Ghislaine Maxwell

[angrysoba]

Yeah, that's what I said, but laws still apply when people are sued for what they do. e.g. murder is illegal, so killing someone is unlawful (hence the lawsuit against OJ Simpson for "unlawful death").

In any case, this is a massive change of tack for Andrew. Up until this point, he has always claimed that it never happened, and that he had never met and did not know Victoria Giuffre (Roberts) at all, but trying to get the lawsuit thrown out on the basis of the age of consent in New York is tantamount to an admission that he has been lying about this all along.

I don’t know if that is necessarily true. Isn’t it more a case of having a lawsuit thrown out on a technicality? I think most people prefer to avoid having to go through trials and lawsuits in general regardless of whether or not it is substantial. If I accused you of committing murder on the Moon and you pointed out that I can’t prosecute crime on the Moon, it wouldn’t mean you were admitting to the murder part.

 

[smartcooky]

I don’t know if that is necessarily true. Isn’t it more a case of having a lawsuit thrown out on a technicality? I think most people prefer to avoid having to go through trials and lawsuits in general regardless of whether or not it is substantial. If I accused you of committing murder on the Moon and you pointed out that I can’t prosecute crime on the Moon, it wouldn’t mean you were admitting to the murder part.

No, but I wouln't even go that route, because someone would have to prove I had been to the moon.

Not a bit. It's a fact that the court can establish independently of going to court.

He has made repeated statements that it never happened. If he really believes that to be true, trying to use a technicality like this one creates the perception that he is lying about it not happening, lying about not knowing Roberts, and lying about never having met her (well we already know that he was lying about the last one, thanks to "that" photo).

Perception is everything!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If he really believes that to be true, trying to use a technicality like this one creates the perception that he is lying about it not happening, lying about not knowing Roberts, and lying about never having met her (well we already know that he was lying about the last one, thanks to "that" photo).

It creates that perception to stupid people. Don't be one. Form your perceptions based on good reasons not bad ones.

 

[Bob001]

Not a bit. It's a fact that the court can establish independently of going to court.

But his defense is that she had reached the age of consent, and, contrary to her claim, that she had consented. The court can determine her age objectively, but whether she consented is a matter for trial.

And if he claims that nothing ever happened between them, then neither her age nor consent would need to be an issue. Is his claim really something like "I never touched her, and if I did she was old enough to say yes, and that's what she did."

 

[smartcooky]

But his defense is that she had reached the age of consent, and, contrary to her claim, that she had consented. The court can determine her age objectively, but whether she consented is a matter for trial.

And if he claims that nothing ever happened between them, then neither her age nor consent would need to be an issue. Is his claim really something like "I never touched her, and if I did she was old enough to say yes, and that's what she did."

This!

However much RecoveringYuppy might say that....

It creates that perception to stupid people. Don't be one.

...the facts are that many people are stupid, a significant percentage IMO.

While I don't count myself among them, I do see that what he has done will create a perception of admission of guilt among many. His lawyers had to know this, so I think they gave him bad advice - he's not short of a dollar so trying to have the lawsuit dismissed won't be for financial reasons. He would have been better sticking to his story. Getting it dismissed on a technicality will still leave the perception that he has somehow cheated the hangman.

If he fails to get it dismissed, the attempt to do so could backfire on him very badly with a jury... Robert's lawyers are bound to bring up that attempt in front of the jury in a effort to give them the same perception.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But his defense is that she had reached the age of consent, and, contrary to her claim, that she had consented. "

Well that would be a completely different matter. However, I googled for what his claim was before posting and just rechecked. I don't find any source that says that. Do you know of where I can find one? If it's in the thread just give me a clue where to find it.

It still doesn't change that what smartcooky said is not good reasoning.

 

[Bob001]

Well that would be a completely different matter. However, I googled for what his claim was before posting and just rechecked. I don't find any source that says that. Do you know of where I can find one? If it's in the thread just give me a clue where to find it.
....

Here's one:

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Britain’s Prince Andrew on Friday rejected Virginia Giuffre’s accusations that he sexually abused her more than two decades ago when she was 17, and urged a U.S. judge to dismiss her civil lawsuit.

In filings with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the Duke of York called Giuffre’s “baseless” lawsuit an effort to “achieve another payday” from her accusations against the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.

https://www.metro.us/prince-andrew-unequivocally-denies/

Also, when the accusations first surfaced, he denied them in a TV interview that was widely considered bizarre.

Prince Andrew offered a detailed rebuttal Saturday to claims he had sex with a woman who says she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, providing an alibi for one of the alleged encounters and questioning the authenticity of a well-known photograph that shows him posing with the woman.

In a rare interview with BBC Newsnight, Andrew categorically denied having sex with the woman, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, saying, "It didn't happen."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince...r-virginia-roberts-giuffre-in-rare-interview/

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That doesn't support what you claimed.

Here is the claim I asked you to support. I quoted you just two posts up.

But his defense is that she had reached the age of consent, and, contrary to her claim, that she had consented.

The statements you cited don't support that. And we're discussing the recent motion to dismiss. You second link is from years ago and couldn't possibly be reporting on the recent motion to dismiss the case.

And BTW note that I've already accepted that the motion to dismiss is based on her being of the age of consent. I was asking you to support the part that makes your claim different from smartcooky's. And that part is this:

and, contrary to her claim, that she had consented.

That's what you need to support. Show me that his motion claims she consented.

 

[Bob001]

.....
That's what you need to support. Show me that his motion claims she consented.

No, he hasn't said that. I'm following the logic of his train of thought. The age of consent only matters if he had in fact had sex with her, and she had consented. If he never had sex with her, her age didn't matter. And if he forced or coerced sex with her, her age didn't matter either.

Sure, it's a legal tactic, based on the specific NY law under which she's suing. But he'd have a more persuasive moral case if he just said "You're lying, and I'll see you in court." It looks like he doesn't want her to tell her story to a jury.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, he hasn't said that.

Thanks. That's the important point. You said "But his defense is that she had reached the age of consent" and it isn't. No, that is not his defense.

I'm following the logic of his train of thought.

Right. No kidding. I knew that was what you were doing. Why didn't just say so instead of claiming it was HIS DEFENSE? It is very definitely not his defense at least for the moment.

The age of consent only matters if ....

Yeah. I get all that. The conclusion you should be getting to is that he has NOT admitted to having sex her and has not claimed she consented. Further you might conclude the judge will reject the motion based on your reasoning. That's where your argument takes you.

But he has not made the "massive change of tack" that smartcooky claimed. And we don't know that he will.

Just for the pedants out there I think you (and me following your lead) might not be using word "defense" strictly at this stage. I think we should be saying "grounds".

 

[Vixen]

My take on the Prince Andrew/Virginia Roberts Giuffre issue. I think they probably did have a fling. Notwithstanding the disgust at a middle aged guy cavorting with a woman not much older than his daughters and twice as heavy, the problem is whether he had knowledge that she had been trafficked to him by Maxwell or Epstein whilst technically a minor in her jurisdiction.

 

[Matthew Best]

My take on the Prince Andrew/Virginia Roberts Giuffre issue. I think they probably did have a fling. Notwithstanding the disgust at a middle aged guy cavorting with a woman not much older than his daughters and twice as heavy, the problem is whether he had knowledge that she had been trafficked to him by Maxwell or Epstein whilst technically a minor in her jurisdiction.

Wait what?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Performative ignorance, best to not give it any attention

 

[Bob001]

My take on the Prince Andrew/Virginia Roberts Giuffre issue. I think they probably did have a fling. Notwithstanding the disgust at a middle aged guy cavorting with a woman not much older than his daughters and twice as heavy, the problem is whether he had knowledge that she had been trafficked to him by Maxwell or Epstein whilst technically a minor in her jurisdiction.

Once again, "trafficked" does not mean transported, and there is no "technically" a minor. She was or she wasn't. And it's not a "fling" at any age if she was coerced or intimidated.

 

[carlitos]

Performative ignorance, best to not give it any attention

 

[smartcooky]

I concur.

 

[timhau]

My take on the Prince Andrew/Virginia Roberts Giuffre issue. I think they probably did have a fling. Notwithstanding the disgust at a middle aged guy cavorting with a woman not much older than his daughters and twice as heavy, the problem is whether he had knowledge that she had been trafficked to him by Maxwell or Epstein whilst technically a minor in her jurisdiction.

I don't know what the exact definition of "them having a fling" is, but a middle-aged member of the royal family having sex with a minor provided for him for that exact purpose ain't it.

Or what the hell do I know, I'm not a native speaker.

 

[smartcooky]

A bad day for the accused, good day for Bugs Bunny

The much vaunted expert in restored memory turned out to be no more than an expert on Bugs Bunny

Prosecutor Lara Pomerantz noted that Loftus was being paid $600 an hour by the defence and that she’d written a book, Witness for the Defense.

Pomerantz: "You haven’t written a book called Impartial Witness, right?"

Loftus: “No,” (glumly)

Then she got the professor to cite the catchphrase of a figure in one of her studies– “What’s up, Doc?”. Loftus had shown that 16% of people said they’d seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, a false memory because the fictional rabbit is a Warner Bros character, correct? Correct, the witness had to agree. Hanging in the air was the thought that 84% didn’t see Bugs Bunny at the wrong theme park.​

I'm sure Pomerantz will make sure the jury understands this in closing.

Next, we were on a second study, where Loftus and co had tried to implant the false memory of people having had a rectal enema. No one did so, the point being that people remember trauma clearly. False memory did not have a good day in court. No wonder Maxwell seemed distraught.​

The prosecutor made Loftus look like a fool - utterly demolished her on the stand...

The prosecutor continued to make mincemeat of the defense witnesses. Maxwell's defence is starting to look comical.

A witness who has never been to Palm Beach where alleged abuse took place...

A witness who worked for a travel agent that booked flights for Epstein and Maxwell from 1999, years after the allegations

And I'll let you read about Miss Sweden for yourselves

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-to-a-bad-day-in-court-for-ghislaine-maxwell

 

[Vixen]

The much vaunted expert in restored memory turned out to be no more than an expert on Bugs Bunny

Prosecutor Lara Pomerantz noted that Loftus was being paid $600 an hour by the defence and that she’d written a book, Witness for the Defense.

Pomerantz: "You haven’t written a book called Impartial Witness, right?"

Loftus: “No,” (glumly)

Then she got the professor to cite the catchphrase of a figure in one of her studies– “What’s up, Doc?”. Loftus had shown that 16% of people said they’d seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, a false memory because the fictional rabbit is a Warner Bros character, correct? Correct, the witness had to agree. Hanging in the air was the thought that 84% didn’t see Bugs Bunny at the wrong theme park.​

I'm sure Pomerantz will make sure the jury understands this in closing.

Next, we were on a second study, where Loftus and co had tried to implant the false memory of people having had a rectal enema. No one did so, the point being that people remember trauma clearly. False memory did not have a good day in court. No wonder Maxwell seemed distraught.​

The prosecutor made Loftus look like a fool - utterly demolished her on the stand...

The prosecutor continued to make mincemeat of the defense witnesses. Maxwell's defence is starting to look comical.

A witness who has never been to Palm Beach where alleged abuse took place...

A witness who worked for a travel agent that booked flights for Epstein and Maxwell from 1999, years after the allegations

And I'll let you read about Miss Sweden for yourselves

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-to-a-bad-day-in-court-for-ghislaine-maxwell

Good. I despise people like Loftus. There's a place for academia and there is a place for a trial.

As for Eva - oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

 

[Pacal]

The much vaunted expert in restored memory turned out to be no more than an expert on Bugs Bunny

Prosecutor Lara Pomerantz noted that Loftus was being paid $600 an hour by the defence and that she’d written a book, Witness for the Defense.

Pomerantz: "You haven’t written a book called Impartial Witness, right?"

Loftus: “No,” (glumly)

Then she got the professor to cite the catchphrase of a figure in one of her studies– “What’s up, Doc?”. Loftus had shown that 16% of people said they’d seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, a false memory because the fictional rabbit is a Warner Bros character, correct? Correct, the witness had to agree. Hanging in the air was the thought that 84% didn’t see Bugs Bunny at the wrong theme park.​

I'm sure Pomerantz will make sure the jury understands this in closing.

Next, we were on a second study, where Loftus and co had tried to implant the false memory of people having had a rectal enema. No one did so, the point being that people remember trauma clearly. False memory did not have a good day in court. No wonder Maxwell seemed distraught.​

The prosecutor made Loftus look like a fool - utterly demolished her on the stand...

The prosecutor continued to make mincemeat of the defense witnesses. Maxwell's defence is starting to look comical.

A witness who has never been to Palm Beach where alleged abuse took place...

A witness who worked for a travel agent that booked flights for Epstein and Maxwell from 1999, years after the allegations

And I'll let you read about Miss Sweden for yourselves

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...p-to-a-bad-day-in-court-for-ghislaine-maxwell

In fairness to Loftus her work started in the late 80s with the rash of Satanic Abuse and Day Care cases in which "Recovered Memory" therapy played a large role. This was a time when it was thought that traumatic memories were sometimes repressed but could be teased out by therapy. (Therapy which often seemed to be little more than encouraging people to have such memories.) Months and years of such therapy seems to have caused some people to remember traumatic events, abuse, that never happened.

One of the fruits of this recovered memory fad was the creation of the myth of a vast satanic conspiracy, involving satanic rituals, human sacrifice etc., all "supported" by the recovered memories of individuals through various forms of therapy.

Eventually a backlash developed and some of the patients, called redacters, of the therapists who "helped" them "recover" such memories sued them and got damages.

Probably the ur story of recovered memory is the book Michele Remembers published in 1980. Through "therapy" Michele recovered the memory of massive satanic and sexual abuse, the black mass etc., etc. So sadly people can be made, it seems, to "remember" serious abuse that never happened.

How any of Loftus' work applies to this case is a bit mysterious to me, although if people giving testimony in this case have "recovered" memories in therapy and that is a part of their testimony. I am dubious about it.