• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

Checkmite said:
I don't know anything about the camera; but Epstein was taken off suicide watch at the demands of his own attorneys who argued that it was unnecessary.

As for not being checked on, that might be suspicious-sounding, but I believe it was later determined to be a habit on the part of the guard involved, and I believe they were fired for it. Considering the punishment, I don't think it's likely the guard would have been part of a deliberate scheme by prison management to intentionally not check on Epstein, else he would've said something to that effect by now.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out, I said "might be" in case that was missed.
 
There’s always one of these celebrity medical whatever’s to pop out of the woodwork and declare one thing or another based on their great expertise.

Remember Terry Schiavo? There was one radiologist who expertly declared, based on a few X-rays that everything looked fine to him. He was the darling of the “let Schiavo live brain-dead” crowd for quite a while. Several folks pointed out his propensity to make cruel diagnosis on public figures he didn’t like (such as saying Bill Clinton had AIDS, based on a candid photo in harsh sunlight vs his Presidential portrait photo).

Of course, when Schiavo died the autopsy showed much of her brain was liquid, not exactly the “looked fine” said radiologist declared.

I will now carve a huge grain of salt to take with this guy’s claims.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why don't they say which bones besides the hyoid? The only other bones in the neck are cervical vertebrae. In a standard hanging where the victim falls, stopped by the rope, a broken neck (vertebrae) is more common than not.

I'm going to guess in a prison suicide rather than falling very far, victims hang from the rope or device but don't fall far to get there thus cutting off air and brain blood supply.

If he tied the noose high and jumped off something like the bed, I don't think breaking three bones is all that mysterious.

Some other things might be suspicious like not having been checked on, taken off suicide precautions prematurely, camera not working? (I can't recall camera details if there was one.)

Obviously Epstein could probably implicate a lot of high profile and very rich persons so motive and capability are easy to imagine.

So, motive, yes.
Three broken bones, meh.
Some administrative decisions, maybe.
Click to expand...
The fractures were to the larynx and hyoid bone.
They are not "extremely unusual in suicidal hangings".

Checkmite said:
He was hired by Epstein's brother specifically to make this determination, so I'm not that impressed.
Click to expand...
Trebuchet said:
Oh, Michael Baden. He also testified that OJ was innocent, and that Phil Spector's victim was a suicide.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He's also a paid-for FOX commentator, probably stirring things up looking for more work. His history of mishandling evidence meant he lasted less than a year as CME in New York. Suffolk County also fired him from his coronial job.
 
Last edited:
kookbreaker said:
There’s always one of these celebrity medical whatever’s to pop out of the woodwork and declare one thing or another based on their great expertise.

Remember Terry Schiavo? There was one radiologist who expertly declared, based on a few X-rays that everything looked fine to him. He was the darling of the “let Schiavo live brain-dead” crowd for quite a while. Several folks pointed out his propensity to make cruel diagnosis on public figures he didn’t like (such as saying Bill Clinton had AIDS, based on a candid photo in harsh sunlight vs his Presidential portrait photo).

Of course, when Schiavo died the autopsy showed much of her brain was liquid, not exactly the “looked fine” said radiologist declared.

I will now carve a huge grain of salt to take with this guy’s claims.
Click to expand...
"Celebrity pathologists" are a blight, look at Spilsbury, Simpson and Cameron.
 
catsmate said:
The fractures were to the larynx and hyoid bone.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, wait a second. Stop the presses. Source for the bolded?

This is important. Like the nose, the larynx can be fractured but it isn't bone, it's cartilage. It's also proximal to the hyoid bone itself, not the spine.

If the fractures were indeed in the larynx, not the vertebrae, and people in this thread have been reading "three fractures" in press statements and presuming those other fractures must have been to vertebrae, then congratulations to all of you who have been fooled in precisely the manner intended by carefully-chosen spin.
 
Checkmite said:
Wait a second, wait a second. Stop the presses. Source for the bolded?

This is important. Like the nose, the larynx can be fractured but it isn't bone, it's cartilage. It's also proximal to the hyoid bone itself, not the spine.

If the fractures were indeed in the larynx, not the vertebrae, and people in this thread have been reading "three fractures" in press statements and presuming those other fractures must have been to vertebrae, then congratulations to all of you who have been fooled in precisely the manner intended by carefully-chosen spin.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm aware that the larynx isn't a bone; it's the terminology misused by Baden who referred to "two fractures on the left and right sides of his larynx, as well as one fracture on the left hyoid bone above the Adam’s apple" as part of his claims that the injuries are "are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings".

As for your comment about having "been fooled in precisely the manner intended by carefully-chosen spin" I have no idea what you're talking about. The references to the larynx injuries being fractures was common in media reports.
 
catsmate said:
Yes I'm aware that the larynx isn't a bone; it's the terminology misused by Baden who referred to "two fractures on the left and right sides of his larynx, as well as one fracture on the left hyoid bone above the Adam’s apple" as part of his claims that the injuries are "are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings".

As for your comment about having "been fooled in precisely the manner intended by carefully-chosen spin" I have no idea what you're talking about. The references to the larynx injuries being fractures was common in media reports.
Click to expand...

Those comments weren't for you, they were for others.

I hadn't heard the specific details of the fractures, except for the one to the hyoid bone, before your post. Prior to that point, the phrase being repeated most often here in this forum was "three fractures", which has been misinterpreted as "three broken bones", which people have been explicitly extrapolating to be vertebral breaks since the hyoid is the only other bone in the neck.

I am contending that certain media and others who had been repeating the "three fractures line" without specifying that the fractures were to the larynx, have been deliberately allowing readers to get an impression that Epstein's injuries were worse or more extensive than they actually were.

Any force applied to the front of the throat which is capable of breaking the hyoid bone is practically capable of fracturing the larynx at the same time, especially if one's cartilage is brittle - as it often is in older people like Epstein.
 
As stated pages ago, I think Epstein paid someone to kill him - he had set his affairs in order, and it is really tricky to kill yourself without practice..
 
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the latest ABC scandal, where footage was released of Amy Robach discussing how she had the Epstein story 3 years ago and the network spiked it. And now apparently ABC wants to go after the guy who leaked it, rather than the people who spiked the story.

And I wonder what was happening 3 years ago that might have influenced their decision to spike the story?
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the latest ABC scandal, where footage was released of Amy Robach discussing how she had the Epstein story 3 years ago and the network spiked it. And now apparently ABC wants to go after the guy who leaked it, rather than the people who spiked the story.
Click to expand...

It does make me wonder about Amy Robach. If you knew about giant child sex trafficking operation would you just not tell anyone because your producer said so? I don't think network television was the only way to get information out in 2016.

Ziggurat said:
And I wonder what was happening 3 years ago that might have influenced their decision to spike the story?
Click to expand...

My completely uneducated guess is it was because there was a presidential election in the US where both major candidates had connections to Epstein. Since we in the US only care about winning and not justice, anything that might hurt both sides is generally ignored.
 
Well, not to say that anyone around Epstein is not guilty, but Amy Robach is saying it was more a case of not having enough corroborating evidence to go with the interview:

“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration,” Robach, 46, said in a statement. “I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts [Giuffre] didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations.”

“My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts [Giuffre] said in that interview in 2015,” she added. “I was referencing her allegations — not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards.
Click to expand...
 
Max_mang said:
It does make me wonder about Amy Robach. If you knew about giant child sex trafficking operation would you just not tell anyone because your producer said so? I don't think network television was the only way to get information out in 2016.
Click to expand...


Do we know what the content of the quashed story was? I'm not sure I'd worry about Amy Robach's ethics if that is what you're suggesting. It's quite possible that she had nothing that wasn't already being investigated.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Do we know what the content of the quashed story was? I'm not sure I'd worry about Amy Robach's ethics if that is what you're suggesting. It's quite possible that she had nothing that wasn't already being investigated.
Click to expand...

Do you mean professional ethics or actual human ethical behavior? In the video her frustration seems entirely focused that this was "her story" first. To me that's a weird viewpoint on something so horrible as a giant child sex trafficking ring for the rich and powerful.
 
Max_mang said:
Do you mean professional ethics or actual human ethical behavior?
Click to expand...
Both, and I'm not seeing a real distinction here. She seems to have had an early scoop on some story that wasn't well founded. And it's also not clear that her story would have revealed anything helpful. In fact, I'd say that based on what I know I can't rule out that releasing her story might not have tipped him off to an investigation and prevented or hindered bringing him to justice.

But I'm not sure I know everything about this. What is your basis for your conclusions?
 
Professionally, it seems she didn’t have enough to go on back then. Which takes personal ethics out of it. What if it turned out to be overblown?

I think her frustration now comes from the fact that she had the story pretty much dead-on back then and she’s lamenting the fact that she couldn’t run with it and she laments it because of her personal ethics. She wanted to expose this back then. I don’t think it indicates that she’s frustrated that higher ups quashed the story for nefarious reasons. Its more likely she simply felt back then that she knew the story was strong enough to run with and disagreed with the decision that it wasn’t strong enough.
 
xjx388 said:
Professionally, it seems she didn’t have enough to go on back then. Which takes personal ethics out of it. What if it turned out to be overblown?

I think her frustration now comes from the fact that she had the story pretty much dead-on back then and she’s lamenting the fact that she couldn’t run with it and she laments it because of her personal ethics. She wanted to expose this back then. I don’t think it indicates that she’s frustrated that higher ups quashed the story for nefarious reasons. Its more likely she simply felt back then that she knew the story was strong enough to run with and disagreed with the decision that it wasn’t strong enough.
Click to expand...

So what stopped her? If you thought you'd uncovered a giant child sex trafficking ring would you not tell anyone because your producer said so? Network news was not the only information outlet in 2016. There's literally millions of ways she could have exposed this if, as you said, she wanted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom