Ghislaine Maxwell

[Belz...]

You seem to lack self awareness. You are the one who keeps insisting that Maxwell is guilty and deserves to be ill-treated in remand because in your view it is absolutely certain she is a sexual abuser of minors.

Edited by xjx388: 

<SNIP>Rule 12

I don't remember anyone ever suggesting that she should be ill-treated.

 

[Arcade22]

Why would she have continued working for Epstein for five years when she was free to walk whenever she wanted. Of course, this has to be explained by calling herself his 'sex slave'. How does that work if you are free to go home every day and never come back?

By the same line of reasoning spousal abuse is impossible as the victim tolerates the abuse. They must clearly be a masochist who loves being punched in the face and being thrown down a flight of stairs. If they were not surely they would have ran away from that relationship at the very least.

 

[Belz...]

By the same line of reasoning spousal abuse is impossible as the victim tolerates the abuse.

I believe I brought this up before, but of course Vixen just ignored it.

 

[Vixen]

By the same line of reasoning spousal abuse is impossible as the victim tolerates the abuse. They must clearly be a masochist who loves being punched in the face and being thrown down a flight of stairs. If they were not surely they would have ran away from that relationship at the very least.

Victims of spousal abuse stay because they have nowhere else to go. All of the women hired by Epstein to attend parties and massage were not for the most part 'in a relationship' with him and I doubt he would have even noticed had they not returned again (the sensible option). In an abusive spousal relationship a key reason the partner can't escape is because of the stalking and violence of the partner and his or her hold over the children. I haven't seen anybody claim they were imprisoned by Epstein. So the analogy with spousal abuse is a weak one. Many hundreds of Epstein's sex workers obviously did go home and never went back, whether straight away or after a few times.

 

[Belz...]

Victims of spousal abuse stay because they have nowhere else to go.

That is horribly wrong. It might be true in some cases but in many cases they stay for a host of other reasons.

Edited by xjx388: 

<SNIP>Rule 0 ; Rule 12

 

[gnome]

That is true of childhood abuse, when police are happy (in the UK, anyway) to prosecute historical sexual abuse with little more than the say so of the victim.

However, in the case of a stranger or a known person (for example, date rape, or a sex worker rape) it is not so straightforward. The CPS will rarely bring a case of rape unless there is a reasonable prospect of success in convicting. It is highly unlikely to charge someone for a rape that happened in 1997 if the complainant never reported it to the police or has a medical record of the claimed injuries. In the case of in-family child abuse, that is a completely different kettle of fish and has absolutely nothing to do with the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

We still seem to be talking about two different things. I am not referring to what is easy or hard to legally act on.

I am referring to drawing a personal conclusion that a rape or assault is less likely to have occurred because the victim didn't report it as soon as you might expect. That is unwarranted.

 

[xjx388]

I've just edited and moved to AAH a bunch of pointless bickering. We get it: the other poster is a liar and ignorant or whatever. Please stop with that. Focus on the topic at hand and not each other. Further violations will be infracted and considered for suspension. Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: xjx388

 

[Arcade22]

Victims of spousal abuse stay because they have nowhere else to go.

While that is one factor it's hardly the only one nor is it the most important. When it comes to the most serious cases, where the victim (almost always a woman) tolerates progressively more severe physical abuse until they are eventually killed, they quite often do so out affection for their abuser. They love them and can't think of leaving them even when family or friends pleads with them to do so. They often blame themselves for their trouble (I shouldn't have angered him) and this only discourages any attempts to change situation.

A lot of that closely mirrors how many victims of long-term sexual abuse and exploitation rationalize not just walking away. They blame themselves because of course they would want sex and they couldn't show up just to deny them. They feel guilty and unsure of themselves if they enjoyed it even a little bit. Being given money makes them feel as if it's normal and just a "job" that they have to put up with. They might even feel indebted to their abuser(s) because of how "generous" they are even if this "generosity" is forced upon them. Quite a few victims develop some level of affection for their abuser(s).

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that "rape is a very severe violation and people who are subjected to it would do everything they can to make it stop, so if they don't then that suggests that they were not really raped". People don't always react in in that kind of simple rational manner that one would naively expect.

 

[Vixen]

We still seem to be talking about two different things. I am not referring to what is easy or hard to legally act on.

I am referring to drawing a personal conclusion that a rape or assault is less likely to have occurred because the victim didn't report it as soon as you might expect. That is unwarranted.

As I am well aware that the crime of rape is vastly underreported, I am pretty sure I said nothing of the sort.

Please provide a citation within the context I said it.

As you would need to calculate statistical probability to know whether or not is is 'less likely', I am also fairly sure I have mentioned no such statistics.

 

[Vixen]

While that is one factor it's hardly the only one nor is it the most important. When it comes to the most serious cases, where the victim (almost always a woman) tolerates progressively more severe physical abuse until they are eventually killed, they quite often do so out affection for their abuser. They love them and can't think of leaving them even when family or friends pleads with them to do so. They often blame themselves for their trouble (I shouldn't have angered him) and this only discourages any attempts to change situation.

A lot of that closely mirrors how many victims of long-term sexual abuse and exploitation rationalize not just walking away. They blame themselves because of course they would want sex and they couldn't show up just to deny them. They feel guilty and unsure of themselves if they enjoyed it even a little bit. Being given money makes them feel as if it's normal and just a "job" that they have to put up with. They might even feel indebted to their abuser(s) because of how "generous" they are even if this "generosity" is forced upon them. Quite a few victims develop some level of affection for their abuser(s).

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that "rape is a very severe violation and people who are subjected to it would do everything they can to make it stop, so if they don't then that suggests that they were not really raped". People don't always react in in that kind of simple rational manner that one would naively expect.

My comment was not an exhaustive summary of why a person might stay in an abusive spousal relationship. I was relating my comment to the topic of this thread which is about the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I am not aware Giuffre was in a relationship with Epstein, so spousal abuse doesn't relate to her situation AFAIAA. AIUI she was some kind of senior executive in his organisation, who, like Maxwell, recruited girls for massage and sex work. She is a masseuse by trade, has studied it extensively and was training women in giving massages. Like Maxwell, she probably stopped needing to give Epstein sexual services at an early stage, as from what I understand, Epstein liked novelty and youth. Yes, one stays with an employer who might be abusive in many ways because you need the pay, there are other benefits, you can't find another job, but at the end of the day you can always hand in your notice. Neither Epstein or Maxwell has been charged with modern day slavery. Several women say they were forced into giving sexual services to Epstein and being on an island in St James, they were a captive audience unable to escape until the next plane out.

I am sure we will find out the details at the trial, if it goes ahead. If Guiffre stayed because of psychological dependency, we'll find out.

 

[gnome]

As I am well aware that the crime of rape is vastly underreported, I am pretty sure I said nothing of the sort.

Please provide a citation within the context I said it.

As you would need to calculate statistical probability to know whether or not is is 'less likely', I am also fairly sure I have mentioned no such statistics.

Statistics is a red herring. Nobody was trying to calculate an exact probability. Here is what led me to think you had personal doubts due to that it was not reported.

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.

We then went on for quite a long time debating the reasons someone might or might not report such a crime.

But, I'm not going to contradict you--if you want to agree now that this is not a warranted reason to personally doubt the accusations, then I see no need to harp on what was said before.

 

[Vixen]

Statistics is a red herring. Nobody was trying to calculate an exact probability. Here is what led me to think you had personal doubts due to that it was not reported.



We then went on for quite a long time debating the reasons someone might or might not report such a crime.

But, I'm not going to contradict you--if you want to agree now that this is not a warranted reason to personally doubt the accusations, then I see no need to harp on what was said before.

Maxwell has not been charged with rape so it is a moot point whether she supposedly 'gang raped' this woman in 1991 and had her thrown naked on her grandmother's lawn. If Maxwell is 59 now, she would have been 29 at the time. She must have been gang raping 'young girls' from her Oxford days and nobody challenged her! So it's OK for anybody to say they were gang raped by a public figure and that's all right because people have a traumatic reason not to report it until thirty years later...er, on Fox News to millions.

 

[abaddon]

Maxwell has not been charged with rape so it is a moot point whether she supposedly 'gang raped' this woman in 1991 and had her thrown naked on her grandmother's lawn. If Maxwell is 59 now, she would have been 29 at the time. She must have been gang raping 'young girls' from her Oxford days and nobody challenged her! So it's OK for anybody to say they were gang raped by a public figure and that's all right because people have a traumatic reason not to report it until thirty years later...er, on Fox News to millions.

This guy got away with it for over forty years

 

[smartcooky]

Victims of spousal abuse stay because they have nowhere else to go.

Utter crap. You have had this explained to you before, but you simply have-wave it away. There are literally DOZENS of reasons (or rather, self-justifications to use correct psychologist's terminology) why abused women stay with their abuser. Having nowhere else to go the is absolute LAST, and least common of the self-justifications for why they stay. It is also very rare that they have only one - there are almost always multiple self-justifications.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[smartcooky]

Maxwell has not been charged with rape so it is a moot point whether she supposedly 'gang raped' this woman in 1991 and had her thrown naked on her grandmother's lawn. If Maxwell is 59 now, she would have been 29 at the time. She must have been gang raping 'young girls' from her Oxford days and nobody challenged her! So it's OK for anybody to say they were gang raped by a public figure and that's all right because people have a traumatic reason not to report it until thirty years later...er, on Fox News to millions.

Stephen Allen: Sentenced to one year in prison in March 2009 for sexually abusing four boys in 1961-1964 at an industrial school. (42 years from crime to conviction)

John Boland: Boland was convicted in 2001 of 9 counts of indecent assault of a boy age 11 in 1977-1979. (24 years from crime to conviction)

John Brosnan: Served four years in prison after he was convicted in 1997 of abusing five children in the Kerry area during the early 1980s. pleaded guilty at Tralee Circuit Criminal Court to 53 counts of sexual assault against five members of the same family, aged between nine and 16 years, on dates between 1965 and 1973. (17 to 32 years from crime to conviction)

Christopher Cosgrove: Found guilty in 2005 of 180 counts of indecent assaults made against 6 young boys at St John's National School in Sligo in the Elphin diocese in 1968-1977. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. (37 years from crime to conviction)

... and the one Abaddon posted a photo of above..

Brendan Smyth: Sexually abused a girl at Holy Trinity Abbey beginning in 1952, when the girl was 8 years old. Sentenced to 4 yrs jail in Ireland in 1995 on 17 counts of assaulting 5 girls and 4 boys 1964-88. Sentenced 1997 to 12 yrs for abusing 20 boys and girls. Died in prison 8/97. (43 to 55 years from crime to conviction)

This is just five cases... there are 108 cases in the list, and that is just Ireland.

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/Ireland/

Now, these boys and girls (ranging n age from 7 to 14) had parents, they had somewhere to go (its called "home"). They weren't financially dependent on their abusers, so why didn't they just report it to their parents at they time? Why did it take decades before they came forward? Consult your "psychology degree" and explain this behaviour relating to the behaviour of Victoria Giuffre.

PS: I know exactly why Victoria Giuffre stayed with Epstein, and if you did as much research into the Epstein/Maxwell case as you claim to have done, you would know as well. Its one of the first things you would have come across.

 

[Vixen]

Stephen Allen: Sentenced to one year in prison in March 2009 for sexually abusing four boys in 1961-1964 at an industrial school. (42 years from crime to conviction)

John Boland: Boland was convicted in 2001 of 9 counts of indecent assault of a boy age 11 in 1977-1979. (24 years from crime to conviction)

John Brosnan: Served four years in prison after he was convicted in 1997 of abusing five children in the Kerry area during the early 1980s. pleaded guilty at Tralee Circuit Criminal Court to 53 counts of sexual assault against five members of the same family, aged between nine and 16 years, on dates between 1965 and 1973. (17 to 32 years from crime to conviction)

Christopher Cosgrove: Found guilty in 2005 of 180 counts of indecent assaults made against 6 young boys at St John's National School in Sligo in the Elphin diocese in 1968-1977. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. (37 years from crime to conviction)


and the one Abaddon posted a photo of above..

Brendan Smyth: Sexually abused a girl at Holy Trinity Abbey beginning in 1952, when the girl was 8 years old. Sentenced to 4 yrs jail in Ireland in 1995 on 17 counts of assaulting 5 girls and 4 boys 1964-88. Sentenced 1997 to 12 yrs for abusing 20 boys and girls. Died in prison 8/97. (43 to 55 years from crime to conviction)

This is just five cases... there are 108 cases in the list, and that is just Ireland.

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/Ireland/

Now, these boys and girls (ranging n age from 7 to 14) had parents, they had somewhere to go (its called "home"). They weren't financially dependent on their abusers, so why didn't they just report it to their parents at they time? Why did it take decades before they came forward? Consult your "psychology degree" and explain this behaviour relating to to the behaviour of Victoria Giuffre.

PS: I know exactly why Victoria Giuffre stayed with Epstein, and if you did as much research into the Epstein/Maxwell case as you claim to have done, you would know as well. Its one of the first things you would have come across.

Oh please. Maxwell is not accused of sexually abusing 'little boys and girls' aged 7 -14. 1991 was the year her father died and she didn't move to the USA until 1992 yet she managed to gather together a crowd of people to gang rape someone and have them thrown on their grandmother's lawn naked by a gun-yielding gangster.

 

[gnome]

So make up your mind, are you finding the claim unlikely in your personal opinion or not, and is the failure to report part of that opinion?

Try another angle. Let's say I just agree with you. What have you demonstrated that we now agree on?

 

[smartcooky]

Oh please. Maxwell is not accused of sexually abusing 'little boys and girls' aged 7 -14. 1991 was the year her father died and she didn't move to the USA until 1992 yet she managed to gather together a crowd of people to gang rape someone and have them thrown on their grandmother's lawn naked by a gun-yielding gangster.

Strawmen piled upon strawmen.

In case you didn't notice (and your answer shows you clearly didn't) I was not addressing the rape allegations against Maxwell, I was addressing YOUR questioning of why victims don't report sexual abuse earlier, or at the time of the abuse.. you know WHAT YOU ACTUALLY POSTED!!

"If Maxwell is 59 now, she would have been 29 at the time. She must have been gang raping 'young girls' from her Oxford days and nobody challenged her! So it's OK for anybody to say they were gang raped by a public figure and that's all right because people have a traumatic reason not to report it until thirty years later...er, on Fox News to millions."

I did so by posting actual examples of real people of similar ages to Victoria Giuffre, NOT reporting sexual abuse until 10 to 40 years later... for example

Terence Rafferty: An allegation was reported in April 2011 to the Diocese of Dromore, which reported it to the PSNI, social services, and the National Board for Safeguarding Children. Fr. Terence Rafferty (often incorrectly Terrence in media reports) initially denied all charges, but on December 10, 2012, the day his trial was due to begin, he pleaded guilty to four specimen charges of indecent assault of a 16-year-old girl relating to offenses in 2001. Five other charges of indecent assault between December 2000 and January 2002 were left on the books. On December 13, 2012, a court ban protecting Rafferty's identity was lifted at the request of the victim. (12 years from crime to conviction)


Pro Tip: Once in a while, you should try re-reading your own posts when people reply to them, so that you don't miss the point of that reply.

 

[Vixen]

Strawmen piled upon strawmen.

In case you didn't notice (and your answer shows you clearly didn't) I was not addressing the rape allegations against Maxwell, I was addressing YOUR questioning of why victims don't report sexual abuse earlier, or at the time of the abuse.. you know WHAT YOU ACTUALLY POSTED!!

"If Maxwell is 59 now, she would have been 29 at the time. She must have been gang raping 'young girls' from her Oxford days and nobody challenged her! So it's OK for anybody to say they were gang raped by a public figure and that's all right because people have a traumatic reason not to report it until thirty years later...er, on Fox News to millions."

Once in a while, you should try re-reading your own posts when people reply to them, so that you don't miss the point of that reply.

First of all, your examples are false equivalents. They relate to children in the care of the abuser. Industrial schools were schools for juvenile delinquents, another is a children's home, the others are obviously their own family members as they relate to persons in the same family. As I said before, children can be slow to realise their carers have abused them.

Stop trying to claim Maxwell fits the profile of such an abuser.

As the mass media are no longer able to openly call Jewish people stereotypical stuff such as the sex-mad depraved insatiable 'Jewish Princess', much like Salome and wo eat babies for breakfast, instead it has to hint that Maxwell has done all of all sorts of unmentionable mysterious stuff.

The mundane truth is she is charged with perjury for denying in her deposition in answer to Giuffre's claim she committed defamation by calling her a 'liar' (there is irony in that this is the worst thing Maxwell called her) and the other is a charged she recruited four underage women to have sex with Epstein and his chums, which she denies vehemently.

Please get a grip and stop with the 'sex maniac child gang raper' claims.

 

[Vixen]

So make up your mind, are you finding the claim unlikely in your personal opinion or not, and is the failure to report part of that opinion?

Try another angle. Let's say I just agree with you. What have you demonstrated that we now agree on?

I am referring to the Ghislaine Maxwell case only. There are millions of dollars up for potential compensation and a person has stepped forward to claim they were a victim from 1991. You are demanding that I believe the 'victim' instead of being fair to Maxwell and giving her a chance to answer her charges.