The intro:
Trying to inoculate journalists against hindsight bias is like trying to teach your cat algebra—it’s an uphill slog.Happily, the Washington Post last Sunday gave us a history of the decade-old Jeffrey Epstein sex-crimes prosecution that didn’t rely on the anachronistic innuendo that filled a Miami Herald series entitled “Perversion of Justice.” The furor caused by that series led last week to the resignation of Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, who had the misfortune of being the U.S. attorney whose office prosecuted the long-ago case.
The Post investigation, with a non-tabloidal realism the Herald couldn’t muster, found “not a crisp portrait of white hats tilting against black hats, but rather a mottled mural of prosecutors who were eager to stop Epstein from preying on girls, but also sensitive to the young women’s desire not to have their names made public.” It adds that Mr. Epstein’s high-priced defense team “took advantage of the fact that many victims felt a bond with their accused abuser.”
To put it more bluntly than even the Post wants to, prosecutors seem to have feared losing in court because their witnesses were unreliable. If so, this echoes the apparent experience of a state prosecutor in Palm Beach County in the same matter, who ended up going before a grand jury with a single witness, who wasn’t even underage. It also echoes a declaration, in the Herald’s own words, by the Manhattan district attorney in a subsequent matter that the “underage victims failed to cooperate” in the Florida prosecution.
There was also a shout-out to Jeff Sloman's op-ed:
Most cogent about the paper’s own role was an op-ed published in February in the Herald itself by Jeffrey H. Sloman, another member of Mr. Acosta’s team. He points out that though the Herald’s decade-after-the-fact revelations “made a strong case that [Epstein] should have gone to jail for much longer,” the paper “never explained or substantiated its accusation that we schemed with Epstein’s lawyers to avoid that result.”
Bingo. However disappointing, inadequate or even weak-kneed the punishment may look in retrospect, nothing in the record even slightly suggests prosecutors were anything but hostile to Mr. Epstein and eager to extract the strongest realistic sanction. The Herald itself only began metronomically referring to the outcome as a corrupt “sweetheart deal” in 2017 when Mr. Acosta became associated with the Trump administration.
Notice something else: Between 2005 and 2009, when the case was unfolding and making news in South Florida and around world, the Herald produced a single item about Mr. Epstein’s travails, according to the Factiva database. It was buried in a news roundup and portrayed the matter as a simple prostitution case. It didn’t mention underage girls or Mr. Epstein’s status as a crony of Bill Clinton.
I guess this was some kind of sweetheart treatment.
It is admirable that you are loyal to your friends. But really, aligning yourself with this "reporter's" take:
ReplyDelete"In such cases, we need to remind ourselves, victims are victims by virtue of their age, not because they necessarily see themselves as victims or were unwilling participants in the criminal activity."
So Epstein and his cohorts groomed and then pimped out dozens if not hundreds of underage girls, but that is all okay because he did a really good job of ingratiating himself to them before raping them (which they would have agreed to if they were legally capable?). This is no different (actually much worse) than the 28 year old hanging out at a roller rink to pick up 13/14-year old girls in days of yore.
The notion that the US Attorney's Office is not equipped to prosecute cases because of uncooperative witnesses is also laughable. As is the premise that they were uncooperative when they were actually being intentionally kept in the dark AND not even being interviewed:
As Judge Marra found: "In addition to Jane Doe 1, FBI agents only talked to two other victims out of the 34 identified victims about the “general terms” of the NPA, including the provision providing a federal civil remedy to the victims."
WOW...so your reporter buddy writes:
"Further to this point, it seems clear the girls at the time were encouraged by their lawyers to believe they could receive justice and get compensation without revealing their names, by filing “Jane Doe” civil suits."
Perhaps...but when you read Marra's ruling about the lengths that the government went to hide the deal from the victims (and not meet with them when contacted), you understand that paragraph for the lie it is:
Marra:
"Here, it is undisputed that the Government entered into a NPA with Epstein without conferring with Petitioners during its negotiation and signing. Instead, the Government sent letters to the victims requesting their “patience” with the investigation even after the Government entered into the NPA.
...
Particularly problematic was the Government’s decision to conceal the existence of the NPA and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility. When the Government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading. While the Government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the NPA with Epstein’s attorneys, scant information was shared with victims. Instead, the victims were told to be “patient” while the investigation proceeded.
...
It was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute."
A read of Judge Marra's Order will teach that the case to set aside the agreement was filed in 2008 - immediately after the victim's lawyer's learned of the prosecution's deal with Epstein. It also shows that the government purposefully did not meet with additional victims who wanted to push for prosecution:
"In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future.Edwards was led to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the NPA or any other possible resolution to the case."
Part 2
ReplyDeleteFinally, please tell us why this is okay...and if you have ever seen anything like this before:
"On about November 30, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to one of Epstein’s defense attorneys, Kenneth Starr, stating: “I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client.” The letter also explained that the line prosecutor had informed U.S. Attorney Acosta “that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter” despite the fact that the “[r]ule of law . . . now requires this District to consider the victims’ rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement.”
The victims were misled and kept in the dark - to now say that they were uncooperative is outrageous.
Acosta should have apologized - he should not have had to resign. He has been great in all he has done since this deal, but to suggest that he did nothing wrong and this is the Herald's fault is just plain stupid. Acosta will land on his feet and will be fine - any law school would be well served by him (sadly, in the environment we are in, that isn't likely to happen). But the prevailing environment, which does take outrage too far in these times, doesn't mean that all outrage is wrong - here it is perfectly appropriate to think this deal was bullshit and believe the same for the excuses being offered as to why it was done. One of the worst things that Acosta and the other higher ups have done, is to fail to protect the line prosecutor who was clearly following their directives - shirking responsibility for that role is just plain wrong.
Yeah! What 3:49 said!
ReplyDeleteI do not know how to handle intelligent discourse in a blog comments section. My head is spinning.
ReplyDeleteBlame the victims for their temerity, and the press for not getting it picture perfect. How about the leaders who had the facts?
ReplyDeleteUh oh! Say it ain't so!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Jeffrey-Epstein-Found-Injured-in-NYC-Jail-Cell-After-Possible-Suicide-Attempt-or-Assault-Sources-513174311.html