People's reaction to the Gates-Epstein stories was rather revealing; it didn't fit in with prior perceptions

Summary: We take note of peculiar timings of Gates Foundation CEO departures (causality is possible, albeit it might be coincidental); The media's lack of participation if not 'cover-up' (lack of interest in some very serious affairs and a lengthy trial) is also noteworthy

PREVIOUSLY in this series (please kindly revisit part one, part two, and part three for some background) we explained why it was rather evident that Mr. Gates had tried hard to avoid media attention. The media did not mention the pedophilia case at all until a whole year after the criminal case had been opened (a case regarding pedophiles in Gates' mansion). One of our members speculated that it might be related to Mr. Gates choosing to step down from various levels of duty... or being forced to. Based on court records, that seems not too improbable; it was in 2013 that the case was opened; the police alone -- as we've hinted before -- has more than 2,000 pages in its report -- so much in there that they're barely capable of opening the files (it is work in progress). That's according to them. That's just the police report, not court documents. So it's not some minuscule and trivial case. It's taking months just to merely process a public record request. We'll say more about that at a later point so as to not interfere with the process or to overburden anybody.

"Those explosive reports later turned out to be true (corroborated by other publishers and Gates offering an admission, only with some shallow and unbelievable excuses for what he had done)."Today we focus on the Foundation and the next part will look closely at how media covered this case. I myself mentioned this in January of 2015, citing the very few media reports on the matter. Those who dared report on it have also published several exclusive reports on Gates' connections to Epstein (and Prince Andrew's). Those explosive reports later turned out to be true (corroborated by other publishers and Gates offering an admission, only with some shallow and unbelievable excuses for what he had done).

Quite a lot happened that year. See for example "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation CEO Sue Desmond-Hellmann to Step Down, Longtime Foundation Executive Mark Suzman Appointed to Role" (press release). That's from earlier this month. "Interestingly enough with the Foundation," as one member noted to us, "he was not CEO of that in May 1, 2014 or a while before that."

2014 was the year of the trial. Yes, that was months after the criminal case had been opened and about six months prior to media disclosing the case's very existence! As our member then added: "Since 2000 Bill Gates has mostly kept himself out of the CEO positions. But from September 10 2013 to May 1 2014 he was. So something is off there."

"2014 was the year of the trial. Yes, that was months after the criminal case had been opened and about six months prior to media disclosing the case's very existence!"That's the period of time of the pedophilia case. As the member continued, having spent time researching the matter, "the current Foundation changeover of CEO is how you expect it to read, i.e. one CEO steps down and another appointed. That 2013 has no straight up appoint[ment means] it falls back to the Board."

Something happened around that time; "basically," as our member concluded, "it's fishy and I would love to find a Jeff Raikes tell-all book about it."

Here is the 2013 press release: "Jeff Raikes to Retire as CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Jeff Raikes retiring at the age of 55? That seems rather early...

Did he even retire? Based on Wikipedia, he and his wife are still active (as recently as a couple of years ago). So one might joke that it's more like he evacuated/'recused' himself from Foundation duties.

"I am not really finding more," said our member, but he added that the "problem is that it only looks fishy, but fishy for what reason? Problem is, there could be many harmless reasons."

"Jeff Raikes retiring at the age of 55? That seems rather early..."We're not suggesting that the criminal case necessarily has something to do with the above; but it's hard to ignore two CEO changes in about one year. And it's that very particular year. Maybe a lawsuit would force the Foundation to divulge more information. As our member put it, "the fact Bill Gates is mostly not a CEO means that labour laws don't apply to him like they did to RMS with FSF. It also makes you wonder if we should look at more detail at 1999. If there is anything there, why would Bill Gates have been forced out of CEO of Microsoft?"

When Gates stepped down from key duties at Microsoft Richard Stallman published this article at the BBC (which Bill Gates later bribed repeatedly, as we covered several times in the past). Here's a key quote from it:

We are still investigating some of these things, but that goes almost 2 decades back (if not more). "I don't have time at the moment," our member noted, "but I will at some point. Digging into history online from 1999 can be very hard... the 2000s are most likely harmless."

Citing this article from 20 years and one month ago (CNN's "MSFT ruled a monopoly"), our member said, "I would guess it linked to anti-trust that Gates was in charge of; when wrong things were done [...] so [he] stepped down in 2000 ... so that [it] would be harder to come back."

That November 5^th (1999) article is one of not so many that survived so-called 'Internet rot' or 'link rot'. "I will at some point dig around deeper in the 1999 records," our member said, "but looking at the timeline I don't think I will find anything linking to [the above case]. I will dig around 2013 a little more, but I don't think I will find anything other than the question that not answered."

"That November 5^th (1999) article is one of not so many that survived 'Internet rot'.""This is September 10, 2013," he said of the above. "It really seems odd with a CEO contract coming to end that another CEO was not ready... or current one had stating they were staying on."

Just to clarify, in a crucial (or sensitive as per the timeline) one-year period the Foundation had (apparently, based on its public records) three different CEOs: Jeff Raikes (he came from Microsoft), Desmond-Hellmann and Mark Suzman. After 5 years Mark Suzman left (not even exactly 5 years), coinciding with a lot of negative press about Gates and Epstein. And there's yet more we'll come to in future parts.

When I first mentioned this in 2015 some people whom I don't know (never spoke to him) tried to ridicule me. I instantaneously directed them to press reports on the matter -- however few there were -- to avert ad hominem attacks (trying to personify these reports, then focusing on the messenger instead). At the time I didn't believe that it implicated Gates in any way (not directly anyway) because less was known about him and it was presented in a particular way. It was only in more recent months that I began to think Gates was well aware he can go down in history as another Michael Jackson (allegations of child abuse), except Jackson suffered most of the bad press posthumously. Both had mansions and those mansions are closely guarded and manned by loyal staff. So getting out the word -- without personal risk -- isn't always easy (whistleblowers can be publicly mocked/discredited by other insiders who are more loyal to the mansion's holder). Money helps.

"We invite further sources to contact us with additional information; it certainly seems like quite a few people are aware of things they're frightened to speak about."Our investigation of this is no longer a one-man or a one-site effort. There's interdisciplinary and cross-site interest, us being the more technical folks (being familiar with technical aspects or legal aspects of Gates' past and his father's -- a very powerful individual who mustn't be considered in isolation, more so considering the massive firm he controls and the roots of Microsoft as a company). There's legal mischief, lobbying, and potential clout in the court system. Don't forget that Gates was once arrested by the police (for an actual crime) and then released by his parents using their great wealth. Connections too have helped. Gates' huge 'investment' (bribes) in the media have also helped and we haven't lost sight of that.

The next part will deal with how media covered it, removed material, then restored material (after complaints had been made). Something just isn't right and we've thankfully accumulated and linked sufficient evidence. We invite further sources to contact us with additional information; it certainly seems like quite a few people are aware of things they're frightened to speak about. Apart from risk of reprisal, some people don't think they'd be believed (like Donald Trump accusers), especially when contradicted by a so-called 'charity' run by a supposed 'Saint'. ⬆