Epstein Affair: "Something's Rotten in the State of Denmark".

By Rich Kozlovich

There's a whole lot being made over this issue of excessive bail in the Epstein case.  I find that strange, but I find it compelling for a number of reasons, which I will come back to later. 

In point of fact, I find this whole affair so strange, going back to the original charges against him where he practically got off scot free, that it isn't possible to avoid theorizing about a conspiracy.  Apparently I'm not the only one as this cartoon demonstrates.

An editorial appearing in the The New York Sun on August 11, 2019 entitled, Should Epstein Have Been Granted Bail? brings up an issue of excessive bail and the Constitution. The 8th Amendment of the Constitution states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Remember, bail is to insure defendants will appear at their trial. It's not to be a punishment, it's not to balance the ability of the poor versus the rich to pay, it's to insure appearance.

The Sun goes on to show what Epstein's attorneys were prepared to do to insure his appearance in court saying:

"It proposed 14 conditions to “guarantee his appearance and abate any conceivable danger he’s claimed to present."

Among them being:

• .....detention in Epstein’s Manhattan mansion “with permission to leave only for medical appointments as approved by Pretrial Services.”
• ..........surveillance cameras at the front and rear entrances.
• ........ “electronic monitoring with a Global Positioning System,” that, unlike the old radio bracelets, tracks the wearer in real time.
• Epstein also offered not to seek a new passport.
•   He would consent to extradition from “any country.”
•  He would waive “all rights against such extradition.”
• ........a personal bond in an amount set by the court.
• It would be secured by Epstein’s $77 million Manhattan townhouse and his private plane, which Epstein would “deregister or otherwise ground.”
• Jeffrey Epstein’s brother, Mark....... would “serve as a co-surety of the bond,” to be also secured by Mark Epstein’s home in West Palm Beach.
• A friend, David Mitchell, would pledge some of his investment interests.
• letter proposed to “demobilize, ground, and/or deregister” all Jeffrey Epstein’s vehicles “or any other means of transportation in the New York area.”
• no person would “enter the residence, other than Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, without prior approval.”
• Epstein would “report daily by telephone to Pretrial Services (or on any other schedule the Court wanted).” 
• one or more trustees would be appointed “to live in Mr. Epstein’s residence and report any violation to Pretrial Services and/or the Court.”

The article goes on to say:

One might be tempted to ask what further the court could demand without the bail being constitutionally “excessive.”

When you consider all the Epstein team offered it bodes well the question they ask at the start of the article:

Should Jeffrey Epstein have been granted bail?

However, it appears his alledged co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, can't be found and is living abroad. Her "five-story Manhattan townhouse was sold in 2016 for $15 million by a company that used the address of Epstein’s New York office." Did this enter into the government decision to demand bail be rejected?

This whole thing boggles my sense of reality, not to mention justice. It seems abundantly clear all the powerful people he was involved with used their influence to help him a the beginning. Can I, or anyone else, prove that? As far as I can tell the answer is no. However, considering the outcome does that sound irrational? I don't think so!

Regading his suicide, I don't know what happened, and perhaps I missed it, but it appears to me no one is telling us what happened, or how it happened, and as of a 8:30 pm Sunday when I wrote this piece, NBC claims, "After autopsy, cause of Jeffrey Epstein's death awaits 'further information'. 

The whole thing stinks to high heaven!

The media has stated this guy had tapes of prominent people in compromised positions. Tapes he allegedly used to blackmail them. Is that true? I don't know, but we do know very powerful prominent people were involved in his activities, so I think it rationally begs the question: Did he commit suicide, or did he get murdered?

Since the person who was supposed to be watching him wasn't watching him, could he have been murdered to prevent him from going on trial? Does that seem like an irrational question? Based on events and the potential damage he could do by testifying, I don't think so.

If he went on trial would he have sold everyone down the river for some consideration? I'd bet the farm on that, but with him dead, and without a trial, will it all come out? If there really are tapes will these people be exposed and prosecuted. I don't know the answer to that either. No one does it seems at this point, but does that sound like an irrational question? I don't think so.

I know, I know, there's no such thing as a conspiracy, unless of course it's a "vast right wing conspiracy", and maybe he really did just commit suicide, but as the guard Marcellus said in Shakespeare's play Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"