Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Virginia Roberts Giuffre Statement

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, 36, recounted a time when Epstein’s lawyer, emeritus Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, allegedly walked in on her and Epstein after sex.

The statement, if accurately reported, indicates what the subject, as an adult, perceived of this specific alleged event: 

“After an explicit session of Jeffrey’s vulgar pilgrimage into my body, we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend Alan."


We first note that this statement is allegedly from a written affidavit and we do not know what preceded it. 

It begins with the element of time:  "After an explicit session..."

We know that timing is important to the subject. 


Next we view "explicit session" which is the language of an adult, using commentary, in her recall of what took place.  

What do we know about this "explicit sessions" from the subject?


a. It was "vulgar"

b. It was a "pilgrimage"; that is a journey. 


We would need (in an interview) to have the subject define "vulgar" and "pilgrimage" for herself--

is "vulgar" that which is crude, coarse, common, etc?

is "pilgrimage" a journey?  A journey warrants the passing of time, making the element of time in the short statement consistent. 


Keep in mind, this is the adult perception --not one speaking as a teenager, using recall. The subject is looking back in memory and describing what took place. 

“After an explicit session of Jeffrey’s vulgar pilgrimage into my body, we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend Alan."


"into my body" is strong, personal language. It is her body (possession) and in her perception, Jeffrey Epstein in a vulgar manner took a pilgrimage "into" it.  

She does not say "into me", but into her "body." 

This form of distance (or subtle disassociation) is congruent with "vulgar"--- just as it would be congruent with shame and/or embarrassment. 

The commentary language does not suggest present trauma in recalling what took place.  This could be because she has long processed the event, or her perception of it was that it was "vulgar" but not trauma producing. (other possibilities exist as well). 


"...we were interrupted..."


Question: Who was interrupted?

Answer:  "we"

The pronoun "we" is to indicate unity between them.  In her statement, she perceives herself and Epstein as unified. 


Objection: This is from a child or teenager and we should expect that one so young would be confused or persuaded. 


Answer:  This statement is alleged to have been made as an adult, using recall, to when she was a teen. 


The word "we" is not expected from an adult looking back to this event, though she describes Epstein as on a pilgrimage (time elapsing) and the event as "vulgar", rather than assaultive. 


Objection:  Regardless of her perception now, she was a young girl. 


Answer:  Agreed.  We are not looking at the event, but of her adult perception of it----this is how she perceives it. 


Question: What were they psychologically unified in?


Answer:  The answer should cause us to pause and listen to her language carefully. 


The passage of time when Epstein, in a "vulgar" manner, went on a "pilgrimage" (which takes time---as well as we note that this is her chosen word, as an adult, highlighting the element of time) produced the pronoun, "we."  Sexual assault victims may use the word "we" prior to the assault, but abandon it after the assault as they do not perceive any unity. 

But the "vulgar pilgrimage" is not the only wording that creates this psychological unity.  


Question: What was the source of the interruption?

Answer: we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend Alan."


It was not Alan Dershowitz that interrupted the unity, in her language. 


It was sound. 


"...we were interrupted by a knock at the door..." 


This is congruent with embarrassment and shame. 

In a sense, it is somewhat confessional. 

The subject looks back and may resent herself (or worse) as she considers her thoughts and decisions she made, even though she was young, impressionable and was in a position of sophistication and economic disparity. 


Yet she may still blame herself.  

We may also consider her disposition towards Dershowitz, though we may analyze her allegations against him separately. 


The recall of sound is important to her. 

"knocking" is a forewarning, rather than "opening" the door.  The latter might suggest childhood sexual abuse.  A "knock" slows down the pace of the event. 

As the subject recalls events, the commentary (evidenced in her choice of words) is that of an adult, looking back on her life; likely with much regret. 


To study deception detection please visit Hyatt Analysis Service



13 comments:

frommindtomatter said...

“After an explicit session of Jeffrey’s vulgar pilgrimage into my body, we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend Alan."

There seems to be a conflict with the timing. As you said Peter the timing is important to her. By her saying “After an explicit session”, we conclude the session was over. How were they “interrupted”, if they had already finished?

She also wishes to emphasise the quality of friendship between Epstein and Dershowitz, “Jeffrey’s [good] friend Alan”. Extra words take extra effort, so it must have been important for her to include it.

The statement seems dramatized, like an author would construct for a fictional book they were writing.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

The statement is an excerpt from a memoir written by Virginia Roberts, which can be read online:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1289056113309122561.html

After describing her third encounter with Prince Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell, Virginia wrote:

“It was fulfilling the obscene vulgar needs of the so called privileged that earned me so much.”

“obscene vulgar” - she closely associates vulgarity with obscenity - as she is speaking in the context of sexual needs, here she considers the sexual acts as obscene and vulgar. Elsewhere she describes the clients as having “perversions”.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeOpDXDXoAABazt.jpg

^ This is written some pages previous to the “vulgar pilgrimage” passage.

Pilgrimage is generally understood as a journey to a place which is considered holy, or at least significant to the pilgrim.

It would be interesting to know if “pilgrimage” was only from her own thought, or if came from recall, and if Epstein had described what he was doing to her, and to the other girls, as such. A long pilgrimage with many stops (girls) along the way - he maybe justified himself in that way.

By tradition, pilgrims can be a debauched bunch, making the most of a spring holiday, at least, according to Chaucer - I don’t know if Epstein read much Chaucer. He didn’t seem the pilgrim type - didn’t drink alcohol, ate beans and tofu.

If “pilgrimage” arose from her own thought only, would it be an expression of how violated she felt by the things he did to her?

Hey Jude said...

The memoir tells more - Virginia was resentful of the interruption and the way in which Epstein showed her off like a plaything in the presence of his friends. She always wanted more from him emotionally than he gave her. She describes Epstein, Ghislane, and herself as like “a perplexed family” - they ate dinner and watched tv together, but then it was time for the weird stuff.

The memoir is in draft form - it surely is a thumbnail of what she could write. I read somewhere that she described it as a fictionalised memoir and had sent it to two publishers - but now I can’t find that source.

Virginia’s memoir put me in mind of Jaycee Duggar’s, “A Stolen Life” - in that she develops an affection and loyalty to the people who abuse her, and they function like a vey dysfunctional family - big difference being that Virginia entered the Epstein’s luxury household voluntarily, whilst poor Jaycee was kidnapped and lived in a tent in her kidnappers’ yard.


happyuk said...

One thing that struck in the statement was the word "interrupted".

Interrupted from doing what? Interrupted implies that an activity was discontinued, and perhaps not anticipated or appreciated. What was this activity?

I sense there is missing information here - as in what came AFTER the 'explicit pilgrimage' versus the florid and unnecessary words ('vulgar', 'pilgrimage', etc) language to describe a physical encounter. Note she does not say she was interrupted "during" but "after".

This would prompt me to ask the question, what happened after the explicit session?

Anonymous said...

Pillow talk.

happyuk said...

Sleeping?

C5H11ONO said...

Princess Di’s bridesmaid statement about visit to Epstein island.

"The second trip, to Little St James, was a personal invitation, which I thought would be fun to accept, but I didn’t know anyone there, didn’t really enjoy myself, and never went back," she said. "My heart breaks for all the survivors, now I know what happened on that island."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a33552299/princess-diana-bridesmaid-clementine-hambro-jeffrey-epstein-island/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm

C5H11ONO said...

Princess Di’s bridesmaid statement about visiting Epstein island:
"The second trip, to Little St James, was a personal invitation, which I thought would be fun to accept, but I didn’t know anyone there, didn’t really enjoy myself, and never went back," she said. "My heart breaks for all the survivors, now I know what happened on that island."

Didn’t really enjoy myself my tuckus.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a33552299/princess-diana-bridesmaid-clementine-hambro-jeffrey-epstein-island/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm

C5H11ONO said...

Princess Di’s bridesmaid statement about visiting Epstein island:
"The second trip, to Little St James, was a personal invitation, which I thought would be fun to accept, but I didn’t know anyone there, didn’t really enjoy myself, and never went back," she said. "My heart breaks for all the survivors, now I know what happened on that island."

Didn’t really enjoy myself my tuckus.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a33552299/princess-diana-bridesmaid-clementine-hambro-jeffrey-epstein-island/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm

C5H11ONO said...

Princess Di’s bridesmaid statement about visiting Epstein island:
"The second trip, to Little St James, was a personal invitation, which I thought would be fun to accept, but I didn’t know anyone there, didn’t really enjoy myself, and never went back," she said. "My heart breaks for all the survivors, now I know what happened on that island."

Didn’t really enjoy myself my tuckus.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a33552299/princess-diana-bridesmaid-clementine-hambro-jeffrey-epstein-island/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm

Josh Brown said...

Hey Jude pointed out Virginia was hoping for an emotional connection with Epstein and I recall seeing reference to a lament from her that she realised Prince Andrew never saw her as other than an object, almost as if she was hoping for more. Coming from a dysfunctional family and abused as a girl she may have thought that with Maxwell and Epstein they would be the parents she ever had. I read her appearances as one of a woman who realised she had trusted people she should have avoided and is looking for them to accept their share of the blame for her suffering, or at least be punished for it. She continually calls for Andrew to serve prison time but from what she has said about their sexual encounters it is not clear what criminal offence applies. She was above the age of consent on all three occasions and she gave Andrew consent. Although she claimed Epstein 'forced' her it was not Andrew and besides what she means is Epstein psychologically manipulated her into servicing Andrew, including by paying her! If she was still 17 when the sex in the US took place and Andrew knew Epstein was paying her then he would prima facie be indicted for a federal offence, engaging in commercial sex with a trafficked minor. However Virginia has not exactly been open about accepting payment from Epstein as part of her role in trapping Andrew, for understandable reasons.

Nadine Lumley said...

pilgrimage

Exotic tavel was/is on her mind?

Children are only human... we can't expect them to say no to money and travel in exchange for sex when many adults do the same thing.


SO DOES THE USE OF WE MEAN SHE WAS NOT RAPED IN HER MIND OR WHAT?

FINISH YR THOUGHT OMG

🤔😣

.

Josh Brown said...

But we should expect parents to take responsibility for their children.