,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
A few golden nuggets from this letter to follow.
John Doe does not intimate that he was never involved in abusing Giuffre.
He only states he was never party to any *proceedings* involving Giuffre.
Were he uninvolved in her abuse, I'm pretty sure he would have stated that.
Implication: it is an individual previously named.
He only states he was never party to any *proceedings* involving Giuffre.
Were he uninvolved in her abuse, I'm pretty sure he would have stated that.
Implication: it is an individual previously named.
So. Love the use of a semi-colon here, where it directly states that these 'non-parties' were active participants in Epstein and Maxwell's trafficking ring.
It's plausible that Maxwell submitted documents containing names herself that could be used in subsequent civil cases.
It's plausible that Maxwell submitted documents containing names herself that could be used in subsequent civil cases.
Thanks to NY State's 1 year lookback period, there are lots of old white dudes who are very concerned that their names may become public and Epstein's victims will recognize them, and move to file suit.
Their fear is delicious.
Their fear is delicious.
I sincerely hope Judge Preska realizes that the public interest for Epstein's victims to seek justice (which is only open over the next 11 months) to finally adjudicate any and all of these claims outweighs any putative right to 'privacy interests' these 'non-parties' assume.
Withholding any documents submitted by Maxwell in her own defense - i.e. her former clients being thrown under the bus - would clearly be absurd... any accusations she levied against others MUST come to the fore, and if untrue, those individuals could hold her liable.
But, clearly, as any allegations made of sexual abuse of children would NOT serve the sole function promote scandal, but to enable hundreds of other child trafficking victims to seek justice for the next 11 months only, revealing those names to the public is urgently necessary.
