Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

www.nbcnewyork.com

Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges

Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and heiress who became a confidante of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and was later implicated in his alleged sexual crimes, has been arrested by the FBI. She was arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire, around 8:30 a.m. Thursday on charges she conspired...
www.nbcnewyork.com www.nbcnewyork.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
lawandcrime.com

Prince Andrew Says New York's Child Victims Act Is 'Unconstitutional,' Doesn't Apply Because Virginia Giuffre Was Over 17

Attorneys for Prince Andrew on Monday argued that a lawsuit by accuser Virginia Giuffre should be tossed out of court because of a release agreement Giuffre signed in 2009. The prince's attorneys also argue that Giuffre was older than 17 when the alleged abuse took place and that she therefore...
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com
Giuffre has long alleged that she was trafficked to the British royal while being simultaneously used as Jeffrey Epstein’s sex slave. According to Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell introduced her to the prince — whose full name is Andrew Albert Christian Edward — and told her to “do for him what you do for Epstein.” The years-long accusations resulted in Prince Andrew finally being served with a lawsuit in late August. In the lawsuit, Giuffre claims the prince sexually abused her at two of Epstein’s properties (a New York mansion and a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands) and also at Maxwell’s London home.

The lawsuit took considerable time to get traction, since Prince Andrew was difficult to serve with the requisite court papers — an issue a federal judge bemoaned before Prince Andrew finally conceded service of process.
 
Tresir said:
Well think of it this way. If the 3 who are testifying and want anonymity were from the 4 that were protected by Epstein's immunity, and/or took the 5th, what if the anonymity was denied but they still decided to testify, then something happened to one of them due to that? We have already discussed how many big names are involved, and the Brunel case is possible going to link to this as well. These witnesses will likely now have family as the events were some time ago, so they will have to be considered also. This is what the judge will have to decide - ie are they/could they be at risk? The judge and the lawyers from both sides will know the risks if there are any.

Of course the prosecution are against the anonymity because that could mean the witnesses may then not testify, which will help their case. As the defence were given protection for three witnesses, then I expect it will likely be granted by the judge as reciprocal to the prosecution.
Click to expand...
Any case could fit those parameters and something could happen to any witness, even in a lower level drug case or a man killing his battered wife so she cannot send him away or testify. It is making a decision based on "maybes" and all certainly do not qualify for anonymity. Children have had to testify how many feet from the person they have accused. Women against their rapist. So we have a big case with influential or rich people in it. That goes back to one of my earlier points, why is that different? They deserve anonymity more?

I am confused by the last part of your post. It will help the prosecution's case but the defense wants them?

Just discussing and I remain with my opinion of no anonymity should be granted unless of course we hear more reasons for it than we know. I know the arguments but those arguments fit most cases or at least many cases. Jmo.
 
Tresir said:
Ok, so why did she not testify against Maxwell in this Federal trial? Is the NY age of consent a grey area?
Click to expand...
It may be because of the civil case against Maxwell that was settled out of court. The terms of that agreement have not been made public, or at least that I'm aware of.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Any case could fit those parameters and something could happen to any witness, even in a lower level drug case or a man killing his battered wife so she cannot send him away or testify. It is making a decision based on "maybes" and all certainly do not qualify for anonymity. Children have had to testify how many feet from the person they have accused. Women against their rapist. So we have a big case with influential or rich people in it. That goes back to one of my earlier points, why is that different? They deserve anonymity more?

I am confused by the last part of your post. It will help the prosecution's case but the defense wants them?

Just discussing and I remain with my opinion of no anonymity should be granted unless of course we hear more reasons for it than we know. I know the arguments but those arguments fit most cases or at least many cases. Jmo.
Click to expand...
The prosecution would be helped if these witnesses for the defence did not testify. So they are therefore objecting to the anonymity, in the hope they do not testify at all. The defence have said the witnesses will not testify without anonymity. As the judge already granted 3 prosecution witnesses anonymity, I am thinking she will grant these 3 defence witnesses anonymity, as a reciprocal move to be fair to both sides, is what I mean.

This case is different to others because of the sheer number of abusers still free and the large number of victims. The witnesses could therefore have many wealthy influential people still free and at large wishing them harm because of that.
I cannot explain it any more than I have, I don't think.
 
Last edited:
kdg411 said:
It may be because of the civil case against Maxwell that was settled out of court. The terms of that agreement have not been made public, or at least that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks. And maybe also the Epstein estate settlement? Do we know the agreed terms in the Epstein agreement? (She has settled with that estate too I believe.) Now she wants the Prince payday I guess.
 
Is there any case law that the defense lawyers can argue in favor of the anonymity request? If anyone can find a reference, I'd appreciate it.
 
Tresir said:
Ok. And maybe also the Epstein estate settlement ? Do we know the terms in the Epstein agreement? (She has settled with that estate too I believe.) Now she wants the Prince payday I guess.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily believe she is looking for another payday however if her claim is true then she should be compensated accordingly, imo.
 
kdg411 said:
I don't necessarily believe she is looking for another payday however if her claim is true then she should be compensated accordingly, imo.
Click to expand...
She already was compensated from the Epstein Fund. The Met police are not prosecuting and neither are the NY police or the Feds so there have clearly been no laws broken. She has a book out. This is what makes me think she will not succeed in winning this one.
 
Tresir said:
She already was compensated from the Epstein Fund. The Met police are not prosecuting and neither are the NY police or the Feds so there have clearly been no laws broken. She has a book out. This is what makes me think she will not succeed in winning this one.
Click to expand...
I hope she (attorneys) have enough evidence to back up her claim or the result could make her appear greedy.
 
kdg411 said:
Is there any case law that the defense lawyers can argue in favor of the anonymity request? If anyone can find a reference, I'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...
It may be in their request letter to the judge. Or in the response from the prosecution.

Could be explained in one of these items.

 
Last edited:
The defence is going to present their case with 35 witnesses and expects to rest their case on Monday. So that is roughly 12 witnesses per day.

whdh.com

Potential witnesses in Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense case wish to testify anonymously, attorney says - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

(CNN) — Potential witnesses in Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense case wish to testify anonymously because they “might get a lot of unwanted attention” testifying on Maxwell’s<a class="excerpt-read-more"...
whdh.com whdh.com

"Over the weekend, the defense shared an alphabetical list of 35 witnesses with prosecutors “with no information about the order in which the witnesses would be called,” a government letter says.

Judge Nathan ordered the defense Tuesday morning to share their intended witness order later in the day.

Maxwell’s defense witness list was not disclosed on the public docket.

The defense is expected to begin presenting its case on Thursday. Defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim said in court last week that they expect to rest Maxwell’s defense case the following Monday."
 
Tresir said:
The defence is going to present their case with 35 witnesses and expects to rest their case on Monday. So that is roughly 12 witnesses per day.

whdh.com

Potential witnesses in Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense case wish to testify anonymously, attorney says - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

(CNN) — Potential witnesses in Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense case wish to testify anonymously because they “might get a lot of unwanted attention” testifying on Maxwell’s<a class="excerpt-read-more"...
whdh.com whdh.com

"Over the weekend, the defense shared an alphabetical list of 35 witnesses with prosecutors “with no information about the order in which the witnesses would be called,” a government letter says.

Judge Nathan ordered the defense Tuesday morning to share their intended witness order later in the day.

Maxwell’s defense witness list was not disclosed on the public docket.

The defense is expected to begin presenting its case on Thursday. Defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim said in court last week that they expect to rest Maxwell’s defense case the following Monday."
Click to expand...
I look forward to hearing &/or reading of Judge Nathan's ruling on the anonymity of defense witnesses.
 
Tresir said:
The prosecution would be helped if these witnesses for the defence did not testify. So they are therefore objecting to the anonymity, in the hope they do not testify at all. The defence have said the witnesses will not testify without anonymity. As the judge already granted 3 prosecution witnesses anonymity, I am thinking she will grant these 3 defence witnesses anonymity, as a reciprocal move to be fair to both sides, is what I mean.

This case is different to others because of the sheer number of abusers still free and the large number of victims. The witnesses could therefore have many wealthy influential people still free and at large wishing them harm because of that.
I cannot explain it any more than I have, I don't think.
Click to expand...
Yes, I get it and we are just repeating our opinions in large part so I'll stop about it too. If the judge did grant anonymity to prosecution witnesses, I see being fair but I do think it depends on the reasons and whether it is a witness, a victim/witness, etc.

I thought you were saying their testifying for the defense would help the prosecution in your other posts. This one here is more clear with you saying it would not help them.
 
Tresir said:
She already was compensated from the Epstein Fund. The Met police are not prosecuting and neither are the NY police or the Feds so there have clearly been no laws broken. She has a book out. This is what makes me think she will not succeed in winning this one.
Click to expand...
A civil case you mean? They have a far lower standard of proof than a criminal case and are quite different in their purpose imo. Just because they decided not to prosecute and even if it is due to the age of consent, that does not mean the same applies if she is suing for suffering or personal injury, etc. or was not willing, was coerced, etc. I believe anyhow and imo.
 
GrandmaBear said:
A civil case you mean? They have a far lower standard of proof than a criminal case and are quite different in their purpose imo. Just because they decided not to prosecute and even if it is due to the age of consent, that does not mean the same applies if she is suing for suffering or personal injury, etc. or was not willing, was coerced, etc. I believe anyhow and imo.
Click to expand...
I believe Virginia Giuffre is suing Prince Andrew so it is a civil, not criminal case.

Per my link above, Prince Andrew's attorneys are arguing that he was covered by the release agreement Giuffre signed from the Epstein's 'victim fund'. Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argued that same logic & lost though.
 
kdg411 said:
I believe Virginia Giuffre is suing Prince Andrew so it is a civil, not criminal case.

Per my link above, Prince Andrew's attorneys are arguing that he was covered by the release agreement Giuffre signed from the Epstein's 'victim fund'. Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argued that same logic & lost though.
Click to expand...
It doesn't surprise me. I sure don't know but I don't think a civil agreement can stop criminal charges or vice versa. Is that what we are talking? One is the victim suing and the other is the State or US Government bringing charges...

I admit I have not had time to read everything but have much of it. It is confusing at best especially when much is not known or disclosed.
 
I was watching and caught just a bit of Scott Reisch earlier with a guest on. It refreshed me that on YouTube Epstein's name cannot be used or the channel holder has issues. Funny isn't it? I mean there is no problem with saying Daybell, Morphew, and more... Been that way for some time. Why is this? Different treatment for a bigger name?

I did not get to catch it all and they covered many subjects but he also remarks on the secrecy and sealed things and lack of transparency to the public, etc. with the courtroom. I am paraphrasing... He said even with the Supreme Court they release audio to the public so things are transparent. He is a big believer imo that proceedings that are not mostly open, and documents, gets people thinking something is being hidden and I agree. He at times talks about Colorado law these days in this regard too. Colorado seals a lot of documents in cases for as long as they can from what I have seen.

That's a bit of a sidetrack as this case has nothing to do with Colorado. I am just saying anonymity, nondisclosure of agreements and more in this trial, why is it so special? Why can Epstein's name not be said on YT? Of course YT has their own rules and I get that.

Just saying...
 
(FYI Scarola and Edwards are Attorneys for VR.)



Also, for some background, here is an older article that mentions these two lawyers. This article mentions Black Tahoes being sent to victims houses as intimidatory tactics.

cbs12.com

Women make new claims against Epstein

New alleged victims have come forward, making fresh accusations against part-time Palm Beach mega-millionaire Jeffrey Epstein. CBS12 News confirmed the existence of potentially more local victims on Friday, the same day the nation’s labor secretary resigned over his role in the original Epstein...
cbs12.com cbs12.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,032
Messages
243,859
Members
981
Latest member
Alicerar
Back
Top Bottom