22

Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother blasted her late accuser as a “monster” and declared he “shed no tear” over her suicide during a fiery interview Friday.

Ian Maxwell, the 68-year-old older sibling of convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, insisted his sibling was in jail because of what he called the lies of Virginia Giuffre.

Prior to her death in April, she had consistently alleged Maxwell had solicited her for sex with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his high society friends, including Prince Andrew, when she was 17.

“My sister’s been banged up for five years. It is very, very largely due to the actions, lies of this woman. I shed no tear for Virginia Giuffre,” Maxwell told British radio station LBC.

He went further still, “I think I know who the monster is here. It certainly isn’t my sister.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 1 points 9 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

renewing her claim of defamation and adding a claim of battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law allowing sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations

A jury verdict in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, and ordered him to pay US$5 million in damages.

Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true".

The official finding of the jury was that he was "liable" for sexual assault. The rest of it, I think pretty much speaks for itself. I would summarize that as him being proven in court to be guilty of rape, other people might have other wordings or summaries. Whatever.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 0 points 9 months ago

Ah ah - right, I failed to recognize that the suit in question was a civil suit seeking damages for battery.

Still, my original statement is true: not 'guilty' in a legal sense (I added quotes here for clarity). 'Guilty' implies a criminal trial, which that one was not.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 1 points 9 months ago

Like I say, other people might have other wordings or summaries. Honestly hair-splitting about it just pisses me off. A court proved that, by the normal-human definitions of these words, he's guilty of rape. How's that?

That's not to mention the many, many allegations of rape, sexual assault, and child rape that other people have credibly raised. That's just the time that it's been proven in court with him having every opportunity to vigorously defend himself against the allegation, and failing.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 9 months ago

The legal system is all about hair-splitting.

He was literally proven in court guilty of rape, in the defamation case.

In court, he was found liable for sexual abuse. Colloquially and in reality, he is guilty of rape. It is important not to conflate the two.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
22 points (100.0% liked)

News

37727 readers
384 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS