder what didn't make it to the press yet (or ever will, perhaps)
He had an island before, and a lot of billionaire friends. It took a random cop and a no-name journalist to unravel his secrets.
If he couldn't manage it before, how is he going to stay secret when everyone knows who he is?
Everyone in power would rather just kill him off and find a new pimp. It's quicker, more convenient, and much safer for their reputations. Just the peace of mind would make it worth it.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,168
The other thing is the risk of killing him, I wonder, may've been too great.
How could they've known he didn't have some lawyer in who-knows-where or who knows which country that he previously setup and told to release his large cache of videos if he ever died in suspicious circumstances? This is the only reason I believe he was able to get to this level.
I doubt any of them would've had the confidence that they'd had eliminated each and possibly every one of his unknown number of dead man's switches. Seems less riskier to rid themselves of a little pocket change and see him out to his own private island. Epstein would've had just an interest in disappearing and remaining off the radar as they would. If he's still alive, he has literally nothing to gain by announcing his presence. "Everyone" wins by just letting him escape.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,169
@previous (E)
If he had kompromat then his deadman switch could be triggered when he's behind bars for too long, or if they let him out then one day he slips in the bathroom and the videos get released.
There isn't much they can do to mitigate that specific circumstance. There are hundreds of scenarios from him giving an interview, to talking to a cellmate that could be prevented by killing him off. So they killed him.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,170
@1,274,167 (B) > If he couldn't manage it before, how is he going to stay secret when everyone knows who he is?
Plastic surgery.
He was able to pull this off for so long, but failed. That goes both ways. How was he able to pull it off so long? There are quite simply a lot of people in the world who don't give a fuck as long as they're paid.
His DNA will still be the same. Plastic surgery won't stop his bastard child from signing up for 23andme.
the plastic surgeon has to keeps his lips sealed too.
or he will just out himself stupidly like he did the first time, and some journalist will reveal that not only do the elites have child sex rings, but they have nefarious plastic surgeons too that help them hide people.
> If he had kompromat then his deadman switch could be triggered when he's behind bars for too long
Sounds like another reason to get him out! That would be the switch working as intended.
> or if they let him out then one day he slips in the bathroom and the videos get released.
Possible, but he wasn't 95 years old. Freak accidents happen. But they're rare. What's not rare is dying in incredibly suspicious circumstances in prison. Sounds like a 100% chance of setting off every dead man's switch you could ever dream of.
You haven't told me how he would've known to have updated his will 2 days before he died if he didn't already know he was going to "die".
Don't get me wrong, though. I think we agree on a lot of the fundamentals. I think there are a lot of people that had every intent in having him killed. I don't dispute that at all. If I were to accept that he were killed, from what I know now, I'd find it more likely he was let out, led to a private island in hopes he'd diffuse all the switches "I'm okay now, just going to go dark now as I retire on this island" AND THEN killed. Although personally I don't think there was a need to kill him with the wonders of plastic surgery and a massively aligned interest in him never being found or discovered again.
> His DNA will still be the same. Plastic surgery won't stop his bastard child from signing up for 23andme.
Does 23and me have a "relatedness to Epstein" feature now? So what. Let them sign up. By the time or if it's ever discovered that he's definitely their father, Epstein would've been dead anyway.
And even if this were such a huge risk, Epstein could just choose to not have children. Doesn't seem like that hard of a problem to solve.
> the plastic surgeon has to keeps his lips sealed too.
Not if:
A) He doesn't know who Epstein is
B) He doesn't care
C) He's dead
Not sure how many plastic surgeons have dead men's switches. I'm guessing not many.
> or he will just out himself stupidly like he did the first time, and some journalist will reveal that not only do the elites have child sex rings, but they have nefarious plastic surgeons too that help them hide people.
Maybe so. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. This time it seems a lot more serious. I don't think Epstein was/is all that intelligent, but I don't think he's that stupid. He could just be happy to be out. With how crazy a lot of the stuff is that has come out, I honestly don't even know how much it'd matter if it did come out. We have new leaks of fraud, corruption, money laundering from world leaders like every other year. The public is like "oh, that sucks we should do something about it" and then nothing is done about it and the news covers something else and the cycle repeats. A few people like you and I may discuss it, possibly well beyond or after any given news cycle, but to no effect other than concluding "oh, that sucks we should do something about it". Or maybe not concluding anyting at all other than "that guy's wrong". ANd also doing nothing about it.
> > Why overcomplicate it? They don't need him.
Because your answer is not the simplest. It raises an even more puzzling series of questions about why he wasn't killed before.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,182
@1,274,140 (E) > Dershiwitz couldn't pressure her into silence, so she was paid off. There's no doubt about it.
Yes, either way she's made fat piles of cash out of accusing all these people, because she knows very well that even if it's a lie or a half-truth, it's far more career destroying and damaging for their reputation if they don't pay her off. Epstein certainly trained her well in the art of taking money from the rich and famous.
You've only got to watch an interview or two with Dershiwitz to see quite clearly he's a pathological liar. The question is, what is he lying about exactly. The abuse accusations feel like a massive red herring.
Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing turned out to be a big grift and they're all turning on each other now that the kingpin is out of the picture.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,197
@1,274,173 (E) > Does 23and me have a "relatedness to Epstein" feature now? So what. Let them sign up. By the time or if it's ever discovered that he's definitely their father, Epstein would've been dead anyway.
Any cousin of his that's on there would give away the bastard, and then investigators would search his sparsely populated island and find him quickly.
> Because your answer is not the simplest. It raises an even more puzzling series of questions about why he wasn't killed before.
He was killed not long after being caught.
> A) He doesn't know who Epstein is
A plastic surgeon who never goes online?
> C) He's dead
Exactly, it's easier to kill off witnesses. Which is why they'd skip the hit on the surgeon, and kill Epstein in prison instead.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,203
@previous (B) > Any cousin of his that's on there would give away the bastard, and then investigators would search his sparsely populated island and find him quickly.
Why would they even be looking? He's "dead".
> A plastic surgeon who never goes online?
Doesn't have to be. Many, many people outside the Anglosphere do not know about Epstein.
> Which is why they'd skip the hit on the surgeon, and kill Epstein in prison instead.
And then risk triggering a previously undiscovered dead man's switch? Sounds a lot riskier. Again, why did they not do this over a decade ago? How would Epstein have known to update his will 2 days before? You're brushing the largest questions under the rug and then claiming you've found the simplest explanation.
Anonymous E double-posted this 2 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,204
@1,274,197 (B) > He was killed not long after being caught.
He had been blackmailing for years. And he went through a whole separate trial and conviction years before the most recent one. So, no, he wasn't killed soon after being caught.
> > Dershiwitz couldn't pressure her into silence, so she was paid off. There's no doubt about it. > > Yes, either way she's made fat piles of cash out of accusing all these people, because she knows very well that even if it's a lie or a half-truth, it's far more career destroying and damaging for their reputation if they don't pay her off. Epstein certainly trained her well in the art of taking money from the rich and famous. > > You've only got to watch an interview or two with Dershiwitz to see quite clearly he's a pathological liar. The question is, what is he lying about exactly. The abuse accusations feel like a massive red herring. > > Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing turned out to be a big grift and they're all turning on each other now that the kingpin is out of the picture.
Sounds about right to me. I do think it's most likely Dershiwitz was involved and her accounts are closer to the truth than his. But who knows how much is being played up here.
It's funny (well not really), because I suspect there's more than enough evidence to prove without any doubt one way or another, since Epstein kept video surveillance of these encounters. But of course none of that will be used to convict anyone or actually reach any jury because that's a little too much of an open and shut case for anyone to stomach. And as an aside, what would we need high profile lawyers like Dershiwitz for if we actually just let the evidence speak for itself.
> >Any cousin of his that's on there would give away the bastard, and then investigators would search his sparsely populated island and find him quickly. > Why would they even be looking? He's "dead".
This doesn't require someone actively looking. Algorithms connecting people would lead them to finding out who the cousin is. > > >A plastic surgeon who never goes online? > Doesn't have to be. Many, many people outside the Anglosphere do not know about Epstein.
What's the point of breaking him out to tuck him away out of civilization and the society he works with? Someone rubbing elbows with multiple celebrities on any weekend isn't going to want to "hide" as the one white guy in some abo village away from the CCTVs.
> >Which is why they'd skip the hit on the surgeon, and kill Epstein in prison instead. > And then risk triggering a previously undiscovered dead man's switch? Sounds a lot riskier. Again, why did they not do this over a decade ago? How would Epstein have known to update his will 2 days before? You're brushing the largest questions under the rug and then claiming you've found the simplest explanation.
You are taking it for granted that all these accomplished politicians and royalty never thought about kompromat. That's an oversight, everyone at that level knows how to keep plausible deniability and isn't doing anything that hasn't been cleared by their people first. A team of people to sweep the hotel room as a matter of routine, let alone when their doing their kiddy diddling. @1,274,204 (E)
> He had been blackmailing for years. And he went through a whole separate trial and conviction years before the most recent one. So, no, he wasn't killed soon after being caught.
> > >Any cousin of his that's on there would give away the bastard, and then investigators would search his sparsely populated island and find him quickly. > > Why would they even be looking? He's "dead". > This doesn't require someone actively looking. Algorithms connecting people would lead them to finding out who the cousin is.
Many times people have been told to drop the case. Or that this guy is untouchable. No reason to think this couldn't or wouldn't happen again. "he's dead. don't waste your career chasing a conspiracy theory. focus on another case."
> > > > >A plastic surgeon who never goes online? > > Doesn't have to be. Many, many people outside the Anglosphere do not know about Epstein. > > What's the point of breaking him out to tuck him away out of civilization and the society he works with? Someone rubbing elbows with multiple celebrities on any weekend isn't going to want to "hide" as the one white guy in some abo village away from the CCTVs.
To not trigger a possible dead man's switch. how many times do I have to say this
> > > He had been blackmailing for years. And he went through a whole separate trial and conviction years before the most recent one. So, no, he wasn't killed soon after being caught. > > Wrong.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,215
> To not trigger a possible dead man's switch. how many times do I have to say this
Like I said:
> You are taking it for granted that all these accomplished politicians and royalty never thought about kompromat. That's an oversight, everyone at that level knows how to keep plausible deniability and isn't doing anything that hasn't been cleared by their people first. A team of people to sweep the hotel room as a matter of routine, let alone when their doing their kiddy diddling.
He didn't have kompromat on the big players, because they wouldn't make it that far if they didn't have a team stopping that from happening to begin with. Billionares and royals, not clumsy new rich celebs.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,217
@previous (B) > Billionares and royals, not clumsy new rich celebs.
Wrong. He had full power of attorney on Wexner. And likely had similar power over many others.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,220
@previous (B)
To suggest that Epstein didn't have kompromat on him is delusional. No one needed Epstein to turn anything into a prostitution ring. No one needed him to run a business empire, when his only business experiences resulted in complete failure and federal prosecution.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,223
@previous (E)
A large corporation that could use "modeling" as a cover was the ideal structure to build a prostitution ring out of. Epstein was no one until he started working as a partner with Wexner.