Ghislaine Maxwell Co-Conspirator List Is Out

[Waldo]

I’m surprised at the length of her possible sentence. I think they mentioned 65 years? For assisting someone to sexually abuse people? Or has she been convicted of abuse herself?

 

Anyhow. How would that sentence compare with a sentence for something like mass murder of babies? Or serial killer?

 

Have to wait and see what actual sentencing is, but potential sentence doesn't quite seem proportional to the crime.

[melthebell]

44 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I’m surprised at the length of her possible sentence. I think they mentioned 65 years? For assisting someone to sexually abuse people? Or has she been convicted of abuse herself?

 

Anyhow. How would that sentence compare with a sentence for something like mass murder of babies? Or serial killer?

 

Have to wait and see what actual sentencing is, but potential sentence doesn't quite seem proportional to the crime.

Tbf, with murderers etc in the US you do generally get whole life, even 2 or 3 life's, if not the death penalty. They don't come out

[Waldo]

17 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I doubt she would have spent any time in prison if Epstein hadn't committed suicide.  

Justice should be fair and delivered without an agenda. Also, it should apply equally to all.

 

Is Andrew factually guilty of abuse? If so, I wouldn’t expect him to face any justice...

 

5 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Tbf, with murderers etc in the US you do generally get whole life, even 2 or 3 life's, if not the death penalty. They don't come out

That’s true. There’s money to be made in the US by locking people up.

 

There was a situation in the US, where two judges were being bribed (by prison owners) to find people guilty and give out very long sentences for the lightest of crimes (or maybe when accused were clearly innocent).

 

Also, 1 life sentence is no different to a 100 life sentences.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Waldo

[melthebell]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

Justice should be fair and delivered without an agenda. Also, it should apply equally to all.

 

Is Andrew factually guilty of abuse? If so, I wouldn’t expect him to face any justice...

 

That’s true. There’s money to be made in the US by locking people up.

 

There was a situation in the US, where two judges were being bribed (by prison owners) to find people guilty and give out very long sentences for the lightest of crimes (or maybe when accused were clearly innocent).

 

Also, 1 life sentence is no different to a 100 life sentences.

Makes me laugh when they get given 2 or 3 life sentences lol

How old would they be when they die? 200? Lol

 

[crookesey]

If he was recorded zipping his fly up, and saying how’s that for a right royal c**k up, whilst leaving her place, he would still get away Scott free.

[butlers]

Think there's just been a truck driver sentenced in Colorado for a fatal crash....110years

[cuttsie]

12 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Why wasn't the Maxwell lady charged at the same time Epstein was?  Don't you think there's a possibility she's been made a scapegoat?

 

Prince Andrew hasn't been charged with any criminal offences.  He's involved in a civil matter. The truth is the whole saga hasn't got anything to do with justice but has got everything to do with money.

Of course it has and the Royal family have it coming out of their ears .

Andrew will get away with owt .

[ECCOnoob]

29 minutes ago, cuttsie said:

Of course it has and the Royal family have it coming out of their ears .

Andrew will get away with owt .

Get away with what?

 

So far there has not been a single shred of evidence that this woman had any relations with Andrew let alone such relations being against her will and illegal.

 

All she has done so far is bring some very dubious proceedings through a convoluted jurisdiction process which makes no sense and of course hired herself a very good PR team to maximise playing the victim against the "wealthy" "elitist" and  "privileged" Monsters.

 

She already has past form for falsehoods and and gaps in evidence and this case is playing out no better.

 

Innocent until proven guilty applies no matter whether prince or pauper. I get rather fed up with the obvious one-sided naming and shaming which seems to happen particularly in sensitive sexual assault cases. Both parties should remain equal throughout the proceedings in terms of their anonymity, public intrusion, press rumour and speculation.

 

They may well be troubled, shaken, upset victims  but that does not excuse them for their duty of sufficiently evidencing and presenting their case  beyond reasonable doubt of a crime or strong balance of probabilities in a civil claim. Ultimately, if they can't provide such position no case.

 

We don't do trial by Twitter or newspaper polls.  All that should matter is proper Justice. That means until a court decides otherwise an accousor is only ever the alleged victim just as equal to someone only ever being the alleged accused.

Edited December 30, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Waldo]

34 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Why wasn't the Maxwell lady charged at the same time Epstein was?  Don't you think there's a possibility she's been made a scapegoat?

 

Prince Andrew hasn't been charged with any criminal offences.  He's involved in a civil matter. The truth is the whole saga hasn't got anything to do with justice but has got everything to do with money.

Epstein had a few bob, money didn’t help him. I suspect it’s more to do with influence and power, than just mere money (though of course, that’s always going help too).

 

I also suspect she would have fared much better, had the victims and media gotten their pound of flesh out of Epstein.

 

In my opinion, we should judge people fairly and justly, and a person’s status in society should have no bearing on their punishment. That’s an ideal of course, sadly, it seems far removed from the (so called) justice systems we have.

[crookesey]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

Get away with what?

 

So far there has not been a single shred of evidence that this woman had any relations with Andrew let alone such relations being against her will and illegal.

 

All she has done so far is bring some very dubious proceedings through a convoluted jurisdiction process which makes no sense and of course hired herself a very good PR team to maximise playing the victim against the "wealthy" "elitist" and  "privileged" Monsters.

 

She already has past form for falsehoods and and gaps in evidence and this case is playing out no better.

 

Innocent until proven guilty applies no matter whether prince or pauper. I get rather fed up with the obvious one-sided naming and shaming which seems to happen particularly in sensitive sexual assault cases. Both parties should remain equal throughout the proceedings in terms of their anonymity, public intrusion, press rumour and speculation.

 

They may well be troubled, shaken, upset victims  but that does not excuse them for their duty of sufficiently evidencing and presenting their case  beyond reasonable doubt of a crime or strong balance of probabilities in a civil claim. Ultimately, if they can't provide such position no case.

 

We don't do trial by Twitter or newspaper polls.  All that should matter is proper Justice. That means until a court decides otherwise an accousor is only ever the alleged victim just as equal to someone only ever being the alleged accused.

You of course are correct, us none royalists are saying that whatever a royal is accused of, it’s a complete waste of time and money to take it further.