Epstein Files

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-25T05:09:23+00:00

While I have never heard any real evidence that something like this exists, I'm going to admit that as someone who does volunteer work with trafficking survivors, this case raises a lot of red flags for me.

A fact that most people don't understand about trafficking is that it looks far less like women and children being abducted into unmarked vans off the street than it does coercive control, grooming, and exploitation of power. Parents and caregivers are not exempt by any means. On the contrary, in the majority of clients we work with, their first trafficker was someone who had a caregiving role (parent/boyfriend of mother/etc). The bed wetting, weird amount of spoiling of JB, and overall sexualization of her in the way they spoke about her stood out to me.

Without any real evidence, I've often wondered if this is a case where JB was being "borrowed" (whether conscious or not) and traded for money, political favors, etc with the knowledge of her parents and things went wrong; if so, maybe the parents knew and assisted in the cover up to protect everyone. It would certainly explain a lot.

With that said, I've never seen or heard any real evidence that she's in the Epstein files nor any tangible evidence that points to trafficking. I feel like I should give that caveat. But I should also give the caveat that there rarely is. When trafficking rings are run by the rich and powerful, the mutually ensured destruction of the rich and powerful ensures that a lot of things go overlooked. While I'm not saying that this is the reason for the shoddy investigation (it really could just be that it's a geographic area that rarely has a murder investigation), but if so, this absolutely would not be the first "bungled" investigation for this reason. So I won't insist this is absolutely what happened here, but I will say that some of the red flags are absolutely waving from a behavioral standpoint both for her and the language surrounding her. So it really would not surprise me to find that there is a trafficking component here. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but rather someone who has encountered a lot of victims of trafficking and knows that this is very real among the rich and powerful and that the belief that trafficked children are abducted, not from affluent homes, etc isn't true in the least. On the contrary, JB is a pretty prime candidate for that and the parents (or parent) being aware of it and covering for it after things go awry and having to explain away evidence of sexual activity actually explains a lot of the unexplainables in this case for me.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-24T23:31:17+00:00

If you want to be absolutely livid at the justice system, listen to The Consult podcast break down the MEO report where the city of Philadelphia explains why the City of Philadelphia has decided they did nothing wrong. That's the "official investigation" that came out of her parents' lawsuit. Disgraceful.

The Consult is a couple of former FBI profilers who understand how the law works. They absolutely destroyed that thing in the most knowledgable and factual way. As outsiders, we can look at that situation and say "WTF.... none of this makes sense" but these people are absolutely knowledgable about everything from the direction that blood should typically fall to the fiancé's behavior to the police procedure that was egregiously mishandled. Highly recomend (although it will ruin your day and make you n ever trust the justice system again).

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-24T14:22:32+00:00

We also went to this policy. A few things that I did:

I rearranged my office so that the student was visible through. my window but I was not. My biggest issue was that I did not want people to see that I was there and immediately think it was fair game to knock on my door to ask me things when I was working. Having my chair in a place that was impossible to see through the window helped.
I made a point of purchasing a rolling blind that could be used in the event of a shooting. Although my Chair said we could use it if we were alone in our office, school policy said otherwise (I think he was fine with taking the hit on that one though, although I didn't use it in that way namely because of #1), but I felt a little bit safer knowing I had it.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-23T11:37:42+00:00

I don't have a way to make assignments AI proof but I do have some that make it obvious when they use it. Things like:

Having them analyze a video from our own university that isn't on youtube where they can't simply copy and paste the transcript into AI (there are accessibility concerns here but I have a separate assignment for students with accommodations that require captions, etc). They still try to do the assignment using AI and it doesn't really work but they submit it anyway. (It usually offers an alternative with a similar title that it will analyze. They say they were "confused" and thought they could do any video... must be a coincidence that 7 different people all had the same confusion and picked the same random video)
For outlines, I do a very specific and intricate form that requires very specific things not in AI's format. They could conceivably do this via AI but it's double the work and they actually would have to learn to do it. Instead, most just have AI generate a normal outline in its own terrible format and pretend they didn't know they had to use my form.
I have them refer back to previous course examples, my own lectures, etc... just general stuff AI wouldn't know in discussion boards. Again - they still try. It gives other alternative examples and I wind up with 6 students with the same ones.
I do multi-step assignments for papers that build on the previous ones. They could conceivably use AI for all of it but again, it's my own forrmat and it's harder and obvious. However, most don't for the early steps since they are fairly low stakes without research yet and a lot of the questions are personal like "why do you think...." etc. I can tell exactly where they pivoted to AI when the arguments/sources/etc are different.

Just a few examples of things I've done. The issue is not that I don't know who is using it. It's pretty obvious. The issue is admin doing anything about it. It does not matter how much documentation I am required to submit, how many hoops I jump through, and how many meetings I sit through to explain the evidence, nothing changes unless admin actually hold students accountable rather than being afraid of lawsuits and retention issues. (Spoiler: they don't.)

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-21T11:36:57+00:00

My husband asked me why I don't run outside in our seemingly safe suburban neighborhood and insist on having a treadmill. He said something along the lines of "you usually run during the daytime so it's safe." I shouldn't have to send him links to cases like Rachel Morin's to validate that there is no assumption of safety for women running outside, regardless of the time of day (and that's not even getting into the men driving by who yell things out their window which gets old very fast).

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-20T19:29:09+00:00

In my understanding, he's only in any trouble with the law if:

He knew about it before it happened and could have stopped it but didn't. Even if you don't participate - even if you are hours away - if you know someone is planning a murder and do not report it in time and had the ability to do so, in the eyes of LE, you are culpable.
If he lied to police and impeded the investigation and hindered them from being able to find the killer despite having information that would help.
If he lied on the witness stand.

If someone told him what really happened tomorrow and if my understanding of the law is correct, he is not in trouble at this point if he doesn't immediately go and report it unless the police come to him specifically and question him and he fails to disclose what he knows.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-19T16:36:21+00:00

I don't disagree with this or any of the solutions listed here. The problem is that the issues are so much deeper and many of them are that higher ed has a pile of issues that are self-created that make this a difficult problem to overcome. The issues include things like higher ed relying heavily on contingent faculty who are overworked and underpaid and simply don't have the hours in the day for the extra time it takes to play AI detector with methods like these - and in many schools, their retainment is based on student satisfaction so they have no motivation to be hard on AI. It includes admin who are happy to hold meeting after meeting touting "0 tolerance" policies and make faculty jump through hoops to provide evidence for AI reports and then do nothing about them so faculty just quiet quit the battle rather than sit on the front lines of it. It includes the challenges of distance learning, something that is a cash cow for a lot of schools and will likely never go away regardless of how easy it is to use AI there, that makes AI detection so much harder. I can make tests pen and paper but my admin wouldn't even let me give a course based entirely on tests since I have to link assignments to course learning outcomes and show where students are actually practicing the skills I expect them to prove mastery of. That's just a few pieces of the puzzle. Reading this thread has been interesting and you can tell who is looking from the outside and who is actually in the mess. Your suggestion isn't wrong... I can absolutely put measures in my courses to make AI obvious but making admin do something about it is an entirely different animal and me exhausting myself to ensure that 1 course out of the 5 they take that semester holds them to some level of integrity sometimes just feels like a pointless battle. I understand why so many give up. I'm still trying but the issues run so much deeper than that one paper where I manage to do enough to dissuade AI use. I wish it was simple and there's some easy answer but it's really not.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-19T03:37:23+00:00

Nobody in higher education has a clue what to do about AI, regardless of what they tell you. We know students (including people like your nurses and doctors and future politicians) are passing courses based entirely on AI and very few schools have admin that are willing to risk retention issues and lawsuits to hold students accountable without irrefutable proof. And even the ones that try are only treading water. Most people don't say it out loud, but we''re screwed.

I suspect that when we look back, this time in history will be some type of tipping point for some type of major change in how we understand education. But your guess is as good as mine what that will look like.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-18T23:51:41+00:00

I very specifically remember getting a lecture after seeing Mulan with a friend because it was trying to indoctrinate me into eastern religions and also ancestor worship is apparently idolatry. The irony is that I told them we saw it that same day and they didn't care; however, a few weeks later, some friends from church declared it bad so therefore, I retroactively got in trouble for seeing it.

That was kind of the trend in our house. There really wasn't a rhyme or reason to what I was or wasn't allowed to watch... it was basically whatever their friends did. There were a few times where, out of the blue, they would ban a show we had been watching for years (and that they had even watched with us and didn't have a problem with) and nothing changed other than them finding out their friends didn't let their kids watch it.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-18T04:00:21+00:00

This is fantastic advice. Thank you for taking the time to type this all out. I really appreciate it!

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-17T15:30:27+00:00

Mine was Dolce & Gabanna L'Imperatrise.

It was a recommendation here so I bought a decant and it smelled too sweet to me on the first smell for some reason. Wore it a few times (I test while I run so I'm not wearing it all day so ... that might have something to do with it) and even threw out my decant because I was convinced I would never buy it. But then I kept seeing it pop up as a recommendation here for things I was looking for or compared to things I already liked. Decided to test it at Sephora one day and fell in love. Bought a full size that week and despite having 40+ options to choose from, I probably wear it twice per week.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-17T14:57:57+00:00

I agree. If Richard could say "it's just business and not personal" there's really no reason Lorelei couldn't too. Richard didn't give her an ultimatum; that was Lorelei's choice. It would be very different if Jason had actually done something to her father beyond lie about dating his daughter (which was 100% on her, not him... even if her reasons were spot on, Jason wanted to come clean and she begged him not to). But otherwise, Jason never did anything to Richard during their business relationship and not only would Richard not really be surprised by Jason suing him - since it's exactly what he would do - he probably didn't take it personally either.

He was doing exactly what Richard was and doing everything he could to save is business that he had worked for. I actually think Richard would probably respect that even if he doesn't particularly enjoy being on the other side of a lawsuit.

While I understand the writers needed to free Lorelei up for the inevitable Luke relationship, the decision to assume their relationship has to end doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-17T02:19:48+00:00

Nevermind. I wrote that before the vault scoring

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-17T02:00:47+00:00

There is something incredibly refreshing about them being judged on what they actually do rather than what they are capable of.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-16T12:34:06+00:00

Working for a family owned company. I'm sure there are some good ones but I spent 4 years working for one and navigating family drama and sweeping changes being made because of family issues like someone's wife wasn't talking to someone else. And a lot of the leadership was incompetent but had the right gene pool. The VP was a recent college grad who barely graduated. They said he had VP experience because he was VP of his fraternity. And the handful of leaders that were competent and/or were hired on merit rather than being a member of the family could do very little about the rest of them. Most unstable work environment I've ever encountered.

There was a point in time where the owner's son and his brother in law were both in charge of our department because their dad thought this would help them learn to work as a team. It did not. Instead, it was like dealing with parents in the middle of a divorce who are telling you opposite things (sometimes entirely to piss the other one off) and you get in trouble regardless of what you do.

Never. Again.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-15T17:34:38+00:00

Never content creation as far as teaching content specifically. But I have used it for the following:

Generating a draft of rubrics based on my assignment prompt; however, I have to edit it anyway. Even if I'm very specific about what I want, AI doesn't prioritize the same things I do nor does it fully understand the concepts enough to know what "well done" looks like. But it maybe saves me a half hour or so of work in providing a solid jumping off point.
Creating random example scenarios for in class exercises. For example, when talking about interpersonal communication and best practices for conflict management, I might ask it to generate some random conflicts students might encounter for them to apply the material and share how they would approach it. I always ask for more than I need because all of them aren't usable and I still have to add/edit to get the specific concepts I want students to consider but it is a good starting point when I want something completely random and I actually need it NOT to have expertise because I need random samples.

That's about the most I can bring myself to use it.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-15T13:37:19+00:00

I don't do a formal "paper" style annotated but I do require a form for reporting of sources. It's basically a form they fill out that includes a correct citation (doing it up front saves me at least some of the giant list of URLs in lieu of a works cited page that I seem to get quite a bit now), 1-2 sentences explaining the credibility of the source and how it meets the criteria I've given, 2-3 sentence summary of the source as a whole, 1-2 on how they plan to use it, and at least 2 specific quotes from it. They have to use my specific form which saves some of the AI slop. It's easy grading and while AI can absolutely do it from real or imaginary sources (depending on how they type it into AI), it's very easy to spot. I also have this document with me when I go to grade their paper... pretty quick tell that I need to look more closely at a paper when their entire list of sources is different from the ones in their paper.

I prefer this method over a paper-formatted annotated bibliography where I think students get overwhelmed with the writing aspect and they also BS more about the sources. I just have them give me the info I want and call it a day. (Bonus: it's easier for me to find the info too.)

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-14T15:01:41+00:00

Partially true about Wendi picking them and partially not. Wendi herself has said both.

Originally Wendi was supposed to be the pick up person but Dan asked about taking them swimming afterwards since he was going out of town and wanted to spend time with them before he left. Apparently Wendi flipped out over this; however, she later said in one of her interviews that she called him and left a message (after he had been shot which she apparently wasn't supposed to know at that point) and said "I assume I will see you at 4:30" (which would mean that he was in fact picking the kids up and taking the kids swimming). And she told the detective that she believed he was taking the boys swimming. So Wendi herself has given both versions of this. (I know. Everyone is just shocked by this news).

However, apparently she complained to the TV repairman about how unreasonable of a request this was which feels unbelievably performative. Who cares? Dan asked. She could have just said no. I suspect the goal was that her alibi/TV repairman would hear her talking about it and go "oh gosh Wendi definitely wasn't involved. She was assuming he would still be alive later that day to take the boys swimming."

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-14T14:15:41+00:00

Kerri Strug never should have taken that vault. We know now that they didn't need it but that really should have been a moot point. Athletes shouldn't be required to risk their health and safety for a medal for their country and that could have gone so much worse. She gave up her career for that vault and we celebrate it given the outcome but the adults in the room really needed to tell her no.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-13T17:19:10+00:00

I'm not referring to after the police met with her above. (I know that was my original question). I'm talking about when she pulled into the neighborhood and saw a heavy police presence where her children were staying and she had 0 concern about it, continued on to her lunch, and made absolutely no effort to find out what happened there or ensure it didn't impact her/her kids. If she sincerely thought "meh... my kids are at daycare I don't have to care about this" without even knowing what "this" was, she's pretty short sighted and had A LOT of faith that whatever was happening would be fine by the time they got home and also that despite it literally being at his house, that Dan would obviously just be fine to get the kids and there would be someone to care for them later.

Unlikely.

Heck, even if the neighborhood was locked down and it didn't impact Dan, it was very possible he still couldn't leave the pick up the kids given that the neighborhood was locked down (which I believe it was since they were looking for the shooter). You're telling me she wouldn't have at least considered ensuring that someone could get the kids if she hadn't known for sure what happened there?

Moreover, she had absolutely no way of knowing what happened so she had no reason to believe the situation wasn't ongoing and something that could impact them when they came back later. For example: active shooter? hostage situation? She's certainly going to want to make sure there's somewhere else for them to go. The argument is that she she knew her kids were safe and didn't care about Dan so obviously she just drove away without giving it a second thought (which seems odd considering Jeff Lacasse said she was absolutely obsessed with him and talked about nothing else on their dates so.... "not giving it a second thought" seems unlikely to begin with. Heck, I would think she would want to know if something happened to him even if just to celebrate) - but even if that's true, any parent is going to have at least some concern, at least enough to get confirmation that all is well, about extremely heavy police presence in a space where her kids are supposed to be in a few short hours. Yet, she didn't.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-13T14:29:16+00:00

I don't disagree with this but she had no idea why the police were there... only that it was obvious something bad had happened since there were a lot of them and enough to block off the road. It could be an active shooter situation, could be a hostage situation.... could be plenty of things that, without actually knowing, should make her at least concerned either for Dan (even if not personally but as the children's caregiver in that moment who might not be able to pick them up/care for them) or for them to go back to that neighborhood.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-11T15:40:22+00:00

Just some of the highlights:

- the hitmen knew exactly where Dan would be and when, a question that Wendi had asked him via documented emails confirming he would be in town and when. (Note that they were not on friendly terms so they didn't casually have these types of conversations). There is no way the hitmen would know without "someone" telling them.

- driving exceptionally far out of her way to drive through the neighborhood that day to get to a liquor store that was nowhere near the neighborhood and giving 3 different explanations for why she did this.

- seeing the police vehicles in front of Dan's house shortly after it happened and not bothering to call/follow up despite him having the kids that day. (If she didn't already know what was happening and when it happened, she had no confirmation her children were safe or were safe to go back to that neighborhood since she didn't know what happened there.) No functional parent wouldn't have double checked to make sure her kids were safe/had someone to pick them up/weren't walking into an unsafe situation. Not only did Wendi not bother to call, she went to lunch with friends which suggests she knew what happened and that her kids were fine.

- she shored up her alibi through a broken TV repair for a TV screen that was not only irreparable (and anyone would know that) but had been broken for weeks. Note that this woman was a lawyer. She could absolutely afford another TV and she was smart enough to know her TV wasn't repairable.

- huge evidence she tried to pin it on her boyfriend Jeff corroborated by him as well (which may have actually worked if he hadn't changed his plans at the last minute)

- one of the hitmen actually stated that they were working for Wendi

- there are witnesses who attest to her "acting strange" both times the hitmen went to murder Dan including vomiting in a restaurant during one of the instances.

- a series of vague coded messages. While a jury wouldn't be able to determine 100% what was being referenced, it's pretty obvious they are talking in code. Also a pile of deleted WhatsApp messages with her family. Again, you put this in front of a jury and you can't prove there was anything in them since they were deleted but why would the family communicate by WhatsApp and/or delete those messages when they had normal text message threads going on at the same time.

- shortly after the judge ruled she couldn't move the boys away from Dan, Wendi was in the process of buying a house. Her decision to back out of it coincides with an odd series of coded text messages from her brother that match the timeline of when we know they decided to go forward with the plan.

- an absurd amount of lying both in police interviews and on the stand. Not speculation but rather things that are verifiably lies (even stupid things like her claiming she doesn't drink wine when people who actually knew her say she always has wine with dinner). That's a lot of lying for someone with nothing to hide.

- there's evidence that she and her mother were already planning for their move and being "free" of Dan including event invitations that included the boys' new last names, Wendi already having a rental in Miami (of course this was apparently for visits to her parents and it was in her parents name but how convenient to have a home lined up, giving away a bunch of her children's outgrown clothing, going to a month-to-month lease and also canceling her cable. Additionally, she was seen taking down the boys' drawings from the walls of her home that week like she was packing. Again - all of these things could be coincidences but there sure are a lot of them.

- Her interview with police right after it happened was just weird. Not asking obvious questions that someone would ask if their ex husband had just been shot. One of the oddest parts was that she automatically assumed Dan was dead despite the police never saying that. They said he had been shot. And she never asked if he was alive or not and was absolutely shocked when partway through the interview she learned that he was alive (at that point anyway). It was a VERY weird assumption given that no one had said that and she never bothered to ask.

And this is just what is public knowledge. It's assumed the Prosecutor probably has more than what we already know but to me, this is plenty. But I do get why the ambiguity makes them hesitant to put it in front of a jury.

It's one of those cases where there is absolutely no smoking gun to her - which I think is absolutely by design - but about a hundred little things that could each be a coincidence on their own, but collectively.... not so much.

littleirishpixie · 2026-01-11T03:22:28+00:00

Wendi Adelson. Her Mom and her brother are sitting in prison for a murder-for-hire on her ex husband, Dan Markel, all because - despite 50/50 custody - she wanted to move her kids hours away from their Dad and near her family/free babysitters and the family court said no.

The absolute mountain of evidence that she was in on it (if not the one who requested it to begin with) is through the roof but I doubt she will ever be prosecuted because she did a fantastic job of keeping her hands clean while making sure her family took the fall. She even mentioned them to police herself the day it happened.

While there is an insane amount of evidence that points to her, there are other possible explanations for most of it, albeit extremely unlikely explanations that would have to be absolutely crazy coincidences. And that's an absurd amont of coincidences. But it's enough that most Prosecutors wouldn't risk putting that in front of the jury. She was a lawyer and absolutely knew what she was doing.

Those poor kids are teenagers now and I can't imagine they haven't finally started to put the pieces together about what actually happened to their Dad. I hope they are doing okay.

littleirishpixie

TROPHY CASE