casinterest wrote:

Why be surprised? John Glenn was a Senator, and may have been part of the political side rather than the scandalous side. The pilot reported in the article that he saw no illicit activities that he can recall from 20+years ago.

johns624 wrote:

I still don't understand how she thought that she could hide at an estate in New Hampshire. Was she that stupid?

skyservice_330 wrote:

One should not be guilty by association, but given the history of some of these men when it comes to women/inappropriate behavior (Trump, Clinton, Spacey, Prince Andrew) you can't help but...wonder. Or at minimum, you can't blame people for wondering - notwithstanding that the article indicates no allegations of wrongdoing (Prince Andrew excluded I suppose).

As for Maxwell - I struggle to believe she had no idea. If we are to believe Epstein did the things he is accused of doing, and if we are to believe they were as close as everyone suggested they were - it is hard to believe that she wasn't somehow involved/complicit... or willfully ignorant / turned her head away so she had some degree of deniability while knowing what was going on.

Time will tell...

Aaron747 wrote:

We should probably get a thread going for the trial of Jeffrey Epstein’s fixer/friend/partner in trafficking crime - Ghislaine Maxwell.

Braybuddy wrote:

While I have no doubt that girls were recruited for Epstein, I wonder how many of them were forced? That photo of Prince Andrew with his arm around a beaming Virginia Giuffre's waist doesn't exactly paint a picture of abuse or trauma.

NIKV69 wrote:

Grooming is not about a short term forcible thing. It's much more sinister.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child- ... /grooming/

Braybuddy wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Grooming is not about a short term forcible thing. It's much more sinister.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child- ... /grooming/

Of course grooming exists, and it is sinister. I just wonder if Ms Giuffre has been truthful in her testimony. She claims that her encounter with Andrew made her "sick". You would't get that impression the way she has her hand around him in that infamous pic:

Braybuddy wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Grooming is not about a short term forcible thing. It's much more sinister.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child- ... /grooming/

Of course grooming exists, and it is sinister. I just wonder if Ms Giuffre has been truthful in her testimony. She claims that her encounter with Andrew made her "sick". You would't get that impression the way she has her hand around him in that infamous pic:

M564038 wrote:

The shame and guilt stemming from letting one self be fooled in to the situation, be drugged or even at first enjoying themselves some of the time, or feeling involuntary sexual arousal during a rape or unwanted sexual attention is drivers in why victims doesn’t report sexual crimes to the police.

And this is a great example on why that is: She, a very weak part in the situation, in one 1/50 second gave the camera a smile when she had to pose with the son of the queen of england, and that throws her case out, in your opinion?
You find it suspicious? Makes her a potential liar?

Aaron747 wrote:

The timing of the photo is everything - you’d have a point if it was post-encounter. Remember regarding this very photo and evening Andrew told the BBC it could be faked and that he was taking his daughter out for pizza at the time

NIKV69 wrote:

Sometimes grooming fills an emotional need for a child and they don't know what is going on. Grooming is way different that an unwanted sexual advance where a woman can say no and rebuff. I wish these girls could sound the alarm right away but it's not that easy.

M564038 wrote:

She, a very weak part in the situation, in one 1/50 second gave the camera a smile when she had to pose with the son of the queen of england, and that throws her case out, in your opinion?
You find it suspicious? Makes her a potential liar?

Braybuddy wrote:

This was a street-wise kid. She was abused by a 65-year-old man when she was 13. She would have known exactly what was going on.

Braybuddy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The timing of the photo is everything - you’d have a point if it was post-encounter. Remember regarding this very photo and evening Andrew told the BBC it could be faked and that he was taking his daughter out for pizza at the time

I don't buy for one minute Prince Andrew's version of the story -- from having "no recollection" of the encouter, to the claim of the photo being faked and the "fact" that he doesn't sweat -- the more he says the less I believe him. Ms Giuffre claimed she met him in a nightclub and later went with him to Maxwell's Belgravia residence. So the pic is clearly taken after she met him in the nightclub. I would say most likely at Maxwell's house. So it would have been taken after that first encounter which so disgusted her.

NIKV69 wrote:

Sometimes grooming fills an emotional need for a child and they don't know what is going on. Grooming is way different that an unwanted sexual advance where a woman can say no and rebuff. I wish these girls could sound the alarm right away but it's not that easy.

This was a street-wise kid. She was abused by a 65-year-old man when she was 13. She would have known exactly what was going on.

M564038 wrote:

She, a very weak part in the situation, in one 1/50 second gave the camera a smile when she had to pose with the son of the queen of england, and that throws her case out, in your opinion?
You find it suspicious? Makes her a potential liar?

I don't find it suspicious, I find it incriminating. She looks like a kid who's having the time of her life.

Aaron747 wrote:

How many years of psychiatry have you practiced to be able to definitively opine on a victim's state of mind?

Braybuddy wrote:

She looks like a kid who's having the time of her life.

Braybuddy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

How many years of psychiatry have you practiced to be able to definitively opine on a victim's state of mind?

A loaded question for sure. Just because I'm not a pyschiatrist doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Aaron747 wrote:

The timing of the photo is everything - you’d have a point if it was post-encounter. Remember regarding this very photo and evening Andrew told the BBC it could be faked and that he was taking his daughter out for pizza at the time

scbriml wrote:

It's a really strange parallel universe where being manhandled by Prince Andrew is deemed to be "having the time of one's life".

Aaron747 wrote:

Passing judgments of a person's experience and character off a moment in a photo, knowing nothing of their mental or chemical influences at the time, does not make one correct either.

bennett123 wrote:

Doubtless I have met thousands of people at some point.

I do not remember all of them.

Braybuddy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

It's a really strange parallel universe where being manhandled by Prince Andrew is deemed to be "having the time of one's life".

Indeed, there is no accounting for taste . . .

Aaron747 wrote:

Passing judgments of a person's experience and character off a moment in a photo, knowing nothing of their mental or chemical influences at the time, does not make one correct either.

Very true, but AFAIK there were no allegations of drugs being involved. The pic was apparently taken by Epstein. She alleges she was trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell. If there was anything remotely incriminating for Maxewell, Epstein or the prince, would they really they be that stupid to take (or be in) the pic? If they were, they deserve everything thrown at them, but celebreties do tend to have a strong aversion to bad publicity. Having a pic taken with a trafficked or damaged young girl would be absolute dynamite. She claims she was trafficked between New York, London and the Caribbean for two and a half years. She wasn't kept in chains in a cellar. She could have asked someone, somewhere along the way for help. How many times did she encounter immigration officials?

Sorry, but I just don't buy her story at all.

Braybuddy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

It's a really strange parallel universe where being manhandled by Prince Andrew is deemed to be "having the time of one's life".

Indeed, there is no accounting for taste . . .

Aaron747 wrote:

Passing judgments of a person's experience and character off a moment in a photo, knowing nothing of their mental or chemical influences at the time, does not make one correct either.

Very true, but AFAIK there were no allegations of drugs being involved. The pic was apparently taken by Epstein. She alleges she was trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell. If there was anything remotely incriminating for Maxewell, Epstein or the prince, would they really they be that stupid to take (or be in) the pic? If they were, they deserve everything thrown at them, but celebreties do tend to have a strong aversion to bad publicity. Having a pic taken with a trafficked or damaged young girl would be absolute dynamite. She claims she was trafficked between New York, London and the Caribbean for two and a half years. She wasn't kept in chains in a cellar. She could have asked someone, somewhere along the way for help. How many times did she encounter immigration officials?

Sorry, but I just don't buy her story at all.

bpatus297 wrote:

Human trafficking is a lot different than most people realize.. It is rarely ever done by "keeping (someone) in chains in a cellar". It's a lot closer to the moving between New York, London, and the Caribbean as you described. Do you know how many times the victims are in police custody and still refuse to give up information on their traffickers? It happens more than you know. These people are mentally abused and then manipulated well before any physical abuse occurs. It is hard for the victims to brake the chain of abuse and see what is really happening. Human trafficking is a very very dark world that most people have no idea about.

The picture was taken well before social media. Back then it was reasonable to think a personal picture wouldn't get out into the public if you didn't want it to. On top of that, predators like to have "trophies", so this fits with their mentality.

Aaron747 wrote:

You don't seem to know much about the Epstein/Maxwell case:

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/new ... 268316001/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/jeffre ... TKB4TAJXE/

Braybuddy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Human trafficking is a lot different than most people realize.. It is rarely ever done by "keeping (someone) in chains in a cellar". It's a lot closer to the moving between New York, London, and the Caribbean as you described. Do you know how many times the victims are in police custody and still refuse to give up information on their traffickers? It happens more than you know. These people are mentally abused and then manipulated well before any physical abuse occurs. It is hard for the victims to brake the chain of abuse and see what is really happening. Human trafficking is a very very dark world that most people have no idea about.

The picture was taken well before social media. Back then it was reasonable to think a personal picture wouldn't get out into the public if you didn't want it to. On top of that, predators like to have "trophies", so this fits with their mentality.

There are also people who live on the margins of society, take whatever opportunity to make money that comes their way (however much they may dislike it), get out and then decide to make even more money out of it. Not all women involved in prostituion are trafficked. It's a perfectly acceptable profession for some. The pic was taken in 2001, was apparently processed in Boots (more than likely analogue, given the time). Who, in their right mind, would send incriminating photos to be processed? Unless she stole the pic, it was given voluntarily to her by whoever had posession of it.

Aaron747 wrote:

You don't seem to know much about the Epstein/Maxwell case:

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/new ... 268316001/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/jeffre ... TKB4TAJXE/

I've read enough, and watched one documentary, to know that Epstein was a paedophile and unsavory character, to say the least. I'm not arguing his case at all, nor would I.

Braybuddy wrote:

Who, in their right mind, would send incriminating photos to be processed? Unless she stole the pic, it was given voluntarily to her by whoever had posession of it.

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not debating prostitution, we are talking about human trafficking. Yes I know that there are people who will do basically anything for money, what does that have to do with predators mentally abusing and manipulating victims into doing things they really don't want?

Braybuddy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not debating prostitution, we are talking about human trafficking. Yes I know that there are people who will do basically anything for money, what does that have to do with predators mentally abusing and manipulating victims into doing things they really don't want?

I believe Ms Giuffre knew exactly what she was doing, and did it voluntarily. She even described it as a "necessary evil" to get away from a life of abuse -- and lead a normal life:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-e ... ls-for-him

Braybuddy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not debating prostitution, we are talking about human trafficking. Yes I know that there are people who will do basically anything for money, what does that have to do with predators mentally abusing and manipulating victims into doing things they really don't want?

I believe Ms Giuffre knew exactly what she was doing, and did it voluntarily. She even described it as a "necessary evil" to get away from a life of abuse -- and lead a normal life:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-e ... ls-for-him

johns624 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not debating prostitution, we are talking about human trafficking. Yes I know that there are people who will do basically anything for money, what does that have to do with predators mentally abusing and manipulating victims into doing things they really don't want?

I believe Ms Giuffre knew exactly what she was doing, and did it voluntarily. She even described it as a "necessary evil" to get away from a life of abuse -- and lead a normal life:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-e ... ls-for-him

She was also 16 when this first started. She had no marketable skills or other choices. Ever heard the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"?

johns624 wrote:

She was also 16 when this first started. She had no marketable skills or other choices. Ever heard the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"?

skyservice_330 wrote:

One should not be guilty by association, but given the history of some of these men when it comes to women/inappropriate behavior (Trump, Clinton, Spacey, Prince Andrew) you can't help but...wonder. Or at minimum, you can't blame people for wondering - notwithstanding that the article indicates no allegations of wrongdoing (Prince Andrew excluded I suppose).

As for Maxwell - I struggle to believe she had no idea. If we are to believe Epstein did the things he is accused of doing, and if we are to believe they were as close as everyone suggested they were - it is hard to believe that she wasn't somehow involved/complicit... or willfully ignorant / turned her head away so she had some degree of deniability while knowing what was going on.

Time will tell...

Braybuddy wrote:

johns624 wrote:

She was also 16 when this first started. She had no marketable skills or other choices. Ever heard the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"?

A lot of people don't have marketable skills or choices, yet manage to survive without getting involved in the sex trade! She was working as a spa attendant and interested in massage when she was approached by Maxwell. She exploited the situation to the max -- IMHO -- until she decided she wanted out. It wouldn't be difficult for a runaway teenager to get easily swept away by the offer of a glamorous lifestyle, even if she had to do things she didn't particularly like, but not dislike enough to say no.

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Doubtless I have met thousands of people at some point.

I do not remember all of them.

How many of them were cute, underage girls that you had sex with?

Aaron747 wrote:

Everything you describe can be part of grooming. ‘Things she didn’t particularly like’ are explained away by manipulators like Maxwell as ‘oh it’s not so bad’ or ‘you’ll get used to it’ or ‘it’s not like you have to do this all day/every day’. Sick stuff to make excuses for.

CitizenJustin wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

One should not be guilty by association, but given the history of some of these men when it comes to women/inappropriate behavior (Trump, Clinton, Spacey, Prince Andrew) you can't help but...wonder. Or at minimum, you can't blame people for wondering - notwithstanding that the article indicates no allegations of wrongdoing (Prince Andrew excluded I suppose).

As for Maxwell - I struggle to believe she had no idea. If we are to believe Epstein did the things he is accused of doing, and if we are to believe they were as close as everyone suggested they were - it is hard to believe that she wasn't somehow involved/complicit... or willfully ignorant / turned her head away so she had some degree of deniability while knowing what was going on.

Time will tell...

Struggle to believe she had no idea? One of the key witnesses says she participated in the abuse. She’d remove her clothing in front of these young girls and so on. She’s not innocent.

Braybuddy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Everything you describe can be part of grooming. ‘Things she didn’t particularly like’ are explained away by manipulators like Maxwell as ‘oh it’s not so bad’ or ‘you’ll get used to it’ or ‘it’s not like you have to do this all day/every day’. Sick stuff to make excuses for.

I'm not making excuses for Epstein or Maxwell. I just don't believe that she was as unwilling as she claims. She's no fool.

bennett123 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Doubtless I have met thousands of people at some point.

I do not remember all of them.

How many of them were cute, underage girls that you had sex with?

You are sort of assuming that he DID have sex with her.

bpatus297 wrote:

That's an interesting comment to make with what I assume (dangerous, I know) is the very little you know about her.

A jury in a New York federal court has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty on five of six counts related to her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls between 1994 and 2004.

Maxwell, 60, was found guilty of five federal charges: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy.
She was acquitted on the charge of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts.
Maxwell faces up to 65 years in prison.

casinterest wrote:

Maxwell has been found Guilty


https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/29/us/ghisl ... index.html

A jury in a New York federal court has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty on five of six counts related to her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls between 1994 and 2004.

Maxwell, 60, was found guilty of five federal charges: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy.
She was acquitted on the charge of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts.
Maxwell faces up to 65 years in prison.

I wonder if more investigations or trials will proceed from this point?

casinterest wrote:

Maxwell has been found Guilty


https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/29/us/ghisl ... index.html

A jury in a New York federal court has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty on five of six counts related to her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls between 1994 and 2004.

Maxwell, 60, was found guilty of five federal charges: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy.
She was acquitted on the charge of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts.
Maxwell faces up to 65 years in prison.

I wonder if more investigations or trials will proceed from this point?

casinterest wrote:

Maxwell has been found Guilty


https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/29/us/ghisl ... index.html

A jury in a New York federal court has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty on five of six counts related to her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls between 1994 and 2004.

Maxwell, 60, was found guilty of five federal charges: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy.
She was acquitted on the charge of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts.
Maxwell faces up to 65 years in prison.

I wonder if more investigations or trials will proceed from this point?

NIKV69 wrote:

She may have grounds for appeal. Their deliberations were going nowhere and then the judge told them they weren't leaving and would deliberate every day including the holiday until they had a verdict and all of a sudden they had a verdict. Ugh.

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Doubtless I have met thousands of people at some point.

I do not remember all of them.

How many of them were cute, underage girls that you had sex with?