I think if the truth be known, it was Clinton doing the fingering, ask monica. L.
whats wrong with netflix please?Every court case that arose due to that Netflix thing was dismissed with prejudice at trial stage or before.
That "documentary" (which I have not watched because of that network's proclivities which I have talked about before on this site) is based on lies from the outset.
Have a video from a guy who's far more informed on this matter than I can ever be bothered spending the time on being:
he hade nude pics of her on his walls!If the parents/guardians are neglecting her, then they need to take part of the blame. As parents our job is to protect our children after all.
However that being said, as the trial continues we will see if there is any hard evidence on if Maxwell is guilty. Photo's, videos etc confiscated from Epstien's porn stash.
whats wrong with netflix please?
I find that hard to believe! Surely more people needed to carry it out, also the same people to keep it secret?It wasn't a vast business setup. There's no reason why it could not just be two people on the organisational side; Epstein was the money man with peculiar tastes who was only too happy to indulge selected others, particularly if they could be of use to him and perhaps the devoted Maxwell was the 'party planner' and fixer.
I suspect the way the prosecution intend to act is to continue to increase the pressure on Maxwell to get her to crack and then give her a confession to sign which names other people. They already know the names they want, they've spent the past few years coming up with them. They just need a piece of paper signed by someone who could be used as a witness. That's how they do big game hunting in New York.
Maxwell in turn will likely play things by ear. If the witnesses are sufficiently discredited, then she will never take the stand. I don't believe she can be compelled to testify in the trial if she doesn't wish to.
If things look bad she may try to salvage the situation by force of personality on the witness stand. That is a huge gamble though, as the prosecutors can then ask her questions that she may not wish to answer.
I haven't been following the case other than on ARRSE, but the witnesses may have some weak points. It is quite possible that the defence will try to portray the witnesses as being the sort of girl / women willing to do anything for money, including providing the prosecutors with a story suitably tailored to put them in a position to extract millions in compensation claims.
where's the 'facepalm' button?The film that caused a massive drop in their share price and also a massive slump in their subscriber base for a bit last year, the Grenouille paedo-epic, "Mignons", translated into real-people talk as "Cuties". About an eleven-year-old and only ever-so-slightly-older girls twerking team. Let me repeat that. About an eleven-year-old and only ever-so-slightly-older girls twerking team. Even watching bits of the trailer that all the sites who gushed over the film, including the Grauniad and Al Beebera, showed in their uniformly POSITIVE!?! reviews made me worry about the FBI kicking my door in.
Cuties - Wikipedia - or more specifically about the backlash this section on:
The Netflix bosses (other words are available for them) loved the film so much that they went on a Twitter censorship spree ordering the deletion of tweets calling them and the film out for what they were. A clear breach of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Here's one of the (many, many, many) videos on YouTube putting the boot in:
And if the mostly Leftwaffe/Woko Halaal tribe in YouTube are calling out something as being paedophile friendly if not targeted, there may well be something in it, as they're usually not fussed about this sort of thing.
I don't know the behind the scenes workings of the US courts, I'm just going by what can be seen from the outside in the news.Using my wealth of knowledge ("Law & Order" actually) isn't there some wheeling and dealing going on between prosecutors and defendant even during the trial(?)
Could Ms. Maxwell strike a deal at any time?
Things not going her way, see what's on the table?
Epstein publicly was charming and noted as always smirking and he manipulated everybody. His private behavior seemed to be declining towards the bottom of the pit and the monster could not be controlled anymore (Brady eventually killing kids, or Bundy and his Florida spree).On what basis do you differentiate the two?
Looks like I have found out what the mother was doing, while her 14 year old child was being employed to massage an old man at grossly inflated prices compared to a normal trained massage therapist. She was at the house. It is not clear if the mother visited the once or if Alessi was only aware of one visit.
"Alessi, who managed Epstein's Palm Beach property from 1991 to 2002, said Jane appeared to be 14 or 15 when she first came to the house with her mother in 1994. After that, Alessi said he would drive Jane alone to the home, where she spent time with Maxwell and Epstein."
We have a "stunningly beautiful" teenager, being brought to an old rich guys house, to "massage" him for $200-300, by her mother. The old rich guy being well known for sleeping with young, very young women
While the kid might not see anything wrong with this, alarm bells must if been going off in the parents head.
In 1990's the only untrained massage therapists making $200-300 a job where sex workers. WAY above market value of a normal massage.
I am finding hard that "Jane's" mother was not complicit in the grooming process.
The late financier Jeffrey Epstein had "many, many, many" female guests at his Palm Beach estate, including two who appeared to be underage, a former employee testified at British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell's sex abuse trial on Thursday.www.reuters.com
Flight details will be important as taking a teenage prostitute over state line is a serious offence a big offence and pivotal to Maxwell charges.
She may well be guilty, we’ll see, personally I think she probably is. But her naming anyone ‘interesting’ is still wishful thinking.And like I said, it all depends on the context of the question. For example:
Qid you take Witness Jane to see the Lion King in NY.
A: I did see the Lion King in NY with Jeffrey Epstein, Mr Psychobabble, Mrs Psychobabble, some of their friends I can't remember their names. Witness Jane, might if been part of that group, I don't recall.
Looks a lot better then "No comment", answers the question and does not leave her open to a "and here is new evidence to be submitted of a photo of Maxwell at the theatre with XYZ and witness Jane", but does open her up to more questions.
Neither of us are part of Maxwell's defence team so neither of us can say for certain what she plans to say. All I am saying is there is a possibility of names being dropped under oath.
Maxwell's defence is going to try and discredit witnesses and distance Maxwell from trafficking and procuring minors for sex enough to get her off the hook. How they do that we will have to wait and see.
Did she traffic minors, of was her presence just a coincidence?
Did she groom minors or was she just just being nice to poor young girls?
Personally I think she is guilty, but it is all down to what can be proved in a court of law.
The world is watching, it's America, anything might happen (except Clinton being fingered).
Epstein publicly was charming and noted as always smirking and he manipulated everybody. His private behavior seemed to be declining towards the bottom of the pit and the monster could not be controlled anymore (Brady eventually killing kids, or Bundy and his Florida spree).
Maxwell was noted as having a temper by the witnesses and her behaviour was often erratic. In some ways, like Hindley or Bundy's ex both are in some ways the first victim of a psychopath. As ever some victims can become abusers.
I don't know the behind the scenes workings of the US courts, I'm just going by what can be seen from the outside in the news.
I imagine that Maxwell's lawyer could talk to the prosecutors at any time. Of course if things are going well for the prosecution in the trial, then they may feel their maximum advantage would come from waiting for a guilty verdict and restarting negotiations before sentencing.
I have no idea how this trial is going to turn out, as I really don't know enough about the case to have an opinion. I suspect that 95 per cent of what has been said about Epstein is the product of over active imaginations. Whether the remaining 5 per cent contains anything that can be pinned on Maxwell by the witnesses they have is something that I have no idea about.
What I am fairly sure about is that if the prosecution doesn't collapse then the prosecutors will want to widen the net to snare even more prominent people. This sort of case is the chance of a lifetime for a US prosecutor in terms of fame and fortune (e.g. book and movie deals) if they bring down some really big game.
Presumably they are leading with what they consider to be the most reliable witnesses and evidence. If they can't make this stick, I doubt the others will be much use.From what I understand, the prosecution have only used 6 charges specific to 4 witnesses. If they fail this time they have 30 other witnesses and a bags of other charges they could try and nail her with.