Talk:Jeffrey Epstein

Original police report was claimed to be 30 people, not 5, not 34, not 36
The record is online but is mentioned several times here along with one person who broke down and told interrogator what they wanted.

https://www.insider.com/ghislaine-maxwell-testimony-jeffrey-epstein-released-2020-10?back=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fclient%3Dsafari%26as_qdr%3Dall%26as_occt%3Dany%26safe%3Dactive%26as_q%3DEpstein+trial+testimony%26channel%3Daplab%26source%3Da-app1%26hl%3Den

Lottery Winner?
Just read the Wikipedia Article on Eddie Tipton, who was convicted of rigging multiple state lotteries, including Oklahoma, and also I have read online reports that Epstein "won" the Oklahoma Lottery, and so I naturally came here to find out if there is a connection, and discover that the fact of Epstein's lottery "winning" is not even mentioned in this Article. Is Wikipedia's position that this never happened, because if it did, and there is a connection, it would indicate something nefarious, IMO.

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:6514:C557:E752:615C (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This looks like a WP:REDFLAG claim and it is a completely new one on me. Is there any decent sourcing for this (not blogs, YouTube videos etc)?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Dalton School: Cause and Effect, Divided
The Lede mentions that Epstein was "dismissed" from the Dalton school, but does not say why, while further down in the body, it is revealed that Epstein behaved inappropriately with teenage students while at Dalton, but does not mention he was dismissed as a result. I assume this is an accident, and that the Article is NOT trying to divide these two halves of the same coin, in order to create the false impression that Epstein's entire career did not involve the sexual exploitation of children, from it's very first documentation in 1976. I assume good faith, and do not believe this obfuscation of the truth to be intentional. Particularly given how little attention has been paid to this topic. Probably just an oversight.

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:6514:C557:E752:615C (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The article says that he was dismissed from Dalton for "poor performance". Maybe the school used this as an excuse after there had been allegations of inappropriate conduct, but he was not officially dismissed from the school for this reason.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From the Lede of the Article:
 * Born and raised in New York City, Epstein began his professional life as a teacher at the Dalton School despite lacking a college degree. After his dismissal from the school in 1976, he entered the banking and finance sector,
 * From the Body of the Article, subitle "Career>Teaching", first and second paragraphs:
 * Epstein started working in September 1974 as a physics and mathematics teacher for teens at the Dalton School...
 * However, he also allegedly showed inappropriate behavior toward underage female students
 * All I am doing is taking the general statement from the Lede, the specific statements from the body of the Article, connecting them, and asking why they are divided within the Article, when they obviously are connected to the Lede's description of first his "sexual offender" status, then fails to include the stated fact (from within the Article) that he was dismissed from Dalton as a result of "inappropriate" (meaning sexual) behavior. And while the Article mentions both halves of the same truth, moving the most lurid to within the body of the Article, it mentions the less-relevant fact that he "lacked a degree", which is good to know, but watered-down, and causing the Reader to NOT wonder whether or not he was hired despite not having a degree, because he had other talents, skills, predilections and money.  I'm not asserting that there is a connection between his hiring and his pedophilia and presumed state-sanctioned blackmail status, I am asserting that the common sense connection between the two is being artificially divided into to halves by the Article itself.  If this were any other Article, I might not make an issue out of this, but this is Epstein with all the intrigue that goes with it, and a common-sense, plain-language statement of basic facts that is delivered in any other way looks like something was done with intent, i.e. the appearance of impropriety vs. actual impropriety, if you will.  Further I note, and wonder, how it is that a person "without a college degree" manages to teach "physics and mathematics" to young women that he eventually molests.  FYI the Dalton school is a private, K-12 "college prep" school that is still in existence.
 * 66.25.69.185 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

About Donald Barr's brief mention on the Career section
It's nothing I just can't find the edit button so I hope someone can edit the information for me. It says something in the lines of the "unconventional" word that suggests something different from one source of the text, which is external link number 29 currently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-dalton-teacher.html Here it says "While Mr. Barr was strict on the school culture, he made it a point to hire teachers from unconventional backgrounds" with a focus on the culture side of the school.

While in the wikipedia page it says "Donald Barr, who served as the headmaster until June 1974, was known to have made several unconventional recruitments at the time" focusing the "unconventional" word vaguely which can tend to suggest a relation between unconventional and Epstein specifically.

Maybe the first person who brought words along those lines from the source haven't used them properly to interact with the rest of the text. These lines also suggest that Barr had to have some direct relation with Epstein's job when at least on the basis of documents it is unclear.

Also "although it is unclear whether he had a direct role in hiring Epstein" can be a confusing line to read for people that rely on wikipedia and doesn't look on the sources to understand an idea.

btw not angry its just my texts writing Shallow sleet (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * also unconventional and the lack of credentials situation don't have any relation when you read about it on the source, text is leaving enough things to imagination that it's not just a bad "implies" thing but a bad redaction thing. Shallow sleet (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)