Maxwell has given up 8 names

hollydolly

hollydolly

SF VIP
Location
London England
Maxwell has given up on her battle to keep 'vast swathes of information' about her 'sex trafficking operation' with Jeffrey Epstein sealed after alleged victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre requested they be made public.

Attorneys for Giuffre, who has accused Prince Andrew of sexual abuse, asked Judge Loretta Preska Wednesday to unseal material from her 2015 civil lawsuit against Maxwell that includes references to eight anonymous John Does.

The individuals are identified in court documents only as 'Non-Parties 17, 53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 93 and 151'.

It is not clear if one of them is the Duke of York. Six have objected to the unsealing.

Maxwell, who last month was found guilty of procuring girls for the late paedophile, had also previously opposed making the documents public, but now appears to have had a change of heart.

In a letter to Judge Preska Wednesday, Maxwell's attorney Laura Menninger said her client will 'leave it to the court' to determine whether the names should be unsealed.

According to the filings, John Doe 17 is among those wishing to keep their identity under wraps, arguing that being named in the case would cause him 'annoyance and embarrassment.'

Another John Doe, number 151, claimed that he was 'trying to live a private life' and that disclosure meant they would be 'hounded' by the media.

The request to make the documents public came on the day that Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Giuffre's battery lawsuit against Prince Andrew, a separate case also filed at the federal court in New York, can move forward.

If Judge Preska decides to unseal the documents in Giuffre's case, they could shed new light on the Duke's dealings with Maxwell and Epstein.

Preska is the judge who presided over a defamation lawsuit that Giuffre filed against Maxwell in 2015 for calling her a liar.

The case was settled with confidential terms but the judge has slowly been approving the release of hundreds of documents in the case after applications from media organizations.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nd-unsealing-information-Epstein-Maxwell.html


I would probably bet money that none of them are influential or well known.. I suspect that she's handed these 8 names over as an offering of ''all she knows'' , in an attempt to have her sentence reduced and will not name names of very well known people in the public eye...
 
Lavinia said:
It does seem very unfair that this current case only involves Prince Andrew. If other men are equally guilty, they should brought to account too.
Click to expand...
well the difference with the PA case and the rest of the men involved.. was that this was a private case brought against PA from one of the victims.. , but I understand what you mean . I just can't see any conviction sticking to any one of them , unless any of the 'victims' come forward and make complaints about them personally.. and so far nobody has...perhaps they will if the names are made public.. but I wouldn't be confident about it..
 
hollydolly said:
well the difference with the PA case and the rest of the men involved.. was that this was a private case brought against PA from one of the victims.. , but I understand what you mean . I just can't see any conviction sticking to any one of them , unless any of the 'victims' come forward and make complaints about them personally.. and so far nobody has...perhaps they will if the names are made public.. but I wouldn't be confident about it..
Click to expand...
If the situation of these women when they were girls, was
as "being Passed Around", then they may not know the
names of the abusers, only the famous ones, so it will be
interesting to see who the 8 are, Epstein was the one who
knew them all, and he cannot speak, Maxwell won't speak
in case she ends up like him,

Mike.
 
hollydolly said:
well the difference with the PA case and the rest of the men involved.. was that this was a private case brought against PA from one of the victims.. , but I understand what you mean . I just can't see any conviction sticking to any one of them , unless any of the 'victims' come forward and make complaints about them personally.. and so far nobody has...perhaps they will if the names are made public.. but I wouldn't be confident about it..
Click to expand...
It is probably past any statute of limitations to charge them ... but naming them in this day and age will do a lot of damage to their reputation and possibly careers etc.
I think these girls know a lot more names etc then they are letting on but as with this one suing Andrew she got a half million dollar settlement from Epstein about a decade ago ... is she going after others for more cause she spent it or because she has the money to keep it alive in court as these lawsuits can be very expensive
 
Mike said:
If the situation of these women when they were girls, was
as "being Passed Around", then they may not know the
names of the abusers, only the famous ones, so it will be
interesting to see who the 8 are, Epstein was the one who
knew them all, and he cannot speak, Maxwell won't speak
in case she ends up like him,

Mike.
Click to expand...
actually it's been said that in fact it was Maxwell who introduced Epstein to all his high flying contacts and ultimate ly those who were in the so called paedophile circle . People who knew them both said he was a Klutz and quite dim, with a serious lack of conversation or social skills ... he needed her to introduce him to all the people in her high social circle, she is the outgoing one ......
 
Last edited:
Lavinia said:
It does seem very unfair that this current case only involves Prince Andrew. If other men are equally guilty, they should brought to account too.
Click to expand...


It also seems very unfair that at this point there seems to be no evidence either. What happened to innocent till proven guilty ? If there is no evidence there is no proof ....... only accusation.

Don't take me wrong ....... if they have the evidence on them ........ then prosecute to the max, and punish the most severe the law will allow. But "we" have all heard the talk about it ........ now let us see the evidence as well.

But again, why is it that the few photos taken [that have been shown] from 21? years back .... all seem to show the girls, smiling , laughing, posing , etc ? No signs of stress duress , any sort of force used etc.
 
When I read "Jon Doe #17", I thought that was horrible to swapped around in a sex trafficking scheme. Then there was the mention of " John Doe # 151". OMG!!!!!!! Even as disgusted as I am by it, I'm not trying to be crude, but how can you prove in a court of law where someone's ***** was in 1987? I can say that I was romantically involved with every Hollywood starlet 25 years ago, but that doesn't mean I could prove it.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
When I read "Jon Doe #17", I thought that was horrible to swapped around in a sex trafficking scheme. Then there was the mention of " John Doe # 151". OMG!!!!!!! Even as disgusted as I am by it, I'm not trying to be crude, but how can you prove in a court of law where someone's ***** was in 1987? I can say that I was romantically involved with every Hollywood starlet 25 years ago, but that doesn't mean I could prove it.
Click to expand...
perhaps their names are all written in some ledger found in Epstein apartment...
 
hollydolly said:
perhaps their names are all written in some ledger found in Epstein apartment...
Click to expand...
I thought that Epstein maintained an extensive video archive documenting his guest's activities to ensure a lifetime of loyalty and possibly retirement income.

This painting of Clinton that Epstein displayed in his home was rumored to be a reminder to his guests of just how much he knew about each of them.
e30b80030d78bdae9d2aac7cab860bde.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Aunt Bea said:
I thought that Epstein maintained an extensive video archive documenting his guest's activities to ensure a lifetime of loyalty and possibly retirement income.

This painting of Clinton that Epstein displayed in his home was rumored to be a reminder to his guests of just how much he knew about them.
e30b80030d78bdae9d2aac7cab860bde.jpeg
Click to expand...



Is that a known "true" photo ?? I sure as hell hope not.

Could it be some photo-shop trickery ?
 
I thought travel logs showed 8 girls being brought in the same day Clinton and others were going to be there.

She has little reason to protect people at this point. She's probably still being squeeze with pressure and reminders to help her self. If the DAs get to see her names first they can protect someone. She writes a book next year not as much control even though in prison.
 
Lavinia said:
It does seem very unfair that this current case only involves Prince Andrew. If other men are equally guilty, they should brought to account too.
Click to expand...
I agree it would be most fair to the victims for all guilty to be "brought to account". However if Andrew is guilty he needs to be accountable, even if all the others get away with it.
rgp said:
It also seems very unfair that at this point there seems to be no evidence either. What happened to innocent till proven guilty ? If there is no evidence there is no proof ....... only accusation.
Click to expand...
You do make a good point. I suppose it was possible for someone to have visited Epstein's places and gone to some of the parties without participating in or knowing about the illicit activities. However it does look suspicious. We need to let things work there way out before know who really is or isn't guilty. I do hope all the guilty are shown to be, and any innocent are also shown not to be guilty. However its probably not realistic to expect the truth to be fully (or even largely) revealed.
 
If Andrew's case sees the inside of a courtroom, his lawyers will go after his accuser guns blazing. She'd better have concrete evidence that he did what she claims, eg: pictures, videos, audio tapes, written words, etc. Otherwise she'll have egg on her face. When I first saw that picture of her posing with Andrew I just thought it was another photo-op situation. She'll have to name all the other men she was involved with during the Epstein sojourn as well. This case just gets nastier by the day.
 
Lewkat said:
She'd better have concrete evidence that he did what she claims, eg: pictures, videos, audio tapes, written words, etc
Click to expand...
I hope she does, or that Andrew has good evidence she is lying.
Pepper said:
He said She said.
Click to expand...
Yep, if that's all there is to it the outcome will be unfortunate. A guilty party will get away and an innocent one will suffer... But this is likely where it will end.
 
Aside from all the purely legal stuff, I just have a deep down problem with people trying to benefit financially from ancient history. I would sure hate to have to prove in a court of law exactly where I was or what I was doing on some date in 1987. And add to that the standard of proof in civil court, which is proponderance of the evidence, which is pretty much "more likely than not," which is a pretty low bar, and I think there is a good chance of a verdict that has little to do with actual justice, whichever way it goes.
 
Alligatorob said:
I hope she does, or that Andrew has good evidence she is lying.

Yep, if that's all there is to it the outcome will be unfortunate. A guilty party will get away and an innocent one will suffer... But this is likely where it will end.
Click to expand...
I doubt he'll be able to prove she's lying, given that she's already had a 1/2 million pay-off from Epstein...and if she can prove he's guilty she stands to pocket anything between £5 & £10 million from PA himself...

https://nypost.com/2020/12/05/epstein-accuser-got-half-a-million-from-abuser-court-docs/
 
Tish said:
Well, we all knew this was coming, what a mess.
My heart goes out to the spouses and families of these 8 named.
Click to expand...
Plus the families of the girls, Mothers and Fathers, then when they
grew up and married, they have extended families, including many
children, husbands that don't know the past life of their wife!

All will suffer embarrassment and possibly ridicule.

Mike.
 
hollydolly said:
I doubt he'll be able to prove she's lying, given that she's already had a 1/2 million pay-off from Epstein...and if she can prove he's guilty she stands to pocket anything between £5 & £10 million from PA himself...

https://nypost.com/2020/12/05/epstein-accuser-got-half-a-million-from-abuser-court-docs/
Click to expand...
Will he have any money hollydolly, he has been stripped of
everything, he has no account in the Royal Purse any more,
I doubt that the Queen and or Charles will be allowed to be
supportive, financially, or if they would want to!

Mike.
 
Back
Top