One parting note, since I know this market has a decent number of trades on it. A few things have been on my mind reviewing the documents these last few days, and I'd be remiss if I hadn't shared a few parting thoughts (and thanks to anyone who is willing to stick around and read them)

. I realize this website isn't my blog, but I think I'd like to not give the impression that I've been too facetious by making this market. These documents detail truly horrifying crimes of systematized sexual assault. Many people were irreversibly harmed by these crimes, and -- whether or not any one of the people either named or not named in these documents can be proven guilty -- it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein, the man responsible for the crimes committed, had the backing of very powerful people that effectively shielded him from the justice he deserved. Then, when he was caught, as far as anyone is likely to know -- and ultimately, being the coward he was -- he took his own life rather than face justice himself.

There's a section of the oldest known written law in existence which states the basic purpose of law is thus: "that the strong might not oppress the weak". Because of the way events happened, there's really no way any one of his and his accomplices' victims can ever have justice. The only person who truly knew the real extent of the crimes committed is no longer available to us. In my humble opinion, that represents a complete failure of the system we live under to protect any of us from any other person who is sufficiently powerful such that they can oppress us. In short, our system of law has failed to protect the weak from the strong.

I think that's the reason all of this resonates so deeply in our culture. It's indicative of something very deeply wrong with how the law works, and I sincerely hope that the people who care can work together towards a state of affairs that is better able to prevent people like Jeffrey Epstein from abusing others.

Thanks again for reading, and I'm hoping I can choose some lighter subjects for future markets.

...and drumroll -- Bill Clinton:

Clinton was only ever directly mentioned as having visited Epstein's island under suspicious circumstances in a story that was written by Sharon Churcher, which Guiffre later claims was actually based loosely on events she was relating that Maxwell had claimed happened (along with the assertion that Maxwell had a tendency to exaggerate things).

Also, this story is hotly contested by Maxwell's legal team, and while it is a little dubious that the substance of this claim is that Guiffre was making false claims to write a book (gross) -- they also point out (as has Clinton's defense) that the claim Clinton had been present on the island when he allegedly was is not supported by Secret Service records (and there's no evidence of conspiracy to falsify those records anywhere here, I might add).

In addition, even in the most unflattering version of these events, Guiffre never claimed she saw Clinton have sex with anyone, or that he had sex with her, or that Clinton was even aware of anything, so with all this smoke in the air, I think I have to put that to the side (also, this is all material that was known before these documents were released).

Apart from this, there is only the claim that the so-called "hammock photo", in addition to other photos of naked girls were "all over [Epstein's] houses", and that Clinton "had to have saw it" -- that doesn't pass the smell test, because what does that even mean? Did he have them framed and mounted on the wall? In addition, the claim is never made that people definitely saw any of these photos -- just that Epstein allegedly had them out where people might be able to see them. That's not really an implication of anything directed at anybody.

Finally, everything else involving the Clintons involves their having been on the flight logs, which, again, is not new -- and they were never shown conclusively to have visited Epstein's island.

This all adds up to a NO for me.

... and with that I'm finished resolving these answers!

Donald Trump:

Trump is named several times as having been a "good friend of Jeffrey's", but I do not see any convincing evidence (specifically in these documents) that:

1. He was specifically aware of the sex trafficking ring. The closest we get is when he flirted with Guiffre, then laughed and said, "you've got the life" to Epstein, which is inappropriate IMO, but not criminal.

2. That he participated in the sex trafficking himself. Guiffre is asked point-blank whether she massaged him, and she denies it.

... and that's the ball game. Resolving NO

Prince Andrew:

There are lots of examples of direct accusations by Guiffre that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with her as part of her role in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, and references to this elsewhere -- example:

When we got back to Jeffrey?s mansion in Palm Beach he wanted to thank me for showing his friend, the Prince, such a good time. Rewarding my diligence with an extra sum of money and luring me deeper into his goal of keeping me at his side as his personal amusement that he could lend out at anytime.

... "[Ghisliane] was chirpy and jumped on the bed saying, "Get up, sleepyhead. You?ve got a big day. We've got to go shopping. You need a dress as you're going to dance with a Prince tonight." ?She said i needed to be "smileY' and bubbly because he was the Queen?s son."

... also a direct reference to a time that Prince Andrew had sex with her. I will not quote this directly, but you can easily find the relevant passage yourself in Guiffre's video testimony to the Colorado court.

This is another straightforward YES for me.

Resolving Alan Dershowitz to YES, since it is abundantly clear from the wealth of evidence in the documents that were released on Wednesday and Friday that much of the documentation that exists which implicates anyone at all is that of Dershowitz, and a large amount of the proceedings included involve the back and forth between his legal council and others about said allegations:

... it is alleged by Ms. Roberts that Alan Dershowitz is involved in having sexual relations with her, which he denies.

... Exhibit 5: Declaration of Virginia Giuffre 33 -- re Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell vs. Alan M. Dershowitz

... and so on and so forth. If this isn't a slam dunk for this market, I don't know what is. Resolving YES

I am continuing to review the remaining answers against the current state of released documents. To my relief, all of my current resolutions are still valid. I intend to fully resolve the remaining answers by tonight (PST).

Thanks for your patience.

I've whittled the list down to just people who are mentioned in the documents in a way in which I need to seriously review the context, so I'm taking a break and picking this up tomorrow morning.

On David Copperfield:

I think this is the first person in these documents who I think is mentioned in a way in which I'm comfortable with saying he's "implicated" in some kind of wrongdoing.

Example from the text (from Johanna Sjorberg's deposition)

David Copperfield was at a dinner at Epstein’s and there was another girl present who

looked young and Johanna asked what school she went to and Johanna did not recognize the school name as being a college and she said it was possible it was a high school aged

girl. Johanna said Copperfield “questioned me if I was aware that girls were getting paid

to find other girls” (p. 37-38)

In this case, Copperfield is alleged by Johanna Sjorberg of having some special knowledge of Epstein's behavior, so I'd resolve to YES. Note that I'm not looking for a "smoking gun" type of proof here. I'm looking for something in these specific documents that implies that any given person was involved with Epstein's crimes.

Devid Copperfield is unfortunately not an answer here, but I would resolve to YES if this was the case.

Note on Hillary Clinton:

Bill Clinton is mentioned several times, and I'm reviewing the context for this before I decide to be sure I get everything right, however Hillary Clinton is only ever mentioned in passing, and in that context, she is mentioned to point out that she was allegedly not present:

sitting across the table from us was Bill with two lovely girls who were visiting from New York. Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the night made it easy for his apparent provocative cheeky side to come out.

Resolving NO

Note on resolving Stephen Hawking:

• Hawking is only mentioned by Epstein in an email he sent to Maxwell in which he claims the allegations that he "participated in an uderage orgy" are false. There are no other mentions of these allegations having any weight to them.

• Hawking is also mentioned in a request for photos/video of several people addressed to Virginia Giuffre. Her legal council claims that they've provided all documents already (there does not seem to be a description of what these photos contain)"

Resolving NO

Soooo...

Are you gonna read all 943 pages yourself to determine who's implicated vs merely mentioned?

I should note that we apparently already know Clinton is mentioned, but not "implicated":

I feel like this resolution is going to be messy...

You mention below that your criteria is:

1) Can we say this person was a direct acquaintance of Epstein? Ie. can we show that they weren't just some famous person Epstein invited to a party one time, and that they were actually personally involved with him -- I think multiple flights on the flight log, or evidence that they went to the island, or some combination of the two is probably acceptable.

2) Can we show that these people continued to associate with him in accordance with point 1 after it was clear that he was involved in sex trafficking (the 2008 conviction)?

It seems to me that we already know this is not the case for Bill Clinton. See this ABC article:

The deal with these files seems to be that the files themselves were already public, it's just that many names were redacted and replaced with "John Doe #X". What's happening now is we're finding out who each of the John Does were.

Apparently, ABC found out early that Bill Clinton is John Doe #36, as they say in this report which came out on the 31st

So if ABC didn't fuck up, there should be no new information about Clinton in particular today because ABC already published that he's #36 and that there was nothing in this documents implicating #36 of any wrongdoing.

@doowkcin I appreciate that this market has a higher standard of evidence than the other markets that only require someone's name show up anywhere in the documents. It's dumb to assume someone is implicated just because their name is mentioned anywhere in these files.

But I think you might want to edit your description/title to be more clear, because I only realized this was the case after reading the comments.

@Joshua I think my plan is to write a script to parse through the material if it is released in a way in which I can do that. As of now it seems like there’s a struggle to claw back what exactly is released, so I may need to eventually just stop new submissions and rely on Google alerts for news articles if we don’t end up getting a bunch of PDFs or something else I can turn into machine readable text.

I’m going to devote some time to fixing up the description, since I haven’t gone back and done that. Keep in mind that I’m pretty busy after holidays, and this is going to be a best-effort sort of thing.

@doowkcin I'm looking at the pdf right now, I can DM it to you if you don't have it.

But also, the reporting is going to be clear.

@Joshua I’d appreciate a link to where I can download it myself, if you have that.

Also, it’s possible nobody is directly implicated, but that’s just how the cookie crumbles if that’s the case.

Jimmy Kimmel goes scorched earth on Aaron Rodgers after QB speculates late-night host is named in Epstein document dump

https://nypost.com/2024/01/02/sports/jimmy-kimmel-rips-aaron-rodgers-after-jeffrey-epstein-speculation/

@MickBransfield Checked the documents. He is not named.

@doowkcin could you double check real quick?

@MickBransfield Do you see some mention of him? I don't.

@doowkcin you are correct.

Hello again, after some consideration, I am revising the closing date of this question to allow for trading again.

My reasoning is that, I was previously under the impression that there was a set of documents which would be released in fairly quick succession. Now, however, it seems that the pattern of release is going to be somewhat more drawn out than I expected. Therefore, it seems fair to keep the market open until news breaks that all the documents in question have been made public, and consensus has had time to form around who has been implicated of wrongdoing (or is at least in some suspicion of wrongdoing), and not just that their office phone number was in Epstein's address book.

Thanks again for everyone's patience.

@doowkcin

Thanks for the update.

Just to clarify some scenarios, which of these would you count as suspicion of wrongdoing/criminal activity in relation to this market:

1. The person has been confirmed to have visited Epstein’s island

2. The person has been confirmed as a business associate of Epstein

3. The person continued to associate with Epstein after his conviction in 2008

4. The person has been implicated of wrongdoing by someone in the documents, but the accusations have since been dropped.

@Edvirtus I think it's going to be impossible to have proof-positive that someone was directly involved in the worst aspects of Epstein's crimes without it being adjudicated in court (which would take many years at least, considering the people in question), so my criteria are going to be as follows, unless someone raises a persuasive objection:

1. Can we say this person was a direct acquaintance of Epstein? Ie. can we show that they weren't just some famous person Epstein invited to a party one time, and that they were actually personally involved with him -- I think multiple flights on the flight log, or evidence that they went to the island, or some combination of the two is probably acceptable.

2. Can we show that these people continued to associate with him in accordance with point 1 after it was clear that he was involved in sex trafficking (the 2008 conviction)?

An example: I think we can say that even if there isn't a smoking gun type proof that someone like Bill Clinton or Alan Dershowitz did anything wrong as-such -- if the documents show that they're associating with Epstein and taking personal trips with him after 2008 (which is probably as detailed as these documents are going to be IMO), there's enough appearance of impropriety there that we can resolve to YES for the purposes of this market.

Again, if someone has an idea about better ways to go about this, I'm receptive to input. I'm just trying to figure out how to be fair about the resolution here without signing up for a second career in fact checking.

Thanks, @Edvirtus

@doowkcin Thank you for clarifying :)