Main Edition
US
FR
Accomplice, partner or mastermind: how much credit should we give her? Credit: Mathieu Polak/Sygma/Sygma via Getty Images
In a world where history is dominated — and often written — by men, feminism has long cautioned us to look to the shadows to see the real heroes, lurking there unseen. Out of the spotlight, shunted to the sidelines, trapped beneath the glass ceiling, forever playing a supporting role to a man who takes all the credit for doing half (or less!) of the work. Think of all the women there would be monuments to, if only the men had given them their due.
At its best, this is a noble impulse: to recognise how women, so often denied direct access to the levers of power, have had to find other ways to wield it. To give credit to the mothers, sisters, wives, and girlfriends of great men who had to content themselves with pulling strings behind the scenes rather than wielding swords on the front lines. But at worst, this feminist narrative has a dark underbelly: if behind every great man is an even greater woman, then who will you find standing in the shadow of a man who did terrible things?
Two years ago, the internet was on fire with debate about the disgraced financier and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself while awaiting justice for his crimes. The investigation into his death is ongoing, but meanwhile the investigation into his misdeeds has found a new villain. Epstein isn’t just gone; he’s quickly being forgotten, relegated to a supporting role in the scandal that bears his name. Our focus has turned to Ghislaine Maxwell, whose status has grown so great in the wake of Epstein’s death that she has all but eclipsed the man without whose bad acts there would never have been a story at all.
Much has been made of Maxwell’s relationship with Epstein, including her possible complicity in his crimes. The charges against her include enticement of minors and sex trafficking of underage girls, with several women alleging that Maxwell recruited them to work with Epstein in full knowledge that he would abuse and assault them. (She has denied all the allegations.) But it’s Maxwell herself who is increasingly the object of fascination and derision.
In 2019, when Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking, Maxwell was covered as more of a curiosity than an accomplice — let alone a puppeteer pulling his strings. Even Vicky Ward, who has said her reporting on the sex abuse scandal was removed from her Vanity Fair profile of Epstein — allegedly because he put pressure on then editor Graydon Carter — did not seem comparably suspicious of Maxwell’s character at the time. “Full disclosure: I like her,” Ward wrote. “Most people in New York do. It’s almost impossible not to.”
Needless to say, there are no such disclosures to be found in coverage of the case today. Instead, Maxwell’s guilt is treated as a foregone conclusion in most public conversation about the case, to the point where her recent fretting over the possibility of a tainted jury pool doesn’t really seem so far-fetched. The word most commonly used to describe her in the press is “monster” — as in “Ten Monsters of 2020”, and, “Donald Trump Just Wishes This Monster Well”, and “Ghislaine Maxwell Called ‘the Real Monster’ as New Legal Hurdles Emerge”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeInteresting how perceptions of the GM:JE dynamic have changed, but when one protagonist has ‘escaped’ justice, it’s not surprising that people leap onto the next candidate in a thirst for vengeance. The feral rage of the mob demands that somebody pay (even if they’re just a scapegoat), and a woman who commits terrible crimes is also going against type, since society considers that women aren’t supposed to do nasty things. It’s always a shock when we hear of some violent or depraved female criminal, and they are far outnumbered by male offenders (fortunately, because ime, females are worse!).
From my own perspective, I’m more concerned with the stories of how GM is being treated, if they’re true. It doesn’t matter what kind of monster she is, or if she is even truly the evil mastermind behind Epstein. She has not yet been convicted, and thanks to the howling mob, I doubt she will get anything even close to a fair trial.
Whether she is guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between, how we treat such people says a lot about ourselves and the society we live in. I’ve dealt with some real monsters over the years (including a few female ones), and no matter what they’ve done, whether it’s child rape or murder, I will not descend to their level by treating them as anything less than human, even if they deserve it. It’s not always easy.
If they’re guilty, lock them up and throw away the key, forever if necessary, but a society that tortures, starves and abuses prisoners is a sick one, and I could draw some very unflattering comparisons with other regimes around the world that treat people similarly.
Agreed. It’s not only the abuse and humiliation that prisoners are made to undergo, but the interminable waiting for trial. Maxwell has not been proven guilty of anything yet, but this run-up to the trial is unconscionably long. It is tantamount to torture. And she’s not the only one.
Spot on Mel !
Very well said.
Perhaps my European friends haven’t noticed, but the American prison system routinely uses absolutely degrading practices including torture. Think I’m kidding? Solitary confident. For years? Decades? Tell me that’s not torture.
Lady Ghislane is not (yet) in prison, she’s in jail. Jail is worse, as it is meant to be short term, no real programs, not much of a daily routine. A holding tank until prison. What no one seems to have notices is that this is how American prisoners are treated routinely. It’s not Norway!
Otherwise, another dumb article from Kat. Fun to read her for a laugh, because her points are so ridiculous. Must be related to Feminine Chaos.
It is a shock to most people in a culture that continues to lie to itself about negative aspects of female behaviour. It is no shock to me or others who have experienced such behaviours.
Prison reform is a very important issue. But that’s separate from whether or not Ghislaine Maxwell will get a fair trial.
She will get one.
That’s the only thing we really know.
Of course she won’t get a fair trial. An American kangaroo court will find her guilty of whatever crime she is accused of and add in a few more for good measure. This “trial” reinforces my long held opinion that the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA should be rescinded. That won’t help Maxwell, but it might protect some other poor unfortunate in the future.
And could someone explain to me why she has to be shackled – It looks like a scene from a low budget porn movie.
The American justice system puts a very high value on theatrical humiliation of accused people before they are even put on trial. The “perp” walk in handcuffs and sometimes ankle chains is grotesque. I agree that nobody should be extradited to the USA until they reform. Unfortunately the baying mob appear to like things as they are.
I agree that we, particularly in Federal prosecutions, demonstrate a vaudevillian flair in these matters.For the most part, the worst excesses are limited to political and celebrity prosecutions. I will point out that the extensive financial and corporate ties between our two countries would be unsustainable without extradition(or something very much like it).
In principle, I agree with you. In practice, without the threat of extradition, the predation and general mischief launched from Wall Street and landing in the City of London would be breathtaking.
The US doesn’t appear to honour the treaty anyway, as a recent notorious case illustrates.
The USA did not sign this treaty so American citizens are never extradited to another country.
Which treaty are you alluding to? There is certainly a bilateral extradition treaty between US and UK, are you saying that a US citizen can commit heinous crimes in the UK (for example) and the treaty does not cover their extradition? If so then it is hardly an extradition treaty. I don’t know so I’m asking this question seriously.
I reiterate what I said. The USA did not sign a treaty which would make them liable to extradite their citizens to another country for trial even if the evidence is there..
So how come between 2004 and 2011 seven known US citizens were extradited from the US to the UK? The information is in a Home Office letter dated February 2012 in reply to a Freedom of Information request.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/100739/response/255204/attach/3/Document.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
It seems it depends who you are. I suspect some hapless drug addict with no connections then you’re on your way to a UK cell. However, if you’re the wife of a senior army officer & drive on the wrong side of the road & kill a young man (&admit it) then you’re not going back to face trial in the UK.
Are you familiar with the concept of diplomatic immunity? It’s meant for hard cases. I see your point, but high concepts and principles must be adhered to in hard cases. The US could waive diplomatic immunity, allowing the driver to face justice. They didn’t. Perhaps the UK should pressure the US to do this, if the PMs would stop licking the boots of American presidents…..
I reluctantly agree. Reluctant because having extradition treaties between countries with independent legal systems ensures that criminals can’t just skip jurisdictions. However, I find very worrying the way the US is spreading its legal jurisdictions into other countries’ affairs, and its lack of sub judice laws which often leads to trial by the media, and the so-called “perp-walk”, and the shackling even when it’s clear the person isn’t going to turn crazy and take out the arresting officers.
“Of course she won’t get a fair trial. An American kangaroo court will find her guilty of whatever crime she is accused of and add in a few more for good measure.”
It seems the jury were actually quite discerning and acquitted her of one of the charges.
This is very close to defending GM because she is a woman. Irrelevant. What matters now is facts – what happened, who else was involved and how did the coverups work. If GM is guilty, many people are guilty.
What matters is not identity politics – but stopping crime and punishing criminals, and supporting, to the extent possible, the victims.
Well kudos (?) to Unherd, to living up to its name, I guess. I certainly wasn’t expecting to read a Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent because she is a woman article today and yet here we are. Maybe for balance someone could pen a Jimmy Savile was a saint because he gave to charity article too?
And she is correct. Innocent until proven guilty – in a court, with a judge and a jury. What is radical about this? I was under the impression that the US still holds this to be true, or is it only true when it applies to people we like, or those whose crimes we don’t find too bad?
Nobody is stopping a fair trial here. The US doesn’t silence newspapers before trials so maxwell is getting the same treatment as anybody.
Well, perhaps you should silence them before trials.
We are having enough problems with censorship as is.
The same vile and cruel treatment as anybody Franz?
Apparently. If anything I’d say this advertising of her “inhumane” treatment might be a way to mitigate these crimes. For those of us who believe that Epstein had links to the powers that be, this could well be propaganda by said powers. I’ve rarely seen any such discussion elsewhere.
Any more “could be”s and “may be”s Franz? The rules are clear enough even for simpletons, – Innocent until conviction in a fair trial.
Where did I say anything about her guilt. As I said above, for the hard of reading, the US publishes stories and monsters plenty of people before trial.
The evidence of her mistreatment comes from her defense and herself.
the US publishes stories and monsters plenty of people before trial
Which is why sub judice is required
That is no excuse and does not make for a fair trial. I have always thought that US justice thinks too highly of itself and have been grateful that neither I, nor my clients ever had to appear in Court there. I was a Probation Officer for over 20 years in the UK.
If you were in parts of the US some of your clients would still be on probation.
As if the newspapers were any use at all, to get reliable and objective fact-finding …
Nobody cares about this anymore. Almost zero crimes wind up in a trial. Nearly all are settled. Poor people are no allowed trials anymore. Maxwell will get her trial because she has money.
The victim mentality of feminists means all females including GM are painted as such. The outpouring of media support for her has been as ridiculous as it has been predictable.
Ghuislane is the PATSY for a lot of what happened with EPSTEIN. Jes Daley is now involved for his chats with EPSTEIN about SNOW WHITE. That is either COCAINE of one of the GIRLS??
I need to read it again more slowly, because it didn’t come across first time as saying “Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent because she is a woman”
your right, i was being hyperbolic, that isn’t directly stated any where in the article. Though it is the impression i got overall from the tone. I think the article is a muddle though, which is what happens when an author has one lens (feminism) and jams everything through it. like this bit:
is it actually radical to believe women have agency, and should be responsible for their actions?
You are correct, George. The entire point of this tosh was poor, poor, Lady G, tortured for being a woman.
Too bad, so sad….. Perhaps Kat should have emphasized that ALL the accusers are women or girls…. Wait, I thought we were supposed to believe them! I thought we HAD to believe them! Am I wrong?
“Taken to its natural conclusion, this type of rhetoric leads us to a place where men can’t be held accountable for their choices at all, if there’s a woman somewhere in the vicinity who could be seen as a behind-the-scenes manipulator. “
… and the reverse,
“women can’t be held accountable for their choices at all, if there’s a man somewhere in the vicinity who could be manipulating them”
underpins the entire MeToo movement.
If one removes the universal, and just states that some women are “manipulated” — that brings it quite equal with men. There are intelligent humans of either sex, and even more rather stupid specimens, especially when the other sex is involved. I would be amazed to hear GM was a mastermind (more a mayor domo, perhaps). I would equally surprised to learn she was merely erring and mostly innocent. Equality isn’t always obviously symmetrical. There is a reason that there are bright lines to keep a lovely woman from stooping to folly. It’s a damn slippery slope.
Article started out well then degenerated into “she’s innocent because she’s a woman”. I do agree that she’s taking the flak now because she’s the only one still alive, but that has nothing to do with her sex. And Epstein didn’t kill himself.
She is getting more hate and far worse treatment over there than Rose West did /does get over here .
There seems an unwillingness among moralists , perhaps especially in America , to accept that young women are very often attracted to rich and powerful older men . Affording introductions is not the same as helping to kidnap hitchhikers and subject them to protracted sex torture and death .
Though you wouldn’t think it from the coverage .
there is a documentary, i think on Netflix, in which girls describe being flown to a private island, from which they could not leave without a return flight from Epstein’s private charter. Of course the only way to leave was to Afford Introductions to Epstein or his guests.
Oh a Netflix documentary ! True then
So just to be clear, if a man does great things it may be due to the woman behind him, but if he does bad things, it is then misogyny to suggest the same?
Seriously?
Yup. Exactly. So well said!
Without evidence, yes.
And things said by people who are yet to be called as witnesses are not ‘evidence’. Once the evidence is heard and tested in a court of law, we shall have the answers. In the meantime, all we have is allegation and rumour. So, if we rush to judgment on that basis, it suggests some sort of prejudice is in play.
Having watched the documentary on Epstein‘s appalling alleged crimes, he was of course never convicted due to his death, what struck me the most was the baffling revelations of some of the women in the show.
Several freely admitted that they had neither been threatened or coerced by Epstein but had freely engaged in procuring vulnerable and under age girls, for his sexual gratification, in return for financial reward or career progression. Yet in the show, these women where portrayed as heroic victims speaking out, when from everything they had said themselves, they were participating in the abuse.
Perhaps it is about time that we recognised that for every victim of an Epstine or a Weinstein, there were those women who were more that willingly to profit from their behaviour and benefit from the system of sordid exploitation they ran for their own gain. Those women are not “survivors” they are co-conspirators.
Epstein seems to have had true victims–poor, underage girls. HW’s “victims” were clearly trading sex for career advancement in a dance as old as time.
It is almost like every case should be judged on its merits and that people should be considered as guilty only when convicted . The article implies that there is some benefit to the UK’s strict sub judice laws restricting speculation in the press before the court has dealt with the case .
There’s no real argument about Maxwell’s guilt or not here. Pointing out that there’s historically a “female villain who wields power in the form of manipulation is an ancient fictional archetype” tells us nothing about Maxwell’s guilt or innocence in this particular case.
She’s not accused, despite some newspaper headlines, of manipulating Epstein anyway, her defense is almost certainly the opposite – that she was manipulated or coerced. She’s accused of people trafficking.
What’s missing in this feminist analysis is concern for the the women who were subject to the “ enticement of minors and sex trafficking of underage girls, with several women alleging that Maxwell recruited them to work with Epstein in full knowledge that he would abuse and assault them.”
It’s a funny feminism that ignores them.
this is the same brand of feminism which sees “the patriarchy” everywhere, but oddly not in Rotherham.
Abuse and assault are loaded terms . Were under aged groupies who threw threw themselves at the bass player in a rock band abused and assaulted ?
Quite clearly if the bass player knew they were under age.
I have seen girls throwing themselves at minor rock stars myself. Back in the 1980s no one seemed to care to much about the age of consent. I suspect anyone querying the behaviour would have been dismissed as a repressed Mary Whitehouse disciple
Elizabeth Holmes. She didn’t commit fraud as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company–she committed fraud–IF she committed fraud–because her boyfriend and subordinate made her do it!
Boo hoo hoo! Too bad, so sad. Time to put on your little girl pants, Elizabeth. Lady G, too, though she seems more of a fighter, and it’s easier to blame a dead dude!
Epstein isn’t here to stand trial for his crimes because his neck spontaneously broke, as the necks of those who could incriminate the worlds most powerful are want to do.
Not sure how the sentiment of #beliveGhislane sits with the accusations made against her by the women who claim Ghislaine recruited them to be abused. Maybe feminism could be up dated to . #believesomewomen, or #believeEpsteinenablingwomenbutnothteskankswhoaccusethem ?
Feminism has hit a paradox. Always believe the woman isn’t a great guideline when the accuser and accused are all women. It’s a bit like cheesy old sci-fis where somebody asks the supercomputer “why?”
i think i know the type of sci fi you mean, in those usually the supercomputer would fizz and spark then breakdown unable to reconcile the obvious contradiction. I think Feminism in this regard is superior its response to the paradox is to say,
” 1. what paradox? all is true if I say its true,
2. if any thing conflicts with this, then refer again to 1.”
One prong of the article is the public hunt for a scapegoat if the principal offender cheats justice by dying. That isn’t a ‘feminist’ or non-feminist point.
The other is the assumption that any woman ‘close to’ a male offender must be not only complicit but equally or more guilty than the perpetrator himself. The author rightly identifies this as the corollary of the feminist argument that ‘behind every great man is a great woman’ – and says feminism can’t have it both ways. A woman’s influence can’t be just assumed in either case and requires evidence (tried and tested, not just alleged) to prove it.
You can almost hear the cogs in a ‘feminist’s mind turning, while they discover that limitless female empowerment, might also involve empowerment to do bad things. & focus on female agency, might also involve considering female responsibility
ABSOLUTELY NOT! This is obviously the misogynistic post of a non-birthing person. Kindly see my post earlier about Elizabeth Holmes!
She was a participant in a pedophile ring and went into hiding to escape justice. She is not innocent. Martha Stewart was an example of an innocent person being persecuted by the mob. There is an enormous amount of evidence against Maxwell if the lazy author of this piece cares to look at it.
How do you know she is not innocent when she hasn’t been tried yet? As I understand it most of the testimony against her seems to emanate from Virginia Guiffre who, in my view, is exceptionally manipulative and greedy.
There is plenty of evidence from other sources. GM is a rich version of Rose West. The women in these situations are usually worse than the men.
HOW is she ‘a rich version of’ multiple torturer and murderess Rose West?
While I agree that there is a mountain of evidence against Lady G, technically she IS innocent until proven guilty. Soon.
‘Lady Ghislaine’ is the boat. Ghislaine is the woman. Technically. But there’s a big difference between a boat and a woman.
There’s also a big difference between untried, untested allegations and tried and tested evidence. That’s what ‘innocent until proven guilty is all about’.
Excellent points! The thing that joins them–Lady Ghislaine (the boat) and the horrible person Ghislaine Maxell–is that they both should be sunk. Ghislaine Maxwell will be sunk soon–though it seems that she will go down with guns blazing–and I admire that. Perhaps I was hyperbolic above–I have no strong thoughts on the yatch.
Would you feel better if I referred to her as G-Max, as she referred to herself while on the run?
Finally, while I appreciate your attempt to educate me about criminal trials and the standard of proof, as a former prosecutor, I think I know enough to form an opinion. I’m not on the jury nor will I be, so it’s perfectly fine for me to offer an informed opinion on the mountain of evidence against her. I certainly hope that ALL of the evidence is tried and tested as you suggest and ensnares many posh people, including the Clintons, so in that sense, I think I’m on side.
How do you know what you are reading is remotely true?
You only get to hear what the authorities and MSM want you to hear and in this case it is not hard to identify a possible agenda. Also they seem happy push without question allegations made by some very dubious people who really should not be given the time of day.
There are a lot of powerful members of our ruling elite who associated with Mr Epstein and presumably are in need of protection.
I for one find it difficult to believe that Epstein killed himself or the MSMs total lack of curiosity about his death.
As we have seen there is no such thing as justice or a justice system in the US. Any sane person would seek to evade the clutches of the US authorities.
If they get their hands on you there is a stark choice fight the charges when the legal costs of doing so are beyond all but the most wealth and on conviction face a sentence running to 10 to 20 years or accept a plea bargain and do a couple of years in a softer jail.
As far as I can see the US system would be a discredit to third world country or even the old USSR
there was an interesting piece to write about the operation of American justice and whether a fair trial is possible with such a media circus. I think most of us read it expecting such a piece.
I fear for humanity if the writer (and her ilk) convinces large numbers of her poisoned view of history and the relation between men and women. we have seen before what can happen when people accumulate power in this way.
If that’s what you think is happening in this piece, then I think you’ve misunderstood it. The writer points out very clearly that feminism claims women have been denied credit for their contribution to the achievements of men – and so can’t escape speculation that the crimes of men may have much to do with the involvement and influence of women. She does, however, also point out that an outraged public, deprived of the spectacle of a (male) perpetrator being brought to justice, is highly likely to make that rush to judgement against the nearest woman – and that justice requires we all wait until trial to see what accusations stand up as tried and tested evidence.
Epstein’s dead (thanks Hillary), Maxwell is not. It’s that simple. Besides, if there is said to be a sisterhood, of course these women feel more betrayed by Maxwell than by Epstein.
I love the CONSPIRACY THEORY that Ghislaine and Jeffrey were MOSSAD agents (Mossad pushed Daddy off the Yacht).
Anyway, we used to have lunch with Betty when she moved next door to our wonderful friend JOAN GOLFAR, Jewish Matron, when it was chic to be thus…
Using this wicked woman to hector readers once again about feminist grievances is a waste of time. And the strict security arrangements used for Maxwell are because Epstein was allowed to kill himself, if you believe that story.
I don’t believe it, it’s complete nonsense.
The responsibility gap is something feminists and indeed our culture shies away from. I will say I speak for a minority by asking she be looked at, thought of and sentenced using the same standards as a man in the same circumstances.
I believe that is still too much to ask in 2021.
Why do you say you ‘speak for a minority?’ Justice demands exactly that.
I won’t comment on the article itself, but on two basic principles that are being blatantly ignored: “Justice delayed is justice denied”; being kept in solitary confinement for 500 days in a rat-infested cell, assaulted by guards and given food crawling with maggots is something that should not be inflicted to anyone, let alone a person considered “innocent until proven guilty” (second principle). What kind of a justice system is the USA running? What kind of vicious society is it?
I am one who seriously doubts that Ghislaine Maxwell is half as bad as portrayed these days, and I didn’t need to be persuaded by the sort of victim narrative stuff in the article.
I hope that the feminists don’t ride to her defence because if they do and it’s done the way is is here, that’ll just condemn her along with the rest of the overheated rhetoric that’s presently wrecking the prospect of a fair trial.
That aside though, the writer does accurately identify the manner in which Epstein’s death has resulted in an unwarranted focus of the media spotlight on Ghislaine Maxwell. There is no logical reason for this: Epstein’s death does not change what she may be guilty of or otherwise, it is clear she is already guilty in the court of public opinion irrespective of the facts.
It is very hard to see how she will get a fair trial here, and it is also somewhat amazing that in a nation supposedly under the rule of law that such a danger exists at all.
She will get a fair trial, she’s in New York not ‘Hicksville’ – note the ‘trial’ of Kyle Ritttenhouse. There are numerous documentaries on the subject of Epstein’s underage girl Ponzi scheme so anyone questioning GM’s guilt can watch them and see for themselves. The fact in the case that is unfair is that Epstein made sure he wouldn’t go to trial and left GM to face the music including a very long list of influential people who have been sweating since Epstein’s arrest and who no doubt continue to do so.
Do you really mean that? You say New York will give a fair trial but you’ve already made your mind up from TV documentaries that were made without seeing either the prosecution evidence nor the defense evidence.
Two reasons why the trial will not be fair
Please do some research in future. GM is a citizen of the UK, France and the US. She holds all three passports. Why do you think they pursued her all the way out to the boonies? And you should watch the documentaries. They are not made-up fictional entertainment, they are based on factual evidence.
I believe the interest in her wealth is largely out of interest of where it came from. It is believed that it came largely from Epstein in which case, illicit gains from the trafficking young girls (allegedly).
Point 2: No it’s not. Lady G IS an American citizen, along with France and the UK. Get your facts straight!
I hate to break it to you but documentaries are not true or even impartial. And I do not see how she can have a fair trial. In the UK there are strict rules about pre-trial publicity for this reason and if the Judge determines that a fair trial is not possible he or she has the obligation to dismiss the charges
I only have one question which I believe is very pertinent. Why, when Epstein was arrested and charged, wasn’t Ghislaine Maxwell arrested and charged at the same time if she was the mastermind? Why did it only happen after he died?
As I recall she went into hiding and wasn’t discovered until after Epstein (allegedly) died. It’s also possible that she wasn’t a priority until his death as he was the main abuser (allegedly) I don’t think anyone considers her to be the mastermind. The accusations are that she was complicit in procuring and grooming/manipulating young girls to be abused by Epstein and his cronies. She was seen more as the Madam (Allegedly)
She’s a pimp and a groomer.
Allegedly!
If you believe it all, that is.
Personally I don’t. A woman with such colossal wealth, privilege and connections, getting involved in procuring underage girls for a pervert?
Sorry, I don’t buy it for a moment.
What a pity Ghislaine is not a black lesbian. Then we could also claim racism and homophobia. What a delusional piece of nonsense this article is. The only public figure who ever distanced himself from Epstein and indirectly indicating the reasons therefor was Donald Trump. All the others remained silent. Ghislaine is totally irrelevant in this respect. Just a water carrier. Go after the other chums of Jeffrey.
The victims have said she participated in the abuse. She schooled them in oral sex and the other stuff Jeffrey wanted. No doubt there were other recipients of these favours but Ghislaine was the ‘Madame’ – she organized everything for him at his instruction.
.
I wonder whether his apparent friendship with her at Oxford, as described by his sister in the Spectator this week, will be the thing that finally brings down Boris.
Whoever currently owns that video collection owns the whole world.
Weren’t the girls who attended Epstein’s parties sent by an agency? If so, then the agency should have checked age, etc. They no doubt took their cut. T
To my mind, it is all a question of money. Epstein can no longer be milked so the woman concerned (17 at the time) has turned to the wealthy Ghislaine Maxwell for the goodies..
We shall see what the verdict is and if she has to compensate those who are bringing the action and the multitude (no doubt) of lawyers.
USA law is alien to us in this country… .
There is a documentary on Netflix called ‘Filty Rich’ which details the whole sordid story going back decades. He was protected by the rich and infamous for obvious reasons. The girls were not sent to him by an agency. Maxwell would send out girls to nightclubs basically as scouts to offer these girls an opportunity to become a model etc, etc. Victoria Guiffre worked at Trump’s hotel – Mar a Lago as a pool attendant when she was asked if she wanted become a masseuse for a local rich guy. West Palm Beach which is just across the intercostal is a low rent area populated by trailer parks. This was a perfect hunting ground for poor aimless young girls.
The girls who were interviewed for the documentary suffered appalling abuse which has resulted in irreparable damage. Maxwell should go to prison for the rest of her life.
Please give your evidence for this.
We were certainly told at the outset that hostesses were obtained from an agency and as there are agencies offering such a service, the scenario you suggest seems very unlikely. Just not the way rich people would conduct their social life. And as for Ghislaine Maxell going into hiding, was she “in hiding” during the first trial and thereafter?
You can stay in your rabbit hole as that is clearly where you are most comfortable. Or watch the damn documentary and stop splitting hairs.
I think a lot of us would prefer to await the outcome of the trial, thank you. We haven’t yet stooped to the level at which a ‘documentary’ on Netflix has replaced due process of law.
From the evidence released to the public, Ms Maxwell was at her home, and the address of that home was known to the police. If she was ‘in hiding’, that was ‘hiding’ from the press, wasn’t it?
Just watch the documentary on Netflix. I couldn’t have made it any clearer.
A programme entitled “Filthy Rich” indicates the tone and content of the article
A google search will bring up troves of articles from respectable publications if Netflix is too downmarket.
A documentary is not the truth. Nowadays more than ever they seem to be vehicles for untrustworthy individuals of dubious motivation to peddle uncorroborated allegations which are never challenged.
—
What does this mean? It’s been down voted so it must mean something.
In the Unherd world you can’t delete your post, but you can edit it.
He’s edited it away.
Thanks, I didn’t realise this.
yeah what D Nemo said, i meant to reply to a commentator but i typed it into a new comment box, so i’ve — because unherd cant delete posts. i think it got down voted because that pushes it below new comments so for those reading by most rated comments this then goes to the bottom, bizarrely someone has since upvoted to bring it back to 0.
They were probably being polite thinking it unfair that you were downvoted for something you didn’t say. Some posters are quite polite.
I’m not, so I’ve downvoted it to get it out of the way.