• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell Scandal

hunck said:
I can read similar content on the Mail & Express sites with no subscription plus added sidebar of shame & regular updates on Amanda Holden as well. No contest.
Click to expand...
Not quite the same stuff :) I don't use the Mail site any more because the amount of ads on it makes it unreadable over the piece-of-string connection running up my valley. I do use the Express and even the Sun from time to time.
 
The other day I read in The Guardian that the prison officers who were on duty when Epstein died have had the charges against them dropped.

Does this mean, with Maxwells guilty verdict, the Establishment are trying to draw a line under it all? Wheels within wheels within...
 
pandacracker said:
The other day I read in The Guardian that the prison officers who were on duty when Epstein died have had the charges against them dropped.

Does this mean, with Maxwells guilty verdict, the Establishment are trying to draw a line under it all? Wheels within wheels within...
Click to expand...

Doubt it.
I expect US lawyers will strive to milk every last possible drop of lucrative litigation from the whole sordid business.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Doubt it.
I expect US lawyers will strive to milk every last possible drop of lucrative litigation from the whole sordid business.
Click to expand...
You are so correct, US lawyers will not rest until that money well runs dry, everything is about the almighty dollar.
They're still fighting over Bernie Madoff's millions, all these years later.
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
Have we not mentioned the Prince Andrew about-to-be civil case, yet?
Click to expand...
I can see both sides of this case, but this woman accepted $500,000 in 2009 from Epstein in a legal settlement.
Seems like that whole mess is going to drag on for years, are the other women filing lawsuits against Maxwell, etc.?
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
I can see both sides of this case, but this woman accepted $500,000 in 2009 from Epstein in a legal settlement.
Seems like that whole mess is going to drag on for years, are the other women filing lawsuits against Maxwell, etc.?
Click to expand...
I very much hope so. :)

Those young girls were traded around like goods. Maxwell for one made a lot of money out of their abuse. People who value money and their own pleasure over the welfare of vulnerable teenage girls can now be made to pay up. It's the only language they know.
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
I can see both sides of this case, but this woman accepted $500,000 in 2009 from Epstein in a legal settlement.
Seems like that whole mess is going to drag on for years, are the other women filing lawsuits against Maxwell, etc.?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but maybe various victims are waiting to see what deal Maxwell tries to cut? If she goes for a shorter sentence, apparently, she may be able to trade some names and info. And it looks like she might want to do that.

Nobody here in the UK would get 60 years in prison, apart from murderers on whole life tariffs. I suspect they could knock the sentence down but maybe not s substantially as she'd like. I dunno but am guessing victims may be watching to see her next move..? Would be hard to take action now til you know what she's going to say - if anything.

I read somewhere that the lady bringing the civil case against the Andrew formerly known as Prince, has refused an out of court settlement and also that she wasn't called as witness in the Maxwell case because the prosecution felt that might be problematic - again, no way of knowing if that is true.

I can fully understand victims in such cases may take decades to come forward or indeed, never come forward. I think we now have a sense of the sheer power of some of the people involved with Epstein - enough to know that as well as the usual feelings that make it hard or impossible for some victims of this crime to come forward - there's the added layer of the sheer reach and power of the people involved. Which would be very frightening.
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
It's feasible. If the girls were embarrassed - and of course they were - they might have to conceal any income, from their parents. Would be fairly easy, with no big, conspicuous spending. And many of them may have had jobs and some income, which would help disguise that. I have a 19 year old (son) who has a job and I have no idea how much £ he has or what he spends it on, largely.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They were lured to Epstein's house and tricked into being abused, then given money. They were compromised.

Maxwell behaved like Myra Hindley or Rose West. Her role was to reassure victims that they were safe because a woman was there. Epstein could not have procured these girls on his own.
 
May not be appropriate for this topic, but I have a question.

Is it still true in the UK that a victim of domestic violence has to sustain a complaint for it to go to court? Surely if there is sufficient evidence the courts should be able to prosecute regardless of a complaint by an individual who is obviously at risk of intimidation?

If it is still true then unlike some of the recent largely pointless legislation mooted to protect women (yes I know men can be victims too) surely that would be a highly beneficial change?
 
escargot said:
Exactly. They were lured to Epstein's house and tricked into being abused, then given money. They were compromised.

Maxwell behaved like Myra Hindley or Rose West. Her role was to reassure victims that they were safe because a woman was there. Epstein could not have procured these girls on his own.
Click to expand...
Now keep your shell on, Ms Snail. I'm not defending the woman, just making an observation.

Maxwell's father was obviously a very intimidating person. If you look at pictures of Epstein and Maxwell together her body language clearly shows she is very fond of him. But he looks completely cold - indeed, in the pictures I've seen he's looking neither at her nor the camera.

To what extent do you think she was deluded into her actions by what we now call gaslighting? Or an upbringing which simply left her with no accurate sense of right or wrong? The latter condition is far from unknown among the rich and powerful.

It's no defence, of course, just an observation on how evil can beget evil.
 
Last edited:
Cochise said:
Cochise said:
Is it still true in the UK that a victim of domestic violence has to sustain a complaint for it to go to court? Surely if there is sufficient evidence the courts should be able to prosecute regardless of a complaint by an individual who is obviously at risk of intimidation?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As far as I know (I am not a lawyer, and I retired from the police in 2004) it is possible to take a case to court if he woman does not support the case, but it's very difficult and involves lots of legal jiggery-pokery. See here under "Possibility of proceeding without the complainant's live evidence":

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/domestic-abuse

The case would hinge on whether the aggrieved was in fear of the consequences as explained in s.116 (2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

"...that through fear the relevant person does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement, and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence."

As domestic violence makes up a significant proportion of he caseload for the police, CPS and the courts, one would have to ask: Do we need to add to their burden by forcing a woman to go to court, especially as such a decision can itself kill women, vide Caroline Flack?

maximus otter


​

 
maximus otter said:
As far as I know (I am not a lawyer, and I retired from the police in 2004) it is possible to take a case to court if he woman does not support the case, but it's very difficult and involves lots of legal jiggery-pokery. See here under "Possibility of proceeding without the complainant's live evidence":

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/domestic-abuse

The case would hinge on whether the aggrieved was in fear of the consequences as explained in s.116 (2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

"...that through fear the relevant person does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement, and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence."

As domestic violence makes up a significant proportion of he caseload for the police, CPS and the courts, one would have to ask: Do we need to add to their burden by forcing a woman to go to court, especially as such a decision can itself kill women, vide Caroline Flack?

maximus otter


​

Click to expand...
I guess I flail around hoping there is something we can do to reduce the number of these cases. If people had a much greater fear of being caught and punished would it help? Or could it even make it worse? There was a time in some communities where a man beating a woman would get a lesson from the woman's male relatives.

I've been appalled through my life at the number of women I've known who had been - or in some cases still were being - beaten by their partners. And that's not even getting started on mental abuse.

Is it just too complex to tackle more effectively than we are doing?
 
OrsonSwells said:
Epstein's friend Jean-Luc Brunel has hung himself in his cell apparently.
Click to expand...

Here's one news report ...
Modeling agent close to Epstein found dead in French jail

A modeling agent who was close to disgraced U.S. financier Jeffrey Epstein was found dead Saturday in his French jail cell, where he was being held in an investigation into the rape of minors and trafficking of minors for sexual exploitation, according to the Paris prosecutor’s office.

Paris police are investigating the death of the agent, Jean-Luc Brunel, the prosecutor’s office said.

Brunel’s lawyer did not immediately comment. His lawyer previously said that Brunel contested accusations against him in the media, but that he was available to talk to judicial officials. ...

A frequent companion of Epstein, Brunel was considered central to the French investigation into alleged sexual exploitation of women and girls by the U.S. financier and his circle. Epstein traveled often to France and had apartments in Paris. ...
Click to expand...
FULL STORY: https://apnews.com/article/europe-a...frey-epstein-edfbdb84c6cdd5f736ac7e1c2bac657b
 
Cochise said:
I guess I flail around hoping there is something we can do to reduce the number of these cases. If people had a much greater fear of being caught and punished would it help? Or could it even make it worse? There was a time in some communities where a man beating a woman would get a lesson from the woman's male relatives.

I've been appalled through my life at the number of women I've known who had been - or in some cases still were being - beaten by their partners. And that's not even getting started on mental abuse.

Is it just too complex to tackle more effectively than we are doing?
Click to expand...
I know one thing - the threat of being charged is very real, unless of course big money is involved, and political connections.
My Polish father was dreadful to my Mum, both verbally and physically, I think she was scared to death of him. When I was about 13 years old, he was going to smack me for something, I don't remember what, it never took very much. I told him if he ever laid a hand on me again, I would march right down to the police station and report him.
Well, he never did beat me again, but my Mum was furious with me for speaking to my father that way. I replied that she was the one who should have been standing up for us kids, it wasn't my job to do it, I was forced to say something.
 
Cochise said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...epstein-warned-evil-abhorrent-financier-says/

Mmhm-hhmh.

So why aren't we pursuing Gates like Andrew Windsor? Could it be that Gates has vastly more money than even the Windsor family? Or is it just because Royalty is a fair target to many these days but to lots (but not me) Gates is a hero?

We should be pursuing the lot of the slimeballs without fear or favour.
Click to expand...
We are not pursuing anyone or anything. A single individual, Ms. Giuffre, with an evidential photo, started criminal (unsuccessful) and then civil (successful) proceedings against the person in the photo, Prince Andrew.

I assume that if a photo of Mr. Gates and Ms. Giuffre existed, Mr. Gates would then be subject to the same treatment. I personally like to fantasize that lots and lots of photos exist, of many rich, entitled, or royal men, and that the photos are in the hands of many people, not just Ms. Giuffre.

I think that Prince Andrew’s royal status has nothing to do with him being a target. His being captured on a photo was the requirement.

Why does it bother you that a royal was “targeted”? BTW, using the verb targeted implies to me that you think a strategic intent (anti-royalty) existed, separate from the chain of evidence.

I say: “Fuck them all.” I am quite democratic in this.
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
We are not pursuing anyone or anything. A single individual, Ms. Giuffre, with an evidential photo, started criminal (unsuccessful) and then civil (successful) proceedings against the person in the photo, Prince Andrew.

I assume that if a photo of Mr. Gates and Ms. Giuffre existed, Mr. Gates would then be subject to the same treatment. I personally like to fantasize that lots and lots of photos exist, of many rich, entitled, or royal men, and that the photos are in the hands of many people, not just Ms. Giuffre.

I think that Prince Andrew’s royal status has nothing to do with him being a target. His being captured on a photo was the requirement.

Why does it bother you that a royal was “targeted”? BTW, using the verb targeted implies to me that you think a strategic intent (anti-royalty) existed, separate from the chain of evidence.

I say: “Fuck them all.” I am quite democratic in this.
Click to expand...
'targeted' because there are many other pictures of people on Epstein's Island. But a royal is max publicity and a huge deflection from people who actually have real power.

I agree with your last sentence.
 
Cochise said:
'targeted' because there are many other pictures of people on Epstein's Island. But a royal is max publicity and a huge deflection from people who actually have real power.

I agree with your last sentence.
Click to expand...
My priorities in sequencing important factors in crime and punishment are:
  • Severity of offence
  • Evidence
  • Mitigating circumstances
  • Etc.
It may be that royalty is a target more than just the filthy rich. However, that is irrelevant for me. Justice is always unique to the offence, offender, and offended. Or should be.

Where did you read that “many other pictures of people on Epstein's Island” exist? I am not disputing this, because I don’t know much about it; but if you are assuming that many photos of others exist and are not being used, then I think you and I have different ways of interpreting the world.

Which is fine, as we can agree on “Fuck them all.”
 
Cochise said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...epstein-warned-evil-abhorrent-financier-says/

Mmhm-hhmh.

So why aren't we pursuing Gates like Andrew Windsor? Could it be that Gates has vastly more money than even the Windsor family? Or is it just because Royalty is a fair target to many these days but to lots (but not me) Gates is a hero?

We should be pursuing the lot of the slimeballs without fear or favour.
Click to expand...
Surely the difference is the accusation against him by Virginia Guiffre when she was a minor, to which he has more or less admitted.

To my knowledge although there were many who knew Epstein, were logged flying in his jet, went to his island etc, no-one else has been named by any of the women involved in any sexual/underage shenanigans. Yet.

This made me laugh a bit though-

The pair met up a number of times in New York, were seen in conversation at a TED conference in California, and Mr Gates, unknowingly according to his spokesperson, flew on Epstein's jet to Palm Beach, Florida.
Click to expand...

Understandable - happens to me all the time - unknowingly flying on someone’s jet.

Epstein likely didn’t put his sexual shenanigans fully on show to everyone. He still had his cover as financier to keep up for a start.

I still wonder what happened to those videos reportedly found in a safe in his NY house all those months ago though..
 
hunck said:
Surely the difference is the accusation against him by Virginia Guiffre when she was a minor, to which he has more or less admitted.

To my knowledge although there were many who knew Epstein, were logged flying in his jet, went to his island etc, no-one else has been named by any of the women involved in any sexual/underage shenanigans. Yet.

This made me laugh a bit though-



Understandable - happens to me all the time - unknowingly flying on someone’s jet.

Epstein likely didn’t put his sexual shenanigans fully on show to everyone. He still had his cover as financier to keep up for a start.

I still wonder what happened to those videos reportedly found in a safe in his NY house all those months ago though..
Click to expand...
The Netflix documentary series Filthy Rich covers everything you've mentioned about Epstein's sexual shenanigans.
On his own premises, whether at his several luxury homes or on his jet, he behaved in an openly sexual way. Passengers on his jet would see very young women in attendance and witnesses saw him have sex there on the plane in front of people.

I had to laugh when Epstein's pilot was asked if he saw Epstein having sex on the plane. He said 'No', which makes sense when you remember how busy he'd be keeping everyone in the air. :chuckle:

The videos and other damning evidence were all whisked away for safe keeping. We have not heard the last of them. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top