Ghislaine Maxwell

Matthew Best said:
No, it would be premature for the court to label her guilty, but anyone else can do so if they feel like it.

Let's face it, she's guilty. We all know it.
Click to expand...

Maxwell was a 'madam'. She was clearly a pimp, hiring and paying women to perform sex work on Epstein and inviting them to parties at his various properties.

She is not being charged with pimping.

It is further apparent that the vast majority of Epstein's sex workers were young women aged in their early twenties. Thus, there is zero indication that Epstein or Maxwell targetted 'children' or minors.

Grooming? If the only evidence of this is Maxwell taking her clients out to lunch and showing them around town, then you need more proof than that, as anyone who is in business knows this is mundane 'client entertaining' and etiquette for people who have travelled from a long way out of town.

Unless Giuffre has receipts to prove she was paid to sleep with Prince Andrew either from Maxwell or from His Royal Highness, than that too, can be explained as 'staff entertaining'. Many of us here on this list have been treated to trips abroad - or weekend breaks at home - by our bosses.

Whilst it is clear Maxwell hired and paid sex workers, it doesn't follow she was aware of what went on behind closed doors, especially as nobody seems to have reported rape at the time, neither to their parents, or the police, nor to one of the many women working at Epstein's mansion and other properties. Sure, the trauma might have been so great, it can only be spoken of ten years later. However, being as it may, it doesn't explain why the same persons kept coming back and even introduced their friends.

As the women were paid, it makes their encounter a form of contract, a transactional relationship, in which the sex worker offers sex in exchange for $X amount. The john pays and she performs. In that situation it is difficult for one of the sex workers to claim that Maxwell should have known rape was taking place. I dare say she fully expected some kind of sex to be happening, as that is what the women were there for as paid work.

Maxwell is not being charged for having hired women for the purpose of sex.
 
smartcooky said:
Nice bit of cherry picking to exclude actual girls.

FYI

Victoria Guiffre was under age, i.e. A GIRL when she was trafficked by Maxwell
Jennifer Aroaz was under age, i.e. A GIRL when she was trafficked by Maxwell
Annie Farmer was under age, i.e. A GIRL when she was trafficked by Maxwell

STOP LYING about what other posters are saying!! WE CAN ALL READ!!
Click to expand...

It is yet to be proven Maxwell trafficked anyone. I appreciate that Anne Farmer's sister Maria claims to have been 16 when she visited Epstein's Zorro ranch. However, her description is of Epstein raping her. Maxwell was not present. Zorro ranch is a large estate with several buildings so you can't assume 'Maxwell must have known' what was happening. In any case, where were her parents? In addition, after what happened to her little sister, what on earth compelled the twenty-something Annie to agree to spending any time alone with Epstein, whom she must have known was a rapist? The mind boggles.
 
Vixen said:
It is yet to be proven Maxwell trafficked anyone. I appreciate that Anne Farmer's sister Maria claims to have been 16 when she visited Epstein's Zorro ranch. However, her description is of Epstein raping her. Maxwell was not present. Zorro ranch is a large estate with several buildings so you can't assume 'Maxwell must have known' what was happening. In any case, where were her parents? In addition, after what happened to her little sister, what on earth compelled the twenty-something Annie to agree to spending any time alone with Epstein, whom she must have known was a rapist? The mind boggles.
Click to expand...

This is changing your argument.


Previously you seemed to be arguing that Maxwell hasn't been accused of anything that is you consider actually serious.

Now you're arguing that the serious accusations haven't been proven yet.
 
So now Giuffre's lawyers are demanding to find out Maxwell's net worth and how much she might have received from the Clinton Foundation.

Among the documents made public will be a motion for a protective order filed by Maxwell's lawyers to limit the amount of information about her finances they had to hand over.

Giuffre's lawyers sought such information so they would be better informed if the case went to a settlement, which it did.

Giuffre's lawyers sought Maxwell's tax returns, balance sheets for companies Maxwell controlled and financial statements for companies she controlled among other materials.

One section reads: 'From January 2012 to the present, produce all documents concerning any source of funding for the TarraMar Project (Maxwell's nonprofit) or any other not-for-profit entities with which you are associated, including but not limited to, funding received from the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation (a/k/a William J. Clinton Foundation, a/k/a/ the Bill, Hilary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation),and the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative'.
Click to expand...
DM
 
Vixen said:
So now Giuffre's lawyers are demanding to find out Maxwell's net worth and how much she might have received from the Clinton Foundation.

DM
Click to expand...

"Among the documents made public will be a motion for a protective order filed by Maxwell's lawyers to limit the amount of information about her finances they had to hand over."​

So she is hiding money and assets... resources she could use to flee the jurisdiction! Told ya so!
 
Vixen said:
Nope, wrong. I did not say 'women should simply put up with it'.
Click to expand...

No, you strongly implied that underage girls seek out being trafficked for sex, and probably enjoy it. And that we shouldn’t care because they aren’t from the upper classes anyway.

Victim blaming plus classism.

You are aware that it is 2021, not 1921?
 
autumn1971 said:
No, you strongly implied that underage girls seek out being trafficked for sex, and probably enjoy it. And that we shouldn’t care because they aren’t from the upper classes anyway.

Victim blaming plus classism.
Click to expand...

Yup

autumn1971 said:
You are aware that it is 2021, not 1921?
Click to expand...

Well since she previously posted that Virginia Giuffre didn't come forward until 1915/1916, probably not! :D
 
smartcooky said:
"Among the documents made public will be a motion for a protective order filed by Maxwell's lawyers to limit the amount of information about her finances they had to hand over."​

So she is hiding money and assets... resources she could use to flee the jurisdiction! Told ya so!
Click to expand...

Or... her accusers are greedy for the maximum amount they can squeeze her for until her eyes pop. And maybe take down Bill Clinton at the same time.
 
So now Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer, Markus, is demanding that Maxwell be freed for similar reasons to Cosby, who recently had his conviction for sex crime overturned. The reason being, he was offered immunity in exchange for a deal which included compensation for his victim/s following a frank deposition in an ensuing civil case.

In the case of Maxwell, it might be more complicated because it is not known for sure whether she and the other two (or three?) alleged 'co-conspirators' with Epstein, were conferred legal immunity by Alex Acosta in Florida.

The case was then reopened and moved to New York on the grounds of an alleged improper deal by Acosta. Epstein died whilst in custody and charged brought against Maxwell. The question arises, why are the other two (or three) 'co-conspirators' also not being charged?

The other fly in the ointment is Maxwell is alleged to have lied in her deposition in the civil case brought by Guiffre, alleging defamation by Maxwell calling Giuffre 'a liar'. Maxwell claimed she only knew about Epstein's alleged sex crimes, 'the same time as everybody else'. If this is a lie, then she has been less than frank, unlike Cosby (see the Cosby thread for more detail on his release). However, how can it be proven it was a lie or not, without a hearing? OTOH if it is now deemed wrong of NY to have overridden Acosta's 'deal' then the whole thing could become moot.

Epstein's victims who came forward as of the time of his deal, were already compensated without having to be cross-examined. Epstein in effect 'paid them off' in exchange for a lenient sentence and legal immunity from further prosecution for the same crimes. Much will depend on whether Maxwell was actually named as an alleged 'co-conspirator' but more to the point, would it be fair for the same witnesses against Epstein to now have a 'second bite of the cherry', as it were, and even if estopped from being cross-examined, could still be used as 'character witnesses' (as in the Weinstein trial) of all of Epstein's past crimes but pointing the finger at Maxwell? Given Maxwell's sheer wealth (claiming she could raise a $28m bail) and the vocal support of the Victim's movement, how can we know they are motivated to be totally truthfully rather than shiny-eyed idealistic, believing they are testifying on behalf of others and in the name of a good cause, forgetting Maxwell's essential right to fairness.



Lawyers for the disgraced socialite Ghislaine Maxwell have asked a judge to throw out her case on sex trafficking charges, citing the recent release from prison of actor Bill Cosby.

Cosby, 83, was convicted in 2018 of drugging and assaulting Andrea Constand, a Temple University employee, at his suburban estate in 2004. But he was released when Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned the conviction after finding an agreement with a previous prosecutor prevented him from being charged in the case.

Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein
Ghislaine Maxwell began to share ‘little black book’ with Epstein as early as the 1980s
Read more
Maxwell’s lawyers are now arguing that the same circumstances apply to Maxwell, due to a much criticized plea deal that helped the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators dodge federal charges in Florida.
Click to expand...
GUARDIAN
 
Vixen said:
So now Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer, Markus, is demanding that Maxwell be freed for similar reasons to Cosby, who recently had his conviction for sex crime overturned. The reason being, he was offered immunity in exchange for a deal which included compensation for his victim/s following a frank deposition in an ensuing civil case.

In the case of Maxwell, it might be more complicated because it is not known for sure whether she and the other two (or three?) alleged 'co-conspirators' with Epstein, were conferred legal immunity by Alex Acosta in Florida.

The case was then reopened and moved to New York on the grounds of an alleged improper deal by Acosta. Epstein died whilst in custody and charged brought against Maxwell. The question arises, why are the other two (or three) 'co-conspirators' also not being charged?

The other fly in the ointment is Maxwell is alleged to have lied in her deposition in the civil case brought by Guiffre, alleging defamation by Maxwell calling Giuffre 'a liar'. Maxwell claimed she only knew about Epstein's alleged sex crimes, 'the same time as everybody else'. If this is a lie, then she has been less than frank, unlike Cosby (see the Cosby thread for more detail on his release). However, how can it be proven it was a lie or not, without a hearing? OTOH if it is now deemed wrong of NY to have overridden Acosta's 'deal' then the whole thing could become moot.

Epstein's victims who came forward as of the time of his deal, were already compensated without having to be cross-examined. Epstein in effect 'paid them off' in exchange for a lenient sentence and legal immunity from further prosecution for the same crimes. Much will depend on whether Maxwell was actually named as an alleged 'co-conspirator' but more to the point, would it be fair for the same witnesses against Epstein to now have a 'second bite of the cherry', as it were, and even if estopped from being cross-examined, could still be used as 'character witnesses' (as in the Weinstein trial) of all of Epstein's past crimes but pointing the finger at Maxwell? Given Maxwell's sheer wealth (claiming she could raise a $28m bail) and the vocal support of the Victim's movement, how can we know they are motivated to be totally truthfully rather than shiny-eyed idealistic, believing they are testifying on behalf of others and in the name of a good cause, forgetting Maxwell's essential right to fairness.



GUARDIAN
Click to expand...

Seems like a pretty feeble argument. You'd want your lawyers to try it, but you wouldn't expect them to succeed. The fact that the deal was made in Florida, but Maxwell's case is being tried in New York, makes it pretty much a non-starter. And that's even before we get to questions of whether the deal included her, and whether she broke the terms of it.
 
Bob001 said:
Let's note that she's accused of abusing some of them herself. She wasn't just the procurer.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ghislaine-maxwell-rape-testify-evil-epstein
Click to expand...

So this woman in 1991 aged 16 was gang-raped by a whole group of people, including Ghislaine Maxwell, driven by a gun toting person to be dumped naked on her grandmother's lawn and discovered she was expecting Epstein's baby, which she had to terminate.

So her caring grandmother immediately contacted the police, no? Or at least took her to hospital or doctor to treat her serious injuries as a result of the 'gang rape', yes?


I am not saying it didn't happen but is she seriously expecting to come forward almost thirty years later, without any corroboration of her claim. You will note that Maxwell is not being charged with sexual assault or 'rape', nor false imprisonment, nor threatening someone with a gun.

Ah well, at least she will have the small mercy of Fox News paying for her story.
 
Several posts have been moved to AAH for being off topic for this thread. Please remember rule 11, and discuss the topic of this thread (which is not, as always, one another).
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom