Ghislaine Maxwell Co-Conspirator List Is Out

[hackey lad]

4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Randy’s her favourite child, so the most Liz will do is demote him from public duties.

I think you are a little late to that party 

[The Joker]

7 hours ago, Axel said:

I agree with this, playing devils advocate here, but what if Maxwell was the brains behind this and not Epstein.......

I doubt that Epstein didn’t know what was going on, but Ghislaine did use her feminine charms to groom victims from troubled and chaotic backgrounds.  There’s a reason why parents usually tell their children to find a Police officer or woman if they’re lost.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/30/ghislaine-maxwell-more-evil-than-epstein-says-virginia-giuffre

 

Ghislaine Maxwell more evil than Epstein, says Virginia Giuffre

Ghislaine Maxwell’s crimes were even worse than those of the sexual predator for whom she trafficked girls because she used her ability to gain the girls’ confidence to drag them into a world of abuse, an alleged victim has said.

 

Maxwell used her “womanly abilities to make me feel comfortable”, adding: “The deceit hurts even more because I fell naively into her trap. I mean, she is poised. She looks sophisticated. She didn’t raise any hairs on the back of my head.”

 

“The thing about predators is they seek the vulnerable, find out what they want, and promise them a dream. That’s how they work. Cages and chains come in all different shapes and sizes. I wasn’t tied to a radiator or anything, like you’ve seen in movies. My shackles were Epstein and Ghislaine’s wealth and the powerful people they knew.”

 

She called Maxwell the “devil’s righthand man”, adding: “She’s definitely worse than Epstein. She used that charm, that wit, that smile to come off as somebody you want to trust … She’s worse to me, more evil than Epstein. What Ghislaine did to so many of us, it’s unforgivable.”

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by The Joker

[The Joker]

6 hours ago, West 77 said:

The super rich, famous or royalty etc are targeted for this type of allegation unlike the relatively poor.  As I've already stated it's all about the money and not justice.

I do recall you supporting convicted paedophile Sir Jimmy Saville in a similar manner, saying that the victims were only motivated by money.

 

Jeffrey Epstein does have a previous conviction for soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution back in 2007.  Of course, he struck a plea deal and avoided any serious jail time.

 

You’d think if his super rich friends and acquaintances are so smart, they would have the good sense to cut him out of their lives that long ago.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/10/labor-secretary-acosta-epstein-plea-deal

Alexander Acosta, who as a federal prosecutor in Florida in 2007 negotiated a secret deal with lawyers for Epstein that allowed Epstein to avoid serious prison time, protected Epstein’s co-conspirators and hid the existence of the agreement from dozens of alleged victims.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by The Joker

[Guest sibon]

6 hours ago, West 77 said:

The super rich, famous or royalty etc are targeted for this type of allegation unlike the relatively poor.  As I've already stated it's all about the money and not justice.

I'm confused by this, and more than slightly disturbed.

 

Are you really saying that wealthy child molesters shouldn't receive equable treatment by the law?

[crookesey]

12 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Well clearly you have already heard all you want to hear, seen all the evidence you want to see, deliberated your judgement and applied your  sentencing.

 

Case closed as far as Crookesey is concerned everyone.   

 

Jesus, thank god we still don't have hanging 🙄

 

Out of curiosity, may I humbly question His Honour what level of damages award monies has been applied to the obviously proven victim.  

If you followed my past posts you would be aware that I am totally averse to the death penalty. I await, all be it vainly, your apology for this blatant lie.

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by crookesey

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, crookesey said:

If you followed my past posts you would be aware that I am totally averse to the death penalty. I await, all be it vainly, your apology for this blatant lie.

 

You will be waiting a long time. Read my words again.

 

I have not directly stated that you support the death penalty anywhere. I am merely demonstrating that it's a good job we don't have anything like that in place with the sort of judgemental, premature, unevidenced and uncorroborated assertions you have been declaring on here against an alleged accused party.

Edited December 31, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[crookesey]

Just now, ECCOnoob said:

You will be waiting a long time. Read my words again.

 

I have not directly stated that you support the death penalty anywhere. I am merely demonstrating that it's a good job we don't have anything like that in place with the short of judgemental, premature, unevidenced and uncorroborated assertions you have been declaring on here against an alleged accused party.

As I thought, the opposite of ‘directly’ is indirectly, which is still an accusation that I support the death penalty, which is a lie, you don’t see it that way as you appear to mess with the truth until it suits you.

 

[ECCOnoob]

10 hours ago, The Joker said:

I do recall you supporting convicted paedophile Sir Jimmy Saville in a similar manner, saying that the victims were only motivated by money..

 

 

Playing Devil's Advocate here, was he actually convicted?

 

The fact is he was dead and buried when these allegations and stories and testimonies and rumours all came flooding out.

 

Whilst I certainly will not doubt the massive weight of evidence against him, the basic fact is a corpse cannot stand trial. Nobody will ever really be 100-percent certain. No one can actually guarantee what may have been said in defence.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not defending it I am just suggesting there is a difference between a hard and founded conviction and speculative assertions on a deceased. 

 

Let's not forget that crowds of supporters in their hundreds were lining in the streets on the day of his funeral. They worshipped him as a hero, someone to be looked up to, celebrated his life and achievements.....then something quickly changed soon after and whether we like to admit it or not, the man never got a chance to speak for himself.

[ECCOnoob]

16 minutes ago, crookesey said:

As I thought, the opposite of ‘directly’ is indirectly, which is still an accusation that I support the death penalty, which is a lie, you don’t see it that way as you appear to mess with the truth until it suits you.

 

So just to be clear. You don't like it when people make judgemental, potentially false assertions about you without taking time to consider the full facts and evidence.

 

Hmmm.. interesting.  

[hackey lad]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

Playing Devil's Advocate here, was he actually convicted?

 

The fact is he was dead and buried when these allegations and stories and testimonies and rumours all came flooding out.

 

Whilst I certainly will not doubt the massive weight of evidence against him, the basic fact is a corpse cannot stand trial. Nobody will ever really be 100-percent certain. No one can actually guarantee what may have been said in defence.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not defending it I am just suggesting there is a difference between a hard and founded conviction and speculative assertions on a deceased. 

 

Let's not forget that crowds of supporters in their hundreds were lining in the streets on the day of his funeral. They worshipped him as a hero, someone to be looked up to, celebrated his life and achievements.....then something quickly changed soon after and whether we like to admit it or not, the man never got a chance to speak for himself.

He was never convicted of anything