Zone1 Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich (a Netflix Documentary)

Did anything in the documentary change your opinion of Epstein, Maxwell or anyone else involved?

  • 1. Yes - I now believe that Epstein et al were involved in sex trafficking and/or sexual assault

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3. Yes - I now believe that the implications against Epstein et al to be false

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4. No - I've always believed that Epstein was being railroaded

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5. I not sure what to think, I need more information

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
  • Poll closed .

NewsVine_Mariyam

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
12,955
Reaction score
9,116
Points
2,230
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
I'm still watching the show, currently on Episode 3 so I don't know if there are more revelations in store but one of the things I found most interesting is that it goes into detail about the state of Florida's investigation into Epstein acts versus the federal government's investigation into the same situation.

One of the most interesting things of note is how the government manipulated Epstein's acts to fit into a legal definition that was most advantageous to Epstein and perhaps even our government. The underage victims were labeled as "teen prostitutes" instead of the underage victims of sexual abuse that they were.

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/jeffrey-epstein-filthy-rich-documentary-news
 
That all was under Pam Bondi's jurisdiction, a person that already did political favors for Trump while in her position.

Rife with corruption.

They're all criminally tangled up from top to bottom.
 
I'm still watching the show, currently on Episode 3 so I don't know if there are more revelations in store but one of the things I found most interesting is that it goes into detail about the state of Florida's investigation into Epstein acts versus the federal government's investigation into the same situation.

One of the most interesting things of note is how the government manipulated Epstein's acts to fit into a legal definition that was most advantageous to Epstein and perhaps even our government. The underage victims were labeled as "teen prostitutes" instead of the underage victims of sexual abuse that they were.

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/jeffrey-epstein-filthy-rich-documentary-news

The only way the victims could get any “Justice” was to sue Epstein in civil court and then be labelled as “gold diggers and whores” for suing.

They weren’t victims, they were hookers looking for a big payday after they “aged out” of that market.

Posters here this week have said they don’t care about Epstein’s victims. They just want to get Democrats.
 
The only way the victims could get any “Justice” was to sue Epstein in civil court and then be labelled as “gold diggers and whores” for suing.

They weren’t victims, they were hookers looking for a big payday after they “aged out” of that market.

Posters here this week have said they don’t care about Epstein’s victims. They just want to get Democrats.
You’re mistaken when you say “they weren’t victims, they were hookers looking for a big payday after they aged out.”
From both court records and investigative reporting, it’s clear there were multiple categories of Epstein’s victims.

1. Underage victims
Florida’s age of consent is 18. Anyone under that threshold cannot legally consent, regardless of circumstances. Federal filings and victim testimony confirm that many of Epstein’s victims were 14–17 years old at the time. That makes their exploitation a criminal offense — period. Consent isn’t possible under the law, and attempts to recast minors as “sex workers” are legally and morally wrong.

2. Epstein’s own words
Listen to how he complained about being “caught” and having to serve time, insisting that in other jurisdictions his actions wouldn’t even be “a serious crime” — comparing it to jaywalking. That remark reveals his mindset: he didn’t view the abuse of underage girls as wrong, only as a matter of legal inconvenience.

3. Evidence of grooming and manipulation
One detective/prosecutor reported that a victim believed she was Epstein’s fiancée and that they would marry. Think about that — a fifty-year-old man convincing a teenage girl they were engaged. That’s not “a hooker looking for a payday”; that’s calculated exploitation of a young person’s naiveté and lack of life experience.

Labeling these girls “gold diggers” is not only factually wrong — it erases the legal reality that for many, what happened to them was statutory sexual abuse. The evidence, the law, and common decency all say otherwise.
 
I’m not the one who labelled the victims. I remember the case from news reports at the time.

The press made it sound like Epstein was the victim of a gang of avaricious young women who
You’re mistaken when you say “they weren’t victims, they were hookers looking for a big payday after they aged out.”
From both court records and investigative reporting, it’s clear there were multiple categories of Epstein’s victims.

1. Underage victims
Florida’s age of consent is 18. Anyone under that threshold cannot legally consent, regardless of circumstances. Federal filings and victim testimony confirm that many of Epstein’s victims were 14–17 years old at the time. That makes their exploitation a criminal offense — period. Consent isn’t possible under the law, and attempts to recast minors as “sex workers” are legally and morally wrong.

2. Epstein’s own words
Listen to how he complained about being “caught” and having to serve time, insisting that in other jurisdictions his actions wouldn’t even be “a serious crime” — comparing it to jaywalking. That remark reveals his mindset: he didn’t view the abuse of underage girls as wrong, only as a matter of legal inconvenience.

3. Evidence of grooming and manipulation
One detective/prosecutor reported that a victim believed she was Epstein’s fiancée and that they would marry. Think about that — a fifty-year-old man convincing a teenage girl they were engaged. That’s not “a hooker looking for a payday”; that’s calculated exploitation of a young person’s naiveté and lack of life experience.

Labeling these girls “gold diggers” is not only factually wrong — it erases the legal reality that for many, what happened to them was statutory sexual abuse. The evidence, the law, and common decency all say otherwise.

I am NOT saying these women weren't victims. I am saying that the media, and the prosecutors spun this story to present EPSTEIN as the victim to a gang of young prostitutes who made false claims that he was a predator because they had "aged out" and he wouldn't pay for their services anymore. They wanted a big payday now and they were going after him for "dumping" them.

The only way the victims could get any form of justice from Epstein was to sue him in civil court, and when a number of the victims sued, Accosta and the Republican media then claimed that this was proof positive that the women were just after money. Yes Epstein had a nasty interest in very young hookers and but they were hookers after all.

They made out that these 12 and 13 year old girls were already turning tricks when Epstein met them and they were taking advantage of HIM. It was beyond disgusting, and then Republicans starting trying to link Democrats to what Epstein was doing to the girls on his island.

Jeffrey Epstein conducted legitimate business from his island, and as such, he had to invite legitimate business people to the Island, and demonstrate for IRS purposes that maintaining the Island was a legitimate business expense. Therefore, the vast majority of those he invited to the Island, had nothing to do with the other activities which went on there.

A reporter doing a profile for a national magazine story on Epstein, was barred by security from even entering certain areas of the Island.

And still, none of these Republicans, breathlessly awaiting the transcripts of the Ghislaine Maxwell interview, have asked Accosta, Maureen Commey (who prosecuted Maxwell), or any of Epstein/Maxwell's victims, to testify.
 
I’m not the one who labelled the victims. I remember the case from news reports at the time.

The press made it sound like Epstein was the victim of a gang of avaricious young women who


I am NOT saying these women weren't victims. I am saying that the media, and the prosecutors spun this story to present EPSTEIN as the victim to a gang of young prostitutes who made false claims that he was a predator because they had "aged out" and he wouldn't pay for their services anymore. They wanted a big payday now and they were going after him for "dumping" them.

The only way the victims could get any form of justice from Epstein was to sue him in civil court, and when a number of the victims sued, Accosta and the Republican media then claimed that this was proof positive that the women were just after money. Yes Epstein had a nasty interest in very young hookers and but they were hookers after all.

They made out that these 12 and 13 year old girls were already turning tricks when Epstein met them and they were taking advantage of HIM. It was beyond disgusting, and then Republicans starting trying to link Democrats to what Epstein was doing to the girls on his island.

Jeffrey Epstein conducted legitimate business from his island, and as such, he had to invite legitimate business people to the Island, and demonstrate for IRS purposes that maintaining the Island was a legitimate business expense. Therefore, the vast majority of those he invited to the Island, had nothing to do with the other activities which went on there.

A reporter doing a profile for a national magazine story on Epstein, was barred by security from even entering certain areas of the Island.

And still, none of these Republicans, breathlessly awaiting the transcripts of the Ghislaine Maxwell interview, have asked Accosta, Maureen Commey (who prosecuted Maxwell), or any of Epstein/Maxwell's victims, to testify.
Okay, thanks for the clarification and I apologize for the misunderstanding of what you meant.

I watched the Netflix documentary on him and then a week later Netflix aired the one on Maxwell and I found it very interesting the manner in which they laid the groundwork & filled in the background on both of them but also filled in a lot of blanks on how the two of them ended up together and that she seemed to believe that there were "medical reasons" for his libido instead of it being a sexual addiction.

Very eye opening though, both pieces.
 
Okay, thanks for the clarification and I apologize for the misunderstanding of what you meant.

I watched the Netflix documentary on him and then a week later Netflix aired the one on Maxwell and I found it very interesting the manner in which they laid the groundwork & filled in the background on both of them but also filled in a lot of blanks on how the two of them ended up together and that she seemed to believe that there were "medical reasons" for his libido instead of it being a sexual addiction.

Very eye opening though, both pieces.

Now they angling for a pardon for Maxwell claiming she was forced to recruit these women, and wasn't a willing and enthusiastic participant in everything the two of them were doing.

As I posted in another thread, this is so like Karla Homolka making a deal with the prosecution on the Paul Bernardo serial killer case, and then prosecutors finding the tapes that proved she was as bad, if not worse than Bernardo. She drugged her younger sister so Bernardo could rape her because Karla wasn't a virgin when she met him, and he wanted a virgin.

Her sister died of asphixiation when she vomited while unconscious. She was their first murder victim. Bernardo always contended that it was Homolka who killed the other 3 girls they murdered.

Homolka got out of prison, married, and is raising 2 children in Montreal. God help them.
 
I'm still watching the show, currently on Episode 3 so I don't know if there are more revelations in store but one of the things I found most interesting is that it goes into detail about the state of Florida's investigation into Epstein acts versus the federal government's investigation into the same situation.

One of the most interesting things of note is how the government manipulated Epstein's acts to fit into a legal definition that was most advantageous to Epstein and perhaps even our government. The underage victims were labeled as "teen prostitutes" instead of the underage victims of sexual abuse that they were.

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/jeffrey-epstein-filthy-rich-documentary-news

Well, they were going to him, and he was paying them, they weren't forced. And that certainly doesn't excuse his behavior or that he took advantage of young under age girls and deserved to have the book thrown at him. But what advantage did the government gain?
 
All this story does is affirm a strobg sex drive is not normal.
 
15th post

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom