Ghislaine Maxwell

[Bob001]

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

So what? Rape is generally a state crime. She is charged with eight federal crimes related to sex trafficking.

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As alleged, Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated, aided, and participated in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, and then delivered them into the trap that she and Jeffrey Epstein had set. She pretended to be a woman they could trust. All the while, she was setting them up to be abused sexually by Epstein and, in some cases, Maxwell herself.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/p...ral-court-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually
https://storage.courtlistener.com/r...d.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.187.0_4.pdf

 

[gnome]

That's worse. You see how that's worse, right?
</Chidi>

 

[Vixen]

So what? Rape is generally a state crime. She is charged with eight federal crimes related to sex trafficking.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/p...ral-court-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually
https://storage.courtlistener.com/r...d.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.187.0_4.pdf

Did you miss this paragraph at the bottom?

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.


[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Yes, we can often come to a safe conclusion before a trial. In this case, however, there has been so much hype, PR, sensationalism, and of course, Epstein is dead so one can say whatever ever you want about him without any fear of libel or defamation suits. What is concerning about these charges are that they are all framed with reference to Epstein, as though Maxwell being his SO must have collaborated with him. There are some big assumptions here.

 

[gnome]

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.

I think it's running into a dispute over the words chosen in slogans.

I'm pretty sure both prestige and those that argue "believe the victim" both think that allegations should be taken seriously, and that the victim's statements should not be dismissed without investigation.

So really they agree on what to do, they just don't want to call it the same thing. So it's really a labeling argument rather than a policy argument.

 

[smartcooky]

I think it's running into a dispute over the words chosen in slogans.

I'm pretty sure both prestige and those that argue "believe the victim" both think that allegations should be taken seriously, and that the victim's statements should not be dismissed without investigation.

Nope. theprestige made his opinions clear...

To me, "believe the victim" means assuming their claim is true. Bob really did rape Alice.

theprestige's position appears to be that if you take the victim's allegations seriously, then you are by default accusing someone of rape, thereby assuming that person's guilt.

The problem is that if you don't believe the victim, then you ARE dismissing their claim. Either you believe the victim or you don't - there is no possible middle ground here; its not possible to simultaneously believe and not believe the victim.

 

[gnome]

Nope. theprestige made his opinions clear...



theprestige's position appears to be that if you take the victim's allegations seriously, then you are by default accusing someone of rape, thereby assuming that person's guilt.

The problem is that if you don't believe the victim, then you ARE dismissing their claim. Either you believe the victim or you don't - there is no possible middle ground here; its not possible to simultaneously believe and not believe the victim.

Maybe he can clarify. I took it to mean that in his point of view "taking the claim seriously" is different from "believing the victim."

 

[smartcooky]

Maybe he can clarify. I took it to mean that in his point of view "taking the claim seriously" is different from "believing the victim."

I hope so, because in my reality, if you don't believe the victim, then you are not taking their claim seriously.

 

[Arcade22]

What is concerning about these charges are that they are all framed with reference to Epstein, as though Maxwell being his SO must have collaborated with him. There are some big assumptions here.

It has surely nothing to do with the fact that plenty of witnesses have explicitly identified Ghislaine Maxwell as being not just a facilitator of sexual abuse but also an active participant herself.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe he can clarify. I took it to mean that in his point of view "taking the claim seriously" is different from "believing the victim."

There's nothing to clarify. Our positions are clear. We just disagree.

 

[theprestige]

I hope so, because in my reality, if you don't believe the victim, then you are not taking their claim seriously.

But you take claims seriously, and investigate them seriously, without believing they are true a priori, all the time.

 

[Darat]

Nope. theprestige made his opinions clear...



theprestige's position appears to be that if you take the victim's allegations seriously, then you are by default accusing someone of rape, thereby assuming that person's guilt.

The problem is that if you don't believe the victim, then you ARE dismissing their claim. Either you believe the victim or you don't - there is no possible middle ground here; its not possible to simultaneously believe and not believe the victim.

I don't think it is that clear cut. The starting assumption should be a crime has been reported so we need to investigate that claim to see if a crime has happened. I'd almost say you do indeed want the police to neither believe nor disbelieve a reporter of a crime, we want them at the start of an investigation to be "agnostic" as their job is to investigate claims to ascertain if they are true or not. We have seen many cases of the police railroading an investigation because they decide someone's guilt at the start of an investigation as well as not investigating crimes because of who is making the claim.

Now of course the issue has been that the police have historically (and I'd say still do to a certain extent) not believed the report of crimes such as rape and sexual assault especially by women, The report is what the police should believe and investigate.

My wording is a tad messy but hopefully I get my point across, which is that all claims of a serious crime should always be investigated by the police and they should not be basing a decision as to investigate on their personal beliefs of the truthfulness of the person that has reported a crime.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

One can take a report seriously without forming a belief that its purport is true. One is an attitude, the other is an epistemic holding. They are different.

 

[theprestige]

Logically, it's begging the question.

Skeptically, it replaces knowledge with faith.

Colloquially, it's a reminder that police and society in general have often been too knee-jerk dismissive of rape accusations, for a variety of reasons.

Practically, a serious investigation of a rape claim doesn't require any more a priori belief than a serious investigation of any other kind of claim.

Honestly, I doubt that when smartcooky sets out to investigate a paranormal claim, he starts by believing the claimant. Even when he takes their claim seriously enough to do a serious investigation. I present the MDC tests as textbook examples of serious investigation where the investigator does not believe the claim.

 

[carlitos]

I saw this over the weekend, and thought I might link it here.

Ghislaine Maxwell was mocked by lawyers for her "near-total amnesia" about flights she took with Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, according to newly unsealed court documents.

The documents show that Giuffre's lawyers said Maxwell had an "extraordinary lack of memory about her involvement in the abuse."

"For instance, (Maxwell) cannot even recall a single flight on Epstein's private jet with Ms Giuffre, even though flight logs show that (Maxwell) had 23 flights with Ms Giuffre while Ms Giuffre was underage," Giuffre's lawyers said in the papers.

"Based on her convenient and near-total amnesia about documented incriminating events alone, a reasonable jury could find that she acted deliberately and maliciously when she arranged for false and defamatory statements about Ms. Giuffre to be transmitted literally around the globe," the attorneys said.

 

[theprestige]

Rhetoric aside, it seems to me that "I don't recall" and its variations are probably the best approach short of invoking the 5th amendment, when you don't want to give incriminating testimony. Getting mocked by the legal community for what is surely a tried-and-true legal strategy, probably advised by her own lawyers and by many of the lawyers now mocking her, is definitely a better outcome than languishing in prison.

What else is she supposed to say? "Oh yeah, I was there, I remember it clearly, I saw it all"?

 

[carlitos]

Flying on a private plane without noticing that there was a certain girl there on more than 20 of your flights is kind of unbelievable. The thing had like 25 seats, and they weren't always full.

Also - like, there's a photo of Virginia, Maxwell and Prince freaking Albert IN MAXWELL's HOME in London. She doesn't remember that either?


ETA - I just skimmed some of the released documents. There is going to be a lot more pain to come for Ms. Maxwell.

The Photographs

Throughout a mountain of briefing and, and even in her own deposition testimony, Defendant never offered an explanation regarding Ms. Giuffre’s photographs of her, Defendant, and Epstein. She never offered a legal explanation for why Prince Andrew was photographed with his hand around Ms. Giuffre’s bare waist while she was a minor child, while posing with Defendant, inside Defendant’s house in London. This particular photograph corroborates Ms. Giuffre’s claims, and there is no other reasonable explanation why an American child should be in the company of adults not her kin, in the London house owned by the girlfriend of a now- convicted sex offender.20

Ms. Giuffre also produced pictures of herself taken when she was in New York with Defendant and Epstein, and from a trip to Europe with Defendant and Epstein:21
20 See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 42, GIUFFRE007167, Prince Andrew and Defendant Photo. 21 See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 42, GIUFFRE007182 - 007166.13
Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page22 of 74

And, Ms. Giuffre has produced a number of pictures of herself taken at the Zorro Ranch, Epstein’s New Mexico Ranch, two of which are below.22
Finally, among other nude photos, which included full nudes of Defendant, Ms. Giuffre produced images of females that the Palm Beach Police confiscated during the execution of the
22 See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 42, GIUFFRE007175; 007173. 14

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page23 of 74
warrant, including one photograph revealing the bare bottom of a girl who appears to be pre- pubescent (Ms. Giuffre will only submit its redacted form): 23

 

[theprestige]

Flying on a private plane without noticing that there was a certain girl there on more than 20 of your flights is kind of unbelievable. The thing had like 25 seats, and they weren't always full.

I agree that it's not believable. But that's not important. What's important is that she did not admit to it on the record. I think the lawyers making fun of her are being disingenuous in a way that she is not.

(Obviously there's a certain amount of disingenuity to claiming not to remember something you almost certainly do remember. But this is a court of law. The rules of epistemology are somewhat different, and the stakes are much higher. Claiming a memory failure is a valid, legal, and pragmatic approach to the problem. She's doing what she needs to do to survive, and she's doing it within the rules of the game. The lawyers making fun of this are just playing silly buggers and probably being dishonest about the kind of advice they'd give their own clients in the same situation.)

ETA:

Defendant never offered an explanation regarding Ms. Giuffre’s photographs of her, Defendant, and Epstein. She never offered a legal explanation for why Prince Andrew was photographed with his hand around Ms. Giuffre’s bare waist while she was a minor child, while posing with Defendant, inside Defendant’s house in London.​

Why on earth would she offer an explanation for any of this? We all know she's not innocent. Any explanation she gives puts her at risk of either perjury or self-incrimination. Keeping her mouth shut, except to feign ignorance, is absolutely the right legal strategy for her to take. What is she supposed to say about the photographs? "That's not me"? "Yes I was there and saw the whole thing"? "It's not what it looks like, I swear!"?

 

[gnome]

Rhetoric aside, it seems to me that "I don't recall" and its variations are probably the best approach short of invoking the 5th amendment, when you don't want to give incriminating testimony. Getting mocked by the legal community for what is surely a tried-and-true legal strategy, probably advised by her own lawyers and by many of the lawyers now mocking her, is definitely a better outcome than languishing in prison.

What else is she supposed to say? "Oh yeah, I was there, I remember it clearly, I saw it all"?

Another angle on this--denying knowledge of something one obviously would know something about, in order to avoid simply refusing to discuss it, may indeed be a perfectly valid legal tactic. I think it's also valid for it to come at a cost, that of presenting oneself as not being fully candid and cooperative. I realize it's necessary often enough that it can't be taken as confirmation of anything specific, but it still leaves an impression. That cost may be better than the alternative, but that doesn't mean the cost should not exist.

 

[carlitos]

Maxwell was sued for defamation for having called Giuffre a lying, manipulative, so-and-so who made this whole thing up. That's what the evidence is from.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Giuffre-unseal.pdf

ETA - The case was settled, and Maxwell paid Giuffre "millions."

 

[theprestige]

Another angle on this--denying knowledge of something one obviously would know something about, in order to avoid simply refusing to discuss it, may indeed be a perfectly valid legal tactic. I think it's also valid for it to come at a cost, that of presenting oneself as not being fully candid and cooperative. I realize it's necessary often enough that it can't be taken as confirmation of anything specific, but it still leaves an impression. That cost may be better than the alternative, but that doesn't mean the cost should not exist.

I'm not saying the cost shouldn't exist. I think that cost is part of the pragmatic trade-off that a guilty person must consider when taking the stand. Making fun of her for making that pragmatic trade-off is playing silly buggers, in my opinion.