Ghislaine Maxwell guilty

[Good old]

It's not a matter of its "existence" or having to remind  anyone of that

It's an issue of admissibility under rules of evidence.

This was something drilled into me in my postgraduate years as part of my training to give evidence as an expert witness.

Admittedly that was a while ago and I'm only aware of UK court processes but I'm making  the assumption that much of the legality as regards admissibility of documentation and in particular in the states the manner by which it was acquired by either side is similar to rules over here. It's just not enough to glibly make reference to it...

I understand the point you make. But at this point in proceedings it is a case of making its existence known and studied . The the judge will rule on whether it is admissible as reason to stop proceedings. 
It would seem that if the defence had not put this document before the judge , any effect it might of had would be ignored. So it is a case of placing its existence in front of the judge.

[johnofgwent]

If they have to Produce that document surely they remind the court of its existence. If the court is not aware of its existence they now  would be. The greater question is. Is this document only worth the paper it was printed on.? If so,  if what's been reported as being covered in that document is true, there must be an awful lot of mega rich arseholes fearing they have wasted their money.

It's not a matter of its "existence" or having to remind  anyone of that

It's an issue of admissibility under rules of evidence.

This was something drilled into me in my postgraduate years as part of my training to give evidence as an expert witness.

Admittedly that was a while ago and I'm only aware of UK court processes but I'm making  the assumption that much of the legality as regards admissibility of documentation and in particular in the states the manner by which it was acquired by either side is similar to rules over here. It's just not enough to glibly make reference to it...

[Good old]

It isn't a matter of "reminding" the civil claims court of the existence of a document.

It is a matter of bringing the document into court and having it admissible as evidence.

Without such, the existence of such a document is hearsay and outside the courts eyes and ears.

If they have to Produce that document surely they remind the court of its existence. If the court is not aware of its existence they now  would be. The greater question is. Is this document only worth the paper it was printed on.? If so,  if what's been reported as being covered in that document is true, there must be an awful lot of mega rich arseholes fearing they have wasted their money.

[johnofgwent]

I find it worrying that if this women took the kind of settlement the basis of which  is now common knowledge, Andrews  briefs have to remind a court of its existence.  This is not a criminal trial, it's civil she has had her hand crossed with silver, and perceived hurt paid for.
If it's justice she wants then convince the authorities to bring criminal proceedings.
She  has had her pay out.
It would be interesting to know who finances this ladies protracted dealings with US litigation.and what their real reasons are for spending so much money on this.

It isn't a matter of "reminding" the civil claims court of the existence of a document.

It is a matter of bringing the document into court and having it admissible as evidence.

Without such, the existence of such a document is hearsay and outside the courts eyes and ears.

[Borchester]

That's a very expensive hooker.

That's a very expensive hooker.

It is like the old one of George Bernard Shaw and the actress.

GBS "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"

Excited actress "Oh my yes!!!"

GBS "Would you sleep with me for one pound?"

Enraged actress."What do you think I am?"

GBS." We have already established that, now we are talking about price."

[T00ts]

That's a very expensive hooker.

Exactly! 

[Barry]

I just checked and it seems the Times feels she has already had about £7 million in payouts already. Where from? I heard she had some from an Einstein settlement.

That's a very expensive hooker.

[T00ts]

I heard a pundit somewhere last night state that she is very rich already and no amount of cash will satisfy her. Does that mean she is funding the case herself?

I just checked and it seems the Times feels she has already had about £7 million in payouts already. Where from? I heard she had some from an Einstein settlement.

[T00ts]

I heard a pundit somewhere last night state that she is very rich already and no amount of cash will satisfy her. Does that mean she is funding the case herself?

[cromwell]

I find it worrying that if this women took the kind of settlement the basis of which  is now common knowledge, Andrews  briefs have to remind a court of its existence.  This is not a criminal trial, it's civil she has had her hand crossed with silver, and perceived hurt paid for.
If it's justice she wants then convince the authorities to bring criminal proceedings.
She  has had her pay out.
It would be interesting to know who finances this ladies protracted dealings with US litigation.and what there real reasons are for spending so much money on this.

Some might wish to divert from Trump and Clinton other high flyers too,others might see it as a way to bring them down.

Power does corrupt,not all but far too many,they taste the privilege and dismiss any possible consequences as remote and on occasion get bit on the arse.

This is one of those,it's who decides who can be thrown to the wolves and who could bring others down if thrown.

Horrible game ain't it played by a lot of horrible people.

[Good old]

I find it worrying that if this women took the kind of settlement the basis of which  is now common knowledge, Andrews  briefs have to remind a court of its existence.  This is not a criminal trial, it's civil she has had her hand crossed with silver, and perceived hurt paid for.
If it's justice she wants then convince the authorities to bring criminal proceedings.
She  has had her pay out.
It would be interesting to know who finances this ladies protracted dealings with US litigation.and what their real reasons are for spending so much money on this.

[cromwell]

It's an evil thought perhaps but I wonder if there is any record of this woman having said 'NO'. Don't misunderstand I deplore this behaviour of course. So many have treated it as their right all through the ages but who else has she in her sights or is it only Andrew? He must have been such a mutt.

Andy is an entitled over privileged fool,a criminal? no but he's already been marginalised......damaged to the extent that there are rumblings amongst top brass to remove his military connections.
If he loses this case he won't be able to travel for fear of extradition and big ears won't hesitate to ditch him,for those who think the protest against blair in another thread won't go anywhere should look at this and think again.

[T00ts]

It's an evil thought perhaps but I wonder if there is any record of this woman having said 'NO'. Don't misunderstand I deplore this behaviour of course. So many have treated it as their right all through the ages but who else has she in her sights or is it only Andrew? He must have been such a mutt.

[cromwell]

My heads been hurting with regard this whole sordid affair for some time

Why do politicians ,academics, businessmen  or even Royalty need help in attaining sexual services  when the rest of us are quite happy to take our chances in the mating game ? 

Because they believe they're special and entitled,on the flip side this woman has taken a large wedge of cash for her part in this.......for that I don't blame her  but it does destroy a large part of her case against Andy.

[Good old]

Well just remember those sixties and seventies style movies that always had rich and powerful men surrounded by a harem of young women in bikini's that lived for pool parties and such like...

It's always happened, for centuries . Sex, has been seen as a commodity, and taking into account that Epstein area of expertise was trade. There you go. So society has slowly grown a conscience around these matters. Until Victorian times a girl of twelve could be abused in the marital bed, and all to many twelve year old female servants found obliging the masters sexual appetite was part of the job.
It never ceases to amaze me how  much of this litigation is retrospective by quiet a number of years.  It would seem    taking all into account its only in retrospect we are ever prepared to deal with it.