Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Gwynbleidd

Epstein found Dead in Jail

5,933 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

glorybebe

I guess I can't get my head around throwing young girl's to the wolf to maintain a living status.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
6 minutes ago, susieice said:

She needs Prince Andrew to maintain her lifestyle. Or at least the one she wants. I don't think either one is living as extravagant as they once did but it's still pretty lavish.

They never split up their household.  I kinda thought they were still living as a couple and the divorce was meant to take the pressure of reporters off her...she never handled it well...and the pressure of the Queen off as well, as the Queen really, really disliked her. Now I'm wondering if them staying together in one house was a convenient "cover" for him. And a convenient meal ticket for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
1 minute ago, glorybebe said:

I guess I can't get my head around throwing young girl's to the wolf to maintain a living status.

It's nothing for her to be proud of. She didn't do so well on her own after the divorce. She loves the good life and now she's back living with Andrew. It's a life of shame.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
Just now, skliss said:

They never split up their household.  I kinda thought they were still living as a couple and the divorce was meant to take the pressure of reporters off her...she never handled it well...and the pressure of the Queen off as well, as the Queen really, really disliked her. Now I'm wondering if them staying together in one house was a convenient "cover" for him. And a convenient meal ticket for her.

Wasn't she living in New York for a while on her own pushing Weight Watchers? She ended up going to Epstein to pay her servant's wages. Never could figure out why Andrew didn't pay them for her. They belong together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
5 hours ago, susieice said:

Wasn't she living in New York for a while on her own pushing Weight Watchers? She ended up going to Epstein to pay her servant's wages. Never could figure out why Andrew didn't pay them for her. They belong together.

I know she came to the US and did a weight watchers tour but I don't think she actually lived here per se. As far as I know they divorced and have been living in the same house ever since. Maybe Epstein paid because he might have to account for where his funds go? I doubt the royal family would approve paying massive bills by her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
9 hours ago, skliss said:

They never split up their household.  I kinda thought they were still living as a couple and the divorce was meant to take the pressure of reporters off her...she never handled it well...and the pressure of the Queen off as well, as the Queen really, really disliked her. Now I'm wondering if them staying together in one house was a convenient "cover" for him. And a convenient meal ticket for her.

I think most Mother-in-laws would dislike their Son's wife when she is pictured in a tabloid having her toes sucked by a multi-millionaire while still married...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
4 hours ago, skliss said:

I know she came to the US and did a weight watchers tour but I don't think she actually lived here per se. As far as I know they divorced and have been living in the same house ever since. Maybe Epstein paid because he might have to account for where his funds go? I doubt the royal family would approve paying massive bills by her.

I was looking and it does seem the two lived separately for a while. See what you think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah,_Duchess_of_York

fter the divorce, the British tabloids became critical of Sarah's lifestyle. In 1995, a baggage handler at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City pleaded guilty to stealing her $382,000 diamond necklace and bracelet.[46][47] The Duchess's commercial interests have included an eleven-year endorsement with Weight Watchers, product development and promotion with Wedgwood and Avon.[48]

In the mid 1990s, the Duchess reportedly had a £4.2 million deficit in her bank account which she paid off by going on "a four-year earning spree" in the US.[34][35]

Until 2004, the Duke of York and his former wife shared the family's home, Sunninghill Park in Berkshire.[49] That year, the Duke moved to the refurbished Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, previously the home of his grandmother, who resided there until her death in 2002. In 2007, the Duchess rented the neighbouring Dolphin House; a fire at Dolphin House in 2008 caused her to vacate the premises and move into Royal Lodge with her former husband.[50][51]

In 2009, Sarah participated in a much-criticised ITV "experiment"[52] in which she joined families in a council estate to advise them on proper living. She stayed for ten days in Northern Moor, a suburb area in Wythenshawe, Manchester, England, and the result was The Duchess on the Estate, transmitted on ITV1 on 18 August 2009. A previous, similar television venture, The Duchess in Hull, in which Sarah advised lower-income families on diet and behaviour, received similar criticism.[53

 

In 2015, the Duchess assumed residence in Verbier, Switzerland, where she and the Duke of York own a £13 million chalet.[51]She applied for Swiss residency in 2016.[54] In May 2020, it was reported that Andrew and Sarah were in a legal dispute over the chalet as they were unable to pay their £5m debt.[55] Despite claims that the Queen would help with paying the debt, a spokesperson for the Duke of York confirmed that she "will not be stepping in to settle the debt".[56] Sarah also maintains a rented apartment in Eaton Square in London and a room at Royal Lodge.[51][57]

In April 2016, Sarah was named in the Panama Papers.[58]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
6 hours ago, seanjo said:

I think most Mother-in-laws would dislike their Son's wife when she is pictured in a tabloid having her toes sucked by a multi-millionaire while still married...

I'm guessing so, though I don't know if that was a single moment in time or an affair....I don't know all the intricacies of the why the Queen didn't like her, I just think that was part of the basis of their divorce. Why they continued living together forever after that we also have to guess at.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
6 hours ago, susieice said:

I was looking and it does seem the two lived separately for a while. See what you think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah,_Duchess_of_York

fter the divorce, the British tabloids became critical of Sarah's lifestyle. In 1995, a baggage handler at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City pleaded guilty to stealing her $382,000 diamond necklace and bracelet.[46][47] The Duchess's commercial interests have included an eleven-year endorsement with Weight Watchers, product development and promotion with Wedgwood and Avon.[48]

In the mid 1990s, the Duchess reportedly had a £4.2 million deficit in her bank account which she paid off by going on "a four-year earning spree" in the US.[34][35]

Until 2004, the Duke of York and his former wife shared the family's home, Sunninghill Park in Berkshire.[49] That year, the Duke moved to the refurbished Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, previously the home of his grandmother, who resided there until her death in 2002. In 2007, the Duchess rented the neighbouring Dolphin House; a fire at Dolphin House in 2008 caused her to vacate the premises and move into Royal Lodge with her former husband.[50][51]

In 2009, Sarah participated in a much-criticised ITV "experiment"[52] in which she joined families in a council estate to advise them on proper living. She stayed for ten days in Northern Moor, a suburb area in Wythenshawe, Manchester, England, and the result was The Duchess on the Estate, transmitted on ITV1 on 18 August 2009. A previous, similar television venture, The Duchess in Hull, in which Sarah advised lower-income families on diet and behaviour, received similar criticism.[53

 

In 2015, the Duchess assumed residence in Verbier, Switzerland, where she and the Duke of York own a £13 million chalet.[51]She applied for Swiss residency in 2016.[54] In May 2020, it was reported that Andrew and Sarah were in a legal dispute over the chalet as they were unable to pay their £5m debt.[55] Despite claims that the Queen would help with paying the debt, a spokesperson for the Duke of York confirmed that she "will not be stepping in to settle the debt".[56] Sarah also maintains a rented apartment in Eaton Square in London and a room at Royal Lodge.[51][57]

In April 2016, Sarah was named in the Panama Papers.[58]

Interesting, so there were times they lived apart or gave the appearance of that, but were still tangled in some kind of dependent relationship. It makes me wonder what's at the base of it...mutual love, mutual financial dependence,  mutual knowledge that can be leveraged? Do they both have stuff to hide? She came out fast and loud in defense of him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
12 minutes ago, skliss said:

Interesting, so there were times they lived apart or gave the appearance of that, but were still tangled in some kind of dependent relationship. It makes me wonder what's at the base of it...mutual love, mutual financial dependence,  mutual knowledge that can be leveraged? Do they both have stuff to hide? She came out fast and loud in defense of him.

IDK Fergie wasn't born into money and she has little to no marketable skills. She married a Prince and had two daughters who are now grown and married themselves. She still loves a jet set lifestyle. Prince Andrew has dated other women but he needs someone who will stick by him through all the things he's done. Fergie does. There seems to be a lot of mutual dependency there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
4 hours ago, skliss said:

I'm guessing so, though I don't know if that was a single moment in time or an affair....I don't know all the intricacies of the why the Queen didn't like her, I just think that was part of the basis of their divorce. Why they continued living together forever after that we also have to guess at.

The kids...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
9 minutes ago, seanjo said:

The kids...

That's a big part of it but those girls are married themselves now. It does sound like one is financially needy and one is emotionally needy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
8 minutes ago, seanjo said:

The kids...

Up to a certain age, sure but after? And in normal cases the whole point of divorce is to separate your lives and move on to a different life/lifestyle....open up to opportunities.  In many cases staying in the same residence with the kids can do more damage than a physical separation. Just a thought. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill

I hesitated to post this link for fear of it derailing the thread, but Leland Nally is a brilliant journalist and I thought y’all might enjoy his Epstein story. While reading, I felt as though I was watching an old noir detective movie. 

The possible derailing aspect: Mr. Nally mentions Bill Clinton and Donald Trump (among others) but he emphasizes that seeing their names in the ‘little black book’ doesn’t implicate either man in Epstein’s crimes. The disclaimer:

Remember: An appearance in the address book is not evidence of any crime, or of complicity in any crime, or of knowledge of any crime.”

The article was posted on motherjones.com on October 9th, titled “I Called Everyone in Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/

Note: somewhat graphic content.

Edited by simplybill
Clarification
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
1 hour ago, simplybill said:

I hesitated to post this link for fear of it derailing the thread, but Leland Nally is a brilliant journalist and I thought y’all might enjoy his Epstein story. While reading, I felt as though I was watching an old noir detective movie. 

The possible derailing aspect: Mr. Nally mentions Bill Clinton and Donald Trump (among others) but he emphasizes that seeing their names in the ‘little black book’ doesn’t implicate either man in Epstein’s crimes. The disclaimer:

Remember: An appearance in the address book is not evidence of any crime, or of complicity in any crime, or of knowledge of any crime.”

The article was posted on motherjones.com on October 9th, titled “I Called Everyone in Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/

Note: somewhat graphic content.

This doesn't derail the thread simplybill. Thank you for posting it. It's a great find. It's very long so I haven't read it all yet, but I will. We know that their name in Epstein's book doesn't mean they are guilty of what he was doing. That's why we spent over a year looking for photographs that would put people in personal, private locations with Epstein. We know Clinton was photographed on the plane and on the island. So was Prince Andrew and he was very closely involved. Others were also and we collected the accusations which are actually still surfacing. We also found interviews with staff members of the homes of the people involved along with the staff members of Epstein's homes. There's too many throughout the thread to name. Trump was photographed at social events and fund raisers. Do you see what I mean. We've looked into Trump and nothing. Doesn't mean we won't keep trying.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
17 hours ago, simplybill said:

I hesitated to post this link for fear of it derailing the thread, but Leland Nally is a brilliant journalist and I thought y’all might enjoy his Epstein story. While reading, I felt as though I was watching an old noir detective movie. 

The possible derailing aspect: Mr. Nally mentions Bill Clinton and Donald Trump (among others) but he emphasizes that seeing their names in the ‘little black book’ doesn’t implicate either man in Epstein’s crimes. The disclaimer:

Remember: An appearance in the address book is not evidence of any crime, or of complicity in any crime, or of knowledge of any crime.”

The article was posted on motherjones.com on October 9th, titled “I Called Everyone in Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/

Note: somewhat graphic content.

So far what I've read is very interesting.  I can't believe no one else thought to do this. It confirmed for me that he was a people collector. Many if the ones called had one interaction or phone call with him. 

The insights from people like "Julie" who had years of personnal friendship with him but was kept separate from or didn't connect the dots is fascinating. 

Also, the one victim who said what she thought was an interview with him before an attack had been a discussion of Dollie the cloned sheep...since that was about the timeframe.  Apparently he told her that his lab in NM was...even back then...doing experiments in human cloning...which is banned. I had thought that was more about him producing mini-me children or genetically "pure" progeny. I don't think she was correct in suspicions that the Jeffrey who died in prison might have been a clone. I think that's a victims fear that a threat really isn't gone. I just think the possible cloning research has some truth to it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

The Court of Appeals is still listening to arguments and will withhold their decision on the release of the Maxwell documents for a little while longer.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/13/panel-withholds-decision-on-details-of-ghislaine-maxwells-sex-life/

Depositions related to Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex life will remain secret for at least a little longer after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard arguments on whether to unseal the materials but delayed issuing a decision.

The three-judge panel did not disclose when it would rule on the possible release of the seven-hour, 418-page deposition.

Maxwell’s lawyer, Adam Mueller, repeated an argument that releasing the materials would result in a wave of negative media and make it impossible for her to receive a fair trial in her federal sex-trafficking case.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Prosecutors want to withhold photos of victims.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/07/ghislaine-maxwell-prosecutors-want-to-withhold-sensitive-photos/

Prosecutors want to withhold photos of late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and other sensitive information from Ghislaine Maxwell until eight weeks before her trial, a new Manhattan federal filing states.

“Premature disclosure of these materials could jeopardize the government’s ongoing investigation and would reveal sensitive victim information months in advance of trial,” argued Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey, referring to the British socialite’s upcoming sex-trafficking trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Ghislaine has also hired a new lawyer.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/07/ghislaine-maxwell-hires-lawyer-who-defended-osama-bin-laden-henchman/

Accused Jeffrey Epstein madam Ghislaine Maxwell has hired a “super lawyer” who once represented one of Osama bin Laden’s henchmen, legal papers show.

Bobbi Sternheim filed papers Monday in New York’s Southern District Court to note that she “hereby appears as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell” in her sex-trafficking case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

A judge has questioned if Ghislaine is also an Epstein victim.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8836557/Judge-questions-Jeffrey-Epsteins-madam-Ghislaine-Maxwell-victim-pedophile.html

A federal appeal court judge today questioned whether Ghislaine Maxwell 'may be a victim' of Jeffrey Epstein.

Judge Rosemary Pooler appeared to suggest that Epstein may have taken advantage of the woman  who was accused of being his chief recruiter.

The curious comment took place in a hearing held today to decide whether to release a deposition given by Maxwell about her sex life as part of the civil libel case brought against her.

Judge Pooler brought up the investigation done by journalist Julie Brown and the Miami Herald in 2018 that led to Epstein's arrest. She said she respected the paper's reporting. 

She added that its reporting 'led to some important work in the protection of young female victims but Miss Maxwell may be a victim as well, isn't that true?'

Christine Walz, a lawyer for the Herald, told the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in New York: 'We do not believe that is true'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
Kismit

She is going to try and drag this out for years

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
8 minutes ago, Kismit said:

She is going to try and drag this out for years

Yes she is Kismet. And she's got powerful friends to help her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
9 hours ago, susieice said:

Prosecutors want to withhold photos of victims.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/07/ghislaine-maxwell-prosecutors-want-to-withhold-sensitive-photos/

Prosecutors want to withhold photos of late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and other sensitive information from Ghislaine Maxwell until eight weeks before her trial, a new Manhattan federal filing states.

“Premature disclosure of these materials could jeopardize the government’s ongoing investigation and would reveal sensitive victim information months in advance of trial,” argued Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey, referring to the British socialite’s upcoming sex-trafficking trial.

I get this...not for her because she should get everything coming to her and more.....but in order not to re-victimize these poor women. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.