Current Jeffrey Epstein - The fallout - Ghislaine Maxwell - Prince Andrew etc etc

Who killed Jeffrey Epstein?

  • He killed himself

    Votes: 9 10.3%
  • Rank incompetence enabled his suicide

    Votes: 17 19.5%
  • Bill Clinton

    Votes: 20 23.0%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 14 16.1%
  • The Russians

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • The Saudis

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • MI5/6 - British Royals

    Votes: 16 18.4%
  • Ghislane Maxwell

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Someone's Dad

    Votes: 7 8.0%

  • Total voters
    87

Remove this Banner Ad

BFew

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 5, 2017
7,146
22,796
AFL Club
West Coast
why wouldn’t she name names now to get a reduced sentence?
Might be a bit of negotiations going on in the background with who is allowed to be named, and who is prepared to do what in order not to be named, and what potential damage those they might name, could inflict on others. One big dirt file bun-fight behind the scenes probably, if you are looking at it through the cloudy lens of it being some form of a national security entrapment and blackmail op. which is probably still going, albeit in a very different phase than its earlier years.

Assuming she was working hand in glove with Intel, just like her Daddy, (and possibly other family members), you'd think there would be some codes of treatment for what happens to ex agents/assets, that will be shaping and strongly influencing what happens next.
 

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
17,591
38,298
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Hubby moved on quite fast.


Despite his offer to post a $25 million bond to secure Maxwell's pre-trial release, which the court rejected, Borgerson's name has not been mentioned throughout her three-week trial, and he did not attend the proceedings in Manhattan.

Instead, Borgerson has been spotted in the company of a new female friend in the elite New England enclave of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts, where he keeps a $2.4 million mansion that he once shared with Maxwell and his two children from a prior marriage.


 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
17,591
38,298
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs

jason_recliner

Senior List
Dec 9, 2020
277
433
AFL Club
West Coast
Hopefully.

She now has a reason to name them & provide evidence to reduce her sentence... though gather she will wait until after appeals.

I asked this question on the conspiracy board a while ago, who actually killed Epstein? The former cell mate?
and why wouldn’t she name names now to get a reduced sentence?

I don't think there are any more to name - they've already been exposed through court cases and leaks. Now we will see if there are any indictable criminal charges against any of them, starting with Andrew, and if they will be convicted or walk away.
 

jason_recliner

Senior List
Dec 9, 2020
277
433
AFL Club
West Coast
Might be a bit of negotiations going on in the background with who is allowed to be named, and who is prepared to do what in order not to be named, and what potential damage those they might name, could inflict on others. One big dirt file bun-fight behind the scenes probably, if you are looking at it through the cloudy lens of it being some form of a national security entrapment and blackmail op. which is probably still going, albeit in a very different phase than its earlier years.

Assuming she was working hand in glove with Intel, just like her Daddy, (and possibly other family members), you'd think there would be some codes of treatment for what happens to ex agents/assets, that will be shaping and strongly influencing what happens next.

I don't believe this is the situation. I think he was a dirty pedo and she helped him (I don't fully understand why, but possibly for emotional, romantic, and pragmatic/financial reasons) and they got caught. Those also potentially involved in their crimes (Andrew, Brunel, Dershowitz, I may have forgotten a few) have already been exposed. Whether they can be charged and convicted (if they are actually guilty) is another matter altogether.
 

Kane McGoodwin

TheBrownDog
May 21, 2001
63,804
58,779
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
I don't think there are any more to name - they've already been exposed through court cases and leaks. Now we will see if there are any indictable criminal charges against any of them, starting with Andrew, and if they will be convicted or walk away.
Doubtful... as I think there are plenty of people who haven't yet been named. Tip of the iceberg.
 

deanc

Premiership Player
Jun 13, 2014
4,346
5,667
Waverley
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tasmania
Latest news



Unless there is an unknown legal strategy at play here, I can't understand why Virginia Giuffre legal team allowed the settlement document to be unsealed - because assuming the article accurately portrays the specific wording, it's defies and contradicts her current claim and/or against anyone regarding historical sexual assault allegations related to her involvement with Epstein..?

I could be wrong, but irrespective of media interpretations, cause for dismissal with the current VG against PA case looks far more likely now...
 
Last edited:

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
57,858
68,128
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Newly released documents from 2009 reveal that sex offender Jeffrey Epstein settled the lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre for $US500,000. Prince Andrew argues the deal means he cannot be sued.
It doesn't constitute justice but an agreement made free of intimidation and by an adult of sound mind should stand, so I could see why he would be upset.

Still - I've stood in her home, enjoyed the view from her balcony - torch him in the daylight for all to see as far as I'm concerned. If the agreement was for something else, or not made in a fair state then throw it out and deduct the $500,000 USD + interest from the total if there is a finding in her favor.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bits

Team Captain
Oct 31, 2019
375
1,656
AFL Club
Adelaide
Unless there is an unknown legal strategy at play here, I can't understand why Virginia Giuffre legal team allowed the settlement document to be unsealed - because assuming the article accurately portrays the specific wording, it's defies and contradicts her current claim and/or against anyone regarding historical sexual assault allegations related to her involvement with Epstein..?

I could be wrong, but irrespective of media interpretations, cause for dismissal with the current VG against PA case looks far more likely now...
Isn’t she pushing the trafficking angle more now? That may not have been covered in the settlement, which seems to relate to abuse. Also, it might depend on the jurisdiction of both cases, and whether one is binding on the orther.
 

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
17,591
38,298
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
It doesn't constitute justice but an agreement made free of intimidation and by an adult of sound mind should stand, so I could see why he would be upset.

Still - I've stood in her home, enjoyed the view from her balcony - torch him in the daylight for all to see as far as I'm concerned. If the agreement was for something else, or not made in a fair state then throw it out and deduct the $500,000 USD + interest from the total if there is a finding in her favor.

Giuffre was actually recruited by a now convicted Maxwell and had sex with Andrew in Maxwell's house but her representation argues that Andrew wasn't named in the agreement, he didn't know about it and wasn't subject to jurisdction in Florida.
 

Bits

Team Captain
Oct 31, 2019
375
1,656
AFL Club
Adelaide
Giuffre was actually recruited by a now convicted Maxwell and had sex with Andrew in Maxwell's house but her representation argues that Andrew wasn't named in the agreement, he didn't know about it and wasn't subject to jurisdction in Florida.

I’m not a legal expert but on plain reading it’s ambiguous. Federal vs state law may come into it as well.

Would he need to know about it for it to cover him? If it reads that it applies to anyone who could potentially be a defendant, that’s a very broad brush.

As you said, she’s accused him of abusing her in Maxwell’s London home so you’d think it wouldn’t be binding in that jurisdiction.

This covers it fairly objectively:

 

jason_recliner

Senior List
Dec 9, 2020
277
433
AFL Club
West Coast
I’m not a legal expert but on plain reading it’s ambiguous. Federal vs state law may come into it as well.

Would he need to know about it for it to cover him? If it reads that it applies to anyone who could potentially be a defendant, that’s a very broad brush.

As you said, she’s accused him of abusing her in Maxwell’s London home so you’d think it wouldn’t be binding in that jurisdiction.

This covers it fairly objectively:


I'm also not a lawyer , so take this with a pinch of salt. It seems to me that their argument is based on jurisdiction. An extreme example would be a court in Afhanistan pardoning somebody, and any potential conspirators, for a crime comitted in Florida. Would a Florida court, or Federal USA court, be required to uphold this verdict? Or could they launch a new case as victims were in Florida, not Afghanistan? Or there might even be victims in NY, or California, or England. I know it's not the same thing at all, but I think this is the sort of angle Giuffre is working (and why they wanted the agreement released).
 

BFew

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 5, 2017
7,146
22,796
AFL Club
West Coast
How can a person have a legal agreement with another person on behalf of someone else, ie, how can Epstein and Guiffre have an agreement that, say, Prince Andrew can't be sued by Guiffre?
US legal system in that case was severely corrupted.
Everyone that agreed to let that happen needs to be prosecuted and jailed as a deterrent to the legal community letting that happen ever again.
 

knife

All Australian
Aug 19, 2009
870
606
AFL Club
Melbourne
Looking more likely there could be a retrial - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...uror-mistrial-saga-hires-fake-heiress-lawyer/

The juror at the centre of Ghislaine Maxwell’s bid for a retrial incorrectly told the court he had not been a victim of sexual assault, The Telegraph understands.
A source with knowledge of the case told The Telegraph that the juror had answered “no” to the question of whether they had ever been a victim of sexual assault.

At issue is whether Scotty incorrectly answered a question during the selection process on whether he had any personal experience of sexual abuse. Scotty told Reuters he “flew through” the 50 questions on the juror questionnaire and does not remember that one.

Legal experts explained that jurors' comments posed two potential issues: perjury and prejudice. That is, respectively, lying under oath and having a preconceived opinion that may have improperly swayed the jury.

Prosecutors requested an inquiry because they had an ethical duty to flag to the court concerns of possible prejudice, said Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor. But they also took the unusual step of requesting that Scotty be appointed an attorney, which Mr Rahmani said might suggest they believed he could have acted criminally by committing perjury.
 

DropBearess

Debutant
Apr 3, 2019
113
282
AFL Club
Adelaide
I have always believed royalty is one of the most obscene situations in the world. I detest it.

As a child l often asked my parents why we were supposed to worship this family. I just didn't get it and to this day l still struggle that the monarchy even exists. I normally wouldn't give them the time of day.

I'm currently lazing about camping and this royal PA crap appeared on one of my newsfeeds. l watched this cane toad's interview for the first time.

Psychology is my thing. Liar liar, pants on fire!
As in the Fawlty Towers episode, "there's enough there for an entire conference".

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Brits are freezing in the middle of winter because they can't afford the gas meter. Some will probably die with a news report of poor Prince Andrew on their beds.
 
Last edited: