Fogbow

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 9:24 am

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:15 am

All those young girls eventually signed NDA's (aside from Giuffre) and got paid off and that is why they have made no public statements.

So the victims who were asked about other men during the Maxwell trial, and affirmatively denied it, were lying because an NDA requires that one commit perjury during a criminal proceeding?

And these alleged NDA's, between them and a dead guy, remain enforceable, such that any one of these other men would engage in a public legal proceeding to sue someone who doesn't have much money in the first place, presumably for liquidated damages, as a consequence of violating the NDA?

As I stated quite clearly, I believe the two detectives in this case. They unequivocally stated that they had corroborating evidence on multiple men and women. I have no reason to question their motives or their evidence, they both have solid reputations. They also both have publicly accused prosecutors, both Florida State prosecutors and Federal prosecutors, of undermining the case against not only Epstein but also others. You can rant all you want about "the girls" but you are not going to convince me of anything on that. My opinion is based on the statements made by two highly regarded detectives who were trying to bring justice against powerful people who were protected by corrupt prosecutors. Nothing you say about "the girls" is going to change my mind on whether I believe those two detectives, both of whom had stellar reputations and no discernable agenda aside from collecting evidence and believing in their evidence and attempting to get justice.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:24 pm

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 2:39 pm You can rant all you want about "the girls" but you are not going to convince me of anything on that.

Can you provide a link to what "rant" of mine involves "the girls"? I've searched this forum for any post of mine using that phrase and cannot find what you are attributing to me as a quote. So, I can't imagine what it is you think I am trying to convince you of, in relation to a phrase I have not even used.

First off, the detectives whom you believe have not spoken to you. I would be interested to know how these detectives have knowledge of the NDA's and payoffs involving the victims.

But, several victims did testify in the Maxwell trial and specifically denied being recruited to perform sexual acts for persons other than Epstein. The conclusion to be drawn is that you believe they committed perjury as a consequence of not understanding the limits of an NDA signed between them and a now dead person. No, an NDA does not allow anyone to do that. But you are entitled to believe the victims who testified in that trial are liars, and that prosecutors intentionally narrowed the scope of chargeable offenses.

If I understand correctly, you believe a third-hand account (the author's recounting of what detectives claim they were told by the victims) in preference to what actual victims have testified. That's certainly your privilege. I'm just interested to know if I may have missed some news on the subject, as with the claimed "new evidence" that Epstein procured victims for Trump.

You know full well there is a thread for Julie K Brown's book, Perversion of Justice, which was written with the cooperation of both Detective Recarey and his partner (I forget his name at the moment). They are the source of a great deal of information in that book, including the title of the book. I know that you are aware of this thread because you were constantly posting your objections to the information being shared from that book.

Both Detective Recarey and his partner gave extensive interviews to Julie K Brown, where much of what I have stated came from. Recarey passed away in 2018, but he had started his investigation into Epstein in 2005, which soon turned into an investigation of Epstein and multiple other men and women. That evidence is more than just the interviews with the girls, they had enough corroborating evidence to believe they were very likely telling the truth. All that corroborating evidence is contained in Ms Browns book, I will not be repeating it all here. Generally detectives don't just take a person's word for it, for them to come to conclusions that they believed the girls they were interviewing they needed more than just their word. You can read Ms Brown's book for yourself.

The police chief, Michael Reiter, also gave an interview to NBC news at some point. Here is a small excerpt from that interview. This is a chief of police going on the record in a major news interview.

Reiter said the investigation identified adult women who had sexual contact with underage girls, and in some cases performed sexual battery on children. “This was a financially successful, smart, capable, well-networked and well-financed individual (Epstein) who built an organization around him that supported his criminal enterprise,” Reiter said.

But as the months wore on with the police building their case, odd things began to happen.

When detectives armed with a search warrant entered his home with a video camera, what they found made them suspect he had been tipped off.

“The place had been cleaned up,” Reiter said.

It wasn’t completely devoid of evidence but a computer that contained all of the home’s surveillance camera footage was gone. “And all the wires were left hanging there,” Reiter said.

After six months of investigation, Reiter said, the local police department noticed a shift in attitude from the state prosecutors.

Much more of his interview is contained in the NBC article. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex ... e-n1057226

I won't be discussing any more of the general Epstein case in this thread.