I really don’t know anything about Leslie Wexner or his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
In the popular mind, anyone associated with Epstein is tainted; it’s simple guilt by association, which can be profoundly unjust. But that’s mob justice for you.
Shivani wrote, “Epstein must have brought more than a young lady to Wexner. That would be easy to pay off or hide. Epstein’s entire life was having these girls around… It was probably a mix of boys, girls, men, women and anonymity to hide anything Wexner thinks of as perversions.”
Is there any basis for this at all, other than speculation?
Any sources at all? Because none are given. So Shivani speculates that Wexner was having sex with children and that he’s bisexual, and we are supposed to accept it as fact. On his or her say-so. No evidence at all.
“Wexner had his pick of women; he was 55 and immensely wealthy. He had models begging to work.”
Shivani is saying that Wexner could have made models screw him in exchange for modeling jobs. Pull a Harvey Weinstein.
Perhaps the reason Wexner didn’t do this is because it’s illegal, unethical, and gross?
Perhaps Wexner isn’t the creep that Shivani assumes? Because, as far as I can see, the only evidence that Wexner is tainted is his association with Epstein.
As far as I can see, having read Shivani’s piece, Wexner is guilty of nothing.
Again, I know nothing about Wexner. I don’t particularly care one way or the other. It just surprises me that people buy this guilt by association crap. That people are okay with speculating about all sorts of nasty crimes and misdeeds with not the slightest proof.
Speculation is not evidence; do people really not know this?
“People have reported that it was impossible not to notice all the underaged girls around Epstein…”
This deserves close examination. “People have reported…” well, that’s gossip.
It is essentially meaningless.
I mean, Shivani says a bunch of stuff that’s pure speculation. People can report their speculation. What they imagine to be the case. What they think happened. None of this is factual. There is a reason hearsay is not admissible in court. It’s not evidence. It is, in point of fact, worthless in getting at the truth.
As for it being impossible not to notice all the underage girls around Epstein, I think it would be very possible. I know virtually nothing about my friends’ and relatives’ sex lives. Do you? Probably not.
Your pal Bill – how often does he masturbate?
What kind of porn has your sister watched? Don’t know? Well, maybe some of Epstein’s friends are like us.
I have read several articles about Epstein. There is a good deal of information about his many girlfriends. He had a voracious appetite for young women, models specifically. Most of them seem to have been in their early 20s.
I don’t disbelieve that he had sex with some underage ‘Lolitas,’ and that makes him a creep and a criminal.
But mostly he seems to have been a rich older guy who liked to screw young hotties. A playboy. This seems to piss off the pearl-clutching public in an ecstasy of outraged moral superiority. (Or perhaps jealousy.) In my opinion, Epstein was an asshole, but I can’t abide by the guilt by association condemnation of anyone and everyone who knew the creep. That’s going too far.
Moral panics are ugly, nasty business. And we’re smack in the middle of one now.
Oh, and as for Victoria’s Secret objectifying women, their target customer is female. Customers don’t seem to object, and if women want to buy lacy black thongs I have no objections.
Security Cameras Often Fail – It Does Not Mean Epstein Was Murdered
The convoluted and self-contradictory narratives of conspiracy theories fail the Occam’s Razor test.
If some powerful cabal capable of pulling the strings of government wanted Epstein dead, there are much cleaner ways of doing it.
The imagined ‘diabolical plot’ that I see discussed is the most bizarre, clumsy, extravagant mess imaginable. These Rosicrucians – or whoever they’re supposed to be – outdo the Three Stooges.
As for security lapses and nonfunctional cameras, most of the places I’ve worked in my long career have had serious maintenance issues, and very little gets done strictly by the book. I know from experience that security cameras are rarely much use, the images they give are usually blurred, indistinct images of the tops of people’s heads. The wide-angle lenses that are used to give maximum coverage result in tiny images of suspects who could be anybody. It’s hardly unusual for them to be out of order or for the recording apparatus to not be storing images (they’re not examined until needed). In fact, security cameras are often there for effect – to act as a deterrent – more than for any actual usefulness as a forensic tool.
When there’s a big incident, and accident or (in this case) an infamous death, the media and the public go nuts, suddenly being amazed that there are lapses in procedure at the institution in question. How could this be! How could this have been allowed to happen! Well, because the prison, like lots of places, was chronically understaffed. Like most places, maintenance wasn’t 100 percent.
The “string of unlikely coincidences” theorizing is a logical error. For example, if I get into a fender bender driving to pick up my Chinese food order, just think of all the “unlikely coincidences” involved.
How come I’m going out for Chinese on that particular evening? Why not delivery? Can’t be pure chance! And the timing has to be just right. I had to leave the house on the precise minute, timed perfectly so as to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The guy who hit me had to do the same… you’re not gonna tell me that was purely coincidental! Dark forces were at work!
Dark forces are almost never at work. That’s why conspiracy theories need to be looked at with deep skepticism.