Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

> Federal judge's son, 20, is shot dead and her criminal defense attorney husband is critically injured after a gunman disguised as a FedEx driver ambushed their home - four days after she was assigned a case linked to Jeffrey Epstein

> Last week, on July 15, the judge was assigned to a case that had links to late sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.

> The case Salas is presiding over involves as ongoing lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank investors who claim the company made false and misleading statements about its anti-money laundering policies and failed to monitor 'high-risk' customers including convicted sex offender billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8539683/amp/Federal...

View on HN

Yes, it's a case related to Epstein. But it's really a run-of-the-mill investor protection lawsuit like thousands each year.

It's also day seven of her being assigned the case. She may have sent out some preliminary inquiries to start thinking about a trial schedule. She definitely didn't make any decisions that have the potential to expose whatever criminal mastermind people believe to be lurking in the shadows.

Later in the trial, a judge's recusal could have resulted in a mistrial, potentially delayed it for years, or even caused plaintiffs to run of money or patience to try again.

But at the very beginning, there is no reason to believe she is different than any other judge who would be assigned in her stead, and the schedule would barely be affected.

There is the whole thing with DB executives killing themselves that makes it all the more suspicious. https://twitter.com/0ddette/status/1202038729910697985?s=19

> But at the very beginning, there is no reason to believe she is different than any other judge who would be assigned in her stead, and the schedule would barely be affected.

The judge that would be assigned in her stead is different in that they will operate with the knowledge that their predecessor had their family murdered, quite possibly because of the case they're now handling. How is that not obvious?

OK let's follow this train of thought, what message is conveyed here? Don't touch this case? Side with investors? Side with the bank?

Even if you're right and fear is the motivation, fear in which direction?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com