• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell Scandal

I can guarantee a builder on Epstein’s Island would, at some time, have bent over or crouched down while working and revealed the crack in their bottom. It’s inevitable and they can’t touch you for it.
 
Interesting to watch the interview on YT with Epstein's brother who has been trying to get more info on his death (although they were not very close). Photos of his neck seem to show thin ligature marks and not what would be associated with bed linen. Xrays show 3 broken neck bones which a pathologist says would not happen in a small drop from the bed and more seen in a death from a heavy karate chop to the back of the neck or a long old fashioned hanging. His underside ( in a sitting position an inch from the floor) showed no signs of lividity which you would expect after 2 hours. Several cell doors including E's were open at the time.
His brother although not appearing on camera did seem pretty straightforward but raised the point about no one appearing to be safe even in the confines of a jail.

All sensationalist rowlocks or some element of truth. I doubt we'll ever know and I doubt most care anyway.
 
Now, you see, this is where I get confused. Re Prince Andrew:

"Mentioned 69 times in more than 900 pages of documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, he is accused of forcing Virginia Giuffre to sleep with him, joining an “orgy with numerous other underaged girls” on Epstein’s Caribbean island, and touching Johanna Sjoberg’s breast."

Now, I entirely accept that you shouldn't uninvited touch a woman's 'assets', and it deserves a slap.

But how does that compare with raping an underage girl, or 'joining an orgy of numerous underage girls'? It seems, in male non-sexual terms , comparing a punch on the nose in a pub dispute with being dismembered with a chainsaw.

I don't know if it is a deliberate attempt to deemphasise the whole set of allegations, but it feels like that to me. Normally you'd finish the statement with the most severe allegation, not the least severe.
 
Cochise said:
Now, you see, this is where I get confused. Re Prince Andrew:

"Mentioned 69 times in more than 900 pages of documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, he is accused of forcing Virginia Giuffre to sleep with him, joining an “orgy with numerous other underaged girls” on Epstein’s Caribbean island, and touching Johanna Sjoberg’s breast."

Now, I entirely accept that you shouldn't uninvited touch a woman's 'assets', and it deserves a slap.

But how does that compare with raping an underage girl, or 'joining an orgy of numerous underage girls'? It seems, in male non-sexual terms , comparing a punch on the nose in a pub dispute with being dismembered with a chainsaw.

I don't know if it is a deliberate attempt to deemphasise the whole set of allegations, but it feels like that to me. Normally you'd finish the statement with the most severe allegation, not the least severe.
Click to expand...
To me it seems to be a slow release of ever more damming things going on at Little St Jame's island and ever more revelations of the rich and famous going to and from the island on the 'Lolita Express', Epstien's private plane. Even that name 'Lolita Express' has all types of connotations.

I think at some point there's going to be a huge expose of the most depraved types of activities having taken place.
 
Stormkhan said:
Or they're stringing it out to keep the story selling papers etc.
Drip feed.
Click to expand...
You could well be right although from what I've read via alternative media what's being reported about at present about what went on at Epstien island is just the tip of the iceberg and that there needs to be a gradual release of information otherwise people would freak out if it all came out in one blast, as it were. Having written that, only time will tell.
 
Analogue Boy said:
I can guarantee a builder on Epstein’s Island would, at some time, have bent over or crouched down while working and revealed the crack in their bottom. It’s inevitable and they can’t touch you for it.
Click to expand...
Stormkhan said:
"Awright darlin'? Like wot yer see?"
Click to expand...
Appearances can be deceptive. :nods:
 

Attachments

  • bum crack necklace.jpeg
    bum crack necklace.jpeg
    52.4 KB · Views: 27
Non sequiteur of the day: It all got a tiny bit easier to get my head around it when I belatedly realised the name "Ghislaine" is not pronounced "Jizz-lane", and is, apparently, a slightly more European/ rather more pretentious way of spelling the name "Gillian".

Which is hard luck on all the Gillians out there, as the name conjures up a blameless but dutiful mother of 2.4 children on the school run, married perhaps to a junior marketing executive and living in a nice suburb somewhere...
 
escargot said:
Epstein's several homes were raided by the police and FBI. You might ask them what they've done with the items they removed.
Click to expand...
I read up on the background to the Sharon Tate murder case. It appears a lot of material was removed from the Tate/Polanski residence by the investigating cops and placed in secure storage by the LAPD and maybe the FBI while they assessed its relevance to the case (or so they said in public). On one level, this was probably right and correct - among other things, there was a fear that unscrupulous journalists or just plain souvenir hunters might get there first, and anyone in Polanski's position at a time like that deserved a degree of care and enhanced privacy.

On another level, there were whispers of sex tapes, audio recordings and "private films" in which identifiable members of LA's upper strata (including the political elite) could be identified in sexual activity, sometimes including under-age people. Given Polanski was in the spotlight for this some years later, this does sound credible,

So the obvious questions are - can we be sure all of this was released back to Roman Polanski after police inspection determined it had no relevance to the Manson investigation?

Who knew it was there and ordered this stuff to be gathered into safekeeping when there was a risk that, for instance, investigating journalists might have eventually found it? Who had the power, formally or informally, to direct the LAPD on this?

While it was in "secure storage", were copies or transcripts taken, and if so, by who and for what purposes?

And what would the police procedure have been if, while investigating a multiple murder, they inadvertently discovered the grieving husband was routinely filming himself having sex with underage girls - how to proceed in this case?

While a few decades separate Polanski from Epstein - are there links? Is there a "tradition" of this sort of thing in Hollywood?
 
Last edited:
AgProv said:
Which is hard luck on all the Gillians out there, as the name conjures up a blameless but dutiful mother of 2.4 children on the school run, married perhaps to a junior marketing executive and living in a nice suburb somewhere...
Click to expand...
Or Gillian Taylforth or Gillian Anderson.
Still, if you consider her name a 'pretentious' spelling, you must take into account her father 'Cap'n Bob' Maxwell, an arch-snob and authoritarian.
 
The problem is when considering if all the material or documents have been released, there might be no answer. The authorities might be crooked and don't (which begs the question - why don't they destroy it then?*) so the public only get to see 'safe' material or the authorities are honest and they've really - honestly - released all the material and there really is no scandal.
Just because one year the authorities were corrupt, doesn't mean they are now. People die, leave the job etc. Would we say New York Democrats were as venal as Tammany Hall now?
Sometimes - just sometimes - I think the authorities are 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' when it comes to the cynical view of the public. Just because you think they're untrustworthy, doesn't make them all or always untrustworthy. I tend to judge authorities on (recent) past performance and actions. There's always room for improvement but we've got to force/let them improve.

* Yeah - 'THEY' might want the scandal to do a bit of blackmail themselves. Sure. But what if they see harm coming to innocent people, family members etc. especially if the subject is dead and beyond justice?
 
AgProv said:
I read up on the background to the Sharon Tate murder case. It appears a lot of material was removed from the Tate/Polanski residence by the investigating cops and placed in secure storage by the LAPD and maybe the FBI while they assessed its relevance to the case (or so they said in public). On one level, this was probably right and correct - among other things, there was a fear that unscrupulous journalists or just plain souvenir hunters might get there first, and anyone in Polanski's position at a time like that deserved a degree of care and enhanced privacy.

On another level, there were whispers of sex tapes, audio recordings and "private films" in which identifiable members of LA's upper strata (including the political elite) could be identified in sexual activity, sometimes including under-age people. Given Polanski was in the spotlight for this some years later, this does sound credible,

So the obvious questions are - can we be sure all of this was released back to Roman Polanski after police inspection determined it had no relevance to the Manson investigation?

Who knew it was there and ordered this stuff to be gathered into safekeeping when there was a risk that, for instance, investigating journalists might have eventually found it? Who had the power, formally or informally, to direct the LAPD on this?

While it was in "secure storage", were copies or transcripts taken, and if so, by who and for what purposes?

And what would the police procedure have been if, while investigating a multiple murder, they inadvertently discovered the grieving husband was routinely filming himself having sex with underage girls - how to proceed in this case?

While a few decades separate Polanski from Epstein - are there links? Is there a "tradition" of this sort of thing in Hollywood?
Click to expand...
Sex tapes, audio recordings and private films - so reminiscent of what Diana Dors got up to. She apparently encouraged young females to participate in the activities with celebs of the time. Made no secret of it, but not much was done about it. One has to wonder why she chose to conceal the list of a large number of bank accounts in many names, especially in code (which was years later broken). Money was never traced but you have to wonder where it came from.
 
PeteS said:
Sex tapes, audio recordings and private films - so reminiscent of what Diana Dors got up to. She apparently encouraged young females to participate in the activities with celebs of the time. Made no secret of it, but not much was done about it. One has to wonder why she chose to conceal the list of a large number of bank accounts in many names, especially in code (which was years later broken). Money was never traced but you have to wonder where it came from.
Click to expand...
Yup, I read her early autobiography Swingin' Dors in which she placed the blame for the sexual shenanigans (two-way mirrors mounted over beds etc) on her first husband. I wasn't fooled.
 
I was always given the impression by documentaries etc. that Diana D. and spouse were 'just' kinky swingers. That any taping was for their own 'enjoyment' rather than blackmail.
Rather like Bob Crane.
 
Stormkhan said:
The problem is when considering if all the material or documents have been released, there might be no answer. The authorities might be crooked and don't (which begs the question - why don't they destroy it then?*) so the public only get to see 'safe' material or the authorities are honest and they've really - honestly - released all the material and there really is no scandal.
Just because one year the authorities were corrupt, doesn't mean they are now. People die, leave the job etc. Would we say New York Democrats were as venal as Tammany Hall now?
Sometimes - just sometimes - I think the authorities are 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' when it comes to the cynical view of the public. Just because you think they're untrustworthy, doesn't make them all or always untrustworthy. I tend to judge authorities on (recent) past performance and actions. There's always room for improvement but we've got to force/let them improve.

* Yeah - 'THEY' might want the scandal to do a bit of blackmail themselves. Sure. But what if they see harm coming to innocent people, family members etc. especially if the subject is dead and beyond justice?
Click to expand...
If it come at from a different angle and instead of what is going on now or still being either covered up or not yet disclosed, come at it from the angle of how was all that went on for years kept secret?

A politician (no names) was asked about Epstien Island in 2007, I think, and the person said some very bad things go on there. That meant the person knew way back then and also the interviewer knew and she would have been briefed before hand so those that briefed her knew as well. How did they come to know?

So to say the cover up wasn't a long term thing or wasn't know about by intelligence agencies or law enforcement must be a misnomer. So why didn't they act?

To me this all points to something much much bigger than just Epstien Island. I personally think, and I could be wrong, the picture with Prince Andrew was a pebble to start an avalanche.
 
kesavaross said:
If it come at from a different angle and instead of what is going on now or still being either covered up or not yet disclosed, come at it from the angle of how was all that went on for years kept secret?

A politician (no names) was asked about Epstien Island in 2007, I think, and the person said some very bad things go on there. That meant the person knew way back then and also the interviewer knew and she would have been briefed before hand so those that briefed her knew as well. How did they come to know?

So to say the cover up wasn't a long term thing or wasn't know about by intelligence agencies or law enforcement must be a misnomer. So why didn't they act?

To me this all points to something much much bigger than just Epstien Island. I personally think, and I could be wrong, the picture with Prince Andrew was a pebble to start an avalanche.
Click to expand...
I again say that as a comparison, look up Peter Nygard. His money and threats of suing anyone who tried to look into allegations made it very difficult to bring any charges against him. He also had people sign non-disclosure agreements.

Money and intimidation tactics go far when you have more funds available than your victims. Police can't make charges stick if there is no one to back them up.
 
brownmane said:
I again say that as a comparison, look up Peter Nygard. His money and threats of suing anyone who tried to look into allegations made it very difficult to bring any charges against him. He also had people sign non-disclosure agreements.

Money and intimidation tactics go far when you have more funds available than your victims. Police can't make charges stick if there is no one to back them up.
Click to expand...
Just looked him up, as his story had passed me by.

And yes, there are a lot of comparisons and that also includes having friends in high places - he received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012, long after numerous allegations of, er, impropriety and some that were proven, including the loss of a slander case in 2005.

He should have been nowhere near an award of any sort. (I'm not suggesting the queen personally chose him for the gong, but the fact he could be put forward and that this proposal wasn't thrown out suggests he had well-placed contacts or supporters at the very least).
 
AgProv said:
a slightly more European/ rather more pretentious way of spelling the name "Gillian".
Click to expand...

Why is it pretentious? the ones (all two of them!) I've known have been just fine. They both said it dji-lane by the way.

I speak as someone with a name which, for reasons still unclear to me, led to physical violence at junior school. At secondary school I started to use my other name instead. It's only in the last ten years, so half a century later, that I've started to think it's quite pretty - and to welcome presents with that initial on them.
 
Frideswide said:
Why is it pretentious? the ones (all two of them!) I've known have been just fine. They both said it dji-lane by the way.

I speak as someone with a name which, for reasons still unclear to me, led to physical violence at junior school. At secondary school I started to use my other name instead. It's only in the last ten years, so half a century later, that I've started to think it's quite pretty - and to welcome presents with that initial on them.
Click to expand...
Is that a hint :)
 
I think there's a lot of assumption going on.
It's all going to boil down to a perceived truth rather than a demonstratable reality.
No matter what evidence is presented, it'll be:
"What about the evidence you've hidden?" whether there is more or not.
Don't demand the authorities to 'be honest' if you've already determined they're not.
Don't demand change ... unless you're willing to accept the change happens.
Otherwise you're stuck with what you've got.

So, a bunch of rich and famous people visited the Epstein Island. Look for evidence of which visitor actually committed the suspected crime. Look at A. Is there evidence against them? It's a fairly safe bet that any evidence would be hard to find ... but that doesn't mean that A actually did anything wrong. You can't find evidence of a crime that didn't happen. Guilt by association isn't justice. Find people guilty for what they do, not what you assume they do.
I despise Randy Andy - he's the worse example of entitlement not deserved. I'd assume that he's fighting hard against the accusations because he knows he's guilty. If he were innocent then there'd be no evidence. But he might also be fighting because he knows he did something and he's assuming there's evidence to be found. Either ways, he's damned regardless of his actions: if he fights it, he's assumed guilty. If he doesn't fight the accusations, he's assumed guilty. So we might suspect he's guilty of something but until any evidence is found ...
In his case, though, he's already soiled goods. Sure, on a personal level, King Charles - and the rest of the Establishment - might want to play it down and let him retire into the shadows. But it strikes me his own personality won't let that happen.
Look at the fate of the Duchess of Argyle.
 
Stormkhan said:
I think there's a lot of assumption going on.
It's all going to boil down to a perceived truth rather than a demonstratable reality.
No matter what evidence is presented, it'll be:
"What about the evidence you've hidden?" whether there is more or not.
Don't demand the authorities to 'be honest' if you've already determined they're not.
Don't demand change ... unless you're willing to accept the change happens.
Otherwise you're stuck with what you've got.

So, a bunch of rich and famous people visited the Epstein Island. Look for evidence of which visitor actually committed the suspected crime. Look at A. Is there evidence against them? It's a fairly safe bet that any evidence would be hard to find ... but that doesn't mean that A actually did anything wrong. You can't find evidence of a crime that didn't happen. Guilt by association isn't justice. Find people guilty for what they do, not what you assume they do.
I despise Randy Andy - he's the worse example of entitlement not deserved. I'd assume that he's fighting hard against the accusations because he knows he's guilty. If he were innocent then there'd be no evidence. But he might also be fighting because he knows he did something and he's assuming there's evidence to be found. Either ways, he's damned regardless of his actions: if he fights it, he's assumed guilty. If he doesn't fight the accusations, he's assumed guilty. So we might suspect he's guilty of something but until any evidence is found ...
In his case, though, he's already soiled goods. Sure, on a personal level, King Charles - and the rest of the Establishment - might want to play it down and let him retire into the shadows. But it strikes me his own personality won't let that happen.
Look at the fate of the Duchess of Argyle.
Click to expand...
But what evidence is there that Andy was up to no good? Accusation from a female and a photo? He must have photographed with thousands of people. His behaviour since the allegation is not evidence really is it and all this goes to show how difficult these cases actually are. He doesn't seem to be any worse than the activities of Royals over the centuries - just look at what QE2's sister got up to. Even good old Vicky had her moments. I've no time for the current crop of modern Royals and as you say Andy is the worst example along with the odious H.

The problem now arises that even a mere association with Epstein will automatically be associated with skulduggery.
 
To be fair, my personal regard to Andy is based not on evidence but his publicised actions, including the car crash interview. But this is my point precisely. Personally, I would not have been surprised if there'd been real evidence in the revelations. My thoughts concerning what anyone got up to on the private island isn't evidence. And just because any suspected behaviour of Andrew isn't 'any worse' than others doesn't make it acceptable. Assault is assault. And being one of many doesn't make it unimportant. But as far as Epstein is concerned ... It is guilt by association. They can't do anything - damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The most obvious dragging the mud was the revelation of Stephen Hawking being a visitor. Automatically, he's considered a pervert but, of course, being dead he can't defend himself. Was there a plumber on site? Must've been a paedophile - think of thousands of crappy porn movie stories. Were fishermen turned away from the area? Of course - they must've been investigative journalists and not paparazzi. What about the pilots of his jets? Deffo rapists and perverts - they've got autopilots on them things, eh?
 
Stormkhan said:
I was always given the impression by documentaries etc. that Diana D. and spouse were 'just' kinky swingers. That any taping was for their own 'enjoyment' rather than blackmail.
Rather like Bob Crane.
Click to expand...
Yup, I felt it was mostly about introducing the latest technology (as it then was) into their already rather liberal sex lives.

However, there was mention of the two-way mirror being placed over a double bed so guests could secretly watch male friends talk unwary young female guests into surrendering their virginity. This was abusive as they hadn't consented to being watched or filmed.

Wish I still had that book!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top