Epstein's corruption and the other Europeans involved
Luckily, there are a few spots of sunshine in the Epstein sage. More of them later but lets first have some more darkness. According to the Japan Times Norway's Crown Princess Mette-Marit, whose name appears at least 1,000 times in the millions of freshly released documents, has said "she showed poor judgment" for her "embarrassing" friendship with Epstein. In one particular email, Mette-Marit asked Epstein if it was "inappropriate for a mother to suggest two naked women carrying a surfboard for my 15 yr old son's wallpaper." She was mentioned over a thousand times in the Epstein files, with communications spanning from 2011 to 2014. The princess was invited at least twice to the private island of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but nothing confirms her stay there, public broadcaster NRK reported Tuesday based on recently released documents. The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) further said that after spending the Christmas holiday on a Caribbean island with her family, Mette-Marit later traveled alone to spend time at Epstein’s villa in Florida. Emails further revealed that Epstein invited the crown princess to lunch, while she invited him to dinner, suggesting frequent contact. One message shows Mette-Marit writing to Epstein: “I miss my crazy friend.”
Recently prosecutors in Norway, however, have detailed four charges of rape against Mette-Marit's son out of her previous relationship with one Morten Borg, who was one of the first convicted cocaine dealers in Norway, in the biggest case to come to court there for years. A year and a half after Marius Borg Høiby (now 29 years old) was arrested over a violent episode at a woman's flat's in Oslo, he appeared in court to hear all 38 charges he faces and to deny allegations of rape. He's not a member of the royal family himself. His lawyer said he was a young man who deserved a fair trial and the press treatment of him had been anything but normal. The seven-week trial opened at Oslo district court against a backdrop of almost daily revelations surrounding him and his mother, Crown Princess Mette-Marit. On the eve of the trial it emerged he had been detained for a fourth time, in circumstances not unlike his initial arrest, on suspicion of assault, making threats with a knife and violating a restraining order. As police have placed him on remand for four weeks, he began the trial in custody. All in all, everyone is relieved that the succession is secured as there's his half-sister Her Royal Highness Princess Ingrid Alexandra (22 years old) who's second in line in direct succession to the Norwegian throne.
One wonders about the connection of these events, of course. Epstein was a longtime acquaintance of Princess Mette-Marit with whom he stayed in contact for years after his release from prison in 2008 as part of a plea deal. Four years later she wrote to Epstein: "You tickle my brain." In other exchanges she writes "you make me smile," "what do you have to do besides seeing me?" and asks questions like "how is island life," referring to Little Saint James where he abused young girls. They discussed Epstein being with two young Norwegian women nearly forty years his junior at the time. Mette-Marit and Epstein also discussed the work of Vladimir Nabokov, the author of Lolita, with Mette-Marit asking Epstein: "Did u enjoy sweetness?." However, even as the conversations between Epstein and Mette-Marit had a flirtatious and intimate tone, Epstein made disparaging statements about her behind her back to other people. In one e-mail Epstein wrote to his associate Boris Nikolić that "Mette is a mess". In a statement to broadcaster NRK, Mette-Marit said: "I deeply regret that, and this is a responsibility I must take. I showed poor judgment and regret having any contact with Epstein at all. It is simply embarrassing." However she refused to explain what she knew about Epstein in 2011 after she had googled him and told him it didn't look good, her spokesperson stating "we have nothing further to add." Norway's present Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said on Sunday that both Crown Princess Mette-Marit and ex-Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland showed "poor judgment" following new revelations about their links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. "The Crown Princess herself has stated that she has shown poor judgment, which I agree with. I also believe that Thorbjorn Jagland has done so," Store told broadcaster NRK.
Finally, as promised, some more or less better news. Prince Laurent of Belgium, the younger brother of King Philippe and the son of former King Albert II and Queen Paola, has seen his name appear in the latest batch of documents released in the Jeffrey Epstein case in the United States. His name is mentioned in an email where Epstein shared Laurent’s contact details with an assistant, but there is no evidence of direct contact or wrongdoing. The email dates back to October 2012 and refers only to adding the prince’s information to an address book. There is no record of any reply from Epstein, no follow-up correspondence, and no indication that any meeting or relationship ever took place beyond this mention. The Brussels Times offered some more details following Belga News Agency reporting that the response of Prince Laurent follows reports in the press over the weekend that the Prince's name appeared in the Epstein files published on Friday in the United States. Personally, I tend to believe Prince Laurent because although he's been often described as the "enfant terrible" of the Belgian royal family, with his rebellious nature and public controversies it had often been attributed to a difficult, "loveless" childhood. Along his whole adult life reports from inside the Royal Household indicated that Laurent grew up in a tense, cold, and "torn" family, with a notable lack of affection, which is believed to have deeply affected him. As the third child of then-Prince Albert and Princess Paola, Laurent grew up largely in the shadow of his brother, Filip, who was the destined heir. His relationship with his father, King Albert II, was often described as cold, with reports of his father yelling at him. The first time Laurent caused “a scandal” was when he started a relationship with the Belgian singer and model, Wendy Van Wanten. They met at Paris Fashion Week in the nineties. The Prince publicly acknowledged only last year that he was indeed the father to Wendy's 25-year-old son, Clement.
[media=https://youtu.be/Jlg4J16T7Tg]
Prince Laurent's statement this week about his dealings with Epstein was as clear as the one last year in which he acknowledged being the father to his third son Clement born after his relationship with Wendy. He didn't marry Wendy Van Wanten (her real name being Iris Vandenkerckhove) nor did pursue the relationship with her any longer primarily due to intense pressure at the time from the Belgian Royal Palace, which deemed the relationship unsuitable for the monarchy. "I would like to put an end to the rumours surrounding the Epstein case once and for all. During my internships at the UN and at a major bank in New York's financial district, Epstein contacted me several times," emphasised Prince Laurent, comfirming that the communications date already from the nineties. "He asked me questions that I never followed up on. He wanted to meet my parents to introduce them to his billionaire friends: I replied that my parents were not for sale or for show," he claimed. "He wanted me to put him in touch with European schools and universities to teach economics (particularly at universities with female students)." "I told him that I was not specialised in economics and that I did not intend to introduce him. Later, he asked me to participate in a project in the environmental sector. This project was clearly linked to fraud. I declined his proposal," the Belgian prince added. But according to Prince Laurent, who by now was the present king's brother (since 2013), Jeffrey Epstein persisted with his flattering. Only the year before his brother became eventually king, Epstein still invited the prince to a dinner in Paris, claiming it would include a head of state and influential businessmen. Laurent declined, explaining that he was not interested in displays of wealth and did not need Epstein to associate with world leaders. Epstein, reportedly frustrated, told him that "no one refuses his invitations." Prince Laurent concluded his statement by expressing his wish to no longer be disturbed by the matter.
It gets really small at the very tippy, tippy top of society. This level of social inequality with that kind of coordination amongst the ownership is definitely going to be punishing for us all! Epstein probably wasn't the only really great yenta to the elites! They're like a fraternity. It's old news that the powerful may enjoy impunity as they prey upon us all, especially younger women. Nothing Americans can do about it. There's no way out! Politics for them can't help.
@peterlee We are beginning to, as others emerge from tthe whole sordid saga.
Pete Mandleson is still titled "Lord" but has resigned from the House of Lords and Parliament is going to consider how to strip him of the title (which is largely honorary). It seems there is no way to do that at present - perhaps because it's not really been necessary in the past.
This time though goes too far: Mandelson has been revealed as a traitor to the country, and might now be under Police investigation.
@peterlee I don't think either man will do more than fade into history.
There are very strange aspects of the whole sorry, sordid mess; starting with the sheer number of alleged "files". What seem emerging is that most became mixed up with this usurer because he could facilitate discreet, corrupt connections between high-flying business-people, politicians and the like.
What is less easy to understand is why some apparently maintained their "friendship" with him even after his paedophilia became known. Although I am sure most were innocent of any sexual crimes, they seemed unable to grasp that the association alone would damage their own reputations. Perhaps some found support in a "safety in numbers" belief; telling themselves, "Hundreds of people, even xxx, yyy and ttt, know him and they are all innocent" (as far as I know and want to know).
The number of pages of "evidence" is staggering. I think the most that the majority of them will only show who was associated with Epstein and his girlfriend, and when. Unless each page can be explained fully and verifiably I can't see it has any legal value, making it hard to sift crime from mere unhealthy association.
So how many of the "files" will really be useful in both helping the sexual-offence victims, and rooting out the financially corrupt ?
For example - that much-mentioned and indeed publicised photograph of now-just-Mister Mountbatten-Windsor kneeling next to a woman lying on the floor at the foot of a staircase, somewhere:
If I were a barrister or detective involved in investigating I'd ask: Where was this and when? Who is she? Why was she lying on the floor? What was going on? Who took the photograph and why? Was the woman there by choice or coercion - if the latter, by whom and why?
If those questions cannot be answered I would have to dismiss the photograph as showing or "proving" nothing. It shows something odd but not illegal. For all we know she could simply have fallen on the stairs and Prince Andrew, an ex-military and air-ambulance pilot, was trying to help her - but that leaves open, the point of the photograph and the photographer's identity - a paparazzo?
If any of Epstein's and Maxwell's real victims are to have any justice, if any financial or political corruption is to be identified; every one of those "files" have to be scrutinised in a similar way for any legal evidence. Merely knowing a criminal is not itself a crime, although the association may be personally and professionally dangerous.
The story of a woman in her twenties being told to fly across the Atlantic to have sex with a foreign prince...? I find that frankly incredible. IF it did happen it suggests she and the prince were as complicit as Epstein. However, I would ask if Epstein's aim was to undermine the British Royal Family; and his motive for manipulating the UK's Trade Secretary, Peter Mandelson (as he was at the time), to undermine the British government. After all, Epstein's pals included such characters as Donald Trump and Elon Musk, both having very high personal and political ambitions and neither particularly friendly to Britain and many other countries more widely.
Epstein and Maxwell had three sets of associates or "friends" - I think merely friends-of-convenience - and although all were at least extraordinarly naive, many corrupt, even criminal; likely the set sharing the couple's illegal sexual activity was very small. I suspect most were associates for shady business or political reasons, instead.
The corrupt as well as the sexual wrongdoers need flushing out - but ....
@peterlee You could be right there, but it shows not enough background research.
Peter Mandelson was no more than a career politician, other than his ambassadorship.
Graduated, straight into Labour's HQ as some sort of clerk or researcher. Promoted to Tony Blair's "Director of Communications", whatever are the purpose and need of one of those. Subsequently UK Minister of Trade to the EU - he was suitably qualified for such an EU post by having never managed or held any "shop-floor" position in any trade in his life. Then out of party-politics to be the UK's Ambassador to the USA.
