When Lady Luck Is A Tease

 

Or let's not? After all, it may be a bit more difficult than you imagined it to be. Robbers, murderers, kidnappers, hackers or whatever may take for granted that their crimes just depend on their decision to commit them to succeed. As we - the grown-ups of this world - know, that's not how it works. Not even planning will guarantee the outcome of any kind of actions. Actually, that may be what ruins everything when one part of the magic blend of instant success is lacking: Luck. Yes, I'm a great believer in luck, and the reason for that is, that I've had the experience of being out of luck for several time periods of my life. Something which was not very pleasant, but anyway, it made me think about the phenomenon of luck, what it is, and how one attains and (preferably) learns how to keep it.

"Lady Luck" is a fickle creature, and if there are means to make her stay and do one's bidding then they've escaped me. For instance, I needed to have some service on one of my computers which I had had the misfortune to give a bad rm-command. If you don't know the Linux-system, you most probably don't know what I'm talking about, but if you do, I suspect that by now you will feel some panicky tremors run up your spine. Anyway, to use a rm-command is like playing with fire which I had forgotten. Because of forgetting that, I shall now have a memory that is to stay with me for as long as I shall be using computers. Namely the horror of seeing files and comments sort of being "sucked up and disappear into thin air", right before my eyes. When I found a service that might save my computer, I felt very lucky indeed, but as I found out, this place wasn't exactly what it was set up to be. To find it and to start service with them felt like luck, but the place soon revealed its true nature: It was a disaster upon disaster-place All in all, this experience felt like receiving the gift of a beautiful box of chocolate, but when you opens it, this is what you find:  

Lady luck didn't side with me, so by now my poor, wounded computer will be out of circulation. Luckily for me, I do have substitutes, but it still feels like a slap in the face, because it's connected with the first feeling at finding the service which was that of luck. Had I not felt lucky, it wouldn't have hit that hard, which is a fact I shall have to ponder a little bit until I (hopefully) come to terms with it.

 

Was Epstein the True Boss of the Boss?

 

The Playmates of Epstein were not the pre-puberty girls he trafficked, but the grown-up "boys" he shared his interests with, and who wanted a "piece of the cake, he had to offer". As we know, those "boys" were golden ones from the international "Elite", who owed their fame and status to their wealth, family connections and general influence. Because what these criminals did in their informal "club of abuse", their ill-begotten fame has often overshadowed that of the victims. However, these women have formed their own well-known group, and are out for justice. Their prime target is undoubtedly tRump, who had all kinds of ties with Epstein, and whom I suspect was a colleague of his or maybe even a co-worker. The meeting of Epstein-victims with tRump's appointed legal kingpin, Pam Bondi, came to nothing, which might have been expected from her past as a Florida AG when the Epstein-trafficking was in full bloom. To send her is like chosing the wolf to protect lambs, and it was obvious from the very beginning that she had no intention to do anything about the claims of the victims: They were let down once again.

 

However, among the many more or less unsubstantiated rumors about Epstein, there has been some suggesting that he wasn't the top-guy of the criminal organisation of trafficking, that he ran. Or put another way, he was only the puppet of someone even more vile, and also more influential. True/False? Well, he himself hasn't spoken of someone being his "boss", but a house servant of some kind said that he had one, namely his associate and, for a time period, lover, Ghislaine Maxwell. 

That claim may be in for investigation, but it's not substantiated by other witnesses. There is no doubt about Ghislaine Maxwell's taking part in his crimes, but it takes much more to be the main culprit or the disguised and secret "boss of the boss". Her alleged close friendship with the first wife of tRump, Ivana, ties her to that more than shady couple, and it's anybody's guess that all of them were work mates.

However, I'm prepared for new disclosures about that "maybe-boss-of-the-boss" who may hide in the shadows somewhere. I even let my imagination run rather free when it comes to that subject. Something one shouldn't let it do when the case is what I would call "crucial": In this case it's not a question of life and death for victims being abducted and raped right now. As far as we know, none of the by now grown-up victims sit chained up in freezing cellars or damp lofts. The immediate ordeal of those we know of is over, and now the case has moved on to the next stage, namely retribution for what they went through. Anyway, what set me going, looking for a "boss of the boss", is this not so very informative photo:

I believe in the possibility of something like that, and several names pop up in my mind, but not the proven identity of the one, this man might be referring to. WHO was he/she if he/she is more than the figment of his imagination? 

 

The Female Embalmer Who Had Sex With The Dead

Some male serial killers have told about how they had sex with some of their victims several days ofter killing them. They just couldn't let go of these lifeless objects of desires and lust, but had to keep their dead bodies and interact sexually with them. Some even have suggested that sex with a corpse was better than with the living ones. It's my impression that the true name of that game is COTROL: The dead woman can't say or do something that the rapist feels upset about. 

 

 

And then there is this woman, who wasn't a serial killer or had killer-intentions. No, she didn't kill her victims, but she did have sex with them, namely after their death: She was a necrophiliac.

  

Karen Margaret Greenlee (born 1958) 

"Have sex with" doesn't quite cover the meaning of what she did, because being dead her rape victims - and rape it was - really didn't have any kind of say in what happened to them. She, being alive, was 100% in command which may very likely be what turned her on. I, for one, think it's the ability to decide what's going to happen - or nor happen - that's the what these people desire the most.

A drawing by Greenlee illustrating her perspective on necrophilia 

In time there have been many rumors of dead women being raped by males in all kinds of service jobs. The jobs in focus are the ones which are connected with hospitals or cemetaries, but this is the first case I've seen with a female culprit - and culprit she is.

In 1979, when Karen Greenlee was a 23 year old apprentice embalmer, she stole a hearse in Sacramento with a dead man's body inside it. She wasn't to be found for a couple of days. However, she left a written 4.5 page confession admitting to having had sex with 20 to 40 corpses. Obviously, California didn't suspect ever to see criminal cases like this one, as they had no necrophilia laws. That's why Karen Greenlee only got a ridiculous verdict of 11 days in jail and a $255 fine. It clearly reveals the legal status of the dead: None! By dying these citizens have been left without any rights, which I find wrong. Dead or alive they shouldn't be robbed of their rights as (former) citizens.   

 

Here she is, 23 years old, a culprit, but also - according to her father - a victim of rape as a very young child, and once again as a teenager. Could it be the lack of control that a rape victim experiences that later on turned her into a rapist of dead bodies? To me that seems quite logical, but maybe a wee bit too easy as an explanation.  - After her verdict Karen changed her name and sort of "disappeared" from the public eye.

 
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5iYIKxV42pvhKcLf2GtK3Q

 

https://www.audible.co.uk/podcast/Necrophile-Hall-of-Shame-David-Fuller-and-Karen-Greenlee/B0DM8NFL85 

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13676676/ 

 

https://youtu.be/K0xQepN0LZU?si=r24s9yvf4q9nsUG6 

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15675 

 

Wikipedia 

 

 

"Quiet, Piggy!!!!"

  

I think it happened on November 14, 2025, and it's an incident that is already legendary. A lot of tRumpian incidents are born to be just that: Legendary, not to be forgotten or glossed over, but this one has a special appeal, because it's gross: The scenery was Air Force one when tRump told White House correspondent Catherine Lucey to shut up when she asked him a question about the Epstein files. His misogynistic wording has become legendary in itself. It's been quoted over and over as the "trademark" of a man who can't abide women in any sort of power position, which obviously is how he sees a journalist. What he said was: "Quiet, Piggy!"

Catherine Lucey isn't a "piggy" which might be translated into "disgustingly fat, way beyond obese", but had that been the case, it shouldn't have been his concern as it's private. You may not like how people look, but it's none of your business and should not be commented. Actually, a comment on somebody's looks goes far beyond what's acceptable. When tRump mocked a disabled male journalist that was even more derogatory because there was no doubt about his disability. That means that we move from looks to something that goes beyond that, as a disability isn't a choice, but something that's inflicted on one. With the female journalist, Catherine Lucey, there might be a question of "interpreting" her looks: Is she or isn't she a disgusting glutton who has eaten herself into a "piggy" physical state? I would say "NO, she isn't", but still, she would have a right to do so: 

No matter what, it's obvious that female journalists are in for a fight when meeting tRump as there has been several incidents that go far beyond a professional disagreement. However, the Piggy-remark is the - until now - grossest one and it's not to be forgotten.

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/2025/11/18/trump-tells-reporter-quiet-piggy-after-epstein-email-question/87334816007/ 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/business/media/trump-reporter-khashoggi-saudis.html 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-attack-female-reporter-maggie-haberman-b3041485.html 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/08/30/donald-trump-kristen-welker-fcc-meet-the-press/91536303007/ 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpvirus/s/svVe7DrbYl

Seemingly The String is Tightening

Larry Ellison is a right-wing Jew, Zionist and a dedicated tRump-supporter. And what's more, he is also the world's sixth-richest person. A fact which should make us prick up our ears if we agree with G.K. Chesterton: "The rich are the scum of the earth in every country." His more or less total media control seems to be/is all due to Donald Trump, the so-called president who "won" (???) the 2024 election after what must be called shady ongoings. That means that by now tRump is the media mogul through his supporter and friend, Larry Ellison, and for those who are not fans of tRump the situation is getting creepier and creepier. By now it's obvious that he has moved ahead of all assumptions of what was supposed to be THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET EARTH. He is following his own agenda and seems to be a step or more ahead of what was taken for granted to be the situation here and now. I take it that only the top-guys of the Republican party really knows what's going on. Not a pleasant thought, to say the least, as the man is a convicted criminal who is also attacking the Hague international criminal court while at the same time pushing for his "America first"-ideas that include some far-fetched demands of "letting the USA have what it wants to have". Something which seems to include other countries and their riches: Grifters are grabbers as long as we let them do what they do .... 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalNews/s/E1HQEE4tx7 

 

The Winner Is: Word or Image?

 

This is my late friend, the Danish poet Marianne Larsen (1951-2025), who sadly enough died in December 2025 without me getting to know anything about it until a couple of months later. A very strange, shocking and altogether unpleasant experience. Actually it was so awful, that it triggered some memories, which I more or less had forgotten. These memories were about one of our discussions about WORDS CONTRA PICTURES in communications of various art. She was convinced that the word still had the upper-hand over the picture as to communication, but I wasn't all that sure because it can't be denied that the world has changed its priorities, and that one of these is "easiness/spiritual laziness" is the most peasant to most people and thus the best . 

 

The mere image of a MAGA-cap speaks volumes of certain characteristics of the man wearing it like e.g. prejudice, stupidity, science-immunity, misogyny, arrogance and so on and on. The cap does this, all by itself, because it is nourished by non-MAGAs's political standpoints of the opposite kind. Also, as it is, people who are not MAGAs need many more words to explain what their opinions are than the man in the cap. In that respect the image, e.g. of a gesture or a symbol, has the upper-hand over the words: In the flash of a moment one is able to get the image "translated" into the full meaning of it. For instance, all of us know what it means to raise one's right hand in a straight line, looking sinister - or stupid? - and the ones who do just that don't even have to say "heil Hitler" to get the message through: They are not into Democracy, on the contrary, and it was made clear without any words to explain it.

 

That goes with flags too: Each one speaks without words, and they have a strong message for everyone who knows them and recognizes the ones that belongs to his/her native country and biography.  

This is one of the many poems by Marianne, and as is obvious it speaks in its own voice. Her command of language and imagery was impressive and something that was recognized from the very beginning of her career. However, our discussions were about COMMUNICATION as such, and that's where it - like all or most poems - may not cover her intentions. Compared to the MAGA-hat or the fully stretched right arm a poem simply doesn't come out clear with its message. The reason for that is that it covers many more symbolic layers than a hat or an arm, both of which is much more simple symbols. However, it wasn't only my discussions with Marianne that made me brood the question of what was the strongest form of communication, but also some experiences I had with some of my own books, like e.g. this one:

 

, 

I've had some offers from people I don't know, but who introduce themselves as publishers or film makers. Most of them are nothing but conmen, out to earn a substantial sum by cheating an author out of money to have his/her book turned into a  movie. At first it feels quite flattering, but it's anything but flattery as they wouldn't try their luck if they took you for a genius. On the contrary, they feel that an Indie author is hungry for attention and thus ready to pay to get it. As I've pubished books both as an "Indie" and with ordinary publishers I'm glad to say that I'm not a push-over for this kid of flattery. That being said, I did fall for this specific attempt to bleed me because it was very  well prepared: The one, who wrote me, "borrowed" the name, the address, etc. of a well-known Hollywood-producer, but with the help of someone who keeps an eye on all the scummy ongoings in the literary world, I found out that the man who wrote me in reality was a Philipine conman, who had targeted several authors whom he tried to bleed.

 

What I find the most interesting part of that incident is that people I know were so very interested in the possibility of the book being turned into a movie. None of them ever asked me about how the book was doing or what it was about, but they kept asking questions like "will it be on Netflix?" Or"Who is to play X?" It was very obvious that they had no intentions of reading the book, but that they would cosider watching a movie over it - This experience is why I told my friend, Marianne, the word-loving poet, that words had lost to the images and pictures ....

 

 

https://boobytrapec.blogspot.com/2026/09/words-contra-pictures-what-couple.html

https://boobytrapec.blogspot.com/2026/09/redacted-poem-by-else-cederborg-cain.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

Poem by Else Cederborg: "Non-Normal Dancing"

 Dancing in and out of nothingness

tip-toeing like on red hot tiles

calling it normal 

which it's not ....

 

All Rights Reserved © Else Cederborg