Jeffrey Epstein

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Order Thread by Most Liked Posts
B

bottlewrapper

AlexTwist said:
That's not correct. An NDA cannot cover any illegal activity.
Click to expand...
True, but the NDA won't say 'I'll give you a million dollars if you don't mention that I trafficked and sexually abused you'.

It would say 'in return for a million dollars, you won't mention freely attending parties at my house, or any free holidays you took in my properties or ever being acquainted with me, and you agree to surrender all evidence of the same eg pictures on your phone'.

None of that is illegal, and that's how it's documented. Bear in mind that this is a contract signed voluntarily, in return for a lot of money, so the recipient of the cash has decided that's their best option rather than pursuing a criminal action, so they aren't likely to breach it.

Back the NDA up with a super injunction or two for something which overlaps, something legal but unsavoury enough to harm your good reputation, maybe swinging with consenting adults at the very same parties, and top it off with a reputation for being aggressively litigious....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
M

MrsSlocombe

KINGAA said:
Problem I think is, some of these involved are no doubt in very high positions. I imagine court, police, figures would would have shut this down. Also, I feel like people focus on Prince Andrew waaaay too much when there’s other people who had much more power being a part of this or actually unscathed by the press. Bill Clinton for example, Trump.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely not excusing what Prince Andrew did - I think that he's vile, but I also think that he was the target who got thrown under the bus because it was easier to do it with him rather than some of the other more high profile 'important' people. They should all face punishment for the crimes that they committed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18
L

L3moning

As I've said many times, the issue with Andy is proving that he did anything that was illegal under British or New York law in 2001.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
M

MrsSlocombe

L3moning said:
As I've said many times, the issue with Andy is proving that he did anything that was illegal under British or New York law in 2001.
Click to expand...
There's a couple of main issues aren't there? The issue of age of consent should be straight forward - it is the age of consent in the country or state in which he engaged in the sexual activity. Then there's the trafficking issue. Were the young women forced to engage in sexual activities with him? If they were, they were raped. I guess the grey area is whether he could say that he was unaware that they were trafficked to him for sex? He could then argue that (if they were of legal age) that he believed that he was having consensual sex with them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
L

L3moning

MrsSlocombe said:
There's a couple of main issues aren't there? The issue of age of consent should be straight forward - it is the age of consent in the country or state in which he engaged in the sexual activity. Then there's the trafficking issue. Were the young women forced to engage in sexual activities with him? If they were, they were raped. I guess the grey area is whether he could say that he was unaware that they were trafficked to him for sex? He could then argue that (if they were of legal age) that he believed that he was having consensual sex with them?
Click to expand...
The sex trafficking laws came in after 2001, as did the change in the law regarding sex workers, so those can't apply to his case. You would have to charge him with rape and prove beyond reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would have known that her consent was invalid. From the point of view of having any chance of getting a conviction that's a massive issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
E

Em_gardener

thenorthremembers said:
Full list of names so far View attachment 2668508View attachment 2668510
Click to expand...
The names don't really mean anything out of context. Some of them are victims names and some are just mentioned in passing or in questions. There's too much for me to read the whole lot but it seems like Prince Andrew has come out worst in these documents and all in all there's not much new info there and there's nothing that could land anyone in prison. Bit of a disappointment overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17
welp

welp

The few mention with actual context aside these lists are defamation at this point because "X celebrity is on Epstein's list/court docs etc" is basically going to be misconstrued into a involvement or even a guilty verdict by most of the public when clearly it isnt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 15
P

PeonyBlush

It’s just going to get messy and confusing because a lot of those celeb names on the list aren’t actually being accused of doing anything wrong or illegal. For example Leo isn’t, he’s just been mentioned because he had connections to someone (so far anyway).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
thegirlscout

thegirlscout

Restless Native said:
She backed Woody Allen did she not or was it Polanski?

Anyway there's been posts on here about her being a bleep.
Click to expand...
She said she named her son after Polanski but that could have been a joke. Though God knows why you’d joke about that. And I believe she’s worked with Woody Allen too.
---
A new batch of names has been released.
However I feel like nothing is going to come from this. People who should face justice won’t. I just hope the poor girls who were trafficked are able to get help and support but again they might it happen for all of them.
---
KINGAA said:
Problem I think is, some of these involved are no doubt in very high positions. I imagine court, police, figures would would have shut this down. Also, I feel like people focus on Prince Andrew waaaay too much when there’s other people who had much more power being a part of this or actually unscathed by the press. Bill Clinton for example, Trump.
Click to expand...
I agree - the people involved are powerful and have powerful connections. No one will face any form of justice and I think Maxwell will be the only one to serve any real time.
As for Andrew he was a public figure and there is still a question of where he is getting his money from. The connection to Epstein wasn’t allowed to be discussed, wasn’t investigated and was covered up all because he was Royal. It’s still a pretty big deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7
shellie

shellie

Restless Native said:
She backed Woody Allen did she not or was it Polanski?

Anyway there's been posts on here about her being a bleep.
Click to expand...
Has Allen been mentioned? He and Epstein were close friends and he hosted a welcome home party for him when he got out of jail the first time. I know many are talking about the island but a lot seemingly happened at Epstein's house as well.
 
  • Like
  • Sick
Reactions: 9
StonedCyclist

StonedCyclist

mochibean said:
I know right! This one did shock me.

This whole case makes me feel sick. Especially seeing people joking about it on Twitter, these are abused children there's nothing funny about it. And I think people denying their fave celebrities involvement is deluded, rich people seem to have a habit of exploiting and abusing people doesn't shock me that it extends to children.

My friend showed me a video a while back and it's not one I'll ever watch again. It was a guy who'd been involved in trafficking children and talking about what these rich people would pay for, including children's body parts and severe torture. It is all incredibly heartbreaking for those involved in any case. I think all should be exposed, but we know that they have the power and money to keep so much of it under wraps.
Click to expand...
Nice friend. 😮 Why would they do that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
You must log in or register to reply here.