VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
- Sep 24, 2018
- USA, upper left corner
- SL Rez
- Joined SLU
- February, 2011
- SLU Posts
According to the New York Post story upon which the report is based,I've never really been much on conspiracies, but damn if this isn't getting more interesting every day!
(Excuse the source, I have no idea if it's reliable or not. But smoke, fire, etc)
William Barr Secretly Visited Jail Where Jeffrey Epstein Was Held About Two Weeks Ago
My take on this: if Barr was involved, why in the hell would he actually visit the scene of the crime? That's not how you avoid notice. It's actually pretty stupid. While nobody ever accused the Trump administration of being smart, even Donnie likes to keep at least 1 or 2 layers between himself and his crimes.
Since we are not told who his informant was, or how the informant knew about this, or when the visit actually took place, or even if the visit -- assuming it took place and no one has been misinformed or is inventing stuff -- had anything at all to do with Epstein, as opposed to any of the other inmates, I'm not sure it's worth spending much wondering about it until we have further and better particulars.[Gotti's sometime associate Lewis] Kasman said he heard US Attorney General William Barr personally made a hush-hush trip to the MCC two weeks ago, about the time Epstein was found in his cell with bruises around his neck
Or carrying out their client's instructions.Maybe they were pleading on behalf of other well paying customers still walking around freely.
It will still be subject to the normal rules of evidence, hearsay in particular. Any of these items can and will be challenged unless the attorneys make some agreement to settle the question of the admissibility beforehand. Likely, it will be handled in pre-trial motions attempting to bar their admission.Apparently now Epstein is dead, there's no one with the legal standing to challenge the lawfulness of the way these records were seized, which means the SDNY investigators (and others) can use them as they wish.
I would imagine that some of Epstein's former friends are now very worried -- his problems are now over, in this life at least, but theirs could well only just now be starting.
Who else would it have been about? It certainly wasn't El Chapo Atty Generals do not just make visits to prisons unless they have a public announcement to make.Since we are not told who his informant was, or how the informant knew about this, or when the visit actually took place, or even if the visit -- assuming it took place and no one has been misinformed or is inventing stuff -- had anything at all to do with Epstein, as opposed to any of the other inmates, I'm not sure it's worth spending much wondering about it until we have further and better particulars.
I'm pretty sure I saw it elsewhere, too (though maybe they were using the same source) but Courthouse News' reporter saysIt will still be subject to the normal rules of evidence, hearsay in particular. Any of these items can and will be challenged unless the attorneys make some agreement to settle the question of the admissibility beforehand. Likely, it will be handled in pre-trial motions attempting to bar their admission.
Basically there's one particular objection (that the evidence was obtained illegally) that is obviated by his death. It is not carte blanche to admit the documents, it has to go through a number of tests: relevance, authenticity, etc. There are ways to get the documents admitted, depending on for what purpose it's being offered into evidence. These are the standard exceptions for a declarant who is unavailable: Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable Most of the stuff people will want out of Epstein's documents will not fall into those categories. I expect a lot of relying on normal exceptions, like the business records exception. Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay There may be a bunch of relying on Rule 807. Rule 807. Residual ExceptionI'm pretty sure I saw it elsewhere, too (though maybe they were using the same source) but Courthouse News' reporter says
My knowledge of the rules of evidence in US federal courts is, of course, somewhat limited, so you're probably correct.
Personally, I am feeling a bit perplexed at how in the first time in forever Republicans are showing concern for the treatment of a prisoner, and it turns out to be a fabulously wealthy pedophile. And by "perplexed" I mean entirely unsurprised.We need a "guilty laughter" reaction button. Something that combines
Or whoever told Kasman he'd seen the Attorney General at the remand prison was mistaken.Who else would it have been about? It certainly wasn't El Chapo Atty Generals do not just make visits to prisons unless they have a public announcement to make.
As in most conspiracy theories, we have to rely on a tangled web of circumstantial evidence and unsupported rumors to make a claim, even a spurious one. That's why conspiracy theories are so sketchy. It's also why an experienced planner likes to make the plot seem too ridiculous to be real. (Like that time a Marine washout with minimal rifle training hit a 1-foot moving target at 200 yards with a crappy Italian rifle and a scope that wasn't attached correctly.)
The sample direction continues,You must be cautious when considering this evidence because experience has shown that any witness who has identified a person can be mistaken even when the witness is honest and sure that he/she is right. Such a witness may seem convincing but may be wrong.
Crown Court Compendium section 15-4You can only rely on the identification evidence if you are sure that it is accurate. You need to consider carefully all the circumstances in which D was identified. So you must ask yourselves:
• For how long could W see the person W says was D and, in particular, for how long could W see the person's face?• How clear was W's view of the person, considering the distance between them, the light, any objects or people getting in the way and any distractions.• Had W ever seen D before the incident? If so, how often and in what circumstances? If only once or occasionally, had W any special reason for remembering D?• How long was it between the time of the incident and the time when W identified D to the police?• Is there any significant difference between the description W gave of the person and D's appearance?
I would add that money, as usual, in the form of being able to afford high-powered lawyers, probably played a large part in getting his suicide watch lifted.I believe that there was a conspiracy. And the author of that conspiracy, and the only person with knowledge of it's true purpose, was Jeffrey Epstien.
He knew his life of privilege was over. He had a legal team that could work to get his watch lifted, and had the skills to get past a psychic exam. He may have used enough money to grease the wheels, but he could have simply planned to take advantage of the incompetecy of a clearly overburdened prison that he had been observing back.
In fairness, there is the third possibility that it's a mind mindbogglingly incompetent conspiracy. Keep in mind certain people who may be involved.Obviously there are only two possible explanations. Either it's a conspiracy of some sort or a mind-boggling level of incompetence. Right now I'd say the odds are about fifty-fifty but it is interesting to note that the autopsy report is withheld awaiting "further information".
Or dude was just making it up.Or whoever told Kasman he'd seen the Attorney General at the remand prison was mistaken.
According to the DoJ, Barr has never visited the MCC at any time for any reason.He has been the source of dubious claims in the past, including the baseless claim that “John Gotti’s brain was taken to Guantanamo for experiments.”
We reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to ask if Barr made any visit to the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) during the window of time indicated by Kasman. In response, DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Kerri Kupec called the claim “preposterous,” telling us via email that “Attorney General Barr has never visited MCC.” She added that the suggestion of a quiet visit was dubious as well, reminding us “the Attorney General has 24/7 FBI protective detail. So they would have had to be there, too.”
We also reached out to Brad Hamilton, the author of the Post story, to ask if Kasman provided any corroborating evidence that made him trust Kasman’s speculation as reportable, given the informant’s history of false or absurd statements. We have not yet received a response. All told, however, the claim has its origins in a man with a history of wild claims whose expertise on the topic is limited to “several” visits to the same prison over two decades ago. As such, we consider the claim without merit.
As it turns out, he did, but the rest of his life was very short.It is, after all, perfectly understandable that a man in Epstein's position would decide that the game was now well and truly up, and that he had no intention of spending the rest of his life in a federal prison.
Whatever I might think privately, I am too polite to accuse anyone of a deliberate falsehood without evidence, particularly when I know the thought will occur to people without my having to suggest it.