Pedophilia billionaire Epstein’s death and corporate media

This 19 August 2019 CBS TV video from the USA says about itself:

Buckingham Palace responds after video shows Prince Andrew in Epstein mansion

Britain’s Prince Andrew is responding to sexual abuse allegations against Jeffrey Epstein for the first time since Epstein hanged himself in jail.

Dear CBS: did Epstein really hang himself, without any ‘help’? That is still unresolved.

The video of Prince Andrew in the Epstein mansion is said to be from 2010; so, after Epstein had been convicted for sexual trafficking, and had been freed after a suspiciously short prison sentence.

According to Belgian daily Het Laatste Nieuws today, Prince Andrew’s behaviour in this is suspect; as, they say, he has fled to Spain.

By Patrick Martin in the USA:

American media shuts down the Epstein story

19 August 2019

The corporate-controlled media in the United States has effectively shut down all reporting on the death of the politically connected multi-millionaire sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, only one week after his body was discovered in a prison cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.

Epstein’s death was the most widely reported American event in the first few days of the week, with hours of coverage on cable television, the lead story on nightly network news programs, and pages upon pages of reporting in the New York Times, Washington Post and other leading daily newspapers.

There was ample reason for such attention, particularly by the standards of the sensation-obsessed American media. Epstein was, at least by reputation, both fabulously wealthy and dangerously predatory. He travelled in the highest circles of bourgeois society, hobnobbing with ex-presidents, future presidents, British royalty and numerous billionaires, some of whom he claimed to have enriched enormously.

And his crimes against teenage girls and young women had already resulted in a 2008 felony conviction that led to a slap on the wrist in jail time, in keeping with his status as a member of the class of super-rich “money managers”. Only hours before his death, moreover, 2,000 pages of new documents were released linking many prominent world figures, including Prince Andrew and several top Democrats, to Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities.

As to the death itself, that was sensational as well, with questions aplenty: How did it happen that after an alleged suicide attempt on July 23 Epstein was taken off suicide watch only six days later and returned to the cell where he died? Why was his cellmate removed, in violation of the normal protocol for a high-risk prisoner, only a few hours before his death? Why did the guards fail to do their rounds during the night of Epstein’s death, when they should have been checking on him every half an hour? Why was Epstein’s hyoid bone broken in several places, a medical finding more typical of homicide by strangulation than suicide by hanging, according to numerous experts?

The previous “suicide” attempt, if that was what it was, deserves greater scrutiny as well. Epstein was sharing a cell with a former New York policeman, Nicholas Tartaglione, who was facing four counts of murder as well as narcotics charges. The pairing would seem quite unusual, even provocative, given the disparity between the two in physical size and the likelihood that a former cop might be inclined to mete out punishment to a presumed pedophile and child rapist.

As it was, on July 23 Tartaglione summoned prison guards to find Epstein semi-conscious with “marks” on his neck. Epstein was resuscitated and placed on suicide watch. He later claimed to be afraid of Tartaglione and accused him of assault, which the ex-cop denied. After six days, Epstein was taken off suicide watch and put back in a regular cell, but with a different cellmate.

After Epstein’s death, social media was filled with speculation about the unusual circumstances in which he died and the possible motives of highly placed and political powerful individuals for doing away with him. The corporate media went into overdrive, led by the New York Times, to denounce such questions as “conspiracy theories”, without foundation in evidence—although the lack of evidence was due to the silence of the police and prison authorities as they sought to come up with a plausible explanation.

On Thursday came the revelation that Epstein’s hyoid bone had been broken in several places, which experts suggested was more typical in homicides than suicides. The Times again sought to tamp down speculation. Finally, on Friday, the chief medical examiner, who had delayed for several days drawing a conclusion, issued a formal finding that Epstein died a suicide. The corporate media immediately rubber-stamped this finding and sought to shut down any public questioning of it.

This was done so thoroughly that on Sunday, August 18, there was not a single reference to Epstein’s death on any of the five television interview programs. Over five hours of broadcast time, accounting, according to the transcripts, for 45,000 spoken words, the name Epstein was never mentioned.

This media silence is itself perhaps the most suspicious development in the entire Epstein case. Why was there no reference to the story which riveted public attention for several days last week? It had occasioned tweets by President Trump accusing various Democrats of collusion in his death, and statements by Democrats, such as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, a candidate for president, that the timing of Epstein’s death was “too convenient”.

If this had become a non-story only eight days after Epstein’s lifeless body was found, the question must be asked: what is the American media seeking to hide?

Again, the New York Times has taken the lead in the cover-up. It published a lengthy front-page story in its Sunday edition under the headline, “Epstein Feared Misery of Jail in His Final Days”, which has only one purpose: further shoring up the suicide verdict by painting a picture of Epstein as so desperate to avoid spending time in his cell that he brought his lawyers in for hours of consultation where he could sit in a conference room.

The circumstances detailed by no less than seven reporters can be read quite differently from the conclusion drawn in the article. Perhaps Epstein was desperate to avoid his cell because he feared what was going to happen to him there. After all, he had barely escaped with his life on July 23.

Moreover, the Times reports: “Outside the meeting room, Mr. Epstein mounted a strategy to avoid being preyed upon by other inmates: He deposited money in their commissary accounts, according to a consultant who is often in the jail and speaks regularly with inmates there.” This again suggests fear on Epstein’s part of what others might do to him in prison.

Epstein’s own lawyers have indicated they do not accept the finding of suicide. “The defense team fully intends to conduct its own independent and complete investigation into the circumstances and cause of Mr. Epstein’s death,” they said in a statement. “We are not satisfied with the conclusions of the medical examiner.”

There are also reports that some jail staff members are not cooperating with the ongoing investigation into Epstein’s death.


Saudi princess accused of beating French workman

This 10 July 2019 video says about itself:

Saudi crown prince’s sister on trial in France over ‘beating’ of workman

Saudi Princess Hassa bint Salman is on trial in absentia in France over the alleged beating of a workman who was carrying out repairs in her luxury Paris apartment.

See also here. And here. And here.

Dutch queen criticized for Saudi prince meeting

This 20 June 2019 video says about itself:

Khashoggi killing: UN report demands investigation into Saudi Prince Bin Salman | DW News

A new report by UN human rights expert Agnes Callamard looking into the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi has recommended an investigation into the possible role of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). Jamal Khashoggi was killed in October last year at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in Turkey. Now Agnes Callamard says there must be a follow-up criminal investigation into any role Crown Prince bin Salman may have played.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:

‘UN rapporteur expresses strong criticism after meeting of [Dutch Queen] Máxima with Saudi crown prince

The UN rapporteur investigating the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi has strongly criticized the meeting between Queen Máxima and Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. To [Dutch daily] Algemeen Dagblad, UN rapporteur Agnes Callamard accuses the queen of complicity by not discussing the Khashoggi case with the prince.

This tweet is about that meeting at the Osaka G20 summit between Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS) of Saudi Arabia and Dutch Queen Máxima, born in Argentina, the daughter of a dictatorship minister.

The sarcastic caption says, translated:

MBS: How did they disappear people in Argentina? Máxima: They were thrown from helicopters. MBS: Oh, we use bone saws.

Queen Máxima spoke to Mohammed bin Salman during the G20 summit in Japan. The two discussed, eg, improving the economic position of women in Saudi Arabia.

Dear Queen Maxima: before the Saudi women activists who made driving cars for women possible can even think of improving their economic position, then first: 1. The crown prince regime’s torturers will have to stop torturing them. 2. They will have to be freed from death row in prison. 3. The threat of them getting the death penalty by beheading for so-called ‘terrorism’ has to stop.

The murder of Khashoggi has not been discussed, the Dutch Government Information Service said earlier. The journalist was killed last year in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Callamard tells the AD that she finds it incomprehensible that Máxima did not raise the issue. “It is one thing to meet this man, it is something else to remain silent. At this point, silence equals complicity.”

Earlier this week a UN report appeared that there is convincing evidence that the prince is involved in the murder of the journalist. Callamard wants an international investigation to be launched into Mohammed bin Salman. She also called on countries to have sanctions against Saudi Arabia and the crown prince.

Callamard is clear about not raising the case. “If you do not speak and do not demand justice, it suggests that you have no scruples. Silence, turning a blind eye, a ‘business as usual approach’ towards the increasingly aggressive tactics of too many autocrats: those are not the characteristics of leadership that we should expect.”

Ministry informed

Máxima was at the Osaka Summit as a special United Nations advocate for inclusive financing. The conversation with the crown prince was primarily intended as preparatory work for the next G20 in Saudi Arabia, next November.

When asked about the story in the AD, Callamard informed Nieuwsuur TV news that people in high positions with moral or political authority should not close their eyes to injustice, abuse of power, war crimes or other matters. “Because of the power and influence they have, they have to use their voice where others cannot.”

“Criticism on the rise”

“The criticism of the meeting of the queen with the crown prince is growing even more with this”, says Royal House reporter Kysia Hekster. “Máxima’s UN job must be neutral, but she has now ended up in political waters. That is detrimental to her position.”

A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs says the ministry was aware of the meeting between the queen and the prince. “That is usual with international performances by members of the Royal Family.”

Last October, Minister Hoekstra and Minister Kaag canceled their visits to Saudi Arabia because of the murder of Khashoggi. Dutch King Willem-Alexander called his death “a very serious matter”.

Astonishment in parliament

The House of Representatives was surprised by the meeting yesterday. “Anyone who approved this conversation between Queen Máxima and the Saudi crown prince, doesn’t understand anything about diplomacy and even less about optics,” writes MP Sjoerdsma of [government coalition party] D66.

Socialist Party Member of Parliament Karabulut wonders what the purpose of the conversation was. “Is it really true that she did not talk about the murder of journalist Khashoggi? Incomprehensible”, she writes on Twitter.

On Monday, the Lower House will hold a previously planned consultation on human rights policy. D66, GroenLinks and SP announce that they will discuss Queen Máxima’s conversation with the Saudi crown prince there.

Queen Máxima also had a private talk with Donald Trump. This tweet shows Queen Máxima with Trump, his daughter Ivanka, etc.

According to Saudi media, the crown prince had ‘spoken with the Dutch queen about cooperation between both kingdoms.’

Queen Máxima should be ashamed about this: here.

Platitudes at the G20 can’t mask a world on the brink of war: here.

British Prince Philip’s traffic troubles

British Prince Philip in a car, EPA photo

Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:

Prince Philip on the road again shortly after collision, without a seat belt

The police in Norfolk gave the British prince Philip a reprimand because he was yesterday behind the wheel without a seat belt.

If the man behind the wheel without a seat belt shortly after causing a collision would not have been a prince, but unemployed/disabled Joe Bloggs, then I suspect police might have done a lot more than a ‘reprimand’.

According to the BBC: ‘A person caught not wearing a seatbelt could receive an on-the-spot £100 fine. If a case goes to court, the fine could increase to £500’.

On Thursday, the 97-year-old prince was involved in a car accident in which his Range Rover rolled over. Philip remained unharmed, unlike a passenger in the other car involved in the collision. She broke her wrist.

British tabloids yesterday placed photos of Philip who drove at the entrance of the Royal Estate Sandringham without a belt. Those photographs led to a storm of criticism by people who felt that the Duke of Edinburgh was irresponsible, so shortly after the accident. …

‘No apology’

The investigation into Thursday’s accident is still ongoing. Witnesses say that the prince came from a side road at Sandringham, without taking traffic into account.

The 46-year-old woman who was injured in the collision tells The Sunday Mirror that Philip has not apologized. “It has been such a traumatic and painful time and I would have expected more of the Royal Family.” …

Still, the woman wonders whether the absence of personal apologies means Philip has no regrets. ““I love the royals but I’ve been ignored and rejected and I’m in a lot of pain. What would it have taken for him and the Queen to send me a card and a bunch of flowers?” the newspaper quotes her.

From the BBC today:

Ms [Emma] Fairweather, who was a passenger in the car being driven by her friend, told the Sunday Mirror: “I’m lucky to be alive and he hasn’t even said sorry. …

She said she had not heard from the royal household but had got a call from a police family liaison officer.

“The message he passed on didn’t even make sense. He said, ‘The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh would like to be remembered to you,'” she said.

“That’s not an apology or even a well-wish.”

Prince Philip ‘drives like he’s only one on road’ and is ‘notorious in Sandringham’. EXCLUSIVE After his horror crash on Thursday, a Sandringham resident has claimed to have multiple near-misses with the Duke of Edinburgh: here.

‘Prince Philip nearly ran my dad off the road – then stuck his finger up at him’. EXCLUSIVE: Rob Stevenson says his dad David was forced to take evasive action after the Duke allegedly sped around a tight corner near the Sandringham Estate two decades ago: here.

Prince Philip ‘threatened to throw Queen out of car’ after she ‘yelped’ in terror. Gyles Brandreth, a friend and biographer of The Duke of Edinburgh, spoke about the royal’s love of driving fast following Prince Phillip’s accident on Thursday: here.

Spanish royal divorce, republic?

Cartoon on Spanish royals in El Jueves

From the BBC, 13 November 2007:

A court in Spain has convicted Manel Fontdevila, cartoons editor of the popular satirical weekly magazine El Jueves, and cartoonist “Guillermo” of “damaging the prestige of the crown“.

Both men received a hefty 3,000-euro (£2,100) fine.

Their offence was to have published a cartoon last July making ribald fun of the heir to the Spanish throne, and of the government’s scheme to encourage women to have more babies by giving mothers a special payment for each new birth.

It was a caricature of Prince Filipe [Felipe] having sex with his wife, Princess Letizia, and telling her: “Do you realise that if you get pregnant, it will be the closest thing to work I’ve done in my life?”

‘More censorship’

The cartoon is funny, but the issue raised by its banning is serious. The episode has worrying echoes of last year’s frenzied and violent protests against the cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad printed in European newspapers.

Now, it is 2018, and they are King Felipe and Queen Letizia.

Today, Belgian daily Het Laatste Nieuws reports on quarrels between King Felipe and Queen Letizia. That may lead to divorce (a no-no for fanatically Roman Catholic Spanish royals).

Two weeks ago, when she did a working visit, Queen Letizia was ‘welcomed’ by a crowd chanting: ‘Long live the republic!’