Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty On 5 Counts

Ghislaine Maxwell has been found guilty on five of the six counts against her. The only count that she was found not guilty of was enticing the accuser who testified using the name “Jane”.

I am really surprised by this verdict. The impeachment evidence was overwhelming in my view.

I will explain why when I get to a computer later tonight. (I am typing this on my iPhone in the grocery store parking lot. Please excuse any typos).

< Scientists: 3 Billion Expected to Get Omicron | Happy New Year and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Of all the things I can think of (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    to be concerned about the sentence this person received is pretty far down on the list.

    Unless you are a defense attorney (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    exactly! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 11:24:33 PM EST
    So you think the impeachement... (1.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    ...of these victim's outweighed the evidence of guilt in this case? Wow am I sorry I ever gave you a thousand dollars over the years. Your atrophied, inhumane, view of military-grade-firearms-proliferation in this nation should have told me you were inhumane at heart. So sad I wasted any more time on you. Not even a good defense attorney, you far more spindly human than I ever could have suspected. I used to think I would hire you as a defense attorney. But you have now revealed yourself truly. Never could have imagined you were this lousy a humaan AND dishonest a professional. So truly bizarre, but sadly not surprising after two decades watching you devolve into a sad excuse. Later.

    Shockingly unacceptable (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 11:59:30 AM EST
    ad hominem attack, Dadler.

    As much as I think (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    Ghislaine Maxwell is a despicable person, she deserves a defense. I have watched enough documentaries during the pandemic about those who are wrongfully imprisoned, I cannot wish for defense attorneys to not study their job.

    I hope you have a Happy New Year Dadler. I know this pandemic has taken a bite out of everyone.


    I kinda think she got what she deserved (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    And I like to think I would think so even if I was a defense attorney.

    Probably one reason I am not a defense attorney.


    That is definitely the reason (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    I could never be a defense attorney. You have to be able to set aside those biases and argue law. And the law is the fabric that holds civil society together. So even though I am not capable of doing what they do, I know I need them.

    I honestly can't assess what Maxwell deserves. As a sexual assault survivor, my internal conversations aren't shareable.


    Criminal defense lawyers are motivated (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    (if driven by principles, and not just as a way to make a living, which of course some are), in my experience, by any or all of three or four things: (1) a political belief in the impersonal rule of law (as MT suggested), especially the need to respect and enforce rights equally for all, if society is stand on liberty and democratic values and if the natural tendency of government to abuse its power is to be kept in check; (2) a religious or similar belief that there is good in very person, that individuals should not be judged and condemned based on the worst behavior they have engaged in and the bad (and sometimes difficult) choices they have made; (3) a practical belief that if legal process and rights are not enforced for all, then the 5 to 10% of those accused who are innocent (a large number, when you think about it), and the much larger percentage who are overcharged, are much more likely to be wrongly convicted and punished; and (4) a deep skepticism about the utility or effectiveness of punishment and particularly imprisonment as a tool either to change wrongdoers or to protect society.  

    A prominent (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    criminal defense attorney gave a lecture during law school that really made an impression on me.

    He said his motivation was to be a check on the government's ability to just pick someone and say they are guilty.  Make the government prove who is guilty.

    And, over time, I have come to believe most people are guilty of something.  Who goes to jail can be a bit arbitrary....

    But the mobs sacking stores in Union Square in S.F. do make the point that even petty theft should be prosecuted.  


    Clarence Darrow (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    was downright magisterial, almost Shakespearean, in his defense of the importance of the charge of criminal defense attorneys.

    Pretty terrifying (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 04, 2022 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    Some folks obviously wrongfully sitting in prison so a case could be closed and someone can claim justice was served. I will give it to the internet age, granting everyone the ability to learn how others have been railroaded into prison and their lives destroyed.

    You forgot the obligatory: (none / 0) (#57)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jan 04, 2022 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    "But of course we have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of all other countries." Yeah, they really try to copy the one in the US, don't they.

    You forgot (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 04, 2022 at 11:15:26 PM EST
    There's nothing obligatory about me LOL

    The trial and the jury (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 03:34:43 PM EST
    assessed what she deserved.  I just saying I have no disagreement with the outcome.

    I have to trust my peers on it (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    And walk on

    But for me there is relief (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    In a woman being charged and found guilty for this. My rape involved being "setup" by another woman. I used to think the only thing that could ever bother her was a guilty conscience and she would first need to have a conscience. Such a public finding of guilt restores some peace of mind for me that she took from me.

    It never (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    ceases to amaze me the evil women will do to other women.

    I was watching an interview doc (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 05:53:49 AM EST
    With a woman who survived several Nazi death camps.  She talked a lot about how the women were way worse than the men.

    Prisoner Number A26188


    The Ilse Koch syndrome (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    Several women were among the camp guards (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 12:31:05 PM EST
    who were tried after the war by US military tribunals and/or by German courts, and convicted of war crimes, including maltreatment and murder of prisoners at Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, inter alia. Koch was sentenced to life imprisonment and decades later committed suicide. Several of the women were among those sentenced to death and executed.

    Like the Kate Winslet role (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    It would be great if she flipped (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    and started dishing on all the rich guys she set up.

    I kind of don't expect that.  But it would be good.


    Why wouldn't she? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    Does she believe she won't spend the rest of her life in prison?

    Seems like (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    she would have already.  But maybe a book.  Or 60 minutes.

    Is that an incorrect assumption legally?  That she would have flipped if she was going to flip?  


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:05:09 PM EST
    She hasn't been sentenced. Can she provide evidence and affect her sentencing?

    P.S. Happy New Year Howdy!


    My understanding (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 09:01:59 PM EST
    is that she really can't do anything now. Anything she says would help her with the parole board and maybe the DA would write a letter about her cooperating but I think it is too late to change anything.

    This was a federal case. There has been (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    no parole in the federal system since 1987. "Cooperation" (formally "substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person") can, in the discretion of the U.S. Attorney (there is no "D.A." in the federal system), result in a motion being filed with the judge suggesting that a lower sentence be imposed (a "5K motion"), or to reduce a sentence after it is imposed, if based on new cooperation during the first year of serving the sentence (a "Rule 35(b) motion"). Otherwise, a federal sentence, if not appealed or if upheld on appeal, can be reduced only by 15% for good behavior, or for "extraordinary and compelling reasons" (so-called "compassionate release"), or by Presidential clemency.

    Maybe she did (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 06:24:03 PM EST
    and those with final say determined that the hoi polloi don't need to be disturbed by stories about intelligence ops and royals and Les Wexner and ex-presidents.

    What about all the supposed video that was confiscated? Has that been 'entered into evidence' and sealed for all time?

    I'm picturing Ghislaine sequestered in a Rudolph-Hess-in-Spandau arrangement, but maybe my imagination is running away with me.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    is the evidence that was gotten from Epstein was the same evidence from the 2008 case that he somehow had as it had police tape on the boxes.

    As far as the rest of it, I would think first of all if she had anything she would have attempted to use that as leverage prior to a trial and secondly exactly how credible a witness is she? I would think that there would need to be substantial evidence backing up anything she said.

    The feds are also separately charging her with perjury.


    While I (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    would like to cut the commenter some slack in light of my recollection of his reporting long ago of abuse of children, he forfeited that desire by his reaction directed an an individual rather than the position or opinion the individual is taking.

    Only four "1" ratings for this far? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 03, 2022 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    Jeralyn has made several blog posts over the years criticizing the charges of unpopular defendants and/or praising their attorneys.  For this case, she said she was surprised with the verdict because the impeachment evidence was strong. That's it.  I hope Dadler's garbage comment doesn't discourage her from going into more detail.

    I understand Jeralyn doesn't need us to defend her but it just seems a little odd his comment hasn't received more criticism. He didn't just attack her opinion, he attacked her as a person.  


    Site violator (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 01:35:36 PM EST

    I had exactly the same reaction (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 29, 2021 at 05:15:17 PM EST
    Looking forward to J's analysis.

    The defense bar is "in array." (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 29, 2021 at 05:33:30 PM EST
    Is (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    there an opposite to jury nullification?

    Wouldn't the converse (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    of "jury nullification" (jury acquits someone they believe to be legally guilty because they feel it wouldn't be fair or right for some other reason) be "wrongful conviction"? Is that what you meant by "opposite"?

    Yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    sort of "guilt by association" I suppose. If the jury believed that Epstein was guilty, is it possible that they ignored any exculpatory evidence because Maxwell "should" have known what was going on and stopped it. Just wondered if anything like that ever happens.

    That was a key argument (none / 0) (#64)
    by ladybug on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    of the defense. They characterized it as a trial by proxy. The question is if she would have even been charged if Epstein was still available to answer for his own actions.

    A non-lawyer friend: wouldn't the jury e (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    think she was guilty because she did not testify?

    Looking back at the high profile cases of the (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    past 5 years or so, most were sexual assault or murder/manslaughter with pre trial social justice implications....

    I didn't follow this case but I don't believe most of the others received a fair trial.  Too much pressure on prosecutors to overcharge, judges to allow excessive witness testimony and ultimately  juries to convict.  


    It's funny (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 09:19:12 AM EST
    Pretending that these people are the victims of "social justice" without the slightest bit of evidence.

    I think you misunderstood (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    McBain's claim. I think he meant that the high level of interest in the cases turns on the victims' identification as the subjects of social injustice (i.e., police brutality, racism, excessive private deployment of dangerous weapons, and/or tolerance of sexual exploitation of women and girls).

    Where does Rittenhouse fit in? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 12:53:49 PM EST
    Rittenhouse had supporters (none / 0) (#13)
    by McBain on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:33:55 AM EST
    The main stream media coverage was still biased against him but he had enough support that I don't think those jurors felt the same kind of pressure as the jurors in the other trials I mentioned. Pressure that moves the burden on proof from the prosecution to the defense.

    As for the Maxwell, since her trial wasn't televised I didn't follow it very closely.  The only source of interesting info I could find was from this guy...
    He had a few good things to say about Maxwell's defense but predicted guilty verdicts.


    I think his claim (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    ... went far beyond stating the obvious i.e. there was a high level of interest in the cases because of their identification as subjects of social injustice.  He suggested the prosecutors overcharged, the judges improperly allowed evidence and the jurors convicted because of it.  All, of course, without the slightest evidence.

    The media staturation (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 05:36:49 PM EST
    factor involved in 'high-profile' cases seems to make it difficult for anyone to ever get a fair trial, whether there's a social justice angle or no.

    Also, the ongoing apathy about jail and prison conditions bespeaks a country that fairly revels in punishing people and damning wrong-doers to hell for all eternity - as if it served some vital, cathartic function.

    We're an angry, unforgiving people.


    Could be the level (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 08:58:43 PM EST
    of perceived injustice or wrongdoing propelled public opinion.

    Someone is perceived as not guilty does not generate a big story.


    I'd like to know what the connection is (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    with the media, protestors, civil attorneys and elected officials?  Is there a mutually beneficial coordinated effort to influence judges/juries or is everyone out on their own for money and power? Either way it doesn't look very good right now.



    Dear God (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    Now it's a massive conspiracy for $$$.

    Specious smears and conspiracy theories are no more convincing when they're phrased as "questions".


    I think (none / 0) (#60)
    by ladybug on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 09:59:00 AM EST
    you were closer to an answer with the social justice connection. It is not hard to see that so many people today are so angry about so many things and social media and the news feed that anger and fear. I think we also interpret the world through our own lived experiences and biases and have too little empathy for other people's beliefs and opinions. The media feeds our worst tendencies. Since too many convictions seem to be overcharged and unfair, I appreciate reading a defense attorney's view of the evidence.

    Is McBain a defense attorney (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    I don't think I knew that.

    Jeralyn is a defense lawyer. . (none / 0) (#63)
    by ladybug on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    She has expressed interest in this case and I am hoping for her take on this.

    Any Available Analysis of the Evidence? (none / 0) (#23)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    I have learned next to nothing from reading this thread.  Is there an article available that goes into depth about what was presented and debated in court?  Thanks in advance.

    I'm not aware of an article but I posted (none / 0) (#42)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    a link to a youtube video blogger who was in the courtroom and provided analysis.  He predicted guilty verdicts.  

    Please Post Link Again (none / 0) (#48)
    by RickyJim on Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    Sorry but I can't find it. Thanks.

    Here Joe Nierman gives his opinion about (none / 0) (#49)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 02, 2022 at 08:50:05 AM EST
    a big moment of testimony in the trial...  
    I don't know if he's a lawyer or how accurate his analysis is but he has another video where he predicts "maximum sentence".  

    Anyone who thinks they can predict (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 02, 2022 at 02:33:41 PM EST
    the sentence at the end of a trial (in a case where the sentence is not mandatory based on the nature of the conviction(s), that is), months in advance, is not an expert.

    That YouTuber ... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 03, 2022 at 10:50:25 AM EST
    ... is a debt collection attorney trying to break into the social media sphere for his 15 minutes of fame.

    What is the Relevance? (none / 0) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jan 02, 2022 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    The youtuber was talking about testimony about Epstein's abuse.  What does this have to do with the transporting minors over state lines for sex charges for which Maxwell was convicted? Did the prosecution have records showing Maxwell's culpability in doing that?  

    Do you really not understand the prosecution (none / 0) (#52)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 02, 2022 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    theory of this case? I am still looking forward to J's analysis (presumably) debunking it, but the government's theory of Maxwell's guilt, I thought, was quite apparent: She transported, aided and abetting the transporting, and conspired to transport minors across state lines with the knowledge and intent that they be subjected to illegal sexual conduct by Epstein. Her intimate knowledge of Epstein's activities (to include, in some instances, her direct participation) directly proves the intent element of the charged transportation offenses, is their position.

    I Understand That (none / 0) (#53)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jan 02, 2022 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    What I didn't understand was how the testimony described in the video showed Maxwell's  culpability of the charges.  The speaker admitted as much in the last minute. Yes, I would like to see Jeralyn's or any other serious analysis.  I couldn't care less about the theatrics witnesses engaged in.

    But why (none / 0) (#62)
    by ladybug on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    is it so difficult to get the specifics of the evidence? There were only two who claimed to be minors at the trial although it has been said that this was a trafficking ring for minors. The sensational claims of transporting and grooming minors for a sex ring simply don't seem to match the evidence as gleaned from the news accounts of the trial itself.

    Before asking about the evidence, you need (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    to know exactly what she was charged with. I don't.  But I'm pretty sure it was not two counts of participating in the sexual exploitation of those two individuals. It was probably being part of some enterprise or conspiracy or some such collective, continuing federal-type offense.

    This is confusing. (none / 0) (#69)
    by ladybug on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    The charges are sex trafficking and conspiracy, and I am sure that these were defined more specifically in the context of the trial. Are you just saying that you haven't followed it that closely? Grooming seemed to loom large in the prosecution's case. Were these charges only in connection with the four witnesses or were they explicitly connected to a wider ring and conspiracy? If it is a wider conspiracy, I would just expect more witnesses. It seemed to be narrowly tailored to these, and a natural question is what evidence they provided. I hope Jeralyn can shed some light.

    The particular charges in a criminal case (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    must be defined clearly long in advance of any trial, in a formal charging document, such as an indictment (approved by a grand jury, and nearly always required in federal cases), "information" (brought by a prosecutor not by a grand jury) or "complaint" (typically lower level, sometimes signed only by a police officer). But whatever sort of document defines the charges, that is what the defendant is facing, and nothing else, and it is the elements of those charges that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not read (or even looked at) the indictment in the Maxwell case, so you are correct that I do know what she was charged with (and you generally cannot tell just from reading or listening to the news to find this out).

    I finally did read (none / 0) (#71)
    by ladybug on Sun Jan 09, 2022 at 10:08:48 AM EST
    the indictment and, as a non-lawyer, to me the news media seems to have covered the charges fairly well. It is still ambiguous to me: the indictment talks of "multiple" minor victms and "among others" were the three trial witnesses, one of which was eventually withdrawn. The one thing that was fairly surprising because I don't recall evdence of this (other than the accusations of course) was that Maxwell participated in muliple group sex encounters. To me, it sounds like Maxwell was found guilty of taking girls to movies, shopping with them, talking to them about their classes, impressing them with her house and sophistication (called grooming and recruitment), and normalizing sex to them over several months, as if sex is not already "normalized" for teenagers in our culture. She is also guilty of enticing and "causing" them to take money from Epstein and to take trips to Epstein's fabulous homes where they met wealthy people and celebrities. From the trial, it sounds like many people were involved in this scheme. I am interested in Carolyn's and Virginia's boyfriends, who knew what was happening and encouraged the girls and drove them there.  If no one else is charged it really seems like trial by proxy to me.

    Maxwell's laywers to ask for new trial (none / 0) (#59)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 09:09:08 AM EST
    Defense attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell said the convicted sex trafficker should get a new trial after a juror said in media interviews that he was a victim of sexual abuse as a child, court documents show.
    Prosecutors also asked Judge Alison Nathan to bring the juror back to question him about the comments.

    David decided to share his own experience of being sexually abused as a child with his fellow jurors, explaining to them that he remembered the most important elements of what happened to him but not every single detail. David told Reuters the information swayed some of the jurors' opinions on Jane and Carolyn's testimony.
    David gave his first interview to The Independent.
    "When I shared that, they were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse," David said in his Reuters interview.

    It will be interesting learn if the juror mislead the court during jury selection.
    CNN requested a copy of the juror's filled-out questionnaire from prosecutors, but the request was denied.
    "Juror questionnaires are not public information," said a spokesperson for the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

    I'm still Waiting (none / 0) (#65)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    for an explanation of what this has to do with Maxwell's culpability.  What did Jane and Carolyn say about her?

    From the video (none / 0) (#66)
    by ladybug on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    posted above, Carolyn said that she was introduced to Epstein through Virginia Roberts and she did not mention Ghislaine in any of her previous actions against Epstein. I can't see how she was "groomed" by Maxwell by the facts of her introduction to him.   She was already living with a boyfriend who drove her to Epstein's house, was trying to support a drug habit, had been abused by her grandfather starting at age 4, and had a pretty terrible childhood that Epstein exploited. It sounds like the prosecution may have done a good job impeaching her memory of events too.

    I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#67)
    by ladybug on Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 11:56:33 AM EST
     I meant the defense lawyers.