Forgive me: I’ve been working diligently on new material from the latest round of “Epstein Files.” But I had to do a quick standalone summary tonight, because this one particular file I just came across is simply too sublime to delay magnifying for a single second longer.
Wow! Great work. I’m going to say it even if I piss people off: Maxwell should Not be in prison and at the very least be given a new hearing. Thanks Michael. Kathryn from Brooklyn.
Have no fear! I've been openly saying that for months, ever since I started to look into her case in any meaningful depth. I'm embarrassed I didn't do it sooner!
I question whether you've read the whole document. It depicts vile, abusive behavior from Maxwell and Epstien. I share your reservations about VRG but Maxwell is clearly a monster.
I am not an expert, but unlike Tracey, no axe to grind. I recommend asking Grok or other AI what was the most telling evidence in the conviction of Maxwell. You will find it was from 4 young women who independently told consistent stories of procurement and grooming into sexual behavior, one from the age of 14. Maxwell played a central role in the grooming behaviour. Giuffre did not even give evidence in the trial.
After a decade of following the story and comprehensively reading all the information for years, it blew my mind when every person that didn't care before suddenly "knew all about the child trafficking" when the "LIST" demands appeared in 2024 election by the grifters trying to get Trump to promise to release a mythological object that never existed
I thought Maxwell in jail was the only Justice that would happen and that the case was more or less over, and that perhaps it was not as crazy of a story as I thought.
But then I had to look into it again, because I just do not believe Donald Trump was raping kids. And I knew that Epstein himself wasn't diddling 8-year-olds, even if I did think he was doing more younger ones than actually happened.
Turns out we all have biases even doing research.
Glad Michael is presenting this information rhetorically effectively.
Yeah, I don’t get massages or go to spas but hopefully Florida has laws against places like Mar a Lago employing 16 year old girls in their spas like they apparently did around 2000. 16 year old girls shouldn’t work around creepy old guys. 🤮
The DOJ could have nipped this conspiracy theory in the bud 5 years ago but calling an alleged victim a total liar just doesn't come across well in the #MeToo era.
Heck, even Kash Patel was forced to skirt around outright calling "American hero" Virginia Giuffre a liar in his congressional testimony, saying that there was no "credible" evidence of any trafficking to other men, i.e. she was not credible.
With respect to VRG, it could've been "nipped in the bud" much earlier than that. Her first known interaction with the FBI was in 2011, and even then gave plenty of material to severely doubt her veracity. In fact, she may have interacted with the FBI even earlier, in 2006-2008, related to the Florida case, but I haven't been able to definitively establish that yet. Either way, MeToo or no MeToo, the DOJ isn't in the habit of proactively calling anyone a liar, outside the context of some bonafide legal proceeding. Which made their 7/6/2025 memo so unusual. They opined on the generic legitimacy of the broad spectrum of purported victims, and introducing the outlandish number of "over 1,000" -- while also of course saying no "client list," no blackmail, no predicate to charge any other co-conspirators, etc. So they presumptively validated any and all "victims," including VRG, while also shooting down other aspects of the narrative that by logical extension should've likewise invalidated a great many "victims." That memo was the worst of both worlds, and now here we are.
Correct. On top of that, FBI Is under subservient to US attorneys that take charge of these cases.
Basically people in 2024 reignited the conspiracy theory. Have you noticed that 95% of those who care never knew or cared about it previously?
It was over and done with, even with me someone who paid attention to it for 13 years.
But the grifters got the demand for a hidden "LIST" to be revealed, and then it turns out...they made it up, but the masses didn't know that. They thought there was something hidden
I doubt he knew who she was or her age until somebody informed him of what had happened. I doubt he was getting to know everyone that worked there like Willy Wonka. Probably only the few people that reported to him.
No, it didn't fester that much it reappeared as a viral movement in mid 2024 during the elections..
I followed this for 13 years, I had laid it to rest in early 2024.
I had no idea people who I had never seen interested in it suddenly were angry and demanding the mythological EPSTEIN LIST that even I knew never existed (nor was it a thing prior to 2024)
Didn't fester are you kidding. I first heard of Epstein in 2015 or 2016 during the presidential primary or the general I can't remember. But the reason I knew about it is cause Trump mentioned Clinton "going to Epstein island" which court docs filed months later were only partially unredacted in 2024. These stories of course originated with VR and the rumors about Clinton and the island myth really blew up after Epstein's death. The FBI really should have publicly addressed it then.
Agree, I was shadow banned, taken down for reporting the truth. I laid it to rest as well, because of this. I am now going back through everything all of the screenshots I captured to show people the lies. I told those that became interested in the case that there wasn't a list. That it was about EXTORTION, MEDIA LIES and those that settle to make it go away. The MACHINE is hard to fight, hence we never found each other. (Those that were reading the unsealed documents from Aug 9 2019. Coincidently, the day before Epstein died.
FBI didn't want to catch flak for being the ones that pointed out that the most popular "victims" were being dishonest. Nobody in government has wanted to accept that burden, it seems. They're too afraid to point out the truth. But by postponing the inevitable, it will come back around and bite them even worse when people find out one way or another.
I read the available files and thought the myth was still partially true, but that it was over with the 2024 dump.
Then 2025 came. I only were you interested in myself because I had every person coming out of the woodwork screaming about the Epstein list.
One thing I always knew, is there never was some ridiculous list.
Of course, everyone that has bought into the nonsense and mass hysteria already forgotten about the list even though for 2 months they demanded this thing because it erupted as the thing to say and demand starting in 2024.
What I did not know or pay attention and closely enough to, (thanks Michael) - was that the large sums of money for the victim relief funds was set up in an illegal and unjust manner, and that the large amounts were not only more than I kind of remembered but that there has been several add-ons over the several years that I forgot make a bigger number.
Now it is immediately clear who had a reason to push the "LIST" demand in 2024 to keep the story alive --- grifters and their long conning lawyers.
The amount of money still available is insane.
Thanks Michael, for getting on this this summer. It makes me a little sad because I was actually one of the first people to ever pay attention to it that I knew of over 15 years ago
I did not start my research on this until 2025. For years I heard about Epstein and the sweetheart deal and so on. I figured they did what they did and got caught. I did my research to find Trump. The more I looked into this I couldnt find Trump but found everything wrong with the Epstein & Maxwell case.
The funny thing is, my strongest reason for starting to look into it and tell my friends who were never interested that they were stupid is I had zero belief Trump would fuck a kid. It just made no sense.
I already knew there was less of it than I suspected, but now I've started to learn the entire sex trafficking thing is a giant money making scam in the USA.
Why are these global mega banks connected to Epstein paying out such huge sums? Why don't we have the true financial side of this? It is one thing that is not being reported on too much and certainly not discussed in the media. We don't have the full picture of anything. It is said the secret lies within these bank cases and the prison murder of Epstein. He is dead, and someone wanted him dead.
I've seen that document, and I don't believe that's what it means. I am reasonably sure what it means is that VRG was regarded by the government as a potential witness when the Maxwell indictment was brought. Though obviously she was not ultimately called to testify. To my knowledge she was never "charged" with anything criminally during that period. She was, however, charged with petit theft in Florida in 2002, not long before ventured to Thailand, and then Australia.
If only there were as much focus and scrutiny placed on things that actually affect our day to day lives. Things like thousand plus pages of legislation
Somebody asked who was the 14-year-old and I said it was Nadia Bjorlin. Nadia did become involved with Epstein at 14 and she testified against Maxwell, but the 14-year-old mentioned in the FBI report is obviously the late Carolyn Andriano based on the testimony she gave against Maxwell. She testified that she met Roberts at a party and that she invited her to massage Epstein for money. She also testified that Roberts had sex with Epstein in front of her. Bjorlin testified against Maxwell but did not mention having sex with Epstein.
It would be easier to accept Tracey’s claim that the entire thing is made up and Prince Andrew is innocent if it weren’t for the many photographs of Andrew with Epstein and creeping on young girls
Young girls? you mean women. That's just called heterosexuality. This case is the perfect example of what used to be called promiscuity or being or slightly sexually edgy now is recast as something sinister.
We also cannot forget the other side of this coin. Younger women being very curious about an older man. The purpose is gaining the experience. Sometimes the sexual attraction is there between a younger woman and older man. The ridiculous amount of infantilizing that goes on now is alarming!
Good reply. You are absolutely right. Men being attracted to 17 year old women is called heterosexuality. Nothing else. If you are a straight man attracted to 20 year old women you are also going to be attracted to 17 year old women.
Also look at the picture with Virginia Giuffre standing next to Prince Andrew. Even assuming the picture is real, you can clearly see she was very attractive back then. Way more attractive than Ghislaine Maxwell who was standing next to them.
Being attracted to such a woman just means you are a straight heterosexual man. Yes, promiscuous and maybe even a pervert, but thats it.
That photo of VRG with Andrew, she's just beaming with happiness, I'd say very happy to be in the company of royalty! She was not forced to go to the UK; she went willingly.
Well that's the problem isn't it? The people who want the LEAST transparency are the ones pushing conspiracy theories and salacious allegations. Also the fact that most of them do look adult sized is a good clue, young or not.
Tracy wrote: "especially the UK, where in response to that ridiculous book, the feeble-minded Royal Family decided to promptly strip Prince Andrew of his lifelong royal title! And then kick him out of his royal lodging! Not that I’ve ever cared all that much about the fate of the Royal Family, but if they’re going to have a downfall, couldn’t it at least be instigated by something minimally non-fictional?"
Prince Andrew was not some low-level employee they just let go before all the facts were known.
At the time the allegations came out he was undoubtedly questioned by his family and decisions were made based upon his answers.
It was at that time they decided to have him step down from his 'royal duties' whatever those are. And over time they decided to strip him of his titles and kick him out of his property.
There is no evidence that the royals were acting solely on allegations contained in a book. And despite his public denials of any wrongdoing, it's my belief that he leveled with his family because he had to, resulting in their decisions about him.
The evidentiary standard to make that decision was not that of a criminal trial.
Here we are sticking too closely to whether something is legal or illegal. Something can be legal and also be bad. Maybe the shame and scandal Andrew has brought down on all of them is in their view justification for expelling him. I wish we in the U.S. would focus more not just on what’s illegal but what is bad.
Have you thought of offering to volunteer to testify in these idiot hearings on Epstein taking place now? It seems that haters of Trump see a document that “proves” Trump is guilty and yet no one corroborated the documents at hand. The legacy oops I mean activist media could not care for facts. In fact Greg Kelly of Newsmax last week stated that the alleged survivors had financial incentives to claim Epstein did bad things to them.
This has been reported before (sorry, I forget where). I read about it a year ago and it made me pretty sceptical of the whole "Epstein files" story. Definitely there is something to it, but the attention given is fantastically out of proportion to what probably actually happened.
I showed the story to others and they agreed it made Guiffre look pretty dubious, but a week later they'd forgotten it and were back to raving about "the files". People just don't want to know the truth.
You mention Giuffre scheming with Sharon Churcher to generate “big headlines” - that quote is from her emails with Marianne Strong her literary agent, not Churcher. The summary of her deposition in this memo contains the same error.
You indicate that she cursed at the AUSA, which is a misreading. The summary in this memo is of her deposition for the Maxwell case by Maxwell’s lawyer, not an interview with the government.
Maxwell's proffer interview is very much worth reading.
In particular, she mentions that she was kept on suicide watch at Brooklyn SHU for 2 years, where she was woken every 15 minutes. As a result, she said, she couldn't remember some of the details in her memories.
Whatever one's opinion of the trial, the bottomless cruelty in the American prison system is sad.
I’d like to congratulate you for the hard work you’ve been doing uncovering unconvenient facts beneath the whole Epstein case! Though I don’t believe Epstein or Maxwell are blameless people by any stretch and committed crimes, the fact that Virginia Giuffre had been considered the whistleblower is clearly a fallout of the MeToo era where accusations are taken for granted without scrutiny.
By the way, French journalist Laurence Haim said in an interview in French radio France Culture recently that a French public figure was mentioned multiple times in the files, she and other colleagues contacted the man and then the files were taken down. You might inquire with her if you can ;)
EDIT: I just found the passages regarding Giuffre in the documents. In a footnote the prosecutors say « we have been unable to corroborate being "lent out" to other men for sex. We have, however, been able to corroborate her account of being recruited by Maxwell, being sexually abused by Epstein, and recruiting other minor girls to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein at his Palm Beach residence. »
Do you think, Michael, Giuffre was no victim at all ?
Good article Michael. Some or most of this came out in depositions. FYI, in Sharon Churcher's original article about the Andrew photo, Roberts DENIED that there was any sexual involvement. As far as the Maxwell case, it's a good example of prosecutors manipulating a jury by appealing to emotion. Incidentally, Roberts was identified in that trial as the procurer of the on 13-year-old brought to Epstein. She testified in court that Roberts took her to Epstein, showed her how to massage him then got on top of him and had sex with him in front of her.
Wow! Great work. I’m going to say it even if I piss people off: Maxwell should Not be in prison and at the very least be given a new hearing. Thanks Michael. Kathryn from Brooklyn.
Have no fear! I've been openly saying that for months, ever since I started to look into her case in any meaningful depth. I'm embarrassed I didn't do it sooner!
Thank you very much for your reply. Kathryn.
Giuffre didn’t give evidence in Maxwell’s trial. Key evidence was from 4 other young women, one aged 14 when the abuse began.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Have you written them down somewhere or spoken about it on a podcast?
I question whether you've read the whole document. It depicts vile, abusive behavior from Maxwell and Epstien. I share your reservations about VRG but Maxwell is clearly a monster.
A monster how? Please be specific about this "vile" and "abusive" behavior of Maxwell and why you believe it.
I am not an expert, but unlike Tracey, no axe to grind. I recommend asking Grok or other AI what was the most telling evidence in the conviction of Maxwell. You will find it was from 4 young women who independently told consistent stories of procurement and grooming into sexual behavior, one from the age of 14. Maxwell played a central role in the grooming behaviour. Giuffre did not even give evidence in the trial.
I didn't ask you but you still couldn't come up with any "vile" or "abusive" behavior. I know the particulars of her trial quite well.
After a decade of following the story and comprehensively reading all the information for years, it blew my mind when every person that didn't care before suddenly "knew all about the child trafficking" when the "LIST" demands appeared in 2024 election by the grifters trying to get Trump to promise to release a mythological object that never existed
I thought Maxwell in jail was the only Justice that would happen and that the case was more or less over, and that perhaps it was not as crazy of a story as I thought.
But then I had to look into it again, because I just do not believe Donald Trump was raping kids. And I knew that Epstein himself wasn't diddling 8-year-olds, even if I did think he was doing more younger ones than actually happened.
Turns out we all have biases even doing research.
Glad Michael is presenting this information rhetorically effectively.
Yeah, I don’t get massages or go to spas but hopefully Florida has laws against places like Mar a Lago employing 16 year old girls in their spas like they apparently did around 2000. 16 year old girls shouldn’t work around creepy old guys. 🤮
Who was 16? If you're referring to Guiffre, she was 17. And she was a bathroom attendant.
Trump was angry at Epstein for “stealing” his teen girl. Trump’s word and not mine.
For stealing one of his employees.
The DOJ could have nipped this conspiracy theory in the bud 5 years ago but calling an alleged victim a total liar just doesn't come across well in the #MeToo era.
Heck, even Kash Patel was forced to skirt around outright calling "American hero" Virginia Giuffre a liar in his congressional testimony, saying that there was no "credible" evidence of any trafficking to other men, i.e. she was not credible.
With respect to VRG, it could've been "nipped in the bud" much earlier than that. Her first known interaction with the FBI was in 2011, and even then gave plenty of material to severely doubt her veracity. In fact, she may have interacted with the FBI even earlier, in 2006-2008, related to the Florida case, but I haven't been able to definitively establish that yet. Either way, MeToo or no MeToo, the DOJ isn't in the habit of proactively calling anyone a liar, outside the context of some bonafide legal proceeding. Which made their 7/6/2025 memo so unusual. They opined on the generic legitimacy of the broad spectrum of purported victims, and introducing the outlandish number of "over 1,000" -- while also of course saying no "client list," no blackmail, no predicate to charge any other co-conspirators, etc. So they presumptively validated any and all "victims," including VRG, while also shooting down other aspects of the narrative that by logical extension should've likewise invalidated a great many "victims." That memo was the worst of both worlds, and now here we are.
Correct. On top of that, FBI Is under subservient to US attorneys that take charge of these cases.
Basically people in 2024 reignited the conspiracy theory. Have you noticed that 95% of those who care never knew or cared about it previously?
It was over and done with, even with me someone who paid attention to it for 13 years.
But the grifters got the demand for a hidden "LIST" to be revealed, and then it turns out...they made it up, but the masses didn't know that. They thought there was something hidden
I think it is time to start breaking down that wall. It really hasnt gotten anybody anywhere
Trump said Epstein “stole” his teen girl employees…that seems a little fishy! 😉
He didn't want people he knows plucking away his employees without permission, is how that came across.
A 17 year old?? A 50 year old billionaire keeps track of the teen girls at the spa…that’s a little creepy.
I doubt he knew who she was or her age until somebody informed him of what had happened. I doubt he was getting to know everyone that worked there like Willy Wonka. Probably only the few people that reported to him.
Sure, he knew enough for the CYA phone call to the cops after Epstein was arrested.
The FBI actually knew this shit for years and didn't bother addressing the paranoia publicly. They allowed it to fester smh.
No, it didn't fester that much it reappeared as a viral movement in mid 2024 during the elections..
I followed this for 13 years, I had laid it to rest in early 2024.
I had no idea people who I had never seen interested in it suddenly were angry and demanding the mythological EPSTEIN LIST that even I knew never existed (nor was it a thing prior to 2024)
Didn't fester are you kidding. I first heard of Epstein in 2015 or 2016 during the presidential primary or the general I can't remember. But the reason I knew about it is cause Trump mentioned Clinton "going to Epstein island" which court docs filed months later were only partially unredacted in 2024. These stories of course originated with VR and the rumors about Clinton and the island myth really blew up after Epstein's death. The FBI really should have publicly addressed it then.
Agree, I was shadow banned, taken down for reporting the truth. I laid it to rest as well, because of this. I am now going back through everything all of the screenshots I captured to show people the lies. I told those that became interested in the case that there wasn't a list. That it was about EXTORTION, MEDIA LIES and those that settle to make it go away. The MACHINE is hard to fight, hence we never found each other. (Those that were reading the unsealed documents from Aug 9 2019. Coincidently, the day before Epstein died.
FBI didn't want to catch flak for being the ones that pointed out that the most popular "victims" were being dishonest. Nobody in government has wanted to accept that burden, it seems. They're too afraid to point out the truth. But by postponing the inevitable, it will come back around and bite them even worse when people find out one way or another.
Thanks, great article. Just an unsolicited suggestion: use linked footnotes rather than asterisks.
I read the available files and thought the myth was still partially true, but that it was over with the 2024 dump.
Then 2025 came. I only were you interested in myself because I had every person coming out of the woodwork screaming about the Epstein list.
One thing I always knew, is there never was some ridiculous list.
Of course, everyone that has bought into the nonsense and mass hysteria already forgotten about the list even though for 2 months they demanded this thing because it erupted as the thing to say and demand starting in 2024.
What I did not know or pay attention and closely enough to, (thanks Michael) - was that the large sums of money for the victim relief funds was set up in an illegal and unjust manner, and that the large amounts were not only more than I kind of remembered but that there has been several add-ons over the several years that I forgot make a bigger number.
Now it is immediately clear who had a reason to push the "LIST" demand in 2024 to keep the story alive --- grifters and their long conning lawyers.
The amount of money still available is insane.
Thanks Michael, for getting on this this summer. It makes me a little sad because I was actually one of the first people to ever pay attention to it that I knew of over 15 years ago
I did not start my research on this until 2025. For years I heard about Epstein and the sweetheart deal and so on. I figured they did what they did and got caught. I did my research to find Trump. The more I looked into this I couldnt find Trump but found everything wrong with the Epstein & Maxwell case.
The funny thing is, my strongest reason for starting to look into it and tell my friends who were never interested that they were stupid is I had zero belief Trump would fuck a kid. It just made no sense.
I already knew there was less of it than I suspected, but now I've started to learn the entire sex trafficking thing is a giant money making scam in the USA.
By the people who oppose it.
Why are these global mega banks connected to Epstein paying out such huge sums? Why don't we have the true financial side of this? It is one thing that is not being reported on too much and certainly not discussed in the media. We don't have the full picture of anything. It is said the secret lies within these bank cases and the prison murder of Epstein. He is dead, and someone wanted him dead.
Your finding may corroborate what's in this PPT document in the files: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01656173.pdf
See pages EFTA01656188 (and EFTA01656190). The blackout length seems to match. Did the FBI charge VRG with lying to the FBI and then drop the charges?
I've seen that document, and I don't believe that's what it means. I am reasonably sure what it means is that VRG was regarded by the government as a potential witness when the Maxwell indictment was brought. Though obviously she was not ultimately called to testify. To my knowledge she was never "charged" with anything criminally during that period. She was, however, charged with petit theft in Florida in 2002, not long before ventured to Thailand, and then Australia.
If only there were as much focus and scrutiny placed on things that actually affect our day to day lives. Things like thousand plus pages of legislation
Somebody asked who was the 14-year-old and I said it was Nadia Bjorlin. Nadia did become involved with Epstein at 14 and she testified against Maxwell, but the 14-year-old mentioned in the FBI report is obviously the late Carolyn Andriano based on the testimony she gave against Maxwell. She testified that she met Roberts at a party and that she invited her to massage Epstein for money. She also testified that Roberts had sex with Epstein in front of her. Bjorlin testified against Maxwell but did not mention having sex with Epstein.
It would be easier to accept Tracey’s claim that the entire thing is made up and Prince Andrew is innocent if it weren’t for the many photographs of Andrew with Epstein and creeping on young girls
Young girls? you mean women. That's just called heterosexuality. This case is the perfect example of what used to be called promiscuity or being or slightly sexually edgy now is recast as something sinister.
We also cannot forget the other side of this coin. Younger women being very curious about an older man. The purpose is gaining the experience. Sometimes the sexual attraction is there between a younger woman and older man. The ridiculous amount of infantilizing that goes on now is alarming!
Sexual gatekeeping is certainly a core element of this story that isn't talked about.
Good reply. You are absolutely right. Men being attracted to 17 year old women is called heterosexuality. Nothing else. If you are a straight man attracted to 20 year old women you are also going to be attracted to 17 year old women.
Also look at the picture with Virginia Giuffre standing next to Prince Andrew. Even assuming the picture is real, you can clearly see she was very attractive back then. Way more attractive than Ghislaine Maxwell who was standing next to them.
Being attracted to such a woman just means you are a straight heterosexual man. Yes, promiscuous and maybe even a pervert, but thats it.
“Being attracted” is not and never has been at issue in any of this.
That photo of VRG with Andrew, she's just beaming with happiness, I'd say very happy to be in the company of royalty! She was not forced to go to the UK; she went willingly.
We don't know whether they were children or not at the time of the photographs because their identities are blacked out so we don't know who they are.
Well that's the problem isn't it? The people who want the LEAST transparency are the ones pushing conspiracy theories and salacious allegations. Also the fact that most of them do look adult sized is a good clue, young or not.
Tracy wrote: "especially the UK, where in response to that ridiculous book, the feeble-minded Royal Family decided to promptly strip Prince Andrew of his lifelong royal title! And then kick him out of his royal lodging! Not that I’ve ever cared all that much about the fate of the Royal Family, but if they’re going to have a downfall, couldn’t it at least be instigated by something minimally non-fictional?"
Prince Andrew was not some low-level employee they just let go before all the facts were known.
At the time the allegations came out he was undoubtedly questioned by his family and decisions were made based upon his answers.
It was at that time they decided to have him step down from his 'royal duties' whatever those are. And over time they decided to strip him of his titles and kick him out of his property.
There is no evidence that the royals were acting solely on allegations contained in a book. And despite his public denials of any wrongdoing, it's my belief that he leveled with his family because he had to, resulting in their decisions about him.
The evidentiary standard to make that decision was not that of a criminal trial.
It was over Virginia Giuffre, who according to her own admission, was 17, which is 100% legal in the UK (and almost everywhere on Earth).
Here we are sticking too closely to whether something is legal or illegal. Something can be legal and also be bad. Maybe the shame and scandal Andrew has brought down on all of them is in their view justification for expelling him. I wish we in the U.S. would focus more not just on what’s illegal but what is bad.
Have you thought of offering to volunteer to testify in these idiot hearings on Epstein taking place now? It seems that haters of Trump see a document that “proves” Trump is guilty and yet no one corroborated the documents at hand. The legacy oops I mean activist media could not care for facts. In fact Greg Kelly of Newsmax last week stated that the alleged survivors had financial incentives to claim Epstein did bad things to them.
This has been reported before (sorry, I forget where). I read about it a year ago and it made me pretty sceptical of the whole "Epstein files" story. Definitely there is something to it, but the attention given is fantastically out of proportion to what probably actually happened.
I showed the story to others and they agreed it made Guiffre look pretty dubious, but a week later they'd forgotten it and were back to raving about "the files". People just don't want to know the truth.
How could this particular document have been reported on before if it was just published for the first time on January 30, 2026.
Brainwave! I remembered where I shared it so was able to find it. CompactMag.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-idiocy-of-the-epstein-mythology/
Sure, you have additional evidence here, but I don't think there was a lack of evidence prior to this latest release.
Edit: Wait, that was you! lol
I see, there’s only one.
There are a couple errors in this article.
You mention Giuffre scheming with Sharon Churcher to generate “big headlines” - that quote is from her emails with Marianne Strong her literary agent, not Churcher. The summary of her deposition in this memo contains the same error.
You indicate that she cursed at the AUSA, which is a misreading. The summary in this memo is of her deposition for the Maxwell case by Maxwell’s lawyer, not an interview with the government.
Maxwell's proffer interview is very much worth reading.
In particular, she mentions that she was kept on suicide watch at Brooklyn SHU for 2 years, where she was woken every 15 minutes. As a result, she said, she couldn't remember some of the details in her memories.
Whatever one's opinion of the trial, the bottomless cruelty in the American prison system is sad.
I’d like to congratulate you for the hard work you’ve been doing uncovering unconvenient facts beneath the whole Epstein case! Though I don’t believe Epstein or Maxwell are blameless people by any stretch and committed crimes, the fact that Virginia Giuffre had been considered the whistleblower is clearly a fallout of the MeToo era where accusations are taken for granted without scrutiny.
By the way, French journalist Laurence Haim said in an interview in French radio France Culture recently that a French public figure was mentioned multiple times in the files, she and other colleagues contacted the man and then the files were taken down. You might inquire with her if you can ;)
EDIT: I just found the passages regarding Giuffre in the documents. In a footnote the prosecutors say « we have been unable to corroborate being "lent out" to other men for sex. We have, however, been able to corroborate her account of being recruited by Maxwell, being sexually abused by Epstein, and recruiting other minor girls to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein at his Palm Beach residence. »
Do you think, Michael, Giuffre was no victim at all ?
Good article Michael. Some or most of this came out in depositions. FYI, in Sharon Churcher's original article about the Andrew photo, Roberts DENIED that there was any sexual involvement. As far as the Maxwell case, it's a good example of prosecutors manipulating a jury by appealing to emotion. Incidentally, Roberts was identified in that trial as the procurer of the on 13-year-old brought to Epstein. She testified in court that Roberts took her to Epstein, showed her how to massage him then got on top of him and had sex with him in front of her.
Carolyn was 15, let's be real. The government allowed her to revise down her age.