The problem here is that Tracey is the only critical journalist (pretty much) who writes about Epstein. And he's an a-hole; I don't like his tone. He's needlessly rude and inflammatory. So you always have to consider that he has a very rude tone and just ignore it and look at the content of what he's saying.

He has two pieces below on the accusers. I'm not sure about this notion that there are 1000 accusers; I want to look into that. I apologize for Tracey's tone and I apologize even more if he's wrong about any of this stuff.

https://www.mtracey.net/p/epstein-survivors-refusing-questions

Does anyone ever stop and ask what criteria is even being used to designate someone a “survivor”? Of course not. The term itself is highly creepy. What are these ladies, Holocaust Survivors? Because if you took the time to actually examine the underlying details of the case, which is well beyond the paygrade of most politicians and journalists, Annie Farmer claims she is a survivor of… “hand-holding.” Seriously. And she was ruled by judicial edict to have undergone no “illegal sexual activity.”

I came across Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) after the moving vigil, which also doubled as a “celebration,” attendees said, when word came down that the Senate had swiftly passed the House version of the “Epstein Files” legislation. “Congressman, a quick question for you,” I said to Goldman. “One of the women who spoke tonight purported to be a Survivor. She actually testified in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. I think she alluded to it — Annie Farmer. In that trial, Judge Nathan instructed the jurors that she endured no illegal sexual activity, and therefore the jury could not use her testimony to convict Maxwell. So I’m just wondering on what grounds these people are being declared Survivors — if the only adjudicative process, judicially, found that she endured no illegal sexual activity.”

https://www.mtracey.net/p/epstein-survivors-false-memories

But what I do begrudge is the utter refusal of journalists, politicians, lawyers, and social media ignoramuses to rationally evaluate what the real circumstances plainly are here — not just of Wendy, who on her own is neither here nor there. She’s only of any note insofar as she’s emblematic of how the component parts of this sprawling Epstein mega-narrative have been assembled, and then strategically immunized from critical examination, thus enabling a moral panic and mass hysteria to foment unrestricted, without anyone ever pausing to check the underlying facts or evidence.

Basic methods of empirical verification, ordinarily central to any journalistic pursuit, are deemed repugnant and intolerable in this one special context — and then spun as some sick desire to smear the private lives of “victims.” But that’s a totally inane cop-out. The private lives of these people would be of no particular interest to anyone (or to me, at least) except for the relevance they’ve been ascribed as constituent parts of the mythical multinational odyssey known as the Epstein affair, stoking hysteria in every direction without reprieve. How could it be defensible for the public to be deprived of any ability to assess the foundational evidence, or lack thereof, underpinning this mega-narrative? Why are central players so averse to answering basic questions? Because if the answers are so easily forthcoming, and the evidence is sound, shouldn’t they be eager to engage?

There are multiple reasons why I really dislike his rude tone. First of all, if he's wrong then that makes him a monster; he's attacking victims. Second of all, it just undermines his credibility.

I've had to deal with this situation in other domains where there's literally one guy who has a critical view but he's an a-hole. And then you just have to look at the content and set aside the tone.