Ghislaine Maxwell

zooterkin said:
What is disgusting, or sexist, about the phrase?
Click to expand...

So we have posters who claim to be outraged by 'slut shaming' and then they use 'virgin' as an insult. If you cannot see that is similarly sexist and degrading, then that might explain the communication problem and blindness as to the issues.
 
Vixen said:
You haven't answered the question, where were Scotland Yard, the Social Services, her mother, her school teacher, her other relatives, la gendarmerie, the FBI, when all of this was going on between 14-year-old 'Carolyn' and her 38-year-old boyfriend and middle-aged part-time friend Epstein?

You claim you have the answers.
Click to expand...


The authorities can't act unless and until someone reports a crime. And predators are skilled at identifying targets who don't have the family and social support structures that could protect them. The fact that these young girls received no help when they needed it aggravates their tragedy.

One answer is to stop treating assault against children by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell as casual "underage sex."
 
Bob001 said:
The authorities can't act unless and until someone reports a crime. And predators are skilled at identifying targets who don't have the family and social support structures that could protect them. The fact that these young girls received no help when they needed it aggravates their tragedy.

One answer is to stop treating assault against children by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell as casual "underage sex."
Click to expand...


THIS!...

Assuming of course that one is even capable of distinguishing the difference between teenage girls and boys getting their rocks off, and a two old sex perverts coercing and manipulating vulnerable teenagers into the sex trade. Obviously, one of these things is not like the other, but a couple of people in this thread seem to think these two things are the same.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So we have posters who claim to be outraged by 'slut shaming' and then they use 'virgin' as an insult. If you cannot see that is similarly sexist and degrading, then that might explain the communication problem and blindness as to the issues.
Click to expand...
There are male and female virgins, so how is it sexist?

Plenty of those will pontificate about sex having never experienced it, ever. How is that "degrading"?
 
Vixen said:
So we have posters who claim to be outraged by 'slut shaming' and then they use 'virgin' as an insult. If you cannot see that is similarly sexist and degrading, then that might explain the communication problem and blindness as to the issues.
Click to expand...

Have you crushed those pearls to dust yet?
 
junkshop said:
Seconded. Google has not helped, offering up terrible metal songs and a variety of contradictory advice about dealing with ingrown hairs in places I don't possess.

A definition would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

From the novel Justine by Lawrence Durrell -

"If I should describe the outward structure of her life –
so disarmingly simple, graceful, self-contained –
there is a real danger that she might seem either a nun
for whom the whole range of human passions had given place
to an absorbing search for her subliminal self,
or a disappointed and ingrown virgin
who had deprived herself of the world because of some psychic instability,
or some insurmountable early wound."

Quite how it relates to the thread I'm not sure.
 
junkshop said:
Ian Osborne said:
What does "ingrown virgin" even mean? I have no clue here.
Click to expand...

Seconded. Google has not helped, offering up terrible metal songs and a variety of contradictory advice about dealing with ingrown hairs in places I don't possess.

A definition would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Somebody who has built in virginity into the very essence of their being that they regard bouncing wobbly bits together as totally disgusting behaviour which should never be contemplated let alone discussed.
 
junkshop said:
Seconded. Google has not helped, offering up terrible metal songs and a variety of contradictory advice about dealing with ingrown hairs in places I don't possess.

A definition would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...


Literary reference. Sounds like a recluse, someone who has isolated herself from worldly experience.
As for Clea herself:
is it only my imagination which makes it seem so difficult to sketch her portrait?
I think of her so much –
and yet I see how in all this writing I have been shrinking from dealing directly with her.
Perhaps the difficulty lies here:
that there does not seem to be an easy correspondence between her habits and her true disposition.
If I should describe the outward structure of her life –
so disarmingly simple, graceful, self-contained –
there is a real danger that she might seem either a nun
for whom the whole range of human passions had given place
to an absorbing search for her subliminal self,
or a disappointed and ingrown virgin who had deprived herself of the world because of some psychic instability, or some insurmountable early wound.
Click to expand...
https://wordsenvisioned.com/?tag=alexandria-quartet
(under "Justine")
 
More recently, from the NYT Best Seller "Superior Women" by Alice Adams

"As she walks across the Yard, and in and out of classrooms, walks around the Square, Megan stares at the numerous handsome men and boys, and she thinks, Why is it that no one sees how available I am? Why isn’t it clear that I don’t choose to be an ingrown virgin?

She takes to wearing more makeup, pancake and mascara, and darker lipstick, even to classes, until Lavinia tells her to stop. “Megan, it isn’t you, you look kind of scary like that, and a little cheap.” Which was very likely true."

I have seem it used in other ways (such as a woman so can't get laid but not for lack of trying), but mostly, its describes women who choose to remain virgins, e.g., a sort of voluntary spinster.
 
Bob001 said:
The authorities can't act unless and until someone reports a crime. And predators are skilled at identifying targets who don't have the family and social support structures that could protect them. The fact that these young girls received no help when they needed it aggravates their tragedy.

One answer is to stop treating assault against children by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell as casual "underage sex."
Click to expand...

How do you distinguish between a 'predator' and a 'teenage boy/girl' or young adult?

Is age all there is to it?
 
Vixen said:
How do you distinguish between a 'predator' and a 'teenage boy/girl' or young adult?

Is age all there is to it?
Click to expand...


It's a start.

Several countries have a younger age of consent for people with a small age difference, say two years or less.
 
Vixen said:
How do you distinguish between a 'predator' and a 'teenage boy/girl' or young adult?

Is age all there is to it?
Click to expand...


No, it's not all there is to it.

Age difference is one factor, certainly. As is (obviously) how underage the minor is/was.

But the other factors - and the factors which played a hugely significant role in the abuse perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell - are related to power, influence and control (both real and implied). Epstein and Maxwell were effectively able to use wealth, and the power that comes from wealth, to induce those girls - all of whom came from relatively impoverished and uninfluential family backgrounds - to do things they'd very probably (at the very least) have been unwilling to do otherwise. And Epstein/Maxwell were also then able to use their wealth and influence to induce those girls to keep silent (wrt the authorities) about what they'd done.

I'm more than a little surprised that this was not immediately apparent to you.
 
Not sure whether this has been discussed yet, but comments made by one of the jurors to the press after the trial may put the verdict in jeopardy:

Potential Juror Misconduct Threatens Ghislaine Maxwell Convictions

Ghislaine Maxwell’s convictions for sex trafficking young girls to Jeffrey Epstein may be crumbling before our eyes.

Just days after celebrating the guilty verdicts, federal prosecutors took the unusual step of asking the trial judge, Alison Nathan, to investigate whether Juror 50 committed misconduct during jury selection by failing to disclose his own abuse as a child. Maxwell’s lawyers have joined that call, arguing that the evidence of juror misconduct is so clear that Judge Nathan should throw out the convictions immediately.

Judge Nathan has not yet decided whether the allegations are serious enough to require investigation. She has given the parties until Jan 19 to submit motions and briefings.
Click to expand...

A counter view:
Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction can survive a juror’s disclosure, by Stephen L. Carter

In the much-quoted words of an earlier Second Circuit decision, “The jury as we know it is supposed to reach its decisions in the mystery and security of secrecy.” One reason for the mystery, the court wrote, is to protect the jurors from retribution.

But another is to maintain the myth that verdicts are governed by impartiality and reason.
Click to expand...

Seriously? To "to maintain the myth"?

Here, the juror of his own volition disclosed this to a reporter. I don't know if it means that the conviction should be thrown out, but it's an interesting legal question.
 
Puppycow said:
Not sure whether this has been discussed yet, but comments made by one of the jurors to the press after the trial may put the verdict in jeopardy:

Potential Juror Misconduct Threatens Ghislaine Maxwell Convictions



A counter view:
Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction can survive a juror’s disclosure, by Stephen L. Carter



Seriously? To "to maintain the myth"?

Here, the juror of his own volition disclosed this to a reporter. I don't know if it means that the conviction should be thrown out, but it's an interesting legal question.
Click to expand...


Where are you going to find 12 people to comprise jury that will be able to deliberate on ANY case without any recall to their own life experiences?

I posit that this would be an impossible task!
 
smartcooky said:
Where are you going to find 12 people to comprise jury that will be able to deliberate on ANY case without any recall to their own life experiences?

I posit that this would be an impossible task!
Click to expand...

Apparently the legal issue is not that the juror shared his experience during deliberations, but that he did not answer "yes" on the pre-selection questionnaire that asked prospects whether they had ever been a victim of sexual abuse or assault. The defense didn't get a chance to excuse him. Experts seem to think the decision could go either way.
 
Bob001 said:
Apparently the legal issue is not that the juror shared his experience during deliberations, but that he did not answer "yes" on the pre-selection questionnaire that asked prospects whether they had ever been a victim of sexual abuse or assault. The defense didn't get a chance to excuse him. Experts seem to think the decision could go either way.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't he have been lying during jury deliberation?
 
Puppycow said:
Not sure whether this has been discussed yet, but comments made by one of the jurors to the press after the trial may put the verdict in jeopardy:
Click to expand...
See post 1621 and afterward for prior discussion. Don't recall anything significant in the discussion though.
 
Darat said:
Why couldn't he have been lying during jury deliberation?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter. But the juror himself is the person who publicly reported what he said during the deliberations. It's hard to believe he would lie, then call attention to it.
 
Bob001 said:
Apparently the legal issue is not that the juror shared his experience during deliberations, but that he did not answer "yes" on the pre-selection questionnaire that asked prospects whether they had ever been a victim of sexual abuse or assault. The defense didn't get a chance to excuse him. Experts seem to think the decision could go either way.
Click to expand...

"The constitution says a jury of my peers, not a jury of the victims of my peers!"
 
I have opened a new thread to discuss the civil case brought by Ms Giuffre against the Duke of York, and moved several posts from this thread to that one. In this thread, will you please stay on topic.
Posted By: Agatha
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Maxwell is showing signs of cooperating or, at least, no longer being a roadblock.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/17/us/ghislaine-maxwell-john-does/index.html
Click to expand...

Can you explain? I am not quite certain what the issue is? This seems not to be a criminal issue? This just seems to be that Giuffre wants to breach an agreement with Maxwell? I assume that since in the Giuffre vs Windsor trial the agreement that Giuffre would not pursue other 'defendants' has been ruled not valid for Windsor, she now wants to identify other potential 'abusers' to sue?
 
Planigale said:
Can you explain? I am not quite certain what the issue is? This seems not to be a criminal issue? This just seems to be that Giuffre wants to breach an agreement with Maxwell? I assume that since in the Giuffre vs Windsor trial the agreement that Giuffre would not pursue other 'defendants' has been ruled not valid for Windsor, she now wants to identify other potential 'abusers' to sue?
Click to expand...

It's about revealing the real the names of the eight people identified only as "John Doe" in the 2015 lawsuit. Maxwell is no longer objecting to revealing the names. At least some of those 8 people are continuing to object to their names being revealed.

There is no agreement between Giuffre and Maxwell at issue here. Giuffre, her lawyers, the judge, and presumably any relevant authorities already know these names.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Can you explain? I am not quite certain what the issue is? This seems not to be a criminal issue? This just seems to be that Giuffre wants to breach an agreement with Maxwell? I assume that since in the Giuffre vs Windsor trial the agreement that Giuffre would not pursue other 'defendants' has been ruled not valid for Windsor, she now wants to identify other potential 'abusers' to sue?
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
It's about revealing the real the names of the eight people identified only as "John Doe" in the 2015 lawsuit. Maxwell is no longer objecting to revealing the names. At least some of those 8 people are continuing to object to their names being revealed.

There is no agreement between Giuffre and Maxwell at issue here. Giuffre, her lawyers, the judge, and presumably any relevant authorities already know these names.
Click to expand...

And as a result, some of those named could be exposed to legal jeopardy!
 
smartcooky said:
The same way Epstein and Maxwell were exposed... by victims making police complaints!
Click to expand...

You're thinking new (either new or previously unknown) victims might come forward? I suppose that's possible but it would seem to me that all the publicity around Epstein and Maxwell would have shaken all that out already.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
You're thinking new (either new or previously unknown) victims might come forward? I suppose that's possible but it would seem to me that all the publicity around Epstein and Maxwell would have shaken all that out already.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

I'm thinking more like some of these Johns could be "second level famous", like state legislators or entrepreneurs who might not be widely famous... (like, who knew anything about John Kuczwanski before a Prius driver offed him in a gunfight?)

These girls might not necessarily know exactly who they were trafficked to - they were just introduced by Epstein and Maxwell as "friends & associates", but the girls didn't really know who they were. Once their names come out and their pictures get published, there could be a few "aha, that's him!" moments. I admit its not very likely, but it also not impossible either.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Apparently the legal issue is not that the juror shared his experience during deliberations, but that he did not answer "yes" on the pre-selection questionnaire that asked prospects whether they had ever been a victim of sexual abuse or assault. The defense didn't get a chance to excuse him. Experts seem to think the decision could go either way.
Click to expand...

Wherein comes the apparently acceptable assumption that self-described victims of sexual abuse are incapable of serving as impartial and objective members of the jury?

It seems quite strange given that many of the arguments for having a jury at all is that they supposedly have "real life experience" and "common sense" that judges may lack.
 
Arcade22 said:
Wherein comes the apparently acceptable assumption that self-described victims of sexual abuse are incapable of serving as impartial and objective members of the jury?

It seems quite strange given that many of the arguments for having a jury at all is that they supposedly have "real life experience" and "common sense" that judges may lack.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As I said earlier, "Where are you going to find 12 people to comprise a jury that will be able to deliberate on ANY case without any recall to their own life experiences?"

What if the prospective juror has a child, or a father, or mother, or brother or sister, or other close relative, or best friend or work colleague or teammate who had suffered sexual abuse. Wouldn't all those be disqualifying too?
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
It's about revealing the real the names of the eight people identified only as "John Doe" in the 2015 lawsuit. Maxwell is no longer objecting to revealing the names. At least some of those 8 people are continuing to object to their names being revealed.

There is no agreement between Giuffre and Maxwell at issue here. Giuffre, her lawyers, the judge, and presumably any relevant authorities already know these names.
Click to expand...

Giuffre presumably knows the names as she signed the non-disclosure agreement in return for money? So she is not seeking information she is not aware of? What she is presumably seeking to do is put into the public arena the names of these individuals she previously agreed not to?

I am not sure about US law, but in UK law a civil agreement can not prevent a person notifying the relevant authorities about a crime. So I assume it is not that she seeks to report to e.g. the FBI that an individual raped her when she was under the age of consent.

There does seem to be an important principle here, Giuffre alleged certain persons abused her (I use alleged because these claims have not been tested in court). Maxwell acting in some ways as an employer agreed to compensate her for the alleged harm and she agreed not to disclose the names of those who she alleges abused her. Similar deals are probably struck between many employers and employees, regarding bullying etc. Such agreements are supposed to close the issue and prevent the victim from pursuing subsequent action against other employees. It would seem in general a 'bad thing' if after a few years these deals are reneged on and further civil action follows.

Perhaps Giuffre's intent is just to name and shame. This is entirely understandable, but she previously entered into an agreement not to do so. Perhaps she has been advised that she can seek further settlements against these individuals if she can threaten to name and shame them, again very understandable, but that is what she agreed not to do in return for a large amount of money.
 
Planigale said:
Can you explain? I am not quite certain what the issue is? This seems not to be a criminal issue? This just seems to be that Giuffre wants to breach an agreement with Maxwell? I assume that since in the Giuffre vs Windsor trial the agreement that Giuffre would not pursue other 'defendants' has been ruled not valid for Windsor, she now wants to identify other potential 'abusers' to sue?
Click to expand...

In 2015, Giuffre filed a defamation case against Maxwell. That case was eventually settled. But before that there were thousands of pages of documents and depositions entered into the docket. Maxwell had the court partially redact some of those documents. There are still 8 people mentioned in those documents as non-parties who are identified only by number.

Giuffre is asking that those documents be unsealed, includes the identities of those unnamed non-parties. One of those parties could be Andrew or could be people they can connect to Andrew or who could be witnesses in the current case against Andrew.

It appears that at least a partial reason for Maxwell asking for the partial redaction was because the information would not be relevant to the defamation case but could be used in a criminal case against her. Now that Maxwell has been convicted, she has said she will no longer object to the documents being unsealed. That leaves it to the 8 individuals to object on their own behalf.
 
Planigale said:
Giuffre presumably knows the names as she signed the non-disclosure agreement in return for money?
Click to expand...
Huh? These two things aren't linked.

Giuffre presumably knows the names because it's her lawsuit. She probably named the people in the first place, or her legal team discovered them. At least one of them is suspected of being a person she had sex with, Andrew. I've forgotten what the roles of these people are/were. I'm not sure if enough of the documents are public to even know what their roles are.

Planigale said:
I am not sure about US law, but in UK law a civil agreement can not prevent a person notifying the relevant authorities about a crime. So I assume it is not that she seeks to report to e.g. the FBI that an individual raped her when she was under the age of consent.
Click to expand...
Right. These names are already known to the court. The court knows them. It was the court that sealed them.

Planigale said:
Perhaps Giuffre's intent is just to name and shame. This is entirely understandable, but she previously entered into an agreement not to do so.
Click to expand...
No, she didn't and this has nothing to do with the settlement. This was a judge's decision and the judge is not bound by the Giuffre settlement.

ETA: I think the main point you're confused about is who this action and decision belongs too. This is the judge's action and decision.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
Huh? These two things aren't linked.

Giuffre presumably knows the names because it's her lawsuit. She probably named the people in the first place, or her legal team discovered them. At least one of them is suspected of being a person she had sex with, Andrew. I've forgotten what the roles of these people are/were. I'm not sure if enough of the documents are public to even know what their roles are.


Right. These names are already known to the court. The court knows them. It was the court that sealed them.


No, she didn't and this has nothing to do with the settlement. This was a judge's decision and the judge is not bound by the Giuffre settlement.

ETA: I think the main point you're confused about is who this action and decision belongs too. This is the judge's action and decision.
Click to expand...

Thank you. As I said I do not understand the issue here. If the decision was made by the judge, why was Maxwell's consent needed? I feel I am missing something very obvious. However seems a trivial issue and not worth pursuing any more. Thanks to those who tried to enlighten me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom