There are basically two general approaches people take to the Jeffrey Epstein saga. The first is probably closer to my own: Trust the process, trust the prosecutors, and raise some eyebrows at the various names that were closely associated with Epstein over the years, including, most prominently, His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and the 43rd and 45th Presidents of the United States. The second approach can be summarised as viewing the whole thing as symptomatic of a kind of ongoing rot and cover-up: Epstein’s premature demise, for example, and the ongoing jokes-but-not-quite-jokes about the circumstances of his death.
But seriously: Where are the prosecutions for the men to whom he provided these “services”?
This week, his partner in life, and in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her part in Epstein’s career in the sex trafficking of young women. Which poses a simple question: Trafficking for who?
The fact that these women were trafficked is not in dispute. The fact that they were used for sex is not in dispute. The fact that Epstein regularly invited wealthy and powerful men to parties at which these women were in attendance is not in dispute. The fact that many of them have alleged that they were pimped out, often underage, to these men, is not in dispute.
It is, of course, true, that proving that a sexual act took place is difficult, and that it becomes more difficult with the passage of time. Take, for example, the case of the Duke of York: People can judge the evidence and his statements, and that of his accuser, and draw their own conclusions. As they can to the fact that he came to a civil settlement. What they cannot do, though, is prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he actually, definitely, 100% engaged in sexual activity with an underage or non-consenting person.
The most obvious explanation, then, is that the authorities are faced with a raft of such cases: Men saying things like “Obviously I regret my association with Mr. Epstein and would never have been involved with him had I known, but I personally never saw or engaged in any illegal activity”. Now, prove them wrong.
But the thing is, there is a person who can prove them wrong: Ms Maxwell. She is, and has ever been, the missing link in the story because she is an independent, third party witness. She’s the one person who can say “I know this person slept with an underage girl because I helped to arrange it”. And so far, she is not talking. In fact, it seems that she’d sooner do 20 years in jail than talk, and get a lower sentence.
That leaves, approximately, three explanations, but only one is true.
The first is simply that she’s telling the truth, and all of Epstein’s other victims are not: That she procured these girls simply for the sole “use” of Epstein, and had no hand, act, part, or knowledge of them being pimped out to other men. She can’t sing if she doesn’t actually know the tune.
The second is that she’s so scared of the consequences of talking that she would sooner do 20 years. That’s the preferred explanation of many conspiracy theorists, who figure that if Ms Maxwell talked, she’d very suddenly find herself taking her own life in shady circumstances.
But the real explanation, to me, is the most shocking of all: That prosecutors simply never offered her a plea deal:
When U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan asked Maxwell whether the government and her lawyer were correct in stating a plea bargain wasn’t offered to her, she confirmed before softly adding, “I have not committed any crime.” One of Maxwell’s attorneys, Bobbi Sternheim, also indicated the defense never asked for a deal.
Now that, my friends, is properly “suss”, as the kids say.
The defence not asking for a plea deal is one thing: But prosecutors did not, apparently, at any stage say “give us the evidence to put the rapists behind bars, and we’ll work something out”?
It is legitimate to wonder why that is. And it is, frankly, a question where conspiracy theories are pretty much easier to believe than any rational explanation is.