Jeffrey Epstein ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell arrested by FBI

I wonder if this is going to make it more difficult for Prince Andrew to avoid giving evidence.

Once I saw the Lady Ghislaine - the 180 foot long luxury yacht, of Robert Maxwell.


Called after his daughter - and still sailing now, for a new owner - as Dancing Hare.

It is interesting to see women starting to be victims of the false allegations industry. As long as the presumption of guilt remains and "they will be believed", this very ludicrous crime will continue to explode. Whilst currently mainly against the wealthy (and preferably dead), let's not forget ordinary people convicted of crimes that never took place in return for a few grand compensation. Where is Carl Beech when you need him?

How on earth can she have a fair trial after all this?
The influence a media attack can have on a jury has been underestimated, in my opinion.

This simple saga could be synopsised as a financial genius becoming very rich by advising American billionaires, on finance.

Whilst associating with the powerful and famous - and, allegedly, engaging in sexual activity with women who were procured on his behalf.


However, because of those he mingled with - in Palm Springs, NYC, DC, Sandringham, Windsor etc. - this saga will continue for years.

And is a godsend to the media - not least because of the angles and potential side stories that can be generated from his acquaintances.

I thought the FBI official saying she had "slithered away" seemed a bit unprofessional. But maybe they're not supposed to be unbiased.

FBI tracked Ghislaine Maxwell as she ‘slithered away’ to luxury New Hampshire property

“We have been discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell’s whereabouts as we worked this investigation,” said William Sweeney, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office, at a press conference.

“More recently, we learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a life of privilege while her victims lived with the trauma inflicted on them years ago.”

Barney wrote:
Once I saw the Lady Ghislaine - the 180 foot long luxury yacht, of Robert Maxwell.


Called after his daughter - and still sailing now, for a new owner - as Dancing Hare.





Maxwell didn't kill himself like Epstein didn't hang himself.


Honey, read the link Mark Dice mentioned all the seediness and depravity in his book 2016.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=MEygCwAAQBAJ...vIDZQQ6AEwCXoECAQQAQ

There's an ABC documentary on YouTube called "Truth & Lies: Jeffrey Epstein", split into five short parts. I've watched the first part so far, and it seems that Prince Andrew's accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre wasn't the first person to make accusations, but a woman called Maria Farmer, who made a report to law enforcement in 1996 when she was 25/26 that she had been assaulted by Epstein and Maxwell. So perhaps they aren't all false accusers, though I suspect Roberts Giuffre is one. On the other hand, it's odd that the authorities wouldn't have pursued the 1996 report.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Farmer

JK2006 wrote:
It is interesting to see women starting to be victims of the false allegations industry. As long as the presumption of guilt remains and "they will be believed", this very ludicrous crime will continue to explode. Whilst currently mainly against the wealthy (and preferably dead), let's not forget ordinary people convicted of crimes that never took place in return for a few grand compensation. Where is Carl Beech when you need him?

We don't know that this is a false allegation, it may well be or it could be true. There is a 4 part documentary series on netflix about Epstein. There are a lot of testimonies that suggest she was involved in wrongdoing, but the documentary does have an agender. An unproven allegation is not a false allegation, just merely unproven.

www.netflix.com/search?q=epstein&jbv...&jbp=0&jbr=0

robbiex wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
It is interesting to see women starting to be victims of the false allegations industry. As long as the presumption of guilt remains and "they will be believed", this very ludicrous crime will continue to explode. Whilst currently mainly against the wealthy (and preferably dead), let's not forget ordinary people convicted of crimes that never took place in return for a few grand compensation. Where is Carl Beech when you need him?

We don't know that this is a false allegation, it may well be or it could be true. There is a 4 part documentary series on netflix about Epstein. There are a lot of testimonies that suggest she was involved in wrongdoing, but the documentary does have an agender. An unproven allegation is not a false allegation, just merely unproven.

www.netflix.com/search?q=epstein&jbv...&jbp=0&jbr=0

Yes I agree Robbie.

I understand why JK and others here take the default position of every accusation being part of the "false accusations industry" as they are using media techniques of mantra-like repetition to make their case. And who can blame them given the mantra like repetition and foul coverage JK and others have recieved at the hands of the media ("vile pervert").

You don't admit nuance with this technique as it weakens and confuses your message; so you have to live with silliness at times, but it is a price you pay for your overall goal.

But to me it is as absurd in reality to say that all accusers are "false" as it is to say that all accused are guilty. A measure is needed. We have due process and the criminal justice system.

This is not an observation on the efficacy of the latter institution though.

And indeed I and most posters here would NEVER say ALL accusers are false. In my experience many are; the vast majority are exaggerations based on truth (a 16 year old becomes 15; a consensual act becomes forced) and a small percentage are totally true. Our point is that media, police and lawyers assist explanations to get convictions which, in most cases, works.

JK2006 wrote:
And indeed I and most posters here would NEVER say ALL accusers are false. In my experience many are; the vast majority are exaggerations based on truth (a 16 year old becomes 15; a consensual act becomes forced) and a small percentage are totally true. Our point is that media, police and lawyers assist explanations to get convictions which, in most cases, works.

You did start your first post in this thread by describing this woman as "another victim of the false allegations industry" which is not exactly an attempt at objectivity prior to due process JK!!

But thanks for expanding and yes I am sure as with Covid that the media are a very unhelpful element in this area, particularly if you are well known.

Indeed I did and I agree that the presumption of innocence is a totally outdated concept in 2020; you will have to forgive me continuing to assume it.

It is fundamental I agree that we all uphold the presumption of innocence, and equally the right of victims to assert a crime and not be presumed guilty.

Btw enjoy summer hols; it looks beautiful.

The victims can assert all they like but the allegations should be presumed false until (and often after) being declared true by a court of law. Much though media may hate this as it kills a good story, that is (for the moment; though I suspect not for long) the way society in the UK works.

JK2006 wrote:
The victims can assert all they like but the allegations should be presumed false until (and often after) being declared true by a court of law. Much though media may hate this as it kills a good story, that is (for the moment; though I suspect not for long) the way society in the UK works.

But this is not the presumption of innocence, which attaches (or should) to the accused. I am unaware of any presumption of falsity in UK law that in principle attaches to the accuser until proved otherwise.

The accusation should be seen neutrally as something to be objectively investigated (again no comment on the reality). A presumption of falsity to be proven otherwise would be an intolerable starting position for a woman who has been raped and is considering whether to report the crime...

I in no way disagree with you about the intolerable media presentation and influence re the accused and the parlous state of the presumption of innocence today, which is steadily being eroded.

Nothing I say is meant to contradict this.

But let's not also undermine the genuine victim as well as the presumption of innocence.

The health of both needs urgently addressing in our CJS.

Jo wrote:
There's an ABC documentary on YouTube called "Truth & Lies: Jeffrey Epstein", split into five short parts. I've watched the first part so far, and it seems that Prince Andrew's accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre wasn't the first person to make accusations, but a woman called Maria Farmer, who made a report to law enforcement in 1996 when she was 25/26 that she had been assaulted by Epstein and Maxwell. So perhaps they aren't all false accusers, though I suspect Roberts Giuffre is one. On the other hand, it's odd that the authorities wouldn't have pursued the 1996 report.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Farmer
I've now watched all of the ABC documentary (it's not long, about 40 minutes, though I suspect might be the first part of a longer documentary) and am now less sceptical. Apart from Maria Farmer, three women were interviewed, who described their experience with Epstein when young teenagers, including what led them to him in the first place. They seemed genuine to me and what they described did not sound far-fetched. The abuse they described was criminal behaviour but less serious than the claims of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who I suspect is exaggerating. Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't mentioned much, other than by one of the women, who said she'd refer to the young girls, of whom, according to copious memos and diary entries apparently found by the FBI, there had been a steady stream, as "the nubiles". If that's true, and just based on this documentary, I think it would be difficult for her to claim that she didn't know Epstein had an interest in under-age girls. That she had actually recruited young girls herself I find more difficult to conceive, as how would she, as a stranger and adult woman, have approached them, let alone known their ages? One of the women in the documentary said she'd been made aware of the opportunity to make a few hundred dollars (a lot for her and the others, as they were all from impoverished backgrounds, peanuts for Epstein) by giving an old rich guy a half-hour massage by a "popular girl" at school. That sounds more plausible to me, as school pupils would be more aware of how old each other were and, if they knew that Epstein had an age preference, would know who to approach. What happened may have been technically prostitution (even if the abuse described by these women did not involve actual sex), but I can see how young girls wouldn't have known that's what they were letting themselves in for and, if what these women said was correct, it seems unfair to me to describe them as prostitutes. None of the girls claimed to have made themselves available to other men at Epstein's properties or being required to do so. Perhaps such claims stem only from Virginia Roberts Guiffre and/or her copycats.

Ghislaine wouldn't 'say anything to investigators' about Prince Andrew - says her friend, or acquaintance, in the media.

That's very doubtful as nobody yet knows how big this complex matter is going to be - and who will be implicated, on both sides of the pond.

All bets are off - with deals on the table everywhere, for everyone. In typical American fashion - plea bargaining will come into play.


If you testify against B and implcate C - we'll drop the charges that are levied against you...

This woman is currently a suspect; she is neither a victim of false allegations at this stage, nor is she guilty of the six indictments. Let due process commence.

What is so disturbing about all of this is the widespread presumption on MSM and social media that Prince Andrew is guilty. Of what exactly, I'm not sure.

There is only the complainant VG's word that she was trafficked and that Andrew had sex with her. Yes, Epstein was convicted on child sex charges, and Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested, but whatever they did or didn't do the focus needs to remain on what Andrew did or didn't do.

If he did have sex with her, she was 17 and therefore over the age of consent. It doesn't matter what the age of consent is in the US - the alleged offence took place here. It might be a bit morally dubious but being morally dubious is not a crime.

Andrew was friends with Epstein and Maxwell so it would not have been out of place for him to have been at the home of either of them. VG has been reported as saying that she wanted a photo of herself with Andrew to send to her mum. That doesn't sound like the stance of someone who is being trafficked, and clearly she was still in friendly contact with her mother, who would have been in a position to raise the alarm.

When a man meets a young woman at a friend's home the first thing that springs to mind isn't "She's being trafficked." Even if she was (and she is the happiest-looking trafficked person I have ever seen) he would not necessarily have known this.

I'm not a fan of Andrew at all but I do think there's a lot of 'he is guilty' rhetoric being pushed by anti-royalists with an agenda.