Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Jeffrey Epstein friend Ghislaine Maxwell arrested on sex abuse charges

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If some 17yo teenage girl lured my teenage daughter into prostitution, I'd want her killed, not rewarded.

Then blame maxwell for rewarding them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating a person with 3 passports chose to return to USA, seems like a deal was and is in the works when sitting elsewhere would have kept her out of lockup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 4reaL said:

Fascinating a person with 3 passports chose to return to USA, seems like a deal was and is in the works when sitting elsewhere would have kept her out of lockup.

The deal epstein signed to preclude any co conspirator charges may involve maxwell. That needs to be argued first. 

 

If she has really big fish to fry she may well get off lightly. Just like the girls that brought the victims, they will not be charged because they provided the bigger fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

 

Now as for victim blaming. It is repulsive to blame any underage girl for these offences when they did so at the instruction of the adult. Which is why they are not charged.

 

 

Sounds to me like they did it for financial gain, and should be charged.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If some 17yo teenage girl lured my teenage daughter into prostitution, I'd want her killed, not rewarded.

 

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who was 17 when she started her relationship with Epstein lived with a 65 year old man who was arrested for prostitution. This was before she met Epstein.

 

Shen then agreed to have sex with Epstein for money. She was paid each time, she was also given payments such as paid trips, enrolment in schools and of course paid for each of the 60 or so girls she procured for Epstein. Epstein would have spent more than 100,000 USD on her.

 

Thirteen years after she ended the relationship with Epstein because she met an Australian guy Virginia Roberts then decided to sue Ghislaine Maxwell. She received several million USD in settlement.

 

She is now already worth several millions of Dollars, but actually the entire cadre of Epstein's sex partners is now in line for yet another series of payouts. One a special fund has been set up to compensate the former sex partners of Epstein and secondly, many of the victims are suing Epstein's estate direct for millions of USD in compensation.

 

This is not counting the various media payments Virginia Roberts gets on a regular basis from ABC news, Daily Mail etc.

 

To say Virginia Roberts, who procured 60-70 girls for Epstein, has been rewarded, is the understatement of the year. She will never have to work a day in her life again.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I will type this slowly.

 

any girls not of age are not to blame. The person telling them to do it are to blame. without epstein and maxwell they would have nowhere to bring them.

 

For contributory negligence the girls have to be charged then assert the negligence to maxwell. The girls have not been charged so there is no contributory negligence to assert for blame.

 

Now as for victim blaming. It is repulsive to blame any underage girl for these offences when they did so at the instruction of the adult. Which is why they are not charged.

 

There are only 2 people to blame, so far, and one is dead.

You are a bit confused. One does not have to be "charged" for contributory negligence. Negligence is a tort, a civil law matter, not a criminal law concept. 

 

I only raised it to show that the law expressly provides for "victim blaming", for eg if your negligent driving caused injury to another driver, but that driver was not wearing a seat belt, his compensation would be reduced because him not wearing a seatbelt was contributory negligence. Just because that driver was the victim of your negligent driving does not mean that his actions are discounted altogether.

 

However, this is the case here, a more serious criminal matter. Here we have girls where some, not at all, were one year, two year or so short of 18 years old, and they all persuaded 60 of their friends to go and meet Epstein for cash.

 

Clearly these girls were guilty, as a matter of fact, in contributing to Epstein's abuse, in providing 60 girls to come to Epstein. Yet their actions are completely discounted. Instead there are millions thrown after them, by the courts, by Epstein's estate, that reward them yet again for providing 60 or so girls to Epstein.

 

Of course the person telling them is to blame. If you tell your daughter to kill your neighbour you are to blame, but if she kills him she is not to blame? Really?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fox News Edits Trump Out Of Jeffrey Epstein Photo — Leaves In Melania

Quote

Fox News on Sunday repeatedly featured a well-known photo of convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein posing with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago — but each time Trump was edited out of the image. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-trump-fox-news_n_5f024d4bc5b6acab28523768

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You are a bit confused. One does not have to be "charged" for contributory negligence. Negligence is a tort, a civil law matter, not a criminal law concept. 

 

I only raised it to show that the law expressly provides for "victim blaming", for eg if your negligent driving caused injury to another driver, but that driver was not wearing a seat belt, his compensation would be reduced because him not wearing a seatbelt was contributory negligence. Just because that driver was the victim of your negligent driving does not mean that his actions are discounted altogether.

 

However, this is the case here, a more serious criminal matter. Here we have girls where some, not at all, were one year, two year or so short of 18 years old, and they all persuaded 60 of their friends to go and meet Epstein for cash.

 

Clearly these girls were guilty, as a matter of fact, in contributing to Epstein's abuse, in providing 60 girls to come to Epstein. Yet their actions are completely discounted. Instead there are millions thrown after them, by the courts, by Epstein's estate, that reward them yet again for providing 60 or so girls to Epstein.

 

Of course the person telling them is to blame. If you tell your daughter to kill your neighbour you are to blame, but if she kills him she is not to blame? Really?

 

 

 

 

The girls were underage. They did was they were asked to do. They provided evidence to police. They will not be charged. To charge them will mean no underage person will give evidence against maxwell for fear of incrimination. 

 

So if you are happy for them to be charged and the bigger fish to get away with it then thats an issue for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Answer this question:

 

Why are the people who procured 60 girls at a time for Epstein not guilty of "procuring prostitutes under the age of 18"?

 

 

Answered above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue first is the deal epstein got in florida, it is astounding that he and others were not to be charged for any other offences, from then or the future.

 

i imagine that is why maxwell has been charged for offences from the 1990s which pre date that agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The girls were underage. They did was they were asked to do. They provided evidence to police. They will not be charged. To charge them will mean no underage person will give evidence against maxwell for fear of incrimination. 

I can't even get my teen daughter to do the washing up.

Are you suggesting all underage girls obey/follow every instruction given by an adult or peer?

Edited by BritManToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sujo said:

The issue first is the deal epstein got in florida, it is astounding that he and others were not to be charged for any other offences, from then or the future.

 

i imagine that is why maxwell has been charged for offences from the 1990s which pre date that agreement.

Nonsense, that plea-deal agreement was long ago found to have contravened the US Crime Victim's Right Act.

 

Epstein's plea deal agreement is null and void.

 

It has been null and void for ages.

 

Edited by Logosone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sujo said:

 

 

The girls were underage. They did was they were asked to do. They provided evidence to police. They will not be charged. To charge them will mean no underage person will give evidence against maxwell for fear of incrimination. 

 

So if you are happy for them to be charged and the bigger fish to get away with it then thats an issue for you.

At age 17, 16 a girl is under age and unable to give consent in statutory rape cases, she is not unable to be prosecuted for crimes. Many, many, many boys of age 17 and 16 are prosecuted in the USA for crimes committed.

 

Yet these girls, who all admit that they procured 60 girls for Epstein each do not get prosecuted.

 

Surely it is these girls who provided 60 or 70 girls each, taken as a whole, who are the most guilty of "procuring prostitution with a minor"? Far more than Ghislaine Maxwell, who provided a fraction of the girls compared to what the girls themselves procured?

 

The bigger "fish" in terms of procuring girls for Epstein were Courtney Wild, Virginia Roberts, Haley Robson...not Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell was only charged in relation to 3 minors, whereas Courtney Wild for instance admitted to procuring 70 girls for Epstein.

 

The girls are the "big fish" in terms of procuring girls, not Ghislaine Maxwell who recruited a fairly small number.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

At age 17, 16 a girl is under age and unable to give consent in statutory rape cases, she is not unable to be prosecuted for crimes. Many, many, many boys of age 17 and 16 are prosecuted in the USA for crimes committed.

 

Yet these girls, who all admit that they procured 60 girls for Epstein each do not get prosecuted.

 

Surely it is these girls who provided 60 or 70 girls each, taken as a whole, who are the most guilty of "procuring prostitution with a minor"? Far more than Ghislaine Maxwell, who provided a fraction of the girls compared to what the girls themselves procured?

 

The bigger "fish" in terms of procuring girls for Epstein were Courtney Wild, Virginia Roberts, Haley Robson...not Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell was only charged in relation to 3 minors, whereas Courtney Wild for instance admitted to procuring 70 girls for Epstein.

 

The girls are the "big fish" in terms of procuring girls, not Ghislaine Maxwell who recruited a fairly small number.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pandering/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...