Then I would be interested in you citing them. I can’t find any other allegations of impropriety than the one tabloid article which was pretty thoroughly investigated and unsubstantiated.
How many people must have personally known about this? How many people must have known those people? Right there you are into four figures
…???
I’m just responding to you because you keep randomly responding to me. I don’t concede I “got anything wrong.” The words they wrote are the words they wrote. They clarified they meant “Common knowledge in a large group of people” and I accepted that clarification and moved on.
The article is paywalled. But when I googled the title, the other articles talk about “Russian Girls”. But nothing about their ages.
So what did these thousands of people know again? I’m asking about specifics.
This is probably the most recent deep dive into it.
He concludes the Mirror “wasn’t completely honest” in their reporting. Clarke likely did make some self-incriminating claims, but the Mirror exaggerated them. But based on the other evidence he examined in the article, he concludes that is more probable than not “that he’d had sexual relationships with under age boys.”
There has always been people like Epstein. There probably is currently a new Epstein we don’t know about.
Bill Gates planned to give his wife antibiotics without her knowledge fearing he had caught a sexually transmitted infection from “Russian girls”, Jeffrey Epstein claimed in an email that was released by the US Department of Justice on Friday.
Epstein, the late paedophile financier, alleged…
We are now accepting Epstein as a believable source?
No, but did Bill Gates hang out with Epstein and involve himself in Epstein’s sex abuse scheme.. Yes absolutely.
And an absolute f__k load of people knew that
There are probably endless others.
Epstein was a honey pot. He provided a lifestyle of debauchery and living above the law that is highly appealing to the rich and powerful.
But he also collected blackmail material that governments used to influence the rich and powerful. Thats why he used underage sex workers. He could’ve easily used voluntary sex workers who were 18+, but involuntary sex workers under 18 means he could blackmail anyone who had sex with them. Then governments (the US government, Israeli government, Russian government, etc) could use that blackmail information to influence the rich and powerful. The real question is what all governments were using Epstein’s blackmail material to influence the rich and powerful? It may go far beyond just the US and Israeli government using that blackmail material.
There are probably lots of other epsteins out in the world. But the method of blackmail may be different. In the west, raping children is deeply stigmatized. But in some other nations it may not be as stigmatized, or the age of consent may be lower, so the blackmail used may be different in other parts of the world.
But he was also the lover of the Russian Queen.
That document is a lot of words to say nothing new. It doesn’t present new evidence, witnesses, documents, or corroboration. It just rehashes the same tabloid-era hearsay, rumors, and insinuations from the late ’90s, repackaged with a “where there’s smoke” framing.
The problem is that smoke isn’t evidence. That’s exactly the logic tabloids used at the time, and it still doesn’t hold up. The allegations were investigated, the supposed smoking gun never materialized, and the tabloid backed off once legal and evidentiary scrutiny kicked in.
The piece also leaves out a lot of context that cuts against its thesis: late-’90s gay panic, Clarke’s open hostility to tabloids, and the obvious incentive to run a hit timed to embarrass a royal honor. Silence, failure to sue, or general denials aren’t proof, and treating them as such just repeats the original smear mechanics.
I don’t claim certainty about Clarke’s private life one way or the other, but it would take far more than recycled tabloid claims and interpretive suspicion to conclude “more likely than not.” After decades, there’s still no tape, no direct accusers on the record, and no corroboration. That hasn’t changed. I would certainly require some actual substantive evidence before lumping him in with the Epstein, Weinstein, and Polanskis of the world.
So what? The OP asks whether Epstein is unique. There is no correlation to Rasputin who might have been a lover of the Tsarina but didn’t deal with young girls. To mention Rasputin here means confusion in categories.
Arthur C Clarke and Rasputin are really interesting, but unless they were providing girls to wealthy and powerful men to be raped, as a way of exercising power and influence, they’re not related to this thread–could you maybe make a new thread to talk about them?
So, it was a shame how he carried on.
How he carried on, Epstein? The thread is about Epstein.
Okay, in the best traditions of the SDMB I made a reference to a bit of popular culture, that you either do not know, or else missed the reference.
The song Rasputin by Boney M was a big hit in 1978.
Just a little joke, which I won’t continue.
Yes sure, I know the song and didn’t miss the reference but I don’t want to hijack the thread.
You say you didn’t want a hijack, but you kept asking about it. You could have simply not replied. Then it would have been over in one post.
Yes to the first, but what is the evidence for the 2nd? Besides Epstein.
I thought it was really about others similar to Epstein?
Moderating:
In terms of instructing people who were recently questioning Hijacks in P&E, the first time Rasputin came up, I let it go, because it was a few posts, and tangentially on topic. The sections I’ve quoted are absolutely continuing a side topic well past the point of tolerance. Especially as posters have politely pointed it out, and how both involved seemed to be aware it was a hijack.
I’m tempted to give a warning in light of the admission you were aware it was a hijack. For the moment, I’m telling you two especially, and to all posters in thread to either create a CS thread about the song or spin off your own thread if you want to discuss Rasputin’s actions as an individual - otherwise drop the sidetrack unless you have quality cites Rasputin was indeed providing young girls to the Russian Elite (which is the topic). No warning at this time however. To everyone else, as always, thanks for flagging and not adding to this sidetrack.
I mean he went to the sex parties where the children were abused, was he just there for the canapies?
And again this is not news, it was known for a long time. E.g. during his divorce his connection to Epstein was widely discussed …
Also the recent email evidence was an unpublished personal email from Epstein, it was not him publicly trying to get off by blaming Bill Gates. There is no particular reason for him to lie in that particular email (if he lying was Bill Gates would have just replied “no that never happened” it was a personal email)
Your cite leads to-
Like many high-powered men, the Microsoft founder looked the other way and ignored the red flags when it came to Epstein by meeting with him several times to discuss possible philanthropic partnerships. Nothing about “sex parties”
Epstein needed no reason to lie.