“Virginia Roberts Giuffre is an American hero,” proclaimed Bradley Edwards, the pioneering Florida plaintiff’s attorney, who has made a career out of representing every “victim” of Jeffrey Epstein he can possibly manifest, by suing every individual or entity he can possibly identify.
I’m in London right now and it’s wild what a big story this is. The drive to get Andrew out of public life had seemingly been slowing down a bit, but news of this forthcoming book seems to have really pressed down on the gas pedal, with the King, parliament, and the tabloid press all in an arms race to see who can reject him harder and faster. The news is he could be stripped of even his “Prince” title, which I believe last happened to a prince who sided with the Germans during world war 1.
The UK media is going absolutely berserk! And Prince Andrew has no real defenders, because no one seems to have bothered to look into the substance of the allegations or the credibility of the accuser -- the coverage all presumes it 100% true, and as a devastating blow to the Royal Family on a PR level. I've been meaning to write something more comprehensive about the Prince Andrew angle of all this...
I was not ever a fan of Prince Andrew but if a Prince life can be totally obliterated and cancelled on unproven allegations by a fabricator who became an alleged to be real super victim of the Epstein saga. Yet none of allegations were ever proven true and she wasn’t even called to Ghislaine trial but her damage to both Ghislaine and Prince Andrew is enormous .
That separately also led to the destruction of Ghislaine whole life for events some 20 years prior where she was targeted by indictment only after Epstein death using info from the Virginia civil court case as a road map to charge her which was contrary to public expectation was a weak case against her and yet highly prejudicial as loud noisy high profile media accusers like Sarah Ransome and Virginia and Maria Farmer among others conflated and tainted into her trial - where even the two other witness alleged victims called Annie and Kate ( Anouska ) were also declared by the court as conduct NOT illegal for the purposes as
of convicting Maxwell - which begs the question they should not have been allowed to be included as it only conflated and tainted and prejudiced guilt for the inconsistent testimony provided by Jane and Carolyn related counts eg Jane previously told FBI she couldn’t recall if Maxwell was present or when ) in which Carolyn added on in a superceding indictment ) a schizophrenic ( the sole witness to the sex trafficking enabling charge for Maxwell -that gave Maxwell a concurrent 20 year sentence for that alone ) never previously mentioned Ghislaine in 2005 - 2007 police reports but Sarah and Virginia who at 18 or 19 recruited Carolyn for money (independently of anyone) and for Epstein without any coercion from anyone and it was Virgina that told Carolyn to tell Epstein she was 18 - Carlyon stated she was big breasted and could have passed for 21 at the time ). It was inconsistent and unreliable shaky conviction and unjust for Maxwell to be given 20 years for that. Further absurdly Virginia and others not called were allowed to pile on their unproven victims impact statements
It's nice to get the photographic evidence in case people discount the bus driver's story. I think those that read the bus driver's story or saw how ludicrous her Instagram post was are a bit more suspect of Giuffre's stories, but most of the public take them at face value without any critical thinking. I think the assumption is that the media have verified them, when upon closer examination, they clearly haven't.
There just honestly needs to be more pushback agains the media for not examining Giuffre's claims. If someone like me, who's just a commenter, can unearth doscuments like the following, disputing Giuffre's claims, why can't they?
"January 1998 – In contradiction to Plaintiff’s sworn testimony that she ran away from home at the age of 13, lived on the street for “months” without word from her family, and ultimately was rescued by the FBI in a SWAT raid from the clutches of a sexual predator named Ron Eppinger, the police documented a call from Plaintiff’s mom that she ran away from home due to her recent “attitude change,” “drug use” and “possible cult activities,” was found four days later by her brother and returned to her family who had decided to involuntarily place her in a drug rehabilitation facility. Menninger Decl., Ex. B (GM00750-00754, 00783-00785). No reference to Ron Eppinger, an FBI SWAT raid, or months without family contact are reflected in the reports."
We have no proof, not seeing all sides of the bus, or if there was a different collision, or whatever. It may be true, but this posting does not prove anything to me. These days anyone can create a "police record document" or anything they want to, as so-called proof. This is just as suspiciously unproven as anything said about Giiuffre.
These were police records obtained from the Palm Beach Police Department where she lived. These are lawyers involved in a federal civil case: they're not going to submit copies of false reports to a federal court. That's grounds for disbarment.
If you were to actually read up on Giuffre from any source documents other than her "memoir" or Julie K Brown's book (that sources from her OG "memoir"), you'll start finding that what she says is at a bare minimum suspicious and more often outlandishly made up.
I've long had grave doubts about VRG's credibility and find the credulity of most media types when it comes to her very disturbing, especially as she had admitted pushing fictions about certain people and as a result doing great damage to them. I'm looking forward to reading what you come up with here, MT. Thanks for undertaking this inquiry, especially given the heat that any accompanies any questioning of VRG.
I read a short excerpt of Virginia's book, in which she detailed her abuse at the hands of Ehud Barak. I came away wondering why she would have stayed around Epstein and Maxwell, if she was expected to be subjected to such heinous abuse? I don't want to sound callous, but she does have a history of making stuff up. It is reasonable to ask questions here.
Were these girls being held against their will, forced to engage in sex acts with disgusting old rich men? If Prince Andrew was in the habit of raping her, then why would she continue to hang out with him?
There are a lot of things about this Epstein story that just don't make any sense to me.
I think it has something to do with the illegal immigration of Canadians. Prince Andrew should have bought a visa to the United States of America instead of crossing the border illegally. That's just my opinion.
Great stuff! BBC going bonkers over here and a leading criminal barrister Helena Kennedy suggested he should flee to Switzerland or somewhere (North Korea?) because 'other women' are coming forward and he can be criminally prosecuted in the UK for things allegedly committed in the USA and elsewhere abroad (no limitation period here). BBC Radio4 Today programme 2.24 in https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002l34d It's literally insane. But that's the UK today.
It's incredible what you uncover with the slightest actual investigation. If there's any still sealed "Epstein file" I'm looking forward to reading it's the deposition of Sharon Churcher.
She sued Maxwell for defamation in 2015; the case was settled in Giuffre's favor in 2017 for an undisclosed sum. On July 2, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the unsealing of documents from Giuffre's civil suit against Maxwell. The first batch of documents was released on August 9, 2019, further implicating Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates.
Many transcripts, depositions and motions are also available from 2009 Doe No. 102 v. Epstein (9:09-cv-80656) in District Court, Southern District of Florida;
My comment was specific to any deposition by Sharon Churcher. Do you have a link to her deposition specifically?
Otherwise, I would point out that your comment "further implicating Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates" comes across as if you're not familiar with the actual facts of the case, only the sensational stories.
Random question, but do you think the Jeffrey Epstein saga involved young women being used to lure wealthy men for potential blackmail, or do you believe the claims made by Virginia and others are completely false?
My understanding - and from what I've read on source documents out there - is that only two people have said that they had sexual activity with someone other than Epstein: Virginia Giuffre & Sarah Ransome. And Sarah Ransome - as Michael Tracey has pointed out - walked back her claims. Leaving Giuffre the only one making these types of claims to date.
Even Giuffre's claims of being filmed were made up: Palm Beach police said there were only 2 security cameras in the house:
"THE WITNESS: He did have two cameras, two covert hidden cameras inside his house for security purposes. We did locate that computer.
I reviewed the images in the computer, and within that computer there are photographs of girls that I had previous interviewed that appears to be them.
However, because it's so grainy, so snowy, a positive rec -- a positive identification is -- you know, it's hard to -- unless you show it to the girl, is this you?"
You clearly know this topic well, and I’m genuinely interested in your take. It’s a tale as old as time, powerful men exploiting young women. If that wasn’t what was really happening, then what was going on with Epstein? And why is the government so determined to keep all the details from being released?
Apparently the only thing that was going on with Epstein is that he paid young women for sexual favors. A number of them were underage, and that's where he crossed the criminal line.
Most of the important documents are actually out there, but no one reads them. If people actually read them, then they would realize that there's no grand conspiracy or pedophile ring.
Epstein was a convenient campaign slogan becase no one - including the media who really should be reporting on what's out there already - reads this stuff, so people think there's information hidden when there really isn't. Things that haven't been released are generally due to court orders to protect the names of the original victims and those who may have been named yet committed no crime, which is apparently pretty typical in criminal cases.
It's really a confederacy of dunces. Who knows how long it will go on.
So I'm going to go out on a limb here and forecast that within 72 hours Jessica Kraus is going to come out with bombshell revelations that VRG's terrible car-bus collision last spring, that landed her in the hospital in critical condition, could have been a hoax! Michael you might want to watermark those police images, I'm just sayin'.
I'm more intrigued by the blurriness around her (maybe) death. Australians have death certificates, right? We're not entitled to details but time and place should be public record. And #TeamNoOne here but how does the recent drip, drip, drip of actual evidence being leaked align with VRG's allegations?
The way to handle JRK is to use her platform to Michael's advantage. What he should be doing is seeing if she would be willing to cross post a writing of his on the Giuffre subject since she shares the criticism. That way, she's not plagiarizing and Michael is reaching a greater audience.
She now accuses her father for the first time apparently of sexually abusing her at around 10 yo - double check . Which could be true or not. But her father has denied it . Which begs the question should any of that family be believed in corroborating anything they said in her story of Ghislaine or Epstein saga . Her siblings are grifters now accusing Virgina husband of bashing her - which may be partly true and in part exaggerated. Her husband has denied it
It's like my financial adviser used to say “you will get it from me when I'm dead”. I was young and naive back then and I didn't know what he meant. Low and beholden I got the 1300 dollers after I scooped him from under my car. Funny how things turn out!
* Virginia and her book . Another scam. They say this is different and it is supposed to be truthful now in contrast to her previous first unpublished but leaked memoirs billionaire playboy club . Fulll of fabricated stories. And the sheep pubic media seem to fall for it yet again without any scrutiny so far .
Your whole argument failed when you wrote “in 2022 she admitted to falsely accusing” Alan Dershowitz. That is not an accurate statement of the resolution of that case. That’s a twisted version that strange men like yourself cognitively distort. Virginia admitted that she “might have unknowingly mistaken his identity” that’s not an admission to lying and creating a false narrative. Nice try though.
So, she "may have made a mistake" in accuing Alan Dershowits of sexually abusing her SIX TIMES? All instances of which he has irrefutable proof of being elsewhere.
Or add in the fact that in a deposition in her Maxwell defamation case that she said she didn't have sex at all with Dershowitz - that it was a different Harvard lawyer.
You can look up the links yourself. There are plenty of unsealed court documents out there contradicting what at best are tall tales from Virginia Giuffre.
Is Michael Tracey inferring that the entire Jeffrey Epstein debacle is not real? Sorry Michael, but why then are all the files and all of his videos and all of the contents taken out of his many locations either destroyed or placed beyond public dissemination? Why are you so adament on cursing her? As for the Dershowitz case, both sides backed down and stated apologies. It was a private agreement between parties and we do not know what it actually means.
Yes, he is. Piece by piece. He tries to discredit from multiple different angles. This one. And whining like bitch that victims at press conference a few months don't look like they would have been underage - putting sneaky quotes around "victims." He's argued that Epstein just paid prostitutes well. He's argued that Epstein and Maxwell never procured for others, or coerced.
Mikey is just reduced to shit flinging for engagement.
Have you ever actually read the court documents? Have you read Robert’s unpublished manuscript and her just published book? Are you aware that she never testified in court? Or that she was the one who settled the case with Maxwell, not the other way around? Michael is right. Only one of the women claimed to have been trafficked to other men - Roberts. Yes, Epstein paid girls and women - and men - to give him massages and some were sexual. That is fact. That he trafficked girls to other men is mostly media invention based on Robert’s claims. I’ve read the documents. Michael is just stating facts.
I've requested them on his behalf, I was also the one who got the bus crash documents. My request for the suicide documents was denied and the appeal I filed was denied this morning.
Australia isn't like America where it's easy to get documents from courts and police.
In Western Australia (and in every other state and territory, as well as the federal level for that matter), there's very strict laws surrounding the disclosure of personal information through FOI requests, even for the deceased. Usually an exemption will only ever be made so long as releasing that personal information will reveal a matter in the public interest which relates to the governance of WA.
I'm also completely at the mercy of the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of WA when it comes to getting a copy of the probate application. I just have to hope that he (or she, I'm not too sure) finds the reasons I want a copy of it compelling enough. The registrar has the sole discretion in this matter.
Thank you for that detailed, albeit frustrating, information.
I just went to the Inquest Findings page of the Coroner’s Court of Western Australia, and it’s acting quite strangely on my iPhone: the case names display for an instant, and then vanish. What’s up with that?
It's a shit website, I'd recommend using it on a proper computer with a proper browser. That being said, it's still more functional than most other court websites I've used. :P
Very interesting, this is what actual investigative journalism looks like. Thank you for going wherever the story leads.
It's always good to have an Irish man in the game. Thank you, Conan!
It’s not even investigative journalism. I knew all this, all of this is out in the public. It’s literally a google search away.
Why isn’t it a story? Because journoscum are trash and hate Trump more than they love the truth. And lately they think Epstein is some kinda gotcha.
I’m in London right now and it’s wild what a big story this is. The drive to get Andrew out of public life had seemingly been slowing down a bit, but news of this forthcoming book seems to have really pressed down on the gas pedal, with the King, parliament, and the tabloid press all in an arms race to see who can reject him harder and faster. The news is he could be stripped of even his “Prince” title, which I believe last happened to a prince who sided with the Germans during world war 1.
The UK media is going absolutely berserk! And Prince Andrew has no real defenders, because no one seems to have bothered to look into the substance of the allegations or the credibility of the accuser -- the coverage all presumes it 100% true, and as a devastating blow to the Royal Family on a PR level. I've been meaning to write something more comprehensive about the Prince Andrew angle of all this...
I was not ever a fan of Prince Andrew but if a Prince life can be totally obliterated and cancelled on unproven allegations by a fabricator who became an alleged to be real super victim of the Epstein saga. Yet none of allegations were ever proven true and she wasn’t even called to Ghislaine trial but her damage to both Ghislaine and Prince Andrew is enormous .
That separately also led to the destruction of Ghislaine whole life for events some 20 years prior where she was targeted by indictment only after Epstein death using info from the Virginia civil court case as a road map to charge her which was contrary to public expectation was a weak case against her and yet highly prejudicial as loud noisy high profile media accusers like Sarah Ransome and Virginia and Maria Farmer among others conflated and tainted into her trial - where even the two other witness alleged victims called Annie and Kate ( Anouska ) were also declared by the court as conduct NOT illegal for the purposes as
of convicting Maxwell - which begs the question they should not have been allowed to be included as it only conflated and tainted and prejudiced guilt for the inconsistent testimony provided by Jane and Carolyn related counts eg Jane previously told FBI she couldn’t recall if Maxwell was present or when ) in which Carolyn added on in a superceding indictment ) a schizophrenic ( the sole witness to the sex trafficking enabling charge for Maxwell -that gave Maxwell a concurrent 20 year sentence for that alone ) never previously mentioned Ghislaine in 2005 - 2007 police reports but Sarah and Virginia who at 18 or 19 recruited Carolyn for money (independently of anyone) and for Epstein without any coercion from anyone and it was Virgina that told Carolyn to tell Epstein she was 18 - Carlyon stated she was big breasted and could have passed for 21 at the time ). It was inconsistent and unreliable shaky conviction and unjust for Maxwell to be given 20 years for that. Further absurdly Virginia and others not called were allowed to pile on their unproven victims impact statements
I’m sorry but I can’t read the that run-on sentence. Please use punctuation next time.
I can resend and correct, as it was done on the hop. What part do you not understand?
Apologies. Not sure why it came out like that.
hopefully this will lead to the collapse of the monarchy and commonwealth so we can all be freed from the tyranny of His Majesty The King
Tyranny by the elect ain't much better, I assure you.
Spoken like a true American.
Wait, is this sarcasm?
Forgive my provincial American ignorance, but isn't the role of the king limited to stuff like ribboncutting these days?
There's coups (https://johnmenadue.com/post/2022/11/the-queens-coup-and-the-role-of-king-prince-charles/) and letting the Prime Minister do whatever he wants (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/scott-morrison-five-more-secret-ministries-minister-portfolio-ministry-including-treasury-home-affairs)
Spoken like a true American.
Maybe Andrew should consider meeting up with Steve Bannon.
It's nice to get the photographic evidence in case people discount the bus driver's story. I think those that read the bus driver's story or saw how ludicrous her Instagram post was are a bit more suspect of Giuffre's stories, but most of the public take them at face value without any critical thinking. I think the assumption is that the media have verified them, when upon closer examination, they clearly haven't.
There just honestly needs to be more pushback agains the media for not examining Giuffre's claims. If someone like me, who's just a commenter, can unearth doscuments like the following, disputing Giuffre's claims, why can't they?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1328.20.pdf
"January 1998 – In contradiction to Plaintiff’s sworn testimony that she ran away from home at the age of 13, lived on the street for “months” without word from her family, and ultimately was rescued by the FBI in a SWAT raid from the clutches of a sexual predator named Ron Eppinger, the police documented a call from Plaintiff’s mom that she ran away from home due to her recent “attitude change,” “drug use” and “possible cult activities,” was found four days later by her brother and returned to her family who had decided to involuntarily place her in a drug rehabilitation facility. Menninger Decl., Ex. B (GM00750-00754, 00783-00785). No reference to Ron Eppinger, an FBI SWAT raid, or months without family contact are reflected in the reports."
We have no proof, not seeing all sides of the bus, or if there was a different collision, or whatever. It may be true, but this posting does not prove anything to me. These days anyone can create a "police record document" or anything they want to, as so-called proof. This is just as suspiciously unproven as anything said about Giiuffre.
These were police records obtained from the Palm Beach Police Department where she lived. These are lawyers involved in a federal civil case: they're not going to submit copies of false reports to a federal court. That's grounds for disbarment.
If you were to actually read up on Giuffre from any source documents other than her "memoir" or Julie K Brown's book (that sources from her OG "memoir"), you'll start finding that what she says is at a bare minimum suspicious and more often outlandishly made up.
I found this article and I was wondering if you knew who wrote it since this seems like the right place thank you
https://www.reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex/comments/1lndul2/i_am_a_therapist_who_plans_to_help_people_with/
As the posting mentions, “Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children” and is therefore not relevant to a conversation about Epstein.
To many 20 doller words. That means it doesn't include herpatologists?
Thanks Michael - appreciate your continuing exposure of this scam.
I've long had grave doubts about VRG's credibility and find the credulity of most media types when it comes to her very disturbing, especially as she had admitted pushing fictions about certain people and as a result doing great damage to them. I'm looking forward to reading what you come up with here, MT. Thanks for undertaking this inquiry, especially given the heat that any accompanies any questioning of VRG.
I read a short excerpt of Virginia's book, in which she detailed her abuse at the hands of Ehud Barak. I came away wondering why she would have stayed around Epstein and Maxwell, if she was expected to be subjected to such heinous abuse? I don't want to sound callous, but she does have a history of making stuff up. It is reasonable to ask questions here.
Were these girls being held against their will, forced to engage in sex acts with disgusting old rich men? If Prince Andrew was in the habit of raping her, then why would she continue to hang out with him?
There are a lot of things about this Epstein story that just don't make any sense to me.
I think it has something to do with the illegal immigration of Canadians. Prince Andrew should have bought a visa to the United States of America instead of crossing the border illegally. That's just my opinion.
Great stuff! BBC going bonkers over here and a leading criminal barrister Helena Kennedy suggested he should flee to Switzerland or somewhere (North Korea?) because 'other women' are coming forward and he can be criminally prosecuted in the UK for things allegedly committed in the USA and elsewhere abroad (no limitation period here). BBC Radio4 Today programme 2.24 in https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002l34d It's literally insane. But that's the UK today.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/yiqoku/consequences_of_having_the_power_to_select/
It's incredible what you uncover with the slightest actual investigation. If there's any still sealed "Epstein file" I'm looking forward to reading it's the deposition of Sharon Churcher.
Same! I really would like to see what she said under oath!
Plenty of her sworn testimony and depositions have been unsealed. Just for starters;
For 2021 Giuffre v. Prince Andrew (1:21-cv-06702) , District Court SD New York;
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60119368/giuffre-v-prince-andrew/
She sued Maxwell for defamation in 2015; the case was settled in Giuffre's favor in 2017 for an undisclosed sum. On July 2, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the unsealing of documents from Giuffre's civil suit against Maxwell. The first batch of documents was released on August 9, 2019, further implicating Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6181300/Epstein-ca2-20190703.pdf
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/in-major-development-court-orders-unsealing-of-docs-related-to-alleged-epstein-sex-trafficking-ring/
You can track down links to the court transcripts for 2006-2007 criminal case against Epstein from this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-indictment-hes-out-luck/593512/
Many transcripts, depositions and motions are also available from 2009 Doe No. 102 v. Epstein (9:09-cv-80656) in District Court, Southern District of Florida;
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4232458/doe-no-102-v-epstein/
Like this - https://laurenstephens.com/Epstein-File-Vault/Epstein-Report.pdf
What else would you like to see?
Old news for some reason you think is relevant to my comment and Jane's reply.
I can assure you we've done our share of reading "Epstein files" lol.
My comment was specific to any deposition by Sharon Churcher. Do you have a link to her deposition specifically?
Otherwise, I would point out that your comment "further implicating Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates" comes across as if you're not familiar with the actual facts of the case, only the sensational stories.
Random question, but do you think the Jeffrey Epstein saga involved young women being used to lure wealthy men for potential blackmail, or do you believe the claims made by Virginia and others are completely false?
My understanding - and from what I've read on source documents out there - is that only two people have said that they had sexual activity with someone other than Epstein: Virginia Giuffre & Sarah Ransome. And Sarah Ransome - as Michael Tracey has pointed out - walked back her claims. Leaving Giuffre the only one making these types of claims to date.
Even Giuffre's claims of being filmed were made up: Palm Beach police said there were only 2 security cameras in the house:
"THE WITNESS: He did have two cameras, two covert hidden cameras inside his house for security purposes. We did locate that computer.
I reviewed the images in the computer, and within that computer there are photographs of girls that I had previous interviewed that appears to be them.
However, because it's so grainy, so snowy, a positive rec -- a positive identification is -- you know, it's hard to -- unless you show it to the girl, is this you?"
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24797935-2006-jeffrey-epstein-grand-jury/
You clearly know this topic well, and I’m genuinely interested in your take. It’s a tale as old as time, powerful men exploiting young women. If that wasn’t what was really happening, then what was going on with Epstein? And why is the government so determined to keep all the details from being released?
Apparently the only thing that was going on with Epstein is that he paid young women for sexual favors. A number of them were underage, and that's where he crossed the criminal line.
Most of the important documents are actually out there, but no one reads them. If people actually read them, then they would realize that there's no grand conspiracy or pedophile ring.
Epstein was a convenient campaign slogan becase no one - including the media who really should be reporting on what's out there already - reads this stuff, so people think there's information hidden when there really isn't. Things that haven't been released are generally due to court orders to protect the names of the original victims and those who may have been named yet committed no crime, which is apparently pretty typical in criminal cases.
It's really a confederacy of dunces. Who knows how long it will go on.
Thanks for reply Jane.
So I'm going to go out on a limb here and forecast that within 72 hours Jessica Kraus is going to come out with bombshell revelations that VRG's terrible car-bus collision last spring, that landed her in the hospital in critical condition, could have been a hoax! Michael you might want to watermark those police images, I'm just sayin'.
I'm more intrigued by the blurriness around her (maybe) death. Australians have death certificates, right? We're not entitled to details but time and place should be public record. And #TeamNoOne here but how does the recent drip, drip, drip of actual evidence being leaked align with VRG's allegations?
The way to handle JRK is to use her platform to Michael's advantage. What he should be doing is seeing if she would be willing to cross post a writing of his on the Giuffre subject since she shares the criticism. That way, she's not plagiarizing and Michael is reaching a greater audience.
Why do you think JRK will do that? She's actually been suspicious of Virginia, from what I have read. Did I miss something?
Yeah… Here’s the thing that everyone always leaves out about Epstein. And Virginia Giuffre.
She was a notorious fabulist, who was caught lying multiple times, and made a living off selling interviews and lawsuit settlements.
It’s not even like it’s some deep dark secret, all the evidence is out there and has been for years.
Indeed, it is. About the monster you're glazing.
It's all out there about Roberts. who was being paid for massages and sex by Epstein. What does that make her?
I can't say either way whether Virginia was fabulous. I do think this is some sick plot of the Canadians.
She now accuses her father for the first time apparently of sexually abusing her at around 10 yo - double check . Which could be true or not. But her father has denied it . Which begs the question should any of that family be believed in corroborating anything they said in her story of Ghislaine or Epstein saga . Her siblings are grifters now accusing Virgina husband of bashing her - which may be partly true and in part exaggerated. Her husband has denied it
It's like my financial adviser used to say “you will get it from me when I'm dead”. I was young and naive back then and I didn't know what he meant. Low and beholden I got the 1300 dollers after I scooped him from under my car. Funny how things turn out!
* Virginia and her book . Another scam. They say this is different and it is supposed to be truthful now in contrast to her previous first unpublished but leaked memoirs billionaire playboy club . Fulll of fabricated stories. And the sheep pubic media seem to fall for it yet again without any scrutiny so far .
Your whole argument failed when you wrote “in 2022 she admitted to falsely accusing” Alan Dershowitz. That is not an accurate statement of the resolution of that case. That’s a twisted version that strange men like yourself cognitively distort. Virginia admitted that she “might have unknowingly mistaken his identity” that’s not an admission to lying and creating a false narrative. Nice try though.
So, she "may have made a mistake" in accuing Alan Dershowits of sexually abusing her SIX TIMES? All instances of which he has irrefutable proof of being elsewhere.
Or add in the fact that in a deposition in her Maxwell defamation case that she said she didn't have sex at all with Dershowitz - that it was a different Harvard lawyer.
Or how about her lying about how much time she spent in Epstein's orbit? She lied to the Daily Mail in her initial interview in 2011, she said it was four years, when in reality it was only 2 at best (2000-2002). https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361039/Prince-Andrew-girl-17-sex-offender-friend-flew-Britain-meet-him.html
Or the fact that she also lied about when she started working for Epstein in her 2011 FBI interview?
Or the fact that she lied about being trafficked by Ron Eppinger when she was a teenager? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1328.20.pdf
Or the fact that she's changed the location of the alleged incident with a prime minister from "the south of France" to the USVI?
Yup the Dershowitz troll farm playbook. Tracks.
You got the Adam Waldman sniff test too! You’re meeting all the bot farm criteria.
I'm sorry, what? I'm a person, not a bot.
You can look up the links yourself. There are plenty of unsealed court documents out there contradicting what at best are tall tales from Virginia Giuffre.
I’ve heard enough from the Dersh/Waldman bot farms enough over on X. No thank you.
And what does that have to do with my comments? I'm not following your point.
I don’t waste energy on bots and people paid to smear
I'm not sure what that has to do with Canada though
???
Did you respond to the wrong comment?
It may have very well could have been possibly that Dershowitz was mistaken for a pickled catsup
Is Michael Tracey inferring that the entire Jeffrey Epstein debacle is not real? Sorry Michael, but why then are all the files and all of his videos and all of the contents taken out of his many locations either destroyed or placed beyond public dissemination? Why are you so adament on cursing her? As for the Dershowitz case, both sides backed down and stated apologies. It was a private agreement between parties and we do not know what it actually means.
No, he's not inferring that the Epstein story is not real, he's just stating that Virginia Roberts was a pathological liar.
Yes, he is. Piece by piece. He tries to discredit from multiple different angles. This one. And whining like bitch that victims at press conference a few months don't look like they would have been underage - putting sneaky quotes around "victims." He's argued that Epstein just paid prostitutes well. He's argued that Epstein and Maxwell never procured for others, or coerced.
Mikey is just reduced to shit flinging for engagement.
Have you ever actually read the court documents? Have you read Robert’s unpublished manuscript and her just published book? Are you aware that she never testified in court? Or that she was the one who settled the case with Maxwell, not the other way around? Michael is right. Only one of the women claimed to have been trafficked to other men - Roberts. Yes, Epstein paid girls and women - and men - to give him massages and some were sexual. That is fact. That he trafficked girls to other men is mostly media invention based on Robert’s claims. I’ve read the documents. Michael is just stating facts.
Great piece, what a POS!
There must be police and coroner’s reports about the suicide. Hopefully Michael has requested them …
I've requested them on his behalf, I was also the one who got the bus crash documents. My request for the suicide documents was denied and the appeal I filed was denied this morning.
Australia isn't like America where it's easy to get documents from courts and police.
In Western Australia (and in every other state and territory, as well as the federal level for that matter), there's very strict laws surrounding the disclosure of personal information through FOI requests, even for the deceased. Usually an exemption will only ever be made so long as releasing that personal information will reveal a matter in the public interest which relates to the governance of WA.
I'm also completely at the mercy of the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of WA when it comes to getting a copy of the probate application. I just have to hope that he (or she, I'm not too sure) finds the reasons I want a copy of it compelling enough. The registrar has the sole discretion in this matter.
FYI I added a credit to Will at the bottom of this article (sorry I initially forgot)
Thank you for that detailed, albeit frustrating, information.
I just went to the Inquest Findings page of the Coroner’s Court of Western Australia, and it’s acting quite strangely on my iPhone: the case names display for an instant, and then vanish. What’s up with that?
It's a shit website, I'd recommend using it on a proper computer with a proper browser. That being said, it's still more functional than most other court websites I've used. :P
We will get to this bottom of this!