Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

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

 

[Tresir]

This article is about a civil suit that Epstein settled with one of the lawyers being called as a defence witness. This is really getting complicated. This case was settled and Epstein wrote a letter.

Settlement reached in Jeffrey Epstein case

A settlement has been reached in a civil lawsuit against multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County.

www.wptv.com

 

[kdg411]

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.

You're not the only one confused.

 

[Tresir]

I am wondering if the tactic here is to compare the testimonies of the victims in the civil cases versus this case. If there are discrepancies then it will not look good for the prosecution's case at all. For example, they may name others rather than Maxwell. They may have perjured themselves in one or other so either way it would discredit their present testimony.

 

[GrandmaBear]

You're not the only one confused.

Right? I would have said or thought I had a pretty good handle on this case and people awhile back but not so much now. The confusion shows here with everyone and imo it is what happens when there is secrecy for one but then on top of it we have agreements, other related cases or charges, various states, countries, locations and I could go on. I feel somewhat like it is meant to intentionally confuse.

 

[kdg411]

I am wondering if the tactic here is to compare the testimonies of the victims in the civil cases versus this case. If there are discrepancies then it will not look good for the prosecution's case at all. For example, they may name others rather than Maxwell. They may have perjured themselves in one or other so either way it would discredit their present testimony.

Didn't the defense in opening statements say memory, money & motivation? If that's accurate then you're thoughts above may in fact be accurate.

 

[Tresir]

This guy's tweets have been great. Some replies have said they are going to recommend him for a Pulitzer. I am not a member of Patreon so cannot read the docs he puts on there. Is anyone else a member?

Anyway, these three lawyers represented "Jane" and VR. Now "Carolyn" was procured by VR and her friends so it seems those two victim testimonies could be what the defence is targeting here, I believe. Any ideas what is being redacted? Possibly victim names and witness (boyfriends) names? (AUSA are wanting redactions.) If those two victim testimonies are discredited, then there will be no case to answer. That is where I think the defence is leading.

 

[Tresir]

This is the case referred to above with Edwards that Epstein settled. This exhibit is very graphic so be warned. I have only managed to read half of it so far. Several accomplice names mentioned in this.
https://reason.com › Exhibit-CPDF
Undisputed Statement of Facts Epstein vs. Edwards - Reason ...


Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. ... attached

No sh*t sherlock.

 

[Tresir]

This case is so convoluted it seems impossible to unravel it all. Out of 100's of victims, only 4 testified against Maxwell - 2 of which were not minors.

 

[GrandmaBear]

This case is so convoluted it seems impossible to unravel it all. Out of 100's of victims, only 4 testified against Maxwell - 2 of which were not minors.

I agree. The more victims the more convoluted it would be but I think even with them keeping it at 4, since all the other info is out there about other times, other victims, settlements, etc., it still causes major confusion.

I worry the Daybell case will be that way as well. There are so many murders and attempted murders and players that taking just the pertinent info for each charge can probably be done in court but at the same time the news will be covering ALL of the story and not just "one" murder...

They are similar in the sense there are different states, different locations, different victims, different LE agencies in each case.

And if the federal case can't be made pretty clear cut then I doubt state/county courts would do any better. And defenses love to confuse on top of it. Imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

This is the case referred to above with Edwards that Epstein settled. This exhibit is very graphic so be warned. I have only managed to read half of it so far. Several accomplice names mentioned in this.

https://reason.com › Exhibit-CPDF
Undisputed Statement of Facts Epstein vs. Edwards - Reason ...

View attachment 13388
Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. ... attached

No sh*t sherlock.

I don't have time to read the number of pages but page one is interesting already as is the footnote.

So clearly pleading the 5th can be interpreted to mean you did something for instance if you refuse to say you did or not. This is how I think of it and how I think of anonymity as well. Both things can be interpreted logically to mean there is something to hide.

 

[kdg411]

This is the case referred to above with Edwards that Epstein settled. This exhibit is very graphic so be warned. I have only managed to read half of it so far. Several accomplice names mentioned in this.

https://reason.com › Exhibit-CPDF
Undisputed Statement of Facts Epstein vs. Edwards - Reason ...

View attachment 13388
Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. ... attached

No sh*t sherlock.

That was graphic. Wow!

 

[Tresir]

I don't have time to read the number of pages but page one is interesting already as is the footnote.

So clearly pleading the 5th can be interpreted to mean you did something for instance if you refuse to say you did or not. This is how I think of it and how I think of anonymity as well. Both things can be interpreted logically to mean there is something to hide.

I have always thought pleading the 5th meant that you cannot answer without incriminating yourself, so therefore you are allowed to answer that way if that is true. Wanting anonymity as a witness does not mean you have something to hide, but generally means you have something to protect, like your life, your reputation, your privacy, your family etc.

 

[Tresir]

This has some interesting responses. It is more than a year old but gives some insight into both Epstein and Maxwell and some of those in the little black book who answered the phone.

I called everyone in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book.

What I learned about rich people, conspiracy, Ghislaine, stand-up comedy, and evil from 2,000 phone calls.

www.motherjones.com

 

[Tresir]

More info regarding the defence plan to question victims' Jane, Kate and Carolyn lawyers and prosecution blocking attempts.

Maxwell prosecutors ask judge to block testimony of victims’ lawyers

Maxwell’s defense team has said it could call more than 30 witnesses as part of its case but also said it intends to wrap up in less than four days.

nypost.com

 

[Tresir]

It doesn't look like Maxwell will give evidence according to the Mirror, the newspaper formerly belonging to her father's media empire. Quite a lot of coverage in here unsurprisingly I guess.

Ghislaine Maxwell - News, views, pictures, video - The Mirror

www.mirror.co.uk

Ghislaine Maxwell 'too fragile' to be grilled about Epstein and Prince Andrew

A spokesman for Ghislaine Maxwell's family says she is 'too fragile' to give evidence to the trial, which will mean she will avoid being asked about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and her rich and famous friends including Prince Andrew

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[kdg411]

It doesn't look like Maxwell will give evidence according to the Mirror, the newspaper formerly belonging to her father's media empire. Quite a lot of coverage in here unsurprisingly I guess.

Ghislaine Maxwell - News, views, pictures, video - The Mirror

www.mirror.co.uk

Ghislaine Maxwell 'too fragile' to be grilled about Epstein and Prince Andrew

A spokesman for Ghislaine Maxwell's family says she is 'too fragile' to give evidence to the trial, which will mean she will avoid being asked about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and her rich and famous friends including Prince Andrew

www.mirror.co.uk

Too fragile?

 

[kdg411]

This has some interesting responses. It is more than a year old but gives some insight into both Epstein and Maxwell and some of those in the little black book who answered the phone.

I called everyone in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book.

What I learned about rich people, conspiracy, Ghislaine, stand-up comedy, and evil from 2,000 phone calls.

www.motherjones.com

Long read but very interesting, imo.

 

[kdg411]

I have always thought pleading the 5th meant that you cannot answer without incriminating yourself, so therefore you are allowed to answer that way if that is true. Wanting anonymity as a witness does not mean you have something to hide, but generally means you have something to protect, like your life, your reputation, your privacy, your family etc.

Epstein was pleading the 5th in that document because anything he said would incriminate him.

A defense witness wanting anonymity is a completely different subject than what was presented in that document.

*That's if I understood the the posters statement correctly.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I have always thought pleading the 5th meant that you cannot answer without incriminating yourself, so therefore you are allowed to answer that way if that is true. Wanting anonymity as a witness does not mean you have something to hide, but generally means you have something to protect, like your life, your reputation, your privacy, your family etc.

I probably wasn't clear but yes, they are different, I agree. The 5th is generally not to incriminate oneself and wanting anonymity can be for various reasons and not only safety, reputation etc. In one case though one will not confess or answer and incriminate oneself and in the other they want people to believe their testimony but are unwilling to publicly stand behind their words for some reason, whatever that reason may be. And so I would likely infer things in both cases and have to question the real reasons. That's just me though. I also do not see reputation as one bit a valid reason. Safety yes but reputation?

 

[Tresir]

I probably wasn't clear but yes, they are different, I agree. The 5th is generally not to incriminate oneself and wanting anonymity can be for various reasons and not only safety, reputation etc. In one case though one will not confess or answer and incriminate oneself and in the other they want people to believe their testimony but are unwilling to publicly stand behind their words for some reason, whatever that reason may be. And so I would likely infer things in both cases and have to question the real reasons. That's just me though. I also do not see reputation as one bit a valid reason. Safety yes but reputation?

Two of the anonymees were actors so they wanted their public identity and reputation protected imo. The third used her first name only as she was not a public figure.