Also consider that Epstein & any of his child abuse clients / blackmail targets, would prefer providing the victims hush money through a cooperative intermediar

Also consider that Epstein & any of his child abuse clients / blackmail targets, would prefer providing the victims hush money through a cooperative intermediary (who may be lied to that it is mere compensation, from a plea deal, "perfectly legal" etc) for 2 reasons: 1) interacting directly is dangerous: the victim could set up a hidden camera, record conversations, document financial transactions, have witnesses present, or have her bank testify on the origin of the hush money transactions. Financial transactions may be used by the victim as financial acknowledgement of their involvement in a past crime. They want to keep the victim silent without creating an ever increasing trail of evidence. 2) by having the hush money pass through societal institutions, they can continuously undermine the victim's faith in society, to make sure she stays silent. Also consider the timing of the MIT Media Lab scandal: after Epstein's death, and escalating as the new academic year comes closer and closer. Upon Epstein's death the victim, department head are worried about what will happen to the flow of hush money. And (ex-?)clients that all payed through Epstein are now forced against their will to find a new intermediary, or interact with Ito directly, or ignore and risk the victim speaking out?