Cui bono?
In one of the many riveting scenes from the movie, The Godfather, Part Two, the main character, Mafia Capo Michael Corleone, is discussing the proposed assassination of a high profile individual in Federal custody. He turns to his advisor, Tom Hagen, who had claimed that such an assassination would be impossible, and says: “If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it’s that you can kill anyone.”
Chilling words. And true, unfortunately. The list of “high profile” assassinations is breathtakingly long. It reached it’s apotheosis with John F. Kennedy, of course, but the laundry list includes many victims that should have been impossible to kill. Abraham Lincon, William McKinely, Anwar Sadat, Indira Ghandi, Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, Lee Harvey Oswald (while in Federal custody) are among them. In fact, the list goes all the way back to Julius Cesar. History has, indeed, taught us that you can kill anyone.
So, when news of billionaire pervert Jeffery Epstein flashed across the airwaves, it’s hard to imagine that any clear thinking individual could hear that news and NOT wonder as to whether or not it was murder. Although the liberal news media dutifully did their best to avoid any mention of the topic, people EVERYWHERE asked the same question: was Jeffery Epstein murdered? In fact, the conspicuous absence of any initial media speculation to that effect, shows us, yet again, that America’s major media have relinquished their responsibility to perform skeptical analysis and critical commentary. Shouldn’t they have at least MENTIONED that some individuals might have found the turn of events to be a WEE BIT suspicious?
There was no such omission however, on the part of the blogosphere. The internet (America’s last hope for uncensored commentary) immediately lit up with suspicions of foul play. Speculations along those lines continue up to the present. Eventually, major media responds, as they usually do, by saying such “unfounded accusations” are the work of “conspiracy nuts”. No matter, however. The Epstein case has so many “irregularities”, as Attorney General William Bar put it, that suspicions will not easily be brushed aside.
And, evidence of skullduggery abounds. Why wasn’t Epstein granted bail? Couldn’t “flight risk” have been eliminated by radio monitoring? Couldn’t “risk of continuing abuse” have been eliminated by supervised house arrest? Why was he taken off suicide watch when there had been a previous attempt and when his “reversal of fortune” made him obviously at risk for deep depression? Why was he given the means to commit suicide? Why was he not monitored? Why was his cellmate taken away? Why did the daily psychiatric assessments fail to warn of the possibility of suicide? Or, if the assessments were those of a high risk level, why were they ignored? And, why on earth was this situation not given the utmost attention by prison personel and management? “Under staffing” does NOT, in my opinion, constitute a plausible explanation.
Now, despite all of the suspicions mentioned above, I must concede that I’m not certain that Epstein was murdered. I would, however, BET on it. Call me a skeptic or a “conspiracy nut” or what have you, but, like Attorney General Barr, I feel that this case has too many “irregularities” to be explained as claimed. Too many “irregularities”, in my opinion, for this to be a suicide.
And, whenever a crime is being investigated, one of the first questions an investigator always asks is: “cui bono?”, which is the Latin expression for “who benifits?”
I’ll let the reader answer that question for him or her self.