Epstein Secrets

Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board applies this same standard when reviewing a federal agency's decision to take adverse action against an employee based on such misconduct. See 5 U.

are taken for observation when they are believed to have ingested or secreted contraband on their person. According to the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge, the inaccurate 4 p.m. count slip told him 'that the count was not done and they just assumed and went by the cheat sheet because the body wasn't ev

Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board applies this same standard when reviewing a federal agency's decision to take adverse action against an employee based on such misconduct. See 5 U.

assign Epstein a new cellmate, and that he likely notified an unspecified Lieutenant. However, the OIG did not credit the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge's account because no other witnesses or evidence confirmed that he had in fact passed on information regarding Epstein's need for a new cellmate, ei

Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board applies this same standard when reviewing a federal agency's decision to take adverse action against an employee based on such misconduct. See 5 U.

e superior (the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge) was already aware of the need to assign Epstein a new cellmate. While the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge told the OIG that he made a number of notifications, other witnesses could not confirm that he had passed on information regarding Epstein's need fo

Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board applies this same standard when reviewing a federal agency’s decision to take adverse action against an employee based on such misconduct. See 5 U

re taken for observation when they are believed to have ingested or secreted contraband on their person. According to the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge, the inaccurate 4 p.m. count slip told him “that the count was not done and they just assumed and went by the cheat sheet because the body wasn’t ev

Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board applies this same standard when reviewing a federal agency’s decision to take adverse action against an employee based on such misconduct. See 5 U

assign Epstein a new cellmate, and that he likely notified an unspecified Lieutenant. However, the OIG did not credit the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge’s account because no other witnesses or evidence confirmed that he had in fact passed on information regarding Epstein’s need for a new cellmate, ei

Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board applies this same standard when reviewing a federal agency's decision to take adverse action against an employee based on such misconduct. See 5 U.

are taken for observation when they are believed to have ingested or secreted contraband on their person. According to the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge, the inaccurate 4 p.m. count slip told him 'that the count was not done and they just assumed and went by the cheat sheet because the body wasn't ev

Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board applies this same standard when reviewing a federal agency's decision to take adverse action against an employee based on such misconduct. See 5 U.

assign Epstein a new cellmate, and that he likely notified an unspecified Lieutenant. However, the OIG did not credit the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge's account because no other witnesses or evidence confirmed that he had in fact passed on information regarding Epstein's need for a new cellmate, ei