ANALYSIS: Why is Jeffrey Epstein dead?

DSCN0256 In a special post today, The Slog sifts the evidence surrounding the verdict of suicide to explain Jeffrey Epstein’s death. The motive behind his arrest, detention and death may well have been clouded by deliberate media obsession with the celebrity sex aspect of the case. Epstein was probably arrested to embarrass Donald Trump. But he is probably dead as a result of his intelligence knowledge, not his modus operandum.


The open warfare between an elected US President and the law enforcement agencies who supposedly work for him is, I think it’s fair to say, out of control.

In a bizarre move, Trump went onto social media yesterday and retweeted a direct allegation of Clinton family guilt in the Epstein affair:


Let me say at the outset that The Donald’s retweet is a case of getting his retaliation in first. The Clinton connection to Epstein has become near history rather than news; also, it’s clear that the late financier’s arrest was FBI/Justice Department driven…and the Clintons continue to have enormous influence in both. If they thought Jeffrey Epstein’s dossiers could harm the Clintons, it seems unlikely that they would facilitate their publication.

Nevertheless, in the light of what is, without question, the most predictable “suicide” in modern history, it is in turn truly remarkable to observe the casual way in which the agencies concerned are “informing” the public. The FBI said it was investigating Epstein’s death out of an “abundance of caution”, a phrase that made me laugh out loud. Similarly, a senior law enforcement official said there was “nothing to point to foul play at the moment”. US  attorney general, William Barr, said yesterday that the Justice Department’s inspector general is also investigating Epstein’s death, but Barr dismissed speculation at a press conference by calling the death “clearly an apparent suicide”.

First up, it would be a disgraceful dereliction of duty by both the FBI and the prison authorities to have put the Number 1 US accused criminal on suicide watch via four cameras, and then allow him somehow to find the means of hanging himself in his cell while being watched 24/7.

But the line being peddled this morning is that Epstein had been taken off suicide watch. Why?

Calling an investigation into these events cautionary (because of course foul play is not suspected) makes the Warren Commission’s magic bullet seem boringly normal by comparison.

But Secondly, what we require now is an exhaustive study of motive relating to all the characters involved, their personalities, and their past and present behaviour.

Starting with Jeffrey Epstein himself, suicide without being helped to suicide is a tricky interpretation to render credible. Epstein had a life history of abusing schoolchidren, trafficking under-age girls, and hard-to-deny evidence that he had been, at one time or another, working with the CIA and Mossad. Ghislaine Maxwell (daughter of Robert) has also long been suspected of Mossad entrapment activities, and the Bouncing Czech himself was given a hero’s interment in Tel Aviv after he fell off the side of his yacht.

Epstein’s cell would’ve been about 10 ft by 15, and four cameras were in play. Hard to see how the observers could’ve missed the bloke roping up, climbing on and jumping off.
The most telling consideration here, however, is the personality and motivation of Epstein. He was a sociopathic pervert who decided to turn his hobby into a lucrative profession. If he turned State evidence, it is highly unlikely he would have been given anything but the most lenient sentence. And if that evidence put harmful folks into the frame and in prison, he could start a new life under witness protection.

Epstein was, in short, not the suicidal type. He never showed an iota of remorse for his crimes. And he had no need to kill himself. What was the fate worse than death he feared enough to take his life? I cannot see one anywhere.


By contrast, the list of potential conspirators happy to see him gone reflects the nature of Jeffrey Epstein’s work: he had dossiers on an enormous range of powerful people.

Of the two sets of family being highighted by the media, both look initially like prime suspects: Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were regular users of Epstein’s flying jailbait whorehouse. But we’re talking some time ago….almost entirely pre 2007, when Epstein found himself up before the Miami authorities for under-age sex trafficking.

There is a damning link to the President here, in that his current Labor secretary, Alex Acosta, was centrally involved  in the 2007 plea-deal cut by Epstein with the State’s Attorney….Alex Acosta. Why did Trump give a senior job to a man up to his neck in grubby dealings with a convicted pervert….a shady intelligence operative with whom President Trump “fell out bigtime”? Does Acosta have dirt on The Donald?

This seems probable, but would it warrant such a conspiracy to kill? Sex abuse allegations are water off a Donald Duck’s back, and any going back that many years are unlikely to embarrass him….or indeed, surprise the US electorate.

There remains only the reason for the two men falling out. It took place in 2004 over a unique Florida estate that had been seized as part of the bankruptcy of nursing home magnate Abe Gosman. Both men bid for the estate, Epstein’s lawyers went to town on saying Trump didn’t have the money to close the deal, and then the latter made an unequivocal bid that proved him wrong. It was a bitter battle, and forgiveness was thin on the ground.

So Trump and Epstein haven’t been fellow pussy-chasers – or even socialised – for fifteen years. The US Establishment press over the last 24 hours has been keen to put The Donald in the frame; but it doesn’t add up.

One clue here (it’s hardly breaking news) is that large elements within the FBI hate Trump, and the feeling is reciprocated. Why was the decision taken, after seven quiet years, to arrest Jeffrey Epstein in 2019?

The Newark federal prosecutor in charge of arresting Epstein when he landed in New York kicked off the press conference on 8th July by calling the event “an unsealing of the sex trafficking charges against Jeffrey Epstein”.

There were no new charges we know of: the arrest was done purely to overturn the deal done by Epstein with Alex Acosta in Miami during 2008. After the arrest, Acosta faced a storm of protest and resignation demands from Democrat Congressmen and the Libleft media. He eventually bowed to pressure, and quit his job.

So if one asks the obvious question, “Why now?” then an equally obvious answer is “to embarass Trump in the run-up to an election year”. Trump has faced far worse than this in his First Term, and survived it all at a trot. His electorate are not going to abandon the bloke on this kind of thing alone: unless it can be shown that Acosta really does have some dynamite in his back pocket. But why would he? Trump and Epstein had stopped being friends four years earlier.

Nevertheless, there has to be a reason behind “now”. The virulently anti-Trump Vanity Fair was surprised that former New York Mayor Rudi Guiliani was voluble last week on the subject of “Epstein’s black book going right to the top of Mount Olympus”…he is, after all, Trump’s personal attorney these days. But then, little logic emanates from the Donald destroyers. It seems to me that Guiliani was happy to give maximum volume to the affair because he knows his client is clean. 

Should we be looking elsewhere for the impetus and motive behind the 2019 airport arrest?

Suppose for a second we drop trial testimony as the reason behind “now”, and replace it with access to unhampered murder means.


We’ve done Trump and Clinton and sex and the FBI. But there is also neocon foreign policy, banking and the CIA to investigate. Not a job I’d ever volunteer for, but there is no lack of connection.

Enter Deutsche Bank. And here, we are much closer to the present day. Once again, the American Left is keen to point out that Donald Trump had what it sees as an infamous relationship with DB –  big loans, Russian connections, the usual suspects – and the Wall Street Journal has always been clear that it was Epstein’s bank of choice. So voilà! The two amigos caught red-handed!

Not really. The dates simply don’t overlap: Epstein didn’t appoach DB until 2013 (nine years after he and Trump had a bust-up) and the loan to Trump predates all of it. The “Trump is in hock to the Germans and Russians” BS that the DNC tried to pull during the Election similarly fell flat once it became clear that he had long since repaid the money.

There are, however, two things that make Deutsche interesting. The first is that it is quite obviously going to go bust at some point…and on a scale that terrifies every bourse on the planet. But second, the Bank began to shut down some accounts tied to Epstein beginning in late 2018, after an employee “raised concerns based in part on articles about his Florida plea agreement in the Miami Herald in November.”

The article being referred to is this one, written up by Julie K Brown on November 28th last year. The piece led to Acosta’s demise, and also very probably Epstein’s death. It is, in my view, an absolutely key catalyst that probably holds within it the real reason(s) why the late financier is currently trying to hire an afterlife lawyer to get him out of purgatory.

As Brown notes about the 2007 plea-deal:

‘Facing a 53-page federal indictment, Epstein could have ended up in federal prison for the rest of his life. But a deal was struck — an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein’s crimes and the number of people involved.’

There’s nothing new in this. I had already blogged about it in 2014, and many other commentators had variously opined about it before that. The significance is in the action of Deutsche Bank, and the interested parties who would have been placed on orange alert by it.

Such is the real nature of history: it is often the result of unpredictable chance and accident. Julie K Brown is probably staggered by the events her piece evoked, as is the anonymous Deutsche employee…assuming they’re even aware of it.

At the time of the 2007 Florida plea deal, several law enforcement officers commented off the record about it. “I was told in words of one syllable to butt out, because Epstein was a key member of the intelligence community,” said one.

The FBI was the main loser in 2007: it had amassed thousands of interviews, surveillance photos, phone tap recordings and damaging bank transfers to bring Jeffrey Epstein to the justice he so richly deserved.

The CIA was the main winner, because the financier’s entrapment work on their behalf was, it seemed, sealed forever. Trump’s relationship with the CIA is better than the one he ‘enjoys’ with the FBI. The FBI has a long track record of dubious dealings with the Clinton Family, and has been central to all the attempts since The Donald’s inauguration to depict him as a Russian traitor in hock to the banks – and in Putin’s debt for his election to the White House.

An article appears, a key strategic NATO bank decides to dump a major CIA/Mossad player, and the Democrats see an opportunity to broaden their attacks on Trump and his ‘accolytes’ Epstein and Acosta. So Epstein is arrested.

It would be unusual if the CIA and its allies didn’t apply their minds to what they now saw coming down the road.


It’s hard to assess what the next stage in this saga might be….if indeed any more is going to come to light. My evolving view, however, is that Jeffrey Epstein is dead not because of how he might have damaged either or both of the two main US political Parties (or the British monarchy) but rather to silence him on the subject of covert CIA-Pentagon-Middle East activities that would, if revealed, change the Establishment narrative forever about the nature of multinational energy companies, banking, and their highly inbred relationship with American intelligence agencies.

During the raid on the Epstein’s New York property on July 6th 2019, investigators found a forged Saudi Arabian passport with Epstein’s picture in it, under a different name. This too must have set alarm bells ringing in Langley, Virginia.

No other conclusion, it seems to me, can fully answer that awkward question: “Why now?”