I remember reading about this case a few years ago (so I don't have a link). The article said the CSAM was the result of many of the employees in the CIA pranking each other. I am inclined to see this as a selective prosecution that benefits the CIA at the expense of the public interest.
The secrecy they operate under inherently shields them from accountability. We have allowed our constitutional system to be usurped, to have a watcher free from the oversight of an effective watcher (i.e., the public or even its representatives).
Yeah. Taking the CSAM charges at face value is frankly like believing that Epstein killed himself. I have strong doubts about the likelihood of someone knowingly getting themselves into such hot water, with the technical competency to understand their digital fingerprint and what’ll happen if / when the government catches on, let alone his literal insider’s perspective into the US surveillance state, behaving as alleged.
I’m not saying that it’s not possible. I’m not saying that someone behaves logically all the time just because they work with computers, but “oh, and CSAM!” is such an American government t ‘icing on the cake’ ploy that it feels a bit too good to be true.
I still don't understand the belief that Epstein must not have killed himself. I can understand feeling like he might have been killed but I don't know what gives people the conviction that he must have been.
I feel similarly about this case. Is it really that bizarre to think that a person who decides to work for the CIA and then decides to leak information would also have CSAM?
I believe specifically for Epstein's case it was a combination of two things: 1) The "malfunction" of the security cameras outside of his cell, and 2) his seemingly boundless connection to very wealthy and famous people.
Obviously a biased source, but his brother does not thing it was suicide either. That's to say he's right. People do commit suicide in jail or prison, but it does seem weird that a high value prisoner was not properly monitored for suicide-watch. Technically he was, but the Cameras were not working and the guys watching him were very lackadaisical about it.
> and the guys watching him were very lackadaisical about it.
Anyone who knows anything at all about suicide prevention is unsurprised by this. We know that observation does not work because staff cannot maintain it. This is true whether it's 15 minute obs, 5 minute obs, permanent line of sight obs, arms length obs, two to one arms length obs: they do not work.
There are countless examples of staff in hospital, on duty, doing obs, knowing their patient is at increased risk of suicide, falling asleep.
The different between those countless examples and Epstein’e case is that the latter involves perhaps the single most internationally famous and famously at-risk prisoner in human history — so while taking the standard statistics into account is good practice, it’s a bit like using the historical weather patterns to argue against the existence of a currently-happening hurricane.
The word “perhaps” allows for alternate opinions :). But I must say, both Cleopatra and Napoleon existing in a pre social media world suggests their infamy did not spread as far, and neither Napoleon nor Cleopatra had the ability to expose leaders around the world from within their jail cells — thus the “at-risk”.
But I’m curious to hear who you would suggest instead. One of those two? Someone else?
I think that primary causes of assuredness in such conspiratorial matters is 1) political (Epstein didn't kill himself and the people currently in power must be to blame!) and 2) the desire many people have for the world to be more exciting and interesting than it is (this is the ultimate cause of many kinds of magical thinking).
“””
The death of Jeffrey Epstein, a financier arrested on charges of sex trafficking minors, occurred on August 10, 2019, in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City. Epstein's death was ruled a suicide by hanging by the New York City Medical Examiner's office. However, the circumstances surrounding his death have led to widespread speculation and theories suggesting foul play or negligence. Here are the most pertinent facts, including those that have fueled skepticism about the official suicide ruling:
1. *High-profile Connections*: Epstein had connections to powerful figures internationally, including politicians, celebrities, and royalty. This raised questions about potential motives for wanting him silenced.
2. *Previous Suicide Attempt or Assault*: Epstein had been placed on suicide watch after being found injured in his cell in July 2019, weeks before his death. However, he was taken off suicide watch at the end of July, under circumstances that have been questioned.
3. *Violations of Jail Protocol*: On the night of his death, several standard jail protocols were reportedly violated. For example:
- Epstein's cellmate had been transferred, leaving him alone.
- Guards failed to check on him every 30 minutes, as required.
- Two guards who were supposed to monitor him fell asleep and later falsified records to cover up their negligence.
4. *Malfunctioning Surveillance Cameras*: It was reported that surveillance cameras in the area of Epstein's cell were not functioning properly at the time of his death, leading to a lack of video evidence.
5. *Autopsy Controversies*: The autopsy findings were a focal point of contention. Notably, a forensic pathologist hired by Epstein's brother to observe the autopsy challenged the official suicide ruling, citing injuries that were more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicide.
6. *Expert Opinions*: Some medical experts have pointed to the broken hyoid bone in Epstein's neck as more typical in cases of strangulation than hanging, though it can occur in both.
7. *Inadequate Staffing and Facility Issues*: Reports highlighted that the MCC was suffering from staffing shortages and other logistical challenges, contributing to a failure in maintaining appropriate surveillance and safety measures.
8. *Legal and Financial Matters*: At the time of his death, Epstein was awaiting trial, and significant attention was on his vast wealth and the potential revelation of more individuals involved in his crimes. His death prevented any possibility of him testifying or cooperating with authorities.
These facts have led to a multitude of theories and calls for further investigation, with critics arguing that the negligence and irregularities point to a possible cover-up or failure to prevent Epstein's death, whether it was suicide or foul play. The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI launched investigations into the circumstances of Epstein's death, reflecting the high level of public and official concern surrounding the case.
“””
'Furman said Schulte continued his crimes from behind bars by trying to leak more classified materials and by creating a hidden file on his computer that contained 2,400 images of child sexual abuse that he continued to view from jail."
I wonder how he had so much access to technology and his own files while behind bars? I'm not inclined to believe this is false and even if the CSAM is part of a CIA prank (as someone else suggested here), this part of the case would still be quite illegal.
Hidden folder on his computer? A ".csam" folder or what do they mean? A CSAM criminal programmer that doesn't know to encrypt his CSAM? When being in jail?
I've always have had this nagging feeling CSAM is used as a way to frame people -- "4 the lolz" by that kind of people or targeted framing. Way too easy to manufacture a criminal.
I doubt anyone here would say this directly so I will: the csam charge is an assured way to punish this man without a trial about the other issues. If CIA planted CSAM on a computer they would do it in such a way as to comport with the expectations of a forensic examination, by legal standards.
An organization that commits crimes in other countries to do their job, and commits crimes possibly in America regularly, wouldn’t frame someone? Why? They can frame an undesirable politician in another country, but not someone who betrayed their trust and committed an act of aggression and treason from within? That’s laughable.
from the article, it doesn’t sound like this guy is exactly like other leakers who leak on moral grounds. This guy did it for revenge against the government. He also showed no remorse for either the child pornography or the leaking so that’s probably why he ended up with a 40 year sentence.
The secrecy they operate under inherently shields them from accountability. We have allowed our constitutional system to be usurped, to have a watcher free from the oversight of an effective watcher (i.e., the public or even its representatives).