I've been familiarizing myself in the Epstein case; alas, I haven't the time right now to write at length. Dershowitz has offered a detailed legal response to the allegation of rape; you can find his filing on Scribd
. Much of it is persuasive and detailed. However, I note that he never addresses the key question of whether the rights of the "Jane Does" were violated by the non-prosecution agreement.
The fact that he does not address this key accusation may be construed, by some, as a tacit admission of guilt, at least on that point. Remember, there were four
"Jane Does" in the recent filing. They all
claim that their rights were violated by the agreement that Dershowitz brokered. This is not a simple matter of Virginia Roberts' word versus Dershowitz' word.
He says that to his knowledge, the FBI considered Jane Doe #3 (whom we know to be Virginia Roberts) to be lacking in credibility -- but he offers no details. In 2011, Virginia Roberts was quoted as saying that she was willing to talk to the FBI. I don't yet know what occurred at that time, and I would like some specifics. I'm not inclined to take Dershowitz' word on the matter until we have verification from another source.
Dershowitz tries to impeach Roberts' credibility by claiming that she said falsely that she met the Queen. Actually, that claim was made by Roberts' father, who now says that he misunderstood something that his daughter had said. The reader may decide whether the father's statement is credible. At any rate, the father's statement amounts to a second-hand report.
In this Gawker article
, Dershowitz as accuses Roberts of falsely claiming that she had sex with Bill Clinton on the island. (Is she supposed to have said this to the FBI? We are not told.) In his response document, Dershowitz, claims that he (Dershowitz) has been "advised" that Secret Service records will prove that Clinton was never on Epstein's island.
(Note: I've slightly corrected the preceding paragraph; see discussion in the comments.)
First: I have not seen any news article or court filing in which Virginia Roberts makes that claim. Perhaps she did
make such a statement; if so, I hope a kind reader will give me a link.
Second: How the hell would Alan Dershowitz
know the details of the Secret Service's records? If you or I called up the Secret Service and asked for that kind of information, what response would we get?
Then we have "that" photo -- the one showing Virginia Roberts, Prince Andrew, and Ghislaine Maxwell. This article
by one Charles C. Johnson argues that the photo is a fake. Johnson discloses at the end that he is a Dershowitz associate. I doubt that Johnson is a Photoshop expert.
Although I am not an expert in the detection of forgery, I have used Photoshop professionally from the very first iteration of that program. The evidence presented by Johnson strikes me as interesting but unpersuasive. I must admit that the shadow behind Roberts does
seem odd, and I can't understand why there is no shadow on Maxwell. That said, I also cannot understand why a forger would add
a shadow where one was not needed. One might have to restage the photo to understand just how that shadow came to be.
At any rate, the photo has received wide reproduction since at least 2011
. In all this time, neither Prince Andrew nor Ghislaine Maxwell -- nor Jeffrey Epstein, the alleged photographer -- has said: "It's a fake." To make such a claim now
is downright bizarre. Maxwell has strongly denied being involved in predatory behavior involving the underaged; one would think that she would have pounced
on the opportunity to declare this photo a fake.
(Virginia's story of how the photo came to be is recounted here
If it's a fake, then who was the forger? I must admit that I am very curious as to where the photo came from. Supposedly, the police recovered many photos from the Epstein home, but this seems to be the only one presented to the public.
Although Dershowitz has rather proudly claimed that he has never referred to Virginia Roberts by name, his associate Johnson does just that in the afore-linked article.
Other news articles have stated that Virginia now lives in Australia. Johnson, to the contrary, gives her current married name (a detail which no other writer has divulged) and also specifies the town in California
in which (Johnson claims) she now resides. I have checked: A woman of that name, who happens to be of the correct age, does indeed live in that city.
Publishing her married name and the city in which she resides may be construed as a subtle threat.
Frankly, it is starting to look as though Dershowitz persuaded a friend to perform a journalistic "hit" while he (Dershowtiz) himself keeps his hands clean. Although the Johnson article -- along with Dershowtiz mean-spirited and vindictive threats to disbar Roberts' lawyers -- is meant to make Alan Dershowtiz look good, I think that it will have the opposite effect. Even if Dershowitz turns out to be innocent of the charges leveled by Ms. Roberts, I think that most people will have a low opinion of the way this man has handled the situation.
Then again, would a classy lawyer even have
a client like Epstein?
More to come...