Anyone else watching the news for that freak Epstein's Creeper List?

[LuvOrlando]

No need to rely on anything, people can read for themselves and deduce meaning from:

https://www.foxla.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-list-court-document

"Moments after the so-called Epstein list was released, a website listing the names – CourtListener.com – crashed. Neither the website nor the courts handling the case explained the reasons behind the page's server error. Below is a screenshot of the message CourtListener issued to its visitors as the website dealt with issues Wednesday evening:"

 

[sam_gordon]

No need to rely on anything, people can read for themselves and deduce meaning from:

https://www.foxla.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-list-court-document

"Moments after the so-called Epstein list was released, a website listing the names – CourtListener.com – crashed. Neither the website nor the courts handling the case explained the reasons behind the page's server error. Below is a screenshot of the message CourtListener issued to its visitors as the website dealt with issues Wednesday evening:"

Yes, they can. The point is "will they"? Are the people's names on this "creeper list" (your words in the title) even accused of knowing or participating in these heinous acts? And I'm not talking about legally.

Is there anything, other than the names were listed as part of a deposition or listed as a passenger on a plane, that points to them knowing or participating?

The PP who said "they can prove their innocence" scares me. That's not how it's supposed to work.

 

[Minnesota!]

If they are going to release names, each name needs to have a ( ) after it with what they are named for. The idiots who see a name and automatically spread lies of that persons guilt (such as stated above with Leo, Cate Blanchett, etc.,) is how this stuff takes off. Nobody reads and get all the info before opening their mouths,

Yes, they need to release the names. But, they have to do their due diligence first and make the reasons the names are on there easily consumable and digestible for the average American idiot.

 

[Marrila]

If they are going to release names, each name needs to have a ( ) after it with what they are named for. The idiots who see a name and automatically spread lies of that persons guilt (such as stated above with Leo, Cate Blanchett, etc.,) is how this stuff takes off. Nobody reads and get all the info before opening their mouths,

Yes, they need to release the names. But, they have to do their due diligence first and make the reasons the names are on there easily consumable and digestible for the average American idiot.

The information about individuals is in actual court documents. The context seems to be there as well.

 

[sam_gordon]

No need to rely on anything, people can read for themselves and deduce meaning from:

https://www.foxla.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-list-court-document

"Moments after the so-called Epstein list was released, a website listing the names – CourtListener.com – crashed. Neither the website nor the courts handling the case explained the reasons behind the page's server error. Below is a screenshot of the message CourtListener issued to its visitors as the website dealt with issues Wednesday evening:"

Just to help people out, the foxla article linked above does NOT have the documents or any list. It's a story about a site hosting the documents had crashed. I'm not sure what a website crashing has to do with anything other than I'm guessing a lot of traffic tried to go to the site.

Here's the link to the actual transcript (from the foxla site): https://www.scribd.com/document/696474313/gov-uscourts-nysd-447706-1320-38#fullscreen&from_embed

 

[mousefan73]

That’s for people that actually can read and comprehend what they’re reading. The issue with this whole thing is that it’s been so pumped up and blown out of proportion leading up to the release, implying that on xx day, all known pedophiles and those guilty in relation to Epstein will be released. “Epstein files!!!!!!” As clickbate. That’s not what it is, it’s sealed dockets now being made public. I looked at the files and there’s so many and unless you were involved in the case it’s pretty hard to figure out what you’re really reading.

 

[LuvOrlando]

No need to rely on anything, people can read for themselves and deduce meaning from:

https://www.foxla.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-list-court-document

"Moments after the so-called Epstein list was released, a website listing the names – CourtListener.com – crashed. Neither the website nor the courts handling the case explained the reasons behind the page's server error. Below is a screenshot of the message CourtListener issued to its visitors as the website dealt with issues Wednesday evening:"

For those who need their reading glasses adjusted my link works just fine and I am reading it now, lots and lots of mansplaining happening on this thread, resharing because wth

I like the links I found because the info is embedded and so I don't need to download anything at all, not a big fan of downloading stuff from unknown sources.

 

[Kennywood]

Those on one side of the issue will defend their people while vilifying the people on the other side of the issue.

 

[sam_gordon]

That’s for people that actually can read and comprehend what they’re reading. The issue with this whole thing is that it’s been so pumped up and blown out of proportion leading up to the release, implying that on xx day, all known pedophiles and those guilty in relation to Epstein will be released. “Epstein files!!!!!!” As clickbate. That’s not what it is, it’s sealed dockets now being made public. I looked at the files and there’s so many and unless you were involved in the case it’s pretty hard to figure out what you’re really reading.

I agree.

 

[sam_gordon]

Those on one side of the issue will defend their people while vilifying the people on the other side of the issue.

OK, I'll bite. Who has defended anyone?

 

[sam_gordon]

For those who need their reading glasses adjusted my link works just fine and I am reading it now, lots and lots of mansplaining happening on this thread, resharing because wth

Never said your link didn't work. I simply provided the link to the document from your link. For me, and possibly others, I'd rather read the source material than a window in another's website.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Thanks for mansplaining, as always it is a treat

 

[LuvOrlando]

Lots of people sure are hostile

 

[cabanafrau]

to prove my point. All over twitter people are now saying leonardo di caprio, bruce willis, cameron diaz, cate blanchett are "suspects" as they are named in the documents... if you actually look and dive deep in those docs, they were mentioned in victim testimony as she was referrring to giving somebody a Massage and that person was name dropping who they were speaking to or dealing with business about (name dropping) and the said victim stated they never met them.

Are you suggesting that allegations should be supported by evidence that is deemed credible and fully examined before a fact finder before declaring someone guilty? Interesting concept.

Of course that only works if people choose to live in a civilized society under the rule of law to be applied as equal justice for all. It won't get everything right all the time, but until someone comes up with something that guarantees absolute perfection I'll gladly take it. Shudder to think of what happens under rule of mass hysteria of public opinion run amuck in the press/social media.

 

[sam_gordon]

I like the links I found because the info is embedded and so I don't need to download anything at all, not a big fan of downloading stuff from unknown sources.

And the link I gave doesn't require any downloading either. ETA: I have no problem if someone wants to use "your" link vs "my" link. The information is the same on both them. I find "my" link easier to read.

Do you make it a habit to come to a conclusion without facts?

 

[Christine]

That’s for people that actually can read and comprehend what they’re reading. The issue with this whole thing is that it’s been so pumped up and blown out of proportion leading up to the release, implying that on xx day, all known pedophiles and those guilty in relation to Epstein will be released. “Epstein files!!!!!!” As clickbate. That’s not what it is, it’s sealed dockets now being made public. I looked at the files and there’s so many and unless you were involved in the case it’s pretty hard to figure out what you’re really reading.

I agree. There's going to be a TON of people who only read headlines and will assume that every single person on that list is an abuser.

 

[Marrila]

I agree. There's going to be a TON of people who only read headlines and will assume that every single person on that list is an abuser.

There is sadly a large portion of the public that seems to take the lazy, easy path on just about any subject. Critical thinking is too much work for them.

 

[cabanafrau]

Thanks for mansplaining, as always it is a treat

It's a discussion on a discussion board. Seems like it's a topic that's fair game for all to discuss.
Now if someone posted asking about something like the pain of endometriosis or childbirth and a man weighed in that seems a bridge too far.

I agree. There's going to be a TON of people who only read headlines and will assume that every single person on that list is an abuser.

Or what will forever spring up in search engines with the names listed in these documents.

This is not the situation to deploy the blunt instrument or the elephant gun. South Korea may be finally ready to consider taking a first step towards course correction in light of the suicide of the actor from Parasite after the fallout of public shaming based solely on allegations made public. There is a concern that this type of situation will deem the country unworthy of a position on the world stage, with the US system as one they're measuring themselves by. If we expect to continue to be taken seriously we need to uphold our system and give it the respect it deserves.

 

[mousefan73]

Are you suggesting that allegations should be supported by evidence that is deemed credible and fully examined before a fact finder before declaring someone guilty? Interesting concept.

Of course that only works if people choose to live in a civilized society under the rule of law to be applied as equal justice for all. It won't get everything right all the time, but until someone comes up with something that guarantees absolute perfection I'll gladly take it. Shudder to think of what happens under rule of mass hysteria of public opinion run amuck in the press/social media.

That’s what sad these aren’t even allegations it’s just named dropping that’s not even relevant to any of the victims. In this stage, things are so twisted online that people are made to be seen guilty when there’s not even a crime involved ( I’m referring to cate Blanchett, for example) and this poor woman’s face is all over the news now in reference to Epstein. Guilty by association and she wasn’t even really associated if you think about it

 

[TwoMisfits]

So, the following pages were wild.

There are exact testimony references to each person named available. Some are accused of bad behavior (some I knew, and some billionaires I didn't), and some are just names that get mentioned by either the victims, the perps, or the lawyers.

It's so easy to find the info if you want. And it should have been released. This was court of law testimony, done under perjury rules, not just accusations, so anyone mentioned as a perp should have been outed and now has. And they should have to defend themselves b/c under the threat of perjury, someone testified to their acts.

PS - The case should never have been covered up in the 1st place. If it had not, this would not be an issue, determining who was who...but money and power talked...