Ghislaine Maxwell

I wasn't aware Maxwell had been on trial, but apparently was convicted on their testament(?) (testimony presumably) of 50+ witnesses.
So is this a second trial?
I am confused.

No she hadn’t been on trial that was the whole point - Epstein’s plea deal ensured she was kept out of the courts as part of the deal. That as well as admitting to only sexual activity with 2 minors and putting aside the dozens of other young girls.

We know that she was named by the young victims because there are police records. The credibility I think is largely without doubt as everything that they had told the police (independently) concerning the building, massage room and various sexual equipment, plus the graphic art on the mansions walls were all evidenced by the police.

The pattern of behaviour of both Maxwell and Epstein was almost identical in each girls testament.

Germanshepherdsmum

Of course she may have been very proud to have had a photo of herself with Prince Andrew, then decided he might make a good cash cow. How very handy that the much prized photo was kept.

and this, ladies and gentlemen, is why victims of abuse do not come forward to report what has happened to them.

Well said

GillT57

Germanshepherdsmum

Of course she may have been very proud to have had a photo of herself with Prince Andrew, then decided he might make a good cash cow. How very handy that the much prized photo was kept.

and this, ladies and gentlemen, is why victims of abuse do not come forward to report what has happened to them.

The attacks made here towards VG mirror those that were made against the children in the child sexual exploitation grooming gangs. The excellent drama based on thre of the girls in the Rochdale case showed how girl 3 was initially seen as a perpetrator because she introduced other girls to the men controlling her.

There’s a world of difference between reporting abuse in order that a criminal investigation may be undertaken and mounting a civil case against alleged perpetrators in order to obtain considerable financial ‘compensation’.

Germanshepherdsmum

There’s a world of difference between reporting abuse in order that a criminal investigation may be undertaken and mounting a civil case against alleged perpetrators in order to obtain considerable financial ‘compensation’.

Why? Don’t you think that the victims deserve compensation?

The victim we are discussing has been given millions in compensation.

Strange that she is the only one suing Andrew

How can money compensate for sexual abuse?

Those young girls deserve their day in court imo. Giuffrey said in interview that she intends as far as possible to go after every abuser. If the only way that she can do so is by suing the offender then so be it.

None of the abusers should be able to sleep quietly in their beds without the knowledge that they may well have to face their victims in court.

The big issue is that the wealthy and powerful have as was evidenced by Epstein always been able to buy their way out of these situations.

The Me Too movement helped to throw a light on this issue, May it continue to do so.

Nothing can compensate for it if that's any help.
I am not sure of the prosecution rates in the states but certainly in this country they are incredibly low. I think victims should use other means for justice if possible as they are so often failed by the legal system.

Reading some of these posts is very depressing; intelligent educated women speculating about why an abused and manipulated young woman wants acknowledgement of guilt from the perpetrators of the abuse.

I wouldn’t want a day in court describing what had been done to me and being cross examined on it wwm, though of course if I enjoyed publicity and wanted the chance of a pile of cash …

I don’t believe VG has any intention of going after everyone she has made allegations against or more actions would have been started long ago. I seem to recall that the limitation period had almost expired before she commenced her action against Prince Andrew.

Germanshepherdsmum

I wouldn’t want a day in court describing what had been done to me and being cross examined on it wwm, though of course if I enjoyed publicity and wanted the chance of a pile of cash …

I don’t believe VG has any intention of going after everyone she has made allegations against or more actions would have been started long ago. I seem to recall that the limitation period had almost expired before she commenced her action against Prince Andrew.

Oh GSM your post is so sad to read.

You know what characterised Epstein was his complete inability to empathise with his victims. I would always hope that women would always be able to empathise with these children, because by refusing to do so will mean this abuse will be perpetuated.

The same kind of things were said about jimmy Savile's victims.
I don't blame them for wanting to be heard.

Germanshepherdsmum

I wouldn’t want a day in court describing what had been done to me and being cross examined on it wwm, though of course if I enjoyed publicity and wanted the chance of a pile of cash …

I don’t believe VG has any intention of going after everyone she has made allegations against or more actions would have been started long ago. I seem to recall that the limitation period had almost expired before she commenced her action against Prince Andrew.

Thankfully, no one I’ve known who had experience of investigating or supporting children or adults who had been sexually exploited and abused in childhood takes this kind of view,
Have you no respect or empathy other than for Prince A or GMaxwell, the people you seem to see as victims

Dear God.

Best hidden away, isn't it, exploitation and sexual exploitation of children!

And so it continues .....

You have a vivid imagination Iam64. I have not mentioned GM. However you are entirely correct that I have no respect for someone who, many years after alleged events, seeks to make money out of them.

I think investigations always start with believing the people making the allegation, that was what happened with the man who made allegations against alot of high profile people, it was called Operation Midland. Leon Brittan died before his name was cleared.

I don't think anyone would defend an abuser, abused children deserve sympathy but sometimes allegations are false so people have to wait until the case is heard and then a jury, who will hear all the evidence, will make a decision.

I don't think there is anything wrong with GM being held on remand but prison is about losing your liberty, conditions should not be the punishment.

I have no respect for someone who, many years after alleged events, seeks to make money out of them.

Of course, plenty of those abused (oops, 'alleged') in childhood never report the abuse but instead lead broken lives and then commit suicide but at least they're not inconveniencing their alleged abusers eh?

I was once on a jury in Oxford, the trial was of a young man of very high up family who had abused a young woman. The family hired a hot shot lawyer from London, much to the irritation of the judge. Defense of the young man included his sister taking the stand and pleading for his innocence and naivety. In the jury room, 7 men shrugged and said she was asking for it, myself and another woman argued but it was hopeless. One of the men turned to me and whispered that he'd looked the young woman up on Facebook and she was training to be a care assistant so that was ok, I imagine she led a gilded life (not).
The callousness of some women towards abused young people makes me furious.

After three years as the editor of the Daily Mail Geordie Grieg is no longer in the post.

Sometimes it takes many,many years to pluck up courage to report abuse. Particularly if it is a high profile person doing the abuse. Abuse affects self esteem and confidence of victims and I think the accusers are actually very brave, particularly knowing that all the money and influence in the world will be opposing their claims.