693
Federal statement on Jeffrey Epstein's death dated day before he was found dead
(www.standard.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
693 points (97.9% liked)
News
35681 readers
2875 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imagine you rob a jewelry store, and you want to make sure you have an iron clad alibi so you have a person pretend to be you and get seen on video camera at a bank.
Would you request that video in advance from the bank so as soon as a cop comes to see you, you can present it? No! Because pre obtaining an alibi for a crime you are pretending you didn’t commit makes you look guilty
Writing the report in advance makes you look guilty even if it wasn’t murder
Bypassing standard operating procedures and having a senior person (someone high enough that they are “worthy” of the knowledge that the suicide was staged) writing a report is also suspicious
Having a report prefilled out so it can be urgently released instead of the normal wait time is also suspicious
So we go back to Occam’s razor is the assumption that they ignored numerous basic attempts to cover their tracks that any idiot who watched an episode of NCIS would know to do, or did a person put in the wrong date?
Again I am not denying in the slightest that Epstein didn’t kill himself but the argument that this is proof of it is ludicrous.
This recent analogy is completely unlike the scenario we are talking about.
You are talking about an independent bad actor who is making requests and attempting to do alibi construction via independent organizations that they are not a member of.
The scenario with the pre-dated Epstein letter is potentially an 'inside job' kind of scenario, where the bad actors would be members of the organization that would be facilitating the crime.
It would be more like a jewelry store owner hiring a stick up man to rob and then torch his place so the store owner can collect an insurance payout on his otherwise failing business.
And then the jewelry store owner has a drafted up version of the insurance claim paperwork that is dated to the day before the actual robbery and arson took place, because the stick up man he hired has to delay 24hrs at the last minute.
So then the robbery/arson occurs on the 10th, the store owner goes back to his insurance claim draft, moves the date forward a day, saves it as another file, then submits that to the insurance people.
... but, a subsequent law enforcement investigation into the entire thing finds that the jewelry store owner actually forgot to delete the old draft of the insurance claim, dated to the 9th, prior to the robbery and arson.
Correct.
The document with the August 9th date we are talking about was not actually released by the AG office.
It was discovered to exist during the subsequent FBI investigation into the entire event/affair.
As in, they had this drafted up, you know, oddly, suspiciously, but did not release it publically, because that would indeed have been odd, strange and potentially incriminating... but they also forgot to delete it.
Which, by your own logic, makes them look guilty.
Yep.
Uh huh.
That's... the entire point.
From the article:
Here is the document that actually was released to the public, dated August 10th:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-manhattan-us-attorney-death-defendant-jeffrey-epstein
And here is the seeming early draft of it, dated August 9th:
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%25208/EFTA00013180.pdf
... these links are both in a high level comment that our own conversation descends from.
Please familiarize yourself with the actual details of the case, detective.
And if the jewelry store owner had a dedicated person on the staff whose job it is to fill out insurance reports would he tell the person to write the letter in advance (giving away that he intended to commit insurance fraud) or would he bypass the employee who now is suspicious and is a possible whistleblower?
Then is the insurance investigator in on it as well? Or why isn’t the insurance investigator suspicious that a person had a full list of the things stolen/burned immediately when it happened instead of taking the normal amount of time to process it
And finally the same point I have iterated multiple times now that you keep ignoring is WHATS THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING IT IN ADVANCE? It literally is only a chance for it to be more suspicious and makes you look suspicious.
It’s a generic letter head that was likely copy pasted from th day prior
You are the one positing the idea the an underling clerk wrote it.
I am the one saying its possible that did not happen and it was just written by, you know, the AG, the guy whose name is on the letterhead.
The point of doing it advance is to have it ready to go when the time comes.
And sometimes, plans change a bit, and he accidentally forgot to remove his early draft.
This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.
Our entire convo chain stems from me saying 'maybe it was not a clerk that wrote it.'
You seem to be incapable of considering this, conceptually.
Did you read what I read… I addressed both, it’s the same conclusion
There is no advantage to having it done in advance
Having it “ready to go” makes it suspicious
It’s a short letter to write
Even if a person did want to have it ready the more logical thing to do would be to type it up in a word doc and then copy paste the relevant part onto the report with the official letter head
I am understanding your point and refuting it. It is not that you aren’t being clear with your opinion it’s that you believe your opinion is fact and are refusing to listen to criticism. It literally feels like I am talking to a Comcast chat bot where I keep saying “problems with billing” and you keep responding with “would you like to hear about our new cell phone plan”
If you aren’t going to read what I am writing and have a conversation then just don’t respond because you have not addressed the most basic refutation to your point I have stated numerous times