Does anyone know where I can find more on the Epstein case?

Post Reply New Topic

I was reading up on the case out if interest and there is the part about his immunity deal back in 2008. But the sources online leave details out of this immunity agreement that raise suspicious questions. Is there any site that explains the full detail of it, or does anyone know?

There is a show on Netflix about Epstein.

Oh okay thanks. I don't have Netflix unfortunately.

However, what I don't understand is, why would Epstein kill himself instead of just trying to fight, since he was so rich and was able to get off with his power before? Didn't he sort of jump the gun kind of soon?

I really doubt that he killed himself----as many others do, too. First-of-all, he had just talked to his lawyer, and was very enthusiastic about going forward with his defense (this, according to his lawyer).

Secondly, when I heard he hung himself, the first question I had, was "Wasn't he on suicide watch?", which was the last thing I'd heard about him.

Next, it's very difficult for me to see how someone could hang themselves, the way he supposedly did. I heard he was swingin' from the top of bunk-beds----well, that's not high enough. I'm 5'11", and I'm taller than bunk beds. Even if he was, say, 5'7", I don't think that's enough room. I think part of the thing that makes someone die, from hanging, is the snap of the neck, and you have to have room for that to happen. I think just your feet, dangling, is not enough----or, it might be, but it seems it would take a waaaaaaay longer time; I wouldn't think anybody could stand that, and get out of it.

I think somebody killed him----there were way too many "what?"s goin'-on; like, I think they said the video recorder was off, or something like that; the person coming-by, every so often, didn't----I forget what all, but all the stuff that happened, was ridiculous.

Oh okay. But why would someone kill him if he wasn't going to turn anyone in? If he was enthusiastic about going to trial, that means he was not going to cut a deal, so why go through this elaborate, killing him and making it look like a suicide, if he was going to go to trial and not cut any deals?

Do we know he wasn't going to provide names (or that past information he had supplied which contained or hinted at names may not have come up) in the trial, if he was planning on fighting the charges?

Maybe a person(s) was worried about what would occur during the trial - such as the possibility of a name being mentioned in passing (for example, based on recent papers, asking who had stayed on the island) could have been seen as a risk. Leaving it looking like a suicide means people don't go looking for a person and motive for the death.

Oh okay, it's just if you murder somone and are caught, it seems like the risk outweighs waiting for a trial to be over, if the person is not planning on turning you in or cutting a deal. Plus why would Epstein mention anyone at the trial? If he is guilty, he is not going to want to talk during the trial, so would they worry about that therefore, enough to commit the bigger risk of murder?

How do you KNOW that the person wouldn't turn on you, or mention something "inconvenient" in responce to a question during the trial? Just because they aren't "cutting a deal" doesn't mean that their name may not come up during the trial: For example "where were you on a certain date" could be answered "At XYZ, with ABC".

And being in a jail, there's likely a number of people who would have little/nothing to lose, depending on how long they have left to serve (or how well they can remove\hide potential evidence).

Yeah true, but who would they be asking where they were on a certain date? Asking Epstein?

In most court cases they do this to confirm a person was at a certain place where an event is alleged to occur. In answer to this (or from a related to questions either from prosecution or defence) about "was there anyone with you" (or similar lines of questioning) unfortunate details may be revealed.

If they don't ask if they were there, then in closing it can be argued that they prosecution never provided proof "beyond reasonable doubt" of the person being somewhere when an event occurred (or defence may ask questions which elicit this type of information - "Person XYZ was there as well, and it was they who must have committed the act", for example).

During a criminal trial, the defence are the only ones who can (in general) spring surprise information, as prosecution has to supply most information to the defence which may have the ability to be used to defend against charges, while defence don't have to produce anything until the trial...

Oh okay, but who would this question be asked to in the trial?

It could be a question to a "witness", or it could have been to the accused (in this case, Mr Epstein).

Oh okay, but Epstein would not take the stand if he is guilty. Why would he if he is just going to have to avoid being caught in lies.

As for a witness saying this, then wouldn't the people who do not want to be incriminated have to kill the witness as well?

Well, only he (and his lawyers) would be aware of the evidence to be used against him. Maybe he had something that demonstrated one or more details in the evidence were wrong, maybe he had a way to have some evidence labelled "inadmissable", maybe he had witnesses he could call who could provide these sorts of details...There are many possible reasons.

Additionally, maybe there was no way to know which (or how many) witnesses were likely to have the information, or it was harder to cause one or more witnesses to have an "accident", or there is the risk a witness may mention something they "heard", who you were not aware knew the details you wished hidden.

Oh okay. Well I just thought it was more of a risk to kill Epstein before he even cut a deal. But if Epstein was so rich, why didn't he just hire assasssins to take out the others that would want to kill him first?

If you want to properly investigate it, you might consider publicly announcing to friends and family that you are not suicidal. Perhaps a video to be delivered to the police telling them to automatically treat your death as suspicious.


Ah what a dark world we live in that we can joke about this.