Shock New Details on Trump Sex Accuser, 13, Revealed
www.thedailybeast.com
A family member has come forward to share new details about the alleged victim.
  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    16 days ago

    I don’t think this is Katie Johnson, since she came forward in 2016. This is the one they’re talking about:

    A redacted FBI report released as part of the botched release of the Epstein files revealed that the woman told interviewers Trump had forced her to perform a sexual act on him and punched her in the side of the head after she allegedly “bit the s–t out of” his penis.

    Trump is then alleged to have yelled, “Get this little b—h the hell out of here,” according to an FBI memo detailing one of Jane Doe 4’s interviews.

    The woman also alleged that she was assaulted multiple times by Epstein in South Carolina, as well as by a third man identified by The Post and Courier as businessman Jimmy Atkins.

    Edit: And this

    New investigation backs up evidence given by woman who accused Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of sexually abusing her when she was 13

    An explosive new report by the South Carolina-based newspaper The Post and Courier has corroborated several personal details provided by a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted at the age of 13 by Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and a third man, Jimmy Atkins, during the 1980s.

    The newspaper’s investigation verified roughly 16 personal details from the woman’s 2019 FBI interviews, which investigators suggest bolsters her overall credibility.

    • Thorry@feddit.org
      1·
      16 days ago

      Perfect how they are talking about child rape and the victim defending their selves by biting the penis. But let’s sensor the word bitch, the readers would be shocked and outraged if they read such a foul word. Wtf is wrong with people these days…

      • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        16 days ago

        Junk science.

        Those shows are propaganda. Propublica has done some good reporting on this, I can link it if you care to read any of it.

        • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
          1·
          16 days ago

          Not saying it’s good science. It’s just a good point. If you have a bite scar on your dick, it’s most likely because you tried putting it somewhere that it should not be.

          In the context where a lady comes out of the shadows and says she put a scar on Trumps mushroom, where nobody had ever mentioned a scar on Trumps mushroom before, and it is later revealed that Trump does indeed have a scar on his mushroom…

          If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… what is it?

        • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
          01·
          16 days ago

          It doesn’t require much science. Victim testifies she bit the attacker and it drew blood. Attacker has scar of approximately the same age. That’s not going to secure a conviction on its own, but it adds to the prosecution’s evidence.

          If it didn’t draw blood, it’d be harder to find a lasting mark.

          • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            13 days ago

            It’s all bullshit, and has been proven to be bullshit. You are like one of those people still thinking dinosaurs were reptiles while we have known they were birds.