[bb88]

Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers.

Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."

[rowanG077]

I didn't hear about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein. In fact I didn't know the guy at all.

But to disprove your point. If I go back one year with the wayback machine and look at his wikipedia the first sentence on his page mentions he is a registered sex offender[1].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180807122025/https://en.wikipe...

[bb88]

Back in 2008, Epstein was convicted of a single prostitution charge [1]. The word "trafficking" doesn't even appear in that story. It makes it sound like Epstein had a weak moment frankly.

It was only after the Miami Herald story came out did we learn about the child trafficking that took place -- and then this year it became a huge national story.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/01epstein.html

[loeg]

Convicted, sure.

Upthread you said:

> Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers. Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."

But I would heartily disagree with that.

Allegations of sexual assault of minors had been public from 2008 on, and Epstein settled literally dozens of civil suits from victims prior to the 2018 Herald piece. Allegations of trafficking were made in 2015 by Virginia Roberts.

(Also, honestly, isn't a single instance of knowing solicitation of a minor enough? Dude was known to be a creep since at least the 2008 conviction, despite the extremely favorable plea deal.)

[bb88]

> (Also, honestly, isn't a single instance of knowing solicitation of a minor enough?)

Technically, it puts some of the blame on the underage girl, because she then becomes a "prostitute". Hence, she was at least half to blame. Hell, he could even have said: "I didn't know she was underage..." And a lot of guys would believe him.

The fact that she was trafficked instead completely changes the issue. She was never a "prostitute", and he was a bigger sleazeball than we realized.

[loeg]

I vehemently disagree with your stated opinion that a 14-year old girl who is statutorily raped by a man in his 50s is "at least half to blame" about anything.

[bb88]

It wasn't my opinion. It's what the charges mean.

If it was child abuse, they would have charged him with abuse. They basically called her a "prostitute" from the charges suggesting that she was at least partly to blame.

[rowanG077]

I'm not sure the trafficking was even on the radar at that point. The legal proceedings didn't even start yet. It's no wonder it's not on Wikipedia then.

[bb88]

There were rumors, and lawsuits. However as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he was charged with soliciting an underage prostitute -- not child sexual abuse, or child trafficking.

But it's still unclear why the US attorney's office refused to investigate the other cases and offered him a sweetheart deal. In any case, the 2008 charges made it sound like he was just looking for sex, not running a child trafficking ring.