Furious. Massive failure by the justice system to do its job. Epstein, a monster, was allowed to escape justice and take everything he knew with him. This all not to mention the power of those potentially implicated in his sick schemes and their interest in him being conveniently buried with his knowledge. This outcome is bad for all of us.
People on 15 minute observations can and do die by suicide.
If someone is at risk and you think obs are going to help (they don't always help, they can make things worse) you need to have them under full time obs.
But even then how close does that need to be? Two staff members within arms reach 24 hours of the day, including during eat, bathing, defecating?
It's also very difficult to, from "ground level" dislocate the neck thus. It was the "long drop and the sharp stop" in the gallows which caused neck dislocation (or in poor planning, even decapitation).
yes its most likely a gradual loading of the ligature rather than an abrupt drop. one would have to be fairly determined toward fate, and a bit athletic to incur cervical dislocation.
> Inmates on suicide watch are generally placed in a special observation cell, surrounded with windows, with a bolted down bed and no bedclothes. A correction officer — or sometimes a fellow inmate trained to be a “suicide companion” — is typically assigned to sit in an adjacent office and monitor the inmate constantly.
> Robert Gangi, an expert on prisons and the former executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, said guards also generally take shoelaces and belts away from people on suicide watch.
> “If he’s on suicide watch, it's virtually impossible to kill yourself,” Mr. Gangi said.
> To take an inmate off suicide watch a “post-watch report” needs to be completed, which includes an analysis of how the inmate’s circumstances have changed and why that merits removal from the watch.
Is the death penalty "cruel and unusual" punishment, or helpful?
There is no way to humanely force people to tell the public what they know. This doesn't really impact the accusations against him other than preventing people from asking him questions to which he lies as a response. His suicide does not erase the evidence, nor witnesses and accusers.
I don't think we can know this for sure. He was definitely a sex predator, quite possibly a sociopath, but to call him a psychopath with a 'Reptilian' emotional structure seems like a step too far
Yes, but he was already on suicide watch. I would be interested in seeing statistics on how often prisoners succeed in committing suicide while on suicide watch.
The two needn't be mutually exclusive. Someone could have been enticed to look the other way. He could have had materials made available which he properly shouldn't have, etc.
Now I'm not claiming any of these things, but I can see why there's going to be a field day with this one. That everyone saw it coming should have made it less probable, not more.
I agree that this was predictable. Which raises the question, could outside observers (e.g. journalists, victims) have prevented this somehow by individually funding more staff to have him observed 24/7?
This sounds too convenient. If this was a suicide and not anything more sinister, this is gross negligence by prison authorities. It was their solemn duty and responsibility to see this person face trial.
This will only inflame conspiracy theory minded people to believe there is a vast conspiracy by the powerful to protect themselves.
This is depressing. I’m yet hopeful evidence will be used to bring guilty parties to justice. This wasn’t just mr Epstein.
If you believe that when the elite "look after each other" they abuse their power in illegal and unethical ways, then technically you're a "conspiracy theorist" along with the vast majority of the population.
Edit: And the story has been removed from the HN front page, despite being one of the most popular...
That’s literally “conspiring together”. That’s all conspiracy means. It means some occurrence wasn’t just a fluke action of luck or even of just one guy. It was a group of people “conspiring” together. Think JFK. Did a group conspire? Or was it just Oswald?
'Conspiracy' is not synonymous with 'untrue'. I'd advise everyone in the comments to keep that in mind, and state things unambiguously, to avoid arguing past each-other.
I've been curious why "conspiracy theory" is used exclusively as a pejorative. Turns out that Wikipedia defines it as such:
> A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.
But who gets to define what is more probable? Why not just "when there is no proof (yet)"? But I guess that battle and term are lost.
You generally refer to named actors as 'conspiring together'. The definition of a 'conspiracy theory' is almost dependant on the actors being unknown or unconfirmed, and thus isn't a provable act of conspiracy versus an implausible crazyness.
To play devils advocate; who doesn’t want to protect themselves and that which they’ve worked for? From the poor who’ve worked hard for the past year to save up for engine for the late 70s truck. To the middle(ish) class who’ve worked hard for their first purchased two bedroom home. To the middle upperclass who’ve gone on a vacation to Branson Missouri. To pretty much everyone with children. To the ultra wealthy that are worth seven figures and up. Everyone wants to protect what they feel they’ve worked hard for. That includes the proposed ultra wealthy that have the means to insure they aren’t pulled into Epstein’s legal whirlpool.
If it exists, it makes sense they would protect themselves.
That's the ideal and the law, but in practice it's not that uncommon for people do grievous direct harm to other parties, when they think they can get away with it.
To the ultra-rich, "other parties" are other ultra-rich people. Everyone else is just an insect. I mean that in the most visceral way possible, the ultra-rich view us with contempt.
edit: This is why Bernie Madoff went to prison and why basically no one went to jail over the 2008 GFC. Madoff stole from his own social class, which is a big no-no.
> Elizabeth Holmes got away with a slapped wrist despite defrauding some very, very powerful people.
Holmes hasn't gotten away with anything yet. She's been indicted on federal charges, and the trial is expected to begin in 2020. She could end up in prison.
Shkreli didn't "return every penny to his investors". He stole money from one group to pay another group. Yes all of his investors ended up in the green eventually (because some underlying businesses were profitable), but that doesn't change the fact that he defrauded a lot of people and not "every penny" was paid back.
For example, if you invest money in a profitable business and the CEO skims a little bit off the top, you might end up making money despite that you were defrauded off some of your gains.
A couple years ago I listened to a college course from The Teaching Company called 'Explaining Social Deviance.' It analyzed deviant behavior in a multitude of different societies and contexts, going through history and modern day across the globe, examining what behavior societies found deviant, what they do about it, how they attempt to stop it, etc. When the social scientists researching the topic studied the upper class, they realized that crime could not be classified as 'deviant' in that social context. It was accepted, expected, and universal. Restraint from criminal activity was actually what was deviant.
Despite the fact that white collar crime does more economic damage and even kills more people every year than street crime, it is punished very rarely and then typically only lightly. That's a social issue, and the majority of society are complicit in it, fighting for tougher laws to control the middle and lower class while fighting against substantial penalties for crime committed by the upper class. The Protestant Work Ethic says that hard work, endurance of suffering, and virtuous character is the only way to wealth, so the public presumes that is how the wealthy got wealthy. It is almost never true, however.
There’s more than one angle to conspiracy theories as well. Was it a “hit” by the powerful protecting themselves or, did he have a dead man’s switch on incriminating others and it’s a fake and he’s been broken out of prison?
There’s so much to work with here that it’s going to go on for years.
If this guy attempted suicide before, shouldn't there be a permanent camera affixed to his jail cell (beside having a guard watch him)? If that is the case then we should have the video footage of his suicide even if the guard slacked off?
It could have been suicide, as in the parties who did not want him to talk may have arranged for everything he needed to end his life by himself. Of course, it is also possible it was not just suicide. Guess we will never know.
I am not a lawyer, but @klasfeldreports on twitter quotes an unnamed legal source who says:
"Background: An important note after Epstein's death: no one else will have standing to challenge the search warrant on his house. Everything will be admissible against any other defendant without possibility of a motion to suppress."
Epstein was quite plausibly the chief procurer; he no doubt had a wife array of powerful clients, but there's not a lot of reason to think there was a higher-level mastermind behind Epstein in the procurement operation.
Epstein comes off as an unhinged individual. With a mansion full of sex art, a normal reaction would be “we should have known in retrospect”, not a sweetheart plea deal.
> Epstein comes off as an unhinged individual. With a mansion full of sex art, a normal reaction would be “we should have known in retrospect”, not a sweetheart plea deal.
That Epstein had politically powerful clients and friends is not in serious dispute (which were clients and which were merely friends unconnected to his child rape business is somewhat less clear), and explains the sweetheart plea deal without resort to some behind-Epstein mastermind.
It's not impossible, but there is nothing that is explained more easily by such a mastermind than by the Epstein being the master of his own sex trade operation which garnered him influence (simply heading that operation means he has powerful blackmail material on powerful people.)
> I suggest reading the book October Surprise by Gary Sick. Intelligence agencies don’t use competent people.
They use incompetent people who can be manipulated into believing they have common interests and competent people who believe in their own that they have common interests, but, yes, they often use incompetent people. The relevance of this observation is unclear, as it still presents no existing phenomenon that requires a shady superior to Epstein to explain.
> Your understanding of the situation is incorrect.
You have as yet provided no way in which my understanding is incorrect.
But his death also ends the criminal case against him, no one else was charged in the indictment. Why act on a warrant for a case that has ended? I’m definitely not an expert in criminal justice proceedings though.
> But his death also ends the criminal case against him, no one else was charged in the indictment.
If there were related parallel investigations, they could either still be before a grand jury, not yet have been submitted to a grand jury, or already had indictments issued but under seal. The fact that no one else was charged in the Epstein indictment does not mean there is no one else in a related matter against whom an investigation and/or (sealed) charges exist, which, if from no other source, the public coverage of all the investigations around Trump should have made everyone familiar with recently.
It would have been admissible against anyone but Epstein even if Epstein hadn't died, and further warrants derived from information discovered through it (including reseizure of the same evidence under a new warrant) wouldn't, as I understand it, be precluded unless it was to be used against Epstein, all for the same reason that the right to object dies with Epstein, so it does nothing for justice except preventing any Constitutional violation from even being recognized, which is a net loss, not a win.
Even the public prosecutor was suddenly overwhelmed by sadness and took his life during the investigation. Hats off to anyone who dares to touch high-profile pedophilia cases.
Whitey Bulger recently got transferred for no stated reason to a prison in West Virginia and within hours of his arrival was beaten to death by an inmate with mafia ties.
Look, even if video evidence emerges of Epstein kicking the chair out from under his own feet, everyone and their dog could see (and predicted repeatedly!) that he was a risk for either murder or suicide while awaiting trial. Given that the case hinted at an unending multitude of victims whose lives were ruined by a sex trafficking ring that involved elites from the very highest echelons of society, to not have a guard watching him at all times, and a guard watching that guard, and another guard watching that guard, displays a level of "incompetence" or "tight resources" that simply beggars belief.
I've been thinking lately about what people will and won't be skeptical about. All the horrifying stories coming from escapees from north korea, for instance, are accepted without any real scrutany. But if there is a class of powerful people that publically executes people by steam roller, why is it so hard to believe there could be a network of child sex trafficing for a powerful class of people here? Or if a child sex ring is too outlandish, why believe in the stories about north korea? Is it down to diplomatic relations? Should that be a factor?
It isn't the magnitude of evil but the remoteness - we know about life in the United States. We don't know many details about a secretive repressive nation. There are also flaws about 'requiring far too many people to keep a secret' and some major 'game theory'. Now it is a matter of fact that he was involved with sex trafficking and corruption but there were plenty of reasons to doubt.
The story hit upon a number of other discredited conspiracy tropes and archetypes. A network of child sex traffickers resembles too much 'orderly world' conspiracy theorist family. Where there is some vast conspiracy to blame for everything wrong with the world but there is at least someone behind it and some concrete goal to 'fix it'. As opposed to a chaotic real world where there is nothing that can be done about it - sometimes some nut-job decides to do something really scary like kill the president or shoot up schools.
Not to mention the anti-semetic tropes hit upon by it when there was a simpler explanation for his contact with high level people - he was rich. Being a donor would have explained it far easier than a sex trafficking conspiracy before concrete evidence.
Frankly the 'believers' of the story did more to make less believable than any amount of spin-doctors with things like drawing tenuous connections to anyone who ever met the guy being a pedophile.
Such crimes great large networks of people who "know too much" and have to be silenced by money. It should be easy to find out in a social graph who becomes rich just by virtue of association with a certain group/individual, no matter how previous buisness endavours failed.
People have been socially conditioned to do this - not necessarily intentionally, it may have just happened naturally, but this is how right thinking people are to behave.
We are basically presented with a potential conspiracy shoved in our faces and you are worried that people might see a conspiracy there. It’s not an absurd logic.
Definition of the word:
“an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.”
Except that too many items relegated to the conspiracy heap have proven to not have been in recent months. You can't just look away. Your life depends on it. Hey, I just want to live my simple life and move on, too. But doing so means that the bad people win and if good people do nothing, it's our fault.
Probably not suicided in the direct sense. Probably, "we aren't going to walk by your cell for the next hour, if you're still around rich and powerful people will make you wish you had taken your life."
This makes me so angry. Such an important case, so much on the line. And then this. And if you question the official narrative of "suicide", you will probably soon be labeled a conspiracy theorist.
Oh an just by the way, this news broke first on 4chan (thread 222518349). That just on the matter of what the value of these sites are.
edit: and already there are [dead] comments who question this
The problem, in my experience, is that for one legit fact usually there is a lot of actual fake news thrown in, along with context free facts, in those communities. This causes a lot of people believe false things and keep repeating it to others. A form of brainwashing. Also people who assume someone's guilt and then work backwards towards showing it, while ignoring other signs.
I don't think suicidal people much care about the legal or moral judgements of others. Unless you're talking about removing all means of suicide and forcefully keeping people alive.
Morally and legally? From what we can tell suicidal individuals often care "what other people think" in the vein of social acceptability. He ran with a crowd that flaunted a disregard for legality and moral compunction. In this case, I would not believe his suicidal attempt (not attempts) had any consideration for moral or legal ramification.
No, not really, that doesn't seem like an interesting question at all. Can you convince me otherwise? It seems obvious to me that while a right to commit suicide might exist typically, somebody imprisoned is obviously not entitled to it. We restrict many rights when we imprison people, and I see no reason why the 'right to commit suicide' should not be one of them. Allowing such a man to kill himself denies his victims, some of whom may yet be unidentified, to opportunity to resolve the matter in a satisfactory way.
Preventing suicide is typically reasonably easy; suicide-proof smocks exist for this reason. Obviously you don't threaten a prisoner with criminal penalties for attempting suicide, that would be really stupid. Rather, you take measures to prevent the possibility.
It's easy on relatively short term. But for anything long term wouldn't it become cruel and unusual punishment? Not to mention very expensive. With no obvious and immediate reason to do this the logistics and image of this would be a nightmare.
> No, not really, that doesn't seem like an interesting question at all.
You say that, yet you went through the trouble of writing a reply that ponders this exact question: At what point does suicide become morally acceptable?
I do think it is an interesting question. I'd go the way of saying: If you still have serious responsibilities (as in this case), it is immoral.
It's worth noting that suicide used to be a serious offense - or even a capital offense, ironically.
I can think of many situations in which suicide is morally acceptable. I'd be very critical of anybody who asserts otherwise, that would be a much more interesting conversation to have, if only because I think I could really lay into anybody who disagreed with me on that matter. Whether prisoners should be able too is less interesting, so far I've not seen a compelling argument for permitting it. It seems like a perversion of justice to allow it.
When I say "right", I don't mean what's currently granted to him by our Rube Goldberg justice system, I mean the inalienable rights of any sentient being. I've met people who think you should be able to punch out any time regardless of your situation, people who think you're responsible to get your affairs in order first, people who think it's a sin regardless, etc. This guy was in a unique situation because his estate isn't going to suffer (maybe they'll have to pay a lawyer to figure out who gets the sacks of cash) and even if he got acquitted somehow his reputation and ability to move in the circles he's accustomed to are destroyed. Would you agree that if he happened to be innocent he had a right to commit suicide? (I'll take your silence just now as a yes or at least a maybe. :b) So how about if he was guilty? Does he have the right to kill himself after conviction? How about if he donated $100,000,000 to an anti human trafficking charity, but dodged trial? Like I said, it's an interesting, nuanced question.
We restrict the right to some freedoms, but do we restrict the right of autonomy within the person. You may not be able to do things as you wish, but can you restrict or legislate that away? Nuance might include the reasoning - suicide to 'avoid consequences', or depression (and of course the confluence of multiple reasons and / or benefits).
Somewhat related, though tangential - there are countries that do not punish for prison escapes or attempts. You will be put back in jail if caught, and circumstances might be changed to mitigate risk, but the underlying reason is "a fundamental human desire is to be free, and we cannot (additionally) punish for acting upon that desire".
I read through this whole despicable thread to find an interesting comment. I can't imagine having the mentality of taking advantage of other people to satisfy personal desires and the enabling of others to do the same.
To your point, I don't think I would live very much longer than ~10 years in prison; it's unconscionable. It's also interesting in the context of this administration's allowing for the death penalty at the federal level, with some complaints about "cruel and unusual punishment" flying around as a result.
Some religions argue suicide is a sin that sends one to eternal hell.
Lots of interesting ideas surrounding this ugly chapter, the least of which is the conspiracy theories. Epstein was never a credible witness, and would not have talked anyway. There is an underlying theme of revenge (rather than justice) in some of these comments that makes me uncomfortable.
We need to get his victims very good therapy so they can heal from their traumatic experiences.
Heartbreaking, but at this point it does not really surprise that people of highly regarded intellect and achievement indulge in such horrible practices while most people around them turn a blind eye. On the other hand we should be wondering if our black and white view of the subject and all the rhetoric about "monsters" only helps promote silence. I believe humanizing the evildoers keeps the rest of humans aware that they too can be evildoers and perhaps backtrack and speak out more easily when they are on the fence.
It’s only an accusation. It will be up to the justice system to determine if it holds any water (innocent unless..., right?). Terrible for Marvin’s reputation though.
The injustice, is that this very much appears to be a situation where "everyone knew" but no one did anything. So okay, maybe Minsky, Clinton, Trump, or whoever didn't actually rape an underage girl or engage in sex trafficking. But they knew. That's disgusting.
If someone is going to tell you that someone of Bill Clinton's magnitude doesn't know exactly who the person is whose private island he is a guest at--then that person is full of shit.
Powerful people do their due diligence.
P.S. pardon my tone. I know that's out of spirit for HN, but this case...I am mad.
Who says that they actually knew about it? If they just went around telling literally everyone that sounds like a way to get busted even as a low level drug dealer - let alone as a comparative nobody vs a big name - especially with secret service protection. From the perspective of a criminal blackmailer it would make far more sense to probe interests first before getting into it.
If they visited Epstein's island, they knew. You might assume “Pedophile Island” is some cheeky name that the press came up with. But, no, that’s actually it’s name. The people who lived there called it that. If someone went to the island, they had to know.
“Airport workers say they saw teens traveling with Jeffrey Epstein to and from his private island in the Caribbean”
Actual title of a news article.
This is the state of modern journalism, no one confirming a commonly known rumor until the guy is arrested. It takes a village to raise a child, but a nation to ignore it.
Clinton visited the island. New documents were unsealed yesterday:
> Bill Clinton: The former president visited Epstein’s private island while Giuffre was there, she claims in one of her depositions. Giuffre stated that Epstein held a dinner for Clinton on the island. (In a statement previously made to Forbes, Clinton denied ever visiting Epstein’s private island.)
I failed to post this the other day (already submitted). Searched HN and it was not here. Probably marked off-topic or similar. When I called it out on an unrelated thread my comment was flagged.
I don't see a mechanism on HN to refute "off-topic" posts.
Marvin Minsky's relationship with Epstein was not of interest to HN readers but Epstein's death is?
Must be nice to be so wealthy & connected that when facing life in prison, you don’t have to worry about it and because death will shortly come. Epstein had no other choice if you think about his lifestyle and what he was against. Another case of how death is needed as a humane alternative instead of lifelong punishment in a prison cell.
Monsters can occur anywhere. What makes a real difference is a community’s capacity for looking the other way when an individual sheds their personhood in the perpetration of heinous acts. Look at religious organizations (Catholic Church, Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, ...) and in the sports world (USA Gymnastics) and in financial/political circles.
Now more than ever, if you see something - say something. No matter how esteemed a person may be within their field of activity, monstrous acts demand the swiftest of retribution.
If you were in his position though why not just kill yourself off? At 66 there’s not much life left to live and what’s left is going to be pretty shitty anyway behind bars.
If I was his attorney, I would have advised he negotiate for a lighter sentence in exchange for cooperation around bringing others to justice. Standard practice. He could have gotten off with a light sentence and brought many others to justice. He’s literally done that before.
At his age, even a lighter sentence would likely be a life sentence. I think he knew that, and seeing the rest of his life would be court cases and jail, took the easy way out. Assuming this was in fact suicide, he made a logical choice.
It sounds like trump was involved in at least one instance. I don’t think any lawyer would advise against flipping on that turd sandwich while Moscow mitch is running the senate.
That case was odd. It's not clear that the plaintiff even exists. The addresses on record for her in the court system were bogus, journalists haven't been able to speak with her, she was a no-show at the press conference promoted by her lawyer where she was supposed to appear, and all of the lawsuits were dropped before she could testify.
1. banning Epstein from all Trump properties due to Epstein's inappropriate behavior toward an underage girl
2. being the one acquaintance willing and eager to talk with the prosecutor for Epstein's first case, and thus enabling the prosecution to make progress
Exactly - the prosecutors no longer have that capital, otherwise it would come off as getting another rich guy get away with it, again. Not to mention those involved in the last deal are already in a world of trouble.
He was going to spend his life in prison this time. They couldn’t give him the death penalty so there was no deal to be made. Epstein was never going to talk, anyway.
Sure he had every reason to.. for the past couple of weeks.
But he suddenly succeeds within 24 hours of the information drop on Friday that named many rich and powerful individuals, to which he would possibly be the key witness? Isn’t that a bit suspicious?
At 66, there’s another 15-25 years to live. Not trying to comment on the topic at hand, just saying that a lot can happen in 15 years; more than “not much”.
Because a well known creep with a $B doesn't already explain it? Instead we postulate an extra hundred horrible people all keeping a terrible secret... that also have terrible OpSec so they pay people off all the time.
Or the "underage girls" were actually fembots designed in an underground lair by radio controlled sharks?
Its very HN to get downvoted for sharing a perspective and how one arrived at it.
Acosta said the reason he didn’t give him a harsher sentence back in 2007 was because he “belonged to intelligence”.
>>
He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. <<
Wow, you literally have to go to Jared Kushner's magazine to find that out... of course there is other controversy as well, but it seems a bit self serving.
Wow. I don’t think I have seen a situation before where Occam’s razor doesn’t help writing off the conspiracy. It seems harder in this case to believe someone in a jail cell on suicide watch kills themselves than to believe that it was arranged (that is, at least “allowed”). It’s suspiciously sloppy.
> Suicides between 23.00 h and 07.00 h are rare, and these overwhelmingly occur under intermittent observations. Such observation is purely a defensive intervention to document that a patient is safe at a particular time, as there is no engagement.
I work with anonymised data. If you want actual names I'm going to have to trawl through coroner's reports.
The UK and US have very different prison systems and prison protocols. I don't think their numbers can be compared.
Additionally, Epstein was under suicide watch. Which should have made suicide practically impossible without outside intervention. Given the money and power at play here, murder made to look like a suicide is a very real possibility.
Please read the links I supply which talk about patients in a hospital, but importantly these are patients under "suicide watch" -- this is what intermittent or continuous obs are for, to prevent suicide and self harm.
People in this thread don't know what "suicide watch means". They seem to think it's 24 hour continuous monitoring.
It may mean someone looks through a door hatch once every 15 minutes.
I can only talk about Swedish jails, but suicide attempts where People are held before prosecution and before sentencing (called arrest and häkte) are common enough. Just random googling gives me this: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sjalvmordsforsok-sker-var...
Saying that there is a suicide attempt every week in Swedish "Häkte", meaning about 52 attempts per year with an average of 9000 people in "häkte" over the course of one year. And that is only in the cases where people are actually prosecuted. There are lots of mentions of suicides in "arrest" as well.
It's not super common either. He was a very high profile criminal, but also a potential witness against very high profile people. Special precautions should have been taken.
I believe you, but could you cite a source on there being a camera and it malfunctioning? Because damn, this is just getting truly impossible to believe it was just a suicide.
One of CNN's legal analysts said in a tweet [0] that he can't recall hearing of any successful suicides happening in the prison where Epstein was detained.
I tried searching for reports or information about other suicides in Metropolitan Correctional Center - New York (MCC-NY) but wasn't able to find examples in the news. Admittedly, I didn't dig very deep and I'm completely unfamiliar with this domain. If you know of any sources showing examples of successful suicides in MCC-NY then I would be interested in learning about them.
Ideally we could review the prison's records for successful and unsuccessful suicides when on suicide watch and during regular imprisonment. The Bureau of Justice Statistics website [1] looks like it should have relevant data on this, but I'm too tired to sift through their reports tonight.
> One of CNN's legal analysts said in a tweet [0] that he can't recall hearing of any successful suicides happening in the prison where Epstein was detained.
We need to be clear how they define suicide, which may not include all self-inflicted death.
The linked article says its unclear if he was actually on suicide watch: "There are reports that Epstein was placed on suicide watch following [his earlier suicide attempt], although this has not been confirmed by officials"
So, after the guy attempted suicide, and is facing a massively embarrassing scrutiny of his sex life, they decided not to put him on suicide watch? That's nearly as suspicious as dying on suicide watch.
> Mr. Epstein had been on suicide watch after he was found injured on July 23 and received a daily psychiatric evaluation, according to a person familiar with his detention. He was removed from suicide watch on July 29 and returned to the special housing unit, a segregated area of the prison with extra security, this person said.
> The authorities did not immediately explain why he was taken off suicide watch. The F.B.I. said it was investigating, and Attorney General William P. Barr said in a statement that a special inquiry would be opened into what had happened.
300 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 393 ms ] threadHe was reportedly on suicide watch following an earlier incident.
People on 15 minute observations can and do die by suicide.
If someone is at risk and you think obs are going to help (they don't always help, they can make things worse) you need to have them under full time obs.
But even then how close does that need to be? Two staff members within arms reach 24 hours of the day, including during eat, bathing, defecating?
It’s going to be really interesting to hear how it happened.
> Robert Gangi, an expert on prisons and the former executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, said guards also generally take shoelaces and belts away from people on suicide watch.
> “If he’s on suicide watch, it's virtually impossible to kill yourself,” Mr. Gangi said.
> To take an inmate off suicide watch a “post-watch report” needs to be completed, which includes an analysis of how the inmate’s circumstances have changed and why that merits removal from the watch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-...
There is no way to humanely force people to tell the public what they know. This doesn't really impact the accusations against him other than preventing people from asking him questions to which he lies as a response. His suicide does not erase the evidence, nor witnesses and accusers.
The idea that this guy killed himself out of despair or whatever is an unbelievable laugh. He was psychologically a reptile.
Now I'm not claiming any of these things, but I can see why there's going to be a field day with this one. That everyone saw it coming should have made it less probable, not more.
Predicted by Martin Armstrong
Not saying this should be taken without a grain of salt but I think they argue their point somewhat well.
This will only inflame conspiracy theory minded people to believe there is a vast conspiracy by the powerful to protect themselves.
This is depressing. I’m yet hopeful evidence will be used to bring guilty parties to justice. This wasn’t just mr Epstein.
How is that a conspiracy?
“a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
Edit: And the story has been removed from the HN front page, despite being one of the most popular...
> A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.
But who gets to define what is more probable? Why not just "when there is no proof (yet)"? But I guess that battle and term are lost.
If it exists, it makes sense they would protect themselves.
edit: This is why Bernie Madoff went to prison and why basically no one went to jail over the 2008 GFC. Madoff stole from his own social class, which is a big no-no.
I don’t think that analysis tells the whole story. Elizabeth Holmes got away with a slapped wrist despite defrauding some very, very powerful people.
Whereas Shkreli got jail despite returning every penny to his investors.
Holmes hasn't gotten away with anything yet. She's been indicted on federal charges, and the trial is expected to begin in 2020. She could end up in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes#Criminal_char...
For example, if you invest money in a profitable business and the CEO skims a little bit off the top, you might end up making money despite that you were defrauded off some of your gains.
Despite the fact that white collar crime does more economic damage and even kills more people every year than street crime, it is punished very rarely and then typically only lightly. That's a social issue, and the majority of society are complicit in it, fighting for tougher laws to control the middle and lower class while fighting against substantial penalties for crime committed by the upper class. The Protestant Work Ethic says that hard work, endurance of suffering, and virtuous character is the only way to wealth, so the public presumes that is how the wealthy got wealthy. It is almost never true, however.
There’s so much to work with here that it’s going to go on for years.
"Background: An important note after Epstein's death: no one else will have standing to challenge the search warrant on his house. Everything will be admissible against any other defendant without possibility of a motion to suppress."
So maybe this will be a net good for justice?
That Epstein had politically powerful clients and friends is not in serious dispute (which were clients and which were merely friends unconnected to his child rape business is somewhat less clear), and explains the sweetheart plea deal without resort to some behind-Epstein mastermind.
It's not impossible, but there is nothing that is explained more easily by such a mastermind than by the Epstein being the master of his own sex trade operation which garnered him influence (simply heading that operation means he has powerful blackmail material on powerful people.)
Your understanding of the situation is incorrect, and is leading you to incorrect conclusions.
They use incompetent people who can be manipulated into believing they have common interests and competent people who believe in their own that they have common interests, but, yes, they often use incompetent people. The relevance of this observation is unclear, as it still presents no existing phenomenon that requires a shady superior to Epstein to explain.
> Your understanding of the situation is incorrect.
You have as yet provided no way in which my understanding is incorrect.
It is so incredible it is beyond my understanding.
But you claim to understand it, which is also very much beyond me.
But you are right, more so than you think, I cannot provide a way for you to understand something I don’t understand.
If there were related parallel investigations, they could either still be before a grand jury, not yet have been submitted to a grand jury, or already had indictments issued but under seal. The fact that no one else was charged in the Epstein indictment does not mean there is no one else in a related matter against whom an investigation and/or (sealed) charges exist, which, if from no other source, the public coverage of all the investigations around Trump should have made everyone familiar with recently.
It would have been admissible against anyone but Epstein even if Epstein hadn't died, and further warrants derived from information discovered through it (including reseizure of the same evidence under a new warrant) wouldn't, as I understand it, be precluded unless it was to be used against Epstein, all for the same reason that the right to object dies with Epstein, so it does nothing for justice except preventing any Constitutional violation from even being recognized, which is a net loss, not a win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux#Deaths_of_potenti...
Even the public prosecutor was suddenly overwhelmed by sadness and took his life during the investigation. Hats off to anyone who dares to touch high-profile pedophilia cases.
The story in the Deus Ex video game series is starting to seem less ridiculous and impromptu, and more like a piece of prophetic media.
I just can't imagine someone being able to order such a murder. There would be too many people involved and risks of getting caught.
He probably paid those guards a lot for the right to die.
Dunno man it really doesn't add up to a suicide.
The story hit upon a number of other discredited conspiracy tropes and archetypes. A network of child sex traffickers resembles too much 'orderly world' conspiracy theorist family. Where there is some vast conspiracy to blame for everything wrong with the world but there is at least someone behind it and some concrete goal to 'fix it'. As opposed to a chaotic real world where there is nothing that can be done about it - sometimes some nut-job decides to do something really scary like kill the president or shoot up schools.
Not to mention the anti-semetic tropes hit upon by it when there was a simpler explanation for his contact with high level people - he was rich. Being a donor would have explained it far easier than a sex trafficking conspiracy before concrete evidence.
Frankly the 'believers' of the story did more to make less believable than any amount of spin-doctors with things like drawing tenuous connections to anyone who ever met the guy being a pedophile.
I'll do you one better. Is he really even dead, or did he pull a Ken Lay?
Definition of the word:
“an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.”
Does the state drop everything? Are the materials made available for other cases?
Oh an just by the way, this news broke first on 4chan (thread 222518349). That just on the matter of what the value of these sites are.
edit: and already there are [dead] comments who question this
He was murdered, far more logically.
His cell's camera also "mysteriously" stopped working.
Somehow, he hung himself, which should have been impossible at the facility he was in.
The odds make it extremely probably that he was "suicided", that is, murdered, and then have his death announced by a corrupt coroner as "suicide".
As it is, it seems like he was probably murdered by strangulation.
This is untrue. From what we can tell suicidal people care deeply about what other people think.
You say that, yet you went through the trouble of writing a reply that ponders this exact question: At what point does suicide become morally acceptable?
I do think it is an interesting question. I'd go the way of saying: If you still have serious responsibilities (as in this case), it is immoral.
It's worth noting that suicide used to be a serious offense - or even a capital offense, ironically.
Which is such a stupid phrase because most other 'inalienable rights are removed when you're incarcerated, thus they clearly aren't inalienable.
"Inalienable" means it can't be removed. That's different from whether or not someone respects the right.
Somewhat related, though tangential - there are countries that do not punish for prison escapes or attempts. You will be put back in jail if caught, and circumstances might be changed to mitigate risk, but the underlying reason is "a fundamental human desire is to be free, and we cannot (additionally) punish for acting upon that desire".
To your point, I don't think I would live very much longer than ~10 years in prison; it's unconscionable. It's also interesting in the context of this administration's allowing for the death penalty at the federal level, with some complaints about "cruel and unusual punishment" flying around as a result.
Some religions argue suicide is a sin that sends one to eternal hell.
Lots of interesting ideas surrounding this ugly chapter, the least of which is the conspiracy theories. Epstein was never a credible witness, and would not have talked anyway. There is an underlying theme of revenge (rather than justice) in some of these comments that makes me uncomfortable.
We need to get his victims very good therapy so they can heal from their traumatic experiences.
Unfortunately for this community, one of our MIT heros was on that list. Don't even know what to say.
Edit: Added "and perhaps ..." at the end.
If someone is going to tell you that someone of Bill Clinton's magnitude doesn't know exactly who the person is whose private island he is a guest at--then that person is full of shit.
Powerful people do their due diligence.
P.S. pardon my tone. I know that's out of spirit for HN, but this case...I am mad.
Actual title of a news article.
This is the state of modern journalism, no one confirming a commonly known rumor until the guy is arrested. It takes a village to raise a child, but a nation to ignore it.
> Bill Clinton: The former president visited Epstein’s private island while Giuffre was there, she claims in one of her depositions. Giuffre stated that Epstein held a dinner for Clinton on the island. (In a statement previously made to Forbes, Clinton denied ever visiting Epstein’s private island.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/08/09/unseal...
It might be possible for the victim to sue his estate in civil court but the odds of success there seem low.
I don't see a mechanism on HN to refute "off-topic" posts.
Marvin Minsky's relationship with Epstein was not of interest to HN readers but Epstein's death is?
Mystifies me…
I see what you did there.
Now more than ever, if you see something - say something. No matter how esteemed a person may be within their field of activity, monstrous acts demand the swiftest of retribution.
Please know that you've been brainwashed into thinking this way. You're even repeating the mantra verbatim.
No, I will not willingly become a part of the surveillance apparatus. There is no justification for that degree of vigilance in peaceful times.
Edit: Flagged into the void, it's an HN thought crime! Have a good weekend all!
2. being the one acquaintance willing and eager to talk with the prosecutor for Epstein's first case, and thus enabling the prosecution to make progress
Exactly - the prosecutors no longer have that capital, otherwise it would come off as getting another rich guy get away with it, again. Not to mention those involved in the last deal are already in a world of trouble.
But he suddenly succeeds within 24 hours of the information drop on Friday that named many rich and powerful individuals, to which he would possibly be the key witness? Isn’t that a bit suspicious?
Or the "underage girls" were actually fembots designed in an underground lair by radio controlled sharks?
Acosta said the reason he didn’t give him a harsher sentence back in 2007 was because he “belonged to intelligence”.
>> He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. <<
https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligenc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_Media
> Suicides between 23.00 h and 07.00 h are rare, and these overwhelmingly occur under intermittent observations. Such observation is purely a defensive intervention to document that a patient is safe at a particular time, as there is no engagement.
I work with anonymised data. If you want actual names I'm going to have to trawl through coroner's reports.
Or you could have a look at this, which says about 18 patients per year in the UK: https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=37570
Additionally, Epstein was under suicide watch. Which should have made suicide practically impossible without outside intervention. Given the money and power at play here, murder made to look like a suicide is a very real possibility.
People in this thread don't know what "suicide watch means". They seem to think it's 24 hour continuous monitoring.
It may mean someone looks through a door hatch once every 15 minutes.
But also, he may not have been on suicide watch: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-...
Saying that there is a suicide attempt every week in Swedish "Häkte", meaning about 52 attempts per year with an average of 9000 people in "häkte" over the course of one year. And that is only in the cases where people are actually prosecuted. There are lots of mentions of suicides in "arrest" as well.
See eg Fred West.
I tried searching for reports or information about other suicides in Metropolitan Correctional Center - New York (MCC-NY) but wasn't able to find examples in the news. Admittedly, I didn't dig very deep and I'm completely unfamiliar with this domain. If you know of any sources showing examples of successful suicides in MCC-NY then I would be interested in learning about them.
Ideally we could review the prison's records for successful and unsuccessful suicides when on suicide watch and during regular imprisonment. The Bureau of Justice Statistics website [1] looks like it should have relevant data on this, but I'm too tired to sift through their reports tonight.
[0] https://twitter.com/eliehonig/status/1160224228232355841
[1] https://www.bjs.gov
We need to be clear how they define suicide, which may not include all self-inflicted death.
> Mr. Epstein had been on suicide watch after he was found injured on July 23 and received a daily psychiatric evaluation, according to a person familiar with his detention. He was removed from suicide watch on July 29 and returned to the special housing unit, a segregated area of the prison with extra security, this person said.
> The authorities did not immediately explain why he was taken off suicide watch. The F.B.I. said it was investigating, and Attorney General William P. Barr said in a statement that a special inquiry would be opened into what had happened.