• 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

Do not breach rule 12 in your eagerness to make your points. If you are talking about other posters (such as what you believe their views on tangentially related matters may be, or their nationality), you are both off-topic and breaching rule 12. Please ensure you are addressing arguments only.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
The prosecution has now introduced the issue of a picture of Epstein's young goddaughter hanging outside the bedroom wall and on his desk. Plus 'small school uniforms' (it is not said whether this is adult size 'small' so maybe they want people to imagine children-size). There was a popular restaurant in London called 'School Dinners' wherein the waitresses wore...school uniform. Along with nurses outfits, this seems to be a popular male fantasy. Does this make them 'paedophile'? Should Maxwell take the rap for Epstein's fantasies?

Then there are the house rules, which makes Maxwell come across as an unbearable snob.

I can't see the prosecution has made a strong case so far. It all seems to be by association with Epstein. I am hoping the remaining three accusers can properly nail this, if there is a case to answer.
 
Vixen said:
The prosecution has now introduced the issue of a picture of Epstein's young goddaughter hanging outside the bedroom wall and on his desk. Plus 'small school uniforms' (it is not said whether this is adult size 'small' so maybe they want people to imagine children-size). There was a popular restaurant in London called 'School Dinners' wherein the waitresses wore...school uniform. Along with nurses outfits, this seems to be a popular male fantasy. Does this make them 'paedophile'? Should Maxwell take the rap for Epstein's fantasies?

Then there are the house rules, which makes Maxwell come across as an unbearable snob.

I can't see the prosecution has made a strong case so far. It all seems to be by association with Epstein. I am hoping the remaining three accusers can properly nail this, if there is a case to answer.
Click to expand...

Wow. You are attempting to connect dots when you don't even have any dots.
 
Vixen said:
The prosecution has now introduced the issue of a picture of Epstein's young goddaughter hanging outside the bedroom wall and on his desk. Plus 'small school uniforms' (it is not said whether this is adult size 'small' so maybe they want people to imagine children-size). There was a popular restaurant in London called 'School Dinners' wherein the waitresses wore...school uniform. Along with nurses outfits, this seems to be a popular male fantasy. Does this make them 'paedophile'?
Click to expand...

If the waiters are underage and the customers bang them, then they may not be technically pedophiles but they are criminals. Eve if you find some weirdo bar somewhere where the waiters dress in diapers, sex with persons under the age of consent is still criminal. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
 
Vixen said:
The prosecution has now introduced the issue of a picture of Epstein's young goddaughter hanging outside the bedroom wall and on his desk. Plus 'small school uniforms' (it is not said whether this is adult size 'small' so maybe they want people to imagine children-size). There was a popular restaurant in London called 'School Dinners' wherein the waitresses wore...school uniform. Along with nurses outfits, this seems to be a popular male fantasy. Does this make them 'paedophile'? Should Maxwell take the rap for Epstein's fantasies?

Then there are the house rules, which makes Maxwell come across as an unbearable snob.

I can't see the prosecution has made a strong case so far. It all seems to be by association with Epstein. I am hoping the remaining three accusers can properly nail this, if there is a case to answer.
Click to expand...


Your attempts at legal analysis here are..... breathtakingly bad and inappropriate.
 
Vixen said:
The prosecution has now introduced the issue of a picture of Epstein's young goddaughter hanging outside the bedroom wall and on his desk. Plus 'small school uniforms' (it is not said whether this is adult size 'small' so maybe they want people to imagine children-size). There was a popular restaurant in London called 'School Dinners' wherein the waitresses wore...school uniform. Along with nurses outfits, this seems to be a popular male fantasy. Does this make them 'paedophile'? Should Maxwell take the rap for Epstein's fantasies?
Then there are the house rules, which makes Maxwell come across as an unbearable snob.

I can't see the prosecution has made a strong case so far. It all seems to be by association with Epstein. I am hoping the remaining three accusers can properly nail this, if there is a case to answer.
Click to expand...

See, this is what you completely fail to understand. You think this is an attempt by the prosecution to make her guilty by association, and you seem unable to see beyond your own predetermined judgement to see what it really happening here.

What I see is a prosecution that is attempting to do what they need to do - laying the groundwork. They first have to paint a clear picture for the jury of the type of person Epstein was. Then her connection to Epstein needs to be clearly established in order to show how he was enabled to do the things he did because she helped him do it - to show and prove that she was the minder, manager and recruiter/procurer of under-aged girls for him and for others associated with him.

timhau said:
If the waiters are underage and the customers bang them, then they may not be technically pedophiles but they are criminals. Eve if you find some weirdo bar somewhere where the waiters dress in diapers, sex with persons under the age of consent is still criminal. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

THIS!

Its not rocket science - banging under aged girls is a criminal offence.


LondonJohn said:
Your attempts at legal analysis here are..... breathtakingly bad and inappropriate.
Click to expand...
abaddon said:
Wow. You are attempting to connect dots when you don't even have any dots.
Click to expand...

Yup, its a clear trend!
 
Interesting ruling by the judge; he ruled that having sex with 'Jane' aged seventeen was not criminal as it was above the age of consent in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59557022
Although none of what 'Jane' testified to amounts to a crime it clearly sets up Maxwell as knowing about Epstein's interest in sex with teen age girls, and Maxwell being complicit in the behaviour. I think that this is certainly helpful in terms of proving conspiracy.

Clearly Epstein fits into the pattern of manipulative and abusive older powerful men who take advantage of young women, whether aspiring tennis players, models, actresses etc.
 
Planigale said:
Interesting ruling by the judge; he ruled that having sex with 'Jane' aged seventeen was not criminal as it was above the age of consent in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59557022
Click to expand...


No, that ruling was made in respect of "Kate", not "Jane".

And it's entirely correct (plus I'd have been astonished if that crime against that person had been one of the charges on the indictment - I suspect that the Judge was merely making an observation rather than throwing out a charge).

Incidentally, had "Kate" been transported from the US to the UK/France (rather than travelling between France and UK), sex with her would still have been a crime even though at 17 she was over the age of consent in the UK: US federal law, when it comes to people trafficked from the US to another country for sex, applies US federal age-of-consent laws (here: 18) regardless.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, that ruling was made in respect of "Kate", not "Jane".

And it's entirely correct (plus I'd have been astonished if that crime against that person had been one of the charges on the indictment - I suspect that the Judge was merely making an observation rather than throwing out a charge).

Incidentally, had "Kate" been transported from the US to the UK/France (rather than travelling between France and UK), sex with her would still have been a crime even though at 17 she was over the age of consent in the UK: US federal law, when it comes to people trafficked from the US to another country for sex, applies US federal age-of-consent laws (here: 18) regardless.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The ruling does not affect the fact that if an under-aged person is transported from the US to a country that has a lower age of consent in which that person would be over the age of content, it is not a loophole or work around of Federal law and it is still a crime under US Federal jurisdiction. You can not take a 13 year old to the Philippines from the US, and claim it does not violate Federal Law.
 
Another account from a woman who is not part of the trial.
"As soon as I arrived on my very first trip on the island, my cellphone's taken away, my camera's taken away, my passport's taken away, and lo and behold, that's where it started. It was that very first trip on the island where I was told, 'You will never escape me,'" says Ransome.

As Ransome recounts in the book, Epstein raped her on the second day of that trip. The attacks continued for the duration of her stay, sometimes up to two or three times in the same day.

"Jeffrey's island was designed for rape and trafficking," said Ransome. "And once you're there, you can't get out."
Click to expand...
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jef...once-youre-in-you-cant-get-out-170021449.html
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed. The ruling does not affect the fact that if an under-aged person is transported from the US to a country that has a lower age of consent in which that person would be over the age of content, it is not a loophole or work around of Federal law and it is still a crime under US Federal jurisdiction. You can not take a 13 year old to the Philippines from the US, and claim it does not violate Federal Law.
Click to expand...

Does anyone happen to know offhand if it's similar in UK law or French law? I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
 
theprestige said:
Does anyone happen to know offhand if it's similar in UK law or French law? I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
Click to expand...

I thought there was some kind of international agreement about this actually, otherwise it would be too easy for scumbags to get around the anti sex tourism laws. However, I have only been able to find 2012 UN report

In this case, it wouldn't matter as age of consent in both countries (UK and France) is the same... 16 (although France is looking to drop it to 15).
 
smartcooky said:
She has now made these allegations in print, and should be getting called as a witness in this trial.
Click to expand...

Trial strategy is tricky. This particular woman was not a minor, and she has what the defense would portray as a shady history. If the jury decides it doesn't like her, it casts a shadow over the other witnesses. Maybe better to focus on witnesses and documents that support the key charges.
 
Bob001 said:
Another account from a woman who is not part of the trial.
Click to expand...

I find it shocking the way US media can allow comment on trials that are currently ongoing. In the UK, they'd be up before the beak themselves for contempt of court for doing so. It's time America enacted a similar law.
 
Ian Osborne said:
I find it shocking the way US media can allow comment on trials that are currently ongoing. In the UK, they'd be up before the beak themselves for contempt of court for doing so. It's time America enacted a similar law.
Click to expand...

The quote was from an interview with an Epstein victim who has written a book about her experience. She has no connection to the Maxwell trial.

In the U.S. criminal and civil trials are public. Anyone can sit in the courtroom (at high-profile trials, there might even be a line to be admitted or assigned seating), and report on the day's events. The alternative would be trials and convictions in secret, without the public learning about the evidence and testimony or how the court is functioning. That borders on star chambers. I dunno how that would serve the public interest, and I can't imagine how a law prohibiting speech or comment on official proceedings, short of actual espionage, could ever be passed in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
Any US law purporting to enact a broad muzzling of the press in court cases would almost certainly be ruled to violate the First Amendment. The only such laws that have been found to pass Constitutional muster (to use a slightly worn cliché) are those that are narrowly tailored to compelling state interests, such as protecting the identities of rape victims and jurors.
 
Even Article 32 proceedings under the UCMJ (Courts Martial) are generally open for the public to attend, and records of proceedings are publicly available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom