Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So there isn't even a trial date yet. Boy I'd sure like to watch and hear that deposition but not an option of course.

Stripped of even his military titles... Duties before hand of course... Seems he is thought guilty in some arenas.

I wonder if she is holding off on her own depo so he can't know her answers before doing his... Just a thought.
 
She would have to abdicate, and there is no way she would do that
I see and no, I wouldn't want her to do that. I just thought maybe she could pass reins and she becomes Queen Mother or something. I'm no royalty rules expert lol.

Question then, could she have chose to skip Charles and hand them directly to William?
 
I see and no, I wouldn't want her to do that. I just thought maybe she could pass reins and she becomes Queen Mother or something. I'm no royalty rules expert lol.

Question then, could she have chose to skip Charles and hand them directly to William?
Not sure but I don't think that has ever happened before. Only thing similar is the abdication of King Edward so he could marry Wallis Simpson, a divorcee, and I think the government got involved in that. The Crown passed to Edward's brother George, the father of Queen Elizabeth. So the line of succession came from that.
 
Very little in the news now about either Ghislsine Maxwell or Prince Andrew, however I did find this expert opinion on the photo which appears convincing. See what you think.

 
Not sure but I don't think that has ever happened before. Only thing similar is the abdication of King Edward so he could marry Wallis Simpson, a divorcee, and I think the government got involved in that. The Crown passed to Edward's brother George, the father of Queen Elizabeth. So the line of succession came from that.
I thought it could be done but don't know where I get that from. Maybe it is not so much that she could skip him but that he could then be coerced himself to hand his reins to William in fairly short order... (Meaning the Queen if necessary could influence Charles to pass them on if she felt it necessary, family pressure or agreement). I could be wrong and it was probably tabloid speculation through the years as so many don't want Camilla in there and some don't want Charles either.
 
Very little in the news now about either Ghislsine Maxwell or Prince Andrew, however I did find this expert opinion on the photo which appears convincing. See what you think.

Interesting and glad to hear it. I tend to trust the photo for reasons given a few days ago as far as how it was found, where it came from and that it would just not be wise to give the FBI a doctored photo imo and imo most people wouldn't. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others the FBI possibly found amongst it that fit right into the same time frame, place, etc. either.

Additionally, he mentions many things that all fit with it being real, not just one so for anyone to doctor it they would have had to address every one of those things and do it perfectly.

Andrew is blowing hot air. Imo.
 
Interesting and glad to hear it. I tend to trust the photo for reasons given a few days ago as far as how it was found, where it came from and that it would just not be wise to give the FBI a doctored photo imo and imo most people wouldn't. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others the FBI possibly found amongst it that fit right into the same time frame, place, etc. either.

Additionally, he mentions many things that all fit with it being real, not just one so for anyone to doctor it they would have had to address every one of those things and do it perfectly.

Andrew is blowing hot air. Imo.
Of course, just because there is a pic of her with him does not prove the allegation, however. If anything, it proves she was happy to be associated with him. I agree about the possibility of other photos though. That would be good.
 
Of course, just because there is a pic of her with him does not prove the allegation, however. If anything, it proves she was happy to be associated with him. I agree about the possibility of other photos though. That would be good.
No, it doesn't prove the allegation but it plays to credibility, who is believable and who is not. He lied and has lied if the picture is real and if the picture is real, she was telling the truth about that part. It is then more likely that she is telling the truth than he or at least it is a big plus in her percentage column of who is, and a enormous minus in his. In fact I find a lying royal prince who would then likely lie under oath a pretty huge deal. Seriously, if he is innocent, why does he lie? I find him a disgusting old pig and his own mother doesn't seem to enamored with him either. Jmo of course.

When it comes to assault or rape, I don't think her looking happy in a picture with him with one of her controlling pimps, the big boss lady, standing silently in the background, means a thing. In fact what you are saying plays right to exactly what seemed to be expected of them... She would hardly be the first youth to be seen smiling next to her abuser, rapist or molester on a given day. So a teen smiling with her dad by their Christmas tree, for instance, in front of everyone and/or at a camera, can't earlier or later have had fear or tears running down her face when he is assaulting her...? Again, there is her evil boss ensuring she comply without saying a word... To me, Maxwell's demeanor and the fact she is in the picture says a LOT and fits with all the girls have said...

Other photos yes, it would be good. I wonder what all we have not seen... And who all we have not seen...
 
No, it doesn't prove the allegation but it plays to credibility, who is believable and who is not. He lied and has lied if the picture is real and if the picture is real, she was telling the truth about that part. It is then more likely that she is telling the truth than he or at least it is a big plus in her percentage column of who is, and a enormous minus in his. In fact I find a lying royal prince who would then likely lie under oath a pretty huge deal. Seriously, if he is innocent, why does he lie? I find him a disgusting old pig and his own mother doesn't seem to enamored with him either. Jmo of course.

When it comes to assault or rape, I don't think her looking happy in a picture with him with one of her controlling pimps, the big boss lady, standing silently in the background, means a thing. In fact what you are saying plays right to exactly what seemed to be expected of them... She would hardly be the first youth to be seen smiling next to her abuser, rapist or molester on a given day. So a teen smiling with her dad by their Christmas tree, for instance, in front of everyone and/or at a camera, can't earlier or later have had fear or tears running down her face when he is assaulting her...? Again, there is her evil boss ensuring she comply without saying a word... To me, Maxwell's demeanor and the fact she is in the picture says a LOT and fits with all the girls have said...

Other photos yes, it would be good. I wonder what all we have not seen... And who all we have not seen...
I think he said he couldn't remember it and also said they weren't his going out clothes and a few other things too, like he couldn't sweat etc. He is either lying or really didn't remember it. Eg if she was introduced as a visitor from the US who would love a photo to take back etc. It was her camera and her idea to have the picture taken with her own disposable camera. I find the boasting to Carolyn that she slept with him pretty strange if she is now saying she was abused/raped. And she did recruit others, as we know, like Carolyn, who was only 14. One thing I am assuming is there wasn't enough evidence for a criminal prosecution.
 
I think he said he couldn't remember it and also said they weren't his going out clothes and a few other things too, like he couldn't sweat etc. He is either lying or really didn't remember it. Eg if she was introduced as a visitor from the US who would love a photo to take back etc. It was her camera and her idea to have the picture taken with her own disposable camera. I find the boasting to Carolyn that she slept with him pretty strange if she is now saying she was abused/raped. And she did recruit others, as we know, like Carolyn, who was only 14. One thing I am assuming is there wasn't enough evidence for a criminal prosecution.
I am going to give it a bit hard here but not personal, just debating and jmo....

I think it really comes down to how one looks at things. He was an older man and she was a young girl. Even if she did brag about sleeping with him (which I don't know), we are talking an older prince and a young girl. Then there is the way and expectations and where she was, what was expected, etc. and her lack of options. We aren't talking about someone Maxwell's age who was with Epstein by choice. I also don't think Maxwell was any minor, she was divorced when she started with him, Mr. and Ms. Pimp.

Maybe it is even a US difference and I entirely get an older teenaged girl may know more what she is doing than a younger one but she is still a teenager.

I mean my God, he is a royal household name throughout the world, she is a teen. He has been married. Not a young man and was an "old man" compared to her even then. He has had his playtime and playmates for decades... Could he not have something to do with any of a number of WOMEN who would welcome it? She was impressionable, stuck or probably easily led. Even if she wasn't, again by law, he is in the wrong.

As to whether he is lying or not, I have never ever seen an interview where someone was so obviously lying as his, in a lot of interviews, I waffle quite often in some of whether the person is lying or not, or lying about all. And he doesn't "recall" the photo is one thing but also suggesting it was photoshopped and that was just on that subject, hardly the only one.

Now could she have bragged, etc.? Yes. So? How stupid is he to put himself in such a position? He is a royal. He has had years of knowing he and his ex and the royal family's name and activities are of great and over the top interest. He has DAUGHTERS. And no matter how he got in it, in his position, it was far from a mature decision and she was the teen... I mean come on. And there is Maxwell in the back of the photo... If she could trust that the girls were where they wanted to be and doing what was expected... then why? I realize it is just a photo but she is to the back but present, why not step out? Or why not join them and sling an arm around the other two? It all just fits...

It isn't a criminal case and he is darned lucky in my opinion. And if he was innocent, why is the Queen not standing by him?

All that said though, we shall see. We don't know I guess. It was the same with Maxwell's trial and she was found guilty as I felt she should be and the evidence showed when reasonably put together only one conclusion could be drawn.

I can't say Andrew is guilty but he is certainly stupid for his age. Or does he feel untouchable as did Epstein and Maxwell imo?
 
I am going to give it a bit hard here but not personal, just debating and jmo....

I think it really comes down to how one looks at things. He was an older man and she was a young girl. Even if she did brag about sleeping with him (which I don't know), we are talking an older prince and a young girl. Then there is the way and expectations and where she was, what was expected, etc. and her lack of options. We aren't talking about someone Maxwell's age who was with Epstein by choice. I also don't think Maxwell was any minor, she was divorced when she started with him, Mr. and Ms. Pimp.

Maybe it is even a US difference and I entirely get an older teenaged girl may know more what she is doing than a younger one but she is still a teenager.

I mean my God, he is a royal household name throughout the world, she is a teen. He has been married. Not a young man and was an "old man" compared to her even then. He has had his playtime and playmates for decades... Could he not have something to do with any of a number of WOMEN who would welcome it? She was impressionable, stuck or probably easily led. Even if she wasn't, again by law, he is in the wrong.

As to whether he is lying or not, I have never ever seen an interview where someone was so obviously lying as his, in a lot of interviews, I waffle quite often in some of whether the person is lying or not, or lying about all. And he doesn't "recall" the photo is one thing but also suggesting it was photoshopped and that was just on that subject, hardly the only one.

Now could she have bragged, etc.? Yes. So? How stupid is he to put himself in such a position? He is a royal. He has had years of knowing he and his ex and the royal family's name and activities are of great and over the top interest. He has DAUGHTERS. And no matter how he got in it, in his position, it was far from a mature decision and she was the teen... I mean come on. And there is Maxwell in the back of the photo... If she could trust that the girls were where they wanted to be and doing what was expected... then why? I realize it is just a photo but she is to the back but present, why not step out? Or why not join them and sling an arm around the other two? It all just fits...

It isn't a criminal case and he is darned lucky in my opinion. And if he was innocent, why is the Queen not standing by him?

All that said though, we shall see. We don't know I guess. It was the same with Maxwell's trial and she was found guilty as I felt she should be and the evidence showed when reasonably put together only one conclusion could be drawn.

I can't say Andrew is guilty but he is certainly stupid for his age. Or does he feel untouchable as did Epstein and Maxwell imo?
She was 17. The UK age of consent is 16 in the UK. So if he is lying, she will have to show that in court, and that she did not consent. She told Carolyn that she slept with him, not that she was raped or abused by him. The UK police have not prosecuted. Yes he was stupid, but that is not illegal. Yes the Queen is standing by her favourite son and so are his ex wife and daughters.

Regarding Maxwell, the jury was tainted so it is not a safe conviction and we will be having a retrial or an appeal.

Just a thought about the Royals, Charles has supposedly banned Andrew from Windsor but Charles himself is not completely untarnished regarding his affair with Camilla while married to Diana. So pot and kettle comes to mind there.
 
Last edited:
She was 17. The UK age of consent is 16 in the UK. So if he is lying, she will have to show that in court, and that she did not consent. She told Carolyn that she slept with him, not that she was raped or abused by him. The UK police have not prosecuted. Yes he was stupid, but that is not illegal. Yes the Queen is standing by her favourite son and so are his ex wife and daughters.

Regarding Maxwell, the jury was tainted so it is not a safe conviction and we will be having a retrial or an appeal.

Just a thought about the Royals, Charles has supposedly banned Andrew from Windsor but Charles himself is not completely untarnished regarding his affair with Camilla while married to Diana. So pot and kettle comes to mind there.
It is classic that girls don't often think they were raped or assaulted until they are older and realize the age they were, the circumstances, and more. It has been fought for this to be understood for years. He was the adult. A girl gets older and can see that. Whether she told her friend because she convinced herself it was all right or to be "cool" I don't see it matters. And this isn't a UK case so the UK age of consent has no bearing. She was a minor by US law and he was the adult. That would be true in criminal court and this isn't criminal even, but civil.

There is one juror at issue to my knowledge in Maxwell which is a far cry from the entire jury being tainted. All found her guilty and it is likely another jury will as well if it comes to that. Finding a juror issue is not indicative in any way the case wasn't/isn't solid. If anything, the prosecution will be even more dialed in imo.

Not sure what standing by your son means then. He was stripped of royal duties and more wasn't he? Or is this just the tabloids making it sound as if he is persona non grata to the Queen and in the royal family?

I'm not talking of his wife and children.

As for Charles and Andrew, yes I consider them both pigs and poor examples of anyone to look up to, both have been horrid to women, their own wives--and honestly, I don't think they know how to relate maturely to a woman in any manner. I'm not one to defend Charles, I think both sons are unworthy of anything and if not born into such, I don't think they'd achieve anything or even stand out in society.
 
It is classic that girls don't often think they were raped or assaulted until they are older and realize the age they were, the circumstances, and more. It has been fought for this to be understood for years. He was the adult. A girl gets older and can see that. Whether she told her friend because she convinced herself it was all right or to be "cool" I don't see it matters. And this isn't a UK case so the UK age of consent has no bearing. She was a minor by US law and he was the adult. That would be true in criminal court and this isn't criminal even, but civil.

There is one juror at issue to my knowledge in Maxwell which is a far cry from the entire jury being tainted. All found her guilty and it is likely another jury will as well if it comes to that. Finding a juror issue is not indicative in any way the case wasn't/isn't solid. If anything, the prosecution will be even more dialed in imo.

Not sure what standing by your son means then. He was stripped of royal duties and more wasn't he? Or is this just the tabloids making it sound as if he is persona non grata to the Queen and in the royal family?

I'm not talking of his wife and children.

As for Charles and Andrew, yes I consider them both pigs and poor examples of anyone to look up to, both have been horrid to women, their own wives--and honestly, I don't think they know how to relate maturely to a woman in any manner. I'm not one to defend Charles, I think both sons are unworthy of anything and if not born into such, I don't think they'd achieve anything or even stand out in society.
Do you have some cases that have been brought regarding victims realising they have been raped or abused 20 years earlier? I am not being funny, but I am not familiar with any.

One juror affected the way the other jurors looked at the case and he admitted that. It also seems he may have lied on his form, which is perjury. That has tainted the jury and is the reason for the retrial motion and will be grounds for appeal.

Re Andrew, removal of titles and public appearances has come from the organizations themselves in some instances and from the Palace/the Queen too I believe. He is an embarrassment so I believe they are trying to distance themselves/limit the damage to the Royal Family and the organizations, in case of his possible loss of the civil case ie hoping for the best but preparing for the worst outcome.
 
Last edited:
Do you have some cases that have been brought regarding victims realising they have been raped or abused 20 years earlier? I am not being funny, but I am not familiar with any.

One juror affected the way the other jurors looked at the case and he admitted that. It also seems he may have lied on his form, which is perjury. That has tainted the jury and is the reason for the retrial motion and will be grounds for appeal.

Re Andrew, removal of titles and public appearances has come from the organization's themselves in some instances and from the Palace/the Queen too I believe. He is an embarrassment so I believe they are trying to distance themselves/limit the damage to the Royal Family and the organizations, in case of his possible loss of the civil case ie hoping for the best but preparing for the worst outcome.
Well, laws have changed here regarding that in many cases. Maybe that plays into the misunderstandings or where I feel there is something I or you are missing sometimes about what the other is saying. Rape and abuse used to have fairly short statutes of limitations that have in many cases been lifted because they have realized it can take a child and then a young adult and even older many years to come to terms with it or they repress too hard to handle memories that surface years later.

Offhand, I can say this one involving Epstein and Maxwell and the actor in Hollywood I think such plays in, Danny Masterson. You must know about the Catholic priests? It is huge and yes, many years past the fact in many cases. At least here.

Maybe the UK hasn't changed this but here it changed some time back or a lot about it has.
 
Well, laws have changed here regarding that in many cases. Maybe that plays into the misunderstandings or where I feel there is something I or you are missing sometimes about what the other is saying. Rape and abuse used to have fairly short statutes of limitations that have in many cases been lifted because they have realized it can take a child and then a young adult and even older many years to come to terms with it or they repress too hard to handle memories that surface years later.

Offhand, I can say this one involving Epstein and Maxwell and the actor in Hollywood I think such plays in, Danny Masterson. You must know about the Catholic priests? It is huge and yes, many years past the fact in many cases. At least here.

Maybe the UK hasn't changed this but here it changed some time back or a lot about it has.
Yes I have heard about the terrible cases of the young boys abused by priests. However I think that is a little different and the victims knew it was abuse but the Church ignored the complaints that were even lodged by the parents at the time, and just moved the priests to other dioceses to continue their abuses.

Partly answering my own question is this article about another scandal brewing. Pretty horrendous if true. Were we all living in different times then when rich men could seemingly do what they want?

At 14 I knew what was right and wrong but these girls values had been corrupted. In Robert's case by a paedophile who picked her up homeless off the street and then abused her for two years. She put that all in her memoir. So when she met Epstein and was paid so much and could afford a car and an independent life somewhat, she jumped at the chance to "improve" her life. She soon had her own flat and boyfriend too and was learning massage to get out of her situation. Recruiting then became her money earner too. She did eventually escape it when she went to Thailand.

 
I hope it is ok to post this one here as the opposite example. It is about Dylan Farrow. This was not a repressed memory but she was told it was a false memory and nothing happened.


I had never heard of Danny Masterson but quickly got up to speed on that. That appears to be rape accusations where he drugged and raped them. The Scientology Church is also involved and does not seem to be a memory issue apart from being drugged at the time. They knew they were raped I believe.

Out of interest I checked and the UK has no statute of limitations on criminal offences. This is one case that has recently been tried and convictions achieved from 1975/76 offences.


As a reminder, there is no mention of the UK incident in Guiffre's civil suit, I do not think but I will have to recap that. I think it is just NY and the VI that are mentioned from my memory.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
3,033
Messages
244,126
Members
982
Latest member
TonyGutter
Back
Top Bottom