General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEpstein's jailers claim he was removed from suicide watch at request of his defense lawyers.
They left the suicidal prisoner alone in a room with a bunkbed and a sheet. And then they didn't check on him until they found him dead.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/12/jeffrey-epstein-hanged-himself-with-prison-bedsheet-source/
Jeffrey Epstein was found hanging in his lower Manhattan jail cell with a bedsheet wrapped around his neck and secured to the top of a bunk bed, The Post has learned.
The convicted pedophile, who was 6 feet tall, apparently killed himself by kneeling toward the floor and strangling himself with the makeshift noose, law enforcement sources said Monday. He hadnt been checked on for several hours, sources said.
Epstein was unresponsive when he was discovered in his cell at the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Correctional Center at around 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, the federal Bureau of Prisons has said.
SNIP
Epstein was removed from suicide watch at the request of his defense lawyers, who had been meeting with him for up to 12 hours a day before asking that his supervision be eased, the Journal said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/there-were-serious-irregularities-at-federal-jail-where-jeffrey-epstein-died-barr-says-11565622895
Among the primary questions for investigators is why Mr. Epstein was taken off suicide watch and left alone with minimal supervision. After an earlier incident in which he was found unconscious in his cell with marks on his neck, Mr. Epstein was put in the suicide-watch unit July 23, but was removed from the watch days later at the request of his attorneys and after daily psychological evaluations.
SNIP
The Manhattan-based federal prosecutors handling Mr. Epsteins case also could seek to seize his assets through a process known as civil forfeiture. That process could allow prosecutors to sue for assets that were used to facilitate the alleged sex trafficking, including Mr. Epsteins real estate, jets and bank accounts. Money from forfeited properties goes into a Justice Department fund that can be distributed to victims.
Through the civil forfeiture process, prosecutors could lay out the evidence they have gathered against Mr. Epstein that hasnt become public, according to former federal prosecutors. The government could use investigative tools, such as search warrants and grand jury subpoenas, unavailable to victims suing the estate, said Jaimie Nawaday, a former federal prosecutor who has handled asset-forfeiture cases.
It might be in their interest to let the government go first, said Ms. Nawaday, now a partner at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. The government has a higher rate of success.
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)handle this? He is tRump's lapdog. He BEGGED for the position, promising never to hold tRump responsible, since in his opinion "presidents are above the law". Will we ever get the truth? Seems strange that the security cameras were not operating at the crucial time. Who monitors those, and why didn't they realize they were not working? I also read that Epstein claimed he was attacked by another prisoner in the previous "suicide attempt". Just another day in the tRump administration, the truth is hidden.
Botany
(70,516 posts)Good God in butter this really doesn't pass the smell test.
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But, dont worry, as soon as we get rid of the Constitution, lawyers and courts wont have any say in how prisoners are treated. There will be no right to object, and no right to petition the court if that objection is ignored. Youll love it.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)One of the reasons that more well-off prisoners get better treatment is that they can afford people to advocate for them.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The justice system would be a whole lot more equal if people had access to uniformly zealous legal representation.
Who hasn't marveled at a barely-readable hand-scrawled habeus corpus petition in the course of their career and wondered whether that was one of the many handwritten inmate letters that lawyers regularly get from prisoners with nothing to do but continue to write letters to lawyers from the list of practitioners in their jurisdiction.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Suicide watch is a mental health protocol, has to be signed off by a shrink.
Jails/prisons have to provide whatever passes for suicide watch in their jurisdiction.
Client decides he does not want or need further watch, the lawyers tell the shrink, who does a new mental status exam, and if s/he agrees, tells the prison staff no suicide watch.
Of course defense team or someone should tell the prosecutors, so everyone is on same page.
Many gaps can happen.
gordianot
(15,240 posts)There would have been enough people to prevent suicide, he would have gotten to wear his own clothes. His attorneys might have helped in reporting the horrid condition to the world. A winner all the way.
ashredux
(2,606 posts)Facts:
1. Bill Barr is connected to Jeffrey Epstein via his father.
2. The Florida newspaper started running their stories about the old Epsteins case in Nov. 2018
3. The entire sordid mess is back.
4. Bill Barrs auditionmemo to Trump for the job of Attorney General in June 2018
5. After Bill Barr becomes attorney general, Jeffrey Epstein gets arrested and put in jail.
6. Now Jeffrey Epstein is dead.
duforsure
(11,885 posts)Was Putin involved , and was this all planned? Was Epstein using his services with underage girls to get dirt on others to use against others, like the job he got at Barr's fathers school? Did he get because his dad had been using his services and was blackmailed into getting this so Epstein had another source to get more girls with? And when suspected by the school he and Barrs father was let go? Was Epstein selling stuff to Putin and/or trump to use? Was this all planned using Barr? Is this where Epstein was really making huge sums of money? I got a feeling Putin is behind this with trump turning other republicans into loyalists, and to further corrupt others with other schemes , like laundering money for campaigns, and helping undermine our elections. Was Barr's appointment all prearranged to corrupt the justice system, like he's done to the GaoP? It makes me wonder.
ashredux
(2,606 posts)2naSalit
(86,647 posts)probably yes. I think that many were also using the sex slave services along with money laundering and blackmail.
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,129 posts)Should have demanded 24/7 cameras in exchange for less physical supervision.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)Even if the claim is true, defense lawyers do not control what goes on in a prison. They can ask for steak dinners every night for their client too. So what? It is on the prison administration and the prison employees completely. They have complete control and responsibility.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)They could be asking to put modern furniture into his cell, allow him to wear pricey suits instead of orange jump suit, etc. Jail ain't doing that. But take him off suicide watch-all righty then?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Prisoners have their attorneys file petitions about the conditions of their confinement all of the time. Thats a completely normal every day occurrence.
Typically, if a prisoner has an issue, the attorneys will do just that - complain to the administration about the condition, with the implicit understanding the attorney will file a petition with the court if necessary.
The administration then has to decide whether its worth spending time in court over it - particularly when dealing with a prisoner such as Epstein who definitely will go to court - or addressing the complaint.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They represent their client. If he wanted off of suicide watch, they were bound to make the request.
And suicide watchnand measures such as 24/7 surveillance are generally considered to be a tremendous burden to and often abusive to clients. It's not unusual for attorneys to try to get the restrictions removed, especially if their client is adamant about it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)People were beating their chests and wailing when Chelsea Manning was put on suicide watch, because it is restrictive.
Manning was stripped naked and kept under continuous surveillance!
Fucking ridiculous.
And of course the prison administration - understaffed and underfunded - has to decide how much staff time they want to put into court time if Epsteins lawyers file a motion seeking to have him removed from suicide watch. People here act like the lawyers just ask without the implicit understanding theyll go forward with a time-sucking court petition if denied, and so we come to, as in this thread; Epsteins lawyers were in on it!
Sad.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is that so-called liberals will be happy to toss away the Eighth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments like used snot rags when the right conditions come along.
A lawyer objecting to the conditions under which their client is held? Inconceivable!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Many people want a Trumpian version of politics, governance and law (our way now, damned the law, the rules, or what anyone but us wants ), as long as it reaches (or they think it will reach) the ends they desire.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)30 minutes as protocol requires?
The jail was not following their protocol on the highest profile inmate they had.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)His defense lawyers represent him... which means that this is just another way of saying that Epstein requested to be taken off of suicide watch.
Ignoring any conspiracy theories and just taking the claim at face value... it would make no sense. The last thing you should do if you're worried about a prisoner killing himself... is let him request that you stop making hard for him to kill himself.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Do you remember the people going on about Chelsea Manning being tortured by having been out on suicide watch?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10021036336
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The first time, the Manning camp claimed that Manning had made a joke about suicide.
But the point is that suicide watch is intrusive and uncomfortable. If Epstein didnt like it, then OF COURSE, his lawyers would be making therapy-clearing noises preparatory to filing a petition to the court about his treatment.
You are a prison administrator. Youve got a prisoner on suicide watch and limited resources. A bunch of Fifth Avenue lawyers are going to file a petition seeking to move that prisoner off suicide watch. That petition is going to cost you time. Its going to cost your staff time. What you are going o do - unless it is crystal clear and absolutely necessary because the guy is running around saying that hes gonna kill himself - is find out if there is any question about whether he belongs on it.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)That was a joint statement from Manning's lawyers a few days later. I don't see "joke" mentioned.
But the point is that suicide watch is intrusive and uncomfortable. If Epstein didnt like it, then OF COURSE, his lawyers would be making therapy-clearing noises preparatory to filing a petition to the court about his treatment.
I don't doubt that lawyers would ask... but if I really believed that someone was a suicide risk... I would be nuts to listen to those lawyers. If someone wants to kill himself... of course he's going to ask that I stop taking measures to keep him from killing himself.
is find out if there is any question about whether he belongs on it.
Sure... and it appears (in both cases) that they did.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)There were probably psychiatrists/counselors (prison and perhaps privately-retained) who vouched for his stability.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The clue to your error is the name Chelsea. Manning didnt use that name when taken into pre-trial custody.
The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Mar 5, 2011 17:42:21 EST
WASHINGTON The lawyer for a jailed soldier suspected of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks wrote Saturday that his client was stripped of his clothing at night because he had made sarcastic comments about using underwear to commit suicide ...
When considering what people at DU have said, DU. is a great resource. Here is a whole thread of DUers calling suicide watch torture:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10021036336
It was okay at DU for Mannings lawyers to object to Mannings conditions of confinement. But if Epsteins lawyers did so, it is unheard of, impossible, etc.. What bullshit.
You dont see joke mentioned, because you werent looking for it.
ashredux
(2,606 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I realize this is kind of an improbable and loot theory but what if, instead of being enablers or co-conspirators, they were lawyers representing a client who didnt want to be on suicide watch?
Kinda silly, I know, but it could happen.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)Here, locally, lawyers have been known to pro-bono one client against the local government, while someone in their law firm represented a good paying developer that wants to bring another, unrelated project before the commission. The pro-bono client might be something like, I don't know, a rehab center. Guess which client's project got approved, and which client was dropped like a hot potato when the usual protests erupted?
Or, the story of two malls. The same lawyer represented the local master HOA to fight against access roads that would benefit a new mall, while the same lawyer represented a competing mall developer down the road.
So, yes. You might be onto something.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)That sounds like a blatant violation of ethics. Either or both clients could go after them for conflict of interest.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)I kept the Orlando Sentinel newspaper article that brought up the questions that you have, but I don't think anything happened to him. The 90s in Central Florida were the wild, wild west. But, only because we didn't have the internet. It might take me sometime to locate the source, but if you're interested, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
BTW, when the Master THOA changed presidents, the law firm handed all the legal boxes to the old president, so we lost the paper trail.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You don't see anything suspicious about his lawyers going forward with the appeal of their proposed pre-trial release conditions that were denied with the trial court; but if the same lawyers arguing for pre-trial release should happen to object to suicide watch, then there is something suspicious about it.
Is that correct?
Because it would be a lot MORE suspicious for them to acquiesce in suicide watch when they are trying to get him released on house arrest in the first place.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)Getting criminal lawyers?! MSNBC. If so, something is happening fast.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Also unsurprising for reasons stated elsewhere in this thread.
They were seeking pre-trial release for their client and had also requested the least restrictive conditions for their client in the meantime.
He is now dead, and the estate has a potential malpractice claim.
Who would you suggest they hire for an independent consultation and review of their work? Dentists?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Epstein's lawyers were secretly working for the DoJ against Epstein because, why, the DoJ pays better?
They had a guaranteed revenue stream of "sky's the limit" billing going forward with this case on motions, discovery, more motions, plea negotiations, and maybe some day a trial. But, instead, they figured that it would be better to have their client killed, because they didn't want to do all of that billing.
Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense. They are out millions because he's dead.
The possibility that, just like lawyers everywhere, every day, they were attempting to get better detention conditions for their client and at the behest of their client is just beyond credibility for you?
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)malpractice if you don't move to ensure that he doesn't succeed?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I believe that any attorney will tell you that they have had difficult times with clients who may, or may not, have a mental illness of some kind.
An attorney is not competent to diagnose whether their client is mentally ill. I presume, absent a medical opinion to the contrary, that my clients are not mentally ill or otherwise impaired in their judgment.
I had a case in which I represented a client who would change his settlement position every couple of hours. We would have long discussions about the case and what our next settlement position should be, I would send him a draft proposal to send to the other side, and he would change his mind again and throw in requests for absolutely ridiculous things that made no sense at all.
Absent the ability to settle his case, which was in arbitration, I went ahead and won it.
After that, the other side still wanted to negotiate a settlement with him, and he continued to be absolutely batshit about it. Fortunately, at that point, I could point to the original engagement terms under which I agreed to represent him in the dispute. The dispute had ended in his favor and I had no further obligation to him.
But, once again, we are faced with the obvious fact that him being under suicide watch undercut the argument - on appeal by these lawyers - that he should be released to home confinement of some kind.
If, for example, they had the most recent psych eval (which we certainly won't see for a while) that gave him a favorable prospect of return to normal conditions, then sure, why not.
But I would not for a moment conclude on my own initiative that my client was crazy without a medical professional saying so.
If my client died under these conditions, I would probably hire another criminal lawyer to independently review my work for two reasons: 1. To address any potential malpractice claims from the estate, and 2. To justify my position in any potential billing dispute with the estate.
But I cannot imagine any scenario in which it is to his criminal defense lawyers' advantage to have him killed. He was worth more to them alive than any possible inducement that could be offered to them. Aside from which, they were actively working to have him released from jail. I mean, that's kind of the point.
Can you imagine your defense attorney saying, "You know, Bobo, I could try to get you released, but I think you ought to stay in jail for your own good."
That would get you disbarred pretty quick.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)Claritie Pixie
(2,199 posts)This is certainly not normal procedure.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)They have to listen. Because the first step before filing a petition with the court is to pursue administrative remedies - i.e. take it up with the prison administration first.
The overwhelming majority of times, the answer is no because the request is frivolous. But when you have a prisoner with a legal team like Epsteins then you have to consider that any room for subjective judgment is going to be scrutinized in court and is going to tie up your time and your staffs time dealing with it.
Beringia
(4,316 posts)Obviously whether someone wants to commit suicide or not, they don't want to be on suicide watch. The defense lawyer's wishes and the client's wishes should be completely disregarded. It should be up to the psychologist or warden.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Eighth Amendment. Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment disagree with you.
The conditions under which prisoners are kept is not up to the sole discretion of either prison administrators or medical professionals.
Their decisions are most certainly open to scrutiny by a court, which is the reason why they had damned well better listen to the reasoned objections of defense counsel.
Im am amazed that so-called liberals suddenly think it is wrong for a prisoners defense counsel to have the ability to object to the prisoners conditions of confinement. It is a normal everyday occurrence.
I dont ever want to see another thread on DU where anyone is complaining about the conditions under which any federal prisoner is held.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)There are no 8th Amendment implicationscruel and unusual punishment to keep a prisoner on suicide watch who has already attempted to take his own life? Ridiculous.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But when someone with the means to go to court over it, along with their own psych evaluation etc. and tie up your limited staff arguing over it, then as an administrator your decision is pretty simple.
Your fellow interestingly-named poster was saying defense attorneys should not be able to even make the request. That is simply bullshit.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)And Im confident higher-ups were consulted beforehand.
It wasnt a shift worker who removed him from suicide watch.
Not buying the overworked and intimidated narrative.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Unless you know how the facility, system and law work, it's very difficult to correctly assume what happened at this point. You're just guessing without any basis.
Lawyers who do have a much better understanding of this are trying to tell you how these things work. You should listen and not reject this information out of hand.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)Am I qualified to render an opinion, now?
Keeping him on suicide watch was a no-brainer, but many will continue to attest the sky is green.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)"overworked and intimidated" issue. That's a simple reality in these facilities. Your assumptions led me to believe you don't have a background in the law. I was wrong. But your assumptions are even more puzzling to me now since I would think you'd know better.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)Those responsible for pretrial detention have one jobto get the detainee safely to court for trial.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Your position is that Epstein's lawyers were not seeking to have him taken off suicide watch.
Your position is further that lawyers don't make such requests on behalf of prisoners, and that prison administrators never grant such requests on review of whatever the psych evaluation might have suggested?
The OP is about Epstein's lawyers having sought to remove him from suicide watch.
The run of comments on the article is that it is unheard of for lawyers to make such a request, and that prisons ignore any and all objections by lawyers to pre-trial detention conditions.
You've been practicing law for 25 years and you have never heard of an attorney seeking to modify the conditions of detention of his or her client, and you've never heard of a prison administrator who modified such conditions in response. Is that correct?
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)We both know defense lawyers routinely seek to modify conditions of detention. Was there a Motion filed to take him off suicide watch ? Why not?
The responsibility rests with administration, period, and it wasnt a low-level employee who made the call. His lawyers just lost at a release hearing and their client attempted suicide.
It was a no-brainer to keep him on suicide watch.
But, go ahead, sky is green guy. Talk about the 8th Amendment that doesnt even apply to pretrial detention, and continue to misconstrue my words.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)As you will recall, the same lawyers are appealing the denial of his petition for pre-trial release in the first place. People here find it shocking that his lawyers would have sought to have him taken off of suicide watch, but completely ignore the fact that the SAME LAWYERS are working to have his pre-trial conditions modified to house arrest in the first place. Whether and what sorts of pre-trial release conditions are appropriate is an Eighth Amendment issue. Since they had thus far not been successful with the trial court, they were appealing his detention and seeking the least restrictive conditions of pre-trial confinement.
In other words, for his lawyers NOT to object to suicide watch would undercut their larger Eight Amendment "excessive bail" argument that he shouldn't be in jail pending trial in the first place.
WTF kind of position is it to effectively say, "We want him sent home to be by himself and have access to everything in his house, but we are totally cool with protective custody because he can't be trusted in the meantime."?
"Was there a Motion filed"
No, because before you file a motion in a circumstance like this, you have to exhaust administrative remedies - i.e. dealing directly with the prison administration. You don't file a motion with the court until you've taken the issue up with the jail directly.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)Not buying it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Your point is that it is dumb for courts to require that prisoners seek administrative relief before filing a motion, because the administrative relief route never works.
Got it.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)The sky is blue, jberryhill.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I don't have access to the psych evaluations as you seem to have.
People here are shocked that the very same lawyers who were trying to get him out of jail, were also trying to get him the least restrictive conditions of detention, as if that is some kind of cosmic mystery.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)My issue is with administrationit was a no-brainer to keep him on suicide watch.
Im convinced you know that but would rather play games.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Ponietz
(2,985 posts)Cheers 🍻
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)who had just attempted suicide 6 days ago and whose circumstances had just, if anything, gotten worse (with the release of the documents.)
(Or taking away his roommate. Or leaving him alone in a room with a sheet, when he'd already tried to hang himself.)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You can imagine a conspiracy run from Trump to Barr on down to the lowest guard in the facility, involving a whole string of people, to kill Epstein. Other people here imagine hit men sneaking in and killing him.
But, an administrator of an underfunded and understaffed federal facility - just like many these days because Trump is dismantling the very machinery of government - deciding it's not worth tying up time and resources on an inmate with an entire team of the best-funded lawyers on the planet, to go toe-to-toe with them in court over the conditions of his confinement, is just too far fetched.
Okay.
In the real world, if you threaten suicide, you can be locked up for 72 hours before you are entitled to a review of whether you should remain locked up. Why is three days good enough for everyone else on the planet?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to keep a roommate in his room, as they promised in a letter to Barr that they would, or to leave him in a room without a sheet to strangle himself with.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)So if you are arguing that facility was on the up and up you are sadly mistaken.
"Attorney General William Barr said Monday that investigators had already discovered "serious irregularities" at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, where Epstein had been housed."
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750884421/justice-department-reassigns-warden-of-prison-where-jeffrey-epstein-found-dead
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You have the list of federal facilities run according to their own protocol? Do you have any idea what the Trump federal hiring freeze has done to all sorts of facilities and their protocols?
I did not say it was on the up and up. In fact Im sure its a complete shitshow just like many other facilities run by the Trump administration.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)without approval from higher ups from the Federal Prisons. Criminal Barr knew and either him or someone else gave permission.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Defense attorneys can request whatever the fuck they want on behalf of their client. They can file a petition with the court if their request is denied.
Petitions concerning the conditions of pre-trial detention are made on behalf of inmates every damned day. It is one of the most common types of papers filed in any federal court. Each one is preceded by an request directly to the prison administration.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)enough said.
What is that even supposed to mean?
The entire DoJ?
The facility is run by the BOP which is part of the DoJ, so um, its not as if one would take the request to the Department of Commerce.
But as far as the conditions under which a federal prisoner is being kept under pre-trial detention, it is unlikely that a whole lot of people are directly engaged in that process.
Ponietz
(2,985 posts)Defense attorneys can petition for whatever, but it takes a warden to make it happen.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is that they could have just skipped a step by not putting him on suicide watch in the first place.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)42bambi
(1,753 posts)guard to be unavailable for a certain period of time in order to kill himself.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Getting lucky on the first try is really important when you are going to bribe someone. Otherwise, they might report your attempt to bribe them.
But, fortunately, most people are easily bribed.
So, Epstein says, "Okay, so I need the wire information for a bank account you own, so that I'll have someone wire money to you after you leave me alone long enough for me to kill myself."
The guard, of course, agrees, and provides the wire transfer information.
Epstein gives this information to his attorneys during their daily session, and since they'd rather have Epstein dead this week instead of providing billable work for months on end, they pass it along to someone with authority over one of Epstein's accounts to wire the money to the account of the guard.
Naturally, since Epstein is going to be dead, then any transfers of assets prior to his death are going to be looked at by the estate administrator, but they all said "Fuckit, we'll deal with the paper trail later. After all, some guard about whom we know absolutely nothing and who has agreed to be bribed, is a perfectly trustworthy person on whom we can rely to never spill the beans or screw up."
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)trump down. He was probably just a pain in their rears.
I can see suicide watch being lifted, especially if the first incident was believed to be an attempt to get bail or a better prison assignment -- rather than suicide -- and he, through his attorneys, were requesting removal from suicide watch.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)People spend decades of their lives in government service, just itching to jump at the chance to participate in a shady conspiracy.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)The prison reaction was normal. Weve already heard this facility was woefully understaffed, thats why all the forced overtime. Epstein wanted less supervision, his attorneys asked for it, the facility gave in. It was difficult for them to provide in the first place.
Criminal defense attorneys represent their clients wished. That is their job.
underpants
(182,830 posts)Rikers Island rather than stay at that place.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)instead of giving a bedsheet to the same person who'd already come close to killing himself with one.
It doesn't matter that they were understaffed. It required no extra staff to keep a roommate in his room. It would have required no extra staff to put in him a room without sheets. And they could have pulled staff off other duties to walk down the hall and make sure this very, very, very high profile prisoner had his mandated checks.
Sneederbunk
(14,291 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)Lots of rich guys with reasons to knock this guy off.
lame54
(35,294 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)ElementaryPenguin
(7,800 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)Defense attorneys took him off suicide watch so they could engineer his escape, using a lookalike's dead body and the cooperation of Epstein's brother, who falsely IDs the ringer at the morgue. A waiting plane, plastic surgery, and off he goes. Everyone's paid off.
Watch a few Matt Damon movies, and conspiracy theories become second nature.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)that 2 of Epstein's lawyers have now hired their own criminal defense lawyers. Maybe this is part of the reason why.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...their position on seeking less restrictive confinement, in view of a potential malpractice claim by the estate.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)My first guess was that maybe the lawyers had been asked to store something of evidentiary value for Epstein, and wanted to protect themselves from any charges for how they dispose of or retain that -- since attorney client privilege wouldn't survive the death. Or would it?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If you want a lawyer for an expert consultation and independent review on whether you appropriately handled a criminal matter, you do not hire a divorce lawyer.
I can't even figure out what the rest of your post is about. Anything in their possession that was given to them by their client is the property of the estate, and they will follow any directions given to them by the administrator.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)if your theory is correct that this has something to do with a malpractice claim against the estate?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"If you want a lawyer for an expert consultation and independent review on whether you appropriately handled a criminal matter, you do not hire a divorce lawyer."
If your client dies due, in part, to circumstances for which you advocated on that client's behalf, then it would behoove you to hire another specialist in that area to conduct a review of your work. The relevant area here being criminal defense work.
I don't know how to put it to you any simpler than:
"If you want a lawyer for an expert consultation and independent review on whether you appropriately handled a criminal matter, you do not hire a divorce lawyer."
You do not hire a dentist. You do not hire a pet groomer. You do not hire a patent lawyer. You hire a criminal defense lawyer.
Any specialist attorney in any field does two things: 1. Practices in that field, and 2. Does opinion work on malpractice claims in that field. For example, I'm a patent attorney. I have represented clients in patent work and I have also worked for other attorneys seeking opinions on malpractice of other patent attorneys. That kind of work comes up in billing disputes in addition to straight-up malpractice claims.
So, it could also be the case that they may need an independent opinion when it comes time to bill the estate for their time and expenses, if any, not covered by any retainer they may have already obtained. The nice part is that they can bill that too, as an expense.
Of course, they should have hired the bestest attorney in the world, Michael Avenatti. Because I heard a rumor that the reason Epstein killed himself is that he found out that Avenatti was going to be his lawyer.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Here is another theory.
After Jeffrey Epstein's death, prosecutors examine his inner circle
The jail cell death of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein over the weekend positioned prosecutors to pursue his associates, some of whom allegedly assisted him in abusing underage girls. On...
cnn.com
Shimon Prokupecz
✔
@ShimonPro
This would be at least the 3rd associate of Epstein to hire a criminal defense attorney. This from The NY Times: In a sign that the attorneys are bracing for government scrutiny of Mr. Epsteins companies, Mr. Indyke and Mr. Schantz both recently hired criminal defense lawyers.
Link to tweet
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And the most popular ones get a lot of attention.
In retrospect, how did all the expert opinion on Michael Avenatti stack up against what I had to say about him from day one? Twitter "legal experts" with thousands of followers had so many more interesting things to say than I did. They were all wrong, btw.
I'm not particularly interested in whether my opinions are popular on Twitter.
But I'm sure you'll find an opinion on Twitter that suits you.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)give considered opinions and aren't afraid to attach their names.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What does the part about attaching names have to do with the price of tea in China?
My name is J. Berryhill
https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the-public/find-attorney/attorney-detail/83911
I also tweet under @berryhillj
What are you attempting to suggest with that comment pnwmom?
Let me know when any of them would waste a second of their time talking to you.
Go ask any of them how unusual it is for a lawyer to seek less restrictive conditions of detention for his or her client, and get back to me when you get an answer.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)("Twitter 'legal experts' with thousands of followers') and I pointed out that there are lawyers there who give considered opinions and state their names.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What is stating their names intended to suggest?
You were attempting to draw some sort of contrast, no?
How did they fare with their opinions about Avenatti?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)(And, for the record, all the lawyers on Twitter didn't have the same opinion about Avenatti.)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I didnt say they were anonymous. What I said was that they, like all media lawyers, dont derive their income from actual legal work as much as they do from attracting media attention. It goes without saying that one doesnt do that anonymously.
What did I say about anonymity?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and that you were right. This is a claim that can never be proven or disproven, since you chose not to reveal the names of these lawyers you follow who were all wrong.
I'm not particularly interested in whether my opinions are popular on Twitter.
But I'm sure you'll find an opinion on Twitter that suits you.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)During the Avenatti discussion, you had no end of legal experts from Twitter and elsewhere whom you likewise would quote things from.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Your legal experts have included Louise Mensch:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029060793
"Taylor and Mensch now report, based on separate sources, a sealed indictment against DT."
In that thread, you pull out the classic argument...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029060793#post54
"An attorney tweeted this:"
Wherein you link to a now-deleted tweet from Andrew Laufer who has apparently realized he was full of shit long after I did.
Despite the obvious legal nonsense being touted by Mensch for months, as long as there was an attorney on Twitter who agreed with it, then it was all true!
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You are never wrong.
You are so right, you will search back more than two years, just to prove someone's been wrong.
Everyone else is always wrong, but never you.
Happy now?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028263192#post73
All kinds of Twitter legal experts were sure of that one, too.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Everyone on DU bows down to your incomparable rightness.
still_one
(92,219 posts)trade war I think, and not Epstien