Right, but the point is, it may very well be that they were difficult to catch without going into harm on the other side (IE in say 9/11's case having the bar set so high that they'd have grounded air traffic for 15 false positives before actually stopping the attack). Likewise say JFK or MLK's assassinations, also probably infeasible, having to widen perimeter or advance security on quite a large distance from where they were traveling and speaking.

In epstiens case though, it seems like a high profile national news level criminal like himself. could have very easily been sent to a much better guarded prison, not taken off suicide watch etc... IE it seems like all the red flags were there that he would have killed himself if he could... and he was left in a situation where doing so was not difficult, and the cost of ensuring he didn't kill himself would have been pretty low. It's one dude that's expected to stay in captivity, on a case that the whole world was watching. Not really that infeasible to have a 24/7 rotation that has one person dedicated to him at all times.

[–] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's conspiratorial thinking.

You have a "plausible" explanation of which there isn't really any good evidence, and where the lack of evidence is a condition for the explanation.

In any case, you're assuming that a "little" decision like supervising Epstein one on one was was made by an exceptional person (and presumably as intelligent as yourself), but the reality is that anyone accomplishing big things needs to delegate almost all of their work.

The people operating there were not viewing this event as too special. Most people who are that forward thinking are not in that position.