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...
kdg411 said:
Since the prosecution has until Feb 2nd to respond, I wonder how long we'll have to wait after that for Judge Nathan's ruling.
Click to expand...
It is Mar 4th according to a post of mine #1,015. I must have read it in one of the docs somewhere. 🤨

Don't know how I will be able to wait that long. Maybe we will get some John Doe identity releases in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
Some MSM are reporting that one of the victims does not want to testify again in a retrial. Not sure who it is (they are not saying) but if it is Carolyn, that could be a problem as several of the guilty counts depended on her testimony.
 
Tresir said:
Some MSM are reporting that one of the victims does not want to testify again in a retrial. Not sure who it is (they are not saying) but if it is Carolyn, that could be a problem as several of the guilty counts depended on her testimony.
Click to expand...
If it is Carolyn then that is a big problem. We only know of 2 by name now, correct? Who else would the government call to testify?
 
kdg411 said:
If it is Carolyn then that is a big problem. We only know of 2 by name now, correct? Who else would the government call to testify?
Click to expand...
Presumably, for it to be a federal case the transportation between states is important so I can only think of Guiffre. There was a reason she was not used before - maybe the court case and settlement with Maxwell? If the retrial is granted, I think there will be a plea deal.
 
I will likely never catch up here nor be able to go back and read all I missed so forgive me if it seems I am jumping in without reading all and catching up. I still one day hope to but the more time that passes, I know I may not ever get caught up. Just been too busy.

If there is a retrial just as discussed prior, with any witnesses, if someone does not want to testify it is too bad imo, it really isn't up to them as they can subpoena. That doesn't mean they will of course.

I also don't think we will see a retrial so it likely won't matter. Scott Reisch/Crime Talk covers this case pretty well and I value his opinion. I'm not saying he is right or has a crystal ball and he wouldn't claim to know for sure, but he thinks indications show and are that it is extremely likely that it will not be granted the way I understood one of his shows. If I recall, he is going by the judge's actions, his proceeding with presentence investigation and more.

He also thinks what I wondered about. Maxwell was found guilty and at that point, she doesn't care who she takes with her/throws under the bus now and the likely reason for not caring if names are protected any longer. He also said what I also thought, it won't help her now, the time for that was when she could have tried to make a deal, not after conviction.

Anyhow, he helps me confirm whether what I am thinking or guessing is likely and what I am likely wrong on as well in listening to him on those cases he covers that we follow. He doesn't cover all cases of course but he does do this one, sometimes it is just an update in a show of updates on a few cases but he keeps up with it very well. And he's a practicing attorney.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I will likely never catch up here nor be able to go back and read all I missed so forgive me if it seems I am jumping in without reading all and catching up. I still one day hope to but the more time that passes, I know I may not ever get caught up. Just been too busy.

If there is a retrial just as discussed prior, with any witnesses, if someone does not want to testify it is too bad imo, it really isn't up to them as they can subpoena. That doesn't mean they will of course.

I also don't think we will see a retrial so it likely won't matter. Scott Reisch/Crime Talk covers this case pretty well and I value his opinion. I'm not saying he is right or has a crystal ball and he wouldn't claim to know for sure, but he thinks indications show and are that it is extremely likely that it will not be granted the way I understood one of his shows. If I recall, he is going by the judge's actions, his proceeding with presentence investigation and more.

He also thinks what I wondered about. Maxwell was found guilty and at that point, she doesn't care who she takes with her/throws under the bus now and the likely reason for not caring if names are protected any longer. He also said what I also thought, it won't help her now, the time for that was when she could have tried to make a deal, not after conviction.

Anyhow, he helps me confirm whether what I am thinking or guessing is likely and what I am likely wrong on as well in listening to him on those cases he covers that we follow. He doesn't cover all cases of course but he does do this one, sometimes it is just an update in a show of updates on a few cases but he keeps up with it very well. And he's a practicing attorney.
Click to expand...
Well until the retrial is decided, it is still all up in the air. Prosecution have already dropped the perjury charges, so I believe that there are still deals to be done/being done, behind the scenes and I will not be surprised at anything that happens. The objection to naming of John Does has been dropped by the defence so maybe there are bigger fish to fry. This could go on for years.

Here is one of the reports that says one witness will not testify again. Even if the retrial is not allowed, then it still could be grounds for an appeal based on an ex federal prosecutor's view in this article.

"According to former Federal Prosecutor David Weinstein, now a partner in Miami based law firm Jones Walker, all jurors may now be interviewed, specifically the two jurors who have shared their stories publicly.

He said that the admissions would not necessarily be considered automatic grounds for a mistrial but that it would, at the very least, be 'an arrow in the quiver' for Maxwell's appeal. "

www.dailymail.co.uk

Ghislaine Maxwell victim might NOT testify if second trial is granted

Lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell (pictured), 60, launched an appeal for a retrial last week due to a juror's possible failure to disclose that he was sexually abused as a child before the trial.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Prosecutors are due to respond to the retrial motion in just over a week on Feb 2nd.
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
Well until the retrial is decided, it is still all up in the air. Prosecution have already dropped the perjury charges, so I believe that there are still deals to be done/being done, behind the scenes and I will not be surprised at anything that happens. The objection to naming of John Does has been dropped by the defence so maybe there are bigger fish to fry. This could go on for years.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's still up in the air and he could be wrong, I think I said as much or hope I did. Just giving an opinion of someone who knows more about the legal system than we do. He also covered the likelihood of whether there was enough reason to grant a retrial and more. I was going to post that particular show of his on here but never got around to doing so.

The perjury charges were likely dropped because they have their conviction on the bigger things. I'm not surprised. Perjury can be charged but I wouldn't call it a common charge and it likely was to charge anything they thought they could and to ensure she was convicted of something. They would revisit it I imagine now that she is convicted on the other charges and probably decided it's not worth the resources and time to continue with it. Imo.

Even IF the prosecutors could make a deal at this point, a judge doesn't have to honor or accept the deal. Sentencing is up to the judge.

However, it is doubtful they can, the jury found this woman guilty and I'm sure there are likely minimum sentencing guidelines. The time for that decision, any deals, is over.

There is a reason deals are sometimes struck at the very last minute before trial. It is the 11th hour and the last chance.

Appeals will go on for years no doubt. They do in most cases.

Scott Peterson was convicted, for an example in 2004. Here we are 18 years later with appeals on his behalf decided as recent as this past year. So yeah, I agree it could go on for years, many do.

All my opinion.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Yes, it's still up in the air and he could be wrong, I think I said as much or hope I did. Just giving an opinion of someone who knows more about the legal system than we do. He also covered the likelihood of whether there was enough reason to grant a retrial and more. I was going to post that particular show of his on here but never got around to doing so.

The perjury charges were likely dropped because they have their conviction on the bigger things. I'm not surprised. Perjury can be charged but I wouldn't call it a common charge and it likely was to charge anything they thought they could and to ensure she was convicted of something. They would revisit it I imagine now that she is convicted on the other charges and probably decided it's not worth the resources and time to continue with it. Imo.

Even IF the prosecutors could make a deal at this point, a judge doesn't have to honor or accept the deal. Sentencing is up to the judge.

However, it is doubtful they can, the jury found this woman guilty and I'm sure there are likely minimum sentencing guidelines. The time for that decision, any deals, is over.

There is a reason deals are sometimes struck at the very last minute before trial. It is the 11th hour and the last chance.

Appeals will go on for years no doubt. They do in most cases.

Scott Peterson was convicted, for an example in 2004. Here we are 18 years later with appeals on his behalf decided as recent as this past year. So yeah, I agree it could go on for years, many do.

All my opinion.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends if she has information that they want and if she is willing to give it . We have heard of other enablers and of course the John Does. I think the minimum sentences were 1 year on the lesser counts and 5 years on the major count from my memory so that would be a minimum of 9 years. The maximums were 5 years and 40 years so if she cooperates with the prosecution she could get the minimum while all the time she is in jail now counts for longer off her sentence. So she has several options, the retrial, possible deals plus an appeal.
 
Tresir said:
I guess it depends if she has information that they want and if she is willing to give it . We have heard of other enablers and of course the John Does. I think the minimum sentences were 1 year on the lesser counts and 5 years on the major count from my memory so that would be a minimum of 9 years. The maximums were 5 years and 40 years so if she cooperates with the prosecution she could get the minimum while all the time she is in jail now counts for longer off her sentence. So she has several options, the retrial, possible deals plus an appeal.
Click to expand...
It all remains to be seen I guess. I am under the understanding though that she lost her big opportunity to deal. Whether they would recommend a lighter sentence if she cooperated and whether the judge would even agree would all be up in the air even if that is possible. And generally victims and their opinions on that are considered as well. And then on top of it, just naming names is not exactly proof. Does she have and is she prepared to offer for instance videos and more? How do they know she is not lying and not naming incorrect names?

But it is a wait and see I guess. I don't think the retrial will be granted. That's my opinion and it is based on listening to people like Reisch/Crime Talk. It certainly isn't known, just an opinion. I suspect she could take that up though with an appeals court but I doubt this judge will grant it.

Just my opinion on this too, but I don't think her sentence will be the lightest one. I don't know if it will be the worst but I don't think it will be light. That's just based on what she is convicted of doing and the seriousness of all the charges and behavior. She has in no way accepted responsibility, admitted guilt, etc. and those are things taken into consideration if not even necessary imo.

This to you is a case that seems to be one you are most interested in, a pet case so to speak. I have those too, some I pay more attention to than others and where I am more invested and put more time into when I have it. This one matters to me but I agree with the verdict and I think she deserves a fairly stiff sentence. I do think other heads should "roll" so to speak and not only hers but she is partly responsible for the very fact they haven't if she has had information she refused to provide all along to help see to it others can be charged.

Imo she should have rolled on Epstein back in the day.

I'd love to see the others that deserve it to be charged. She certainly hasn't helped with that to our knowledge.

All the above said though, she can appeal, is appealing and a court will decide on any appeal I guess. My opinion is only that--an opinion.
 
GrandmaBear said:
It all remains to be seen I guess. I am under the understanding though that she lost her big opportunity to deal. Whether they would recommend a lighter sentence if she cooperated and whether the judge would even agree would all be up in the air even if that is possible. And generally victims and their opinions on that are considered as well. And then on top of it, just naming names is not exactly proof. Does she have and is she prepared to offer for instance videos and more? How do they know she is not lying and not naming incorrect names?

But it is a wait and see I guess. I don't think the retrial will be granted. That's my opinion and it is based on listening to people like Reisch/Crime Talk. It certainly isn't known, just an opinion. I suspect she could take that up though with an appeals court but I doubt this judge will grant it.

Just my opinion on this too, but I don't think her sentence will be the lightest one. I don't know if it will be the worst but I don't think it will be light. That's just based on what she is convicted of doing and the seriousness of all the charges and behavior. She has in no way accepted responsibility, admitted guilt, etc. and those are things taken into consideration if not even necessary imo.

This to you is a case that seems to be one you are most interested in, a pet case so to speak. I have those too, some I pay more attention to than others and where I am more invested and put more time into when I have it. This one matters to me but I agree with the verdict and I think she deserves a fairly stiff sentence. I do think other heads should "roll" so to speak and not only hers but she is partly responsible for the very fact they haven't if she has had information she refused to provide all along to help see to it others can be charged.

Imo she should have rolled on Epstein back in the day.

I'd love to see the others that deserve it to be charged. She certainly hasn't helped with that to our knowledge.

All the above said though, she can appeal, is appealing and a court will decide on any appeal I guess. My opinion is only that--an opinion.
Click to expand...
She is writing a book I believe (or cooperating with an author) so I bet it will all come out.
I am interested in the case for several reasons but mainly because I grew up in an area close to where her family lived in Oxfordshire. Also, the case has connections with high influence/net worth individuals, politicians, royalty, Hollywood as well as the case in France against Jean Luc what's is name. It's also the first case I have followed on here.
 
Tresir said:
She is writing a book I believe (or cooperating with an author) so I bet it will all come out.
I am interested in the case for several reasons but mainly because I grew up in an area close to where her family lived in Oxfordshire. Also, the case has connections with high influence/net worth individuals, politicians, royalty, Hollywood as well as the case in France against Jean Luc what's is name. It's also the first case I have followed on here.
Click to expand...
It certainly has the royalty, celebrity and the rich and famous etc. in it. I see with you being in the area why you would be even more interested. That's true of me too (probably most) that if a case is near home, I most definitely am more likely to follow it and with a bit more interest for many reasons. I've had a few like that but nothing that resembles a case like this one near home.

I have some pet cases but haven't really picked up a new one for awhile and the ones I have are mostly into the court process and moving slowly. Murdaugh has piqued my interest and probably because that too is power, corruption, influence, murder, swindling, etc. Doesn't appear to be a sex element in that one but nothing would surprise me where that man is concerned. It isn't anywhere near me though and I don't know anyone in the case. I follow most current ones and some older ones but not all.

I think too your news covers this far more and keeps it more front and center than is being done here in the US. I have followed it but doubt I would have even known when trial was about to begin except because of this thread.

So she is writing a book and that's where it will all come out or possibly... Maybe that was her real reason for holding the names back and not out of fear at all or any misguided "loyalty". A lot I guess remains to be seen.
 
GrandmaBear said:
It all remains to be seen I guess. I am under the understanding though that she lost her big opportunity to deal. Whether they would recommend a lighter sentence if she cooperated and whether the judge would even agree would all be up in the air even if that is possible. And generally victims and their opinions on that are considered as well. And then on top of it, just naming names is not exactly proof. Does she have and is she prepared to offer for instance videos and more? How do they know she is not lying and not naming incorrect names?

But it is a wait and see I guess. I don't think the retrial will be granted. That's my opinion and it is based on listening to people like Reisch/Crime Talk. It certainly isn't known, just an opinion. I suspect she could take that up though with an appeals court but I doubt this judge will grant it.

Just my opinion on this too, but I don't think her sentence will be the lightest one. I don't know if it will be the worst but I don't think it will be light. That's just based on what she is convicted of doing and the seriousness of all the charges and behavior. She has in no way accepted responsibility, admitted guilt, etc. and those are things taken into consideration if not even necessary imo.

This to you is a case that seems to be one you are most interested in, a pet case so to speak. I have those too, some I pay more attention to than others and where I am more invested and put more time into when I have it. This one matters to me but I agree with the verdict and I think she deserves a fairly stiff sentence. I do think other heads should "roll" so to speak and not only hers but she is partly responsible for the very fact they haven't if she has had information she refused to provide all along to help see to it others can be charged.

Imo she should have rolled on Epstein back in the day.

I'd love to see the others that deserve it to be charged. She certainly hasn't helped with that to our knowledge.

All the above said though, she can appeal, is appealing and a court will decide on any appeal I guess. My opinion is only that--an opinion.
Click to expand...
Did you watch this episode from Scott? He states that Ghislaine Maxwell should get a new trial.

 
kdg411 said:
Did you watch this episode from Scott? He states that Ghislaine Maxwell should get a new trial.

Click to expand...

No, I haven't. I really don't get to watch him often so what I try to do is usually pick the shorter ones where he will do a quick recap of several cases. It was one of those he felt the judge is not going to grant the retrial but it's been probably last week already or so.

So is he saying he thinks she should get one or he thinks she will? And from this judge or on a further type of appeal? I'll give it a watch if I ever can. Often by the time I do get to, there's a new one out or something else has happened.
 
GrandmaBear said:
No, I haven't. I really don't get to watch him often so what I try to do is usually pick the shorter ones where he will do a quick recap of several cases. It was one of those he felt the judge is not going to grant the retrial but it's been probably last week already or so.

So is he saying he thinks she should get one or he thinks she will? And from this judge or on a further type of appeal? I'll give it a watch if I ever can. Often by the time I do get to, there's a new one out or something else has happened.
Click to expand...
In this one he says that she should get a new trial because of juror #50 however it's up to Judge Nathan.
 
kdg411 said:
In this one he says that she should get a new trial because of juror #50 however it's up to Judge Nathan.
Click to expand...
I see. In the one I saw, he didn't comment really a lot about the juror and if enough cause so much as that he was pretty sure the judge in the case wasn't going to grant it (his guess based on some things) and I had the impression that even with the juror having was it an sex assault history/victim? that it wasn't enough for a retrial perhaps or would be seen that it would have changed the outcome anyhow. This was my take on his words, not his words as spoken.

Well if he says she should get one and that is based on the rule of law, then she may well get one or should. As I said, I respect his opinion, he only seems to comment on what he is well informed about and educated in with such things. So if he thinks she should get one by law, then she should. He isn't any fan of Epstein or Maxwell so probably doesn't like it (I sure don't either) or that it happened though.

I wish I had time to watch a few more of his in depth ones. Didn't see the one last night that you linked either or is it the same one. Some day.
 
Prince Andrew wants a trial by jury. Not sure if this is a good idea. Presumably it will be all Americans on the jury who very possibly could be anti monarchy.

www.thesun.co.uk

Andrew 'on collision course with Palace' as he demands jury for lawsuit

PRINCE Andrew is “on a collision course with the palace” after he sensationally demanded a trial by jury overnight in his battle against sex abuse claims, a source has said. Court docum…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
 
Tresir said:
Prince Andrew wants a trial by jury. Not sure if this is a good idea. Presumably it will be all Americans on the jury who very possibly could be anti monarchy.

www.thesun.co.uk

Andrew 'on collision course with Palace' as he demands jury for lawsuit

PRINCE Andrew is “on a collision course with the palace” after he sensationally demanded a trial by jury overnight in his battle against sex abuse claims, a source has said. Court docum…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
Click to expand...
NY, is an extremely diverse state so I would tend to believe he had a better chance of a fair trial in this state over the others. With that said though, he will have to sit for a 7 hour recorded deposition which is what caused Maxwell to settle her case with Virginia for an undisclosed amount. This case definitely has it's twists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,033
Messages
244,102
Members
982
Latest member
TonyGutter
Back
Top Bottom