10 hours ago, Sensei said:

Your statement is so vague that it is difficult to discuss with it at all, because it is unclear what your problem is..

Everything I wrote was based on the Netflix series from 2020. And not on the lies and manipulations of the mainstream media.

I watched it this week. So my memory is still fresh.

If you think something has been manipulated in this Netflix document, please provide the episode number, minute and second of the film, and a general description of what you disagree with.

The policeman/FBI agent shows a board with arrows indicating which girl brought which other girl (after they had sex with him) s01e02 32m:

The girl says she had sex with him for four years, and during that time she brought 30-60 other girls to him, earning 60 x 200 = at least 12,000 USD, knowing why they were going there, s01e02 30m:

The defense lawyer says that some of the girls used fake documents to prove that they were already adults, s01e02 18m:

This topic has been raised several times, but I found this quote quickly.

The girls who appeared in this documentary had no problem saying that he was the nth man in their lives.

What was the background of their upbringing? Is it ok for 40. 50, 60 year old millionaires and billionaires to fuck 12, 13, 14 year olds and then blackmail, even kill them, to keep their silence? Children that age in developed nations are not considered to have sexual autonomy, especially with people that could be their grand and great grandparent. I'm not interested in the facts of each case, the principle of protecting naive/disadvantaged children from elder abuse supersedes all that. There is no circumstance, with consent or not, where a child can be sexually available to a person several times their age.

Edited Thursday at 07:35 PM3 days by StringJunky

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

What was the background of their upbringing? Is it ok for 40. 50, 60 year old millionaires and billionaires to fuck 12, 13, 14 year olds and then blackmail, even kill them, to keep their silence? Children that age in developed nations are not considered to have sexual autonomy, especially with people that could be their grand and great grandparent. I'm not interested in the facts of each case, the principle of protecting naive/disadvantaged children from elder abuse supersedes all that. There is no circumstance, with consent or not, where a child can be sexually available to a person several times their age.

You're talking about some hypothetical pedophiles who had nothing to do with the Epstein case, because in this case he didn't do any of what you're describing.. At least there is no physical evidence of this.

If you had seen the movie, you would know what it was really like. It was interviews with: police officers, FBI agents, prosecutors, defense attorneys, girls, and former employees. Instead of creating fantasies about pedophiles from completely different fairy tales.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

There is no circumstance, with consent or not, where a child can be sexually available to a person several times their age.

There were no children there.

A 15-, 16-, or 17-year-old is not a child, but a teenager. When such a teenager starts shooting at his friends in the US, he is suddenly charged as an adult. Magic. And when such a teenager commits crimes herself, you defend her now, just because she is a girl?

In this series, these teenagers basically confessed to the crimes they had committed.

The age of consent here is 15. If he had done what he did here (knowing the real age, not looking at fake documents given by girls), there wouldn't even be a case.

Epstein's real crimes were recounted in s01e02 35m, where his former partner in crime recounted how they stole $460 million in the 1980s.

Edited Thursday at 09:12 PM3 days by Sensei

16 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You're talking about some hypothetical pedophiles who had nothing to do with the Epstein case, because in this case he didn't do any of what you're describing.. At least there is no physical evidence of this.

Hold my beer.

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Some clarification needed. Didn't James Patterson (who wrote the source material for the series) use some media sources for parts of his book? Which media sources are you accusing of lies and manipulation? You need to back up your bashing of media with some documented examples.

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

Which media sources are you accusing of lies and manipulation? You need to back up your bashing of media with some documented examples.

I regularly see "convicted pedophile Epstein" in the mass media, e.g.

https://www.google.com/search?q=convicted+pedophile+Epstein

But he was never convicted of pedophilia. He signed a settlement with the prosecutor's office, with a completely different accusation, i.e. "pleads guilty to state charges: one count of soliciting prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18."

Every newspaper and television that calls him "a convicted pedophile" is simply lying. Because he wasn't convicted for it.

The media is reporting false information because pedophilia is more clickbait than being a pimp, and because he's dead, so he can't sue them for defamation. (I think that if he were alive, he wouldn't have dared to do it anyway, because then his ex-girlfriends would be called as witnesses and the circus would start all over again.)

The guy was a scumbag, and that he took advantage of his position, but that doesn't mean he was as bad as he is portrayed. He didn't put anyone in the van and drive away. This does more harm than good in the fight against real pedophiles. The line of absurdity is blurring. Have you heard about the guy who raped and murdered 4 boys aged 11-13. No, because the media is constantly talking about Epstein case, and there is practically nothing in his million files that would indicate his criminal activities. The fact that the queen-to-be writes to him that she misses him is not a crime..

After all, this case ridicules the fight against pedophilia committed by priests. Where real unwanted contacts occur, mostly between male homosexuals and underage boys, a way below 15. For free, not for $200. A 15-year-old or older would simply punch in the face if a priest touched him..

Edited Friday at 09:45 AM3 days by Sensei

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

I regularly see "convicted pedophile Epstein" in the mass media, e.g.

https://www.google.com/search?q=convicted+pedophile+Epstein

But he was never convicted of pedophilia. He signed a settlement with the prosecutor's office, with a completely different accusation, i.e. "pleads guilty to state charges: one count of soliciting prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18."

Every newspaper and television that calls him "a convicted pedophile" is simply lying. Because he wasn't convicted for it.

The media is reporting false information because pedophilia is more clickbait than being a pimp, and because he's dead, so he can't sue them for defamation. (I think that if he were alive, he wouldn't have dared to do it anyway, because then his ex-girlfriends would be called as witnesses and the circus would start all over again.)

If he's dead,, why are you wasting our time, trying to defend a man, whom you can't possibly know to be innocent?

I will agree with @Sensei that the Epstein case is all over the News simply because of the connections with, and the efforts to obfuscate, by D Trump and his Administration.
After all, D Trump, and anything related to him, is always in the news; not because he's a great statesman, but because he's a 'train-wreck', and every one wants to watch.

However, I fail to see how a Netflix documentary from 6 years ago, is accurate, but the 6 year old news it is based on is falsified information, all the while disregarding the Trump Administration machinations to bury all additional information, which still isn't forthcoming.

What exactly, are they trying to hide ???

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

The guy was a scumbag, and that he took advantage of his position, but that doesn't mean he was as bad as he is portrayed. He didn't put anyone in the van and drive away. This does more harm than good in the fight against real pedophiles.

I completely disagree with you about this, and it's tragic that so many seem to forgive the behavior because it didn't involve kidnapping? I think more harm is done when people ignore the women who have come forward with testimony showing Epstein was indeed a "real pedophile". Ignoring all those women shows an overall misogynistic bias, which has always tainted everything men try to accomplish, especially in science. The male perspective is forced on us at every turn, and I think the negative impacts are showing up in the revelation of the files.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

What exactly, are they trying to hide ???

That Pam Bondi is Trump's Ghislaine Maxwell?

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation and analyze it. We have different countries and different states with different regulations regarding the age of consent and at which someone can get married legally. And now we have a couple who are, for example, 16 years old and 20 years old. And they come to Florida for vacation, where it is a crime. So what now? They are legal in their country or state, but in Florida they are not. They can be legally married in their country, and in Florida even having sexual intercourse would be a crime. Explain this to me. So they can't go on their honeymoon to Florida?

What should happen in such a hypothetical scenario?

After all, people go on vacation and move between states and move between countries. After all, no one will even think about checking such things, they just choose the hotel where they will stay..

2 hours ago, MigL said:

However, I fail to see how a Netflix documentary from 6 years ago, is accurate, but the 6 year old news it is based on is falsified information, all the while disregarding the Trump Administration machinations to bury all additional information, which still isn't forthcoming.

This is not a documentary with a narrator! This is an interview with all the people who were involved. They would be questioned in the same way in the courtroom if there was a real trial. So what do you accuse them of? That prosecutors and policemen lied in a Netflix documentary.. ?

During these 6 years, they would rather forget something, not that they discovered something that was not there before.

Not really a problem, but, more importantly, why would anyone go to Florida for their honeymoon ?

So, is Netflix you preferred choice for News ?

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Not really a problem, but, more importantly, why would anyone go to Florida for their honeymoon ?

Because it's too cold in Canada...? ;)

Comment of one policeman from s01e02: "some of the girls didn't want to talk to us at all, they said they love Jeffrey and that he saved their lives, he gave them university scholarships."

The girl I gave the photo earlier, the one who brought 60 other girls to him, said she adored him back then and that he saved her life.

15 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Because it's too cold in Canada...? ;)

I can dress warmly.
But what do you do when your government shoots you in the face, or throws you in a van before shipping you off to El Salvador ?

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

The guy was a scumbag, and that he took advantage of his position, but that doesn't mean he was as bad as he is portrayed.

He was probably worse, since his influence means many details were obscured.

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

He didn't put anyone in the van and drive away.

He was wealthy, so he didn’t have to. He got others to do the equivalent, and deliver victims to him.

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Comment of one policeman from s01e02: "some of the girls didn't want to talk to us at all, they said they love Jeffrey and that he saved their lives, he gave them university scholarships."

The girl I gave the photo earlier, the one who brought 60 other girls to him, said she adored him back then and that he saved her life.

If we found that Jeffrey Dahmer was nice to some people, does that mean he wasn’t a serial killer?

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

This is not a documentary with a narrator! This is an interview with all the people who were involved. They would be questioned in the same way in the courtroom if there was a real trial. So what do you accuse them of? That prosecutors and policemen lied in a Netflix documentary.. ?

This is clearly not the case. For starters, in an documentary you are not under oath. It also seems that you have either watched a different doc than I did, or at least with a different lens.

That being said,

On 2/12/2026 at 3:07 PM, Sensei said:

You're talking about some hypothetical pedophiles who had nothing to do with the Epstein case, because in this case he didn't do any of what you're describing.. At least there is no physical evidence of this.

This is probably the strangest take and would only make sense if you have not been exposed to the Epstein case by any media, which would suggest an imbalance between the conviction regarding the facts of the case and the available information.

For starters, you are aware that Epstein was indicted in 2019 again?

Here is a press release (bolded by me):

From at least 2002 through at least 2005, JEFFREY EPSTEIN enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, dozens of minor girls to visit his mansion in New York, New York (the “New York Residence”), and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida (the “Palm Beach Residence”), to engage in sex acts with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash.  In order to maintain and increase his supply of victims, EPSTEIN also paid certain victims to recruit additional underage girls whom he could similarly abuse.  In this way, EPSTEIN created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit, often on a daily basis, in locations including New York and Palm Beach.

EPSTEIN’s victims were as young as 14 at the time he abused them, and were, for various reasons, often particularly vulnerable to exploitation.  Moreover, EPSTEIN knew that many of his victims were under 18, including because, in some instances, victims expressly told him they were underage.

In creating and maintaining this network of minor victims in multiple states to abuse and exploit sexually, EPSTEIN worked with others, including employees and associates who facilitated his conduct by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with EPSTEIN at the New York Residence and at the Palm Beach Residence.

In both New York and Florida, EPSTEIN perpetuated this abuse in similar ways.  Victims were initially recruited to provide “massages” to EPSTEIN, which became increasingly sexual in nature and would typically include one or more sex acts.  EPSTEIN paid his victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each encounter.

As you have been so keen on using the prior indictment as a defense of Epstein (which were criticized, though not overturned by an internal DOJ investigation), what do you make of those new indictments?

My sense is that some kind of picayune technical definition of pedophilia is being used in order to somehow lessen Epstein's crimes. Even if a 14 yo girl is not precisely a child, there can be little question that someone middle-aged exploiting someone clearly not an adult in this way is committing an act deservedly labeled as a crime. Good grief I can't believe I even have to point this out. With regret, I must put this poster on ignore.

28 minutes ago, TheVat said:

My sense is that some kind of picayune technical definition of pedophilia is being used in order to somehow lessen Epstein's crimes. Even if a 14 yo girl is not precisely a child, there can be little question that someone middle-aged exploiting someone clearly not an adult in this way is committing an act deservedly labeled as a crime. Good grief I can't believe I even have to point this out. With regret, I must put this poster on ignore

Yes, there’s a slice of folks that are explaining that it’s ephebophilia, which is a distraction that misses the point. We’re not discussing this in a clinical or strict legal setting. (Kinda like arguing that it’s manslaughter, not murder, rather than focusing on the fact that someone’s dead and it’s still illegal). Pedophile is the word that most people know, and splitting hairs is a lame attempt at deflection.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Kinda like arguing that it’s manslaughter, not murder, rather than focusing on the fact that someone’s dead and it’s still illegal.

Perhaps more like 2nd vs 1st degree murder, as manslaughter generally doesn't require intent. In this case, the intent is clear, abuse of vulnerable kids. And in terms of intent, there is little to believe that Epstein had any moral red line.

While not verified, lawmakers have alluded to at least mentioning of 10 and 9 year olds.

On 2/13/2026 at 4:07 PM, Sensei said:

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation and analyze it. We have different countries and different states with different regulations regarding the age of consent and at which someone can get married legally. And now we have a couple who are, for example, 16 years old and 20 years old. And they come to Florida for vacation, where it is a crime. So what now? They are legal in their country or state, but in Florida they are not. They can be legally married in their country, and in Florida even having sexual intercourse would be a crime. Explain this to me. So they can't go on their honeymoon to Florida?

There's a big difference between a legal technicality and a moral obligation, like intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder.

If a young girl offered one sex, then it could be argued that one is innocent of the intent to harm; just that one got caught up in one's hormone's.

On the other hand, how do we know that she wasn't groomed?

One account is believable, two accounts are suspicious many accounts are damming.

Sensi: "And now we have a couple who are, for example, 16 years old and 20 years old. And they come to Florida for vacation, where it is a crime. So what now?"

This is irrelevant because you are talking about a couple who are much closer to being peers, plus liking each other, than a forty-plus rich guy using a much younger person purely for sexual gratification. There is an obscenely large power dynamic in the latter.

It should also be pointed out that most of these now grown women are not coming forward and identifying their molesters, or Epstein, because of what happened to him. Why would they endanger themselves in interviews ?
Why do you think that G Maxwell is serving 20 years ( albeit in in a resort setting rather than a jail cell, thanks to Trump's lawyers in the DOJ ) rather than naming names ?

Do you really think there was a 2 minute glitch in the jail video recorder, or that the security guards happened to be sleeping during those 2 minutes, so he could commit suicide during those 2 exact minutes ?

I think we can spend a long time discussing what happened, Some of the women / girls were underage, we know that people with power were complicit and enabled all this to happen. However, this is not the first time, look at Al fayed (Harrods owner), Jimmy Saville and the UK Rochdale child grooming gangs,, with social services seeing the victims as promiscuous (even though they were under 18, and I think under 16 in some cases).

What is needed is as a society we step up, learn from mistakes and stop it happening again, as a science community we can't solve all these problems, what we can do is make sure the environment we work in is respectful, inclusive and there are clear boundaries of behaviour.

On a wider note, we can then demand to hold others to account.

Abuse seems far as common place, and easy to excuse, UK safeguarding guidance no longer lets us use terms such as 'kids will be kids' or 'boys will be boys' to account for behaviour we HAVE to challenge it.

Looking back and saying this should not have happened is easy,

28 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

with social services seeing the victims as promiscuous

I don't have a problem with women being 'promiscuous'.
Why are men allowed to be 'promiscuous' but women are not?
Why have double standards ?
And why the assumption that being 'promiscuous' means consent ?

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't have a problem with women being 'promiscuous'.
Why are men allowed to be 'promiscuous' but women are not?
Why have double standards ?
And why the assumption that being 'promiscuous' means consent ?

In this case, the social services ignored the girl's complaints / disclosures they were being raped, trafficked and abused by 'Asian' and other Men, partly as the social workers did not want to appear racist (or that is one explanation). The police and others also ignored them when they tried to get help.

So your question is valid, best asked the social workers who allowed this to carry on for so long.

On 2/14/2026 at 1:15 AM, CharonY said:

While not verified, lawmakers have alluded to at least mentioning of 10 and 9 year olds.

And in Maxwell’s conviction, conspiring with Epstein, they mentioned girls as young as 14; Epstein wasn’t found guilty of that because he was already dead, but it underscores the point of distinguishing between what he did and what he was found guilty of.