iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Open on Bluesky →

Replies

Kit Connolly @kitforkat.com · 04/02/2026

On Sandusky: “Kind of reminiscent of the community hysteria surrounding the Salem witchcraft trials.”

To:
Matthew I. Menchel
From:
Jeffrey Epstein
Sent:
Tue 12/11/2012 5:11:01 AM

robert trivers, genes in conflict.
-- blog found today...-. I also entertain the
possibly that Sandusky is innocent. Why? Because I took the initiative to read the trial transcript and formed my own conclusions.
I found nothing in the transcript that proved that Sandusky was innocent. I found nothing in the transcript that proved to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sandusky is guilty either. The testimony of the victims is absolutely very sad. It's also inconsistent, and involves allegations that were brought to light often under very dubious circumstances (previously estranged family members hiring civil lawyers for them, psychologists uncovering repressed memories, questionable investigative and interview techniques, etc).

I encourage you all to read the transcript yourselves, then compare it with the Grand Jury testimony. Is Sandusky innocent? Not necessarily. But, it certainly raises questions of his guilt. To me, the most disturbing thing about this situation is the speed and conviction at which Sandusky was tried and found guilty by the media and public - long before the case went to trial. No physical evidence. Mainly testimony by a handful of people who are now filing civil suits for millions, and a former football coach who has told numerous different versions of his story (and is now filing a civil suit of his own). Kind of reminiscent of the community hysteria surrounding the Salem witchcraft trials. Scary.

100

Kit Connolly @kitforkat.com · 04/02/2026

So I was trying to see if there was more on Sandusky and came across this info from Lynn Crook who has been standing up against false memory defense witness Elizabeth Loftus for years. Crook theorizes Loftus was hired to get Kavanaugh confirmed. www.justice.gov/epstein/file...

RESPONSE TO FALSE MEMORY CLAIMS: The false memory PR campaign disbursed $7.75 million over 27 years. The best response to false memory claims I've heard is one by Dylan Farrow. She says in a 2021 interview, "This is something that I'm literally telling you happened to me. Who are you to say, 'No, it didn't'"? I was there, you weren't. Go away."

TYPICAL TESTIMONY - Loftus reviews the case, selects incidents and speculates as to how they might have caused a false memory. Asked about the details of the charges during cross it becomes clear that she hasn't thoroughly reviewed the case.

DURST - Deputy District Attorney John Lewin's 3-day cross of Loftus is on YouTube @ Durst trial. This was Lewin's second Loftus cross, and arguably the best I know of to date. Loftus became angry and sarcastic. Lewin insisted she face him, not the jury, to answer his questions.
He managed to mention more than once that she'd been doing this for 50 years. She did not like the reference to her age. Lewin is open to discussing his cross-examination.

WEINSTEIN - Arguably the most relevant testimony in the Loftus cross were the repeated mentions of the gist/core of the memory vs. the details. Loftus testified, "Well then, the less stressful, the one difference is when it is more upsetting and traumatic, if it is truly traumatic, there is evidence people who remember the gist and the core and the peripheral details especially suffer." So the memory is essentially correct, but maybe not the details. Sternheim mentioned memory contamination. That was tried in the Weinstein trial. Transcript available on request.
For the Weinstein trial I prepared a review of Loftus's "Remembering Disputed Sexual

EFTA01682003

—page break—

Encounters: A New Frontier for Witness Memory Research" which suggests that if a woman accepts a drink, etc., the man assumes she wants sex. If she physically defends herself it's because she doesn't want to appear easy. Available on request.

BLASEY FORD - I collected Loftus's media interviews on the Blasey Ford accusation. I got the sense Loftus probably spent considerable time prepping because her responses to the half-dozen reporters differed, and many were quite creative. Available on request. Can't prove it, but I wondered if she was hired to respond to the press to help ensure Kavanaugh was confirmed.

101

Kit Connolly @kitforkat.com · 04/02/2026

Defining child sexual grooming; not just about the “perpetrator’s behavior toward the child.” Four types of grooming: child, self, family, and community/institutional. Eye-opening way to understand the complex relationship dynamics at play.

EFTA00157026

Given that sexual grooming behaviors can look different depending upon the offenders and type of situation (i.e., in-person, online, child sex trafficking; Elliott 2017), this paper will specifically focus on in-person sexual grooming. Taken together, it is evident that sexual grooming is a highly nuanced process involving varying types of behaviors and lengths of time depending on the offender and the context.

Research has shown that sexual grooming is not limited to the behavior of the perpetrator directed toward the child. Four broad categories of sexual grooming have been introduced in the literature: child, self, family, and community/institutional. The term child sexual grooming refers to the typical conceptualization of sexual grooming, in which the offender grooms the potential victim (Craven, Brown, and Gilchrist 2006). Self-grooming involves the process whereby offenders cognitively/psy-chologically groom themselves in order to justify, minimize, or deny their behaviors (Craven, Brown, and Gilchrist 2006; Katz and Field 2020; McAlinden 2006). Familial grooming involves gaining the trust of caregivers in order to increase access to the victim and decrease the likelihood of disclosure (Craven, Brown, and Gilchrist 2006; Katz and Barnetz 2016; Leberg 1997; McAlinden 2006;
McElvaney 2019). Lastly, an offender may groom the community by becoming a respected and established member of the community before sexually abusing children (Van Dam 2001, 2006; America, schools, foster care, sports teams, babysitting; Lanning and Burgess 1984; Leclerc and Felson 2016; McAlinden 2006; Sullivan and Beech, 2002) thus circumventing the need to gain access to or groom the child's family, or exploiting organizational weaknesses to facilitate child sexual abuse (O'Leary, Koh, and Dare 2017).

3502-034
Page 2 of 13
EFTA_00001686

110