597
Judge orders surprise release of Epstein transcripts
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
597 points (99.8% liked)
News
23284 readers
1604 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Odd how the BBC would just lie like that.
He wasnt awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges??
The thing wooshed on was Epstein didn't kill himself.
ya but he did though, until someone provides actual evidence that he didnt. Lots of people in his exact same position do kill themselves.
Lets try to be better than the trump filth that push insane conspiracy sh!t all the time please.
The cameras all "malfunctioned" and all the guards decided to take a nap.
Sure.
Is the next suggestion that his elite pedo sex ring is a conspiracy theory?
Except the cameras didn't malfunction. There's video of the cell block that shows an empty hallway. Now, there's no video of inside the cells due to privacy concerns. There's never cameras that show the inside of cells. This privacy feature has been turned into a "There's no video from the cell because of broken cameras" by conspiracy nutjobs who don't actually know anything.
As to the guards sleeping or playing on their phones... There were only two for that section of the prison, and they had been sleeping or otherwise faking their rounds for weeks, if not months. The video evidence from the cell block is how they were caught.
Epstein had been specifically pulled off suicide watch, even after attempting suicide previously. That's the part that's sketchy. He also had a visit from his lawyer a few days before where he changed his will to fuck over his victims.
But no, idiot meme lords think some shadowy government figures came in and killed him without leaving any evidence of existing.
I've read actual accounts of things the CIA does, and they wish they were even half as competent as the nutjobs make them out to be. Remember, these are the same people who used "pizza" as a code word in Lebanon to mean, "go to the Pizza Hut for more orders", and then let Hezbollah sit and watch about a dozen agents and informants meeting at Pizza Hut.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fbi-studies-two-broken-cameras-outside-cell-where-epstein-died-source-idUSKCN1VI2M3/
(Reuters) - Two cameras that malfunctioned outside the jail cell where financier Jeffrey Epstein died as he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges have been sent to an FBI crime lab for examination, a law enforcement source told Reuters. Epstein's lawyers Reid Weingarten and Martin Weinberg told U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan on Tuesday they had doubts about the New York City chief medical examiner's conclusion that their client killed himself. The two cameras were within view of the Manhattan jail cell where he was found dead on Aug. 10. A source earlier told Reuters two jail guards failed to follow a procedure overnight to make separate checks on all prisoners every 30 minutes. He had been taken off suicide watch prior to his death.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/unproven-claim-of-camera-malfunction-before-epsteins-death/
The updates are key;
As someone who has handled federal contracts providing cctv equipment like the ones mentioned; the odds of those specific cameras "malfunctioning" at the specific time-whatever that is even supposed to mean- is essentially zero.
They are hardwired on a constantly updated and maintained basis. I'm talking millions of dollars a year. If the camera had gone offline, there would more than certainly be a visible and audible alert to the persons monitoring the feeds on premisis which all federal and state prisons are legally required to have.
Even if he "killed himself", there's no question there was someone intentionally forcing the hand.
Malfunctioned in this case means that the system wasn't configured to record properly. You could watch it live on the monitor, but couldn't pull up the recordings. This was for two cameras, one of which the recordings were recoverable.
As to forcing his hand, probably. It's a hell of a lot easier to do, and the prime suspect for passing the message along would have been Epstein's own lawyer. All he would have to say is something along the lines of "you kill yourself, or they're going to pull strings and get you put in General Population again."
But notice that "again". See, he was in general population and had been attacked already. Then they put him on suicide watch, which is hellish on its own.
My theory is that Epstein killed himself while Trump and company were still scrambling to figure out what they were going to do, because they had no plans at all for that sort of situation. Because my real theory is that no one is actually good at what they do, they're all lying to themselves and each other about it, but that everyone, literally everyone on earth is generally some sort of fuckup, especially when shit comes out of nowhere. Like a powerful pedo who had fallen out of favor, showing that he was still a pedo and getting arrested for it.
I doubt anyone planned for that, they had mostly forgotten Epstein after getting him that sweetheart plea deal a decade or so earlier. A lot of rich and powerful people had quietly cut ties at that point.
They then wake up one day and hear that their old pal is in jail for more pedo shit, and they collectively shit themselves, but can't do anything overt because then they would be seen doing overt shit to cover their own asses, and that's almost as bad as Epstein talking.
I'm sure there were a bunch of hushed conversations in secluded rooms about doing something to make it go away, and then realizing that they didn't actually have any way to do so. And then Epstein killed himself anyway and saved them the trouble.
After all, he was extremely rich, and had been accustomed to being extremely rich. He went from silk sheets to sheets made by the lowest bidder. He went from palatial living, to living in a cell, with the rest of his life being in a cell, with beatings thrown in for measure. All because he was guilty as sin, and had a prior conviction. Even if he never talked, he was getting life imprisonment. And I'm betting he was selfish enough to take the easy way out, all on his own.
This is the real truth about the world. Once you realize this a lot of life starts to make more sense .
Malfunctioning cameras, sleeping guards that were rotated in, controversy over the medical examiner report...
Not being able to prove something happened and nothing happening are two different things.
According to the official investigation Epstein did commit suicide so that's what the journalist should report, but that doesn't mean that the journalist can't add something like "in suspicious circumstances" to make clear that the circumstances of Epstein's death were well, very suspicious.
It's the BBC, not the Guardian. The journalist literally can't, by law, add "in suspicious circumstances"
Do you have a reference for that law? I'm interested in seeing how it's worded.
I said by law because it's easier than "royal charter" but it amounts to the same
Thanks for the name. I skimmed through it and tbh, I'm not seeing why no additional context/doubt could be provided. They might have internal guidelines to not do so, but the charter itself does not seem to stop journalists from providing additional context outside of official statements/reports. It seems to me that this sentence was a choice by the editor/journalist.
I just searched for some keywords, "fact" landed me on the paragraph that seemed most applicable: "duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming". The other paragraphs I found, that could have been applicable, were about being impartial when UK politics were involved.
Yep you're getting it. That (additional context, or speculation, or opinions) would have to be a separate article, according to the charter. Linking the facts with someone else's opinion isn't allowed, but doing a separate opinion piece (clearly labelled) is ok
This article is reporting facts as they are 100% known, as per the charter. There are no known facts that the pedo was murdered or topped himself, due to obfuscation of the information. It's reported as known, even if that's a bit sparse. AP and Reuters do the same.
You will also be able to find opinion pieces on the BBC on the same subject, you just can't mix the two, as is the case in most journalism nowadays
Nice dodge let's see this royal charter
They weren't dodging, it's a thing and it should be the first result if you bothered to look it up: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter
Thank you. I talk on Lemmy in the spirit of a conversation so I try not to look shit up unless someone is being obnoxious. Oops maybe that's me this time!
Edit - very interesting thanks
They certainly can report on that others found it suspicious
I don't believe it's a conspiracy though that guards were switched out and the cameras went out at the time he "killed himself" and this was during the time that Bill Barr the walrus himself was the AG of the US.
At least I hope that's not fake, I'm fairly sure that's what I read at the time.
Is murdering a high profile person with dangerous information that insane? I can't say what happened, but him being killed seems within the realm of possibility considering what we know.
Also, looking from the outside, I'm fairly certain there is plenty of filth on the dem side too.
Official act.
If you think he killed himself, you're in luck. I have a helluva deal for you on a really nice bridge.