Epstein, so sick of it everywhere.

Thanks for that information imaround. I think I'm right in saying that Andrew's name appears 173 times.

Yes Basgetti, I have been abused.

All round one wonders just how many royal families are harbouring someone that married into them quite deliberately - Norway, Me-Egan Markle into the British one, trying to think which European country it is where the ruler married a woman who feels like she's been "tied to him" virtually to stay with him...even after having those two children he wanted.

One good reason not to want to be royalty - in case someone "sets their cap" at you for all the wrong reasons.

The top 10 most mentioned names in the Epstein files.

This of course do not mean that any of these people did anything wrong. But I think they should be looked at closer.

Most mentioned names (reported counts):
- Donald Trump about 38,000+
- Reid Hoffman about 2,600+
- Bill Gates about 2,500+
- Peter Thiel about 2,200+
- Elon Musk about 1,100+
- Mette-Marit (Crown Princess of Norway) about 1,000+
- Richard Branson about 1,000+
- Howard Lutnick about 650+
- Larry Page about 300+
- Sergey Brin about 300

Found that YouTube mortician video - it's on the channel by "Lauren the Mortician" and the title is "A mortician explains why this photo doesn't make sense".

eazybee

^What do you have diplomats and ambassadors for, if not to find out what is going on behind the scenes and making sure you are prepared for it.^

Well, the past Ambassador would not have been much use, would he, because he never saw any girls ever at any of Epstein's houses?

Ambassadors also need to know when not to see things.

Maremia

Facebook again, so, not verified, but the brother wants an exhumation, to prove that it was murder and not suicide.

I read her book - and was certainly an interesting read. The one thing that was very clear was she had specifically said "If I'm dead and they say it's suicide = it is not". My own take = I wouldnt have blamed her a bit if she had done so after a life like that.

But I don't think it is suicide. Another factor that makes me think it isn't being there's one heck of a mess going on about all the money she's left - as there doesn't seem to be a will - and that though she has children.

She's not had the most "practical" approach to life overall - but one would have thought the fact she had a. A batterer type of husband going on at the time of her death b. She has children would mean she'd be extra careful to have a will if she'd been expecting to die imminently (ie to make sure hubbie didnt get anything at all - but her children did get the lot). She does not seem to be expecting to die from what I've read in that book.

It's my feeling that anyone who wants to make sure someone DOESNT get a penny from them makes a will for that reason too - ie to ensure they get nothing. Again - she was not a "practical" type of person - but I remember it took me 5 minutes to get his drift and make decisions when I was able to buy my starter house finally in my 30's and one of the first things my father said was "Now you own a house (ie a noticeable asset) = you need to make a will out....because, if you don't then your nearest relative will get it automatically - and that's your brother!". Cue for visiting a solicitor within the week to leave it somewhere/anywhere else to prevent that. So I do think she would have wanted to make sure her awful husband didnt get his hands on a penny of her money if she could help it. It really rankles - one would have thought with just about anyone - if you know a specific person/organisation/whatever has managed to get or keep a substantial amount of your money.

I'm not even sure about her brothers motives on reading the book - though given benefit of doubt there might be some genuine concern for her.

There's definitely some very "convenient" suicides that happen sometimes - Epstein himself for instance and there is a very convincing video by a mortician on YouTube - where she explains just how he would have looked in those "final photos" if he'd been really dead and compared it to how he actually looked. I could see exactly what she was getting at and wonder if he really is dead in fact - it felt to me looking at his "dead" face that there was a bit of a laugh and a grin hiding in there somewhere (a sort of "cocking a snook and thinking 'I've found a way outa here LOL LOL' was how it felt to me).

You did good Galaxy!

The out of court settlement culture is why Trump sues as many people as he can. He knows it will never get to court. Most times it will settle and he will claim victory.

You will notice that when he gets pushback (looking at you BBC & Pulitzer) he tends to back down. He doesn't want discovery.

Did you see the interview with Melinda Gates after this? She was gracious and professional, as always.

That woman is a saint, IMO. The amount of good she is doing in the world is amazing.

Seriously, if you know your brother is a rapist?
I despair.

But Charles does not know his brother is a rapist, any more than you do,

Anyone else so disappointed about Bill Gates? I really thought he was one of the good guys. Seems maybe not.

Yes, I thought that was the case. Thank goodness my addiction to American true crime podcasts has some benefits!

Facebook again, so, not verified, but the brother wants an exhumation, to prove that it was murder and not suicide.

Galaxy

I also think it is quite different in America where there seems to be more of a culture of accepting money.
I don't blame her at all.

This is exactly right.

It is normal to settle outside of court in civil cases in the US. It is encouraged, in fact. Because court is expensive and very difficult for the victims. Settling outside of court is not an indication of doing anything wrong on the side of the defendant and not a sign that the plaintiff is lying.

The Royal family wanted to because if they had not, they would have gone through the discovery process, which would have opened every single dark secret Andrew was involved in for the entire world to see. This is true for any large businesses and high profile people, in fact, not just RF specific.

Most victims prefer to settle out of court because they are paying huge legal fees and do not have the money supplies that Corps do. For crime victims, it is even more difficult.

I keep seeing posts about everyone being "fixated" on Andrew. It rather threw me off because, while Andrew and Mandelson are brought up occasionally, there are other people being discussed here in the US. Musk, Lutnik, Branson, Gates, Trump. Bad Bunny, Walz.

So far, here in the US today, we are talking about Bezos destroying the Washington Post as a result of Melania's movie flopping, ICE locking children up in a facility in Texas, the DOJ lawyer who cried and asked the judge to hold her in contempt of court and put her in jail so she could get 24 hours of rest because doing her job at the DOJ has been really, really bad, and Trump trying to figure out how to cancel the 2026 elections. Not a peep about Andrew today that I have seen.

eazybee

I do not blame Andrew for refusing to appear in court in America. Their justice system is different from ours, and it seems as though a person is presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence, Mike Lynch, British business man, was summoned to appear in America and immediately placed under house arrest for two years until he was able to prove his innocence. (He was the man who drowned with five others when his yacht the Bayesian capsized). I would very much like to see Mandelson in gaol, but not in America, paraded handcuffed and manacled in prison clothes.

Sodapop, I agree with your post. There comes a time, when the chips are really down, when you think, my brother , right or wrong, and you stand by them. Doesn't mean you approve or condone their behaviour or forgive them for what they have done.

Seriously, if you know your brother is a rapist?
I despair.

Smileless2012

Why was his accuser prepared to be paid off Basgetti? Why didn't she want her day in court if she was telling the truth? I would have done, wouldn't you?

I have no idea if Andrew is innocent because there has yet to be any evidence to say that he's guilty and here in the UK, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defence to prove innocence.

It may be poor judgement for Charles to financially support his brother, but that's his judgement to make.

Perhaps she wanted an end to it, thought she could move on. Sadly, it obviously didn’t work out that way for her.
Have you ever been abused? I have. It destroys your self esteem.

Neither do I, feel any blame or criticism of Virginia Guiffre. Abused, exploited, emotionally, sexually from a very young age
It took courage to speak out as she did. It added to the toll her experiences had already taken.

I also think it is quite different in America where there seems to be more of a culture of accepting money.
I don't blame her at all.

ViceVersa
I agree about the ordeal for victims.
DH said at the time, she probably accepted the money because she was afraid she wouldn’t win. Then she would have gone through all that for nothing.
The way the justice system, including trial and retrial by media works currently, that’s very likely.
Once one group had decided she was guilty and the media/social media took it up . . .

Mollygo

Anniebach
People don’t want to believe ill of the royal family? How patronising.

Yes it is rather.

Lovely blanket phrase you quoted there.

Lovely blanket phrase about the royal family too.

All from the security of our GN anonymity.

Who are these people not wanting to believe ill of the royal family? How do we know that’s what they believe? It’s a bit of a vague implication.

Mollygo I said what I thought, you said what you thought. That’s how it works.

eazybee

^What do you have diplomats and ambassadors for, if not to find out what is going on behind the scenes and making sure you are prepared for it.^

Well, the past Ambassador would not have been much use, would he, because he never saw any girls ever at any of Epstein's houses?

Well I'd say an Ambassador would be failing in their duties if they didn't have access to a good "grapevine". Necessary to cultivate one to find out what was going on behind the scenes.

Iam64

A word in support of victims who accept money as compensation and acknowledgement of the abuse they allege they were subjected to.

Prosecution of alleged rapists is rare. Victims can wait years between police investigation and trial. If they seek therapy during that period, confidential records can be used by defence lawyers to try and discredit them. In reality, the defence aims to discredit the victims as a norm.

Having experience of the treatment alleged victims are subject to, the idea of them refusing compensation in favour of a day n court makes my blood run cold

Well said. I've sat through more court trials in my time than I care to remember, and it can be a horrendous ordeal for victims who have to give evidence, none more so than in cases of rape or sexual assault.

Anniebach
People don’t want to believe ill of the royal family? How patronising.

Yes it is rather.

Lovely blanket phrase you quoted there.

Lovely blanket phrase about the royal family too.

All from the security of our GN anonymity.

Who are these people not wanting to believe ill of the royal family? How do we know that’s what they believe? It’s a bit of a vague implication.

The fact that the Royal family paid £12 million to Virginia Giuffre, even though Andrew continued to deny everything is to me clear evidence that they knew far more about Andrew's antics than has been reported in the press.

Ironically that is why one has ambassadors and a diplomatic service whose job is to work behind the scenes to keep relationships between countries harmonious. Peter Mandelson resigned as our ambassador in the USA last September and the King imposed his sanctions on his brother at the end of october.

I thought at the time that these sanctions were draconian, given what we knew about Andrew and his antics then, but the last few day's revealtions have shown just how well the diplmatic trade do their work. By last October the King and his advisors must have been given early knowledge of what was going to be released in the near future from Epstein's archive in relation to Andrew, and the King took pre-emptive action.

I do not see why Andrews antics, distasteful though they are should rebound on the RF as a whole. Many families have black sheep in the family, and black sheep in families where there is lots of money, find it much easier to fund all there black sheepery than others. Black sheep are not unknown in our Royal family, Edward V111, Edward V11's eldest son who died before he could succeed to the throne, George IV, At least with Andrew he is not heir to the throne, and never has been.

What do you have diplomats and ambassadors for, if not to find out what is going on behind the scenes and making sure you are prepared for it.

Well, the past Ambassador would not have been much use, would he, because he never saw any girls ever at any of Epstein's houses?

The only plus side is that it's now become clear just why there's been such a "hold" on America and our own government.

Maybe this will break it - and we will be able to make our own darn decisions finally without anyone else coming in on it - eg via Epstein. Hopefully no more "Friends of Israel" group influencing our own government any more...and sitting there thinking "All these lobbyists we can feel are there in behind the scenes" and hopefully the number will now reduce and our MP's might remember they are supposed to do our bidding and no-one else's. There'll still be some big firms in there trying to influence our decisions that it's up to our elected representatives to make on OUR behalf...but hopefully it will reduce all that lobbying a bit...

It's an ill wind that blows no-one any good.....