• 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

Maxwell paid millions to avoid her lies coming out, and they finally came out anyway. Making fun of these lies somehow "silly buggers" because ... ?
 
carlitos said:
Maxwell paid millions to avoid her lies coming out, and they finally came out anyway. Making fun of these lies somehow "silly buggers" because ... ?
Click to expand...

I've explained why I think it's silly buggers.

Also, Maxwell's millions also paid to stop Giuffre from continuing to speak out on that topic, and paid to prevent the truth from being used against her in a criminal trial. Or at least to force the criminal prosecutors to re-do the earlier work from the civil trial.

Also, it's still a reasonable and pragmatic strategy, even though it had a non-zero chance of not achieving all its goals.

Also, Maxwell has apparently done some really awful things. She's standing trial for some of those things right now. This is a pretty serious matter. If her testimony - "I forget" - is permissible, and it serves as an obstacle between the prosecution and her conviction, then capering outside the courthouse saying, "haha, we know you're lying!" kind of misses the point. At this stage, it literally doesn't matter what we outside the courtroom think or know. Just like it really doesn't matter what we outside the courtroom think or know about OJ Simpson. Even the finding of liability in the civil trial doesn't really matter to the fact that he was acquitted of the murder. "Haha, but we know he lied about murdering those people" is the most meagre of silver linings in that case.

ETA: Also, why should Maxwell *not* pay to settle the civil case, just because there's a chance that the things she's trying to hide will be revealed in the future anyway? Should she just assume the worst case scenario, and do nothing to hedge against misfortune?
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

AFAIAA only two have mentioned this including Virginia Giuffre. The main gist seems to be that Maxwell was hospitable, showed them around town and took them shopping, which in retrospect they now interpret as 'grooming'. However, since she was working for Epstein as an employee, it could just as well be normal client entertaining. She is a networker and well-connected so why wouldn't she exhibit social graces. She hasn't been charged with 'rape' so we will never know.
 
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean by sensationalist language: 'a minor child'' 'an American child'. Fact is, under UK law she was entitled to sleep with whomsoever she wished ceteris paribus. Having your photo taken with a celebrity doesn't necessarily mean they had sex with you. If Prince Andrew had sex with her, it doesn't necessarily follow that he knew she was a sex worker. The fact Ms Roberts and Maxwell, together with Epstein came to London together doesn't necessarily mean they were there to sex traffic.
 
gnome said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maxwell at the time, being somewhat snooty, arrogantly thought she could just brush aside all of Giuffre's claims in the civil case deposition. Little did she know this would come back to bite her. So yeah, Giuffre will be feeling an element of schadenfreude there, that Maxwell's been done for perjury for her high-handedness.
 
Vixen said:
This is what I mean by sensationalist language: 'a minor child'' 'an American child'. Fact is, under UK law she was entitled to sleep with whomsoever she wished ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...

Stop lying!

This is the same effective lie you keep repeating. Continuing to repeat it does not make it in the truth.

The age of consent in Britain IS IRRELEVANT, even of the crime takes place there, when the trial JURISDICTION is an another country. The moment you take a US child across a US statel border for sex, US Federal Law applies - 18 years old becomes the age of content (even if that age is lower in either or both of the two states).

US Federal law is exactly the same with international borders. Take a 17 year old from a US state with a 16 year old age of consent, to Japan (where the age of consent is 13), and that is an offence under US Federal law because the Federal age of consent is 18. Period!

US Federal trials are under US Federal jurisdiction, and in the US jurisdiction, Giuffre was a minor child. There is no legal end-run around this.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So Giuffre was paid off. If she accepted the settlement, what is the problem?
Click to expand...

That was just for the defamation. I'm pretty sure that it did not cover any other wrongs she may have inflicted on Giuffre, civil or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
AFAIAA only two have mentioned this including Virginia Giuffre. The main gist seems to be that Maxwell was hospitable, showed them around town and took them shopping, which in retrospect they now interpret as 'grooming'. .
Click to expand...

Since it is a known fact that this is exactly how sex traffickers work - befriending the prospective victim and gaining their trust before betraying them later, then yes... this is an obvious part of the grooming process.
 
Vixen said:
This is what I mean by sensationalist language: 'a minor child'' 'an American child'. Fact is, under UK law she was entitled to sleep with whomsoever she wished ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that federal US law prohibit someone from bringing an underage minor to another country and having sex with them, even if it was not actually illegal to under the laws of the country in question. No doubt it is especially prohibited if this underage minor was being paid or otherwise compensated for providing sexual relationships.
 
Arcade22 said:
I'm pretty sure that federal US law prohibit someone from bringing an underage minor to another country and having sex with them, even if it was not actually illegal to under the laws of the country in question. No doubt it is especially prohibited if this underage minor was being paid or otherwise compensated for providing sexual relationships.
Click to expand...

Correct - see my post #1209
 
smartcooky said:
Stop lying!

This is the same effective lie you keep repeating. Continuing to repeat it does not make it in the truth.

The age of consent in Britain IS IRRELEVANT, even of the crime takes place there, when the trial JURISDICTION is an another country. The moment you take a US child across a US statel border for sex, US Federal Law applies - 18 years old becomes the age of content (even if that age is lower in either or both of the two states).

US Federal law is exactly the same with international borders. Take a 17 year old from a US state with a 16 year old age of consent, to Japan (where the age of consent is 13), and that is an offence under US Federal law because the Federal age of consent is 18. Period!

US Federal trials are under US Federal jurisdiction, and in the US jurisdiction, Giuffre was a minor child. There is no legal end-run around this.
Click to expand...


And here is something from the Justice Department to confirm this:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ce...extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children

You can’t even travel to the UK to have sex with a 16 year old as an American citizen or resident. You certainly can’t take a kid from the US to the UK and it suddenly becomes hunky dory.
 
smartcooky said:
Stop lying!

This is the same effective lie you keep repeating. Continuing to repeat it does not make it in the truth.

The age of consent in Britain IS IRRELEVANT, even of the crime takes place there, when the trial JURISDICTION is an another country. The moment you take a US child across a US statel border for sex, US Federal Law applies - 18 years old becomes the age of content (even if that age is lower in either or both of the two states).

US Federal law is exactly the same with international borders. Take a 17 year old from a US state with a 16 year old age of consent, to Japan (where the age of consent is 13), and that is an offence under US Federal law because the Federal age of consent is 18. Period!

US Federal trials are under US Federal jurisdiction, and in the US jurisdiction, Giuffre was a minor child. There is no legal end-run around this.
Click to expand...

It would only be an offence if the purpose was:

  • to sex traffic that person
  • that person was a minor
  • that person did have sex with a client in exchange for money, or was intended to.

Prince Andrew has denied he had sex with her. How can it be proven he did and that he or Maxwell paid her for it? Suppose it was Epstein who did all this?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Since it is a known fact that this is exactly how sex traffickers work - befriending the prospective victim and gaining their trust before betraying them later, then yes... this is an obvious part of the grooming process.
Click to expand...

I was groomed by a particular bank, and all sorts of different people who were after my business. I still have a lovely piece of cut glass crystal from Galway as a gift. It even took me to an exhibition at V&A and dinner in Kensington High Road. The truth is, in England, taking people out to lunch and inviting them to balls and conferences (which are usually an excuse for luscious buffets and wine waiters) is what smooths the wheels of business. Maxwell may well have been 'grooming' underage girls but then as a typical business woman she might just have been doing what comes naturally. Most of Epstein's victims were in their twenties and late teens so I can't see that Maxwell was targetting children. She had no authority over them. She wasn't a teacher or a carer. They went home at the end of their working sessions.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
I'm pretty sure that federal US law prohibit someone from bringing an underage minor to another country and having sex with them, even if it was not actually illegal to under the laws of the country in question. No doubt it is especially prohibited if this underage minor was being paid or otherwise compensated for providing sexual relationships.
Click to expand...

But it is an assumption that Miss Roberts was brought to England for sex. It is an assumption that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew.

If this is how it happened, then of course it is outrageous and illegal.
 
xjx388 said:
And here is something from the Justice Department to confirm this:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ce...extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children

You can’t even travel to the UK to have sex with a 16 year old as an American citizen or resident. You certainly can’t take a kid from the US to the UK and it suddenly becomes hunky dory.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing about that. The question is: did Maxwell (rather than Epstein or together with Epstein) specifically bring Miss Roberts to England to have sex with Prince Andrew or anybody in exchange for gain?

I can see any number of reasons Miss Giuffre came to England. It is even possible she slept with Prince Andrew voluntarily with Maxwell having nothing to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom