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]

It seems all cases are appealed but in this one it may depend on her sentence as well. Of course life sentences in murders it seems are almost always appealed but this case isn't that. I'm interested in seeing the sentencing here and what the judge will do.

I don't think the jury was pushed or hurried and I don't think that one will fly for a few reasons. First they are on jury duty and doing a duty for court. Second, they had longer today and a full day yet tomorrow which is not a holiday nor a weekend. And third, they had no problem saying no to 6 p.m. so clearly felt under no burden to oblige or rush. They also asked for more today and did not rush without looking at more. To me that all negates such an argument entirely even though I might not know the law on it, the logic of these things alone dismantles such an argument imo.

Refusing anonymity is not refusing defense witnesses. Were there others outright denied or only those that would not testify willingly without that? That is not a denial of allowing defense witnesses and It also did not stop subpoenas. Subpoenas exist for a reason and usually they are for unwilling witnesses.

Granted we don't know everything that went on or all decisions probably even but from what we have seen, I see no basis for any legitimate appeal. Doesn't mean they won't try though of course.

Yes, there were three lawyer witnesses outright denied- in addition to the anonymity that was denied.

The jury were put under pressure being told they would have to stay over the New Year period so then suddenly had the verdict.

Re the sentencing, the trafficking had 40 years as the max so surely that has to be the minimum. It would be an injustice if she gets that , yet Epstein re perpetrator only got 18 months on work release for the same crimes - ie Carolyn.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The prosecution ended sooner than anticipated leaving a scramble to bring forward some of the defence witnesses. One witness had Covid and the judge did not allow a video feed, another witness could not attend till the Monday but again the judge would not allow that. Towards the end of the defence there was a rush to shut down the defence. All reasons for appeal, in addition to the ones given.

I do find it strange that she was found not guilty on the Jane count but guilty on the Carolyn count. Especially as Caroline and her BF were felons and were introduced by Roberts, who did not/was not called to/give evidence. (I don't know why the defence did not call her.)
I also think there will be an appeal because Epstein, not Maxwell is paying for it.

Well now that it is final, the jurors I would think are allowed to talk and we will know their reason of Jane v. Carolyn and the G/NG verdicts. I'm interested in hearing all of it and their thinking, I am in every case.

To be fair, Covid and a video feed sounds understandable for a request by the defense and like maybe they should accommodate but I don't recall the details or reasoning for denial? Was this a witness that wanted anonymity or a different one? I would trust the judge has a basis for denying it, they usually do. Most judges don't like their cases overturned on appeal so I feel usually they try to decide correctly for the defense, too often in their favor imo. Unless there is an ulterior motive and I'd hope not of course.

And what was the other's reason for not being able to attend by Monday? Witnesses often do not know the date they will be required to attend and can be given a general window but it often changes or is fluid and I imagine are told they need to be available in this week or two window AND even that they may be called again later. I think witness lists and plans are to help avoid some of that. Wasn't it the defense the prosecution was complaining about not giving info on their witnesses or order of them?

So, I don't know. If these were the ones wanting to be anonymous then I do have a different opinion than if they are different ones. But it also would depend on the reason and the reason for denial. So many things in the courtroom and by counsel are ploys. Ploys for a mistrial, laying groundwork for appeals, etc.

Finally, I think these witnesses would have to be considered to have likely made a difference or had something substantive to offer that it would have changed things. I don't know that for sure, however.

As to Maxwell being in Epstein's place, I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly with that being any basis whatsoever. She was tried on her own part and on her own charges. Would people like to have seen him tried and made to pay the piper? Of course. That does not take away from her part of which they found her guilty on most counts. And the jury apparently did a thorough job.

 

[Guess Who]

But what could those witnesses that were denied have to refute the actual evidence that the jury had to come up with the guilty charges? They went over testimony with a fine tooth comb from what we know. Did they have actual info to refute what the jury had or were they just being called to tell a story about her and that they had no knowledge of her actions?

 

[Tresir]

But what could those witnesses that were denied have to refute the actual evidence that the jury had to come up with the guilty charges? They went over testimony with a fine tooth comb from what we know. Did they have actual info to refute what the jury had or were they just being called to tell a story about her and that they had no knowledge of her actions?

Well I guess we will never know as we and the jury didn't get to hear it. Unless we hear it at any subsequent appeal.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yes, there were three lawyer witnesses outright denied- in addition to the anonymity that was denied.

The jury were put under pressure being told they would have to stay over the New Year period so then suddenly had the verdict.

Re the sentencing, the trafficking had 40 years as the max so surely that has to be the minimum. It would be an injustice if she gets that , yet Epstein re perpetrator only got 18 months on work release for the same crimes - ie Carolyn.

I'm sorry, I don't see it as you do. And I don't think that's enough basis to win on appeal. The jury again had another day at minimum and Friday even is only New Year's Eve, it's not a holiday. The jury also indicated they were making headway was that yesterday? They seem to have methodically called for various transcripts and information and then indicated they were making headway and seemed to almost have an order they were undertaking things to ensure a correct or best of their ability verdict. I mean verdicts, plural. It's also not like the judge asked about the weekend and an hour later they had a verdict. They were reaching it or so it sounded as of yesterday and on their way.

As to the witnesses, oh yes, the three lawyers? I am going through a divorce and no one better be putting my lawyer on the stand and I'm not even charged with a crime. Lawyer client confidentiality seemed to have played into that decision. As for anonymity, there was not enough legitimate basis or most witnesses in cases of all kinds would be asking for and granted anonymity.

A bit O/T but Mark Means was just kicked off as attorney for Lori Vallow Daybell on the Daybell case. The judge wrote a was it 17 page memorandum? Judge's back their decisions up as much as they can and especially in big cases with case law, legal standards, law, etc. This judge here gave her reasons on each decision, at least the things we were allowed to know or hear.

All that said, it likely will be appealed, most are.

I get entirely that Epstein got a slap on the hand and it makes me irate. However, that has nothing to do with Maxwell. One court, or judge or deal maker let him get away with things in Florida, in NY he made his choice and killed himself. Not one bit of that changes what she has done, whether what she did was chargeable and her facing her own actions. Is it fair he "bailed" or got a gravy deal? Of course not.

Four people rob a bank. One is the getaway driver. All are charged. The three bank robbers kill themselves or escape. The getaway driver ends up convicted. Whose fault is that? Should they drop his charges? Of course not. She wasn't charged right away but that's not unusual either. Another thought is maybe she SHOULD HAVE flipped on Epstein back when and made her own deal for amnesty or less. Ghislaine Maxwell made her choices and she didn't just make a one day, six month or even one year mistake. This was a lifestyle.

We don't have to agree for me to appreciate you don't feel the same.

 

[GrandmaBear]

But what could those witnesses that were denied have to refute the actual evidence that the jury had to come up with the guilty charges? They went over testimony with a fine tooth comb from what we know. Did they have actual info to refute what the jury had or were they just being called to tell a story about her and that they had no knowledge of her actions?

I agree and think the judge likely knew all of that, what they were to offer and more. And I think there was basis for denial as well. Jmo.

 

[kdg411]

The prosecution ended sooner than anticipated leaving a scramble to bring forward some of the defence witnesses. One witness had Covid and the judge did not allow a video feed, another witness could not attend till the Monday but again the judge would not allow that. Towards the end of the defence there was a rush to shut down the defence. All reasons for appeal, in addition to the ones given.

I do find it strange that she was found not guilty on the Jane count but guilty on the Carolyn count. Especially as Caroline and her BF were felons and were introduced by Roberts, who did not/was not called to/give evidence. (I don't know why the defence did not call her.)
I also think there will be an appeal because Epstein, not Maxwell is paying for it.

Paying? Are you referring to money? Ghislaine Maxwell is paying her own legal expenses. She sued Epstein's estate to pay her legal expenses and lost.

Didn't the defense provide approximately 35 witness names that they were going to call in to testify? I don't recall Judge Nathan denying any of them. A U. S. Federal Judge does not have to allow a live feed for video testimony without a prior agreement regarding the nature of the testimony being proffered. Also, witness scheduling conflicts are not an issue that can be argued for an appeal.

The defense could have subpoenaed Virginia Giuffre if they wanted to but they didn't. She didn't pay the victims for services, Maxwell & Epstein did.

In your opinion do you believe Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent of the charges and/or that she didn't get a 'fair' trial?

 

[GrandmaBear]

They could have subpoenaed all of them imo. I brought that up and even looked for articles on it one day. For some reason, it was rarely stated in our news they could do that but of course they could. I really have to wonder why they didn't? I'm truly asking, why not? The answer that comes to my mind as most likely for that says it all.

 

[Tresir]

Video from outside the court. At approx 23 minute 20s point Bobby Sternhem confirms they have already started work on an appeal. She says they believe GM is innocent and will be vindicated.

Paying? Are you referring to money? Ghislaine Maxwell is paying her own legal expenses. She sued Epstein's estate to pay her legal expenses and lost.

Didn't the defense provide approximately 35 witness names that they were going to call in to testify? I don't recall Judge Nathan denying any of them. A U. S. Federal Judge does not have to allow a live feed for video testimony without a prior agreement regarding the nature of the testimony being proffered. Also, witness scheduling conflicts are not an issue that can be argued for an appeal.

The defense could have subpoenaed Virginia Giuffre if they wanted to but they didn't. She didn't pay the victims for services, Maxwell & Epstein did.

In your opinion do you believe Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent of the charges and/or that she didn't get a 'fair' trial?

Maybe they did and she was one of the anonymous ones? They did subpoena one victim who did not show. My opinion doesn't matter anyway. Her lawyer has made a short statement indicating they will appeal.

 

[Guess Who]

Video from outside the court. At approx 23 minute 20s point Bobby Sternhem confirms they have already started work on an appeal. She says they believe GM is innocent and will be vindicated.



Maybe they did and she was one of the anonymous ones? They did subpoena one victim who did not show. My opinion doesn't matter anyway. Her lawyer has made a short statement indicating they will appeal.

Not shocked by an appeal. They do that for nearly every single guilty verdict because that's an attorney's job. Every person found guilty has the right to file one and most attorney's do it because what do they have to lose? If their client wins the appeal that's great for the attorney and if their client loses, they still get more billable hours. Win. Win.

 

[Tresir]

BBC interview Dershowitz after verdict. Not sure if this is the full video but is the only copy I could find.

BBC Brings on Dershowitz of All People to Analyze Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty Verdict

Without disclosing his personal involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Tresir]

Not shocked by an appeal. They do that for nearly every single guilty verdict because that's an attorney's job. Every person found guilty has the right to file one and most attorney's do it because what do they have to lose? If their client wins the appeal that's great for the attorney and if their client loses, they still get more billable hours. Win. Win.

In UK you have to have grounds to be allowed an appeal. Not sure if it is different there.

Sex trafficking of a minor age 14-17 has a minimum of 10 years so I am guessing it is likely the minimum she may be given while awaiting appeal. A third of that sentence would be just over 3 years and having served 18 months already, the best she can hope is another 18 months while awaiting appeal.

In that time these civil trials will happen (Dershowitz and Prince Andrew) so more evidence and testimony could come to light.

Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Child Sex Trafficking

www.justice.gov

 

[kdg411]

Video from outside the court. At approx 23 minute 20s point Bobby Sternhem confirms they have already started work on an appeal. She says they believe GM is innocent and will be vindicated.



Maybe they did and she was one of the anonymous ones? They did subpoena one victim who did not show. My opinion doesn't matter anyway. Her lawyer has made a short statement indicating they will appeal.

I personally believe she is guilty on all 6 counts because these girls told similar stories and most didn't know each other.

From what's been presented in MSM Ghislaine grew up thinking money and power were everything. When her Dad committed suicide she latched on to another self indulged human. Instead of complaining she enabled his paedophilia. And then he too committed suicide. Who is she without a financially wealthy counterpart? ... What makes her a good person? ... Her belief that she couldn't be held accountable for her actions is insulting and disgraceful. Maybe she'll end up in prison with Clare Bronfman as a cell mate.

Those are my thoughts only. And you are entitled to yours as well.

Her lawyer is supposed to say she's disappointed & will appeal. The grounds on which she plans to pursue that statement are yet to be seen.

 

[kdg411]

In UK you have to have grounds to be allowed an appeal. Not sure if it is different there.

It's the same here. The legal merit to which an appeal is considered has to be considerable to discredit a U.S. District Court Judge though.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Not shocked by an appeal. They do that for nearly every single guilty verdict because that's an attorney's job. Every person found guilty has the right to file one and most attorney's do it because what do they have to lose? If their client wins the appeal that's great for the attorney and if their client loses, they still get more billable hours. Win. Win.

Typical defense mantra after a loss. My client is not guilty, we will appeal, etc. That's the news bite, that's the common refrain.

Personally, I'd first be preparing for sentencing and argument on that but I'm sure the team will get to work on it all.

Until then and any decisions, she is guilty and going to be sentenced since the jury found her guilty and this chapter is closed. I'm confident that for the time the jury spent, they did not do it lightly and they took their duties seriously so they found ample reason, this was not one person's decision. Too bad we couldn't have watched and seen it all as it wasn't really covered much, but it sounds like the prosecution did a good job from the few who covered that in articles that were not for click bait/sensationalistic or in an attempt to influence opinion.

I didn't say it then but I will say it now, I think little of Maxwell's remark right before Christmas and that weekend the jury was going home that the pros had not proven their case, etc. Nice try (not really, quite obvious), and it didn't work.

I'm disgusted with media a lot but I'm really disgusted with it in this case.

 

[Tresir]

I personally believe she is guilty on all 6 counts because these girls told similar stories and most didn't know each other.

From what's been presented in MSM Ghislaine grew up thinking money and power were everything. When her Dad committed suicide she latched on to another self indulged human. Instead of complaining she enabled his paedophilia. And then he too committed suicide. Who is she without a financially wealthy counterpart? ... What makes her a good person? ... Her belief that she couldn't be held accountable for her actions is insulting and disgraceful. Maybe she'll end up in prison with Clare Bronfman as a cell mate.

Those are my thoughts only. And you are entitled to yours as well.

Her lawyer is supposed to say she's disappointed & will appeal. The grounds on which she plans to pursue that statement are yet to be seen.

They did not mention Maxwell when they testified previously. Jane's testimony has not been proved and Carolyn was pimped by others so I think an appeal could be won. Personal opinion or MSM views of Maxwell have nothing to do with grounds for appeal. (Unless it affected the trial or the jury of course).

 

[Tresir]

Some MSM already speculating Maxwell will spill beans to get a lighter sentence. Not sure how that works.

 

[Tresir]

Typical defense mantra after a loss. My client is not guilty, we will appeal, etc. That's the news bite, that's the common refrain.

Personally, I'd first be preparing for sentencing and argument on that but I'm sure the team will get to work on it all.

Until then and any decisions, she is guilty and going to be sentenced since the jury found her guilty and this chapter is closed. I'm confident that for the time the jury spent, they did not do it lightly and they took their duties seriously so they found ample reason, this was not one person's decision. Too bad we couldn't have watched and seen it all as it wasn't really covered much, but it sounds like the prosecution did a good job from the few who covered that in articles that were not for click bait/sensationalistic or in an attempt to influence opinion.

I didn't say it then but I will say it now, I think little of Maxwell's remark right before Christmas and that weekend the jury was going home that the pros had not proven their case, etc. Nice try (not really, quite obvious), and it didn't work.

I'm disgusted with media a lot but I'm really disgusted with it in this case.

Her comment was not in front of the jury and was only in answer to the judge, so it would not have had any effect that way.

 

[Tresir]

I personally believe she is guilty on all 6 counts because these girls told similar stories and most didn't know each other.

From what's been presented in MSM Ghislaine grew up thinking money and power were everything. When her Dad committed suicide she latched on to another self indulged human. Instead of complaining she enabled his paedophilia. And then he too committed suicide. Who is she without a financially wealthy counterpart? ... What makes her a good person? ... Her belief that she couldn't be held accountable for her actions is insulting and disgraceful. Maybe she'll end up in prison with Clare Bronfman as a cell mate.

Those are my thoughts only. And you are entitled to yours as well.

Her lawyer is supposed to say she's disappointed & will appeal. The grounds on which she plans to pursue that statement are yet to be seen.

Jury found her innocent on the Jane count. So the appeal will focus on the Carolyn count and then the other counts fall away presumably. The girls didn't know each other at the time as the counts were nearly ten years apart but they have met and share lawyers, I understand. JMO though.

 

[Tresir]

Ghislaine Maxwell: What next after guilty verdict?

The legal process is not over yet for Maxwell, convicted of helping Jeffrey Epstein abuse girls.

www.bbc.co.uk

From the link

Legal experts say Maxwell now has two options.
She can fight the case through appeal, or she can co-operate with prosecutors and effectively name names of other people linked to Jeffrey Epstein in return for a lighter sentence.
Maxwell was a well-connected socialite, and she introduced a lot of wealthy and powerful people to Epstein, including former US Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump - neither of whom have been accused of any wrongdoing by Epstein's victims.
However Britain's Prince Andrew is being sued by Virginia Giuffre, who says she was brought to the UK when she was 17 to have sex with him, including once at Maxwell's London home.

• ANALYSIS: What Maxwell trial means for Prince Andrew

He has denied the allegations, and Maxwell's trial heard no evidence that Prince Andrew was ever involved in wrongdoing. But it did confirm that they were close friends when prosecutors showed a photo of Maxwell and Epstein at a log cabin that is within the Queen's private Balmoral estate in Scotland.
Following Wednesday's verdict, Ms Giuffre, who is now 38, said: "I hope that today is not the end but rather another step in justice being served. Maxwell did not act alone. Others must be held accountable. I have faith that they will be."