The Strange World of Jeffrey Epstein

From the same source..

A Wanted Woman

‘The Sun’ offers a ‘dead or alive’ style reward for alleged madam to Jeffrey Epstein and daughter of ‘Bouncing Bob’ Ghislaine Maxwell

Bounty hunters have a new target in their sights – Ghislaine Maxwell – with The Sun offering a reward of £10,000 to “FIND HER.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Verdi wrote:And not one single photograph from within.

Something tells me this event turned out to be a non-event.  I would be interested to know if Richard Branson actually offered the venue at no cost to the McCanns, or whether their wealthy benefactor financed the whole shebang.

Or did it even happen?

Yes it did. 

I placed myself behind a bevy of photographers on that cold night of 27 January 2010 and took many photos of those entering Richard Branson's restaurant that night, and of the McCanns, and of Clarence Mitchell. 

Lord Steel and his wife were among the various celebrities I saw enter. 

I sent my photos to the CMOMM forum-owner who put some of them on here and others on one of her other blogs I think.

I actually stood behind a photographer called Ian West whom we had very good reason to believe was one of the most vicious pro-McCann trolls on the internet in the early days.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Prince Andrew's interviewer cosying up to Epstein's 'little black book' mate Mandelson, while he keeps his head below the parapet.

Jill Havern wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Prince Andrew's interviewer cosying up to Epstein's 'little black book' mate Mandelson, while he keeps his head below the parapet.

proper scumbag

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:And not one single photograph from within.

Something tells me this event turned out to be a non-event.  I would be interested to know if Richard Branson actually offered the venue at no cost to the McCanns, or whether their wealthy benefactor financed the whole shebang.

Or did it even happen?

Yes it did. 

I placed myself behind a bevy of photographers on that cold night of 27 January 2010 and took many photos of those entering Richard Branson's restaurant that night, and of the McCanns, and of Clarence Mitchell. 

Lord Steel and his wife were among the various celebrities I saw enter. 

I sent my photos to the CMOMM forum-owner who put some of them on here and others on one of her other blogs I think.

I actually stood behind a photographer called Ian West whom we had very good reason to believe was one of the most vicious pro-McCann trolls on the internet in the early days.

Yes thank you Tony, I remember but again your photographs were outside, not inside.  I don't dispute there was a photo-call outside the venue because there is photographic evidence, it's what went on inside - if anything, that I question.

I also recall providing confirmation that Ian West was there in the official capacity of press photographer.  Unfortunately I can't locate the thread at present.  

That is one very good reason why it's so important to keep on topic - it's very difficult, if not impossible, to locate a specific post and/or subject.

ETA:  Found it .... here on this very thread.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Including photographs..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lord Steel? Hardly a celebrity but nonetheless supportive of the McCann faction..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Again I say .... Clarence Mitchell would appear to be the key!

Disregard all the extraneous matter - return to May 2007! Clarence Mitchell, courtesy of HM's government is seconded to Luz to represent a couple of middle Englanders, with no claim to fame but a missing daughter.

Going way !

sallypelt wrote:How many believe that Epstein will end up in jail? I don't, for one moment. This goes too far up the elite scale, and he's going to walk. I hope that I am wrong, and he'll get the justice he deserves, but I am not going to hold my breath!

interesting reading in retro

One sure certainty - Prince Andrew will not end up in jail.

Gone are the days of the Princes in the Tower,  Edward V, King of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.

Duke of York   ?  Now there's a metaphor .... .

Verdi wrote:One sure certainty - Prince Andrew will not end up in jail.

Or even investigated by authorities.

Well blow me down.

Alleges she was brought to UK by Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew

Thankfully, having never been part of this world of human trafficking for sexual exploitation, there are areas I just can't comprehend. Why ship one 17 year old across the pond from the US of A, to have sex with a fumbling old codger like Prince Andrew - no disrespect! In his position, as Prince of the realm, he could plant his grubby little trotters on any female that took his fancy.

I get the scene back at base. A billionaire housing any number of nubile females - and males, to satisfy the lust of his guests, just as Richard Branson did/does on his Necker (appropriately named) Island. A sort of secluded knocking shop where anything goes without censure and prying eyes.

Does Prince Andrew really need to risk everything by exposing himself (excuse the inference) holding hands with a rogue like Epstein and sharing the bounty on offer - wherever he may be? Why not pick-up a willing partner in a local bar, or take a clandestine visit to the nearest illicit brothel? Far less risky in my view, even if you think you are above the law .... which of course Prince Andrew is. But I just don't get the logistics of all this.

The same principle applied to the abduction of Madeleine McCann, most probably by a peadophile predator [sic]. Why would a predator go to the trouble of singling out one child from hundreds if not thousands of others. A child tucked-up in bed next to her little brother and sister - at around 22:00H? Wouldn't it be easier to wait close to a school gate, or lurk in park or anywhere else that attracts children on mass?

Was it that special something .... that charisma as described by Uncle Jon? I can't see that, nor can I see the special attraction of Virginia Roberts.

Still, maybe you have to be of that cultish persuasion to understand.

Well... that would be a matter for the Police to investigate.

To whom it may concern..

Prince Andrew accuser gives first UK interview

6 hours ago

A US woman who says she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York aged 17 has given her first UK television interview - on Monday's BBC Panorama.

Virginia Giuffre, one of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's accusers, says both she and Prince Andrew "know what happened".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
...................

Irrespective of what Prince Andrew may or may not have done, I'm still not convinced.

Prince Andrew: this has become a witch-hunt

I’m a republican, but I refuse to join this public shaming.

Kevin Rooney 25th November, 2019

I am a republican. An Irish republican from West Belfast, to be precise. I have never entered any of the interminable debates about the antics of the royals on the basis that I think the monarchy should be abolished. So it has been strange to find myself defending a royal all week, among friends, colleagues and family, amid the lynch-mob atmosphere prompted by the explosive Newsnight interview with Prince Andrew.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that Prince Andrew is innocent of having sex with an underage girl, as he has been accused. Or that he was telling the truth in that interview about his friendship with the now-deceased convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who it is alleged trafficked a 17-year-old girl to him for sex. Or that he is a decent human being. I don’t know enough about Andrew or the evidence against him to make any judgement on those issues. But there is a lot that should concern us about the response to that interview.

It became obvious soon after it aired last Saturday that what Andrew had hoped would draw a line under the ongoing speculation about his friendship Epstein had spectacularly backfired. Commentators on the Sunday political shows all agreed the interview was a terrible mistake. Monday’s front pages put aside political rivalries to sing from the same hymn sheet.

The initial response focused less on whether Andrew was telling the truth and more on the fact that he had not shown any empathy with Epstein’s victims or apologised to them. Columnists and pundits queued up to agree that his lack of empathy was unforgivable and should have serious consequences. This was where my discomfort first set in.

Prince Andrew clearly agreed to this interview to clear his name. After all, he stands accused not just of being friends with Epstein, but also of committing crimes himself. He has been accused of having sex with a minor, as well as groping other women. It’s hard to think of an allegation more damning for someone in public life than having sex with an underage girl and knowingly associating with a paedophile.


If, for argument’s sake, Andrew is innocent, then it is reasonable to assume that he and his family have been through hell in recent years as rumours and speculation have circulated. If we think for just one minute about how that would feel if it happened to us or someone we love, we would surely not wish it on our worst enemy. But empathy with Andrew is clearly not the order of the day.

People are free to dislike Andrew and the tone he took in that interview. But when was it decreed that people fighting to clear their name can only defend themselves if they first apologise to people harmed by someone else? Prince Andrew claims he was unaware of and did not take any part in Epstein’s activities. There are hundreds of leading politicians, businessmen and scientists who have spent time with Epstein. Do they all need to apologise to his victims or be removed from public life?

As the angry reaction has grown, the debate has started to feel genuinely chilling. The country, it seems, expects public figures to say a certain prescribed thing. If they do not, then they must be condemned and cast out of civilised society. It was only a matter of hours after the interview aired that the clamour grew for Andrew to be stripped of his royal duties and salary. Which is of course what happened.

They got their scalp. A man was driven out of his job and his royal life within 48 hours, not because he was found guilty of any wrongdoing, but because he did an interview in which he said the wrong thing. That, according to some people I’ve spoken to, proves that we live in a civilised society.

It is striking how many people have focused on the fact that Andrew has been badly advised – that he should have been told to express more sympathy with the victims. It is as if we no longer care if an apology is genuine or heartfelt. Emily Maitlis wrote a fascinating piece in The Times about the interview, saying she was struck by how open Andrew was: ‘There is no question he shies away from. No issue with which he refuses to engage.’ But in the aftermath it was if it would have been better had he just issued an anodyne statement.

There were other things that jarred about the response. As a lifelong republican I object to the extravagance of the royal family. Just imagine what we could do with the money we spend on the royals. But there was something unpleasant about the relish with which people greeted the downfall of this privileged rich man. Even my respected friend and spiked associate editor, Joanna Williams, wrote that this man is ‘so privileged he leads a life unrecognisable to the vast majority of British citizens’. Well, yes. That’s because he’s a member of the royal family. I would kick them all out tomorrow. But until we do, by definition, they are not going to live the lives of ordinary people.

The question of Andrew’s guilt or innocence seems to exercise people less than his failure to express regret. His apparent memory problems and clumsy defences, mercilessly mocked on Twitter, clearly convinced no one. But few seem to care if they were accurate or not. Only a court of law can rule on whether Andrew is innocent or guilty, but given the tsunami of media coverage you would have thought that one or two of the journalists assigned to this story might have been asked to investigate whether Andrew’s alibi was true.

The entire UK media, it seems, were sent to that Pizza Express in Woking – where Andrew claims he was accompanying his daughter to a birthday party on the day of one of his alleged crimes. Pointless photos of it were taken. But no one seemed able to track down anyone who was supposedly at that child’s birthday party, and might have remembered having a royal in attendance. This media story has become more about reporting communal outrage than verifying Andrew’s claims.

That Andrew has stepped back from royal life is of no concern to me. I wish all the royals would. But the reaction to this interview concerns me hugely – from the virtue-signalling to the primacy of the victim, from the casual demonisation of privileged white men to the glee at a national shaming. All those jumping on this bandwagon better hope that they and their loved ones never have to face this kind of ritual public shaming.

Kevin Rooney is co-author of The Blood-Stained Poppy.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This was posted on the David Icke forum 20 hours ago by a poster called 'Enchanted LifePath', some of which is factual:

Let us take a very good analytical look at Prince Andrew’s recent interview with BBC Newsnight reporter Emily Maitlis where we will dissect his strange answers and highlight how many times he seems to his behind Ghislaine Maxwell to make matters much worse.

It can not go unmentioned how Ghislaine’s face is incredibly similar to one of the suspects released by Scotland Yard on an E-Fit of people they would like to speak to regarding the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann.

The image above shows (see article) an e-fit released by Scotland Yard of people they suspected may have played a part in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The John Podesta connection to the e-fit is well documented but another face on the police release been a huge point of interest in various Enchanted LifePath reports via videos and live streams via YouTube as well as articles here on this website.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S GIRLFRIEND GHISLAINE MAXWELL RESEMBLES AN E-FIT OF A MADELEINE MCCANN SUSPECT

Jeffrey Epstein’s reported ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been subject to public allegations of being a sex trafficker of underage girls.

Ghislaine Maxwell began to catch the eye because of her uncanny resemblance to a woman who was pictured on the Madeleine McCann e-fit that features the John and Tony Podesta look-alikes.

This is worrying as we do see Ghislaine Maxwell is closely connected to Jeffrey Epstein and was said to be his pimp.

Maxwell stands just accused as Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew can not stop saying how he is friends with Ghislaine more so than Jeffrey.

We have Prince Andrew stating he is friends with Ghislaine maxwell who it appears is an identical match for a woman the set of e-fits released by Scotland Yard.

Less Than 50% Of Original Article

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't see Madeleine being so special as to attract the attention of people at that level.

I just don't see it.

I don't see Maxwell down on the ground doing the leg-work either.

That's the David Icke site for you.

Say what you like about Epstein and/or Prince Andrew - I very much doubt they were/are into three year old children.

I do wish folk would learn to differentiate. There is a huge difference between sexual exploitation of a very young child and that of a teenager, the former having absolutely no say in their destiny.

Perverts have a preference - they don't just go for what they see before them or what's on offer.

I've long since lost patience with a select few trying to link the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with the likes of the Podesta brothers and now it seems Epstein.

Apart from anything else, there remains compelling evidence that Madeleine McCann is no longer of this world - ask the dogs!

Stick to the basics.

[size=32]Prince Andrew braces himself for Virginia Giuffre interview on Panorama tonight about Jeffrey Epstein scandal[/size]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Prince Andrew is bracing himself for further scrutiny as Panorama prepares to broadcast its interview with one of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Jeffrey Epstein's alleged victims.


The BBC One investigative programme entitled The Prince And The Epstein Scandal has been extended to run for an hour on Monday night and will feature [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]’s first UK television interview.

Ms Giuffre will tell her story and reveal new details about her time with Epstein, the BBC said, while reporter Darragh MacIntyre will also examine Ghislaine Maxwell’s alleged role in the disgraced financier's prolific sex offending.

Andrew’s attempts to defend himself against Ms Giuffre’s accusations that she slept with him and explain his friendship with Epstein, a convicted paedophile, in a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  and led to him withdrawing from public duties.

He was widely criticised for failing to show remorse for his association with the disgraced financier or empathy with Epstein’s victims during his television appearance.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  and seen organisations he was once involved with sever ties.

Ms Giuffre claimed in court papers in Florida that she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17, below the state’s age of consent. She was then called Virginia Roberts.

Andrew strenuously denies the claims, and Buckingham Palace has branded the allegations “false and without any foundation”, stating: “Any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors by the duke was categorically untrue”.

Ms Giuffre alleges the duke slept with her on three separate occasions, twice while she was underage.

During his Newnight interview, the duke said an alleged encounter with Ms Giuffre in 2001 did not happen as he spent the day with his daughter, Princess Beatrice, taking her to Pizza Express in Woking for a party.

Ms Giuffre alleged the duke sweated heavily as they danced at London nightclub Tramp.

But Andrew said he had a medical condition at the time, after suffering an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when he was shot at, which meant he did not sweat.

Epstein killed himself in August in a New York prison while he was being held on sex trafficking charges.

The programme will air on BBC One on Monday at 9pm.

Additional reporting by PA Media

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Prince Andrew
BBC withdraws publicity for Panorama special on Prince Andrew

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The Duke of York is also facing questions about his business dealings while working as a British trade envoyDIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES



The BBC has withdrawn plans to release a publicity clip of tonight’s Panorama documentary about the Duke of York amid concerns about the sensitivity of the programme. 

The corporation had said it would issue an extract of an interview with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], who alleges she was trafficked to London by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in 2001, when she was 17, and made to have sex with Prince Andrew. The duke, 59, has consistently denied the allegation.

The BBC changed its promotional plans yesterday, with sources saying the decision had been made because of the “sensitive nature of the programme”.
BBC bosses are acutely aware of its chequered record on reporting sex abuse allegations. In 2014, BBC News transmitted an interview with the accuser “Nick” — since revealed to be the fantasist Carl Beech — at the top of its main bulletins. That same year, it used a helicopter to film police searching the home of Sir Cliff Richard over an allegation that he was never arrested over and was later dropped. In 2012, it paid damages to Lord McAlpine of West Green, the Tory peer, after wrongly implicating him in child abuse.


Campaigners for the falsely accused last night urged the BBC to be cautious. Daniel Janner, QC, of the pressure group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (Fair), said: “There is a danger in the Prince Andrew case of assuming guilt by association.”

Mr Janner, who is campaigning to clear the name of his late father, Lord Janner of Braunstone, QC, added: “This is a very difficult tightrope and the BBC has to walk it carefully.”
Andrew was forced to withdraw from public life after his [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] last month about his friendship with Epstein. He is now facing calls for a parliamentary inquiry into his business dealings after [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] claimed the duke had been helping a friend’s business interests while working as a British trade envoy.

The newspaper said it had seen a cache of documents, including leaked emails, about Andrew’s links with David Rowland and claimed the duke had been helping his business interests — including promoting his private bank — while a trade envoy for Britain.

Its investigation said Andrew had a 40 per cent stake in an investment firm registered in the British Virgin Islands and he had allowed Mr Rowland’s son to accompany him on trade missions. It also alleged that the prince’s private secretary had shared a diplomatic document with the Rowlands.

A royal spokeswoman said: “The Duke of York was the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment between 2001 and July 2011 and in that time the aim was to promote Britain and British interests overseas, not the interests of individuals.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
....................


I shouldn't be surprised if Mr Andrew's personal assistant finds herself dead in a ditch in the not too distant future.

Virginia Giuffre accuses the prince of having sex with her [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], when she was 17. at Ghislaine Maxwell’s house in London, at Jeffrey Epstein’s house in New York and at an orgy with “seven Russian girls who didn’t speak a word of English” at Epstein’s private estate [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

In the latter episode, she alleges that she and the other girls were sent to a cabana where Epstein and the prince were seated. “Jeffrey directed us with hand gestures to start undressing and then we were instructed to start kissing and touching each other. Jeffrey and the prince were laughing and then I stripped and I performed a sex act on Andrew. There was a dinner the next day and then Andrew was gone.”


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] with Prince Andrew and Ms Maxwell at Ms Maxwell’s London home in 2001, with the prince’s arm around her waist. Laws on trafficking – in which victims are forced into a situation of dependency on a trafficker and then provided to others for sexual services, as Ms Giuffre claims was the case – [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] said in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: “It didn’t happen. I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened. I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.”

He said that “there are a number of things that are wrong” with her story, including her account of him “sweating profusely” when they danced at a nightclub, which he said was impossible as an adrenalin surge while serving in the Falklands War [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

He said that he has “no memory” of the photograph being taken, that “I don’t believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested”, indicating that it may be a fake.

To the alleged encounters in New York in April 2001, he denied going to Epstein’s home that day. He states that he overnighted at the home of the US consul general, Sir Thomas Harris. Sir Thomas stated last week that he has “no recollection” of it.

To the allegations of his behavior at Epstein’s private isle in the US Virgin Islands, the prince told the BBC: “Absolutely no to all of it.”

Flight logs for Epstein’s private jet show that Ms Giuffre was in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands on the days she alleges. The Court Circular recorded that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]was in New York on charity business on the days she alleges.

There is no official record of his whereabouts at the time of the alleged episode in the US Virgin Islands, though he was reported to have been in the region at the time, on holiday in the Bahamas, a short fight away, with his wife and daughters. Relating to the alleged London encounter, he told the BBC that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in Woking and then spent the night at home.

Alan Dershowitz, lawyer for Epstein

Ms Giuffre accuses [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], in a defamation case, of being a “close friend and co-conspirator” of Epstein. Her lawsuit states that Dershowitz was “a participant in sex trafficking, including as one of the men to whom Epstein lent out [the plaintiff] for sex.”

The lawsuit accuses him of putting up a “desperate barrage of false and increasingly defamatory attacks” against her in response to a 2014 court filing in which she alleged that she was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] at Epstein’s behest.

Mr Dershowitz says that he has “never met” Giuffre, nor a second sworn accuser, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Ms Ransome is said to have told the New York Post in 2016 that she had video of herself having sex with people including Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in the early 2000s; she reportedly later admitted to having made up the tapes’ existence in order to force more public scrutiny of Epstein’s behaviour and protect herself against him retaliating.

In response and counter-claims to Ms Giuffre’s lawsuit filed earlier this month, Mr Dershowitz dismisses her as a “liar, a perjurer and an extortionist”. He claims that he was the victim of a plot to extort money from Les Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands – the company that owns the Victoria’s Secret empire.

In her lawsuit, Ms Giuffre states that neither she nor her lawyers have ever demanded or received money from Mr Wexner, and she has never publicly accused Wexner of misconduct against her.

Mr Dershowitz says in court papers that he can disprove multiple “fabrications” by Ms Giuffre through “travel records, credit card statements, telephone records, and other documentation which prove that Dershowitz could not have been in the places during the time period when Giuffre claims to have had sex with him”.

“These documents were inspected for authenticity by former FBI Director Louis Freeh,” he states in his counterclaims to Ms Giuffre’s lawsuit, which alleges that in accounts Ms Giuffre gave to the FBI, her best friend, her boyfriend, and a journalist, Ms Giuffre had — before 2014 — “never included Dershowitz among the individuals she was allegedly trafficked to by Jeffrey Epstein.” They add: “To the contrary, she wrote emails, a manuscript, and other material that made it clear that she did not have sex with Dershowitz.”

Filings by Ms Giuffre’s lawyers pick apart Mr Dershowitz’s claims. In addition, documents relating to Ms Giuffre’s defamation case against Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, which was settled out of court in 2017, state that there was documentary evidence that refuted Ms Maxwell’s “meritless argument that Ms Giuffre did not allege she had sex with Prince Andrew until 2014. To the contrary, two sources, including the FBI, show Ms Giuffre made these claims in 2011,” records state.

Documents filed in a separate defamation case against Mr Dershowitz, brought by one of Giuffre’s lawyers, David Boies, refute allegations by Mr Dershowitz “has engaged in a campaign to attack and vilify” lawyers representing victims.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Ms Giuffre and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have accused [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in sworn statements, court filings and interviews with law enforcement of her being instrumental to Epstein’s crimes, procuring them for sex and sometimes taking part herself.

Ms Giuffre filed [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in September 2015 for calling her a liar and the case was settled out of court in May 2017.

In a sworn statement in 2017, Philip Barden, one of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]’s lawyers, dismissed Giuffre’s claim that she had sex with Prince Andrew in his client’s bathtub as “an obvious lie” due in part to the tub being “too small for a man of Prince Andrew’s size to enjoy a bath in, let alone sex”.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
....................


All eyes on Panorama tonight?  I reckon this show will break all records for Panorama viewer ratings.  The plot thickens ....

Quote: "What exactly is the vibe here.

Are folk trying to establish a connection between the colourful life of Epstein, his many connections in the world of the rich and famous - and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

I know it's quiet on the western front but I think this is getting a bit ridiculous."

and Quote:

"The only known association between the McCanns and Clement Freud is a couple of visits they made to his villa in the summer of 2007.  I strongly suggest this arrangement was by the hand of Clarence Mitchell - I don't believe the McCanns knew Clement Freud before or after the brief association in Luz."

It was not known at the time that Clement Freud was a paedophile, at least not publicly, but his son Matthew Freud agreed to do some consultancy work for the sentencing counsel of the Leveson enquiry, and it came to light that Leveson had twice partied at Matthew Freud's home in the past year.
At the time, M.Freud was the son in law of Rupert Murdoch who together with Robert Maxwell's former newspaper were both under scrutiny in that enquiry.
In 2008, M.Freud employed Clarence Mitchell in his PR company, Freud Communications.
Which way around was it? Did Clarence Mitchell introduce the McCann's to Clement Freud, or did Matthew employ Clarence Mitchell in order to keep informed of the progress of the McCann case? i.e. were Matthew and Mitchell in cohorts from the start?
Another point of interest is the e-fit of a 'Victoria Beckham lookalike" Who mistakenly asked a stranger if he had 'brought her new daughter" at a Port in Spain on the night Maddie disappeared, and her strange accent, possibly Australian, and the resemblance of both that e-fit and Victoria Beckham to that of Ghisane Maxwell.
By her own admission, Ghisane's accent is 'strange'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],

Could you please source your my quotes please?

to the forum by the way!

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],

Could you please source your my quotes please?

to the forum by the way!

I beg your pudding, a mis-copy and paste. And thanks.
Quotes from a) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
and b) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Granted!

Your point is?

Verdi wrote:Granted!

Your point is?

In respect to both comments, a) If folk are seeing a connection with the Maddie case and Epstein, is it really ridiculous? and b) There is a much closer connection than that pointed out by Tony Bennett.
Although the McCann's only visited Freud a couple of times, Clarence Mitchell was their PR man.
Mitchell went on to work for Freud communications while assisting the McCanns as a sideline.
We've got Matthew Freud the son of a paedophile and husband of Murdoch's daughter, Sky news being informed of Maddie's disappearance rather promptly, Sky news being owned by Murdoch.
We've also got the sudden appearance of British agents all over PDL.
We should remember that phone hacking perpetrated by both newspaper groups, Murdoch's and Maxwell's former MNG had started long before the disappearance of Madelleine McCann.
Although I am yet to discover a direct connection between Clement Freud and Epstein, it's highly likely that such a connection exists. Freud was a friend of Rolf Harris and Cyril Smith, making it clear that those of a feather flock together. Clarence Mitchell was very cleverly positioned between the son of a paedophile and the McCann investigation, and Matthew Freud accepted a position as consultant for the sentencing counsel of The Leveson enquiry.
Ghisane maxwell, accused of procuring underage girls bears a resemblance to Victoria Beckham and the e-fit  I mentioned earlier, she also speaks with a strange English accent which some may mistake as Australian, as per the descriptio given of a woman who asked a stranger if he had 'brought her new daughter' on the night of Maddie's disappearance.
So no one has to try hard to notice connections between high profile paedophile's and the Maddie case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], you still haven't posted the link to my and now Tony's quotes, without which it's difficult to put your comments in context.

However I will try to respond to your most recent comments, I will keep it brief as it's not directly relevant to this thread.

I have long since believed that Clarence Mitchell was instrumental in the McCanns visit to Clement Freud - if indeed it did happen. The feigned friendship/liaison with Clement Freud isn't really very convincing, the invitation and what followed was over embellished by Kate McCann in her autobiographical novel 'madeleine', published in April 2011 - by that time Clement Freud was long since dead.  There is no proof that the liaison happened as described - if indeed it did happen.

Clarence Mitchell was seconded to Luz by the British government, to assist the McCanns with the overwhelming media presence, he arrived with Gerry McCann following the first trip back to the UK in the middle of May 2007.  He didn't become the Find Madeleine Fund Mr Fix-it until after his resignation from position of Media Monitoring Director for the government in September 2007.

Clarence Mitchell worked for many years in the world of media.  It's quite understandable he would know many people from the same world.

As far as can be ascertained, Clement Freud had a penchant for pre-pubescent and pubescent children - not three year olds.

There is no known connection between Clement Freud and Jeffrey Epstein, without which it can only be supposition.  Even if there was, I see no reason to think it's connected in any way with Madeleine McCann

In my view Maxwell looks nothing like the artist impression of the woman allegedly overheard in Barcelona, said to look like Victoria Beckham.  Again, Epstein was interested in pubescent kids, not three year olds.  Besides, if taking the particular 'sighting' into consideration, you must remember this incident was claimed by the dubious private detectives hired by the McCanns wealthy benefactor, Brian Kennedy - the incident wasn't even investigated.  Evidence suggests that the string of private detectives hired by the Find Madeleine Fund to 'search' for Madeleine where less than trustworthy in their pursuits.  Indeed, there is strong evidence that witnesses were induced to report bogus sightings.

Finally, if you wish to continue this line of thought your are forgetting the compelling evidence that Madeleine McCann was not abducted.  She almost certainly met her fate sometime between Sunday 29th April and Thursday 3rd May 2007.  Unless you believe Gerry and Kate McCann  or any of their group of friends were friends with, or any way connected with, the people you name.  I seriously doubt it, some evidence would have come to light long ago.  The McCanns were unknown until 4th May 2007.

If you wish to continue this discussion please let me know and I will move to a more appropriate thread.

Verdi both quotes are from page one of this thread, about half way down the page, The Strange World of Jeffrey Epstein.

I'd better explain what led me to this forum: I'd been reading through the Leveson Enguiry on Wikipedia and one thing led to another and I noticed the connection with Matthew Freud and Clement Freud. That led me eventually to this forum and this particular thread.

There is a similarity to VB in 2007 and GM in the same year but like yourself I don't believe the 'sighting' was real. I'm more inclinded to think that the activities of Ghislane Maxwell (GM) were already known and she was being delliberately alluded to. I will explain more tomorrow.

I'm more interested in the peripheral goings on in PDL at the time of Maddie's disappearance, rather than what happened to her.

How Sky news got involved so quickly, MI5 etc and telephone hacking.
Remember that Gerry was overheard claiming Maddie had been taken by Paedophiles, true or not this must have alarmed the paedo community.

I will expand further tomorrow if you think this is the correct thread to do so.
I am not disputing the conclusions this forum has come to re Maddie, but am more interested to discover if her disappearance/death coincided with an unrelated undercover operation, or even if the entire incident was manufactured, possibly to give the press an excuse for being there in order to cover up for something they may have learned through phone hacking.

(example: did the press learn of something that was about to happen and want to be there without letting on that they knew)

I believe there were calls for Leveson to be removed from the enquiry when they learned he had twice partied at Matthew Freuds home, so all in all phone hacking, press, paedophilles, government involvement etc are entwined with the Maddie case, accidently or otherwise.

There is a distinct possibility he, Clarence Mitchell, was asked or told to leave.

Verdi wrote:There is a distinct possibility he, Clarence Mitchell, was asked or told to leave.

Oh... I think he was still unofficially working for the same people.