theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
In that case I'm seeing a lot of overacting.
Ghislaine Maxwell
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Several logical fallacies here.
- You have quoted me out of context and even clipped a sentence in half
- Thus you have led up to the false premise = we were talking about'active sex lives
- Leading on to your strawman construction "it is entirely irrelevant if they were sexually active".
- Appealing to the emotions: 'that is disgusting'.
Well done!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
If Andrew had sex with Virginia - and I am guessing he most probably did - then I am not sure it would be necessarily clear that she was a 'trafficked minor'. Prince Andrew was notorious for bedding numerous women, who generally just threw themselves at him.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
That's true (cf Gary Glitter) but I think that was designed to stop 'sex tourism' by Western guys going to places like Bangkok for underage sex. If Andrew visited Epstein's hangouts to enjoy sex orgies with young women, it doesn't look like the FBI are doing anything at all to prosecute the clients who used these girls.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
FFS wake up!!! You still don't get it do you?
You thanked me for the clarifications earlier, but you clearly either didn't read them, or you have already forgotten what they said.
Here - and this time, ******* well read and understand!
18 USC § 2422 (a) Coercion and enticement
(a) Knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing or coercing an individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce with the purpose of engaging in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity, or attempting to do so, and imposes a maximum punishment of 10 years and/or a fine.
18 USC§ 2422 (b) Coercion and enticement
(b) If the individual who has been persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual act is under the age of 18, then the penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine.
(a) Knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing or coercing an individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce with the purpose of engaging in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity, or attempting to do so, and imposes a maximum punishment of 10 years and/or a fine.
18 USC§ 2422 (b) Coercion and enticement
(b) If the individual who has been persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual act is under the age of 18, then the penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine.
The AGE of the person really only impacts the punishment. The trafficking of women across state and international borders is still a crime, so no, its not "OK to do this to an eighteen year old but not a seventeen year old", its not OK to do this to any person of any age..... IT . IS . A . CRIMINAL . OFFENCE!!
ETA: and just to make this abundantly clear for you... in the USA under Federal Law
18 USC § 1591 Sex trafficking of children OR by force, fraud, or coercion
(a) Whoever knowingly—
(1) in or affecting interstate commerce, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person; or
(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),
(a) Whoever knowingly—
(1) in or affecting interstate commerce, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person; or
(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),
Sex trafficking a person of any age from from any US state or territory to any other US state or territory is a criminal offence.
Sex trafficking a person of any age from from any state or territory to any other country is a criminal offence.
Sex trafficking a person of any age from from any country to any state or territory of the US is a criminal offence
Last edited:
I just note that rape, assault, trafficking etc. are also crimes under state laws. Ms. Maxwell might well face state charges in New York and Florida, if state prosecutors are dissatisfied with the outcome of the federal case.
1 / 10 - not your best effort.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
That is all very grand and impressive. However, Maxwell has only been charged with the following:
Prosecutors, led by United States District Attorney Audrey Strauss, have charged her with six federal crimes, including enticement of minors, sex trafficking, and perjury.[96][99][100][101] The indictment charged that between 1994 and 1997, she “assisted, facilitated, and contributed" to the abuse of minor girls despite knowing that one of three unnamed victims was 14 years old.
So, where are the charges for the hundreds of others she procured?
Belz...
Fiend God
Several logical fallacies here.
- You have quoted me out of context and even clipped a sentence in half
- Thus you have led up to the false premise = we were talking about'active sex lives
- Leading on to your strawman construction "it is entirely irrelevant if they were sexually active".
- Appealing to the emotions: 'that is disgusting'.
Well done!
The first item is not a fallacy, and the fourth is not an appeal to emotion.
You're really bad at this.
So now your claim is that she's not facing enough charges? Prosecutors charge what they are confident they can prove at trial, based on the evidence and witnesses available to them. What she's been charged with is enough to put her away for life; they don't need to file more.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You would be better served using the actual charging documents I posted earlier rather that Wikipedia
Not only that, but while the victims are known to exist through the depositions of other victims, many either cannot be found, or are not willing to come forward, or are known but are not willing to testify.
Victims of the kind of abuse Maxwell and Epstein dished out are not just little soldiers, all identical to each other, all telling the same story. They are people - they were different ages, came from different backgrounds, have different personalities. Some will be stronger mentally and emotionally than others. Many have likely gone on with their lives and are simply not willing to drag this all up and go through it all again. If forced to do so, they could be flaky on the stand. The last thing prosecutors need are flaky witnesses - especially when they have strong, confident victim witnesses available to them
There is a risk in charging for additional cases and putting too many witnesses on the stand. The more witnesses, the greater the chance of having conflicting testimony which can cause doubt in the minds of jurors . It is better to have a few strong witnesses than a lot of witnesses, some of whom might be unreliable. This is the reason that people such as serial rapists for which there are multiple victims/witnesses are often not charged with all the crimes they committed, even though there are witnesses for them.
In essence, the fact that there are other victims and she hasn't been charged for them means absolutely nothing whatsoever. If she is found guilty of trafficking just one victim, it will be enough to put her away for 20 years, it that one victim was under 18, she could go away for life. Why would prosecutors wasn't to risk charging other shaky cases with flaky witnesses? Doing that could put the the other cases at risk.
Last edited:
It's worth pointing out that following the independent report into the Met, commissioned by the then-Home Secretary, which concluded that the Met was and is institutionally corrupt, they are now looking into why Maxwell wasn't charged with trafficking in England, and she could face charges in England as well
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....k-ghislaine-maxwell-trafficking-claims?espv=1
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
A false premise is a classic logical fallacy.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
'Could' being the operative word. It is carrying out a 'review'. IOW CPS will not be charging Prince Andrew or Maxwell any time soon as it already had examined details and declined. To Pursue Andrew, they would then need to pursue Charles and his Jimmy Saville links, and also his appearance in Maxwell's and Epstein's little black book of 'contacts'.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Yep.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
So all the young women procured into Maxwell and Epstein's sex ring and almost certainly suffered the same treatment as the underage ones don't deserve justice? So their cases are 'shaky' and their testimony 'flaky'. This implies that so, too, would be the others.
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.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The ‘Rule of “so...”’ implies that this is a strawman. As does reading what Smartcooky posted.
Belz...
Fiend God
No it's not. A logical fallacy concern invalid logic, not unsound logic.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
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.
Last edited: