I find this shocking:
-
@futurebird so there'd be less evidence that it was a murder
Murder or someone taking actions to make it easier for him to do it himself.
I have no idea how he died and we may never ever know. What I do see is evidence that looks like a cover up. And nobody cares. Nobody cares.
They killed him, or they told him "we will kill you if you don't" who knows. Or maybe it's something else.
But did you know no one has successfully committed suicide that prison for 21 years?
-
Maybe I'm just reading this incorrectly.
Why would they delete the footage?
@futurebird I'm old enough to remember when pulling old hard drives did not delete info on them.
-
Murder or someone taking actions to make it easier for him to do it himself.
I have no idea how he died and we may never ever know. What I do see is evidence that looks like a cover up. And nobody cares. Nobody cares.
They killed him, or they told him "we will kill you if you don't" who knows. Or maybe it's something else.
But did you know no one has successfully committed suicide that prison for 21 years?
The more I look into the MCC the more I'm convinced that this incident makes no sense.
For guards it's kind of a sought after place to work since there is a high ratio of guards to inmates and it had a reputation for being a safer and less chaotic place to work.
Someone must know something.
-
This says that replacing the hard drives would delete all prior video..?
Why?
Normally, I would expect that you'd read the drives on another machine to recover the video data?
Did they throw away the old drives? Because it's possible to recover data even from a damaged hard drive -- it's an expensive and time consuming process for *me*, but not really for the FBI.
The only reason that I can think of for this is some kind of built-in security measure, but surely even if so, that could be defeated?
Is the data really gone? Or just sitting on a defunct HDD in storage..?
And if the data was lost, what was that weird fix-up they published..?
What they published was the only camera that was working and that survived this little data purge I think?
And it just so happens to be an angle where you can't see the door and can't prove that no one went to that cell.
OK. Cool. This is fine.
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DZoGEHzZNRsMjfpfE/addendum-a-non-magical-explanation-of-jeffrey-epstein seems convincing, alternate explanation just seems too crazy, requires insane coincidences / collusion / skills
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird I assume the person who deleted the footage also killed him or is covering him. It's the same thing I assume when cops body or car cams aren't working in other circumstances .. maybe billionaires aren't as different as the rest of us all the time.
-
@futurebird so, uh
That reads like "one drive in a raid set failed" - as in, one of the drives that things are simultaneously recorded to". In that scenario, "installing new hard drives" means the system reboots and formats the new drives, which absolutely makes sense.... kinda?
It doesn't explain what happened to the other drives.
@futurebird If it's this:
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00127400.pdf
.... that sure looks like it was recoverable data. You can usually lose several disks in a RAID array before losing data, that's the whole point.
-
The more I look into the MCC the more I'm convinced that this incident makes no sense.
For guards it's kind of a sought after place to work since there is a high ratio of guards to inmates and it had a reputation for being a safer and less chaotic place to work.
Someone must know something.
The detail about the guards not doing their checks that night (but this wasn't a pattern for these guards (!) this is a good job as far as working in corrections goes why mess it up?? ) That detail wild to me and makes no sense.
The guards got in a little trouble for failing to do these checks. But then? Those charges are DROPPED.
Look at this sketchy article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59839724
Come on. Come on man.
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird there are so many things wrong with this whole thing it is kind of hard to keep track of all the things we should be mad about
-
What they published was the only camera that was working and that survived this little data purge I think?
And it just so happens to be an angle where you can't see the door and can't prove that no one went to that cell.
OK. Cool. This is fine.
Okay, I can see that much.
I still don't understand why a hard drive has to be erased to replace it?
I don't have much experience with surveillances systems, per se, but I've replaced a LOT of hard drives over the years.
And this was never a thing -- except that you'd erase a drive with secure info to dispose of it. Is that what they meant? Because it seems like, particularly after the incident, you'd hang onto that data.
Unless you were intentionally destroying evidence, of course.
So was this document essentially a lie to try to make an intentional deletion look like some kind of technical limitation?
-
@futurebird so, uh
That reads like "one drive in a raid set failed" - as in, one of the drives that things are simultaneously recorded to". In that scenario, "installing new hard drives" means the system reboots and formats the new drives, which absolutely makes sense.... kinda?
It doesn't explain what happened to the other drives.
@mhoye
Uh. I never actually used _raid_ raids, but uhh why should it wipe instead of resilver?
@futurebird -
@futurebird there are so many things wrong with this whole thing it is kind of hard to keep track of all the things we should be mad about
-
The detail about the guards not doing their checks that night (but this wasn't a pattern for these guards (!) this is a good job as far as working in corrections goes why mess it up?? ) That detail wild to me and makes no sense.
The guards got in a little trouble for failing to do these checks. But then? Those charges are DROPPED.
Look at this sketchy article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59839724
Come on. Come on man.
@futurebird yeah. yeah.
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird To me this reads less like "he knew there would be something on there" and more like "didn't care or wanted to remove anything without really checking."
I'm of the mind that no actual literal assassination took place, but that the people involved were fans of Trump and choosing to take someone who was in a position to be suicidal (and had already shown such tendencies) off of suicide watch was kind of just sort of *hoping* that the inevitable would happen.
-
Maybe I'm just reading this incorrectly.
Why would they delete the footage?
I certainly don't want to exclude foul play but as a system technician I can assure you that this could be just lazy incompetence ("not deleting the files would mean a bit of additional work so why would I bother ?").
Of course, acting like you're lazy is a good way to disguise a cover-up...
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird It's a bit confusing. It seems the system was badly maintained and failing for some time before Epstein's death,
and that repairing it would destroy the saved footage. But it's not clear from this what was on it before the repair and if they copied it out first.
I remember a Coffeezila video showing the limited video angle from outside of the cell, and that there were 2 minutes missing. -
Okay, I can see that much.
I still don't understand why a hard drive has to be erased to replace it?
I don't have much experience with surveillances systems, per se, but I've replaced a LOT of hard drives over the years.
And this was never a thing -- except that you'd erase a drive with secure info to dispose of it. Is that what they meant? Because it seems like, particularly after the incident, you'd hang onto that data.
Unless you were intentionally destroying evidence, of course.
So was this document essentially a lie to try to make an intentional deletion look like some kind of technical limitation?
@TerryHancock @futurebird or [redacted] didnt understand it or explained it wrong. Of course if you replace the HD the files would no longer be in the system, and so appear to be "deleted"
-
@TerryHancock @futurebird or [redacted] didnt understand it or explained it wrong. Of course if you replace the HD the files would no longer be in the system, and so appear to be "deleted"
This makes more sense.
The system might have a way to browse files from drives that were plugged in. "Pull" the drive and it's "gone"
It's not clear where the "pulled" drive went.
-
@mhoye
Uh. I never actually used _raid_ raids, but uhh why should it wipe instead of resilver?
@futurebird@nobody @mhoye @futurebird Maybe if there wasn't enough data to rebuild? Like if it's a three drive array, you could lose one and rebuild the data, but lose two out of three and there's no way to recover that (assuming it's not RAID1). You might still be able to use forensic tools to recover some partial data but not complete files so the DVR would just wipe it out and start over.
RAID3 or RAID5 would work that way I think...wiki also says RAID3 is "suitable for applications that demand the highest transfer rates in long sequential reads and writes, for example uncompressed video editing." And RAID5 "requires that all drives but one be present to operate." So that seems to fit.
Although that would require one of those two bad drives to have failed after the incident for it to have actually recorded anything during it. And it says only one drive was working at the time of the incident. So it might not have had any useful data for that anyway.
-
The more I look into the MCC the more I'm convinced that this incident makes no sense.
For guards it's kind of a sought after place to work since there is a high ratio of guards to inmates and it had a reputation for being a safer and less chaotic place to work.
Someone must know something.
@futurebird @goaty someone also probably got a lot of money to keep their mouth shut with the insurance of a death threat. til trump dies they wont come forward.
