The Island and the Idol
The first mistake was to look at the statue as though it were the secret.
There it was in the red light, a face half-devil and half-god, grimacing, with the crude theatrical menace of a fairground demon. One could call it Kali, or Moloch, or Medusa, or anything else that belongs to the old cupboard of human fear. It had marks cut into it, three Xs or something like them, and at once the mind begins to do what the mind is trained to do in the presence of scandal: it looks for the symbol, the ritual, the hidden alphabet.
This is useful to a point. Symbols matter. Rich men do not decorate by accident. A room, a painting, a temple, a statue, a private island: these things are not merely objects. They are declarations of taste, rank, secrecy, and appetite. The powerful collect objects as other people collect alibis. They surround themselves with signs which say, to anyone trained to read them, that ordinary rules do not apply here.
Still, the statue is not the main fact. It is only the picturesque fact.
The main fact is the island.
Little St. James has entered public memory as one of those places where geography itself seems to have been corrupted. A private island is already a political statement. It says that one man can purchase not merely land, but distance. Distance from neighbors, distance from police, distance from ordinary witnesses, distance from shame. In a democracy, the law is supposed to follow a citizen everywhere. In practice, wealth has always purchased fog. Some men do not buy privacy because they love solitude. They buy privacy because they love impunity.
That is why the public imagination returns to the island again and again. It is not only morbid curiosity. It is the stubborn instinct that something remains unfinished. The files are incomplete. The names are partial. The dead man is convenient. The estate is sold. The buildings are renamed or repurposed. The machinery of respectability begins its old work: bleaching, polishing, relabeling.
Then come the explorers, the YouTubers, the men with cameras and poor judgment, trespassing into the ruins of a scandal. Their behavior may be reckless. Their motives may be mixed. They may be chasing attention as much as truth. Yet their appearance says something important. When institutions fail to satisfy the public demand for facts, the vacuum fills with trespassers, cranks, stuntmen, documentarians, and profiteers. The forbidden place becomes a stage because the official record feels like a locked door.
A sane society would not need this. A sane society would not require people with cameras to sneak through brush and abandoned structures in order to reassure themselves that evidence has not simply been swallowed by money. The law would have done its work visibly enough that mystery could not so easily breed.
Then the island was bought.
The buyer, Stephen Deckoff, is publicly connected to Epstein chiefly through the purchase of Epstein’s former islands. That is the clean fact. He has reportedly said he did not know Epstein and had not set foot on the islands before they were marketed after Epstein’s death. This may be true. A man can buy contaminated property without being contaminated by its former owner. There is such a thing as redevelopment. There is such a thing as tearing down the old and building something new.
Yet the moral problem remains simple enough for a child to understand. When one buys a place known across the world as the private territory of a sex trafficker, one does not merely acquire beaches, docks, houses, roads, and utility lines. One acquires a question.
What did you inherit?
This is not a mystical question. It is a practical one. Who had keys? Who kept records? Who maintained the buildings? Who knew the staff? Who saw the guests? Who arranged transport? Who dealt with contractors? Who cleaned rooms? Who answered phones? Who preserved documents? Who destroyed them? Who remained employed after the sale?
That is why the matter of the property manager is more serious than it first appears. A manager is not automatically guilty of anything. Employment is not confession. Proximity is not proof. Yet on such a property, proximity is information. A long-serving manager of that island would naturally be a person of interest to anyone trying to understand how the place operated. Not necessarily as a criminal suspect; certainly as a witness.
To keep such a person in authority after the sale would be, at minimum, astonishingly careless. The argument for it is easy to imagine. Such a person knows the property. They know the docks, the generators, the vendors, the storms, the permits, the hidden rooms, the old habits of maintenance. Continuity is convenient. That is precisely why it is dangerous. Continuity is the polite name for letting the old order survive under the new sign.
A buyer who wished to make a clean break would do the obvious things. Replace the management. Secure the records. Preserve evidence. Cooperate with investigators. Commission an independent review. Publish what could lawfully be published. Make clear that no one tied to the previous regime held unsupervised authority. These are not radical measures. They are what any sober person would do when purchasing the most infamous island in America.
Instead, the public is left with fragments: a grotesque statue in red light, rumors of markings, videos from trespassers, reports of lawsuits, stories of confrontations, and the lingering question of what the old staff knew. This is how distrust grows. Not from one great revelation, but from a thousand evasions. Not from proof of a grand design, but from the steady refusal of powerful systems to answer small, obvious questions.
The temptation is to turn everything into occult theater. The statue encourages it. The island encourages it. Epstein’s life, with its temples and compounds and famous acquaintances, practically begs for myth. Yet the real horror is usually less exotic. It is paperwork, travel logs, payrolls, sealed depositions, non-disclosure agreements, shell companies, friendly officials, indifferent prosecutors, and people who decided that their job was to look away.
A demon statue is frightening. A functioning administrative system that protects predators is worse.
The island should not be treated as a haunted house. It should be treated as a crime scene that became real estate. That distinction matters. A haunted house asks for legends. A crime scene asks for names, dates, records, duties, interviews, subpoenas, and consequences.
The public does not need another symbol. It has enough symbols. It needs the dull machinery of truth: who knew, who helped, who profited, who failed, and who was allowed to continue as though the past were only an inconvenience to be landscaped over.
Until those questions are answered, every statue on that island will look like an idol. Not because of what it depicts, but because of what it conceals.
