Privilege, power and abuse

Who is Jeffrey Epstein is a questions that’s raised again and again in the documentary. What does he do? Where is he from? How did he amass such wealth and connections? The answer is that he’s a con artist and he’s a narcissist. But much of who he is remains an enigma even through this four-part documentary series by Netlfix.

The Island of Filthy Crimes

Epstein owned a private island in the Caribbean that he referred to as ‘Little St Jeff’s’. This remote island was a lush green corner of paradise on in the US Virgin Islands surrounded by clear, deep blue waters. In episode three of the documentary, ‘The Island’ we learn more about what happened in this seemingly remote piece of heaven. To victims, it was known as the ‘paedophile island’.

We learn that privacy was of the utmost importance to Epstein on the island. At this point in the series, one of his former employees from the island describes Epstein as a “sociopath that could afford to live out his perversions in any way that he wanted.”

Like most episodes of the documentary, Jeffrey’s island is also described through the accounts of his victims. According to them, there were cameras on every corner of the island.

Chauntae Davies, who was 21 years old in 2001 when she worked for Epstein as a professional masseuse and was asked to travel to his private island to work for him.

Davies describes the island by saying, “it’s like smoke and mirrors…some really bad stuff happened there.”

She explains, “He felt he could do whatever he wants” and the island was, “one of jeffrey’s favourite places to go because it was so isolated.”

We also learn several high-profile men visited the island including Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. However, the documentary immediately makes it clear at this point that the former president was never seen partaking in any of the dubious sexual activities on the island but was rather just seen talking to Epstein on the porch. The reasons for this need to clarify could be simple and factual, however, it could also be conspicuous, but my speculation of the answer would be as good as yours.

The Alex Acosta Factor

In the series, details of first trial are relayed. Palm Beach Florida began investigating Epstein in 2005. The documentary, through the accounts of survivors, their lawyers, press coverage, law officers and private detectives are able present a play-by-play the goings inside Epstein’s many properties, the multitudes of women who were groomed and assaulted and then the trial itself.

During his first trial, it is clear that a deal has been worked out between his lawyers and the US district attorney’s office that is rather unconventional for a case of this nature. Two years after his arrest for soliciting prostitutes, Jeff Epstein pleads guilty in 2008 is sentenced by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. The trial could have potentially put him away for 15 years and yet his final plea deal means an agreement to spend 18 months in a palm beach detentional facility.

After Epstein is sentenced, he is interviewed by journalist George Rush. A clip is played in the documentary of said interview. In the interview, Rush asks Epstein,

“Do you want to say anything about the way your agreement has been characterised as a secret, back-room sweetheart deal which was somehow through the political connections of your lawyers, they obtained it?”

Epstein of course denies and terms this, “total bullshit.”

However through placing this clip of the interview immediately after recounting Epstein’s plea deal, the documentary manages to convey this exact message.

As Epstein further denies the allegations during the interview recording, a series of pictures of the minor girls who were all allegedly assaulted by Epstein is splayed across the screen.

Survivors’ attorneys also highlight the ‘unusual occurrences’, which they allege, include hundreds of email exchanges between the district attorney’s office and Epstein’s lawyers.

Alexander Acosta, US Southern District of Florida held meetings in a room at the Marriott hotel, they claim, that were clearly intended to maintain the ‘secrecy of the negotiations’.

After Epstein’s guilty plea and incarceration, one survivors’ attorney Jack Scarola calls it ‘grossly misleading’ to call this a jail sentence. According to the accounts of the survivors’ attorneys Epstein served his sentence in a private wing of the jail where his cell door was left open. Moreover, Epstein was allegedly provided special food that other prisoners did not get to eat. He was also provided a tv room. Other news clippings are also shown at this point in the series where his treatment in the facility is ‘different’. Thus, through these accounts the documentary further reinforces the notion that Epstein’s privilege allowed him to essentially get away with crimes with barely a slap on the wrist.

He was also given work release, ‘almost immediately’ after his incarceration, which thereby allowed him to leave the prison six days a week.

Another news clipping is also shown across the screen as this piece of information is being shared with viewers. This one reads, ‘sex offender in work-release’ – thus driving a powerful message home that a dangerous man guilty of sexual assault was allowed back into the society by a corrupt legal and criminal system where he could potentially continue to harm other women.

Moreover, it is shown that part of the condition of that work-release was that an off-duty police officer had to accompany him throughout the duration that he was out on work release and the salary of said officer would be paid out of pocket by Epstein. A total of $128,136 was paid by Epstein for an officer to accompany him during his release – a figure that once again hones in on Epstein’s privilege as clearly no ordinary prisoner could have afforded that sum. Thus, driving home the ‘filthy rich’ message of the documentary.

Epstein is then released after serving 15 months of his 18-month jail sentence and allowed to serve the rest through a 12-month house arrest at his palm beach house. The house arrest meant he’d be confined to his house except for ‘work and other activities’ approved by his probation officer. In the documentary, the lawyers of the survivors allege that there was a ‘concerted effort’ to arrive at a secret deal without the knowledge of the victims.

An account of multitude of violations of that probation is then shown in the series – all of which he was allowed to get away with because he was a ‘celebrity’.

A trip to Africa is described by survivor Davies, who was contacted by Ghislaine Maxwell to fill the role of a ‘personal assistant’ for this trip. The trip is for Bill Clinton’s aids organisation and includes star-studded guests such as bill Clinton himself, Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, who has also had several assault allegations raised against him in the recent years.

Moreover, another ‘altercation’ with a minor takes place in Epstein’s Paris home, involving Harvey Weinstein – another man whose name is now synonymous with the MeToo movement.

Thus, through these two events, Epstein’s association with powerful men, those who have been found guilty of sexual assault and others who haven’t been, is also raised.

An interesting thing to note about the trip in particular is that despite Epstein’s guilty plea and jail sentence, powerful men did not distance themselves from him. This was the reality of the pre MeToo era. Where today, a sexual assault charge would have production companies drop an actor or result in a political figure distancing himself from the alleged guilty party through a carefully crafted press release, this wasn’t the need of the time and thus did not require a knee-jerk image-conscious based reaction and even far less, any moral introspection or righteous response.

Who is Epstein?

Epstein was a donor to high profile charities, to universities, to research centres. This image was further polished by his appearances at academic conferences and medical conferences.

He was a patron and donor of arts. He carried out his grooming of these young girls by offering to set up their careers. He was a flashy wealthy guy, who was offering some of this privilege and lifestyle to young, desperate girls who had no other way out of their poverty. Some of his victims were as young as 12 and 14. They were still in school. By essentially offering a leg up to them, he took advantage of them. Some of these minor girls had been previously abused or raped. Some were runaways and some simply didn’t have that much money and thought they were being offered a chance to better their lives. Several different circumstances led to the same result: they were raped, abused, trafficked and assaulted by Epstein. Many were even passed around to his wealthy, high-profile and well-connected friends.

What the documentary manages to do through the portrayal of Epstein’s first trial and second, is create a stark contrast in the climate of sexual allegations in the pre and post MeToo era. It shows that his prosecution had a different outcome at a time when as a collective society we are more willing to believe women and hear their accounts rather than victim blame and sweep the crimes of powerful men under the rug.

Similarly, previously there was a settlement between Virginia Guefferue and Prince Andrew, which took place when perhaps despite eye witness accounts and photographic evidence, she knew the odds were stacked against her. Where once the Buckingham Palace denied Guefferue’s claims against him, it has now stripped Prince Andrew of his military titles.

Ghislaine Maxwell, who was complicit in many of Epstein’s crimes was also found guilty in December of 2021. Prince Andrew is currently undergoing a civil trial in New York over allegations of having sexually assaulted a woman named Virginia Giuffre who was trafficked to him through Maxwell and Epstein.

However, the same way the documentary begins with questions, it ends on an ambiguous note too. The viewers are left with more questions unanswered rather than resolved. The questions, albeit are different, and suspicions are raised and curiosities are piqued. We now know that Epstein was a sexual predator and we also know he was linked to several high-profile men. Through the first trial, we learn how many in higher offices were willing to bend and break the rules for him. We also learn that there’s eye witness accounts and potentially even video tapes of occurrences that took place on his island and off it. However, we live in a different climate now and it’s no longer as easy to silence victims. So perhaps it may be better to silence Epstein altogether to bury the crimes of men in the highest of offices? And that is the question we are left with at the end of the series.

What makes this documentary an important watch is that unlike a mistake made by many other documentaries, despite its name, the story isn’t purely about Epstein. It talks about the survivors too. Many documentaries make the mistake of inadvertently glorifying a criminal for his heinous crimes. This is seen in Netflix’s ‘Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes’ and the BBC documentary The Trials of Oscar Pistorius, where there’s far mor of an emphasis on the criminal and his life, than those whose lives they ruined.

This documentary in contrast, offers them a platform to be heard. We hear about their past too. We hear about their life stories before and after encountering Epstein. What it was like for them to see him get away with his crimes in the first trial. What is it like for them to recount their ordeals now and how has it affected them.