Ghislaine Maxwell

[sarcasm]Lying in court when someone calls you a liar isn't really perjury. More like self-defense.[/sarcasm]

Formatting fixed - I was replying to Vixen's ridiculous point (quoted and highlighted by bruto above my post) that perjuring oneself when you are accused is a "fine line" or some such nonsense.

ETA - yes a "moat" more than a "fine line."
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Your problem is that you don't think any of these are really serious crimes. Perhaps you come from a jurisdiction where offences such as these are regarded as misdemeanours - minor or petty crimes. You have spent the last few days downplaying them, minimizing the import of what she has been charged with, or claiming that they are no big deal.

Well, the facts are that these Federal statutes carry punishments such as "10 years and/or a fine", "not more than 20 years", "fined and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life", "imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both". That ought to tell you that these are ******* serious crimes, very ******* serious!

Regardless of whether or not where you come from takes statutory rape, prostitution and human trafficking for sex seriously, these crimes were committed in the USA, and fall under Federal jurisdiction. The fact that the age of consent other countries might be lower than in the USA is completely and utterly irrelevant - you commit a Federal crime in the US, you are subject to their Federal Laws... End . Of . Story!
Click to expand...

Jurisdiction here is Roman Law (German version [tribunal style]) and sentencing does indeed seem to be lenient. For example, just the other week, some guy who murdered his pregnant wife and their unborn child - their two small children were in the apartment at the time - strangled her then made doubly sure she was dead by tying an electrical cable around her neck, bundled her body onto his tractor, attempted to bury her in a remote swamp. Sentence? IIRC he got just eight years and a few months. Had to pay compo to her relatives.

Child sex abusers? From the newspapers, they usually seem to get two years, maybe five, if a repeat offender. All legally entitled to parole 2/3 of the way through. So you can see why 35 years seems excessive.

BTW If any crime concerning Prince Andrew is alleged, then if it took place in the UK, then it comes under UK jurisdiction and 17 is the legal age of consent.
 
bruto said:
Somehow or other, Vixen's shrug-off of the question of how minor the girls were seems also to have shrugged off the charges of fraud, inducement, and perjury.
Click to expand...

You have to look at context. If some guy mows down six or seven people as a result of drunk driving, crashes into a lamppost, gives police a chase at 140kph, would you expect him to appear in court charged with 'failing to indicate', because that is the analogy here?

Just charging Maxwell for four underage sex trafficking procurements when she had literally hundreds of young women subjected to the same treatment seems to imply that running a prostitution racket in the USA isn't seen as a crime whereas woe betide you if any of those hundreds were a few months or two or three years below age of consent.
 
Leftus said:
Epstein was under camera watch too. Fantastic job it did there. The watch doesn't help prevent a suicide, it will do a superb job of telling you the moment she expired, but prevent suicide? Not even close.

As far as the zoom quality of the cameras, got any evidence? The make and model, perhaps? Does it have a night vision mode?

Does she want the CCTVs turned off? Wouldn't that lead to more in person checking?
Click to expand...

The point is, all defendants, even the worst murderers/rapists, are entitled to have legal representation and to be able to discuss issues in complete confidentiality with their lawyers. Prison authorities should not be spying on this.
 
catsmate said:
I assume you'll be providing evidence for these claims? :rolleyes:

Well, no actually I assume you won't be providing evidence at all. As usual.
Click to expand...

Well, think about it. If Maxwell and Guiffre -who has admitted procuring hundreds of women (including schoolgirls aged circa fifteen/sixteen) - then induced each of these very young women to then introduce their friends, then you should be able to readily see that there was a mass prostitution ring.

I struggle to see why it is OK to do this to an eighteen year old but not a seventeen year old. Some nineteen or twenty year olds can be just as vulnerable and childlike, especially if they had had a sheltered life, as any fourteen year old from a trailer park (relevant, as this is who Maxwell targetted the most) who may already have an active sex life.
 
Leftus said:
Well, I think they can give her documents and such to review in her cell. From there those super zoom cameras with OCR take care of the rest.
Click to expand...

She shouldn't have to be worrying about prying lenses over her shoulder. Yes, she pryed - and preyed - on others but there is a danger of a mistrial if a defendant is not allowed to have proper legal representation. The prison authorities should NOT be meting out punishment.
 
catsmate said:
So you agree she was pimping underage girls?
Click to expand...

I have never denied it. She clearly was - and remember, Epstein had main girlfriends other than herself - but what about the hundreds of other young women? Of course these underage girls have suffered a terrible trauma and deserve justice. Hopefully, they will get a few million in compensation. However, let's keep perspective here. Many have been able to turn their lives around and put this behind them and that is good. Let's not get hysterical.
 
gnome said:
I'm not sure the right to not incriminate yourself is a defense against perjury.

At least in the US, you take the 5th by refusing to answer, not by lying.

In a defamation case, the plaintiff doesn't have to deny the claim. The defendant can choose to argue truth as a defense, but that's on them to do.
Click to expand...

If you read Virginia Roberts depositions at the time, Maxwell comes across as arrogant and dismissive. No doubt she viewed the women she preyed on with complete and utter contempt. Maxwell just waved Roberts' claims away. When Epstein was first charged he obtained an indemnity for himself and his associates. This has now been rescinded and Maxwell's casual dismissal of Roberts' claims has come back to bite her. However, remember this is retaliation for Acosta getting Epstein off in the first place.
 
Vixen said:
as any fourteen year old from a trailer park (relevant, as this is who Maxwell targetted the most) who may already have an active sex life.
Click to expand...

That is disgusting. It is entirely irrelevant if they were sexually active.
 
Vixen said:
Jurisdiction here is Roman Law (German version [tribunal style]) and sentencing does indeed seem to be lenient. For example, just the other week, some guy who murdered his pregnant wife and their unborn child - their two small children were in the apartment at the time - strangled her then made doubly sure she was dead by tying an electrical cable around her neck, bundled her body onto his tractor, attempted to bury her in a remote swamp. Sentence? IIRC he got just eight years and a few months. Had to pay compo to her relatives.

Child sex abusers? From the newspapers, they usually seem to get two years, maybe five, if a repeat offender. All legally entitled to parole 2/3 of the way through. So you can see why 35 years seems excessive.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. Its a US Federal Court that will try her.

Frankly. I hope gets gets enough time that she will at least be in her 80s by the time she gets out.

Vixen said:
BTW If any crime concerning Prince Andrew is alleged, then if it took place in the UK, then it comes under UK jurisdiction and 17 is the legal age of consent.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but wrong for two reasons

1. As it relates to Maxwell, it doesn't matter where the sex/rape took place, it matters where the victim was trafficked from... in this case, the USA, so the trafficking comes under US jurisdiction.

2. Sex trafficking of ANY person, of ANY age is criminal offence in both the UK and the US, and ALL participants are liable for prosecution. If Randy Andy had sex with/raped someone he knew was a trafficked victim, that is a crime under English Law as well.
 
smartcooky said:
Interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. Its a US Federal Court that will try her.

Frankly. I hope gets gets enough time that she will at least be in her 80s by the time she gets out.



Interesting, but wrong for two reasons

1. As it relates to Maxwell, it doesn't matter where the sex/rape took place, it matters where the victim was trafficked from... in this case, the USA, so the trafficking comes under US jurisdiction.

2. Sex trafficking of ANY person, of ANY age is criminal offence in both the UK and the US, and ALL participants are liable for prosecution. If Randy Andy had sex with/raped someone he knew was a trafficked victim, that is a crime under English Law as well.
Click to expand...

In the UK it is also illegal to travel outside the UK and have sex with underage victims and that holds even if it wouldn't be an offence in the country in which the assault happens. A UK citizen going to a country in which the AOC was 14 and engaging in sex with a 14 year old would still be committing a criminal offence.
 
I'm missing something...

I thought Epstein was some big league Satanist (per a certain other thread...), so if Maxwell was his chief cohort how come she hasn't summoned up the Hornéd One to free her and save her from those naughty legal types? Or are Murican prisons Satan Free Zones?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
I'm missing something...

I thought Epstein was some big league Satanist (per a certain other thread...), so if Maxwell was his chief cohort how come she hasn't summoned up the Hornéd One to free her and save her from those naughty legal types? Or are Murican prisons Satan Free Zones?
Click to expand...

Yeah, he got off on a technicality... :cool:
 
Vixen said:
The point is, all defendants, even the worst murderers/rapists, are entitled to have legal representation and to be able to discuss issues in complete confidentiality with their lawyers. Prison authorities should not be spying on this.
Click to expand...

The point is, prove they are. This is just another in a long list of fantasy claims lacking evidence. Provide the camera details so we can know important details like can they do what is being claimed. Do the cameras have the resolution to pick up characters on a page? You haven't proven they are, let alone does the technology being used even have the capacity.
 
smartcooky said:
You're looking at one now, and you're condoning the gaming of that system.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's ridiculous to use wealth as an argument. But one would hope that all prisoners, regardless of background, should be treated humanely and respectfully in the US Archipelago Gul..., sorry, prison system.

This is more like it (tbh, this really overstates the situation in Finland, but still):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l554kV12Wuo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom