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

 

[GrandmaBear]

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.

I know that. I have my opinion and it is that she knew it would get into the news and it did, didn't it? Jurors are not to watch news, etc. but were going home. She could hope they did or that they glimpsed it somehow and they couldn't admit they did without admitting they broke a rule and so could someone tell them. In addition witnesses or possible witnesses would see it in headlines, etc. She isn't that clueless and not that many days into a trial. Defendants don't speak in the courtroom unless on the stand or quietly with their attorneys. She is not one bit naive to the press at all and knew press was present and would report it. If it was said loudly enough to be addressed and taken up with the judge, and press were present, she said it for the press imo and/or so that it got out and about and around.

Appeals after verdict are by defendants but the things I see in the trial that were wrong or questionable were not on the prosecution's side. Had the verdicts come back not guilty, I'd have a whole lot more to say about it. Jmo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

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.

My view is the same. These two were not adults and there was nothing adult about them. They were perverted children with money indulging in self gratification and sick fantasy at the expense of others and of youths. The house manager's testimony said it all to me as to their attitude towards others they felt "beneath" them and just cemented yet again my view of Epstein and Maxwell.

I felt she would be found guilty on all counts but I guess the jury felt they did not prove one of them and we will likely understand why when they speak, if they do. I think she did far more than they were able to charge or felt they could prove. They took the charges they felt they could prove as all prosecutions do. It certainly doesn't mean she only did something once or twice, that's for dam*ed sure.

 

[GrandmaBear]

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."

Good Lord.

While I hope and pray others will be held accountable in some way and named, Maxwell naming them now would really seal the deal on my opinion of this nasty woman. I also would like to know if the legal experts think she has evidence to back up proof of "acts" by anyone she names. If she does have evidence hidden away somewhere and more than just her "claims" if she flipped on people, wouldn't she then be seen as having obstructed justice and yet again perjured herself? It would be pretty hard at this point to take her word for anything. Does she have the tapes? Emails? A hidden phone? What is it they think she can do and with what? Just her word?

On the other hand, I don't find it hard to believe she would attempt anything to save her own indulged arse. The table would be flipped too and make her quite the hypocrite wouldn't they be--meaning she would be the one possibly in need of protection then and whining for it. The victims live(d) in that kind of fear of powerful people (her and Epstein and more) and now the perp (Maxwell) would be living in fear as well... She doesn't deserve any deal at this point imo even though every part of me wants to see all involved prosecuted.

I'm not sure if I have ever heard of making a deal with a judge after verdict. I do know they can try to mitigate for sentencing, point out "good" things a defendant has done, etc. or get prosecutors to agree to recommend a certain sentence along with them to the judge but it is ultimately up to the judge whether to agree with the recommendation.

I guess if it comes from "legal experts" it is something that can be done or attempted. I find the thought of this half laughable and half infuriating. And part of me thinks it is just a load of b.s. "far out there" speculation in the media yet again.

 

[GrandmaBear]

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).

Were they specifically asked about Maxwell previously? You go after the pimp before you go after the johns, you go after the kingpin before you go after his lesser in command, you go after the boss before you go after his henchmen. There were no criminal trials prior to this one in which they testified were there, was Maxwell relevant in a civil trial/case against Epstein or necessary? Are you talking about testimony in deposition or on a witness stand? I'm not sure why that would be grounds for appeal any more than Jane's testimony not proven. It is up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth or partial truth, etc. I guess they can throw anything they can come up with at the wall and see if anything sticks, that's often what they do with no solid basis. Imo.

You are right personal opinion doesn't have anything to do with things. Nor does sensationalism in MSM. Or it shouldn't.

As to Janes' testimony not proved, Carolyn pimped by others, etc. and your thought an appeal can be won is personal opinion as well. I don't think it can be unless an appeals judge can be bought off or extorted--meaning I don't see anything that will win on appeal--which is my personal opinion. Of course we don't know and did not see everything--only that which reporters deigned to share or repeat for us or the Court did not redact or seal, etc.

I'm no expert but I know this much, appeals are not a retrial. They can try for a retrial and other things but they don't retry the case to the appeals court, the case has been tried.

Your opinion differs and that's fine. I have at times had opinions or entertained them where others don't agree so I've been there. I truly don't see your view on most things in this case and I don't agree that many things even relate or are relevant. For instance what Epstein was charged with in Florida, his lack of sentence, etc. has nothing to do with Maxwell's trial. You don't let her off because he got away with something, it makes no difference and it is apples to oranges and state court and not federal court and his case and not her case and so forth.

It has been interesting though.

 

[Tresir]

I know that. I have my opinion and it is that she knew it would get into the news and it did, didn't it? Jurors are not to watch news, etc. but were going home. She could hope they did or that they glimpsed it somehow and they couldn't admit they did without admitting they broke a rule and so could someone tell them. In addition witnesses or possible witnesses would see it in headlines, etc. She isn't that clueless and not that many days into a trial. Defendants don't speak in the courtroom unless on the stand or quietly with their attorneys. She is not one bit naive to the press at all and knew press was present and would report it. If it was said loudly enough to be addressed and taken up with the judge, and press were present, she said it for the press imo and/or so that it got out and about and around.

Appeals after verdict are by defendants but the things I see in the trial that were wrong or questionable were not on the prosecution's side. Had the verdicts come back not guilty, I'd have a whole lot more to say about it. Jmo.

Well everyone on here has been saying how difficult it has been to find reporting on the trial so I doubt the jury would have seen any of the comments that were made when they were out of the room, unless they were actively searching for it like we have. If that was a concern, they would have not let them go back and forth daily, probably.

 

[Tresir]

Were they specifically asked about Maxwell previously? You go after the pimp before you go after the johns, you go after the kingpin before you go after his lesser in command, you go after the boss before you go after his henchmen. There were no criminal trials prior to this one in which they testified were there, was Maxwell relevant in a civil trial/case against Epstein or necessary? Are you talking about testimony in deposition or on a witness stand? I'm not sure why that would be grounds for appeal any more than Jane's testimony not proven. It is up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth or partial truth, etc. I guess they can throw anything they can come up with at the wall and see if anything sticks, that's often what they do with no solid basis. Imo.

You are right personal opinion doesn't have anything to do with things. Nor does sensationalism in MSM. Or it shouldn't.

As to Janes' testimony not proved, Carolyn pimped by others, etc. and your thought an appeal can be won is personal opinion as well. I don't think it can be unless an appeals judge can be bought off or extorted--meaning I don't see anything that will win on appeal--which is my personal opinion. Of course we don't know and did not see everything--only that which reporters deigned to share or repeat for us or the Court did not redact or seal, etc.

I'm no expert but I know this much, appeals are not a retrial. They can try for a retrial and other things but they don't retry the case to the appeals court, the case has been tried.

Your opinion differs and that's fine. I have at times had opinions or entertained them where others don't agree so I've been there. I truly don't see your view on most things in this case and I don't agree that many things even relate or are relevant. For instance what Epstein was charged with in Florida, his lack of sentence, etc. has nothing to do with Maxwell's trial. You don't let her off because he got away with something, it makes no difference and it is apples to oranges and state court and not federal court and his case and not her case and so forth.

It has been interesting though.

This is why we come on a site like this so we can honestly debate our opinions. But, yes there have been court cases before, (and/or depositions, I believe) hence Maxwell's perjury charges. Plus any accused person has a right to silence and not to give evidence in their defence. Guiffre's court case is being made public this week too, so testimonies will be compared. The deal that victims did with the Epstein estates specifically stated that they could not pursue any cases against the estate or employees of the estate. In Guiffre's agreement with the estate she was allowed to proceed against Prince Andrew, I understand.

 

[Tresir]

Good Lord.

While I hope and pray others will be held accountable in some way and named, Maxwell naming them now would really seal the deal on my opinion of this nasty woman. I also would like to know if the legal experts think she has evidence to back up proof of "acts" by anyone she names. If she does have evidence hidden away somewhere and more than just her "claims" if she flipped on people, wouldn't she then be seen as having obstructed justice and yet again perjured herself? It would be pretty hard at this point to take her word for anything. Does she have the tapes? Emails? A hidden phone? What is it they think she can do and with what? Just her word?

On the other hand, I don't find it hard to believe she would attempt anything to save her own indulged arse. The table would be flipped too and make her quite the hypocrite wouldn't they be--meaning she would be the one possibly in need of protection then and whining for it. The victims live(d) in that kind of fear of powerful people (her and Epstein and more) and now the perp (Maxwell) would be living in fear as well... She doesn't deserve any deal at this point imo even though every part of me wants to see all involved prosecuted.

I'm not sure if I have ever heard of making a deal with a judge after verdict. I do know they can try to mitigate for sentencing, point out "good" things a defendant has done, etc. or get prosecutors to agree to recommend a certain sentence along with them to the judge but it is ultimately up to the judge whether to agree with the recommendation.

I guess if it comes from "legal experts" it is something that can be done or attempted. I find the thought of this half laughable and half infuriating. And part of me thinks it is just a load of b.s. "far out there" speculation in the media yet again.

Of course she has a load of info as Epstein himself did, and he provided it to the FBI. I am not surprised about this at all but would think that the FBI already have most of it ( video evidence, taped interviews etc.).

 

[Kimster]

I’ve known many correctional officers and they will tell you one main thing, everybody in there says they’re innocent.

Appeals are more common than not. I couldn’t watch the trial and had to rely on media, which is not a good thing IMO. So in my opinion, I will put my faith in the jury. It appears to me that they labored hard on their decision.

 

[kdg411]

This is why we come on a site like this so we can honestly debate our opinions. But, yes there have been court cases before, (and/or depositions, I believe) hence Maxwell's perjury charges. Plus any accused person has a right to silence and not to give evidence in their defence. Guiffre's court case is being made public this week too, so testimonies will be compared. The deal that victims did with the Epstein estates specifically stated that they could not pursue any cases against the estate or employees of the estate. In Guiffre's agreement with the estate she was allowed to proceed against Prince Andrew, I understand.

I agree that there has been way too much secrecy with this case. It's unnerving that a NPA would be so scrutinized in a case and the details remain hidden. I'm not sure what reason all of these records can't be made public especially regarding Epstein since he committed suicide. I guess the hundreds of millions left in his estate are still funding someone's lifestyle.

 

[Tresir]

I’ve known many correctional officers and they will tell you one main thing, everybody in there says they’re innocent.

Appeals are more common than not. I couldn’t watch the trial and had to rely on media, which is not a good thing IMO. So in my opinion, I will put my faith in the jury. It appears to me that they labored hard on their decision.

Well, even Weinstein got an appeal, so I cannot see why Maxwell would be denied. I think she has grounds. I don't know what Weinstein grounds were but will check it out. He will get his appeal decision in March apparently.

 

[Kimster]

Well, even Weinstein got an appeal, so I cannot see why Maxwell would be denied. I think she has grounds. I don't know what Weinstein grounds were but will check it out. He will get his appeal decision in March apparently.

There are appeals filed out after almost every high profile case in United States. Very few of them go anywhere. But, I’m not gonna question you. You know more about this case than I do. And you might be right! And then I’ll look silly. Ha ha

But I’ll still be surprised lol

 

[kdg411]

This article references some of the legal grounds she could base an appeal on.

Ghislaine Maxwell to appeal conviction for trafficking girls for Jeffrey Epstein

Ghislaine Maxwell will appeal her conviction for setting up teenage girls to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein, but experts say she will struggle to clear the high legal bar needed to overturn the verdict.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Tresir]

There are appeals filed out after almost every high profile case in United States. Very few of them go anywhere. But, I’m not gonna question you. You know more about this case than I do. And you might be right! And then I’ll look silly. Ha ha

But I’ll still be surprised lol

When Epstein committed suicide, many of his victims went on record in court. Therefore if they are now saying different to what they said then, that could be one avenue. I have not looked at any of their accounts but I am sure the lawyers have. Let's see what happens to Harvey and we will have some idea of what can happen in an appeal regarding sex offences.

 

[Tresir]

This article references some of the legal grounds she could base an appeal on.

Ghislaine Maxwell to appeal conviction for trafficking girls for Jeffrey Epstein

Ghislaine Maxwell will appeal her conviction for setting up teenage girls to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein, but experts say she will struggle to clear the high legal bar needed to overturn the verdict.

www.abc.net.au

This is what I was suggesting in my opinion. So we will see if it goes anywhere.

"US District Judge Alison Nathan dealt several blows to the defence during the month-long trial that ended on Wednesday, including denying a request to have some witnesses testify anonymously and another to block lawyers for two of the accusers from taking the stand.

Legal experts said Maxwell's lawyers were likely to cite such rulings in any appeal of her conviction on five of six counts, including sex trafficking, by a jury in federal court in Manhattan.

But to succeed, her lawyers would have to show that Judge Nathan violated federal rules of evidence or abused her discretion.

The enigma of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial​

Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial has revealed her deeply weird and luxurious former life, but the mystery at the core of this saga may never be solved.
Read more

"We have already started working on the appeal, and we are confident that she will be vindicated," Maxwell's lawyer Bobbi Sternheim told reporters on Wednesday, without going into specific legal grounds.

Even if an appellate court agreed that Judge Nathan made a mistake, Maxwell's lawyers would need to show that it mattered to the outcome of the case.

An avenue of appeal for the defence might be to argue that the testimony of Kate, one of the accusers, was improperly admitted.

The defence also objected to Judge Nathan's instruction to the jury that they could find Maxwell guilty if she deliberately ignored evidence of Epstein's wrongdoing, a legal concept known as "conscious avoidance".

Maxwell's lawyers may also raise on appeal Judge Nathan's ruling preventing three defence witnesses from testifying anonymously.

Three of Maxwell's four accusers testified under pseudonyms or used only their first names to protect their privacy as victims of sexual abuse.

But Judge Nathan said privacy concerns did not apply to the defence witnesses because none of them intended to testify about sensitive personal topics or sexual conduct."

 

[Tresir]

This has just been made public. I'll see what I can find regarding the victims accounts at the Epstein trial that did not proceed due to his suicide.

 

[Tresir]

The grounds of appeal here could give us some idea in what grounds could be acceptable in the Maxwell appeal.

"Five justices heard arguments on the case on Wednesday, and three of them expressed serious concern about the testimony admitted at trial. One justice, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, referred to the use of uncharged allegations as “overkill” and “piling on.”

Weinstein’s attorneys are not making any predictions about how the court will rule, but they are feeling optimistic."

Harvey Weinstein Could Go Free, as Appeals Court Casts Doubt on Conviction

An appeals court could allow Harvey Weinstein to go free, after raising serious concerns about the use of supporting evidence at trial.

variety.com

 

[Tresir]

Am digging out documents for comparison. This is a document regarding Epstein's bail hearing.

United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Below is a copy of the indictment, I think, and mentions Employees 1 , 2 and 3 facilitating and assisting with the procurement of young girls. The years were 2002 - 2005.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Tresir]

This gives some legitimate ways of reducing a sentence.

5 Ways to Get a Prison Sentence Reduced - wikiHow

Once you've been convicted of a crime, this doesn't mean your criminal case is over. Even after you've exhausted any possible appeals, there are still ways to get your prison sentence reduced. Although the rules vary by state, many state...

www.wikihow.com

There may well be information she can share about finances, stashed money and safe deposit boxes for example, money laundering etc etc.

From the link there are several ways to reduce a sentence but these seem possible -

Written by Jennifer Mueller, JD
Last Updated: December 18, 2021 References

Once you've been convicted of a crime, this doesn't mean your criminal case is over. Even after you've exhausted any possible appeals, there are still ways to get your prison sentence reduced. Although the rules vary by state, many state laws generally follow the federal rules, so there are some commonalities throughout the U.S.

Method 1​

Method 1 of 5:​

Finding an Error in the Sentencing Order​

1. 
   
   
   
   1
   Read over your sentencing order carefully.When you receive your sentencing order, you must look it over carefully with your attorney to ensure there are no errors.
   • Although this isn't necessarily a matter of shortening or reducing your sentence, keep in mind that you will serve the period of time written on your sentencing order.[1]
   
   
   
2. 
   2
   Compare the sentencing order to the trial transcript.If you have any questions about your sentencing order, compare it to the original trial transcript and make sure the document matches the judge's orders.
   • Any mathematical, technical, or other clerical errors can be corrected if either you or the judge notices the error.[2]
   • For example, if the judge sentenced you to 7 years, but your sentencing order states you were sentenced to 70 years, that's clearly a clerical error and can be corrected if you notice and point it out immediately.
   
   
   
3. 
   3
   Alert the judge to any errors. If there is an error in your sentencing order, you should tell the judge as soon as possible.[3]
   • The federal rules only allow a judge 14 days to correct an error in a sentencing order. After that, she can do nothing.[4]
   • States may have their own rules concerning how long a judge has to correct an error in a sentencing order.[5]

Method 2​

Method 2 of 5:​

Cooperating After Sentencing​

1. 
   1
   Acquire information about another crime.Federal Rule 35 and corresponding state rules provide for your sentence to be reduced if you give information to the state about other crimes.
   • Typically you must seek reduction within a year of when the judge announced your sentence. However, there are some exceptions where you may be eligible for a reduction even after a year.[6] [7]
   • If you acquire new information, you should talk to your attorney and let the prosecutor know as soon as possible, even if you've been in prison for more than one year, if you want to get your sentence reduced.
   • If a prosecutor promises to get your prison sentence reduced if you work for him on the inside and gather information about the case, but after a year the prosecutor has not filed a motion to have your sentence reduced, talk to your attorney and find out what you should do in those circumstances.[8]
   • If you are considering cooperating with prosecution to get your prison sentence reduced, you should also talk to your attorney. Experienced defense attorneys understand the risks you take in assisting prosecution while you are behind bars, and will help you minimize those risks and protect yourself and your family.[9]

 

[kdg411]

Am digging out documents for comparison. This is a document regarding Epstein's bail hearing.

United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Below is a copy of the indictment, I think, and mentions Employees 1 , 2 and 3 facilitating and assisting with the procurement of young girls. The years were 2002 - 2005.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

I didn't know that his indictment only reflected activity at his NY & Palm Beach FL homes between 2002-2005.

Who were these employees that scheduled his 'massages'?

 

[Tresir]

I didn't know that his indictment only reflected activity at his NY & Palm Beach FL homes between 2002-2005.

Who were these employees that scheduled his 'massages'?

Well I believe I have seen them named elsewhere - their initials being LG and SK and ET. I think they may have been named in a NPA.

Little St James is in the US Virgin Islands, where age of consent goes down to 13 in some circumstances and New Mexico we already know age of consent is 16.