Jump to content

Ghislane Maxwell case


Longbaws

Recommended Posts

Byyy The Light
On 02/01/2022 at 02:31, I P Knightley said:

Most of us could tell at least one story of having been in the same place, however fleetingly, with a 'celebrity' and we'd probably be telling that story many years after the event.

 

Very strange that there's nobody at all, customers or staff, who is prepared to say that they were once in a pizza restaurant when Prince Andrew was there. 

 

If Paul Daniels had ever needed someone to back up a claim that he didn't wash his hands after having a pee at the Ideal Homes Exhibition about 27 years ago, I'd have stepped up for the unsanitary wee fella.

 

😂 :robboyas::glorious:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jambo-Jimbo

    29

  • Cade

    16

  • JFK-1

    16

  • Longbaws

    16

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Tazio said:

Some lawyers really are filth. 

 

 

 

The US Department of Justice has now got involved, asking the court to look into a juror about an interview he gave to a newspaper.

https://news.sky.com/story/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-us-department-of-justice-urges-court-to-investigate-juror-who-was-victim-of-sexual-abuse-12509781

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malinga the Swinga
9 hours ago, Tazio said:

Some lawyers really are filth. 

 

 

Alternatively, they're doing the job they are paid to do. Juror should have either disbarred themselves or kept quiet. Preferably, the former to be honest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tazio said:

Some lawyers really are filth. 

 

 

You Don't think that has a real possibility of swaying his judgement?

Anyway their role is to give her the best chance of winning. 

They're doing their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
9 hours ago, Tazio said:

Some lawyers really are filth. 

 

 

In this country they would have had to declare that they were a victim of sexual abuse and been removed from the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

In this country they would have had to declare that they were a victim of sexual abuse and been removed from the jury.

 

It's the same in America, on the news they were saying that there was seemingly 3 questions in the forms, asking if 1) They had been a victim of sexual abuse etc. 2) If a family member had been etc and 3) No.  With a tick box next to each one, presumably the juror ticked number 3, because to tick 1 or 2 would automatically bar them from serving on the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AamerAnwar

·

2m

The US Attorney General has called for the court to carry out an investigation into a juror in #GhislaineMaxwell trial who failed to disclose a prior history of sexual abuse- whilst her defence lawyers have called for a re-trial #JeffreyEpstein #PrinceAndrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Times are reporting that a second juror has now revealed that they were sexually abused as a child.

 

The Guardian are reporting that the first juror told his fellow jurors about his abuse and his own experience persuded some of them.

'In the interviews the juror gave, the panelist said he revealed to other jurors during weeklong deliberations that he was sexually abused as a child, and he said the information helped him convince some jurors that a victim’s imperfect memory of sexual abuse does not mean it did not happen.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/06/ghislaine-maxwell-juror-trial-lawyer-judge

 

A re-trial has to happen as the conviction has to surely be unsafe now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

The Times are reporting that a second juror has now revealed that they were sexually abused as a child.

 

The Guardian are reporting that the first juror told his fellow jurors about his abuse and his own experience persuded some of them.

'In the interviews the juror gave, the panelist said he revealed to other jurors during weeklong deliberations that he was sexually abused as a child, and he said the information helped him convince some jurors that a victim’s imperfect memory of sexual abuse does not mean it did not happen.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/06/ghislaine-maxwell-juror-trial-lawyer-judge

 

A re-trial has to happen as the conviction has to surely be unsafe now.

I wonder how much these jurors were paid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

I wonder how much these jurors were paid?

 

By whom, prosecution or the defence?

Just remember that one of the jurors tried to persude other jurors to agree with the prosecution case, thus find her guilty or was that just a bluff by the defence, knowing that he'd blab to the media afterwards.....

 

Naw, this has just been a total and complete fcuk up by the jury selection process, to have one juror incorrectly fill in their form is bad enough but now two apparently. 

I think everybody is hoping that there isn't any others, because if there were, then serious questions would arise, and I do mean serious questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
49 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

By whom, prosecution or the defence?

Just remember that one of the jurors tried to persude other jurors to agree with the prosecution case, thus find her guilty or was that just a bluff by the defence, knowing that he'd blab to the media afterwards.....

 

Naw, this has just been a total and complete fcuk up by the jury selection process, to have one juror incorrectly fill in their form is bad enough but now two apparently. 

I think everybody is hoping that there isn't any others, because if there were, then serious questions would arise, and I do mean serious questions.

It would appear there maybe a case for a retrial.

Don’t know how their judicial system works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would imagine that will be thrown out, i'm fairly confident there was close to a majority vote by the jury rendering such disclosures by a juror pretty meaningless. And I don't see how such a disclosure can effect a decision based on the overwhelming case against her. She reeks of guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SectionDJambo
3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

You would imagine that will be thrown out, i'm fairly confident there was close to a majority vote by the jury rendering such disclosures by a juror pretty meaningless. And I don't see how such a disclosure can effect a decision based on the overwhelming case against her. She reeks of guilt.

She does reek of guilt but having one juror with an agenda, let alone 2, is enough to sway others. Would we be saying it was acceptable if she had got off and it emerged she had two jurors who had even remote sympathetic connections to her or Epstein?

The 2 jurors should be prosecuted for telling lies pre trial. I believe that were specifically asked if they had suffered sexual abuse at any time.

If it results in another trial she’ll probably still be found guilty. The costs will be down to those two jurors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SectionDJambo said:

She does reek of guilt but having one juror with an agenda, let alone 2, is enough to sway others. Would we be saying it was acceptable if she had got off and it emerged she had two jurors who had even remote sympathetic connections to her or Epstein?

The 2 jurors should be prosecuted for telling lies pre trial. I believe that were specifically asked if they had suffered sexual abuse at any time.

If it results in another trial she’ll probably still be found guilty.

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the point in it, if you had a million random people to choose from what's the chances of finding 12 who would clear her given the evidence?

She's still in jail and will remain there. Then if she gets another trial and is guilty again when it comes to sentencing they're going to be even more pissed off with her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
8 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

I don't see the point in it, if you had a million random people to choose from what's the chances of finding 12 who would clear her given the evidence?

She's still in jail and will remain there. Then if she gets another trial and is guilty again when it comes to sentencing they're going to be even more pissed off with her. 

Potentially facing 65 years I believe. At this point,  anything would be worth a shot,  wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/01/2022 at 01:27, A Boy Named Crow said:

Potentially facing 65 years I believe. At this point,  anything would be worth a shot,  wouldn't it?

 

I think it's only worth a shot if you think you can get a not guilty, I don't think she can regardless of jury. Regarding the 65 years I imagine that's an upper limit potential and there will be a considerably lower alternative potential. Which is she likely to get if guilty again after pulling this stunt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
36 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I think it's only worth a shot if you think you can get a not guilty, I don't think she can regardless of jury. Regarding the 65 years I imagine that's an upper limit potential and there will be a considerably lower alternative potential. Which is she likely to get if guilty again after pulling this stunt?

I'm not an expert on US legal process,  but if this was a TV courtroom drama, I'd expect a retrial to be challenged on the basis that media coverage of the first trial would prevent a fair trial second time round. Not sure my opinion, based on Suits and The Good Wife/Fight really matters though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I think it's only worth a shot if you think you can get a not guilty, I don't think she can regardless of jury. Regarding the 65 years I imagine that's an upper limit potential and there will be a considerably lower alternative potential. Which is she likely to get if guilty again after pulling this stunt?

 

She's no youngster, she's looking at spending her last days in jail, she's from money, any desperate throw of the dice would be worth a shot in that position I reckon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

She's no youngster, she's looking at spending her last days in jail, she's from money, any desperate throw of the dice would be worth a shot in that position I reckon

 

Don't think it matters if someone is from money or not, anybody rich or poor in the same position would try anything if it meant not spending their remaining days in jail, I know I would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/01/2022 at 07:27, A Boy Named Crow said:

Potentially facing 65 years I believe. At this point,  anything would be worth a shot,  wouldn't it?

Even if she "only" got 20 years it wouldn't make a lot if differnce : this is a federal crime and there will be no  early release. She might be able to get a reduced sentence if she was able to assist in any furher investigations  but there would have to be another investigation/trial and she would have to provide considerable assistance, is my understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Don't think it matters if someone is from money or not, anybody rich or poor in the same position would try anything if it meant not spending their remaining days in jail, I know I would.

 

Me too, I really meant that bit in terms of it doesn't matter how expensive it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

 

Me too, I really meant that bit in terms of it doesn't matter how expensive it is

 

With your freedom on the line, you'll pay whatever it takes, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
A Boy Named Crow

Goodo, now what does this mean in terms of her willingness to seek a deal in return for flipping on the sweaty nonce?

 

Evidence leading to criminal charges for Brenda's favourite, or GTFO!

Edited by A Boy Named Crow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/04/2022 at 12:42, A Boy Named Crow said:

Goodo, now what does this mean in terms of her willingness to seek a deal in return for flipping on the sweaty nonce?

 

Evidence leading to criminal charges for Brenda's favourite, or GTFO!

She’s not going to flip at this stage. The time to flip was when Epstein died and the authorities starting digging again under pressure from the victims. The authorities want the lid kept on this as it’s probably too explosive involving years of litigation, investigations, deals and millions of dollars. Whether the victims now let it rest is another matter but there is nothing for Maxwell to gain by opening the book. She’ll take her 20 years, busted down to 10 and resume a relatively comfortable lifestyle, with a book deal and film rights.

Edited by JimmyCant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
12 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

She’s not going to flip at this stage. The time to flip was when Epstein died and the authorities starting digging again under pressure from the victims. The authorities want the lid kept on this as it’s probably too explosive involving years of litigation, investigations, deals and millions of dollars. Whether the victims now let it rest is another matter but there is nothing for Maxwell to gain by opening the book. She’ll take her 20 years, busted down to 10 and resume a relatively comfortable lifestyle, with a book deal and film rights.

I'm not an expert on US prison terms, but I heard somewhere that there's no reduced sentence in federal prison. She'd be doing the whole bit, and quite likely never get out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I'm not an expert on US prison terms, but I heard somewhere that there's no reduced sentence in federal prison. She'd be doing the whole bit, and quite likely never get out. 

New rules brought in this year means federal prisoners can earn reduction credits of up to 50% for participation in certain rehabilitation programmes, admission of guilt is essential for this first though and so far she hasn’t admitted anything. I feel sure she will before sentencing though. She’d be crazy now to put all her eggs in the further appeals basket

Edited by JimmyCant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
12 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

She’s not going to flip at this stage. The time to flip was when Epstein died and the authorities starting digging again under pressure from the victims. The authorities want the lid kept on this as it’s probably too explosive involving years of litigation, investigations, deals and millions of dollars. Whether the victims now let it rest is another matter but there is nothing for Maxwell to gain by opening the book. She’ll take her 20 years, busted down to 10 and resume a relatively comfortable lifestyle, with a book deal and film rights.

 

Notwithstanding that this probably goes fairly high up the food chain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Notwithstanding that this probably goes fairly high up the food chain.

 

It’s fairly common knowledge who was involved but the only person I’ve ever heard actually say another name was the girl that named Dershowitz. Clinton only ever mentioned as an associate of Epstein. No one so far saying they had sex with him. Trump, again just an associate. No specific allegations against him. Probably all been quietly settled with NDA’s

Edited by JimmyCant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
53 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

It’s fairly common knowledge who was involved but the only person I’ve ever heard actually say another name was the girl that named Dershowitz. Clinton only ever mentioned as an associate of Epstein. No one so far saying they had sex with him. Trump, again just an associate. No specific allegations against him. Probably all been quietly settled with NDA’s

 

Quite possibly, remember that Ms Giuffre had a settlement with Epstein from 2009, which only became public knowledge a matter of months ago, so there is quite probably many more NDA's out there, hence why we hear very little about the other men or the other girls.

 

The FBI have Maxwell's wee black book and if you know where to look and have the correct access, you can view it online.  ITV used it to call Andrew on his mobile, but couldn't reveal who else was in the book because of legal reasons.  So unless Maxwell has a stash of photo's/videos she has nothing to trade, and if she had anything she'd have used it, I would imagine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Episode 2 of the BBC series was interesting. Suggests Epstein who was an expert in helping people hide funds and avoid tax did work with Robert Maxwell before he died. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no
29 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Episode 2 of the BBC series was interesting. Suggests Epstein who was an expert in helping people hide funds and avoid tax did work with Robert Maxwell before he died. 

 

I have watched all 3 episodes and it was interesting viewing. There still appear to be a lot of questions unanswered, for example when did the witch meet the beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lone Striker
2 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

 

I have watched all 3 episodes and it was interesting viewing. There still appear to be a lot of questions unanswered, for example when did the witch meet the beast.

I watched them all last night.  Some interesting stuff that I wasn't aware of.    One of the people interviewed said that Daddy was already in contact with Epstein when he was desperate to raise money to keep MCC afloat - so its possible GM met Epstein at that time.   They showed a photo of the 2 of them at a posh restaurant table, smiling & chatting - only 3 weeks after Daddy died - and the person interviewed reckons that wasn't the first time they'd met.

 

Who were the men whose phone conversations were tapped  ?   It was voiced by actors, but its not clear if the calls were between  Ian & Kevin Maxwell, or some other MCC senior folk - what did you make of that ?

 

I hadn't realised that the film of Maxwell visiting the Jewish memorial place was made only a few days before he died.  He looked genuinely overcome with grief, and when you add the web of deceit, debt  and financial fraud he was ..... erm... drowning in  :whistling:... it seems highly likely that he did take a dive over the side to end it all.

 

The circumstances of Epstein's first conviction was quite shocking - and then to find out that somehow he won an appeal to be allowed "day release" back to his luxury office block to continue his "work" was shocking too.

 

Set against the weird "daddy's girl" relationship GM  had with RM, its no surprise she saw Epstein as a surrogate "daddy", and felt right at home doing whatever it took to please him.     

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no
24 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

I watched them all last night.  Some interesting stuff that I wasn't aware of.    One of the people interviewed said that Daddy was already in contact with Epstein when he was desperate to raise money to keep MCC afloat - so its possible GM met Epstein at that time.   They showed a photo of the 2 of them at a posh restaurant table, smiling & chatting - only 3 weeks after Daddy died - and the person interviewed reckons that wasn't the first time they'd met.

 

Who were the men whose phone conversations were tapped  ?   It was voiced by actors, but its not clear if the calls were between  Ian & Kevin Maxwell, or some other MCC senior folk - what did you make of that ?

 

I hadn't realised that the film of Maxwell visiting the Jewish memorial place was made only a few days before he died.  He looked genuinely overcome with grief, and when you add the web of deceit, debt  and financial fraud he was ..... erm... drowning in  :whistling:... it seems highly likely that he did take a dive over the side to end it all.

 

The circumstances of Epstein's first conviction was quite shocking - and then to find out that somehow he won an appeal to be allowed "day release" back to his luxury office block to continue his "work" was shocking too.

 

Set against the weird "daddy's girl" relationship GM  had with RM, its no surprise she saw Epstein as a surrogate "daddy", and felt right at home doing whatever it took to please him.     

 

 

Voiced by actors but why?  Who were the film makers protecting or afraid of? I couldn't see why they would protect the sons.

 

The Jewish memorial threw me but by that point nothing Maxwell said or did could be believed. Still think he was pushed. The grieving mother then sending GM out to face the press, weird.

 

You missed the bit where the pa was working in a cupboard in Maxwell's office and GM called, if it wasn't for the rest of the story then I would not have believed it. I won't spoil the WTF moment for others

 

Finally I kept thinking Trump and Ivanka.

Edited by The Frenchman Returns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lone Striker
34 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Voiced by actors but why?  Who were the film makers protecting or afraid of? I couldn't see why they would protect the sons.

 

The Jewish memorial threw me but by that point nothing Maxwell said or did could be believed. Still think he was pushed. The grieving mother then sending GM out to face the press, weird.

 

You missed the bit where the pa was working in a cupboard in Maxwell's office and GM called, if it wasn't for the rest of the story then I would not have believed it. I won't spoil the WTF moment for others

 

Finally I kept thinking Trump and Ivanka.

Aye... the "voiced by actors" thing was a bit strange.  I can only imagine it might have been to avoid legal action for illegal phone tapping by whoever made the calls.

 

It wasn't clear how many other people were on the boat - were they all crew ?  How many ?  What investigations took place ?   Were any of the crew actually suspected ?     GM was adamant that he didn't commit suicide, but that doesn't count for much in light of her weird relationship with him.

 

I got the impression that GM's "look at me" personality was what resulted in her going out on deck to make the speech to the press - could be wrong though.

 

Trump and Ivanka .... hhmmmm....  another long-running documentary series needed for that one !!  :arry: 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Paedo Maxwell pleading for leniency in sentencing.

Apparently prison isn't very nice.

And her lawyers are saying she shouldn't be punished for Epstein's crimes. (She's not, she's being punished for HER crimes, which she was found guilty of)

And that she's as much a victim as all the wee lassies she beasted.

 

:orly?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...