• 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

Vixen said:
Fair enough. She had until 14 Aug 2021. That is a Sunday. I don't know if the US legal system is similar to the UK but deadlines are usually designated as
Wednesday.
Click to expand...

In the US, deadlines vary depending on weather conditions. Also they're different the closer you get to the tropical latitudes.
 
I thought that this was interesting. Bit of a grain of salt, due to the source (Michael Wolff).

Steve Bannon prepped Jeffrey Epstein for CBS interview, Michael Wolff claims

Ex-Trump strategist told financier to ‘stick to his message, which is that he is not a paedophile’, New York Times reports

Jeffrey Epstein gave a series of interviews on film in 2019 in which his interviewer said the financier and convicted sex trafficker was “engaging, not threatening … [not] at all creepy … a sympathetic figure”.

The interviewer was the former Trump strategist Steve Bannon.

The episode, as reported by the New York Times, is described in a book of profiles, Too Famous: The Rich, the Powerful, the Wishful, the Notorious, the Damned, due out in October. The author is Michael Wolff, who wrote Fire and Fury and two other exposés of Donald Trump’s presidency.

The Times also reported that Bannon told Epstein to “look directly into the camera now and then”, so as not to come across as stupid, and advised his subject “not to share his racist theories on how Black people learn”.
Click to expand...
 
carlitos said:
I thought that this was interesting. Bit of a grain of salt, due to the source (Michael Wolff).
Click to expand...

Jeffrey Epstein gave a series of interviews on film in 2019 in which his interviewer said the financier and convicted sex trafficker was “engaging, not threatening … [not] at all creepy … a sympathetic figure”.
Click to expand...


"Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who cloak themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged"
- Jeri Taylor
.
.
 
Ghislaine Maxwell's brother says the DOJ went after her because Bill Barr was embarrassed by Jeffrey Epstein's death

https://www.insider.com/ghislaine-m...arr-prosecution-jeffrey-epstein-death-2021-10

  • Ghislaine Maxwell's brother is defending her ahead of her sex trafficking trial.
  • In an interview with Insider, Ian Maxwell blamed his sister's incarceration on Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr.
  • Barr went after Ghislaine because he was embarrassed by Jeffrey Epstein's suicide on his watch, Maxwell says.
Click to expand...

He also thinks she'll be found not guilty.
 
Orphia Nay said:
The judge is allowing testimony from Elizabeth Loftus and another expert on how false memories can be created.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...lse-memories-expert-testify-trial-2021-11-22/
Click to expand...


And that's absolutely fair and correct: psychologists are now well aware of the phenomenon of false memory, so it's right that the court should be made aware of it too (it's still something that many laypeople aren't really all that aware of - there's a tendency to think that in these memory-critical situations, the person is either telling the truth or lying, without realising the third possibility: that the person is sincere but wrong).

Not that I suspect it'll make all that much difference to the outcome - there's just (apparently) far too much evidence, and far too many independent cross-corroborations.
 
LondonJohn said:
And that's absolutely fair and correct: psychologists are now well aware of the phenomenon of false memory, so it's right that the court should be made aware of it too (it's still something that many laypeople aren't really all that aware of - there's a tendency to think that in these memory-critical situations, the person is either telling the truth or lying, without realising the third possibility: that the person is sincere but wrong).

Not that I suspect it'll make all that much difference to the outcome - there's just (apparently) far too much evidence, and far too many independent cross-corroborations.
Click to expand...

Indeed. False Memory really only applies in situations where a single, usually very young alleged victim makes accusations against a single, alleged perpetrator, and only in very specific and peculiar circumstances. When several different people are making similar allegations, false memory is not in play.

Additionally, false memories rarely arise spontaneously or absent other influences, which usually means they have been coached.
 
Orphia Nay said:
The judge is allowing testimony from Elizabeth Loftus and another expert on how false memories can be created.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...lse-memories-expert-testify-trial-2021-11-22/
Click to expand...

I understand why they want to and false memories is something that exists and is often poorly understood. However, I don't think it should be allowed as a general point. If the defence wants to claim that victim X is suffering from false memories, they need to have an expert explain specifically why that victim's account is a false memory, not that it could be a false memory.
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed. False Memory really only applies in situations where a single, usually very young alleged victim makes accusations against a single, alleged perpetrator, and only in very specific and peculiar circumstances. When several different people are making similar allegations, false memory is not in play.

Additionally, false memories rarely arise spontaneously or absent other influences, which usually means they have been coached.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's all very much wrong. We all have false memories, they "spontaneously" arise all the time. We now know much more about how memory works and why false memories are so prevalent.

ETA: This link has a good summary of "false memories".


".... The bottom line

False memories aren’t rare. Everyone has them. They range from small and trivial, like where you swear you put your keys last night, to significant, like how an accident happened or what you saw during a crime..... "​
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Sorry but that's all very much wrong. We all have false memories, they "spontaneously" arise all the time. We now know much more about how memory works and why false memories are so prevalen
......
Click to expand...


Sure, we all get that memory is imperfect. We see and experience things from our unique perspective, and we tend to fill in the blanks if we don't fully understand something, although I would say false memory and just plain failed memory ("where did I leave my keys?") are not the same. But that's far different from claiming that adult women won't remember whether they were raped or molested as teenage girls, or will manufacture a false accusation. If Maxwell's defense is that her multiple accusers are all lying, deliberately or because of "false memory," it's hard to believe it will go far with a jury.

And Loftus can only testify generally about the concept. She hasn't examined the accusers and has no direct knowledge of the case. After debunking a lot of the crazy satanic cult claims from the '80s, she has apparently made a career of impugning eyewitness testimony in criminal trials, including supporting O.J. Simpson, Ted Bundy(!) and Michael Jackson. Sometimes witnesses are wrong. But they are often right, too, especially when they know the parties involved and when they themselves are the victims.

She also has what some might consider a peculiar perspective.
"When working on legal cases, in the end I can't say the abuse didn't happen. I can only say if these memories are false, here's how they may have developed. And I have this history--going way back-of worrying about the falsely accused. If there's one question I have about myself, one puzzle, it's that history." She has always worried about unfair punishment and has accepted almost every death penalty case offered. Her schedule is packed with flights to various cities to participate in court cases.
Scratch the surface and you discover how skeptical she is about the view of sexual abuse as the root of life-long trauma: she herself was molested by a baby-sitter when she was six and shrugs it off. "It's not that big a deal," she says candidly. When I mention award-winning poet Michael O'Ryan's recent memoir--in which he describes his childhood molestation as the cause of a tragic life centered around sexual addiction, which psychotherapy only belatedly began to heal--she gently scoffs and suggests that O'Ryan's therapy itself may have helped him create a revisionist view of his life, in which all of his troubles were traceable to that early experience.
Click to expand...
[From 1996]https://staff.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/psytoday.htm
 
Last edited:
What Bob001 said.

We aren't talking about girls having trivial memory failures about where they left their car keys. They are making accusations of being repeatedly raped, sexually assaulted and/or sex-trafficked by people they knew personally. Those kinds of memories, if they are false, do not arise spontaneously - they would have to be coached in much the same way the children and young people at the centre of the 1980s Satanic Panic were coached into "remembering" things that never happened by clueless child psychologists using flawed techniques and planted suggestions. These girls have not woken up one morning and suddenly, falsely, remembered they were repeatedly raped, or repeatedly sex-trafficked over a period of months and years.
 
smartcooky said:
What Bob001 said.

We aren't talking about girls having trivial memory failures about where they left their car keys. They are making accusations of being repeatedly raped, sexually assaulted and/or sex-trafficked by people they knew personally. Those kinds of memories, if they are false, do not arise spontaneously - they would have to be coached in much the same way the children and young people at the centre of the 1980s Satanic Panic were coached into "remembering" things that never happened by clueless child psychologists using flawed techniques and planted suggestions. These girls have not woken up one morning and suddenly, falsely, remembered they were repeatedly raped, or repeatedly sex-trafficked over a period of months and years.
Click to expand...


Ultimately, it will come down to what the court believes is - or is not - based in reason.

Suppose there were a (hypothetical) case with a single 32-yr-old woman saying she was (for instance) raped by Mr X when she was 14, then any court would be dangerously (= appealably or reversibly) wrong to dismiss attempts by the defence to introduce testimony from a false-memory expert. And the court would be tasked with deciding whether it was a possibility based in reason that this woman's memory of the event had been falsely implanted. If literally all there was was the woman's claim, it might actually be difficult for the court to convict the man: after all, in order to do so, the court would have to effectively conclude that there was a zero chance that this woman was undergoing false-memory syndrome.

But if, say, there was other corroborating evidence (eg credit card receipts, diary entries by her, testimony from friends she'd told about it at the time, etc), then it's likely that the court would be able to safely dismiss the possibility of this being a false-memory situation, and would convict.


In the Maxwell case, I think what we'll see in trial is that there's a whole heap of corroborating and self-reinforcing evidence/testimony. And as in my previous paragraph above, I think therefore that the weight of evidence will allow the court to conclude with safety that at least some (if not all) of the victims were remembering real events rather than false memories. Thus will the testimony of Loftus end up being (IMO) of no real value to the defence in any event.

(But as I said in a previous post: I completely agree that Loftus should be heard. Had the court dismissed this defence request, it could - probably would - have caused significant problems to the safety of any convictions, and might very well have ultimately resulted in retrials)
 
smartcooky said:
What Bob001 said.

We aren't talking about girls having trivial memory failures about where they left their car keys. They are making accusations of being repeatedly raped, sexually assaulted and/or sex-trafficked by people they knew personally. Those kinds of memories, if they are false, do not arise spontaneously - they would have to be coached in much the same way the children and young people at the centre of the 1980s Satanic Panic were coached into "remembering" things that never happened by clueless child psychologists using flawed techniques and planted suggestions. These girls have not woken up one morning and suddenly, falsely, remembered they were repeatedly raped, or repeatedly sex-trafficked over a period of months and years.
Click to expand...


True, but what Darat says is valid and pertinent too.

Even in non-trivial instances in the extremely recent past, rational adults can be frighteningly prone to false memory. There have been countless psychological studies where, for example, they've engineered it for a subject to be walking through a park (perhaps on their way to what they believe is the test they're going to be asked to take), when all of a sudden a man appears from nowhere, pushes a woman to the ground right in front of them, robs the woman, and runs off (in a scenario set up by the investigators, of course). When they ask the subjects for details about what they just witnessed - even just moments after the event - those subjects can a) get key details wrong, and b) be adamant that they're right (about these incorrect details). And it can be over such basic things as which direction the robber ran off in; or whether or not he was wearing a hat; or whether or not he pointed a handgun at the woman.

On top of that, it's long been known that in real-world scenarios, people can similarly get important (and basic) details wrong (while at the same time insisting that they are getting those details right). It happened on 9/11, it happened in Dealey Plaza on 22nd November 1963, it even happens all the time in the classic aphorism "everyone (who was alive at the time) knows where they were and what they were doing when they heard that Kennedy had been assassinated".
 
Yeah. Elizabeth Loftus is a well-recognized authority on this topic. I wonder to what extent it could backfire on Maxwell if Loftus gives a professional opinion that the testimony does not run a high risk of being a false memory.

In other related stuff, I noticed that some people I know on Facebook have started saying that the trial is being suppressed by the powers that be! Why, they ask, is the Rittenhouse trial splashed across all the media but nobody is talking about the ongoing Maxwell trial.

I pointed out that the Illuminati cunningly put the trial in the future which is why we don’t know what is going on. Needless to say, I had the last laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom