The blithering buffoon that is Boris Johnson and the randy rotter that is Prince Andrew should do the decent thing… Disappear from public view forever and get a room together with their weird wack job wives
Boris Johnson can’t help telling porkie pies and nor can the Duke of York. Equally, the pugnacious pair of them have a problem with keeping their members in their pants and with each of them in frankly boiling hot water right now, it is time for them to both simply go.
Whilst Johnson clearly told falsehoods about going to a bring-your-own-bottle (BYOB) gathering that was clearly a “party” and not a “work event,” as he cretinously claimed in the House of Commons on Wednesday, Prince Andrew’s problems before a New York judge increased significantly also yesterday. This occurred simply because of the same traits shared by these two twerps – sheer arrogance and a complete lack of moral compasses.
Neither ‘Randy Andy’ nor ‘Buffoon Boris’ needed to end up where they have, but neither mouse-not-men have the nous to see when common sense needs to prevail and equally both are guided by rotten, ridiculous women.
In ‘Farting Fergie’ – a woman described in The Sunday Telegraph last weekend by an ‘insider’ as a spendaholic for whom “it doesn’t matter how much money she has, it just seems to slip through her fingers” – the queen’s supposed “favourite son” has a noose round his neck.
Condemned elsewhere by the usually anything but spot on the mark acerbic pen of Amanda Plattell in the Daily Mail on Saturday as a “cling-on… life sentence” just for her presence, whilst the toesucking lover that is the former Sarah Ferguson is a well-meaning yet totally incapable simpleton, Johnson’s appendage is actually a far more dangerous deviant.
It is now time for these four freaks to take the only option left to them… Disappear from public view forever and get a room. They say “birds of a feather flock together” and in Andy, Boris, Carrie and Fergie, there’s most definitely one of those.
Boris Johnson and Prince Andrew (pictured together along with Prince Harry, Prince Michael of Kent, Carrie Symonds and the Duchess of Sussex) are birds of a feather. They both like younger women and they both behave like buffoons.Yesterday, television presenter and ‘Queen of Gorbals Gobbledygook’ Lorraine Kelly OBE amusingly tweeted: “Well Boris Johnson will be most grateful to Prince Andrew for taking the heat off.” In due course, their roles will certainly reverse.Last April, in spite of likely facing having to pay a settlement of what could amount to as much as £10 million to Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts), the Duke of York treated himself to a new motor, a £220,000 Bentley. How does someone with no tangible or credible source income afford such and how did he has live-in ex-wife afford to buy an £18 million ski chalet also?Equally and displaying the same traits, one has to ask if it is right that Boris and Carrie Johnson were able indulge in £27,000 of takeaways from Daylesford Organic and wallpaper at £840 a roll as part of their £200,000 makeover of their grace and favour flat in Downing Street. Ordinary people are rightly outraged at their Marie Antoinette-like antics of another couple clearly living beyond their means.For once in her sorry existence, Amanada Platell got it right in suggesting Prince Andrew is already living a “life sentence” in being stuck with his dimwitted dope of an ex-wife last Saturday in her ‘Daily Mail’ column: “Some legal experts say the very least Prince Andrew can expect is social exile, being stripped of his royal title and forced to sever all his military connections. Surely still living with his cling-on ex-wife Fergie is a life sentence for any man?”Prince Andrew has been reduced to having the likes of anti-democracy supporting Bernie Ecclestone – a man who once said he’d take a bullet for President Putin and lauded Adolf Hitler for “get[ting] things done” – round for dinner at his crib (presumably Sloppy Giuseppe’s from Pizza Express, Woking were served). That he keeps such company speaks volumes as to his clear decline in popularity in more dignified social circles in the wake of the death of his one-time ‘bestie,’ croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.Carrie Johnson describes Henry Newman as “one of my four favourite people” whilst her hubby Boris labelled him “one of my three musketeers.” That this couple rely on people suspected as a leaker is one thing, but that this former PR peddler also worked for Oceana, a charity with clear links to the incarcerated mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell is quite something else.
Simpleton Sarah, Duchess of York “pauses” her unsurprisingly unpopular ‘Fergie & Friends’ YouTube channel as her increasingly friendless husband continues to face sexual assault allegations in New York
Sarah, Duchess of York – a wack job woman who has never confirmed whether she actually ever repaid the loan she took from the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – predictably made a prat of herself when she returned from the £18 million ($24.5 million, €21.6 million or درهم90.1 million) ski chalet she currently co-owns.
Asked at Heathrow Airport about the ongoing legal case against her non-sweating, Pizza Express loving (with no witnesses of any kind, naturally) ex-husband (with whom she continues to live rent free), ‘The Duchess of Dim’ simply responded: “Onwards and upwards.” She did so, it seemed, without a care in the world about the embarrassment she and her increasingly friendless rotten sidekick have caused the royal family in general and the Queen in particular and she did so in her typically childlike fashion.
Now – perhaps on the advice of the likes of PR prattlers such as the disgraced ex-head honcho of Bell Pottinger James Henderson – the lover of a bit of toesucking mother of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie has decided to “pause” her daily updates of content to her YouTube channel, Fergie & Friends.
Aired to just 42,500 subscribers – a surprisingly miniscule number given her alleged “regal stature” – 543 videos have been uploaded to Fergie & Friends since its inception in July 2016. On it, this wayward wastrel has bizarrely banged on about banal subjects that have included bathtub teddies, farting, grizzly itches, monsters and pig’s up noses and she’s backed this up with ridiculous remarks to media commentators on other occasions such as: “I found consolation in sausages.”
Elsewhere, in The Sunday Telegraph three days ago, ‘Randy Andy’s’ guffawing chum Camilla Tominey surprisingly turned on the couple. In an article titled: “Inside the financially perplexing world of Prince Andrew,” the associate editor declared: “Some might say they are on a slippery slope” and added: “The couple, who still live together at Royal Lodge, Windsor, despite divorcing in 1996, have continued to behave like frontline royals, even though those days are long behind them… Just how are Andrew and ‘Fergie’ still affording their jet-set lifestyle?”
Sarah, Duchess of York not only likes a pork sausage, she seems incapable of accepting that the clear porkies being told by her increasingly friendless ex-husband are bringing utter shame on the royal family.Whilst her the increasingly lonely, friendless ex-husband she bizarrely still lives with can count only the likes of the skinflint coffin dodger Bernie Ecclestone amongst the mates who he could invite round for a Sloppy Giuseppe pizza fest, Sarah, Duchess of York made friends when she appeared in ‘Friends’ in a cameo of 1998. Of this ‘InStyle’ remarked: “Fergie was so nervous ahead of her scene that Matt LeBlanc ran lines with her and Matthew Perry (who wasn’t in the scene) stood by for support while they filmed.”“With friends like these, who’d need enemies?” should most definitely be asked of the increasingly friendless duo the Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York. Pictured here variously with convicted paedophile trio Stuart Hall, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein.When your friends and close associates number convicted and incarcerated mucky madam sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, Chanel shoe loving ex-charity tin banger turned pontificating peer Catherine Meyer and disgraced PR prattler James Henderson, you surely must know you are bang in trouble. Clearly, nobody’s passed such a message to Sarah, Duchess of York.On Thursday 20th August 1992, the ‘Daily Mirror’ shared what they called “the pictures they didn’t want you to see.” In them, a topless Duchess of York was shown having her toes sucked in the South of France by a Texan millionaire named John Bryan. Of the incident, the ‘Mirror’ later reported: “Royal writer Richard Kay claimed in the ‘Daily Mail’ that he received a message via pager from Princess Diana the night before the photos hit the newspaper stands. Diana’s message was simple: ‘The redhead’s in trouble.’”
Sarah, Duchess of York’s most ridiculous remarks
“One of the worst headlines said 82% [of the population] would rather sleep with a goat than Fergie. It’s never left me.”
“They tried to put the little redhead in a cage.”
“I have been in the gutter.”
“As long as it is hot, wet and goes down the right way, it’s fine with me.”
“With every smell, I smell food. With every sight, I see food. I can almost hear food. I want to spade the whole lot through my mouth at Mach 2. Basta!”
“We all sit round the table and eat together. Andrew and I believe in total parent unity. We’re best friends.”
“I would quite like to go on Dancing With The Stars. I would like somebody to teach me to tango. I do know the show and my children would be so proud of me.”
“I met [Prince Andrew] when I was 12, and I said: ‘I’m going to marry him.’”
“I left my marriage knowing I’d have to work. I have.”
“I didn’t want a divorce, but had to because of circumstance.”
“I wish we’d never got divorced. He and I both wish we’d never divorced, but we did. I wish I could go back and be the bride again, but I can’t.”
“I felt that I ostracised myself by my behaviour, by the past, by living with all the regrets of my mistakes, that I sort of wore a hair shirt and beat myself up most of the day thinking and regretting why did I make such a mistake. Why have I made so many mistakes?”
“You look at the devil in the face, which you do. Then you forgive, and you say: ‘OK, I’ve made almost a mistake that will never be forgotten,’ and forgive.”
“I was so out of control with desperation… I was looking for quick fixes in the places I wouldn’t normally look… I’ve been a huge overtrusting, idiotic, stupid woman that went to look for the perfect situation, and that’s all I can say really.”
Sarah Ferguson has a habit of making an utter berk of herself when she puts herself in front of any camera; she has the capability to make a fool of herself in utterly any situation, in fact.
Prince Andrew’s most ridiculous remarks
“I could have worse tags than ‘Airmiles Andy’ – although I don’t know what they are.”
“People say to me: ‘Would you like to swap your life with me for 24 hours? Your life must be very strange.’ But, of course, I have not experienced any other life. It’s not strange to me.”
“There’s a slight problem with the sweating because I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time and that was… was it… yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenalin in the Falkland’s War when I was shot at and I simply… it was almost impossible for me to sweat. And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I am starting to be able to do that again. So, I’m afraid to say that there’s a medical condition that says that I didn’t do it so therefore…”
“We can’t be certain as to whether or not that’s my hand on her whatever it is, left… left side … [of the photograph with Virginia Roberts] Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored but I don’t recollect that photograph ever being taken.”
“I went [to Jeffrey Epstein’s house] with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted, it was inappropriate for us to be seen together. And I had a number of people counsel me in both directions, either to go and see him or not to go and see him and I took the judgement call that because this was serious and I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it. I had to go and see him and talk to him.”
“[Jeffrey Epstein’s house] was a convenient place to stay. I mean I’ve gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgment was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable but that’s just the way it is.”
“I’ve always been told I was extremely well behaved as a kid.”
“If you’re a man it is a positive act to have sex with somebody. You have to … take some sort of positive action and so therefore if you try to forget it’s very difficult to try and forget a positive action and I do not remember anything.”
“It’s slightly complicated for people to grasp the idea of a head of state in human form.”
And finally, stating the bloody obvious: “Today is reality. Yesterday is history.”
Matthew Steeples explains what’s next for convicted mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell as she faces a second trial and sentencing
All’s looking far from rosy in ‘Maxwell House’ and though the siblings of the now convicted criminal sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell have been using their @RealGhislaine Twitter account to bleat about how her conviction shows “the deep flaws in the US justice system,” they’ve unsurprisingly garnered little sympathy.
On Monday 3rd January, the @RealGhislaine account announced: “While the jury verdicts have been acclaimed by victims’ groups & commentators as a welcome development in the hunting down of sexual assault perpetrators, this case shows the deep flaws in the US justice system.” If the verdict had gone the other way, you can bet that the account would have been saluting the US justice system instead.69 Stanhope Mews East was the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell between 1989 and 1997. It was also, the Met Police clearly believed at one point, the location of an alleged brothel given the efforts they placed into surveilling it in 1994. The questions now are thus: Why was this investigation stopped and did anyone powerful intervene to force this investigation to be stopped?After her conviction on Thursday last, editor-in-chief of ‘The Steeple Times’ Matthew Steeples shared his thoughts on the case on Twitter. His missive went viral and has been retweeted over 880 times, quote 39 times and liked nearly 3,500 times. In it, he called for the Metropolitan Police to reopen their 1994 investigation into what went on at an alleged brothel at Ghislaine Maxwell’s then home – 69 Stanhope Mews East Mews, South Kensington, London, SW7 5QT. Again today, we call upon Dame Cressida Dick to finally do the decent thing and revisit this matter – even if she did go to the same school and the same college at the same university with ‘Cap’n Bob’s’ decidedly deviant daughter.
Indicative of a collection of cretins with exactly the same kind of arrogance as their late pension pot plundering papa, the Maxwell family decision to go down the route of attacking what they call “deep flaws” rather than accepting the verdict that proves their sister to be a monster just like daddy is perhaps to be expected. It, however, also is deeply flawed and it will not help them as they work towards whatever comes next.
Elsewhere, this morning, I was asked by my rising star actor and friend Haaz Sleiman – best known to date for his roles in The Visitor, NCIS, CSI: Miami, ER, Jack Ryan and Killing Jesus – about whether Ghislaine Maxwell will name other names in this case.
Answering the many other questions I’ve received in this regard also, in short my reply should assist all those with answers on the topic of “what’s next” in this case. It read:
“I doubt she will name anyone yet. She will go through the process of being analysed pre-sentencing – that will take a number of weeks. She is planning an appeal – that will take months. And then there is her second trial (lying under oath) – date to be set.”
“So, for now, given her arrogance and given that her lawyers want this to run and run given they have already made £7 million from her (she is to them a great cash cow), don’t expect that quite yet. It may come, but remember that her father once said: ‘I have a beautiful daughter and she’s just like me.’ I would replace ‘beautiful’ with ‘deviant.’”
I should have also added: “And that’s before we even get to the issue of ‘Randy’ Prince Andrew and what went on on that fateful night of Sloppy Giuseppes at Pizza Express (Woking Branch).”
On Monday 3rd January, ‘Agent A’ shared footage from Ghislaine Maxwell’s webcam. In it, the deviant daughter of ‘Bouncing Bob’ giggled and in ‘Carry On Style’ bizarrely joked: “Hello, hello, Are you playing? … Did you have life jackets on? Was safety part of this?” The person she was speaking to responded: “I’m not going to answer that question. My lawyer has advised me to answer such questions. My wife, in fact, for that matter.” The now convicted sex offender clearly never anticipated the irony of how such words now bite her in her rotten arse.
Matthew Steeples reflects on shamed sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction and slams the BBC and Sky News for their coverage of the verdict; he also calls on the Met Police to reopen their 1994 investigation into the deviant’s activities in London
As Ghislaine Maxwell’s totally deserved transition from being a super-connected “Miss Moneybags” to going down in history as nothing but a “Mendacious ‘Monster Moving’ Mucky Madam” sets in concrete, the BBC and Sky News have been quite rightly called out over their disgracefully lax coverage of her conviction.
When the guilty verdicts on five out of the six charges came in last night, wall-to-wall coverage began across all media channels, but both aforementioned stations got it totally wrong in how they presented the story. Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves and frankly, they owe the victims an apology.
In the case of Sky News, I was amongst those calling the channel out on Twitter as they continued to call ‘Cap’n Bob’s’ decidedly deviant daughter a “socialite” when in fact they should have replaced that description with “convicted sex offender.” Miss Maxwell, it must now be noted, will simply go down in history as a wicked wench abused by her monstrous father who then who turned to wickedly abusing others in cahoots with her monstrous associates.
Worse still elsewhere, the BBC tripped up in an even bigger manner in asking lawyer Alan Dershowitz – a man who once stated of his ‘activities’ at the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Lenox Hill, New York mansion: “I kept my underwear on during the massage” – on to comment on the verdict in spite of the fact he has been accused of being one of Virginia Giuffre’s sexual abusers.
Responding on Twitter, human rights lawyer Caoilfhionn Gallagher got over 16,900 likes when she remarked:
“Sorry, what?! @BBCNews now have Alan Dershowitz on to analyse #GhislaineMaxwell’s conviction, without any reference to his background; he’s simply introduced as ‘constitutional lawyer’ as if he’s a neutral expert. Shocked. Utterly bizarre decision & does the audience a disservice.”
“It’s the choice to interview him, but more importantly 1) not contextualising in any way: no mention of Dershowitz having acted for Epstein,or that Virginia Giuffre accused him of abuse, or the defamation suits, & 2) giving him a platform to undermine Giuffre, unchallenged. Appalling.”
“I’m adding to this Thread given some replies simply to say that I’m generally an admirer of BBC editorial standards, & as a media lawyer I understand pressures with breaking news stories. But in my view there were many mistakes here. I hope @BBCNews will acknowledge this & apologise.”
“I see some others have pulled @BBCNews up on this terrible decision-making tonight, too. See these other threads on Dershowitz being interviewed as a ‘legal expert’ on the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial #GhislaineMaxwell, by @sarahchurchwell & @NadiaWhittomeMP.”
Going further subsequently, British Labour MP Nadia Whittome quite rightly added:
“Alan Dershowitz, who was accused of the same crimes as Prince Andrew, is on the BBC trying to silence victims following Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction. I can’t believe this needs to be said but the BBC should not give a platform to people accused of child sexual abuse.”
Turning to analysis of a woman described by her father – a pig-like murdering maniac nicknamed ‘Bouncing Bob’ after his cheques went awry after he stole £500 million from his company’s own pension fund (that has to this day never been found) – as being “just like me,” victim Sarah Ransome this morning shockingly told Sky News:
“Ghislaine was the main enforcer. Jeffrey said: ‘You answer to Ghislaine. She is the lady of the house.’ … She forced me into Jeffrey’s house in order to be raped… [Afterwards] I looked at her and that’s why it is really important for me to have looked at her and said: ‘You forced me into that room to be raped.’ And she smiled. I smiled right back at her.”
Indicative of how vile a person Jeffrey Epstein’s ex-lover and procurer truly is, this description of a woman known for putting dildos on dinner tables as part of place settings provides illustration that she is most definitely just like her deranged daddy – someone with utterly no moral compass.
In the end for Ghislaine Maxwell her lush life and privilege was no protection. May this evil woman, a person who believed she could get through based on “manners and magnetism,” now get what she deserves; to end of her days rotting in eternal hell. A second trial now looms large and though she’ll appeal the first, this murky menace would do well to remember a tweet from her very own account of the 20th December that read: “Remember money, manipulation and memory.” In the end, that’s what actually got her.
The BBC disgraced themselves in inviting Alan Dershowitz to comment on the verdict given he is linked not as an expert, but as someone implicated in partaking in ‘activities’ connected to the now convicted mucky madam Maxwell. They must apologise to the victims for this clear error of judgment. The 83-year-old was slammed after the BBC failed to censure him when he stated: “The most important thing for British viewers is that the government was very careful who it used as witnesses. It did not use as a witness the woman who accused Prince Andrew, who accused me, who accused many other people, because the government didn’t believe she was telling the truth. In fact she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse, so this case does nothing to strengthen the case against Prince Andrew, indeed it weakens the case against Prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective in who it used. It used only witnesses it said were credible and it deliberately didn’t use the main witness, the woman who started the whole investigation – Virginia Giuffre – because they ultimately didn’t believe she was telling the truth and they didn’t believe a jury would believe her and they were right in doing so.” Earlier this week, as the world mourns the loss of Desmond Tutu, Dershowitz reprehensibly branded the Nobel Peace Prize winning archbishop an “anti-Semite” and a “bigot.” Shame on him and shame on the BBC.Responding to Sky News’ decision to continue referencing a convicted criminal as a “socialite,” Matthew Steeples responded by suggesting she should instead be branded a “sex trafficker” and “sexual abuser.” Going further, crusading author of ‘Ghislaine Maxwell: An Unauthorized Biography’ Kirby Sommers thanked ‘The Steeple Times’ for publishing excerpts of her book “when [the] mainstream media was busy calling her a ‘socialite.’”After the guilty on five out of six charges verdict, the Maxwell family used their @RealGhislaine Twitter channel to predictably protest their sister’s innocence. They announced that their sibling would be appealing and elsewhere Kirby Sommers – whose book can be published by clicking here – surmised the now convicted sex offender’s mood in the courtroom. Sommers commented: “[She] showed no emotion in the courtroom when the charges were read. She simply whispered something into her attorney’s ear while the charges were being read. And as she walked out of the courtroom she glanced at her siblings – the other spies in the Maxwell family.” Continuing in a separate missive, Sommers added: “This is a big departure from 14th July 2021 when she stood in front of Judge Nathan, after her arrest on 2nd July, and was denied bail. At that time she dried a tear drop off her cheek.”Ghislaine Maxwell has shown herself to be devoted only to money and men. Pictured top left with a photograph of her evil father, she subsequently replaced him with grubby associations with her husband since 2016 Scott Borgerson (top centre) – a man who couldn’t even be bothered to turn up to her trial – and Prince Andrew (top right, clearly not sweating) and her late lover Jeffrey Epstein (lower photograph) – a man whose feet she charmingly liked to massage with her breasts.No word has been heard yet from the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ deviant daughter’s supporters. Amongst them have been restaurateur Keith McNally, PR peddler Brian Basham, tellybox twerp Richard Madeley and mouthy meddler Jay Beecher.After the conviction of this sordid sex trafficker, Matthew Steeples tweeted: “I believe she was the chief and the former taxi driver Epstein the functionary. I now call on the Met Police to reopen their 1994 investigation into her activities in London.” In a subsequent tweet, he added: “Dame Cressdia went to the same school at the same time as Ghislaine Maxwell; they studied at the same college. Why was the 1994 Met Police investigation into the brothel at GM’s house stopped?”Elsewhere online, a petition calling on Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to “suspend Lord Mandelson from Labour while carrying out probe into extent of his involvement with sex traffickers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell” has been started. Peter Mandelson holidayed with the convicted paedophile Epstein, called him whilst he was in prison in January 2009 and left supportive messages on the now convicted sex trafficker Maxwell’s TerrMar Project website in 2012.Bizarrely, in June 2020, after ‘The Steeple Times’ reported on Lord Mandelson’s links to the case of ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann, a likeness of a suspect that looked remarkably like an image of Ghislaine Maxwell emerged. We do not believe this to be one and the same woman, but it is indeed a remarkable coincidence.The irony of grubby Ghislaine’s downfall is that the viral meme that has done the rounds of this sexual deviant has finally come true for her: “True love is… Finishing each other’s sentences.” Long may this wicked wench rot in hell.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre would be wrong to rely on the narcissistic, lying Duchess of Sussex in her case against Prince Andrew… A rerun of the ‘MeGain & Randy Show’ would benefit utterly nobody
As we highlighted in January 2020 and again in March 2021, a question hangs over the Duchess of Sussex and it is: “Did the then Meghan Markle meet Prince Andrew before she met Prince Harry?” Put in another manner, one could ask: “Did this calculating American actress meet the ‘bestie’ of the since croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before she met the pathetically wet ‘ginger drip’ she later went on to marry?”
Whilst to some this might not seem hugely important, the devil is always in the detail and for long now, many have suggested that the Duke of Sussex’s self-serving wife has peddled nonsense about how she first came into contact with the royal family.
For one, it has been suggested that the Suits ‘star’ was allegedly seen cavorting on a yacht with the Pizza Express lover years before she became the dominant half of the dodgy duo that is ‘Ginge and Cringe.’ Equally, the now in-exile duchess, has herself banged on about a ‘friendship’ with Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie prior to meeting-without-Googling Prince Harry. Of course, for that disgraceful Oprah interview, that narrative subsequently changed, but wouldn’t it just when multi-million dollar deals were landing at ‘MeGain’s’ feet?
Of why he might depose the Duchess of Sussex, Boies yesterday told The Daily Beast:
“One; she is in the U.S. so we have jurisdiction over her.”
“Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it.”
“Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes.”
“Andrew will be forced to give evidence under oath [as part of that process]… He has no way of escaping that.”
Mr Boies clearly is a man who hasn’t done a hell of a lot of research into the Duchess of Sussex’s previous “inconveniences” with the truth and he is someone who hasn’t considered her recent ticking off during her libel action against The Mail On Sunday – during which she had to apologise to the Appeal Court for “making misleading statements” about biography briefing notes for Omid Scobie’s tittle-tattling tome, Finding Freedom.
Today, we suggest a piece of advice to both David Boies and Virginia Roberts Giuffre – Don’t go down the ‘MeGain & Randy’ hole; it’ll only end in a very sweaty disaster.
Of her claiming having got married the day before she actually did, Mr Markle stated: “Lying about the archbishop? How can you say: ‘We’ve been married three days before we got married’? Her lies are so obvious, I don’t know why she says them.”
Her very own half-sister, Samantha, has called her out as a liar on multiple occasions also. It has been proven that the duchess’s claim that she hasn’t seen her sibling in over 20 years was proven untrue when a photo of the pair 13 years ago emerged.
Her very own half-brother, Thomas Jr., said of her: “I told Prince Harry, I think she’s going to ruin your life. She’s very shallow… She’s a phony, a bully, a jaded, shallow, conceited woman.”
The former Meghan Markle has been called out on multiple occasions for spinning stories against other members of the royal family, most especially the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Staff who’ve worked for her have complained that she is a bully and investigations into this remain ongoing.
She is a known manipulator of the press and paparazzis and it has been claimed that she’ll “twist the truth” to get any headline she wants.
Questions remain as to how many times she’s actually been married in total. Some say twice, some say thrice.
For once Dan Wootton got it right in condemning ‘Randy Andy’ and ‘Farting Fergie’ as “deluded… self-centred… gauche… disgraced public figures”
Yesterday afternoon in the MailOnline, for once, the usually “deeply unpleasant” Dan Wootton actually had his finger on the pulse.
In an opinion piece titled: “If Fergie’s fairy-tale romance with Andrew endures it’s because they are two of the most deluded and self-centred individuals on the planet (with apologies to Meghan),” Wootton raged of deluded deviant Prince Andrew and his loopy live-in ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York: “You are both disgraced public figures who have ended up back in each other’s lives by necessity and little else.”
Continuing and though somewhat generously describing ‘Farting Fergie’ as “more naïve than nasty; more silly than snide,” Wootton concluded:
“If Fergie REALLY loves Prince Andrew, she only has two choices.
“Insist he flies to New York immediately and cooperates with the FBI, come what may.”
“Or pack him off to a tiny cottage where he costs the Royal Family and taxpayers nothing and where he can quietly conduct charity work out of the public gaze without embarrassing his poor mother further.”
“But, once again, this gauche pair will put maintaining their own extravagant lifestyles ahead of anything else. And live unhappily ever after in disgrace.”
Pictured top – Sarah, Duchess of York looking like a fool for a segment on her joke of a YouTube channel, ‘Fergie & Friends’ (left) and her equally cringeworthy ex-husband Prince Andrew mocked up as Jimmy Savile (right).
I’m sorry, Fergie, your relationship with disgraced Prince Andrew is a “fairytale” in the same way Meghan Markle is a selfless soul who puts others first and always tells the truth. My new @MailOnline column on the latest cringeworthy royal TV tell-all. https://t.co/7CbyriNdaQ
Sharing his ‘MailOnline’ article on Twitter, Dan Wootton declared: “I’m sorry, Fergie, your relationship with disgraced Prince Andrew is a ‘fairytale’ in the same way Meghan Markle is a selfless soul who puts others first and always tells the truth.”Sarah, Duchess of York pictured with the since incarcerated Ghislaine Maxwell at an opening party at Asprey in 2003. It remains unknown as to whether ‘Fergie’ ever repaid a loan from the mucky madam’s now croaked sidekick and lover Jeffrey Epstein.The Queen’s most embarrassing son and his wacky wastrel ex-wife took their children with them when they went to stay on Peter Nygård’s Caribbean island in 2000. Nygård has since been charged with multiple sexual offences against at least 57 individuals in both the United States of America and Canada and accused by two of his own sons of “directing a known sex worker to rape them.”The royal rotters have also been known to associate with other since convicted sex offenders – amongst them (from left to right) disgraced television Stuart Hall, disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and disgraced financier Harvey Weinstein.On Thursday 20th August 1992, the ‘Daily Mirror’ shared what they called “the pictures they didn’t want you to see.” In them, a topless Duchess of York was shown having her toes sucked in the South of France by a Texan millionaire named John Bryan. Of the incident, the ‘Mirror’ later reported: “Royal writer Richard Kay claimed in the ‘Daily Mail’ that he received a message via pager from Princess Diana the night before the photos hit the newspaper stands. Diana’s message was simple: ‘The redhead’s in trouble.’”Fergie’s’ non-sweating ex-husband Prince Andrew was widely mocked after claiming to distinctly remember a visit to Pizza Express in Woking on the day he allegedly had sex with the then teenage Virginia Roberts, now Giuffre, in 2001. During his juggernaut crashworthy interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019, he remarked: “I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose four or five in the afternoon. And then because the duchess [Sarah Ferguson] was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other is there.” Whether he actually attended has since been disputed and whether he actually consumed pizza remains still unknown.
Crowdfunder for documentary supporting alleged mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell fails to sign up a single supporter just as signs go up at her former home about filming and dog pee
Just as investigative journalist Vicky Ward’s new documentary Chasing Ghislaine comes to air – in which, according to an article she penned for The Telegraph, sums up the alleged mucky madam as somebody who “wanted to be ‘somebody,’ somebody who mattered in the world in her own right… She wanted to be like her father” – several signs have gone up at her London home between circa 1989 and 1997, 69 Stanhope Mews East, South Kensington, SW7.
Firstly, appearing in a ground floor window of the house, is one that reads: “No photography or video recording” in spite of the fact that this building is on a public highway and as such nobody has the right to stop anybody doing such there.
Secondly, attached to a plant pot is another sign that reads: “Dear Doggos (and their owners!) – We know our plants look lovely, but please do not pee on the pots as it stains them. Our brand new pot is now ruined… (Less than 3 days old). Thanks! No. 69.”
Clearly ‘Grubby Ghislaine’s’ replacements as residents are having a bad time with snoopers and their four-legged friends, but their endurances are not nearly as bad as that experienced by someone who maintains a residence opposite.
Speaking exclusively to The Steeple Times in December 2020, the neighbour of the property – whom wished to remain anonymous for their personal security and safety – at the time remarked:
“I was visited by officers from the Met Police in 1994 whom asked to use a bedroom in my property and to install a camera at the window to monitor the house diagonally opposite, 69 Stanhope Mews East.”
“I was not told at the time who the person concerned was, but I now realise it was Ghislaine Maxwell who was the owner of that house. I recall seeing very young girls coming and going from that building very often.”
“The officers remained for a week and then I heard no more about what happened next. All I knew was that a brothel was being operated from there and that the police wanted to close it down. They could have caught this evil woman then, but maybe her friendships with powerful people like Prince Andrew helped ensure her criminality was swept under the carpet.”
Elsewhere online, a campaign organised by eternally angry man Jay Beecher – a far right political writer chucked out of UKIP and subsequently bizarrely embraced by the Tories – in support of producing a documentary in support of Ghislaine Maxwell, it can now be revealed, has failed. On the website Crowdfunder, it is declared of Trial By Media: “Unfortunately this project was not successful” after it attracted zero supporters and zero comments even. Diddums.
Watching Ghislaine – 69 Stanhope Mews East, South Kensington, London, SW7 5QT. Whilst living there, Miss Maxwell was a director of Oxford Football Club Limited from 19th June 1991 to 5th December 1991 and she was subjected to covert police surveillance by the Metropolitan Police there in 1994. Curiously, it must be noted, Miss Maxwell attended the same school at the same time as Metropolitan Police chief Dame Cressida Dick.The green fingered current occupants of 69 Stanhope Mews East clearly are getting in a bit of a tizzy about dogs damaging their plant pots.In an attempt to urge those passing by to be considerate, they have put up a notice that reads: “Dear Doggos (and their owners!) – We know our plants look lovely, but please do not pee on the pots as it stains them. Our brand new pot is now ruined… (Less than 3 days old). Thanks! No. 69.”Of his ultimately disastrous attempt at producing a documentary in support of Ghislaine Maxwell, whilst trying very unsuccessfully to garner support for it, Jay Beecher announced: “The media are intentionally printing demonstrable lies in relation to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell and the accusations made against her – because those lies sell newspapers, generate click-bait, and pander to a sensationalism-driven society. Having investigated and exposed countless contradictions and all-out fabrications in the ever-changing claims by key accuser, Virginia Giuffre, I am now producing a documentary fully exposing her lies, the truth about Ghislaine Maxwell, and the way in which the mainstream media – along with the MeToo movement – have fuelled an unjust witch hunt. ‘Trial By Media’ will appeal to a large online audience and finally reveal the facts behind the fiction. Tracking down accusers and witnesses in Florida, the UK and Australia, analysing the evidence, and speaking to a wide range of experts, ‘Trial By Media’ will be a gutsy challenger to the narrative, and will show the general public what the press and Ghislaine Maxwell’s prosecutors have been hiding from them for years… the truth.”
Author Kat Rosenfield’s article suggesting Ghislaine Maxwell won’t get a fair trial and is being unfairly treated is both contemptible and laughable at the same time
Featured in the online magazine UnHerd – a title which tellingly also gives space to the especially acerbic harpy Tanya Gold, a woman best known for bigging-up Jimmy Savile and wrongly suggesting the Duchess of Sussex to be someone who “dares not only to inhabit the role of duchess but also to make it her own” – Rosenfield argued that “Maxwell’s guilt is treated as a foregone conclusion” and that the public show “glee at seeing her suffer” as “she’s too good a villain.”
Ghislaine Maxwell pictured at a football match with her pension fund robbing alleged murderer and spy father Robert. He once said of her: “I have a beautiful daughter and she’s just like me.” The word “beautiful” ought to have been changed to “deviant.”In 2019, tedious twerp and ‘Unherd’ contributor Tanya Gold got the Duchess of Sussex completely wrong when she wrote in the ‘New York Times’: “Why does Meghan have the press in such paroxysms? Well, she is an interloper: divorced, American, biracial and, apparently, progressive. And she dares not only to inhabit the role of duchess but also to make it her own. Still, her critics – energized by their racism, misogyny and snobbery – can relax. She is not a revolutionary socialist, nor a convincing human rights activist who destroy everything they love. She will not bring down the royal family. In 2019, she is precisely what it needs.” Oxford educated (but Oxford hating), former alcoholic Tanya clearly ought to stick to other topics – she’s best known, after all, for also bigging-up the late paedophile Jimmy Savile as a “national treasure” and “enabling Savilisation.”
Going further, in a frankly ridiculous article – which was rightly subsequently condemned as being based on the weak premise that it simply goes only by the premise “she’s innocent because she’s a woman,” by one commentator, Francis MacGabhann – Ronsenfeld rambled:
“It’s worth remembering, here, that the feminist narrative of under-appreciated heroines has a misogynist cousin. The female villain who wields power in the form of manipulation is an ancient fictional archetype; from Eve and the apple on up, it serves to tell us that it’s women’s ambition which forms the true roots of men’s evil deeds. In Snow White, it’s the power-hungry and jealous queen who orders a huntsman to cut out the heart of her stepdaughter. In Shakespeare, it’s Lady Macbeth who gets stuck with indelible bloodstains on her hands.”
“These narratives serve men. The more we dwell on the idea of a conniving female pulling the strings, the less responsibility we assign to the man pulling the trigger – or in Epstein’s case, committing the assaults. In fact, the more we hear about Ghislaine Maxwell, the less agency Epstein seems to have. He was just a big, dumb animal; she was the one bringing him fresh meat, the brains of the organisation.”
“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. It’s how we decide that Prince Harry is just a hapless lump acting at the Machiavellian whims of his wife; it’s how we turn our attention away from men who commit violence in favour of pointing fingers at the mothers who raised them. At what point does giving due credit to women become just another way of excusing men?”
“There is an aggressive fervour surrounding Maxwell’s impending trial, and a thirst to see her punished in every possible way before that it even begins. Images from pretrial hearings show her shackled, her hair lank, her face bruised. In a recent dispatch from Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center, she described being kept in solitary confinement in a rat-infested cell, assaulted by guards, and given food crawling with maggots – all of which were promptly celebrated by her detractors as no less than she deserves.”
“The fact that Maxwell’s guilt hasn’t yet been determined by a court of law is irrelevant to the public glee at seeing her suffer. She’s too good a villain. And unlike Epstein, she’s still here.”
Rightly, most of the 78 responses thus far to Rosenfield’s delusional diatribe against a wicked wastrel woman who the sensible majority believe to have been a controller rather than simply an associate condemned the piece.
Of it, George Wells rationally responded: “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… What matters is not identity politics – but stopping crime and punishing criminals, and supporting, to the extent possible, the victims.”
Another, Francisco Menezes, mockingly added: “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” whilst another, Dennis Boylon, sensibly concluded:
“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.”
Elsewhere yesterday, Daniel Bates for DailyMail.com reported Maxwell “appeared healthier and more relaxed than she had in months as she attended a pretrial hearing in which the judge spoke about how she will proceed with jury selection.”
Bates added that her “newfound confidence was apparent at the end of the hour-long hearing” and concluded – of the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ dangerously deviant daughter, who’d only a day earlier bleated: “I am weak, I am frail. I have no stamina. I am tired. I don’t even have shoes which fit properly” – “appeared much more glamorous.”
Clearly, Gislaine Maxwell is upping the game in her sham act. Buckle up and hunker down – we haven’t even got to the first interval in this tawdry tale.
Pictured top: Ghislaine Maxwell with President Donald Trump – a man who has cryptically “wished” his one-time friend “well,” but whom surprisingly didn’t get around to pardoning her before leaving office.
“Will Ghislaine Maxwell get a fair trial?” by Kat Rosenfield attracted many responses. The majority unsurprisingly disagreed with the author’s views.Will Ghislaine Maxwell get a fair trial? – Of the feature, the amusingly monikered Franz Von Peppercorn responded: “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.”Sensibly, Laura Cattell concluded: “She will get a fair trial, she’s in New York not ‘Hicksville’ – note the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.”
As rumours circulate that Ghislaine Maxwell will claim to be insane to try to halt her trial, she rightly yet again gets denied bail; will she make it to the mental house?
Yesterday, unsurprisingly just as rumours began to circulate that she might next put in a plea that she is insane, Ghislaine Maxwell was yet again denied bail by U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan after the latter cited her “ability to flee” justice.
Alleged mucky madam and sex trafficker Maxwell had pleaded to trade her jail cell for home detention, but Nathan rejected lawyer Bobbi Sternheim’s arguments that her client “has been subjected to physical and emotional abuse by jail guards.” She had also cited “poor and unsanitary living conditions, insufficient nutrition, difficulties reviewing millions of legal documents and sleep deprivation.”
“Though she is a model prisoner who poses no danger to society and has done literally nothing to prompt ‘special’ treatment, she is kept in isolation – conditions fitting for Hannibal Lecter but not a 59-year-old woman who poses no threat to anyone.”
Responding, quite rightly, prosecutors suggested Maxwell’s advocate “turns to rhetoric and anecdotes better suited to tabloids than briefs” and added: “Where legal arguments can be found, they are cursory and unpersuasive.” Judge Nathan clearly agreed.
Previous bail applications on the part of “wannabe insane” Maxwell have been denied for various reasons and amongst the evidence that suggests she’s as trustworthy as Pinocchio are:
The croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s ex-bestie used invented names whilst on the run in the summer of 2019 including Jennifer Marshall and Jen Marshall.
Maxwell’s purchase of a house ironically called ‘Tuckedaway’ is indicative of her clearly giving the justice system the proverbial middle finger. Whilst living there, she “demonstrated willingness and sophisticated ability to live in hiding,” according to prosecutors.
When arrested, Maxwell was discovered along with a “security company staffed with former members of the British military guard” whom had been hired by her brother.
Of her antics during her arrest, the FBI declared: “[She made] a seemingly misguided effort to evade detection… by law enforcement.”
Of why they decided to hold her in custody, Audrey Strauss, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York declared: “The government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot meet her burden of overcoming the statutory presumption in favour of detention. There are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant’s presence in court proceedings in this case. Accordingly, any application for bail should be denied.”
When asked by the FBI which countries she was a citizen of, supposedly insane Maxwell arrogantly replied: “[I am a citizen of] TerraMar.” TerraMar is a non-existent place.
Maxwell is a citizen of three countries: The United Kingdom, France and the United States of America. After her arrest, prosecutors pointed out France “does not extradite its citizens to the United States pursuant to French law.”
She also has strong connections with Israel and her equally deviant father is buried there on the Mount of Olives.
The 95-page address book – generally incorrectly referenced as Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘little black book’ – compiled by Maxwell and filled with countless friends of hers. It totals 1,971 individual names and provides clear indication of her ties and connections to powerful people across the globe.
Maxwell has huge cash resources and has previously cited the ability to offer up £21.1 million ($28.5 million, €24.6 million or درهم7 million) and likely has other funds that have not yet even been declared.
Maxwell has the qualifications and ability to pilot submarines and aside from that and her husband Scott Borgerson’s maritime connections, the pair have links to plenty of wealthy people who could speed the alleged mucky madam away in a covert fashion using such vessels.
Mr Borgerson claimed to be “an ex-military man” during the time the couple were purchasing ‘Tuckedaway’ and was previously in the U.S. Coast Guard. It is obvious that such skills would be useful to his wife if she were to go on the run.
Maxwell appeared in a photoshopped image released to the press by an associate in August 2019. The image featured a bus stop with an advert that had never been shown at that location.
Maxwell did not even tell her own family she had been married to Scott Borgerson since 2016 prior to her arrest.
Maxwell’s lawyer’s release of the image of her with a black eye – which they claimed to have been caused by abuse by guards – turned out to be an example of fake news. She had actually simply suffered from an eye infection.
Of Maxwell, her very own friend Lady Victoria Hervey once tellingly declared: “I don’t think anyone is going to find her. She’s gone far away. She’s a bit like a James Bond character. She’s quite a unique person and I don’t believe anyone is going to find her… I don’t think we will ever see her again, it’s going to be like Robert Maxwell continued; she will continue that family mystery.”
Judge Nathan has previously declared of Robert Maxwell’s daughter: “[There are] no combination of conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance [if she is granted bail].”
Though assumed innocent until found otherwise, in addition, Maxwell’s alleged victims claim that “she set the trap” for the grooming and abuse carried out by both herself and Jeffrey Epstein.
Clearly, the sum total of this behaviour – if proven to have occurred – is indicative of someone of warped and deviant mind and equally that she is allegedly considering getting herself into a mental asylum in a bid to stop her trial provides evidence that she’ll do utterly anything to avoid facing justice for her supposed crimes. Once again today, we join those saying: Shame on Ghislaine Maxwell and shame on her enabling legal and PR teams.
Pictured top: Repeated bail seeker Ghislaine Maxwell with her ‘bestie’ paedo pal Jeffrey Epstein dozing to her left at a fashion show.
Last week, ‘The Steeple Times’ reported that Maxwell’s PR team are using their @RealGhislaine account to try to garner sympathy for the alleged sex trafficker by asking followers to share recipes. Given their comparison of their client’s conditions to the equally insane Hannibal Lecter, we’d argue the best meal for her might be liver and fava beans washed down with Chianti.Though allegedly insane Maxwell claims to have been mistreated in jail, her current conditions in the Manhattan Detention Center are actually remarkably more cushy than those of any other inmate currently incarcerated in the United States of America.‘Twit Girl’ and knicker flogger turned pointless prattler Lady Victoria Hervey with supposedly insane Ghislaine Maxwell – a woman she claimed “demonstrated” to her how best to give a blowjob and told her “dirty jokes” in the 1990s. Of the former, the late Tara Palmer-Tomkinson once stated: “[She’s] unpleasant… A right snob,” whilst of the latter, this week, Laura Pullman quoted Prince Andrew’s distant cousin Christina Oxenberg in ‘The Times’ and wrote: “Ghislaine Maxwell is a ‘devious fruitcake’ and ‘no friend of mine.’”
On Sunday, on her podcast, amongst other topics, crusading author of ‘Ghislaine Maxwell: An Unauthorized Biography’ Kirby Sommers discussed the alleged mucky madam’s prison conditions and how other prisoners had been made to twice scrub the entire floor now occupied by her in advance of her arrival. Going further, Sommers and her guest discussed the Maxwell family’s involvement in espionage – something that clearly must be taken into account when considering whether to bail this wicked wastrel woman.
Author Kirby Sommers asks: “Who’s afraid of Ghislaine Maxwell?”
One of the passages I’ve often quoted in some of my books has been from a New York Times article dated January 11, 1996 written by Christopher Mason. The article describes Leslie Wexner’s New York City mansion down to the “lead lined bathroom.” It reads, in part:
“Visitors described a bathroom reminiscent of James Bond movies: hidden beneath a stairway, lined with lead to provide shelter from attack and supplied with closed-circuit television screens and a telephone, both concealed in a cabinet beneath a sink.”
In this article, Mason adds:
“When asked how long Mr. Wexner had occupied the property, Jeffrey Epstein, his protégé and one of his financial advisors, replied, ‘Les never spent more than two months there.”
After a couple more paragraphs, with details about the house, Mason adds that he reached Mr. Epstein in Florida who told him the house was now his. It is worth noting that throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s Jeffrey Epstein was listed in the public phone books as Edward Epstein. Add to this that Epstein was extremely secretive and didn’t speak to journalists unless it was pre-arranged by one of his public relations people.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered Christopher Mason who wrote the New York Times article is also Ghislaine Maxwell’s “friend”. Mason states he met Maxwell in 1989—having been introduced by “mutual friends.” Did Maxwell play the role of PR person for Epstein too? It’s a fair question that no one to date has asked.
In 1993 Maxwell hired Mason to write what is arguably the creepiest poem ever for Jeffrey Epstein’s 40th birthday. It goes like this:
Poor Jeffrey Epstein is 40, oy vey!
Life must be tough his hair is already so gray
He sure looks older but it’s clear from his smile
The older he gets, the more juvenile
Ghislaine is lavishing him with her affections
She claims he has 24-hour erections
Sounds like he’s busy, now ain’t that berserk
How does he find the time to get off to work
He wakes when the cock crows while everyone slumbers
He rivals Einstein when crunching those numbers
He taught at Dalton: the naughty boy blushes
To think of schoolgirls and all of their crushes.
Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of infamous thief and alleged Mossad spy, Robert Maxwell, has been incarcerated at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Correction Facility in Brooklyn, New York since July 2, 2020. She has been charged with grooming minor girls for the deceased pedophile and rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Her trial is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021.
Mason, however, is not the only mainstream media journalist who has been caught as being friends with the alleged Madam. Vicky Ward, a former Vanity Fair writer, was outed after Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest in the summer of 2019. Who outed her: yours truly. Here’s one of my many tweets attempting to bring attention to their connection:
However, Maria Farmer, who worked with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and who gave an interview to Ward for Vanity Fair (which was never printed) has also been sounding the warning bell about Ward’s connection to Maxwell.
There are more. Many, many more.
Barry Diller, Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC (InterActiveCorp), owns The Daily Beast. He was a board member of Ghislaine Maxwell’s TerraMar non-profit which was quickly shuttered in July 2019 — less than one week after Epstein’s arrest on sex trafficking charges. Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sits on the IAC’s Board of Directors. She has been heavily criticized for having been paid $9 million by IAC. There are more connections through Diller’s wife—fashion maven Diane Von Furstenberg. Her son, Prince Alexander von Furstenberg, from her first marriage to Prince Egon von Furstenberg (a banker and interior designer) in the now infamous “Jeffrey Epstein black book.”
There are more mainstream media connections—frankly, too many to cover in one article. Suffice, to ask, however: “Who’s afraid of Ghislaine Maxwell?” Seems the answer is everyone.
Sex abuse survivor and advocate Kirby Sommers is the author of Ghislaine Maxwell: An Unauthorized Biography. To order it, click here.
