Ghislaine Maxwell trial

[Uninformed]

Any allegation of abuse of person(s) by other person(s) tends by its very nature to come down to who is believed rather than hard evidence. Due to the difficulties and limitations inherent in enacting appropriate enforceable law(s) (at best blunt instruments), and the sometimes aggressively adversarial conduct in the judicial process, delivering a just resolution is a messy and distressing business.
Many kinds of abuse include isolating the victim from those who might become aware of the abuse and be able to intercede on their behalf.
In the case of sexual abuse those deemed to be too young to give their consent MUST be protected by the law. When the abuse is between adults the likely absence of hard evidence makes any resolution even more troublesome, and there is no doubt that some people who are legally adults are in as much need of protection as those deemed minors.
In some cases I feel that a less public initial process would be better for all involved, although this would no doubt contain its own flaws.
In a more perfect world we would all be “our brother’s keeper”, families would not be dysfunctional, and everyone would have someone they can trust and confide in, until then I suppose we will see such cases continue to be a source for media and public speculation.

[RVInit]

I totally understand. I wasn't meaning to pick on anyone, I can come across pretty strong sometimes, it is something I have worked to correct, and it can be harder to do in writing than in person. I was just trying to share some more intimate knowledge of what consent means in terms of sex abuse of children and young teens by older, mature people. And it can be difficult to understand that what may look like consent to people who only have known more healthy relationships is really not consent at all.

DONT APOLOGIZE.

Thank you, PG, I appreciate the support, which I think is what I am reading here. I should be clear, I don't in any way apologize for anything that I said and I don't take any of it back. I only mean to apologize for any tone that may be coming across as preaching or bludgeoning. I have worked hard for many years to break a certain pattern of communication that is often used, but just doesn't make it easy for people to come to mutual understanding.

[bill_g]

I totally understand. I wasn't meaning to pick on anyone, I can come across pretty strong sometimes, it is something I have worked to correct, and it can be harder to do in writing than in person. I was just trying to share some more intimate knowledge of what consent means in terms of sex abuse of children and young teens by older, mature people. And it can be difficult to understand that what may look like consent to people who only have known more healthy relationships is really not consent at all.

DONT APOLOGIZE.

Thank you, PG, I appreciate the support, which I think is what I am reading here. I should be clear, I don't in any way apologize for anything that I said and I don't take any of it back. I only mean to apologize for any tone that may be coming across as preaching or bludgeoning. I have worked hard for many years to break a certain pattern of communication that is often used, but just doesn't make it easy for people to come to mutual understanding.

You are great at promoting cordial discussion. It's your super power, and I've always appreciated it. Thank you.

[Suranis]

Do I have to bring in Hermann Rorshach to sort you all out?

[bill_g]

Perhaps I should serve some chocolate cake and coffee.

[Foggy]

OK, one more thing, I'm not really ticked, I just don't belong in this discussion.

And a big part of my complaint is the description of the young girls here as though they are all alike. Not pointing at anyone or any particular post, just a feeling that the discussion is tending toward "teen girls do this or think that (fill in the blank with some type of behavior or vulnerability)", which is metaphysically absurd, man. SOME OF THEM do predictable things; others not so much.

The species described as the 17 year old American girl cannot be rationally categorized in any meaningful way. The range of behavior and the degree of vulnerability are so wide that nothing relevant can be said about them. You know this from personal experience.

I have known 17 year old girls who spoke fluent Spanish and played the piano beautifully and got straight A's in high school and dreamed of nothing more than joining the US Navy, which my niece in fact did after graduation from University of Maryland. My dad tutored her and her friends in calculus when she was 17, and her grandfather was in his mid-80s.

And I have known street urchins who were 17, when I lived on the beach in Venice, California, when I was homeless in San Francisco, and in many other cities in SoCal, girls who would kill you with a hat pin for fifty bucks, and were hardened criminals. Some I knew socially. Some I represented when I was a criminal defense attorney. I've met more than my share of 17 year old girl gang members who were very dangerous young ladies. Maybe they were vulnerable earlier in life. But by 17, the vulnerability has been erased right out of them, and it's other people who need to worry about their own vulnerability.

The point being - and I'm trying to write very clearly here - you simply can not generalize about the young ladies. Let's hear what the evidence shows, and then talk about their - or anyone else's - behavior pattern.

I don't know anything about any of the girls in this story, other than their age. So I am not victim blaming because I don't know enough to make an intelligent comment about any of them. I'm just saying, if all you know is that a female human is 17 years old, you don't know anything important about that human. You can't use that number to say anything interesting and true about that person. And if your message is, oh, if she's 17 that automatically means she's a delicate vulnerable flower, maybe a dandelion, who can be scattered by the next puff of spring breeze, then we have such wildly different frames of reference I really should drop out of the thread.

I'm not 100% sure ol' Wifehorn was ever really 17. She says she was, but I think she's kind of been a mature grownup since she was about 6.

[AndyinPA]

There are exceptions everywhere. I think some of the girls in this case, and in general, may have already been damaged by a less-than ideal home life, just bad luck, and possibly hurt by others before this. I think that's also true of boys. Most kids who grow up in loving, supportive homes, for instance, don't grow up to be prostitutes. But whether or not they have been hurt prior, that in no way changes how they were victimized by Maxell and Epsein. The focus of this trial needs to be on Maxwell's actions, not the girls'. If the girls already had problems, they might have been easier targets for Maxwell. Again, that's on Maxwell, not the victims. And I'm pretty sure Maxwell and her ilk could pretty easily groom a child that wouldn't seem so vulnerable.

I've not followed this case super closely, so I'm probably "assuming facts not in evidence," and I don't really quite mean that in the legal sense. I just, in general, feel that kids who by their teens, and even younger, who are already hardened and trouble makers are almost always that way because they have been let down by their families and society. In many cases, the homes may actually look pretty normal on the outside, but no one really knows what happens behind closed doors.

[Maybenaut]

None of the she-could-have-walked-away or she-might-have-actually-consented stuff matters in this case. It’s a federal case, and the age of consent for interstate travel for the purpose of sex is 18, irrespective of the actual age of consent in the state.

It doesn’t matter what the victim looked or acted like, or how “vulnerable” the victim might have been relative to other victims. What matters is whether the victim was under 18, and whether Maxwell engaged in prohibited conduct with respect to each victim. If the government can prove all of the facts alleged in the indictment, they’ll likely get there.

Thus, the focus of the trial will be on Maxwell’s conduct, which is where it should be.

[Azastan]

None of the she-could-have-walked-away or she-might-have-actually-consented stuff matters in this case. It’s a federal case, and the age of consent for interstate travel for the purpose of sex is 18, irrespective of the actual age of consent in the state.

It doesn’t matter what the victim looked or acted like, or how “vulnerable” the victim might have been relative to other victims. What matters is whether the victim was under 18, and whether Maxwell engaged in prohibited conduct with respect to each victim. If the government can prove all of the facts alleged in the indictment, they’ll likely get there.

Thus, the focus of the trial will be on Maxwell’s conduct, which is where it should be.

Yeah, that.

[Kendra]

https://twitter.com/molcranenewman

Tweeting updates on testimony today. The pilot is name dropping.

[Kendra]

Lawrence Paul Visoski's testimony is finished. We learned Epstein paid for both of his daughters' education and gifted him 40 acres of land in New Mexico to build a house.

He said he never witnessed Maxwell or Epstein being inappropriate with minors.

Jane just took the stand.

[RVInit]

None of the she-could-have-walked-away or she-might-have-actually-consented stuff matters in this case. It’s a federal case, and the age of consent for interstate travel for the purpose of sex is 18, irrespective of the actual age of consent in the state.

It doesn’t matter what the victim looked or acted like, or how “vulnerable” the victim might have been relative to other victims. What matters is whether the victim was under 18, and whether Maxwell engaged in prohibited conduct with respect to each victim. If the government can prove all of the facts alleged in the indictment, they’ll likely get there.

Thus, the focus of the trial will be on Maxwell’s conduct, which is where it should be.

Yeah, that.

100%

[LM K]

You weren't 40. She wasnt targeted by tour socialite friend to have sex with her 40 year old friend and pawned off on his friends. Difference.

Yeah, that happens to be EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT when I said:

I know my experience has nothing at all to compare with what happened to these young ladies, allegedly

Honest to god, do you really think you're educating me here? Do you think I just dropped in from another planet?

I had a relevant, but very different experience (and I described just how very different, using specific, actual facts), and I mention it purely because it colors my thinking on the subject.

Yeah, but that was different because these ladies had a bad experience.

Oh really? So when I said "I know my experience has nothing at all to compare with what happened to these young ladies," I still need to be told there's a difference between what happened to these girls and my first true love?

I can't think of a way to reword that sentence and have it be any more clear. I'm dropping out of this discussion. I'm old, and male, and white. Obviously I have nothing to contribute. See ya.

And some girls are still bigger than others ...

And here lies the problem.

I still need to be told there's a difference between what happened to these girls and my first true love?

In this context, yes.

I was stunned by your comment. Why? You inserted your story into a debate about about free will and how some 17 year olds have a choice. Your comment perpetuates the "well this girl exerted free will, so let's remember that some at 17 have free will."

What is the implication here? The implication is that those who were prey should have known better. Which is victim blaming.

By inserting your story, you imply that the victims were old enough to assert free will like your girlfriend. So, did Maxwell's victims really lose free will or did they make a choice like your girlfriend.

It's about context. It's about lack of insight.

[LM K]

None of the she-could-have-walked-away or she-might-have-actually-consented stuff matters in this case. It’s a federal case, and the age of consent for interstate travel for the purpose of sex is 18, irrespective of the actual age of consent in the state.

It doesn’t matter what the victim looked or acted like, or how “vulnerable” the victim might have been relative to other victims. What matters is whether the victim was under 18, and whether Maxwell engaged in prohibited conduct with respect to each victim. If the government can prove all of the facts alleged in the indictment, they’ll likely get there.

Thus, the focus of the trial will be on Maxwell’s conduct, which is where it should be.

But then the defense started victim blaming. Which inserts all of the above issues.

[LM K]

[Kendra]

Adam Klasfeld is back live tweeting testimony.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports

[LM K]

ETA: Thread is messy. Use his main Twitter feed.

The first victim to testify is "Jane". She was 14 when she was victimized. Maxwell participated during sexual assaults.

Details in the thread starting with this tweet.

[LM K]

Current list of reporters live tweeting:

https://twitter.com/innercitypress?t=ps ... FbVDA&s=09

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports?t=K ... wR_dg&s=09

https://twitter.com/molcranenewman?t=Nb ... MlZyA&s=09

[Maybenaut]

None of the she-could-have-walked-away or she-might-have-actually-consented stuff matters in this case. It’s a federal case, and the age of consent for interstate travel for the purpose of sex is 18, irrespective of the actual age of consent in the state.

It doesn’t matter what the victim looked or acted like, or how “vulnerable” the victim might have been relative to other victims. What matters is whether the victim was under 18, and whether Maxwell engaged in prohibited conduct with respect to each victim. If the government can prove all of the facts alleged in the indictment, they’ll likely get there.

Thus, the focus of the trial will be on Maxwell’s conduct, which is where it should be.

But then the defense started victim blaming. Which inserts all of the above issues.

I should have been more clear. I was talking about our own conversations.

But yeah, the defense is going to do that of the judge let’s them get away with it. Hopefully the prosecutor will object.

[LM K]

Yep. She should be "grateful". Then the subtle threat; your mom lives in an apartment I own, so, you know, be grateful so I don't have to kick her out. Wink, wink.

[LM K]

[RVInit]

Her story brings back bad memories. In my case, my father's friend came to the house, saw the piano and that was his opening. He and his wife just happen to be musicians. And when he found out which daughter plays the piano it became all about how he and his wife would love to get together with me to play music (at THEIR house of course). So, now I have my father pressuring me to go to the man's house. He's all proud that he has a daughter talented enough to play music with adults! The man who showed up the day after my father invited him over and oh, just happened to be "too early" and my parents weren't home yet, and yeah, your father is expecting me, so of course I let him in.

Victim blamers are the first ones to wonder why you didn't say anything for 20. Fucking. Years.

[LM K]

Defense atty just gave victim's sisters name.

The doxxing is already starting.

[LM K]

Her story brings back bad memories. In my case, my father's friend came to the house, saw the piano and that was his opening. He and his wife just happen to be musicians. And when he found out which daughter plays the piano it became all about how he and his wife would love to get together with me to play music (at THEIR house of course). So, now I have my father pressuring me to go to the man's house. He's all proud that he has a daughter talented enough to play music with adults! The man who showed up the day after my father invited him over and oh, just happened to be "too early" and my parents weren't home yet, and yeah, your father is expecting me, so of course I let him in.

Victim blamers are the first ones to wonder why you didn't say anything for 20. Fucking. Years.

I'm so sorry. This trial is raising memories for victims.

You are loved and cared about, my friend.

[tek]

Defense atty just gave victim's sisters name.

The doxxing is already starting.

WTAF?