Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who was indicted on sex trafficking charges, died overnight by an apparent suicide in his Manhattan jail cell, according to multiple reports on Saturday morning.

To bad ! I would have like to see him implicate all the other bigshots !

Agreed. And the Federal inquest will stop. That leaves only the civil suits against his rich, disgusting friends = insignificant (for them) settlements with NDAs.

Conspiracy theories rife on Reddit. He was under suicide watch, which should make hanging himself impossible - no-rip clothing, a bare room containing court documents and a book only. Hmmm...

Right on . I smell a fish

At the tme of his death he was not on suicide watch

Seems convenient. I thought I'd read he was on suicide watch after a previous attempt. Why would you take someone off watch, particularly with the news that was coming out?

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/45...-death-reports

The sordid details about Andy!

https://www.insider.com/jeffrey-epst...-puppet-2019-8

Meanwhile the US President and leader of the free world is spreading conspiracy theories by retweeting.
As was posted before, we long ago went through the bottom of the barrel.

Presumably one of the Clintons will shortly be tweeting "@Jeffery(sic)Epstein had information on Donald Trump & now he's dead". Stones and glasshouses...

I hope the Clintons are more mature than that but am not betting on it!

But he didn't know him!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...C-mansion.html

Check out the painting of Bill Clinton here:

EXCLUSIVE: Jeffrey Epstein had a painting of Bill Clinton wearing a blue DRESS and red heels and lounging in the Oval Office inside his Manhattan mansion - visitor reveals bizarre image inside pedophile's $56m lair

"The original painting is called 'Parsing Bill' and is by Australian-American artist Petrina Ryan-Kleid, although it is unclear if Epstein had bought the canvas or had a print mounted. Ryan-Kleid exhibited for her degree show when she graduated with an MFA in 2012 from the New York Academy of Art."

Then compare it with the description by the anonymous source who said she saw it when visiting Epstein's home to make a business proposal:

"She told DailyMailTV: 'It was absolutely Bill Clinton. It was shocking - it was definitely a painting of him. It was a very provocative, sexual picture. He was wearing heels, a blue dress and his hand was in a weird position."

I can't see anything provocative or sexual about the painting, unless one thinks a bloke in a dress showing a bit of thigh is sexy, nor that either of his hands are in a "weird position".

So this story seems to me to involve exaggeration, indeed be "sexed up". It makes me wonder to what extent exaggeration might be a factor in the anonymous source's other claim that she spotted a "a girl who seemed to be 14 waiting to see the financier" and the much more serious claims by alleged victims against Epstein's estate and Ghislaine Maxwell and others, especially with the prospect of gaining thousands if not millions of dollars in exchange.

Considering Mr. Clinton ditched secret service to take 26 flights on the "Lolita Express".........I'm sure nothing happened on private jet that specialized in trafficking under age girls.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...n-multiple-lo/

Also, that prison has not had a suicide in over 20 years.


No conspiracy here.

Sexy no, but who has something so bizarre in the house?

You think a picture of a (male) American (ex-)president in a wierd pose, wearing a dress and red high heels should be politely ignored by the tabloid press ?
I don't see any need for exaggeration and "sexed up" reporting. The plain facts are more than ample in this case. Also, the decription given by the "anonymous" woman seems completely in line with expectations and thus, contrary to your assertion, gives credence to her report about the "14 year old girl"

It's not a picture, it's a painting which means it's an artist taking some liberties. It looks like a bad photoshop job. I wonder how much Epstein paid for it.

I'm not talking about the reporting but about the quote from the anonymous source describing the painting (assuming the quote has been reported correctly). Of course, you're free to agree with her that the painting is very provocative and sexual and his hand is in a weird position, but I don't.

It's a weird painting in creepy Epstein's house. Nothing more or less.

The whole thing is so fundamentally bizarre and aberrant, especially considering the Epstein context, that a someone's struggle to attempt to summarize with a few words would hardly be expected to capture the full weirdness of it all. You are quibbling about the definitions of "sexual" and "provocative". Maybe for some, cross dressing would have sexual connotations.