Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

Quick update on the Epstein case

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...
Beware of Chuck Johnson, he is a pro-cop, rape apologist, right wing narcisstic sociopathic freak claiming to be a journalist. He is in the habit of handing out addresses of people he comes into conflict with and he lies regularly. He likes to create controversy purely for the attention. Sometimes he might get the right info- but he is sloppy and lies.

I first ran across him, while reading about how a journalist had sued to have the sealed records of Michael Brown records. He refused to believe that the prosecutor, who stated that Brown had not been convicted of any crimes, was telling the truth.

Today--He even tweeted a lie today about Cassell-stating that he resigned after one year as a judge. Just not true. As for the photo- I think the only thing I found strange was the position of her hand. But--I would also say that there are two other witnesses that saw her with the Prince-so photo or no photo-there are eyewitnesses. And they are males, not involved in the suit.

And as for Roberts' residence- yes she does live in that city, but it is not because he discovered it- she was interviewed living there at some a hurry now, so can't provide it-but it wasn't any great research that Johnson did. The others were just lazy in their reporting. She married in Australia over 12 years ago--that was her great escape from Epstein. Then she moved on to the city you are avoiding mentioning. Her real name was probably something he found somewhere--via her husbands name, which wouldn't be hard to find. He was probably fed info by the Epstein legal team (as far as that record goes).
One last note on the photo--it first appeared in the Daily Mail in April 2014--at least that's the earliest I have found in online, so far.
ps- that photo in the link you provided is somewhat altered from the original posted photo from April 2014. I don't know why- and we cannot assume that it wasn't the Daily Mail that altered something about the photo. But as we all know, the UK has very strict slander/defamation laws, so I would not get too alarmed in that area. The fact that it first appeared in a UK tabloid, not US, says more about the validity of the photo -than anything else.

And--lastly Cassell and Edwards filed a defamation suit against Dershowitz today...let the fireworks begin. They would like nothing better than to get him in a room to tell his story. That has been their goal for a while now. kc
If that is the girl in the photo, then she looks like she could be 16-18. You do know that 16 is the age of consent in the United Kingdom? So by the latest media flap, then every male in the United Kingdom is a pedophile even though he can legally have a relationship with a 16 year old? So if a British guy glances at 15 year old confusing her for a 16 year old, is he then technically a pedo? In South America according to wiki, the age of consent seems to be 12 in most places, Mexico in particular. 12?!? So that is a whole continent of pedos. Has the media gone after the corrupt South American governments for this? Not a chance in hell. Didn't they go after Arab and African countries for marrying child brides?

This is what you call a three ring circus and its growing larger and larger. To be honest, this is great fun watching the contagion and panic spread and consume everything and everyone in its path. I am waiting for the part when all of those aging 70-80 year old rock and country music stars who had sex with 14-16 year old girls in the 70s and 80s starts to blow up. Bill Cosby?!? Donald "I-Like-Young-Girls" Trump?!?

This Epstein guy was filming guys having sex with underage girls in his apartment to blackmail them. That is where the meat is. Exactly where the fucking media is not looking.

The media loves stories about "Sex Slaves". But has the media ever investigated the U.S./U.K. Dyncorp held sex slaves in Eastern Europe? Actually, the Guardian covered it a long time ago.. right before 9/11.. and as far as I know, the story has been mostly incognito ever since.

The media doesn't really give a shit about abused children. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld engaged in the abuse and death of millions of children based on a buttload of lies. The media invites these child abusers on to their programs just about every week to explain how they would do it all again. Why? BECAUSE THE MEDIA DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ABUSED CHILDREN.

The media turned away when Israel blatantly over and over bombed and killed children over the past two years. Targeted their schools they were hiding in claiming terrorists were also hiding there. Not an excuse, but most of the media pretended that made it ok. Why?



If the media really cares about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes against children. THEN DO A FUCKING STORY ON EXACTLY WHO LET HIM OUT OF PRISON MORONS!

Notice that Epstein case was in Florida? And that this thing with Prince Andrew occurred in 2001? Let me make a prediction about as reliable as the statement that the media doesn't give a shit about abused children... the media is NOT going to explain to you why this Epstein Motherfucker was inviting big shots and politicians to his home and FILMING them having sex with underaged girls. The Media aren't going to do shit other than sweep it all under the rug.

kc, I must confess that I didn't know about Johnson until today. He seems like a real piece of work. If he colluded or communicated with Dershowitz before the publication of the info about Virginia -- well, that fact would say a LOT about Dershowitz.

I'm going to have to look into the history of the photo. But jeez -- there is so much going on!

Anon: I am not saying that the Prince did anything that would be considered untoward in his own country. He wasn't IN his country.

But as I said in an earlier post, I'm not really that interested in the Prince Andrew angle because I don't care that much about the royals. Previously the only stories about the Epstein case that I saw mentioned the Prince in their headlines. "Boring!" I thought, and I didn't even bother to read the text.

Boy, was THAT a bad decision.

Frankly, it was the Dershowitz factor that forced me to pay attention to this story. The Clinton factor is, of course, far more important.

Beyond even that, I'm stunned by the sheer arrogance of Epstein. A man of moderate means who did what he did would have been in prison for decades.

The role played by Ghislaine Maxwell is, of course, supremely appalling.

You reference the sex trade in Eastern Europe. You do know, don't you, that many of the girls who serviced Epstein were from that part of the world? His most important teenaged "sex slave" was from Yugoslavia. She took the fifth when asked if she had slept with important politicians.

Epstein paid for her lawyer. Some of the girls got million dollar payoffs, or so I am told.

And I am just starting to learn the role played by Dershowitz in squelching the case against Epstein. Even if Verginia is proven fraudulent, Dershowtiz is a scoundrel.
I must admit that the shadow behind Roberts does seem odd

It doesn't look at all odd to me. It's the typical (and very disturbing) shadow pattern produced by an on-camera flash - which is why pros (as I was in a former life) who are restricted to using a single flash will either try to bounce/diffuse it or locate the flash higher above the axis of the lens to produce a more natural-looking shadow pattern.

That's also the reason for the red-eye: since the light from the flash is parallel and close to the axis of the lens, much of it is reflected directly off the subjects' retinas.

This does not mean the photo wasn't altered.

I can't understand why there is no shadow on Maxwell.

That is definitely odd. I would expect a rather stark shadow of Roberts's elbow on her. I would also expect a similar shadow pattern on the white wall behind Andrew, which I don't see.

Joseph, I can't find it anywhere that Dershowitz states that Roberts didn't have sex with Clinton. He simply denied that Clinton had ever been to the Island, to prove Roberts was a liar and that these records could be easily proven via the Secret Service.

As for the Queen meeting-this first appeared in the Sun. I would not be surprised if this claim was twisted when the father said that his daughter had said she had been flown to meet the son of the Queen of England. But--it's all hard to say really. I wouldn't put it past the Sun to do that though. Here's the original photo as it appeared in print in 2011. They cut out Maxwell in this photo.

The photo appears to have altered subtly over the years,it does appear that her hair is lying on the Prince's shirt. I am not an expert, but that was one indication that it was a valid photo.
statement denying his and Clinton's involvement here
As for Johnson's claims about Roberts, I was in a hurry and confused his statements with others. It is alleged that she uses her husband's last name-still. And that she lives in a place I won't say, because it is not Martinez. She is retreating to another city now-and Chuck knows this too (tweets). If she recently moved to Martinez, it would have had to have been in the last couple of months. Her father may live in Martinez - but I thought he was further North. Her father used to work as a janitor at Mara Lago (Trump). Not sure how long ago...but he did at one time, which may be how she came into contact with Epstein or it may be something more intriguing. Her father lives very far from there now and has for a good while, from what I can tell.

I saw her Facebook page--and it all looks like fairly normal family stuff, really. Ok- enough for me....spent much too much time on this. Take Care! kc
kc: You're right about the Clinton bit; I've had to rewrite. In my mind, I had accidentally conflated what Dershowtiz said in public (as quoted in Gawker) with what he said in his official response. In the official document, he states only that Roberts had "been with" Clinton, wording that can be interpreted in more than one way. In public, Dershowitz specifically said:

"Remember that this woman—who I haven't identified, you have—is a prostitute. She is a liar. She has charged Bill Clinton with having sex with her on the island..."

So I have slightly rewritten the piece to reflect this. It all comes to the same thing, since Dershowitz DID accuse Virginia Roberts of claiming to have had sex with the former President, even though that claim does not seem to be on the record.

Also, we should note that Dershowitz said "IS a prostitute" even though we have no reason to believe that she practices that profession. She is a mother living in California. Dershowitz' client and friend Epstein is the one who led an underaged girl into a life of debauchery. Epstein is said to have used the term "sex slave," not "prostitute" to describe her condition.
Also. KC: You had me worried for a moment there -- I was SURE that I had seen a copy of the photo in a 2011 story, but I had written the above in a hurry and didn't give a link. Here (after much re-searching to find the thing) it is...
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic