Ghislaine Maxwell

[theprestige]

Maxwell may be guilty that is what the trial is for.

That's an interesting perspective, and one I suspect is overwhelmingly mainstream. But it's the way I see it, and it's the way I think it should be seen.

The way I see it, what the trial is for is to establish whether the state is has cleared the bar of justification to take away (some of) the accused's civil liberties.

Obviously this hinges on convincing a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused did commit the crime in question. But it's certainly possible to know someone is guilty even if the state can't quite convince the jury in court. Personally, from what's been reported about Epstein, Maxwell, et al. so far, my provisional conclusion, with a fair amount of confidence, is that she was an informed and willing accomplice in a child sex trafficking ring. It's possible evidence will come out at trial that exonerates her. But I think it's more likely that not enough evidence will be presented at trial to justify committing her to the tender mercies of the state.

 

[smartcooky]

Plus, as I also said earlier: even if one or more jurors does speak up in the deliberation with something like "Ah come on! That girl was only just underage by 9 months - should Maxwell really have to spend decades in prison over that 9-month difference?", there will be a corrective measure in the form of the other jurors. Those other jurors will remind the "rogue" juror(s) of their responsibilities and obligations under the law.

Whenever someone tries to come out with that spurious nonsense, my first is response is, "what about underage by 10 months? Would that be enough in your view to jail the accused? How about 12 months, 14 months? 18 months? 24 months. Where are you going to draw your personal line?"

Usually, they see the folly of their position, and relent, but some of them are stupid, and they don't. They pick some arbitrary personal line, say, 18 months. My response is, "Ok then, what about 17 months and three weeks? Or 17 and two? Or 17 and one?" Every time they pin themselves down to line, I keep shaving bits off and make them justify why one is OK and the other is not.

The eventual response is usually exasperation that finally results in "well there is where I draw MY the line". I then remind them that the LAW already defines a line, and the one drawn by the LAW is the only one that matters.
.
.

 

[Bob001]

.....
It seems so far that the prosecution are unlikely to prove that Maxwell herself had sex with an under 18 year old. So an illicit sex act is out.
.....

Once again, if force or coercion were employed, then age doesn't matter. And the Mann Act charges have no age restriction.

 

[Planigale]

That's an interesting perspective, and one I suspect is overwhelmingly mainstream. But it's the way I see it, and it's the way I think it should be seen.

The way I see it, what the trial is for is to establish whether the state is has cleared the bar of justification to take away (some of) the accused's civil liberties.

Obviously this hinges on convincing a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused did commit the crime in question. But it's certainly possible to know someone is guilty even if the state can't quite convince the jury in court. Personally, from what's been reported about Epstein, Maxwell, et al. so far, my provisional conclusion, with a fair amount of confidence, is that she was an informed and willing accomplice in a child sex trafficking ring. It's possible evidence will come out at trial that exonerates her. But I think it's more likely that not enough evidence will be presented at trial to justify committing her to the tender mercies of the state.

As you say, I think Maxwell is likely morally guilty of participation in the sexual predation and exploitation of women by Epstein. Whether she is criminally guilty is what the trial is for.

 

[Planigale]

Once again, if force or coercion were employed, then age doesn't matter. And the Mann Act charges have no age restriction.

If force or coercion were employed that would be rape. Maxwell herself is not accused of this. Epstein certainly seems to have coerced and committed statutory rape. So this would be the criminal act required in para a quoted by smart cooky.

I was responding only to the law quoted by smart cooky. As you say there is no age restriction on the Mann Act. It appears that Maxwell is not charged under the Mann Act, so this is irrelevant.

I merely comment that the offence of criminal sexual activity quoted by smart cooky requires the prosecution to prove
1) Transportation (by Maxwell not by Epstein)
2) Intent
3) Knowledge
4) A criminal sex act

These all have to be a single event. So you cannot say that she transported her to a party but the criminal sex act occurred at a different party at a different time in a different place.

I would not be surprised if the verdict ends up being that Maxwell is guilty of the conspiracy charges but is found not guilty of the specific trafficking charges.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I was responding only to the law quoted by smart cooky. As you say there is no age restriction on the Mann Act. It appears that Maxwell is not charged under the Mann Act, so this is irrelevant......

Maxwell is charged with two counts of violating the Mann Act, which bars transporting individuals across state lines for illegal sexual activity.

Maxwell also two faces charges of conspiring to violate those two sections of the Mann Act.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-are-charges-ghislaine-maxwell-sex-abuse-trial-2021-11-30/

 

[Bob001]

......
Why do you think they would not extradite Roman Polanski after he fled US jurisdiction where he was charged with the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl. Its because, despite the fact that he used drugs to stupify her, the French did not consider him to have done anything wrong or illegal.

Polanski was safe because France doesn't extradite its own citizens. It made no judgment about his crimes.

 

[smartcooky]

Polanski was safe because France doesn't extradite its own citizens. It made no judgment about his crimes.

Firstly, they may not extradite their own citizens, but their laws do allow then to prosecute their citizens for criminal acts committed by them in another country. They didn't prosecute Polanski did they, and its not hard to understand why.

Secondly, I beg to differ as regards the French government's attitude. The French minister of Culture and Communication, Frédéric Mitterrand, was vehement in his support of Polanski. He said that "a French citizen" and "a film-maker of international dimension" ought not be thrown to the lions for an old story which doesn't make much sense. That he was imprisoned while travelling to an event that was intended to honor him: caught, in short, in a trap, is absolutely dreadful. Now while Mitterrand was criticised by opponents, its hard to know now much of that criticism was just political posturing.

 

[Bob001]

Firstly, they may not extradite their own citizens, but their laws do allow then to prosecute their citizens for criminal acts committed by them in another country. They didn't prosecute Polanski did they, and its not hard to understand why.
....

Not to get too far into the weeds, but it may well be that they didn't prosecute him in France because he had already been convicted in the U.S. The issue for France was whether to extradite him, which, as I understand it, was prohibited by French law.

 

[smartcooky]

Not to get too far into the weeds, but it may well be that they didn't prosecute him in France because he had already been convicted in the U.S.

Yes, convicted in the US, and then he fled the jurisdiction before he was sentenced. I guess that is not a criminal offence in France?

 

[Planigale]

Secondly, you have failed to understand what Bob001 and I have been saying, that while the under aged aspect of the criminal charges against Maxwell's exists, they not the only components of the charges against her

I repeat, yet again, and for the umpteenth time, that at least one of the statutes she is charged under relates to force and coercion, ands that has NOTHING to do with the age of the victim.

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.​

Sex with a minor is NOT the only "sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense". There is

- Prostitution
- Rape
- Human trafficking, often referred to as the "white slave trade"(The Mann Act)
- Sexual act by threatening
- Sexual act with a person incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct
- Sexual act with a person physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness
- Sexual act by rendering another person unconscious

Thank you for posting the relevant law.

So the requirements the prosecution has to prove are

1) Knowingly
2) persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel
3) to engage in prostitution or criminal sexual activity (trafficking is not a sexual activity in itself so is not relevant here, and is a separate offence), most of the sexual acts you mention are rape as they are just different forms of not consenting. I believe that in some state jurisdictions, adultery, sodomy, oral sex are crimes so would count as criminal sexual activity. I assume prostitution is specifically included because in some states prostitution is legalised and so would not of itself be a criminal sexual act. I guess this would not be the only instance in which federal law criminalised something that state law specifically decriminalised?

So the prosecution has to prove that Maxwell herself (not Epstein) did the persuading etc. knowing that the person travelling would engage in a criminal sexual act (or prostitution). I am unclear whether mere intent to commit a criminal sexual act is sufficient for the offence or whether an actual sex act has to have occurred? If the person is under the age of consent (18?) then clearly any sex act is criminal. If the person is over 18 then proving that Maxwell knew that a criminal sexual act would occur ahead of time, and enticed etc. the woman to travel so that she would engage in that act is more difficult. You would have to show that Maxwell knew ahead of time that e.g. Epstein would rape them or that the woman would drink herself into a state where she was unable to consent. Even if the woman says she was a prostitute at the time and Maxwell asked her to come to a party, is that enticing? Was money exchanged for sex, because unless she was paid for sex then prostitution did not occur. If the woman was a prostitute then the defence will argue she needed no enticing to travel for work.

This is why I think Maxwell is more likely to be convicted on the conspiracy charges. I think that it is probably easier to make the case for criminal sexual activity involving minors because any sexual activity is a crime. I think it is much more difficult making the case for adults because of the requirement that Maxwell had to know ahead of time that the sex act would be criminal.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. The US Federal age of consent (the only thing that matters in this case) is 18. If they prove the trafficking part, then the destination jurisdiction's age of consent is irrelevant.

And re another point of uncertainty: law almost always counts intent as equivalent to the act. So I'd suggest that in this case, if they can prove Maxwell knew that one of more of these females was being trafficked to another country with the intent or expectation of providing sexual services - irrespective of whether those sexual services actually took place - that'll secure convictions on the sex parts of the indictment.

(Part of the way prosecutors might prove this level of intent/expectation would be to show that Maxwell had prior knowledge & experience of how these operations worked, and had known that girls were being transported across international borders for the express intention of providing sexual services. And I believe there's plenty of evidence of that. This would, I'd suggest, make it extremely difficult for Maxwell's defence team to claim that - even though she'd known full well what had gone on during those previous trips - when it came the trips involving these particular females, she had no advance idea/understanding that they were being sent to provide sexual services to "clients")

 

[Planigale]

Yes. The US Federal age of consent (the only thing that matters in this case) is 18. If they prove the trafficking part, then the destination jurisdiction's age of consent is irrelevant.

And re another point of uncertainty: law almost always counts intent as equivalent to the act. So I'd suggest that in this case, if they can prove Maxwell knew that one of more of these females was being trafficked to another country with the intent or expectation of providing sexual services - irrespective of whether those sexual services actually took place - that'll secure convictions on the sex parts of the indictment.

(Part of the way prosecutors might prove this level of intent/expectation would be to show that Maxwell had prior knowledge & experience of how these operations worked, and had known that girls were being transported across international borders for the express intention of providing sexual services. And I believe there's plenty of evidence of that. This would, I'd suggest, make it extremely difficult for Maxwell's defence team to claim that - even though she'd known full well what had gone on during those previous trips - when it came the trips involving these particular females, she had no advance idea/understanding that they were being sent to provide sexual services to "clients")

Thank you for clarifying.

One reason I think that the conspiracy is easier to prove is that they do not need to prove a particular crime nor Maxwell's participation in it, but as you allude to a more general awareness that criminal activity (ie enticing etc. to travel for criminal sexual activity) was undertaken. The conspiracy does not require that Maxwell was the prime mover in either the enticing etc. not that she knew in particular case that criminal sexual activity took place.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes. The US Federal age of consent (the only thing that matters in this case) is 18. If they prove the trafficking part, then the destination jurisdiction's age of consent is irrelevant.

And re another point of uncertainty: law almost always counts intent as equivalent to the act. So I'd suggest that in this case, if they can prove Maxwell knew that one of more of these females was being trafficked to another country with the intent or expectation of providing sexual services - irrespective of whether those sexual services actually took place - that'll secure convictions on the sex parts of the indictment.

(Part of the way prosecutors might prove this level of intent/expectation would be to show that Maxwell had prior knowledge & experience of how these operations worked, and had known that girls were being transported across international borders for the express intention of providing sexual services. And I believe there's plenty of evidence of that. This would, I'd suggest, make it extremely difficult for Maxwell's defence team to claim that - even though she'd known full well what had gone on during those previous trips - when it came the trips involving these particular females, she had no advance idea/understanding that they were being sent to provide sexual services to "clients")

And that is going to be very difficult given that she actually and actively participated in those very same sexual services.

Thank you for clarifying.

One reason I think that the conspiracy is easier to prove is that they do not need to prove a particular crime nor Maxwell's participation in it, but as you allude to a more general awareness that criminal activity (ie enticing etc. to travel for criminal sexual activity) was undertaken. The conspiracy does not require that Maxwell was the prime mover in either the enticing etc. not that she knew in particular case that criminal sexual activity took place.

It is also not an either/or situation. It does not have to have been Epstein or Maxwell who did the enticing/coercion/grooming. We have already had one witness testify that they did this together.

 

[Craig4]

It's time to seek a plea deal. No matter what the defense says, the prosecution has the testimony of a victim who puts Maxwell engaging in the sexual assault. The defense has to address this in their response which means the prosecution will call her back. The last thing the jury will hear is this witness in rebuttal.

 

[Bob001]

More testimony:

On day four of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, government exhibit 52 made its much anticipated debut. This is Jeffrey Epstein’s “little black book”—the telephone directory containing names and numbers for a huge roster of Epstein’s wealthy and powerful friends, and also, presumably, some of the people who’ve accused him of crimes.

The book was introduced as the prosecution’s witness Juan Alessi was on the stand. Alessi was the butler/driver/go-fer at Epstein’s Palm Beach house from around 1991 until 2002. He described the decadent atmosphere around the mansion, which he said was run “like a five-star hotel.” He was expected to keep wads of hundred dollar bills stocked in each of Epstein’s cars at all times. He said there were many women who hung around Epstein’s pool, and that they were topless “75-80 percent of the time.” He said Maxwell, who he called the “lady of the house,” took many photos of these topless women, and displayed them in frames on her desk there. He also said it was obvious that Maxwell was in charge of running the household. And she slept in Epstein’s bedroom, with Epstein.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ey-epstein-little-black-book-juan-alessi.html

 

[Bob001]

It's time to seek a plea deal. No matter what the defense says, the prosecution has the testimony of a victim who puts Maxwell engaging in the sexual assault. The defense has to address this in their response which means the prosecution will call her back. The last thing the jury will hear is this witness in rebuttal.

She and her lawyers may have calculated that if she is convicted, her sentence likely won't be much worse than any deal she could make.

 

[Vixen]

From day two testimony:

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

At the same time, 'Jane' never mentioned Maxwell being present when she gave a deposition after Epstein died. In addition, she claimed he'd taken her to see the Lion King in 1994, 'When I was 14', yet the Lion King was showing in Broadway in 1997, according to the defence.

Now, memory is a strange thing, because of course in making a deposition about Epstein, then, of course, it was Epstein she was specifically referring to; so as the lawyers taking the deposition probably never asked about Maxwell, why would she have mentioned her?

As for getting a date wrong, so it was 1997 and not 1994. Big deal. It doesn't prove the defence claim Jane is making it up for the money and because she is an actress who knows about scripts and putting on emotions convincingly.

Then we had yet another gun-for-hire psychologist, Ricchio, this time for the prosecutor (we haven't seen Loftus, for the defence, yet, who will say the accusers' memories are false), who set out 'the stages of grooming', which surprise, surprise, are exactly the same as those for...corporate entertaining, when people who want your business give you goodies (I still have a lovely piece of Galway crystal from Bank of Ireland who wanted us to bank with them) and take you out for lunch and to shows (been there, done that, got the t-shirt), or even one's employers: who doesn't get a gift or a bonus at Christmas? At one firm, we memorably each got a gift box of a premium £100 champagne every year. So, what does 'the stages of grooming' prove? Leading up to child abuse or Maxwell indulging in 'client/employee entertaining' as an inducement to oiling the wheels (so to speak) of business?

I am not sure bringing in psychologists lecturing the jury adds to the case other than as a means of 'persuasion'. It is just silly IMV. 'M'Lud, psychologists have shown that confessions are false when in the presence of police taking down notes. You must acquit my client.'

 

[Vixen]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed material sent to AAH

I repeat, yet again, and for the umpteenth time, that at least one of the statutes she is charged under relates to force and coercion, ands that has NOTHING to do with the age of the victim.

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.​

Sex with a minor is NOT the only "sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense". There is

- Prostitution
- Rape
- Human trafficking, often referred to as the "white slave trade"(The Mann Act)
- Sexual act by threatening
- Sexual act with a person incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct
- Sexual act with a person physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness
- Sexual act by rendering another person unconscious

Looking at the wording of that act, one presumes the criminals had in mind were serious organised crime racketeers literally seizing children off the street and transported to places like Amsterdam to work in the sex trade or to supply paedophiles.

OK so maybe that is exactly what Maxwell and Epstein were doing albeit in a much more refined sophisticated manner. OTOH maybe it was just a good old-fashioned 'We are all into free love together' scenario. How to spot the difference?

 

[Bob001]

At the same time, 'Jane' never mentioned Maxwell being present when she gave a deposition after Epstein died. In addition, she claimed he'd taken her to see the Lion King in 1994, 'When I was 14', yet the Lion King was showing in Broadway in 1997, according to the defence.
.....

No, it sounds like the lawyer was either wrong or deliberately dishonest. "Lion King" the movie was released in 1994. The Broadway musical adaptation opened in 1997. If she said he took her to the movie, that would have been 1994.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King_(musical)

And you know what? Even if she had been 17, she was still legally a child.

....
Then we had yet another gun-for-hire psychologist, Ricchio, this time for the prosecutor (we haven't seen Loftus, for the defence, yet, who will say the accusers' memories are false), who set out 'the stages of grooming', which surprise, surprise, are exactly the same as those for...corporate entertaining, when people who want your business give you goodies
.....

The methods by which predators groom and manipulate their vulnerable targets is well-established. For anyone to compare it to a Christmas bonus is grotesquely obscene.