Friday, December 12, 2025

“Are We Still Talking About This?”

Why are the women’s faces obscured? I don’t object to it. I just want to know what the rationale was.

Why does their identity need to be protected? It can even be as simple as: women are more commonly shamed than men (another method of control). Or is it because they were minors then?

Inquiring minds want to know. It could be as simple as common decency. The men pictured are public figures. Perhaps the women are not?

But one is curious.
🍿  🍿 🍿 Does anyone else stop and think: “95,000 photographs? And that’s not all of them?” Did Epstein chronicle every minute of his life?

2 comments:

  1. My assumption is the blocked-out faces belong to people they know for sure or suspect were minors at the time the photo was taken- which I think is fair when released for public consumption. I do wonder how/if releasing the photos affects whether they could be used as evidence in a trial (not that I expect one, but on general principle)?

    The 95K photos number jumped out at me too. I suppose all these celebrity people- Gates, Clinton, even maybe Steve Bannon- get used to having their photo taken from all angles when they are out in public. But as a random guy, if I had any whiff something weird was going on *and* there were cameras going off all over the place, I'd get pretty nervous. I wonder how many of those photos were taken from hidden places- and now I stop, the pull of dipstick conspiracy theory is getting stronger and stronger...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fitzgerald was right; the rich are different. And I’m assuming the women in the photos deserve/need protection. It just raises questions when you see the POTUS in a photo with…6 minor females? And he’s leering?

    ReplyDelete