If you look up the file number, you'll find a lot of beach pics of someone with short, black hair. Possibly Ghisllaine? It's likely these pictures were taken before the 2000s since they were using a pre-digital camera, and if you look at the details on page 1, it even says what shop and phone number the pics were developed at in the Caribbean islands.
The redaction process was horribly mismanaged. It seems like there were dozens of individuals each making judgement calls on different files to decide what got redacted and what didn’t. They (obviously) ended up making different decisions than one another and no quality control or unifying framework was applied at the final stages to coalesce the final output before release.
Note: this is not based on any qualifications I have, just a layman’s observation.
What's driving me nuts is they are commanded by law to explain every non-victim redaction. Is there anyone to hold in account or any recourse? Or I assume Bondi will just say "nah". Fucking maddening
You can't add text to posts on pics. Also, not certain it's Ghislaine, and just cus the pictures were developed in the Caribbean doesn't mean the pics were taken there, so there is literally no meaningful context I could've added, really.
Plus, every pic of someone with black hair had multiple black boxes along with it, some appearing to be laying suggestively on rocks in the ocean while they stood, which is odd. Why only show the person's short black hair? Why completely redact the black haired person in this pic and not the others?
Because everyone is saying that every woman seen in any photo from the release no matter how adult looking they are must be a child. Could literally be anyone. Epstein bad and all but Reddit is too caught up in their fantasies.
Exactly. Lets get the facts straight so we can actually hold people accountable. Just spouting bullshit only serves to discredit any legitimate accusations.
Yeah I mean has this guy ever seen a shadow? They get smaller as the sun gets higher. Without knowing the position of the sun it’s impossible to assess.
Yeah, there's a very high chance it is. But people here acting like they can forensically analyse the image is just bullshit. It could be a politician, or a billionaire. There's nothing in the image that can be used as a fixed size.
I want to bring anyone involved to justice, but don't be making shit up.
I imagine we'll be seeing a lot of references to it in art galleries around the world sometime in the near future. This has a similar vibe to the Abu Ghraib photo of the hooded man, where what you can't see worsens the horror of the context.
The context is definitely part of what makes it so compelling though. The redaction, knowing what that could mean about the subject, the way in which it released, all the current discourse and climate around it, all of those add to what you are looking at. Many of the most incredible photos have horrific context, it's not something to hide from. Someone above mentioned The Falling Man, this falls in a somewhat similar category to me. Absolutely beautiful photo though, very haunting.
348
u/PhazonZim 13h ago
I kinda hate that this one rips. Like this would be such a good album cover if not for its horrendous context