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]

Has anyone read Kirby Sommers book or articles? She claims to have cracked it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/KirbySommers

Can I ask claims to have cracked what?

I haven't read her book. I can't even keep up with all the threads on various cases lately. Interested in hearing more though. Maybe one day five years from now life will calm down and I'll be looking for a book to read. I sure hope so.

 

[Tresir]

Can I ask claims to have cracked what?

I haven't read her book. I can't even keep up with all the threads on various cases lately. Interested in hearing more though. Maybe one day five years from now life will calm down and I'll be looking for a book to read. I sure hope so.

Just have a quick look at her Twitter feed that I posted for a bit of an idea. MK ultra, sex slaves, naming paedos etc.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Just have a quick look at her Twitter feed that I posted for a bit of an idea. MK ultra, sex slaves, naming paedos etc.

Wow. So I did. I was going to do it tomorrow but decided to just go in. I probably read 20 to 30.

So what do you think of her and these claims? Man she goes back to Nixon. Carter.

I mean I've heard some of these things other places before I mean like the big pedophile thing that is huge, like not only national but international with big names and people involved. Unless we live in a closet, most of us have heard that stuff right?

And she talks like Epstein isn't dead. I've of course heard that one too and honestly, nothing would surprise me when it comes to people with money and power and connections.

Here is where I am with it. I believe Esptein and Maxwell are not the only ones of course, there is too much that indicates otherwise. I believe it is far bigger. I do believe it was a "ring" or "enterprise" that had far more people involved than many realize.

I don't know that I believe (but don't discount the possibility) some of the farther out things but who would believe what we already know or suspect so far?

Have you read her books?

 

[Tresir]

Wow. So I did. I was going to do it tomorrow but decided to just go in. I probably read 20 to 30.

So what do you think of her and these claims? Man she goes back to Nixon. Carter.

I mean I've heard some of these things other places before I mean like the big pedophile thing that is huge, like not only national but international with big names and people involved. Unless we live in a closet, most of us have heard that stuff right?

And she talks like Epstein isn't dead. I've of course heard that one too and honestly, nothing would surprise me when it comes to people with money and power and connections.

Here is where I am with it. I believe Esptein and Maxwell are not the only ones of course, there is too much that indicates otherwise. I believe it is far bigger. I do believe it was a "ring" or "enterprise" that had far more people involved than many realize.

I don't know that I believe (but don't discount the possibility) some of the farther out things but who would believe what we already know or suspect so far?

Have you read her books?

No I haven't so I wondered if anyone on here had? It intrigued me anyway.

 

[Tresir]

Prince Andrew denies close friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell in US court files

In US court files, the prince, who denies assault claims, also asks for a jury trial in his accuser's lawsuit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prince Andrew has denied being a close friend of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, in a legal response to the woman who is suing him in the US for sexual assault.
Lawyers for the prince also say he wants to go before a jury to contest the claim brought by Virginia Giuffre.
The Duke of York has consistently denied all the allegations against him.
Ms Giuffre alleges he assaulted her when she was 17 at homes owned by Maxwell and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But in the 11-page court document, filed on Wednesday, Prince Andrew's legal team list a number of reasons why they believe her civil lawsuit should be dismissed.
One factor they ask the court to consider is the issue of consent.
The document says: "Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the complaint, Giuffre's claims are barred by the doctrine of consent."

 

[kdg411]

Prince Andrew denies close friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell in US court files

In US court files, the prince, who denies assault claims, also asks for a jury trial in his accuser's lawsuit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prince Andrew has denied being a close friend of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, in a legal response to the woman who is suing him in the US for sexual assault.
Lawyers for the prince also say he wants to go before a jury to contest the claim brought by Virginia Giuffre.
The Duke of York has consistently denied all the allegations against him.
Ms Giuffre alleges he assaulted her when she was 17 at homes owned by Maxwell and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But in the 11-page court document, filed on Wednesday, Prince Andrew's legal team list a number of reasons why they believe her civil lawsuit should be dismissed.
One factor they ask the court to consider is the issue of consent.
The document says: "Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the complaint, Giuffre's claims are barred by the doctrine of consent."

I wonder if Prince Andrew is trying to disassociate with Ghislaine or his lawyers are saying that for the press only.

 

[Tresir]

I wonder if Prince Andrew is trying to disassociate with Ghislaine or his lawyers are saying that for the press only.

That would mean they were lying though or he was. Have you heard the interview with one of his ex security just recently? He said in one day alone she came and went into Buck House 4 times. She visited so frequently, he thought they were in a relationship. Perhaps he was not a close friend, but her lover.

 

[kdg411]

That would mean they were lying though or he was. Have you heard the interview with one of his ex security just recently? He said in one day alone she came and went into Buck House 4 times. She visited so frequently, he thought they were in a relationship. Perhaps he was not a close friend, but her lover.

I do remember reading that. In that same article, I believe, that they mentioned she didn't have to sign in/out with security because she frequented so often. If it's a PR stunt, then that could backfire if Ghislaine is granted a new trial & acquitted.

 

[Tresir]

I do remember reading that. In that same article, I believe, that they mentioned she didn't have to sign in/out with security because she frequented so often. If it's a PR stunt, then that could backfire if Ghislaine is granted a new trial & acquitted.

Do you think a new trial and an acquittal are likely? Would love to know how probable legal experts think that is.

 

[kdg411]

Do you think a new trial and an acquittal are likely? Would love to know how probable legal experts think that is.

After hearing the lawyer speak about the case that @GrandmaBear likes to listen to I have to trust his opinion. He stated that there is an issue with juror #50 & it does warrant a new trial. Judge Nathan does get the final say however I believe if the Judge doesn't allow it then Ghislaine's lawyers have strong legal grounds for an appeal.

 

[Tresir]

After hearing the lawyer speak about the case that @GrandmaBear likes to listen to I have to trust his opinion. He stated that there is an issue with juror #50 & it does warrant a new trial. Judge Nathan does get the final say however I believe if the Judge doesn't allow it then Ghislaine's lawyers have strong legal grounds for an appeal.

So it may be best if Judge Nathan refuses the retrial motion and the defence lawyers go the appeal route. What happened with Weinstein's appeal? I'll have to check that out.

 

[GrandmaBear]

So it may be best if Judge Nathan refuses the retrial motion and the defence lawyers go the appeal route. What happened with Weinstein's appeal? I'll have to check that out.

I have a feeling Judge Nathan will let an appeals court decide it. Not sure why but I just do. Less questions by people for one I would think and a very serious look at it by a panel, not that she wouldn't look seriously at it.

Also the atty. kdg mentioned that I watch seemed to say in his one show I did see that he felt indications were this judge wasn't going to grant the retrial. And now I gather he does say though that the juror is an issue so I am guessing he means it is a true and serious issue with right to appeal but that he doesn't think this is the court who will grant a retrial if one is granted. My guess only.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Scott on Prince Andrew and Maxwell, etc. About 6 minutes in. The other cases/info/updates are good too.

This one starts with Murdaugh. I was half listening while working on something else. I think if I have it right the Beach family and others from the boating accident are now suing or putting a claim on the Estate of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh to keep it from being drained (my words) or asking a judge to have their claim up against it so money maneuverings by you know who, etc. do not put others in front and let the estate get wiped out/disappear (also my wording). $65 mill or something more newly (I think) filed against Alex Murdaugh.

This is a good one. Scott then touches on Rittenhouse. And then Maxwell/Prince Andrew at about 6 minutes in for that one. I don't always listen to all as no time but I did this one to the end. The remainder is also interesting with other cases and a particularly dumb criminal contestant of the day. I'm also going to post this in Maxwell.

 

[Tresir]

Haven't had time to listen to the above from Scott yet but will do. Thanks for posting that. Interesting article on PA below. Apparently a Royal Prince has given evidence in court before. See excerpt below link.

My view regarding his acquaintance with Epstein/Maxwell were for money lending purposes and he was buttering them up for that purpose. He was needing money for his ex wife's debts which were enormous at one time. Her name is on one of the Epstein flight logs. I remember seeing it. I will have to pull it up and post it. That's my opinion anyway With this suit, Guiffre will have to prove it and explain why she left it so long to pursue it. It may well be true, but I do believe there was an element of consent.

I’ve got damning document that PROVES Prince Andrew & Ghislaine were friends

Did your jaw drop in disbelief when it was announced that Prince Andrew had demanded trial by jury in the civil case being brought against him by Virginia Giuffre? Mine certainly did. Though he is …

www.thesun.co.uk

Royal scandals​

"Andrew’s great-great-grandfather, King Edward VII, when he was still Prince of Wales, twice appeared in the witness box in court.

On one occasion, which became known as the Tranby Croft Affair, he was called as a witness in a gambling case when a Scots Guards officer was accused of cheating at baccarat during a house party at which the prince was a guest.

More salaciously, in February 1870, the then Prince of Wales was called as a witness in the divorce case brought by Warwickshire MP, Sir Charles Mordaunt, against his young wife Harriet.

The prince had known Harriet since she was 17 and he was engaged in an affair of "dangerous intimacy".

During the summer of 1868, the Mordaunts had taken a house in Belgravia and it was there that, in her husband’s absence, the prince would make afternoon visits to Harriet twice a week.

The prince, a serial adulterer, also visited Lady Mordaunt at their country house where, on one occasion there, the wounded husband returned home unexpectedly and saw the prince making a hurried departure.

Gossip was rife and it was only after Harriet had given birth to a child fathered by another of her lovers that she confessed all to her husband.

Summoned to the witness box​

Their only hope to keep the scandal out of the press – so they were advised - was for Harriet to plead insanity.

But when Mordaunt petitioned for divorce, the Prince of Wales was summoned to appear.

Though not cited as a co-respondent, he nevertheless entered the witness box to give evidence in open court.

When asked: "Has there ever been any improper familiarity or criminal act between yourself and Lady Mordaunt", who was described during the hearing as "a lady of apparently fragile virtue", the prince stated firmly and clearly: "There has not."

His ordeal lasted seven minutes and he left the court to loud applause.

In the event, Sir Charles Mordaunt’s petition was dismissed and a crazed Harriet, throwing a cup of tea over a portrait of the prince, screamed: "That has been the ruin of me. You have been the curse of my life, damn you."

A century-and-a-half later, though history isn’t exactly repeating itself in York vs Giuffre, it may be said there are echoes.

For now, while the gloves are very definitely off, there can be no telling how it will all end. Andrew can only wait and hope."

 

[Tresir]

I cannot find the particular log that has her name but I did see it. Here is an old article that refers to it though. ( This article is from October 2019, so the recent program just appears to be a rehash of this one. )

7 Things We Learned From 'The Prince & The Paedophile'

The relationship between Prince Andrew and the late disgraced former financier Jeffrey Epstein has been revealed in an explosive new Channel 4 documentary.

www.refinery29.com

4. Prince Andrew would stay with Epstein on 10 occasions over 12 years, sometimes spending days on end with him.


Channel 4 examined the flight logs for one of Epstein’s private jets and found that on 16th April 1998, Jeffrey Epstein met "Princess Sarah Ferguson and kids" on the ground in Nassau in the Bahamas. In February 1999, "Prince Andrew himself appears for the first time, flying into the Virgin Islands, a few days later, he flies out again with JE, Jeffrey Epstein, GM Ghislaine Maxwell and a number of other people."

​

 

[GrandmaBear]

Haven't had time to listen to the above from Scott yet but will do. Thanks for posting that. Interesting article on PA below. Apparently a Royal Prince has given evidence in court before. See excerpt below link.

My view regarding his acquaintance with Epstein/Maxwell were for money lending purposes and he was buttering them up for that purpose. He was needing money for his ex wife's debts which were enormous at one time. Her name is on one of the Epstein flight logs. I remember seeing it. I will have to pull it up and post it. That's my opinion anyway With this suit, Guiffre will have to prove it and explain why she left it so long to pursue it. It may well be true, but I do believe there was an element of consent.

I’ve got damning document that PROVES Prince Andrew & Ghislaine were friends

Did your jaw drop in disbelief when it was announced that Prince Andrew had demanded trial by jury in the civil case being brought against him by Virginia Giuffre? Mine certainly did. Though he is …

www.thesun.co.uk

Royal scandals​

"Andrew’s great-great-grandfather, King Edward VII, when he was still Prince of Wales, twice appeared in the witness box in court.

On one occasion, which became known as the Tranby Croft Affair, he was called as a witness in a gambling case when a Scots Guards officer was accused of cheating at baccarat during a house party at which the prince was a guest.

More salaciously, in February 1870, the then Prince of Wales was called as a witness in the divorce case brought by Warwickshire MP, Sir Charles Mordaunt, against his young wife Harriet.

The prince had known Harriet since she was 17 and he was engaged in an affair of "dangerous intimacy".

During the summer of 1868, the Mordaunts had taken a house in Belgravia and it was there that, in her husband’s absence, the prince would make afternoon visits to Harriet twice a week.

The prince, a serial adulterer, also visited Lady Mordaunt at their country house where, on one occasion there, the wounded husband returned home unexpectedly and saw the prince making a hurried departure.

Gossip was rife and it was only after Harriet had given birth to a child fathered by another of her lovers that she confessed all to her husband.

Summoned to the witness box​

Their only hope to keep the scandal out of the press – so they were advised - was for Harriet to plead insanity.

But when Mordaunt petitioned for divorce, the Prince of Wales was summoned to appear.

Though not cited as a co-respondent, he nevertheless entered the witness box to give evidence in open court.

When asked: "Has there ever been any improper familiarity or criminal act between yourself and Lady Mordaunt", who was described during the hearing as "a lady of apparently fragile virtue", the prince stated firmly and clearly: "There has not."

His ordeal lasted seven minutes and he left the court to loud applause.

In the event, Sir Charles Mordaunt’s petition was dismissed and a crazed Harriet, throwing a cup of tea over a portrait of the prince, screamed: "That has been the ruin of me. You have been the curse of my life, damn you."

A century-and-a-half later, though history isn’t exactly repeating itself in York vs Giuffre, it may be said there are echoes.

For now, while the gloves are very definitely off, there can be no telling how it will all end. Andrew can only wait and hope."

Wow. That's quite the story. Another prince who lied or so it appears. And lied in court.

Yeah, Scott does a few shows a week generally and on top of that is a busy practicing attorney. The show above and many of them, isn't in depth on the case, but keeps up with the new "goings on" and comments on it, etc. on a variety of cases. He always does a dumb criminal contestant of the day and week too and that's kind of fun. Real people doing dumb things committing crime.

While I'm no expert, he seems like a good longstanding knowledgeable criminal attorney. Defense attorney unfortunately lol. I don't generally like defense attorneys (like many) so the fact so many like him, watch his shows and respect him I think says something. I don't think he has been at it (Youtube) too many years and is still growing his audience but he has gained viewers at a very rapid pace.

Another thing to maybe keep in mind about him is his channel often airs full live trials when they are televised. He may not even be in but he will ensure coverage is put on live and his moderators take care of it and staff I suppose. The benefit to watching a live trial at his channel is you can chat with others (if you are a subscriber of his) and there are far less trolls, a lot more respectful audience discussing (other subscribers of his), etc. than like Court TV, Law and Crime, or network news, etc. Those chats can get downright nasty, fly by so fast one can't read and full of trolls.

Of course he couldn't do it with Maxwell as it was not televised but I will guarantee if it had been, he would have.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I cannot find the particular log that has her name but I did see it. Here is an old article that refers to it though. ( This article is from October 2019, so the recent program just appears to be a rehash of this one. )

7 Things We Learned From 'The Prince & The Paedophile'

The relationship between Prince Andrew and the late disgraced former financier Jeffrey Epstein has been revealed in an explosive new Channel 4 documentary.

www.refinery29.com

4. Prince Andrew would stay with Epstein on 10 occasions over 12 years, sometimes spending days on end with him.

View attachment 13828
Channel 4 examined the flight logs for one of Epstein’s private jets and found that on 16th April 1998, Jeffrey Epstein met "Princess Sarah Ferguson and kids" on the ground in Nassau in the Bahamas. In February 1999, "Prince Andrew himself appears for the first time, flying into the Virgin Islands, a few days later, he flies out again with JE, Jeffrey Epstein, GM Ghislaine Maxwell and a number of other people."

​

This isn't so much responsive to this particular post, I just grabbed it to mention something about Prince Andrew. Everyone I know who has ever seen his interview is under no illusions about his truthfulness or lack of it. I often am unsure with many people as there are some good liars, but he most definitely isn't one. I've watched parents of missing kids who are obviously lying and then I've watched parents of missing kids where I'm just not sure and I waver. No one I know has any such doubts after seeing the Prince's interview. I know I don't.

Consent is a tough one in sex cases and even more so if the parties are adults I think you'd agree. In general, a minor cannot consent. Although as you know, there are states that have their own laws with regard to that and then there is federal law and more. In the US anyhow.

Phrases like coercive control are being heard a lot these days imo. Things like confinement or feeling trapped or dependent with no way out sometimes play in. Not here specifically I'm not necessarily saying but in sexual assault cases in general quite often.

I don't have many doubts about what he did and feel he is obviously lying though.

As for the burden of proof, it is much lower in civil cases than criminal cases, the bar is not as high.

Maxwell was found guilty. And is for the moment short of appeals or retrial. It does madden me though that Epstein and plenty of other players are out there, including the prince, for the moment "scot free" and I feel the hands of many are quite dirty. I say hands but perhaps other body parts would be more fitting...

 

[Tresir]

Scott on Prince Andrew and Maxwell, etc. About 6 minutes in. The other cases/info/updates are good too.

This one starts with Murdaugh. I was half listening while working on something else. I think if I have it right the Beach family and others from the boating accident are now suing or putting a claim on the Estate of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh to keep it from being drained (my words) or asking a judge to have their claim up against it so money maneuverings by you know who, etc. do not put others in front and let the estate get wiped out/disappear (also my wording). $65 mill or something more newly (I think) filed against Alex Murdaugh.

This is a good one. Scott then touches on Rittenhouse. And then Maxwell/Prince Andrew at about 6 minutes in for that one. I don't always listen to all as no time but I did this one to the end. The remainder is also interesting with other cases and a particularly dumb criminal contestant of the day. I'm also going to post this in Maxwell.

He is good and to the point. At the end of the Andrew section he says in his opinion it will never see the inside of a courtroom.

 

[GrandmaBear]

He is good and to the point. At the end of the Andrew section he says in his opinion it will never see the inside of a courtroom.

Yeah, I like him. If one wants to know the legal stuff or ins and outs with laws, etc. relating to a case, he is a good one. Legal stuff can be so dry but he has some humor he adds to it. But he also does not get all gossipy, nasty, never goes into rumors too much, etc. BUT he will make a joke or two about some and keeps it light but on point. He isn't a fan imo of Maxwell or JE BUT he still gives his honest take on the law, on the juror issue here and what is fair under the law.

Did you know by the way that JE's name can't be mentioned on YT or put in a show name, etc. or they find themselves censored or the show taken down, etc.? Why? I mean that's just outrageous imo.

 

[kdg411]

Yeah, I like him. If one wants to know the legal stuff or ins and outs with laws, etc. relating to a case, he is a good one. Legal stuff can be so dry but he has some humor he adds to it. But he also does not get all gossipy, nasty, never goes into rumors too much, etc. BUT he will make a joke or two about some and keeps it light but on point. He isn't a fan imo of Maxwell or JE BUT he still gives his honest take on the law, on the juror issue here and what is fair under the law.

Did you know by the way that JE's name can't be mentioned on YT or put in a show name, etc. or they find themselves censored or the show taken down, etc.? Why? I mean that's just outrageous imo.

I wondered why he kept raising those little flags, wow!