Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ghislaine Maxwell trial

Options
11618202122

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,349 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I have no idea, it was someone on TV yesterday (British socialite Victoria Hervey) who said Maxwell was as much a victim as some of the other girls. I was just making the point that whatever way a person could say she's a victim is undermined by the length and severity of her own actions over decades.

    During her interview on Lorraine, she said about Maxwell: “She was a victim that then became the accomplice as her role changed in that relationship.”



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,276 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    To be fair to that woman she has no background in the legal field so her opinions are as important and considered as a drunk on a bar stool.



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It’s the defamation of character legal actions that is stopping most of the naming. Without further proof it’s he said, she said. And the he side is super rich.

    by the way the original Epstein case was handled even worse than you claim - he wasn’t locked up at all. It was house arrest. And the judge not only hid the proceedings from the victims but closed down all investigations, federal and state. Which is unusual.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,349 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Completely agree. Again, I was just responding to her comments and as outlined in cnocbui's post. I don't know in what ways she could be described as a victim, but even if there was some way, she crossed that line a long time ago regardless.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497955/#Comment_118497955



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,088 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    I was somewhat surprised that the defense had not brought up claims that Maxwell herself was a victim of coercive control etc to appeal to emotions. It’s a tactic used frequently by female defendants. There must have been a good reason why the defense didn’t go down that route.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    She is also reputed to have said "It's so bad being homeless in winter. They should go somewhere warm like the Caribbean where they can eat fresh fish all day." so I'd take her opinions with a pinch of salt.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Apparently Andy has closed his twitter a/c...

    The Duke of York has deleted his Twitter account, just days after the Queen stripped him of his honorary military roles and he stopped using his HRH style.

    Meanwhile the firm do more to protect themselves from the fallout...

    The British monarchy's official website has also been swiftly updated as the institution seeks to distance itself from the Queen's son, who is facing a civil sexual assault trial in the US.


    Andrew still appears under the section "Members of the Royal Family", but the list of his now ex-military posts and patronages has been removed.




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    An appeal has been lodged, thanks to the Juror who admitted lying on the jury selection questionnaire.

    “In a letter to Judge Alison Nathan, her lawyer Bobbi C Sternheim wrote: “Today, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell filed her motion for a new trial.”

    The lawyer added: “We request that all submissions pertaining to juror no. 50 remain under seal until the court rules on the motion.””

    https://www.thejournal.ie/ghislaine-maxwell-requests-retrail-5659540-Jan2022/



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Not so much an appeal but a request for a retrial.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭Lillyfae




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    One could easily deduce that both Charles and William do not believe Andy's explanation given their unwillingness to offer any kind of defence when asked...




  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Regardless of guilt or innocence Andrew really made a mess of things going back to 2011 and compounded it all with his 2019 interview so yeah, I wouldn’t say he’s top of their Christmas list right now - he’s one major headache for them



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Apparently Andy has asked that the trial be one with a jury. However, given that Virginia had already asked for this in her complaint (and only one side need do so) so effectively Andy is using the request for PR. By requesting a jury based trial, surely he is now ruling out the likleihood of a payoff?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Huge excitement about the civil case against Andy but, as I predicted, no further arrests. All those guilty men but Ghislaine Maxwell is the only one who will serve time, probably the rest of her natural.

    No plea deal with the prosecution. That would only work if the prosecution wanted to prosecute.


    Andy is destroyed but that is a civil matter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,729 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Nothing unusual about that.

    She was a main player, prosecutors usually give deals to bit part players in return to catch the main players.

    Not the other way around.

    That said their could be new deals on offer if a retrial is ordered, there all ready is AFAIK.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Caquas


    The main player? She was just an accomplice to Epstein and his high-rolling buddies. Everyone else here thought she would spill the beans on the big names who abused these girls. I always believed she wouldn’t because the prosecutors were not interested in prosecuting the big fish. That’s how it seems to be playing out. Do you know something we don’t?



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,729 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    It is without any sort of doubt she was instrumental in recruiting young girls for Epstein.

    She was a main player, that is an established fact.

    As for spilling the beans on others in return for a plea deal, unless she has some sort of tangible evidence, it's probably a non runner.

    No prosecution that isn't dangerously stupid would stick her anywhere near a witness box.

    I imagine there was others, but without evidence, no trial.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Caquas


    So you think she was central to Epstein’s network of abuse but she doesn’t have any evidence at all to offer against those she assisted to abuse young girls. She wouldn’t even be able to corroborate any girl who came forward and said “I was raped by Mr. Big Shot”?

    How convenient for those abusers. And for the prosecutors who want to shut this down.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,276 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I'm sure she could but why would she produce this evidence? She would just end up like Epstein.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,729 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    I don't think she was central, it was proved without doubt she was. Again it's not my opinion.

    Do I really need to explain you the possible pit falls of putting a convicted sex trafficker in the box for the prosecution?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Are you saying that convicts can’t give evidence about their crimes? Half the convictions in America could be thrown out in that case. Or is there something about sex offenders?

    What’s the worst that come happen? The jury doesn’t believe her and they would have to rely on the other evidence I.e. the testimony of the victims. That was enough to convict Maxwell herself. Why wouldn’t that work for the actual rapists?



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,729 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Nope, like I already tried to explain to you the person with the lesser criminal culpability normally gets the contingent plea agreement.

    You don't give the mob moss a deal to get the accountant. It would be pretty outrageous.

    As for her conviction in this case, that came about because of the testimony of multiple victims and the defenses inability to discredit their testimonies.

    If Ms. Maxwell were to take the stand, Lionel Hutz would have a field day which would have the net effect of distracting from the victims actual testimonies and sully the minds of the jurors.

    She would just be a massive target that the defense team would aim everything at.

    As for potential co conspirators, and witnesses / victims that are willing to testify in what may result in a viable criminal case.

    I'm not aware of any. Are you?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Caquas


    So the men who raped these women are the “accountants” and the real culprit is Maxwell?

    We don’t have names and dates because everything is being protected behind very expensive non-disclosure agreements which prosecutors won’t challenge but everybody knows that these girls were available to Epstein’s powerful buddies.

    Maxwell was convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of four (actually three) women but somehow you believe the rapists themselves can’t be prosecuted even if Maxwell cooperates with the prosecution i.e. corroborates the victims’ evidence. If she produced contemporaneous records e.g. a diary for the relevant day saying the defendant and the girl were together on Jeffrey’s island. That would be damning, even if the jury thought Maxwell was Satan in disguise.

    Of course, the defence lawyers would throw everything at her but it is fundamental to our system of justice that juries are well able to recognise the truth regardless of their feelings towards the witness.

    The reality is that there is no wish or intention to prosecute the (extremely) powerful men involved with Epstein’s sex slaves. Andy doesn’t have the big bucks for an NDA so he is being pursued in a civil claim (which is why he wouldn’t normally get a jury trial).

    But I see you’re OK with that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,729 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Yip, that exactly how I feel and what I saying.

    Absolute fúcking waste of time. 🙄



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,260 ✭✭✭Potatoeman



    I was wondering when this was going to come up. Specifically:

    They also want Robert to be questioned on Virginia's "role in recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Caquas



    Game over - settled with a payment to her charity. I can only imagine the frantic carry-on behind the scenes before this deal was sealed. Too late to save Andrew’s reputation but what a relief for the Firm! And at a crucial moment with Charles preparing to take the throne.

    So, as I’ve been saying for months, none of the men who abused these girls will go to jail. Mission accomplished for Maxwell’s prosecutors. And no one here seems to mind.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,197 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    What makes you think nobody minds? Have you actually asked anyone if they mind?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Caquas


    i said nobody here seems to mind. Various posters said as much previously on this thread and went unchallenged.


    Of course the victims mind very much.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Brunel, who Roberts accused of abusing her has committed suicide in prison in France while awaiting trial.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10530247/Jeffrey-Epsteins-friend-Jean-Luc-Brunel-prison-suicide.html

    “A French judicial enquiry into Brunel's conduct was opened in August 2019, when prosecutors heard allegations that Brunel and the Queen's second son Prince Andrew shared a lover.

    Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an American, has told lawyers she was employed as a 'sex slave' when she was forced to sleep with the Duke of York after being trafficked to him at least three times when she was 17.”



Advertisement