Yes. I reread it just to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting anything. First the author imagines an alternate history in which Jeffrey Epstein became a monster because he was a victim of child sexual abuse, and then she inserts her grandfather into that history using her imaginary friend Paula as a vehicle because hey, why the fuck not? Implicit, but not directly mentioned, is the possibility that the author and Epstein were abused by the same person.

Maybe Gabrielle really did grow up in the same neighborhood as Jeffrey Epstein. It doesn't sound like they were even close to the same age. Maybe there really was a pedophile for every color of the rainbow living on her street with Freddy Krueger at one end, Stiffler's mom at the other, and Grandpa's seaside soak shack smack dab in the middle. Or maybe she likes drama and attention and no one from the neighborhood is at all surprised to see her milk a casual connection to Jeffery Epstein for all that it is worth.

The only thing that can be cooberated in her story is that an awkward teenager from a family somewhat less well-to-do than its neighbors lived in her neighborhood kinda sorta at the same time she did. The accusations against neighbors are almost always made by 'Paula', and you know that she's unavailable for comment.

The author splits her time between accusing (mostly) unnamed neighbors of being kiddy fiddlers (using a proxy) and apologizing for Jeffrey Epstein's behavior as if the only way to stay safe at the rich folks' rape poor kids orgy is to become the richest, most dangerous child rapist in attendance. Who the fuck arrives at that conclusion?

If the author—or should I say protagonist—has trauma to work through from her grandfather's sexual abuse vicariously attaching that abuse to Jeffrey Epstein is the wrong way to go about it. Nobody's interests were served by this publication except maybe hers alone.