As mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell is moved to a low security prison in Florida where prisoners will supposedly likely “hate” her, PR peddler Jay Beecher’s ‘The Maxwell Files’ website bizarrely starts promoting organic vegetables in Sussex and lists stories about this anything but wholesome criminal as “recipes”
Whilst such individuals miss the very clear points of differences about the domain of each case and how media are allowed to cover or not cover such, they also ignore the simple matter that there were people present and that they did see a woman who was simply not suffering from malnutrition as her family had claimed. Cashmere clad Ghislaine Maxwell, our sources present tell us, was very much real, had a full head of hair and her weight had declined from 146 pounds on arrest by just 1.5 pounds to 144.5 pounds by the time of her trial.
Rightly called out for her decidely dodgy deviancy – which ranged from inventing pseudonyms to telling porky pies about her multi-million dollar fortune – ‘The Bouncing Czech’s’ favourite child was last weekend transferred to the Tallahassee Federal Correctional Institution in Florida. She will now serve a sentence there that, if she learns to behave herself a bit better than she has thus far, will see her released on 17th July 2037.
Going further, the paper’s Daniel Bates added of the thus far unapologetic supposed ex-lover of non-sweating Prince Andrew:
“[She] could become a target for others inmates unless she acts humbly and stops complaining about her life. But Maxwell has done the exact opposite so far and has griped relentlessly about her conditions.”
“[She] will still still have a tough time adjusting and will be in with murderers and women who have committed serious assaults. The facility is run down, humid and some women will ‘hate her’ because of her celebrity… There will be women who have been abused themselves and will not like her at all because of her crimes.”
Elsewhere yesterday, one of vegan Maxwell’s PR peddlers, Jay Beecher, took down the ‘Maxwell Files’ website where he has spread many falsehoods against the victims of this now convicted criminal sex trafficker. He replaced it with a “coming soon” missive, but by this morning an even stranger replacement had sprouted.
The ‘Maxwell Files,’ now, has become a website that promotes the sale of “locally farmed organic vegetables” from a “12-acre farm in Sussex.” It still includes articles featuring the sexual abuser’s sibling Ian Maxwell bleating on about her “innocence,” but weirdly describes such as “our favourite recipes.” One thing, however, is for sure – the only grub Ghislaine Maxwell will deservedly be getting for the next twenty years is nothing but gruel. Off to the compost heap with this rotten apple!
Pictured top (left to right) – Sordid “socialite” Ghislaine Maxwell living it up at Ascot racecourse in happier times in June 1991 prior to the death of her pension pot plundering papa; contributor to discredited ‘Politicalite’ publication – which disgracefully smeared the good name of respected journalist Peter Jukes – Jay Beecher and a selection of organic vegetables – as promoted by Beecher on his extremely toady arse-licking ‘Maxwell Files’ website.
On Monday 25th July 2022, the ‘Maxwell Files’ site run by PR peddler Jay Beecher disappeared and was replaced with a “coming soon” message.By Tuesday 26th July, the website had been updated and had become a place listing the sale of organic vegetables and delivering “locally farmed organic vegetable boxes from [a] 12-acre farm in Sussex.” Ghislaine Maxwell’s connections to this operation are unknown, but it seems unlikely to see her toiling the soil ‘Darling Buds of May’ style any day soon (or until her anticipated release date in 2037 even).The news section of the new ‘Maxwell Files’ website bizarrely suggested visitors “try with our vegetables” and “our favourite recipes.” These “recipes” included stories about the anything but wholesome mucky madam rather than actual stories about cooking with organic produce.Ironically, the website – which has been amongst the main places apologists for the ex-wife to be of Scott Borgerson have posted content in support of her – had a section called: “Why you’ll love us.” It suggested the offering to be “ethical” amongst other things – something the mucky madam has most definitely been proven to anything but be.Previously, in January this year, a lady named Nicole Cornes attempted to suggest Jay Beecher previously worked for ‘The Steeple Times.’ Thankfully, when she realised that we would NEVER associate with this rotten piece of toerag, she very sensibly apologised.Beecher likes to make himself out to be some kind of crusader who will never allow anyone to “silence [his] reporting.” He is instead simply laughable and a hollow individual who’ll jump any rotten bandwagon. How rotten the vegetables from his new operation in Sussex are remains to be seen.Elsewhere, earlier this month Jeffrey Epstein’s co-collaborator’s brother, Ian Maxwell, penned a feature for ‘The Spectator’ in which he claimed: “My sister Ghislaine was denied justice. The whole system was designed to convict, not to find the truth.” Going further, he tellingly showed his family’s arrogance in adding: “Ghislaine became a replacement for Epstein… The evidence is clear that Ghislaine believed herself to be free of guilt. Had she even suspected that she might be arrested she would have fled beyond the reach of the US legal system to France, of which she is a citizen.” Here, indeed, are a family who believe the law should not apply to them; this is a family who consider themselves above the law and, just like the late tax evader Leona Helmsley, above the “little people.”
As he faces a court showdown with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell apologist Alan Dershowitz gets deservedly snubbed by his now former friend Larry David
In an interview by telephone with Isaac Chotiner – published in The New Yorker on Tuesday 19th July – the emeritus professor of law at Harvard declared he had been “cancelled” for “daring to defend” Donald Trump and stated of his encounter with David:
“What happened is – it’s interesting because I was having lunch with a very radical lawyer who loves me. I mean, he disagrees with me. We argue all the time, but he is not part of the Chilmark crowd. So I was having lunch with him and then a number of other people were there. Suddenly, Larry David walks in to buy some groceries. I say, ‘Hey. Hi, Larry,’ and he turns away, and he just walks away. I say, ‘Larry, can’t we at least talk?’ He said, ‘No. You’re disgusting.’”
“He said, ‘I saw you pat Mike Pompeo on the back.’ It’s true. I did. Here’s the story. It was the Abraham Accords, or the movement toward peace in Israel under the Trump Administration, which I played a central role in.”
He said, ‘I saw you pat Mike Pompeo on the back.’ It’s true. I did. Here’s the story. It was the Abraham Accords, or the movement toward peace in Israel under the Trump Administration, which I played a central role in.”
Asked if he’d watch Curb Your Enthusiasm again, the leading Ghislaine Maxwell apologist curtly responded:
“No. Because I know that the Larry David that’s in Curb Your Enthusiasm is not a fictional character. He’s the real Larry David… If you know that he’s the real Larry David, that curmudgeon, the nasty guy.”
Elsewhere last week, Virginia Roberts Giuffre – whom accuses Dershowitz of sexually abusing her on at least 6 occasions and claims him to be “engaging in revisionist history” – revealed that she is seeking a date of March 2023 for their defamation. The lawyer and retired Harvard professor has previously claimed to have never met the woman Prince Andrew paid £12 million to in spite of also claiming to have never her and has also called her a “certified, complete, total liar.”
Pictured top – Comedian and actor Larry David in a ‘Make America Great Again’ baseball cap (left) and lawyer Alan Dershowitz enjoying a giggle with the late croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (right).
The BBC was rightly forced to apologise for giving the loudmouth lawyer airtime in December 2021 after Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction in New York. On Twitter, their press team declared giving the lawyer the opportunity to speak “did not meet the BBC’s editorial standards.” They added that they subsequently realized that he “was not a suitable person to interview as an impartial analyst, and we did not make the relevant background clear to our audience.” They concluded: “We will look into how this happened” yet unsurprisingly no heads subsequently rolled.Dershowitz and Epstein pictured together at a Harvard event. The pair liked to portray themselves as sophisticated, but frankly both of them have ended up as being portrayed as grasping, grubby gropers. Of the latter, the former told the ‘Miami Herald’ in June: “Everybody missed it. My wife and I never saw young girls at that house. There was never a young girl in that house. There was never a picture of a young girl in that house. There were pictures of [former President Bill] Clinton, and other prominent people.” Of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, he added: “I want all the $20 million [in civil settlements] she’s gotten to be taken away from her and given to the real victims,” Dershowitz said. “Which I will do. I want her to go to prison for committing massive perjury. This case will never be over until Virginia Giuffre pays the price for her false accusations.”Dershowitz (left) drinking red wine with Epstein (centre) and former Treasury Secretary and later Harvard President Lawrence Summers (right) at a Harvard sponsored event on 9th September 2004 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.At the likely March 2023 trial, lawyers for Roberts Giuffre (pictured above) intend to call in-person witnesses (aside from herself) including David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, David Stone and Epstein’s first known British victim, Anouska de Georgiou.
Alan Dershowitz was played by Ron Silver in the 1990 American drama film ‘Reversal of Fortune’ with Jeremy Irons as Claus von Bülow and Glenn Close as Sunny von Bülow. The 111-minute film grossed £12.3 million at the box office and was lauded for its “exceptional performances” and “cunning script.”
As it is suggested ‘Sleepy Joe’ Biden might pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, Matthew Steeples suggests that notion to be highly doubtful
Prime Ministers, Presidents and dictators have long been known to kowtow to media moguls. Be it Adolf Hitler with the 1st Viscount Rothermere and both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair with Rupert Murdoch, the power of the titans that control the press is long known but this week’s suggestion that Joe Biden might pardon Ghislaine Maxwell seems a little beyond ludicrous.
Responding to the headline “MAXWELL SELLS OUT TRUMP! Epstein MADAM dealing for PARDON from BIDEN” – which was accompanied by subheadings including “wild and WICKED parties!” and “What she KNOWS about MELANIA!” – Sheridan called it out as a “will o’ the wisp yarn” that is “wildly speculative.”
Going further, he adds:
“According to this tabloid of record: ‘Imprisoned child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has told authorities she’s ready to squeal on party pal Donald Trump in a desperate bid to get out of jail before she dies.’”
“Presumably because getting out of jail after she dies isn’t optimal.”
“If Maxwell was going to plea bargain, it would have been before her conviction and sentencing to 20 years imprisonment, not afterwards when she is now relying on a rare presidential pardon or commuted sentence.”
“If Biden pardoned Maxwell just to nail Trump, he would be excoriated for making a purely political move that blatantly offers an incentive to Maxwell to potentially lie about the former president to win her freedom.”
“Apart from the fact that Maxwell is a convicted criminal whose word can hardly be trusted, how could she prove any allegation she levels against Trump?”
“The story isn’t even supported by evidence that Maxwell has requested such a deal. The best the Enquirer can come up with is a New York attorney who says: ‘After hearing her sentence, Ghislaine may have realised she has no other options but to sing.’”
Monstrous media mogul turned pension pot plunderer’s daughter Miss Maxwell (AKA Mrs Scott Borgerson, ‘Jennifer Ellmax,’ ‘Jen Marshall,’ ‘Janet Marshall’ and just plain old ‘G’) certainly, however, has been photographed with Donald Trump on multiple occasions and clearly got along with him well.
It must be remembered that Maxwell – whose odds of a pardoning from Trump were at 3/1 before he left office – was showed no mercy from her former friend, the 45th POTUS. He did, however, pardon another media mogul, his chum the convicted fraudster and former Daily Telegraph owner, Lord (Conrad) Black, and in doing so most definitely gave the now convicted mucky madam sex offender the finger.
Allegations also that Melania Trump was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein continue to do the rounds also and rotting in her cell, Maxwell, may finally realise her ‘friends’ have turned her and it’s time for her to turn on them. Stranger things, perhaps, indeed, have happened… The ‘Grubby Ghislaine’ show, after all, is the unwanted gift that keeps on giving.
Pictured top – The latest edition of the ‘National Enquirer’ features a cover story that reads: “MAXWELL SELLS OUT TRUMP! Epstein MADAM dealing for PARDON from BIDEN” (left); Maxwell pictured on the infamous ‘Lolita Express’ with Bill Clinton (right).
Due to his power British Prime Ministers had to take his calls – Robert Maxwell with Margaret Thatcher in 1985 at Mirror Group Newspapers.American politicians were not immune to him either – Robert Maxwell with President George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara circa 1989.Other media tycoons had to spend time with him also – Robert Maxwell with Rupert Murdoch in 1969.The royals clearly had to keep him onside also – Diana, Princess of Wales was photographed with ‘Bouncing Bob’ on multiple occasions.The Prime Minister who would do anything to keep the media mogul on side – In later years and now even still, Tony Blair has kowtowed to Rupert Murdoch again and again.Ironically, after he died at sea in November 1991, Robert Maxwell was remembered on the front page of the paper whose pension pot he had shamelessly plundered with the headline: “The man who saved the Daily Mirror.” Now, one is left asking: “Will Joe Biden actually save this tyrant’s favourite child?”
As mendacious mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell is set to rot in the clink for 20 years, her mouthy mucker mate Prince Andrew may be arrested by the FBI
The non-sweating nosebag nosher who paid £12 million to a woman he supposedly never met Prince Andrew may never be able to set foot on American soil again.
The Duke of York – whose coffin dodging chum Bernie Ecclestone again shoved his hooves in the proverbial yesterday by again senselessly claiming he’d “take a bullet for Putin” – is, the New York Post revealed, to be targeted by lawyers for victims of his late croaked paedophile bestie, Jeffrey Epstein, and his now incarcerated co-collaborator and convicted sex offender, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Of this juicy development for the non-sweating “favourite” son of the Queen, Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer for several of the victims of Epstein and Maxwell, told the Mirror: “Obviously, Andrew is one of the targets they will be looking into. He should definitely be concerned, but, if he did nothing wrong, then come forward and tell the full story to the FBI, not the media.”
The paper’s United States editor Christopher Bucktin observed: “Mr Kuvin named other targets, which included another Briton” and going further the lawyer who secured Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s out-of-court settlement with the royal, Brad Edwards, stated: “Let’s hope they’re the next target. If we have anything to do with it, they will be.”
Speaking to The Sun subsequently, Kuvin surmised: “Anyone who took advantage of a minor as a result of being provided that minor by Mr Epstein or Ms Maxwell should be prosecuted as well.”
“It is highly unlikely an extradition would ever occur, so the Prince would have to be here in the US and be arrested while he’s here.”
“Tell Prince Andrew he should spend the summer here in the US. Come on over to vacation.”
Contrasting elsewhere and yet again sticking her oar in where it is not wanted, Lady Victoria Hervey has been doing the rounds with appearances on Channel 5 News and GB News to again claim the 2001 photograph of the then Miss Roberts and Prince Andrew at Ghislaine Maxwell’s then Belgravia home to be a fake.
Speaking to the Daily Mail’s Richard Eden this morning, the aristocrat laughably concluded: “It’s so sad what’s happened to Andrew.”
In other news on Friday in ‘The Sun,’ the prince was slammed by Paul Page, a Buckingham Palace armed protection officer in the 1990s and 2000s. He observed: “He’s a self-absorbed, obnoxious, horrible little man who is disrespectful to those below him… Andrew has something to hide and he has questions to answer – but I don’t think he will ever be in a position where he will have to answer them because of who he is. He’s got the ‘HRH’ title in front of his name, Ghislaine hasn’t – where is she? Jail. Where is he? At home. Simple as that.” Speaking previously of the relationship between his former boss and Ghislaine Maxwell, the former police officer stated: “From the way she was allowed to enter and exit the palace, at will, we realised… suspected, that she may have had an intimate relationship with Prince Andrew. A colleague of mine remembered her coming in four times in one day from the morning till the evening – she kept coming in and out, in and out.”Twitter users called for the FBI to go after ‘Randy Andy’ with one remarking: “WHY should Prince Andrew be allowed to avoid prosecution? By paying the women he allegedly abused, he’s admitted guilt. I hope the FBI keep chasing him down.” Another added: “If Ghislaine Maxwell was a British Princess and Prince Andrew was just a ‘socialite,’ Ghislaine would be walking free right now and Andrew would be spending 20 years in prison. Being royalty is a Get Out of Jail Free card.”Whilst Lady Victoria Hervey may peddle her belief that the photograph taken of Prince Andrew, the then Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell at 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1 on the evening of the 10th March 2001 is a fake, others including the photographer who photographed the original photograph in 2011, New Zealander Michael Thomas, takes an entirely different view. Speaking to the ‘New Zealand Herald’ in February, Thomas remarked: “As I have said before, it was just an ordinary photo you would have got from a chemist in the days of negatives. Surely, if it was fake, every media outlet in the world would be getting sued for using it. The fact that isn’t happening, to me says everything.” Of the image, previously in 2019, Thomas commented: “It wasn’t like she pulled the photo of Prince Andrew out, it was just in among the rest of them. They were just typical teenage snaps. There’s no way that photo is fake.”
As convicted mucky madam nonce Ghislaine Maxwell begins her 20-year jail sentence, it is not surprising that no prisoners want to share a dorm with her; her prison diaries will deservedly make for grim reading
Life used to be swell for a woman generally termed a “socialite” Ghislaine Maxwell. She had ponies and privileges and was educated alongside disgraced former chief of the Met Police Dame Cressida Dick, disgraceful Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his equally disgraceful, batshit bonkers sister, Rachel.
Now deservedly chucked in the clink for 20 years for abusing multiple victims and fined a paltry £618,000 ($750,000, €719,000 or درهم2.8 million) given her likely in excess of £19 million ($23 million, €22 million or درهم84 million) fortune, the MailOnline’s Jack Newman this morning reported that the daughter of the pension pot plunderer “has been warned she faces ‘getting the s*** beaten out of her’ in Danbury prison.”
Other inmates at the Connecticut minimum security federal institution – nicknamed ‘Club Fed’ given it supposedly being a bit more “cushy” than other prisons and which served as the inspiration for Orange is the New Black – “are already preparing for the arrival of the new famous convict and the prison will ‘not be a picnic’ for her,” Newman revealed.
A former inmate, mortgage fraudster Jacqueline Polverari, yesterday told the New York Post: “She will have a rough six to eight months” before adding:
“I’ve already gotten emails from women who wrote to say that they ‘hear Maxwell will be coming this way.’ They’re preparing for her arrival, already requesting that they don’t want her in their dorms. And the camp counselor won’t put Maxwell where she is not wanted, for fear that she may get hurt.”
“Women are worse than men about [prisoners convicted of] sex crimes. You have mothers there. They see a white woman charged with a sex crime and they think any one of their children could have been her victim. She [Maxwell] would get a lot of flak. She would get the s–t beaten out of her a bunch of times.”
““If [she] is smart she will hire a consultant to set her up with people inside. Teresa Giudice [a Real Housewives of New Jersey ‘star’ turned convicted fraudster] had that. She had a mentor set up inside. Somebody waited for her. She had a mentor walking her around, someone to say she is off-limits.”
“But that can backfire. People looked at Teresa, like, ‘Who the hell is she? She’s hiring somebody and now we can’t speak with her directly?’ That was a negative. Plus all the people who didn’t like the mentor instantly didn’t like Teresa.”
“It was as though she thought she was better than everyone else. Women can be catty. It took a few months before her big mouth got her into humiliating situations. On the phone, she was heard saying, ‘Prison is hell.’ Other prisoners asked, ‘Who is she to say that?’ Then they started taking pictures of her without makeup or hair extensions.”
Polverari also shared with the paper that vegan Maxwell will have to “eat like everybody else” whilst her brother, Ian, curiously enthused: “Frankly, getting… out of the hell hole of MDC must be an absolute priority.”
Going further of this high-profile prisoner, Larry Levine, the founder of Pink Lady Prison Consultants, added:
“She does not have a popular crime. People will try to take her out. They will try to beat the crap out of her.”
“[Prison officials] will want to put her in protective custody at Hazelton [ a West Virginia medium security prison].”
“If somebody from the outside pays off somebody who has a relative in prison, maybe somebody already serving a life sentence, they could put a sheet over her head, sharpen a toothbrush and stab this b**ch.”
“Can you imagine the uproar if she gets killed?”
Wherever she ends up, it won’t be an easy ride for this mucky madam sex trafficker, but one thing is for sure. Her prison diaries will make those of Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer look like a walk in the park.
Pictured top – The decidedly deviant and definitely off-her-merry-rocker one-time lover of Jeffrey Epstein in happier times living it up at a no doubt boozy bash. Now, as she likely sees out her rotten days in the clink, wouldn’t it be fascinating to read her prison diaries?
Being a prisoner in Danbury for smuggling drug money inspired Piper Kerman to write ‘Orange is the New Black’ in 2010. It became a best-selling book in 2010 and was turned into a hit Netflix series in 2013.Maxwell is currently housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Fellow inmates included the disgraced rapper R. Kelly – a monster sentenced to 30 years yesterday for sex trafficking also.Former Danbury inmate Jacqueline Polverari now claims to “help returning women and their families rebuild their lives.” She has warned Ghislaine Maxwell that she ain’t going to have it easy, however, if she does indeed end up in the facility where she herself spent nearly a year.Other former prisoners at the prison have included Leona Helmsley (1920 – 2007), the especially arrogant friend of Donald Trump. “The Queen of Mean” was a chain-smoking hotelier and real estate tycoon with a reputation for tyrannical behaviour. She took the view that “only the little people pay taxes” but was investigated and convicted of federal income tax evasion in 1989. Sentenced to 16 years, she served just 19 months in prison and 2 months under house arrest. Worth some $8 billion, Helmsley left her Maltese dog, Trouble, $12 million in trust. It is a shame that she never published her prison diaries as they would have made for great reading.
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.
