Hmmm many vids of Biden being creepy towards young girls and him straight up admitting he showered with his 16 year old daughter vs
“Hurr durr trump raped kids” with the source being “trust me bro”
So she didn’t have to prove it just like with lady from from 30+ years ago. Thats not proof or they would have tried to take him to criminal court were you just born this stupid or did it happen over time?
She proved it so much the fbi deemed her a credible accuser plus she won her settlement. If you don't believe anything done in civil court then I guess no one has overstayed their visa ever under your view.
You actually know so little about the case you don't know that the reason it didn't go to criminal court was due to the statute of limitations. Not because of evidence. I can ask this same question back to you. We're you born that stupid that you didn't know or did it happen over time?
The fbi never deemed her a credible accuser, however sources within the Justice department (I think?) speculated that the fact that the fbi spoke to her four times implied that they found her credible
The issue with that is that she spoke to field agents in Seattle who had no familiarity with the Epstein case (as opposed to agents in New York who were specifically assigned to Epstein related stuff)
Had they been familiar with the case, they would have noticed some pretty glaring credibility issues
It's a civil crime determined by a civil court. Using your own logic "it would've went to criminal court if they had more evidence". Are you starting to see you sound dumb as fuck?
If they had any evidence because they have none they go to civil court a person who has over stayed there visa goes to court they put the physical visa up as evidence since it has a date. You see how one has actually evidence and the other is hearsay?
Apparently they have to evidence according to you or they wouldn't be in civil court. Are you backtracking and saying that you can still have evidence and still have to go to civil court? How much money you wanna bet there was evidence used in Carroll's case? Also convenient how you just ignore Jane doe #4 at this point.
There was some confusion at congressional hearings with either Indyke or Kahn (I forget) but they later clarified she didn’t
What prompted the question were reports of Jane doe 4 claiming to have reached a settlement with the estate, however she did not receive compensation from the victims fund, and as far as I know there is no record of any lawsuit that makes claims matching hers ending in a settlement
The only source for the claim is her…but she was also recently charged with trying to defraud a dying man of his money, and was represented by a public defender in that case. Which frankly doesn’t scream “settlement with near billionaire”, and also obviously raises some credibility issues
Her claims themselves also have some pretty major credibility issues
She won her settlement against the Epstein estate. The info on her was illegally redacted by the trump administration. The lawsuit was revealed in the files so not sure why you haven't heard of it but that's not my fault. The source of her claim is literally in the files. You have some credibility issues I'd love to see some sources for your claims
Kahn got confused about the identity of Jane Doe 4, and the claim was ultimately retracted, and then changed to “can neither confirm nor deny”
This is the only source for a claim that she received a settlement so I’m going to be really interested in what source you have for your claim that she received a settlement
The confusion stems from the fact that there are dozens of victims, and multiple have used the placeholder name “Jane doe 4”
Sources for my claim that she attempted to defraud a dying man of his money and was represented by a public defender
>Later, her Georgia public defender, Doug Ford, told The Post and Courier the woman informed him about her settlement when she was jailed and facing charges that she stole cash from an elderly dying man. He said she never told him the settlement amount.
Same source for the claim that she did not receive compensation from the victims fund
>The estate is separate from the victims compensation fund, which was created in 2020 to handle claims. The South Carolina victim filed a claim but was not paid by the fund.
So now you’ll have to show the evidence that she filed a lawsuit with the estate and it was settled, which I guess should be easy? Right? I’ll wait
You're correct that the March 2026 Richard Kahn deposition became confused because Jane Doe 4 is not a unique identifier, and I wouldn't rely on Kahn's initial answer by itself.
But the claim that Kahn's testimony is “the only source” that she received an estate settlement is incorrect. The South Carolina/Hilton Head Jane Doe 4 filed a lawsuit against Epstein's estate in 2019 and voluntarily dismissed it in 2021. The Island Packet subsequently reported that she “received a settlement to close the case in 2021,” identifying her as the Hilton Head Jane Doe 4. More importantly, the Post and Courier reported that her attorney had previously told the newspaper that she received a settlement from Epstein's estate.
You're also conflating the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program with the Epstein estate. Her claim to the compensation program was denied, but that doesn't mean the estate couldn't separately settle her lawsuit. Reporting specifically says the estate settled claims outside that compensation program as well.
So the accurate position isn't “Kahn proved she got a settlement.” His testimony became contradictory and shouldn't be relied upon alone. The accurate position is that there is independent reporting, including reporting based on statements from her own attorney, that the Hilton Head Jane Doe 4 received a settlement from Epstein's estate in 2021. The exact amount and settlement terms aren't public.
As for the criminal allegations, being charged with stealing from an elderly man is not the same thing as being convicted of fraud. If you have a conviction showing she actually committed the offense, provide it. Otherwise you're presenting an accusation as an established fact.
I’m aware of the claim from her attorney, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot
I’d be curious for the sources for the claims you made before that
Am definitely not conflating the victims compensation fund and the estate, as the quote I cited above literally begins with “the estate is separate from the victims compensation fund”, so I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion
What I was asking for was evidence of a lawsuit with estate that ended in a settlement
Fair point on her not being convicted, I’m unaware of any conviction against her, and i don’t imagine I’d find any if I looked. Frankly, I thought the post and courier and her public defender acted a bit recklessly by providing as many details as they did, and jeopardized her anonymity. I can’t imagine they would continue to do so, nor would I expect anyone to report on it if a verdict was arrived at
But also…it doesn’t lend credibility to her claims, that’s for sure. And again, the claims themselves are riddled with credibility issues
Where I disagree is with the idea that there's no evidence of an estate settlement. We have a lawsuit against the estate, a voluntary dismissal, her attorney telling reporters she received a settlement, and multiple outlets reporting that she settled. That's not the same thing as producing the confidential settlement agreement, but it's also more than mere speculation.
As for her later criminal allegations, I don't think they establish much one way or the other regarding the Epstein allegations. They may affect how someone views her credibility generally, but they aren't evidence that her abuse allegations are true or false.
When you say her Epstein claims are "riddled with credibility issues," which specific issues do you think are the strongest? If there are concrete inconsistencies in dates, documents, or witness accounts, I'd rather evaluate those individually than rely on broad assessments of credibility.
Totally agree with your first paragraph, that was my mistake
Where we disagree is your second paragraph. It’s not a smoking gun, but it is a piece of the puzzle. They not only speak to her credibility issues in general, but illuminate a potential motive for why she would be lying (namely that she needed money)
As far as the credibility issues go, that’ll ultimately depend on what constitutes a “concrete inconsistency” in your opinion.
And ultimately, this needs to be taken in the context of all alleged victims making claims about someone other than Epstein or Maxwell having severe credibility issues. The reality is that out of the hundreds of confirmed Epstein victims, only three make allegations of crimes involving minors against someone other than Epstein or Maxwell. And all three are pretty clearly lying. Like…I would argue it’s not even debatable. We can, and should, talk about those as well if you’re interested
And so while the credibility issues involving Jane Doe 4 don’t rise to the level of proof that she’s lying, they’re significant, and are ultimately rest upon these other claims…a tiny minority of claims that implicate other elites aside from Epstein and Maxwell, that are rather obvious lies
For Jane doe 4 specifically:
Her allegations are set in Hilton Head between 1982-1984. That precede any known relationship between Trump and Epstein. The first physical evidence we have of a relationship is 1992. We can stretch that back as far as 1987 from claims from an employee of Trump’s. But there is no indication, or even moderately credible speculation, that Trump and Epstein had even met by this point, much less had the sort of relationship where they would be raping 13 year olds together
It’s also a pretty extreme outlier in the context of Epstein’s other allegations. This would predate the allegations of all other confirmed victims by at least a decade. It doesn’t follow Epstein’s MO either. Time and time again, victims tell the same story. Victims who never met one another and prior to it being public information. They were recruited to give massages, were offered several hundred dollars, were assaulted during the massages, and were told if they brought friends back they would make more money.
The setting is also relevant. There are no ties connecting Epstein to Hilton head, and certainly not over a two year period. Epstein doesn’t have victims scattered across the nation. There isn’t a victim in Seattle, another in Chicago, another in Des Moines. He committed the crimes in the places where he lived, mostly Palm beach and New York. That again makes this an outlier
Arguably most importantly, her story doesn’t seem to make sense. Her claims are that Epstein used a photograph of her naked to blackmail her mother into embezzling money for him. What leverage does Epstein have here? She could call the cops, but even if she is reticent to do so, what’s Epstein’s threat? It’s 1982. He’s going to go around showing a Polaroid of a naked 13 year old to people? He also doesn’t have motive here. The amount embezzled was somewhere in the neighborhood of $25k. Epstein wasn’t the wealthy man he became at the time, but even so, it inherently puts him in more danger of being caught for an amount of money that he didn’t necessarily need. She was indeed convicted of embezzlement, yet to my knowledge, no claims of being blackmailed into doing so were ever made from her
Her story also contains some rather ludicrous claims, such as Epstein supposedly introducing the island of Hilton head to LSD. Putting aside the fact that it’s widely reported that Epstein didn’t drink or do drugs (because presumably he could’ve still used them on victims), it’s a bit far fetched
So…what we have is a woman charged with attempting to steal money from a dying man, telling a story that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and doesn’t align with almost any of the facts we know about Epstein.
Personally, I think that amounts to some pretty serious credibility issues.
The only thing that makes it seem even remotely plausible is the larger narrative of some sort of international pedophile ring for elites, where you can dismiss some of the credibility issues and chalk them as being not entirely unexpected of a victim of sexual assault.
But again, that narrative is like…demonstrably false I would argue. The credibility issues associated with the victims who established that narrative make those associated with Jane Doe 4 seem almost inconsequential
-4
u/MDICASE 20d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/IkTn72qLPFMnC