I’m not sure what your comment is trying to prove though?
If you were engaged enough to comment your theory on the article, then surely you were engaged enough to read the article; see in the first couple of paragraphs that the news was the result of a family statement; search for that statement; find a People article with further details on the death (which admittedly problematic as it’s an exclusive article, meaning options for corroboration are few); but noting that the claim initially came from a family member along with a brother that was staying with her - two people who I’m making an assumption are the most likely to challenge any kind of coverup?
I just don’t understand the logic of throwing a theory out there and proudly claiming that you haven’t read the article? I do understand that I came across as a cunt in that initial reply and I apologise to you directly, but I’m interested in dissenting opinion as always.
To be clear, I’m not saying you’re 100% wrong - I’m saying there’s very little in the way of currently available facts to support your assertion.
What was my comment trying to prove? Nothing really. I just said the first thing that popped into my head when I saw that headline.
I didn't intend to come across as bragging that I didn't read the details in the article. I wasn't celebrating ignorance. I was trying to express my distrust of the media coverage surrounding all Epstein victims, witnesses, and whistleblowers in general. Especially those who, in the past, have released statements proclaiming that if they are found dead it is NOT suicide.
Ahh yes an NBC news article. Forgive me if I don’t take their word as gospel. They called Jeffrey Epsteins death an apparent suicide too.
You’re absolutely right. The NBC article is gash.
I’m not sure what your comment is trying to prove though?
If you were engaged enough to comment your theory on the article, then surely you were engaged enough to read the article; see in the first couple of paragraphs that the news was the result of a family statement; search for that statement; find a People article with further details on the death (which admittedly problematic as it’s an exclusive article, meaning options for corroboration are few); but noting that the claim initially came from a family member along with a brother that was staying with her - two people who I’m making an assumption are the most likely to challenge any kind of coverup?
I just don’t understand the logic of throwing a theory out there and proudly claiming that you haven’t read the article? I do understand that I came across as a cunt in that initial reply and I apologise to you directly, but I’m interested in dissenting opinion as always.
To be clear, I’m not saying you’re 100% wrong - I’m saying there’s very little in the way of currently available facts to support your assertion.
What was my comment trying to prove? Nothing really. I just said the first thing that popped into my head when I saw that headline.