cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Your Views Messageboard
Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"
Name:
Subject:
Boardcode:
B I U S Sub Sup Size Color Spoiler Hide ul ol li left center right Quote Code Img URL  
Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons
B) :( :) :laugh:
:cheer: ;) :P :angry:
:unsure: :ohmy: :huh: :dry:
:lol: :silly: :blink: :blush:
:kiss: :woohoo: :side: :S
More Smilies
 Enter code here   

Topic History of: Jeffrey Epstein - they are missing the obvious.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author Message
hedda Jo wrote:
See the painting of Bill Clinton here:

Jeffrey Epstein had a painting of Bill Clinton wearing a blue DRESS and red heels and lounging in the Oval Office inside his Manhattan mansion - visitor reveals bizarre image inside pedophile's $56m lair

"The original painting is called 'Parsing Bill' and is by Australian-American artist Petrina Ryan-Kleid, although it is unclear if Epstein had bought the canvas or had a print mounted. Ryan-Kleid exhibited for her degree show when she graduated with an MFA in 2012 from the New York Academy of Art."

Then see how the anonymous source exaggerates and sexes up what she saw:

"She told DailyMailTV: 'It was absolutely Bill Clinton. It was shocking - it was definitely a painting of him. It was a very provocative, sexual picture. He was wearing heels, a blue dress and his hand was in a weird position."

I can't see anything provocative or sexual about the painting or that either of his hands are in a "weird position". Can you?

The same anonymous source says she spotted "a girl who seemed to be 14 waiting to see the financier". Did she exaggerate that too?


I've been to an exhibition of his work and didn't much like it.

It's so obvious send-up of the Monika affair and a bit of fun. Nothing sinister and I'm not sure Epstein had very good taste given the descriptions of his house and looking at pics of his island but..that's not a crime of course.

But poor dead Jeffrey will give the media pages and pages of copy for a long time yet.

I envisage his executors will now do a sort of Savile over Epsteins massive estate and settlements will be offered as fighting also costs a fortune. But I reckon they will be as tough as nails and not the pushovers Savile's executors were.

Jimmy Savile trusted a bank and they let him down. Epstein has a brother and nieces and nephews who will fight like crazy.

And the BIG DIFFERENCE here is...unlike Savile's accusers, Epstein's accusers are all PROSTITUTES

## I make no judgement on people selling their bodies but it makes a difference under law. !
honey!oh sugar sugar. Jo wrote:
See the painting of Bill Clinton here:

Jeffrey Epstein had a painting of Bill Clinton wearing a blue DRESS and red heels and lounging in the Oval Office inside his Manhattan mansion - visitor reveals bizarre image inside pedophile's $56m lair

"The original painting is called 'Parsing Bill' and is by Australian-American artist Petrina Ryan-Kleid, although it is unclear if Epstein had bought the canvas or had a print mounted. Ryan-Kleid exhibited for her degree show when she graduated with an MFA in 2012 from the New York Academy of Art."

Then see how the anonymous source exaggerates and sexes up what she saw:

"She told DailyMailTV: 'It was absolutely Bill Clinton. It was shocking - it was definitely a painting of him. It was a very provocative, sexual picture. He was wearing heels, a blue dress and his hand was in a weird position."

I can't see anything provocative or sexual about the painting or that either of his hands are in a "weird position". Can you?

The same anonymous source says she spotted "a girl who seemed to be 14 waiting to see the financier". Did she exaggerate that too?


It all looks pretty normal, and the photo of Prince Andrew with the prostitute (or whatever) just looks like polite posing for a photo to me.
Jo See the painting of Bill Clinton here:

Jeffrey Epstein had a painting of Bill Clinton wearing a blue DRESS and red heels and lounging in the Oval Office inside his Manhattan mansion - visitor reveals bizarre image inside pedophile's $56m lair

"The original painting is called 'Parsing Bill' and is by Australian-American artist Petrina Ryan-Kleid, although it is unclear if Epstein had bought the canvas or had a print mounted. Ryan-Kleid exhibited for her degree show when she graduated with an MFA in 2012 from the New York Academy of Art."

Then see how the anonymous source exaggerates and sexes up what she saw:

"She told DailyMailTV: 'It was absolutely Bill Clinton. It was shocking - it was definitely a painting of him. It was a very provocative, sexual picture. He was wearing heels, a blue dress and his hand was in a weird position."

I can't see anything provocative or sexual about the painting or that either of his hands are in a "weird position". Can you?

The same anonymous source says she spotted "a girl who seemed to be 14 waiting to see the financier". Did she exaggerate that too?
JK2006 As we cross the 60,000 views mark, I wonder how many others are pondering this.
Missy2 Yes they are missing the obvious, as a mother myself I would have reported my child missing if she didn't return home and certainly if she had been abducted or raped. What people dont understand is that a girl aged between 14 and 16 is an adolescent, many of them are ignoring their parents and doing what they want to do. It is obvious what has happened here, yes these girls were probably asked if they wanted to go to a party at Epsteins island I think they all would have gone freely to see what they could get out of it. Now because of the current climate of historic sexual abuse claims, they have decided to say they were groomed, abducted and raped. But surely they would have reported that all those years ago? or am I missing the point?