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.
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 DOJ, 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
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!
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. 🤮
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ms. Giuffre is dead. Journalistcally going after a dead woman, even if your reporting is accurate, is bad Karma. I notice you only address the tawdy sex aspects of this story, uninteresting for me. In Great Britain and other places in Europe, powerful men resigned, NOT bc of the tawdy aspects of this story, but bc they broke state-secret laws. You know, stuff that matters. Maybe get your mind out of the gutter and do reporting that is relevant?
I do, and I live in the US. Resignations so far: Norwegian Ambassador to the US, Ms. Mona Juul; British Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney and his staff; GB ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson; expectations are that British Prime Minister Starmer will resign shortly; US Commerce Secretary and moron extraordinaire Howard Lutnick is facing bipartisan calls for his resignation. The list goes on. Remember that most material has either been redacted or not yet released. Sex is the honey, but why trap powerful people with honey? What's the bigger picture? Tracey only does the sex part; boring if you are not born in puritan, hung-up US.
No, sorry, but the vast majority of Americans have no idea nor care who Mandelson is. Doubly so for Morgan McSweeney or Juul.
You're more likely to find someone that has heard the Norwegian Crown Princess' elder son is on trial for rape, which is completely unrelated to the "Epstein Files."
There was never any conspiracy or honey trap of prominent individuals with Epstein. The emails are just regular correspondence between friends and associates. Gossipy and fun to read.
And Noem is more likely to go before Lutnick. A quick check on Rollcall doesn't show anything to support the assertion that there's bipartisan calls for him to resign.
What rewards do you reap for defending the honor of a bunch of sick pervs who ran the world while destroying the lives of hundreds of girls and young women? Why is it so vital to you to see that sick old men never face consequences for raping and molesting teenagers at the home of a con man?
I've defended Epstein. Defended him to the extent that his crimes were exaggerated and he didn't deserve a second prosecution after already serving jail and sex offender registry. We've lost all sense of proportionality in this story. People are acting like he was Albert Fish!!
His actions in bankrolling and supporting the men named in #MeToo so that they could continue abusing women alone justifies his removal from public life and seizure of every penny of his stolen billions. Epstein is one of the main reasons women are still discriminated against in our society. Vile men support each other in how they abuse every woman in their orbit, and until all such men are eliminated, women will be second class citizens.
Again you throw in details like "so they could continue abusing women". Was that the purpose? Or did he genuinely feel some of these men were screwed over? Women treated as second class today? In fact the Epstein story is still alive 15 years after it should have ended BECAUSE American society is so deferential to womens interests.
Oh, bullshit. The Epstein story is still alive because ABUSIVE MALES NEVER FACE ANY CONSEQUENCES. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby are free men, despite being rapists. They ruined dozens of lives and careers and yet they’re still wealthy and breathe free air.
Are you such a fool as to think that if you grovel enough, if you make yourself into the most pathetic pick me cheerleader that men will respect you? They think you’re contemptible. MEN HATE WOMEN. Learn that lesson and apply it to every single interaction you have with males in your life.
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.
I appreciate your writings on this. I hope you don't mind some light push back.
One claim made by Giuffre that does seem more likely to be true now with the second trove of documents released; that she met then-Prince Andrew in 2001, which would contradict his own denials.* See this email where Maxwell says as much.
The email also mentions that "a photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family". Conceivably, that's the photography which was shared publicly.
This isn't proof by any means of misconduct on Andrew's behalf, but it does damage his credibility (i.e. by contradicting his own claims) and bolster her own (though admittedly it looks pretty bad, given what you've written above). At the very least, is evidence that supports her version of events more than it supports Andrew's.
*Technically he denies *remembering* meeting her and posits various reasons why he might not have.
Well he probably "meets" huge numbers of people. Like a friend of yours introduced you to an actor and they asked for an autograph, said actor very may well "deny" ever having "met" them because they simply don't remember every single person asking for a photo or autograph.
Maxwell is relying on the information that VRG gave the Daily Mail in that article as if it were fact. Clearly she didn't remember there being a photograph taken given the phrasing in the statement and is making assumptions that would explain it being taken. She also says 1999, which isn't accurate, either. VRG didn't meet Maxwell and Epstein until late 2000.
The truth of the photo is that it's photoshopped. If you've done work with Photoshop, especially software versions from the 2000s, you can see markers indicating it's been edited. Specifically, the black line on the right side of VRG's body or the fact that there are no natural shadows behind Prince Andrew and VRG. Not to mention the fact that his left arm would have to be significantly longer than his right to reach the side of VRG's body without leaning and him standing perpendicular to her.
"Maxwell is relying on the information that VRG gave the Daily Mail in that article as if it were fact."
Do you have evidence for that? Why is it 'clearly she didn't remember' and is instead taking the Daily Mail article (which she seems to be disagreeing with) at face value? Her words indicate she does remember. Idk what 1999 has to do with it, it's the next sentence.
"In 2001 I was in London when [redacted] met a number of friends of mine including Prince Andrew. A photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family."
This her clearly corroborating that VRG met Andrew. She isn't hedging with 'I don't remember' or 'this could have happened but I can't recall'. If she had reason to think it false, wouldn't claiming so bolster her own claim that no wrong doing happened?
All that said, I wouldn't be shocked if Maxwell is playing fast and loose with the true, but it would surprise me if she did so in such as way that supports allegations she's denying.
As for the photo, granted, she's speaking in the passive voice (but isn't denying it). The arm just doesn't seem that strange to me. Or at least, I'm able to stand facing someone and extend my arm around their hip without leaning in. Flashes from old cameras can reduce shadows, I guess? I suppose there could be other things happening; perhaps VRG did take photos but the public photograph is photoshopped. Still, even leaving aside the photo, Maxwell is corroborating VRG's claim that she met Andrew.
Because obviously Maxwell doesn't remember anything memorable about that timeframe either. She's assuming the details that VRG is saying are true. It's completely plausible that if she had met Prince Andrew that she would ask to have her photograph taken, and Epstein has said as much - that (other) employees of his have had their picture taken with him - not a big deal.
The point about 1999 is that it's the incorrect year. Maxwell is using it because it's what Guiffre said in the DM article. And that's my point: this draft press release was written before or without verifying any facts first.
Regarding the photo:
Andrew's body is square to Virginia without any lean or extension of his left arm from his shoulder. You can also compare the length of his right arm to the perceived length of his left arm. It's not possible for his left arm to reach the left side of his body without some extension at the shoulder or torso unless his left arm is much longer than his right.
Besides, as I mentioned, there is a black line on the right side of VRG's head and torso that is unnatural - it's a clear sign that this is a cutout from another image and layered onto an original. The fact that there are no natural shadows around Andrew and VRG's bodies while there are around Maxwell's is another indication that their figures were added later.
On point I do want to add; I actually agree with much of the broad thesis Tracey is putting forward;
• That many people seem to be caught up in believing there is some major conspiracy here
• That the evidence for Epstein developing blackmail material (let along some elite paedophile ring) is pretty weak
• That outside of VRG, few women are accusing men other than Epstein (seems like Leon Black has gotten most of that flack?)
• That media outlets who should be doing better aren't engaging critically with this story, despite one of the most famous victims having credibility issues.
But I also think Tracey's frame of reasoning isn't ideally. He's more "would this hold up in court beyond a reasonable doubt" as opposed to "which scenario has a higher probability of occurring". He should convert to Bayesianism like Hanania did.
Everything she said wasn't completely made up, I don't think anybody has said that..
She was a part of their life everybody knows that. There's facts.
What we can tell is that a huge part of the myth that puts blinders on us is the perpetuation of claims that we find out are never actually claimed by anyone except her for a long time
There probably was either mental illness or drugs on her part, or they did something to a bend and was unjust to her and she sought some retribution and tied it in with thinking it was all worth it to make up stuff about sex trafficking because I mean, no one's getting harmed by helping fight such traffickers right?
Turns out anything that's untrue ends up ballooning out of proportion sometimes
"Everything she said wasn't completely made up, I don't think anybody has said that.. "
Overtly, maybe not (although I do think the take away from a lot of Tracey's writing is that you should basically discount everything she says). Phrases like "serial fabulist" make it easier to dismiss her (which, probably should be done in some cases). I'm pointing out an example wherein she seems to have been telling the true and where the other party seems to have been unable to offer an alternative and instead casts doubt as aspects of it (see Andrew re photograph veracity).
I've seen this "drugs mental illness" argument before. I think it's fair to bring up / wrong to avoid when considering the veracity of her claims.
In a bayesian sense though, is it actually true that accusations made from persons with metal illness are more likely than not to be false? I haven't found evidence of this. I suspect they are less likely to be true than whatever the base rate is, but idk if it tips over into being 'more likely false'.
Wow - one piece of paper from federal prosecutors who are always to be believed because they are so righteous and never abuse their position to further the aims of the state & the powerful.
So the other 6 million pages/records are negated because you found one piece of paper. How fortunate for humanity you are here to save the day!
Your pathological narcissism is stupefying and your ongoing rabid defense of the pedo seems to make clear “the lady doth protest too much”!
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 DOJ, 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
Trump said Epstein “stole” his teen girl employees…that seems a little fishy! 😉
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.
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. 🤮
Thanks, great article. Just an unsolicited suggestion: use linked footnotes rather than asterisks.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I see, there’s only one.
Ms. Giuffre is dead. Journalistcally going after a dead woman, even if your reporting is accurate, is bad Karma. I notice you only address the tawdy sex aspects of this story, uninteresting for me. In Great Britain and other places in Europe, powerful men resigned, NOT bc of the tawdy aspects of this story, but bc they broke state-secret laws. You know, stuff that matters. Maybe get your mind out of the gutter and do reporting that is relevant?
That's a very UK-specific concern. No one in the US cares about Peter Mandelson.
I do, and I live in the US. Resignations so far: Norwegian Ambassador to the US, Ms. Mona Juul; British Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney and his staff; GB ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson; expectations are that British Prime Minister Starmer will resign shortly; US Commerce Secretary and moron extraordinaire Howard Lutnick is facing bipartisan calls for his resignation. The list goes on. Remember that most material has either been redacted or not yet released. Sex is the honey, but why trap powerful people with honey? What's the bigger picture? Tracey only does the sex part; boring if you are not born in puritan, hung-up US.
No, sorry, but the vast majority of Americans have no idea nor care who Mandelson is. Doubly so for Morgan McSweeney or Juul.
You're more likely to find someone that has heard the Norwegian Crown Princess' elder son is on trial for rape, which is completely unrelated to the "Epstein Files."
There was never any conspiracy or honey trap of prominent individuals with Epstein. The emails are just regular correspondence between friends and associates. Gossipy and fun to read.
And Noem is more likely to go before Lutnick. A quick check on Rollcall doesn't show anything to support the assertion that there's bipartisan calls for him to resign.
We agree to disagree. Let's see where this goes, shall we? Fun times.
What rewards do you reap for defending the honor of a bunch of sick pervs who ran the world while destroying the lives of hundreds of girls and young women? Why is it so vital to you to see that sick old men never face consequences for raping and molesting teenagers at the home of a con man?
Loaded question.
Yes, and? I still want to know why Tracey defends a con man rapist.
I've defended Epstein. Defended him to the extent that his crimes were exaggerated and he didn't deserve a second prosecution after already serving jail and sex offender registry. We've lost all sense of proportionality in this story. People are acting like he was Albert Fish!!
His actions in bankrolling and supporting the men named in #MeToo so that they could continue abusing women alone justifies his removal from public life and seizure of every penny of his stolen billions. Epstein is one of the main reasons women are still discriminated against in our society. Vile men support each other in how they abuse every woman in their orbit, and until all such men are eliminated, women will be second class citizens.
Again you throw in details like "so they could continue abusing women". Was that the purpose? Or did he genuinely feel some of these men were screwed over? Women treated as second class today? In fact the Epstein story is still alive 15 years after it should have ended BECAUSE American society is so deferential to womens interests.
Oh, bullshit. The Epstein story is still alive because ABUSIVE MALES NEVER FACE ANY CONSEQUENCES. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby are free men, despite being rapists. They ruined dozens of lives and careers and yet they’re still wealthy and breathe free air.
Are you such a fool as to think that if you grovel enough, if you make yourself into the most pathetic pick me cheerleader that men will respect you? They think you’re contemptible. MEN HATE WOMEN. Learn that lesson and apply it to every single interaction you have with males in your life.
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.
What a load of horse shit
I appreciate your writings on this. I hope you don't mind some light push back.
One claim made by Giuffre that does seem more likely to be true now with the second trove of documents released; that she met then-Prince Andrew in 2001, which would contradict his own denials.* See this email where Maxwell says as much.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02383976.pdf
The email also mentions that "a photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family". Conceivably, that's the photography which was shared publicly.
This isn't proof by any means of misconduct on Andrew's behalf, but it does damage his credibility (i.e. by contradicting his own claims) and bolster her own (though admittedly it looks pretty bad, given what you've written above). At the very least, is evidence that supports her version of events more than it supports Andrew's.
*Technically he denies *remembering* meeting her and posits various reasons why he might not have.
Well he probably "meets" huge numbers of people. Like a friend of yours introduced you to an actor and they asked for an autograph, said actor very may well "deny" ever having "met" them because they simply don't remember every single person asking for a photo or autograph.
Maxwell is relying on the information that VRG gave the Daily Mail in that article as if it were fact. Clearly she didn't remember there being a photograph taken given the phrasing in the statement and is making assumptions that would explain it being taken. She also says 1999, which isn't accurate, either. VRG didn't meet Maxwell and Epstein until late 2000.
The truth of the photo is that it's photoshopped. If you've done work with Photoshop, especially software versions from the 2000s, you can see markers indicating it's been edited. Specifically, the black line on the right side of VRG's body or the fact that there are no natural shadows behind Prince Andrew and VRG. Not to mention the fact that his left arm would have to be significantly longer than his right to reach the side of VRG's body without leaning and him standing perpendicular to her.
"Maxwell is relying on the information that VRG gave the Daily Mail in that article as if it were fact."
Do you have evidence for that? Why is it 'clearly she didn't remember' and is instead taking the Daily Mail article (which she seems to be disagreeing with) at face value? Her words indicate she does remember. Idk what 1999 has to do with it, it's the next sentence.
"In 2001 I was in London when [redacted] met a number of friends of mine including Prince Andrew. A photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family."
This her clearly corroborating that VRG met Andrew. She isn't hedging with 'I don't remember' or 'this could have happened but I can't recall'. If she had reason to think it false, wouldn't claiming so bolster her own claim that no wrong doing happened?
All that said, I wouldn't be shocked if Maxwell is playing fast and loose with the true, but it would surprise me if she did so in such as way that supports allegations she's denying.
As for the photo, granted, she's speaking in the passive voice (but isn't denying it). The arm just doesn't seem that strange to me. Or at least, I'm able to stand facing someone and extend my arm around their hip without leaning in. Flashes from old cameras can reduce shadows, I guess? I suppose there could be other things happening; perhaps VRG did take photos but the public photograph is photoshopped. Still, even leaving aside the photo, Maxwell is corroborating VRG's claim that she met Andrew.
Because obviously Maxwell doesn't remember anything memorable about that timeframe either. She's assuming the details that VRG is saying are true. It's completely plausible that if she had met Prince Andrew that she would ask to have her photograph taken, and Epstein has said as much - that (other) employees of his have had their picture taken with him - not a big deal.
The point about 1999 is that it's the incorrect year. Maxwell is using it because it's what Guiffre said in the DM article. And that's my point: this draft press release was written before or without verifying any facts first.
Regarding the photo:
Andrew's body is square to Virginia without any lean or extension of his left arm from his shoulder. You can also compare the length of his right arm to the perceived length of his left arm. It's not possible for his left arm to reach the left side of his body without some extension at the shoulder or torso unless his left arm is much longer than his right.
Besides, as I mentioned, there is a black line on the right side of VRG's head and torso that is unnatural - it's a clear sign that this is a cutout from another image and layered onto an original. The fact that there are no natural shadows around Andrew and VRG's bodies while there are around Maxwell's is another indication that their figures were added later.
On point I do want to add; I actually agree with much of the broad thesis Tracey is putting forward;
• That many people seem to be caught up in believing there is some major conspiracy here
• That the evidence for Epstein developing blackmail material (let along some elite paedophile ring) is pretty weak
• That outside of VRG, few women are accusing men other than Epstein (seems like Leon Black has gotten most of that flack?)
• That media outlets who should be doing better aren't engaging critically with this story, despite one of the most famous victims having credibility issues.
But I also think Tracey's frame of reasoning isn't ideally. He's more "would this hold up in court beyond a reasonable doubt" as opposed to "which scenario has a higher probability of occurring". He should convert to Bayesianism like Hanania did.
Everything she said wasn't completely made up, I don't think anybody has said that..
She was a part of their life everybody knows that. There's facts.
What we can tell is that a huge part of the myth that puts blinders on us is the perpetuation of claims that we find out are never actually claimed by anyone except her for a long time
There probably was either mental illness or drugs on her part, or they did something to a bend and was unjust to her and she sought some retribution and tied it in with thinking it was all worth it to make up stuff about sex trafficking because I mean, no one's getting harmed by helping fight such traffickers right?
Turns out anything that's untrue ends up ballooning out of proportion sometimes
“Everything she said was wasn’t completely made up, i don’t think anybody has said that,”
Actually MT clearly does say that in this piece, he calls her account “fiction” numerous times.
"Everything she said wasn't completely made up, I don't think anybody has said that.. "
Overtly, maybe not (although I do think the take away from a lot of Tracey's writing is that you should basically discount everything she says). Phrases like "serial fabulist" make it easier to dismiss her (which, probably should be done in some cases). I'm pointing out an example wherein she seems to have been telling the true and where the other party seems to have been unable to offer an alternative and instead casts doubt as aspects of it (see Andrew re photograph veracity).
I've seen this "drugs mental illness" argument before. I think it's fair to bring up / wrong to avoid when considering the veracity of her claims.
In a bayesian sense though, is it actually true that accusations made from persons with metal illness are more likely than not to be false? I haven't found evidence of this. I suspect they are less likely to be true than whatever the base rate is, but idk if it tips over into being 'more likely false'.
Wow - one piece of paper from federal prosecutors who are always to be believed because they are so righteous and never abuse their position to further the aims of the state & the powerful.
So the other 6 million pages/records are negated because you found one piece of paper. How fortunate for humanity you are here to save the day!
Your pathological narcissism is stupefying and your ongoing rabid defense of the pedo seems to make clear “the lady doth protest too much”!