Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Ghislaine Maxwell arrested by FBI

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Ghislaine Maxwell arrested by FBI

Old 3rd Jan 2022, 09:32
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1
I suppose the main question is did he know her age at the time
I guess a better question to ask is did Epstein's and Maxwell's assurances make him think he could get away with it. Too bad for him, Maxwell and Epstein who probably believed they could refashion the facts to suit themselves if needed but now appear to have succumbed to the new information age which relentlessly doesn't forget even the smallest of details.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 15:54
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 22,912
Originally Posted by cattletruck View Post
I guess a better question to ask is did Epstein's and Maxwell's assurances make him think he could get away with it. Too bad for him, Maxwell and Epstein who probably believed they could refashion the facts to suit themselves if needed but now appear to have succumbed to the new information age which relentlessly doesn't forget even the smallest of details.
Which does raise the question did any of these visitors from possibly Trump etc to Andrew get recorded and Blackmailed.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 16:14
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 22,912
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
This may be inappropriate. I find Ghislaine quite hot.
By the time she is released she will be drier than a Touareg’s flip flop and may well qualify as a born again virgin.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 19:03
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 22,912
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 damages settlement against the sex offender shows.

The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.

Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

He has consistently denied the claims.
So that throws her case into doubt as she is suing him, but it does not in my eyes clear him of the offences that may well have taken place and regardless he could still surely be prosecuted by the US legal system using her evidence.

All his actions appear to simply delay the inevitable, the fact he is trying to get it thrown out under such a pretext does in my eyes show he has something to hide.

​​​​​​…

Last edited by NutLoose; 3rd Jan 2022 at 19:16.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 19:35
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,828
I'd have thought that (to quote the BBC):

A source in Prince Andrew's legal team said "Giuffre referred to 'royalty' in her 2009 claim [against Jeffrey Epstein] and that means Prince Andrew was covered by the deal".
was pretty well the final nail in HRH's coffin as far as any remaining credibility was concerned.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 19:58
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831 All his actions appear to simply delay the inevitable, the fact he is trying to get it thrown out under such a pretext does in my eyes show he has something to hide.
The Duke's evident arrogance, obfuscation and sense of entitlement have made this conclusion almost inevitable.

It is possible that the terms of the extraordinarily prolix legal document disclosed today will allow his defence to have the case thrown out in that there has been no case to answer. If that position is upheld, (and given the Machiavellian contortions of which the American legal system is capable, it is entirely possible that the Roberts/Epstein agreement will be breached/voided), there will be no evidentiary proceedings and thus Andrew will be "exonerated", at least in a court of law, because the State has been unable to proceed against him. But his proclaimed innocence will not have been established in public opinion, which in terms of his continuing in royal standing, leaves him in a profoundly compromised position. I suspect he is finished either way.

If the court rejects these arguments for the defence and proceeds with the action, all bets are off.



Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 23:02
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by Gipsy Queen View Post
The Duke's evident arrogance, obfuscation and sense of entitlement have made this conclusion almost inevitable.

It is possible that the terms of the extraordinarily prolix legal document disclosed today will allow his defence to have the case thrown out in that there has been no case to answer. If that position is upheld, (and given the Machiavellian contortions of which the American legal system is capable, it is entirely possible that the Roberts/Epstein agreement will be breached/voided), there will be no evidentiary proceedings and thus Andrew will be "exonerated", at least in a court of law, because the State has been unable to proceed against him. But his proclaimed innocence will not have been established in public opinion, which in terms of his continuing in royal standing, leaves him in a profoundly compromised position. I suspect he is finished either way.

If the court rejects these arguments for the defence and proceeds with the action, all bets are off.
You seem to have him hung, drawn and quartered from reading the MSM.
I hope I never see you on a jury...
Nige321 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2022, 23:05
  #208 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,685
I agree. I can’t find anything to like the man at all (having met him when we were both in the Armed Forces and when we were both the same rank) but the trial should be done in a court, rather than by the media.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 00:30
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by Nige321 View Post
You seem to have him hung, drawn and quartered from reading the MSM.
I hope I never see you on a jury...
Actually, I have made no judgement of his position. I have done no more than comment upon his situation as I understand it and I certainly have not given any opinion of guilt or otherwise - you have chosen to assume that. The Duke is not required to prove his innocence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate his guilt and a jury to confirm or not according to its findings. I did suggest that his case was not doing well in the court of public opinion which, whilst having no legal jurisdiction, nevertheless may have influence sufficient to alter the course of events.

Similarly, the petition objecting to the rewarding of Tony Blair has no legal validity as the exercise has not been conducted under the aegis of the government system responding to such matters, but I think it reasonable to suppose that with a reaction currently exceeding 527,000 and increasing by the minute, some acknowledgement of this level of dissatisfaction will have to be made by the authorities.

And fear not - you won't have to glare at me from the dock as I'm well past the age for jury duty.

Last edited by Gipsy Queen; 4th Jan 2022 at 00:58.
Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 00:31
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 22,912
Prince Andrew could be asked to stop using Duke of York title if he loses sexual assault case, reports say (msn.com)


The Duke of York is facing scrutiny again after his former friend Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of sex trafficking underage girls last week.

According to The Sunday Times, royal courtiers are in discussions about what to do if Andrew loses the civil suit launched by Virginia Giuffre – previously Roberts – in September 2021, which alleges that she was forced to have sex with the duke three times while she was being abused by Epstein.

The duke vehemently denies the allegations and maintains he does not recall ever meeting her. His lawyers are hopeful they can convince a judge to throw out the case.

But The Sunday Times quotes royal sources as saying the duke may be asked to “put his dukedom into abeyance” if he loses.

The source was also quoted as saying that Andrew would be asked to give up his remaining patronages to charities and would not be able to go abroad due to the “risk of extradition”, which would result in “a form of internal exile”.

Last edited by NutLoose; 4th Jan 2022 at 11:54.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 04:55
  #211 (permalink)  
Deputy Assistant Bottle Washer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: PPRuNe
Posts: 3,915
Nutty, a reminder of RoE 9. At least have the courtesy to cut and paste the article, not put a hyperlink and have us face the Cookies Challenge 👍

Jet Blast Rules of Engagement (RoE)
Senior Pilot is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 11:53
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 22,912
Will do, my apologies
NutLoose is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 18:30
  #213 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,685
Originally Posted by Espada III View Post
She wasn't under age. At 17 it was perfectly legal.

There was a BBC article a few weeks ago about a 17 year old girl being treated for a form of cancer and the treatment had an effect on her ability to have sex. She was very open that her sex life up to the point at which she started treatment had been something well in excess of usual procedures. So I don't trust that Giuffre woman.
As far as I can tell, she was underage at the time according to US law.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 19:02
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
I agree. I canít find anything to like the man at all (having met him when we were both in the Armed Forces and when we were both the same rank) but the trial should be done in a court, rather than by the media.
But the only reason it may well not be done in a court is simply because the man himself appears to be doing everything humanly possible to avoid that happening.
If he opted for his day in court then the media (both mainstream and social) might not be so vociferous about him.
747 jock is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 19:16
  #215 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,685
I agree. But then again, he really made a rod for his own back by getting himself in such a potentially compromising situation in the first place, namely the dreaded “honey trap” we in the armed forces were so often warned about during the Cold War.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 19:44
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
I agree. But then again, he really made a rod for his own back by getting himself in such a potentially compromising situation in the first place, namely the dreaded “honey trap” we in the armed forces were so often warned about during the Cold War.
Ah yes. Although it sounds sexist and patronizing today, I remember just one of many red flags from back then was that if you encountered a young woman from the Eastern Bloc who really knew how to wear makeup properly, then it was best to be on the double quick in avoidance. It was just one of many warnings.

Or, to use the parlance of a much more recent generation: "She's really not into you."

I know some of us are revolted over the entire escapade. Quibbling over 17 or 18 years of age. The bounder was in, or close to being in his fifties. If he had been north of 25 it would have still seemed odd to me. 🤮

Last edited by Uncle Fred; 4th Jan 2022 at 19:54.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 20:58
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
Ah yes. Although it sounds sexist and patronizing today, I remember just one of many red flags from back then was that if you encountered a young woman from the Eastern Bloc who really knew how to wear makeup properly, then it was best to be on the double quick in avoidance. It was just one of many warnings.

Or, to use the parlance of a much more recent generation: "She's really not into you."

I know some of us are revolted over the entire escapade. Quibbling over 17 or 18 years of age. The bounder was in, or close to being in his fifties. If he had been north of 25 it would have still seemed odd to me. 🤮
Yes Fred, the whole "was she 17 or 18" business is an unfortunate legal point to define if statutory rape occured or not. The silly discussion then departs into talking about peadophilia and children. Young women in their late teens are not children; nor is an appetite for young flesh peadohpilia. Peadophilia is a distorted sexual obsession with pre-pubescents. Preying on a 16 year old is obviously not the same as preying on an 8 year old. Even so, it is clear that an ugly abuse of power and wealth to take advantage of niave young women took place.

Still, on a lighter note, and whilst on the subject of taking advantage: I think the best policy faced with a potential honey trap in which a gorgeous, well turned out woman shows an implausible interest in you, would be to let slip that you know a lot of valuable information that you might be prepared to divulge.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 21:43
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Augusta, Georgia, USA (back from Germany again)
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
I agree. I canít find anything to like the man at all (having met him when we were both in the Armed Forces and when we were both the same rank) but the trial should be done in a court, rather than by the media.
I'm curious as an American how that works. Is he "Andy," "Andrew," "Sir," "Captain/Major/Commander Windsor"? Equals? More equal than others?

I was in the Navy before the Army. The Secretary of the Navy at the time was a Lieutenant Commander A-6 bombardier-navigator in the Navy Reserve. I'm sure he was treated differently by the flag officers than any other LCDR when he did his reserve duty.

Not trying for thread drift, just genuinely curious how that stuff works. I'm glad she's been found guilty.
LTCTerry is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2022, 21:56
  #219 (permalink)  
See and avoid
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 590
Seventeen is on the cusp of “I know everything I need to know to get around independently in the big wide world” and “very naive.”

It’s well over the age you need to be to get legally married by your own consent in many parts of the United States and other parts of the world.

It is far different from being a fourteen-year-old and handed over to someone who likes very young girls.

A bit of makeup, and some practice, who’s to know you are not eighteen?

I think Epstein and Ghislaine are privileged monsters, but their “pals” may have been sucked into the scam.
visibility3miles is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 01:38
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 22,912
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
A
I know some of us are revolted over the entire escapade. Quibbling over 17 or 18 years of age. The bounder was in, or close to being in his fifties. If he had been north of 25 it would have still seemed odd to me. 🤮
Strangely enough I just looked it up because I thought it was older than the 18 but state to state the US age of consent differes wildly dependent on various factors such as age difference etc,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o..._United_States

While the general ages of consent are now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.[104] The ages of consent were raised across the U.S. during the late 19th century and the early 20th century.[105][106] By 1920, 26 states had an age of consent at 16, 21 states had an age of consent at 18, and one state (Georgia) had an age of consent at 14.[104] Small adjustments to these laws occurred after 1920. The last 2 states to raise its age of general consent from under 16 to 16 or higher were Georgia, which raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995,[107] and Hawaii, which changed it from 14 to 16 in 2001.[108]

Age-of-consent laws were historically only applied when a female was younger than her male partner. By 2015 ages of consent were made gender-symmetric.[108] Until the late 20th century many states had provisions requiring that the teenage girl must be of previous "chaste character" in order for the sexual conduct to be considered criminal. In 1998 Mississippi became the last state to remove this provision from its code.[109]

The laws were designed to prosecute people far older than the victims rather than teenagers close in age; therefore prosecutors rarely pursued teenagers in relationships with other teenagers even though the wordings of the laws made some close-in-age teenage relationships illegal. After the 1995 Landry and Forrest study concluded that men aged 20 and older produced half of the teenage pregnancies of girls between 15 and 17, states began to more stringently enforce age-of-consent laws to combat teenage pregnancy in addition to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors.[110]

A backlash among the public occurred when some teenagers engaging in close-in-age relationships received punishments perceived by the public to be disproportionate,[111] and thus age-gap provisions were installed to reduce or eliminate penalties if the two parties are close in age.[112] Brittany Logino Smith and Glen A. Kercher of the Criminal Justice Center of Sam Houston State University wrote that these laws are often referred to as "Romeo and Juliet laws", though they defined Romeo and Juliet as only referring to an affirmative defense against prosecution.[113] Previously some of these statutes only applied to heterosexual sex, leaving homosexual sex in the same age range open to prosecution.[114]
NutLoose is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.