• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

To move just a little back to the topic:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ghislaine-maxwell-was-dangerous-predator-prosecutor-says-1.5714075

The reason for Loftus' testimony:

But Menninger defended the testimony of the memory expert, citing instances in which Maxwell's accusers never mentioned the defendant's name when they first spoke of the abuse they endured from Epstein.

She said the testimony from accusers was manipulated by civil lawyers representing them as they pursued millions of dollars in payouts from a special fund set up after Epstein's suicide to compensate his victims.

Menninger said the women suddenly "recovered memories that Ghislaine was there."
Click to expand...
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
To move just a little back to the topic:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ghislaine-maxwell-was-dangerous-predator-prosecutor-says-1.5714075

The reason for Loftus' testimony:
Click to expand...


As I said before, I think it was entirely proper that Loftus was allowed to be heard. I pointed to the fact that many lay people (ie, in this context, jurors) tend to hold what appears to be a logical and reasonable belief about memory: that if memory is fallible at all, it is only fallible on the fringes (wrt details, precise timings, and so on). However by contrast, we now know for certain that memory can be a very great deal more fallible than that, to a degree that many - even most - would find very surprising.

I totally agree that Loftus' testimony was only of very limited assistance to the defence, insomuch as she was (obviously, in the circumstances) unable to direct the jury towards any specific issues around the women's recollections. And I personally believe that the women's individual & collective stories are essentially true, and that they're very probably enough to put Maxwell away for a long time.

But I still believe it was entirely right that Loftus was heard. And (again as I suggested before) I think that allowing her testimony was actually the only prudent option the trial judge could have taken. There's an outside chance, after all, that a denial of Loftus might have constituted a reversible error. And nobody - not even Maxwell herself, most likely - needs that.
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...

The motion to dismiss neither confirms nor denies any sexual act. It does deny any sexual abuse or nonconsensual sex. It is not in any way tantamount to an admission of any sexual act.

A civil case of this nature would normally be time barred by the statute of limitations. The reason to time bar claims is because memories fade, witnesses die or become unavailable, evidence may no longer be possible to obtain. The defense may not be able to present certain evidence disproving the plaintiff's claim when they would have been able to do so if the claim had been timely filed.

In this case Giuffre is getting around the statute of limitations through the New York Child Victims’ Act. The CVA expands the statute of limitations for people harmed by actions that would constitute a sexual offense under New York law if it occurred when the victim was under 18. There is no claim of incest or child pornography or any other offense. The age of consent in New York is 17. That means it wasn't statutory rape per se.

The only way, according to the plaintiff's allegations, this could have been a sexual offense is if the alleged sexual act was not consensual. Because she was over the age of consent, she must provide affirmative proof of the lack of consent.

The motion then attacks this on two prongs. First, plaintiff's complaint fails to provide affirmative proof of lack of consent required to invoke CVA. Plaintiff does not provide proof, explain how they will provide proof, or even make an allegation of lack of consent. Defense asks for dismissal on those grounds and suggests that plaintiff cannot provide such proof and demands at least
something on how such lack of consent could be proven. (according to plaintiff scenario the only people who might know of such lack of consent are plaintiff and defendant, who denies it, and Epstein, who is dead, and Maxwell, who is incarcerated and possibly may not be able to be compelled to testify.)

Note that reason the motion concentrates on proof of consent rather than proof of the sexual act is because whether or not the sexual act occurred would be up to the jury, but under law to invoke the CVA to even allow the case to trial the court would require affirmative proof of consent (which, of course, would also require proof of the sexual act, but it is the consent that the law requires for the court to even allow the lawsuit).

Andrew is not changing course saying he had sex, but it is only a consent matter. His lawyers are just saying that to invoke CVA plaintiffs are required to provide affirmative proof of lack of consent which they have not done and therefore the case should be dismissed. They don't get into proof of the sex act because that is not relevant to the keys that open the CVA door. That is only relevant after. Of course, you can't prove lack of consent if you can't also prove the sex act, but that is only a burden to be placed to the plaintiff after they cross this first bridge.

This is a great and very legitimate tactic by the defense. I think the motion should have been a bit more robust, but the principles are sound. Considering that the CVA limits some of the claims and that the original complaint didn't address consent and the other issues with constitutionality and statutes of limitations...this is a good defense.

If plaintiff had brought up consent originally, this probably wouldn't be a viable path. They could have simply alleged no consent. But now, I think a judge would want to see proof of lack of consent. I doubt they can provide that. This may kill the case.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
....
The only way, according to the plaintiff's allegations, this could have been a sexual offense is if the alleged sexual act was not consensual. Because she was over the age of consent, she must provide affirmative proof of the lack of consent. ....
If plaintiff had brought up consent originally, this probably wouldn't be a viable path. They could have simply alleged no consent. But now, I think a judge would want to see proof of lack of consent. I doubt they can provide that. This may kill the case.
Click to expand...


In this case or in any like it, how can the woman provide "affirmative proof" of lack of consent? If she says she said no and was overpowered or intimidated, or she says she was too drunk/drugged to know what she was doing, what else is she supposed to provide? Witnesses? Video? A written confession the man signed when she confronted him the next day? I realize that some cases really do come down to "he said, she said." But this sounds even worse: "He said, and she couldn't prove otherwise." It fact, it sounds like a return to the times when a woman wasn't "really" raped if she wasn't also beaten half to death. What "affirmative proof" is expected?
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
In this case or in any like it, how can the woman provide "affirmative proof" of lack of consent? If she says she said no and was overpowered or intimidated, or she says she was too drunk/drugged to know what she was doing, what else is she supposed to provide? Witnesses? Video? A written confession the man signed when she confronted him the next day? I realize that some cases really do come down to "he said, she said." But this sounds even worse: "He said, and she couldn't prove otherwise." It fact, it sounds like a return to the times when a woman wasn't "really" raped if she wasn't also beaten half to death. What "affirmative proof" is expected?
Click to expand...

I think the point is that this civil case is brought under the child victims act. The prior assumption is that the victim is a child and therefore cannot consent. This case is at the edge of the act, since it appears she was over the age of consent (under NY law), so for the case to be eligible under the act the complainant has to show that the sex was non-consensual. The point being the sex act has to be a crime under NY law, to bring a case that would otherwise be time barred in NY under this NY law. In this case the federal law is irrelevant. The lawyers are not defending the case, they are saying that the case does not meet the requirements to be brought under the child victims act as it does not involve a crime under NY law. So will be arguing for the case to be struck out before it gets to court. To bring a case under the law Giuffre has to show a crime was committed, and that means lack of consent. This is not something she has previously claimed. it may be the judge will accept her assertion she was raped as sufficient evidence, but this then opens issues that may provoke a criminal investigation, on both sides, because it may render Giuffre vulnerable to perjury charges. If she commits perjury then it throws in to doubt evidence she has previously given in court.
 
Planigale said:
I think the point is that this civil case is brought under the child victims act. The prior assumption is that the victim is a child and therefore cannot consent. This case is at the edge of the act, since it appears she was over the age of consent (under NY law), so for the case to be eligible under the act the complainant has to show that the sex was non-consensual. The point being the sex act has to be a crime under NY law, to bring a case that would otherwise be time barred in NY under this NY law. In this case the federal law is irrelevant. The lawyers are not defending the case, they are saying that the case does not meet the requirements to be brought under the child victims act as it does not involve a crime under NY law. So will be arguing for the case to be struck out before it gets to court. To bring a case under the law c has to show a crime was committed, and that means lack of consent. This is not something she has previously claimed. it may be the judge will accept her assertion she was raped as sufficient evidence, but this then opens issues that may provoke a criminal investigation, on both sides, because it may render Giuffre vulnerable to perjury charges. If she commits perjury then it throws in to doubt evidence she has previously given in court.
Click to expand...

That is exactly it. How the plaintiff can prove non-consent is up to the plaintiff. Defense has presented a very strong argument that plaintiff must provide an affirmative argument to invoke CVA to allow the case to proceed to trial. If non-consent was brought in the initial complaint, this would probably not be an issue. But it was not. That is problematic.

In order for the CVA law to circumvent the ordinary statute of limitations, there must be proof beyond the statutory requirements per se. As the defense suggests, that is probably not possible.

If the plaintiff had even alleged non-consent in the original complaint, this probably would not be an issue. Defense has a legitimate argument.
 
The "sex trafficking of a minor" conviction will be the killer. I believe the range for that one is up to 40 years.
 
Bob001 said:
MSNBC says guilty on five counts, NG on one.
Click to expand...


Yeah, not guilty on count 2. But that was a relatively-insignificant one. She's been found guilty on various more serious counts, including 6 which is easily the most serious (sex trafficking a minor).

I expect at least some of the sentences will be served consecutively, since they concern different crimes with different victims. I doubt she'll ever get out of prison.

(Pending appeal, of course....)
 
Frankly, as soon as the jury started requesting so much judicial guidance/clarifications and extending its deliberation, Maxwell's lawyers must have known the gig was most probably up.

From waaaaay on the outside, and from not much more than a passing interest in the trial, I can't see any immediate reason to grant an appeal. But obviously I fully expect Maxwell to spend another few hundred thousand dollars of her inheritance to file an appeal.
 
Interesting, and rather quicker than I'd expected.

I await the Usual Suspects saying it's immoral/unjust et cetera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom