Pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, was he murdered?


This 1 November 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

Jeffrey Epstein Coverup: There’s MURDER In The Air

Joseph Francis reports on the latest Jeffrey Epstein news, with a report out that Epstein’s injuries are more consistent with murder than suicide.

US Attorney General Barr adds to coverup in death of Jeffrey Epstein: here.

Leaked video reveals ABC News suppressed Jeffrey Epstein story since 2015: here.

Epstein murdered, not suicide, forensic pathologist claims


This 30 October 2019 Fox News TV video from the USA says about itself:

Famed medical examiner makes explosive claim regarding Epstein’s death

Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden exclusively reveals findings from his investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s autopsy on ‘Fox & Friends.’

So, more questions on the death of billionaire and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. So, Dr Baden raised these questions, claiming murder was more probable than suicide, on Rupert Murdoch‘s right-wing Fox News. As can be expected from fanatical Rupert Murdoch followers, commenting on this video they said they already ‘knew’ there supposedly was only one person behind the alleged murder of Epstein: Democratic ex-President Bill Clinton.

However, Clinton is far from being the only powerful person allegedly involved in Epstein’s paedophilia network who might have feared being mentioned if Epstein would have lived on to go on trial. Others are present President Donald Trump, other far-right Republican politicians, British ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, British Prince Andrew, Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and many Big Businessmen. This new expert opinion by Dr Baden may raise more suspicion against them as well. The Rupert Murdoch empire, which supports Trump’s party, supports absolute monarchy in the Middle East and supports Big Business, might not like that.

Celebrity Pathologist Believes Jeffrey Epstein’s Death Was A Homicide, Not Suicide: here.

New York Times ‘Yellow Peril’ anti-Asian xenophobia


This 2011 video says about itself:

Professor Scott Kurashige provides an overview of the yellow peril and model minority stereotypes of Asians in the U.S. Produced for the Arab American National Museum’s online exhibit, Reclaiming Identity: Dismantling Arab Stereotypes.

By Andre Damon in the USA:

The New York Times, China, and the specter of the “Yellow Peril

22 October 2019

In a full-page editorial in its Sunday edition, the New York Times engaged in a vicious anti-Chinese rant, warning of a “dangerous and growing threat” by the “aggressive … Communist state.”

The editorial presented the United States in a twilight struggle against Chinese “cultural imperialism”, which was aiming to “stifle this nation’s core values.”

This hysterical language—calling China “dangerous”, “aggressive” and a “threat”—has all the hallmarks of the racist myth of the “yellow peril” used to justify the colonial subjugation of Asia by the European and American imperialist powers.

“China”, the Times wrote, “is seeking to control not just what is said in China but what is said about China, too.” It asserted that “America’s commitment to human rights, including the freedom of expression” faces “an especially stern test.”

The Times did not seek to explain what “commitment to human rights” is shown by US imperialism. Is it the “commitment to human rights” that led the US to rape, torture, or murder hundreds of thousands of people across Iraq, from the dungeons of Abu Ghraib, to Fallujah and Sadr City? Or to commit massacres all over the world, from My Lai in Vietnam to the Kunduz hospital attack in Afghanistan?

The Obama administration murdered American citizens with drone missiles. The Trump administration, expanding on the policies of the DemocratsUnited States anti-immigrant outrage, separates thousands of immigrant families and presides over what the UN characterizes as child torture. The American government imprisons whistleblower Chelsea Manning and is seeking to inflict a life sentence, or worse, on WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange for exposing war crimes.

US imperialism claims the prerogative not just to “meddle” in the affairs of other countries, but to overthrow any elected government that it views as an obstacle to its interests. According to one study reported in the Washington Post, the US tried to change other nations’ governments 72 times between 1947 and 1989. Of those, “26 of the United States’ covert operations successfully brought a US-backed government to power.”

No country comes close to the United States in the vast resources it devotes to propaganda and placing politicians, academics, and journalists on the payroll of its intelligence agencies.

In his history of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Mighty Wurlitzer, Hugh Wilford noted:

High-ranking officials in the American labor movement, it emerged, had worked clandestinely with the [CIA] to spread the principles of “free trade unionism” around the world. Anticommunist intellectuals, writers, and artists were the recipients of secret government largesse… University professors, journalists, aid workers, missionaries, civil rights activists… all had belonged to the CIA’s covert network of front operations.

And then there were the hundreds of journalists revealed to be on the CIA payroll. Wilford wrote:

Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, was a good friend of [Central Intelligence Agency Director] Allen Dulles and signed a secrecy agreement with the Agency… Under the terms of this arrangement, the Times provided at least ten CIA officers with cover as reporters or clerical staff in its foreign bureaus, while genuine employees of the paper were encouraged to pass on information to the Agency.

The New York Times epitomizes the eradication of any distinction between news and state propaganda. In his recent memoir, whistleblower Edward Snowden recalls seeing stories that appeared in the CIA’s internal news service show up, several days later, in the pages of the American newspapers, almost unchanged with additional references to “unnamed intelligence sources”.

The threat to American democracy comes not from without, but from within. The New York Times, in its endless demands for censorship and conformity with the “values” of the state, is one of the principal instigators of that threat.

American companies, the Times declared on Sunday, must affirm the “American…consensus” against the “Chinese Communist Party’s position”. It accused Disney and Comcast of “appeasement”, and of advocating “for the Chinese Communist Party’s position, and against the American…consensus.”

In particular, the Times took issue with a scene in the DreamWorks children’s film, Abominable, that, it claimed, inaccurately portrays the borders of China. The Times asserted that this was a betrayal of “American values” and all but treasonous. The logic of this argument is that the United States should follow the lead of government censors in Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, who have banned the film.

“Corporations”, the Times declared, “are the creatures of a particular state, however much their executives prefer to think of their operations as multinational. American companies choose to operate under the laws of the United States and to reap the benefits of life in the United States—and they ought to be held accountable for upholding the values of the United States.”

Such statements reveal the hostility of the Times to the democratic conceptions that are embodied in the American Constitution. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That is, the government has no power to impose a set of religious, moral or political views on the people. There is not a universal set of “American values” that citizens, or companies, are obligated to uphold, or can be “held accountable” for opposing.

The Times is making a fascistic argument. It was the Nazi regime in Germany that asserted that the “people” must conform to the ethnic and religious “values” dictated by the state, and brutally repressed all those who did not or could not because of their background.

The editorial’s rhetoric about “human rights” and the “freedom of expression” is a smokescreen for the real agenda of the New York Times and the dominant sections of the American ruling class. US imperialism is preparing for a catastrophic war against China to prevent it challenging American global strategic and economic dominance.

“For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the United States finds itself in a contest…with a country in its own weight class,” the Times stated. “China has taken a hard line, and it’s time for the United States to respond in kind.”

Ideologically, the conditions for war are being prepared with hysteria about foreign interference and infiltration, and accusations of treason against all those who oppose militarism. Last month, the Washington Post promoted a report by the Hoover Institution that declared that “it should no longer be acceptable that scholars, journalists, diplomats, and public officials from the People’s Republic of China be afforded unfettered access to American society.”

The New York Times, the unofficial mouthpiece of the Democrats, attacked Trump in its editorial for not being aggressive enough. The president, it declared, had “weakened the ability of American companies to stand up for American values” by “failing to firmly oppose China’s demands.”

However bitter the factional conflict in Washington, both the Democratic and Republican parties are committed to reversing the inexorable decline in American capitalism’s global hegemony by means of confrontation and war against China.

On October 23, Victoria University of Wellington’s (VUW) Stout Research Centre hosted a public talk by Professor Anne-Marie Brady, a leading figure in New Zealand’s intensifying anti-China campaign: here.

Pedophilia billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s death, still unsolved


This 29 August 2019 video says about itself:

In the United States, dozens of alleged victims of the late American financier Jeffrey Epstein have this week been telling their stories at a hearing in New York. They say they were sexually abused as part of a sex-trafficking ring orchestrated by Epstein … Although Epstein will never stand trial, the judge called for the hearing to go ahead in order to allow the victims to tell their stories.

By David Walsh in the USA:

Only one-third of Americans believe Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide—so why does the New York Times?

31 August 2019

According to Emerson College Polling, only one-third of Americans believe that financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide August 10 at the Metropolitan Correction Center (MCC) in New York City. The survey, conducted August 24-26, found that 34 percent of those contacted believed Epstein was murdered, 33 percent believed he committed suicide and 32 percent were unsure.

The new poll essentially jibes with the results of a Rasmussen Reports poll carried out in the immediate aftermath of Epstein’s unexplained death. On August 14, Rasmussen indicated that 42 percent of Americans thought Epstein “was murdered to prevent him from testifying against powerful people with whom he associated,” while 29 percent thought he had killed himself and 29 percent were undecided.

Three weeks of US media propaganda to the effect that anyone who has doubts about the death is under the influence of “conspiracy theories” has only had a limited effect. A stubborn percentage of the population continues to be skeptical about the “official story”. As the German writer Bertolt Brecht wrote under very different circumstances, “Would it not be easier / In that case for the government / To dissolve the people / And elect another?”

In any event, even as portions of the media, out of one side of their mouths, so to speak, have worked assiduously to convince everyone that Epstein’s death was “indisputably” a suicide, out of the other, they have acknowledged important details that only serve to undermine the preferred version of events.

The latter include the fact that Epstein suffered multiple broken bones in his neck more frequently associated with strangulation than hanging, that strict instructions stipulating the financier should not be left in his cell alone were ignored by numerous prison staffers immediately prior to his death, that guards assigned to check in on him every half-hour were allegedly asleep at the time of his death, that he was taken off suicide watch and his mental condition treated with suspiciously cavalier indifference, that at least one camera outside Epstein’s cell had footage deemed unusable, etc.

Moreover, we learned this week from Epstein’s lawyers that their client, deludedly or not, was in a relatively upbeat mood. His legal team was about “to pursue an appeal regarding some of the preliminary decisions made before trial. They thought they had a high chance of success because … lawyers involved in the original 2008 non-prosecution agreement that largely let Epstein off the hook for the full measure of the allegations levied against him said it was ‘global’, meaning that New York prosecutors would not be allowed to pursue this case. … Given their faith in the strength of this argument, they allege, Epstein’s decision to take his own life was somewhat inexplicable.”

“Portions of the media” continue to report on inconvenient and troubling aspects of the Epstein case. The New York Times for the most part is not among them. The newspaper has “crime beat” and other investigative reporters on its payroll, and the death of Epstein occurred under their jurisdiction, New York City. Evidently, the word has come down from on high—this is not a story to be covered.

There must be some reporters in the Times newsroom angered that it has been left to the Washington Post to get the scoop on a number of startling developments, including the abovementioned fact that at least “eight Bureau of Prisons staffers knew that strict instructions had been given not to leave multimillionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alone in his cell, yet the order was apparently ignored in the 24 hours leading up to his death, according to people familiar with the matter.” The Times has not commented on this.

Likewise, the revelation that the camera or cameras located outside Epstein’s cell were not functioning properly has been covered widely. That information even prompted one of Epstein’s attorneys to comment, “There are conspiracy theories galore. … What if the tapes only broke down on the day he was killed or he died?”

The Times merely carried an item on its website from Reuters on the broken cameras. (In passing, one of Epstein’s lawyers shed light on the brutal character of the American prison system, noting that, according to a “person with knowledge”, defendants awaiting trial at the MCC were kept in more “dreadful” conditions than suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay).

Since Jeffrey Epstein’s apprehension in July, the Times has been regularly weighing in on the need to shut down any serious investigation of the circumstances surrounding his activities and then, later, his death. It editorialized in July that Congress’s looking into Epstein’s 2008 plea deal would be “a poor use of lawmakers’ limited time and resources.” This was addressed to a legislature swollen with millionaires that spares no time or expense when it comes to prosecuting enemies or rewarding itself.

The Times jumped on the medical examiner’s conclusion August 16 that Epstein had committed suicide to argue that the terse statement from New York City’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Barbara Sampson, “refutes conspiracy theories that he may have been murdered.”

The Times went on to assert that “Mr. Epstein’s death had set off a wave of unfounded conspiracy theories, as people speculated online, without evidence, that he might have been killed to keep him from providing information to prosecutors about others in his social circle, including President Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew of Britain.”

As the WSWS has noted previously, Epstein was associated with many high-placed, dangerous people. His particular obsessions, in fact, allegedly included seeking out and drawing in the wealthy and influential and entangling them in various sexual and drug fantasies of his, or perhaps theirs. This was all very well when Epstein was out and about, and seemingly immune to serious prosecution. Once he was taken into custody and facing years in prison, however, there was genuine cause for alarm.

The Times did lift the lid a little in the form of columnist James B. Stewart’s August 12 piece, “The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt on Powerful People.” Stewart explained that the “overriding impression” he drew from an August 2018 conversation with Epstein was that the multimillionaire “knew an astonishing number of rich, famous and powerful people. … He also claimed to know a great deal about these people, some of it potentially damaging or embarrassing, including details about their supposed sexual proclivities and recreational drug use. So one of my first thoughts on hearing of Mr. Epstein’s suicide was that many prominent men and at least a few women must be breathing sighs of relief that whatever Mr. Epstein knew, he has taken it with him.”

Epstein told Stewart that his very notoriety “was what made so many people willing to confide in him. Everyone, he suggested, has secrets and, he added, compared with his own, they seemed innocuous. People confided in him without feeling awkward or embarrassed, he claimed.” At another point in the conversation, he told the Times reporter “he was considering becoming a minister so that his acquaintances would be confident that their conversations would be kept confidential.”

If such dialogue were to occur in a scene from an Orson Welles film of the proper vintage, The Lady from Shanghai or Confidential Report, for example, or any decent film noir from the late 1940s, the viewer would instantly know what it meant. A character who spoke such lines would shortly disappear and an intrepid reporter would dedicate him or herself to tracking down those responsible for his death.

The Epstein affair is not a film, and the events of August 10 remain obscure. But is there not enough in the unexplained facts and Stewart’s piece alone to prompt an honest publication, with a fraction of the Times’ resources, into launching a genuinely searching investigation?

The newspaper, which downplays the possibility of foul play and generally protests too much against “conspiracy,” exudes about as much trustworthiness and sincerity as Saudi authorities following the October 2018 death of Jamal Khashoggi.

The government of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (coincidentally, another associate of Epstein, who visited the New York financier “many times” and with whom Epstein “spoke often,” according to Stewart) initially denounced allegations of Riyadh’s involvement in the disappearance of Khashoggi from its Istanbul consulate as a “conspiracy theory” and suggested the journalist and Saudi dissident had merely left through the back door!

The Times is part of the New York City’s financial and political establishment. Its editors hobnob with these circles, imbibe their atmosphere, share their outlook, partake of their wealth, learn their secrets.

One is entitled to ask: What is the editorial board of the Times so anxious about coming to light? Whom might it be protecting?

Pedophilia billionaire Epstein’s death and corporate media


This 19 August 2019 CBS TV video from the USA says about itself:

Buckingham Palace responds after video shows Prince Andrew in Epstein mansion

Britain’s Prince Andrew is responding to sexual abuse allegations against Jeffrey Epstein for the first time since Epstein hanged himself in jail.

Dear CBS: did Epstein really hang himself, without any ‘help’? That is still unresolved.

The video of Prince Andrew in the Epstein mansion is said to be from 2010; so, after Epstein had been convicted for sexual trafficking, and had been freed after a suspiciously short prison sentence.

According to Belgian daily Het Laatste Nieuws today, Prince Andrew’s behaviour in this is suspect; as, they say, he has fled to Spain.

By Patrick Martin in the USA:

American media shuts down the Epstein story

19 August 2019

The corporate-controlled media in the United States has effectively shut down all reporting on the death of the politically connected multi-millionaire sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, only one week after his body was discovered in a prison cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.

Epstein’s death was the most widely reported American event in the first few days of the week, with hours of coverage on cable television, the lead story on nightly network news programs, and pages upon pages of reporting in the New York Times, Washington Post and other leading daily newspapers.

There was ample reason for such attention, particularly by the standards of the sensation-obsessed American media. Epstein was, at least by reputation, both fabulously wealthy and dangerously predatory. He travelled in the highest circles of bourgeois society, hobnobbing with ex-presidents, future presidents, British royalty and numerous billionaires, some of whom he claimed to have enriched enormously.

And his crimes against teenage girls and young women had already resulted in a 2008 felony conviction that led to a slap on the wrist in jail time, in keeping with his status as a member of the class of super-rich “money managers”. Only hours before his death, moreover, 2,000 pages of new documents were released linking many prominent world figures, including Prince Andrew and several top Democrats, to Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities.

As to the death itself, that was sensational as well, with questions aplenty: How did it happen that after an alleged suicide attempt on July 23 Epstein was taken off suicide watch only six days later and returned to the cell where he died? Why was his cellmate removed, in violation of the normal protocol for a high-risk prisoner, only a few hours before his death? Why did the guards fail to do their rounds during the night of Epstein’s death, when they should have been checking on him every half an hour? Why was Epstein’s hyoid bone broken in several places, a medical finding more typical of homicide by strangulation than suicide by hanging, according to numerous experts?

The previous “suicide” attempt, if that was what it was, deserves greater scrutiny as well. Epstein was sharing a cell with a former New York policeman, Nicholas Tartaglione, who was facing four counts of murder as well as narcotics charges. The pairing would seem quite unusual, even provocative, given the disparity between the two in physical size and the likelihood that a former cop might be inclined to mete out punishment to a presumed pedophile and child rapist.

As it was, on July 23 Tartaglione summoned prison guards to find Epstein semi-conscious with “marks” on his neck. Epstein was resuscitated and placed on suicide watch. He later claimed to be afraid of Tartaglione and accused him of assault, which the ex-cop denied. After six days, Epstein was taken off suicide watch and put back in a regular cell, but with a different cellmate.

After Epstein’s death, social media was filled with speculation about the unusual circumstances in which he died and the possible motives of highly placed and political powerful individuals for doing away with him. The corporate media went into overdrive, led by the New York Times, to denounce such questions as “conspiracy theories”, without foundation in evidence—although the lack of evidence was due to the silence of the police and prison authorities as they sought to come up with a plausible explanation.

On Thursday came the revelation that Epstein’s hyoid bone had been broken in several places, which experts suggested was more typical in homicides than suicides. The Times again sought to tamp down speculation. Finally, on Friday, the chief medical examiner, who had delayed for several days drawing a conclusion, issued a formal finding that Epstein died a suicide. The corporate media immediately rubber-stamped this finding and sought to shut down any public questioning of it.

This was done so thoroughly that on Sunday, August 18, there was not a single reference to Epstein’s death on any of the five television interview programs. Over five hours of broadcast time, accounting, according to the transcripts, for 45,000 spoken words, the name Epstein was never mentioned.

This media silence is itself perhaps the most suspicious development in the entire Epstein case. Why was there no reference to the story which riveted public attention for several days last week? It had occasioned tweets by President Trump accusing various Democrats of collusion in his death, and statements by Democrats, such as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, a candidate for president, that the timing of Epstein’s death was “too convenient”.

If this had become a non-story only eight days after Epstein’s lifeless body was found, the question must be asked: what is the American media seeking to hide?

Again, the New York Times has taken the lead in the cover-up. It published a lengthy front-page story in its Sunday edition under the headline, “Epstein Feared Misery of Jail in His Final Days”, which has only one purpose: further shoring up the suicide verdict by painting a picture of Epstein as so desperate to avoid spending time in his cell that he brought his lawyers in for hours of consultation where he could sit in a conference room.

The circumstances detailed by no less than seven reporters can be read quite differently from the conclusion drawn in the article. Perhaps Epstein was desperate to avoid his cell because he feared what was going to happen to him there. After all, he had barely escaped with his life on July 23.

Moreover, the Times reports: “Outside the meeting room, Mr. Epstein mounted a strategy to avoid being preyed upon by other inmates: He deposited money in their commissary accounts, according to a consultant who is often in the jail and speaks regularly with inmates there.” This again suggests fear on Epstein’s part of what others might do to him in prison.

Epstein’s own lawyers have indicated they do not accept the finding of suicide. “The defense team fully intends to conduct its own independent and complete investigation into the circumstances and cause of Mr. Epstein’s death,” they said in a statement. “We are not satisfied with the conclusions of the medical examiner.”

There are also reports that some jail staff members are not cooperating with the ongoing investigation into Epstein’s death.

Bill Clinton, right, shaking hands with Donald Trump at Trump Tower in 1999

This photo shows Bill Clinton, right, shaking hands with Donald Trump at Trump Tower in 1999.

Pedophilia billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s death, news update


This 18 July 2019 video from the USA says about itself:

November 1992 tape in the NBC archives shows Donald Trump partying with Jeffrey Epstein at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate more than a decade before Epstein pleaded guilty to felony prostitution charges in Florida. MSNBC hosts discusses.

By Jessica Goldstein in the USA:

Lawyers raise questions after medical examiner declares Epstein committed suicide

17 August 2019

On Friday, New York City’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Barbara Sampson, released the official conclusion of the autopsy of multimillionaire financier and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. The fixture in top Wall Street and political circles, who has been linked to such prominent figures as Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and the UK’s Prince Andrew, was found dead in his cell at New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center on the morning of August 10 under mysterious and yet to be explained circumstances.

The death in federal custody of a man charged with running a sex ring involving underage girls, who was facing a trial that might have exposed criminal activities by members of the business and political elite, has understandably and legitimately aroused suspicions, especially in light of multiple violations of prison protocols that have been revealed since Epstein’s demise.

Yet the corporate media, led by the New York Times, has denounced all questioning of the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death as baseless “conspiracy theories”.

The bare statement released by the medical examiner’s office was limited to the assertion that “after careful review of all investigative information, including complete autopsy findings,” the cause of death was determined to be suicide by hanging. No facts or details were provided in the brief statement to back up this finding.

Epstein’s defense lawyers said they did not accept the ruling and planned to conduct their own investigation. They have claimed that their client showed no signs of suicidal tendencies, had been in good spirits and had spent many hours helping prepare his legal defense.

“We are not satisfied with the conclusions of the medical examiner,” said the lawyers. “We will have a more complete response in the coming days.”

New revelations over the past few days have added to suspicions of foul play in connection with the death of Epstein, who was without question the most prominent inmate in the US federal prison system. This might have placed increased pressure on Dr. Sampson to issue her ruling. She had delayed making public any determination of the cause of death for several days following the completion of the autopsy, claiming she required further information from the police and other officials.

On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the autopsy showed Epstein had multiple broken neck bones, including the small hyoid bone that is located behind the Adam’s apple. The hyoid can break during hanging but is far more likely to be broken as a result of strangulation.

Forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht told USA Today that “Fractures of the hyoid bone are almost always associated with strangulation… [b]ecause the hand gets high up underneath the chin of the victim.”

Wecht further noted that “multiple breaks and fractures are rare to find in suicidal hangings,” and that while they can happen, they require a great deal of force.

The official narrative promoted by the Times, the New York Post and others is that Epstein hanged himself by tying a bed sheet to a bunk, kneeling on the ground and leaning forward to kill himself. According to Wecht, this action likely would not have provided the force necessary to break as many bones as were found.

Epstein had been left alone in his cell in the special housing unit at the Metropolitan Correctional Center for at least 12 hours before his death after his cellmate was removed. This is a violation of a rule requiring inmates considered to be at risk to always have a second person in his or her cell. Such a move was all the more inexplicable since Epstein had been found last month with injuries to his neck and had been placed on suicide watch for six days. Why he was taken off suicide watch after so short a period has not been explained.

Moreover, his guards had failed to check his cell for hours on end, also in violation of prison rules. Finally, reports surfaced earlier this week that shrieks were heard coming from Epstein’s cell prior to his death.

Despite all such questions, the New York Times posted a “news” article on the medical examiner’s ruling on Friday that reads more like a propaganda release. Under the headline “Jeffrey Epstein Autopsy Results Show He Hanged Himself in Suicide” appears the second headline, “The New York City chief medical examiner’s determination refutes conspiracy theories that he may have been murdered.”

The second paragraph states: “Mr. Epstein’s death has set off a wave of conspiracy theories, as people speculated online, without evidence, that he might have been killed to keep him from providing information to prosecutors about others in his social circle, including President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew of Britain.”

There is no factual basis for the rush by the Times and most other media outlets to shut down any discussion of possible foul play in Epstein’s death. Their heavy-handed approach only raises questions as to what they may be seeking to hide.

Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that the medical examiner’s ruling is correct and Epstein’s death was a suicide, that by no means forecloses the possibility, if not likelihood, of a conspiracy to eliminate him prior to a trial or plea deal. The confluence of rule violations, omissions and seemingly reckless decisions that allowed the notorious prisoner to be left alone without being monitored demands a serious investigation.

The public, well aware of the criminality of the American ruling class, is entirely justified in believing the authorities to be capable of carrying out such an operation if they deemed it necessary to contain a scandal that otherwise could destabilize the political and economic system.

Americans aren’t buying that disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in jail last weekend. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 29% of American Adults believe Epstein actually committed suicide while in jail. Forty-two percent (42%) think Epstein was murdered to prevent him from testifying against powerful people with whom he associated. A sizable 29% are undecided: here.

PRINCE ANDREW ‘APPALLED’ BY EPSTEIN CLAIMS Prince Andrew said he is “appalled” by sex abuse accusations against his former friend Jeffrey Epstein. The prince, who is Queen Elizabeth II’s third child, released a statement after footage emerged showing him inside Epstein’s Manhattan mansion in 2010 [after Epstein’s conviction]. [HuffPost]