One of the problems with the theories that involve Epstein’s body not being on that gurney that, typically, the conspiracy theorists posing them haven’t really thought through, is that then the conspirators would have had to both get some sort of substitute into the prison to be put on the gurney, and then smuggle the real Epstein out.
It would be hard to add more implausible layers of complexity, and the requirement that a large number of people be involved and all keep perfect silence, if you tried.
Even if Epstein wasn’t dead, the simplest way to get him out – and the most obvious, to anyone thinking it through – would be to put him on the gurney, playing dead or sedated (that’s also an established cloak-and-dagger Hollywood cliche’, because it’s an obvious if somewhat fantastic solution).
Ghislaine Maxwell May Be Alive
In actual Epstein news, one of the missing persons in the case appears to have been found – though the NY Post isn’t the most completely reliable source, as we’ve learned (and no other news outlets are yet confirming this):
Jeffrey Epstein model agent pal Jean-Luc Brunel found in South America: reports
[Editor’s Note – The New York Post “finding” pictures of Jean-Luc Brunel in South America is as inconclusive as their finding Ghislaine Maxwell in a Los Angeles burger joint- which is to say inconclusive.]
And Maxwell’s lawyers are busy making appearances on her behalf, without any sign that they, much less her family, have any trouble getting in contact with her or are concerned about her whereabouts:
Ghislaine Maxwell Claims Unsealing More Docs Would Allow Epstein Accuser to ‘Hawk Her Story with Defamation-Impunity’
Prince Andrew Under Investigation
In Epstein case news, there are reports of a couple of interesting developments and details in recent days, including what I think are encouraging signs that the matter is not going away any time soon:
FBI expanding investigation into Prince Andrew’s role in Jeffrey Epstein sex scheme: report
As prosecutors go after Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators, the line between accomplice and victim may be blurred
Epstein’s butler dishes on Paris pad guests including Bill Gates, Steve Bannon
There’s also a reminder that perhaps the real underlying scandal that merits wider attention, is that Epstein was working a modeling word ripe for, and rife with, exploitation and abuse:
‘Predators’ like Jeffrey Epstein familiar faces in seedy ‘underbelly’ of the modeling world
Sadly, piecemeal, there are almost certainly more actual victims of abuse, many of them underage, than in all the dubious conspiracy theories put together.
We just don’t know about Leslie Wexner
Indeed, people have said that it was impossible not to notice all the young girls around Jeffrey Epstein – but we also know that he was good at compartmentalizing things when necessary to his schemes to influence and manipulate people, plus it seems as if Wexner may have been a rather socially clueless type, so those anecdotes raise questions but it doesn’t really answer anything.
Epstein also seems to have had a guru-like hold over Wexner, and so his is yet another of the cases in which we are left yearning for answers and explanations.
Let’s see the truth exposed about Wexner, and the White House’s role in Jeffery Epstein’s original slap on the wrist sweetheart deal.
I’d love to see more of a dig on Mark Epstein. I’ve been saying I’ve been hoping for it for a while, in fact, and have included articles about him when I’ve done periodic checks into the Epstein case. Ken Gibson is right that Epstein’s claims about his early businesses don’t seem to be supported – that would be the sort of thing to actually dig in to, to try to figure out for instance if he’s always just ridden his brother’s coattails. That would require someone researching corporate records, using the sorts of leads and sources that a real investigative journalist ought to have, and doing legwork like tracking down other people who were in the graphics and silkscreen businesses in the 1980s and 1990s.
Maxwell Photos Debunked or Not?
The Ghislaine Maxwell images haven’t been debunked – just questioned, and shown to have been subject to some photoshop cleanup, which is par for the course these days for most digital images and especially those going to the tabloids; and to may have been staged by Maxwell’s friend Leah Saffian and then run through her media agency, which sold them, quite likely because Maxwell needed the money.
Besides my previous individual experience with digital image manipulation (“photoshopping”) and its detection, I’ve more recently had the chance to learn from and work with the foremost expert in the field, Hany Farid, until recently at Dartmouth (where I often am, due to various work and interests) and as of this fall at UC Berkeley.
Back to the Maxwell photos, the fact that the NY Post ran them either without vetting or without annotation – the crude attempt to photoshop out the garbage can in the photo shown, for instance, is grade-school work – just shows that’s the currency of the tabloids these days.
I have shown that the last set of photos of Allison Mack at her parents’ house appear to have been staged by a paparazzo, photoshopped, and even when over-analyzed, could be seen as showing possible signs of the head having been pasted onto the body from shots of a corpse – shall we we jump to the conclusion that she is missing or dead as well?
Scott Borgeron has admitted to knowing Maxwell, and only made the very guarded additional statement that his life is private and he isn’t currently in a relationship with her. There’s ample evidence she was living with him – certainly enough to be conclusive by some apparent standards:
Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirator lived a low-key life in a tony seaside town in New England, neighbors say
So, the assumption that Borgeron somehow couldn’t have been in a relationship with Maxwell, is another flop of fallacious illogic. It actually falls under the personal incredulity fallacy, which we’ve been discussing here recently – one of the typical flimsy legs of conspiracy theorizing, and culty thinking as well:
Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity personal incredulity when “Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it’s probably not true.”