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

The Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell Scandal

escargot said:
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:
Click to expand...
Who has the evidence ?
 
escargot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow - I’ve not seen the Netflix doc so wasn’t aware of this. Who were the passengers who said they witnessed it - were they named?

Were there no allegations of others - famous or not - also participating or did they just watch?
 
hunck said:
Wow - I’ve not seen the Netflix doc so wasn’t aware of this. Who were the passengers who said they witnessed it - were they named?

Were there no allegations of others - famous or not - also participating or did they just watch?
Click to expand...
This may be off topic but I heard somewhere that one of the Rolling Stones staff once tried all the Kama Sutra positions on their private jet with a willing groupie ... so having air sex may not be so far fetched in elite circles.
(... yes I'm envious :cool: )
 
There's an epic item of bandwagon-jumping on the streaming service Shudder at the moment called The Scary of Sixty-First. It's a film about three young women who become sexually obsessed with Epstein after moving into one of his old apartments in New York. There's something supernatural going on, and it's all very QAnon. It develops into scenes of the women getting turned on by Prince Andrew and masturbating with his wedding mementoes, or having lesbian sex after immersing themselves in Epstein lore. The Queen gets called the C word and accused of having Epstein murdered to save Andrew. It's one of the most misguided things I've seen in ages.
 
If there are video recordings done by Epstein for blackmail purposes, would those even be admissible as evidence in a UK court?
 
Xanatic* said:
If there are video recordings done by Epstein for blackmail purposes, would those even be admissible as evidence in a UK court?
Click to expand...
I'll preface this by saying that I'm a history graduate and not a legal expert!

But my thoughts are that they would be admissable. The blackmail no longer exists as the potential alleged blackmailer is dead, so I'd have thought the tapes - if they do show illegal activity - would be allowed to be used. I can't see any reason why that wouldn't be the case.

Somehow I feel the tapes - if they even exist - will never see the light of day...
 

Ghislaine Maxwell bid for retrial denied​

Maxwell, 60, had complained that one of the jurors falsely stated before the trial that he had never been sexually abused.

Her lawyers argued the fact the juror had been abused in the past meant he could not be impartial.

On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.

"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.

"The court further concludes that Juror 50 harboured no bias toward the defendant and could serve as a fair and impartial juror."
Click to expand...
 
cycleboy2 said:
I'll preface this by saying that I'm a history graduate and not a legal expert!

But my thoughts are that they would be admissable. The blackmail no longer exists as the potential alleged blackmailer is dead, so I'd have thought the tapes - if they do show illegal activity - would be allowed to be used. I can't see any reason why that wouldn't be the case.

Somehow I feel the tapes - if they even exist - will never see the light of day...
Click to expand...
Yup, that's the nature of blackmail; it's the threat of exposure that does the trick. An efficient blackmailer only has to show the victim the evidence once to ensure their co-operation.

It's different for people who aren't approached but think they might be compromised of course. Nailbiting. :chuckle:
 
Xanatic* said:
If there are video recordings done by Epstein for blackmail purposes, would those even be admissible as evidence in a UK court?
Click to expand...
They'd be admissable in the US if there were chain of evidence. The prosecution would have to prove that they showed a crime and were genuine.
 
A very, very Girardian take on Epstein. It's probably not a correct view, but it's something to think about:
The reason many were so unsettled by the death of Jeffrey Epstein—cause of death questions aside—is because it short-circuited the cathartic process of the scapegoat mechanism. The guiltier a person is, the easier they can stand-in for the guilt of the many.

1650225353803.png


A short explanantion of "Girardian" for the interested:
https://irishmethodistlentenblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/rene-girard’s-“scapegoat”-theory-of-atonement/#:~:text=René Girard’s “Scapegoat” theory is based on his,which means imitation, is central to Girard’s work.
 
Lb8535 said:
They'd be admissable in the US if there were chain of evidence. The prosecution would have to prove that they showed a crime and were genuine.
Click to expand...
I am not an attorney, so what I reason may not be correct. But here is my interpretation: even if a good chain of evidence existed, the district attorney may decide to not introduce any evidence which was potentially blackmail material IF the victim of the potential blackmail is still alive. The reason for this is that, theoretically at least in the US, the potential harm to the victim is more important than convicting a perpetrator. The blackmailer may be dead, but the potential victim can still be harmed.

I have a vague sense that closed door grand juries are used in this kind of situation.
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
Surprising.
Any juror lying about the very subject that he helped convict someone of, should be cause of a retrial.
Click to expand...
The report says

On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.

"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
Click to expand...

So ‘he failed to disclose’ rather than ‘lied’.

Say a juror was on a stabbing trial. Would it disqualify a juror if he or she’d been stabbed in the past & disclosed it?
 
I read the BBC article when it first came out. My interpretation of it was that the judge decided the juror in question had no intention to deceive, that is, to lie. The juror made a mistake in the paperwork. How important this mistake was to the trial outcome was ambiguous enough for a judge to rule that it was not pertinent enough, or to a sufficient degree, to affect the trial. In the US, this is legal and one of the duties of the judge. Mistakes happen and processes are in place to deal with them.

If someone is unfamiliar with the court system, I think it is easy to underestimate how confusing, upsetting, and distracting the whole process could be, especially for jurors, who are all amateurs. I acted as a support person to abused women in the US domestic court system and on a regular basis saw people getting rattled and saying things which they themselves knew were not true. (BTW, despite the genteel sound of "domestic" court, the trials and hearings it conducted were tense and so fraught with physical violence that the building design, processes, and large policemen materializing instantly were all planned for.)

@hunck, it depends. This is the type of thing in which the judge decides if the juror in question makes it to the trial. What is your country of residence? How do they do it there?
 
hunck said:
The report says



So ‘he failed to disclose’ rather than ‘lied’.

Say a juror was on a stabbing trial. Would it disqualify a juror if he or she’d been stabbed in the past & disclosed it?
Click to expand...
'Failure to disclose' sounds very similar to deliberately leaving out information, does it not?
 
All this raising and dashing of hope must play havoc with poor Ghislaine's mental state. Highly stressful.

:)
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
I read the BBC article when it first came out. My interpretation of it was that the judge decided the juror in question had no intention to deceive, that is, to lie. The juror made a mistake in the paperwork. How important this mistake was to the trial outcome was ambiguous enough for a judge to rule that it was not pertinent enough, or to a sufficient degree, to affect the trial. In the US, this is legal and one of the duties of the judge. Mistakes happen and processes are in place to deal with them.

@hunck, it depends. This is the type of thing in which the judge decides if the juror in question makes it to the trial. What is your country of residence? How do they do it there?
Click to expand...
I’m in the UK. I’m no expert in jury service but on looking it up on a legal site:

The defence and prosecution have limited grounds open to them to challenge jurors and the judge has a discretion to excuse jurors.

The most common grounds to object to a juror are that he/she knows the defendant or a witness. The prosecution and defence are not able to seek to manipulate the composition of a jury along gender, race or religious lines.

A juror will only be prevented from hearing a case for a good reason.
Click to expand...
So jurors can be replaced but I don't know if they have to make a declaration before serving.
 

Warden at Epstein jail quietly retires amid federal probe​


The warden who ran the federal jail where disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein killed himself was allowed to quietly retire from the Bureau of Prisons in February. His retirement came in the midst of an investigation examining how one of the government’s highest profile inmates could take his own life in custody.

Lamine N’Diaye retired from the Bureau of Prisons on Feb. 26.

He was most recently the warden at FCI Fort Dix, a low-security prison in Burlington County, New Jersey.

He had been put in that position despite the ongoing federal probe and in direct contradiction of a public pronouncement from the Bureau of Prisons that it would delay N’Diaye’s transfer to run any prison until the inquiry by the Justice Department’s inspector general was finished.

https://apnews.com/article/prisons-new-jersey-jeffrey-epstein-04a7c866c49d15a32ddc6f57fe18dca1

maximus otter
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
I read the BBC article when it first came out. My interpretation of it was that the judge decided the juror in question had no intention to deceive, that is, to lie. The juror made a mistake in the paperwork. How important this mistake was to the trial outcome was ambiguous enough for a judge to rule that it was not pertinent enough, or to a sufficient degree, to affect the trial. In the US, this is legal and one of the duties of the judge. Mistakes happen and processes are in place to deal with them.

If someone is unfamiliar with the court system, I think it is easy to underestimate how confusing, upsetting, and distracting the whole process could be, especially for jurors, who are all amateurs. I acted as a support person to abused women in the US domestic court system and on a regular basis saw people getting rattled and saying things which they themselves knew were not true. (BTW, despite the genteel sound of "domestic" court, the trials and hearings it conducted were tense and so fraught with physical violence that the building design, processes, and large policemen materializing instantly were all planned for.)
Click to expand...

This is mostly off-topic, so mods please move to wherever it belongs best. A courthouse where I have spent many unhappy hours (and sometimes entire days) supporting domestic violence victims is the Fairfax County Court Complex, Fairfax, Virginia, USA. This is the same building where Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are testifying against each other. (She is a whackjob, IMO.) But they are both celebrities, and it is kinda about (domestic) abuse, so maybe it fits a little.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/04/19/johnny-depp-amber-heard-fairfax-courthouse-fans/
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to see this is over.
 
If I was the mother of any of those girls, I would feel equally as responsible as Ghislaine Maxwell.
And I would be blaming myself for not being there, watching and taking care of my own child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top