Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Briefly Noted: Video Footage Near Epstein's Cell 'Unusable'

No, this development doesn't prove Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, but it certainly does give one pause to consider. There's really not much to say at this point. You can read about it at Gateway Pundit and American Thinker. The investigation continues. Thomas Lifson's account at American Thinker includes the key considerations:

In order to evaluate this, we would need a diagram of the floor of the Metropolitan Correctional Center showing the location and coverage area of each camera. If it turns out that the actual entrance to Epstein’s cell is not covered, that is exceedingly suspicious. The question then becomes would anyone be able to access that doorway without being observed by the functioning cameras.
There are no details now available about the nature of the flaw, whether the camera was not functional for an extended period, or just for a limited time surrounding the death of Epstein.


  1. Connecting dots.

    Recently, news media reported that Durham had subpoenaed for Grand Jury testimony up to 20 persons associated with the MCC supervision of Epstein.

    Now, other media report that corridor video near Epstein's cell is "unuseable", whatever that means.

    We know that the Deep State uses media leaks to communicate with it's co-conspirators. If a person is going before the Grand Jury and worried that something untoward may be revealed in a corridor video, this latter news may provide assurance that nothing incriminating will come back to bite him as a result of his testimony. Therefore, this media "leak" could be construed as witness tampering.

    On a related note, this is exactly the conduct that McCabe engaged in when he instructed Lisa Page to leak confidential information to the media and then later lied about it under oath. And even worse, he then blamed the leak on field office FBI agents. At some point, you have to start prosecuting this criminality or you will get complete gridlock and CYA culture in the entire FBI.

    1. Why can't you be bothered to take about 2 minutes to get the real facts straight, instead of inventing your own?

      Durham has nothing to do with the Epstein case. Repeat: nothing. It's being handled by the USA Attorney in NYC.

      Nor is the McCabe leak investigation in any way "related". That's strictly OIG and the US Attorney in DC.

      As I've said repeatedly, USAs are just as much presidential appointees as is the AG. Main DoJ can't simply override them or take cases away from them without cause.

  2. We need more information to come out. I like to wait for the facts. Still, I'm left with a nagging feeling that all of this is just too convenient and too coincidental.

    It doesn't mean murder, necessarily. But it makes me wonder if suicide was made easier or encouraged.

    It's very disheartening and disturbing.

    1. One would think that, pursuant to the Law of Averages, at least one of these many 'coincidences' would cut towards edification rather than obscuration. "Is a puzzlement."
      Tom S.

  3. Mark, I recall reading, some years ago, a defense of the increasingly prevalent practice of 'leaking' authored by someone which appeared in the NYT. I have looked for but can't retrieve the article.

    It would be interesting to discuss on your blog the pros and cons of leaking. In so suggesting I admit that the practice has always bothered me, especially where the leaker has no authority to leak the information and where leaking is either an express violation of the leaker's duty of confidentiality to his employer (the government) or, worse, a criminal act in respect of secret and/or classified information. I know that there are arguments in favor of leaking (transparency, gauging public opinion, trial ballooning, etc.) but except in cases where the government has been out and out lying, the practice seems generally wrong to me.

    What do you think?

    1. It may be one of those things where hard and fast rules aren't really possible. I agree that it's troublesome, yet it often does seem to serve a public interest.