Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional.
Ghislaine Maxwell
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong
Wrong
Irrelevant
No, I won't stop fitting her to the profile of what she actually is.. a rapist and sex trafficker who trafficked under aged children to a bunch of old men for financial reward. That makes her a scumbag of the worst kind.
Utter bollocks. This is not a case of Anti-Semitism and there is nothing mysterious about what she has done.
You are, once again, trying to minimize her perfidy - you are implying that she is only charged with perjury. That is complete and utter bull-****. I have previously laid out for you the list of charges against her.. perjury is just one of them...
18 USC § 1623 False declarations before grand jury or court
She is also charged with the following
18 USC § 371 Conspiracy to commit an offense
18 USC § 1591 Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion18 USC § 2422 (a) Coercion and enticement
18 USC § 2423 (a) Transportation of Minors
These are facts - they might be inconvenient for you as they don't fit into your screwed-up worldview, but they are facts nonetheless, and facts matter. You might be able to hand-wave away other poster's opinions and explanations, but you cannot hand-wave away facts, especially facts that are easily verified.
I will when you stop minimizing and excusing Maxwell's behavour, and trying to put it all on the victims.
Last edited:
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,864
I don't believe I made any such demand. If so, I retract it. I'm asking that you don't downgrade your impression based on something that is not indicative.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yep. Its called "trust but verify" ... you believe the victims unless or until you find evidence that contradicts their claims. In every case here, the victims have corroborating witnesses, and the complaints all fit a known pattern of Maxwell's behaviour, established by other victims' complaints.
Multiple victims giving similar or matching accounts over a given period of time gives strong credence to those claims....smoke and fire!
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The case you quoted were men who abused children* in their long-term care. You do mention an industrial school and also a Sligo school.
*Children who really were biological children.
You are the one who has a screwed up world view believing all the sensationalist junk in the media completely uncritically.
The prosecutor can claim Maxwell trafficked Giuffre to London to have sex with Prince Andrew, as a seventeen year old minor (although not a minor under UK jurisdiction if she had consensual sex on British soil with him). It is an accepted legal point to claim you didn't know the person was underage (which she wasn't in London). The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show Maxwell invited Giuffre explicitly to London as a sex worker and that means proving a transaction passed hands.
The others re probably to do with her flying people over to the island in her helicoptor. I don't know if claiming one didn't realise their age is a defence in the USA. However, Maxwell has denied the charges.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
No. That's obscene.
Alice accuses Bob of rape.
I'm not going to assume Bob raped her just because he can't prove he didn't.
In criminal accusations, as in every other claim of fact, it is always always always the accuser's burden of proof.
Belz...
Fiend God
At this point it seems that nothing with be comparable unless they were precisely the same thing. Since such a thing doesn't exist, you can deny their existence forever.
Great skepticism, there.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Not all 108 of them
No, you snipped out the case of a 16 year old girl, and there are other cases of children ranging from 13 to 16. These are biologically young people NOT "biologically children" as you have falsely claimed.
Wrong again
THIS CASE IS IN US FEDERAL JURISDICTION
If you traffic a child from country "A" where the age of consent is 18 to country "B" where the age of content is 16, and you are being tried in country "A", for sex-trafficking an under-aged child, the age of consent laws in country "B" are completely irrelevant and cannot be used as a defence for trafficking. THIS IS SETTLED LAW EVEN IN YOUR COUNTRY.
If a trafficker in England sends sex tourists to the Philippines where the age of consent is 12, and that sex-tourist has a sexual encounter with a child from 12 to 15 years old, both the trafficker and the sex tourist have committed criminal acts under British Law.
Its not. It is specifically excluded as a defence against statutory rape, at least in Federal jurisdiction. I cannot speak for individual state laws
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No, that is not how it works, this is how it works...
Alice claims she has been raped
You accept that Alice's rape claim is valid.
You START from the position of accepting the complainant's claim, just as you wood if someone claims they were robbed, burgled, assaulted or struck by a car. If you don't accept the claim as valid, then in your own mind, there is nothing to investigate, because you have already decided there isn't.
This is not the same as accusing Bob of rape.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe that's how it works for you. It's not how it works for me. It's not how I think it should work. It's especially not how I think it should work in Trials & Errors.
And no, I don't start by accepting someone's claim that they were robbed or assaulted or struck by a car.
And of course there's the Null Hypothesis, which is actually how rational inquiry works. Someone makes a claim. You assume it's false. Then you look for evidence that would contradict that null. People find things to investigate on this basis all the time. All of science is based on this method of inquiry.
Also, it's literally accusing Bob of rape. That's explicitly the scenario: Alice accuses Bob of rape, and you believe a priori that she's telling the truth. Then you start hounding Bob to produce evidence that he's innocent. Otherwise you'll continue to believe he raped Alice. You'll accuse him of rape in your head, if nowhere else. But according to you, it would be correct to accuse him of rape out loud, simply on Alice's say-so.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This is how it works in the law. The very fact that the Police begin an investigation into a rape allegation show that they must be taking the allegation seriously.
Again, if an investigation of the claim is undertaken, that means the claim is, for the time being, regarded as valid.
That might work in philosophy, but that is not how investigations work in the Law. The Null Hypothesis is not a legal concept, and has no place in law.
No, it literally isn't.
No, it is explicitly NOT the scenario
Nope. Try reading the post you quoted again.
No, I never said that, nor did I imply it in any way, shape or form.
No, and...
No, and...
No.
Again, I suggest you again go back and read the post you quoted. I neither said nor implied and of the fantasy you have just made up.
Last edited:
You chose to mention one thing as if it was the only one significant enough to justify mentioning it and ended up demonstrating your ignorance. Moreover this isn't restricted to spousal relationships as you seem to believe. The same behaviour show up in all kinds of abusive relationships.
Again, the fact that the alleged victims of abusive and toxic relationships do not actively seek to end their relationship or contact any relevant authorities is not evidence that they were not subject to abuse.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Well, yeah. Accusing someone of rape is very serious. They should take it seriously, and mount a serious investigation. But I'm pretty sure they don't just start by assuming Bob raped Alice. And I'm absolutely sure that if they do, they shouldn't.
Also, "believe the victim" is not how it works in law. The actual standard in criminal law is "innocent until proven guilty". When the case goes to trial, the court does not believe the alleged victim. Rather, the court demands that she actually prove her claim, beyond reasonable doubt. Alice is the one in the legal hot seat, not Bob.
Again, no. Not unless you're equivocating on the meaning of "valid". I can agree that you have made a reasonable and interesting claim, that's it's worth applying the Null Hypothesis and trying to falsify it, without ever having to assume, a priori, that your claim is true.
Indeed, the application of the Null Hypothesis assumes a priori that your claim is false, and burdens you with the responsibility of proving otherwise. Science, like the courts, puts the claimant in the hot seat.
It's how it works in philosophy. It's how it works in science. It's how it works in court.
Maybe, according to your view, the police who investigate are implicitly assuming the accusations are true. And maybe according to the police view also. I don't know. But that's not what "believe the victim" usually means, is it?
Look, if you can think that it's possible to believe Alice's accusation against Bob, without necessarily believing Bob did it, then certainly I can think it's possible to investigate Alice's accusation without necessarily believing it's true. And I think my view is more rational than yours.
Yes, it literally is. My scenario is literally, "Alice accuses Bob of rape."
Explain to me how you get from "Alice accuses Bob of rape" to "the scenario is not Alice accuses Bob of rape".
Try reading the scenario we're discussing again.
Of course you did. You said, "you believe the victims unless or until you find evidence that contradicts their claims."
So. First, the police believe that Bob raped Alice. Then they investigate Bob to see if there's evidence that contradicts Alice. That seems like you did in fact imply hounding Bob to prove he didn't do it, in some way, shape or form.
Please be clear: Should the police assume that Bob raped Alice, before any evidence has been presented? Should they then investigate Bob, and see if he can produce any evidence that he didn't do what he's been accused of?
What happens if they don't find any contradictory evidence, but they also don't find any supporting evidence? Are they even supposed to look for supporting evidence, in your view? Or is it sufficient for them to believe Alice's claim?
I'm not sure how you square all these denials with your insistence that we believe Alice when she says Bob raped her.
Please be clear: In this scenario, before any evidence has been produced, do you or do you not believe that Bob raped Alice?
Again, I suggest you again go back and read the post you quoted. I neither said nor implied and of the fantasy you have just made up.[/QUOTE]
You said, "you believe the victims unless or until you find evidence that contradicts their claims."
Please be clear: Alice accused Bob of rape. You believe her. If it's reasonable for Alice to accuse Bob of rape, and if it's reasonable for you to assume that Bob raped her, based on the accusation alone, why is it not reasonable for you, acting on that belief, to also accuse Bob of rape?
If you believe Alice's accusation, how does that not make you implicitly a party to that accusation?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You and I are approaching this from two completely different viewpoints
I believe it is possible to accept that Alice's claim of being raped as being valid, while still not accusing Bob of rape. This is because I have an understanding of people and how they react and asses what they see. I can understand how two people can look at EXACTLY the same set of circumstances, and honestly come to polar opposite conclusions about what they mean. It doesn't mean one of them is lying or deceptive.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Somehow you've gotten even less clear to me.
To me, "believe the victim" means assuming their claim is true. Bob really did rape Alice.
To you, it seems to mean, assume their claim is valid. What's your difference between a true claim and a valid claim? When I believe the victim, what am I supposed to believe, if not that Bob really did rape Alice?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Please, just go back and read post #1159, and note very carefully the EXACT words I used in that post.
Do not add you own interpretation or spin
Do not add your own nuance or characterization
Do not extend what I said beyond what was actually, literally said.
If you still don't get it, well all I can do is quote Samuel Johnston...
"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding"
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The problem is that I don't know what you think "valid" actually literally means, if not "true".
What exactly am I supposed to believe, when I "believe the victim"?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its only a problem because you are making it a problem
Again, read EXACTLY what I said.
If you still don't understand, then I don't know what else to say. We are already at the baby steps stage, so I have reached the limit how simple I can make it for you.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Stop evading the facts in your examples, which are overwhelmingly to do with men in charge of boys either in schools, institutions or within their own family. A boy of 14 is often still a child biologically whereas girls grow up much faster, so a man who assaults a fourteen-year-old boy in his care probably really can be correctly called a paedophile, bearing in mind boys of that age can indeed be very manly with facial hair and deep voices, especially in Middle Eastern ethnicities. There is zero evidence either Maxwell or even Epstein were sexual tourists.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I am directing my attention at the forthcoming Maxwell trial, not trying to right all the wrongs of the world.
Sure, if someone is a co-dependent - as often happens in alcoholic or criminal families - they hang around for psychological reasons, but what has that got to do with Maxwell? If Giuffre was co-dependent on Epstein, that is between her and Epstein. Maybe she'll it make clear in court how exactly Maxwell forced her into sex work, as she claims. I am glad it is going to court so we can find out the truth of the matter.