• 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

Vixen said:
I was groomed by a particular bank, and all sorts of different people who were after my business. I still have a lovely piece of cut glass crystal from Galway as a gift. It even took me to an exhibition at V&A and dinner in Kensington High Road.
Click to expand...

And if all that was to coerce you into allowing your bank manager to get you to have sex with a client or a friend of his, then guess what? You were groomed for sex... and you were sex trafficked.

Vixen said:
The truth is, in England, taking people out to lunch and inviting them to balls and conferences (which are usually an excuse for luscious buffets and wine waiters) is what smooths the wheels of business.
Click to expand...

The truth is, English Law is entirely irrelevant to the Maxwell Sex Trafficking case, which is under US jurisdiction.

Vixen said:
Maxwell may well have been 'grooming' underage girls but then as a typical business woman she might just have been doing what comes naturally.
Click to expand...

In which case, she was committing criminal offences.

Vixen said:
Most of Epstein's victims were in their twenties and late teens so I can't see that Maxwell was targetting children.
Click to expand...

Except that, most is not all, and she was.


Vixen said:
She had no authority over them. She wasn't a teacher or a carer. They went home at the end of their working sessions.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Because no-one of the age of 18 or over is EVER vulnerable or an easy target for predators like Maxwell.
 
Vixen said:
But it is an assumption that Miss Roberts was brought to England for sex.
Click to expand...

It's not an assumption: the alleged victim themselves has said as much. No one is going to believe that they brought her along just to provide completely non-sexual massages or stimulating intellectual conversations.

It is an assumption that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew.
Click to expand...

Again: it's not an assumption if the alleged victim themselves has claimed that they were forced to have sex with him. They brought her along for sex and consequently she felt that she had no choice but to have sex with Prince Andrew even-though she didn't want to.
 
xjx388 said:
And here is something from the Justice Department to confirm this:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ce...extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children

You can’t even travel to the UK to have sex with a 16 year old as an American citizen or resident. You certainly can’t take a kid from the US to the UK and it suddenly becomes hunky dory.
Click to expand...

Realistically speaking here no American is going to be prosecuted just for having consensual sex with a 16 year old in the UK. No American citizen who has lived in the UK for a decade is going to be extradited back to the US for doing something completely legal.
 
Arcade22 said:
It's not an assumption: the alleged victim themselves has said as much. No one is going to believe that they brought her along just to provide completely non-sexual massages or stimulating intellectual conversations.



Again: it's not an assumption if the alleged victim themselves has claimed that they were forced to have sex with him. They brought her along for sex and consequently she felt that she had no choice but to have sex with Prince Andrew even-though she didn't want to.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may but what do you think Maxwell defence will be in court? She will say (playing devil's advocate) that she is British, was born in England, educated in England, why else would she be in England except to visit friends and family, including old friend from Oxford Uni days, Prince Andrew? Few Brits would think it at all proper to 'hire an underage sex worker for your friend'. How do you know if Miss Roberts even arrived with Maxwell. She might just as easily have flown in with her boss, Epstein.
 
smartcooky said:
And if all that was to coerce you into allowing your bank manager to get you to have sex with a client or a friend of his, then guess what? You were groomed for sex... and you were sex trafficked.



The truth is, English Law is entirely irrelevant to the Maxwell Sex Trafficking case, which is under US jurisdiction.



In which case, she was committing criminal offences.



Except that, most is not all, and she was.



:rolleyes:
Because no-one of the age of 18 or over is EVER vulnerable or an easy target for predators like Maxwell.
Click to expand...


There is a big difference between business and personal time. A bank taking one out for a meal on employer's time for which one is getting paid, or you doing vice versa, taking a new member of staff or potential new recruit to 'meet the team'
(- this happened to me: I had to undergo a 'beer test' before I was hired [the top partner was a raging alcoholic so liked to have staff keep him company])
is very different from going out with someone in your own personal time (a date scenario).

Giuffre was employed by Epstein as his 'masseuse', for which she was paid. Part of her job was to recruit other young women as 'masseuses', for which she was paid and for which they were paid and told to bring in their friends as new recruits in exchange for a bonus payment, and for which they were paid.

Maxwell was also an employee of Epstein, arranging events such as dinners and 'scientific conferences' for the likes of Bill Clinton and a whole range of top scientists, for which she was paid. Thus, if finding attractive females for these parties was part of her remit, then it could be called 'staff entertaining' if she takes them out shopping or for a meal, or shows them around if they are from out of town. She knew they were sex workers - that is what they were paid for - but it doesn't follow that she necessarily knew Epstein was raping them behind closed doors. Maybe she was into debauched sex herself, including orgies, however, that is not actually illegal, as much as one might disapprove.

ISTM that with Giuffre being Epstein's righthand man, as it were, and Maxwell the SO, there was some kind of a ménage-à-trois there, which is never going to augur well in a workplace setting, with all the likely ensuing jealousies and rivalry. So after five years, Giuffre in effect 'handed in her notice' whilst on a massage course, as paid for by Epstein, her mentor, after meeting her husband to be. When her daughter was born in 2015, she realised that from a young age, a whole load of older men, including Epstein had been taking advantage of her. Mr. Giuffre encouraged her to pursue Epstein in court and Maxwell also being accused waved her accusations off, yet paid her off to silence her and make her go away. Likewise, Epstein believed that with his paying off a whole load of women and making an indemnity deal with Alex Acosta, that was the end of the sex scandal. Giuffre received millions frrom Epstein and Maxwell on the technicality that for a short period of her five years with them, she was a few months underage.

However, the whole thing blew wide open when New York expunged Acosta's 'deal' and brought new charges against Epstein. Epstein was charged again this and Maxwell as one of the indemnified 'co-conspirators' (there should be two or three other conspirators also charged, namely Epstein's other SO's), who is also now charged with perjury for calling Giuffre a liar and lying in her deposition brought by legal action via Giuffre.

So, we have two possible situations: Giuffre having managed to become very rich by pursuing the men who sexually abused her whilst she was underage continues on her successful tactic. However, someone settling in a civil court to make the accuser go away maybe a different kettle of fish in a criminal court. This time, proof will be demanded and one wonders whether Giuffre actually has any proof other than a picture of herself with Prince Andrew and the fact of being seventeen and a half when she arrived in London, so can claim 'forced sex' and 'sex trafficking of a minor' on paper.

The other alternative is that Maxwell is as evil as charged. She procured American children to England and across US state lines to provide Epstein and herself with underage sex.


I tend to think the truth is somewhere in between. She and Giuffre fell out and now Giuffre gets revenge because of the legal technicalities, despite being fine with it for five years. For example, like a disgruntled employee whistleblowing on a boss after falling out over something else.
 
Butter! said:
I was so confused, trying to figure out how Maxwell had an underage girl at her house sometime prior to the 1860s.
Click to expand...

Negative 125 years old is illegal in the UK, I'm pretty sure. "gaolbait"

There's a joke in there somewhere about Maxwell receiving a phone call telegram about having his brand of pipe tobacco "in a can" ?

Alternatively, I got the name wrong. :o
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's a cultural thing but I assumed it was a reference to Prince Albert of Monaco, who was a very enthusiastic admirer of the ladies when he was younger.
 
Vixen said:
There is a big difference between business and personal time. A bank taking one out for a meal on employer's time for which one is getting paid, or you doing vice versa, taking a new member of staff or potential new recruit to 'meet the team'
(- this happened to me: I had to undergo a 'beer test' before I was hired [the top partner was a raging alcoholic so liked to have staff keep him company])
is very different from going out with someone in your own personal time (a date scenario).
Click to expand...

None of this has any relevance whatsoever

You said you were "groomed" by the "bank"

I said if it was to coerce you to have sex with a client or a friend of the manager, then you were sex-trafficked

The "if" in the above statement makes it conditional, but you just ignored that, and bowled ahead, making arguments about something I didn't claim. There's a name for that type of argument.


Vixen said:
Giuffre was employed by Epstein as his 'masseuse', for which she was paid. Part of her job was to recruit other young women as 'masseuses', for which she was paid and for which they were paid and told to bring in their friends as new recruits in exchange for a bonus payment, and for which they were paid.

Maxwell was also an employee of Epstein, arranging events such as dinners and 'scientific conferences' for the likes of Bill Clinton and a whole range of top scientists, for which she was paid. Thus, if finding attractive females for these parties was part of her remit, then it could be called 'staff entertaining' if she takes them out shopping or for a meal, or shows them around if they are from out of town. She knew they were sex workers - that is what they were paid for - but it doesn't follow that she necessarily knew Epstein was raping them behind closed doors. Maybe she was into debauched sex herself, including orgies, however, that is not actually illegal, as much as one might disapprove.

ISTM that with Giuffre being Epstein's righthand man, as it were, and Maxwell the SO, there was some kind of a ménage-à-trois there, which is never going to augur well in a workplace setting, with all the likely ensuing jealousies and rivalry. So after five years, Giuffre in effect 'handed in her notice' whilst on a massage course, as paid for by Epstein, her mentor, after meeting her husband to be. When her daughter was born in 2015, she realised that from a young age, a whole load of older men, including Epstein had been taking advantage of her. Mr. Giuffre encouraged her to pursue Epstein in court and Maxwell also being accused waved her accusations off, yet paid her off to silence her and make her go away. Likewise, Epstein believed that with his paying off a whole load of women and making an indemnity deal with Alex Acosta, that was the end of the sex scandal. Giuffre received millions frrom Epstein and Maxwell on the technicality that for a short period of her five years with them, she was a few months underage.

However, the whole thing blew wide open when New York expunged Acosta's 'deal' and brought new charges against Epstein. Epstein was charged again this and Maxwell as one of the indemnified 'co-conspirators' (there should be two or three other conspirators also charged, namely Epstein's other SO's), who is also now charged with perjury for calling Giuffre a liar and lying in her deposition brought by legal action via Giuffre.

So, we have two possible situations: Giuffre having managed to become very rich by pursuing the men who sexually abused her whilst she was underage continues on her successful tactic. However, someone settling in a civil court to make the accuser go away maybe a different kettle of fish in a criminal court. This time, proof will be demanded and one wonders whether Giuffre actually has any proof other than a picture of herself with Prince Andrew and the fact of being seventeen and a half when she arrived in London, so can claim 'forced sex' and 'sex trafficking of a minor' on paper.

The other alternative is that Maxwell is as evil as charged. She procured American children to England and across US state lines to provide Epstein and herself with underage sex.


I tend to think the truth is somewhere in between. She and Giuffre fell out and now Giuffre gets revenge because of the legal technicalities, despite being fine with it for five years. For example, like a disgruntled employee whistleblowing on a boss after falling out over something else.
Click to expand...

Once again, I see you are trying to minimize Maxwell's behaviour, and make excuses for what she did. 'Oh it might have been this', or 'it might have been that', or it might have been whatever the next thing is you can come up with by dragging it out if the thin air of your fantasy worldview.

What Maxwell might have done is irrelevant, what she actually did is at hand. She stands charged with serious criminal offences - accused by multiple victims of trafficking for sex, not just some third-party, but themselves. The victims are not just eye-witnesses to something that happened to someone else, they are also personal victim witnesses to what she did to them! She was indicted by a Grand Jury on the basis of overwhelming evidence that she did what she has been accused of, and clear, indisputable evidence that she repeatedly lied under oath during depositions.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
There is a big difference between business and personal time. A bank taking one out for a meal on employer's time for which one is getting paid, or you doing vice versa, taking a new member of staff or potential new recruit to 'meet the team'
(- this happened to me: I had to undergo a 'beer test' before I was hired [the top partner was a raging alcoholic so liked to have staff keep him company])
is very different from going out with someone in your own personal time (a date scenario).

Giuffre was employed by Epstein as his 'masseuse', for which she was paid. Part of her job was to recruit other young women as 'masseuses', for which she was paid and for which they were paid and told to bring in their friends as new recruits in exchange for a bonus payment, and for which they were paid.

Maxwell was also an employee of Epstein, arranging events such as dinners and 'scientific conferences' for the likes of Bill Clinton and a whole range of top scientists, for which she was paid. Thus, if finding attractive females for these parties was part of her remit, then it could be called 'staff entertaining' if she takes them out shopping or for a meal, or shows them around if they are from out of town. She knew they were sex workers - that is what they were paid for - but it doesn't follow that she necessarily knew Epstein was raping them behind closed doors. Maybe she was into debauched sex herself, including orgies, however, that is not actually illegal, as much as one might disapprove.

ISTM that with Giuffre being Epstein's righthand man, as it were, and Maxwell the SO, there was some kind of a ménage-à-trois there, which is never going to augur well in a workplace setting, with all the likely ensuing jealousies and rivalry. So after five years, Giuffre in effect 'handed in her notice' whilst on a massage course, as paid for by Epstein, her mentor, after meeting her husband to be. When her daughter was born in 2015, she realised that from a young age, a whole load of older men, including Epstein had been taking advantage of her. Mr. Giuffre encouraged her to pursue Epstein in court and Maxwell also being accused waved her accusations off, yet paid her off to silence her and make her go away. Likewise, Epstein believed that with his paying off a whole load of women and making an indemnity deal with Alex Acosta, that was the end of the sex scandal. Giuffre received millions frrom Epstein and Maxwell on the technicality that for a short period of her five years with them, she was a few months underage.

However, the whole thing blew wide open when New York expunged Acosta's 'deal' and brought new charges against Epstein. Epstein was charged again this and Maxwell as one of the indemnified 'co-conspirators' (there should be two or three other conspirators also charged, namely Epstein's other SO's), who is also now charged with perjury for calling Giuffre a liar and lying in her deposition brought by legal action via Giuffre.

So, we have two possible situations: Giuffre having managed to become very rich by pursuing the men who sexually abused her whilst she was underage continues on her successful tactic. However, someone settling in a civil court to make the accuser go away maybe a different kettle of fish in a criminal court. This time, proof will be demanded and one wonders whether Giuffre actually has any proof other than a picture of herself with Prince Andrew and the fact of being seventeen and a half when she arrived in London, so can claim 'forced sex' and 'sex trafficking of a minor' on paper.

The other alternative is that Maxwell is as evil as charged. She procured American children to England and across US state lines to provide Epstein and herself with underage sex.


I tend to think the truth is somewhere in between. She and Giuffre fell out and now Giuffre gets revenge because of the legal technicalities, despite being fine with it for five years. For example, like a disgruntled employee whistleblowing on a boss after falling out over something else.
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, I'll pretend it's an interesting stream of consciousness but I am struggling to find what your point was.
 
jimbob said:
For the sake of argument, I'll pretend it's an interesting stream of consciousness but I am struggling to find what your point was.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of pretending on your part.

When was the last time you heard anyone over the age of 10 count someone's age as "x and a half?"
 
Vixen said:
How do you know if Miss Roberts even arrived with Maxwell. She might just as easily have flown in with her boss, Epstein.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that they document and keep records of the people who arrive via airplanes.
 
smartcooky said:
None of this has any relevance whatsoever

You said you were "groomed" by the "bank"

I said if it was to coerce you to have sex with a client or a friend of the manager, then you were sex-trafficked

The "if" in the above statement makes it conditional, but you just ignored that, and bowled ahead, making arguments about something I didn't claim. There's a name for that type of argument.
Click to expand...

Look, this type of thing happened a lot a few years back (or at least, it was a topic of interest for a short while). No, it wouldn't be sex trafficking, it would be sexual harassment, if the employee bothered to report it. It wasn't/isn't unusual for corporations to round up its female employees if it had an event that was top heavy with men. For example, my work colleagues in the city got truly fed up of getting last minute invitations to attend a networking event because we knew it was simply an insulting way of saying oh we are only inviting you because we need some female decoration around the place. So most of us would advise a 'prior engagement' thanks all the same. There was one evening 'do' when I had a last minute invite to a pub along Upper Street, so I went along with a couple of others and the guy greeted us at the door with, oh we needed some pretty girls, such is the sexist attitude in the workplace.

Grooming in a corporate sense, in trying to secure a client or a new member of staff, or sell a contract or product is one thing, 'grooming' on a personal level, which can include inundating the target with flowers, chocolates and expensive meals, however, more often refers to a paedophile who tries to entice his or her target with attention, flattery, sweets, money, outings, etc. I can't see Maxwell was looking for a one-on-one relationship, she appears to have been recruiting on behalf of Epstein but I can't see she was targetting children, thus of the women who agreed to attend her events and parties or give massages for Epstein, one can assume were consenting, if they were adults and capable of declining. If they knew they were there to provide Epstein with a massage in exchange for US$200, then that was their choice, no? A woman's right to be a sex worker, yes?



Once again, I see you are trying to minimize Maxwell's behaviour, and make excuses for what she did. 'Oh it might have been this', or 'it might have been that', or it might have been whatever the next thing is you can come up with by dragging it out if the thin air of your fantasy worldview.

What Maxwell might have done is irrelevant, what she [B ]actually did[/B] is at hand. She stands charged with serious criminal offences - accused by multiple victims of trafficking for sex, not just some third-party, but themselves. The victims are not just eye-witnesses to something that happened to someone else, they are also personal victim witnesses to what she did to them! She was indicted by a Grand Jury on the basis of overwhelming evidence that she did what she has been accused of, and clear, indisputable evidence that she repeatedly lied under oath during depositions.
Click to expand...

The people who have come forward as victims - and I am not saying they are not - did so in response to a request from Giuffre's lawyers and the FBI. In other words, they are self-selected (which is fine). IIRC, only a couple of them had complained to the police at the time (and were shamefully fobbed off). The complaints seem to be rape and abuse by Epstein. Maxwell is mentioned in passing. She seems to be included as being an associate of Epstein. Maxwell flew some of these women to Epstein's island personally as a helicopter pilots licence holder. All the FBI is interested in here, are the ones who may have been underage and who encountered unwanted sexual attention at these events, having the sex parties wasn't an offence in itself as the FBI does not seem to be charging Maxwell with running a prostitution ring. In effect, she is charged with the technicality that some were under age, even though they weren't physically forced to attend, it only becomes 'coercion' because they were minors and deemed not able to give their consent.

What we haven't heard is Maxwell's defence, is all I am saying. If she forced Giuffre to fly to London to have sex with Prince Andrew knowingly as a minor, then of course she should face justice. However, this has yet to be established in a court of law.
 
Vixen said:
Look, this type of thing happened a lot a few years back (or at least, it was a topic of interest for a short while). No, it wouldn't be sex trafficking, it would be sexual harassment, if the employee bothered to report it. It wasn't/isn't unusual for corporations to round up its female employees if it had an event that was top heavy with men. For example, my work colleagues in the city got truly fed up of getting last minute invitations to attend a networking event because we knew it was simply an insulting way of saying oh we are only inviting you because we need some female decoration around the place. So most of us would advise a 'prior engagement' thanks all the same. There was one evening 'do' when I had a last minute invite to a pub along Upper Street, so I went along with a couple of others and the guy greeted us at the door with, oh we needed some pretty girls, such is the sexist attitude in the workplace.

Grooming in a corporate sense, in trying to secure a client or a new member of staff, or sell a contract or product is one thing, 'grooming' on a personal level, which can include inundating the target with flowers, chocolates and expensive meals, however, more often refers to a paedophile who tries to entice his or her target with attention, flattery, sweets, money, outings, etc. I can't see Maxwell was looking for a one-on-one relationship, she appears to have been recruiting on behalf of Epstein but I can't see she was targetting children, thus of the women who agreed to attend her events and parties or give massages for Epstein, one can assume were consenting, if they were adults and capable of declining. If they knew they were there to provide Epstein with a massage in exchange for US$200, then that was their choice, no? A woman's right to be a sex worker, yes?





The people who have come forward as victims - and I am not saying they are not - did so in response to a request from Giuffre's lawyers and the FBI. In other words, they are self-selected (which is fine). IIRC, only a couple of them had complained to the police at the time (and were shamefully fobbed off). The complaints seem to be rape and abuse by Epstein. Maxwell is mentioned in passing. She seems to be included as being an associate of Epstein. Maxwell flew some of these women to Epstein's island personally as a helicopter pilots licence holder. All the FBI is interested in here, are the ones who may have been underage and who encountered unwanted sexual attention at these events, having the sex parties wasn't an offence in itself as the FBI does not seem to be charging Maxwell with running a prostitution ring. In effect, she is charged with the technicality that some were under age, even though they weren't physically forced to attend, it only becomes 'coercion' because they were minors and deemed not able to give their consent.

What we haven't heard is Maxwell's defence, is all I am saying. If she forced Giuffre to fly to London to have sex with Prince Andrew knowingly as a minor, then of course she should face justice. However, this has yet to be established in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Hot damn, I never got the chance to assert that Maxwell has never assaulted me.
 
I saw that. Giuffre's lawyers say that Andy's team have been stonewalling and the statute of limitations was about to run out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom