Jeffrey Epstein attended Donald Trump's 1993 wedding, new photos reveal
In one photo, the disgraced financier is seen walking through the Plaza Hotel. Another shows him grinning in the background of a group photo featuring wedding guests Alison Stern, Robin Leach, Cecilia Nord and Howard Stern.
In a separate image, also from 1993, Epstein is seen standing with Mr Trump and his two children, Eric and Ivanka Trump, at the opening of the Harley Davidson Cafe in New York.
Footage also shows Mr Trump and Epstein, who died in federal custody in 2019, laughing and chatting together before a 1999 Victoria's Secret lingerie fashion show in New York.
The new images and footage were captured before Epstein's wrongdoing came to light. Their release comes as the US president scrambles to distance himself from Epstein, claiming he is facing a 'witch hunt' amid mounting pressure for him to order the release of secret Epstein files.
In a brief call with CNN on Tuesday, Mr Trump, when asked about the wedding photos, responded: 'You've got to be kidding me,' before repeatedly calling the news network 'fake news' and hanging up the phone.
Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, called the photos 'nothing more than out-of-context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious'.
He added: 'The fact is that the president kicked him out of his club for being a creep. This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media.'
The comments followed a recent decision by the US justice department not to release secret files related to the deceased sex trafficker, days after The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr Trump sent Epstein a salacious birthday greeting in 2003 in which he expressed close friendship.
In what is shaping up to be the biggest crisis of his presidency, Mr Trump's refusal to release all the information the US government holds on the case has stirred up furious backlash among even some of his most loyal supporters.
Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, a key Trump ally who has condemned the White House over this issue, said 'the call volume on Epstein' to her offices 'has almost been 100pc'.
Meanwhile, JD Vance, Mr Trump's vice-president, is reported to be boasting that he knows the contents of the Epstein files to dinner guests.
During an appearance on a podcast, comedian Tim Dillon said he had dinner with Mr Vance 'last week' and claimed that the vice-president spoke about the case.
Mr Dillon said: '[Attorney General Pam] Bondi said we have 10,000 hours of video. I had dinner last week with the vice-president. He [JD Vance] told me that that was commercial pornography, they do not have videos of any powerful person in a compromising position. That's the party line that they're going with?'
'If that's the case, why would Pam Bondi call it evidence? She's not an idiot,' Mr Dillon added.
Mr Trump sought to deflect the heat by baselessly accusing former president Barack Obama of 'treason' for his alleged attempts to undermine Mr Trump's first election victory.
'The witch hunt you should be talking about is that they caught president Obama absolutely cold,' he said. 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people'.
In a rare retort from the former president, a spokesman for Mr Obama called Trump's attack a 'weak attempt at distraction'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Meta's ban on political ads will mean less transparency and more slop for users
Meta's announcement on Friday that it will ban all political ads in the EU on Facebook and Instagram is terrible not just for political advertisers but for the public as a whole. I was Facebook's first Political Ads representative in Europe, and I launched their Political Ad authorisation and oversight process before leaving the company in 2019. I now advise political campaigners on how to use digital tools, including ads. From Obama through the Arab Spring to Marriage Equality, at first we were convinced social media was a force for good in elections. But Brexit, Trump and the Cambridge Analytica scandal brought a reckoning: social media companies should be held responsible for nefarious political marketing, given that bad actors now had a way to reach the electorate at a scale and impact never seen before. Facebook's response at the time was to launch a complex authorisation and transparency process for all political advertising on its platforms. Anyone who wanted to run ads about politics, elections or 'social issues' must prove they were located in the country their ad targeted, providing their national ID, locally-billed credit card and their IP address. Verifiable contact details for the organisation promoted would be included in an 'Ads Library', where all political ads would be saved for seven years. Clare O'Donoghue Velikić: 'Our presidential election in October may yet shape up to be more fractious than we thought.' The Ad Library would also show how much money had been spent on those ads, and the demographics of people targeted. (You can see this today at All political ads then required a 'Paid for by' disclaimer, including the name of the paying organisation within the ad itself. This process was cumbersome but effective, if imperfect, in protecting democracies against foreign interference in political matters, and to counter 'astro-turfing': setting up fake grassroots organisations to create the impression of widespread local support for a niche position (as we have seen the far right attempt many times, including here in Ireland). The Ads Library also provided oversight to journalists, regulators and the general public, who can see what political ads have been run, by whom, how much money they spent, and roughly who those ads targeted. In 2019, Facebook (now Meta) knew that they were unlikely to make enough money back from political advertising in the EU to justify the investment in these oversight tools. Restrictions on political fundraising and election expenditure in most EU countries mean we will never see the levels of spending on election advertising as in the US. Calin Georgescu, the winner of the first round of Romania's presidential election walks among supporters outside the Romanian parliament in Bucharest in February. Tens of thousands of fake TikTok accounts churned out millions of views of AI-created disinformation, ultimately resulting in an annulled election there. File photo: AP/Alexandru Dobre Even as a sales rep for Government & Politics marketing, I never had a revenue target for political ads. For Facebook, trying to atone for its failures around Cambridge Analytica, political advertising in the EU was essentially a loss leader: if political parties and governments trusted Facebook, and used their tools to help run elections, then they might feel more favourably towards the company within broader business-related legislation. Six years later and the mood has shifted both politically and at now-renamed Meta. EU legislation has finally caught up with micro-targeting tactics, and in October 2025 the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) regulation comes into force. Google, who never had as thorough an authorisation and transparency process for political ads as Meta's, responded in late 2024 that they would ban political ads in the EU. But until now, most of us in the political campaigning world were confident that Meta's political ad process, with its local authorisation, verification and transparency through the Ad Library, would be sufficient to meet their obligations under the TTPA. Not so, says VP of Public Policy Europe at Meta, Markus Reinisch. The TTPA would require further changes to Meta's Political Ad processes 'at significant and unsustainable cost', 'without guarantee that our solution would be viewed as compliant'. Non-compliance with the TTPA leaves tech platforms facing penalties of up to 6% of their turnover; for Meta, this could be as high as €7bn. Still smarting from a €200m EU fine in April, Meta are now saying the quiet part out loud: political ads in the EU don't make them enough money to justify the investment in authorisation and transparency. The threat of such heavy fines seals the deal: Meta would rather lose their meagre European political ads revenue than take the risk of non-compliance. So does the TTPA achieve what it had hoped, protecting Europeans from bad political campaigners who use creepy social media tactics, and increasing transparency around electoral processes online? Sadly, the outcome will be the exact opposite. 'Rage bait' Sensationalism and 'rage bait' fuel the organic algorithm - the tech behind most social platforms which decides which non-paid content it will show people, out of the millions of stories, pictures and videos posted each day. It's extremely hard for mainstream 'vanilla' political content - sharing about work on homelessness, or Dáil speeches, or inviting people to a public meeting - to get picked up by the organic algorithm and shown in social media feeds. Meta ads have met this gap for most political campaigners in Ireland and the EU until now - pay a small amount and ensure your content reaches your constituency, or people across the country who care about the theme you're discussing. Non-mainstream political voices, particularly those on the far right, have always been more willing to create organic content which 'games' the algorithm - gets picked up and shown to more people - by creating outrage, shock, sensationalism or disinformation. Now, in the age of AI video production, content creators will be able to churn out algorithm-baiting videos at a scale never seen before. Without verification against fake profiles and astro-turfing, bad actors can create multiple profiles to share this content widely and quickly, before it can be detected - as happened in Romania's recent election, where tens of thousands of fake TikTok accounts churned out millions of views of AI-created disinformation, ultimately resulting in an annulled election. These content bot farms were driven from outside Romania: without any localisation oversight, foreign interference in political social media will rise. TikTok does not allow political 'ads', but had insufficient detection mechanisms to prevent this non-paid overseas manipulation of a democratic process. Calin Georgescu, winner of the first round of last year's annulled election in Romania (left) with presidential candidate George Simion (right) as they cast their votes in the first round of the presidential election rerun in Romania on May 4, 2025. The election there was annulled because fake profiles, astro-turfing and bad actors created outrage, shock, sensationalism or disinformation. File photo: AP/Vadim Ghirda Meanwhile, as we watch the dodgy money move into these unregulated spaces, there will be fewer (likely almost zero) counter voices from mainstream political parties and activists. Of those who manage to gain organic reach through the algorithm, incumbent politicians and parties who have built up large followings on social media will be at a significant advantage over new candidates, smaller parties and niche movements. Finally, with no public library of political content on Facebook and Instagram, there will no longer be any oversight of what's out there - no information for journalists or the public, no record for regulators to review after elections. Backing away from its own Political Ad Library, Meta will be taking away from the EU a profoundly important tool for transparency - the exact opposite of what the TTPA intended. The briefing shared by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on Friday stated that 'the regulation aims to make it easier for voters to recognise political advertisements, understand who is behind them and know whether they have received a targeted advertisement, so that they are better placed to make informed choices during elections and referendums.' The true outcome of Meta's exit from political advertising will be an EU electorate subjected to unregulated, sensationalist AI slop, without insight or accountability. Will this steer electoral outcomes? Our presidential election in October may yet shape up to be more fractious than we thought. Clare is the Director of ODV Digital, a digital consultancy for the political and campaigning sector, based in Dublin Read More Will tech giants finally take online safety for children seriously?
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Murdoch v Trump: Why the flawed media titan could be the final protector of press freedom
Years before Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, the writer John Lanchester suggested that his primary motivation – more than ideology or even money – was a 'love of crises, of the point when everything seems about to be lost'. More than two decades later, is the crisis in the US media, one in which everything seems about to be lost, motivating Murdoch to take on the most powerful man in the world? It is as good a reason as many of those given over the past week for the fact that the billionaire whose Fox News channel has acted as a Trump cheerleader throughout is now, alone among US media titans, preparing to do battle in the courts. Trump's onslaught on the US media – withdrawing federal funds, banning reporters and launching multi-billion-dollar lawsuits – has led once-renowned defenders of media freedom such as the Washington Post, ABC News and CBS to crumple, either changing their editorial policies or agreeing to apparently frivolous settlements. Yet ranting calls to both the WSJ editor, Emma Tucker, and his old frenemy Rupert failed to prevent the publication of a story suggesting he had sent a hand-drawn picture of a naked woman to the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein with the words: 'Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Last week, he launched a bn lawsuit over this 'fake'. After the WSJ doubled down with stories saying Trump had been told he was in the Epstein files, sources close to Murdoch report that, at 94, he refuses to be 'intimidated'. Damascene conversion? He is also enhancing his reputation as the most mercurial media titan. Media veteran Tina Brown asked how the world had come to depend on 'the Darth Vader of media' to stand up for press freedom, while a thoughtful friend asked: 'Suppose Murdoch had a Damascene conversion and sought to atone for his many sins – would we welcome him as an ally?' Can a man whose companies have paid out more than a billion pounds for either knowingly broadcasting lies or for hacking phones be preparing to die as the Severus Snape of the media world, the final protector of press freedom? Two years ago, when Murdoch announced he was standing down (sort of), he told staff to 'make the most of this great opportunity to improve the world we live in', a line that seemed ridiculous to me at the time. Is his battle with this madman in the White House really his final chance at leaving the world a better place? President Donald Trump's (pictured) ranting calls to both the WSJ editor, Emma Tucker, and his old frenemy Rupert Murdoch failed to prevent the publication of a story suggesting he had sent a hand-drawn picture of a naked woman to the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. File photo: AP/Alex Brandon Before Murdoch watchers get carried away, there are of course a number of rational and personal reasons for Murdoch's decision not to kowtow to Trump. Throughout his long career at the nexus of media and power, one thing that has been consistent is Murdoch's desire to pick the winning side. Trump's friendship with Epstein is the only issue currently close to dividing him from a Maga power base that also forms the heart of the Fox News audience. And Murdoch's enthusiasm for the former real estate mogul has never been wholehearted. After the January 6 attack on the US Capitol in 2021 he sent an email to a former executive, saying: 'We want to make Trump a nonperson.' Spreading his bets Despite this, the support of his Fox News channel helped elect a man he has little respect for. Not only is he spreading his bets on the Epstein fallout, Murdoch is also riding two horses by allowing his respected financial news organisation to defend its reporting, while Fox continues to downplay the story over Trump's card. A newsman at his core, Murdoch is just as likely to give his editors stories as ask for them to be spiked. But Murdoch is also known to have kept a particularly respectful distance from the Journal's editorials since buying it in 2007; one called Trump's tariff plans 'the dumbest trade war in history'. Besides, defending its journalism is good for business in a landscape in which the owners of CBS cancel a hit show critical of Trump and pay millions to his presidential library just days before receiving a government blessing for a huge deal. As always with Murdoch, there is also the psychodrama of an old man whose life is closer to Shakespearean than most. Michael Wolff, responsible for several of the many books on both men, tells me that Murdoch's support for his journalists is an 'old man's revenge' after the Fox fallout divided his family and prompted an inheritance battle still playing out in the family courts. Besides, says Wolff, Murdoch wants revenge on Trump simply for winning when Murdoch did 'everything to make sure [he] didn't'. Trump's behaviour in his second term – using his powers to further any whim or grievance, and approaching absolutism – could also have revealed to Murdoch the end result of a truly free market. What is to stop Emperor Trump from stripping his commercial empire of the protection of the rule of law once the old man is gone, for example? Murdoch is undoubtedly a flawed hero. And there is a chance after all that the drawing is a hoax, as Trump insists, despite the Journal's robust defence. Murdoch's papers have been tricked before. But for now, he is the closest thing journalism has to a Trojan horse, invited into the inner sanctum yet still apparently ready to do battle. Jane Martinson is professor of financial journalism at City St George's and a member of the board of the Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian Media Group. Syndicated from the Guardian Read More Donald Trump's name reported to feature in US justice department files about Jeffrey Epstein
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Letters to the Editor, July 30th: On tariffs, jobs and houses, protest voices, and bargain cycle lanes
Sir, – Early days to assess the EU/US proposed trade deal but one thing is clear. The EU side has made major concessions. They have accepted a 15 per cent tariff on most exports from the EU to the US, but no similar tariffs must apply to US exports to the EU. Under the deal, the EU has also agreed to invest $600 billion in the US economy and to buy $750 billion of energy from the US over the next three years. No similar commitments apply it seems on the US side. This outcome partly reflects the difficulty of getting sufficient agreement among member states on a tougher stance to be taken by the EU, Ireland being one of the main countries opposed to adopting a stronger EU position and thereby weakening the overall EU negotiating stance. READ MORE A much bigger issue though is the unstated (in public) threat of the US withdrawing its security guarantees for Europe, something almost unthinkable before the present administration came to power. The consequences of this for Ukraine and Europe (including Ireland) would be incalculable and worth avoiding, if necessary, by making major concessions on the trade front. From a US viewpoint, a reasonable expectation perhaps given its commitment of equipment and personnel to European defence. Until Europe is less dependent on the US to guarantee its security, it will have a weak bargaining hand when it comes to trade. – Yours, etc, JOHN O'HAGAN, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Dublin. Sir, – Faced with the threat of 30 per cent US tariffs, the EU blinked. To shield its economy – notably the German and French car industries in my opinion – it settled for 15 per cent across-the-board tariffs and to boot, tossed in a few more sweeteners to American firms. Whatever became of the much-touted Anti-Coercion Instrument, the EU's so-called 'big bazooka'? The Irish Government, meanwhile, has put a sunny gloss on the deal – especially regarding pharmaceuticals. Yet Trump has made it plain, pharmaceuticals is next in his sights, and the agreement itself is vague. When the day comes, I'd be surprised if our EU partners show much solidarity with Ireland's pharma sector, given past criticism of the tax incentives to lure it here in the first instance. Yes, EU leaders faced a dilemma. But the leverage wasn't all entirely with America. US trade with the EU exceeds $600 billion annually, dwarfing the projected $90 billion in tariff revenue. The EU may have deemed it impolitic to press that point – but I've no qualms about confronting economic aggression. I'll be steering clear of overpriced coffee, fizzy drinks, forgettable burgers, and smartphones still awaiting meaningful AI – not to mention FSD cars that still need drivers. If dollars speak louder than diplomacy, let mine do the talking. – Yours, etc, JOHN McCRORY, Lucan, Dublin. Sir, – I read with interest the response of different European leaders to the proposed EU-US trade agreement. Let's call a spade a spade. US president Donald Trump's bullying tactics have worked to such an extent that some leaders now consider 15 per cent tariffs on EU goods to the US a successful outcome. The tariffs on many US goods to EU will be zero. Reciprocal rates how are you? – Yours, etc, BRIAN MANGAN, Ferns, Co Wexford. Sir, – I see that as part of the tariff agreement, Europe will purchase $600billion of US armaments. Presumably this will largely eliminate the large US deficit (in goods). If/when this happens will the one-sided tariffs fall away? Clearly, that von der Leyen one is a fearsome negotiator. – Yours, etc, BRIAN MURPHY Carrickmines Wood, Dublin 18. Sir, – Relief at the conclusion of an EU-US trade deal is understandable but to me it seems premature. Europe has made a huge concession to the United States and got nothing in return. Giving way to a bully is never a wise move as the likelihood is they will only come back for more. –Yours, etc, RONAN MURPHY, Greystones, Co Wicklow. Investment, housing and jobs Sir, – I too agree with Michael Gilmartin (July 26th) and Enda Scanlon (July 28th). Ireland has focused on attracting ever more inward investment over many years without weighing up the cost. It has become clear that these large multinationals are now the ones calling the shots and the current impetus to improve infrastructure appears to reflect their demands to a greater extent than those of our own citizens. How did we end up giving 50 per cent of our power supplies to data centres in Dublin? Ireland is a small country. We seem to think that our limited natural resources are inexhaustible. They are not. Our focus on financial wealth has resulted in rapid population growth. This has put overwhelming stress on our land, our water, our nature and our biodiversity. It is making daily life more challenging and putting decent housing out of reach of so many. – Yours, etc, CAROL SCOTT, Shankill, Dublin 18. Dancing feet Sir, – There is an old Irish phrase: 'Up here for thinking, down there for dancing'. Michael Flatley should stick to the dancing. – Yours, etc, TONY CORCORAN, Rathfarnham Dublin 14 Voices of protest on Gaza Sir, – Chris Fitzpatrick has correctly pointed out (Letters, July 28th) that Israel's campaign in Gaza in response to the appalling Hamas attack of October 7th has become, in its ferocity and forced starvation, a travesty of the Judaism that the ruling coalition government pretends to represent. But his impression that there are no Jewish voices of protest is not correct. Among the Jewish lobbies that have long opposed Israel's stance and advocated the two-state solution are Britain's Jews for Justice for Palestinians, who march in the current London demonstrations, and the Europe-wide network, JCall. The American equivalent, JStreet, is increasingly influential. Earlier this week, the American Jewish Committee, along with the Reform Movement, the largest Jewish denomination in America, issued statements declaring Israel 'culpable' in its Gaza campaign. In Israel this week, the prominent Jewish human rights organisation, B'Tselem, and the Physicians for Human Rights Israel both specifically labelled Israel's actions as 'genocide'. Former Israeli prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, in print and in television interviews, have characterised Israel's Gaza campaign as war crimes. And Israel's liberal daily newspaper Ha'aretz continues to report with total honesty on events in Gaza and the West Bank, and carries every day several op-ed pieces which nothing in these islands can rival for vituperation. Why is all this so little known? Perhaps partly because in newsworthiness it cannot compete with stories of bombing and starvation; and partly because it can make no impression whatever on a regime that is blind to all but its fanatical fantasies. Only determined action by the international powers might have an effect. But, rhetoric aside, I suspect they may be too distracted by presidents Trump and Putin to get around to that. – Yours, etc, LOUIS MARCUS, Dublin 16. Sir, –I was troubled by two letters published on July 28th that, while expressing concern about Gaza, shifted focus on to Jews around the world, urging them to speak out or risk complicity. This places moral coercion on Jews solely because of their identity – something we should not accept, and indeed don't accept, when applied to other groups. Criticism of Israeli policy is not only legitimate, it is regularly voiced by Israelis and Jews globally, including many who strongly support the country. But when Jews are called upon to denounce Israel solely because they are Jewish, it echoes a troubling pattern. One letter also quotes Jewish scripture to suggest Jews have failed their own values: a rhetorical move with a long and damaging history in Christian Europe, even if unfamiliar to many Irish readers. Definitions of anti-Semitism used by the Irish Government and leading academics distinguish clearly between criticism of Israel and collective blame of Jews. I hope future letters will reflect that distinction. – Yours, etc, YOTAM GARDI, Inchicore, Dublin 8. Sir, – Sally Hayden's article 'From a viewing platform in Israel, ' war tourists' pay to see Gaza's ruins,' (July 28th) is an example of investigative journalism at its best. The Israeli mindset is now so far down the rabbit hole of ethnic cleansing it beggars belief. Even the last line where one of the complaints, from people coming to view the carnage, consisted of the potholes on the road leading to the viewing platform! – Yours, etc, JUDY BURKE, Rosscarbery, Co Cork. Sir, – In 1847, at the height of the Irish famine, Charles Villiers, the Earl of Clarendon, was appointed the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He arrived during the second year of the Great Hunger. His reports on the scale of the crisis were regularly discounted by a government that deferred to the permanent head of the Treasury, Sir Charles Trevelyan. Despairing of effective famine relief, Clarendon suggested to the prime minister, Lord Russell, that 'there is not another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland or coldly persist in a policy of extermination'. Unfortunately, had Villiers been writing today about Gaza, the word 'genocide' would replace 'extermination' and every legislature in Europe would, in fact, be guilty of disregarding such suffering! – Yours, etc, COLIN P DOHERTY, Head of School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin 2. Bargain cycle lanes Sir, – Olga Barry asks if the €45 million allocation for the 6km cycle lane between Dundrum and Dún Laoghaire will make it the most expensive cycle lane ever built in Ireland (Letters, July 28th). In fact that dubious record surely goes to the 6km cycle lane between Clontarf and Connolly Station which cost an astonishing €70 million to complete before it opened last year, after two years of endless disruption to local residents. The Dundrum to Dún Laoghaire project would appear to be a bargain by comparison. – Yours, etc, BARRY WALSH Clontarf, Dublin 3. The BBC and radio silence Sir, – Well, the BBC have done it! They have taken away BBC's Radio Three and Four, unless one is living in the UK. As an Irish person who has listened to these stations all my life I am feeling bereft. How that leaves the millions of British citizens around the world I can only imagine, and I wonder why on earth this decision has been made. From a purely selfish viewpoint I shall miss these stations terribly during the day. For the summer one looks forward to the Proms on Radio Three, and now I shall have to do without them. With failing eyesight I watch very little television and anyway my love of radio has always superseded any other form of entertainment. Oh BBC, what were you thinking of? – Yours, etc, ITA McCORMACK, Maynooth, Co Kildare. Diamond cutters Sir – Sunday's All Ireland football final was a wonderful occasion but who came up with the idea that the diamond patterned cutting of the grass was a good idea? For those of us watching on TV, and doubtless for those on the upper tiers of the stand, the pattern was confusing and headache-inducing. – Yours, etc, JOHN MacKENNA, Royal Oak, Co Carlow. Busy busy, must fly Sir, – As the manager of a unit in a large organisation, one of the ways in which I judged the enthusiasm of the members of my team was the speed with which they walked down a corridor. ( 'The greatest part of any job is learning to look busy, ' July 26th). Those who walked slowly were rarely upgraded to positions of responsibility. –Yours, etc, FINBAR KEARNS, Piercestown, Co Wexford. Lucia Joyce and Carl Jung Sir, – It was nice to see modern dancer Lucia Joyce, who was celebrated as 'l'Irlandaise' in 1920s Paris, make an appearance in Frank McNally's Diary (July 25th) celebrating Carl Jung's 150th birthday on July 26th. Lucia, who described Jung as 'that big fat Swiss Man trying to get hold of my soul', would have turned 118 on the same day. The cult psychotherapist must have got a shock when this cosmic coincidence of birth dawned on him. He too suffered from psychosis, like his mother. He also wrote of his own fear of 'doing a schizophrenia', and boasted two personalities (his own contemporary self, and Zarathustra). Could his dismissal of Lucia's lost poetry as 'psychotic', therefore be considered a case of kettle calling the pot black? James Joyce considered the same writing to be 'anticipations of a new literature'. As for Lucia's 'diagnosis', she had as many as she had doctors. One concluded: 'Whatever it is she will soon get over it.' Whatever the correct diagnosis, Lucia certainly was an artist ahead of her time, in the wrong gender, and ultimately had to pay the price of definitive incarceration and erasure. We can't turn the clock back, but on her 118th birthday, why not reclaim her legacy as a groundbreaking artist, who struggled perhaps with at least as many mental health challenges as the widely celebrated big old fat Swiss man who failed to get hold of her soul. – Yours, etc, DEIRDRE MULROONEY, Lower Grand Canal Street, Dublin 2.
