Ghislaine Maxwell

[Bob001]

......
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.

The defense hasn't claimed that any of the accusers "recovered" memories in therapy. Chances are they would have if they could have.

But prosecutors have presented contemporaneous witnesses who supported the accusers. Like this:

NEW YORK (AP) — A former boyfriend of a woman who says she was paid to give sexual favors to Jeffrey Epstein, starting at age 14, corroborated parts of her account Wednesday at the sex trafficking trial of the millionaire’s longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The man, identified only as Shawn to protect the identity of his ex-girlfriend, said on multiple occasions in the early 2000s he drove three girls he knew to Epstein’s estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

He would wait in the car for an hour until the teenagers would emerge with $100 bills.

https://whdh.com/news/cash-payments-to-teen-girls-described-at-maxwell-trial/

 

[Matthew Best]

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

This may have happened, but nothing you've posted has made it seem that it has. If anything, the prosecutor has made the defence look like fools for bringing in Loftus as a witness, when she really has nothing to contribute in this case. But that's not on Loftus - if she answered all the questions posed to her honestly and accurately, then she's done everything she is supposed to do.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip...

Good on the prosecutor but Loftus still shouldn't have been able to be a witness unless she was going to say "Victim A in her professional opinion is likely to be recounting a false memory because of a,b,c".

Be ironic if Maxwell is found guilty and the defence ends up winning an appeal for a mistrial based on Loftus poisoning the well!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

We went over this earlier in the thread - and as I said in my previous post above this is really nothing more than an attempt to poison the well. She really shouldn't have been allowed to testify unless the defence was being specific about which victim statements were "false memories".

 

[Pacal]

The defense hasn't claimed that any of the accusers "recovered" memories in therapy. Chances are they would have if they could have.

If that is the case then Loftus had nearly nothing to contribute to this case so why she was called has an expert witness in this case is mysterious, unless of course it was some sort of attempt to poison the well has others have suggested.

 

[Mojo]

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.

If there’s a way to get a case dismissed without having to actually defend it in court, anyone in their right mind is going to take it.

 

[Darat]

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.

IT's a member of our royal family - he won't be doing his own thinking, seriously, this will be 100% from his legal team. I'm sure they are going to be aware of the appropriate laws and precedent, so I doubt it isn't within the confines of the legal system a legitimate legal argument.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

You "despise people like Loftus", do you?

Care to expand?

 

[smartcooky]

You "despise people like Loftus", do you?

Care to expand?

Well for mine, I would say "despise" but I just don't trust psychologists or psychiatrists, or for that matter, the "profession" as a whole. I don't consider the field a science of any kind... rather, as a pseudo-science. AFAIC, psychologists and psychiatrists are quacks, and their conclusions are based on little more than empirical guesswork.

 

[smartcooky]

Well for mine, I would say "despise" but I just don't trust psychologists or psychiatrists, or for that matter, the "profession" as a whole. I don't consider the field a science of any kind... rather, as a pseudo-science. AFAIC, psychologists and psychiatrists are quacks, and their conclusions are based on little more than empirical guesswork.

Meant to say "wouldn't"

 

[Planigale]

The defense hasn't claimed that any of the accusers "recovered" memories in therapy. Chances are they would have if they could have.

But prosecutors have presented contemporaneous witnesses who supported the accusers. Like this:

https://whdh.com/news/cash-payments-to-teen-girls-described-at-maxwell-trial/

NEW YORK (AP) — A former boyfriend of a woman who says she was paid to give sexual favors to Jeffrey Epstein, starting at age 14, corroborated parts of her account Wednesday at the sex trafficking trial of the millionaire’s longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The man, identified only as Shawn to protect the identity of his ex-girlfriend, said on multiple occasions in the early 2000s he drove three girls he knew to Epstein’s estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

He would wait in the car for an hour until the teenagers would emerge with $100 bills.

One of the odd things in this case from a UK perspective is the number of people who have committed crimes not being prosecuted. This man over several years actually trafficked teen age girls. But seems not to be prosecuted. Giuffre seems to admit to trafficking an under age girl. She seems not to be prosecuted. In the UK situation prosecutors are required to prosecute crimes, they cannot (except in exceptional circumstances), give immunity. Prosecuting only one of many criminals seems to indicate a degree of prejudice by the authorities.

Plea deals especially those that allow traffickers of children to get off with no penalty are one of the things that brings the US legal system into disrepute. In most of the world plea deals do not occur. Those pleading guilty get a benefit by having reduced penalties, but not a deal that e.g. rape is turned into misdemeanour assault. In England there are sentencing hearings for those who plead guilty, when victims have an opportunity to make a victim impact statement influencing the penalty. The whole process is much more open.

One consequence of plea deals is having such things as an Alford plea. Where people insist they are truly innocent, but accept the risk of the most severe charge that the prosecutor threatens them with is so great that even though innocent they accept to plead guilty to a more minor crime.

 

[jimbob]

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

See FALSE MEMORIES ARE A THING

 

[smartcooky]

One of the odd things in this case from a UK perspective is the number of people who have committed crimes not being prosecuted. This man over several years actually trafficked teen age girls. But seems not to be prosecuted. Giuffre seems to admit to trafficking an under age girl. She seems not to be prosecuted. In the UK situation prosecutors are required to prosecute crimes, they cannot (except in exceptional circumstances), give immunity. Prosecuting only one of many criminals seems to indicate a degree of prejudice by the authorities.

Plea deals especially those that allow traffickers of children to get off with no penalty are one of the things that brings the US legal system into disrepute. In most of the world plea deals do not occur. Those pleading guilty get a benefit by having reduced penalties, but not a deal that e.g. rape is turned into misdemeanour assault. In England there are sentencing hearings for those who plead guilty, when victims have an opportunity to make a victim impact statement influencing the penalty. The whole process is much more open.

And there is a reason for this.

The FBI are more interested in going after the bigger fish up the food chain than the bottom feeders. They see prosecution of the minor players in things such as drug trafficking and people trafficking as treating the symptom - if all you ever do is prosecute the minor players, that is all you will ever do. They would rather use the minor players as a means to an end, to treat the cause - why spend your time going after two dozen street dealers to put them out of business if you can use a couple of them to go after their supplier, the bigger fish, and put all the street dealers out of business at once. Better still, go after the distributors and put the suppliers out of business, or go after the importers and put the distributors out of business.

In this case, Guiffre was one of Maxwell's victims, and the FBI see Maxwell as the bigger fish. Maxwell is not a victim in this, she is a perpetrator, and an instigator who preyed on young girls for her own sexual gratification as well as that of Epstein.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Meant to say "wouldn't"

Hmm. Freudian Slip? Just lie back on my couch and tell me about your mother.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Good. I despise people like Loftus.

That's curious. A week ago in the Estonia thread you said;

I have nothing against Elizabeth Loftus at all.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13678227#post13678227

 

[Darat]

See FALSE MEMORIES ARE A THING

 

[Bob001]

One of the odd things in this case from a UK perspective is the number of people who have committed crimes not being prosecuted. This man over several years actually trafficked teen age girls. But seems not to be prosecuted. Giuffre seems to admit to trafficking an under age girl. She seems not to be prosecuted. In the UK situation prosecutors are required to prosecute crimes, they cannot (except in exceptional circumstances), give immunity. Prosecuting only one of many criminals seems to indicate a degree of prejudice by the authorities.
.....

The teenage boyfriend may well not even have known what the girls were doing, and there's no claim that he was making money from them. No case there. Giuffre was a teenage girl who was intimidated and manipulated by predators. No case there either.

UK authorities certainly decide whether to prosecute any particular crime, and, when they do, what specific charges to file. You really think they wouldn't adjust the charges in exchange for a guilty plea, even if they don't call it "plea bargaining?" Or you think they don't accept guilty pleas?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Well for mine, I would say "despise" but I just don't trust psychologists or psychiatrists, or for that matter, the "profession" as a whole. I don't consider the field a science of any kind... rather, as a pseudo-science. AFAIC, psychologists and psychiatrists are quacks, and their conclusions are based on little more than empirical guesswork.

Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists: The Common Roots of Psychotherapy and Its Future

 

[Bob001]

Well for mine, I would say "despise" but I just don't trust psychologists or psychiatrists, or for that matter, the "profession" as a whole. I don't consider the field a science of any kind... rather, as a pseudo-science. AFAIC, psychologists and psychiatrists are quacks, and their conclusions are based on little more than empirical guesswork.

That's a little over the top. A lot of people's problems are rooted in distorted perceptions of themselves and the world around them, and a competent therapist can work to change that. The cliche is you can't always decide what happens to you, but you can decide what you want and how you pursue it. Sometimes problems are rooted in actual medical conditions, like a chemical imbalance, and psychiatrists can treat that with medication. That doesn't mean there aren't terrible shrinks, but I wouldn't write off the whole field as quackery.

 

[smartcooky]

That's a little over the top. A lot of people's problems are rooted in distorted perceptions of themselves and the world around them, and a competent therapist can work to change that. The cliche is you can't always decide what happens to you, but you can decide what you want and how you pursue it. Sometimes problems are rooted in actual medical conditions, like a chemical imbalance, and psychiatrists can treat that with medication. That doesn't mean there aren't terrible shrinks, but I wouldn't write off the whole field as quackery.

I have as much faith the psychiatry profession as I have in faith healers.