Ghislaine Maxwell

[LondonJohn]

..or there has been a lot of publicity and sensationalism.

...or you're simply ignorant and wrong.

(I know which option I find vastly more likely)

 

[smartcooky]

Who has said all these claims are all false memories?

You did!

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.

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.
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[/I]..... "[/INDENT]

When I said false memories don't arise spontaneously, I was not talking about trivial misremembering like being wrong about where you left you car keys! I was commenting in the context of this case and this topic of this thread. When people have false memories of extremely traumatic events such as being raped and sexually assaulted, those memories never arise spontaneously - they are always coached to "remember", usually by a psycho-quack. There has never been a case of multiple victims all falsely remembering suffering years of being raped and sexually assaulted by the same two people. If you think there is one, please link to it (and please, no more links involving car keys and washing machines!)

 

[Darat]

You did!






When I said false memories don't arise spontaneously, I was not talking about trivial misremembering like being wrong about where you left you car keys! I was commenting in the context of this case and this topic of this thread. When people have false memories of extremely traumatic events such as being raped and sexually assaulted, those memories never arise spontaneously - they are always coached to "remember", usually by a psycho-quack. There has never been a case of multiple victims all falsely remembering suffering years of being raped and sexually assaulted by the same two people. If you think there is one, please link to it (and please, no more links involving car keys and washing machines!)

You have quoted my posts which show that I did not claim they were all suffering from false memories.

Indeed I’m even against a “generic” statement being made in court about false memories, if the defence wants to claim false memories they need to show why and specifically to each of the victims.all the statements.

ETA: you also being disingenuous as in the very article you keep pulling the “car keys” from states and that I quoted “ 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..”

I would suggest you research the fallibility of human memory.

 

[smartcooky]

You have quoted my posts which show that I did not claim they were all suffering from false memories.

Indeed I’m even against a “generic” statement being made in court about false memories, if the defence wants to claim false memories they need to show why and specifically to each of the victims.all the statements.

ETA: you also being disingenuous as in the very article you keep pulling the “car keys” from states and that I quoted “ 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..”

I would suggest you research the fallibility of human memory.

Meh... you just completely ignored the context of what I said... again!

Just answer this... on a scale from 0 to 9, with 0 being impossible and 9 being certain to happen...

How likely do you think it is that four people could all have vivid memories of being sex-trafficked, sexually assaulted and raped by two individuals that all four knew, over a time span of several years.... that NONE of what they remember actually happened, and that it ALL came from un-coached spontaneously arising false memories.

NOTE: You only earn the right to elaborate, qualify or explain once you give me a number.

 

[Vixen]

Meh... you just completely ignored the context of what I said... again!

Just answer this... on a scale from 0 to 9, with 0 being impossible and 9 being certain to happen...

How likely do you think it is that four people could all have vivid memories of being sex-trafficked, sexually assaulted and raped by two individuals that all four knew, over a time span of several years.... that NONE of what they remember actually happened, and that it ALL came from un-coached spontaneously arising false memories.

NOTE: You only earn the right to elaborate, qualify or explain once you give me a number.

Whoa! It is possible for four witnesses to all be wrong you know, especially where an advert asking for people to come forward has been put out, as Giuffre's Bradley Edwards did. Not to say they are liars or even false memories but such solicitations do attract the unscrupulous. For example, in the Grenfell fire case, a whole bunch of fraudsters came forward claiming to be victims in order to get free hotel accommodation and 'compo'.

Not saying this has happened here, just that you can't assume that just because there are many claimants it proves the case.

 

[Darat]

Meh... you just completely ignored the context of what I said... again!

Just answer this... on a scale from 0 to 9, with 0 being impossible and 9 being certain to happen...

How likely do you think it is that four people could all have vivid memories of being sex-trafficked, sexually assaulted and raped by two individuals that all four knew, over a time span of several years.... that NONE of what they remember actually happened, and that it ALL came from un-coached spontaneously arising false memories.

NOTE: You only earn the right to elaborate, qualify or explain once you give me a number.

Horse and water.

 

[SteveAitch]

Meanwhile, back at the plot...

The case is starting to get some coverage in the UK press*. Well, in the i, at any rate.

* possibly because things are starting to happen.

 

[smartcooky]

Horse and water.

Translation: You can't answer the question, because you can't back up your position with facts and evidence.

Whoa! It is possible for four witnesses to all be wrong you know, especially where an advert asking for people to come forward has been put out, as Giuffre's Bradley Edwards did. Not to say they are liars or even false memories but such solicitations do attract the unscrupulous. For example, in the Grenfell fire case, a whole bunch of fraudsters came forward claiming to be victims in order to get free hotel accommodation and 'compo'.

Not saying this has happened here, just that you can't assume that just because there are many claimants it proves the case.

Wow. Four separate witnesses all have spontaneously arising false memories about having been sexually assaulted, raped and sex trafficked by the same two people over a period of several years.

Please use your "psychology degree" to ell us all the mechanics of how that could happen.

 

[Vixen]

Translation: You can't answer the question, because you can't back up your position with facts and evidence.



Wow. Four separate witnesses all have spontaneously arising false memories about having been sexually assaulted, raped and sex trafficked by the same two people over a period of several years.

Please use your "psychology degree" to ell us all the mechanics of how that could happen.

Teenagers go to parties and have sex with what they considered attractive men at the time. Fair enough, you can call it statutory rape if the woman concerned is legally underage at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean violence and assault was involved. Two of the accusers of Maxwell were actually over the age of consent as of the jurisdiction in which they had sex with Epstein. (The UK, [17] and the State wherein Epstein has his ranch [16].)


We will soon discover what the case is against Maxwell.

Re Loftus: it's Maxwell's right of course to ask for whatever defence the court allows. However, to me, it smacks of cynicism and desperation on her part. I find it hard to respect. Reminds me of Derek Chauvin having to resort to some bent witness from South Africa to affirm his methods of police restraint were perfectly fine.

 

[angrysoba]

Meanwhile, back at the plot...

The case is starting to get some coverage in the UK press*. Well, in the i, at any rate.

* possibly because things are starting to happen.

What are the lizard people hiding?

Reports that investigators seized Ms Maxwell’s address books have sparked speculation that the trial could explore Epstein’s connections to Prince Andrew, former US president Bill Clinton and former OJ Simpson lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

But the judge has made clear there will be no name-dropping at trial, saying only certain pages of an address book – showing a section naming the alleged victims under the heading “massage” – will come into evidence.

 

[smartcooky]

Teenagers go to parties and have sex with what they considered attractive men at the time. Fair enough, you can call it statutory rape if the woman concerned is legally underage at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean violence and assault was involved. Two of the accusers of Maxwell were actually over the age of consent as of the jurisdiction in which they had sex with Epstein. (The UK, [17] and the State wherein Epstein has his ranch [16].)

Pro Tip: Sex trafficking is illegal regardless of the age of the trafficked girl.

We will soon discover what the case is against Maxwell.

Indeed we will. Her defence is premised basically on two things

1. Distancing herself from Epstein. That is going to be very difficult to do given there will be people who will testify that
a. she was a hirer/firer for him.
b. that she traveled extensively with him, and.
c. that she arranged girls to have sex with him.

2. Trying to demonize rape victims, essentially claiming that all four girls are lying/mistaken about everything. Demonizing rape victims does not generally fly well with juries.

Re Loftus: it's Maxwell's right of course to ask for whatever defence the court allows. However, to me, it smacks of cynicism and desperation on her part. I find it hard to respect. Reminds me of Derek Chauvin having to resort to some bent witness from South Africa to affirm his methods of police restraint were perfectly fine.

Even in the unlikely event that Loftus can give an opinion on these four victims without personally examining them, the prosecution is sure to bring in their own expert witness, who they may allow to examine the victims to give a countervailing opinion.

Calling Loftus could backfire on her very badly.
.
.
.

 

[angrysoba]

Pro Tip: Sex trafficking is illegal regardless of the age of the trafficked girl.



Indeed we will. Her defence is premised basically on two things

1. Distancing herself from Epstein. That is going to be very difficult to do given there will be people who will testify that
a. she was a hirer/firer for him.
b. that she traveled extensively with him, and.
c. that she arranged girls to have sex with him.

2. Trying to demonize rape victims, essentially claiming that all four girls are lying/mistaken about everything. Demonizing rape victims does not generally fly well with juries.



Even in the unlikely event that Loftus can give an opinion on these four victims without personally examining them, the prosecution is sure to bring in their own expert witness, who they may allow to examine the victims to give a countervailing opinion.

Calling Loftus could backfire on her very badly.
.
.
.

I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".

Indeed, I would imagine that a skilled prosecutor should surely be able to get Loftus to agree that her professional opinion on false memories in general has little or no bearing on the specific case.

 

[Vixen]

Pro Tip: Sex trafficking is illegal regardless of the age of the trafficked girl.



Indeed we will. Her defence is premised basically on two things

1. Distancing herself from Epstein. That is going to be very difficult to do given there will be people who will testify that
a. she was a hirer/firer for him.
b. that she traveled extensively with him, and.
c. that she arranged girls to have sex with him.

2. Trying to demonize rape victims, essentially claiming that all four girls are lying/mistaken about everything. Demonizing rape victims does not generally fly well with juries.



Even in the unlikely event that Loftus can give an opinion on these four victims without personally examining them, the prosecution is sure to bring in their own expert witness, who they may allow to examine the victims to give a countervailing opinion.

Calling Loftus could backfire on her very badly.
.
.
.

One strong point in Farmer's favour is that she and her sister did report Epstein to the FBI at the time but were disregarded. Even stronger still, is if she reported Maxwell, too.

 

[smartcooky]

I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".

Agreed. This amounts to throwing as much faeces at the wall as they can and hoping some of it will stick

Indeed, I would imagine that a skilled prosecutor should surely be able to get Loftus to agree that her professional opinion on false memories in general has little or no bearing on the specific case.

Hell, I could probably do that

"Ms Loftus, yes or no... have you personally, clinically examined any of the victims?"

"Can you please explain to the court exactly how the four victims in this case could have false memories about sexual assaults and rapes, inflicted upon them by the same two people, multiple times over a period of several years?"

and that's just for starters!

 

[Bob001]

Teenagers go to parties and have sex with what they considered attractive men at the time.
.....

That is not at all what (allegedly) happened.

 

[Bob001]

I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".
....

I'm waiting for another "I was just a silly girl who was intimidated by the big bad man" defense.

 

[Vixen]

Agreed. This amounts to throwing as much faeces at the wall as they can and hoping some of it will stick



Hell, I could probably do that

"Ms Loftus, yes or no... have you personally, clinically examined any of the victims?"

"Can you please explain to the court exactly how the four victims in this case could have false memories about sexual assaults and rapes, inflicted upon them by the same two people, multiple times over a period of several years?"

and that's just for starters!

To be fair to Dr. Loftus, these incidents did happen a long time ago. Mores change over time. For example, pre-1950's it was considered a great disgrace to have sex outside of marriage, get divorced, have an 'illegitimate' baby, etc. For some, attending Epstein's 'conferences' with concomitant dinner and party, packed to the gills with the rich and the famous, might have seemed a good idea at the time to some of Epstein's victims. IMV some will have had few regrets, others, looking back see themselves as having been taken advantage of. As the law allows all of these women redress, there are bound to be some who weren't particularly 'damaged' and others who deeply were. So the thing Loftus will look at is 'how come you are only now deeply damaged in great hindsight or is it to do with all the publicity that has convinced you you are a victim?' So in a way, it is a valid point.

 

[Darat]

I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".

…snip…

Our system is based on “innocent until proven guilty” so of course it is up to the prosecution to prove their case, not the defence to prove theirs.

Indeed, I would imagine that a skilled prosecutor should surely be able to get Loftus to agree that her professional opinion on false memories in general has little or no bearing on the specific case.

As I said earlier, Loftus should only be able to be used as a witness if the defence can specifically link “false memories” to a specific witness statement. Which she could only do my examining them in her professional capacity, without that professional examination her statements will be pretty much nothing but hearsay. That false memories are real and common doesn’t mean all memories are false memories.

 

[Matthew Best]

As the law allows all of these women redress, there are bound to be some who weren't particularly 'damaged' and others who deeply were. So the thing Loftus will look at is 'how come you are only now deeply damaged in great hindsight or is it to do with all the publicity that has convinced you you are a victim?' So in a way, it is a valid point.

The thing is the crimes are not based on how "damaged" the victims are. It doesn't matter if an underage boy says that having sex with his teacher was the best thing that ever happened to him - that teacher was still breaking the law and is going to jail. Same with Maxwell.

 

[angrysoba]

Our system is based on “innocent until proven guilty” so of course it is up to the prosecution to prove their case, not the defence to prove theirs.

Yes, absolutely.

As I said earlier, Loftus should only be able to be used as a witness if the defence can specifically link “false memories” to a specific witness statement. Which she could only do my examining them in her professional capacity, without that professional examination her statements will be pretty much nothing but hearsay. That false memories are real and common doesn’t mean all memories are false memories.

I have to wonder if this is more of a "Hail Mary Pass" rather than something that will be work. Are they just going to say, "As we have heard, false memories are a thing, so you have to prove these memories of the accusers are not false ones...."