• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Arcade22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it's something that can't be easily distilled into a slogan like "Believe the victim" or "Believe women" as it has come to be said here in the US often. A catchy phrase often oversimplifies.

To me the obligation is twofold--to not contradict the apparent victim in talking to them, at least not before the evidence is in. Treat the victim in interactions as if what they are saying could be true. That does not require assuming the accused is guilty, not legally, not in public statements, not any way.

The other obligation is to investigate it as if it were a sincere report--again, absent specific evidence to the contrary. Do the investigation, get the facts, don't just say, "She's probably just mad because her ex cheated on her" and shelve the case. Maybe someone can contradict me here--I wish someone can... but I get the idea lots of cases wind up foundering from doubts in a way differently than most other crimes, such as someone reporting they've been robbed.

The only person that I ever spoke to online that insisted that "Believe the victim" meant presuming guilt on the person accused, was being deliberately obtuse, and was found bragging elsewhere about pretending to be a feminist to discredit them.
 
gnome said:
I think it's something that can't be easily distilled into a slogan like "Believe the victim" or "Believe women" as it has come to be said here in the US often. A catchy phrase often oversimplifies.

To me the obligation is twofold--to not contradict the apparent victim in talking to them, at least not before the evidence is in. Treat the victim in interactions as if what they are saying could be true. That does not require assuming the accused is guilty, not legally, not in public statements, not any way.

The other obligation is to investigate it as if it were a sincere report--again, absent specific evidence to the contrary. Do the investigation, get the facts, don't just say, "She's probably just mad because her ex cheated on her" and shelve the case. Maybe someone can contradict me here--I wish someone can... but I get the idea lots of cases wind up foundering from doubts in a way differently than most other crimes, such as someone reporting they've been robbed.

The only person that I ever spoke to online that insisted that "Believe the victim" meant presuming guilt on the person accused, was being deliberately obtuse, and was found bragging elsewhere about pretending to be a feminist to discredit them.
Click to expand...

I am surprised FOX NEWS freely used Maxwell's name as having allegedly committed the serious crime of 'gang rape' and abduction, when she hasn't been charged. I am surprised it got past their defamation lawyers. Of course, Maxwell might well be guilty of all this, and more, yet if she gets off, she will be suing the pants of Fox News. The British press don't dare claim Prince Andrew raped the women who alleges he did.
 
gnome said:
I think it's something that can't be easily distilled into a slogan like "Believe the victim" or "Believe women" as it has come to be said here in the US often. A catchy phrase often oversimplifies.

To me the obligation is twofold--to not contradict the apparent victim in talking to them, at least not before the evidence is in. Treat the victim in interactions as if what they are saying could be true. That does not require assuming the accused is guilty, not legally, not in public statements, not any way.

The other obligation is to investigate it as if it were a sincere report--again, absent specific evidence to the contrary. Do the investigation, get the facts, don't just say, "She's probably just mad because her ex cheated on her" and shelve the case. Maybe someone can contradict me here--I wish someone can... but I get the idea lots of cases wind up foundering from doubts in a way differently than most other crimes, such as someone reporting they've been robbed.

The only person that I ever spoke to online that insisted that "Believe the victim" meant presuming guilt on the person accused, was being deliberately obtuse, and was found bragging elsewhere about pretending to be a feminist to discredit them.
Click to expand...

This.

You never see a burglary victim or a home invasion victim or the victim of a brutal beating have the police doubt their story from the get-go, yet the victims of rape are often doubted right from the start. Why? Because the evidence for the former is obvious the moment you walk in the door or look at the victim, while the evidence for the latter is invisible, subtle, complicated and difficult to get to.

The "doubting" of rape and spousal battery comes from a time when "just a domestic dispute" and "she was asking for it dressed like that" and "she is promiscuous, what did she expect" were the prevalent lines of thought both among law enforcement and members of the public. It seems that some members of this forum are still living in those times, holding those values and beliefs.
 
Vixen said:
I am surprised FOX NEWS freely used Maxwell's name as having allegedly committed the serious crime of 'gang rape' and abduction, when she hasn't been charged. I am surprised it got past their defamation lawyers. Of course, Maxwell might well be guilty of all this, and more, yet if she gets off, she will be suing the pants of Fox News. The British press don't dare claim Prince Andrew raped the women who alleges he did.
Click to expand...

The rules are different in the U.S. If an outlet reports accurately that "A has accused B," and gives B the opportunity to respond, even if only to say "no comment," that's enough. The outlet is not claiming that the allegation is true, only reporting that there is a dispute. In the case of public figures, a libel action must not only prove that the claim is false, but that the speaker knew it was false and published it with malice anyway. It's extremely difficult to pursue a libel action in the U.S., and that's why people can get away with saying stuff like H. Clinton runs pedophile parties in pizza shops and B. Obama is a Kenyan Muslim terrorist.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

They will fail... the answer will be no

Vixen said:
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'.)
Click to expand...

Not all of them, it wasn't testimony and it was a plea deal, not a deal in return for a promise not to prosecute.

Additionally, the Florida agreement was overturned because Acosta violated 18 U.S.C. § 3771, The Crime Victims' Rights Act.
 
smartcooky said:
This.

You never see a burglary victim or a home invasion victim or the victim of a brutal beating have the police doubt their story from the get-go, yet the victims of rape are often doubted right from the start. Why? Because the evidence for the former is obvious the moment you walk in the door or look at the victim, while the evidence for the latter is invisible, subtle, complicated and difficult to get to.

The "doubting" of rape and spousal battery comes from a time when "just a domestic dispute" and "she was asking for it dressed like that" and "she is promiscuous, what did she expect" were the prevalent lines of thought both among law enforcement and members of the public. It seems that some members of this forum are still living in those times, holding those values and beliefs.
Click to expand...

In the UK, this concept is well-recognised, and there is no statute of limitation for sexual assault. However, in the USA it seems to vary between 8, 10 or 15 years, depending on the state.

If someone suffers child abuse by a close family member, especially from an early age, then it becomes 'normalised' - and I expect that is what happened to Virginia - and together with feelings of shame, having been warned to keep quiet about it and feelings of betrayal of the abuser, if they do tell of it, explains why it can take years - often decades - before someone has the courage to report it and bring charges.

In the case of a sudden attack by a random stranger, that isn't normalised, and there is no emotional stuff going on, so it is hard to see why it is not reported timeously. As you know, evidence that it happened can be washed away, so it is important to report it ASAP, so that injuries can be noted on your medical records, if you want the perp brought to justice and help protect others who might also become victims.
 
smartcooky said:
This.

You never see a burglary victim or a home invasion victim or the victim of a brutal beating have the police doubt their story from the get-go, yet the victims of rape are often doubted right from the start. Why? Because the evidence for the former is obvious the moment you walk in the door or look at the victim, while the evidence for the latter is invisible, subtle, complicated and difficult to get to.

The "doubting" of rape and spousal battery comes from a time when "just a domestic dispute" and "she was asking for it dressed like that" and "she is promiscuous, what did she expect" were the prevalent lines of thought both among law enforcement and members of the public. It seems that some members of this forum are still living in those times, holding those values and beliefs.
Click to expand...

"Believe women", I think, is best understood as stemming from a desire for corrective emphasis, a bit like "Black Lives Matter". Of course, it suits certain agenda to pretend not to understand that.
 
theprestige said:
In before Maxwell did nothing wrong because Giuffre was already on that path due to tragic life experience.
Click to expand...

The point being made, is that Virginia herself said she came from an abusive home, became a runaway and then prey to sexual predators (for example, Eppington, who was a child sex trafficker). I offered it as an explanation why someone of that background may not think of immediately going to the police to report sexual abuse.
 
Belz... said:
...what?
Click to expand...

Stop feiging incomprehension. If someone came up to you in the street and assaulted you, you would have no reason not to report it to the police straight way. However, if it is your own parents thrashing you from an early age, it is normalised and it may not cross your mind to report it until many years later.


Penny dropped...?

:randi:
 
Vixen said:
Stop feiging incomprehension. If someone came up to you in the street and assaulted you, you would have no reason not to report it to the police straight way.
Click to expand...

Feigning? Your wording seemed to imply that people who are raped by strangers aren't emotionally shaken by their experience. You're not as clear as you think you are.

And you're wrong. There are reasons, even if you can't fathom them. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
 
Belz... said:
Feigning? Your wording seemed to imply that people who are raped by strangers aren't emotionally shaken by their experience. You're not as clear as you think you are.

And you're wrong. There are reasons, even if you can't fathom them. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Of course people are shaken by the experience. However, you won't get revenge on the perp unless you report it.
 
Belz... said:
Feigning? Your wording seemed to imply that people who are raped by strangers aren't emotionally shaken by their experience. You're not as clear as you think you are.

And you're wrong. There are reasons, even if you can't fathom them. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

As I feared. The claim is exactly what it appeared to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom