Ghislaine Maxwell

[Darat]

Yes, absolutely.



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...."

That is why I disagree with (what I think) the judge has allowed to happen which is Loftus will be able to describe false memories, how common they are, how easily they arise and so on all in general but not about specific witness statements.

However it could be even worse - if the defence is allowed to read parts of the witness' statements, and ask her "could this be a false memory" or even worse "is there anything in this statement that couldn't be explained by false memories?"

 

[smartcooky]

However it could be even worse - if the defence is allowed to read parts of the witness' statements, and ask her "could this be a false memory"

Objection: Calls for conclusion. The witness has not personally examined the victim.

or even worse "is there anything in this statement that couldn't be explained by false memories?"

Objection: Calls for speculation. Again, the witness has not personally examined the victim.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is true that the charges are based on what is defined by statute. However, it is not a crime until the jury find her guilty. On paper, sex with a seventeen-year-old is 'statutory rape'. However, in a borderline case, say it happened 20 years ago and the woman concerned had been a working prostitute for two years before ever meeting the accused (I am not saying this is the case here, just exaggerating to make a point) a jury might be loath to convict if (a) the victim was borderline underage and was enjoying life to the full at the time, (b did not complain to anybody at the time and (c) that a guilty verdict would condemn the accused to 80 years in prison.

The jury don't see it as the law, they weigh things up in terms of what they think is 'fair'.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is true that the charges are based on what is defined by statute. However, it is not a crime until the jury find her guilty. On paper, sex with a seventeen-year-old is 'statutory rape'. However, in a borderline case, say it happened 20 years ago and the woman concerned had been a working prostitute for two years before ever meeting the accused (I am not saying this is the case here, just exaggerating to make a point) a jury might be loath to convict if (a) the victim was borderline underage and was enjoying life to the full at the time, (b did not complain to anybody at the time and (c) that a guilty verdict would condemn the accused to 80 years in prison.

The jury don't see it as the law, they weigh things up in terms of what they think is 'fair'.

My god, this is such an incorrect understanding of the law - and the application of law - as to reach dangerous levels of ignorance.

You seriously think juries have the latitude to say (taking your example) "Oh well she was only just underage and she seemed to be enjoying things" and "the poor guy will be ruined if we convict him", and use those as reasons to acquit?

Really???

You clearly know nothing about jury trial, or about law in general. Because - to cut a long story short - your "understanding" here is as wrong as it could possibly be. And were you (god forbid) to be serving on a jury in this sort of trial, the judge would be instructing you and your colleagues - firmly and explicitly - to put that sort of thinking completely out of your minds during deliberations.


Wow. Wow!

 

[Vixen]

So, a summary of the opening statements

Opening statements

The prosecutors, a three-person team headed by Maurene Comey.

Poised to deliver an opening statement for the government is Assistant US Attorney Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz.

Ghislaine Maxwell targeted young girls for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a US prosecutor said on Monday in her opening statement in the New York trial of the British socialite.

"The defendant was trafficking kids for sex," prosecutors have said of Ghislaine Maxwell, who is facing six counts of enticing minors and sex trafficking.

"She preyed on vulnerable young girls, manipulated them, and served them up to be sexually abused," Assistant District Attorney Lara Pomerantz said in the prosecution's opening statement.

Assistant District Attorney Lara Pomerantz described Maxwell as "essential" to Epstein's abuse of the girls, seeking to undermine the defence's expected argument that she was not aware of Epstein's alleged crimes.

"Sometimes, she was even in the room for the massages herself, and sometimes she touched the girls' bodies," Pomerantz said.

"And even when she was not in the room, make no mistake: she knew exactly what Epstein was going to do with those children when she sent them to him inside the massage rooms."

TELEGRAPH

Yuck! Referring to the victims as 'kids', 'young girls' and 'children'. Okaaay.

The defence

Bobbi Sternheim said her client Ghislaine Maxwell was a "scapegoat for a man who behaved badly." Maxwell, she said, was being blamed for a man's bad behavior just as so many women have before, all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Sternheim said the four women who would testify that Maxwell recruited them to be sexually abused were suffering from quarter-century-old memories.

She added that the four women were also under the influence of lawyers who guided them to get money from a fund set up by Epstein's estate after his August 2019 suicide in jail as he awaited a sex trafficking trial.

The lawyer said "accusers have shaken the money tree and millions of dollars have fallen their way."

ibid

Double yuck! Disrespect for the prosecution witnesses by undermining their credibility. A cynical ploy. Accusing the prosecution witnesses of only being in it for the money. Urgh. Prince Andrew made this claim in his response to Giuffre, which is none of his business whether they are entitled to compensation or not. Likewise here. Issues about compensation come after the verdict, not before.

So all round bloody awful legal reasoning IMV.

 

[LondonJohn]

So, a summary of the opening statements

Opening statements

The prosecutors, a three-person team headed by Maurene Comey.

TELEGRAPH

Yuck! Referring to the victims as 'kids', 'young girls' and 'children'. Okaaay.

Because...... that's what these people were at the time of the alleged offences.

You seem to have serious comprehension issues around things like age of consent, or the point at which a person reaches the age of majority. Unsurprising, given your previous utterances in this thread.

Double yuck! Disrespect for the prosecution witnesses by undermining their credibility. A cynical ploy. Accusing the prosecution witnesses of only being in it for the money. Urgh. Prince Andrew made this claim in his response to Giuffre, which is none of his business whether they are entitled to compensation or not. Likewise here. Issues about compensation come after the verdict, not before.

This is all entirely normal for opening statements. You don't understand how criminal trials work in US federal courts.

So all round bloody awful legal reasoning IMV.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[angrysoba]

Double yuck! Disrespect for the prosecution witnesses by undermining their credibility. A cynical ploy. Accusing the prosecution witnesses of only being in it for the money. Urgh. Prince Andrew made this claim in his response to Giuffre, which is none of his business whether they are entitled to compensation or not. Likewise here. Issues about compensation come after the verdict, not before.

So all round bloody awful legal reasoning IMV.

What do you expect the defence to do? Make a statement that "It's a fair cop, guv! You have my client bang to rights!"?

 

[smartcooky]

Because...... that's what these people were at the time of the alleged offences.

This cannot be stated strongly enough. The age of content is a bright line. "Almost at the age of consent" is not a thing, in the same way that "almost pregnant" is not a thing, and "almost stopped at a Stop sign" is not a thing.

Additionally, there is the issue of jurisdictions. Vixen keeps bringing up this spurious claim about differing jurisdictions having different ages of consent and that this somehow muddies the waters and makes what Maxwell did legal. This is just completely and utterly wrong. For example, at time of writing, the age of consent in the Philippines is 12*. However, that does not mean anyone can take a 12 year old girl to the Philippines for sex and it becomes legal. The jurisdiction of the trial court is the only thing that counts, and in this case, that is the US Federal court.

18 U.S. Code § 2423 - Transportation of minors
(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.—
A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.—
A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, with a motivating purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(f) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means—
(1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

So, Maxwell transporting a 17 year old to England where the age of consent is 16 does not help her in a US Federal court.








*its about to be raised to 16, and about time!

 

[Bob001]

This cannot be stated strongly enough. The age of content is a bright line. "Almost at the age of consent" is not a thing, in the same way that "almost pregnant" is not a thing, and "almost stopped at a Stop sign" is not a thing.
.....

I just note that many of the allegations do not involve consent at any age. Women say that they were violently assaulted, that they were manipulated, intimidated, trafficked and abused in other ways. Their youth made them more vulnerable and more helpless, but the same acts would be serious crimes if they were 40.

 

[smartcooky]

I just note that many of the allegations do not involve consent at any age. Women say that they were violently assaulted, that they were manipulated, intimidated, trafficked and abused in other ways. Their youth made them more vulnerable and more helpless, but the same acts would be serious crimes if they were 40.

Indeed, this is something that is forgotten in Vixen's rush to judge how much the young girls/women "enjoyed it" and to label them as prostitutes... If you read the charging documents (warning 7MB PDF), and the statutes she has been charged under....

18 USC § 1623 False declarations before grand jury or court
18 USC § 371 Conspiracy to commit an offense
18 USC § 1591 Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
18 USC § 2422 (a) Coercion and enticement18 USC § 2423 (a) Transportation of Minors

the highlighted on is exactly what you are talking about

18 USC § 2422 (a) Coercion and enticement
(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.​

​

Notice that there is no mention of the age of the victims here!

 

[smartcooky]

The testimony from "Jane" today was damning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-accuser-jane-testimony.html

 

[Vixen]

What do you expect the defence to do? Make a statement that "It's a fair cop, guv! You have my client bang to rights!"?

IMV it is not a good look for a defendant to deprecate the 'victim' witnesses, allegedly one's victims. Imagine if someone accused of burglary starts mocking the person burgled, 'He's only after the insurance money!'

Maxwell is accused of sexually assaulting these young adults (let's not call them 'children', please) and it doesn't reflect well on the defence to claim they are just after the 'victim fund', as that should have nothing to do with it. IMHO.

 

[smartcooky]

IMV it is not a good look for a defendant to deprecate the 'victim' witnesses, allegedly one's victims. Imagine if someone accused of burglary starts mocking the person burgled, 'He's only after the insurance money!'

Maxwell is accused of sexually assaulting these young adults (let's not call them 'children', please) and it doesn't reflect well on the defence to claim they are just after the 'victim fund', as that should have nothing to do with it. IMHO.

I could perhaps agree with you regarding those 18 and over, but in the case of the 14 year old, I vehemently disagree. A 14 year old is a child not a young adult.

 

[Planigale]

This cannot be stated strongly enough. The age of content is a bright line. "Almost at the age of consent" is not a thing, in the same way that "almost pregnant" is not a thing, and "almost stopped at a Stop sign" is not a thing.

Additionally, there is the issue of jurisdictions. Vixen keeps bringing up this spurious claim about differing jurisdictions having different ages of consent and that this somehow muddies the waters and makes what Maxwell did legal. This is just completely and utterly wrong. For example, at time of writing, the age of consent in the Philippines is 12*. However, that does not mean anyone can take a 12 year old girl to the Philippines for sex and it becomes legal. The jurisdiction of the trial court is the only thing that counts, and in this case, that is the US Federal court.

18 U.S. Code § 2423 - Transportation of minors
(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.—
A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.—
A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, with a motivating purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(f) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means—
(1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

So, Maxwell transporting a 17 year old to England where the age of consent is 16 does not help her in a US Federal court.

*its about to be raised to 16, and about time!

Not wanting to make this specifically about this case, because I do not know enough about the evidence against the accused since the case is on going, but to make it more general.

The highlighted is interesting. It implies that if a business man travels to e.g. the Philippines on legitimate business but happens to pick up a girl of 12 (so not statutory rape in the local jurisdiction) and has sex with her this would not be a crime since the motivating purpose for travel was not sex. Conversely if you met a girl on line who was 17 (well over the age of consent in the local jurisdiction), and travelled to meet her, and had sex prior to marriage this would be a federal crime. I am unclear whether since the US allows marriage under the age of 18 if having sex after marrying a 17 year old would be a federal crime? My guess is that going on honeymoon with your 17 year old wife is not a Federal crime?

So it may be crucial to the prosecution to show Maxwell's intent in travel. As a UK citizen with a UK residence she has entirely legitimate reasons to travel to the UK. Even if an under 18 year old girl accompanied her and subsequently had sex with a guy she met at a party (not a local crime), the difficulty for the prosecution would seem to be to prove that the motivating purpose for travel was to have sex, with an under 18 yr old, or for the under 18 yr old to have sex.

Whilst being aware of statuary rape and not reporting it may be a crime, this does not appear to be the crime prosecuted.

The intent of the law seems to be to prevent sex tourism or people smuggling of those under 18 for sex. It does not appear to be to criminalise US citizens or residents who happen to have sex with someone under 18 whilst on holiday or business or when on overseas service in the military. It would probably be disastrous if every US service man on leave in the Philippines was investigated by the FBI to check if any of the bar girls were under 18!

 

[Vixen]

I could perhaps agree with you regarding those 18 and over, but in the case of the 14 year old, I vehemently disagree. A 14 year old is a child not a young adult.

That particular witness appears to be an outlier, as the majority of Epstein's victims seem to be in the over-18's mould. The prosecution claims 'Jane' the one who claims she was 12 when she met Epstein was introduced by Guiffre, not Maxwell (they claim) and never complained until after Epstein died. What she says might be entirely true but how to prove it?

IMV referring to them as 'kids' and 'young girls' diminishes the heinous crimes of sexual predators such as Jimmy Savile who literally did sexually assault real 'little children' in their hospital beds at random, as he did his rounds with freedom of the various hospitals, including the mortuary.

That's not to detract from the seriousness of the crime of sex trafficking minors. However, let's call things by their proper name.

 

[smartcooky]

Not wanting to make this specifically about this case, because I do not know enough about the evidence against the accused since the case is on going, but to make it more general.

The highlighted is interesting. It implies that if a business man travels to e.g. the Philippines on legitimate business but happens to pick up a girl of 12 (so not statutory rape in the local jurisdiction) and has sex with her this would not be a crime since the motivating purpose for travel was not sex. Conversely if you met a girl on line who was 17 (well over the age of consent in the local jurisdiction), and travelled to meet her, and had sex prior to marriage this would be a federal crime. I am unclear whether since the US allows marriage under the age of 18 if having sex after marrying a 17 year old would be a federal crime? My guess is that going on honeymoon with your 17 year old wife is not a Federal crime?

So it may be crucial to the prosecution to show Maxwell's intent in travel. As a UK citizen with a UK residence she has entirely legitimate reasons to travel to the UK. Even if an under 18 year old girl accompanied her and subsequently had sex with a guy she met at a party (not a local crime), the difficulty for the prosecution would seem to be to prove that the motivating purpose for travel was to have sex, with an under 18 yr old, or for the under 18 yr old to have sex.

Whilst being aware of statuary rape and not reporting it may be a crime, this does not appear to be the crime prosecuted.

The intent of the law seems to be to prevent sex tourism or people smuggling of those under 18 for sex. It does not appear to be to criminalise US citizens or residents who happen to have sex with someone under 18 whilst on holiday or business or when on overseas service in the military. It would probably be disastrous if every US service man on leave in the Philippines was investigated by the FBI to check if any of the bar girls were under 18!

Travelling to the UK and other countries is probably not the main issue. The key phrase in the law is....

"A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States...."

Its would be an enormous stretch for Maxwell to claim that transporting these girls between New York, New Mexico, Florida and the US Virgin Islands were just "business trips" for Epstein in which he met some never before seen young girls (who were in fact on his executive jet with Epstein and her). This is just not going to fly (no pun intended).

 

[smartcooky]

That particular witness appears to be an outlier, as the majority of Epstein's victims seem to be in the over-18's mould. The prosecution claims 'Jane' the one who claims she was 12 when she met Epstein was introduced by Guiffre, not Maxwell (they claim) and never complained until after Epstein died. What she says might be entirely true but how to prove it?

That isn't how it works. The defence has to prove what they claim about her is true.... they have to prove she is lying about her motivation

IMV referring to them as 'kids' and 'young girls' diminishes the heinous crimes of sexual predators such as Jimmy Savile who literally did sexually assault real 'little children' in their hospital beds at random, as he did his rounds with freedom of the various hospitals, including the mortuary.

Altogether irrelevant - different country, different case, different time.

These 12/14 year old victim does not deserve to be disadvantaged and/or "adultized" just because some other perverted scumbag fiddled with even younger kids.

Children are children regardless of your personal views.

As for "Jane" being an "outlier", that is irrelevant too.. If this horrible stuff never happened to her, it wouldn't make what Maxwell and Epstein did to those other girls any less vile and depraved.

 

[zooterkin]

My god, this is such an incorrect understanding of the law - and the application of law - as to reach dangerous levels of ignorance.

You seriously think juries have the latitude to say (taking your example) "Oh well she was only just underage and she seemed to be enjoying things" and "the poor guy will be ruined if we convict him", and use those as reasons to acquit?

Really???

You clearly know nothing about jury trial, or about law in general. Because - to cut a long story short - your "understanding" here is as wrong as it could possibly be. And were you (god forbid) to be serving on a jury in this sort of trial, the judge would be instructing you and your colleagues - firmly and explicitly - to put that sort of thinking completely out of your minds during deliberations.


Wow. Wow!

The judge can instruct the jury how they like, but the jury can return whatever verdict they agree on, and don't have to justify it. Even if the judge explicitly instructs a jury to find a defendant guilty, they are not obliged to do so.

 

[Bob001]

The judge can instruct the jury how they like, but the jury can return whatever verdict they agree on, and don't have to justify it. Even if the judge explicitly instructs a jury to find a defendant guilty, they are not obliged to do so.

Where are you? A U.S. judge cannot order a jury to return a guilty verdict.

 

[Planigale]

Travelling to the UK and other countries is probably not the main issue. The key phrase in the law is....

"A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States...."

Its would be an enormous stretch for Maxwell to claim that transporting these girls between New York, New Mexico, Florida and the US Virgin Islands were just "business trips" for Epstein in which he met some never before seen young girls (who were in fact on his executive jet with Epstein and her). This is just not going to fly (no pun intended).

But it is irrelevant what Epstein's intent was as he is not being tried. It is what Maxwell's intent was. She seems to have been Epstein's PA / social secretary, so her accompanying him has obvious justification.

In terms of para a, the sex act itself has to be criminal. You cannot argue in a circle that transporting someone is a crime if it results in a crime and since transporting them is a crime this proves it is a crime.

So considering the alleged event with prince Andrew. Since the woman was over 16 the sex itself was not a crime therefore there is no transporting someone under 18 with the intent they participate in a criminal sex act. Because the actual act was not criminal in the UK.

For para a - a criminal sex act
The difficulty the prosecution have is that they have to prove Maxwell
1) Knowingly
2) Transported (as opposed to also being transported, she has to be the one doing the transporting ie not merely being the secretary who rings the pilot giving the time of departure and destination)
3) With intent (so even if a criminal act follows this does not meant the intent of travelling was to commit that act.)
4) A sex act that is criminal.

The italicised bit you quoted refers to an illicit sex act (para b) not a criminal sex act (para a). So for the bit that you reference that any US resident or citizen travelling abroad commits a crime if they have sex with someone under 18 ONLY applies if the motivating principle for the travel was to have sex with an under 18 year old. So unless the accused has sex with an under 18 year old and that was the intent of the journey there is no crime. Even if Maxwell knowingly accompanied an under 18 year old if she did not have sex with the under 18 year old that is not an illicit sex act.

So we are thrown back on to para a a criminal sex act. The sex act has to be a crime in itself. But here the transporter (assuming they are knowingly and intentionally doing so), does not have to participate themselves. But they have to have to know and intend that the person they themselves are transporting will participate in a criminal sex act.