Jeffrey Epstein charged

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,502
SLU Posts
18459
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.
According to the New York Post story upon which the report is based,
[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
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.

Since we don't have a date or an approximate time, we can't go as far as saying, "Yes, Barr was certainly in New York at the time" or "No, it can't be like that, since we know Barr was seen in a Washington restaurant just when he's supposed to have been in Manhattan" or whatever.

 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Chin Rey

Lag fighter
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
346
Location
Norway
SL Rez
2013
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".
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,502
SLU Posts
18459
Maybe they were pleading on behalf of other well paying customers still walking around freely.
Or carrying out their client's instructions.

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.

Since he was no fool, whatever else he was, he must have realised that agreeing to be housed in General Population was in itself a certain method of suicide, even if one of the other inmates saved him the trouble of carrying out the act himself.

One thing that to me strongly argues against his having been murdered (as opposed to assisted, directly or indirectly, to end his own life) is that, apparently, when the FBI arrested him at his New York mansion, they also removed all his records, including the contents of a walk-in safe to which only he had access and which contained lots of interesting-labelled disks and drives that sound as if they could be very embarrassing to some of his former friends and acquaintances.

Then there's the whole question of his financial records, which could prove even more embarrassing to some people.

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.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
432
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
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.
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.
 

Cindy Claveau

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
212
Joined SLU
June 2007
SLU Posts
44402
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.
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.)
 
Last edited:

Veritable Quandry

Specializing in derails and train wrecks.
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
858
Location
Columbus, OH
SL Rez
2010
Joined SLU
20something
SLU Posts
42
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.
 

Rose Karuna

Old and Cranky Xherdan
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
367
Location
Someplace new soon
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
2007
Honestly, I'm surprised that Epstein lived as long as he has and that someone didn't take him out way back in 2008.

That said, if someone is sitting on a lot of really sensitive knowledge about a lot of really powerful people and one of those powerful people just stopped by to say 'Hi', someone is going to give you a lethal dose of fentanyl you can either take it and die peacefully or you can live and suffer horribly every day of your life because we [powerful people] will make sure you do.

Which way would you take? Given his character, I'm not surprised he chose the easiest route.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,502
SLU Posts
18459
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.
I'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.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
432
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
I'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.
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 Exception
Or there may be stuff that may be considered to not be hearsay at all. Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay It just depends on what it is and how it's offered.

One person in that twitter thread commented, "Epstein might be a better witness dead than alive." Obviously this is mainly true for the civil cases, but if they have enough of a paper trail for any co-conspirators, then it should apply there too.
 

Grandma Bates

Only mostly banned....
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
84
Location
Airport
Joined SLU
Yes
SLU Posts
-1000
We need a "guilty laughter" reaction button. Something that combines :eek::ROFLMAO::shiftyeyes:
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.

It is entirely expected that the death of their very good friend is being blamed on a 71 year old, katana wielding Hillary Clinton in full ninja garb who snuck into the prison to put him in a choke hold.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,502
SLU Posts
18459
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.)
Or whoever told Kasman he'd seen the Attorney General at the remand prison was mistaken.

To quote the Crown Court Compendium for England and Wales, when a judge is directing the jury about how to assess the evidence of a witness who says he recognised the defendant, the judge must give a direction similar to:

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.
The sample direction continues,
You 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?​
Crown Court Compendium section 15-4
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
705
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
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.
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.

As always, money plays a huge role in our justice system. What are the odds that someone who has a public defense attorney would get theirs lifted?
 

Grey Mars

New member
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
13
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".
In fairness, there is the third possibility that it's a mind mindbogglingly incompetent conspiracy. Keep in mind certain people who may be involved.
 

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,912
Location
Gulf Coast, USA
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791
Or whoever told Kasman he'd seen the Attorney General at the remand prison was mistaken.
Or dude was just making it up.

Snopes calls the rumor False:

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.
According to the DoJ, Barr has never visited the MCC at any time for any reason.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

danielravennest

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
814
SLU Posts
9073
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.
As it turns out, he did, but the rest of his life was very short.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,502
SLU Posts
18459
Or dude was just making it up.

Snopes calls the rumor False:



According to the DoJ, Barr has never visited the MCC at any time for any reason.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer