Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Expert Witness Report Of Bernard J. Jansen In Support Of Virginia Roberts (Part 3)

Transcript

The Expert Witness Report Of Bernard J. Jansen In Support Of Virginia Roberts (Part 3) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  In this episode, we're diving right back into the expert
• 0:07
  Witness report of Bernard Jay Jansen Number fifty three. Table
• 0:13
  ie domains that published articles or stories containing the statements
• 0:17
  made against Miss Roberts, with the domain's number of unique
• 0:21
  daily visitors and the number of articles containing the statements
• 0:25
  made against Miss Roberts published on that domain from January two,
• 0:29
  twenty fifteen, to the date that I filed this report
• 0:33
  fifty four. I used each domain's unique daily visitor account
• 0:37
  to calculate the dissemination of the articles containing the statements
• 0:41
  against Miss Roberts to various websites and potentially visitors to
• 0:46
  that site, i e. As visitors to the news sites.
• 0:49
  These individuals could have been exposed to the articles containing
• 0:52
  the statements made against Miss Roberts using the unique daily
• 0:56
  visitor number only once for each domain regards wordless whether
• 1:00
  that domain published more than one article referring to the
• 1:04
  statements made against Miss Roberts Part eleven, Number fifty five.
• 1:10
  Based on my analysis as outlined above, my opinion is
• 1:14
  that the statements against Miss Roberts have been disseminated to
• 1:17
  at least one hundred and fifteen online media and other
• 1:21
  sites one hundred and seventy eight stories or articles with
• 1:25
  a combined sixty six million, nine hundred and nine thousand,
• 1:29
  nine hundred and sixty five more than sixty six million
• 1:32
  unique daily visitor traffic. Fifty six. I note that for
• 1:37
  many of the one hundred and seventy eight articles containing
• 1:39
  the statements made against Miss Roberts, one could get the
• 1:43
  gist of the story of the article directly from the
• 1:46
  article headline. I point this out as it's well known
• 1:49
  that people skim online news sites, so titles such as
• 1:53
  these would have substantial impact on visitors to that site.
• 1:57
  Fifty seven. This is a conservative estimate and more likely
• 2:01
  than not articles containing the statements made against Miss Roberts
• 2:04
  have been disseminated to more individuals. Ten Why the estimate
• 2:08
  is low fifty eight. This sixty six million, nine hundred
• 2:12
  nine thousand, nine hundred and sixty five individual unique daily
• 2:16
  traffic is a conservative estimate, and it is more likely
• 2:19
  than not the statements have received wider dissemination due to
• 2:23
  factors such as a. Although I spend a considerable effort
• 2:28
  to locate published articles that contain the statements made against
• 2:32
  Miss Roberts. It's reasonable to assume that I have not
• 2:35
  located all such articles by the time of the submission
• 2:40
  of this report, so there are possibly more sites with
• 2:43
  articles containing the statements made against Miss Roberts that are
• 2:46
  not included in my calculations, which would increase the dissemination
• 2:51
  of the articles b. The focus of my analysis was
• 2:55
  the dissemination of online articles containing the statements made against
• 2:59
  Miss Roberts, and I examined only online sources and not
• 3:03
  print broadcast media. Many of the media outlets that I
• 3:06
  did identify have considerable print distribution which are not included
• 3:12
  in my calculations, such as, for example, the Sun print
• 3:16
  circulation one million, seven hundred and forty one thousand, eight
• 3:20
  hundred and thirty eight, Daily Mail print circulation one million,
• 3:23
  five hundred and sixty two thousand, three hundred and sixty one,
• 3:27
  the Daily Telegraph print circulation four hundred and seventy two thousand,
• 3:31
  nine hundred and thirty six, The Times print circulation four
• 3:35
  hundred and two thousand, seven hundred and fifty two, The
• 3:38
  Guardian print circulation one hundred and sixty one thousand, one
• 3:42
  hundred and fifty two, see. In my analysis, I did
• 3:46
  not attempt to measure face to face dissemination that may
• 3:49
  have occurred after individuals may have read articles containing the
• 3:53
  statements made against Miss Roberts, which would increase the count D. Naturally,
• 3:58
  I cannot access certain online sources where the statements made
• 4:01
  against Miss Roberts may have been disseminated e. Gmail messages,
• 4:06
  social media messages, articles behind firewalls, et cetera. Therefore, these
• 4:10
  numbers are not included in my calculations. E. Also, there
• 4:15
  are possibly sites that have hosted articles containing the statements
• 4:18
  against Miss Roberts, where the articles have been removed. Therefore
• 4:22
  they are not included in my calculations. F For sites
• 4:26
  where more than one article containing the statements made against
• 4:29
  Miss Roberts are posted, but where I could not locate
• 4:32
  or not determine reliable daily unique visitor traffic, I have
• 4:36
  not included these sites in my calculations. There are fifty
• 4:40
  nine of the one hundred and fifteen fifty one point
• 4:43
  three percent, to be precise, where I could not get
• 4:46
  or not get verifiable traffic data. For example, the traffic
• 4:50
  numbers for the MSN News, Microsoft and Yahoo News are
• 4:54
  not separated by news and the other services such as search,
• 4:58
  so I did not include the use in the number
• 5:00
  of people to which the articles containing the statement made
• 5:04
  against were disseminated. Gee I did not include the dissemination
• 5:08
  of articles containing the statements made against Miss Roberts directly
• 5:12
  to social media platforms. However, many of the articles containing
• 5:16
  the statements made against Miss Roberts include counts of the
• 5:20
  number of times that individuals shared the article to a
• 5:23
  social media network, as shown in Table two. As shown
• 5:27
  in Table two, the articles containing the statements made against
• 5:30
  Miss Roberts have been shared thirty three thousand, seven hundred
• 5:34
  and fifty eight times, mostly on Facebook. Given that the
• 5:38
  medium number of Facebook friends is two hundred, this equates
• 5:41
  to a possible six million, seven hundred and fifty one thousand,
• 5:45
  six hundred individuals, in addition to the thirty three thousand,
• 5:49
  seven hundred and fifty eight individuals who originally shared the
• 5:52
  articles to which the articles containing the statements made against
• 5:55
  Miss Roberts could have been disseminated, assuming these individuals or
• 6:00
  all unique and have not already read one of the articles. However,
• 6:04
  I did not include these social media shares in my calculations.
• 6:09
  Since news articles viewing follows of power law distribution. There
• 6:13
  is no direct linear ratio of number of social media
• 6:17
  shares to readership. There is published research that does report
• 6:21
  average views of an article on a news website and
• 6:24
  also average social media shares in direct calculation with the
• 6:29
  numbers from the article twenty three article views per social
• 6:32
  media share. Using thirty three thousand, seven hundred and fifty
• 6:35
  eight social media shares, this would be seven hundred and
• 6:39
  seventy six thousand, four hundred and thirty four article views. However,
• 6:43
  this ratio would vary by website, number of daily unique visitors,
• 6:47
  types of news articles, time of accumulating shares, and possibly
• 6:52
  other factors. Plus, this number would not account for the
• 6:56
  people receiving the social media share that view the title,
• 7:00
  post and snippet but did not click on the shared
• 7:02
  to view the article on the website, thereby undercounting views
• 7:06
  of the articles. Also, given the topical nature of the
• 7:10
  underlying news story, one could expect lower social media sharing
• 7:14
  but higher article viewing, as people will tend to read
• 7:17
  articles on such topics privately but not share on social media,
• 7:21
  So I would expect the social media number itself to
• 7:24
  be an undercount h I did not include articles that
• 7:28
  link to one of the articles containing statements made by
• 7:31
  Miss Roberts in my calculations of dissemination. Unless the article
• 7:36
  directly mentioned the statements made against Miss Roberts, I did
• 7:40
  not include that article in my calculations. So unless the
• 7:43
  linking article actually mentioned, referenced, or quoted the statements made
• 7:47
  against Miss Roberts, I did not include it in my calculations.
• 7:52
  Many sites published multiple articles on multiple days that quoted
• 7:56
  or referenced the statements made against Miss Roberts. However I
• 7:59
  did I did not use these multiple publication dates from
• 8:02
  the same site in my calculations of unique visitor traffic.
• 8:06
  If a domain published only one article containing the statements
• 8:10
  against Miss Roberts, then I directly used the unique daily
• 8:13
  visitor number. If a domain published multiple articles concerning the
• 8:17
  statements against Miss Roberts, I did not count the traffic
• 8:21
  for the subsequent articles containing the statements made against Miss Roberts,
• 8:25
  even though research shows that repeat traffic to websites is
• 8:29
  generally only about thirty percent, meaning that thirty percent of
• 8:33
  the traffic would be unique. However, I was not comfortable
• 8:37
  using this figure given the nature of these sites, which
• 8:40
  might have higher repeat visitors day to day. Therefore, I
• 8:44
  did not include the unique visitors to multiple articles in
• 8:48
  my calculations. Finally, I did not include the count of
• 8:52
  people who may have been searching and may have seen
• 8:55
  the statements made against Miss Roberts in the search results
• 8:58
  without needing to visit the actual articles, as shown in Fig. Four.
• 9:03
  Fig Four example of search results with the statements made
• 9:07
  against Miss Roberts appearing in the result snippets, requiring no
• 9:11
  need to visit the articles themselves. Accuracy of the traffic numbers,
• 9:16
  and additional verification fifty nine concerning the accuracy of the analysis.
• 9:21
  The number of domains where the statements made against Miss
• 9:24
  Roberts have been disseminated is reliable as this is straightforward
• 9:29
  to verify, ie the article is either posted on a
• 9:32
  site or it is not. If anything, that is an
• 9:35
  undercount as some domains, for example, may have removed such articles,
• 9:39
  making them no longer available. There are possibly articles containing
• 9:43
  the statements that I have not been able to locate
• 9:46
  by the time that I submit this report. Sixty concerning
• 9:50
  traffic numbers for domains. A unique visitor is typically identified
• 9:54
  by an identifier stored in a text file, which is
• 9:58
  based on individual computers browser, although more sophisticated methods are
• 10:03
  also being used. In locating traffic numbers for the domains,
• 10:07
  I used multiple services when available, and attempted to verify
• 10:11
  via other sources. In case with varying traffic data, I
• 10:15
  utilized the most conservative IE's smallest number available, sixty one.
• 10:20
  I also verified findings from my analysis via other methods
• 10:25
  and my own experience in training. For example, there are
• 10:28
  periods of increased publishing of articles containing the statements made
• 10:32
  against Miss Roberts and related stories. One would expect increases
• 10:37
  in associated searching during these periods. Using the Google keyword tool,
• 10:41
  which provides search volume for search queries by month, I
• 10:45
  examined search volume for January twenty fifteen, to the date
• 10:49
  that I filed this report. There was fifty four thousand,
• 10:52
  five hundred and eighteen percent increase in search volume for
• 10:56
  the keywords Virginia Roberts and Glenn Maxwell and January twenty
• 11:00
  fifteen relative to the prior seven months in the US,
• 11:04
  and forty four thousand, eight hundred and twenty two percent
• 11:07
  increase for the United Kingdom in January twenty fifteen relative
• 11:12
  to the prior seven months. This is in line with
• 11:15
  the increase in posting of articles during the same month,
• 11:19
  so one sees the expected increase in searching for key
• 11:23
  terms based on the increase of posting articles. Sixty two.
• 11:27
  Figure five shows increase in searching volume in January twenty
• 11:31
  fifteen for the US and UK relative to the previous
• 11:35
  seven months. Sixty three. Fig five increase in search volume
• 11:40
  in January twenty fifteen for the US and the UK
• 11:44
  relative to the previous seven months for the key phrase
• 11:47
  Virginia Roberts and Goalan Maxwell. Summary sixty four. The statements
• 11:53
  made against Miss Roberts have been disseminated to at least
• 11:56
  one hundred and fifteen online media or other sites in
• 12:00
  one hundred and seventy eight separate stories or articles with
• 12:03
  a combined sixty six million, nine hundred and nine thousand,
• 12:07
  nine hundred and sixty five individual unique visitors from January second,
• 12:11
  twenty fifteen to the date that I filed this report inclusive.
• 12:16
  More likely than not, this is a conservative estimate. Sixty five.
• 12:20
  Right to amend. Although I have had access to materials
• 12:23
  publicly available pertaining to claims in this dispute, I have
• 12:27
  not been able to review all the material by the
• 12:29
  deadline for completion of this report. I reserve the right
• 12:33
  to review and rely on any such material, including at
• 12:37
  the time of trial. I also reserve the right to
• 12:40
  issue a supplemental or an amended report if my review
• 12:44
  of such material results in any significant change or addition
• 12:48
  to my opinion. Respectfully submitted Doctor Bernard J. Jansen, dated
• 12:53
  September ninth, twenty sixteen. All right, folks, that's going to
• 12:57
  do it for this one. All of the information that
• 12:59
  goes with this episode can be found in the description box.