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: Ghislaine Maxwell
|
|
Ghislaine Maxwell 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
|
Before any verdict may I say I know virtually nothing about this case, other than I've read or seen in the media. But I remember the era, knew the attitudes and morality, have experienced numerous cases of false allegations and, most important, have common sense.
I'm pretty sure Ghislaine, having been Epstein's girlfriend, assisted him in obtaining contacts with numerous young ladies. Why not? Likewise I'm pretty sure those ladies were flattered and very willing to accept luxury trips and gifts. I'm equally certain none did anything without their full consent (Epstein was intelligent and would never have risked it - likewise he would never have been so foolish as to do anything with anyone under age in whichever territory). I'm pretty sure that the accusers have inflated, exaggerated or added to the reality of what happened to them. In most cases, from what I've read, in order to make huge sums of money. Well aware that the only witness to their stories is dead.
So I reckon Ghislaine should be acquitted on all charges. But as I say, I know nothing.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Ghislaine Maxwell 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
|
Not one seemed capable of walking out the door.
The one accusing Andrew is horrendous and I don't know the truth but I stand by my claim the Royal men did not dally with common tarts when they had the choice of Sloane Rangers and Upper Class Gels throwing themselves at them..in fact I know one who had an on /off dalliance with a future King every time he was in Australia and she would never dream of spilling the beans (nor would her compliant husband..could be why he got a Knighthood ).
whatever the outcome, Maxwell has been treated appallingly so far.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Ghislaine Maxwell 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
|
There's a five-part ABC documentary on YouTube "Truth & Lies: Jeffrey Epstein" and the three women interviewed in it seem genuine to me. They describe low-level abuse and being recruited by schoolmates. Ghislaine Maxwell isn't mentioned. She isn't mentioned in this accompanying article either.
"[Epstein] really just had middle schoolers and high schoolers all over Palm Beach running around and trying to recruit for him, trying to recruit other little kids," said Brad Edwards, a victims' rights lawyer who has represented several Epstein accusers over the past 11 years.
abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-epstein-surviv...ch/story?id=68099808
But I wouldn't be surprised if the verdict is the same as in Rolf Harris's first trial: unanimously guilty on all counts. The jury in that case were also out for a long time, over two weekends. Just before the second weekend they had questions for the judge suggesting that they were split or confused, but then produced a unanimous verdict on the Monday. I wondered if something untoward had happened to hurry them up that second weekend, e.g. if one or more of them had discussed it with someone not on the jury or had gone online.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Ghislaine Maxwell 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
|
That, Honey, makes sense on a superficial level. The truth is, however, individuals have different abilities and flaws. Some young people are well able to make up their minds; many old people will NEVER learn how to make the right decision. Generalisation helps nobody. For some, prostitution is entirely sensible - those to whom sex means little and is unimportant but food, clothes, comfort, family means a lot, for example. I reckon those 4 girls who decided they would like luxury gifts and lots of cash made exactly the correct decision at the time just as, clearly, they also made the right decision to exaggerate and lie a little in order to make fortunes now Ghislaine has been convicted.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:Ghislaine Maxwell 2 Years, 4 Months ago
|
|
hedda wrote:
Honey wrote:
Speaking in general, not about this case, the reason why youngsters are often perfectly willing and don't leave when they can is because they are youngsters, and make lousy decisions all the time.
The underage laws are to protect them from themselves as much as from others.
makes sense but they weren't "youngsters". They were late teens and one was considered underage in NY law.
Teenagers make terrible decisions of course but that's part of growing up. The fearlessness of youth is how old men (and women) can convince them to go off to war and kill strangers.
Each alleged victim could have walked out the door. The money of course was highly attractive as the Andrew accuser says she walked away with $1000s for each encounter.
Of course the rich use wealth for their own power but what was the choice here: they could have perhaps gone to work in America's fast food industry or Walmart for poverty wages whilst the owners travel in their own luxury jets and Super Yachts.
## Get a gander at the Walton's mega yacht ..all bought by exploiting their own country's citizens and Chinese slave labour. But lauded for doing so.
Epstein and Maxwell's alleged victims have put in claims for $Millions..no dead end jobs for them.
Again: Maxwell (by proxy with Epstein dead) is America's Jimmy Savile in that no other viewpoint will be tolerated.
Witness the attacks upon a Maxwell family member for daring to say his sister is innocent, and the BBC's ridiculous hand-wringing over interviewing a lawyer who was Epstein's lawyer and the media's idiotic condemnation of them.
The all prevailing "think of the victims" mantra resonates as a million people (who wouldn't know them from Adam) wring their hands in faux concern.
## again I think back to Germaine Greer's description of her vicious rape and beating as a late teen and how she recovered & went on to success and how she abhors the media campaign to tell true victims & all future victims : your life has now been destroyed, it's over.No recovery possible
Maxwell is now not only being punished for Epstein's alleged crimes (and still 1000s of morons rabbit away on social media about the "blackmail campaigns" despite not even the FBI making any such claim)...she is being punished in the media for Robert Maxwell's crimes.
What next: when Maxwell's lawyers inevitably hold a press conference to announce they are formerly filing an appeal will there be a self imposed media boycott with small media outlets terrified to report it?
Think of all the terrible cases in the UK (and USA) of people wrongly jailed for murder and rape and who had convictions overturned after endless campaigns by supporters and lawyers.
The Maxwell conviction is now unique : no alternative view will be tolerated..any relative or supported must be silenced under threat of decimation in the media and any outlet that publishes them will be attacked.
.
She has become the USA's Jimmy Savile: not only will no alternative belief or view be tolerated..those who expound one will be the "fags" loaded at the base of the Witch's bonfire.
It's legitimate to ask questions about why the BBC chose Dershowitz as an objective expert commentator given his close connection to the case. Of course, in reality, it's probably because he put himself forward, is media-savvy, and given the holiday period, whereby it is decreed that the UK shuts down for a fortnight, no-one else could be arsed.
I agree with you that it's distinctly worrying that the media response is otherwise almost entirely one-sided. There's a narrative we are 'told' to believe, and I like you am rather sceptical of it.
I have so many questions that I literally don't know where to start.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|