> Is there a legitimate reason so few people have been charged in the case of Epstein?
Given the probably reluctance of most victims to come forward, active concealment by (apparently) multiple large banks (Deutsche Bank was sued and settled with New York, and now JP Morgan by USVI), investigators getting proof beyond a reasonable doubt even if there aren’t powerful people with law enforcement connections with an interest in derailing investigations and accountability (there’s at least some reason to suspect something like that was involve in his wrist-slap the first time he was arrested, if not also beyond that, and certainly his rumored clients suggest that if there was, it might have been more about protecting them – and thus extend beyond his death – than about protecting him.)
There's literally a black book with names in it, as well as flight records. There is plenty of evidence here to get started on a charge without the banks or victims cooperating.
You have to remember that Federal investigations don't work like that. They don't arrest (even if it appears obvious) and then build evidence; they build a strong case quietly then arrest (look up Prenda Law for a good story on this).
Interestingly though, most of the time public or powerful figures go to jail it's not (or not mainly) for the crime assumed, it's for 'Lying to the Feds' (see Martha Stewart for example). It's notoriously hard and time consuming to put away the big time criminals because they have big time resources and connections.
Having dealt with “shoot first, ask questions later” asset forfeiture cases, in my own life and some of my friends’, I have to say this is more of an idealistic view post Wars on Drugs and Terror.
To be clear I'm talking about larger scale (or involving the 'elite' class) crimes, not the things everyday folk get caught up in, which generally proceed quite a bit quicker.
That's literally the fucking problem. Two legal systems, one for "elite" where they get a fucking slap on the wrist, and one for the "poors" where you get the living shit beat out of you and end up with a hospital bill and a charge for "resisting" arrest when they twisted your arm so hard that you involuntarily resisted the movement.
When it comes to poor people cops will do shit like throw a baton on the ground, put a suspects hand on it, and then claim they had gone for their weapon, beating them and taking them in for arrest right away.
When it comes to the "elite" they make a nice phone call and ask them when it would be convenient to come in for "questioning" because "we couldn't possibly arrest such an upstanding citizen" which is code for "we don't fuck with this guy because he butters our bread."
Indeed, being able to tell a cop you'll have your long list of very expensive lawyers contact them has a habit of slowing them down amazingly quickly.
If only law enforcement faced severe penalties for abusing their power, given they should be held to a higher standard of demonstrating good values and restraint in such roles in society.
They do work like that. My house was raided as part of an investigation. It was about two years after the search that the DOJ indicted me for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement..
And how many A-list law firms can you call on at a moment's notice? How many banks can you order around?
"Privilege" derives from the words for "private law". The privileged operate under different rules from the rest of us.
That doesn't mean they can't ever be taken down, but it does mean that when they are, it looks different than when law enforcement sets its sights on one of us.
Yes. The FBI and DHS agents arrested and detained me while they searched my house.
I was given an opportunity to be 'interviewed' while being detained. The agents presented a letter from the AUSA basically outlining what they were looking for and explaining how it would be in my best interest to cooperate with the investigation. lol..
There were 9 other people involved, it was pretty big national news at the time.
It was almost two years later that the DOJ indicted me.
A lot of the time the feds deliberately try and trap you into lying to them, either so they at least get something, or so they can use it as leverage to get you to inform on someone else.
> Failure to report the specific crime of child sex trafficking / rape is a crime itself.
Generally, not, AFAICT. State laws (in some cases, under a federal mandate requiring states to do so to receive federal funds) designate a variety of mandatory reporters (one of the most universal of which is health care providers), but there is no federal universal reporting mandate.
>> failure to report the specific crime of child sex trafficking / rape is a crime itself.
Ok but where is the evidence? I don't think the cops can just showup to Epstain's associates door and try to snatch confessions without evidence. They have lawyers. Why would they confess?
I think this is what takes time -- they have to build more than a circumstantial case that the crime was committed and as you said the suspect is not going to confess so they have a large hill to climb.
Flying to an island on his plane (even after everything we know about that has happened on that island residence) does not itself indicate any wrong doing -- they have to fond more evidence that links the threads together. If they charge or show their hands before they have enough it sets various clocks in motion that can harm the long term cases.
I have faith they are still working as many of these as they can looking for charges -- its only faith.
Epstein was not some cartoon super-villain whose every endeavor was directly in furtherance of his sex trafficking operation. Real world major bad guys almost never actually work like that. They almost almost always have major legitimate (or legitimate appearing) businesses and activities they spend considerable effort on too.
Epstein had a bunch of stuff going on in the finance world and was a philanthropist. His black book was full of contacts related to those activities.
Same with the flight records. His island was a hub for his legitimate (or legitimate appearing) activities. There were plenty of people who had reason to visit his island to arrange business deals, or to try to convince him to fund their cause, or to attend conferences that were hosted there without knowing that he also ran a sex trafficking operation there.
That makes merely being in the black book or flight records a pretty weak signal on its own that someone was involved in the sex trafficking.
To this day I'm not sure if anyone is really sure whether Epstein's "philanthropy" was just another avenue of his sexual abuse (cf the stories about his "scientific" interest in his own genetics), or a "cost" to launder his reputation allowing him to continue it, or if both were tools for an intelligence service's broader aims.
I do think it's clear he didn't have any really legitimate businesses. Even in the best case he was donating money to largely unproductive research and pop science in order to flatter himself, and the "conferences" are well attested to not be particularly intellectually rigorous.
Not just a book but rooms full of DVD's recording the activities for blackmail and extortion. AFAIK the feds seized all the DVD's from the CCTV rooms at each of his properties. IIRC the room was cleared at one of the properties because they were tipped off. Curious if this ends up in a documentary. The raids, not the actual DVD footage
I believe there was also large amounts of unusual concrete formations outside of one of the properties that suggested something may have been hidden. That would probably take some time to pick apart.
There's enough evidence to start writing subpoenas, which is really how this process works. They don't generally start with enough evidence to convict, they start with enough to compel people to give them more.
> There's enough evidence to start writing subpoenas, which is really how this process works.
Even were I to agree that that is true, the empaneling of a grand jury and the issuing of subpoenas is done secretly. We only know of the criminal grand jury that is empaneled for Trump in D. C. because Trump’s extremely irregular legal challenge over the docs seized at Mar-a-lago revealed it.
there is a tangible disinterest in prosecuting this --as well as most-- sex crimes in the united states. In many US states, rape kits used as pivotal evidence during trial are backlogged and processed at a near glacial rate or lost entirely. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein are examples of a situation where power in the united states, combined with a longstanding puritanical distaste for sex, culminated in a decades long failure of justice.
even the very protections victims receive in US courts are a mark of our inability to approach sex itself with a mature demeanor. we'd rather soldier on in silence, discipline, and remorse than honestly atone for real crime. that a victim themselves may succor the courage to face their attacker in court, is such a vicious affront that we're given no choice but to prosecute or lose face.
> there is a tangible disinterest in prosecuting this –as well as most– sex crimes in the united states.
This is definitely the case, and is one of the reasons I won’t go farther than suggesting there is reason to suspect specific corrupt influence on this case. It looks pretty bad, but a lot of the prosecution (or not) of sex crimes just doesn’t get attention, and looks as bad or worse when examined closely. There may be specific corrupt influence, and there are lots of directions that could have come from, but it also could be just the general attitude of tolerance for sex crimes in the US. Conspiracies are sexier, and allow one to ignore the glaring societal/broad systemic problem and pass off responsibility.
I do support the idea that someone accused of a crime needs to be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. The nature of these crimes often results in a he said/she said scenario where the crime can't be easily proven. Only in these scenarios where the dam breaks and dozens of accusers come forth do these predators receive justice.
Why are we pussy footing around this? This affair has all the hallmarks of a state level blackmail operation run by CIA and Mossad. ("law enforcement" is a rather amusing label for spook agencies.)
> This affair has all the hallmarks of a state level blackmail operation run by CIA and Mossad. (“law enforcement” is a rather amusing label for spook agencies.)
“spook agencies” don’t make prosecutorial or law enforcement investigation decisions (outside of those within their own investigative jurisdiction where they are also law enforcement agencies, which US ones, other than FBI to the extent you consider that a “spook agency”, aren’t) directly. If they were involved, they would be an example of a powerful actor exerting influence on law enforcement / prosecutorial agencies. Which would be consistent with the possibly I said had some grounds to suspect.
OTOH, there are other actors (including many of the individual reputed clients) that also might have, on their own and through their own connections, significant ability to sway law enforcement decisions if it was important to them, and significant motive to do so if they really were Epstein’s clients. “Spook agencies” make good targets for weakly-evidenced conspiracy theories, because people take suspicious events plus the lack of clear evidence of a particular actor as evidence that clandestine professionals are involved.
This line of reasoning is measured and sensible (and rest assured, this is appreciated). But there is an implicit assumption in your world view that intelligence agencies themselves are -not- subject to directions of powerful actors in the establishment. “Yale” and all that, but then we’re back to conspiracies, alas.
I am genuinely interested in your views on ‘how’ would we ever obtain “clear evidence” regarding matters that involve intelligence agencies acting well outside of the law. “14,342 JFK assassination records still contain redactions in 2022” according to a cursory search.
> But there is an implicit assumption in your world view that intelligence agencies themselves are -not- subject to directions of powerful actors in the establishment.
I’m not sure how that inference is drawn, but that is absolultely not part of my world-view, in general or as it pertains to this case; intelligence agencies could either be a source of influence in pursuit of their legal mission, or vehicles of informal influence for other parties.
> I am genuinely interested in your views on ‘how’ would we ever obtain “clear evidence” regarding matters that involve intelligence agencies acting well outside of the law.
Often, we wouldn’t, short of someone inside who knows where evidence is to be found preserving and revealing it, and even then validating that it is genuine might be difficult.
Same reason we pussy foot around any topic that puts attention on the corruption of the wealthy and their connections. This website is owned by, and has its content moderated in lockstep with, wealthy holders of capital.
Putting due spotlight on that will get your content removed.
Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who was a suspected Mossad spy. Per Wikipedia:
> The Foreign Office suspected that Maxwell was a secret agent of a foreign government, possibly a double agent or a triple agent, and "a thoroughly bad character and almost certainly financed by Russia". He had known links to the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), to the Soviet KGB, and to the Israeli intelligence service Mossad.[52] Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogised him and stated: "He has done more for Israel than can today be told."[53]
Espionage, like all significant industries, relies heavily on one’s personal contacts. In the spy game, reputation and trust are much harder to build, given the necessary lack of transparency on all sides.
For this reason, espionage has often been something of a family business — the children meet the contacts of the parent, and thereby essentially inherit the store.
There's probably a good ("good") argument to be made that you shouldn't get your underage prostitutes via a famous spook's daughter, but those are not the contentious parts of the story; they're the facts.
You should instead be thinking: She's purveying wildly illegal services for rich and high-profile people, and her father worked for an intelligence agency. In the unlikely event the IC wasn't involved in the beginning, why would they not approach her post-hoc?
You don't need "cover" to be a good spy. You just need information and contacts. Cover is a tool to get those, because most people aren't as dumb as Bill Gates.
In the case of Prince Andrew [1], there was a private settlement with the victim with the strongest case. He did not (directly) admit guilt and got his case closed.
> If the private settlement includes a gag condition for the primary criminal witness….
A civil settlement cannot include a condition prohibiting someone from testifying or otherwise cooperating with a criminal investigation, and one which purported to do so would be void.
> Is it legal to enforce an NDA that covers up a crime?
Not only would such an NDA be unenforceable, offering (in so far as that implies a threat to enforce) and even moreso directly threatening to enforce one for that purpose (leveraging the other parties lack of knowledge that it was unenforceable or fear of the consequences of a lawsuit even without merit) would seem to be witness tampering, a separate crime.
One theoretical example, would be something like $1mln/yr paid in weekly installments, conditional on no details she knows ever being known by anyone else.
If approached by a cutout attorney (using attorney client privilege and on behalf of ‘anonymous friends’), payments from blind trusts not associated with the royal family, and a couple layers of that most of it offshore, and only a very determined investigation with a lot of international pull is getting anywhere. And the signs are pretty clear, that isn’t happening in a case like this.
The incentives are aligned such, that I doubt such an agreement would even need to be written down.
With the connections and pull within the gov’t the royal family has, any attempt to even track it down would likely get someone shut down, even in the FBI or CIA. But maybe I’m just imagining things.
The potential perpetrators can afford masses of top notch lawyers, so cases will have to be tight to lead to any convictions. Besides, who would benefit from the resulting loss in campaign contributions?
Perhaps there were no more people to charge? This was probably mostly Epstein’s and Maxwells private hobby, they presumably did not go around advertising the fact that the girls were underage.
Because we don’t know how to hold wealthy and powerful people accountable in this country.
See SBF, released on bail, immediately started stealing money from Alemeda and FTX wallets. Why the fuck does he have unsupervised access to a computer? Because we suck at this.
If you or me lie to Congress, we go to jail. If the head of the FBI lies to Congress about spying on Americans (as demonstrated by the Snowden revelations), nothing happens.
What does that mean? It's at least somewhat politicized and protects the status quo, but it's clearly not entirely such - powerful status quo people go to jail and suffer other penalties.
The meaningful question is, how and in what ways is it true, and who what where and when? And what shall we do about it?
some of the people in charge like screwing kids and were implicated in his crimes, it's not unprecedented look at the lengths the catholic chruch went to protect it's own
Looks Epstein house wasn't a sex-or-no-heroine-for-ya mafia shop. Girls was lured there - "they had a playbook" - with promises of opportunities and bunch of good heart faking. And shopping sprees. By someone out of the blue suddenly throwing money...
Still, as I read somewhere, similiar to mafia where trafficking is often mafia's woman job.
Girls was also choosed - troubles in family or [attr humanity=off] System [attr] experience...
Looks like total top-down fackup - from politicians to minor kids. Nothing much differen form what was[1] happening for thousend of years before. But now we trying to not accept this anymore.
So:
- first, nothing can replace good family with parents dedicated for life to their childrens
- we need to do something with kids wanting or maybe needeing money... Steam skins for cents is just extracted essence of that. Why minors started to needs money so much ? That is civilizational problem.
Also some % of mionors "sex marked" is just that - minors wants money... Spare me usual idiotic fact denial on that and show me a way to avoid that.
- we need good after hours care for kids. Not only official schools but but after hours too. DO NOT MAKE IT MANDATORY IN ANY CASE, school is enough of that.
Boy Scouts was good attempt, worked or is working for century now. But predators infiltrate it.
- and here is main problem: a) predators "volunteere", b) no one notice (maybe) and then c) they take over institution. There was "private tutors" in England - kids moved to teachers homes. Yes, personal education is better then public, but gues what ? There was systematic abuses ! Is it when and why anti-homosexualinsts law passed in England (or it was from earlier) ?
There is a clear pattern: pedophiles destroy educational systems. That they destroy lifes for life is already known and all over the media and spy industry and legislation too with potential of destroing results. Yea, f* education, right ?
- we do need official method of requiring and teaching more and more responsibility from kids - so they could be self sustained adults. Old ways of that was destroyed by changes in lifestyle (which are not bad in itself (except megacities - that need to be stopped))
- we need to learn to be not rich - especially public servants, military, priests, teachers and academia LOL. Not poor - it guarantee coruption in "services". Made it official: You want to be rich ? Get out of public service ! Of course negative way is not a way, we need good reasons to stay in. Maybe by striving to do art or nice things at least. For now anything remotely nice is "premium" and "premium" is for stupid peoples - there is no such value as "premium" ! There is just quality, effort and resources.
Just keep watching for parasites as phedophiles in kids related organizations and appropriately to the organization purpose, eg. health or education or environment or IT controlling agencies - meltdowns of the last decades is... in same scale as Babel tower building effort.
Also as society we need get over that "be rich" lure. Just build homes for everyone and then more and then give them as gifts. Problem moustly solved ! Maybe. I read yesterday JPMorgan volunteered for that, right ? Just build and cede ownership rights.
Make them easily repairable for 2 centuries and keep building publicly owned or very cheaply available replacements for what's damaged. Yes, very cheaply available quality houses. It's quite a time for new goverment responsibilities. That's different from setting rules for others.
- there should be scientific research about "gentlemans" - must be rich and 4 generations needed to create true gentleman ? Looks like pre-scientific observation. But looks like some level of financial independence do psychological change in life - you gain some peace when you do not need to be in constant panic for lack of food and shelter with money as proxy of that. Also this is usually achieved via education. And not without training in some ethic...
Possible in XIX we can do better then 4 generations...
Lawyers after big damages are always going to try to blame every one even tangentially related to a crime for that crime, which encourages a society where we must presume every one guilty, until we prove them innocent, before engaging in a free market interaction with them.
If cash were a bank that could pay damages, they would blame every crime where cash changed hands, for that crime, and it would become the most vilified bank in the world.
It's a bit weird to refer to the attorney general of the USVI as "the government", that's something you'd generally associate with the federal government.
> It's a bit weird to refer to the attorney general of the USVI as "the government", that's something you'd generally associate with the federal government.
People have different experiences, of course, but I'm confident that it's commonplace - and correct - to refer to any such party as "the government". Ask an attorney.
Hmm ... in any state or locality, the same terminology is used. And how often does anyone anywhere refer to the USVI attorney general? I doubt it's common enough for there to be a norm.
> Hmm ... in any state or locality, the same terminology is used
Within the locality maybe, and not necessarily even then. State AGs bring suits all the time, how many news articles can you find referring to those suits as the government suing someone? I think none.
Sometimes you might refer to "the state" (Which USVI isn't, so that doesn't make sense), but generally you will speak of the AG by either their name or "New York AG".
> And how often does anyone anywhere refer to the USVI attorney general?
If you search news.google.com for "epstein jp morgan", you will find that they generally do so every time. Even local USVI news don't speak of "the government".
Besides, this is USVI litigating in federal court. In that context USVI obviously can not be "the government", even if they might be in USVI courts.
Not for people of his status. Look at Maxwell, currently in a reportedly 5 star prison for the elite like her.
There are a number of other reasons of course. The CCTV just happened to malfunction at the time of his death. His cell was cleared of anything that could be used to commit suicide, and the autopsy report showed inconsistencies with his reported method of suicide.
> Look at Maxwell, currently in a reportedly 5 star prison for the elite like her.
She's a woman, it's not the same. Besides, Maxwell is in FCI Tallahassee which is far from a 5 star prison. It's not even a FPC.
Epstein wasn't going to have a nice life at club fed, he would've either have spent the rest of his life in the SHU or been repeatedly assaulted and eventually murdered by other inmates in gen pop.
> The CCTV just happened to malfunction at the time of his death. His cell was cleared of anything that could be used to commit suicide, and the autopsy report showed inconsistencies with his reported method of suicide.
The reality is that none of these things are true.
The CCTV did not "just happen to malfunction at the time of his death", the CCTV footage was eventually recovered and showed nobody entering the cell.
He had been taken off suicide watch and had bed sheets.
His autopsy report did not actually show inconsistencies despite a fox talking head telling you so.
>As confirmed by the video obtained from the MCC's internal video surveillance system, this was the last time anyone, including any correctional officer, walked up to, let alone entered, the only entrance to the tier in which Epstein was housed until approximately 6:30 a.m. on August 10.
I'd also note that the DOJ going after the jail guards is a pretty strong evidence against any conspiracy to murder Epstein.
Today we learn that sex trafficking looks a lot like rich people aided by large financial institutions.
In the face of that, wealthy pols instead went after BackPage (even tho BP actively and passively aided cops on the front line of rescuing trafficked victims).
Why every single journalist in the country is not after the little black book, when it would be the biggest story in decades, is simply dumbfounding to me.
It’s not really that interesting. A name being in there doesn’t say anything about his relationship to the person. There are no notes, no explanations, just names.
I don’t understand how Ghauline got charged with underage child prostitution but none of her clients did. Who did she traffick them to? Makes me think politicians at the very highest level like Prince Andrew in the UK and a bunch in the US. It’s funny that the sketches for the Madeline McCann kidnappers look an awful lot like the Podesta brothers - the same ones with the creepy nude art of children in their homes.
Also, can we just call it what it is - child prostitution?
> Makes me think politicians at the very highest level like Prince Andrew in the UK and a bunch in the US.
Prince Andrew was not a political creature though.
His influence was built on other peoples money and access to power afaict. He had the right phone numbers to set up meetings between interested parties.
I wonder how many more people we don't know about have been killed to keep this mess contained.
Ghislaine's peculiarly friendly and apologizing comments about accused rapist and former U.S President Bill Clinton suggests who she suspects may be behind some of it. Coincidentally there's frequently talk about how several of his past associates seem to have been shot and killed.
Looking at the actual facts behind it, it seems likely yes. It starts to make a lot more sense once you research the facility that it occurred in, the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Frankly, I don't really get the whole conspiracy anyways.
The fact that the nearest cameras happened to malfunction is certainly either an amusing coincidence or cause for suspicion. Given that he likely had blackmailable information on other powerful people (anybody who had visited him on his island and happened to partake), there are certainly people who would have the motive to arrange for something.
It's still likely he committed suicide but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
You don't get the conspiracy that the very powerful people that are named in his little black book would want to eliminate the principle witness in a huge case against them? Believing it is one thing, but not getting it is a strange thing to say considering how cut and dry the claim is.
There are so many levels to the conspiracy that I think some conspiracy must have occurred.
He was in a notoriously unsafe prison: the fact that that exists is a conspiracy on its own. the fact that he wasn’t under constant surveillance, the fact that he was given a dangerous cell mate.
None of that is remotely interesting to people with experience with prisons. There are tons of dangerous criminals and he was on suicide watch until he wasn’t, at which point he committed suicide. There aren’t enough resources to watch all of the prisoners all of the time, so he waited until he wasn’t being monitored and then committed suicide. Donald Trump ran the DOJ who controlled the BOP would be the only person who could have “arranged” anything and he was notoriously uninterested in details of things so just nothing else even plausibly makes sense from a conspiracy level.
A lot of money is spent on such high profile cases at various levels. Monitoring the person 24/7 costs nothing in comparison (at least, checking that cameras function)!
Due to the amount of very high profile celebrities and politicians connected to this case, it's a real possibility somebody could have murdered him or pushed him to suicide, this is far from a normal case. Good luck finding any evidence either way though.
I wonder that myself. I assume that his death makes things simpler for those who would have been inconvenienced by his testimony, but who knows. I think it depends on whether he could still be useful to people if he couldn’t officially exist anymore.
