Ghislaine Maxwell

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Judge Nathan has been pretty harsh so far, turning down one application by her attorneys after another. However, it has been my observation that judges who act like ogres, giving barristers a dressing down and biting off their heads, often finds in their favour. Likewise, if a judge is extra kind to you and bends over backwards to give you everything you want, beware! They are getting ready to savage you but will point to how balanced and patient they were should you decide to appeal.

Mr Markus has written to Nathan applying for a dismissal of the case based on the Cosby precedent. Some are cynically claiming that the Pennsylvania Court by vacating Cosby's conviction, the Feds are paving the way to free Weinstein and Maxwell, as a legal way for the rich and famous to 'get off'.

Personally, I hope this goes to trial, as a live high profile case will at least clear up some of the issues. It'll likely be a circus or some sort.
 
Vixen said:
Judge Nathan has been pretty harsh so far, turning down one application by her attorneys after another. However, it has been my observation that judges who act like ogres, giving barristers a dressing down and biting off their heads, often finds in their favour. Likewise, if a judge is extra kind to you and bends over backwards to give you everything you want, beware! They are getting ready to savage you but will point to how balanced and patient they were should you decide to appeal.
Click to expand...
This is a stupid observation, since the judge presiding over the original trial isn't the same judge who hears the appeal. And the appeals court doesn't care how balanced and patient the original judge was. They only care if legal procedure was followed.

You're fantasizing.

Mr Markus has written to Nathan applying for a dismissal of the case based on the Cosby precedent. Some are cynically claiming that the Pennsylvania Court by vacating Cosby's conviction, the Feds are paving the way to free Weinstein and Maxwell, as a legal way for the rich and famous to 'get off'.
Click to expand...
This is a bizarre and ignorant conspiracy theory.

One, the "Cosby precedent" is only relevant to the particulars of Cosby's case. Two, Pennsylvania court rulings are not decided by the Feds. Three, court rulings in Pennsylvania are not binding on courts in New York. Four, Epstein didn't have the same kind of deal Cosby did anyway. Five, even if he did, the deal didn't include Maxwell - she would need her own deal. Six, even if it did cover Maxwell, she would have violated its terms anyway.

Your fantasizing again.
 
Belz... said:
Why? Sex crimes often go unreported for reasons that have been extensively discussed.
Click to expand...

Are we supposed to assume that any and all allegations are true until proven false, even in the absence of any actual evidence? It's an unfortunate fact that well publicized cases like this do attract people who find some sick enjoyment in pretending to have been sexually abused and describing their fantasies in detail.

The more extraordinary and outrageous the allegations are compared to other more reliable and actually provable ones, the more likely it is that it's just some attention seeking maniac or pervert getting their rocks off.

I don't find it hard to believe that she is guilty of more than just finding and grooming the victims, but there are a lot more reliable allegations than this. Despite her professed enthusiasm for testifying in court I'm guessing that the prosecution will not be calling for her testimony...
 
Arcade22 said:
Are we supposed to assume that any and all allegations are true until proven false, even in the absence of any actual evidence?
Click to expand...

We should always start from a position of believing the victim. If we dismiss the victim's claim; even if we just express doubts, then to them, we don't care about them - we are dismissing the seriousness and import of what they suffered

Arcade22 said:
It's an unfortunate fact that well publicized cases like this do attract people who find some sick enjoyment in pretending to have been sexually abused and describing their fantasies in detail.

The more extraordinary and outrageous the allegations are compared to other more reliable and actually provable ones, the more likely it is that it's just some attention seeking maniac or pervert getting their rocks off.
Click to expand...

It is a fortunate fact, that what you are talking about here is extremely rare, and most often in such cases, even a cursory examination of the facts and circumstances don't stand up to scrutiny. That is NOT the case here. These multiple accusers have witnesses to what happened to them

Arcade22 said:
don't find it hard to believe that she is guilty of more than just finding and grooming the victims, but there are a lot more reliable allegations than this. Despite her professed enthusiasm for testifying in court I'm guessing that the prosecution will not be calling for her testimony...
Click to expand...

The defence can always call her.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
This is a stupid observation, since the judge presiding over the original trial isn't the same judge who hears the appeal. And the appeals court doesn't care how balanced and patient the original judge was. They only care if legal procedure was followed.

You're fantasizing.


This is a bizarre and ignorant conspiracy theory.

One, the "Cosby precedent" is only relevant to the particulars of Cosby's case. Two, Pennsylvania court rulings are not decided by the Feds. Three, court rulings in Pennsylvania are not binding on courts in New York. Four, Epstein didn't have the same kind of deal Cosby did anyway. Five, even if he did, the deal didn't include Maxwell - she would need her own deal. Six, even if it did cover Maxwell, she would have violated its terms anyway.

Your fantasizing again.
Click to expand...


If a judge considers your case absolute crap and strikes it out too soon, then you would have grounds for appeal on the legal point that X, Y and Z did not happen as it should have. A judge has to be seen to be impartial and not be seen to judge the case until all relevant stuff has been heard. It's rare but you can appeal on the grounds of a judge's unreasonableness (for example, falling asleep).

The Cosby ruling sets a precedent, no? So if someone has been granted indemnity on various historical charges, and then in a later civil case admits to some of the charges and is charged by a different court in another jurisdiction on that basis and on appeal the latter conviction is expunged because of the earlier deal in the earlier court in a different state, then the same legal principles would apply to Epstein, were he still alive, n'est ce pas? And by extension, to those persons also named in his deal..?
 
theprestige said:
Appeal to incredulity.

Let me guess: You have some theory of human nature in which grandparenthood transforms even the most garbage person into a wise and informed paragon of ethical concduct.
Click to expand...

Run this past me again. A child turns up on the lawn of her grandmother, naked, bruised, bleeding and covered in bodily fluids...and Grandma doesn't even report it to the police or take her grandchild to the hospital or the doctors for treatment? How does that work? A high profile person gets taken to court for sex crimes, so you come forward - suddenly not shy after all - to tell FOX NEWS in gory detail to its millions of conservative viewers to say 'Me, Too', yet you can't corroborate your sorry tale because there is no police report and no medical record off your claimed injuries.

Sure, it might have happened, but do you believe Maxwell should be convicted on the basis of someone's 30-year-old claim with no verification?
 
abaddon said:
What if the grandparent is the perpetrator?
Click to expand...

Er, it was the lawn of Maxwell or Epstein's parent...? Well, her mother, Elizabeth lives in France IIRC and father Robert was found bob-bob-bobbing along in the ocean. Not sure if Epstein's parents were still around but that sure introduces a twist in the tale.
 
Vixen said:
The Cosby ruling sets a precedent, no?
Click to expand...

Correct... the answer is no, it does not set a precedent, it follows precedent.

What has happened here is a matter of procedure. The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court did not make any findings on the factual basis or on the evidence in the case. This has nothing to do with the evidence in the case. The ruling by the court did not speak to whether or not they believe one side or the other.

The ruling is based on two things... the minor part is the fact that the DA assured Cosby they would not charge him. That kind of assurance carries no weight in law in and if itself. Is what happened around that assurance that is the real heart of the matter and the major part of why the PASSC overturned the conviction.

Cosby was given that assurance in return for testifying in a lawsuit against him by one of this victims. That testimony was made openly in civil court where he agreed not to invoke his 5A right against self-incrimination. It was the fact that the transcripts from that civil proceeding were used against him in a criminal court that is the big issue here. By doing what they did, the criminal prosecutors did an end-run around the fifth amendment, effectively denying Cosby his right to not incriminate himself. In effect, an earlier DA offered a quid pro quo - you testify and in return, we wont prosecute you - Cosby fulfilled his end of the bargain, and a later prosecutor reneged on the earlier that deal. PASSC rightly ruled that what the prosecutors did was unconstituional.

But anyway, you are totally mistaken if you think that this is in any way relevant to the Maxwell case. Epstein didn't testify in a lawsuit, and no deal was made with him in exchange for anything; and even if it did, that doesn;t extend to her. Its a non-starter, and I agree with theprestige.. you are fantasizing!
 
smartcooky said:
We should always start from a position of believing the victim. If we dismiss the victim's claim; even if we just express doubts, then to them, we don't care about them - we are dismissing the seriousness and import of what they suffered
Click to expand...

I understand and appreciate the humanitarian urge here, but this is far too much question-begging for my taste. Especially when it comes to accusations of crime.

When someone accuses someone else of raping them, they're not a victim unless the rape actually occurred. Once you know the rape occurred, you don't have to believe the accusation is true. You know it's true. And until you know the rape occurred, you shouldn't believe anything one way or the other.

Also, "trust but verify" absolutely and entirely violates the principle "even if we just express doubts, then to them, we don't care about them - we are dismissing the seriousness and import of what they suffered".
 
Vixen said:
The Cosby ruling sets a precedent, no? So if someone has been granted indemnity on various historical charges, and then in a later civil case admits to some of the charges and is charged by a different court in another jurisdiction on that basis and on appeal the latter conviction is expunged because of the earlier deal in the earlier court in a different state, then the same legal principles would apply to Epstein, were he still alive, n'est ce pas? And by extension, to those persons also named in his deal..?
Click to expand...

That's not what happened in the Cosby case, though. The prosecutor's office that made the promise was the same prosecutor's office that later broke the promise.

---

The Pennsylvania prosecutor promised the prick a privilege presently purloined prejudicially, a premise not provided the procuress.
 
Vixen said:
Run this past me again. A child turns up on the lawn of her grandmother, naked, bruised, bleeding and covered in bodily fluids...and Grandma doesn't even report it to the police or take her grandchild to the hospital or the doctors for treatment? How does that work? A high profile person gets taken to court for sex crimes, so you come forward - suddenly not shy after all - to tell FOX NEWS in gory detail to its millions of conservative viewers to say 'Me, Too', yet you can't corroborate your sorry tale because there is no police report and no medical record off your claimed injuries.

Sure, it might have happened, but do you believe Maxwell should be convicted on the basis of someone's 30-year-old claim with no verification?
Click to expand...

How about we have a proper trial to verify all that? Would that be okay with you?
 
smartcooky said:
We should always start from a position of believing the victim. If we dismiss the victim's claim; even if we just express doubts, then to them, we don't care about them - we are dismissing the seriousness and import of what they suffered
Click to expand...

And that's the kind of mindset that made British police waste years investigating the completely imaginary murderous homosexual pedophile conspiracy that a perverted pederast (who also falsely claimed to have been sexually abused by Jimmy savile and received compensation for those claims) had invented.

The British Police even went out and publicly said the completely extraordinary claims were true and accurate when they had no evidence whatsoever simply because they didn't want to doubt the supposed victim.
 
smartcooky said:
Correct... the answer is no, it does not set a precedent, it follows precedent.

What has happened here is a matter of procedure. The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court did not make any findings on the factual basis or on the evidence in the case. This has nothing to do with the evidence in the case. The ruling by the court did not speak to whether or not they believe one side or the other.

The ruling is based on two things... the minor part is the fact that the DA assured Cosby they would not charge him. That kind of assurance carries no weight in law in and if itself. Is what happened around that assurance that is the real heart of the matter and the major part of why the PASSC overturned the conviction.

Cosby was given that assurance in return for testifying in a lawsuit against him by one of this victims. That testimony was made openly in civil court where he agreed not to invoke his 5A right against self-incrimination. It was the fact that the transcripts from that civil proceeding were used against him in a criminal court that is the big issue here. By doing what they did, the criminal prosecutors did an end-run around the fifth amendment, effectively denying Cosby his right to not incriminate himself. In effect, an earlier DA offered a quid pro quo - you testify and in return, we wont prosecute you - Cosby fulfilled his end of the bargain, and a later prosecutor reneged on the earlier that deal. PASSC rightly ruled that what the prosecutors did was unconstituional.

But anyway, you are totally mistaken if you think that this is in any way relevant to the Maxwell case. Epstein didn't testify in a lawsuit, and no deal was made with him in exchange for anything; and even if it did, that doesn;t extend to her. Its a non-starter, and I agree with theprestige.. you are fantasizing!
Click to expand...

Maxwell's attorney (and Weinstein's) think they may have a case, too. Markus has already written to Nathan to apply for a strike out based on the same principle as the Cosby case/ No two cases are the same but they are giving it a try anyway.

You say Epstein gave nothing in return. In fact, he paid put a huge sum of money in compensation to his accusers in exchange. (= 'Settled'.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom