• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

Is anyone else here surprised that Maxwell was still in the US? She has plenty of international ties and money, I would have assumed she would have got out of dodge the day that Epstein got picked up and would be resting in a country without extradition by now.

I had assumed we'd never hear from her again.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Do they need grounds?

Why would his lawyers have any right to make "demands" about the steps taken by the jail authorities to ensure Epstein's safety? It isn't like the lawyers would be held responsible if something happened to him.
Click to expand...
Epstein had civil right, exercised through his lawyers. A suicide watch is an intrusion that has to be justified.
 
Darat said:
In England there isn't a single "suicide watch" regime there is a management process if I recall correctly it is known as ACCT. It is rare that a prisoner on "suicide watch" will be continually observed by prison staff, that is usually only for short periods of time, the more more standard approach would be to have agreed number of observations. And these aren't "every half an hour" they are "twice in a 60 minute period", this is to prevent a prisoner being able to learn when observations will happen and plan their suicide by the obs schedule. From what I understand something similar was in place for Epstein but they failed to follow their process, sadly this is all too common in England.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork.
NOMS states that:
Any prisoner identified as at risk of suicide or self-harm must be managed using the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) procedures.

Any member of staff who receives information, including that from family members or external agencies, or observes behaviour which may indicate a risk of suicide/self-harm must open an ACCT by completing the Concern and Keep Safe form.
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
Such a move is considered extreme in the UK (should say E&W and Scotland - NI is often very different so read my use of UK here to mean E&W and Scotland only) and is only used in exceptional circumstances and again for as a short of possible. (As an example of extreme and exceptional circumstances, I know an anecdote of a prisoner who would when in crisis run headlong as fast as possible at the wall of his cell.) It is also very "resource" heavy as it requires someone to be continuously watching the CCTV feed 24 hours a day.
Click to expand...
Even the use of 'gated' constant observation cells requires justification, authorisation and review.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't question that. But there is a fundamental difference between the concepts of "demand" and 'request'. If the authorities in charge of Epstein's incarceration could provide sufficient justification for heightened monitoring of his cell then his lawyers could "demand" as much as they wanted to. It wouldn't matter. Those lawyers are not in a position to make demands. They don't have that sort of authority. It is the custodians who have the legal responsibility for his welfare. If they fail in that then those same lawyers would be all over them for the failure.

Is the jail absolved of responsibility because Epstein's lawyers "demanded" that he be taken off of suicide watch?
Click to expand...

There wasn’t a demand. Lawyers are required to advocate for their client. Epstein instructed them that he was fine. They cannot legally do anything other than present that to whatever authority they talk to.
Inmates sometimes commit suicide.

How often do jailers decide to set up a repeated pattern of behavior in order to set up an impossible murder for a potential future inmate?
 
quadraginta said:
The issue is not one of whether or not it is possible for treatment alleged to be suicide prevention can be cruel and unusual punishment used for punitive and/or coercive purposes. I don't think anyone participating in this conversation believes it cannot be.

It is whether or not Epstein had been subjected to such treatment to the degree that his lawyers could present valid objections to them in a court of law ...

or if they were reasonable and prudent measures taken for the purpose of preventing harm to him by himself or others.

There is a difference, you know.

ETA: According to wiki, this was the sort of suicide watch Epstein endured;

As a result of the incident, Epstein was placed on suicide watch.[22] He was placed in an observation cell, surrounded by windows, where lights were left on and any devices that he could be use to take his own life were not permitted.[23] Psychological staff dismissed Epstein from suicide watch after six days following a psychiatric examination.​

I'm not sure how much less could have been done and have it still qualify as a "suicide watch". It seems like a bare minimum to me.
Click to expand...

That means you are naked (pants and shirts can be used to strangle one’s self,) and constantly watched.
That is torture by any definition.
Note, this probably was not the case, as the US penal system doesn’t give a single **** about the health of their inmates
 
autumn1971 said:
That means you are naked (pants and shirts can be used to strangle one’s self,) and constantly watched.
That is torture by any definition.
.....
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There is disposable clothing that tears too easily to be used that way, and there are also "suicide smocks" made of heavy padded canvas that also can't be used that way. And monitoring could be by camera, not by somebody in your face.

And in most prisons, overcrowding is a serious problem. It would be rare -- certainly not a standard practice -- for anyone who is not on suicide watch to be alone in his cell.

Prisoners don't have much expectation of privacy, especially when their lives are at risk, and keeping them alive is hardly torture. Throwing a prisoner into solitary confinement is much more damaging, and that's a routine, generally accepted practice.
 
autumn1971 said:
There wasn’t a demand. Lawyers are required to advocate for their client. Epstein instructed them that he was fine. They cannot legally do anything other than present that to whatever authority they talk to.

<snip>
Click to expand...


I see that you agree with me, but also that you have not paid attention to the genesis of this digression.

I was quoting the use of the the word "demand". Directly in regard to my belief that Epstein's lawyers were not in a position to "demand" anything. And as a reply to someone who apparently believed they were.

I did not make up the use of that word out of whole cloth. And after I questioned it, its use was defended by others.

Your post should be directed to them.
 
Interesting episode of ALAB (All Lawyers Are Bastards) podcast about Deutsche Bank's relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, mostly focused on the numerous failures to meet compliance standards to prevent known pedophiles from using a bank for illegal activity.

https://www.alabseries.com/episodes/episode-14-epsteins-bank

Deutsche Bank described as "bank of last resort for scumbags" given the long history of the bank working with known bad actors.
 
Thanks, I'll check it out. On the "Trump, Inc." podcast, one episode talks about how Trump defaulted on millions in loans for one project from Deutsche Bank, and a different arm of the bank then gave him more millions for a separate project, which he then defaulted on as well. Super Shady.
 
The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands is upping the ante in its quest to pierce the veil of secrecy that cloaked the life and wealth of financier Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased sex-offender who accrued a fortune of more than $650 million under mysterious circumstances.

At least ten financial institutions -- including Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase and Citibank -- have been issued subpoenas in recent weeks from the office of USVI Attorney General Denise George, according to court filings reviewed by ABC News. The subpoenas seek account records, transaction details and communications concerning Epstein, his estate, and more than 30 corporations, trusts and nonprofit entities connected to him.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/virgin-is...iple-banks-jeffrey-epsteins/story?id=72018117
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Interesting episode of ALAB (All Lawyers Are Bastards) podcast about Deutsche Bank's relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, mostly focused on the numerous failures to meet compliance standards to prevent known pedophiles from using a bank for illegal activity.

https://www.alabseries.com/episodes/episode-14-epsteins-bank

Deutsche Bank described as "bank of last resort for scumbags" given the long history of the bank working with known bad actors.
Click to expand...

As a former fraud investigator I can tell you that pretty well all banks work with "known bad actors". To think otherwise is being incredibly naive.
Money is money and most banks and bankers certainly do not see themselves as moral arbiters.
 
rockinkt said:
As a former fraud investigator I can tell you that pretty well all banks work with "known bad actors". To think otherwise is being incredibly naive.
Money is money and most banks and bankers certainly do not see themselves as moral arbiters.
Click to expand...

Sure, but even among them, Deutsche bank is the least risk averse.

Deutsche bank is where Epstein went after JP Morgan closed his accounts because he was simply too toxic.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Sure, but even among them, Deutsche bank is the least risk averse. Deutsche bank is where Epstein went after JP Morgan closed his accounts because he was simply too toxic.
Click to expand...


Hilarious! Pure speculation and certainly not backed by any credible evidence.

All huge financial corporations/banks have major scandals and are tied to super-villains in many ways. JP Morgan's scandal sheet is just as long as Deutsche Bank's. All banks try and do things to pretend that they are socially aware. As a matter of fact - Deutsche Bank just announced that they are going "green" and not investing in Canada's oil sands projects or Arctic drilling.

There may have been many banks who wanted Epstein's money and there may have been a multitude of reasons why Epsteing chose that bank. You obviously know nothing about how banks will try and woo and steal very wealthy clients and just how competitive the banking market is for huge wealth/assets.

It appears you are doing nothing but throwing out baseless nonsense garnered by reading tabloid journalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom