The Prince Andrew / Jeffrey Epstein / Ghislaine Maxwell Thread

[Robert]

Not charged in UK, Im clearly suggesting his trial in the US.

Robert please do keep up.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...ginia-giuffre-sexual-assault-lawsuit-defence/

Queen paying around £2000 per hour to his laywers and wanting regular updates.

If the Queen had any shame, self respect and respect for the people she would not only not pay but demand he fly over there to answer questions and clear his name. Instead she is protecting him by paying and letting him run off not to get those papers served, which failed in the end.

This is the biggest paedophile ring story in recent history. You should be angry for the thousands of child victims not looking for excuses because you are Royalist and patriotic British person who still thinks the empire alive.

While I love my country, I think the Royals should be drastically scaled back as in Denmark and Norway, and Prince Andrew should go and face his accuser. I have said that already but you choose to continue to believe in a distorted mental image you have of me rather than actually bothering to read and understand what I post.

The Queen is doing what any mother would do for her son in the circumstances. Blood is thicker than water. Near the end of her life she is trying to hold her family together after losing her husband of nearly seventy years.

What she is not doing is invoking some imaginary privilege over the law of another nation. The Prince has not been charged with a crime.. He has not been subpoenaed. Worse case for him will be an instruction to attend a Magistrate’s Court, and give a deposition to send to the US criminal and/or civil court. But he could exercise his right not to self-incriminate, and refuse to answer the British judge’s questions. This would make him look even more dodgy and he will live out his days in seclusion and shame.

If the Queen exercises her household privilege over that British Court, then you will have a point.

 

[Technics 1210]

https://news.sky.com/story/ghislain...pstein-at-the-queens-balmoral-estate-12489992

Court shown British socialite with Epstein at the Queen's Balmoral estate!

 

[KingKhanWC]

While I love my country, I think the Royals should be drastically scaled back as in Denmark and Norway, and Prince Andrew should go and face his accuser. I have said that already but you choose to continue to believe in a distorted mental image you have of me rather than actually bothering to read and understand what I post.

The Queen is doing what any mother would do for her son in the circumstances. Blood is thicker than water. Near the end of her life she is trying to hold her family together after losing her husband of nearly seventy years.

What she is not doing is invoking some imaginary privilege over the law of another nation. The Prince has not been charged with a crime.. He has not been subpoenaed. Worse case for him will be an instruction to attend a Magistrate’s Court, and give a deposition to send to the US criminal and/or civil court. But he could exercise his right not to self-incriminate, and refuse to answer the British judge’s questions. This would make him look even more dodgy and he will live out his days in seclusion and shame.

If the Queen exercises her household privilege over that British Court, then you will have a point.

She is the Queen not just any mother and not any mother would protect her son if alleged a peado. My mother wouldn't.

As the Queen she should be demanding he clears his name but instead is protecting him by spending millions.

But then again, perhaps she is fully aware of what went on even in her grounds? Why do people assume she is a good person because she is old and is the Queen. The Royal family have a long history of abusing, torturing and killing children. They live on the loot of others, never done a days hard work.

Its time to end this nonsense, the Royals must be stripped, sent to fruit farms.

Robert, you are too blinded by 'my country' mentality, this is 2021 time to evolve my friend.

 

[MenInG]

Prosecutors in Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial have rested their case following two weeks of testimony.

Annie Farmer, the last of four alleged victims to testify, recounted on Friday the "dark memory" of abuse by Ms Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.

Ms Farmer, now 42, said she had been groped by Ms Maxwell, who is accused of grooming underage girls for Epstein between 1994 and 2004.

Ms Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to eight charges against her.

Over the past two weeks, prosecutors sought to portray her as an accomplice to Epstein, a convicted sex offender, calling them "partners in crime" who had built "a pyramid scheme of abuse".

Epstein was convicted of state sex crimes in Florida in 2008, but died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Ms Maxwell's defence say she is being scapegoated for crimes committed by Epstein because he is not able to face trial.

Unlike the three women before her who used pseudonyms for their testimony, Ms Farmer took the stand with the words: "I am Annie Farmer."

Previously, she and her sister Maria were among the earliest alleged victims to accuse Epstein and Ms Maxwell of abuse.

The court in New York heard on Friday how she had come to meet the two.

Her sister, a painter, had been working for Epstein, acquiring art on his behalf, when he offered help getting her into college, Ms Farmer said.

Epstein bought her a plane ticket to New York, she said, and later took them to a movie, where he "caressed" her hand and "rubbed" her leg, only stopping when her sister looked over at them. She was 16 years old at the time.

"I felt sick to my stomach," Ms Farmer said. "It wasn't something that I was at all expecting."

A few months later, she met Ms Maxwell for the first time, at Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico.

She was under the impression it was an event for college-bound students, but when she arrived, there were no other students.

She recalled how Epstein and Ms Maxwell had "appeared intimate", as if they were romantic partners.

She said Ms Maxwell had "instructed" her to massage Epstein, showing her how to do it. "I did what she told me," Ms Farmer testified. "I felt very uncomfortable. I wanted to stop."

Pointing at the defendant in court, Ms Farmer accused Ms Maxwell of forcing her to undress and massaging her exposed breasts. She had had a "sense" that Epstein was watching, Ms Farmer said.

Upon her return home, Ms Farmer said she had told her mother she was not raped but had not wanted to talk about what had happened.

Defence lawyers for Ms Maxwell rejected Ms Farmer's testimony, alleging parts of her story were not backed up by evidence.

Attorney Laura Menninger also questioned whether her testimony had been influenced by money or the comments of other accusers.

Ms Farmer confirmed on Friday that she had received $1.5m (£1.1m) from a victim compensation fund created by the late financier's estate.

She also said she was in a WhatsApp group with other Epstein victims and in email contact with Virginia Giuffre, who has been among the most vocal Epstein accusers.

Prosecutors initially asked for three weeks to make their arguments but have moved through the case more quickly than expected.

Lawyers for Ms Maxwell will tell her side of the story next week.

BBC

 

[Robert]

She is the Queen not just any mother and not any mother would protect her son if alleged a peado. My mother wouldn't.

As the Queen she should be demanding he clears his name but instead is protecting him by spending millions.

But then again, perhaps she is fully aware of what went on even in her grounds? Why do people assume she is a good person because she is old and is the Queen. The Royal family have a long history of abusing, torturing and killing children. They live on the loot of others, never done a days hard work.

Its time to end this nonsense, the Royals must be stripped, sent to fruit farms.

Robert, you are too blinded by 'my country' mentality, this is 2021 time to evolve my friend.

Let us be specific in our language.

Virginia Guiffre has accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her in a New York civil court. This alleged assault happened in London when she was 17. The age of consent in the UK is 16 so it would be inaccurate to use the word “peado” [sic] as you have.

If Prince Andrew attends the court, at worst for him he will be instructed to compensate Guiffre.

There is no criminal charge for Prince Andrew to face at this stage.

Association with the convicted paedophile Epstein and the alleged procurer Maxwell do not necessarily make one a criminal - though at a minimum show extreme bad judgement and sense of entitlement. That Prince Andrew allowed these two onto the Balmoral estate and thereby compromised the Queen continues this pattern of bad judgment.

(You will get some small measure of what you wish for under King Charles III who intends to modernise the Monarchy, reducing the Royal households and estates while retaining the constitutional role.)

 

[James]

(You will get some small measure of what you wish for under King Charles III who intends to modernise the Monarchy, reducing the Royal households and estates while retaining the constitutional role.)

This will be an excellent move from King Charles.

 

[Robert]

This will be an excellent move from King Charles.

Agreed. He might choose to be crowned William V though, due to the negative historical connotations of his birth name.

 

[James]

Agreed. He might choose to be crowned William V though, due to the negative historical connotations of his birth name.

Charles Philip Arthur George.

I think George VII or William V is most likely.

It should be Charles III. Or Philip something.

It would be hilarious if he went for King Arthur.

 

[Technics 1210]

Let us be specific in our language.

Virginia Guiffre has accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her in a New York civil court. This alleged assault happened in London when she was 17. The age of consent in the UK is 16 so it would be inaccurate to use the word “peado” [sic] as you have.

If Prince Andrew attends the court, at worst for him he will be instructed to compensate Guiffre.

There is no criminal charge for Prince Andrew to face at this stage.

Association with the convicted paedophile Epstein and the alleged procurer Maxwell do not necessarily make one a criminal - though at a minimum show extreme bad judgement and sense of entitlement. That Prince Andrew allowed these two onto the Balmoral estate and thereby compromised the Queen continues this pattern of bad judgment.

(You will get some small measure of what you wish for under King Charles III who intends to modernise the Monarchy, reducing the Royal households and estates while retaining the constitutional role.)

Prince Andrew visited ‘Peado’ Island on numerous occasions, pilot has testified to this fact. You can call this bad judgement, but when Epstein was convicted of being a Peado, guess what? Prince Andrew visited Epstein again (the infamous photo of the 2 walking). Bad judgement? Or guilty as sin?

 

[James]

Prince Andrew visited ‘Peado’ Island on numerous occasions, pilot has testified to this fact. You can call this bad judgement, but when Epstein was convicted of being a Peado, guess what? Prince Andrew visited Epstein again (the infamous photo of the 2 walking). Bad judgement? Or guilty as sin?

Andrew says that he went to the island to talk to Epstein in person so he could “cut ties” with him respectfully. This doesn’t really seem believable though. Especially because Andrew was there for several days, and the conversation in question only lasted a few minutes.

 

[Robert]

Prince Andrew visited ‘Peado’ Island on numerous occasions, pilot has testified to this fact. You can call this bad judgement, but when Epstein was convicted of being a Peado, guess what? Prince Andrew visited Epstein again (the infamous photo of the 2 walking). Bad judgement? Or guilty as sin?

Walked with him after he was convicted? Did he visit him in jail?

In order to be guilty as soon he has to be first accused of a crime in criminal court. He hasn’t been.

 

[Robert]

Charles Philip Arthur George.

I think George VII or William V is most likely.

It should be Charles III. Or Philip something.

It would be hilarious if he went for King Arthur.

There nearly was a King Arthur - Henry VIII’s elder brother but he died in infancy.

 

[Technics 1210]

Walked with him after he was convicted? Did he visit him in jail?

In order to be guilty as soon he has to be first accused of a crime in criminal court. He hasn’t been.

Visit him in jail? Not the point. Why did Andrew meet up with Epstein after Epstein was convicted? Is this bad judgement second time round?

 

[Technics 1210]

Andrew says that he went to the island to talk to Epstein in person so he could “cut ties” with him respectfully. This doesn’t really seem believable though. Especially because Andrew was there for several days, and the conversation in question only lasted a few minutes.

Indeed.

If Andrew is innocent then why is he in hiding?

If Andrew is innocent then why was he removed from Royal duties?

If Andrew is innocent then why was he removed from head of charities/organisations?

If Andrew is innocent them why give the horrific car crash interview?

If Andrew is innocent why did he claim the photo was photoshopped?

If Andrew is innocent, why is he indicted?

If Andrew had bad judgement, why meet up with Epstein after Epstein was convicted?

Answer - he's guilty - he knows it, and the public know it.

 

[Robert]

Visit him in jail? Not the point. Why did Andrew meet up with Epstein after Epstein was convicted? Is this bad judgement second time round?

How could the Prince have met Epstein after Epstein was convicted?

 

[Robert]

Indeed.

If Andrew is innocent then why is he in hiding?

If Andrew is innocent then why was he removed from Royal duties?

If Andrew is innocent then why was he removed from head of charities/organisations?

If Andrew is innocent them why give the horrific car crash interview?

If Andrew is innocent why did he claim the photo was photoshopped?

If Andrew is innocent, why is he indicted?

If Andrew had bad judgement, why meet up with Epstein after Epstein was convicted?

Answer - he's guilty - he knows it, and the public know it.

He hasn’t been indicted. He has been accused of sexual assault in a civil court. Indictment is to criminal court.

He gave the interview because he is used to the armour of high privilege. He thought Maitlis would swallow whatever he said. I understand that he was advised not to do it. He isn’t anything like as clever as he thinks.

 

[James]

He hasn’t been indicted. He has been accused of sexual assault in a civil court. Indictment is to criminal court.

He gave the interview because he is used to the armour of high privilege. He thought Maitlis would swallow whatever he said. I understand that he was advised not to do it. He isn’t anything like as clever as he thinks.

Andrew is undoubtedly guilty of extreme privilege and absolute arrogance. That does not need a trial to decide.

But, he should now have the integrity and humility to face up to his accuser and be tried for what he is alleged to have done on a deviance level.

 

[Robert]

Andrew is undoubtedly guilty of extreme privilege and absolute arrogance. That does not need a trial to decide.

But, he should now have the integrity and humility to face up to his accuser and be tried for what he is alleged to have done on a deviance level.

Agreed, said this many times.

It might appear I am defending the bloke - not so - I am countering the distortions and generalisations on the thread.

 

[Technics 1210]

How could the Prince have met Epstein after Epstein was convicted?

I think you need to read up on some facts. Epstien was convicted of sex trafficking and added the sex register in 2008, Andrew then visits him in NY central park in 2010, caught on camera. Picture in the link below.

Jeffrey Epstein: The financier charged with sex trafficking : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48913377

So once last time, Andrew made a bad judgement second time round after Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking? Or did Andrew have something to hide?

 

[Robert]

I think you need to read up on some facts. Epstien was convicted of sex trafficking and added the sex register in 2008, Andrew then visits him in NY central park in 2010, caught on camera. Picture in the link below.

Jeffrey Epstein: The financier charged with sex trafficking : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48913377

So once last time, Andrew made a bad judgement second time round after Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking? Or did Andrew have something to hide?

Ah, I see, so Epstein was placed on the sex offenders register and served a work-release jail term, and Prince Andrew met him after Epstein was released. That's extraordinarily bad judgement by Prince Andrew. He should have kept far away, firewalled himself from further risk. Even if he did nothing wrong personally, this stuff is like what an accusation of witchcraft used to be. Just shows how he thinks he is invincible due to extreme privilege.

 

[Technics 1210]

Ghislaine Maxwell’s little black book to remain secret in court deal

https://apple.news/A1KSJ75ZESYy4gMLkqdYL8w

It’s all rigged, the trial is a dog and pony show. The black book no doubt reveals a list of contacts who were part of this peado ring, but no, the courts have decided to protect their identities.

 

[Technics 1210]

Images of little black book. Redacted. Check the number of entries under 'Duke of York'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...wells-little-black-book-will-not-made-public/

 

[Robert]

Images of little black book. Redacted. Check the number of entries under 'Duke of York'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...wells-little-black-book-will-not-made-public/

Can’t read that, behind paywall.

As this type of offence causes such public disgust and revulsion, anyone associated with an alleged offence in any degree can be reputationally ruined, hence the court’s decision. Revealing the names would open the state up to potential litigation.

If there is evidence to convict any such named persons, let them be charged and face trial.

 

[Technics 1210]

Can’t read that, behind paywall.

As this type of offence causes such public disgust and revulsion, anyone associated with an alleged offence in any degree can be reputationally ruined, hence the court’s decision. Revealing the names would open the state up to potential litigation.

If there is evidence to convict any such named persons, let them be charged and face trial.

The point is the black book proves Andrew is lying. Andrew claimed he visited Epstein a couple of times, the entries in the black book reveal otherwise.

For the culprits to be charged the black book can be used as evidence of attendance. If the pilots testimony can be used as evidence, then why not the black book entries?

 

[IMMY69]

Ghislaine Maxwell’s little black book to remain secret in court deal

https://apple.news/A1KSJ75ZESYy4gMLkqdYL8w

It’s all rigged, the trial is a dog and pony show. The black book no doubt reveals a list of contacts who were part of this peado ring, but no, the courts have decided to protect their identities.

She's clearly cut a deal...
They can't afford to go down the Epstein route
So only two outcomes possible..
1. she lives out her life in a low security prison or;
2. Is allowed to live free but with a change of name (like witness protection).

She has just too much on too many people.

 

[Robert]

The point is the black book proves Andrew is lying. Andrew claimed he visited Epstein a couple of times, the entries in the black book reveal otherwise.

For the culprits to be charged the black book can be used as evidence of attendance. If the pilots testimony can be used as evidence, then why not the black book entries?

One is a witness, the other a possession of the accused? Not up on the fine points of US criminal law.

 

[Technics 1210]

One is a witness, the other a possession of the accused? Not up on the fine points of US criminal law.

The pilot is a witness, just as the 4 women who have testified in the case, just as Virginia Giuffre claims she is a victim thus a witness too. The black book proves Andrew is lying. Not that we needed the further evidence.

 

[Technics 1210]

Lawyer says secret 2008 agreement between Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein protects prince from lawsuit.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/14/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-settlement

 

[Robert]

The pilot is a witness, just as the 4 women who have testified in the case, just as Virginia Giuffre claims she is a victim thus a witness too. The black book proves Andrew is lying. Not that we needed the further evidence.

He’s a witness to the Duke being on a plane.

He isn’t a witness to any alleged sexual assault.

 

[Technics 1210]

He’s a witness to the Duke being on a plane.

He isn’t a witness to any alleged sexual assault.

The pilot is a witness to those who travelled to Epstein’s ‘Peado’ Island, including the accusers. He’s crucial to the case otherwise the prosecution wouldn’t have called him up as a witness.

This isn’t a case of just sexual assault.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Ah, I see, so Epstein was placed on the sex offenders register and served a work-release jail term, and Prince Andrew met him after Epstein was released. That's extraordinarily bad judgement by Prince Andrew. He should have kept far away, firewalled himself from further risk. Even if he did nothing wrong personally, this stuff is like what an accusation of witchcraft used to be. Just shows how he thinks he is invincible due to extreme privilege.

You are assuming this. How can you know it was mere bad judgment? He could be laughing and indulging in more crimes against children/women. This shows you have an implanted bias towards the Royals, which is not surprising as you do with western government wars.

If a drug dealer is caught with a little black book, it would be made open in court and those listed would be investigated but not in this far more serious case.

Its obvious to most but if Andrew is ever found guilty, the Royal family would be in danger of being finished, thus they cant afford for him to be.

If anyone believes Andrew wasn't aware of what was going on , they are living in cuckoo land.

 

[Robert]

The pilot is a witness to those who travelled to Epstein’s ‘Peado’ Island, including the accusers. He’s crucial to the case otherwise the prosecution wouldn’t have called him up as a witness.

This isn’t a case of just sexual assault.

At present there is a criminal case - The People vs. Maxwell , and a civil case - Guiffre vs Duke of York.

 

[Robert]

You are assuming this. How can you know it was mere bad judgment? He could be laughing and indulging in more crimes against children/women. This shows you have an implanted bias towards the Royals, which is not surprising as you do with western government wars.

If a drug dealer is caught with a little black book, it would be made open in court and those listed would be investigated but not in this far more serious case.

Its obvious to most but if Andrew is ever found guilty, the Royal family would be in danger of being finished, thus they cant afford for him to be.

If anyone believes Andrew wasn't aware of what was going on , they are living in cuckoo land.

No, it means I apply Occam’s Razor. I don’t believe in things that have no evidence to support them, like unicorns. When there is evidence then I will believe.

I had a conversation with Gordon Ramsay once. Does that mean you believe I am a Michelin-starred chef? According to your thinking, my having talked to him shows that I do everything he does. No? Why not?

 

[Technics 1210]

Andrew is listed in the Black Book numerous times (Duke Of York).

Countless pictures of Epstein and Andrew per and post Epstein conviction.

NDA signed by Andrew's accuser.

Car crash interview with BBC.

Andrew claims photos are fake.

Andrew is removed from charities etc.

The Queen removes Andrew from all Royal duties.

...but no, Andrew is innocent.

 

[Robert]

Andrew is listed in the Black Book numerous times (Duke Of York).

Countless pictures of Epstein and Andrew per and post Epstein conviction.

NDA signed by Andrew's accuser.

Car crash interview with BBC.

Andrew claims photos are fake.

Andrew is removed from charities etc.

The Queen removes Andrew from all Royal duties.

...but no, Andrew is innocent.

That’s for the court to decide, not you or I.

But a civil court won’t find a Guilty or Not Guilty verdict, it will either find in favour of Guiffre and order the Duke to pay compensation, or not.

 

[Technics 1210]

At present there is a criminal case - The People vs. Maxwell , and a civil case - Guiffre vs Duke of York.

You are missing the point. No one cares about the civil case, the majority are saying Andrew should be tried in a criminal court given the evidence, and mainly his trips to Epstein's peado Island and black book entries; however Andrew has soverign immunity.

The black book implicates many rich and powerful; it cannot be ignored.

 

[Robert]

You are missing the point. No one cares about the civil case, the majority are saying Andrew should be tried in a criminal court given the evidence, and mainly his trips to Epstein's peado Island and black book entries; however Andrew has soverign immunity.

The black book implicates many rich and powerful; it cannot be ignored.

Guiffre cares about the civil case because it is the one weapon at her disposal. The Duke certainly cares about the civil case else he wouldn’t be fighting not to attend any sort of court appearance or deposition.

What “the majority” - an imaginary term like “all right-thinking people” - may think does not matter. What matters is what the US criminal justice system thinks. If it decides that there is enough evidence for a criminal prosecution of the Duke, there will be a prosecution.

 

[Technics 1210]

Guiffre cares about the civil case because it is the one weapon at her disposal. The Duke certainly cares about the civil case else he wouldn’t be fighting not to attend any sort of court appearance or deposition.

What “the majority” - an imaginary term like “all right-thinking people” - may think does not matter. What matters is what the US criminal justice system thinks. If it decides that there is enough evidence for a criminal prosecution of the Duke, there will be a prosecution.

Guiffre can only care about the civil case not because it's her 1 weapon but because her NDA forbids her to pursue a criminal case.

Anyway you yourself don't believe Andrew is innocent. Also once again Andrew has soverign immunity so despite the evidence (black book etc) he will walk away scott free.

You cannot deny there is 1 rule for royals and another for the commoner.

 

[Robert]

Guiffre can only care about the civil case not because it's her 1 weapon but because her NDA forbids her to pursue a criminal case.

Come again? What cannot she disclose? She has disclosed that Maxwell allegedly sex trafficked her and the Duke allegedly sexually assaulted her.

 

[Technics 1210]

Come again? What cannot she disclose? She has disclosed that Maxwell allegedly sex trafficked her and the Duke allegedly sexually assaulted her.

It wasn't Guiffre who disclosed any info in the first place, it was the BBC in 2011.

Guiffre simply confirmed the allegations in 2014. Now Andrew's lawyers want the deal to be kept a secret.

Remember, the allegations are that Andrew had sex with a minor at the time in the US, which is a crime under US law.

 

[MenInG]

Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend of eight years has testified for the defence at Ghislaine Maxwell's federal sex trafficking trial.

Eva Andersson-Dubin - a former physician and Miss Sweden winner - has defended Epstein in the past.

Lawyers for Ms Maxwell also sought to poke holes on Friday in the recollections of her accusers.

Ms Maxwell, 59, has pleaded not guilty to allegations she groomed underage girls for abuse by Epstein.

Mrs Dubin told the court on Friday she had dated Epstein on and off from 1983 to 1991 and that her children called him "Uncle Jeff".

She married billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin in 1994 and the couple was close to both Epstein and Ms Maxwell.

The four were named in 2016 depositions of Virginia Giuffre, the most vocal Epstein accuser, and Rinaldo Rizzo, a former butler to the Dubins.

Mrs Giuffre has claimed the Dubins were her first sexual encounter "after my training" by Ms Maxwell, while Mr Rizzo had said he recalled that a 15-year-old girl came into his kitchen and said she had been pressured into sex on Epstein's private island.

The Dubins have vigorously denied these allegations, saying they "were horrified by and completely unaware of Jeffrey Epstein's unspeakable conduct".

Mrs Dubin was asked on Friday if she had ever participated in a group sexual encounter with Ms Maxwell's accuser Jane, who testified last week. She said she had not, but when pressed by prosecutors about her memory, said: "I can't remember things from last month."

Mrs Dubin previously defended Epstein in his 2008 state sex crimes case in Florida, writing in a testimonial that she "could not ask for a better friend or godfather to my children".

Epstein registered as a sex offender after his plea deal in that case, but died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Ms Maxwell's lawyers also brought in two FBI agents on Friday to testify about discrepancies between recent testimony by Ms Maxwell's accusers and their law enforcement statements.

But the trial was thrown into disarray after defence lawyers, who had initially offered a list of 35 witnesses, asked the judge for more time to produce them.

"We are flying people across the country, across the pond, our client's life is on the line, and we are given only a half a day to put on a witness," said attorney Laura Menninger.

Judge Alison Nathan rebuked the team for not having its witnesses ready and recommended they rest their case early as she would not delay the trial.

"I have a rule, you have your next witness or you rest," she said

One defence witness has not complied with a federal subpoena to testify at the trial, another has tested positive for the coronavirus, and a third can only fly from the UK on Monday.

A final determination on whether Ms Maxwell will take the stand in her own defence is expected to come sometime on Friday.

The Briton has been in a US jail since her arrest last year. She faces up to 80 years in prison if convicted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-c...gn=64&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom3=@BBCWorld

 

[KingKhanWC]

No, it means I apply Occam’s Razor. I don’t believe in things that have no evidence to support them, like unicorns. When there is evidence then I will believe.

I had a conversation with Gordon Ramsay once. Does that mean you believe I am a Michelin-starred chef? According to your thinking, my having talked to him shows that I do everything he does. No? Why not?

There is more evidence to support he was involved within a peado ring than he is innocent.

There is no evidence Osama Bin laden was behind 911, no trial no conviction but you are more than pleased to support bombing people while they are asleep because Bush told you so.

Its no Occams Razor you believe, its the western establishments can do little wrong, they are good guys, god save the queen etc.

Please throw your 'white man is always right' bias in the bin if you want to see the world from a neutral fair perspective, if not just say.

 

[Robert]

There is more evidence to support he was involved within a peado ring than he is innocent.

There is no evidence Osama Bin laden was behind 911, no trial no conviction but you are more than pleased to support bombing people while they are asleep because Bush told you so.

Its no Occams Razor you believe, its the western establishments can do little wrong, they are good guys, god save the queen etc.

Please throw your 'white man is always right' bias in the bin if you want to see the world from a neutral fair perspective, if not just say.

You’re getting a bit desperate now, as all your arguments are exposed as logical fallacy. You are reduced to character assassination.

 

[Robert]

It wasn't Guiffre who disclosed any info in the first place, it was the BBC in 2011.

Guiffre simply confirmed the allegations in 2014. Now Andrew's lawyers want the deal to be kept a secret.

Remember, the allegations are that Andrew had sex with a minor at the time in the US, which is a crime under US law.

And yet he has not been charged with said alleged crime.

 

[Technics 1210]

And yet he has not been charged with said alleged crime.

Which part of he cannot be charged due to soverign immunity are you not understanding?

 

[Robert]

Which part of he cannot be charged due to soverign immunity are you not understanding?

The part that it’s nonsense.

 

[Technics 1210]

Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, members of the royal household cannot be arrested in the presence of the sovereign, or in or near any official royal residence, whether or not she is present. These include Buckingham and Kensington Palaces in London, as well as Windsor Castle, within whose sprawling grounds Prince Andrew lives.

In other words, even if extradition proceedings against Prince Andrew were initiated, he could lawfully avoid arrest simply by staying home.

 

[Technics 1210]

Prince peado is guilty, the evidence is clear. If he were innocent, there'd be no need for an NDA and he wouldn't be stripped of royal duties etc. So guilty he couldn't attend his own daughter's wedding thus absent from his daughter's wedding photos.

 

[Robert]

Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, members of the royal household cannot be arrested in the presence of the sovereign, or in or near any official royal residence, whether or not she is present. These include Buckingham and Kensington Palaces in London, as well as Windsor Castle, within whose sprawling grounds Prince Andrew lives.

In other words, even if extradition proceedings against Prince Andrew were initiated, he could lawfully avoid arrest simply by staying home.

Princess Anne was convicted when her dogs bit someone.

You said he cannot be charged. But he can be charged, and he can be extradited.

See here....

 

[Technics 1210]

Princess Anne was convicted when her dogs bit someone.

You said he cannot be charged. But he can be charged, and he can be extradited.

See here....

The law says otherwise, and I have cited the Crown Proceeding Act of 1947.

Anne admitted guilt before she was charged, along with her husband - big difference.

Fact is Andrew will get away with all of this thanks to sovereign immunity. He knows it.

Look you want Boris in jail despite him not having committed a crime or being charged, but based on incompetence only, in your opinion, yet here you are clearly protecting Andrew because he was once a hero of yours despite the circumstantial evidence - and yes one can be arrested based on circumstantial evidence.

 

[Robert]

The law says otherwise, and I have cited the Crown Proceeding Act of 1947.

Anne admitted guilt before she was charged, along with her husband - big difference.

Fact is Andrew will get away with all of this thanks to sovereign immunity. He knows it.

Look you want Boris in jail despite him not having committed a crime or being charged, but based on incompetence only, in your opinion, yet here you are clearly protecting Andrew because he was once a hero of yours despite the circumstantial evidence - and yes one can be arrested based on circumstantial evidence.

Protect? Strange word to use.

Shall I learn the Urdu for “The Duke should face his accuser” ? Writing it in English six or seven times doesn’t seem to register.

If the DoJ issues an arrest warrant then the diplomatic position will get quite tricky, I think. While the Duke could hide in Buckingham Palace, I doubt that the Queen would enforce her privilege. It would make her own position invidious. I think she would invite the police in and let the Duke be arrested.

 

[Technics 1210]

Protect? Strange word to use.

Shall I learn the Urdu for “The Duke should face his accuser” ? Writing it in English six or seven times doesn’t seem to register.

If the DoJ issues an arrest warrant then the diplomatic position will get quite tricky, I think. While the Duke could hide in Buckingham Palace, I doubt that the Queen would enforce her privilege. It would make her own position invidious. I think she would invite the police in and let the Duke be arrested.

The Duke should face his accuser is not the same as the Duke should face the law.

The last time Andrew faced his accuser was through lawyers which ended up in an NDA.

Anyway, Andrew will never set foot in the USA again, he will be arrested. His mother has banished him, his family have banished him, his charities have banished him, and he has been banished from all duties. May he become the fuel of hellfire.

 

[Robert]

The Duke should face his accuser is not the same as the Duke should face the law.

Anyway, Andrew will never set foot in the USA again, he will be arrested. His mother has banished him, his family have banished him, his charities have banished him, and he has been banished from all duties. May he become the fuel of hellfire.

It’s means the same in operational terms. His accuser is Guiffre. He hasn’t been charged with anything so there’s no arrest warrant for him. Were he not to turn up to the civil trial then conceivably an arrest warrant could be issued for contempt of court, but more likely he will be ordered to pay damages to Guiffre in absentia. But the court has no power to enforce this as long as he stays in the UK.

The Maxwell trial is a criminal trial, and it will be interesting to learn what is said by Maxwell under cross-examination about the Duke, if anything.

 

[Technics 1210]

In 2006, Prince Andrew invited Epstein to his daughter's 18th birthday party, despite Epstein being charged with procuring a minor for prostitution only one month prior. Severe bad judgement!

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-a...-stated-in-virginia-giuffres-lawsuit-12377704


Prince Andrew's lawyer has asked a judge to keep sealed a 2009 legal agreement that he says can protect the prince against claims he sexually assaulted an American woman when she was a teenager. (Andrew claimed he never knew her, now a legal agreement from 2009 comes to light!)

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-a...-to-keep-2009-legal-agreement-sealed-12445710


US district judge Lewis Kaplan has scheduled the hearing of Virginia Giuffre's case against Prince Andrew for 4 January, where the Duke of York's lawyers are expected to argue for a dismissal of the case.

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-a...s-lawyers-in-sexual-abuse-civil-case-12460371


If Andrew gets away with this, it will be the biggest travesty of justice this century.

Roll on 4th Jan 2022.

 

[Robert]

If Andrew gets away with this, it will be the biggest travesty of justice this century.

Roll on 4th Jan 2022.

I think this could roll on for years.

I wonder what King Charles III’s position will be.

 

[Technics 1210]

I think this could roll on for years.

I wonder what King Charles III’s position will be.

Legally it could go on for years but I think the public has made up its mind and the monarchy have done the right thing by banishing Andrew.

 

[MenInG]

US prosecutors have called Ghislaine Maxwell a "sophisticated predator" during closing arguments in the Briton's federal sex trafficking trial.

Ms Maxwell, 59, has denied grooming underage girls for abuse by the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004.

Her lawyers will make their closing arguments later on Monday.

Ms Maxwell faces up to 80 years in prison if convicted on sex trafficking and perjury charges.

Defence attorneys have maintained that she is the government's scapegoat for crimes committed by Epstein, her former boyfriend and business associate.

Epstein took his own life in a jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Closing arguments are expected to conclude on Monday, setting the stage for jury deliberations. Jurors may decide her fate by her 60th birthday on Christmas Day.

Assistant US Attorney Alison Moe alleged Ms Maxwell was "key to the whole operation" in a New York City court on Monday.

"Ghislaine Maxwell was dangerous. She was a grown women who preyed on vulnerable kids," she said. "It is time to hold her accountable."

Ms Moe added it was "not an accident" that the alleged victims largely came from troubled backgrounds and had similar accounts of their abuse.

"It happened again and again and again. It is powerful evidence of Maxwell's guilt."

On Friday, Ms Maxwell declined to take the stand in her own defence, telling the judge the claims against her were unproven.

"The government has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt and so there is no need for me to testify," she said.

Her lawyers alleged that her accusers had fallen prey to "[lapses in] memory, manipulation and money", and sought to identify discrepancies between their accounts of abuse and official records.

They called nine witnesses over two days of testimony last week, including a cognitive psychologist who testified that people may reconstruct "false memories" of traumatic events.

Earlier this month, prosecutors called two dozen witnesses over 10 days as they built a narrative of Ms Maxwell as a predator who built a "pyramid scheme of abuse" with Epstein.

Four accusers took the stand. They alleged Ms Maxwell often set up, demonstrated and even took part in the massages that turned into sexual acts with Epstein.

The government also released reams of previously unseen photographs, flight logs and documents intended to link the duo as "partners in crime".

In a rare weekend hearing, Judge Alison Nathan said the jury would be instructed that they may choose to convict Ms Maxwell if they conclude she either ignored or "consciously avoided" knowledge of Epstein's underage sexual encounters.

Lawyers for Ms Maxwell slammed the move as "some sort of backup option" in case the jury does not find she was an active participant.

Ms Maxwell, the socialite and daughter of a late British media tycoon - who also has French and American citizenship - has been held in a US jail without the chance of bail since her arrest in July 2020.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59730923

 

[KingKhanWC]

You’re getting a bit desperate now, as all your arguments are exposed as logical fallacy. You are reduced to character assassination.

lol because you are lost for answers again.

You have one standard for those like you but another for those who aren't like you. You support the bombing, invasions of Iraq when there is no evidence of them being a threat but you there is plent yof evidence for Andrew being a peado but you bury your head in the sand like the mainstream media is trying to do.

Your credibility is non-existent in arguments.

 

[transparent opacity]

Footage of Jeffrey Epstein's mansion in Florida has been shown in court as the closing arguments of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial take place.

The video of the late paedophile's Palm Beach estate was shown as evidence in Maxwell's federal sex-trafficking hearing

 

[Robert]

lol because you are lost for answers again.

You have one standard for those like you but another for those who aren't like you. You support the bombing, invasions of Iraq when there is no evidence of them being a threat but you there is plent yof evidence for Andrew being a peado but you bury your head in the sand like the mainstream media is trying to do.

Your credibility is non-existent in arguments.

You have not been taught how to think in straight lines and develop a logical argument. You usually resort to setting up strawman fallacies, and attack those instead of my points. When I ignore your strawmen and pursue point logically, you get frustrated and indulge in ad hominem attacks.

It’s interesting to note that on the few occasions where you have managed to change my mind, you forget you have done so, and continue to attack positions I have conceded.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jury-resume-deliberations-ghislaine-maxwells-sex-abuse-trial-2021-12-21/

The jury in Ghislaine Maxwell's sex abuse trial is expected to resume deliberations on Tuesday, after three weeks of testimony from women who said the British socialite set them up for sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein when they were teenagers.

Maxwell, 59, is accused of recruiting and grooming four girls for the late financier between 1994 and 2004. She has pleaded not guilty to six counts of sex trafficking and other crimes.

In her closing argument on Monday, defense attorney Laura Menninger called Maxwell an "innocent woman" and sought to distance her from Epstein, who killed himself in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges.

Menninger argued that prosecutors were scapegoating Maxwell, a former girlfriend and employee of Epstein, for his alleged behavior.

"We are not here to defend Jeffrey Epstein," Menninger said. "The government in this case has now pivoted because Epstein's not here."

The defense has also argued that the four accusers' accounts are not credible because their memories have faded over time and because they are motivated by money to cooperate with prosecutors. All four women received million-dollar payouts from a victims' compensation fund run by Epstein's estate.

In a rebuttal to the defense's closing argument, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey urged the jury to "see (Maxwell) for the predator that she is."

"The suggestion that she didn't know borders on the absurd," Comey said. "The defendant didn't count on those teenage girls growing up into the women who testified at this trial."

Earlier on Monday, prosecutor Alison Moe said in her closing argument that Maxwell, the daughter of the late British media baron Robert Maxwell, saw supplying Epstein with girls to abuse as a way to maintain her opulent lifestyle, pointing to bank records that showed he transferred her $30 million over the years.

Maxwell faces up to 70 years in prison if convicted on the six counts that were heard in the trial. She also faces two perjury charges that will be tried separately.

 

[Technics 1210]

Footage of Jeffrey Epstein's mansion in Florida has been shown in court as the closing arguments of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial take place.

The video of the late paedophile's Palm Beach estate was shown as evidence in Maxwell's federal sex-trafficking hearing

We are not interested in the footage of Epstein's house, we the public, are interested in the names listed in the Black Book.

This trial is a scam.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You have not been taught how to think in straight lines and develop a logical argument. You usually resort to setting up strawman fallacies, and attack those instead of my points. When I ignore your strawmen and pursue point logically, you get frustrated and indulge in ad hominem attacks.

It’s interesting to note that on the few occasions where you have managed to change my mind, you forget you have done so, and continue to attack positions I have conceded.

You need to remain consitent in your principles or your debating skills.

You want conviction of Andrew, who is ONE man. A clown at best , a royal at worst.

Yet you dont care for a conviction of others but on the contary support bombing not only them but millions of innocents.

So may I ask, why are you so defenisve over Andrew? Surely you understand this is the biggest peado ring of powerful people in modern history?

 

[Robert]

You need to remain consitent in your principles or your debating skills.

You want conviction of Andrew, who is ONE man. A clown at best , a royal at worst.

Yet you dont care for a conviction of others but on the contary support bombing not only them but millions of innocents.

So may I ask, why are you so defenisve over Andrew? Surely you understand this is the biggest peado ring of powerful people in modern history?

Well you are silent on the ongoing genocide of Muslims in China, so I wouldn’t raise the “double standards” standard on me if I were you.

See, I can raise strawmen too.

Thread is about Prince Andrew.

I have never sought to “defend” the Duke. I think I’m up to eight posts saying he should face his accuser Guiffre in court.

I merely seek to counter incorrect ideas about the legal process posted on this thread.

 

[Robert]

Now here is an interesting development. Duchess Megan may be called on to give evidence against her uncle-in-law in the Guiffre vs Windsor case.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-markle-prince-andrew-trial-b1980527.html?amp

 

[Technics 1210]

I merely seek to counter incorrect ideas about the legal process posted on this thread.

Disagree, many of us get the difference between civil/criminal process, what we are saying is that Andrew should face criminal charges to which you are saying things like ‘IF there is evidence etc’ when clearly there is enough circumstantial evidence to arrest Andrew, question him, then charge and put him on trial. On top of this you are further undermining Andrew’s alleged crime by stating his actions (in particular meeting with Epstein post his conviction) as ‘bad judgement’.

Do you want to see Andrew face a criminal trial?

 

[Robert]

Disagree, many of us get the difference between civil/criminal process, what we are saying is that Andrew should face criminal charges to which you are saying things like ‘IF there is evidence etc’ when clearly there is enough circumstantial evidence to arrest Andrew, question him, then charge and put him on trial. On top of this you are further undermining Andrew’s alleged crime by stating his actions (in particular meeting with Epstein post his conviction) as ‘bad judgement’.

Do you want to see Andrew face a criminal trial?

I can’t “undermine” an allegation, that’s a non sequitur. I have no influence at all over legal proceedings.

If the DoJ has enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant then he should face criminal proceedings, yes.

 

[James]

Just to quickly drop in here gents, this ongoing discussion is now becoming rather circular and mundane for those of us who are being required to read through it on a daily basis. Might be best to adjourn for now until some further concrete news is released? Will leave this one up to you.

 

[Technics 1210]

I can’t “undermine” an allegation, that’s a non sequitur. I have no influence at all over legal proceedings.

If the DoJ has enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant then he should face criminal proceedings, yes.

You are doing it again. I want your personal opinion, not whether DoJ has evidence etc, based on what has been released in public, do you Andrew to face a criminal trial?

While you do not have influence over legal proceedings, you do have a personal opinion, much like you want Boris in jail (your personal opinion).

 

[Robert]

You are doing it again. I want your personal opinion, not whether DoJ has evidence etc, based on what has been released in public, do you Andrew to face a criminal trial?

While you do not have influence over legal proceedings, you do have a personal opinion, much like you want Boris in jail (your personal opinion).

I think he looked shifty on Maitlis, suggesting that he has something to hide. What it is I don’t know. That he is avoiding going to civil court to clear his name is doubly suspicious. If he has done nothing wrong I believe he would go and clear his name.

That’s my personal opinion.

I get tired of these interrogations. I can only treat them as an intellectual exercise for a while before getting angry. Some PPers are very good at telling me to look into my own heart. Not so good at looking into their own. To quote the Gospels, they might take the plank out of their own eye before taking out the mote in mine.

 

[Robert]

Just to quickly drop in here gents, this ongoing discussion is now becoming rather circular and mundane for those of us who are being required to read through it on a daily basis. Might be best to adjourn for now until some further concrete news is released? Will leave this one up to you.

Hallelujah [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION]!

 

[Technics 1210]

I think he looked shifty on Maitlis, suggesting that he has something to hide. What it is I don’t know. That he is avoiding going to civil court to clear his name is doubly suspicious. If he has done nothing wrong I believe he would go and clear his name.

That’s my personal opinion.

I get tired of these interrogations. I can only treat them as an intellectual exercise for a while before getting angry. Some PPers are very good at telling me to look into my own heart. Not so good at looking into their own. To quote the Gospels, they might take the plank out of their own eye before taking out the mote in mine.

It’s not that, from my POV you want Boris in jail for no reason other than incompetence but want Andrew to go through the process and let the courts decide - hence I wanted a personal opinion. For this reason your views are sometimes inconsistent, uber-bias, and your logic, subjective.

Anyway lets see what happens after the 4th Jan.

 

[MenInG]

Just to quickly drop in here gents, this ongoing discussion is now becoming rather circular and mundane for those of us who are being required to read through it on a daily basis. Might be best to adjourn for now until some further concrete news is released? Will leave this one up to you.

Once again - please see this.

 

[MenInG]

Jurors in Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial have resumed deliberations, following three days where they were yet to reach a verdict.

During deliberations over the past days, they asked for a white board and different coloured sticky notes, as well as more transcripts of evidence and of a witness's testimony, indicating that they may still have work to do before coming to a decision.

They asked US District Judge Alison Nathan for a definition of the word "enticement", which is part of the charges.

According to CNN, the judge wrote the word means to "attract, induce or lure using hope or desire".

She also referred them to the legal instructions that she had read to them just before they began deliberations a week ago.

Before sending the jury home for the night on Monday, Judge Nathan said that when they return on Tuesday, if they do not reach a verdict, they should consider deliberating until 6pm - one hour later than usual.

But she added: "I don't mean to pressure you in any way. You should take all the time that you need."

What are the charges?

Maxwell faces a total of eight charges - including six counts of enticing minors and sex trafficking over a 10-year period.

The charges involve four alleged underage victims and multiple locations between 1994 and 2004. The youngest alleged victim was 14 years old at the time.

Maxwell also faces two counts of perjury which will be tried separately.

She denies all the charges and has pleaded not guilty.

Maxwell could be sentenced to 80 years in prison if found guilty of all counts.

Epstein killed himself in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges.

What does Maxwell say?

She has pleaded not guilty to all the six counts she is charged with.

Her lawyers have argued that prosecutors are scapegoating her because Epstein is dead, and say that the accusers' memories cannot be relied upon.

Included among the six charges is a sex trafficking count that carries a potential penalty of up to 40 years in prison.

SKY

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maxwell-jury-resume-deliberations-after-judge-warns-omicron-risk-2021-12-29/

The jury in British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell's sex abuse trial resumed deliberations on Wednesday, and asked to review the testimony of a psychologist who testified that people can form "false memories" about events that never happened.

Maxwell, 60, is accused of recruiting and grooming teenage girls to have sexual encounters with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004.

Over a three-week trial, jurors heard from four women who said Maxwell was central to facilitating their abuse by Epstein, Maxwell's former boyfriend and employer.

Her attorneys argued that the women's memories had been corrupted in the decades since the abuse allegedly occurred, and called to the stand Elizabeth Loftus, a psychology professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Loftus told the jury about experiments in which she and colleagues had successfully planted false memories in study participants' minds.

"Even traumatic experiences can be subjected to post-event suggestion," Loftus said. "False memories ... can be very vivid, detailed. People can be confident about them, people can be emotional about them, even though they're false."

Loftus has been an expert witness or consultant for the defense in hundreds of trials, including those of O.J. Simpson and Harvey Weinstein.

The request for Loftus' testimony came on the beginning of what could be a fifth full day of deliberations.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan warned of an increasing risk of a mistrial due to the rapid spread of the Omicron COVID-19 variant.

Nathan said on Wednesday she would tell jurors they should plan on deliberating each day until they reach a verdict, including New Year's Eve and over the weekend if needed. She said jurors should let her know if this schedule would pose a hardship due to "unmovable commitments."

Epstein, who counted top business executives and politicians among his associates, died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 at age 66 while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges.

Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to six counts of sex trafficking and other crimes. Her attorneys have argued she is being scapegoated for Epstein's behavior since he is no longer alive.

 

[Saj]

Ghislaine Maxwell has been found guilty of recruiting underage girls to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein.

The former socialite and ex-girlfriend of billionaire financier Epstein is now facing the prospect of years in prison.

Maxwell was convicted on five of the six counts she was charged with. She was accused of recruiting and grooming four teenagers for Epstein between 1994 and 2004.

The trial lasted 13 days, including 10 days for the prosecution case and two days for the defence, and heard from 33 witnesses. The prosecution said Maxwell had recruited teenage girls and served them up to Epstein on a platter to be abused.

They claimed she was a "sexual predator" and motivated by money, presenting a case that hinged around the searing and sometimes emotional testimony of the four accusers who took the stand.

One woman, Annie Farmer, waived her anonymity, another took the stand using only her first name, Carolyn, while two others, Jane and Kate, testified under a pseudonym.

Annie was introduced to Epstein by her sister, who worked in his office in New York.

She claimed she was flown to his sprawling ranch in New Mexico under the impression it was part of a scholarship programme with dozens of other students, but arrived to find she was there alone, apart from Epstein and Maxwell.

She said Maxwell instructed her how to give a foot massage to Epstein and later massaged Ms Farmer's "chest and upper breasts".

Carolyn, who was from a disadvantaged family in Florida's West Palm Beach, cried as she told the court she was sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell from the age of 14.

She said that she would be paid $200 a time to give Epstein massages, which would always end with sexual contact. Carolyn said on one occasion Maxwell had groped her "boobs, hips and buttocks" before telling her she had a "good body for Mr Epstein and his friends".

Jane was the first of the accusers to testify and said she met Maxwell aged 14 while at a performing arts summer camp. She said Maxwell befriended her and normalised sexual behaviour by using lewd language around her.

She alleged that Epstein used sex toys on her, and she said she was made to participate in group sex that centred around Epstein and sometimes involved Maxwell, too. She told the jury she was flown to New York and New Mexico to spend time with the pair at Epstein's lavish homes.

Maxwell has spent almost a year and a half in prison in New York, and she and her family have repeatedly complained about the conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Centre in Brooklyn.

Her older brother, Kevin Maxwell, addressed journalists outside court midway through the trial, claiming his sister's legs were left bruised and bleeding from the shackles she was forced to wear around her ankles while being transported to court every morning.

The defence claimed she was being scapegoated for the crimes of Epstein, who died by apparent suicide in 2019, while charged with operating a vast network of teenage girls to abuse.

After Epstein's arrest and death, Maxwell disappeared from public life. She was arrested in July 2020 at a property in New Hampshire on the east coast of the United States.

The police officers who completed the search of that home found a mobile phone wrapped in tin foil, which prosecutors claimed was an attempt to evade detection.

Maxwell also faces two perjury charges, which defence lawyers successfully argued should be tried separately.

SKY

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I wonder if Maxwell will commit suicide in a few days.....

There is surely no way back for Prince Andrew now.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I wonder if Maxwell will commit suicide in a few days.....

There is surely no way back for Prince Andrew now.

Highly likely she wont survive for another few months. Not sure if you looked into the Epstein 'suicide', the conclusion has many holes.

Andrew has no chance now, he will be sued for millions in his civil case. The UK police have dismissed any charges but once found guilty in the civil case, the US may ask him to be extradited but unlikely.

 

[Technics 1210]

Maxwell should spill the beans. Her life is over now, might as well grass on her clientele!

 

[Technics 1210]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawyer for Britain's Prince Andrew on Tuesday questioned whether Virginia Giuffre is legally entitled to pursue her civil lawsuit accusing the Duke of York of sexually abusing her when she was under 18.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the lawyer Andrew Brettler said "recently discovered evidence" suggested that the court lacked jurisdiction because Giuffre has lived in Australia for most of the last two decades, and cannot prove she resided in Colorado as she stated in her complaint.

The prince's filing came ahead of a scheduled Jan. 4, 2022, hearing before U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on whether to dismiss Giuffre's lawsuit.

Lawyers for Giuffre did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Giuffre, 38, accused https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...-accuser-over-alleged-sexual-abuse-2021-08-09 Andrew of forcing her to have sex more than two decades ago at the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of financier Jeffrey Epstein, and abusing her at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Andrew, 61, has denied Giuffre's claims, and accused her of trying to profit from accusations against Epstein and people who knew him. The prince has not been charged with crimes. Giuffre is seeking unspecified damages.

Federal courts may assert "diversity jurisdiction" over lawsuits when no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant.

Brettler said Giuffre failed this test because she has not lived in Colorado since at least 2019, and it was "long-established" that U.S. citizens who permanently resided abroad cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction.

He also suggested that Giuffre made a "calculated move to support her specious claim" of Colorado residency by registering to vote there, using her mother's and stepfather's mailing address, in February 2020.

"Without being able to satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute and must dismiss the action as a matter of law," Brettler wrote.

Andrew wants to halt the gathering of evidence until the jurisdictional issue is resolved, and is seeking "limited" discovery to determine whether Giuffre can sue him.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

https://news.yahoo.com/prince-andrew-questions-accuser-giuffres-220533267.html