Ghislaine Maxwell

[carlitos]

Yeah, but you still haven't explained why 35 = infinity, so trolls can disregard your points.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I shouldn't have to explain to any grown up (especially one who is obviously not a kiddie fiddler) .....

Well, how can we really know?

 

[Bob001]

You haven't explained why procuring an underage woman is infinitely worse (=35 years in jail) than procuring one a couple of years older. It implies the charges are disproportionate and the law an ass.

You don't seem to understand what underage means.

 

[Matthew Best]

You don't seem to understand what underage means.

Or what "infinitely" means, for that matter.

 

[Vixen]

Here's a dose of reality for you. If Maxwell is found guilty, and goes to jail, they will get justice, whether or not theirs was the actual case that put her away.

Ted Bundy killed over 36 women, but he was only ever charged with three murders... Lisa Levy, Margaret Bowman and Kimberly Leach. If you truly believe that the other 33+ didn't "get justice" when he was found guilty and sentenced to death, then your moral compass badly needs adjusting, and your worldview is more seriously ****** up than I previously imagined.



No, it doesn't. It really, truly doesn't.

Joe Blow burgles a house. He is caught on camera by the home-owner's surveillance system as well as the surveillance cameras of neighbours on three sides. He is found in a car with the stolen goods from the house, 30 minutes later and only one block away from the scene. This is a slam dunk case.

Police also suspect he burgled another house the week before, but there was no surveillance, and only one witness, they they could not give an accurate description. This case would be a shaky one and so would the witness.

Would the shaky nature of the earlier burglary "imply that so, too, would be the" the later one?

Do you really think the the prosecutor would even bother charging Joe Blow for both burglaries, or just the slam dunk?



I shouldn't have to explain to any grown up (especially one who is obviously not a kiddie fiddler) why raping or arranging the rape of a child is a serious crime, and more serious than the same where the victim is an adult. That you are even asking to have this explained to you is breathtaking.

I find it strange that people use the offensive term 'kiddie fiddler' and then make out they have the vapours over paedophilia. Your last paragraph is a strawman as nobody has claimed raping a child was all right.

Let me patiently explain once again my position. Virginia Roberts and her attorney, together with several others, have launched a campaign to bring hers and theirs experiences into the open. There has been a book (Bradley Edwards) and a Netflix documentary, all highlighting their claims, not to mention numerous newspaper articles and videos pointing out Maxwell's participation in all of this. In other words there has been a massive PR campaign. We don't know how accurate these claims against Maxwell are until they are tested in court. They might be 100% truthful, honest and factual but it doesn't change the fact they are 100% from the side of the claimants. A documentary is not proof or necessarily even accurate. The criteria is that it represents the view of the person making the documentary and thus, does not need to come up to the usual news broadcasting standards of needing to be fact verified and checked. It is interesting that Virginia kept a copy of a polaroid picture of her and Andrew. This could be seen a either:

• Good thinking
• an opportunity for future blackmail

The perjury charges arise from Virginia's initial lawsuit against Maxwell for calling her a 'liar', which Maxwell in her deposition is charged with making a false assertion, or several false assertions.

The US prosecutors believe there is sufficient probable cause to prosecute Maxwell based on the claims of Bradley's clients, and given the wide publicity of Epstein's activities.


One could be a sceptic and see this whole thing as a spat between Virginia Guiffre and Maxwell.

Or one could go the opposite extreme and start screaming about paedophiles and demanding Maxwell be hanged, drawn and quartered, with her body tied to four horses, all galloping off in four different directions.

Alternatively, one can be objective and wait to hear Maxwell's side of the story. Whilst what Virginia and the four others claim might be true, that is far from being the same as being able to prove it in court, especially if it based on memory and recollections, with few or no witnesses. We have to remember Maxwell strongly denies the charges.

And no, I really don't believe there is any great difference between procuring a seventeen-year-old into prostitution than someone who is eighteen. That is my opinion and you can hurl as many profanities and swearwords at me as you like.

 

[Vixen]

Or what "infinitely" means, for that matter.

It is called 'a figure of speech'.

 

[Mojo]

And no, I really don't believe there is any great difference between procuring a seventeen-year-old into prostitution than someone who is eighteen. That is my opinion and you can hurl as many profanities and swearwords at me as you like.

The law doesn’t care what you believe.

 

[Darat]

The law doesn’t care what you believe.

Thankfully.

 

[smartcooky]

<irrelevant BS snipped>

And no, I really don't believe there is any great difference between procuring a seventeen-year-old into prostitution than someone who is eighteen. That is my opinion and you can hurl as many profanities and swearwords at me as you like.

The line has to be drawn somewhere... and in any case, one of the children, Jennifer Araoz, was 15, another (name redacted) was 14....... simple math will show you that neither of these victims were 17.

Fortunately, as Mojo has said, the laws don't care what you think. Also, the prosecutors will thankfully not be basing their decisions on your opinions.

 

[jimbob]

I find it strange that people use the offensive term 'kiddie fiddler' and then make out they have the vapours over paedophilia. Your last paragraph is a strawman as nobody has claimed raping a child was all right.
<snip>

And no, I really don't believe there is any great difference between procuring a seventeen-year-old into prostitution than someone who is eighteen. That is my opinion and you can hurl as many profanities and swearwords at me as you like.

I don't see any profanities hurled at you.

And I calling a paedophile a kiddie fiddler is not offensive. What is obscene is trafficking vulnerable children for the perverted enjoyment of rich and powerful men. And you have accepted that Maxwell did traffic minors.

 

[Vixen]

I don't see any profanities hurled at you.

And I calling a paedophile a kiddie fiddler is not offensive. What is obscene is trafficking vulnerable children for the perverted enjoyment of rich and powerful men. And you have accepted that Maxwell did traffic minors.

Tabloid hysteria. Paedophilia is targetting people who have not yet reached puberty. By that definition, there is no indication that Epstein and Maxwell were paedophiles. Four or five of the sex workers allegedly employed by the pair were under age but they were not little children, as defined above. (Unless of course they were late developers.)

It is correctly illegal to sex 'traffick' minors but it is also correctly illegal to run a prostitution ring.

 

[Vixen]

The line has to be drawn somewhere... and in any case, one of the children, Jennifer Araoz, was 15, another (name redacted) was 14....... simple math will show you that neither of these victims were 17.

Fortunately, as Mojo has said, the laws don't care what you think. Also, the prosecutors will thankfully not be basing their decisions on your opinions.

According to this article, all Maxwell did was pick her up.

But on Araoz's first visit without the woman, Epstein gave her a tour of his mansion that culminated in a visit to what he described as his "favorite room in the house," Araoz said. A massage table sat on the floor. A painting of a nude young woman hung from the wall.

Araoz would return to that room regularly over the next year, she said, manipulated into stripping down to her panties and giving Epstein massages that ended with him pleasuring himself to completion and her leaving with $300.

NBC News


Maxwell saw herself as an events organiser. How do you know she wasn't merely networking? Aroaz' complaint seems to be against Epstein. Maxwell wasn't even there.

 

[jimbob]

Tabloid hysteria. Paedophilia is targetting people who have not yet reached puberty. By that definition, there is no indication that Epstein and Maxwell were paedophiles. Four or five of the sex workers allegedly employed by the pair were under age but they were not little children, as defined above. (Unless of course they were late developers.)

It is correctly illegal to sex 'traffick' minors but it is also correctly illegal to run a prostitution ring.

You were the person who used the term paedophilia, and who got upset about the term "kiddie fiddling", which was accurate.


And why the scare quotes around "traffick" with the incorrect spelling?

Maxwell was involved in coercing vulnerable girls into sex. It's likely we'll get confirmation that she was actually involved in raping some herself.

It's also likely that the English courts will find she has a case to answer for similar crimes in England.

We know that she is a flight risk.

Id she hadn't tried to run or hide her resources, she would not be considered a flight risk. But she did. So she's in custody until she's tried.

 

[smartcooky]

Tabloid hysteria. Paedophilia is targetting people who have not yet reached puberty.By that definition, there is no indication that Epstein and Maxwell were paedophiles. Four or five of the sex workers allegedly employed by the pair were under age but they were not little children, as defined above. (Unless of course they were late developers.)

It is correctly illegal to sex 'traffick' minors but it is also correctly illegal to run a prostitution ring.

Anyone under thet age of consent is a minor/child... end . of . story!

Having sexual intercourse with a minor/child is statutory rape and therefore, a crime... end . of . story!

Trafficking a minor/child for sex is a crime... end . of . story!

There is nothing else that needs to be considered here. Your disgusting apologism for child sex traffickers and child rapists is noted, but it is not going to change anything, because the prosecutors you the actual legal definitions of things, not your personal definition that you made up in order to fit the narrative you are pushing.

This is one of these vary rare occasions where I can truly say (and the law backs me up on this) that if you disagree with me, then you are wrong!

 

[smartcooky]

According to this article, all Maxwell did was pick her up.

Yep, Picking up the victim often is a common occurrence when you are involved in trafficking a chlid/minor for sex.

 

[Vixen]

You were the person who used the term paedophilia, and who got upset about the term "kiddie fiddling", which was accurate.


And why the scare quotes around "traffick" with the incorrect spelling?

Maxwell was involved in coercing vulnerable girls into sex. It's likely we'll get confirmation that she was actually involved in raping some herself.

It's also likely that the English courts will find she has a case to answer for similar crimes in England.

We know that she is a flight risk.

Id she hadn't tried to run or hide her resources, she would not be considered a flight risk. But she did. So she's in custody until she's tried.

"Sex trafficking" sounds so much grander than good old "prostitution", eh?

Virginia Guiffre et al claim they were coerced into prostitution yet she hung around for five years. Araoz says:

Araoz would return to that room regularly over the next year, she said, manipulated into stripping down to her panties and giving Epstein massages that ended with him pleasuring himself to completion and her leaving with $300.

Sorry? Run that past me again..?

Araoz would return to that room regularly over the next year

She returned time and again for a year...? Riiiight.

Of course, Epstein was clearly guilty of multiple rapes and sexual assaults and that almost certainly included underage girls like Araoz. She claims a 'brunette' woman introduced her but she doesn't say that woman was Maxwell. There are many brunettes in New York City.

Maxwell is complaining that prosecutors are refusing to give her the names of her accusers. I would have thought that was an elementary principle of being charged with a crime that you are entitled to know who has suffered the tort. For example, if you were accused of assault, you expect to be able to know whom you are supposed to have assaulted, or how else are you going to be able to build up a defence, especially if the alleged crime goes back to 1994 - 1997, and during that time and after, you have literally hosted hundreds if not thousands of events.

Likewise, prison guards confiscated some legally privileged documents her lawyers gave her. Why? You are saying the fact she went on the run means she deserves it, but I bet most people associated with someone as notorious as Epstein would have done the same, if they had the means. Even so, you are entitled to defend yourself against the charges.

 

[Vixen]

Anyone under thet age of consent is a minor/child... end . of . story!

Having sexual intercourse with a minor/child is statutory rape and therefore, a crime... end . of . story!

Trafficking a minor/child for sex is a crime... end . of . story!

There is nothing else that needs to be considered here. Your disgusting apologism for child sex traffickers and child rapists is noted, but it is not going to change anything, because the prosecutors you the actual legal definitions of things, not your personal definition that you made up in order to fit the narrative you are pushing.

This is one of these vary rare occasions where I can truly say (and the law backs me up on this) that if you disagree with me, then you are wrong!

I have not apologised for child sex traffickers and child rapists at all.

 

[Vixen]

Yep, Picking up the victim often is a common occurrence when you are involved in trafficking a chlid/minor for sex.

Aroaz has not named Maxwell. It seems the assaults on her were carried out by Epstein. If the woman who groomed her turns out to be Maxwell and she was knowingly grooming her for prostitution then of course it is right she stands trial.

However, think about it. Maxwell is exceedingly rich. What would be her motive for grooming anyone into prostitution? It is not as though she needed the money or was some kind of social campaigner, like English madam, Cynthia Payne (= who spent just four months in jail for her prostitution ring). Maybe it was something a bit higher up the criminal scale, such as serious organised crime and not a bored housewife picking up girls for her randy boyfriend.

 

[smartcooky]

"Sex trafficking" sounds so much grander than good old "prostitution", eh?

Its nothing to do without "how it sounds" and everything to with being a different crime. In fact, in some places, for example in Nevada, prostitution is legal, but sex trafficking is still a crime.

The same applies in New Zealand, Australia, Bangladesh, Austria, Ecuador, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia and Holland; prostitution = legal, sex trafficking = criminal offence.

The fact that you are ignorant of the difference between them speaks volumes

Virginia Guiffre et al claim they were coerced into prostitution yet she hung around for five years.

....because, you know, victims never, ever stay with their abusers out of fear, coercion, intimidation or threats!

Maxwell is complaining that prosecutors are refusing to give her the names of her accusers.

Ever heard of Marsy's Law?

I have not apologised for child sex traffickers and child rapists at all.

If you haven't, you sure are doing a good impression of it.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

 

[smartcooky]

Aroaz has not named Maxwell. It seems the assaults on her were carried out by Epstein. If the woman who groomed her turns out to be Maxwell and she was knowingly grooming her for prostitution then of course it is right she stands trial.

However, think about it. Maxwell is exceedingly rich. What would be her motive for grooming anyone into prostitution? It is not as though she needed the money or was some kind of social campaigner, like English madam, Cynthia Payne (= who spent just four months in jail for her prostitution ring). Maybe it was something a bit higher up the criminal scale, such as serious organised crime and not a bored housewife picking up girls for her randy boyfriend.

I see you're still trying to minimise trafficking women for sex as "prostitution".