If Jeffrey Epstein Didn't Kill Himself, Then Isn't it Possible That He's Still Alive?

      After Jeffrey Epstein's apparent suicide by hanging on August 10th, 2019, independent researchers have looked at the physical evidence in the case (especially the corpse's hyoid bone) and questioned whether the death was indeed caused by self-inflicted hanging.

     Most independent researchers agree that "Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself", a phrase which spawned a meme, resulting in people yelling it on the TV news.

     But shouldn't the probability that Epstein didn't kill himself, perhaps point to the possibility that he never died in the first place? That is to say, what if someone smuggled him out of his jail cell a few hours before the reported suicide, and someone in the jail who looks like Epstein was made to take his place?

     That is, indeed, what some researchers into the matter have concluded is a possibility. Such researchers have pointed to photographs of Epstein's nose and ear, which seemed to look different in pictures of Epstein while he was alive, and the photographs of the corpse found in Epstein's cell.

     This is one example (Warning: The following images depict a DEAD BODY and one of them is very graphic):

  

     Some researchers even believe that Epstein's body was replaced with the corpse of Anthony Bourdain. Bourdain, who hosted a travel and food show for C.N.N., died, apparently of suicide by hanging, on June 8th, 2018. Bourdain had gray hair like Epstein, and kind of looked like him. But that possibility is not what I'd like to focus on.

     The next image shows my analysis of the "Epstein Alive / Epstein Dead" comparison photographs.

     That set of images aside, I will next focus on Epstein's nose. Epstein did not seem to have a crooked nose during his life, but the photograph of his corpse seems to show a nose which is bent slightly to the right.

     Finally, the dental records of Epstein and the corpse found in his cell, need to be examined and compared. I say that because Epstein has a right front tooth which may or may not be on an odd angle ,and pushed forward as compared to the rest of his teeth.

     To the contrary, however, there is a noticeable gap between that tooth and the tooth to its right, in both the corpse photo shown by Fox News, and photographs of Epstein when he was alive. That gap is also visible on photographs of the left side of Epstein's mouth, but the angle of his left front tooth is apparently not as pronounced and/or not as far forward as is his right front tooth.

     Readers should nose that it's entirely possible that the two images below do not depict any real differences between Epstein's teeth and the corpse's teeth. But the image directly below might. The only way to know for sure would be to look at physical dental records, i.e. molds of the set(s) of teeth which are available for discovery by attorneys.

Another photo of Epstein's corpse,

with bent right front tooth and gap visible.

     I will admit that the image above does look an awful lot like Jeffrey Epstein if he were dead. But my doubt remains.

     What if someone at the prison where Epstein supposedly died, was in cahoots with someone who wanted to set Epstein free? If that was the case, and someone else was put in Epstein's cell and murdered, then the man obviously must have been chosen based on how much he resembled Epstein.

     How many old Jewish men with gray hair, would such a prison employee have access to, to find someone who looks enough like Epstein to take his place? Probably not very many. And we can only speculate as to how many old Jewish inmates at that prison had irregular right and/or left front teeth. But all it would take is access to a photo database of inmates. If someone high up in the government who favored Epstein, of which there are many, were to give the OK, classified software that's only for prosecutors could have been used. For all we know, all the inmates in the State of New York were searched to find the perfect match for Epstein.

      Anyway, that's the only thing that would explain the extreme similarity between pictures of Epstein when he was alive, and that of the corpse found in his cell. The evidence is unclear and incomplete, but these photographs are nonetheless worth examining for anyone interested in making a serious inquiry into this matter.

     Researchers into Epstein's death, whether acting independently or in official capacity, should look at the differences between the ear shape, nose shape, and right and left front teeth, of Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive, as compared to those of the corpse which was found in his cell on August 10th, 2019.

     Epstein had a lot of enemies; people who didn't want him to talk. But he also had a lot of friends; people whom he'd financed, and helped house, and pay for their education. He also seemed to have found rape-slaves for a lot of his friends.

     The point being this: Someone could have smuggled him out. Sure, on one level, he was a fraudulent banker who had maybe betrayed a few too many people, and was about to talk. But on another level, he was one of the most elite child traffickers in the world, friends of presidents and kings. He almost certainly remains so.

     Are we supposed to believe that Epstein died in his cell, instead of fleeing to Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or London, or somewhere in the Virgin Islands, or to the homes of one of his many wealthy and powerful friends? Ghislaine Maxwell founded a submarine "nonprofit" (called the TerraMar Project). Epstein could be under the sea, for fuck's sake! He could be transiting from underground fuck-lair, to submarine port, to under the sea, to submarine port, to other underground fuck-lair, right now.

     Not only that; Epstein was friends with numerous elite scientists, such as Bill Gates and Steven Pinker, and probably even procured children for them. For all we know, Jeffrey Epstein could be hiding out in a secret space colony. Sound farfetched? Keep in mind that we're talking about a man who had begun to build clone farms to impregnate twenty women at a time. That wasn't reported by the National Enquirer; it was reported by the New York Times. Anyone who wants to impregnate dozens of women is trying to create either an army or a race of super-babies.

     The point is, Epstein was an insane psychopath, to whom imagination was his only limit. There's literally no telling where he could be.

     Moreover, Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire of all places. From the sound of things, Epstein could be under your child's bed tonight.

     Look at the dental records. Do justice to Epstein's and Maxwell's victims. Prosecute Maxwell, find Jeffrey Epstein, and put all of the British royal family and all of Epstein's friends who knew about this, and said nothing while the public stood in darkness and children suffered, and put them all in prison for the rest of their lives.

     The "duly-elected representatives" (slavemasters) of the "sovereign governments" (child trafficking operations) of the world will have Hell to pay if they are not found and brought to justice.

Written on December 1st, 2020

The Gulags Were Less Harsh Than American Prisons Are

     Contrary to what we have been told, gulags are a humane alternative to the American criminal justice system, which is based on punishment instead of rehabilitation, restoration, reintegration into society, and learning skills.

     The term "Gulag" is an acronym for Glavnoe Upravlenie ispravitel'no-trudovykh LAGerei, which translates to Main Administration of (corrective) Labor camps. That was the name of the Soviet bureaucracy which operated the prison labor camps, and penal colonies, that existed under the Soviet system.
     As many as 1.5 or 2 million people were imprisoned in the gulags at any one given time. While the gulags were known for being forced-labor camps, I believe that some elements of the system were desirable, and thus, should be retained, while rejecting the element of forced labor.

     First off, what were the benefits of the gulag system? For one, it helps eliminate long sentences.

     While it may seem ridiculous, at first glance, to claim such a thing, since many prisoners toiled in the labor camps for years, prisoners did not serve any longer than 10 years. This is more than you can say for the American system (in which life sentences can be given), or even the Norwegian system (which can incarcerate an individual for no longer than 21 years).

     The idea of the gulag system having a ten-year limit, was that if a ten-year sentence was not going to rehabilitate a prisoner, then a longer sentence wouldn't be likely to achieve that goal either. Of course, killing prisoners after 10 years is cruel; however, it would arguably give the prisoners “incentive” to behave themselves (although, in truth, it is a threat, not a truly positive incentive).

     The fact that many prisoners served long sentences, should help account for the many deaths in the gulags. The fact that gulag prisoners were living in the cold of Siberia, and were exposed to the harsh elements of that climate – a situation which is difficult to survive whether you're a prisoner or not – ought to help explain why many of the deaths “from gulags” were really just deaths “in gulags”.

     Additionally, the numbers of people who died in the gulags have been routinely over-estimated by scholars. While author and security analysis consultant John Heidenrich puts that number at 12 million, various other reliable estimates put the number of gulag prisoners who died in the camps at only 2.3 million.

     Another benefit of the gulag system is that it was arguably less cruel to prisoners who have families than the American prison system is.

     Also, some gulag prisoners were even allowed to move their families to the places where they were being detained. Although this statement could be construed to excuse slave plantations, or the imprisonment of whole families, it could also be argued that allowing families to move to places of detention is more humane; at least as far as the prisoner is concerned.

     Also, in comparison to how American prisoners serving long sentences are treated, with their privileges to see their families limited. It could even be said that many American fathers, who have committed no crime other than to be divorcees, have less of a right of visitation than did those gulag prisoners whom were allowed to live with their families.

     Another advantage of the gulag system – or, for that matter, any prison, or system of prison labor camps – is that it accomplishes the bare minimum of how to deal with dangerous criminals: take away their freedom in some way, while secluding them far away from anyone they might hurt, until it can be shown that they are no longer a danger to others, and have been rehabilitated.

     Although spreading prisoners out arguably puts prisoners “right in my backyard”, the case can also be made that spreading prisoners out helps eliminate the problems associated with the overcrowding of prisons. Namely, the possibility of prisoners attacking or raping each other, and the risk of outbreaks of contagious disease.

     Yet another advantage of the gulag system is that the prisoners provide for themselves through working. While it is true that, in American prisons, prisoners acquire skills and education, but their labor is also exploited for surplus profit. Some states even have no minimum wage for prison labor, or a minimum wage of only several cents per hour.

     Prison labor should not be exploited for the profit of others. But a prisoner cannot be reintegrated into society until he has acquired the skills and education necessary to become independent and self-sustaining. That is what is necessary for prisoners to provide for themselves while in prison, so that taxpayers do not have to foot the bill to keep potentially violent criminals alive; and that is what is necessary for prisoners to provide for themselves when released from prison.

     The gulag system, as bad as its reputation was, served a purpose. It got criminals far away from people they might harm. The limited sentences, and the dispersed nature of the prisons, prevented overcrowding, and the problems associated with it.

     It is possible to have prisoners provide for themselves, without either working them to death, or giving them too much freedom. If prisoners must work, then they should be adequately compensated, and those who prefer to work outside in the fresh air should be given that opportunity.

     If you remove the forced labor from the equation, the gulags - rather than being a horror story and a warning about what our prison system could become – could serve as an example for how the American prison system could be improved.

     Although this may sound cruel, or indifferent to the horrors suffered by gulag prisoners, I maintain that if the U.S. were to adopt the positive aspects of the gulag system – by reducing a sentence to a mere factual deprivation of freedom – then it could make its own prison system less cruel.

     Additionally, if the U.S. did so, it would be better able to easily shift its focus from a punishment- and suppression- based model criminal justice - working prisoners like beasts, and treating them as if they are certain to offend again - to one based on restoring the status of the wronged person(s), and rehabilitating criminals.



Post-Script
     In 2013, the U.S. incarceration rate was 716 per 100,000, and it peaked in 2008 around 1,000 per 100,000. Despite the mass incarceration of some 110,000 Japanese-American citizens during World War II, the incarceration rate for the U.S. never exceeded 140 per 100,000 during the war.
     The Soviet Union, on the other hand - if we assume that no more than 1,500,000 were in gulags at any one time - can claim only a maximum 800 incarcerated per 100,000.

     The U.S.S.R. under Stalin cannot boast lower incarceration rates than the U.S.; these rates were similar, and comparable; not wildly dissimilar in a way that should show favor of either power. The similar incarceration rates should not reflect negatively on either government any more than the other.
     That being said, though, I think it would be fair to try to argue that, if two countries have similar incarceration rates, then if one treats its inmates more humanely, then that country would logically be the one with the less harsh prison system.




See the following link to learn more:
“The Truth About the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA”

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/10/09/the-truth-about-the-soviet-gulag-surprisingly-revealed-by-the-cia/?fbclid=IwAR1THQZHyMaZQuXnYF5v9KdUeKqtuud_J9yeM3Bph8pM6aFekrERn1seoJg

Originally Written on December 27th, 2018

Originally Published on December 27th, 2018

Edited and Expanded on January 4th, 2019
Edited on January 6th and February 14th, 2019

Post-Script Written and Added on January 6th, 2019
Link Added on May 1st, 2019

On the Death Penalty

Originally Written on March 17^th, 2003

Edited on December 6^th, 2015

Edits Shown in [Brackets]

      Since the time of Babylonian leader Hammurabi, fair and proper punishment has been a difficult and complicated issue. Hammurabi’s code says “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” This code, commonly misinterpreted as a call for revenge, is in fact a call for fairness. If a man steals a loaf of bread, he would not have his hands cut off. The punishment must fit the crime, so he would have something of equal value taken from him, or he would be made to pay a fine. The code also states that if a man takes another man’s life, then his life must be taken as punishment.

      In [the fictional 2003 film] The Life of David Gale, Kevin Spacey plays a Texan ex-college professor who opposes the death penalty. He works with the abolitionist organization called “Death Watch,” which tries to prevent death row inmates from being eliminated. He is accused of killing the leader of the organization[, Constance Hallaway (played by Laura Linney)], who is also his colleague. Beginning four days before his death by lethal injection, News Magazine’s Bitsey Bloom ([played by] Kate Winslet) conducts three interviews with him.

      This film seeks not to entertain (although it does), but to inform and to explore the issue and reveal the flaws in and wrongs of the process of what some call “legalized murder,” and also its possible benefits. Many valid arguments come up in the course of the film, and it is a must-see for anyone with any opinion at all [about] the death penalty.

      A simple and obvious question frequently asked when discussing this issue is “Is death a reasonable punishment for murder?” After all, the death penalty attempts to teach murderers that it is wrong to kill by killing them. Life imprisonment would make them learn the consequences of their actions, whereas death [would not, but] would offer them release from what could [arguably] be a harsher, more effective, and more proper punishment.

      On the other hand, [death may be a more merciful punishment than life in prison, because] a cancer patient or someone with serious organ failure may want to end their own life rather than having to live for months with endless pain. The death penalty complies with Hammurabi’s code, and it may be fitting to do to the guilty what they have done to the innocent and prevent them from killing again.

      Former Illinois Governor George H. Ryan commuted the death sentences of all eligible death row inmates to life imprisonment only days before he was succeeded by Rod Blagojevich. This did not abolish the death penalty in Illinois, although [some in the State Legislature are trying to abolish it]. Flaws in [the death penalty] process can cause innocent people to be killed as punishment for crimes they did not commit. This sentence cannot be taken back if it is discovered that the accused was innocent after he is put to death. If a term of natural life in prison is [given as a sentence], he [may] be removed from jail with no harm done. Ryan stated that all murder cases are very important matters and must be examined closely, and that there should not be simply a blanket decision on whether murderers can and should be killed for their crimes.

      Lawyers have the ability to remove and select jurors for cases, and if they are corrupt or prejudiced, they can purposely choose jurors who[m they believe are likely to] find the accused guilty or innocent based on their race[...]. Some say all murders committed must be treated as the same crime, be they committed by black or white [people], and [whether] the victims [be] male or female[, b]ut what if the murderer is mentally disabled or insane?

      The debate about the death penalty is complicated and [there are] many exceptions to the rules. Every state has the right to choose whether or not convicted violent criminals will live or be executed, but [it would be difficult to] disagree that each case must be examined until there is no doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the accused.

On Prison Labor and the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments

Written on December 2nd, 2015

Edited on December 6th, 2015

The 13th Amendment didn't "outlaw slavery", it merely legalized "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime. So the prison system is modern-day legalized slavery. Incarcerated inmates in prisons work for slave-level wages, and in fact, Georgia and Texas have laws providing for a maximum wage of $0.00 per hour for such prison laborers.

But the rest of us living outside of brick-and-mortar jails and prisons still have to serve others, by paying taxes on our income, and, in some jurisdictions, serving whomever comes into our businesses.

If we do not do so voluntarily, then we are serving others involuntarily. And since that's only legal as punishment for a crime, we have to ask, if we are being punished, what crime did we commit?

How are refusing to pay taxes, and refusing to serve would-be customers on private property, "crimes", in the real sense of corpus delicti (“body of the crime”, i.e., evidence, i.e., a corpse) meaning that a real harm or taking must result from one person's action, depriving another of legitimate property, or harming them?

They're not. One person's labor, and the product thereof, are not the property of anybody else.

On another note, the 5th Amendment says that no property shall be taken for public use, except with compensation. The federal government took the slaves owned by their masters, but did not compensate the masters.

My point is not that it's too bad they weren't compensated, my point is that the slaves were taken for public use. We, the public, are all being compensated for the slave masters' losses, with the funds gained through slaves' descendants' free-of-cost prison labor and involuntary labor in the "free" economy.

The only difference between 1865 and now is that today, people of all races can be commanded to serve people they don't want as customers, and put in prison and forced to labor for the benefit of others (actually, that's a distortion of fact, because many Irish, Scots, and other whites were held as slaves prior to the end of the Civil War).

So we are now faced with the puzzling condition that we, along with our “duly-elected representatives” who wield partial power of attorney over us, are part-owners of ourselves as involuntary servants.

Ah, breathe that free, free air. Isn't it great?