HOW THE POWER OF PRIVILEGE PROTECTS THE PERVERT: A CASE HISTORY
Epstein and friend, Prince Andrew
In a previous post earlier this week, The Slog suggested that the main weapon protecting Establishment paedophiles is genuine fear among the elite about where the trail of detection might lead. The case history below offers an example of why that fear exists. Above all, it suggests one very simple guiding light for those reporting about peadophilia: if you want to know the way, ask a policeman.
There is hearsay. And there is something I’ve taken to calling ‘readsay’. The latter is different to gossiped word of mouth, because rather than being a word in you ear without witnesses, it’s 2000 words on newsprint or website – with anything from 12,000 to 750,000 readers.
If the readsay is in a ‘major’ title, then you can bet that a small football team of lawyers has looked very closely for the existence of unintended libel. If the subjects of that piece include one of the most feared politicians in recent British history and a Royal son, then you can be certain that the proprietor of the title has also been fully briefed on what the newsroom is about to publish.
On those bases, what I am about to do is really nothing more than piece together a series of well-established facts, and some of the contemporary allegations that went with them. Unusually in the coverage of paedophiliac perversion to date, the story spans both sies of the Atlantic – and both off and online media giants. Put together, the tale should make those in doubt about the existence of privileged protection think at least twice.
American bond and hedge fund mogul Jeffrey Epstein went to prison in 2010 – albeit briefly – having been found guilty by a US Court of soliciting prostitution from a minor. How and why he escaped a more hefty jail sentence – despite overwhelming evidence of sex crimes with dozens of young girls – remains something guaranteed to make the neutral’s blood boil.
The U.S. attorney who led the Epstein prosecution in Florida’s Southern District commented publicly on the case once it was no longer sub judice, even giving Tina Brown’s highly respected Daily Beast exclusive access to his view in the form of a long open letter. The following facts, among others, emerged: three 12-year-old French girls were delivered to him for his twisted pleasure as a birthday present. Epstein had purchased a “Balkan sex slave” from her family when she was just 14. And the FBI identified around 40 young women, most of them underage at the time, who had been coaxed into Epstein’s Palm Beach home on the request for a “massage” for money…..then forced into various sexual tableaux.
The judiciary knew all about this when Epstein was sentenced. In the US, sex crimes of this nature typically carry a term of 10 to 20 years in prison. Indeed, the very fact of serious FBI involvement makes clear that the crimes were considered to be extremely serious, organised, and professionally rewarded.
Yet Jeffrey Epstein was sentenced to just 13 months in jail.
The Beast also described how ‘Fear and intimidation experienced by victims during pre-trial proceedings, combined with a ferocious, protracted campaign to undermine the prosecution, culminated in a set of charges that became a virtual slap on the wrist.’ Tina Brown is married to the London Times legend Harry Evans, an editor whose Insight investigations were the envy of the world. For her to print an accusation so blatantly means she knew it to be fact. And I’d imagine that Evans encouraged her to go with it. The combined experience of the couple is awesome.
Treading on toxic ground, the Daily Mail later got one of Epstein’s victims to go public, and describe her years as “a teenage sex toy”. The woman concerned, Virginia Roberts, produced a photograph of herself with Prince Andrew. It dated from 2001 – when she was 15 – and the ‘toy’ alleged that Epstein had paid her $15,000 to ‘meet’ the prince. The general tone of the piece was to suggest that Epstein had been pimping her around his circle over several years – before the age of 15 – while at the same time regularly abusing the girl.
Yet Jeffrey Epstein was sentenced to just 13 months in jail.
In 2005, a young girl first brought sex-crime allegations against Jeffrey Epstein to the Palm Beach Police Department, which sought felony charges against Epstein. Subsequently, however, the State Attorney agreed to charge him “only with one count of aggravated assault with no intent to commit a felony”. The difference between the US and Britain, however, is that when faced with an obvious perversion of justice, law officers don’t always look the other way. The attorney concerned, R. Alexander Acosta, brought in the State and then the FBI, who in turn alerted the Attorney General’s office in Washington. But it was 2010 before Epstein started his prison sentence.
And Jeffrey Epstein was sentenced to just 13 months in jail.
With that kind of influence, you won’t be surprised to know that Mr Epstein had an address book that was to say the least eclectic. In fact, so sure had Epstein been of his immunity, he had placed it online. The names in the book – and here again we are in Readsay territory, because nobody involved disputes these facts – go beyond the dynamite scale:
* The convicted paedophile’s addresses included ten entries for Lord Mandelson and his partner Reinaldo da Silva. They are both ‘gay’: why on earth would they be in the little black book of a paedopimp?
* The book had no fewer than 16 numbers for Prince Andrew, including the home numbers for politicians Lord Heseltine and former Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward. The Prince admitted Epstein was a close friend, and refused to disown him even when the guy was found guilty.
* An office address for Tony Blair and a personal number for Bill Clinton were also among the virtual names on record.
Victim Virginia Roberts then confirmed that Mandelson was a regular visitor to Epstein’s New York town house. ‘I remember him being at the house in New York, and I was introduced to him at a dinner party. He and Jeffrey talked business together,” she testified.
Now, imagine you are teacher Wayne Bedfellow, and three kids at your school have complained about inapproriate physical approaches. So the local Plod rings the Met and asks about the names in an address book owned by that West End pimp Reggie Richardson, who just went down for a ten-stretch on charges of pimping minors . In there are five entries for Solihull teacher Wayne Bedfellow. Don’t you think the West Midlands boys in blue would at least get Wayne in for questioning?
Shaun Woodward refused to comment on his otherwise unexplained entry in Epstein’s online book. Peter Mandelson refused to answer when asked about why convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein had ten entries for him and his partner Reinaldo da Silva…including fax and email numbers for the latter. The peer just toughed it out. When contacted by the Mail, Lord Heseltine said he had “no memory” of meeting Jeffrey Epstein.
The Duke of York stayed at the townhouse, just off Central Park, for four days one Christmas. Epstein lent his former wife Sarah Ferguson £15,000 when she got into financial difficulties. Both the Prince and Mandelson know Kazakh socialite and businesswoman Goga Ashkenazi: she is alleged to have introduced Andrew to Timur Kulibayev, the man who bought Prince Andrew’s former marital home, Sunninghill, at £3million above the asking price. That’s fifteen million Pounds. Ashkenazi too has multiple entries in the contact file of paedophile pimp Jeffrey Epstein.
Oddly, to the best of my knowledge, PC George Dixon has not been up the Palace to ask a lot of impertinent questions.
Compare and contrast, as they say. What can I say except that it all feels a bit seedy and demi-monde. To me anyway. It reads like the triumph of privilege over pressure. Nothing more, nothing less.
For those who’ve only been following the entire Slog paedophile saga in a cursory manner, I have to remind you that in a previous post relating to fun and games at The Groucho Club, I also reported the truth: a respected hack confided in me not long ago, naming a senior member of the royal household as the joint owner of the Groucho’s hastily removed paedophile exchange website domain.
Now to my critics (and these include a large number of my own friends and regular Sloggers) this will be yet more evidence of scurrilous behaviour on my part. It isn’t, and the only analogy I have left in explaining the reason for dogged persistence is the police detective analogy used earlier.
If we think of the Fourth Estate as, in many ways, pro-am sleuths, then it seems to me justified to ask what a copper would do if faced with this sort of ‘connective’ evidence against Chummy. He’d look to eliminate Chummy from his enquiries or – if he couldn’t – make two and two add four for certain. If he couldn’t do that, he’d keep Chummy on file for future reference. And if Chummy was in the frame for sex offences again, he’d bear it in mind. Over time, he might even put a tail on Chummy, and se if he could catch the bugger at it.
Because nobody did that for Ian Huntley, two little girls in Soham died. Nobody did that because the record of his sex-crimes had been deleted. It was deleted by the Humberside police authority, headed by a multiply ‘cleared’ (but still highly suspected) paedophile whom the Labour Party has since disowned.
In the media world some people would like to see, Chummy would be ignored over and over again. Their solution to this issue would be to ask whyowhyowhyowhy so-and-so got away with it afterwards. Sorry, but that’s not the real world of common sense. The case continues…both here and – hopefully – elsewhere until the truth finally emerges.