The title quote comes from the penultimate scene of the movie Murder By Decree. Briefly, it’s a Sherlock Holmes version of the Jack the Ripper murders in which Holmes learns the murders were for the purpose of covering up a Royal sex scandal. His question, posed in a secret meeting with the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Head of Scotland Yard began haunting me within an hour of the 3 million page dump of Epstein files.
I happened to be watching news on TV when the release took place. Literally within minutes as the phones of those on camera were blowing up with messages it was apparent a lot of care went into protecting the names of the abusers, and not nearly as much into protecting the victims. Sexual crimes are awful no matter what, but when perpetrated against minors so vile that those who commit them and are imprisoned have to have special protections from other prisoners!
As this article from People explains there was a reason the hosts and pundits on live had messages pouring in on their phones. The files were heavily redacted, including and especially the names of co-conspirators in the cases against Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell. Yet within minutes dozens of names and other information about victims who survived their ordeal but had chosen (no one should judge them for doing so) wished to remain anonymous. Perhaps if a solid case was put together to prosecute and their testimony would be important I suspect some of them would agree to take part, but at least by then protections could have been provided when their name became part of public record in a trial.
We’ve since learned it’s more than just a few dozen victims who were outed. The sloppiness of the supposed attempt to protect victims by redacting identifying information is stunning. For example redacting a name only once in a document where the victim’s name and sometimes other information like driver’s license or Social Security number and sometimes even photos were left visible for all to see. Yet a lot of names and other information that could ID those who committed the crimes was oh so carefully redacted – to the point of blacking out entire pages! WTF?
As you’d expect there’s plenty of outrage. It starts from victims themselves including some of the incredibly brave women who long ago came forward to push for release of all the files/information on Epstein and their abusers. These women stepped forward knowing they will have a target on their backs for the rest of their lives! The bulk of victims have tried to quietly heal and get on with their lives. Now, ALL of them have reason to fear that those only just ‘outed’ will be just the start. So, of course victims and their advocates are speaking out yet again:
In a joint statement, the group said that even though the release is being framed as transparency, some of the documents reveal survivors’ names and identifying details, even as alleged abusers and enablers remain shielded from public scrutiny.
“Once again, survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed, while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected,” the statement reads. “That is outrageous.”
The survivors claim the continued secrecy surrounding Epstein’s network represents a systemic failure, particularly given the number of women who have come forward over the years.
The statement specifically references the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, noting that she reported numerous abusers connected to Epstein, while hundreds of additional women have since made similar allegations.
Keep in mind that twenty years ago the FBI had Epstein (and Maxwell, and others) dead to rights. A huge investigation had provided career prosecutors plenty to put Epstein and others in prison where they belonged. Yet then U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta took a pass, and arranged an outrageous deal for Epstein on a single state charge. Even the ‘incarceration’ was a joke as Epstein could leave to ‘work’ for the bulk of the day. Also, like Maxwell now his prison accommodations weren’t at all standard. No ‘rack” and exposed toilet and eating jail issue food. Nope, he got very special treatment.
Acosta would find himself rewarded with an appointment to Trump’s cabinet a decade later. Alas when a reporter refused to give up on the story and DOJ was forced to prosecute Epstein (and Maxwell) Acosta got tossed aside. That again makes me think of the scene I referred to in Murder By Decree when the Prime Minister tries to b.s. Holmes with justice having been served. The PM notes Slane was dead, Sir Thomas Spivey (the Queen’s personal physician) was hopelessly insane and consigned to an asylum for life, and nodding to Sir Charles Warren who’d been forced to resign in disgrace from Scotland Yard. The PM says ‘Sir Charles? His career is in ruins’ to which Holmes bitingly responds “What sort of ruin does he face?”
Acosta is I’m sure living just fine. Does he at least have a guilty conscience? I rather doubt it. As for others, who’s name have been so diligently protected EVEN NOW guilt isn’t a factor. FEAR is. Fear that despite all Trump’s efforts to protect them somehow THEIR names will be made public. I can’t help but think that the survivors who came forward saying they had names of abuses but for the moment were remaining silent have the powers-that-be rattled. IF any of these now women have ‘receipts’, proof admissible as evidence in court you’re damned right they’re afraid. It’s the not knowing what proof these or hundreds, even maybe thousands of victims have that keep them up at night.
That’s why I say what’s happened was no mistake. It was Bondi and Blanche acting on Trump’s orders to send an unmistakable message. The message to all those victims? It goes something like this:
‘Look here you little bitches. See how easily I outed some of you? I can do it to ANY of you and ANY time I want. I can also suggest to my MAGAs that you need to be taught a lesson. AND I can arrange for you to just disappear. Not to mention some of those you can name are rich and powerful on their own. They can do like I did when I raped a 13 year old at Epstein’s NYC place several decades ago. So many CREDIBLE death threats that she refused to cooperate with authorities.
In other words keep your f**king mouths shut and just get over what happened to you.’
THAT my friends is what’s really taken place. The three million page dump made a point of protecting the criminals and hiding their crimes, and just as pointedly outed no small number of victims. That brings me back to the quote in the title: And so, the victims and the crimes. What of the criminals?”
Now we know exactly where Trump stands. On the side of the criminals, of which he is one. The victims, and the crimes committed against them? As far as Trump and his cohorts are concerned those then underage women don’t matter. The abusers wanted what they wanted and took their sick, evil pleasure as if it was their birthright. Use them and abuse them as though they were nothing but living sex dolls/toys. Trump is genuinely angry that so many people just won’t let this go.
Every goddamned one of the criminals who abused underage teenage girls belongs in prison. And without the special protections typically afforded sex abusers. Let them fend for themselves, just like they’ve made their victims do. Instead Trump is protecting them, and THREATENING the victims who’ve managed to survive. Yet the GOP refuses to abandon Trump. They are as guilty as he and the other abusers are.
Read the linked article. It’s not long, and as is usually the case with People magazine easily digested. Contact your Congress Critters with the simple message to protect the VICTIMS instead of the criminals who sexually abused them. And mark your calendars for next week – Feb 11 to be specific. AG Pam Bondi is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. Unless of course Jordan finds an excuse to ‘postpone’ her appearance.
Friends, I know everyone begs you for money. I promise, among all those asking for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a group of old, disabled people, except for one writer in his mid-50s. The rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the chance to keep telling the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula
Just check out the impact of the Epstein Scandal on named perpetrators in UK.
Start with His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh, Vice-Admiral, Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter, Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter
Now plain Mr Andrew Windsor Mountbatten. Turfed out of his royal palace he now lives in a farmhouse, albeit on a royal estate where staff have permission not to have any dealings with him if they don’t want.
Then Lord Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham, UK Ambassador to the US. Sacked as ambassador, resigned his seat in the House of Lords 87] and may be stripped of his title.
Both are being investigated by London police.
Then we have Ghislaine Maxwell, charged, sentenced and in gaol (albeit a country club) in US.
Note: All British!
Apart from Epstein himself no other US citizen seems to have been investigated, arraigned, charged or sentenced. A few named individuals have resigned/retired having been mentioned in the files, not necessarily having done anything other than been in contact in some legitimate way with Epstein.
Define cover up
That last part of your comment has made me think. The sad truth is that defining cover up isn’t as black and white as most of us typically assume. If someone took part in, witnesses or was told by someone they had reason to believe was credible then they are part of a cover up. I think we can all agree on that.
Where it gets murky is hearing something from someone known to embellish stories, or is perhaps wasted and joking around in bad taste for example. Or being say at Epstein’s place to talk business, or for a dinner/party that was at least sort of formal, and seeing an awful and seeing lot of underage girls. They might be dressed as servers at a party, or in short shorts and thin t-shirts just moving about. Either way one gets a vibe that it seems “off.” So you don’t go back, or only go to his place a handful of times and stop doing business with him. Or you see him with some underage girl and the creepy old man vibes eminate from him. Again, you wind up deciding to avoid the guy and maybe even doing business with him altogether. Part of you actually wonders if you should say something but you don’t. Or maybe you say something to him and his response is rather less than reassuring.
Just as with people who see/hear regular crime (i.e. someone being assaulted out on the street) decide to ‘not get involved’ how many people felt there was some nasty, ugly shit going down around Epstein but didn’t say anything to a cop friend or report it to any authorities because they “didn’t want to get involved.” Or rationalized what they saw/heard as them being prudish or ‘jumping to conclusions’ until the alarm bells in their heads went silent. Are they guilty of being part of cover up or just selfish assholes who find a way to avoid thinking about what might be an unpleasant truth?
I’m sure there are plenty of names of folks like that in those files. Should they be redacted? Especially if their name appears in an FBI agent’s handwritten notes, or makes it into a 302 (a 302 is the standard form in which FBI agents are required to write a summary of an interview) BUT there was never any follow up?
I’m reminded of Harvey Weinstein. Incredibly, since he could not only behave at times (he had Trumpian level survival instincts) if he felt the need with certain people and even turn on the charm when he wanted to. Enough that some people weren’t aware of his predatory nature. However it was pretty well known by both women and men in the movie industry. And quite a few outside it. An awful lot of men would never, ever allow their wives, daughters, female friends anywhere near a situation where they might find themselves alone with Weinstein! I can’t help but wonder about the men (and some women too) who might not have known “for sure” but knew enough there wasn’t a chance in hell they’d allow their daughters to be alone with Epstein, Maxwell, or others they knew were regulars at Epstein’s places, and especially those who like Trump (for FIFTEEN YEARS) were great pals with him.
Their silence is complicity. And it begs the question of whether their names should have been redacted. I say NO. Some might argue the other way. To paraphrase Justice Stewart (regarding pornography) you know it when you see it from where I sit knowing enough to choose to actively NOT want to ‘really know’ is complicity. Even if not criminally liable such people deserve to have their names and carefully managed reputations dragged through the mud. And I include Bill and Hillary Clinton in that. They had to know the rumors at some point. However I think if they had real evidence that could stand up in court they’d have done something. But like most of the people Trump is protecting with redactions they can afford to get out there and explain themsevles. They will do so.
You know what? As I’ve rambled along I might have stumbled onto an actual opinion piece to write and post. I’ll have to see if I can organize something.
Thanks for your response, a thoughtful and thought provoking addition to your original article. Can’t figure why someone downvoted it!!
One wonders how many of those protecting the names of the abusers are themselves members of the abusers club. I’ve often felt that the reason so many Repulsicans continue to allow the orange sleaze bag to commit so many crimes against the Constitution and the American people, is because he has the dirt on them and threatens to use it.