This has all changed with the publication of millions of documents relating to Epstein released by the US authorities. The revelations they contained led in quick succession to the stripping of the royal titles from Andrew and the sacking of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, leading to major crises for both the royal family and the Labour government. So, it is worth taking a look to discover whether the mainstream media revelations stack up to justify such drastic action being taken.
The mainstream media narrative can be briefly summarised. Jeffrey Epstein was a prolific paedophile who personally sexually abused hundreds of underage girls. Furthermore, he trafficked these girls for the sexual pleasure of prominent ‘rich and powerful men’ who were flown to his Caribbean island for this purpose. The ‘Epstein Files’, containing the names of these ‘rich & powerful men’, are being held by the US authorities who are refusing to release them to the public, thus allowing the protection enjoyed by these men to continue. Former Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson have been justly condemned for maintaining contact with Epstein after his paedophile conviction was revealed. There is almost total unanimity by the public and media that all of the accusations against Epstein did most definitely occur and the opprobrium heaped on Andrew and Mandelson is entirely justified. Anyone questioning this account risks being accused of promoting an odious conspiracy theory with the intent of causing huge distress to Epstein’s many victims.
However, there appeared to be some unexplained discrepancies in the mainstream media account. Despite the release of millions of Epstein documents, and as Elon Musk observed, the number of ‘rich and powerful men’ identified as abusers through their visits to Epstein’s Caribbean island remains stubbornly stuck at zero. Moreover, the only person that Ghislaine Maxwell was accused of trafficking girls to was Epstein himself and nobody else was involved.
So, after further research it has been discovered that very little of the mainstream media narrative appears to be based on actual facts. Instead, a false picture has built up due to the failure of the media to question whether the claims made about Epstein have any foundation in reality. Fortunately. one American Substack blogger, Michael Tracey, has carried out a thorough investigation and his findings are summarised below, which are mainly confined to their impact in Britain.
The first thing that the public associate with Epstein is that he was a ‘paedophile’. In a recent BBC television interview with Peter Mandelson, Laura Kuenssberg referred to him as a ‘convicted paedophile’ and the BBC has repeated this description many times when reporting on Epstein. So, it may come as a surprise to many people that the sexual offence for which Epstein was convicted, the ‘victim’ was very close to her 18th birthday. The sexual activity was consensual, and she was unwilling to testify against him but was compelled to do so by the prosecutor. No other person was involved in this sole conviction which took place in Florida where the age of consent is 18. So, Epstein would not have been charged with this offence in the UK for sexual activity with a female of this age where the age of consent is 16.
Andrew and Mandelson have been widely condemned for not ending their contact with ‘the sex offender and paedophile’ Epstein after his conviction. But nobody asks why they should be compelled to cancel a friend with whom they have a good relationship for an activity that is perfectly legal in Britain? This point is never considered let alone addressed. As a recent Guardian article has revealed many prominent individuals continued to maintain their association with Epstein for up to a decade after his conviction. For context, it should be remembered that the sanctimonious BBC for many years employed a convicted murderer in one of their trashy soap operas. Also, the high-minded Prince of Wales has recently cosied up to the Saudi crown prince who ordered the murder and dismemberment of one of his opponents who was lured into a Saudi embassy.
If this is all that Epstein has been found guilty of many people might reasonably ask why the mainstream media continues to refer to the hundreds of victims of Epstein. It is now becoming evident that the so called ‘Epstein Files’ are nothing more than a mirage. Although there are vast quantities of emails, documents and photographs relating to Epstein none have revealed any trafficking of under-age girls to ‘rich & powerful men’. So, it can reasonably be concluded that the mainstream media has been sucked into a conspiracy theory about ‘rich & powerful men’ for which there is no basis in reality, given the total lack of evidence for this widely trumpeted belief.
So, it could be asked, what about the testimony of those claiming that they were victims of underage sexual relations with Epstein? The evidence shows that many of the accusers were either over 18 when they met Epstein or have had their claims dismissed by US investigatory authorities as unreliable. A sinister new development is that some of these women are now claiming that they were ‘groomed’ by Epstein when they were in their 20s, thus attempting to extend the boundaries of potential male heterosexual criminality. These women were of an age when it could reasonably be assumed that they would take responsibility for themselves in their personal relationships.
The reality is that they were recruited solely to provide massage services to Epstein, for which Epstein appears to have had an almost daily fetish. Many were employed in local massage parlours and were asked to confirm that they were over 18 before being engaged by Epstein. They were paid $200 for a massage session, so many lied about their age to take advantage of this very lucrative casual work, to which many of them repeatedly returned. It should be remembered that Epstein was never allowed to mount a defence in open court against the sexual allegations made against him, as he was pressurised into accepting a plea bargain to avoid more serious charges involving widespread collusion by his accusers. Also, many of the claimed ‘victims’ have received huge financial payouts from the Epstein estate with only cursory investigation.
The most notorious Epstein accuser was the late Virginia Giuffre who for several years was employed as a travelling masseuse by Epstein. It was during one of these overseas visits that she was photographed with Andrew at Ghislaine Maxwell’s London home aged 17. There is no doubt that this photograph is genuine and Andrew’s attempt in the BBC interview to obfuscate the matter resulted in his credibility being seriously undermined. Giuffre alleges she was trafficked to Andrew on three occasions. However, the two alleged to have taken place in the USA have now been disproved, meaning that she was lying. Andrew denies having any sexual relations with her, so it is one person’s word against another. Giuffre has never claimed that she was raped by Andrew just trafficked to him. So even if what she claimed is true during her London visit, she was over the age of consent in the UK.
It should be noted that Guiffre was the subject of several claims against her for defamation, she grossly exaggerated her injuries in a car crash and allegations contained in her published memoirs were based on a much earlier fictional account. In summary, Virginia Giuffre was a seriously unreliable witness whose fabricated accounts have been credulously accepted by the mainstream media, political establishment and general public. There needs to be an investigation as to what happened to the £12 million pounds allegedly paid by the royal family into Giuffre’s charity, and an explanation as to why such an astronomical sum of money was ever paid in the first place.
The only conclusion that can be reached, on the evidence that has been uncovered, is that the baying media, politicians and populace on both sides of the Atlantic have been duped by an out-of-control fantastical epidemic of groupthink and mass hysteria that created the fictional paedophile monster Jeffrey Epstein.
No comments:
Post a Comment