grumpyduck
grumpyduck's JournalTwo points for me re: the Epstein mystery
I don't generally blow wind into my own sails, but I'm going to indulge in a bit of it here.
Back on Saturday the 10th, right after Epstein's death was announced, I posted a list of movie tropes that would probably be used if Hollywood decided to go with the story. Here are three of them:
If he was on suicide watch, why was he "found" after the hanging? Did the regular guards call in sick and were they replaced by others?
--- This morning it was announced that the guard at the time was a substitute.
What did he hang himself with? Is there any DNA on it besides his?
--- The opinion at the time was that there was nothing in the cell with which to hang himself. Now it appears that there was a top bunk and he hung himself by tying a noose onto the top bunk and leaning forward. This also gets into the removal of his cellmate, which indicates two beds, not one.
--- And, being such a high-profile inmate, why was he in a two-occupant cell with someone else in the first place, except maybe to give him access to that top bunk once the cellmate was reassigned?
Were there any cameras on him? Were they functioning?
--- Nope. The story is, the cameras looked at the hallway, not into the cells.
This is all going to get more interesting by the day.
Conspiracy theories? Seriously?
There's been quite a lot of traffic here about conspiracy theories regarding Epstein, and it's getting to the point of serious nausea.
"Conspiracy" is a great word and certainly a conversation starter, but let's keep a simple fact in mind: some government agencies do make people disappear for various reasons. The U.S. Marshals Service, for instance, has the Witness Security Program, which provides safety for witnesses in some types of major criminal cases. That's not a conspiracy: it's a legal mandate and SOP for the agency.
So to poh-poh the idea that Epstein may have been spirited away by a government agency for whatever reason, and to call it a tin-hat conspiracy theory is baloney. It's a question that needs to be asked: did he really die?
If it turns out he really died, then, fine; it's settled. But so far all we have as proof is what we've been told.
Maybe we just need more people from Missouri: "Show me."
I'm not going to get into why he may have been spirited away: that's a whole other conversation and I'm not going to waste my time on speculation. I can go there IF we find out he didn't really die.
Epstein: the plot thickens
We've seen it all before: the news, the alleged coverups, the conflicting stories, the everything else. So, if this were a movie or TV cop show, here are the plot points, in no specific order:
If he was on suicide watch, why was he "found" after the hanging? Did the regular guards call in sick and were they replaced by others?
What did he hang himself with? Is there any DNA on it besides his?
Were there any cameras on him? Were they functioning?
Once the ME determines cause and time of death, will it all be buried? Who IS the ME? Did the regular ME call in sick too?
Was the physical exam consistent with death by hanging? Crushed windpipe, dislocated discs, petechiae, bruises on the neck, etc.?
Cases are assigned to specific MEs by the chief ME. How did the ME who did the autopsy get selected?
Were there any "men in black" hanging around all this time?
Did the FBI insist on taking over the autopsy and the case?
Who were the first responders at the jail? What did they do?
Did the ME find any little puncture marks on the body? Any signs of succinilcholine?
What did he have for dinner last night? Who brought it to his cell? What happened to the tray and utensils?
Did he have any physical contact with anyone over the last couple of days?
And that's just in the first half of the movie...
In the second half, we get into whether he really died or was spirited away by a government cabal, never to be seen again.
Just received a call from Social Security
I just picked up a voicemail telling me my SS account was suspended because of suspicious activity, and that I should press 1 to find out about the case. Ha!
The stupid giveaway? Caller ID said the caller was "Anonymous."
Someone else posted that there are only two types of Republicans
and I don't want to hijack his or her thread, so I will start this one.
Here's a third type: I have a long-time friend who's a Republican. We have a lot in common, have had some great times, and get along fine, as long as we don't talk politics. He almost got me going a couple of times, but we pulled the plug. Anyway, the other day he sent me a forwarded email about a member of Congress's alleged ties to the Communist Party and asked me if I could find out anything about it.
Given only the information in the email, I was able to get on three web sites and, five minutes later, discover that the email was baloney. It labelled the MoC as a Communist sympathizer, but it was obvious the writer was just focusing on the label instead of seeing the bigger picture. I wrote back and told my friend that anyone (including TV talking heads) can label someone else as anything, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the label fits. I remember this type of stuff from grammar school, and I was tired of it even then.
This has happened with my friend three or four times by now, and I find interesting that he sends me the forwarded material and asks me to check into it instead of doing it himself, when it's so easy. This guy is no dummy: far from it.
So yeah, I think a third type of Republican is the type that believes everything he or she hears from pundits and doesn't bother checking it.
On the other hand, I don't think you necessarily have to be a Republican to do that.
Once more, I think I understand why so many still support Trump,
especially in Congress.
Over the years, I've known a fair number of people who, for whatever reason, seemed incapable of, or just downright refused to, admit making a mistake. They have included friends, relatives, classmates, co-workers, managers, and many others. They would get defensive and start blaming others, or change the subject, or clam up, or get in a huff and walk away. In some extreme cases it wasn't even that they made a mistake: sometimes shit just happens, but some of these people would immediately start looking for someone to blame, 'cuz it certainly wasn't "their fault."
That's what I think I'm seeing here, and it's so obvious with some of the questions or remarks (and the tone) fired at people during Congressional hearings. It's like they're digging in and refusing to address the issues and using their time to point fingers at someone else.
I don't have a clue why some people behave this way, but it's very noticeable if you just stand back and watch it. In the case of elected officials, of course, it's likely that they're afraid to admit a mistake because it might cost them the next election.
I've found I can't even look at photos of some people any more.
I like to think I'm a civilized adult and way above this, but I have discovered I can't look at photos of certain individuals in government any longer. When I see their photos online I have to scroll past them or just look somewhere else.
Sad, but that's how I feel nowadays.
Did Obama attack any of his opponents when he was campaigning?
Serious question. I don't know.
Okay, wait... Mueller was hampered by the DoJ's rule about indicting a president.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that, if the DoJ is part of the Executive Branch (which it is), and the AG is appointed by the president (which he or she is), that for the DoJ to have such a rule, regardless of precedent, would constitute a conflict of interest.
Any lawyers here care to chip in?
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Dec 16, 2017, 01:51 PMNumber of posts: 6,232
