Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ghislaine-maxwell-verdict-guilty/2021/12/29/55b34a52-6269-11ec-a7e8-3a8455b71fad_story.html

Big new for the US Conspiracy folks. I assumed this would never get resolved and they'd have her sit in a private concrete suite until her blackbook and is handled.

I assume this is the last we'll hear of her for years to come until a page 5 article mentions she's passed of old age or bad food in prison.

Thoughts on the final resolution?

I still want to know why the judge granted her request to have details hidden that were too 'impure'.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/03/18/judge-says-ghislaine-maxwell-case-details-too-sensational-and-impure-for-public/amp/

Who are they to say what's too impure for the public to know? What are they hiding?

From the linked article Looks like the prosecution asked for the redactions to protect the victims.

Sorry, I misread. I think there are two sets of redactions. Carry on.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I still want to know why the judge granted her request to have details hidden that were too 'impure'.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/03/18/judge-says-ghislaine-maxwell-case-details-too-sensational-and-impure-for-public/amp/

Who are they to say what's too impure for the public to know? What are they hiding?

Man, less than 1 response in and the thread's already just conspiracy burbling.

Sure you don't want to use (((triple parentheses))) or the term globalists or whatever the dogwhistle du jour is?

Keep in mind that’s a NY Post article.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Reuters says it’s bogus, along with many other bogus claims about the trial.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2SK1VM

Yeah this entire thing is surrounded by junk news. I'm glad a resolution was even feasible.

I mostly posted because something actually happened and she's going away instead of dragging on. I feel like this has been in limbo for the entire quarantine and was some going to be at trial for years

 ScarletRose wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I still want to know why the judge granted her request to have details hidden that were too 'impure'.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/03/18/judge-says-ghislaine-maxwell-case-details-too-sensational-and-impure-for-public/amp/

Who are they to say what's too impure for the public to know? What are they hiding?

Man, less than 1 response in and the thread's already just conspiracy burbling.

Sure you don't want to use (((triple parentheses))) or the term globalists or whatever the dogwhistle du jour is?

A valid question is not a conspiracy theory. What is too 'sensational and impure' for us, the public to be allowed to encounter?

If you're expecting a detailed account of men molesting & raping teenage girls from the US media or court documents, I really hope you'll be disappointed.

Voss wrote:
If you're expecting a detailed account of men molesting & raping teenage girls from the US media or court documents, I really hope you'll be disappointed.

Yeah this summarizes that

Keep it closed. They should at least have a few XYZ Girl was with [Billionaire] on the following 23 dates with a name and shame

While I have no sympathy for the woman, I do wonder why she 'hid' in the US.
She should have up sticks to a non extradition territory, and had a French passport, which made things very easy.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I still want to know why the judge granted her request to have details hidden that were too 'impure'.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/03/18/judge-says-ghislaine-maxwell-case-details-too-sensational-and-impure-for-public/amp/

Who are they to say what's too impure for the public to know? What are they hiding?

Man, less than 1 response in and the thread's already just conspiracy burbling.

Sure you don't want to use (((triple parentheses))) or the term globalists or whatever the dogwhistle du jour is?

A valid question is not a conspiracy theory. What is too 'sensational and impure' for us, the public to be allowed to encounter?

Let's see. It's not conspiracy burbling when James Comeys daughter leads a laser focus prosecution that prevents any collateral damage to years worth of high profile johns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
While I have no sympathy for the woman, I do wonder why she 'hid' in the US.
She should have up sticks to a non extradition territory, and had a French passport, which made things very easy.

That might have lead to terminal depression.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
While I have no sympathy for the woman, I do wonder why she 'hid' in the US.
She should have up sticks to a non extradition territory, and had a French passport, which made things very easy.

That might have lead to terminal depression.

Maybe prison is more depressing than that.

 Orlanth wrote:
While I have no sympathy for the woman, I do wonder why she 'hid' in the US.
She should have up sticks to a non extradition territory, and had a French passport, which made things very easy.

She thought her money and power were enough to protect her.

 Blackie wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
While I have no sympathy for the woman, I do wonder why she 'hid' in the US.
She should have up sticks to a non extradition territory, and had a French passport, which made things very easy.

She thought her money and power were enough to protect her.

They have so far so why think otherwise, same with the redacted list of high profile elites involved, when are they going to face their time in prison like Prince Andrew, Clinton and a whole swath of hollywierd elites and politicians, this should be front page news daily until its rooted out.

 Blackie wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
While I have no sympathy for the woman, I do wonder why she 'hid' in the US.
She should have up sticks to a non extradition territory, and had a French passport, which made things very easy.

She thought her money and power were enough to protect her.

Sadly, in America it often is.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
While I have no sympathy for the woman, I do wonder why she 'hid' in the US.
She should have up sticks to a non extradition territory, and had a French passport, which made things very easy.

She thought her money and power were enough to protect her.

Sadly, in America it often is.

True, but she should have seen the price of that. To keep Clinton and others out of the courts lesser names must be given. Maxwell was top of the list after Epstein. She should have recognised that.

Maxwell is being seen as the ultimate evil, but being a madam to 17 year old prostitutes is very different from a paedo ring of pre-teens, and the latter has been ignored way too often, and once is too often. Unlike many victims these were prostitutes not abducted slaves, they were coaxed, not boxed in and were of an age which is legal in many western countries including the UK.
Yes these are still crimes, dependant on jurisdiction, but Maxwell is facing sentencing normally reserved for those who traffic much younger persons. Ultimately she is a pawn sacrifice to keep others out of the spotlight. We have seen this a lot in the UK post Saville.
I find it unsurprising but odd that while many people are highlighted for questioning judges have already ruled out any possible involvement of Clinton, in spite of his several trips to Epstein's island including trips in the company of Kevin Spacey. Several billionaire's have also dropped off the radar also. Funny that.
Prince Andrew is the next/last partial sacrifice, and has been carefully picked without allowing spotlight to land on anyone else, partly because he will be able to wiggle out of it, which will only further intensify the spotlight on him alone, and partly because he is rather stupid, hence repeated open attempts to get him to talk in the direct face of any competent legal counsel.

Well that didn't take long for the Qberts to come out of the woodwork and start with the victim blaming.

How do you know that Ghislaine was perfect for Jeffrey?

She's finishing all his sentences.

 cuda1179 wrote:
How do you know that Ghislaine was perfect for Jeffrey?

She's finishing all his sentences.

If we are going for tasteless jokes, I’ve already seen “At least she didn’t have to live too long in a world without Betty White. Probably.”

Voss wrote:
If you're expecting a detailed account of men molesting & raping teenage girls from the US media or court documents, I really hope you'll be disappointed.

I've read some pretty horrific accounts of events released in court documents, typically with the names of victims redacted. So I don't know if that's a good reason for not making it public.

Voss wrote:
If you're expecting a detailed account of men molesting & raping teenage girls from the US media or court documents, I really hope you'll be disappointed.

What a ridiculous utterance. Are you implying that I want to get some sort of perverse thrill from reading some statements?

The details of what's happened and who's involved are important and should be as public as possible, as is true of every case. This is to ensure that the public knows that they can trust the system that's supposed to protect them. It also allows public opinion to decide whether justice had actually been done to the correct magnitude correspondent to the crimes. When rich, connected people start having details from their cases redacted to the public, I, like any reasonable member of the public have to wonder why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Voss wrote:
If you're expecting a detailed account of men molesting & raping teenage girls from the US media or court documents, I really hope you'll be disappointed.

I've read some pretty horrific accounts of events released in court documents, typically with the names of victims redacted. So I don't know if that's a good reason for not making it public.

Of course it's not. The justice system isn't there to arbitrate what the public should or shouldn't hear about people's crimes in order to protect our sensitive proclivities. It's there to shine a light on those people and their crimes. Any covering up of details should automatically be treated with suspicion.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

What a ridiculous utterance. Are you implying that I want to get some sort of perverse thrill from reading some statements?

The details of what's happened and who's involved are important and should be as public as possible, as is true of every case. This is to ensure that the public knows that they can trust the system that's supposed to protect them. It also allows public opinion to decide whether justice had actually been done to the correct magnitude correspondent to the crimes. When rich, connected people start having details from their cases redacted to the public, I, like any reasonable member of the public have to wonder why.
.

I agree entirely. We need disclosure, not in terms of perverse detail but in who and where and broadly how.
Justice requires transparency and this goes multiple ways.
- We need to reinclude in the picture those who have been edited out.
- We need to see justice done for actual victims.
- We also need to properly quantify victims.

There is a fear of 'the rich getting away with it' but there should also be a concern for a mislabelling of this entire process.
People have it in their heads that these crimes involve children, whereas they involve late teens, and many alleged encounters occurred in locations where they were ABOVE the age of consent.
Please remember that Age of Consent varies in the western world, normally the unrestricted age of consent varies from 16-18. In the US it varies between states.

While a full adult having sex with a sixteen year old may be questionable, it can still be entirely legal if consentual. We should also be mindful that in the modern milieu sexual liberation means that many sexual activities are legal now which were more questionable fairly recently.

There is a lot that is fishy about this entire process. Maxwell is clearly being thrown under the bus, perhaps she belongs there, but the narrative doesn't fit the facts. There are persistent rumours of societal paedo rings in the US, UIk and elsewhere, and the concern that not enough is being done about them. With what we know of the girls involved with Maxwell and Epstein they were of an age where activities are misdemeanours rather than felonies and procurement is more prostitution than child trafficking. Maxwell is looking at 40 years for providing late teen call girls who were paid rather than enslaved, and glossed up into looking like something far worse.
I think there is some heavy misdirection going on.

Age of consent is 16-18.
Brain stops developing at 25.
I don't get it.

trexmeyer wrote:
Age of consent is 16-18.
Brain stops developing at 25.
I don't get it.

Got to draw a line somewhere.

That line, or a similar one, dictates when you can be sent into battle or vote.

None of the three require peak mental capacity.

 Orlanth wrote:


There is a lot that is fishy about this entire process. Maxwell is clearly being thrown under the bus, perhaps she belongs there, but the narrative doesn't fit the facts. There are persistent rumours of societal paedo rings in the US, UIk and elsewhere, and the concern that not enough is being done about them. With what we know of the girls involved with Maxwell and Epstein they were of an age where activities are misdemeanours rather than felonies and procurement is more prostitution than child trafficking. Maxwell is looking at 40 years for providing late teen call girls who were paid rather than enslaved, and glossed up into looking like something far worse.
I think there is some heavy misdirection going on.

You mean the popular the rumours involving Pizzerias and Metropolitan police operations based on obvious lies?

Those persistent rumours?

The undeniably false ones?

And multiple counts of conspiracy and other for people under the age of 17? lets not call these victims call girls yet eh?

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


There is a lot that is fishy about this entire process. Maxwell is clearly being thrown under the bus, perhaps she belongs there, but the narrative doesn't fit the facts. There are persistent rumours of societal paedo rings in the US, UIk and elsewhere, and the concern that not enough is being done about them. With what we know of the girls involved with Maxwell and Epstein they were of an age where activities are misdemeanours rather than felonies and procurement is more prostitution than child trafficking. Maxwell is looking at 40 years for providing late teen call girls who were paid rather than enslaved, and glossed up into looking like something far worse.
I think there is some heavy misdirection going on.

You mean the popular the rumours involving Pizzerias and Metropolitan police operations based on obvious lies?

Those persistent rumours?

The undeniably false ones?

And multiple counts of conspiracy and other for people under the age of 17? lets not call these victims call girls yet eh?

To be fair... There was a well known of dossier of evidence of UK members of parliament who partook in paedophilic activities lost by the then home secretary in the 80's in the UK. Whilst the loss of the document has been investigated, and it was found it was not purposely lost (convenient finding), the fact it existed at all says a lot.

This is also around the time when Saville and others were 'active' in the UK, which we also know went fairly high up in terms of people in positions of power were aware and ignored it, which is just as bad as actually participating in my opinion.

Whilst I don't necessarily believe it is as far reaching as most conspiracy theorists would want you to believe, there is no smoke without a fire. Whether such things are still happening to this day is another matter.

Also, to add to this, have you noticed that nearly every major issue with the police in the UK is usually an issue within the Met and not police in general in the UK?

It's a worthy and notable criticism that any investigations, especially involving cover ups should absolutely be independent of the Met, which they were not. It is beyond reasonable doubt now that the Met was (potentially still is) institutionally corrupt at the time, and there isn't a particularly strong history of policing being called to account in this country when it is evident it is a problem in procedure and culture almost wholesale... They just throw the officers who are daft enough to get caught under the bus, and carry on as they were.

trexmeyer wrote:
Age of consent is 16-18.
Brain stops developing at 25.
I don't get it.

So you think the age of consent should be 25?

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


There is a lot that is fishy about this entire process. Maxwell is clearly being thrown under the bus, perhaps she belongs there, but the narrative doesn't fit the facts. There are persistent rumours of societal paedo rings in the US, UIk and elsewhere, and the concern that not enough is being done about them. With what we know of the girls involved with Maxwell and Epstein they were of an age where activities are misdemeanours rather than felonies and procurement is more prostitution than child trafficking. Maxwell is looking at 40 years for providing late teen call girls who were paid rather than enslaved, and glossed up into looking like something far worse.
I think there is some heavy misdirection going on.

You mean the popular the rumours involving Pizzerias and Metropolitan police operations based on obvious lies?

Those persistent rumours?

The undeniably false ones?

And multiple counts of conspiracy and other for people under the age of 17? lets not call these victims call girls yet eh?

To be fair... There was a well known of dossier of evidence of UK members of parliament who partook in paedophilic activities lost by the then home secretary in the 80's in the UK. Whilst the loss of the document has been investigated, and it was found it was not purposely lost (convenient finding), the fact it existed at all says a lot.

This is also around the time when Saville and others were 'active' in the UK, which we also know went fairly high up in terms of people in positions of power were aware and ignored it, which is just as bad as actually participating in my opinion.

Whilst I don't necessarily believe it is as far reaching as most conspiracy theorists would want you to believe, there is no smoke without a fire. Whether such things are still happening to this day is another matter.

Ms Guiffre was not a child.
She was a prostitute looking for a paycheck by playing the victim.
She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.
She was also of legal age at the time of the alleged meetings with Prince Andrew.
Yes this would be extremely socially damaging to him, but wasn't actually criminal, even if true.
On the other hand the actual 'persistent rumours' I refer to are actual child sex trafficking involving young children involving or at least abetted by the BBC (Saville) and the police (Rotherham), with both involving UK government hand in the cover up. With regards to taking attention away from the BBC , innocents including Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis were raked through the coals. Cliff Richard was an evident 'good choice' because if he could be a secret nonce anyone could and that allowed BBC executives time to complete their careers and burn paperwork degarding literal decades of active cover ups and blocked complaints for Saville's crimes. This is how it works.
What happened in Rotherham was even worse and involved the police threatening against parents of abused children to keep them quiet and compliant for the sake of diversity. I seriously doubt we will ever know the truth about that.


In the US there are persistent rumours regarding Holywood chid sex trafficking involving young children, and is likely to be broader than that and reaches political circles.
Both require sacrifices to let the powerful and guilty get away with it.

What we see in the US is very similar to that. Maxwell and Prince Andrew are designated foci. Andrew is a peripheral character in the entire mess but an excellent choice as he will successful deflect attention away from far richer people who encountered far younger girls, and due to his position will be able to evade 'justice' when his prostitute comes back to milk him.

 Orlanth wrote:
Ms Guiffre was not a child.
She was a prostitute looking for a paycheck by playing the victim.
She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.
She was also of legal age at the time of the alleged meetings with Prince Andrew.

When Giuffre met Maxwell and Epstein in summer 2000, she was 16 years old. She was 17 years old when she met Prince Andrew. The age of consent in the state of Florida is 18, so I am not sure how you came up with the definition of her as a prostitute and not a victim, here.

 Orlanth wrote:

Ms Guiffre was not a child.
She was a prostitute looking for a paycheck by playing the victim.
She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.

Thank God we have you here to tell us how someone could totally get free of a situation.

I'm sure there's no way that, say, she could have had all of her financial assets taken out of her control. Or her medical documentation. Or even just basics like identifying information.

She was also of legal age at the time of the alleged meetings with Prince Andrew.
Yes this would be extremely socially damaging to him, but wasn't actually criminal, even if true.

Age of consent doesn't matter if coercion is present.

Jeez, one would almost think you don't know what you're talking about...

In the US there are persistent rumours regarding Holywood chid sex trafficking involving young children, and is likely to be broader than that and reaches political circles.
Both require sacrifices to let the powerful and guilty get away with it.

No, in the US there are persistent rumors driven by people looking to decry anything that isn't "hometown, Christian, folksy, rural" as being some kind of den of sin. There's a reason why those "rumours" are so predominantly and inexorably tied to QAnon nonsense now. There's a reason why anytime someone on the left does something, the Republican Party and its mouthpieces try so hard to connect them to anything and everyone on that side of things.

Matters aren't helped by armchair experts like yourself who help stoke the nonsense elsewhere online. Or when people don't actively understand that an individual being "trafficked" isn't likely to be in any kind of position to actively get away from their trafficker--especially if they've been actively groomed since an early age or if their parents were involved with the situation.

You literally cannot "get away" if all of your travel is controlled. You cannot "get away" if your financial assets are tied to your trafficker. You cannot "get away" if your trafficker has control of your medical and psychological health.

What we see in the US is very similar to that. Maxwell and Prince Andrew are designated foci. Andrew is a peripheral character in the entire mess but an excellent choice as he will successful deflect attention away from far richer people who encountered far younger girls, and due to his position will be able to evade 'justice' when his prostitute comes back to milk him.

No, what we see in the US is an actual case of one of the most bizarre and strange cases relating to human trafficking that I've ever read about actively playing out. The fallout from this whole thing will probably take decades to resolve and I would be shocked if it didn't spawn more investigations or if the documents that are sealed are not connected to potential further prosecutions.