• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Samson said:
Consent is irrelevant when the girl is underage is what I challenge.
Grellet Tinner was jailed for having sex with a 19 year old student.
Click to expand...

Disparity in power is important.

But it's a moot point when these victims were both underage and said no, and suffered injuries - which meets pretty much any definition of "violence".
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Disparity in power is important.

But it's a moot point when these victims were both underage and said no, and suffered injuries - which meets pretty much any definition of "violence".
Click to expand...

Yes but Dr Strangelove made the bald statement.
I suggest the forum needs more nuance without implying the suggester is a weirdo.
 
Samson said:
Consent is irrelevant when the girl is underage is what I challenge.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure you do. You do seem willing to defend any passing abuser.
So at what age do you think a minor is "too young" to reasonably consent to sexual activity?

Samson said:
Grellet Tinner was jailed for having sex with a 19 year old student.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Abuse of power. Grellet-Tinner was in a position of authority which compromised the notion of 'reasoned consent'.
 
catsmate said:
Yes, I'm sure you do. You do seem willing to defend any passing abuser.
So at what age do you think a minor is "too young" to reasonably consent to sexual activity?


Sigh. Abuse of power. Grellet-Tinner was in a position of authority which compromised the notion of 'reasoned consent'.
Click to expand...
Exonerated anyway.
Read the story for its bleak description of do gooders who are sinners.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Exonerated anyway.
Read the story for its bleak description of do gooders who are sinners.
Click to expand...

You should know better than that!!! Grellet-Tinner was NOT exonerated, he was acquitted and therefore found not guilty on a technicality due to the reprehensible behaviour of Detective Stephen Parker. Acquittal means a jury has found you not guilty, which is a legal status. ... Exoneration means that evidence has been produced that proves you cannot be guilty of a crime with which you were charged.

It is still a fact that 59 year old Grellet-Tinner had an inappropriate sexual relationship with an 18 year old student, in a state where the age of consent for the students of a teacher is 21 years. There is a very good reason why this is, its to try to prevent dirty old men like Grellet-Tinner from using the power of their position to coerce young students into sex.

NOTE: Detective Parker's behaviour also affected two other cases

1. A former San Juan Island soccer coach, originally charged with the rape of a child

2. The rape of a 20-month-old child. The charges were dropped from rape to molestation in January 2017 because the accused’s confession to Parker was thrown out by the judge.

Anyway, this is off topic. If you want to discuss Grennet-Tiller, make a thread for it.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I wasn't missing the point, I know exactly what Vixen was insinuating, and I was responding to it

I realize perfectly well that Vixen doesn't think either Epstein or Maxwell have done anything seriously wrong.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort. I simply said we haven't heard her side of the story. Hence the concept of a fair trial? All we have heard extensively is Bradley Edwards, the book and the Netflix documentary. Of the four or five women featured in the documentary only Giuffre seems to have been underage at the time and at that, two months' short of age. Giuffre herself, says she recruited about two hundred girls, yet she is exempt from prosecution. I am just trying to get some perspective on this.
 
Vixen said:
I said nothing of the sort. I simply said we haven't heard her side of the story. Hence the concept of a fair trial? All we have heard extensively is Bradley Edwards, the book and the Netflix documentary. Of the four or five women featured in the documentary only Giuffre seems to have been underage at the time and at that, two months' short of age. Giuffre herself, says she recruited about two hundred girls, yet she is exempt from prosecution. I am just trying to get some perspective on this.
Click to expand...
No need for a trial. The matter is well in hand on the thread.
 
Vixen said:
I said nothing of the sort. I simply said we haven't heard her side of the story. Hence the concept of a fair trial?
....
Click to expand...

We have heard her side of the story. Through her lawyer, she insists she's innocent, her accusers are lying and doesn't know anything about these crimes.
https://torontosun.com/news/world/g...ng-jeffrey-epstein-being-massaged-in-new-york

"Presumption of innocence" applies exclusively to the judge and jurors at trial. It doesn't apply to the police who arrest a suspect after finding probable cause, or the prosecutors who build a case and take it to court. And it certainly doesn't apply to the general public, which is entirely capable of assessing the dozens of credible, detailed, persuasive allegations against her by specific, named women vs. the smug self-serving claims of a woman whose lifetime association with a notorious predator is undisputed, and who used her vast resources to flee and hide from law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
"Presumption of innocence" applies exclusively to the judge and jurors at trial. It doesn't apply to the police who arrest a suspect after finding probable cause, or the prosecutors who build a case and take it to court. And it certainly doesn't apply to the general public, which is entirely capable of assessing the dozens of credible, detailed, persuasive allegations against her by specific, named women vs. the smug self-serving claims of a woman whose lifetime association with a notorious predator is undisputed, and who used her vast resources to flee and hide from law enforcement.
Click to expand...


Quoted for Samson...

Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges.

The general public are under no legal constraint to presume anyone innocent. They are entitled to read the details, form their own opinions and draw their own conclusions... its just that their opinions and conclusions carry no legal weight.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
Along with everyone else.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No on two counts.
I have no finding on Maxwell besides considering 35 years a ridiculous sentence to be proposed.
And I have no real interest in crimes concerning obvious guilt so would not comment normally.

The imprisoning of Lundy and Bamber stand as the two greatest crimes in the Empire.

The detention of Maxwell appears well justified meantime.
 
Belz... said:
No, but I think it's a good practice.
Click to expand...

Guilt and innocence are legal concepts. We can choose to believe that someone committed specific acts even if they haven't been convicted of crimes. The evidence that Maxwell is a serial predator and sex trafficker is overwhelming, and it would be so even if the statute of limitations had passed for everything she did -- which apparently it has not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom