Nearly 200 names linked to Jeffrey Epstein expected to be made public
Nearly 200 names linked to Jeffrey Epstein expected to be made public
List could be released as soon as Tuesday after deadline for objections to unsealing of names passes midnight Monday
List could be released as soon as Tuesday after deadline for objections to unsealing of names passes midnight Monday
Nearly 200 names connected to the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking conspiracy could be released by a New York judge as soon as Tuesday, exposing or confirming the identities of dozens of associates of the disgraced financier that until now have only been known as John and Jane Does in court papers.
A deadline for objections to the unsealing of the names passes at midnight on Monday, nearly nine years after victim Virginia Giuffre filed a single defamation claim against Maxwell, daughter of the late British press baron Robert Maxwell, in 2015, that in turn produced the names in legal depositions.
A year later, in 2016, US district court judge Robert Sweet rejected Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that “the veracity of a contextual world of facts more broad than the allegedly defamatory statements” and that Guiffre “was a victim of sustained underage sexual abuse between 1999 and 2002”. The parties settled out of court in 2017.
You're viewing a single thread.
Is this really a good idea? Aren't dozens and dozens of Epstein's victims now going to be doxxed?
They are marked out on the documents.
Not all that well tho, seems they just did the ol "black bar over image" thing idiots keep doing with PDFs where you can actually remove the black bars and see what's underneath.
But a lot of names are only first names or initials, so it's probably not going to be as helpful or exposing as one would like them to be.
The Orange One and JFK Jrs names are in there in full tho.
How do you mean?
Well, the lead paragraph says:
"Nearly 200 names connected to the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking conspiracy could be released by a New York judge as soon as Tuesday, exposing or confirming the identities of dozens of associates of the disgraced financier..."
'dozens' is not the same as 200. Therefore, I'd have to assume that some of those names, that are just described as 'connected' to Epstein could very well be his victims. I could well be wrong, it just seems a bit concerning that no one's considered how the actual victims feel about this.
'dozens' is not the same as 200
200 is 16⅔ dozens.
Oh. I see your concern. A bit of a leap, since dozens doesn't really have an upper limit, and it could be including the already confirmed names released, and it wouldn't make much sense for him to write down the names of his victims, much less their current addresses
And there are lots of groups concerned and acting on part of Epstein's victims, so they aren't so forgotten or defenseless as you might be worried about.
I'd also rather the police released the name of a hypothetical victim to catch a rapist than to leave the rapist at a large out of concern, endangering catalyst others, for a modicum of privacy for one victim.
As I understand it, these aren't just names he'd (or Maxwell) wrote down or otherwise recorded, these are names linked to him through various sources. Some of his victims might not even know they're on that list (if they even are). Not all victims voluntarily come forward and suddenly being named like this might be a massive shock. Just because you're OK with a victim being named, doesn't mean they are. They've already gone through at least one violation.
I'm all for catching rapists and abusers, but there must be ways of handling this that don't involve just info dumping loads of names to the general public. At the very least, shouldn't they be released to some sort of authority that can investigate and sift out potential victims before they're plastered everywhere?
You're piling fear-based assumption on top of assumption.
Your point is that if something bad you're imagining happens, bad things might happen?
What a deduction. Good thing you spread that out over several paragraphs.
No, I don't think we should further procrastinate pursuing an alreadt delayed critically important investigation out of respect for hypothetical, indirect risks.
Your point is that if something bad you’re imagining happens, bad things might happen?
From the article you clearly haven't read;
"It may also name Epstein’s alleged victims who had been taken to homes...."
I realise that, to you, it's much more important to gloat over the names of people you don't like you hope are on there. My perspective is that, if there are indeed names of victims amongst these 200 names as seems at the very least a distinct possibility, in order to prevent them being re-victimised , it might be better to take the time to do everything that can be done to stop that happening because, I assure you, to a rape or abuse victim, the risks are neither hypothetical or indirect.
Pull as many false claims from the air as you want, equating the hypothetical disclosure of names with actual rape is wildly irresponsible equivocation and is not a good reason to protect rapists.
Which is all you're advocating for.
Yeah, just me and a well respected national newspaper.
Who on earth is talking about protecting rapists? The other names are still going to be on there so you can have your little moment of glee seeing all those people you hate named and shamed.
You're not interested in the rights of victims whatsoever - you're one of those people who loves to air their righteous indignation as publicly as possible, never giving a thought to the fact there's actual people, actual victims who this man and his friends raped and abused and just possibly it might be an idea, to prevent them having to relive that trauma, to ensure that their names don't become fodder to every internet mob and tabloid editor in the world.
Wow, you projecting that hard is going to burn-in your screen, be careful.