• takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      95
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because powerful people were his associates. I’m surprised it is being unsealed.

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I’m not surprised it was ordered to be unsealed. I’ll be more than a little surprised if an accurate list is actually unsealed. But, anything’s possible I guess.

          • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            39
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Deborah Jeane Palfrey has entered the chat. I swear I remember seeing news stories at the time saying that she’d specifically told family members: I’m not planning to kill myself, but I am threatening to release the identities of powerful men who made use of my services. If I die it’s because they killed me.

            But now, all I can find is that it was clearly a suicide. Oh well.

            Edit: Someone argued with me enough about it that I actually tried to read up on it, and I think what I was remembering was that Alex Jones said that if she died it’s because they killed her, and some people reported on that, along with some carefully cherry-picked quotes from her interview on his show. She did say that she wasn’t planning to kill herself, but only because he directly asked her as part of his normal Alex Jones shtick, and of course she said “no.” But she never said that on any other program, as far as I can tell, and everyone reliable who investigated concluded that the suicide was probably real. So the mystery is resolved. Sounds like she killed herself. 😢 At least I learned something today.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              She actually said the exact opposite. From your link:

              Palfrey’s two handwritten notes were released to the public. In one of them, she wrote to her sister, “You must comprehend there was no way out, I.E. ‘exit strategy,’ for me other than the one I have chosen here.” In another, she described her predicament as a “modern-day lynching”. She said she feared that, at the end of serving her sentence, she would be “in my late 50s a broken, penniless and very much alone woman”.[28][30]

              Emphasis mine.

              • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yes, I read the sources I linked to. Here’s what I said about it:

                But now, all I can find is that it was clearly a suicide. Oh well.

                What did you think I was talking about, what I said that? If not that the stories I can find now all say it was a legit suicide?

                Maybe my memory is faulty, or maybe the suicide note is fake. Which it is, I have no idea.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Seems very unlikely that two handwritten suicide notes could be plausibly faked that well when there are many examples of her handwriting

                  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Wait. So you’re evaluating the theory that powerful people in the US government killed a woman, faked two (…) suicide notes for her, successfully coerced her lawyer into not divulging her client list (which he has, and desperately wants to divulge), and put down the memory hole all the original news stories that talked about her being afraid she’d be killed for threatening her clients with exposure… but the fly in the whole ointment of the theory is that they’d have to find someone who could write similar to how she writes?

                    Honestly, I think I’m probably misremembering, and I’m mixing her up with some other person that powerful people actually did have killed. Not because the note was handwritten; I just think there would be places on the internet that were pretty readily findable where would be published the original stories I read back at the time.

                    I wasn’t trying to get into all of this, tbh, because like I say I’m just sort of talking and have no idea. I was just relaying my (maybe faulty) memories and letting people be their own judge.

                    Edit: Oh fuck, the plot thickens. I found what I was thinking of. According to randos on Reddit, she explicitly talked about not having any plans to kill herself on an episode of Alex Jones which is no longer easily available. Make of that what you will 😃.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I bet there is some catch. The only thing unsealed will be boring stuff. Oh it turns out a company Bill Clinton owned stock in, back in 1991, did some construction work for a property Epstein owned. It isn’t going to be stuff like “here is a video of Justice Thomas raping a kid”.

    • mhague@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Most of the names will be innocent people and victims. All of them will be sent death threats and harassed because people will consider them pedophiles. People can’t understand two things at once (Epstein was a socialite and a child trafficker) and they don’t know what being an associate of Epstein implies. There’s good reasons to keep the list private from the masses.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s funny that those people will be threatened, but people we know have been involved in bribery at the highest levels of our government are not.

        • calabast@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          It must be funny, otherwise where’d all these tears on my cheeks come from!? 😂

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not sure how true this is given:

        Anyone who did not successfully fight to keep their name out of the civil case could see their name become public – including Epstein’s victims, co-conspirators and innocent associates.

        I imagine anyone who was innocent and an associate had the money to hire the right lawyers to remove themselves.

        I also imagine those who should be on it, also won’t be.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          And everyone is mystified how groups like the Roman Catholic Church were able to suppress stories of child raise and trafficking for quite literally over a thousand years. Seriously a document was found from before the first crusades talking about it.

          The crime doesn’t go to criminal trial because the family is bribed and threatened. Then it is in civil matter and the records get sealed. Priest goes and rapes another kid. Rinse lather repeat.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I imagine anyone who was innocent and an associate had the money to hire the right lawyers to remove themselves.

          Epstein was incredibly well connected, so this statement is dubious at best.

          I also imagine those who should be on it, also won’t be.

          This is correct. 0% of people “associated” with Epstein have any evidence against them of his crimes, or they’d have been charged as co-conspirators.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        6th amendment of the US Constitution cuts both ways. People have the right to observe what the government is doing in criminal cases. If the US government is refusing to let the public know what is going on during these procedures the possibility of corruption goes from low to almost certain.

      • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        The judge stated some names will be redacted as they were victims. I also doubt someone would interact with Epstein several times and not know. He wasn’t even trying to hide it.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        11 months ago

        Probably more because it’ll tip the ones who actually have cases open on them off.

        That’s like 90% of what’s in still classified docs from controversial moments in domestic investigations, information which could show the hand to people currently under investigation, and also techniques the FBI uses in evidence gathering which aren’t known to the wider public and who’s exposure could lead to suspects catching wise and closing the avenue.

        If you’ve ever seen one of those get smart posts about how to avoid being identified at a demonstration, Domestic Intelligence is openly trying to avoid more shit being added to those lists of ways to avoid detection. Yes it’s absolutely adversarial to the privacy of the public but it’s a lot less conspiratorial than a blood libel agenda to cover up the child trafficking of the rich.

    • Hubi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Probably because being on a list of names is not proof of any wrongdoing or crime but will most definitely be interpreted as such by people on the internet.