Ghislaine Maxwell trial
Discussion
JeffreyD said:
How do you know he hasn't already sorted it all out?
It's quite possible they are using PA to generate a lot of noise and they are getting settlements left right and centre.
That is possible, but will still reflect on her credibility. "I've been abused by loads of people but I'm only naming these two because the others all paid me enough" isn't going to help the case against those two or in the media. Also does noise need to be generated? The Maxwell Trial was massive.It's quite possible they are using PA to generate a lot of noise and they are getting settlements left right and centre.
However, if she went public with some names over this there is no way a jury would make her return money she's received from elsewhere - she's broken her deal with the Epstein Victims fund and nobody's come knocking. Or I'm sure she could find a way to sneak enough info out to identify them, there aren't *that* many foreign presidents and prime ministers.
Also 20 years on some people she's accusing *must* have died and she can name them with impunity.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 19th January 13:57
BikeBikeBIke said:
That is possible, but will still reflect on her credibility. "I've been abused by loads of people but I'm only naming these two because the others all paid me enough" isn't going to help the case against those two or in the media. Also does noise need to be generated? The Maxwell Trial was massive.
However, if she went public with some names over this there is no way a jury would make her return money she's received from elsewhere - she's broken her deal with the Epstein Victims fund and nobody's come knocking. Or I'm sure she could find a way to sneak enough info out to identify them, there aren't *that* many foreign presidents and prime ministers.
Also 20 years on some people she's accusing *must* have died and she can name them with impunity.
Poor old Randy Andy getting caught up in such a tizz.However, if she went public with some names over this there is no way a jury would make her return money she's received from elsewhere - she's broken her deal with the Epstein Victims fund and nobody's come knocking. Or I'm sure she could find a way to sneak enough info out to identify them, there aren't *that* many foreign presidents and prime ministers.
Also 20 years on some people she's accusing *must* have died and she can name them with impunity.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 19th January 13:57
BikeBikeBIke said:
JeffreyD said:
It's quite possible they are using PA to generate a lot of noise and they are getting settlements left right and centre.
That is possible, but will still reflect on her credibility. Panamax said:
How can it possibly reflect on her credibility? There's no obligation to spill the beans all at once. She's suing one individual for his alleged actions. What she may have been involved with elsewhere has no relevance.
It definately reflects on her credibility. A scattergun of totally unsubstantiated accusations is going to look terrible.If she excuses that with "all the others paid me".... Still not a good look IMHO. And terrible from a compensation POV, essentially she's saying she usually settles out of court but she decided to drag just these two out. Knocks zeros of the payment right there, everyone involved is under an obligation not to needlessly increase costs.
If she excuses it with "I'm chasing these two first and I'll stand up the other claims later". I'm still not thinking it looks good.
Seriously, if I said 100 people punched me including you and sued you alone, you reckon that would be convincing? Especially if the other 99 had lives that were monitored in detail.
BikeBikeBIke said:
It definately reflects on her credibility. A scattergun of totally unsubstantiated accusations is going to look terrible.
If she excuses that with "all the others paid me".... Still not a good look IMHO. And terrible from a compensation POV, essentially she's saying she usually settles out of court but she decided to drag just these two out. Knocks zeros of the payment right there, everyone involved is under an obligation not to needlessly increase costs.
If she excuses it with "I'm chasing these two first and I'll stand up the other claims later". I'm still not thinking it looks good.
Seriously, if I said 100 people punched me including you and sued you alone, you reckon that would be convincing? Especially if the other 99 had lives that were monitored in detail.
Sorry I didn't make my point clear.If she excuses that with "all the others paid me".... Still not a good look IMHO. And terrible from a compensation POV, essentially she's saying she usually settles out of court but she decided to drag just these two out. Knocks zeros of the payment right there, everyone involved is under an obligation not to needlessly increase costs.
If she excuses it with "I'm chasing these two first and I'll stand up the other claims later". I'm still not thinking it looks good.
Seriously, if I said 100 people punched me including you and sued you alone, you reckon that would be convincing? Especially if the other 99 had lives that were monitored in detail.
In theory she could use PA as the distraction and the warning to others. Create a lot of noise and scare others into settling. This could all be happening right now and I raise it because Welshbeef wants to know why Bill Clinton isn't being sued and I am positing it could be because he's already settled. Or because he never went near her.
JeffreyD said:
Sorry I didn't make my point clear.
In theory she could use PA as the distraction and the warning to others. Create a lot of noise and scare others into settling. This could all be happening right now and I raise it because Welshbeef wants to know why Bill Clinton isn't being sued and I am positing it could be because he's already settled. Or because he never went near her.
It's a clever imaginative theory and I love It. I'm still not remotely convinced. In theory she could use PA as the distraction and the warning to others. Create a lot of noise and scare others into settling. This could all be happening right now and I raise it because Welshbeef wants to know why Bill Clinton isn't being sued and I am positing it could be because he's already settled. Or because he never went near her.
I'm pretty certain Clinton (and Trump) are in the clear here. Sure they've been on the aircraft (Clinton 26 times!) but there's no mention from the girls themselves and VR seems to have made no mention of US Presidents in her list. (I guess that can all change.)
BikeBikeBIke said:
If she excuses it with "I'm chasing these two first and I'll stand up the other claims later". I'm still not thinking it looks good.
She can't use that. The reason the case is in New York is because of a law brought in which for a limited time removed the time bar on cild sex abuse cases. Any old claims not started by Aug 2021 are time barred.https://nyaccidentlawyer.com/what-is-the-new-york-...
IAmTheWalrus said:
No surprise there. If we've seen one thing from the 2020 election is that there's a very low threshold for filing suits and putting them before a judgeWe should start up a thread on 'whatever happened with the famous person in trial x' to see how their lives unfolded. Could start with Louise Woodward
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_ca...
Never even heard of this Maxwell character before the trial.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_ca...
Never even heard of this Maxwell character before the trial.
Maxwell files for a new trial over weather Juror 50 (named Scotty David) was forthcoming in his juror questionaire about his history of sexual abuse.
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/148869080...
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/148869080...
Lord Marylebone said:
Well that’s it then. Looks like she’s spending the next 30 years in prison.
And depending who you listen to she is now in one of two positions1) unwilling or unable to do a deal as she either doesn't have the info or is unwilling to throw others under bus
2) left it too late to do any deal, running any credibility etc
I can't see why she'd not snitch on others if she felt she'd have any chance to have a day or of prison before her funeral
Did any of you see that documentary program last night about Robert Maxwell? I was surprised to see they were related, I hadn't seen that in the papers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0b64j3y/ho...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0b64j3y/ho...
IAmTheWalrus said:
Did any of you see that documentary program last night about Robert Maxwell? I was surprised to see they were related, I hadn't seen that in the papers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0b64j3y/ho...
That settles it. There is no way you are for real.https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0b64j3y/ho...
IAmTheWalrus said:
Did any of you see that documentary program last night about Robert Maxwell? I was surprised to see they were related, I hadn't seen that in the papers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0b64j3y/ho...
Good wind up though.https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0b64j3y/ho...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff