Epstein Commits Suicide While on Suicide Watch (Maybe?)

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

I'm stunned that a pathologist who was hired to find evidence of homicide found evidence of homicide.  The pathologist who testified that OJ and Phil Spector were innocent no less.

 Do you have doubts about what Baden found in this case?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

 The NY Times article is about Dr. Biden's summary of facts, that is, how many times Michael Brown was shot (includes his diagram).

Mr. Ml1's examples concern matters of opinion, similar to Dr. Baden's stated opinion in about the cause of Jeffrey Epstein's death.

 That wasn't ml1's point:

ml1 said:

I'm stunned that a pathologist who was hired to find evidence of homicide found evidence of homicide. The pathologist who testified that OJ and Phil Spector were innocent no less.

 yeah, it was my point.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

I'm stunned that a pathologist who was hired to find evidence of homicide found evidence of homicide.  The pathologist who testified that OJ and Phil Spector were innocent no less.

 Do you have doubts about what Baden found in this case?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

 The NY Times article is about Dr. Biden's summary of facts, that is, how many times Michael Brown was shot (includes his diagram).

Mr. Ml1's examples concern matters of opinion, similar to Dr. Baden's stated opinion in about the cause of Jeffrey Epstein's death.

 That wasn't ml1's point:

ml1 said:

I'm stunned that a pathologist who was hired to find evidence of homicide found evidence of homicide. The pathologist who testified that OJ and Phil Spector were innocent no less.

 yeah, it was my point.

You went beyond "matters of opinion" and slurred Dr. Baden by (a) misrepresenting his testimony (he never said OJ or Spector were "innocent") and (b) selecting two unsympathetic individuals who he testified for instead of sympathetic individuals Baden has testified for like Michael Brown, Eric Garner or Medgar Evers who were victims of the criminal justice system (which might be the case with Epstein) because that would have shown Baden's motivation to uncover the truth in matters of institutional malfeasance.

paulsurovell said:

You went beyond "matters of opinion" and slurred Dr. Baden by (a) misrepresenting his testimony (he never said OJ or Spector were "innocent") and (b) selecting two unsympathetic individuals who he testified for instead of sympathetic individuals Baden has testified for like Michael Brown, Eric Garner or Medgar Evers who were victims of the criminal justice system (which might be the case with Epstein) because that would have shown Baden's motivation to uncover the truth in matters of institutional malfeasance.

 you could have given that response right from the start.

But it is true that Baden's record is mixed with regard to the clients who he has testified for.  Except for the fact that he typically supports the claims of the people who hired him, which is pretty consistent.  He may not have said OJ or Spector were "innocent," but he did testify to fairly implausible explanations for the evidence in both trials.  And for his theories to have been true would have required that the defendants were innocent of the charges.

There's no reason to give any more credibility to Baden than the the ME of the city of New York.  

paulsurovell said:

You went beyond "matters of opinion" and slurred Dr. Baden by (a) misrepresenting his testimony (he never said OJ or Spector were "innocent") and (b) selecting two unsympathetic individuals who he testified for instead of sympathetic individuals Baden has testified for like Michael Brown, Eric Garner or Medgar Evers who were victims of the criminal justice system (which might be the case with Epstein) because that would have shown Baden's motivation to uncover the truth in matters of institutional malfeasance.

 Every case Paul mentions is different from the type of opinion Baden rendered in the Epstein case.

Also, not for nothing, but he confirmed the NY medical examiner's conclusion in the Eric Garner case, and said it was "spot on".

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

You went beyond "matters of opinion" and slurred Dr. Baden by (a) misrepresenting his testimony (he never said OJ or Spector were "innocent") and (b) selecting two unsympathetic individuals who he testified for instead of sympathetic individuals Baden has testified for like Michael Brown, Eric Garner or Medgar Evers who were victims of the criminal justice system (which might be the case with Epstein) because that would have shown Baden's motivation to uncover the truth in matters of institutional malfeasance.

He may not have said OJ or Spector were "innocent," but he did testify to fairly implausible explanations for the evidence in both trials.  And for his theories to have been true would have required that the defendants were innocent of the charges.

I'm not familiar with the Spector trial, but the jury in the OJ case either thought that Baden's testimony was plausible, or it rejected it and found other reasons to rule Not Guilty.

There's no reason to give any more credibility to Baden than the the ME of the city of New York.

And vice versa.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

You went beyond "matters of opinion" and slurred Dr. Baden by (a) misrepresenting his testimony (he never said OJ or Spector were "innocent") and (b) selecting two unsympathetic individuals who he testified for instead of sympathetic individuals Baden has testified for like Michael Brown, Eric Garner or Medgar Evers who were victims of the criminal justice system (which might be the case with Epstein) because that would have shown Baden's motivation to uncover the truth in matters of institutional malfeasance.

 Every case Paul mentions is different from the type of opinion Baden rendered in the Epstein case.

But all three involved African Americans were were victims of racial injustice. Tells you something about Baden's character.

Also, not for nothing, but he confirmed the NY medical examiner's conclusion in the Eric Garner case, and said it was "spot on".

Tells you something about Baden's integrity.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Every case Paul mentions is different from the type of opinion Baden rendered in the Epstein case.

But all three involved African Americans were were victims of racial injustice. Tells you something about Baden's character.

Also, not for nothing, but he confirmed the NY medical examiner's conclusion in the Eric Garner case, and said it was "spot on".

Tells you something about Baden's integrity.

It says nothing at all about either. 

Why is it that the people who dislike Hillary want to prove that Epstein was murdered?  

jamie said:

Why is it that the people who dislike Hillary want to prove that Epstein was murdered?  

 You just don't understand how it's all connected.

nohero said:

 You just don't understand how it's all connected.

 Jamie is the one who is saying it's all connected (people who like Hillary always trying to prove Epstein was murdered).

That seems like an odd connection to me. 

nan said:

nohero said:

 You just don't understand how it's all connected.

 Jamie is the one who is saying it's all connected (people who like Hillary always trying to prove Epstein was murdered).

That seems like an odd connection to me. 

 No, he's noticing a certain mindset among those who dislike.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

 You just don't understand how it's all connected.

 Jamie is the one who is saying it's all connected (people who like Hillary always trying to prove Epstein was murdered).

That seems like an odd connection to me. 

 No, he's noticing a certain mindset among those who dislike.

 If there is such a mindset it has to do with thinking beyond what we are told to think by establishment media. Or maybe just thinking, period.

LOL- and there proves my point.  Any news reporter should basically give it up when you have the likes of paul and nan ready to pounce on anything you say.

We live in a time where the smallest doubt outweighs the preponderance of evidence.  This is where the likes of Dore, Mate and Greenwald excel.  This is also greatly benefits Trump and the republicans as well.

And it is for some reason - it's the Bernie tribe who overwhelmingly perpetuate and encourage the anti-MSM rants. 

jamie said:

LOL- and there proves my point.  Any news reporter should basically give it up when you have the likes of paul and nan ready to pounce on anything you say.

We live in a time where the smallest doubt outweighs the preponderance of evidence.  This is where the likes of Dore, Mate and Greenwald excel.  This is also greatly benefits Trump and the republicans as well.

And it is for some reason - it's the Bernie tribe who overwhelmingly perpetuate and encourage the anti-MSM rants. 

 Seriously.   People thinking for themselves is a big problem.   Do as your told!

terp said:

 Seriously.   People thinking for themselves is a big problem.   Do as your told!

We've been through this.  I'm open to anyone's argument.  But no one has yet argued convincingly why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered.  Why would they wait until it was more difficult, and when more civilians would have to be aware of the plot?

ml1 said:

We've been through this.  I'm open to anyone's argument.  But no one has yet argued convincingly why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered.  Why would they wait until it was more difficult, and when more civilians would have to be aware of the plot?

 He was somewhat suddenly incarcerated. He was less dangerous until he was in custody.

mrincredible said:

 He was somewhat suddenly incarcerated. He was less dangerous until he was in custody.

 So the theory is that he was so dangerous to the deep state that they would go into a prison cell and murder him in the presence of guards, but he wasn't so dangerous previously that they'd take a much easier opportunity to kill him?

ml1 said:

 So the theory is that he was so dangerous to the deep state that they would go into a prison cell and murder him in the presence of guards, but he wasn't so dangerous previously that they'd take a much easier opportunity to kill him?

You assume that the deep state is organized and on top of everything and a unified voice.  Probably more chaotic.  

Tried to embed this tweet, but it wouldn't work.

Watch this, it's worth it.

https://twitter.com/benFranklin2018/status/1190972664871034881

ml1 said:

terp said:

 Seriously.   People thinking for themselves is a big problem.   Do as your told!

We've been through this.  I'm open to anyone's argument.  But no one has yet argued convincingly why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered.  Why would they wait until it was more difficult, and when more civilians would have to be aware of the plot?

 You don't seem to be open to Baden's findings.

drummerboy said:

Tried to embed this tweet, but it wouldn't work.

Watch this, it's worth it.

https://twitter.com/benFranklin2018/status/1190972664871034881

For those who don't want to watch - a guy is being interviewed on Fox, about the types of dogs who work with the military, and how people now are interested in getting a dog like that.  At the end, he asks if he could add something, then says something about getting a dog and adds, "And Epstein didn't kill himself".

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

terp said:

 Seriously.   People thinking for themselves is a big problem.   Do as your told!

We've been through this.  I'm open to anyone's argument.  But no one has yet argued convincingly why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered.  Why would they wait until it was more difficult, and when more civilians would have to be aware of the plot?

 You don't seem to be open to Baden's findings.

Baden did not do an examination himself, he reviewed the medical examiner's report.  He gave an opinion about the injuries.  He didn't say anything about who did it, or more importantly why, which is what Mr. ml1's post was about.

Put another way, Mr. ml1 is saying, if Baden's opinion is correct, why would "people in power" have waited to kill Epstein until he was in jail.  Paul's reply is - what about Baden's findings.  Which is missing the point. 

ml1 said:

terp said:

 Seriously.   People thinking for themselves is a big problem.   Do as your told!

We've been through this.  I'm open to anyone's argument.  But no one has yet argued convincingly why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered.  Why would they wait until it was more difficult, and when more civilians would have to be aware of the plot?

Possibilities:

 Plans changed!

Or, Epstein's plans changed!

Or, new player made new decision.

Once again all three above are hypotheticals.  But, your challenge makes it sound as if your challenge (namely, "why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered") is not assailable.  Your challenge is ridiculous because it assumes a static universe and static leadership as a defense to the possibility of murder (rather than suicide).  Neither, the universe nor various leaders are static.

nan said:

You assume that the deep state is organized and on top of everything and a unified voice.  Probably more chaotic.  

 so not organized enough to have him killed when he was walking free, but organized enough to pull off a jailhouse murder and cover it up?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

terp said:

 Seriously.   People thinking for themselves is a big problem.   Do as your told!

We've been through this.  I'm open to anyone's argument.  But no one has yet argued convincingly why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered.  Why would they wait until it was more difficult, and when more civilians would have to be aware of the plot?

 You don't seem to be open to Baden's findings.

Baden did not do an examination himself, he reviewed the medical examiner's report.  He gave an opinion about the injuries.  He didn't say anything about who did it, or more importantly why, which is what Mr. ml1's post was about.

Put another way, Mr. ml1 is saying, if Baden's opinion is correct, why would "people in power" have waited to kill Epstein until he was in jail.  Paul's reply is - what about Baden's findings.  Which is missing the point. 

 You are missing the point:

1.) Baden's conclusion is evidence that high caliber professionals can come to the conclusion that the injuries that Epstein's injuries are more consistent with murder (than suicide);

2.) ml1's challenge (namely, "why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered") is ridiculous because it is based on erroneous assumptions (namely, static universe and static leadership).  See my posting immediately prior to this one.  IOW, ml1's challenge is merely supposition dressed up as unassailable logic (which it is not).  

And, ml1's claim is not evidence.  Whereas, Baden's conclusion is evidence (in the form of an expert's interpretation of the autopsy).

RealityForAll said:

Possibilities:

 Plans changed!

Or, Epstein's plans changed!

Or, new player made new decision.

Once again all three above are hypotheticals.  But, your challenge makes it sound as if your challenge (namely, "why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered") is not assailable.  Your challenge is ridiculous because it assumes a static universe and static leadership as a defense to the possibility of murder (rather than suicide).  Neither, the universe nor various leaders are static.

As usual you make up your own assumptions and ascribe them to someone else.

And your conclusion makes no sense. If there wasn't a constancy in "leadership" why would anyone in power want Epstein killed for crimes he committed well before he was arrested? The murder hypothesis itself assumes a static universe and leadership. 

ml1 said:

nan said:

You assume that the deep state is organized and on top of everything and a unified voice.  Probably more chaotic.  

 so not organized enough to have him killed when he was walking free, but organized enough to pull off a jailhouse murder and cover it up?

 Making a baseless suppostion does not substitute for evidence.  Why will you not accept that Baden came to a markedly different conclusion regarding the autopsy evidence (essentially, contrary to the NY medical examiner's conclusion)?

RealityForAll said:

 You are missing the point:

1.) Baden's conclusion is evidence that high caliber professionals can come to the conclusion that the injuries that Epstein's injuries are more consistent with murder (than suicide);

2.) ml1's challenge (namely, "why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered") is ridiculous because it is based on erroneous assumptions (namely, static universe and static leadership).  See my posting immediately prior to this one.  IOW, ml1's challenge is merely supposition dressed up as unassailable logic (which it is not).  

And, ml1's claim is not evidence.  Whereas, Baden's conclusion is evidence (in the form of an expert's interpretation of the autopsy).

 Baden didn't come to a conclusion that wasn't already well known. That is that the injuries are usually seen in a homicide. But medical experts are also on record stating that those injuries can also be seen in suicide. 

RealityForAll said:

 Making a baseless suppostion does not substitute for evidence.  Why will you not accept that Baden came to a markedly different conclusion regarding the autopsy evidence (essentially, contrary to the NY medical examiner's conclusion)?

 see above. Not "markedly different". 

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

terp said:

 Seriously.   People thinking for themselves is a big problem.   Do as your told!

We've been through this.  I'm open to anyone's argument.  But no one has yet argued convincingly why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered.  Why would they wait until it was more difficult, and when more civilians would have to be aware of the plot?

 You don't seem to be open to Baden's findings.

Baden did not do an examination himself, he reviewed the medical examiner's report.  He gave an opinion about the injuries.  He didn't say anything about who did it, or more importantly why, which is what Mr. ml1's post was about.

Put another way, Mr. ml1 is saying, if Baden's opinion is correct, why would "people in power" have waited to kill Epstein until he was in jail.  Paul's reply is - what about Baden's findings.  Which is missing the point. 

 You are missing the point:

1.) Baden's conclusion is evidence that high caliber professionals can come to the conclusion that the injuries that Epstein's injuries are more consistent with murder (than suicide);

2.) ml1's challenge (namely, "why people in power would wait until Epstein was put in a prison cell to have him murdered") is ridiculous because it is based on erroneous assumptions (namely, static universe and static leadership).  See my posting immediately prior to this one.  IOW, ml1's challenge is merely supposition dressed up as unassailable logic (which it is not).  

And, ml1's claim is not evidence.  Whereas, Baden's conclusion is evidence (in the form of an expert's interpretation of the autopsy).

 More of your baseless supposition rather than attention to an expert's interpretation of the autopsy.  IRL, are you K** Di*****n from NBC News (because you sure sound like him)?