• 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

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.

Rape is rape, no matter what the circumstances
Sexual assault is sexual assault no matter what the circumstances
Sex trafficking is sex trafficking no matter what the circumstances

In this case it is a very close match in the most important aspects - people in positions of power (Priests/Epstein/Maxwell) using that power to influence young people and under aged people into illegal sexual encounters.

Your attempts at hand-waving things away that don't fit your preferred narrative have been noted.. which is a nice way of saying that I'm not buying your BS... (and no-one else here is either.)

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.

Yawn

Yada yada yada... more utterly irrelevant bollocks

There is zero evidence either Maxwell or even Epstein were sexual tourists.

Strawman. No-one is claiming they were. I was pointing out a FACT about the law.... in your own country, to challenge your BS about under age laws and jurisdictions.

At least try to make the effort to keep up.
 
Last edited:
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.

I thought you told me you knew what the word meant?
 
Rape is rape, no matter what the circumstances

In this case it is a very close match in the most important aspects - people in positions of power (Priests/Epstein/Maxwell) using that power to influence young people and under aged people into illegal sexual encounters.

Your attempts at hand-waving things away that don't fit your preferred narrative have been noted.. which is a nice way of saying that I'm not buying your BS... (and no-one else here is either.)



Yawn

Yada yada yada... more utterly irrelevant bollocks



Strawman. No-one is claiming they were. I was pointing out a FACT about the law.... in your own country, to challenge your BS about under age laws and jurisdictions.

At least try to make the effort to keep up.

Maxwell is not charged with rape. You might wish she was, which gives us an insight into your own projections. There is a woeful lack of scepticism here, lapping up everything Murdoch publications have to say, when he was an arch enemy of rival newspaper mogul, Robert Maxwell.

So out of hundreds of women procured, as claimed by Giuffre herself, four claim to have been underaged. Hardly points to a paedophile.

Why do you need Maxwell to be a gang raping paedophile sex trafficker of little children?

Reevaluate your assumptions.
 
Please keep to the topic of the thread, and knock off the bickering and other off topic discussions.
Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
I am directing my attention at the forthcoming Maxwell trial, not trying to right all the wrongs of the world.

Oh so you can't bothered, is that it? What a lame ass excuse.

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?

Except there's no need to be "co-dependent" as I've already explained.
 
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.
Industrial schools are exempt from duty of care?


*Children who really were biological children.
What difference should that make? I would defend my two children. I would defend anyone else's children. What kind of scum would not?

You are the one who has a screwed up world view believing all the sensationalist junk in the media completely uncritically.
Yet you believe all the Knox sensationalist junk.

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.
I am familiar with biblical apologism. Rape apologism is new.

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.
You hung out Knox. Why have you a totally different attitude to Maxwell? What is different?
 
Last edited:
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"?

Look at the reason why the police in many Western countries started to get such guidance.

Historically, and even quite recently, the police would look at rape accusations and dismiss them as having no evidence beyond the conflicting words of each parties. That lead to serial rapists avoiding being caught because each of the multiple accusations had been dismissed out of hand without the pattern being spotted.
 
Look at the reason why the police in many Western countries started to get such guidance.

Historically, and even quite recently, the police would look at rape accusations and dismiss them as having no evidence beyond the conflicting words of each parties. That lead to serial rapists avoiding being caught because each of the multiple accusations had been dismissed out of hand without the pattern being spotted.

A case on point...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/an-epidemic-of-disbelief/592807/

As [Assistant Prosecutor] Spada wandered through the warehouse, he made another discovery, one that would help uncover a decades-long scandal, not just in Detroit but across the country. He noticed rows of steel shelving lined with white cardboard boxes, 10 inches tall and a foot wide, stacked six feet high. What are those? he asked a Detroit police officer who was accompanying him. Rape kits, the officer said.

"I’m assuming they’ve been tested?” Spada said.

“Oh, they’ve all been tested.”

Spada pulled out a box and peered inside. The containers were still sealed, indicating that the evidence had never been sent to a lab. He opened four more boxes: the same.

“I tried to do a quick calculation,” he later told me. “I came up with approximately 10,000.”

Spada’s estimate was conservative. Eventually 11,341 untested rape kits were found, some dating back more than 30 years—each one a hermetically sealed testament to the most terrifying minutes of a woman’s life, each one holding evidence that had been swabbed or plucked from the most private parts of her body. And in all likelihood, some microscopic part of her assailant—his DNA, his identity—sat in that kit as well.

Or kits.


The serial rapist they eventually caught and prosecuted, Eric Eugene Wilkes, raped his first victim in December 2000, and his eleventh victim in January 2012. The police in Detroit didn't take any of the previous 10 seriously enough to bother getting their rape kits tested. That is what happens when you adopt a position of not believing the rape victim. The eleventh victim recognised Wilkes, and he was arrested shortly afterwards. Had that not happened, there would likely have been a 13th victim, and a 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th....

No person who claimed or complained of being a victim of a theft or burglary was ever offhandedly dismissed in the way the rape victims were dismissed.
 
Last edited:
... and no person who claimed or complained of being a victim of a theft or burglary was ever offhandedly dismissed in the way the rape victims were dismissed.

That's because no one is under the illusion that someone else's house should give you want you want.

"What was your house wearing at the time?"
 
Look at the reason why the police in many Western countries started to get such guidance.

Historically, and even quite recently, the police would look at rape accusations and dismiss them as having no evidence beyond the conflicting words of each parties. That lead to serial rapists avoiding being caught because each of the multiple accusations had been dismissed out of hand without the pattern being spotted.

Whilst it is true the police (in the UK, at least) are far more enlightened, the fact remains, it is the CPS - the prosecutors - who decide whether it goes to trial or not. Whilst long-term child abuse cases often succeed, the CPS rejects a majority of rape cases because of what it calls 'no reasonable prospect of success'. The statistics back this up. Of the rape cases who go to court, less than 5% get a conviction.
 
A case on point...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/an-epidemic-of-disbelief/592807/

As [Assistant Prosecutor] Spada wandered through the warehouse, he made another discovery, one that would help uncover a decades-long scandal, not just in Detroit but across the country. He noticed rows of steel shelving lined with white cardboard boxes, 10 inches tall and a foot wide, stacked six feet high. What are those? he asked a Detroit police officer who was accompanying him. Rape kits, the officer said.

"I’m assuming they’ve been tested?” Spada said.

“Oh, they’ve all been tested.”

Spada pulled out a box and peered inside. The containers were still sealed, indicating that the evidence had never been sent to a lab. He opened four more boxes: the same.

“I tried to do a quick calculation,” he later told me. “I came up with approximately 10,000.”

Spada’s estimate was conservative. Eventually 11,341 untested rape kits were found, some dating back more than 30 years—each one a hermetically sealed testament to the most terrifying minutes of a woman’s life, each one holding evidence that had been swabbed or plucked from the most private parts of her body. And in all likelihood, some microscopic part of her assailant—his DNA, his identity—sat in that kit as well.

Or kits.


The serial rapist they eventually caught and prosecuted, Eric Eugene Wilkes, raped his first victim in December 2000, and his eleventh victim in January 2012. The police in Detroit didn't take any of the previous 10 seriously enough to bother getting their rape kits tested. That is what happens when you adopt a position of not believing the rape victim. The eleventh victim recognised Wilkes, and he was arrested shortly afterwards. Had that not happened, there would likely have been a 13th victim, and a 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th....

No person who claimed or complained of being a victim of a theft or burglary was ever offhandedly dismissed in the way the rape victims were dismissed.

That is very interesting but Maxwell is not charged with rape, nor even serial rape.
 
That is very interesting but Maxwell is not charged with rape, nor even serial rape.

I wasn't addressing you, or any of the disingenuous crap you have posted in this thread. I'm also past taking any notice of posters who are little more than apologists for Maxwell.

Goodbye.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom