reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker recounts the depth of the evil involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s network as described by survivors during a press conference. They explain that 14-year-old girls were told by a high school friend to come to an old man’s house, give him a massage, and he would pay $200, with a swimming pool and other enticements presented. The massage would escalate to sexual acts, and Epstein would keep their phone numbers. Through the shame and coercion, the girls were compelled to show up at his beck and call whenever he wanted. The only way they could get out of performing sexual favors was to find another girl at their high school who would take their place. One survivor broke down in tears as she admitted that she faced a choice between finding a replacement girl or returning to perform the acts, and she chose to find another girl. The speaker notes that even after it was known that these were 15-year-old girls coerced by an adult man, people still said they were sex traffickers and trafficked these women. The speaker emphasizes the realization of how evil it is for someone to make others commit evil acts and then implicate them, which made it harder for the survivors to come forward. There is discussion of why the names of the victims aren’t released. Epstein’s abuse involved billionaires who could pay off authorities and judges. After girls reached the age of consent, Epstein would traffic them to his friends, arguing that some were prostitutes who were 18 or older and thus consenting. The speaker explains that when these men had money, they could pay off police departments, cause reports to disappear, or influence judges. Many of the girls came from less affluent families, and the money paid to the families ranged from $150,000 up to $500,000, while the girl often would not testify. The men would then use defamation lawsuits to bankrupt the survivors who spoke out or tried to contest their false allegations. The process itself functions as punishment, with survivors forced to go broke just to defend their names.

The discussion centers on the case involving former high-ranking official Joris Demming, who, once again, has prompted a new victim claim. This time, journalist Fred de Brouwer died in a scooter accident in Thailand this weekend. De Brouwer, together with Henk Krol, was among the first to write about the alleged child abuse by Demink. For Henk Krol, it is hoped that this latest incident is purely a coincidence. Meneer Krol expresses condolences on the “film” and calls the development crazy. He notes that Fred had been in dialogue with several Dutch media outlets, because those outlets were finally prepared to relay the story the way it had come to him. Is it an accident, or is there more behind it? Speaker 1 says: “Nee, dat weten we niet.” The report from bystanders in Thailand claims De Brouwer was followed by a white car and then run over; the driver has not been found. This is described as “op zijn minst een merkwaardige dood” — at least a remarkable death. Asked whether he fears for his own life, Speaker 1 replies that in his circle there are many who say not to do it, “want je ziet hoeveel mensen er omgevallen zijn.” Yet he hopes it was all coincidence. If in the future it turns out that something happened to him as well, it would become harder to believe it was coincidence.

Anne Marie from Lehenburg reveals horrifying details about the Octopus Syndicate, a criminal organization led by Kees van Kordlek. They orchestrated the torture, rape, and murder of children in the Netherlands, with high-ranking officials present. Anne Marie has tried to seek justice but has faced obstacles. The remains of the children were disposed of in Belgium. She is willing to testify in court. Today's date is June 5, 2014.

The speaker shares personal experiences of feeling unsafe around Dan Schneider, the creator of childhood trauma, while working at Nickelodeon. They express concern about the inappropriate content in Schneider's TV shows and call for an external investigation into Schneider's Bakery. The speaker also mentions being approached by Schneider's lawyer to potentially sign an NDA. They then discuss four individuals who were convicted or accused of child abuse while working at Nickelodeon. The speaker highlights Alexa Nicholas, who named all the abusers in an interview and praises her efforts to stand up for victims. They express shock at how Nickelodeon allowed so many predators to work for them and mention an upcoming documentary on the topic.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

A speaker asks if an interview will be conducted with Dr. William Mattis regarding receipts he brought about AHS and a pedophilia problem. Speaker 1 responds that one doctor Mattis raised concerns about went through legal proceedings in British Columbia, was found guilty, and is believed to be being sentenced. Speaker 1 states that credible claims must go through a legal process and that while Mattis has raised concerns that have been validated, it is up to the courts to adjudicate them. Speaker 1 looked into the claims and says it appears a couple are going through that process now.

Lize, at the age of fifteen, reported her father, other men, lawyers, and the CEO of a large company for sexual abuse. She also revealed that she became pregnant and the baby was murdered, with the story involving ritualistic elements. Sanne ter Linge, an investigative journalist, explains that ritual abuse includes not only the desire for sexual relations with children but also other disturbing aspects such as drinking blood or being locked in coffins. Society tends to disbelieve these accounts, associating them with dark cellars, cult symbols, and candlelit chants. The difficulty of sharing these stories with law enforcement and the long waiting lists for trauma care are also highlighted. This is a narrative about the existence and challenges of ritual abuse.

Gabriel, an eight-year-old boy, described a pattern of abuse connected to his father, teachers, and other adults associated with his school and his family’s extended network. The interview centers on two main settings where the abuse occurred: a swimming pool in East Finchley and a school-related party, plus earlier incidents at home and with other adults. People involved - Gabriel and his family: His mother, known as Mama; his caregiver “Papa Hemp” (an adult referred to as Abraham who is described as Gabriel’s father figure and also as a father to him and his sister); his sister Emmy; his nanny Galina (also called Galina or Galina, Ukrainian/Russian family member who helps with cooking and housekeeping); other relatives such as Gabriel’s grandparents, including a Russian grandmother who lives outside England; a variety of named and unnamed extended family members. - Gabriel’s primary caregivers and household: Mama (the mother who is described as kind and supportive, who cooks, cleans, does juices, and provides money); Papa Hemp (the man Gabriel calls “dad” who does hemp juices and spends money on luxury items for Gabriel); Galina (the nanny, Ukrainian/Russian, who helps with pancakes and household tasks); Emmy (Gabriel’s sister); other adults in the household who are named less consistently. - School staff and associates: Christchurch Primary School in Hampstead where Gabriel says many teachers and staff were connected to his father. He names a number of teachers and staff by first and last names, including: - Miss Wilma (year one teacher, described as a friend of Gabriel’s father and the person who introduced him to other teachers). - Miss Forsyth (Kate Forsyth), the head teacher (Kate is her first name; Forsyth is the surname). - Miss Forsyth’s sister, also a head teacher, named Kate too (Kate Ungwyn or Ungwyn is referenced; the exact surname varies in the transcript). - Mr. Hollings (referred to as “mister Hollings,” the year four teacher who is to become Gabriel’s four-year teacher). - Miss Parsons (referred to as a leader among the teachers who knew Gabriel’s father). - Miss Clover and Miss Reese (assistants/teachers who were described as part of the staff). - Miss Wilma (again, described as a year one teacher who knew Gabriel’s father and who helped connect him with other staff). - Other staff names recur with uncertainty due to the chaotic transcript, but a broad network of teachers and school staff is repeatedly cited as being present during events. - Other adults at the events: Gabriel’s father’s friends, a man named Frank who is described as the McDonald’s manager or staff at the pool, and various parents who are named in relation to the disabled toilets incident. Key locations and settings - East Finchley Swimming Pool: Gabriel describes going there with his father (Papa Hemp) and his sister Emmy when he was about four years old. He recalls a changing room where his father and sister were present, and a disabled toilet where the abuse occurred. The pool complex is described as having a McDonald’s nearby and a McDonald’s inside the pool area itself, plus other facilities and a road and stairs near the pool. - The school and the school party: Gabriel recounts an incident on the last day of school in which a party at Christchurch Primary School involved sexual abuse. He describes a party that took place in the school, connected to a church space and school facilities, with dancing, and with teachers and parents present. He states that all the children attended the party and that many people, including teachers, parents, and his father’s friends, were involved in the abuse. He mentions a head teacher and other staff, including the year four teacher, present at the party. - Home and other settings: In the broader timeline, Gabriel refers to various other episodes including his mother’s explanations about anatomy (private parts, semen, the “white stuff” that comes out when wet or rubbed), and the risk and consequences described by his mother. He also describes exposure to alcohol, both wine and beer, provided by his father in various contexts; use of white powder to sniff; and other substances and behaviors introduced by his father and associates. Major events and claims - A pattern of sexual abuse initiated very early: Gabriel states that his father began abusing him when he was a baby or very young (one year old). He describes ongoing abuse across multiple settings, including at the pool and at home/with family friends. - The swimming pool incident: Gabriel details a recurrent pattern at the East Finchley Swimming Pool. He says his father and his father’s friends would take him and his sister into a large, multi-person disabled toilet, where they would perform sexual acts. He explains that the acts involved touching his private area, forcing him to put or be subjected to plastic Willy devices inserted into his bottom, which would bleed after removal. He says the acts occurred in the changing rooms, toilets, particularly the disabled toilet, and involved adults including his father, teachers, and parents who were there “in the disabled toilet” with him and his sister. He also mentions being taught to engage in sexual acts with other children at the pool and with other adults present. - The “plastic Willy” elements: Gabriel describes multiple “plastic willies” of different colors and sizes—bronze/dark skin color (brown), golden color, and white—for insertion into his bottom, describing the process as painful and bleeding after removal. He notes that the devices are made or bought by his father and his father’s associates; he references a person named Daniel as someone who helps make or procure the plastic toys. He emphasizes different color-coded descriptions for what he calls “brown/bronze,” “gold,” and “white.” - The teaching and social settings: Gabriel describes that his father had many connections with staff at the Christchurch Primary School, including Wilma, Forsyth (Kate), Ungwyn (Kate), Parsons, and others, suggesting that these relationships arranged or enabled the abuse. He states that the staff and parents were present at the pool events and at the school party, and that they engaged in or facilitated sexual activities with him and his sister. He describes that his father and the teachers would direct or coerce the children to participate in sexual activities, including oral sex on adults and other acts described in explicit terms. - The party day and the aftermath: The school party is described as lasting six hours and occurring during regular school hours, with a party atmosphere replacing standard lessons. Gabriel recalls being forced to engage in sexual acts at that party, being hit for crying, being injected with a sleeping injection by a nurse teacher so he would fall asleep, and being forced to participate in acts that included sexual contact with multiple adults, including his father, teachers, and other parents. He describes that his father killed babies and ate meat in a later part of the narrative about the party day, but the central focus is the party itself and the abuse that occurred there. - The “white powder” and alcohol: Gabriel recalls being given white powder to sniff by his father or adults, describing it as a substance that causes dizziness, headaches, and a “drunk” feeling. He describes European and Russian family connections as context for these experiences and mentions a green bottle with white powder in it. He also recounts receiving alcohol (white wine and red wine) from his father and feeling dizzy and headache-prone afterward, receiving tablets to alleviate symptoms. He notes that this happened when he was four years old and that his mother later admonished him not to put the white powder near his sister because it could cause babies to be born with severe problems. - The “seeds” and the white stuff: Gabriel describes the white stuff as being similar to semen in boys and having seeds that can multiply if they are brought into contact with another person or water. He explains that he was told to wash hands after handling the white stuff because the seeds can multiply, possibly causing pregnancy if transferred to another person. He emphasizes that the white substance can cause babies that might be blind, deaf, or otherwise disabled. He says his mother told him about the seeds and that it’s dangerous to expose his sister or others to the white stuff. - The self-harm and aggression: Gabriel recounts fighting with his sister, describing that following some of the episodes he engaged in violent acts toward his sister (hitting her, pulling her hair, etc.). He indicates these behaviors intensified after Abraham (Papa) moved in, and that his mother became very stressed as a consequence. He describes subsequent fear about reporting these events and the fear of retaliation by the adults involved, but then he begins to disclose earlier events. Rules and procedural notes from the interviewer - The interviewer (Steve) explains procedural rules for the interview: he is a police officer, with a partner described as Cleo who is the controller of the interview and a camera operator; there is Bethan from social services taking notes; the interview is structured to elicit truthfulness and precision, with an emphasis on avoiding guessing and on not considering Gabriel in trouble for reporting. - Gabriel is encouraged to use truthful accounts and to express himself with the language he chooses, including swear words, and the interviewer explicitly indicates that he would prefer him to supply the real terms (e.g., explicit sexual terms) to ensure accuracy in the record. - The interviewer confirms factual details like the date (11 September, a Thursday), the participants in the interview, and the structure of the interview. He also provides a mock example to illustrate truth-telling and asks Gabriel to identify lies and truths. - The interviewer clarifies that the purpose of the interview is to gather truthfully reported information about past incidents, including events that occurred at the pool, the school, and within the family network. Emotional and safety context - Gabriel communicates fear, confusion, and distress, especially around events at the pool and school. He alternates between recounting explicit acts and the broader social context of an abusive environment. He references fear of retaliation if the information is disclosed and expresses relief at having the opportunity to speak with an adult about what happened. - The narrative includes multiple references to consent, coercion, and the use of physical force to compel participation in sexual activities, as described by Gabriel. Overall content of claims - Gabriel reports extensive sexual abuse and coercion by his father, teachers, and other adults connected to the school and family circle, including forced sexual acts with both him and his sister. - He describes the use of plastic sexual devices inserted into his bottom, causing bleeding, and the performance of sexual acts in changing rooms and disabled toilets at the East Finchley Swimming Pool, in the presence of his father, teachers, and parents. - He recounts participation in a school party that involved sexual activities with multiple adults and a pattern of violence toward him for crying, as well as medical interventions (injections) to suppress crying. - He reports exposure to alcohol and illegal substances (white powder) given or introduced by his father, as well as instructions given by his mother about the dangers of the substances, including the propagation of seeds that could cause pregnancy and birth defects. - He describes a broader pattern of manipulation and complicity among adults at the school, including various named staff who allegedly knew his father and arranged or facilitated abuse. This summary condenses the key points and claims from Gabriel’s account, preserving the explicit statements and descriptions as provided in the transcript, without interpretation or judgment of the claims’ truthfulness.

The discussion centers on a disturbing Epstein-related document dump from the DOJ, focusing on a diary kept by a girl who was 16 at the time of the abuse. The speakers emphasize the diary as a direct, named account written by the girl, and note that the FBI interpreted her coded entries. They describe the girl as having Mosaic Down syndrome and autism, with the diary mentioning both conditions and the way she was treated by Epstein and his associates. Key details highlighted: - The girl’s background: autism and Mosaic Down syndrome; she writes about autism in the diary and notes how Spirit Airlines was praised for accommodating autistic people. - Targeting and vulnerability: she was considered easier to exploit due to her condition and described as beautiful, with mentions of blonde hair and blue eyes, described in terms akin to a porcelain doll. - Pregnancy and abortion: the diary recounts pregnancies and instances of forced abortions or births, with references to a test showing pregnancy (“two pink lines”) and to being treated as property or an incubator. - Direct quotes from the diary: she expresses a desire to die, references Ghislain Maxwell as someone who sometimes protects her and sometimes does not, and states, “I am nothing but your property and incubator” and “my heart belonged to her.” - A specific segment about a baby: she writes about being able to hold and feed a baby for ten to fifteen minutes before the baby was taken away, and she describes the baby as hers and expresses distress. - Attempts to obtain help: she repeatedly begs to be released from torture and to be saved. Names and individuals mentioned in the diary: - Ghislain Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell) is referenced repeatedly as someone who “protects” her at times and is connected to the control she experiences. - Jean-Luc Brunel is named in the diary with a derogatory description and speculation about his motives; the diary notes his suicide in prison. Other figures discussed in relation to the diary: - Leon Black: the diary includes coded references to “Stopped Dead” and mentions meeting Black in New York City in 2000 as Epstein’s “special friend.” The text discusses public reporting (Newsweek, 2023) about allegations against Black, who reportedly paid Epstein $158 million for financial advice between 2012 and 2017, after Epstein’s conviction. The diary entry describes an incident where Black allegedly bit and assaulted the girl, with “blood all over Jeffrey’s carpet,” and Black’s supposed disdain, saying, “Leon can go F himself.” The discussion notes Black’s later withdrawal from Apollo and questions the plausibility of a figure paying that amount for financial advice. - The diary also references Epstein’s associates and a pattern of moving the victim between powerful people. Context and meta-commentary: - The speakers acknowledge that the case details are not proven in court and urge caution about drawing definitive conclusions from diary entries and online reports. They emphasize that some accounts appear credible as direct Epstein victims, while others remain unverified or disputed. - They criticize media and government handling of the Epstein case, suggesting there were long-standing cover-ups and implying involvement of intelligence or state actors, though they reiterate that conclusions about guilt or innocence should await legal proceedings. - They note that the DOJ’s redactions in the Epstein files did not protect the victims’ names as promised, while some alleged predators remained less protected, and they reference a torture video mentioned in emails to Epstein, asking who sent it and what happened to that person. - The conversation ends with broader criticisms of political leadership and the media, arguing that the organization behind the trafficking was extensive and that coverage often centers on famous individuals rather than the organizers and victims.

The police already in 1997 had indications that former top Justice official Joris Demink and three senior prosecutors were involved in the sexual abuse of underage boys, an old detective testified at the Utrecht court. The testimony is notable because, until now, three ministers of justice, including Opstelten, have consistently denied that Demink participated in any investigation into sexual abuse of minors. According to the former detective, the investigation ultimately yielded nothing because it was sabotaged from higher up. The Rolodex affair, which unfolded in the late 1990s in Amsterdam, concerned a supposed pedophile network in which underage boys were abused by men from wealthy circles. With information from Rolodex, police traced four high-ranking officials, including top Justice official Joris Demink. Despite the ministry’s long-standing denials of Demink’s involvement, today one of the researchers who worked on the case testifies under oath and names Demink. The witness, detective De Kooten, testifies today in a civil case in Utrecht. He is asked to recall which names emerged back then, and he responds by naming three prosecutors and Demink. The word “En Denmink” is repeated, referring to Demink. Minister Opstelten stands by his position that these claims are not correct. As for the RoLodex investigation, it ultimately produced nothing. For the two men who testified in Utrecht, the outcome was frustrating. The chronicle of the case centers on a man named Ger van R., described as a professor in Amsterdam. When, in the late 1990s, the authorities tapped the phone of this Van R., the line suddenly went silent. During a house search, it appeared as if a cleaning crew had been through, and nothing else was found at his home. One of the witnesses who spoke today is Jaap Hoek, a former [the transcript cuts off here].

The speaker reveals that pedophilia is a major issue in Hollywood, even for children. They were surrounded by pedophiles at 14, but only realized it later. Despite informing the police about abusers, the focus was on Michael Jackson. The speaker insists on others coming forward with information to share the burden. They emphasize being a victim of abuse. Translation: The speaker discusses the prevalence of pedophilia in Hollywood, sharing their own experiences and frustration with the lack of action from authorities. They urge others to speak up and share the responsibility of exposing abusers.

The speaker asserts that discussions of child abuse and child trafficking are avoided in the UK Parliament, implying that avoidance signals a problem. They claim there is no separate crime of satanic child abuse in the UK; they say it’s simply child abuse, and suggest that the Netherlands similarly erases the subject. The speaker relates local discoveries in Leicester, described as the nearest city to their area, where they found extensive child abuse linked to both historic and current politicians and to the police. They state they gave evidence against the head of police about “industrial child trafficking.” A central claim is that there is industrial-scale trafficking of children from Ukraine via Moldova to the UK for sexual abuse and organ harvesting. The speaker says this information came from two Ukrainian secret service agents who independently reported the same scheme, without knowing each other. They alleged that Ukrainian secret services collected children during the conflict in the Donbas and handed them over to UK secret services. The two informants reportedly named individuals and were appalled by the task of collecting children for trafficking. The speaker recounts that one whistleblower was killed in a cafe when a bomb was placed under his table, and the second survived a car bombing after being warned by a car park camera clip showing the explosion as he approached his car. They claim the whistleblowers named people very close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his regime, asserting that those individuals purportedly benefit financially from the war by enabling child trafficking. Further claims include that there is more money in child trafficking and sex trafficking than in drugs or weapons because of the trafficked children’s organs. The speaker contends that the trafficking scheme involves selling the children multiple times, and that victims disappear after organs are harvested, which is why victims are not found in the end. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the alleged connection between wartime activity, Ukrainian whistleblowers, assassination attempts, and a broader network that allegedly profits from child trafficking and organ harvesting.

Speaker 0 discusses Dr. Francis Boyle as a highly distinguished human rights lawyer who worked at the highest levels of global treaties and advocacy, and who wrote the bioweapons treaty governing the United States. Boyle is described as having intimate knowledge of what a bioweapon is, what it does, and what it looks like. Early in the COVID-19 period, Boyle is said to have stated that COVID and the vaccine are bioweapons, echoing similar points made by others about their similar structures and common origins. The speaker notes Boyle warned the world that this is a bioweapon and cites Boyle’s status as a powerful voice on the matter. The speaker recalls an interview conducted in 2023 or 2024 with Boyle, describing him as deeply knowledgeable and brave, and asserts that the interview should have been front-page news. The speaker quotes Boyle as saying publicly that the virus and the vaccine are bioweapons and that their goal is to depopulate, disable, and kill. The speaker paraphrases Boyle’s words to emphasize that the aim is to disrupt reproduction and to disable and to kill, asserting that Boyle’s statements connected these outcomes to the design of the bioweapons. Boyle died in January, described as dying suddenly while being in good health and active in his early seventies. The speaker notes Sasha Ladopova’s claim that there is a problem with Boyle’s death, while avoiding speculation about the specifics, and states that Boyle was intended to be one of five witnesses slated to testify in a Netherlands trial against Pfizer, Albert Bourla, and Bill Gates regarding depopulation, disabling, and murdering people with the injection. Sasha Ladopova is reported as expressing concern about Boyle’s death and its timing, though the speaker declines to elaborate further, citing respect for the family’s privacy and avoiding baseless speculation. The transcript adds that the lawyer who would lead the prosecution in the same Netherlands context was arrested and detained under severe circumstances, highlighting a dramatic intervention that the speaker says does not align with the rule of law and due process in the Netherlands. The speaker closes by noting Boyle’s exceptional character and expressing a sense of great loss. Speaker 1 then warns listeners to be cautious about trusting Sasha Ladopova and Naomi Wolf, advising that if something is hard to swallow, one should pay attention, stating that these two individuals should be questioned at one's own peril. The speaker asserts personal familiarity with both women and urges listeners to recognize potential risks in accepting their reporting.

In the Flemish Parliament, speaking as an independent in name of Els, economic liberal and social, I listened to the September declaration by Prime Minister Jan Jambon and I wonder: has Prime Minister Jan Jambon forgotten God or not seen? Because there is no word about pedophilia in the church, in the boarding schools of Catholic institutions, while the schools fall under the authority of the Flemish government, education? Is that a taboo? Why does he not speak about it? The abuse is still ongoing, right? That is confirmed by several sources. I take as an example priest Lique Deville, who has written down all the stories of the victims, giving them a voice. I find that the stories of the victims of pedophile abuse in the church should be brought to the parliament. The pedophile priests must go to prison and the victims must be taken au sérieux. So I will request that a hearing be organized in the Flemish Parliament about the pedophilia network in the Catholic boarding schools in Flanders. I will emphasize that the ongoing abuse has been corroborated by multiple sources, and I will point to the work of priest Lique Deville, who documented the victims’ narratives to ensure they are heard. The call is for accountability of perpetrators and for formal recognition of the victims within political proceedings. The speaker asserts that the issue has not been adequately addressed in official discourse and demands a parliamentary inquiry to examine the alleged pedophilia network within Catholic institutions operated under Flemish educational authorities.

The speaker describes a family history of alleged ritualistic abuse and satanic practices, stating: “Also in worshiping the devil, participated in human sacrifice rituals rituals and cannibalism.” They assert an extensive family tree, claiming it “has gone back to, like, 1,700.” They contrast the outward appearance of their family with the reality inside, saying: “Does everyone else think it's a nice Jewish family? From the outside, appear to be a nice Jewish girl? Definitely. And you all are worshiping the devil inside the home? Right.” The speaker references broader involvement beyond their own family, noting: “There's other Jewish families across the country, not just my own family.” They describe rituals in which babies would be sacrificed and claim, “Who’s babies? There were people who bred babies in our family. No one would know about it. A lot of people were overweight, so you couldn't tell if they were pregnant or not.” They recount a childhood experience in which they were forced to participate: “When I was very young, I was forced to participate in that in which I had to sacrifice an infant. And the the purpose of sacrifice is to what? Is to bring you what? What are you sacrificing for? For power.” The response given to the question about the purpose of sacrifice is: “Power.” The speaker also discloses personal abuse within the narrative, stating: “Mhmm. I was molested. I was raped several times.” They then describe their mother’s current life and public image, asserting: “And what's your mother doing? She lives in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. She's on the Human Relations Commission of the town that she lives in, and she's an upstanding citizen. Nobody would suspect her.”

Speaker 1 shares a disturbing experience of being promised TV appearances in exchange for sexual favors at a young age. Speaker 0 mentions rumors of inappropriate behavior at the BBC, but doesn't provide details. Karen mentions a show called Clunk Click, which the team struggles to find evidence of. Eventually, they discover a tape featuring Karen, confirming her story. More people come forward with evidence, suggesting a wider issue.

In 2001, one of the most sought after models in the world goes on a talk show. Karen Mulder frantically starts name dropping everyone who had either assaulted her or sold her to be assaulted. This list would include royalty, politicians, cops, and her own family. But before she’d be done, she’d be taken off the stage and eventually put into a psych ward paid for by the very person she claimed started selling her in the first place, her agent and owner of Elite Paris, the man who signed her at just 15 years old, Gerald Marie. He would be prosecuted years later with an insurmountable amount of rape and sexual assault claims, only for the case to be closed in 2023 due to France’s statute of limitations, which could have been avoided if anyone in the French courts had taken her seriously at the time she reported them because, yes, she did report them. And if that wasn’t enough, I have something even more infuriating. One of the names she dropped during that talk show was Jean Luc Brunel. He was an Epstein associate who was found dead in his cell in 2022. He was jailed on suspicion of rape and trafficking of minors. Sorry. Hold on. After Karen’s 2001 interview, numerous publications would come out claiming that she was going through a psychotic episode. Her parents would publicly blame this outburst on drugs, and her sister Saskia would go on that same talk show just to discredit her sister, which may sound surprising. But remember, part of her desperate plea for someone to listen and do something included the abuse she endured in her childhood. So it’s safe to say Saskia was also a victim. It’s complicated, but it fueled the media and it fueled the tabloids to call her crazy, and she tried to take her own life in 2002. Thankfully, she survived and she’d returned to that same talk show to confront the host, heard this desperate plea, pulled her from air, and then deleted the tape. So the video of her speaking her truth would be scrapped altogether. The reason that we know this exists is because of his testimonies in the tabloids, hers, and audience members. Everyone called her crazy until the Epstein case started coming out. I read someone here on TikTok, a female influencer with a lot of followers, comment once on a video and say that human trafficking was like the new satanic pan. I remember it had a lot of likes, and I was so disturbed then, and I’m even more disturbed that comment lives in my head when I read the story because that interview could have saved twenty years of children. Twenty years. And to be put in a psych ward by the very man who first did it, who by the way was the ex husband of Linda Evangelista. Feel free to go down that rabbit hole. This isn’t satanic panic. This is real. And the idea of it being satanic panic, like this huge, silly conspiracy everyone’s talking about is actually so destructive. And I feel like the desensitization that we have towards the Epstein files is becoming more and more rampant because when something is so devastating and so traumatizing and we’re not getting a conclusion, the go-to is to turn it into humor, which I do get. I’m not villainizing anyone for that. But if we’re gonna do that, we still have to keep this level of anger. Karen is 55 years old now. She is still a person in this world. Her only mistake was not doing that interview on a live television show.

Speaker 1: The reason for the reissue of my book is that it was not yet time, and I think a new generation is interested in this and can do something with it. There has been some processing: the Catholic Church has taken its own house in hand and turned things upside down, and this preceded the recognition that it wasn’t only the Catholic Church; following that, there was also investigation into child care homes and care institutions. I had a lot to do with that era and I knew a great deal about it. I could have said a lot, but at that time I was absolutely not heard. Also the children who were assigned to me as my pupils, who were abused, none of them are included; they all fell outside. And gradually it is now time that these men, because they are now 45, 46 years old, the abuse took place between ages 10 and 15. Speaker 0: The victims have thought about it. Yes,

The speaker discusses their familiarity with Gary Shaba, who was known for his work on BBC shows. They mention that Shaba had a reputation for being unapproachable and possibly engaging in inappropriate behavior with young people. The speaker expresses disbelief that there was any mystery surrounding these allegations and criticizes the former head of BBC for claiming ignorance. They question why it took so long for the truth to come out and speculate about the existence of a censorship committee that suppresses such information. The speaker also mentions that Shaba was a friend of Prince Charles and suggests that this may have influenced the decision to keep the allegations quiet.

Former Labour adviser Scarlett Maguire and political commentator Amon Bogle discuss front-page claims about the grooming inquiry, framing it as sabotage by Labour and a government-controlled process. - Speaker 1 (Amon Bogle) says the Telegraph front page alleges the grooming inquiry was sabotaged by Labour, and argues the inquiry from the outset was a follow-up of a cover-up spanning three decades, noting Labour initially refused a national inquiry. He asserts the government is manipulating the inquiry by refusing victims and survivors the chance to name perpetrators as Pakistanis, and by preventing examination of religious aspects of the abuse. - Speaker 2 (Scarlett Maguire) contends the issue is not an “Asian grooming gangs” problem but a Pakistani problem in the UK, with the vast majority of perpetrators from Mirpur in Pakistan. She says two women removed themselves from the inquiry because they were being silenced by the government from looking into race. - Speaker 0 (host) remarks on the broader fear of addressing the issue, recounting community knowledge of grooming in shops, gyms, and corner shops, and says he knows the abuse continues and no one is doing anything about it. - Speaker 2 adds that the country has been too scared to discuss the perpetrators, noting that police, social workers, and care workers were afraid of being labeled racist if they spoke out. - Speaker 3 (another participant) notes that there were conflated timelines and that early on, victims faced police or social workers who could be perceived as perpetrators in some cases. He mentions Kirsty Dahmer as the person who first brought grooming cases to court and reopened cases that had been closed, stressing the difficulty of running any inquiry that listens to all parties. - Speaker 3 emphasizes the challenge of conducting an inquiry where social workers and police are involved, and argues that victims and vulnerable young women in care were abused by social workers, the men who did it, and later by the police. He underlines the horrific nature of these events and notes that what happened is still happening today. - The discussion notes the ongoing impact on young women in care, with a final, emotive remark that reading a certain girl’s book would break one’s heart, signaling the lasting harm and urgency of the issue.

Emily Tarsell, Christina’s mother, shares that Christina had a great curiosity about life, was an athlete, an artist, and a philosopher. At 20, they visited a gynecologist who said Gardasil would be safe and effective and would prevent cervical cancer. Christina began to develop symptoms after each shot; she reported a rash, fatigue, and dizziness within a few days of the third shot. Eighteen days after the Gardasil shot, she was found dead in her bed. The last time Emily saw Christina was when she hugged her as Christina went back to work training on campus for the summer. Emily and her family filed a federal claim because Gardasil was approved by the FDA, and she explains that if you have reason to believe your daughter died from a product, you want to hold people accountable. Merck responded to requests for comment by defending Gardasil, stating its safety was established in clinical trials involving more than 25,000 females and males, and that they continued studying more than 500,000 people after more than a million doses had been administered. They urged parents to look to the CDC and FDA and to the advice of their physicians to make an informed choice because of the vaccine’s safety data. Doctor Diane Harper, a professor at the University of Louisville and an international expert on HPV prevention, describes her initial excitement about a vaccine as a cancer prevention tool, especially for countries without screening. She then outlines concerns: Gardasil does not last long enough to prevent cervical cancer, and HPV infections can continue throughout life. CDC and other data show that HPV is most often sexually transmitted, but between birth and age 11, 10 to 15 percent of children are already infected with high-risk types. There is cutaneous transmission—skin-to-skin—whose sources could be parental, babysitters, or other environmental contact; the exact mode is uncertain. Harper says Gardasil is an option, not a definitive prevention, and that there are harms associated with it. She emphasizes the importance of pap screening, now with HPV testing and cytology together, which provides nearly a hundred percent capability to find precancers that can be treated with a cure, and to detect cancers. She notes that even with vaccination, pap screening remains essential due to other HPV types. For boys, HPV can lead to anal, penile, and head-and-neck cancers, with anal cancer rates in men who have sex with men approaching cervical cancer rates prior to pap testing; however, overall efficacy and duration of protection from vaccines is limited, with trials lasting three years and long-term protection potentially not lasting beyond five years for those vaccinated at 13. Emily reflects that this is the reason she is speaking out, calling it an outrage and urging people to take responsibility for finding out. The program thanks Emily and Dr. Harper for sharing Christina’s story and their insights.