Maxwell has given up 8 names

Good question it's often confused me too...

Another example is that the media will state a young teen aged 19 will have suffered some trauma... but when the same age is the attacker..they suddenly become a Man or Woman ,,which of course they are..
That reminds me of the Scottsboro case- long before our time. One of the books I read had prints of newspaper stories in which the alleged attackers were called 'men' and the alleged victims were called 'girls.'

While all of the 'men' were teenagers, and one was only 12 yrs old, one of the 'girls' was a three-times-married woman 21 years old.
The other girl was only 17, and later admitted the attack never occurred. But I guess it's some kind of propaganda to influence the public, calling a 12-year-old a man while calling a 21-year-old a girl.
 
There's one part that's confusing.
As an example, there's a case in the news about two 16-year-olds both charged with first-degree murder of one of their schoolteachers. With the facts available so far, it was a well-planned, premediated murder. They're set to be tried in adult court, and deemed responsible for their actions.
However, if instead of killing the woman they'd had consensual sex with her, they'd be presented as 'victims.' And, instead of referring to them throughout the news articles as 'teens' and 'students,' they'd be called 'children.'

So why is it in criminal cases when the individuals are minors they're considered responsible for their actions, but not considered responsible when they're involved in sexual activity?
I think the answer is in part protection of society. If a 16 year old murder is likely to repeat the offense then he or she needs to be imprisoned or otherwise separated from society. No matter the maturity of the thinking process, if repeat offense is likely society needs to be protected. I am not an expert on this, but the statistics I have seen show that convicted murders who are released are more likely to murder again than is the general public. A good reason not to release them no matter the age or situation otherwise.

Sex and age is a very different thing.
 
I think the answer is in part protection of society. If a 16 year old murder is likely to repeat the offense then he or she needs to be imprisoned or otherwise separated from society. No matter the maturity of the thinking process, if repeat offense is likely society needs to be protected. I am not an expert on this, but the statistics I have seen show that convicted murders who are released are more likely to murder again than is the general public. A good reason not to release them no matter the age or situation otherwise.

Sex and age is a very different thing.

I don't know what your last statement means, but your explanation in the paragraph makes sense. These little creeps aren't being tried in juvenile court because even if convicted they'd be free in less than two years.

What I meant I don't understand, though, is how someone can be considered responsible for their actions in one situation but not in another.
 
What I meant I don't understand, though, is how someone can be considered responsible for their actions in one situation but not in another.
I think its not a matter of the underage person being responsible for their actions, its the older person the adult who we hold responsible.

I am no expert, I don't know what the right age should be, probably more than 12, but less than 20, where we just say someone of that age cannot reliably give consent. And then hold the adult responsible for observing the restriction. No matter what the younger person does, feels, or says.

This does get into a gray area when the younger person lies about age, not sure how to handle that, but people like Epstein, Maxwell, and Andrew would have had the ability to learn these girls actual ages.
 
I don't know what your last statement means, but your explanation in the paragraph makes sense. These little creeps aren't being tried in juvenile court because even if convicted they'd be free in less than two years.
What state are you referencing and for what crimes?

What I meant I don't understand, though, is how someone can be considered responsible for their actions in one situation but not in another.
One explanation is, Murder is classified as a crime against Society as a whole and is the worst crime of Moral Turpitude that is classified.
 
Prince Andrew may have once dated Ghislaine Maxwell, according to friends and a former royal protection officer who claims Jeffrey Epstein’s madam was constantly “in and out” of Buckingham Palace.
 
Prince Andrew may have once dated Ghislaine Maxwell, according to friends and a former royal protection officer who claims Jeffrey Epstein’s madam was constantly “in and out” of Buckingham Palace.


Possible I suppose but .......... just how much hearsay / gossip do we believe/consider ....... without evidence of the fact ?
 
Last edited:
In my view, It's about influence and power and the effect that it had on the lives of the girls (mostly vulnerable teenagers) not whether they profited or even were okay with it at the time. Obviously if the accused had not been privileged, rich and well known, the media circus around the case would not exist.

When I look at that photo of Virginia Giuffre with her legal team I see someone who is out of her depth surrounded by a group of people far cleverer and streetwise than she will ever be. Perhaps the injustice will end up being that the only people who will benefit from the outcome are the ones who always benefit from other people's misfortune.
 
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.
I’m not sure I agree with this. Many people have speculated that Epstein was murdered (staged to look like a suicide) to keep him silent.

The same could also be applied to Maxwell. On the one hand, if she discloses the names, silencing her by killing her becomes moot. On the other hand she could also be killed as retribution for spilling the beans.
 
Back
Top