PROOF: Virginia is a liar and Clinton is innocent

This post presents a great deal of research on an important topic. I beg readers to spread the word. If you're on Twitter or Facebook, please link to this piece. And know this: Ad hominem arguments directed at yours truly won't change the evidence.

I hate "journalism" like this. That link goes to a Newsweek story about Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the alleged "victim" of Jeffrey Epstein. The writer pretends that we've never met Virginia before, even though she has been famous for nearly a decade. And although she makes no claims not already discussed ad infinitum, Newsweek pretends that everything she says -- especially the bit about Bill Clinton -- is both new and credible.

Actually, her claims are very familiar and very non-credible. Why doesn't Newsweek publish the proof that Virginia is a liar?

Lie #1: Chronology. Originally, in court documents and in news interviews, Virginia insisted that she fell into Epstein's orbit in 1998, when she was 15, and that she had underaged sex with VIPs associated with Epstein. In an unpublished memoir, she described a "sweet sixteen" party on Epstein's island -- "I was given a birthday cake and a new collection of designer make-up from London" -- capped off with a birthday rape.

Her original lawyer, Bradley Edwards, took this "sweet sixteen" rape story very seriously. Edwards asked Jeffrey Epstein about this episode in a deposition (as you can see in part 4 of the documentary Filthy Rich).

Remember that "sweet sixteen" story. It's important.

This interview transcript establishes that she told Bradley Edwards she was 15 when she met Epstein. In 2011, she also told journalist Sharon Churcher that she (Virginia) entered Epstein's entourage at the age of 15, but did not have sex with Epstein's friends until two years later:

‘After about two years, he started to ask me to “entertain” his friends.’

(Emphasis added.) In other words, a "grooming period" lasted a full two years. In 2011, Virginia told much the same story to the FBI.

In this 2015 version of her tale, she repeated the claim that she began to work for Epstein shortly after her 15th birthday, and that she worked for him for three years. She also claimed that she "escaped" Epstein's "sex slavery" around the time of her 19th birthday, four years later. Even within the confines of that one interview, she contradicted herself. A bad sign.

Here's the truth: Virginia did not enter Epstein's world until after her 17th birthday.

That "sweet sixteen rape" story was completely untrue, as Virginia herself now admits. You may come to your own conclusions as to why attorney Edwards no longer represents her.

Her real age became clear thanks to the records helpfully supplied by Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort, which employed first Virginia's father and then Virginia herself. From Alan Dershowitz' Guilt By Accusation (chapter 6, note 39):

The records show that he began to work there on April 11, 2000. We have been advised that the spa where Giuffre worked closes between Mother’s Day and late summer. If that is the case, then the earliest Giuffre could have begun working there is October 2000, when she was over 17.

Yes, I still despise Dershowitz. I will not ask my readers to trust his unverified word because I do not trust him myself. But the man is clearly willing to produce his evidence in court, and most of his source documents appear in the book's appendices. In a 2017 legal document, Maxwell's attorneys demonstrated that Virginia could not have worked for Mar-A-Lago before November 1, 2000. In a 2016 deposition, Virginia's father Sky confirmed that the spa was closed until Fall.

Virginia has recently told the BBC -- on camera -- that she "was 17 when she first met Jeffrey Epstein."

She also states that she was 17 in part 3 of the Netflix documentary Filthy Rich. Most viewers did not notice the glaring age discrepancy, even though it should have been obvious to any critical thinker watching the end of part 3 and the beginning of part 4. Fire up YouTube and see for yourself: She obviously lied to her own lawyer.

She lied to her lawyer about her age in a case centered on underaged sex.

(Before going further, let's review some basic background information. The age of consent is 18 in Florida, 17 in New York, and 16 in the Virgin Islands and the U.K. It's also important to note that Virginia was not part of the original case against Epstein.)

Virginia's former boyfriend, Anthony Figueroa, lived with her from late 2000 to September of 2002, the length of her employment by Epstein. (In an affidavit, Figueroa reveals that the apartment was in her name, and implies that she had complete freedom of movement. Some "slave"!) In another affidavit, Juan Alessi -- Epstein's maintenance man from January 1991 to December 2002 -- asserted that Virginia was with Epstein only during his (Alessi's) final year of employment.

In a lawsuit against Dershowitz, Virginia's current lawyers stipulated in an official court filing that her original story -- also made in an official court filing -- was false.

Virginia was born August 9, 1983. Despite her earlier claims to the contrary -- claims made under oath -- her "Epstein period" began in late 2000, when she was 17, and ended in August or September of 2002, when she was 19. She has claimed that she did not have sex with any Epstein acquaintance until "after about two years" with Epstein. But two years was the length of her employment! So just when did she have those alleged trysts with powerful men not named Jeffrey Epstein? And how could she possibly claim that she had underaged sex with those men? 

Lie #2: Al and Tipper Gore. During her initial interview with lawyer Bradley Edwards, Virginia mentioned Al Gore in passing. In her famed 2011 interview with the Daily Mail, Virginia offered a detailed description of Al and Tipper Gore's supposed visit to Epstein's island in the year 2000, the year Al Gore ran for president.

‘I had no clue that anything was up,’ Virginia says. ‘The Gores seemed like a beautiful couple when I met them. All I knew was that Mr Gore was a friend of Jeffrey’s and Ghislaine’s. Jeffrey didn’t ask me to give him a massage.

‘There might have been a couple of other girls there on that trip but I could never have imagined this guy would do anything wrong. I was planning to vote for him when I turned 18. I thought he was awesome.’

The Daily Mail implies, but does not directly state, that Gore was up to no good on that occasion. However, in an unpublished manuscript, Virginia wrote:

I met Al Gore and his lovely wife during one of those many weekends away in the Caribbean. I was blown away by the amount of attention Al doted on his wife, it was so sweet to watch. They sat next to each other at the dinner table gazing into one another’s eyes having an intimate conversation between them. Among the many guests visiting that night and many of them young beautiful women, not once did Al’s eye’s stray elsewhere, to them they were the only ones there. He was up for a presidential election that year and he definitely had my vote. Anyone that could show that much devotion and passion towards his loved ones could have the same devotion towards running a country, or at least I thought so. He only left his wife’s side to have a walk down to the beach with the host of the weekend, Jeffrey.

Even this claim appears to be another falsehood. There is no evidence that Epstein ever met the Gores. Investigators working for Dershowitz filed an FOIA with the Secret Service for any record of a trip by the Gores to the Virgin Islands; no such records exist.

Remember, we're talking about the year 2000 -- the final months of the election. Every day of Al Gore's life during that time can be accounted for. 

Maxwell's attorneys insist that Virginia could not have met Epstein until November 1, 2000. The election was held on November 7. Virginia said that she met Gore while he was a presidential candidate. Are we to believe that Al and Tipper partied on Epstein's island during that week?

Come on.

Nevertheless, in her most recent fantasia, Virginia claims that she saw Al Gore aboard one of Jeffrey Epstein's two jets (neither of which was called "the Lolita Express" at the time, despite the claims later made by sensationalists and propagandists). The flight logs became available a long time ago; you can probably still find them on Scribd. Those records never mention Al Gore.

If Virginia had met the Democratic candidate in 2000, she surely would have mentioned the event to her best friend, Rebecca Boylan, and to her live-in boyfriend, Anthony Figueroa. Neither party has indicated that Virginia ever said anything about Al Gore.

Al and Tipper Gore separated in 2010. Tipper would surely have verified Virginia's tale long ago, if there were any truth to it.

In his affidavit, Epstein employee Juan Alessi lists a number of  Epstein's famous associates, including Dershowitz, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew and (interestingly enough) Sarah Ferguson. Gore is not on that list.

Virginia's attorney David Boies eventually filed a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz. In that Complaint, we see no rebuttal of Dershowitz' frequently-heard assertion that the Gore story was a fantasy, even though that document was definitely the right place to offer such a rebuttal. Even Julie Brown, a journalist sympathetic to Virginia, has hesitated to support Virginia on this point.

The Gore story is simply ridiculous on its face.

Lie #3: Les Wexner. In his book Guilt By Accusation, Alan Dershowitz outlines a theory of Virginia's motivation: She publicly slandered Dershowitz in order to demonstrate to "Victoria's Secret" billionaire Les Wexner what could happen to him if he did not reach a settlement with her. Presumably, we're talking about the kind of settlement that could allow her to live well for the rest of her life.

I'm not convinced that Dershowitz' theory is correct. Defaming a notoriously combative lawyer is not something that any sane person would do. On the other hand, I have met a few fantasists with extremely poor impulse control. So...maybe.

Although I'm somewhat perplexed by her motives, I must conclude that Virginia's claims against Wexner -- a close Epstein associate -- indicate, once again, her willingness to test the truth's elasticity. The mystery comes down to these two questions:

1. Did she originally claim to have had sex with Wexner?

2. If so, why did she stop making that claim?

The answer to the first question appears to be "yes." She told Stanley Pottinger, one of her previous attorneys, that Epstein forced her to have sex with Wexner, who was Epstein's partner/client/victim/gay lover/whatever. Pottinger's affidavit appears in Dershowitz' book.

This passage from Guilt by Accusation deserves close attention:

Recall that Giuffre had testified under oath that she had sex with Wexner on numerous occasions, under circumstances nearly identical to the false claims she made about having had sex with me. She has also accused Wexner of making her wear Victoria’s Secret-type lingerie while he had sex with her. Giuffre also told another of her lawyers, Pottinger, that Wexner had sex with her and may have had sex with other women associated with Epstein.

"Testified under oath"? Dershowitz is strangely coy about quoting or citing this testimony.

In a very recent court proceeding, there was odd talk of a "hidden" deposition which appears to reference Wexner. In a June 23 tweet, journalist Julie Brown -- Virginia's ever-loyal defender -- referred to this very same sealed deposition.

NEW: Alan Dershowitz's attorney confirms that his client has access to Virginia Giuffre's sealed depositions. Those depositions reveal that she was directed by Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak & Victoria's Secret's Les Wexner.

Brown is so blinded by her faith in Virginia that she completely misses the point: This sealed deposition actually helps Dershowitz (and perhaps Barak).

How can this be? I'll spell it out: Virginia's own lawyer later denied that Wexner had sex with his client.

In 2019, lawyer Bradley Edwards declared that he knew of no credible evidence that Les Wexner participated in -- or even was aware of -- any aspect of Epstein's bizarre sex life. If Bradley Edwards spoke honestly on that occasion, he clearly does not believe Virginia's earlier deposition under oath.

In short: Virginia's own former lawyer did not find Virginia credible.

It seems that Virginia's story changed when one of Virginia's lawyers met with Wexner's lawyer. I cannot claim to know what passed between the two parties; Dershowitz strongly hints that money may have exchanged hands, although I've seen no hard evidence for that theory. But this much is certain: Wexner suddenly disappeared from Virginia's narrative. We no longer hear any "Wexner used me" stories from Virginia Giuffre. That faucet ran dry.

From Dershowitz' book:

Among the mysteries that should be explored are whether Giuffre committed perjury when she accused Wexner and other prominent men of having sex with her, or whether Boies engaged in a “shakedown” and/or received hush money for Giuffre to cover up Wexner’s alleged crimes.

I don't know if Les Wexner ever had sex with an "Epstein girl." Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. The point of this post is not to determine what Wexner did, but to determine whether the stories told by Virginia Roberts Giuffre have a tendency to morph. I'm also trying to determine if she is out for money.

(Another Epstein accuser, Maria Warner, has also claimed that she was "lent" to Wexner for sexual purposes. That claim should be examined separately. This post is about Virginia's credibility, not Maria Warner's.)

(Possible) Lie #4: Prince Andrew. Virginia now claims that she had sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17. (She even specifies a date: March 10, 2001.) But wait a minute: Didn't she also state that she never had sex with Epstein's associates until "about two years" after she started working for Epstein? She now says that she met Epstein shortly after her 17th birthday. Two years later, she would have been 19.

The allegation against Andrew has become so thoroughly lodged in the public mind that many will be shocked to learn that, in the first published version of the story, no sex occurred: See Sharon Churcher's infamous March 2, 2011 interview with Virginia Roberts in the Daily Mail. Virginia offers a lengthy description of a night spent with Ghislaine, Jeffrey and Andrew -- in London.

There is no suggestion that there was any sexual contact between Virginia and Andrew, or that Andrew knew that Epstein paid her to have sex with his friends.

The story goes on to describe a second meeting in New York with Andrew; on that occasion, Virginia and another girl sat on his lap. There was a third meeting on the island. Again: No "suggestion" of sex.

Granted, "there is no suggestion" is the sort of language commonly employed by the press in Britain, where libel laws are more onerous than in the US. (The tactic is called "Denying an accusation to get it on the record.") That said, I can't find any news story published anywhere before 2014 in which Virginia directly claims to have had sex with Andrew, although she does make that claim in her unpublished memoir. (She refers to the encounter as "the worst ten minutes of her life." This, from a woman who was dating a drug user with a felony record.)

The Figueroa affidavit contains no reference to Prince Andrew. Although Andrew's name is redacted from the transcript of Virginia's 2011 FBI interview, page 9 clearly refers to him; unfortunately, censorship makes it impossible to determine if she described having sex with him.

In 2015, the Daily Mail's Sharon Churcher published an account in which sex is asserted.

Last week it was sensationally claimed that Prince Andrew had taken part in what, it was implied, was sex with a girl who was under the age of consent according to the law in Florida.

Churcher here implies that the act occurred in Florida. But Virginia insisted that she met Andrew only three times -- first in London, then in New York City, then on Epstein's island. Why does Churcher's wording suggest that the sex occurred in Florida? Probably because she wanted to create the impression that Andrew had illegal sex.

That false impression has taken root in the minds of millions. This isn't journalism; it's hucksterism.

I don't know whether Virginia did or did not have sex with Prince Andrew on any occasion, although I would not be terribly surprised to learn that she did. The only evidence that sex occurred is the word of a woman who has provably lied under oath. Under any circumstances, Churcher still deserves condemnation for conveying the impression that the Prince did something illegal.

Lie #5: Foreign presidents. Early on, Virginia was known in legal papers as Jane Doe #3. That nomenclature was used as late as January 2, 2015, when her attorney filed a joinder to allow her to participate in the Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit filed by Epstein's real victims in Florida. In this document, Jane Doe #3 (Virginia) declares:

Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them.

Yet in a deposition under oath, Virginia was asked six times whether she had been trafficked to -- or had even met -- any "foreign presidents." All six times, she categorically answered no. No reasonable person reading the transcript would come away with the impression that she was confused. (The transcript appears in a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Maxwell's lawyers on January 6, 2017.)

"Potentially blackmail them..." Those three words summarize a claim that has launched a thousand conspiracy theories and ignited the imaginations of millions. It certainly had me going for a while. But James Patterson's Filthy Rich demonstrates -- in great detail -- that the real victims were never trafficked to others: They served only Epstein.

I have to ask a question which many will find discomforting: If a blackmail operation existed, why would Epstein choose Virginia as the bait for the honeytrap? I doubt that many men would consider her the most attractive girl in Epstein's entourage. (Granted, such judgments are subjective.) Moreover, Virginia abused drugs -- while VIPs who pay thousands of dollars for the company of upscale escorts generally want exquisite beauties with no addiction issues.

Lie #6: Alan Dershowitz. I'm not going to spend much time discussing his situation, other than to say -- through gritted teeth -- that I now consider him innocent, after years of presuming his guilt. At least, he is innocent as far as Virginia is concerned. (Any other claims should be assessed separately.)

Dershowitz does a fine job of defending himself in his book, which -- if you have any sense of fairness -- you should read before leaping atop your high horse. Although I can't recapitulate most of his arguments, I'll tell you this much: In the unpublished original version of her story, Virginia did not have sex with Dershowitz -- yet the same manuscript offers a long, detailed description of her dalliance with a much more obscure Harvard professor. Her friend Rebecca Boylan says that other people pressured Virginia to concoct a "sex with Dersh" story.

I've read the defamation Complaint lodged against Dershowitz on Virginia's behalf. In my opinion, it doesn't even begin to address the salient points found in Guilt By Accusation.

Believe me, I hate writing these words. I absolutely cannot stand Alan Dershowitz. I obtained his book because I expected to find reason to hate him even more. But the truth is determined by evidence, not by likability or ideology. An innocent man is still innocent even if he's despicable.

Frankly, what turned me around was the Figueroa affidavit, published in Dershowitz' book. The moment I read that document, which tends to exonerate Dershowitz, I had to shed the pro-Virginia attitude that I've held onto for years.

(No, the post you are reading right now is not a summary of Guilt By Accusation. Follow my links and you'll see that I've done a good amount of original research.)

Lie #7: Bill Clinton. Here it is -- the really BIG lie. The lie that has duped millions, perhaps hundreds of millions. At this writing, when you type "Bill Clinton" into Google, the first autocompletion adds "Jeffrey Epstein island."

This is one story that hasn't shifted much over the years. Here is what Virginia told to Sharon Churcher in 2011:

‘I’d have been about 17 at the time,’ she says. ‘I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her.

‘She’d always wanted to fly and Jeffrey paid for her to take lessons, and I remember she was very excited because she got her licence around the first year we met.

'I used to get frightened flying with her but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I remember him talking about what a good job she did.

Note the presence of the Secret Service. That will prove to be important.

‘We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the head of the table. Bill was at his left. I sat across from him. Emmy Tayler, Ghislaine’s blonde British assistant, sat at my right.

‘Ghislaine was at Bill’s left and at the left of Ghislaine there were two olive-skinned brunettes who’d flown in with us from New York.

'I’d never met them before. I’d say they were no older than 17, very innocent-looking.

‘They weren’t there for me. They weren’t there for Jeffrey or Ghislaine because I was there to have sex with Jeffrey on the trip.

‘Maybe Jeffrey thought they would entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them. He and Jeffrey and Ghislaine seemed to have a very good relationship. Bill was very funny.

'He made me laugh a few times. And he and Jeffrey and Ghislaine told blokey jokes and the brunettes listened politely and giggled.

‘After dinner I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage. I don’t remember seeing Bill again on the trip but I assume Ghislaine flew him back.’

An abbreviated version of this same account appeared in Newsweek a few days ago -- and naturally, the readers acted as though the revelation were shockingly new. This hysterical reaction is characteristic:

They are not “underage women.” They’re children for chrissake.

Actually, they were all adults, according to laws of the Virgin Islands -- if we accept Virginia's tale.

But we can't. It's provably untrue.

Virginia gives us a time frame: The Clinton meeting happened after he left office (January, 2001) but before she left Epstein (August, 2002). She also says that the Secret Service was with the former president, as one would expect.

The Secret Services keeps records. They have no record of a Clinton journey which tallies with Virginia's story. The document embedded to your right tells the story (click to enlarge). Here is the key paragraph:

On January 16, 2016, the official in charge of the USSS's FOIA/PA Office replied by letter that the "USSS has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records" and "from a review of USSS main indices, that there are no records pertaining to your request that are referenced in these indices." Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that, contrary to Ms. Roberts' allegation, former President Clinton did not in fact travel to, nor was he present on, Little St. James Island between Jauary 1, 2001 and January 1, 2003.

What about Clinton's travels aboard Epstein's jet (which -- I must repeat -- no-one called "The Lolita Express" at the time)? I've checked the flight records (available on Scribd): At no point did he go to Epstein's island. All of the dates and listed airports tally with news accounts of speeches that Clinton gave during that period. Virginia was not on any of those flights.

From Whitewater to the "Hillary in blackface" allegation, the Clintons have been subjected to endless smears. This one may be the most odious.

Lie #8: Virginia as "sex slave." It is true that Epstein had sex with her when she was 17 in Florida -- one year away from legality in that state, though she was of legal age in New York and on the island. In my opinion, the age difference between Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein made the situation quite disgusting everywhere. Unfortunately, American law does not take age difference into account, as I believe it ought.

Since state law is state law, the word "victim" properly applies to her throughout that year. But in my view, Epstein became truly monstrous in his relations with other girls, many of them substantially younger than Virginia. I refer to them as the real victims; their story is told in James Patterson's book.

That said: The claim that Virginia was some sort of brainwashed "sex slave" is simply not reasonable. Her father and boyfriend knew all about her relationship with Epstein. She had her own apartment, she came and went freely, she attended school, she traveled on her own wherever she pleased, she had her own friends -- and Epstein had paid her plenty of money, though probably not enough to support her habits. At any time, she could have chosen a different life.

Actually, in 2002, she did work as waitress and as a veterinarian's assistant. Apparently, Epstein's absence caused financial stress: Maxwell's lawyers have stated (with accompanying exhibits) that "From August 2001 until September 2002, Epstein and Maxwell were almost entirely absent from Florida on documented travel unaccompanied by Plaintiff." If that's true, then Virginia's claims about sex with well-known individuals become even more problematic, because many of those alleged trysts took place between August 2001 and September 2002.

If she did have sex with Epstein -- or Maxwell, or the Prince, or any of the others -- after the age of 18, one cannot easily call Virginia Roberts a victim. She was, by her own account, a hooker. Nobody wants to use that word, but that's the term for a woman who takes money for sex.

She also used copious amounts of Xanax, amphetamines, cocaine and marijuana -- again, by her own account. If you've ever known a substance abuser, you'll know that they tend to blame their problems on everyone but themselves.

In a 2011 interview with one of her lawyers, she admitted that she recruited younger women for Jeffrey Epstein. This conforms with what we learn from Patterson's book, in which "Epstein girls" were customarily asked to recruit more girls, in a perverted MLM scheme.

Jeffrey and Ghislaine both taught me to, depending on the circumstances, depending on the girl, you could offer them a job as a massage therapist or you could tell them you have a really rich friend with, you know, great contacts in the acting world or modeling world and he loves pretty giris, you should come back and meet him, make some money, you know, we had a whole bunch of ways to be state to procure girls.

From the Figueroa affidavit:

Toward the end of our relationship, I understood that she was providing massages less frequently or not at all, and instead Jeffrey Epstein had her focused more on recruiting other girls to provide massages.

She was an adult at this time. Nobody held a gun to Virginia's head; nobody forced her to supply Jeffrey Epstein with victims. To use a chic word, she had agency. Virginia Roberts could have continued to earn a living as a waitress or by working at an animal hospital; instead, she decided to support her drug habit by procuring (her word) underaged girls for a notorious pervert.

I fail to see how anyone can argue that Virginia's actions are in any way less reprehensible than those attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell. Virginia may have begun as a victim, but I would argue that she became a victimizer.

Incidentally, in a 2016 deposition, Virginia admitted that she burned some of her original notes of her time with Jeffrey Epstein. She has said that she did so because she and her husband were "pretty spiritual" people, and that the bonfire was a symbolic act. A cynic might suspect that she was worried about evidence which might disprove the revised versions of her tales.

The eternal victim. Throughout her life, a series of men have abused Virginia Roberts -- or so claims Virginia Roberts.

In her unpublished memoir titled "The Billionaire's Playboy Club," she refers to unbearable childhood abuse, followed by a quasi-kidnapping at the age of 13 by a man named Ron Eppinger, who really did run a prostitution ring, and who apparently knew Epstein. Although we have only Virginia's word for what passed between the two of them, I suspect that this part of her story is true.

At the age of 14, she claimed that she was raped by two boys. 

But prosecutors eventually decided not to pursue the case “due to the victim’s lack of credibility and no substantial likelihood of success at trial”, the Daily News reported.

Then Epstein abused her. And Ghislaine. And Dershowitz. And Prince Andrew. And maybe Wexner. And a host of others.

In her manuscript, she accused her live-in boyfriend of hitting her.

Virginia even told her friend Rebecca Boylan that she (Virginia) had been "beaten up" by her husband -- or so we read in Guilt By Accusation, chapter 5.

It seems that, throughout her life, nearly everyone Virginia has ever met has victimized her. Is that situation credible? Feminists of a certain stripe will shout "YES!" -- but others will hesitate. Is it truly Thoughtcrime Most Foul to ponder the possibility that a woman with substance abuse issues has discovered a way to garner sympathy and to manipulate emotions? And perhaps make some money?

Virginia's great journalistic defender, Julie K. Brown, has written: "She was a sex trafficking victim before she even met Epstein and it is NORMAL for trauma victims to get dates wrong."

No sale, Ms. Brown. When I tried to write a book about Satanic Ritual Abuse claims in the 1990s, I kept running into women who told ludicrous and self-contradictory tales -- and I also heard from their apologists, who assured me that trauma prevents victims from recalling events clearly. That all-purpose rationalization (a classic example of the logical fallacy known as petitio principii) soon lost all power to persuade. I became cynical.

And I'm still cynical.

Any young woman should have a fairly accurate recollection of her "sweet sixteen" birthday party. She certainly ought to have accurate recall of a meeting with a presidential candidate during an election year, especially since the incident was not "traumatic." Any young woman reporting a statutory rape ought to be able to recall her correct age; that's the least we can demand. There's no excuse for speaking of a two-year "grooming" period which never existed. And Virginia sure as hell shouldn't have brought the Secret Service into her lie about Clinton.

(I will deal separately with Sarah Ransome, who has "confirmed" part of Virginia's story. Sarah's yarn is even more absurd.)