Just in case nobody noticed: Epstein didn’t kill himself.
We know.
so i figure nothing earth shattering in here if we didn't get 20 headlines about it?
no. it's either being written up carefully or suppressed. I'm at page 134, and oooo boy it's juicy.
edit 326-343 are completely redacted.
edit 2: I'll have to dig through later. a lot of pages are corrections to testimony. Notably though, is a few sections on Prince Andrew. He was clearly involved and at least present at the time.
edit 326-343 are completely redacted.
Probably implicates politicians and/or their owner donors. Can't have the peasants know the atrocities of their lords.
What are the most interesting names on there? Feel free to just paste names in your comment so we can read along 1000 pages is a bit too much for me.
edit 326-343 are completely redacted.
These might be the most interesting pages
Apparently, the absence of something salacious is proof of something salacious.
It's a 900 page document, give it time. WSJ already released an article
Anyone else have a bit of smoldering rage that everyone knows what went on, and so far no one but Ghislane Maxwell, Epstein himself and one prince have had even an ounce of trouble from it?
Kinda how Trump will die of old age one day still living a 1% lifestyle and having never seen the inside of a prison.
when you have an extortionate advantage over someone, you're dangerous - it's much the same policy as a nuclear deterrent.
The trump lawyers, the judge, the jury and everyone at the trials.....uhoo...and then what else did you do? Did you guys steal the money from those people too? Hmm, what about the pee pee tapes? Did you guys really do that for reals? How fun and interesting...funteresting!
Day 300 of the trial....so you touched her private privately? And did she jump? Or just sort of moan a little? Oh tell us more! So you really think she liked it? Ma'am! Hold on, you'll get your chance too, right now it's "the president's turn...so did you go for the boobies first? And how? We didn't bring a dummy, could you show us on her where you touched? It's for the public records ma'am... c'mon, you want a fair trial yes? Well this is pretty fair? How to we know if he really touched our there or not? Anyway, it's done, let's just take our seats...
wat.
Lots of tight lips in this document 🤐
If I were a powerful douchebag, would I allow the release of one of the many documents that says that I did stuff... or the one we made earlier specifically to exonerates me that says that we did not?
Are you a powerful douchebag?
Powerful? No :-P.
Oh my… I was not expecting that
Oh man, Your Favorite Martian. Takes me back.
He has some newer stuff, rebooting that project apparently. I haven't listened to it yet b/c I was going through the older stuff first to remind me of it, which is how I found this one:-P.
There was some kind of delay in the release, to allow people who didn't want their names to show up to request they get redacted. So expect anyone that's still named to be able to spin the narrative.
There's a handful of names from sexually abused women that remain redacted, and only 2 names that have additional time to justify why they should stay redacted. Source
The judge said a handful of names should remain blacked out in the documents because they would identify people who were sexually abused.
Two people whose name appears in the records have been given additional time to make arguments to the court as to why their names should stay redacted.
Is that like a version number? Is 1.3.25 coming soon?
If 365 days is soon, then yes.
It's yesterday's date with periods instead of forward slashes.
Lol
Glad they are being revealed. Great to see.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.