IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Ghislaine Maxwell , Jeffrey Epstein , sex trafficking

Reply
Old 27th November 2021, 07:04 AM   #1281
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,562
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
..or there has been a lot of publicity and sensationalism.

...or you're simply ignorant and wrong.

(I know which option I find vastly more likely)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 11:53 AM   #1282
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Who has said all these claims are all false memories?
You did!

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Indeed. False Memory really only applies in situations where a single, usually very young alleged victim makes accusations against a single, alleged perpetrator, and only in very specific and peculiar circumstances. When several different people are making similar allegations, false memory is not in play.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Sorry but that's all very much wrong. We all have false memories, they "spontaneously" arise all the time. We now know much more about how memory works and why false memories are so prevalent.
False memories aren’t rare. Everyone has them. They range from small and trivial, like where you swear you put your keys last night, to significant, like how an accident happened or what you saw during a crime[/i]..... "[/indent]

When I said false memories don't arise spontaneously, I was not talking about trivial misremembering like being wrong about where you left you car keys! I was commenting in the context of this case and this topic of this thread. When people have false memories of extremely traumatic events such as being raped and sexually assaulted, those memories never arise spontaneously - they are always coached to "remember", usually by a psycho-quack. There has never been a case of multiple victims all falsely remembering suffering years of being raped and sexually assaulted by the same two people. If you think there is one, please link to it (and please, no more links involving car keys and washing machines!)
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 12:38 PM   #1283
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,112
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You did!






When I said false memories don't arise spontaneously, I was not talking about trivial misremembering like being wrong about where you left you car keys! I was commenting in the context of this case and this topic of this thread. When people have false memories of extremely traumatic events such as being raped and sexually assaulted, those memories never arise spontaneously - they are always coached to "remember", usually by a psycho-quack. There has never been a case of multiple victims all falsely remembering suffering years of being raped and sexually assaulted by the same two people. If you think there is one, please link to it (and please, no more links involving car keys and washing machines!)
You have quoted my posts which show that I did not claim they were all suffering from false memories.

Indeed I’m even against a “generic” statement being made in court about false memories, if the defence wants to claim false memories they need to show why and specifically to each of the victims.all the statements.

ETA: you also being disingenuous as in the very article you keep pulling the “car keys” from states and that I quoted “ They range from small and trivial, like where you swear you put your keys last night, to significant, like how an accident happened or what you saw during a crime..”

I would suggest you research the fallibility of human memory.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 27th November 2021 at 12:42 PM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 08:46 PM   #1284
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You have quoted my posts which show that I did not claim they were all suffering from false memories.

Indeed I’m even against a “generic” statement being made in court about false memories, if the defence wants to claim false memories they need to show why and specifically to each of the victims.all the statements.

ETA: you also being disingenuous as in the very article you keep pulling the “car keys” from states and that I quoted “ They range from small and trivial, like where you swear you put your keys last night, to significant, like how an accident happened or what you saw during a crime..”

I would suggest you research the fallibility of human memory.
Meh... you just completely ignored the context of what I said... again!

Just answer this... on a scale from 0 to 9, with 0 being impossible and 9 being certain to happen...

How likely do you think it is that four people could all have vivid memories of being sex-trafficked, sexually assaulted and raped by two individuals that all four knew, over a time span of several years.... that NONE of what they remember actually happened, and that it ALL came from un-coached spontaneously arising false memories.

NOTE: You only earn the right to elaborate, qualify or explain once you give me a number.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th November 2021 at 08:47 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 04:00 AM   #1285
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Meh... you just completely ignored the context of what I said... again!

Just answer this... on a scale from 0 to 9, with 0 being impossible and 9 being certain to happen...

How likely do you think it is that four people could all have vivid memories of being sex-trafficked, sexually assaulted and raped by two individuals that all four knew, over a time span of several years.... that NONE of what they remember actually happened, and that it ALL came from un-coached spontaneously arising false memories.

NOTE: You only earn the right to elaborate, qualify or explain once you give me a number.

Whoa! It is possible for four witnesses to all be wrong you know, especially where an advert asking for people to come forward has been put out, as Giuffre's Bradley Edwards did. Not to say they are liars or even false memories but such solicitations do attract the unscrupulous. For example, in the Grenfell fire case, a whole bunch of fraudsters came forward claiming to be victims in order to get free hotel accommodation and 'compo'.

Not saying this has happened here, just that you can't assume that just because there are many claimants it proves the case.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 04:11 AM   #1286
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,112
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Meh... you just completely ignored the context of what I said... again!

Just answer this... on a scale from 0 to 9, with 0 being impossible and 9 being certain to happen...

How likely do you think it is that four people could all have vivid memories of being sex-trafficked, sexually assaulted and raped by two individuals that all four knew, over a time span of several years.... that NONE of what they remember actually happened, and that it ALL came from un-coached spontaneously arising false memories.

NOTE: You only earn the right to elaborate, qualify or explain once you give me a number.
Horse and water.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 06:41 AM   #1287
SteveAitch
Critical Thinker
 
SteveAitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: St Aines
Posts: 410
Meanwhile, back at the plot...

The case is starting to get some coverage in the UK press*. Well, in the i, at any rate.

* possibly because things are starting to happen.
__________________
If this board is too exciting for you, try my Flickr pages. Warning: may cause narcolepsy!

Some people call me 'strange'. I prefer 'unconventional'. But I'm willing to compromise and accept 'eccentric'...
SteveAitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 10:53 AM   #1288
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Horse and water.
Translation: You can't answer the question, because you can't back up your position with facts and evidence.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Whoa! It is possible for four witnesses to all be wrong you know, especially where an advert asking for people to come forward has been put out, as Giuffre's Bradley Edwards did. Not to say they are liars or even false memories but such solicitations do attract the unscrupulous. For example, in the Grenfell fire case, a whole bunch of fraudsters came forward claiming to be victims in order to get free hotel accommodation and 'compo'.

Not saying this has happened here, just that you can't assume that just because there are many claimants it proves the case.
Wow. Four separate witnesses all have spontaneously arising false memories about having been sexually assaulted, raped and sex trafficked by the same two people over a period of several years.

Please use your "psychology degree" to ell us all the mechanics of how that could happen.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th November 2021 at 10:58 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 03:43 PM   #1289
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Translation: You can't answer the question, because you can't back up your position with facts and evidence.



Wow. Four separate witnesses all have spontaneously arising false memories about having been sexually assaulted, raped and sex trafficked by the same two people over a period of several years.

Please use your "psychology degree" to ell us all the mechanics of how that could happen.
Teenagers go to parties and have sex with what they considered attractive men at the time. Fair enough, you can call it statutory rape if the woman concerned is legally underage at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean violence and assault was involved. Two of the accusers of Maxwell were actually over the age of consent as of the jurisdiction in which they had sex with Epstein. (The UK, [17] and the State wherein Epstein has his ranch [16].)


We will soon discover what the case is against Maxwell.

Re Loftus: it's Maxwell's right of course to ask for whatever defence the court allows. However, to me, it smacks of cynicism and desperation on her part. I find it hard to respect. Reminds me of Derek Chauvin having to resort to some bent witness from South Africa to affirm his methods of police restraint were perfectly fine.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 03:48 PM   #1290
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,699
Originally Posted by SteveAitch View Post
Meanwhile, back at the plot...

The case is starting to get some coverage in the UK press*. Well, in the i, at any rate.

* possibly because things are starting to happen.
What are the lizard people hiding?

Quote:
Reports that investigators seized Ms Maxwell’s address books have sparked speculation that the trial could explore Epstein’s connections to Prince Andrew, former US president Bill Clinton and former OJ Simpson lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

But the judge has made clear there will be no name-dropping at trial, saying only certain pages of an address book – showing a section naming the alleged victims under the heading “massage” – will come into evidence.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 04:23 PM   #1291
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Teenagers go to parties and have sex with what they considered attractive men at the time. Fair enough, you can call it statutory rape if the woman concerned is legally underage at the time but that doesn't necessarily mean violence and assault was involved. Two of the accusers of Maxwell were actually over the age of consent as of the jurisdiction in which they had sex with Epstein. (The UK, [17] and the State wherein Epstein has his ranch [16].)
Pro Tip: Sex trafficking is illegal regardless of the age of the trafficked girl.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We will soon discover what the case is against Maxwell.
Indeed we will. Her defence is premised basically on two things

1. Distancing herself from Epstein. That is going to be very difficult to do given there will be people who will testify that
a. she was a hirer/firer for him.
b. that she traveled extensively with him, and.
c. that she arranged girls to have sex with him.

2. Trying to demonize rape victims, essentially claiming that all four girls are lying/mistaken about everything. Demonizing rape victims does not generally fly well with juries.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Re Loftus: it's Maxwell's right of course to ask for whatever defence the court allows. However, to me, it smacks of cynicism and desperation on her part. I find it hard to respect. Reminds me of Derek Chauvin having to resort to some bent witness from South Africa to affirm his methods of police restraint were perfectly fine.
Even in the unlikely event that Loftus can give an opinion on these four victims without personally examining them, the prosecution is sure to bring in their own expert witness, who they may allow to examine the victims to give a countervailing opinion.

Calling Loftus could backfire on her very badly.
.
.
.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 04:53 PM   #1292
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,699
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Pro Tip: Sex trafficking is illegal regardless of the age of the trafficked girl.



Indeed we will. Her defence is premised basically on two things

1. Distancing herself from Epstein. That is going to be very difficult to do given there will be people who will testify that
a. she was a hirer/firer for him.
b. that she traveled extensively with him, and.
c. that she arranged girls to have sex with him.

2. Trying to demonize rape victims, essentially claiming that all four girls are lying/mistaken about everything. Demonizing rape victims does not generally fly well with juries.



Even in the unlikely event that Loftus can give an opinion on these four victims without personally examining them, the prosecution is sure to bring in their own expert witness, who they may allow to examine the victims to give a countervailing opinion.

Calling Loftus could backfire on her very badly.
.
.
.
I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".

Indeed, I would imagine that a skilled prosecutor should surely be able to get Loftus to agree that her professional opinion on false memories in general has little or no bearing on the specific case.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 04:58 PM   #1293
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Pro Tip: Sex trafficking is illegal regardless of the age of the trafficked girl.



Indeed we will. Her defence is premised basically on two things

1. Distancing herself from Epstein. That is going to be very difficult to do given there will be people who will testify that
a. she was a hirer/firer for him.
b. that she traveled extensively with him, and.
c. that she arranged girls to have sex with him.

2. Trying to demonize rape victims, essentially claiming that all four girls are lying/mistaken about everything. Demonizing rape victims does not generally fly well with juries.



Even in the unlikely event that Loftus can give an opinion on these four victims without personally examining them, the prosecution is sure to bring in their own expert witness, who they may allow to examine the victims to give a countervailing opinion.

Calling Loftus could backfire on her very badly.
.
.
.
One strong point in Farmer's favour is that she and her sister did report Epstein to the FBI at the time but were disregarded. Even stronger still, is if she reported Maxwell, too.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 07:17 PM   #1294
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".
Agreed. This amounts to throwing as much faeces at the wall as they can and hoping some of it will stick

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Indeed, I would imagine that a skilled prosecutor should surely be able to get Loftus to agree that her professional opinion on false memories in general has little or no bearing on the specific case.
Hell, I could probably do that

"Ms Loftus, yes or no... have you personally, clinically examined any of the victims?"

"Can you please explain to the court exactly how the four victims in this case could have false memories about sexual assaults and rapes, inflicted upon them by the same two people, multiple times over a period of several years?"

and that's just for starters!
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 10:08 PM   #1295
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,483
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Teenagers go to parties and have sex with what they considered attractive men at the time.
.....
That is not at all what (allegedly) happened.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 10:16 PM   #1296
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,483
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".
....
I'm waiting for another "I was just a silly girl who was intimidated by the big bad man" defense.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 03:56 AM   #1297
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Agreed. This amounts to throwing as much faeces at the wall as they can and hoping some of it will stick



Hell, I could probably do that

"Ms Loftus, yes or no... have you personally, clinically examined any of the victims?"

"Can you please explain to the court exactly how the four victims in this case could have false memories about sexual assaults and rapes, inflicted upon them by the same two people, multiple times over a period of several years?"

and that's just for starters!
To be fair to Dr. Loftus, these incidents did happen a long time ago. Mores change over time. For example, pre-1950's it was considered a great disgrace to have sex outside of marriage, get divorced, have an 'illegitimate' baby, etc. For some, attending Epstein's 'conferences' with concomitant dinner and party, packed to the gills with the rich and the famous, might have seemed a good idea at the time to some of Epstein's victims. IMV some will have had few regrets, others, looking back see themselves as having been taken advantage of. As the law allows all of these women redress, there are bound to be some who weren't particularly 'damaged' and others who deeply were. So the thing Loftus will look at is 'how come you are only now deeply damaged in great hindsight or is it to do with all the publicity that has convinced you you are a victim?' So in a way, it is a valid point.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 05:09 AM   #1298
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,112
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I guess that the main job of the defence is not to make a positive argument for Maxwell's innocence so much as to throw up enough dust to create "reasonable doubt".

…snip…
Our system is based on “innocent until proven guilty” so of course it is up to the prosecution to prove their case, not the defence to prove theirs.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post

Indeed, I would imagine that a skilled prosecutor should surely be able to get Loftus to agree that her professional opinion on false memories in general has little or no bearing on the specific case.

As I said earlier, Loftus should only be able to be used as a witness if the defence can specifically link “false memories” to a specific witness statement. Which she could only do my examining them in her professional capacity, without that professional examination her statements will be pretty much nothing but hearsay. That false memories are real and common doesn’t mean all memories are false memories.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 29th November 2021 at 05:11 AM. Reason: Will
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 06:42 AM   #1299
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,897
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As the law allows all of these women redress, there are bound to be some who weren't particularly 'damaged' and others who deeply were. So the thing Loftus will look at is 'how come you are only now deeply damaged in great hindsight or is it to do with all the publicity that has convinced you you are a victim?' So in a way, it is a valid point.
The thing is the crimes are not based on how "damaged" the victims are. It doesn't matter if an underage boy says that having sex with his teacher was the best thing that ever happened to him - that teacher was still breaking the law and is going to jail. Same with Maxwell.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 06:59 AM   #1300
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,699
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Our system is based on “innocent until proven guilty” so of course it is up to the prosecution to prove their case, not the defence to prove theirs.
Yes, absolutely.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
As I said earlier, Loftus should only be able to be used as a witness if the defence can specifically link “false memories” to a specific witness statement. Which she could only do my examining them in her professional capacity, without that professional examination her statements will be pretty much nothing but hearsay. That false memories are real and common doesn’t mean all memories are false memories.
I have to wonder if this is more of a "Hail Mary Pass" rather than something that will be work. Are they just going to say, "As we have heard, false memories are a thing, so you have to prove these memories of the accusers are not false ones...."
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 07:55 AM   #1301
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,112
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yes, absolutely.



I have to wonder if this is more of a "Hail Mary Pass" rather than something that will be work. Are they just going to say, "As we have heard, false memories are a thing, so you have to prove these memories of the accusers are not false ones...."
That is why I disagree with (what I think) the judge has allowed to happen which is Loftus will be able to describe false memories, how common they are, how easily they arise and so on all in general but not about specific witness statements.

However it could be even worse - if the defence is allowed to read parts of the witness' statements, and ask her "could this be a false memory" or even worse "is there anything in this statement that couldn't be explained by false memories?"
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 12:30 PM   #1302
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
However it could be even worse - if the defence is allowed to read parts of the witness' statements, and ask her "could this be a false memory"
Objection: Calls for conclusion. The witness has not personally examined the victim.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
or even worse "is there anything in this statement that couldn't be explained by false memories?"
Objection: Calls for speculation. Again, the witness has not personally examined the victim.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 01:33 PM   #1303
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
The thing is the crimes are not based on how "damaged" the victims are. It doesn't matter if an underage boy says that having sex with his teacher was the best thing that ever happened to him - that teacher was still breaking the law and is going to jail. Same with Maxwell.
It is true that the charges are based on what is defined by statute. However, it is not a crime until the jury find her guilty. On paper, sex with a seventeen-year-old is 'statutory rape'. However, in a borderline case, say it happened 20 years ago and the woman concerned had been a working prostitute for two years before ever meeting the accused (I am not saying this is the case here, just exaggerating to make a point) a jury might be loath to convict if (a) the victim was borderline underage and was enjoying life to the full at the time, (b did not complain to anybody at the time and (c) that a guilty verdict would condemn the accused to 80 years in prison.

The jury don't see it as the law, they weigh things up in terms of what they think is 'fair'.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 01:43 PM   #1304
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,562
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is true that the charges are based on what is defined by statute. However, it is not a crime until the jury find her guilty. On paper, sex with a seventeen-year-old is 'statutory rape'. However, in a borderline case, say it happened 20 years ago and the woman concerned had been a working prostitute for two years before ever meeting the accused (I am not saying this is the case here, just exaggerating to make a point) a jury might be loath to convict if (a) the victim was borderline underage and was enjoying life to the full at the time, (b did not complain to anybody at the time and (c) that a guilty verdict would condemn the accused to 80 years in prison.

The jury don't see it as the law, they weigh things up in terms of what they think is 'fair'.

My god, this is such an incorrect understanding of the law - and the application of law - as to reach dangerous levels of ignorance.

You seriously think juries have the latitude to say (taking your example) "Oh well she was only just underage and she seemed to be enjoying things" and "the poor guy will be ruined if we convict him", and use those as reasons to acquit?

Really???

You clearly know nothing about jury trial, or about law in general. Because - to cut a long story short - your "understanding" here is as wrong as it could possibly be. And were you (god forbid) to be serving on a jury in this sort of trial, the judge would be instructing you and your colleagues - firmly and explicitly - to put that sort of thinking completely out of your minds during deliberations.


Wow. Wow!
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 02:00 PM   #1305
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
So, a summary of the opening statements

Opening statements

The prosecutors, a three-person team headed by Maurene Comey.

Quote:
Poised to deliver an opening statement for the government is Assistant US Attorney Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz.

Ghislaine Maxwell targeted young girls for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, a US prosecutor said on Monday in her opening statement in the New York trial of the British socialite.

"The defendant was trafficking kids for sex," prosecutors have said of Ghislaine Maxwell, who is facing six counts of enticing minors and sex trafficking.

"She preyed on vulnerable young girls, manipulated them, and served them up to be sexually abused," Assistant District Attorney Lara Pomerantz said in the prosecution's opening statement.

Assistant District Attorney Lara Pomerantz described Maxwell as "essential" to Epstein's abuse of the girls, seeking to undermine the defence's expected argument that she was not aware of Epstein's alleged crimes.

"Sometimes, she was even in the room for the massages herself, and sometimes she touched the girls' bodies," Pomerantz said.

"And even when she was not in the room, make no mistake: she knew exactly what Epstein was going to do with those children when she sent them to him inside the massage rooms."
TELEGRAPH

Yuck! Referring to the victims as 'kids', 'young girls' and 'children'. Okaaay.


Quote:
The defence

Bobbi Sternheim said her client Ghislaine Maxwell was a "scapegoat for a man who behaved badly." Maxwell, she said, was being blamed for a man's bad behavior just as so many women have before, all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Sternheim said the four women who would testify that Maxwell recruited them to be sexually abused were suffering from quarter-century-old memories.

She added that the four women were also under the influence of lawyers who guided them to get money from a fund set up by Epstein's estate after his August 2019 suicide in jail as he awaited a sex trafficking trial.

The lawyer said "accusers have shaken the money tree and millions of dollars have fallen their way."
ibid

Double yuck! Disrespect for the prosecution witnesses by undermining their credibility. A cynical ploy. Accusing the prosecution witnesses of only being in it for the money. Urgh. Prince Andrew made this claim in his response to Giuffre, which is none of his business whether they are entitled to compensation or not. Likewise here. Issues about compensation come after the verdict, not before.

So all round bloody awful legal reasoning IMV.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 02:12 PM   #1306
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,562
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, a summary of the opening statements

Opening statements

The prosecutors, a three-person team headed by Maurene Comey.

TELEGRAPH

Yuck! Referring to the victims as 'kids', 'young girls' and 'children'. Okaaay.

Because...... that's what these people were at the time of the alleged offences.

You seem to have serious comprehension issues around things like age of consent, or the point at which a person reaches the age of majority. Unsurprising, given your previous utterances in this thread.



Quote:
Double yuck! Disrespect for the prosecution witnesses by undermining their credibility. A cynical ploy. Accusing the prosecution witnesses of only being in it for the money. Urgh. Prince Andrew made this claim in his response to Giuffre, which is none of his business whether they are entitled to compensation or not. Likewise here. Issues about compensation come after the verdict, not before.

This is all entirely normal for opening statements. You don't understand how criminal trials work in US federal courts.


Quote:
So all round bloody awful legal reasoning IMV.

You don't know what you're talking about.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 03:34 PM   #1307
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,699
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Double yuck! Disrespect for the prosecution witnesses by undermining their credibility. A cynical ploy. Accusing the prosecution witnesses of only being in it for the money. Urgh. Prince Andrew made this claim in his response to Giuffre, which is none of his business whether they are entitled to compensation or not. Likewise here. Issues about compensation come after the verdict, not before.

So all round bloody awful legal reasoning IMV.
What do you expect the defence to do? Make a statement that "It's a fair cop, guv! You have my client bang to rights!"?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 05:46 PM   #1308
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Because...... that's what these people were at the time of the alleged offences.
This cannot be stated strongly enough. The age of content is a bright line. "Almost at the age of consent" is not a thing, in the same way that "almost pregnant" is not a thing, and "almost stopped at a Stop sign" is not a thing.

Additionally, there is the issue of jurisdictions. Vixen keeps bringing up this spurious claim about differing jurisdictions having different ages of consent and that this somehow muddies the waters and makes what Maxwell did legal. This is just completely and utterly wrong. For example, at time of writing, the age of consent in the Philippines is 12*. However, that does not mean anyone can take a 12 year old girl to the Philippines for sex and it becomes legal. The jurisdiction of the trial court is the only thing that counts, and in this case, that is the US Federal court.

18 U.S. Code § 2423 - Transportation of minors
(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.—
A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.—
A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, with a motivating purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(f) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means—
(1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

So, Maxwell transporting a 17 year old to England where the age of consent is 16 does not help her in a US Federal court.








*its about to be raised to 16, and about time!
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!

Last edited by smartcooky; 29th November 2021 at 05:57 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:07 PM   #1309
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,483
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This cannot be stated strongly enough. The age of content is a bright line. "Almost at the age of consent" is not a thing, in the same way that "almost pregnant" is not a thing, and "almost stopped at a Stop sign" is not a thing.
.....
I just note that many of the allegations do not involve consent at any age. Women say that they were violently assaulted, that they were manipulated, intimidated, trafficked and abused in other ways. Their youth made them more vulnerable and more helpless, but the same acts would be serious crimes if they were 40.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:16 PM   #1310
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I just note that many of the allegations do not involve consent at any age. Women say that they were violently assaulted, that they were manipulated, intimidated, trafficked and abused in other ways. Their youth made them more vulnerable and more helpless, but the same acts would be serious crimes if they were 40.
Indeed, this is something that is forgotten in Vixen's rush to judge how much the young girls/women "enjoyed it" and to label them as prostitutes... If you read the charging documents (warning 7MB PDF), and the statutes she has been charged under....

18 USC § 1623 False declarations before grand jury or court
18 USC § 371 Conspiracy to commit an offense
18 USC § 1591 Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
18 USC § 2422 (a) Coercion and enticement
18 USC § 2423 (a) Transportation of Minors

the highlighted on is exactly what you are talking about

18 USC § 2422 (a) Coercion and enticement
(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Notice that there is no mention of the age of the victims here!
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!

Last edited by smartcooky; Yesterday at 11:21 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:26 PM   #1311
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
The testimony from "Jane" today was damning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/n...testimony.html
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:37 AM   #1312
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
What do you expect the defence to do? Make a statement that "It's a fair cop, guv! You have my client bang to rights!"?
IMV it is not a good look for a defendant to deprecate the 'victim' witnesses, allegedly one's victims. Imagine if someone accused of burglary starts mocking the person burgled, 'He's only after the insurance money!'

Maxwell is accused of sexually assaulting these young adults (let's not call them 'children', please) and it doesn't reflect well on the defence to claim they are just after the 'victim fund', as that should have nothing to do with it. IMHO.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:43 AM   #1313
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
IMV it is not a good look for a defendant to deprecate the 'victim' witnesses, allegedly one's victims. Imagine if someone accused of burglary starts mocking the person burgled, 'He's only after the insurance money!'

Maxwell is accused of sexually assaulting these young adults (let's not call them 'children', please) and it doesn't reflect well on the defence to claim they are just after the 'victim fund', as that should have nothing to do with it. IMHO.
I could perhaps agree with you regarding those 18 and over, but in the case of the 14 year old, I vehemently disagree. A 14 year old is a child not a young adult.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:48 AM   #1314
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,280
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This cannot be stated strongly enough. The age of content is a bright line. "Almost at the age of consent" is not a thing, in the same way that "almost pregnant" is not a thing, and "almost stopped at a Stop sign" is not a thing.

Additionally, there is the issue of jurisdictions. Vixen keeps bringing up this spurious claim about differing jurisdictions having different ages of consent and that this somehow muddies the waters and makes what Maxwell did legal. This is just completely and utterly wrong. For example, at time of writing, the age of consent in the Philippines is 12*. However, that does not mean anyone can take a 12 year old girl to the Philippines for sex and it becomes legal. The jurisdiction of the trial court is the only thing that counts, and in this case, that is the US Federal court.

18 U.S. Code § 2423 - Transportation of minors
(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.—
A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.—
A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, with a motivating purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(f) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means—
(1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

So, Maxwell transporting a 17 year old to England where the age of consent is 16 does not help her in a US Federal court.

*its about to be raised to 16, and about time!
Not wanting to make this specifically about this case, because I do not know enough about the evidence against the accused since the case is on going, but to make it more general.

The highlighted is interesting. It implies that if a business man travels to e.g. the Philippines on legitimate business but happens to pick up a girl of 12 (so not statutory rape in the local jurisdiction) and has sex with her this would not be a crime since the motivating purpose for travel was not sex. Conversely if you met a girl on line who was 17 (well over the age of consent in the local jurisdiction), and travelled to meet her, and had sex prior to marriage this would be a federal crime. I am unclear whether since the US allows marriage under the age of 18 if having sex after marrying a 17 year old would be a federal crime? My guess is that going on honeymoon with your 17 year old wife is not a Federal crime?

So it may be crucial to the prosecution to show Maxwell's intent in travel. As a UK citizen with a UK residence she has entirely legitimate reasons to travel to the UK. Even if an under 18 year old girl accompanied her and subsequently had sex with a guy she met at a party (not a local crime), the difficulty for the prosecution would seem to be to prove that the motivating purpose for travel was to have sex, with an under 18 yr old, or for the under 18 yr old to have sex.

Whilst being aware of statuary rape and not reporting it may be a crime, this does not appear to be the crime prosecuted.

The intent of the law seems to be to prevent sex tourism or people smuggling of those under 18 for sex. It does not appear to be to criminalise US citizens or residents who happen to have sex with someone under 18 whilst on holiday or business or when on overseas service in the military. It would probably be disastrous if every US service man on leave in the Philippines was investigated by the FBI to check if any of the bar girls were under 18!
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:59 AM   #1315
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I could perhaps agree with you regarding those 18 and over, but in the case of the 14 year old, I vehemently disagree. A 14 year old is a child not a young adult.
That particular witness appears to be an outlier, as the majority of Epstein's victims seem to be in the over-18's mould. The prosecution claims 'Jane' the one who claims she was 12 when she met Epstein was introduced by Guiffre, not Maxwell (they claim) and never complained until after Epstein died. What she says might be entirely true but how to prove it?

IMV referring to them as 'kids' and 'young girls' diminishes the heinous crimes of sexual predators such as Jimmy Savile who literally did sexually assault real 'little children' in their hospital beds at random, as he did his rounds with freedom of the various hospitals, including the mortuary.

That's not to detract from the seriousness of the crime of sex trafficking minors. However, let's call things by their proper name.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:53 AM   #1316
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Not wanting to make this specifically about this case, because I do not know enough about the evidence against the accused since the case is on going, but to make it more general.

The highlighted is interesting. It implies that if a business man travels to e.g. the Philippines on legitimate business but happens to pick up a girl of 12 (so not statutory rape in the local jurisdiction) and has sex with her this would not be a crime since the motivating purpose for travel was not sex. Conversely if you met a girl on line who was 17 (well over the age of consent in the local jurisdiction), and travelled to meet her, and had sex prior to marriage this would be a federal crime. I am unclear whether since the US allows marriage under the age of 18 if having sex after marrying a 17 year old would be a federal crime? My guess is that going on honeymoon with your 17 year old wife is not a Federal crime?

So it may be crucial to the prosecution to show Maxwell's intent in travel. As a UK citizen with a UK residence she has entirely legitimate reasons to travel to the UK. Even if an under 18 year old girl accompanied her and subsequently had sex with a guy she met at a party (not a local crime), the difficulty for the prosecution would seem to be to prove that the motivating purpose for travel was to have sex, with an under 18 yr old, or for the under 18 yr old to have sex.

Whilst being aware of statuary rape and not reporting it may be a crime, this does not appear to be the crime prosecuted.

The intent of the law seems to be to prevent sex tourism or people smuggling of those under 18 for sex. It does not appear to be to criminalise US citizens or residents who happen to have sex with someone under 18 whilst on holiday or business or when on overseas service in the military. It would probably be disastrous if every US service man on leave in the Philippines was investigated by the FBI to check if any of the bar girls were under 18!

Travelling to the UK and other countries is probably not the main issue. The key phrase in the law is....

"A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States...."

Its would be an enormous stretch for Maxwell to claim that transporting these girls between New York, New Mexico, Florida and the US Virgin Islands were just "business trips" for Epstein in which he met some never before seen young girls (who were in fact on his executive jet with Epstein and her). This is just not going to fly (no pun intended).
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:59 AM   #1317
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,669
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That particular witness appears to be an outlier, as the majority of Epstein's victims seem to be in the over-18's mould. The prosecution claims 'Jane' the one who claims she was 12 when she met Epstein was introduced by Guiffre, not Maxwell (they claim) and never complained until after Epstein died. What she says might be entirely true but how to prove it?
That isn't how it works. The defence has to prove what they claim about her is true.... they have to prove she is lying about her motivation

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
IMV referring to them as 'kids' and 'young girls' diminishes the heinous crimes of sexual predators such as Jimmy Savile who literally did sexually assault real 'little children' in their hospital beds at random, as he did his rounds with freedom of the various hospitals, including the mortuary.
Altogether irrelevant - different country, different case, different time.

These 12/14 year old victim does not deserve to be disadvantaged and/or "adultized" just because some other perverted scumbag fiddled with even younger kids.

Children are children regardless of your personal views.

As for "Jane" being an
"outlier", that is irrelevant too.. If this horrible stuff never happened to her, it wouldn't make what Maxwell and Epstein did to those other girls any less vile and depraved.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, bigots and homophobes to describe people who have a properly functioning moral compass!

Last edited by smartcooky; Today at 02:03 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.