A case of let sleeping dogs lie?
In the first fight-back from those accused of foul naughtiness in Epstein Revisited, lawyer Alan Dershowitz described the claims of sexual abuse against him as “totally false and outrageous charges… that have been reported around the world and threaten to damage my reputation irrevocably”. Hmm. Let’s just examine that reputation in a little more detail.
A close friend – whom he once defended in Court – is Michael Milken. Milken was indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in 1989 in an insider trading investigation. As the result of a plea bargain, he pled guilty to securities and reporting violations….but not to racketeering or insider trading. Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison, fined $600 million, and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Another high-profile defendant he helped avoid jail was US-born conman and religious fraudster Kirtanananda Swami. Alan didn’t contest evidence that Kirtanananda had abused minors…he merely said the jury’s knowledge of this had biased the jury against him.
Dershowitz defended Mike Tyson against rape charges, and lost. However, he did get TV evangelist fraudster Jim Bakker’s 45 year jail sentence reduced. Bakker had kept $3.4 million in bonuses for himself from viewer contributions, and organised a $279,000 payoff to Jessica Hahn as hush-money about raping her. Also of course, in his most famous defence involvement, Alan Dershowitz got O J Simpson off a premeditated murder charge….a decision that the later 1997 civil trial effectively reversed, the jury finding there was ‘a preponderance of evidence to hold Simpson liable for damages for wrongful death’.. On February 21, 2008, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the civil judgment against him.
I understand perfectly well what a lawyer’s job is, and there can be no doubt that Dershowitz has, over the decades. served his clients infinitely better than most members of his profession. The thing I find odd about his choice of clients is that almost nobody anywhere today has any sympathy for any of them. There are no Mother Theresas, Elizabeth Warrens, Ralph Naders or George Carlins in there. The nearest Big Al gets to anything like them is Julian Assange. Oh dear. Enough said.
And so finally, we come to the last of Alan Dershowitz’s unprepossessing client list: why, and my oh my, it’s Jeffrey Epstein. In 2006, Al is credited as being the chief negotiator with Federal Authorities in helping Epstein get to a 2008 plea bargain that got him just 13 months of jail time – compared to the par for that particular course, which is fifteen years.
Recent Slogposts have alluded to Prince Andrew’s allegedly active role in the socio-political lobbying process that also helped Epstein get off with a sentence at just over 15% of the norm. But perhaps what we should be asking here is why the complainants now are keen to drag Dastardly Dershowitz into the mix.
I think it is indeed highly likely that Jane Does 1 to 3 are after the muuunnneeeee. And as the advice pretty much all the time at The Slog is follow the muuunnneeeee, once again I would argue that the amount of muuunnneeeee at stake is directly proportional to the degree of crime involved.
I have maintained since this thing blew up again that it is not about ‘sex’ per se. Such would not adequately explain Panic at the Palace, or apparently pointlessly vexatious law suits years after the event(s). Maybe the real key to this tawdry affair lies in the answer to one simple question: what leverage would Jeffrey Epstein have gained by blackmailing the Prince?
If the Prince thought (as I suggested here yesterday) that he was blackmailing Epstein into helping his ex-wife pay off her debts, why are the Jane Does still after the disgraced financier? As several Slog comment threaders have pointed out, what Sarah Ferguson needed to pay off her debts was small change to these folks.
I’m fully prepared to accept that Andrew’s predicament here is mainly a case of a pillock out of his depth. But I’m still hunting for the depths involved.
Mind you, it could be worse for the Prince. He could have to face Bill Clinton flying in to speak on his behalf about tthe Jeffrey Epstein “sex” scandal. But it’s not going to happen: Slick Willy is on his way to support Papandreou in Athens…what the Andrew’s willy might be up to this morning isn’t as yet in the public domain. The Palace is holding fast to the line – upping the ante from Defcom baseless to Defcom without foundation. The Daily Mail, as you’d expect, has done an A-Z of everyone Andy has shagged, but as there are no footmen on it, we must withhold judgement about its veracity.
Those of sounder mind should ignore these weapons of mass distraction, and continue to dig for the deeper meaning.
Earlier at The Slog: Ched Evans…pillock, victim, or both?
The Slog 