IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Ghislaine Maxwell
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
Jo wrote:
What a surprise. Judge Alison Nathan has ruled against Ghislaine Maxwell again.
Ghislaine Maxwell bid for retrial denied
… Maxwell, 60, had complained that one of the jurors falsely stated before the trial that he had never been sexually abused.
Her lawyers argued the fact the juror had been abused in the past meant he could not be impartial. ...
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said. ...
I think she still has an appeal coming.
Early days but a certain accuser's "charity" will need to be kosher before the Fickle Finger of Fate points at it.
Ludicrous "reporting" because a prince accoimpanied his mother (HM) to his father's memorial service.
vicious nasty stuff. |
|
Jo |
What a surprise. Judge Alison Nathan has ruled against Ghislaine Maxwell again.
Ghislaine Maxwell bid for retrial denied
… Maxwell, 60, had complained that one of the jurors falsely stated before the trial that he had never been sexually abused.
Her lawyers argued the fact the juror had been abused in the past meant he could not be impartial. ...
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said. ... |
|
hedda |
Jo wrote:
Daily Mail: BBC comes under fire for giving Ghislaine Maxwell's brother a primetime slot on Radio 4 to attack guilty verdicts and cast his sister as a victim
Ian Maxwell, 65, who was allowed five minutes on Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday, said: ‘These were Epstein’s crimes and he’s not here to pay that price, and she has been made to pay the price that he should have paid.’
He added: ‘My own view is that Ghislaine had nothing to do with it.’
Presenter Mishal Husain repeatedly challenged him, pointing out that the jury believed the accusers’ testimonies.
...
Last night the BBC said of Ian Maxwell: ‘He was robustly challenged and his arguments were critiqued directly afterwards by a barrister.’
Some interesting readers' comments under the article, e.g.:
How dare they . You can't have trial by media and decide accusation as fact if some parts of the media allow a different point of view . What is britain coming to . We have spent decades becoming a police state and they just decide to not play properly.
Seems like 5 mins to put one side of the argument when the opposite point of view is all over the media isn't fair enough.
It is clear she was trialled by media way before court, why is her family not entitled to stand up for her on that.
Not seeing the issue here, he is entitled to his opinion, listeners would be aware of the guilty verdict. Listeners want the facts and opinions from both sides of the fence. People are allowed to have their own thoughts and we can agree or disagree with them. I would expect to hear from both sides of the issue.
I like to hear both sides of an argument but it seems that it's becoming normal to only allow us to hear one side. Dangerous times for us all. Whatever happened to discussion and debate.
In the Sky video above, Ian Maxwell shies away from saying his sister's accusers were lying about her. Even he realises that it's just not PC to that. But where does that leave his argument that she's innocent?
I agree the BBC could have better introduced Alan Dershowit better as not only Epstein's past lawyer but a possible friend.
But as a highly respected US legal scholar he has every right & skill to be questioned on this case.
Interesting to see some public member's thoughts on fairness filter through against the avalanche of prejudicial rubbish.
Anyone who took a free flight on Epstein's plane is condemned just for that.
# I recall attending a function in Sydney for ex-US president George H.Bush who had traveled from Melbourne to Sydney in a private jet hired by a later proved con man who ripped of 1000s of people in a Ponzi scheme.
Bush arrived at the hotel with the con man. Bill Clinton likewise traveled on the same plane.
Neither man was condemned, rather reported as victims of the con-man.
But anyone who dared travel on Epstein's plane is subtly condemned although some more than others..Prince Andrew for instance but not Donald Trump who the majority of Americans recently rejected as president.
Andrew is roundly condemned with remaining friends with Epstein after his conviction but no media dares criticize HM The Queen or the future King Charles for dallying with former IRA members (who killed a friend of mine with the Harrods bomb)
But what of the pilots and staff on such a large jet? Or the airport workers involved in facilitating these flights on the "Lolita Express"? (all no doubt innocent)
I have no idea of the truth in these cases but the media has been relentless with prejudicial reporting.
# I have a funny feeling though when Epstein's business career is examined..no-one has even touched on this yet- that far more malfeasance will be revealed. And that may include very powerful figures. Some may be powerful media owners or friends and family.
When such dishonest campaigns are allowed to flourish they always have unintended consequences just as the great Hacking Scandal revealed. |
|
md |
There is no evidence of respect for the scales, the sword and the blindfold at all in this case. I feel it will eventually go down in history as one of the most unjust and cruellest ever. |
|
Jo |
Daily Mail: BBC comes under fire for giving Ghislaine Maxwell's brother a primetime slot on Radio 4 to attack guilty verdicts and cast his sister as a victim
Ian Maxwell, 65, who was allowed five minutes on Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday, said: ‘These were Epstein’s crimes and he’s not here to pay that price, and she has been made to pay the price that he should have paid.’
He added: ‘My own view is that Ghislaine had nothing to do with it.’
Presenter Mishal Husain repeatedly challenged him, pointing out that the jury believed the accusers’ testimonies.
...
Last night the BBC said of Ian Maxwell: ‘He was robustly challenged and his arguments were critiqued directly afterwards by a barrister.’
Some interesting readers' comments under the article, e.g.:
How dare they . You can't have trial by media and decide accusation as fact if some parts of the media allow a different point of view . What is britain coming to . We have spent decades becoming a police state and they just decide to not play properly.
Seems like 5 mins to put one side of the argument when the opposite point of view is all over the media isn't fair enough.
It is clear she was trialled by media way before court, why is her family not entitled to stand up for her on that.
Not seeing the issue here, he is entitled to his opinion, listeners would be aware of the guilty verdict. Listeners want the facts and opinions from both sides of the fence. People are allowed to have their own thoughts and we can agree or disagree with them. I would expect to hear from both sides of the issue.
I like to hear both sides of an argument but it seems that it's becoming normal to only allow us to hear one side. Dangerous times for us all. Whatever happened to discussion and debate.
In the Sky video above, Ian Maxwell shies away from saying his sister's accusers were lying about her. Even he realises that it's just not PC to that. But where does that leave his argument that she's innocent? |
|
|
|
|
