This puzzles me

They also expressed concern that she may escape to France, where she holds citizenship. Paris does not extradite its own citizens.

She clearly believes she can beat the rap otherwise she would have done. But why would she believe that? Sure, actual innocence is a good defence but maybe not when there’s a witch hunt on.

23 thoughts on “This puzzles me”

  1. Many factors will be brought into play in the trial.

    The facts of the case will be only one of those factors.

    James Strong

  2. I like to play “Guardian, Telegraph or BigMouth”.

    If I can guess the source of an article from Tim’s heading I award myself two points. After reading the first paragraph it’s one point. Getting it wrong is minus five points.

  3. France does extradite its citizens (no European Arrest Warrant otherwise, for one thing), they just have more complicated and better rules than the UK’s “you ask/we give” treaty with the US. And I don’t understand why a London house can’t be security for bail in the US – maybe it can’t simply be “seized” but it could certainly be tied up and then taken.

  4. She had hopes of negotiating a plea deal?

    They were keeping her watched, revoked travel permission and would have arrested her if she tried? (It did seem an internal move was what prompted the arrest)

    There were personal safety risks for her in the places she might run to?

  5. Oblong.

    There are substantial personal safety risks for her in the USA for as long as the Clintons draw breath.

  6. I’m astonished that Mossad didn’t get her out. Or perhaps she feared that they want her dead too.

  7. Something I don’t get about this case is that there are several women and their lawyers lined up to make accusations about being exploited by Epstein and by various of his chums. However, the only person to have been accused of actually shagging one of these alleged victims is Randy Andy.

    How come we haven’t had a single allegation about one of Epstein’s many many US chums? The whole thing stinks.

  8. @MC

    “However, the only person to have been accused of actually shagging one of these alleged victims is Randy Andy.”

    Actually that’s not true – if you’ve been following the world of academic computer science recently, you might have noticed stories like

    Which has led to further ructions like when Richard Stallman defended Marvin Minsky’s reputation, resulting in him losing his positions at MIT and the Free Software Foundation, and attempts to kick him off the GNU project e.g.

  9. @Oblong

    My personal instinct was towards one of your first two suggestions (may not have been allowed to leave the country, may have expected to cut a bargain if she named interesting names) but a third realistic possibility is that some people just have to believe they’re “really” innocent and will surely be exonerated. That is, it’s possible to have a distorted view both of one’s innocence of involvement in something, and also of the likelihood of being convicted even if you are sure you are innocent – she’s not going to be able to deny involvement with Epstein, not going to be able to deny evidence about her location at various key times put forward by the prosecution, and there’s going to be a lot of she-said-vs-she-said evidence that it doesn’t look like she’ll come out well from, so objectively speaking things aren’t looking great. But subjectively, if she doesn’t believe whatever part she took in the whole affair was truly wrong, she might be having one of those Aitken “sword of truth” moments.

    Amid all the fake passports, vanished kompromat, alleged links to intelligence services and so on, I’ve always been interested in two things far more prosaic – where Epstein got his wealth from and how come he did so much in plain sight for so long without getting called out on it. The media seem to have identified him as a bit creepy before he went to court for the first time, but I’m surprised nobody went bigger/harder on him and his circle than they did – wonder whether that’s fear of libel, or powerful connections (though I don’t think he was famous for links to media barons, that didn’t seem to be his circle) or something else. And how come he lived a billionaire-style lifestyle when his only major client seems to have been Les Wexner who isn’t at the very top end of the big league himself (he has a few billion, which is nice, but it isn’t like Epstein could have looted billions off of him – if he had a couple of Silicon Valley clients in the $10 Bn+ club that would be different). Maybe there are other clients who thought it best to stay very private, but even then it isn’t clear what Epstein could actually offer anyone. Unless he had something on them I suppose. Still, it’s rare to see such an obvious gap between lifestyle and apparent means and it’s never a good sign.

  10. Dennis, MP for Dunny-on-the-Wold

    She should be accidentally brutally cutting her head off while shaving any day now…

  11. “ Maybe there are other clients who thought it best to stay very private, but even then it isn’t clear what Epstein could actually offer anyone.”

    I thought it was fairly well understood that the way things worked was that Epstein would get kompromat on rich men with certain tastes, and blackmail them (maybe in an indirect manner).

    The wealth management services were mainly a way to launder the blackmail – he would get them to park money with him, he would stick it in fairly low octane investments, and his chunky fees would take much of the returns.

    But the marks would find this all a bit more palatable than actually handing the money over, and Epstein probably continued to provide them the other services, so it kind of worked for everyone. A bit like how people sign up for their Sun Life over-50s plan for the free pen.

    He has said more than once publicly that he just had a small handful of clients.

  12. @Oblong

    For “fairly well understood”, my understanding was “frequently alleged (and I can’t think of a reasonable alternative explanation)”. Is it an allegation there’s been any definitive proof of? I haven’t read a journalistic exposé which has made crystal clear exactly what went on rather than just hinted at it, and the FBI (as far as I’m aware) don’t seem to have prosecuted any big movers and shakers using kompromat as evidence, or even (again, so far as I’m aware) acknowledged its existence.

  13. Sometimes if you are guilty, a conviction and time are not the worst result.

    If OJ Simpson had plead guilty with some BS mitigating circumstances, he would have got out quickly. Instead everyone still thinks he did it and evaded justice, so he is basically convicted and sentenced for life.

    How happy has Polanski been as a result of his flight? A plea in exchange for a less prejudiced judge would probably have served him better. It’s not like anyone thinks he is innocent.

    Assange is another that shows running doesn’t always give freedom.

  14. @Chester

    Excellent post. Having said that – and I don’t lean towards conspiracy theories myself, just noting the incentives here – prison is something some people want to avoid more than others, and people who have reason to believe prison is a place that makes them unusually vulnerable should have more incentive to steer clear of it than most. There are very powerful organised criminals who go to jail knowing they already practically run the joint, and can ensure measures and associates are in place to provide them with adequate protection while they’re there. A hardnut with backup has relatively little to fear – the bigger problem for them might be extramural, the risk of intrigue, loss of influence and ultimately usurpation within their organisation while they’re incapacitated by their spell inside. But there are also criminals we think of as “powerful” in a more conventional white-collar sense who can afford bodyguards and security advisers aplenty while they roam free, but whose power dissipates completely behind bars.

    That would be a dangerous place to be if you had enemies whose writ did run so far as the corridors of the prison system, or for anyone out of their middle-class depth with a conviction for an offence (like sex with the underaged) that marks them out for special attention from their fellow inmates. For someone as paranoid of state power as Assange or famous – therefore unable to hide the fact from cellmates – for doing something so sick as Polanski, I can see why keeping running may make sense even if it has screwed up their lives in many ways.

  15. @Pcar

    Criminality of that allegation doesn’t depend on age brackets but rather on whether coercion is being claimed. Which I think is indeed the claim, albeit a hard one to prove. So not necessarily all in the clear, leave alone whether there are allegations in jurisdictions with a higher age of consent.

  16. @MBE

    I’d consider a claim of coercion if Andy had gone to house, met her, shagged her then left

    Picking her up, then taking out for dinner followed by dancing at Tramp, then back to wherever for a shag suggests consent

  17. In 2011 Ex-Reddit CEO Ellen Pao Knew Ghislaine Maxwell Was Supplying Underage Girls For Sex

    Spot on about ABC sitting on info while crimes continue waiting for approval to air “Exclusive Breaking News” – surely ‘aiding & abetting’ ‘failing to report a felony’ or whatever?

    Journo could have gone to Veritas, Wikileaks, Rebel News….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *