Standing down can mean a lot of different things.
They could have done due diligence to make sure everything was done by the book, that Epstein was protected, etc. At the same time, it’s clear they avoided taking any extraordinary measures to ensure it didn’t happen.
My perspective is that they figured out a way to turn this potential negative into a positive ahead time.
Isn’t that struggle in every surveillance or undercover activity taken on by the police? How much evil do you let go unpunished to ensure you take out the whole system?
Can you understand that the message (we can kill you in one of the most secure lockups in the entire world) is a chilling effect to anyone who has any information?
Would you offer to come forward now with information on this bunch?
Not me.
I’d actively discourage anyone I knew as well.
Because it’s obvious that the feds can’t keep you safe.
standing down protection for a man in prison seems to me negligent homicide at a minimum, and if i were the judge, murder. it is like kicking a person when the person is down, only with intentionally fatal results. any way you slice it, it is immoral. if this were planned from the white hats, several individuals in the chain of command at the prison would need to be convinced enough to buy into the view that the ends (epstein’s death) somehow justifies the means (negligent homicide, conspiracy, denial of due process). most of these individuals would have a legal or criminology background. they would knowingly be putting themselves at great risk by joining in a conspiracy, even in a passive role. i for one am just not seeing any daylight in your scenario.