• 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

Another apologist for criminals!
Actually not.
And I am not one.
I am genuinely sad to see you, a substantial poster, attack Planigale, for whom I have enormous respect as a diverse and thoroughly educated contributor.
I note she acknowledged Maxwell is probably guilty, which is logically sufficient to return to the debate without this disgust thingy.
 
Last edited:
Actually not.
And I am not one.
I am genuinely sad to see you, a substantial poster, attack Planigale, for whom I have enormous respect as a diverse and thoroughly educated contributor.
I note she acknowledged Maxwell is probably guilty, which is logically sufficient to return to the debate without this disgust thingy.

This debate is not about guilt, its about whether she should be granted bail or not.

IMO

1. She represents a danger to the public

This is especially so when it comes to young girls. Don't be taken in by the charming, attractive exterior. Beneath that facade is a scheming, calculating liar, and a heart of pure stone.

2. She is an extreme flight risk, and I mean really extreme.

Firstly, she has a proven track record of evading authorities, repeatedly evading subpoenas, and of leaving the US to do so.

Secondly, she has the means to escape the country. For all intents and purposes, Maxwell has unlimited resources, and an extensive network of very powerful people who would help her to escape.

Thirdly, she has the motive to escape the country, the charges she faces carry a potential sentence of 35 years - that is effectively a life sentence for a person of her age (59)

Fourthly, if she is allowed out on bail, that will give her the opportunity to escape the country. If you think that surveillance and an ankle bracelet will stop someone with her resources from escaping, you are very naive.

Fifthly, even if she does not escape the US straight away, she is very, very good at staying under the radar and living in such a way that will make her difficult to find. There are plenty of places where you can cross the Canadian-American border without being seen or detected.* When they caught her in July last year, they had tracked her through cellphone use - she won't make that mistake again, it will be burner phones and contact through third parties if she gets out and goes on the run again.

Finally, the fact that she has supposedly offered to renounce her French citizenship means nothing - its just a blind that only a fool would fall for. She could easily do this, still leave the US on a private flight to France, and once she lands there, turn herself in to Affaires Etrangeres and reapply for French citizenship. She would then be untouchable.

That fact that the prosecutors and the FBI have similar opinions to mine doesn't surprise me in the least.


*A few years ago, Some friends and I took a private boat trip across Lake Huron from Alpena MI to Penetang ON, a trip of about 260km. No-one questioned us when we arrived, or when we got back to Alpena a week later. We went from the US to Canada and back to the US totally undetected.
 
Planigale is traversing a different route.
Her concern is the path to justice, and that entails a presumption of innocence, and a complete protection of dignity. She is also declaring that justice delayed is justice denied.

(my signature line will be if god exists she will be a planigale)
 
Last edited:
Planigale is traversing a different route.



This route appears to assiduously avoid learning even the basic facts of Ms Maxwell’s case, while pretending to opine on it. It’s very strange to me. Literally wrong on almost every factual assertion this far.
 
This route appears to assiduously avoid learning even the basic facts of Ms Maxwell’s case, while pretending to opine on it. It’s very strange to me. Literally wrong on almost every factual assertion this far.
No trial required?
 
....
she has given up her French citizenship so the alleged intent to run to France where extradition would be difficult is no longer true.
....


1/ No she hasn't. She offered to do so. Not the same thing.

2/ The French government says that even if she had, she would still be entitled to its protection because she was a French citizen at the time she committed the crimes.
The French Ministry of Justice responded that Maxwell’s “offer to waive her French citizenship will not make her eligible to be extradited from France because, for purposes of extradition, nationality is assessed as of the time the charged offense was committed.”
https://nypost.com/2021/03/10/prosecutors-slam-maxells-offer-to-give-up-citizenships-for-bail/
 
You are entitled to think her guilty pre-trial, but the legal system is not. Pre judging guilt is not part of the process for pre-trial detention. I am not arguing that she is guilty or innocent, I suspect she probably is guilty. But even guilty people are entitled to due process and humanity. You are entitled to the view that she deserves all she gets, but that is not how the legal system works. I believe that her detention in inhumane circumstances is a ploy by the prosecutors to force a plea deal because they do not have a good case. I think that adding extra charges to delay the trial is part of this process.

What process was she denied? She had a bail hearing, 5 of them in fact. Why do you think she can't hire a competent lawyer who can argue this due process violation?
 
Planigale is traversing a different route.
Her concern is the path to justice, and that entails a presumption of innocence, and a complete protection of dignity. She is also declaring that justice delayed is justice denied.

(my signature line will be if god exists she will be a planigale)

She has had, and used, every opportunity, to raise such concerns, but has not overcome her flight risk. So which concern is going unheard? Do you think she has hired totally incompetent lawyers who don't understand her due process rights? Or that the entire legal system has conspired to keep her under lock and key until her trial for ... reasons?

Being granted bail is not a right. A bail hearing is, of which she has had 5. The fact she wasn't granted bail on grounds that were long established isn't a violation of any rights, human or legal. She had 4 opportunities to overcome the objections of the government, of which she knew, and still couldn't do it. The first hearing she was essential blind to the arguments, so I'm saying she had 4 swings at the pitch, knowing what was being thrown and where, and still couldn't make contact.
 
She has had, and used, every opportunity, to raise such concerns, but has not overcome her flight risk. So which concern is going unheard? Do you think she has hired totally incompetent lawyers who don't understand her due process rights? Or that the entire legal system has conspired to keep her under lock and key until her trial for ... reasons?

Being granted bail is not a right. A bail hearing is, of which she has had 5. The fact she wasn't granted bail on grounds that were long established isn't a violation of any rights, human or legal. She had 4 opportunities to overcome the objections of the government, of which she knew, and still couldn't do it. The first hearing she was essential blind to the arguments, so I'm saying she had 4 swings at the pitch, knowing what was being thrown and where, and still couldn't make contact.

The right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned without being convicted is a right. Like all rights it has limits.

It is claimed above she has limitless wealth. That is nonsense, no one has limitless wealth. It is claimed she has secret Swiss bank accounts. But under tax treaties the uS can request details of swiss accounts held by US residents and citizens. In addition any account over $10,000 has to be registered with the IRS. What I don't see is the IRS bringing a case for all this secret wealth not declared. The prosecution just claim this, there is no evidence. There is evidence that Maxwell had to work and was dependent on others for financial support (admittedly for an extravagant life style). I am pretty sure that at the end of the day I will be right that maxwell does not have limitless wealth. Since the FBI seems able to steal from hackers and bug the phones of real supercriminals do people really think an elderly woman can evade the FBI? She is not Jason Bourne.

Most of the writs that people attempted to serve, were civil writs avoiding service is not a crime, and not one she has been charged with. She left the US on occasion under her own name, and returned. It would have been easy for the US to pick her up by putting her on a watch list. They did not because she was allowed to travel.

Epstein seems to have been a thoroughly bad person. I have no doubt he procured and had sex with young women some of whom were under age of consent. I have little doubt that Maxwell when employed by Epstein had knowledge of this, and may have actively participated in procuring, and possibly in sexual activities. However she is not charged with rape or sexual assault. I think she is probably guilty of some or all of the offences she is charged with.

To claim she is an ongoing danger to the public is claiming she is a predatory serial lesbian rapist. This is excessively unusual. There is no evidence of her participating in criminal acts since she ceased her association with Epstein in 2004ish. She is not charged with rape or sexual assault.

Any person is a flight risk. I think the prosecution are exaggerating the risk to obtain leverage for a plea deal. I do not think she is a genuine threat to the public. If released you do not need to lock up your daughters!

Maxwell is an exemplar of problems with the US judicial system. Over use of pre-trial detention. The use of pre-trial detention to leverage plea deals. The overuse of plea deals. The poor quality of facilities for detention especially pre-trial. Pre-trial detention if used should be the least onerous possible. Facilities for those in pre-trial detention should not be worse than those once convicted.

I would guess once convicted Maxwell will be in a low security federal prison, with no worries that an elite squad of ex-SAS mercenaries will break her out using her limitless wealth and spirit her safely to France. I also guess all those civil suits will disappear once it becomes apparent all her wealth has disappeared in legal fees.
 
I find your apologism for a serial rapist disgusting!

I am not apologising or excusing her alleged crimes. Rape is not a crime she is being indicted of. What we are discussing is pre-trial detention and the conditions thereof. Please do not accuse me of saying things I have not said. You post is verging on an ad hominem. Can we stick to the argument about pre-trial detention rather than personalising?
 
This route appears to assiduously avoid learning even the basic facts of Ms Maxwell’s case, while pretending to opine on it. It’s very strange to me. Literally wrong on almost every factual assertion this far.

I am trying to avoid discussing the alleged crimes, and trying to limit the discussion to the issue of pre-trial detention. I am not arguing she is guilty or innocent. I am arguing the legal system cannot assume guilt to justify pre-trial detention.
 
I am arguing the legal system cannot assume guilt to justify pre-trial detention.

The legal system does this all the time, though. Pretty much every legal system in the west both assumes innocence until proven guilty and reserves the right to impose pre-trial detention on demonstrable flight risks. What's been done to Maxwell is entirely consistent with what the legal system does probably thousands of times a week, in North America alone.

This has been going on since literally before you were born. It's been going on your entire adult life. Why argue it now, on behalf of Gislaine Maxwell?

You might have an easier time making your case and getting a charitable response if you decoupled it from Maxwell's situation. Start a separate thread about pre-trial detention in Trials and Errors, and see how that goes.
 
I am trying to avoid discussing the alleged crimes, and trying to limit the discussion to the issue of pre-trial detention. I am not arguing she is guilty or innocent.

Yes, and so far your arguments about her pre-trial detention are wrong, ill-informed, full of logical fallacies and generally inept. For instance:

I am arguing the legal system cannot assume guilt to justify pre-trial detention.
 

I never claimed every person charged with murder should not be subject to pre-trial detention. So your post is irrelevant.

Maxwell is charged with trafficking, perjury, facilitation etc. but not rape or sexual assault. No violent crime.

Given that not every person charged with a crime as serious as murder is subject to pre-trial detention certainly the crimes Maxwell is charged with do not per se justify pre-trial detention.

I do not think there is a realistic argument that she is a danger to the public in that there are no allegations she has committed any crimes in the last 15+ years. So the sole argument is the flight risk. One that rests on non-evidence based claims by the prosecution, that goes against the historic evidence that Maxwell does not have limitless financial resources, and a belief that James Bond represents real life.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and so far your arguments about her pre-trial detention are wrong, ill-informed, full of logical fallacies and generally inept. For instance:

So the evidence that this is false? Given that the legal assumption is innocence until proven guilty?
 
The legal system does this all the time, though. Pretty much every legal system in the west both assumes innocence until proven guilty and reserves the right to impose pre-trial detention on demonstrable flight risks. What's been done to Maxwell is entirely consistent with what the legal system does probably thousands of times a week, in North America alone.

This has been going on since literally before you were born. It's been going on your entire adult life. Why argue it now, on behalf of Gislaine Maxwell?

You might have an easier time making your case and getting a charitable response if you decoupled it from Maxwell's situation. Start a separate thread about pre-trial detention in Trials and Errors, and see how that goes.

So can I get a consensus from the opposition? Mathew Best says legal authorities do not assume guilt and you say they do.

I accept that pre-trial detention seems to be more acceptable in the US than in the civilised world. That something happens routinely is not an argument for it being moral.
 

Back
Top Bottom