Darrell Castle talks about Jeffrey Epstein from a Different Perspective. MISINFORMATION-DISINFORMATION Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, August 23, 2019, and on today’s Report I will be using the time I have with you to talk about the Jeffrey Epstein case. It has been my decision all along to not discuss the case because it has become so talked about it is almost common knowledge, but last Sunday, the New York Times changed my mind. The Sunday print edition of the NYT carried an article that began on the front page and continued as a full page 18. The article entitled “Epstein Feared Misery of Jail In Final Days” was well written by three NYT writers, in the fine fashion we have come to expect from the world’s greatest newspaper. The article immediately caught my eye because it was a detailed explanation of the last days and hours of Mr. Epstein’s life from the NYT point of view. I will admit that I had an opinion about the death before I read the article and the article did nothing to change that opinion. My own view of who killed Jeffrey Epstein is I don’t know who killed him but I’m convinced of who did not kill him and that was Jeffrey Epstein. I try to follow the reasoning of Sherlock Holmes and look for the impossible. Once you identify the impossible then the truth must exist somewhere in what’s left. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts mentioned in his recent article that the head of CIA Counter Intelligence once told him that when the CIA pulls off something it muddies the waters by placing different and conflicting stories in the media. The result is that people end up arguing over which story is correct so the real story is never investigated. The NYT story seems like one designed to explain and justify the official narrative of Mr. Epstein’s death. The FBI wants to label and investigate those who believe in Conspiracy Theories as “domestic terrorists”. One might wonder, then, exactly who are these potential domestic terrorists and what do they believe that has the FBI listing them potentially as terrorists. There’s no need to worry about that because the FBI was kind enough to define such a belief for us. In a letter issued by the Phoenix field office, the FBI explains that these are people who “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others and are usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.” I don’t know about you, but that explanation makes my skin crawl and it sure sounds like the Epstein case. What the FBI seems to be saying is that unless you accept the official or prevailing view of events no matter how many holes are in the story, and no matter how impossible the official explanation, you could be labeled a terrorist. Well I’m sorry but that makes me doubt the official explanation even more. There exist all those questions, about all the momentous events that shaped and defined the lives of many of us, but we are never to question the official explanation no matter how childish it is, and no matter how many obvious conflicts and holes it contains. Let’s just take a brief look at the Epstein case and the way the NYT presented Mr. Epstein’s “official” suicide. The article contains none of the themes that would conflict with suicide and simply concludes that he could not cope with life in jail, especially since for the first time his vast wealth could not help him. That narrative, however, does not match the actual events that happened before the article and continued to happen after the article. The decision to deny bail despite having his $50 million dollar New York mansion as collateral was under appeal. He had reportedly met with his lead attorney and in leaving the meeting said something like see you Monday. Why would a man intending to kill himself have his bail denial under appeal? The entire arrest and charge in New York stood a good possibility of being ...