Update 2022, an interview on Youtube with a girl who has much more information than most people.
Very long interview and have not watched all of it but it would be mind bending if she doesn't mention Iran Contra, will watch it all eventually.
Paul Cassell is a former federal judge, and now a high powered attorney 'representing' some of Epstein's victims.
He has a history of making mistakes then somehow spinning things in his favor.
There are a bunch of high dollar extremely connected lawyers who have popped up in the Epstein case, including another former FBI agent / federal prosecutor / etc who is representing a mystery John Doe who is trying to keep more Epstein documents secret,
He, i.e., 'John Doe', didn't pick that lawyer from a phone book.
It is starting to look more and more like 'the victim's lawyers' and 'Epstein's lawyers' and 'the prosecutors' are actually all cut from the same cloth and working together.
They have to satisfy the public by giving the appearance of 'fighting trafficking', but what are they actually doing?
Who are the victim's lawyers really working for?
First they came for Epstein instead of the politicians he catered to.
Then they came for the girls instead of the politicians the girls entertained.
Government workers in the UK and U.S. have been feverishly filling suitcases with money.
The 'scandal of scandals' has been slowly threatening to explain decades of high level decisions.
Will France and Italy intervene? Or will the Eurocommunity crumble?
There are some people who will never go to trial in the United States.
Jeffrey Epstein was one of them, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed is another one of them.
Reports in the media that there will be a trial for somebody who can't get a public trial usually means they will be dead soon.
Zacarias Moussaoui is the only person some people in the United States briefly tried to put on trial.
"On April 22, 2005, in one of the court sessions near the end of that phase of the proceedings, Moussaoui surprised the whole court by pleading guilty to all charges, while at the same time denying having any intention to produce a massacre like 9/11."
"A sound feed to journalists from the courtroom was turned off twice."
"The sound was also turned off when another defendant discussed early days of his imprisonment. Judge Ralph Kohlmann said that in both cases sound was turned off because classified information was discussed."
The Epstein investigation, which never started, has now ended.
Britain's Royal Prince is entering the Colosseum to preach to the hungry lions.
Numerous federal entities are still bent on pretending there will be an investigation.
But the truth is that, aside from a token effort caused by a Miami Herald investigation and other news media in the past, there never was, and never will be, any credible investigation of high level sex trafficking operations run by governments, including Epstein's so called 'sex trafficking'.
Oh No, Those Poor Girls
One of the big ironies of the Epstein saga is the sacrificing of a royal prince to save a prime minister, it doesn't take a lot of guesswork to imagine who benefits from the trade.
"Leaving Fettes College at the age of eighteen, Blair next spent a year in London attempting to find fame as a rock music promoter."
What about 2011?
Sharon Churcher is the reporter who first found the 'Epstein story'.
A lot has been reported about Epstein's supposed relationship with Trump, Clinton and the prince, among others. At one point the relevant "Epstein girl" was asked to read some of ms Churcher's writings and review them for accuracy. Ms Churcher is a professional, and she mentioned that her articles had to 'pass by a lawyer' before being published.
Somebody, obviously, edited some key 'facts' before they were published.
The appearance is that ms Churcher's articles were written not with the intent of 'exposing a sex trafficking ring', so much as furthering some political objective. More interestingly, despite putting the prince in a hot seat, she seems to have cleverly and very deliberately given him at least one escape that he can use in the event that either British or U.S. authorities were to push the issue of his involvement.
Was the second half of the so called "Epstein story", starting in 2011, really just part of a complex political ruse?
And were some of the accusers' lawyers complicit? In other words were some of the accusers' lawyers also working for the accused?
There are indications that is probably the case, including the fact that they hired 'expert witnesses' who would have been especially vulnerable to influence from the accused.
Anybody who is interested in the public facts of the Epstein case should read the following document. It makes clear that lawyers for Epstein and his possible codefendants have covered all bases, and carefully made sure there will be no accountability.
From glancing at parts of the long document, the following are a few things that stand out.
1) There was an acknowledgement that the girls who identified certain public figures might not be safe.
2) U.S. Federal authorities completely ignored all of the evidence they were given, and did not even make any attempt to interview the most important witnesses. There is little doubt that Epstein and his lawyers had control of both local police and federal law enforcement leadership. The game was simply to minimize damage done by 'loose cannon' junior investigators until a pretext could be found to remove them.
3) Some of the girls were 'promiscuous teens', but others were naive victims lured, trapped and tricked or forced into cooperation, including the disappeared Swedish girl whose passport was taken and who appears to have been drugged.
Law enforcement has made no effort to find certain girls who were coerced and forced, but they sought out 'lesser credibility' girls to make them the 'public face' of the case. The document makes clear that those girls who have been named publicly can be discredited.
The appearance seems to be that 'law enforcement' is trying to cleverly discredit all of the victims by 'allowing' the individual girls with the least credibility to represent 'all of the girls' in the media. It's very similar to the strategy used by Harvey Weinstein and the NY attorney general, until the NY a.g. got fired.
Part of the discrediting involves releasing the medical records of the girls who were most upfront with publicity. It was obviously a calculated effort to portray the accusers as having medical issues which probably originated with those who had powerful enough lawyers to keep their medical histories private.
4) Many of the 'public mysteries' involving the case, including lawsuits, could easily be solved but are not, for unknown reasons. For example, one girl who claimed she had sex with Alan Dershowitz said that she was in his house at least once. Her story could be validated, or minimized, to a large extent if she were asked simple questions about the house and its interior.
5) Epstein's housekeeper may have been homosexual, and it is likely the 'blackmail' side of Epstein's business was more diverse than the media has been reporting.
6) There is more than enough evidence listed to justify investigations by several countries, including the U.S., and people should wonder why those investigations do not take place.
7) One of the most bizarre aspects of the case was the liberty that the lawyers of potential codefendants were given to determine, on behalf of law enforcement, what was useful evidence for the federal investigators and prosecutors.
The lawyer of one potential codefendant very blatantly distorted the evidence concerning when and whether his client was at Epstein's house procuring girls.
The obvious appearance is that the "hearings" were nothing but a charade to create a flimsy pretext for discrediting the charges.
The problem though, aside from it being a third party lawyer, is that nobody from the government countered the misleading legal paper trail that the crooked lawyer was making. There was literally nobody working on behalf of 'the prosecution'. Both sides were simply trying to weaken the case so it could not be prosecuted.
Jeffery Epstein death 'conspiracy' timeline.
July 8, 2019
Late July, 2019
Attorney General Barr, the son of the man who arranged Epstein's ascent, announces that he is reinstating the federal death penalty.
The same day, media is told that Epstein attempted suicide and has red marks on his neck, but when he appeared shortly after in court no red marks were visible. There was speculation the ex cop in his cell had attacked him.
The person in his cell was a cop who was charged with multiple murders and desperate to make some kind of deal with authorities. It looks like the ex cop was asked by authorities to give injuries to Epstein that would cover evidence in the event his upcoming 'hanging' required enough violence to leave injuries like broken bones. The cop was a long term steroid user and would have been desperate for steroid injections to prevent his muscles from withering. The ex cop was probably offered that as payment, and it would probably show up in his blood if he were tested. The cop, Tartaglione, will probably be cremated.
"Epstein told his lawyers that the injuries were inflicted by his cellmate, hulking ex-Westchester County cop Nicholas Tartaglione, who faces a death-penalty trial in four drug-related slayings upstate."
August 10, 2019
Epstein was found dead. Several days later, inmates who had been nearby his cell started telling outsiders that there had been screaming coming from his cell during the night, as if somebody was being attacked. The media was told it was people trying to revive him after he had been found.
The initial false reports of an attempted suicide in late July would have provided some cover for additional injuries to his body, if necessary, when the actual killing or 'suicide' took place.
How difficult would it have been to fake his death?
He would have been put in a body bag in his cell, then transported to the medical examiner, then burial within a day or so. Two or three people at the jail, maybe four medical people who could be trusted and two or three high level federal agents to keep people away. Then an additional 'any number' of trusted people could be let into the circle to 'verify' the death.
The only conclusive proof that his death was faked would come if his family claimed he was cremated. Assuming that does not happen, and assuming private individuals pursue the inquiry, it is a safe bet he died, but his body will probably be disinterred for examination within a few years.
Ghislaine Maxwell may already be dead, or will be soon.
She has been walked carefully to the gallows. Led to believe that she is serving some honorable cause with people who would cover her.
She has probably been watched carefully by a dozen or more people, FBI, Homeland Security, etc to look for indications of a deadman's switch. She just had to make one last appearance.
She was probably told "We need you to appear in public. Just go to this spot and read this book. One of our people will photograph you and do the rest."
She will probably have no warning when they are ready to dispose of her. There will probably be rumors for years that she was seen in this or that location, but her body will never be found.
Then it will be Reinaldo Rizzo's time to die.
"He said he saw the girl approximately a month later aboard a flight with the Dubin family to Sweden. She was dropped off at a Swedish airport."
It's unlikely Rizzo said that, and now that some of the sealed documents are public he may try to set the record straight.
Then former governor Richardson.
Epstein's crew made some crude mistakes with Richardson and it would be easy for the media to expose them by interviewing him properly.
A new trove of documents released.
It should be a few months or less before Epstein is added to https://tribalcash.org/off-topic/timelines/timeline-oil.html
“The question of why the Justice Department not only declined to pursue sex-abuse charges against Mr. Allen, but also denied the State of Alaska the opportunity to do so, remains a matter of great public interest in the State of Alaska,”
People want the Epstein case to be about sex.
But it's actually about money.
Billions of dollars a year in defense contracts, military aid, all sorts of 'official' weapons merchant games.
It has nothing to do with defending any country or protecting anybody other than the gangsters involved.
It's vast network could unravel literally every single government on the planet, from the top down. But no matter how much evidence comes out, the only certainty is that it won't be investigated and nobody will be held accountable.
Still, a person should connect dots.
Jeffery Epstein's butler knew authorities could not prosecute Epstein.
His butler made an end run around authorities and tried to provide Epstein's 'black book' to a lawyer working for the victims. If the lawyer had gotten the book at that point Epstein would have had problems. The feds set up a sting, got the black book and charged the butler with obstructing justice. He was sent to prison.
The federal agents claimed he was trying to sell the book for $50,000 and he agreed not to publicly dispute that 'fact'.
More likely the victim's lawyer, who was acting as an agent of Epstein, and the FBI, which was also working for Epstein, suggested to the butler that he put a nominal price tag on the book, and then used that as the basis for the sting.
Once the butler had been 'stung', the next step was to get him to plead guilty. A trial would have embarrassed both Epstein and the feds, and probably would have ended in a not guilty verdict.
The FBI then dropped all of the investigations against Epstein and all of the people involved in the case, aside from the butler who almost forced the case back into the media.
After release from prison the butler died of a cancer that is easily induced by chemicals, evidently triggering a dead man's switch, and a copy of the black book was released to media soon after his death.
One peculiarity of the Jeffrey Epstein case that is slowly developing is the financial aspect.
"...allowed Epstein to pitch personal tax strategies to the firm’s executives, according to people familiar with the matter."
Seriously? How on earth does an absurdity like that make it to Bloomberg? It wouldn't be less credible if it were handwritten on a bathroom stall. Obviously somebody was trying to set the stage for something. Why not say Epstein was going door to door selling Tupperware?
There has recently been some speculation that he was running a Ponzi scheme like Madoff.
Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme, but he was also, in fact, a competent player in the financial markets. He is portrayed as a Ponzi like character, but that is very unlikely. He was capable of everything he claimed, except the part about producing consistent high returns. If you look at his history it's virtually certain that he simply got overextended at some point and then dragged himself into creating a Ponzi, imagining initially that it would be fixable. If Madoff had run a mediocre fund he would have done an okay job and nobody would have complained.
Epstein, despite having worked in the securities industry, simply does not have the knowledge to even pass himself off as the kind of fund manager he was pretending to be. Unless others stepped in to cover his mistakes and/or vouch for him he would have had no credibility anywhere.
Money was shoveled at him, for whatever purpose but certainly not for him to invest, and he then built a facade that he himself did not understand.
No doubt eventually he will be examined in some depth in the media, but basically he was just a relic of an era past, created by incompetent people who saw an opportunity to profit from a certain mystique. Frauds who created a fraud, and who now are trying to limit any collateral effects.
Madoff was a barely competent finance worker who tried to be a financial master, but Epstein is simply an actor who worked in the finance industry. Epstein is not Lawrence Olivier but if he had tried to work in Hollywood he might have had some success if he had been willing to blow some influential directors.
Another strange aspect of his case is the so called 'non prosecution agreement'. He pleads guilty and that prevents any further investigation of other people? Has anybody else tried that? Can a person who robs a bank get a friend to plead guilty separately to driving while intoxicated, but part of the one person's dwi guilty plea is that the other person's bank robbery won't be investigated?
If what the feds did was legal it could create a lot of new jobs for both criminals and lawyers.
The Jeffrey Epstein case is the norm for cases involving certain classes of people.
a) The lack of accountability is similar to that of law enforcers.
Note that most of the police officers who had sex with underage "Celeste Guap" were never named publicly, and very few of them even lost their job.
The norm, when billionaires and police commit crimes, is no investigation unless the media forces it, minimal punishment, and the names of the offenders kept secret whenever possible.
When media and police discussed that case, the girl, despite being underaged for some of the incidents, was referred to as a prostitute, which makes the police look less guilty. Even Epstein could not get away with doing that.
b) His arrest seems to be part of some political rivalry between two competing U.S. law enforcement cartels.
A psychological observation.
Epstein had several 'unusual' beliefs that are very common in the United States.
One of them was that 'criminalizing sex with underage girls is a cultural aberration'.
There are a lot of opinions and theories about what leads to sexual interest in much younger people, but actually it is solved pretty easily by looking at any collection of people with that taste and seeing that they share one trait, specifically that they are 'subdued' by a certain kind of authority. In other words each person who has that trait, at a particular developmental point, has an unusual fear or 'respect' for a type of authority. They have been "immorally abused / controlled" by some authority and then they emulate that authority using their own 'authority'.
A young person at a certain age, ideally, will be attracted to people of that age. As that person ages, society gives him or her more liberty i.e., they age, they acquire more authority, etc. The problem of course is that society uses many arbitrary measures to 'give' authority, such that a person is commonly conflicted about 'where they stand' in terms if development. Epstein clearly was, as most Americans are, conflicted about his own perception of his development.
Another example can be found in the link at the top of this page.
Epstein had a 'girlfriend' he had purchased, which is typical in the U.S. and many countries. He sent her to some foreign country for something, she met another guy and told Epstein she was going to marry the guy. Epstein hung up the phone, which confused the girl. Epstein had 'learned' that U.S. society requires that you wish well for a partner when they leave for somebody else, but that unnatural 'learning' was both counterintuitive and toxic. He would later double down on the toxicity by telling an interviewer that when he breaks up with a 'girlfriend', she 'moves up, not down' to 'friend' status.
Of course building friendships on sex is appealing but moronic. It is like the sweetness of antifreeze, a person should have some intellectual capacity that prevents drinking antifreeze.
The interesting part of Epstein's flaws is that they are part of U.S. culture and law. The United States legal system, which places certain individuals as 'assigned adults' and others as 'perpetual children' is precisely what would be expected to create adults who are sexually attracted to children. Likewise U.S. popular culture emphasizes that 'jealousy is bad' and encourages friendships based on sex.
Another interesting psychological irony is that the social pathology of inappropriate age relationships, i.e., a type of immaturity, is the same pathology that motivates punitive law enforcement.
In both cases the individuals are caught between 'loyalty to their actual peers' and 'control of another peer group'. They can only become individuals by breaking away from their peers, but there is such positive reinforcement, reward, for being part of a pedophile or law enforcement group that pedophiles and police officers seldom escape their respective roles.
In prince Andrew's example in the article above, he was most likely socialized at a young age to consider sex a group experience, in other words his role was to 'represent' his peer group, and he now considers the positive things he possesses to be benefits or derivatives of that, so in order for him to have a legitimate relationship he would have to lose his attachment to those benefits, in psychological terms he would have to 'lose his wealth', whether or not he actually lost his wealth would be irrelevant though.
In the case of punitive law enforcers, likewise, they were socialized to perceive punishment, 'law enforcement', as a group endeavor.
The irony is that when a person who is prone to inappropriate age relationships becomes a parent, he or she will perceive in their child, and project on to that child, a group identity rather than seeing their child as a 'new individual' or letting their child see them as distinct from any peer group.
Ultimately both sides of the disease are caused by an excess of authority and a lack of both privacy and personal space, but the 'medicine' that society uses to treat pedophiles and punitive law enforcers is to limit the dangerousness of their inappropriate authority by preventing their privacy and personal space.
Is there a natural origin for those diseases, pedophilia and punitive law enforcement? They both serve the same function in society, as consolidators or preservers, like Vishnu in the Hindu trinity.
They are useful in that they try to prevent some past thing from being lost, but they are harmful in that they prevent advancement, learning.
When those two groups, pedophiles and punitive law enforcers, are in powerful positions, as they are in the United States, they cause stagnation and decay unless they are disempowered.
Ultimately Epstein's 'rare crimes' are actually America's values.
Will some history student figure this out, and unravel Europe?