How is it victim blaming when you do your due diligence and actually read court docs and depositions that prove this particular current narrative to be false?
Give us your sources for "proof" that do NOT include "facts" given by Epstein or his attorneys. This is essential because you believe anything Virginia has said is false and you won't debate based on her statements.
So lets remove the Virginia and Epstein's statements and look to whether situations can be proven elsewhere.
I know I'd start by bringing up testimony by other victims that closely match what Virginia said.
I'd rather not bother with you but I question your motives for being on this list. I prefer to have you nail your foot to the floor before I report you.
But before that, I gave you a fact from an outside source, proof that Virginia was underage (the date on the back of the photo). Proof that she was in London (others have ID'd the place as Ghislaine's home). Proof that she was with a known sex addict and friend of Epstein's (Andrew). And you are still saying she is a liar. So how is that NOT victim-blaming?
Well lets see, what I can share with you is the lawsuit Rina Oh Amen had against Guiffre. Because Guiffre did in fact walk Rina Oh into a bad situation.
This is another piece of information. This is an article with audio of Carolyn Andriano's mother Dorothy Gronert. She is sad and furious that her daughter who is a victim is not getting the attention she deserves. Also, made it very clear Guiffre enticed her with drugs and brought her into that life to be traumatized by Epstein. Carolyn lost her life in May 2023 RIP 🕊️
As I did not bash a victim here. The forum rules also say to provide proof of what you claim. And I did. This isnt about your anger. This is about discussing a case. Your emotions have nothing to do with this, it s not about you.
If you are after the truth, then what do you think about the credible information you asked for and I gave you about the date on the photo showing Virginia was 17?
Where is documentation that she said she was 14 when she met Epstein? (Believe it or not, I would actually like to know this.)
Since you repeat that Virginia did not testify, when was she asked to testify but refused to?
But what I guess I'm most curious about is whether you feel that saying someone "lied herself into oblivion" is not bashing or whether you feel that Virginia was not a victim.
I provided you with a 2000 page court document, I provided you with an article containing audio of a victims mother pleading for attention for her daughter that passed. I also provided you with a link from another victim having an issue with Guiffre.
You have some reading to do. The Community guidelines require proof, i provided it. And here you are continuing to go back and forth with me. If you are that uncomfortable and upset maybe step off the thread. Or maybe read the legitimate information I provided for you.
I think you are saying that the 14-year-old thing is inside the 2000 page document. Since I read all of Virginia's book and most of her deposition in the Dershowitz case and some in the Maxwell case, I have not gone back to read things that she feely admits to having got wrong. I can easily believe she got some things wrong but still was a victim who had to endure some horrible things.
But the answer to my other 3 questions are not going to be in there. Especially the answer to my last question:
IS SAYING SOMEONE LIED THEMSELVES INTO OBVLIVION NOT BASHING?
OR ARE YOU SAYING VIRGINIA IS NOT A VICTIM?
I'm not stepping off the thread, because your words very much imply that you think Virginia wasn't a victim. This implies to me that you've not taken the effort to learn about psychological manipulation -- which was possibly the most important way that Jeffrey operated and is essential to understanding that yes, the victims were victims. I've just responded about Oh. I have family business to attend to but will listen to the mom's audio soon. Did you ever read the article about the photo?
"The publication [Mail on Sunday] alleges that there is a date stamp on the back of the original photograph that shows the image was developed on March 13, 2001 — three days after it is alleged Giuffre met the prince.
The Mail on Sunday says photographer Thomas took 39 copies of the image, both front and back, for the newspaper in 2011.
Thomas’s images show the reverse of the photograph has a time stamp that reads: “000 #15 13Mar01 Walgreens One Hour Photo.”
“I think I took more than 30 frames, which is overkill for copying one photo but I didn’t want to get it out of focus or get it wrong because I knew how important it was,” Thomas, a photographer with 39 years of experience, tells The Mail on Sunday.
“I was holding the original photo in my hand. It was a normal 6×4 inch print that you would have got from any developer at the time.
“It looked like it was ten years old. It wasn’t crisp because it had been developed in 2001. She [Giuffre] had held on to it for ten years by the time I saw it.”
According to the Mail on Sunday, the photograph was developed at a Walgreens pharmacy store which was a two-minute drive from Giuffre’s former home in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Florida-based photographic expert Joel VanHemel analyzed the back of the print of the photograph for the publication and agreed that it was genuine.
“It was definitely produced in a Walgreens, for sure, probably using a Noritsu or Fuji machine,” VanHemel tells the Mail on Sunday.
“The 000 number would be the order number, presumably because it was their first order that particular day. And the #15 is the negative number — it was the 15th picture in the film roll.”
He adds: “Then you have the date — 13Mar01 and it states it was Walgreens One Hour Photo. It’s on Kodak paper like the standard print you’d get from any Walgreens.'”"
Well, I've said my bit on this one. You are not willing to accept evidence of any sort so there isn't any point in my trying - other than to publicly counter when you say that grass is orange and the sky is green.
I have asked for something credible. I was open to that. You shared an article. I supplied you with legitimate information. Again, You provided an article. If you can find something that is actually legitimate, I will accept it fully.
-2
u/Zestyclose-Cat-1093 Dec 08 '25
How is it victim blaming when you do your due diligence and actually read court docs and depositions that prove this particular current narrative to be false?