Skip to main content
This fellow has a lot of interesting questions that will never be answered, much like the 9/11 attacks, or JFK's assassination. Guess who needs to keep this quiet, and who is taking the fall - the little guy, the one who can least afford it.

Why wasn't Jeffrey Epstein on video surveillance?
(Answer - David Phillips Lpc (Licensed Professional Counselor), 30+ Working years | OSINT (Open-source intelligence) | Veteran | Police Officer)
Answered Tue
I can tell you why.
It takes an act of G*d to unplug video surveillance in ANY BOP high security unit. Why? Because a jail is like that movie Legend. Remember when Will Smith was behind the glass? As soon as it is known that video surveillance is OFF in the jail, they go on LOCK-DOWN | 100% Escort. As soon as that booth is compromised, you just knew they were going to eat Will Smith.
IT WAS WELL KNOWN THAT: the LIST of people who wanted to unplug what was in Epstein’s head, is long, it’s powerful, and it’s nearly EVERYONE in the room.
IT WAS A DECISION, that the video wasn’t on Epstein, himself AT ALL TIMES.
IT WAS A DECISION, that the video surveillance stopped just in time to miss documenting who entered Epstein’s cell.
IT WAS KNOWN among the guards and supervisory staff, that Epstein was the most important inmate in the jail.
IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED that the MCC is in the top 5 most security conscious jails in the Federal Prison System.
IT WAS A DECISION to assign a low competence crew to monitor the high value prisoner, the day that the video goes out.
IT WAS KNOWN that Epstein had already attempted suicide, once before.
IT WAS KNOWN TO THE DOJ INVESTIGATIONS team that his lawyers were acting in the best interest of Epstein’s enemies, instead of Epstein, that he was requesting to be taken off of suicide watch.
IT IS KNOWN BY THE DOJ, that the forensic pathologist ruled his death a suicide, in spite of well known elements of the case that were uncharacteristic of a death by hanging from a bed sheet.
THEREFORE, IT WAS A DECISION OF THE MCC EXECUTIVE that 24/7 video surveillance of Jeffery Epstein in his prison cell, was not going to be done.
IT WAS A DECISION not to use a specific guard rotation charged ONLY with Epstein’s personal safety. If it wasn’t ordered, then his inevitable “suicide” was meant to go down, undocumented.
CONCLUSION: Someone in authority, ordered that Epstein would have a low risk designation, IGNORING EVERY RISK PROTOCOL, including video monitoring and recording. THE ONLY way this GROTESQUE NEGLIGENCE COULD HAPPEN is that someone drugged the inexperienced guards, and quite possibly, the whole unit, just so that no one would hear him or see him die.
That’s why video wasn’t available.
Except that it might just be available. Why? Because whoever ordered the hit, wanted to see him die, this time! The “previous attempt” was bungled.
Little does anyone know, they may have “offline” battery backup and SD cards on every camera in the MCC. It could be the smoking gun. If I were the FBI, I would be looking for those SD cards. The subject matter experts on this topic all agree this was a highly anticipated outcome, and the fact that the MCC let anything happen to Epstein, in their custody, is a dark stain on the reputation of the BOP.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

http://www.gmtoday.com/news/front/topstory026.asp I would like to know what the whistleblower said that the president thought was 'incorrect?'  It was a transcript, so it must have been what the president was saying in fact, or is black white?  Maybe the complaint what was said not as it was intended, but, sometimes, the president denies the obvious to his own glory.  I have not read the transcript or the whistleblower complaint, but the general consensus is that the president was breaking the law.  I have read elsewhere that the president said the whistleblower is a spy & this is a Democratic plot to do him in.  Do the employees of the government, especially Central Intelligence  Agency employees, have to take an oath supporting the Constitution and laws of the country?  If this person did take the oath, would what he did be part of upholding his oath?
Speaking of how much or how far Sen. Johnson will go in support of Pres. Trump, I wonder how he squares Pres. Trump's helping women get abortions with his own or his parties stand on abortion? I do suppose it is possible that the president and his immediate family has not had anything to do with any women getting abortions, but if you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. I, personally know of a handful of women who have had to obtain abortions, and I am sure there were options they could have chosen other than abortion, but they did not. As a good libertarian, I am not in a position to tell them no.
      As the impeachment story rolls on, I would like to have Sen. Johnson answer a simple yes or no question. Should a public officeholder use his office to enhance his reelection? If I remember right, this was the situation that caused Chuck Chvala so many problems.      There is a lot about Pres. Trump that has incited a lot of problems for our country, our image not the least, as well as trade and relations with our neighbors, Mexico & Canada, so let us pare it down to this question. I suppose that Sen. Johnson could claim that Pres. Trump was not doing partisan politics during the phone call to Ukraine. That just calls into question Sen. Johnson's perception, or his unquestioning support of a president doing whatever he can to get reelected. It may be that Sen. Johnson could say that it is not an impeachable crime, but, as noted above, the legal system disagrees with him. The president should not be above the law. If this o...