"Background: An important note after Epstein's death: no one else will have standing to challenge the search warrant on his house. Everything will be admissible against any other defendant without possibility of a motion to suppress."
So maybe this will be a net good for justice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux#Deaths_of_potenti...
Even the public prosecutor was suddenly overwhelmed by sadness and took his life during the investigation. Hats off to anyone who dares to touch high-profile pedophilia cases.
It would have been admissible against anyone but Epstein even if Epstein hadn't died, and further warrants derived from information discovered through it (including reseizure of the same evidence under a new warrant) wouldn't, as I understand it, be precluded unless it was to be used against Epstein, all for the same reason that the right to object dies with Epstein, so it does nothing for justice except preventing any Constitutional violation from even being recognized, which is a net loss, not a win.
That Epstein had politically powerful clients and friends is not in serious dispute (which were clients and which were merely friends unconnected to his child rape business is somewhat less clear), and explains the sweetheart plea deal without resort to some behind-Epstein mastermind.
It's not impossible, but there is nothing that is explained more easily by such a mastermind than by the Epstein being the master of his own sex trade operation which garnered him influence (simply heading that operation means he has powerful blackmail material on powerful people.)
Your understanding of the situation is incorrect, and is leading you to incorrect conclusions.
They use incompetent people who can be manipulated into believing they have common interests and competent people who believe in their own that they have common interests, but, yes, they often use incompetent people. The relevance of this observation is unclear, as it still presents no existing phenomenon that requires a shady superior to Epstein to explain.
> Your understanding of the situation is incorrect.
You have as yet provided no way in which my understanding is incorrect.
It is so incredible it is beyond my understanding.
But you claim to understand it, which is also very much beyond me.
But you are right, more so than you think, I cannot provide a way for you to understand something I don’t understand.
If there were related parallel investigations, they could either still be before a grand jury, not yet have been submitted to a grand jury, or already had indictments issued but under seal. The fact that no one else was charged in the Epstein indictment does not mean there is no one else in a related matter against whom an investigation and/or (sealed) charges exist, which, if from no other source, the public coverage of all the investigations around Trump should have made everyone familiar with recently.