https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

via DD's vid:





I guess the strength of the Tracey argument, such as it is, rests on the lack of convictions when it comes to epstein. The problem with #metoo was the way it encouraged people to 'believe women' without having claims tested in court after going through the necessary evidence. That's probably what Chomsky had in mind with his depiction of cancel culture feminazis, or whatever phrasing he used. Conveniently epstein missed out on his trial for all the worst accusations and the 2008 conviction was a backroom sweetheart deal that let him - and potential 'co-conspirators' off the hook for a token year-long sentence after pleading guilty to assault or 'trafficking' the 'nearly 18' girl.

The trouble for that argument is the huge, multi-year police and FBI investigation which collected testimony from around 80 girls who were 14, 15, 16 years old at the time, all of whom gave nearly the same story, with near identical details for how the abuse took place. As far as I know (not having followed the case at all closely, correct me if I'm wrong) these are the case files that haven't been released, thousands of pages of them. However, they were seen by the Miami Herald reporter, who also interviewed relevant police & legal people, all confirming the overwhelming likelihood of the truth of the allegations.

So yes, the accusations haven't been tested in court and all the evidence hasn't been brought up and cross-examined before coming to a verdict. But it's dishonest of Tracey & those like him who use this fact to dismiss the testimony of the 80 young girls and the entirety of the police file that was built up by the police & the FBI over the course of many years, insisting that 'there's nothing to see here'.

Feel free to correct the above or add any bits I've missed.

cheers,
I

PS, Jackie said: 'The phenomenon is real but who cares what happens to poor dumb kids and women? Who are they to accuse a rich man?' - Indeed, I wasn't aware that epstein deliberately sought out poor, underprivileged girls before getting them to groom their schoolfriends, but it stands to reason from what I've heard about other sexual predators picking off the most vulnerable, the least likely to kick up a fuss. From the article:

'Most of the girls came from disadvantaged families, single-parent homes or foster care. Some had experienced troubles that belied their ages: They had parents and friends who committed suicide; mothers abused by husbands and boyfriends; fathers who molested and beat them. One girl had watched her stepfather strangle her 8-year-old stepbrother, according to court records obtained by the Herald. Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness. “We were stupid, poor children,’’ said one woman, who did not want to be named because she never told anyone about Epstein. At the time, she said, she was 14 and a high school freshman. “We just wanted money for school clothes, for shoes. I remember wearing shoes too tight for three years in a row. We had no family and no guidance, and we were told that we were going to just have to sit in a room topless and he was going to just look at us. It sounded so simple, and was going to be easy money for just sitting there.” '

The Moon of Alabama comment is disgusting for making it sound like this was just a smart way these girls chose to earn a little bit of pocket money. It ignores the power dynamic, the impressionability of kids at that age, the vulnerability of being brought by yourself to a strange, wealthy man's house, etc etc. It's almost like he's trying to sell the 'woke' line about 'sex work' being an empowering female decision of how to earn a living in modern capitalist society.

Anyway, I need to go and look at cat videos or something to pull my head out of this sewer...

I