Matthew Steeples joins those demanding that Ghislaine Maxwell’s henchwoman Sarah Kellen and other co-collaborators face justice for their roles assisting the convicted mucky madam sex fiend
Late last night the Daily Mail’s Stephen Wright and Daniel Bates published a story about Sarah Kellen, also known as Sarah Vickers and Sarah Kensington.
In it, of this 43-year-old wife of 38-year-old Nascar driver turned investor Brian Vickers, the Wright and Bates reported: “While Ghislaine Maxwell awaits her fate, Sarah Kellen – her ex-right-hand-woman and third key figure in Jeffrey Epstein drama – strolls carefree in Manhattan… The contrast in her fortunes… could not be starker.”
Reportedly living between a £4.3 million penthouse in SoHo, New York and a £5.1 million condominium in Miami, Florida, here is a woman “dubbed Epstein’s ‘lieutenant’ for allegedly souricng and booking underage girls for ‘massages’” but who “has has never faced justice over the scandal after becoming one of four women granted immunity from prosecution over Epstein’s abuse. In 2008, his lawyers persuaded the authorities to sign an agreement giving ‘potential co-conspirators’ protection from future charges.”
Of the lack of even an attempt to get justice, victims’ lawyer David Boies told the paper that he hoped that “co-conspirators should be held to account” whilst victims’ attorney Brad Edwards added that the likes of Kellen “should share evidence to those ‘still seeking justice’ or should face prosecution next.”
Unsurprisingly, “Miss Kellen’s lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.”
Jeffrey Epstein with Sarah Kellen on Madison Avenue in NYC on 30th January 2012. Of her involvement with the since croaked paedophile, this 43-year-old once stated: “[I am a] victim – not a monster.”Mr and Mrs Vickers were reported as being “horrible neighbours” to other residents of the building where they primarily live in an article in the ‘New York Post’ on 16th January 2021. Residents of 92 Greene Street – which was “once home to Lindsay Lohan,” another “neighbour from hell” – moaned: “It’s the other homeowners that have to put up with [their] endless apartment renovation.”Elsewhere yesterday in a 68-page document shared on ‘Court Listener,’ defence lawyer Bobbi C. Sternheim raged in support of her client and stated: “Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not a bully pulpit for anyone who was not identified as a victim of the charged federal offenses and does not qualify as such under the CVRA. We urge the Court to undertake its role as gatekeeper to ensure that Ms. Maxwell’s rights are not trampled by individuals who are not statutory victims or by the rights afforded to legitimate victims under the CVRA. To ensure that the appropriate balance of rights is achieved, those who qualify under the CVRA offenses should have the right to be heard but their statements should be in accordance with redactions and rulings made by the Court. Because the Individuals do not meet the definition of ‘crime victims’ under the CVRA, they should not be permitted to give oral testimony or have their written victim impact statements read during sentencing.”
On Twitter this morning, ‘The Prince & The Pervert’ podcast host Lisa Tait shared “five reasons why #GhislaineMaxwell thinks she’s the real victim.” They include that she thinks she’s not to blame, she was emotionally abused father, she is the replacement for the dead paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, conspiracy and that her victims are not actually her victims.
Prosecutors rightly demand mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell gets maximum 55 years in the clink and thus likely deservedly dies there; they also want the deviant liar to pay the maximum £615,000 fine and call out her spreading “horror stories” about her incarceration as “unfounded”
Boob groping grabber and money motivated sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell – whose claims of “extreme weight loss are not true” given her weight has gone from 146 pounds to 144.5 pounds since she entered the clink – wants a laughable sentence of just 4 years; those that brought her to justice want her sent down 55 years. Yesterday setting out the case as to why in a 55-page document, United States Attorney Damian Williams observed:
“Ghislaine Maxwell sexually exploited young girls for years. It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of her crimes and the harm she caused. Her crimes demand justice. The Government urges the Court to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range of 360 to 660 months’ imprisonment.”
This morning on Twitter, Matthew Steeples shared a poll that asked: “Does mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell deserve 4 years or 55 years?” The majority of respondents thus far are in favour of “chucking the book at her” rather than the 4 years her defence team are laughably seeking.
“As the Government has emphasized throughout this case, Jeffrey Epstein could not have committed these crimes without the defendant. The defendant, an adult woman, was able to provide a cover of respectability to Epstein that lulled the victims and their families into a false sense of security.”
“This case sends the important message that those who would conspire with sexual predators will be held responsible for their significant role in these crimes. Accordingly, a Guidelines sentence is necessary to afford deterrence.”
“The lenient sentence the defendant seeks would send the message that there is one system of laws for the rich and powerful, and another set for everyone else.”
“It would also send the message to victims that, even if they have the courage to report their abusers and undergo the excruciating experience of testifying in court, there will be no meaningful accountability.”
Going further of a wicked woman they described as playing an “instrumental role in the horrific sexual abuse of multiple young teenage girls” and someone who “left her victims permanently scarred with emotional and psychological injuries,” they add “Maxwell was an adult who made her own choices.” Of her attempts to blame others, Williams adds:
“If anything stands out from the defendant’s sentencing submission, it is her complete failure to address her offense conduct and her utter lack of remorse. Instead of showing even a hint of acceptance of responsibility, the defendant makes a desperate attempt to cast blame wherever else she can.”
“On that score, the defendant’s attempt to cast aspersions on the Government for prosecuting her, and her claim that she is being held responsible for Epstein’s crimes, are both absurd and offensive.”
“… She made the choice to sexually exploit numerous underage girls. She made the choice to conspire with Epstein for years, working as partners in crime and causing devastating harm to vulnerable victims.”
“She should be held accountable for her disturbing role in an extensive child exploitation scheme.”
“The Government agrees that the defendant should be sentenced for her own conduct: she committed terrible crimes that caused irreparable harm to vulnerable children. Her own criminal actions demand that she serve every day of a Guidelines sentence in prison.”
“Moreover, even now, at sentencing, the defendant has shown no acceptance of responsibility, and her submission fails to even mention, much less accept responsibility for, the harm she has caused her victims. Instead, her entire submission is an effort to cast herself as a victim: of her father, of Epstein, of the media, of prosecutors, of the Bureau of Prisons.”
“Although much of the defendant’s sentencing memorandum aims to cast aspersions on the Government, these claims are baseless. This Office did what it always does in any case: it followed the facts and law.”
“The investigation uncovered that the defendant committed terrible crimes, and that is what this case is about. The Court should see the defendant’s attack on the Government’s motives for exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to shift the blame for her own crimes and distract from the gravity of her offense conduct.”
“In short, the defendant has lied repeatedly about her crimes, exhibited an utter failure to accept responsibility, and demonstrated repeated disrespect for the law and the Court. The defendant’s history and characteristics weigh in favor of a Guidelines sentence.”
Turning to this the very likely mostly hidden assets of this very wealthy 60-year-old – whose evil conman father plundered and hid assets of about £450 million via locations believed to number the British Virgin Islands, the Channel Islands, Lichtenstein, Panama and Switzerland – Williams concluded “the defendant apparently decides when she wishes to disclose facts to the Court, and those facts shift when it serves the defendant’s interests.”
Going further, he added:
“The breakdown of the defendant’s finances provided then demonstrated that the defendant is a remarkably wealthy woman. That wealth appears to have primarily come from Epstein.”
“The primary source of funds reflected in that financial breakdown was the sale of the defendant’s Manhattan townhouse. Kate testified at trial that the defendant told Kate that Epstein obtained the New York townhouse for the defendant. Additionally, evidence at trial demonstrated that Epstein transferred a total of approximately $23 million (£18.9 million, €21.9 million or درهم84.5 million) to the defendant.”
“The defendant’s dishonesty surrounding her finances is an aggravating factor weighing in favor of an above-Guidelines fine in this case. The defendant’s assets range in 52 the multiple millions of dollars. A $750,000 (£615,000, €715,000 or درهم2.8million) fine will hardly impact her financial outlook, but it is the most the law will allow in this case. The Court should impose it without hesitation.”
“With respect to forfeiture, the Government is not seeking to forfeit any property because the Government has not identified specific property used in the offense conduct that the defendant herself owned.”
“Finally, because each of the identified victims has already received monetary compensation for the harms caused to them by the defendant’s criminal conduct, the Government does not seek restitution in this case. Restitution is not available where victims have received compensation for their losses from another source.”
“Each of the six victims identified at trial – Jane, Annie, Kate,Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa – has received funds from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund and/or civil settlements as compensation for the harms they suffered as a result of the defendant’s and Epstein’s crimes.”
“… That amount constitutes a mere drop in the bucket for a multi-millionaire like the defendant, but it nevertheless sends the message that a defendant who uses wealth to accomplish criminal activity will suffer financial losses in addition to the loss of liberty.”
“No amount of money can undo the harm that the defendant’s crimes have done, but given the defendant’s substantial means, the majority of which appears to have come from her co-conspirator, a hefty fine is certainly warranted in this case.”
“Money is a key theme underlying the criminal conduct in this case. The defendant’s access to wealth enabled her to present herself as a supposedly respectable member of society, who rubbed shoulders with royalty, presidents, and celebrities.”
“That same wealth dazzled the girls from struggling families who became the defendant and Epstein’s victims. That same wealth enabled the defendant and Epstein to hire a parade of staff to transport victims and maintain the fabulous properties where those victims were abused.”
“That same wealth motivated the defendant to make sure that Epstein’s repulsive desire for sexual contact with teenage girls was always met.”
“That wealth was the defendant’s reward.”
“The defendant has lived a life of extraordinary privilege, and she profited from her relationship with Epstein. It is only right that she should suffer some small financial penalty for the incalculable harm she has caused.”
Of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-collaborator and one-time lover’s moaning about jail conditions, Williams observed:
“At bottom, the defendant’s complaints about jail seem to come down to the vast gulf between the conditions of her confinement and the defendant’s lived experience up until her arrest and detention on July 2, 2020.”
“Until July 2020, the defendant spent her entire life living in extraordinary luxury. Her childhood and adolescence were filled with wealth and privilege. That access to wealth continued into adulthood when the defendant found a benefactor in Epstein, who provided her with millions of dollars and invited her to share in his luxurious lifestyle of mansions, house staff, private chefs, and private planes.”
“After leaving that relationship, the defendant remained exceptionally wealthy, residing in palatial estates and owning multiple homes. It is no wonder, then, that she found jail jarring. Going from being waited on hand and foot to incarceration is undoubtedly a shocking and unpleasant experience.”
“The massive difference between the defendant’s prior life and the life of an inmate may feel extreme to the defendant, but when compared to the experiences of other pretrial detainees in this District, her experience is by no means so shocking as to merit a downward variance.”
“If anything, the defendant’s privilege remained intact while at the MDC, as demonstrated by the exceptional benefits she received. No other inmate received the kind of access to discovery and to counsel that the defendant did. The defendant had her own shower, her own television, her own desktop computer, her own laptop, and her own space to spend the day outside of her cell.”
“The defendant was able to get any concerns, no matter how small, immediately brought to the attention of MDC legal counsel through her attorneys. Comparing that treatment to SAMS is out of touch with reality.”
“In many respects, the defendant’s conditions of confinement were preferential and more beneficial than those experienced by other inmates… At bottom, the defendant does not like jail.”
“… Finally, it bears emphasizing that the defendant has told blatant lies about her conditions of confinement. She repeatedly claims to have suffered significant hair loss, but anyone who has seen the defendant in court can easily see that is not true.”
“She repeatedly claims to have lost an extreme amount of weight, but, as noted above, BOP medical records make clear that she has not. The defendant is perfectly healthy, with a full head of hair.”
Mr Williams is spot on and given that Ghislaine Maxwell remains remorseless for her many crimes, has been shown to be a deviant liar and has thus far refused to name the names of her co-collaborators and those she sex trafficked to, it is time for only one thing. On 28th June, it is time for Judge Alison J. Nathan to chuck the book at this truly rotten piece of toerag.
Elsewhere this morning, the DailyMail.com shared an image they declared “never-before-seen” image of the daughter of the world’s worst pension plunderer with her now estranged husband Scott Borgerson at a Christmas party at a nursing home in December 2017. The pair married on Christmas Day a year earlier – the very day of Ghislaine Maxwell’s 55th birthday.Mr Borgerson ditched his wife in what the DailyMail.com termed a “heated phone call whilst she was in solitary confinement” and has moved on with a yoga enthusiast with “an ass that could crack open a walnut” named Kris McGinn Straub.The United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of New York issued a statement on Tuesday 21st June 2022 calling on victims wishing to make a statement at Ghislaine Maxwell to contact them. In it they incorrectly stated the date of sentencing as the 29th June rather than the 28th June.
The Maxwell-Borgerson Assets
Of the lies Ghislaine Maxwell told about her assets, prosecutors remark: “After getting caught in her lie to Pretrial Services that her only asset was her London townhouse, the defendant provided a very different picture when seeking bail in December 2020. The breakdown of the defendant’s finances provided then demonstrated that the defendant is a remarkably wealthy woman.”
Amongst the assets of the couple are:
Manchester-by-the-Sea residence – The house Borgerson bought with Maxwell on 30th June 2016 for £1.802 million ($2.450 million, €2.164 million or درهم8.998 million) in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts was placed for sale in February 2022 for a far more punchy £5.368 million ($7.295 million, €6.443 million or درهم26.791 million). Whether it has sold is unknown and how much of the proceeds from such she will receive has also yet to be disclosed.New Hampshire residence – The pair purchased Tuckedaway, 338 East Washington Road, Bradford, New Hampshire, NH 03221 for £787,953 ($1,070,750, €945,752 or درهم3.93 million) on 13th December 2019 via Jennifer Johnson and Margaret Weathers of Four Seasons Sotheby’s International Realty. The house had been listed at a price of £879,000 ($1.195 million, €1.055 million or درهم4.389 million) in March that year and sold previously for £773,000 ($1.050 million, €927,000 million or درهم3.856 million) on 15th December 2017. Its ownership is currently unknown, but likely remains in the joint possession of Mr and Mrs Borgerson.London residence – Ghislaine Maxwell paid £290,000 ($396,000, €347,000 or درهم5 million) for a three-storey leasehold mews house on 22nd January 1997. 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1X 8ES is situated at the heart of the Duke of Westminster’s Grosvenor Estate and she sold it for £1.75 million ($2.39 million, €2.09 million or درهم79 million) on 19th April 2021.
As Ghislaine Maxwell faces 30 years in prison, her lawyers have ludicrously countered suggesting she should serve just a minimum 4 years; her few “remaining friends” and family laughably blub about the mucky madam being a “fundamentally good and decent person” who “still has much to contribute to the world if she is given a meaningful opportunity to do so”
“Remaining friends (most having cut ties due to fear of association and the lure of ‘cancel culture’) attest to Ghislaine [Maxwell]’s character; each offers a first-person narrative of some aspect of her life in sharp contrast to her characterisation as a villain, rich heiress, and vapid socialite” is a telling paragraph in Bobbi C. Sternhein, Christian R. Everdell and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca’s latest submission to the United States District Court Southern District of New York about their convicted sex offender client.
In a 77-page document accompanied by another of 29 pages, the word “victim” is very tellingly only referenced 4 times and not one of those mentions expresses any regret on behalf of the mucky madam Maxwell about what she has been deservedly convicted of doing to young women. They go as far to claim: “Probation essentially makes the sweeping assertion that a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell is necessary to deter rich people from exploiting poor people,” but ludicrously seek to blame “main offender” Jeffrey Epstein alone for this instead.
“Nor should she be sentenced as if she were Harvey Weinstein” is another laughable point made by the attorneys – Maxwell and the disgraced film mogul ironically partied together at the birthday party for Prince Andrew’s daughter on 15th July 2006 – in an attempt to bring down the “correct sentencing range” to a minimum of 51 months or 4.25 years “not the 292-365 month [30.5 years] range calculated by the U.S. Probation Office.”
A “whirlwind of emotional turmoil caused by the relentless demands of her father” and an absent mother who ignored her are also cited as factors in Jeffrey Epstein’s co-collaborator’s downfall and whilst he isn’t actually named, her estranged husband Scott Borgerson is referenced. Of him, the attorneys remark:
“In 2013, Ms. Maxwell began a new relationship with the man she would later marry. She was with her husband for over seven years and became a devoted stepmother to her husband’s two youngsters, who were ages three and four and a half at the start of the relationship. Sadly, the marriage could not survive the negative impact of this case nor a husband’s association with his dishonoured wife.”
Lauded as “warm hearted, generous, kind, funny, thoughtful and loving” by friends and relatives, here is a portrayal of someone quite at contrast with what a court found of her in December. This wicked wench might think she can pull the wool over the courts with this barrage of bilge, but we simply conclude: “Now, go and pull the other one; it is time for this wholeheartedly evil conniving ratbag to rot and to deservedly rot in hell.”
Ghislaine Maxwell will be sentenced on 28th June in New York. She deserves far more than the minimum asked for; in fact, she deserves to live out of the rest of her days in the clink to prevent her assisting in the abuse of a single further person.
The attorneys of the mucky madam seek to pin blame on the former socialite’s late parents Robert and Betty as an explanation for her antics in their 77-page submission. Of Ghislaine Maxwell’s mother, they remark: “At age three, she stood in front of her mother and said simply, ‘Mummy, I exist.’ On doctor’s orders exactly a year after Michael’s accident, her mother went on a long tour of India and Australia, leaving infant Ghislaine and her siblings not already in boarding school at home in the care of a nanny.” Of her as deviant as her father, they add: “Mr. Maxwell employed corporal punishment on his children. Ghislaine vividly recalls a time when, at age 13, she tacked a poster of a pony on the newly painted wall of her bedroom. Rather than mar the paint with tape, she carefully hammered a thin tack to mount the poster. This outraged her father, who took the hammer and banged on Ghislaine’s dominant hand, leaving it severely bruised and painful for weeks to come.”Of what came after the death of her father “under suspicious and unresolved circumstances and under a cloud of business impropriety,” the lawyers add, ‘The Bouncing Czech’s’ clear favourite child was “left to fend for herself.” They remark: “It was around this time that Ms. Maxwell met Jeffrey Epstein for the first time. As Ms. Maxwell plans to appeal her conviction, we will not comment on the events during this time period that were the subject of the trial” and thus avoid delving into what she and her evil co-collaborator did to the victims they sex trafficked and sexually abused. Effectively, the excuse is one monstrous man replaced another man.Since exposed as criminal sex abusers and predators including Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell attended Princess Beatrice’s 1888 themed 18th birthday party at Windsor Castle on 15th July 2006. The event cost a reported £400,000 – whether the Duke of York and his live-in ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York contributed financially or instead got their rich friends to cough-up is, however, unknown – and other guests numbered more innocent sorts including Sir David Frost, Pixie Geldoff, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Kelly Osbourne. Curiously the convicted daughter of the Mirror pension pot plunderer is now seeking to distance herself from the former film mogul she was happy to be pictured with and does not want to be compared to someone convicted of what her lawyers term “forcible rape.”“Her work was a far cry from the ‘flippity-jibit socialite’ label that the media has decided to cast on her every time they reference her” claim sisters Christine Malina Maxwell and Isabel Maxwell in a letter that is included in the 77-page document. Such a comment fails in that here was a woman who spent her life hobnobbing with the likes of Calvin Klein and Aby Rosen (pictured) and others including Bernie Ecclestone, Kevin Spacey, Prince Andrew and Naomi Campbell.For many years a “secret husband,” Scott Borgerson has given up on his wicked wife and taken up with a yoga enthusiast with “an ass that could crack open a walnut” named Kris McGinn Straub. The house he bought with Maxwell in June 2016 in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts was placed for sale in February 2022 for £5.368 million ($7.295 million, €6.443 million or درهم26.791 million). Whether it has sold is unknown.In other news yesterday, the ‘Miami Herald’ referenced that “ Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein “operated, using offshore companies to build, disguise and conceal their wealth” whilst other publications claimed that the mucky madam would be “naming names” – an allegation examined in the ‘Globe’ on 18th April 2022. At the time, they claimed “the disgraced British socialite is spilling her guts… in return for a get out of jail free card.”
As Ghislaine Maxwell’s former business partner Jemma Kidd takes part in a car rally that raises money for victims of sex trafficking, we again call out the ridiculous vanity project of rich-not-robust women that is Cash & Rocket
Cash & Rocket is a ‘charitable organisation’ that claims to seek to bring about the “empowerment of women,” but it is actually ironically best known for having counted the since convicted sex trafficker of women Ghislaine Maxwell as amongst its participants in 2019.
Now, with news, post coronavirus lockdowns, that the car rally is again on the road, The Steeple Times contacted Cash & Rocket’s founder and CEO, Julie Brangstrup, for comment as to her view on the forthcoming sentencing of Robert Maxwell’s mucky madam daughter. We have yet to receive a reply.
With news from the Daily Mail’s Richard Eden this morning that Jemma Kidd (AKA the Countess of Mornington) – who counted the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s onetime lover as a director of her now dissolved since January 2020 Jemma Kidd Makeup Limited company – is participating in this year’s event, we again question the clearly odd associations of Cash & Rocket.
Happening this year between 9th to the 12th June and involving 80 women driving between Barcelona and Florence via Provence and Milan, the website for the ‘teams’ participating is very much more vague than in 2019. It does not, most tellingly, include the surnames of any participants and though it is claimed £291,460 has been raised thus far, we again today remind Julie Brangstrup that she still has questions to answer.
“Whilst all mention of Ghislaine Maxwell from Cash & Rocket’s website and social media, the stench of the involvement of this incarcerated alleged sexual abuser of women is something that still needs to be explained. We today call upon Julie Brangstrup to ‘woman up’ and explain how the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ deviant daughter was allowed to join the event on 13th June 2019 given alleged victim Maria Farmer had already filed a sworn affidavit against Maxwell on 16th April that year.”
The Steeple Times’ Matthew Steeples will be interviewed by leading true crime podcaster and author Shaun Attwood about Ghislaine Maxwell and her likely fate tomorrow, 12th June, at CrimeCon 2022 in London between 11am and 12 noon. To purchase tickets to attend, click here and use the code ATTWOOD to get 10% off the price of tickets.
Pictured top – The Alfa Romeo that Ghislaine Maxwell was the co-driver in in the 2019 rally with Annette ‘Nettie’ Mason, wife of Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason.
Of her involvement in the 2022 rally, the ‘Daily Mail’s’ Richard Eden this morning quoted Lady Mornington as “gushing”: “Can we just have an appreciation of how bloody spectacular this car is… It’s a 3-litre V6 hybrid from Ferrari and it goes from 0 to 60mph in 2.9 seconds. It’s blown my little socks off.”An image of the 2019 participants in Cash & Rocket’s rally at the Wellington Arch launch event on 13th June 2020. Miss Maxwell was presumably hiding ‘Where’s Wally?’ like somewhere within this shot.In another image, shared a little more widely previously, the mucky madam posed next to the Alfa Romeo she co-drove with Nettie Mason with Paris Hilton and Caroline Stanbury behind her.The ‘charitable organisation’ featured Miss Maxwell on their website during the 2019 event but have since removed all reference to her. The profile for the drivers of ‘Car 28,’ at the time, bizarrely suggested they’d raised “£0” and thus proved their fundraising abilities to be “as much use as a chocolate teapot.”Shaun Attwood with co-host Jennifer Hopkins will discuss “two of the biggest stories in true crime” on 12th June 2022 between 11am and 12 noon at the UK’s number one gathering of those interested in true crime in Britain and beyond.
‘Missing’ Madeleine McCann £14 million investigation takes a bizarre new twist with still not charged supposed suspect Christian Brueckner set to have his thighs examined
It has been more than 15 years since Madeleine McCann was last seen alive in Praia da Luz, Portugal and in that time over £14 million of British taxpayers’ hard-earned cash has been lavished on an investigation that has led to, quite frankly, Sweet Fanny Adams, zilch, zero and utterly nothing.
That a child unusual in that she had a colomba of the iris that would make her stand out from any crowd literally vanished into thin air is beyond curious, but what is worse is that unlike with other missing person cases, the powers that be think it appropriate to continue their investigations is beyond acceptable.
Whilst the families of others who have disappeared – such as Martin Allen, Luke Durbin and Ben Needham – get little to no assistance in terms of resources and financing, that Gerry and Kate McCann, a couple who after all left their children unattended, continue to get such high levels of support and media attention is frankly wrong.
Now, at a time when the only remaining ‘live’ suspect in the case, German rapist Christian Brueckner, still has not been charged it is high time to end this charade and time also to reallocate resources to the search for missing people who could actually be found. That he is about to have his legs examined after in a development in an unrelated rape case is neither here nor there and if there was a prospect of him actually being convicted in the 2007 ‘disappearance,’ why haven’t the powers that be already charged him?
Pictured top – Angry-to-his-core man Gerry McCann and his supposedly ‘missing’ since 3rd May 2007 daughter, Madeleine.
Missing Madeleine – Questions STILL without Answers
Many questions about what happened on the evening of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remain. Some that have been highlighted by the press and discussed online include:
Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer 48 questions put to her by the Portuguese police?
Why were certain records of phone calls on the evening of the disappearance “whoosh-clunked” from the memories of the phones of Mr and Mrs McCann and the ‘Tapas 7’?
Why did a British sniffer dog sense the smell of a corpse in a cupboard in the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared?
Why did a sniffer dog also supposedly sense the smell of a corpse in a vehicle hired by the couple a month after the disappearance of their daughter?
Why did Mr and Mrs McCann go jogging and play tennis in the days after their daughter’s disappearance?
Was it acceptable for Mr and Mrs McCann’s mortgage to be paid by the fund established to search for their missing daughter?
The latest twist in the investigation into whether the undoubtedly evil Christian Brueckner actually has any links to what occurred on 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz in the Algarve region of Portugal has attracted much commentary on social media and in the international press. It relates to another case involving the German and an accuser who is alleged to have been attacked by someone with “a cross-shaped scar on his right thigh” – something Brueckner’s lawyer, Friedrich Fuelscher, claims him not to have. Of this development, one Twitter user, @Karma_Kiss1, remarked: “It just gets more bizzare, examine his thighs to look for a scar. The victim stated the rapist had. Should rule CB out once and for all. How many more cases will they try to pin on him? #mccann #Madeleinemccann.” Mr Brueckner maintains he had no involvement in the 2007 ‘disappearance.’Another user, @maddiesvoice1, returned to an old theme and linked to an article about the Home Office keeping secret files on the case to avoid a diplomatic incident with Portugal and observed: “Files kept secret. An institution labelled as institutionally corrupt housing rapists abusers and murderers. Entrusted with the case of a missing/dead child spending £14 million and 15 years later proving nor finding a single thing. Cover up anyone? #McCann.”Kate McCann – a woman who went running, played tennis and dined on chicken and mushroom risotto and egg and watercress salads washed down with strawberry vodka with the paedophile Sir Clement Freud in the days after her daughter ‘disappeared’ – has a clear touch of the former Meghan Markle about her. Like ‘MeGain,’ whom banged on that “not many people have asked if I’m OK,” Mrs McCann said in 2011: “Officers walked past us as if we weren’t there. Nobody asked how we were doing, whether we were okay. Our child had been stolen and I felt as if I didn’t exist.”Living it Large – Gerry MccCann enjoying a round of golf (left); Kate McCann at Downing Street, London hobnobbing with Missing People CEO Martin Houghton-Brown, the Duchess of Gloucester and the then Home Secretary Theresa May on 23rd May 2012 (right).Amongst those to have supported the McCanns have been especially gobby attention seekers including job wrecker Sir Richard Branson, “Chanel-clad” charity begins at home tin banger Baroness (Catherine) Meyer and her pompous arsehole husband Sir Christopher and job wrecking grabber Sir Philip Green.
In December 2017, when £11 million of British taxpayers’ money had been spent towards the search for ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann, 86% of viewers of ITV1’s ‘Loose Women’ said the public purse should cease to fund the investigation. Now, in June 2022, with that sum now in excess of £14 million (aside from the millions in private money also), it is time to allocate resources to the search for missing people who actually can be found, we would suggest.
As sentencing approaches on 28th June, the end is nigh for Ghislaine Maxwell; elsewhere Elon Musk asks about her client list as the mucky madam’s pugnacious PR peddlers go crickets
Though members of the public keep banging on about the fact that the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell wasn’t as transparently covered as the defamation case of Amber Heard v Johnny Depp – in doing so illustrating their lack of understanding of the differences between civil and criminal cases – it is now time to share the timeline of the former’s road to a likely and deserved remainder of her life rotting in the clink.
Set out in April by Judge Alison J. Nathan, the daughter of the pension pot plunderer to the tune of £500 million’s processing began on 24th May and will conclude with sentencing on 28th June.
There is no conspiracy in this matter and what is occurring, though it might be deemed slow by British standards, is being done in a perfectly thorough and absolutely fair fashion.
Elsewhere on Twitter, as is to be expected of a branch of social media where wack jobs share what Boris Johnson might call a “pyramid of piffle,” the rumour mill has been in overdrive. Amongst the ramblings last week, Elon Musk – himself photographed (supposedly without his permission, he claims) with Jeffrey Epstein’s mucky madam in March 2014 – tossed the baton to the Department of Justice over the fact that no co-conspirators of the pair have yet been charged in the US with a single offence.
In a subsequent tweet responding to one of those who highlighted the suggestion that Musk and Maxwell had themselves met, the businessman pointedly answered: “Ah yes, Maxwell photobombing me at a @VanityFair Oscars party – you should them why they invited her. The same people who push this photo say nothing about prominent people who actually went to his island a dozen times. Also very strange…”
Mr Musk is quite right to highlight this and what is also extremely telling is that the pugnacious PR peddlers who’ve repeatedly come out and attacked the victims of this evil, mendacious woman have now gone completely silent. Brian Basham, Jay Beecher, Ross Gower and Ian, Isabel and Kevin Maxwell – As a pissed-off-her-skull Delia Smith once raged: “Let’s be havin’ ya.”
Pictured top – An especially busty shot of Ghislaine Maxwell with the world’s richest man, Tesla founder Elon Musk. He claims that the daughter of ‘The Bouncing Czech’ Robert Maxwell “photobombed” him at ‘Vanity Fair’s’ March 2014 Oscar party in West Hollywood.
On 26th April, Judge Alison J. Nathan set out the order of the process of the sentencing of Jeffrey Epstein’s lover and co-conspirator in abusing and sex trafficking young women. Prior to the actual sentence being made on 26th June 2022, there are a number of key dates – including a PSR disclosure being due tomorrow.Billionaire Elon Musk threw petrol on the fire on 4th June when he accompanied a tweet that read: “Only thing more remarkable than DOJ not leaking the list is that no one in the media cares. Doesn’t that seem odd?” with an image captioned: “Things I’ll never see in my life.” The four images were of a dragon, a dinosaur, a unicorn and a box title: “The Epstein/Maxwell client list.”The ‘Mucky Madam’s’ primary PR peddlers – Bombastic busybody Brian Basham, jingoistic joker Jay Beecher and brazen brother Kevin Maxwell have all regularly gone out on the offensive on behalf of the convicted sex trafficker. Lately, however, not one of them has said a thing – most probably advised by counsel to keep schtum.In recent months Christopher Mason (left) – who wrote a raunchy poem about Jeffrey Epstein having “24-hour erections” at the behest of Ghislaine Maxwell – has commented widely on the conviction of a woman he has thrown under the bus in terming his “former friend.” Equally, the daughter of the pension pot plunderer’s one-time spokesman Ross Gow of Acuity Reputation (right) – who describes himself on Twitter as a “reputation counsel” and “whippet fancier” who “enjoys ancient Land Rovers and aged Mercedes, drinkable wine, fieldsports and woodsmoke” – seemingly has stopped spinning for her and gone remarkably quiet.
In February 2005, Delia Smith CH CBE took to the pitch of Norwich Football Club – which she is the majority shareholder in – and raged: “A message for the best football supporters in the world: we need a 12th man here. Where are you? Where are you? Let’s be ‘avin’ you! Come on!” The same can now be said of the co-conspirators of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. It is jolly well time they were charged.
Then 6-year-old French boy thrown from the 10th floor of the Tate Modern by a then 17-year-old monster in 2019 amazes with remarkable progress and is deservedly lauded as a “little knight”
The resilience and determination of children can be remarkable and the then 6-year-old French boy who was thrown from a 10th floor viewing platform at the Tate Modern in August 2019 is a true testament to that.
In a statement on 28th May, the child’s family remarked via a GoFundMe page supporting them:
“To fill the strong desire of our little knight to go in the water (he had been swimming since childhood), we managed to find a specialised educator who can accompany him to the swimming pool with great vigilance. Indeed, he still can’t put his head under water because of his swallowing difficulties. Our son has to start all over again from the beginning but that doesn’t scare him! He is so happy in the water!”
We do not know if this is related to the picking up of this activity, but our son is starting to move his left ankle. Once again, we are happy to see him succeed in making a new movement, still light of course, but clearly visible for two weeks.”
“Other good news, our little knight is standing more and more upright (he has gained muscle tone and strengthened his back) and he has made enough progress in his right ankle for his doctor to decide to remove the splint from the right foot! Our son therefore only has two splints left, on the left foot and on the left hand. Little by little, his armor is disappearing!”
“This week he has also been able to make his first try at the school canteen. He was very happy, even if he is still very sensitive to noise: he complained of having earaches at the end of the meal. For next week, his occupational therapist will lend him noise-canceling headphones that he can put on whenever he needs to soothe his eardrums.”
“Finally, we were able to celebrate his birthday for the first time with other children since the attack. Our son was able to invite classmates and even one of his buddies from our old town was able to come! They had a great afternoon together, despite their differences in mobility. It was exhausting for us, but it was a step closer to a classic life, and it’s worth it.”
“Some periods are so difficult. Sadness and discouragement would sometimes take hold of us, but we must hold on and focus on all the progress made. Thank you so much for continuing to think of our little knight and for encouraging us.”
Shockingly this is an incident that should never have occurred in the first place. The then 17-year-old perpetrator, Jonty Bravery, was an autistic teenager who lived in a placement in Northolt, West London with two-to-one care funded by Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council and the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).
The unironically named Bravery had been involved in a “series of troubling incidents” in the two years prior to the attack including threatening to kill members of the public, hitting a climbing wall instructor at a leisure centre and putting faeces in his mother’s make-up brushes. In April 2019, whilst on a supervised trip to Brighton, he had punched a care worker and a member of staff in a Burger King.
Allowed out for the day unaccompanied on 4th August 2019 in spite of his past violence, Bravery spent considerable time scoping out victims on the viewing platform of the Tate Modern and looking over the railings before committing a totally unprovoked attack on a child he had never even met before.
Subsequently jailed for 15 years after being convicted of attempted murder, Jonty Bravery was arrested again in 2021 on suspicion of raping a man in his 30s in the shower block of Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh. This is frankly indicative that those charged with minding this menace and monster are clearly not doing their jobs properly.
The GoFundMe fundraiser towards paying for the medical care and rehabilitation of the child has raised over £315,000 ($398,000, €370,000 or درهم1.5 million) and today we urge readers to join its nigh on 700 supporters – who number the BBC’s Emily Maitlis and billionaire Hans Rausing – by clicking here.
That Jonty Bravery, a then 17-year-old with a then undiagnosed personality disorder, autism and someone known for extremely violent behaviour, was allowed to wander central London unaccompanied by Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council and the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is a genuine outrage. That Fulham Borough Council also spent £12,400 over the course of four court hearings as they tried to prevent this clearly warped individual being named is an utter disgrace. That this maniac was able then to hurl a young child previously unknown to him off the 10th floor viewing platform (pictured left on the day of the fateful incident with an air ambulance present) of an art gallery is equally shocking.The shocking incident occurred at the gallery on 4th August 2019 and involved the youngster being thrown 100-foot. Afterwards, the parents of the child victim asked: “How can one explain to a child that someone deliberately tried to kill him?”The story of resilience bares similarities to that of then 9-year-old Tobias Weller (AKA ‘Captain Tobias’) – whose story ‘The Steeple Times’ featured in August 2020. In spite of having cerebal palsy and autism, this inspiration raised over £150,000 for a children’s hospital and school by completing walking marathons in spite of being unable to stand or walk unaided.
After Jeffrey Epstein victims’ lawyer Brad Edwards labels Prince Andrew “stupid” at CrimeCon in Las Vegas, ‘The Steeple Times’s’ Matthew Steeples looks forward to discussing the ratbag royal and mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s fate at CrimeCon London in June
On Sunday, The Sun quoted Brad Edwards, Esq. – a crusading lawyer for 69 victims of the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and a founding partner of Fort Lauderdale, Florida based Edwards Pottinger LLC – as describing Prince Andrew as “stupid” and someone who is “going to have to live a life of ridicule for a long time.”
Going further and making somewhat punchy comments to the paper’s Alex Diaz whilst at the recent CrimeCon event in Las Vegas, Mr Edwards added:
“How stupid can you possibly be to remain friends with Jeffrey Epstein after he was labeled a sex offender and he came out of jail? Have you lost your mind? I imagine the Queen has bent him over her knee a couple of times.”
“He paid a lot of money to settle a case and try to make up for what he allegedly did many years ago.”
“I just wish that in the process, Virginia didn’t have to take the media hit that she did because he was trying to cover his own butt.”
“He should have just accepted responsibility and moved on.”
“A lot of people would hope that the Queen had banished him, but if your own mom’s not going to love you then nobody will.”
Edwards – who was honoured by the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in November 2020 – was targeted by Epstein and in April 2020 told Page Six that during meetings at a Starbucks in Boca Raton, Florida, the financier told him: “Brad, if you keep prosecuting me in this way, somebody’s going to get hurt.”
Page Six continued: “[Edwards] revealed: “[Epstein] put my family under surveillance, when I called him on it and said, ‘Hey, you put my family under surveillance, you told me you weren’t a bad guy,’ he said, ‘No, no, I just took you off the surveillance – I didn’t realise I had done that. I have a bunch of people who work for me, so see I’m the good guy, I’ll treat you fairly, let’s settle this case.’”
The attorney refused to settle and in due course Epstein was “finally forced to make a full apology in a letter read in court in 2018.”
Continuing exploration of such matters, The Steeple Times’ Matthew Steeples will spend an hour discussing his research into the crimes and connections of not only Jeffrey Epstein but also Ghislaine Maxwell at CrimeCon UK in London on 12th June with YouTube True Crime Channel host and author Shaun Attwood and his podcaster co-host Jennifer Hopkins.
Delving also into Attwood’s 2021 book Who Killed Epstein? and Prince Andrew’s recent settlement with Virginia Roberts, in addition, the trio will turn in the wake of last week’s nigh on 4-hour documentary epic Untouchable take questions about the antics of another royal rotter – the monstrous paedophile and necrophiliac, Sir Jimmy Savile – given that show has attracted an astonishing 120,000 views since it premiered.
Speaking of the forthcoming event, Matthew Steeples remarked Tuesday:
“I am looking forward to being able to return to CrimeCon London after speaking there in September 2021 on the subject of the pension pot plunderer’s deviant daughter and her coterie of evil cohorts.”
“Last year, it was great to spend time with everyone from the punchy storyteller behind the Hunting Ghislaine podcast, John Sweeney, to crime enthusiasts who’d travelled from far and wide because of their interest in the Epstein-Maxwell case and others both Shaun and I’ve covered including the incarceration of Jeremy Bamber and ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann.”
“Last year’s audience for our segment was somewhat small given the size of the room, but with the anticipation of sentencing of Maxwell on the 28th June and a much larger space, I look forward to sharing the stories of my experiences with the key players, both for and against this wicked, now rightly shamed socialite, on 12th June.”
Matthew Steeples will be discussing the sordid stories of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew and Sir Jimmy Savile with Shaun Attwood and Jennifer Hopkins at CrimeCon UK on 12th June from 11am to 12 noon at the Leonardo Royal Hotel & Spa, St Paul’s, 10 Godliman Street, EC4V 5AJ.
The Fort Lauderdale based lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, Brad Edwards, has been pursuing the cases of those sexually molested by the taxi driver turned teacher turned sex offender on a pro bono basis for the past decade.Shaun Attwood with co-host Jennifer Hopkins will discuss “two of the biggest stories in true crime” on 12th June 2022 between 11am and 12 noon at the UK’s number one gathering of those interested in true crime in Britain and beyond.
Matthew Steeples suggests those moaning that Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial should have been covered by the media in the same way as Johnny Depp’s libel suit do not understand the differences between the two cases; there is simply no “conspiracy” or “cover-up” going on here
In April 2014, whilst promoting the film Transcendence, Johnny Depp remarked: “People get famous now for I-don’t-know-what.” He was right and the level of interest in both his British and American court appearances and that of Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 trial have provided opportunity for goodness only knows how much of the dirty linen of famous faces to be grubbily bandied around.
Now, amongst others ‘blue ticked’ on Twitter Nick Adams, a “four-time best-selling author” and presidential appointee in the Trump administration, are rather stupidly asking: “Why didn’t the Ghislaine Maxwell trial have the same transparency as the Johnny Depp trial?”
Many others – including some you’d clearly expect better of – go further and ludicrously suggest it to be a “conspiracy” that Maxwell’s criminal trial wasn’t aired on television, whilst Depp’s civil trial of libel allegations has been. Quite rightly, however, this week AP News’s Angelo Fichera called out this “widely shared misinformation” for what it truly is – sheer claptrap and utter baloney.
As was also pointed out by the crusading author of Ghislaine Maxwell: An Unauthorized BiographyKirby Sommers on Twitter also, the Maxwell matter was held in a federal court and “federal courts do not allow cameras like some state courts do.” Depp’s civil suit, meanwhile, is taking place in a county circuit court and as, Fichera adds, “that court court does allow photo and video with a judge’s permission.”
Frankly, it is as simple as that and the “Conservative activist” who Fichera quoted who tweeted: “Sooooo, the Johnny Depp trial can be live streamed but the Maxwell trial can’t? Make that make sense” really ought to just learn to keep up.
Whilst many of us, myself included, would very much liked to have watched the mucky madam and daughter of a pension pot plundering and wartime murderer squirm before the cameras as she was convicted, the rules are the rules and there simply was no “gag order” in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell.
Pictured top – Though both now internationally known, the legal matters that this acclaimed actor and this notorious sex trafficking mucky madam are now forever linked to are being handled by the American legal system quite correctly. One was dealt with in a federal court whilst the other is a civil matter and that is exactly why media coverage – including most pertinently video footage – of these cases has been not-allowed and allowed respectively.
Crusading author Kirby Sommers very accurately summed up the differences between the two cases in a tweet shared on 22nd April 2022. It pointed out the differences between “federal” and “civil” case and ended: “Please learn the difference.”Self-anointed “quintessential example of a 21st American Dream story” and one-time news anchor ‘Dame’ Brigitte Gabriel – a “survivor of terrorism” and “NYT best-selling author” told her 435,800 Twitter followers: “The media live streams the Johnny Depp trial and not the Ghislaine Maxwell trial because they think we’re stupid” on 23rd April. Clearly, ‘Dame’ Brigitte ought to be sent to a school in fact checking and learn she’s been duped by what Donald Trump might term “fake news, fake news.”Equally, 2022 Republican candidate for Governor of Georgia Shane Hazel is another fine example of a boorish berk who doesn’t get it. He tweeted: “When the news covers Johnny Depp 24/7 but didn’t say shit about Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell you can be sure it’s because American billionaires are molesting kids” on 22nd April. Mr Hazel has an astonishing 38,900 followers; followers he’s clearly misleading whilst at the same time running for high office.Those claiming to be “kept in the dark” about the criminal trial of the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s one-time lover and co-conspirator in sex trafficking whilst banging on about the live-streaming of an actor’s libel action simply do not understand that there is no conspiracy going on in terms of how media coverage of such matters is handled.Twitter users have gone utterly bonkers about this, let’s be frank, non-issue. Live-streaming is allowed in some courts and it is not in others and those screaming “conspiracy” and “cover-up” from the rooftops on this subject simply need to accept that there was no “gag-order” in the case of media coverage of the pension pot plunderer’s daughter’s December 2021 trial in New York.Continuing, the anything but rational Twitterati claimed “money doesn’t talk, it shuts everyone up” whilst others suggested “LMAO” of how the French born associate of amongst others Jean-Luc Brunel, the Duke of York and Harvey Weinstein “couldn’t be recorded” whilst the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’s’ legal case can.Amongst words used of the two matters were “distractions” and “should tell you all you need to know.” Wallaby killer Russell Brand even got a mention.The very same conspiracy theorists claimed also a “media blackout” in the 2021 case whilst the 2022 one “live-streamed for all to see.” One argued: “You can clearly see the media’s agenda here” and another added: “I know which one I care about the most.” Others brought up their thoughts on Ukraine, Hunter Biden and his father, 46th President of the United States of America Joe Biden. Here are people who believe the current coverage is “a joke” yet here also are people who cannot accept that the mucky madam’s trial was heard in a federal court in New York – a place where cameras simply are not allowed to be present.“Something stinks” and “hush hush” claimed one Scot named Gordon Cameron of what he and countless others on social media believe to be a case lacking in transparency of Maxwell’s trial. He and those like him would do better to ask why none of those that the decidedly deviant mucky madam supplied her victims to have yet been brought before the justice system. As the cook and football club owner Delia Smith once slurred (whilst drunk admittedly): “Come on, let’s be ‘avin ya.”
The libel case brought by the star of ‘The Tourist’ against his ex-wife Amber Heard has descended into moments of comedy and mirth. It is completely the antithesis of the trial of the one-time lover of Prince Andrew – a trial in which victims of sex trafficking and abuse by the powerful and the privileged was very clearly highlighted. Shamefully, however, none of those other powerful and privileged individuals have yet been brought to book. With sentencing due on the 28th June in the Maxwell case, one can only hope that justice will finally be served on the other evil parties who’ve still to this day remained under the radar.
ITV1’s ‘The Thief, His Wife and the Canoe’ is a must watch; it recasts the narrative of the 2002 disappearance of John Darwin and shows his wife as an under the thumb woman manipulated into fraud – just as said 71-year-old fraudster has supposedly headed off to Ukraine to fight
Highlighted again now – after the first two episodes of ITV1’s The Thief, His Wife and the Canoe aired on Sunday and Monday – is an example of a modern-day Walter Mitty. John Darwin, the primary subject of the series, was a father of two, former teacher, prison officer and a wannabe business tycoon and he was someone with a penchant for living well and truly beyond his means.
After accumulating vast debts after buying up 12 houses to run as bedsits and a Range Rover with a personalised numberplate also, Mr Darwin concocted a plan to make it appear he’d drowned at sea and then have his wife, Anne, claim life insurance policies to clear their debts and help them start a new life free of their financial shackles.
In it, whilst John Darwin is rightly portrayed as a true deviant and all-round nasty piece of toerag, his wife is shown to be an under-the-thumb and bullied woman who goes along with the plan because she has a genuine fear of what would happen to her if she doesn’t.
Controlled totally by a man who once supposedly told her only friend that he only allowed her out on voting day, here is a woman who clearly did wrong and clearly orchestrated much of their fraud because her husband was supposedly dead. Here also, ironically, is a woman whose jail sentence was 3 months longer than that of her then husband.
Whilst the real Anne Darwin served her time and is said to be making amends with her two sons, in March, the MailOnline reported that her now ex-husband’s new wife, Mercy Mae Avila Darwin, 48, had told the press that he was “on his way to Ukraine” to fight and ironically had “good life insurance.” The second Mrs Darwin, who runs clothing businesses in Manila, bizarrely remarked of the danger the now 71-year-old will face: “He will have a bullet proof vest… Dangerous for the Russian when he shoot them.”
Of her husband, Anne Darwin once remarked: “He’s got such a good memory. The problem is he was never satisfied with what he had. He always had ideas above his station. He wanted to be grander than he was.” She sums him up perfectly and after watching this show, I, for one, will say that whilst the rotter John Darwin deserves to go down in history as a truly awful specimen, his now ex-wife is a prime example of why second chances should be allowed.
To watch the full four-hour, four episode series, click here.
Pictured top – The then supposedly dead John and his then still wife Anne in Panama in 2006. The photograph had been discovered when a member of the public searched for the words ‘John,’ ‘Anne’ and ‘Panama’ in Google Images. The photo had been featured on the website movetopanama.com and was brought to the attention of the ‘Daily Mirror’ and the Cleveland Police.
Eddie Marsan and Monica Dolan star as the conman and his wife in the ITV drama.Mercy May is said to be bankrolling her husband by sub-letting her market stall and running another shop in Manilla. The conman is supposedly living off his British state pension.Of Anne Darwin (pictured recently above), ‘The Guardian’s’ Stuart Jeffries remarked: “’John was the sort of man,’ Anne Darwin tells us in voiceover early in this drama, ‘who would buy a Range Rover we couldn’t afford and then spend £3,000 on a personalised number plate.’ We all know that sort of man. Perhaps you’re married to him. If so – and while I’m not a professional marriage counsellor – my advice is: pack a bag and never look back. Instead, like a more tragicomic Tammy Wynette, Anne stood by her man. Until she could stand him no more, that is. The big question asked… is why it took her so long.”
