Ghislaine Maxwell trial

[Res Ipsa]

major power players -- men who knowingly had sex with Epstein's underage girls, for example. (9/12)

That isn't a figment of everyone's imagination.

Absent any evidence to support it, that's exactly what it is.

[LM K]

And then there are the perjury charges. She gets convicted on those, she's not going to be of much use as a witness.

I think those were dropped. They were part of the indictment, but the perjury charges were never addressed in court.

Ghislaine Maxwell Now Faces Another Criminal Trial for Perjury

Prosecutors say Maxwell lied under oath during 2016 deposition

Judge severed the perjury counts from the sex-trafficking case





December 29, 2021, 6:34 PM EST


Ghislaine Maxwell’s guilty verdict is likely not the last trial result she will face.

The 60-year-old will be in court again -- probably next year -- on charges that she lied under oath about boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of underage girls.

After the verdict Wednesday, in which the former British socialite was found guilty of five out of six sex-crime charges, she is already facing as many as 65 years in prison. Her lawyers have not said yet whether they will appeal.


But Maxwell requested those charges be tried separately from two perjury counts, and U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan agreed in April.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... or-perjury

Thank you, Filly!! This is excellent!!

[LM K]

major power players -- men who knowingly had sex with Epstein's underage girls, for example. (9/12)

That isn't a figment of everyone's imagination.

Absent any evidence to support it, that's exactly what it is.

[LM K]

Why would Maxwell refuse to flip before trial? Why take the risk of going on trial for all 6 charges when she might have had the chance to get some charges dropped?

Was she confident about a not guilty verdict or did the prosecuion not agree to drop some charges in exchange for info?

[Kendra]

There was just a convo on CNN about this. The panel's thoughts were that 1) anything she might bring up may or may not be Federal crimes (vs. state crimes) and 2) Concerns about anything she might give up would be too old because of statute of limitations.

I'm paraphrasing, because that was 30 minutes ago I listened

[raison de arizona]

That isn't a figment of everyone's imagination.

Absent any evidence to support it, that's exactly what it is.

Eh, I disagree. I don’t find it fanciful thinking to suspect there were more people involved in some tangential way. We already have some names and accusations. Andrew. Dershowitz. I think it is more likely than not that Maxwell and Epstein didn’t keep this all to themselves.

[RVInit]

Absent any evidence to support it, that's exactly what it is.

Eh, I disagree. I don’t find it fanciful thinking to suspect there were more people involved in some tangential way. We already have some names and accusations. Andrew. Dershowitz. I think it is more likely than not that Maxwell and Epstein didn’t keep this all to themselves.

And obviously the asshole prosecutor in Florida (Acosta) also knew there were others involved, as he actually granted "known and unknown co-conspirators" (that is co-conspirator with an "s") immunity with the illegal agreement he made with Epstein those many years ago. Right in the freaking immunity agreement.

I really don't understand this obsession with pretending that Epstein and Maxwell were all alone in their sex games even now after the four women talked about ORGIES during their sworn testimony these last few weeks.

I'm sure not everyone who flew on the Lolita Express were involved in these orgies that were testified to in court. Clinton is a known horndog who had no shortage of grown women to romp with and Trump probably was at least smart enough to not go for teenagers, although many of the photos with him and Ivanka are cringeworthy and in exceedingly poor taste.

[LM K]

I'm sure there are other men and probably women using Epstein/Maxwell's victims.

I'm not willing to engage in conspiracy theories about people who might have done so.

I want evidence. Until there is evidence, I'm not going to say that there are others whom sexually assaulted underage girls.

[LM K]

I really don't understand this obsession with pretending that Epstein and Maxwell were all alone in their sex games even now after the four women talked about ORGIES during their sworn testimony these last few weeks.

I'm sure not everyone who flew on the Lolita Express were involved in these orgies that were testified to in court. Clinton is a known horndog who had no shortage of grown women to romp with and Trump probably was at least smart enough to not go for teenagers, although many of the photos with him and Ivanka are cringeworthy and in exceedingly poor taste.

I don't understand those asserting that there are other perpetrators ... without evidence.

Orgies. They happened many times. There is no evidence that anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell interacted with any of the victims. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it likely? I don't know how to answer that without evidence. Show me evidence.

I'm fairly comfortable with accusing Dershowitz. He admits being massaged at Epstein's while "wearing underwear". That's a very serious admission.

Prince Andrew? I don't know. I'm not comfortable with Virginia Giuffre's assertions because her statements are up, down, all around. She's absolutely one of Epstein/Maxwell's victims. I doubt Giuffre would sue Andrew if her accusations against him aren't true. But doubt isn't evidence.

I'm surprised there are some here willing to by into the Epstein/Maxwell conspiracy theories when there is little to zero evidence.

Finally, the fact that someone flew on Epstein's plane is evidence that the person flew on Epstein's plane. I find it bizarre that anyone would assume that anyone on an Epstein flight manifest should be looked into as a potential perpetrator of sexual assault. That's absurd.

[RVInit]

Orgies among adults do not require immunity from prosecution. So, the fact that multiple "known and unknown" people were granted immunity by Acosta tells me that other adults were involved in those sexual encounters with minors.

For my part, I absolutely believe Prince Andrew was involved in sex with Giuffre, his answers to questions during his interview this past year were absolutely not the answers an innocent person would normally give. Instead of just saying "no" he spent all night trying to give logical reasons for why he didn't do this, that, or the other. A person who did not engage in that behavior normally just says "No, I did not". He was unable to say those words. His interview is available for anyone to watch, I think I may have posted it here, not sure if it was this particular thread or another one. It's on YouTube at any rate. I also would not be at all surprised if Dershowitz was involved in some of it. His story about getting a massage from an "old Russian woman" and he "left his underwear on" is just too weird. And methinks he doth protest way freaking too much. I have no idea if others whose names are recognizable were involved, but again, you don't have to grant immunity from prosecution to adults who were involved in sex with other adults.

And it is not unusual at all for a victim of sexual predation to be foggy on details, and even sometimes later remember things that had been forgotten. I myself have experienced those very things. For many years I couldn't even remember the name of the perpetrator, and that was entirely due to the fact that I deliberately made an effort to forget as much as possible about my experience. If I had had to tell my story 20 years ago and then tell my story 5 years ago the details would have been different both times and I only wish that none of it ever happened. I have in the last 5 years been able to face what happened, but 20 years ago, not so much. I couldn't even tell you the man's name 20 years ago. His name actually popped into my head entirely unexpectedly during a conversation with my mother. She made a comment about a victim of childhood sexual abuse who was in the news, and that comment triggered intense anger in me and all the sudden quite unexpectedly several details about my experience, including the man's name came flooding back.

It's not just Giuffre's side of the story about Prince Andrew but combined with photographs that clearly show that she was with him at Ghislaine Maxwell's house upstairs where the bedrooms were located along with his inability to simply deny any of it with "no" answers to questions are enough to cause me to believe it most likely to be true that he had sexual relations with her when she was a teenager and he an adult.

[RTH10260]

BBC Apologizes for Interviewing Alan Dershowitz About Ghislaine Maxwell Verdict

Lindsey Ellefson
Thu, December 30, 2021, 4:25 PM

The BBC apologized Thursday for a Wednesday segment that featured Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, discussing the guilty verdicts against Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition to previously representing Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, Dershowitz has been accused of sexual abuse by one of Epstein’s accusers, too.

“Last night’s interview with Alan Dershowitz after the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict did not meet the BBC’s editorial standards, as Mr. Dershowitz was not a suitable person to interview as an impartial analyst, and we did not make the relevant background clear to our audience. We will look into how this happened,” said a statement tweeted out by the company’s press team.

Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts) has said Dershowitz, who represented Epstein when he faced similar charges a decade ago, had sex with her when she was underage. Dershowitz has denied wrongdoing, even appearing on Fox News to defend his “perfect, perfect sex life” in 2019.


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bbc ... 18491.html

[Res Ipsa]

We already have some names and accusations. Andrew. Dershowitz.

I love how this "people are saying" thing works.

It is worth listening the victims. Hearing what they have to say. Acting as if they are people - human beings with stories - instead of props in a play.

One victim. One. Virginia Giuffre. Her story is unlike any other Epstein victim, and she has made claims concerning Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, the governor of NM whose name I forget, and one or two other relatively obscure persons. She has not added to the list, so we can be pretty confident that there will be no more names forthcoming from her.

In all this supposed bargaining with Maxwell, why is there NOTHING coming from ANY of the victims (other than Giuffre) about other men?

Recycling a half-remembered pastiche of repetitive press coverage all based on Giuffre's claims does not pass for evidence of some wide ranging operation that trafficked minors to anyone other than Epstein.

Historically, the emphasis at Fogbow has been in cutting through conspiracy theories and dealing in facts.

[Res Ipsa]

So, the fact that multiple "known and unknown" people were granted immunity by Acosta tells me that other adults were involved in those sexual encounters with minors.

Since the re-launch of Fogbow and my generally dim memory, I haven't kept track of who on here are lawyers and who are not.

So, forgive me for asking you, RVInit, about your experience in drafting settlements.

People did the same thing with the Stormy Daniels settlement, which included an overbroad recitation of things that could not be disclosed whether they existed or not, to draw similar conclusions.

The Acosta deal was scummy, but there is nothing at all unusual about including that sort of language in a settlement, and it does not imply the existence of said "unknowns".

I, personally, settle several cases a year and always include claims "whether known or unknown". Maybe your practice is different, but this is pretty standard for every other attorney I know.

Here you go, perhaps you may have heard of the firm of Morrison Foerster:

https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights ... laims.html


Six Key Questions When Settling and Releasing Legal Claims

Number two on the list:

2. Do you want to release unknown claims?

Put differently, do you intend to release claims that are not yet known to exist but may later be discovered? If so, then the settlement agreement should explicitly release all known and unknown claims. A general release of claims is not always sufficient to release claims that were unknown at the time of settlement.

So, every time a settlement refers to "unknown" parties or claims, that is a signal that they actually exist? I don't think a single lawyer here will agree with that.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm surprised there are some here willing to by into the Epstein/Maxwell conspiracy theories when there is little to zero evidence.

There's a reason why Qanon sucked in people from a broader portion of the political spectrum than some people assume. There is practically a hardwired propensity to believe in the "Gypsy's stealing the kids", "Jews drinking the blood of babies", "McMartin preschool", "Satanic Panic" stuff. It assumes a different name and form through the generations, but it does not go away. People are saying...

"Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow" (See, e.g. "Michael Avenatti")

[RTH10260]

as the Epstein thread went AWOL with Onebow, this here

Federal prosecutors quietly dropped their case against Jeffrey Epstein's jail guards in the middle of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial

Jacob Shamsian
Thu, December 30, 2021, 9:15 PM·3 min read

• Prosecutors dropped a case against two jail guards accused of sleeping on the job as Epstein died.
  They made the decision on December 13, in the middle of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial.
  The decision to drop the indictment against the guards wasn't made public until December 30.

In the middle of Ghislaine Maxwell's child-sex-trafficking trial, federal prosecutors quietly dropped their case against two jail guards accused of sleeping on the job and falsifying jail records as Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in his cell.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan signed a nolle prosequi, a document announcing to the judge that they wished to drop the case, on December 13. The document didn't appear on the court's public docket until Thursday, one day after Maxwell was convicted on charges that she trafficked girls to Epstein for sex and participated in sexual abuse herself.

Prosecutors first filed charges against the guards, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, in November 2019. Prosecutors said the guards napped, caught up on the news, and shopped for motorcycles and furniture instead of doing their rounds at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Epstein was held at the federal jail while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking and sexual-abuse charges.

Epstein was found dead in his cell on the morning of August 10, 2019, and New York City's head coroner ruled it a suicide. Epstein's brother, Mark Epstein, hired his own coroner who said the financier's broken neck bones were more consistent with a homicide.

Noel and Thomas pleaded not guilty to the charges against them for falsifying records. In May this year, they entered a deferred prosecution agreement where prosecutors agreed not to bring the guards' case to trial until after they finished cooperating with an investigation into the circumstances of Epstein's death with the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General. The OIG has yet to release a report in connection with the investigation.

A public status conference for the case against Noel and Thomas had been scheduled for December 16, but it was canceled on December 15 without explanation or scheduling of a future meeting.

The December 13 nolle prosequi said Noel and Thomas satisfactorily complied with the terms of the non-prosecution agreement and completed community service. It's unclear why the document wasn't made public until December 30.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-pros ... 31278.html

[Slim Cognito]

I'm going to say this in the most general terms possible and it's not directed at any one person or particular argument.

If you've been molested or raped, it doesn't matter if you live a hundred more years, you will NOT forget one minute detail. It's a matter of whether or not you choose to relive that agony publicly (and pray people believe you rather than judge you) or bury it so deep James Cameron couldn't find it.

[RVInit]

I'm going to say this in the most general terms possible and it's not directed at any one person or particular argument.

If you've been molested or raped, it doesn't matter if you live a hundred more years, you will NOT forget one minute detail. It's a matter of whether or not you choose to relive that agony publicly (and pray people believe you rather than judge you) or bury it so deep James Cameron couldn't find it.

Using the word "forget" is simply semantics here. Yes, a victim can, over time, become more able to deal with some of the details that occurred a sexual abuse encounter and therefore "remember" details that they had previously repressed. You repress details for a reason. Some of what happens during those encounters is "more shaming" than other things that happen during the encounter. And those details that are more shaming are the ones that a victim tends to repress. I won't ever discount a victim's story just because additional details come out at a later date.

And also in answer to Res Ipsa's contention that just because Giuffre is the only one that is claiming to have been passed around to other men, we don't actually know for a fact that others weren't passed around. Not everyone is willing to tell their story and have it blasted all over the news, tv, and internet. The prosecution of Maxwell was surgical and restricted, if any of those victims had been passed around to others they were not allowed to say so on the witness stand. They were allowed to mention the word orgy only tangentially and did not go into any of the details about who they had sex with aside from Epstein because Maxwell's prosecution was strictly about the role she played in grooming the girls for Epstein. Everything beyond that off limits. The judge even redacted names of people who flew on Epstein's planes, and rightly so.

I don't believe that just because someone knew Epstein or flew in any of his planes that they were involved in a sex conspiracy. However, the two men who have been named already not only both have completely bullshit stories when asked about these events, but in at least one case there is also photographic evidence and in both cases multiple women have said both of these men were present on Epstein's island during times when teenage girls were being victimized. Dershowitz has even admitted to having been massaged, although he claims it was an "old Russian lady" who massaged him and that he kept his drawers on.

I have never said that I know for a fact that these two molested young girls while they were at Epstein's various houses, only that based on multiple points of evidence, including their own statements, that I believe there is a reasonable chance that it's true that these two men more than likely took advantage of their proximity to easy sex with underage girls. Do I believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Dershowitz and Prince Andrew are guilty of having sex with underage girls? No. But I believe it's true more than I believe it's not true.

It's not conspiracy theory to use evidence that points to something being true in order to believe that something is most probably true of which there is evidence as to these two men. I have already said I don't believe in the BS regarding Trump, Wexner, and Clinton. There are no photos of the two of them, none of the women have publicly identified either of the three of them, nobody has ever said they were present at any of Epstein's houses during any time these acts were taking place. So, yeah, the conjecture regarding Trump, Clinton, and Les Wexner are pure conspiracy theory.

And if you want to call me a believer in conspiracy theory, go right ahead. Sticks and stones as they say.

[Slim Cognito]

...
Using the word "forget" is simply semantics here. Yes, a victim can, over time, become more able to deal with some of the details that occurred a sexual abuse encounter and therefore "remember" details that they had previously repressed. You repress details for a reason. Some of what happens during those encounters is "more shaming" than other things that happen during the encounter. And those details that are more shaming are the ones that a victim tends to repress. I won't ever discount a victim's story just because additional details come out at a later date.
...

P.S.: That too.

[Res Ipsa]

Not everyone is willing to tell their story and have it blasted all over the news, tv, and internet.

How long have you been following this story? Victims have indeed contributed to the original newspaper reporting on this story. Victims have contributed to TWO television documentaries on the subject. They have engaged publicity-seeking counsel (Bloom). None of them have said anything to support the yarns being spun.

The prosecution of Maxwell was surgical and restricted, if any of those victims had been passed around to others they were not allowed to say so on the witness stand.

RVInit, I have to ask directly, since there was a time when bulk of people here were lawyers, but I'm going to conclude you are not one. Anyone who told them what they were "allowed" or "not allowed" to say was engaged in the crime of witness tampering. They could say whatever the fuck happened to them, and they could be cross examined on whatever the fuck happened to them.

This was a sex trafficking trial. The victims were not somehow prohibited from testifying to acts of sex trafficking.

The victims are not part of a coverup here. Enlisting them in the coverup needed to keep the lid on the theory without factual support, is... interesting.

And if you want to call me a believer in conspiracy theory, go right ahead. Sticks and stones as they say.

I don't see anyone calling you anything, nor do I understand the reaction some have to "disagreement as personal attack".

[Res Ipsa]

However, the two men who have been named already

So, wait a minute. You agree with Giuffre about Dershowitz and Prince Andrew, but you don't believe her about the others?

Two men?

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/new ... 493715007/

Stopping occasionally to gather her thoughts, she named: Britain's Prince Andrew, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, Epstein’s attorney Alan Dershowitz, billionaire financier Glenn Dubin, former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the late MIT scientist Marvin Minsky and modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel.

Why are you giving the others a pass?

If people are going to say they care about the victims, then they might just seek out and listen to what the victims actually have to say.

[realist]

And then there are the perjury charges. She gets convicted on those, she's not going to be of much use as a witness.

I think those were dropped. They were part of the indictment, but the perjury charges were never addressed in court.

They weren't dropped or dismissed, the judge severed them from this trial.

[RVInit]

I am not a lawyer. So I don't talk in strictly legal terms. I should have stated that prosecutors were not allowed to elicit certain testimony from the witnesses. Not that witnesses were told what or what not to say. It was the lawyers that were restricted to asking questions about things that the judge was allowing to be introduced at trial. And the judge restricted the trial very narrowly, and so the witnesses were not allowed to be asked questions regarding anyone other than Maxwell and tangentially Epstein because the charges had to do with her grooming young girls for Epstein's pleasure.

And if Giuffre did indeed indicate others, then I stand corrected about that point.

I am not aware of any corroborating evidence as to anyone other than Dershowitz and Prince Andrew, and that is why I tend to believe more than not that they had sex with underage girls. Multiple people, including victims and including employees of Epstein who were not victimized, corroborate that Dershowitz and Prince Andrew were present during times the underage girls were giving massages (and, it turns out, being used sexually). As I stated before, it is not only the statements by Giuffre that I am basing my personal opinion on. I am basing it on various pieces of what I would call circumstantial evidence, that all seem to corroborate that these allegations could very well be true as to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. Including other witnesses, the victims, and their own damning and laughably ridiculous statements as to these allegations.

As to others, sure, I can absolutely believe that a man that engaged both in orgies and sex with underage girls would combine the two and therefore, yes, other adults may very well have been involved. However I don't know their names, and I don't know of other corroborating evidence as to anyone other than Dershowitz and Andrew. And that is why as of right now the only two other adults I can say I believe were likely involved are Dershowitz and Andrew. I believe they were involved more than I believe they were not involved. And if additional information comes out about others, then perhaps my opinion about other people involved may also evolve over time. That is what naturally happens. You become aware of additional evidence, which leads to you alter your opinions. I am not "giving other people a pass". I am simply only believing more than not believing the stories as to the two mentioned due to corroboration of their presence by others other than the victims themselves, their own ridiculous statements as to the allegations, and in one case a photo of Giuffre with Andrew (and Maxwell) taken in the upstairs area of Maxwell's apartment.

You seem awfully invested in defending Alan Dershowitz. I would say you exhibit almost the same zeal at defending him as he exhibits defending himself. Kind of funny that 77% of your posts on this forum are directly related to defending Alan Dershowitz. Just an observation.

[Res Ipsa]

You seem awfully invested in defending Alan Dershowitz.

Classic. You leave out the majority of men accused by Giuffre, but I'm the one "defending" someone here. Lol. Is Bill Richardson paying you under the table?

Why don't you believe her allegations about the other men?

[Maybenaut]

All this discussion about evidence and orgies and what may or may not have happened is why I added that fourth item to the former prosecutor’s list of what would be needed for Maxwell to flip: an actual victim who is willing to testify. It could be one or more of the ones who have already testified, or someone new. But there must be a victim.

[RVInit]

You seem awfully invested in defending Alan Dershowitz.

Classic. You leave out the majority of men accused by Giuffre, but I'm the one "defending" someone here. Lol. Is Bill Richardson paying you under the table?

Why don't you believe her allegations about the other men?

FFS. Reread my posts if you really don't know the answer to that.