I don’t understand why people don't get what you're doing. Telling the entire story and making the case that maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story than meets the eye at first glance. Thank you for questioning the status quo and daring to dig deeper!
Same. I honestly don't know why it infuriates people to see a story outstretched to include background as context to these scandals. It's a crime to add human element to villains? Why is a monster narrative so easily embraced? I reject it entirely. To me, it's lazy. I ALWAYS want to know more. As my bio says "obsessively invested." I just can't see why this approach is so triggering to so many. I'm not asking anyone to excuse Maxwell. I'm suggesting we pull the lens back and take a look at the whole picture, instead of relaying on soulless media with predictable narratives to decide them for us.
Interesting, very interesting interview. Obviously from before her “attachment” to Epstein. I’d say that growing up in that family, when she didn’t know how her father would relate her from hour to hour, must have been very difficult.
Thanks, Jessica, for making me question the narrative I’ve held about Ghislaine, that she’s not a person, but a monster. I’m not saying I like her, and I don’t sense you’re telling me to and quite frankly she may be a monster, but your article has given me pause and reminded me of her humanity. It’s never binary, nor is it cut and dry.
I would also add, that I think people are threatened by your form of journalism because it’s uncomfortable, untidy, and doesn’t fit neatly into the “clickbait” that too often passes for serious journalism.
Thank you, Jonathan, for sharing your thoughts here. I do think I'm confusing to others in media so the response is to try and undermine everything I do and how I do it. Which is why it's nice to hear directly from readers who not only "get" it, but appreciate that I'm doing things differently, based on my own vision of what I think news and media should like.
Plus I believe you don’t fit most people’s idea of a journalist. You put your life out there for all to see, so we feel like we know you. For some that may not seem professional, so they discredit you. There’s also a group of people who just hate for no reason. When you don’t fit into their little closed box, they don’t understand, so they spew hate. Just my 2 cents.
The idea of one person, let alone one woman taking the fall for all these sexual deviant monsters is wholly unacceptable in the fucking United States of America. Silly me, we weren’t supposed to notice that. When I was a prosecutor, I had a case where a mom was knowingly and willingly letting her boyfriend sodomize her precious son. It started at age 4. We caught him when the boy was 8. She was hated, rightfully so. And she got 10 more years in DOC than him. That’s not right. They’re both monsters. He COMMITTED THE SODOMY and should have been incarcerated for life. It’s the same MENTALITY in this case. How could a woman do this to other women? Use your imagination to consider what these men were doing. The unspeakable acts they committed. Not ONE arrest.
Very interesting, it’s easy to see how someone with Gislaine’s upbringing would be useful to someone networking in privileged circles. I wonder where she would be now if she hadn’t fallen in love with Epstein and became involved with his life?
I know this is a very tricky topic, but have you explored the gray area between when someone is a “child” and when they are an “adult”? There seems to be this “bright line” standard between ages 17 and 18. On one side of it you’re a child, vulnerable and helpless. On the other side, you’re grown up and able to make your own decisions. If Epstein had preyed on naive, vulnerable, troubled 18 year olds, there would be no scandal, no story. Since he crossed the Rubicon by a few years, now he’s a monster and a pedophile. My definition of a pedophile is someone who abuses kids, children. All of these girls between 14 and 17 were not naive little angels. Sure, they say now that they were manipulated and abused. But they all stuck around. The door was right there. They came back again and again. I understand the defense mechanism after you’ve done something you regret. “It wasn’t my fault”. Blame someone else. “I’m a victim”. I’m not saying what he did wasn’t wrong, and a little creepy. But there’s wrong and then there’s really, really wrong. I think calling someone a pedophile who has consensual sex with a 17 year old might be a bit of a stretch. These weren’t children.
Yes, the use of the term “pedophile” is misused here. These days, it’s completely lost its meaning, which is someone sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Epstein was just a sex offender with underage females. He was not a pedophile.
Technically it's probably hebephilia, that's not the point though. Maxwell, for Epstein, sought out damaged and already abused girls who fit the profile. Ripe for attention, money, flattery and so forth. The girls were groomed and that is what makes a person stick around for more abuse. I don't think you understand how easy it is to manipulate a damaged person, or how hard it is for that damaged person to leave the manipulator.
Think what you may of GM but before she became “a monster” it’s obvious she had a complicated father and beginning with birth, she had a very difficult childhood. It doesn’t excuse but it does shed light to how someone like JE manipulated and used her and then she became his victim and then she victimized. We will NEVER know the truth but at least JRK is at least giving some depth and background to the situation. For those that are ripping on JRK, move along. She is just trying to give a complete view as best she can.
Why is no one else interested and also doing their own deep dives into Maxwell? Everyone is so eager for Episten answers yet, she's right here in front of us. Probably because the answers won't be black and white or as clear "good vs evil" as people want. Thank you for your unwavering obsession!
I was just looking at Robert Maxwell’s Wikipedia page, and it mentioned that banks suddenly called in the Mirror Group’s loans after his death. Seems to have been a snowball effect.
Putnam published "Meditations on the Tarot A Journey into Christian Hermeticism" in 1980. Written by an Unknown Friend with afterword by Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar. ( Toss the Ouiji Boar too). Praying without easing and THANK YOU Jessica
It has been widely acknowledged by former Mossad agents that Robert Maxwell was working for them and there is no mention of that here in your forward. Ghislane, along with Epstein, were working for Israel as well, running blackmail operations using young girls and children as bait. You also omit that the interview was by Daphne Barak who is related to the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak. These links matter and should have been disclosed.
Do you honestly believe that this interview gives us a "real" portrayal of Ghislane-- one that wasn't heavily edited and crafted by Barak?
As much as you like to call Ghislane's story as "nuanced" and "deeply layered", none of it takes away from what she was doing with young girls and children. It was wrong and deeply criminal.
Barak is credited. And you've missed the whole of point of the article because you're only interested in a Mossad link. What suits your vision of this scandal.
I'm interested in the Mossad link because it matters. Twice in the interview Ghislane mentions extraordinary incidents. One, her father being given a state funeral in Israel "attended by heads of state and all the members of the Israeli Knesset" after his body was flown from the Med, the casket draped in an Israeli flag, accompanied by Israeli fighter jets, essentially receiving the honour of a military escort. He was neither born in Israel nor a citizen, but a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Two, Ghislane mentions her mother leading as the "head of the Jewish parade here in New York last year—the first Gentile and first woman to do that". Her official role that day was the Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel Parade. These are very curious incidents and yet you feel that none of this needs to be talked about when discussing Ghislane and her father's back story?
The Mossad link is important because in your attempt to rehabilitate Ghislane's image in order to soften the blow of her inevitable pardon you are purposely ignoring the bigger picture here. Why was a foreign agent, an agent of Israel, allowed to live in the US and conduct blackmail operations involving minors on American soil on behalf of a foreign country? Who is then arrested, but only ends up serving prison time for only 3 out of the 20 years she was sentenced and looks to receive an imminent pardon from Trump? Does this not need closer re-examination instead of a softball piece on Ghislane "in her own words" from an "journalist" related to a former Israeli PM? I am baffled by your "journalisming".
Your insight is riddled with errors. But I do t have time now to pick through and correct each of them. But this is how it goes. You think you know the facts therefore what doesn't match your interpretation is a deemed unjust journalism. The offense taken over an old interview is odd. It's one of countless chapters in a long series. Read up if you care to learn more.
I don't know all the facts, but I don't think you do either and the only one who knows is Ghislane and Ghislane alone. Everything else is speculation and interpretation and everyone has a different lens. Which of course, everyone is entitled to, including you as this is your Substack and you can write about whatever you want. And you are right. I do deem your deflection tactics as unjust journalism because you are ignoring the deeply criminal and unsavoury elements here. With regards to my offence over this substack article in particular, it really just stems from an accumulated and increasing sense of frustration as I slowly realise that I am dealing with an unreliable narrator in this saga.
I don’t understand why people don't get what you're doing. Telling the entire story and making the case that maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story than meets the eye at first glance. Thank you for questioning the status quo and daring to dig deeper!
Same. I honestly don't know why it infuriates people to see a story outstretched to include background as context to these scandals. It's a crime to add human element to villains? Why is a monster narrative so easily embraced? I reject it entirely. To me, it's lazy. I ALWAYS want to know more. As my bio says "obsessively invested." I just can't see why this approach is so triggering to so many. I'm not asking anyone to excuse Maxwell. I'm suggesting we pull the lens back and take a look at the whole picture, instead of relaying on soulless media with predictable narratives to decide them for us.
You just perfectly described the job of a journalist!
❤️🙏🏻❤️
A lot of people cannot read and/or absorb information; they have very short attention spans and lack even a modicum of imagination. It's quite sad.
Interesting, very interesting interview. Obviously from before her “attachment” to Epstein. I’d say that growing up in that family, when she didn’t know how her father would relate her from hour to hour, must have been very difficult.
Actually, she was already 'attached' to Epstein; just keeping very quiet about it.
Thanks, Jessica, for making me question the narrative I’ve held about Ghislaine, that she’s not a person, but a monster. I’m not saying I like her, and I don’t sense you’re telling me to and quite frankly she may be a monster, but your article has given me pause and reminded me of her humanity. It’s never binary, nor is it cut and dry.
I would also add, that I think people are threatened by your form of journalism because it’s uncomfortable, untidy, and doesn’t fit neatly into the “clickbait” that too often passes for serious journalism.
Thank you, Jonathan, for sharing your thoughts here. I do think I'm confusing to others in media so the response is to try and undermine everything I do and how I do it. Which is why it's nice to hear directly from readers who not only "get" it, but appreciate that I'm doing things differently, based on my own vision of what I think news and media should like.
Plus I believe you don’t fit most people’s idea of a journalist. You put your life out there for all to see, so we feel like we know you. For some that may not seem professional, so they discredit you. There’s also a group of people who just hate for no reason. When you don’t fit into their little closed box, they don’t understand, so they spew hate. Just my 2 cents.
The idea of one person, let alone one woman taking the fall for all these sexual deviant monsters is wholly unacceptable in the fucking United States of America. Silly me, we weren’t supposed to notice that. When I was a prosecutor, I had a case where a mom was knowingly and willingly letting her boyfriend sodomize her precious son. It started at age 4. We caught him when the boy was 8. She was hated, rightfully so. And she got 10 more years in DOC than him. That’s not right. They’re both monsters. He COMMITTED THE SODOMY and should have been incarcerated for life. It’s the same MENTALITY in this case. How could a woman do this to other women? Use your imagination to consider what these men were doing. The unspeakable acts they committed. Not ONE arrest.
PEDOPHILE. Period. Criminal behavior with minors. NO PITY.
Very interesting, it’s easy to see how someone with Gislaine’s upbringing would be useful to someone networking in privileged circles. I wonder where she would be now if she hadn’t fallen in love with Epstein and became involved with his life?
I know this is a very tricky topic, but have you explored the gray area between when someone is a “child” and when they are an “adult”? There seems to be this “bright line” standard between ages 17 and 18. On one side of it you’re a child, vulnerable and helpless. On the other side, you’re grown up and able to make your own decisions. If Epstein had preyed on naive, vulnerable, troubled 18 year olds, there would be no scandal, no story. Since he crossed the Rubicon by a few years, now he’s a monster and a pedophile. My definition of a pedophile is someone who abuses kids, children. All of these girls between 14 and 17 were not naive little angels. Sure, they say now that they were manipulated and abused. But they all stuck around. The door was right there. They came back again and again. I understand the defense mechanism after you’ve done something you regret. “It wasn’t my fault”. Blame someone else. “I’m a victim”. I’m not saying what he did wasn’t wrong, and a little creepy. But there’s wrong and then there’s really, really wrong. I think calling someone a pedophile who has consensual sex with a 17 year old might be a bit of a stretch. These weren’t children.
Yes, the use of the term “pedophile” is misused here. These days, it’s completely lost its meaning, which is someone sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Epstein was just a sex offender with underage females. He was not a pedophile.
Technically it's probably hebephilia, that's not the point though. Maxwell, for Epstein, sought out damaged and already abused girls who fit the profile. Ripe for attention, money, flattery and so forth. The girls were groomed and that is what makes a person stick around for more abuse. I don't think you understand how easy it is to manipulate a damaged person, or how hard it is for that damaged person to leave the manipulator.
Think what you may of GM but before she became “a monster” it’s obvious she had a complicated father and beginning with birth, she had a very difficult childhood. It doesn’t excuse but it does shed light to how someone like JE manipulated and used her and then she became his victim and then she victimized. We will NEVER know the truth but at least JRK is at least giving some depth and background to the situation. For those that are ripping on JRK, move along. She is just trying to give a complete view as best she can.
Why is no one else interested and also doing their own deep dives into Maxwell? Everyone is so eager for Episten answers yet, she's right here in front of us. Probably because the answers won't be black and white or as clear "good vs evil" as people want. Thank you for your unwavering obsession!
I think you're right
I’m trying to imagine a man being interviewed and asked these questions. 😑
I’m not familiar with the Maxwell pension fraud case. It must have been more of a NYC-London story.
I was just looking at Robert Maxwell’s Wikipedia page, and it mentioned that banks suddenly called in the Mirror Group’s loans after his death. Seems to have been a snowball effect.
Curious what she’s reading lately and what her favorite books and authors are.
Me too. Maybe I can find out.
Ooh yes, thank you!
Putnam published "Meditations on the Tarot A Journey into Christian Hermeticism" in 1980. Written by an Unknown Friend with afterword by Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar. ( Toss the Ouiji Boar too). Praying without easing and THANK YOU Jessica
I'll check it out
It was a ten year read for me.
😮
fascinating!
I stopped reading here: “nearly every member of his family had been murdered in the Holocaust.”
I’ll pick it back up later.
Why are you trying to humanize this monster? She brought little girls to the slaughter, sacrificing their innocence!
I've explained myself in great detail in these articles already. You're assuming what you want.
Looks to me like she wanted a daddy. She got a bad daddy.
A daddy with a painful past and a helluva temper.
It has been widely acknowledged by former Mossad agents that Robert Maxwell was working for them and there is no mention of that here in your forward. Ghislane, along with Epstein, were working for Israel as well, running blackmail operations using young girls and children as bait. You also omit that the interview was by Daphne Barak who is related to the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak. These links matter and should have been disclosed.
Do you honestly believe that this interview gives us a "real" portrayal of Ghislane-- one that wasn't heavily edited and crafted by Barak?
As much as you like to call Ghislane's story as "nuanced" and "deeply layered", none of it takes away from what she was doing with young girls and children. It was wrong and deeply criminal.
Barak is credited. And you've missed the whole of point of the article because you're only interested in a Mossad link. What suits your vision of this scandal.
I'm interested in the Mossad link because it matters. Twice in the interview Ghislane mentions extraordinary incidents. One, her father being given a state funeral in Israel "attended by heads of state and all the members of the Israeli Knesset" after his body was flown from the Med, the casket draped in an Israeli flag, accompanied by Israeli fighter jets, essentially receiving the honour of a military escort. He was neither born in Israel nor a citizen, but a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Two, Ghislane mentions her mother leading as the "head of the Jewish parade here in New York last year—the first Gentile and first woman to do that". Her official role that day was the Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel Parade. These are very curious incidents and yet you feel that none of this needs to be talked about when discussing Ghislane and her father's back story?
The Mossad link is important because in your attempt to rehabilitate Ghislane's image in order to soften the blow of her inevitable pardon you are purposely ignoring the bigger picture here. Why was a foreign agent, an agent of Israel, allowed to live in the US and conduct blackmail operations involving minors on American soil on behalf of a foreign country? Who is then arrested, but only ends up serving prison time for only 3 out of the 20 years she was sentenced and looks to receive an imminent pardon from Trump? Does this not need closer re-examination instead of a softball piece on Ghislane "in her own words" from an "journalist" related to a former Israeli PM? I am baffled by your "journalisming".
Your insight is riddled with errors. But I do t have time now to pick through and correct each of them. But this is how it goes. You think you know the facts therefore what doesn't match your interpretation is a deemed unjust journalism. The offense taken over an old interview is odd. It's one of countless chapters in a long series. Read up if you care to learn more.
I don't know all the facts, but I don't think you do either and the only one who knows is Ghislane and Ghislane alone. Everything else is speculation and interpretation and everyone has a different lens. Which of course, everyone is entitled to, including you as this is your Substack and you can write about whatever you want. And you are right. I do deem your deflection tactics as unjust journalism because you are ignoring the deeply criminal and unsavoury elements here. With regards to my offence over this substack article in particular, it really just stems from an accumulated and increasing sense of frustration as I slowly realise that I am dealing with an unreliable narrator in this saga.
This sounds like a potential for a 3-volume novel, not a Substack article…just sayin’…