Who Wanted Jeffrey Epstein Dead?

Who Wanted Jeffrey Epstein Dead?

By Patrick Martin
Information Clearing House
August 14, 2019

Let’s begin by stating the obvious: Jeffrey Epstein’s violent death in
a Manhattan jail cell prevents a trial or a plea deal that threatened
to expose business associates and political enablers who made use
of the services provided by his alleged sex-trafficking activities or
who profited from this and other sordid operations of the
multimillionaire money manager.

Given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding his death,
the efforts of the media—and the New York Times in particular
to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that Epstein’s death was
the result of anything but a suicide reek of a high-level cover-up.

Whether he was strangled in a jail cell by a hired killer or allowed
to hang himself is almost beside the point.

Epstein’s life came to a violent end while in the custody of the
US government.

This is an undeniable fact.

Even if he committed suicide, the act could not have succeeded
without the direct complicity of those who were responsible for
his safety.

And while Epstein was accused of deplorable crimes, it should
hardly be necessary to point out that he—yes, even Epstein had
the right to a vigorous defense in a trial.

That his untimely death preempts and prevents the trial from
taking place is a matter of staggering seriousness.

The suspicion of homicide is clearly justified.

That Epstein was murdered—whether by an assailant or by the
calculated enabling of his jail cell suicide—is far more plausible
than the official account of what took place at the Metropolitan
Correctional Center over the past three weeks.

According to prison officials, Epstein was found hanged in
his cell Saturday morning.

His guards had neglected to perform their every-half-hour
inspection during the night and only belatedly took a look
at their prisoner at 6:30 a.m.

This occurred even though Epstein was arguably the most notorious
prisoner currently in federal custody, with his arrest on sex-
trafficking charges given saturation coverage in the New York
and national media.

Moreover he had been placed on suicide watch from July 23 when
he was reportedly found unconscious in his cell with marks on his
neck until July 31 when the special provisions including 24/7
surveillance, were lifted without explanation.

Epstein’s attorneys and other visitors said they saw no signs that
the multimillionaire was in low spirits or likely to take his own life
and he had been participating in preparations for his legal defense
in an upcoming trial for as much as 12 hours a day.

Investigations have now begun by the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Attorney General William Barr and the Justice Department
inspector general, all of whom have ample reason to rig the
result and cover up what really happened.

So far, the most elementary facts have been withheld from
the public.

It has not been reported how and with what material Epstein was
hanged or whether there is a video recording of his cell that would
show the alleged, “suicide” or otherwise shed light on the physical
circumstances of his death.

The legal and political circumstances of Epstein’s death are a
different matter; they strongly suggest that Epstein had become
a danger to an entire section of the Wall Street and political elite,
who had a powerful motive to silence him.

The media has quickly moved to denounce anyone who points
to the obviously concocted character of the official story as
the promoter of a, “conspiracy theory.”

The New York Times is aggressively promoting the official claims
of suicide.

The newspaper’s editorial Sunday begins, “By apparently
committing suicide in his Manhattan jail cell on Saturday morning,
Jeffrey Epstein spared himself a lengthy trial that could have sent
him to prison for the rest of his life on federal sex-trafficking
charges.”

The use of the word, “apparently” is entirely out of place.

In the absence of any details relating to this death nothing
is, “apparent.”

The Times is simply conditioning the public to accept the suicide
narrative without an urgently required criminal investigation into
Epstein’s death which must be considered suspicious.

Furthermore, why does the Times state that Epstein was, “spared”
a trial?

Do the editors have information that supports their assumption
that Epstein did not want to have a trial?

What about the possibility that his death, “spares” other powerful
and influential people from having their connections to Epstein’s
proven and alleged criminal activities, either sexual or financial,
brought into the public eye by a lengthy legal proceeding.

“Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department’s
inspector general would open an investigation into the
circumstances of Mr. Epstein’s death in federal custody. While
Mr. Epstein will never face a legal reckoning, the investigations
into his crimes and those of others connected to him must continue.
His premature death shouldn’t stop law enforcement authorities
from finishing the job that they finally took up seriously years
after they should have.”

This is cynical claptrap: The Times knows full well that Epstein's
death without a trial or conviction (technically, Epstein dies an
innocent man, at least on the most recent charges), will effectively
end the investigation.

There is no longer the danger of a plea deal which Epstein's lawyers
would certainly have attempted to negotiate in return for his
testimony in trials of others whom he might have implicated in the
alleged sex-trafficking ring.

The Times does not raise these obvious issues, let alone demand
a criminal investigation and public hearings into the circumstances
of Epstein's highly suspicious death.

Any elementary review of the facts makes clear that Epstein’s
death must be treated as a criminal investigation.

Only 24 hours before his death, more than 2,000 pages of
documents were released by a Florida court in a civil suit
brought by one of the women who has charged Epstein with
enslaving her as a teenager as part of his systematic abuse
of young girls.

The woman filed a defamation suit against Epstein’s partner,
Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly had acted as a procuress,
recruiting teenage girls to service him.

Maxwell is herself a product of the super-rich milieu that
vomited up Epstein.

She is the daughter of the late British billionaire publisher
Robert Maxwell, also the target of numerous allegations of
fraud and other financial crimes.

In a grisly similarity, Robert Maxwell died under mysterious
circumstances in 1991, when he allegedly fell off his yacht,
the Lady Ghislaine (named after the daughter), and his naked
body was found floating in the Atlantic Ocean several days later.

The death was ruled accidental, although both suicide
and homicide were widely suggested at the time.

The documents released Thursday named a number of prominent
political and society figures as patrons of Epstein’s sex ring,
including two top Democrats, former Senate Majority Leader
George Mitchell and former governor and Clinton cabinet member
Bill Richardson, a one-time presidential candidate, as well as
Prince Andrew, second son of the Queen of England.

Whatever the truth of the allegations against these individuals,
there is no question that Epstein was for many years an integral
part of the financial and political elite in the United States,
hobnobbing with former president's like Bill Clinton.

The death of Epstein so obviously invites the assumption that this
is a case of removing an inconvenient personality, one who could
have implicated dozens if not hundreds of powerful people if he
were finally brought to trial, that the official claim of suicide
made possible by neglect on the part of low-ranking prison guards
has been greeted with disbelief.

Epstein’s death evokes recollections of Francis Ford Coppola’s,
"The Godfather."

The Epstein case, in all its criminal depravity, sheds light on
the state of American capitalist society.

The super-rich prey upon the poor and the vulnerable using
them as they wish.

They make use of their connections to cover up their crimes or
depending on the circumstances, arrange for the elimination of
those former friends and associates whose activities have become
an inconvenience or a danger.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52091.htm