Category: Ghislaine Maxwell

Matthew Steeples reviews lickspittle Jay Beecher’s ‘interview’ with mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother Ian and finds nothing but a pair of guffawing goons for the “evil moll” who crazily believe 25% of the jury in her case “may have lied”

• Jay Beecher, recently sued by crusading journalist and writer Peter Jukes for libel, uploaded an ‘interview’ with the convicted sex offender and mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother Ian yesterday to YouTube.
• In it, Mr Maxwell ridiculously alleges that 25% of the jury in his sister’s case lied in spite of a judge finding that even ‘Juror 50’s’ lone actions did not merit a retrial.
• Mr Maxwell repeatedly insults Virginia Roberts Giuffre, clings to Alan Dershowitz beating her in his action against her and suggests Prince Andrew’s “panic” was the reason he paid millions to a woman he previously claimed to have never met.
• The pension pot plunderer’s son calls out – without naming names – ‘former friends’ of his sister who’ve spoken with the media whilst the ‘interviewer’ hints at Lady Victoria Hervey telling porky pies in mentioning a Piers Morgan interview.
• The deceased press baron’s son laughably slams the “red top press” for the way they were “biased” in their coverage of Ghisaline Maxwell’s case in spite of his own family having been just as biased towards others themselves when they owned the ‘Mirror.’

 

There are lickspittles – “fawning subordinates” – and then there’s the jaundiced joker that is Jay Beecher. A self-promoter and arse-licker who’d like to pretend he’s a ‘journalist’ who was sued for libeling the genuinely esteemed journalist, writer of Waking the Dead and co-founder of Byline Times Peter Jukes in June 2021, this crackpot yesterday uploaded a feature he’d made with Ian Maxwell, a brother of the convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, to YouTube.

 

In an ‘interview’ in which the self-professed ‘interviewer’ just behaved like a toady turd, Beecher spoke with the mucky madam daughter of the pension pot plunderer Robert Maxwell’s brother about her trial, her failure to get a retrial, the BBC’s House of Maxwell documentary series and his thoughts on Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz and Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

 

Whilst, anything but a brainbox Beecher being anything but a brainbox Beecher, didn’t bother to challenge his swivel-eyed subject, he did bang on about how unfair everyone had been to the grubby sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.

 

The contributor to Politicalite – a deservedly derided website that has published the works of the far-right, anti-Islam leader of For Britain and associate of convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, Anne Marie Waters – even went as far as to claim himself to be the only person to have ‘reported’ that Virginia Roberts Giuffre had been exposed for telling lies about Paris Hilton’s papa, Richard ‘Rick’ Hilton.

 

During the 49:59-minute ‘exclusive’ Ian Maxwell blames everyone but his sister for what has happened. He compares her ‘plight’ to that of her one-time, also incarcerated sex offender chum Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby even. It’s all the fault of the Me Too movement that she’s where she is, if you’d believe him, and believing victims is clearly anathema also.

 

Mr Maxwell slams the judge in the case for not ordering a retrial because of the antics of ‘Juror 50’ ‘Scotty David’ as “deeply tainted.” “extraordinary” and “incredible” and argues “the dice were loaded by the court.”

 

Going further, of the “horrendous” conditions he believes his sister to be incarcerated in, Mr Maxwell bangs on about the UN and suggests that the prosecution portrayed his sister as an “evil moll” was “just grotesque.”

 

Giggling here and there and guffawing also too, Maxwell’s attack on the British press and its “red tops” comes over as especially laughable. His own father, after all, prior to emptying its pension pot of some £460 million, owned one and used it to attack his enemies and of the case in general he surmised:

 

“You know, it’s got sex, it’s got death. These guys dying, you know, erm, in prison. It’s got royalty, it’s got money, it’s got famous people, it’s got young girls. You know, it’s just got everything that you could dream of if you had to write up what elements would drive a story. They’re all there. Almost all of them are there, so, and you know it’s international and because we live in 24/7 times, this thing is going on at full pelt. It’s just catnip.”

 

“So it’s just a story that gives and gives and keeps giving and, of course, Ghislaine has quite a well-known name. Er, was well-known before she came on the scene and in this country you know, er, my father was, er, a large figure. Not perhaps so internationally so, but certainly so in Britain and also a press owner, so this is just very, very exciting.”

 

“And then, erm, it starts with that. The elements are all there and then you get a situation where on the back of Me Too, on the back of, er, this kind of situation where victims are to be believed, women are to be believed, what it means is that you’re never really going to get a proper shakedown of the other side of the story.”

 

“It’s not going to be presented in a way which is, er, er, fair and so the narrative, er, er, has been, has not been for Ghislaine. It hasn’t been about her, it’s been about her being negatively portrayed.”

 

“If you look at the film, if you look at the articles and whatever, that’s the position and the accusers have just come out in spades, er, to drive this and have been paid substantial amounts of money by Netflix and other such organisations.”

 

“Erm, to what, they aren’t going to stand there and say: ‘Our heart pleads for Ghislaine,’ they’re going to tell their story and because Ghislaine is incarcerated and has been for two years, she’s not been able to tell her story properly.”

 

Aside from also attacking the BBC’s recent House of Maxwell series on the basis that he believes it falsely suggests “the rotten apple never falls far from the tree” and that those that make such “lazy, inaccurate” programmes “don’t know” anything of the truth of his family, Ian Maxwell tries to dispel that his father met Jeffrey Epstein before his death. He argues: “You know, I mean, it is just ludicrous. Ludicrous.”

 

Of his decidedly deviant sister’s “former friends” giving interviews, after Jay Beecher has a pop at Lady Victoria Hervey’s interview with Piers Morgan (without naming her) and claims “she lied,” Mr Maxwell concludes:

 

“Can I finish like this and just to say that Ghislaine has hope and she knows she has a strong and supportive family. She has many friends despite how it seems.”

 

“All the so-called ‘former friends’ of Ghislaine who are busy helping the BBC make their programmes or Netflix are not, I don’t regard and I don’t think Ghislaine will ever regards them as ‘former friends.’ In some cases, they were not friends as you and I would regard them, but she has real friends who can’t come out and shout from the rooftops because of the cancel culture that we live in and they’re worried about their livelihoods and children and all the rest of it.”

 

“But we know who they are, they know who they are and so, Ghislaine knows who they are. And so, we have hope, we’re going to fight and that’s where it is so let’s pick this up in a few months time and maybe post-trial, post-sentencing or maybe next time when there’s a development, er, with the Dershowitz or whatever you like.”

 

Here is an ‘interview’ that is anything but challenging, but that’s what you’d expect of any ‘interview’ by Jay Beecher. Here, instead, is a depiction of a wicked wastrel who is both a “mucky madam” and an “evil moll.” Ian Maxwell does his sister no favours in attacking the court that convicted her and the victims of her crimes; instead, this silly, delusional mouse-not-a-man just shows himself up and lets his sister down. He does her no favours and frankly should give up being the family PR for one reason – he’s just no good at it.

 

Rotten-to-their-core and self-entitled, all that this ‘interview’ achieves is to yet again show the House of Maxwell to be akin to the House of Hell.

 

Pictured top – Son of a pension pot plunderer and apologist for a convicted sex offender Ian Maxwell (left) and the lickspittle who’ll say or do anything to please him and his soppy siblings, Jay Beecher.

 

THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW

Featuring all that Ian Maxwell said, but with some of Jay Beecher’s comments cut out given he asks frankly irrelevant questions and simply tries to promote himself from lickspittle to a journalist without any qualification.

After an introduction from Jay Beecher, Ian Maxwell begins:

 

“Ghislaine made her position completely clear at the trial itself. She said the government had not proven its case. That’s what she said. That’s a fact. The only thing she did say and, erm, from her perspective that was the case. And from our perspective, ours too.”

 

“I mean and I sat through a number of days of that trial and that was my own view as well, so she was shocked, we were extremely shocked by the result and, er, declared straight away, er, that, erm, it was going to be appealed and, er, that that’s what’s happening.”

 

“So, I think, of course, er, initially, she was pretty down, as you would expect, but, erm, shortly after that, er, terrible night and result and so on, we then had this incredible development with this juror, er, who suddenly appeared in the media and demonstrated that his, er, own, erm, sexual edge, sexual abuse as a child, he had deployed it during the jury deliberations and, by his own words, swayed, er, jurors that were doubtful of what they’d heard.”

 

“So, obviously, at that point Ghislaine felt a lot more clear as to why the verdict came in the way it did.”

 

After Beecher interrupts and claims bias in the case, Maxwell continues:

 

“This has been going on, Ghislaine was arrested in July 2020. A judge met her shortly after that, rejected her first bail application. It’s coming up two years July 2022, er, countless defence motions have been denied or rejected or given short shrift, so I suppose, er, the result that has come here at one level it is not unsurprising given the court’s prior performance, but, erm, I think what is really shocking is the way in which the whole inquiry was set up.”

 

“Er, er, the judge had to set it up. The jury, the defence, er, requested that there was no need for an inquiry, prima facie, what had happened is that the man had lied on his form, erm, and therefore that the defence did not have the opportunity, had he been truthful to then ask him questions on that and either have him struck out by virtue of the parameter challenge that they were entitled to exercise, er, or by his answers, the court would have struck him out.”

 

“And, er, it is the denial of the defence’s opportunity to question that juror as a direct function of his lie that, er, that is the central appeal point and the, er, what happened then is that the court decided to set very, very narrow parameters as to who was going to question the juror, mainly the judge.”

 

“What were the questions going to be? Although she invited questions to be submitted both by the defence and by prosecution, ultimately she decided on those questions.”

 

“She decided that they would only be to this one juror and that they would only deal with two questions that he had answered by his own admission wrongly.”

 

“And the only reason we know he answered it wrongly is because that his initial reaction on the inquiry being ordered was to take the Fifth Amendment. That is to say, remain silent for fear of incriminating himself with his own words and that is tantamount of admission to what has gone on.”

 

“So how did the prosecution react to this? They offered him immunity. They talked to him and they offered him immunity.”

 

“The judge then, once he had admitted that he had not answered truthfully gave immunity at the start of this inquiry on the basis, of course, that if he was perjuring himself, he would go to jail. But, erm, given immunity, get out of jail, so, ha ha ha, there was no sanction, he could say what he liked and indeed he said exactly what he liked.”

 

“It was enough for the court to feel that notwithstanding that he’d admitted he’d lied, that somehow, er, he was not, er, a biased juror – whether actively biased or that bias could be inferred or assumed and all kinds of reasons that he put up. He was in a hurry, er, love affair had broken up, ha ha, ha, incredible.”

 

“The judge decided that this made him, erm, this wasn’t enough to, er, suggest that he couldn’t have been an impartial juror.”

 

“She took 40 pages, the court took 40 pages to justify this.”

 

“Amongst many shocking things in there, in the judgment I felt was one extraordinary statement that, I can’t remember exactly as I don’t have it in front of me, but essentially it said that one of the reasons that this inquiry came down the way that it did was to ensure the finality of judgments, but not the paramount interests of justice.”

 

“So, erm, to say we were shocked is to understand it clearly. Ghislaine was also very perturbed by it and we put out a statement to that effect.”

 

“If I had to summarise it, the dice were loaded by the court. The verdict, which was unsafe by virtue of this impartial, lack of partiality, or the partiality of the juror was the, er, the follow-up, er, ordered opinion and order of the court, er, is deeply tainted.”

 

“So, this is going to go to appeal and it’s just one of many points of appeal. Pre-trial, in-trial, post-trial and, er, we are confident that Ghislaine will be successful on appeal.”

 

“[Scotty David] is entitled to give to the press, but, er, what is really shocking is and what is as a direct result of what he said to the press, the judge had no option but to do something. She wasn’t going to lose the verdict. She put this inquiry and then, for the reasons that I’ve explained, I consider that it was really a foregone conclusion.”

 

After Beecher interrupted and moaned about jurors being allowed to watch television and go home and be unsupervised, Maxwell responds:

 

“I think I’ll give you two answers to that. Erm, firstly, it’s a tremendous burden on individual jurors that the courts are really mindful of, a huge personal burden, er, it’s like lockdown. That’s the way to think about it, er, except you haven’t got the telly, ha ha ha. So, erm, so it’s, they think twice before putting a jury into that sequestration.”

 

“It’s 9 times out 10, it’s to do with the fact that the jury could be, people in their community that could put pressure on them – especially in sort of mafia type trials and that kind of thing so judges tend not to do it if they can avoid it.”

 

“Erm, it so happened that, you know, I was on trial myself thirty years ago and my jury was sequestered and thank goodness because public opinion was really not in our favour at that time but at least that’s what happened.”

 

“So, I think that’s the answer to the first part of your question and on sequestration itself, as far as do I think that that may have had an impact on the trial, er, it’s possible, of course it’s possible.”

 

“Er, courts rely on juries integrity, honesty, if they say don’t consult papers, don’t look at television, don’t talk to your family, don’t talk to your friends, I am sure that most jurors abide by that, that’s the oath that they’ve taken and I think they do a pretty good job, OK.”

 

“I do think that we know that this juror was in communication with an Independent journalist who then broke the story of the interview with him in the Independent.”

 

“We don’t know when that interview took place or how, erm, the implication is obviously that it took place straight after the trial, but we don’t know, er, there might have been other times that we don’t know about maybe, er, we just don’t know enough. So, I can’t say one way or another, but it’s possible, of course, and it would have been very damaging.”

 

Beecher interjects:

 

JB: “It’s hard to get a completely impartial juror on a case like this… She was packaged as guilty before she ever set foot inside any courtroom”

 

He then asks about what else his subject considers “unfair” and Maxwell continues:

 

“To begin, ha ha ha, ha ha ha, the most compelling, er, er, er, reality was that this, my sister, has been banged up now, it’ll be two years in July.”

 

“Er, she is in horrendous and continues to be in horrendous, er, incarceration. She’s in isolation, she’s on suicide watch. She, er, continues to have torches shone in her eyes every 15 minutes to make sure she’s, er, breathing. Er, she’s denied all kinds of rights and opportunities, whether that’s in commissary or in books, whatever you like. Fresh air. It’s a shocker.”

 

“The most important thing, I think, is that she was already frail, mentally and physically at the start of her trial and I think this impacted for sure on whether she would give evidence in her own defence knowing what an aggressive and long affair that would have been.”

 

“Er, so I don’t know that was the primary reason, but I think it is a fair assumption. So the physical conditions, her physical state, her mental state, all of this, er, clearly, er, and of course we complained about it to the UN and that jury is still out there, er, but the, er, the UN committee on, erm, erm, can’t remember the name of the unit now, but these kind of conditions in a first world country are not acceptable.”

 

“They are not acceptable in our country, they should not be acceptable in America, but they appear to be. That first.”

 

“But second, er, it’s quite obvious and you mention it already, but the tremendous pre-trial, in-trial and post-trial, er, bias of the jury, of the erm media.”

 

“The media’s take on this from the get-go, which was encouraged on purpose by the prosecution when they held an infamous press conference the day of Ghislaine’s arrest and, er, and the prosecutor pointed to a picture of Epstein and my sister and, er, basically the implication was: ‘They’re guilty’ and then proceeded to come up out with a whole array of things.”

 

“This then gave open season on Ghislaine and it’s never let off and of course it’s not just the media themselves that have followed it up, but the numerous accusers who were not called in this trial have been very, very vociferous. The lawyers have been vociferous, none of this has been put to test, er, and it’s just drip, drip, drip, drip and that’s on a micro level.”

 

“On a macro level, you’ve got then the Me Too movement which has drawn enormous, you know, erm, erm, huge impact in numerous trials before Ghislaine’s whether it’s for Harvey Weinstein or Cosby or whatever, erm, which one of the central ideas of Me Too is that all women must be believed. All ‘victims’ must be believed. That’s how it starts, but we know, we know in this country that so-called victims turn out not to have been victims.”

 

“Carl Beech would be the finest example of that. In America, there was Duke lacrosse where a lady had accused a number of students of raping her. She was black, they were white. Turned out to be a complete fantasy, so these kind of things go on and jury verdicts have been overturned time and time again.”

 

“Obviously we hope this is going to happen on this occasion as well and then finally, er, the performance of the court, the judge in particular and the views she took pre-trial on various motions – the non-prosecution agreement, very controversial.”

 

“Controversially, she rejected the, that was the basis Bill Cosby was released because the state had not stood up on its side of the bargain on prosecution of Cosby and yet, erm, Ghislaine’s case is just thrown out.”

 

“Er and then in-trial, er, numerous directions were given to the jury that were inappropriate and wrong – just as a matter of law.”

 

“So, all of these are going to form, you know, part of a powerful, er, package of appeal points. You know, not obviously immediate, so it’s not, it’s to do with the law, but there are some powerful legal points, but I’ve just given you a few of them.”

 

“For me, er, it showed that this trial really was not fair and on top of that comes the revelation of the lying juror and there may well have been others.”

 

“The New York Times we know had reported itself to say it had a juror, but then refused to say who it was or what they’d done.”

 

“The court had another juror write to it and say: ‘What’s going on there?’ so we don’t know. You know, ha ha ha, we could have 25% that shouldn’t have been on there, on the jury.”

 

Moving on, Beecher asks Maxwell: “How do you now perceive the American justice system?”

 

“Look, I’m not an expert on the American justice system. I can only say that it seems to me that it is enormously tilted in favour of the prosecution.”

 

“From the Grand Jury process to the fact, er, that consistently free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment are not, er, somehow trump individual rights of pre-trial detainees or defendants.”

 

“Er, and you know even small things. So, for example, in our case, in the British system, the defence has the last word. In the American system, the prosecution has the last word. So, in other words, the defence makes a powerful appeal and gives the time for the prosecution to make its points and come back again.”

 

“Just physically, the prosecution is closer, just closer physically to the jury than the defence is in the American courts. In the British court, the defence is closer, so lots of little points here and there.”

 

“You know, there was no possibility in an English system that the prosecutor would have been able to hold the press conference and basically say this woman is guilty before any evidence had been presented and any trial had taken place.”

 

“So, whether it’s the way that we patrol the media so that once a, er, case is on-trial or is held within the legal system, that’s it. You can’t interfere with it; you can’t report it, you can’t, er, you know, you can the bare facts. Someone’s on trial, whatever, but you can’t have the kind of thing that has gone on with endless, endless programmes.”

 

“You know, you know, where Ghislaine is depicted as some evil moll. It’s, ha ha ha, just grotesque.”

 

“So, to my mind, this system is, needs to be, er, have a bit of fairness injected into it. I am not quite sure how that’s going to happen, but I am damn certain it hasn’t happened in my sister’s case.”

 

Turning to media coverage of the case, Beecher asks:

 

“How do you think the British and international press have covered the accusations made against your sister and what influence do you think they’ve had with regard to public opinion? … I’ve seen it myself, she’s completely demonised.”

 

Maxwell responds:

 

“Well, erm, it’s, from the start, the process, it has been, where, erm, I mean. First of all, it’s a case that has got everything that newspapers, especially popular newspapers or ‘red tops’ over in Britain love.”

 

“You know, it’s got sex, it’s got death. These guys dying, you know, erm, in prison. It’s got royalty, it’s got money, it’s got famous people, it’s got young girls. You know, it’s just got everything that you could dream of if you had to write up what elements would drive a story. They’re all there. Almost all of them are there, so, and you know it’s international and because we live in 24/7 times, this thing is going on at full pelt. It’s just catnip.”

 

“So, it’s just a story that gives and gives and keeps giving and, of course, Ghislaine has quite a well-known name. Er, was well-known before she came on the scene and in this country you know, er, my father was, er, a large figure. Not perhaps so internationally so, but certainly so in Britain and also a press owner, so this is just very, very exciting.”

 

“And then, erm, it starts with that. The elements are all there and then you get a situation where on the back of Me Too, on the back of, er, this kind of situation where victims are to be believed, women are to be believed, what it means is that you’re never really going to get a proper shakedown of the other side of the story.”

 

“It’s not going to be presented in a way which is, er, er, fair and so the narrative, er, er, has been, has not been for Ghislaine. It hasn’t been about her, it’s been about her being negatively portrayed.”

 

“If you look at the film, if you look at the articles and whatever, that’s the position and the accusers have just come out in spades, er, to drive this and have been paid substantial amounts of money by Netflix and other such organisations.”

 

“Erm, to what, they aren’t going to stand there and say: ‘Our heart pleads for Ghislaine,’ they’re going to tell their story and because Ghislaine is incarcerated and has been for two years, she’s not been able to tell her story properly.”

 

Turning to his favourite phrase of “fact checking” – something he ain’t particularly good at given the situation he created with his ludicrous nonsense about Peter Jukes – Beecher remarks:

 

“The accusers are allowed to say anything they possibly want without it being fact checked… They seem to focusing on fiction.”

 

“Last time, we had a nice chat about yourself and your father. Obviously, your father was a very influential figure. He had lots of positives about him, obviously instilled that in yourself.”

 

“The documentaries are flooded… Mainly focused on sensationalism, unsubstantiated claims, etc. The most recent one was the BBC’s the ‘House of Maxwell’… Why do they keep focusing on your father despite him having absolutely nothing to do with Ghislaine’s trial?”

 

Maxwell answers:

 

“Well, let’s just, er, the ‘House of Maxwell’ is, er, the executive director of that is a man called Colin Barr with form as far as my father is concerned. He put out a film, a drama starring David Suchet, I think 12 or 13 years ago.”

 

“Er, so that’s not the first time he has visited this subject. Erm, personally, I thought the earlier effort in 2007 was in some parts laughable. So badly wrong was it factually and the way they set out to depict things.”

 

“Erm, I think this is, it looks to me like it is, like, erm, more effort has gone into it, but, er, as far as, erm, my father’s concerned, the, there has been an, er, thread in the whole, er, whole business of, er, his whole case, where they, it, er, wanted to, the press, the media, to come up with a rather, er, simplistic view that, er, because my father was, er, considered a bad man, er, that the apple, the erm, rotten apple never falls far from the tree.”

 

“And therefore, ha ha ha, let’s try and make this link between my father and Ghislaine to such an extent that he’s, you know, a short shrift and she’s given a much bigger, ha ha ha, much bigger role, er, than the reality of their relationship.”

 

“And, you know, I don’t happen to particularly believe that she was my father’s favourite, but everybody insists that was the case even though they don’t know.”

 

“My father’s been dead thirty years and they don’t know my sister, but infer that because he called the boat the Lady Ghislaine, it must mean that she was his favourite.”

 

“You know, I was there the day that the boat was christened physically. It was in a shipyard in Holland somewhere, Amsterdam, and, erm, it was delightful.”

 

“It turned out to be the Lady Ghislaine and my father said to my sister: ‘Before you get any ideas, I wanted to call this boat the Lady Elizabeth for your mother, but that name was already taken and you can’t have two boats with the same name.’ So that was the end of that.”

 

“Anyway, so that, that’s the truth about that particular nonsense and, erm, it’s just a sort of shorthand way of saying: ‘He was bad’ and ‘She’s bad’ and, you know and somehow the brothers got off in the middle of it. Ha ha ha. You know, otherwise we’d all been bad.”

 

“So, it’s lazy, it’s inaccurate and as far as the other so-called revelations of the ‘House of Maxwell.’ Well, you know, another one is that my father allegedly met Epstein before he died and that’s how the connection of Ghislaine is established and there’s some idea that somehow pension funds were siphoned off and Epstein then laundered them. You know, I mean, it is just ludicrous. Ludicrous.”

 

“Erm, anyway, it makes for very good television I am sure and, er, no doubt the BBC will sell it very successfully.”

 

“But you notice that not one member of my family took part in this film and, in fact, there were very few people that I regard as having some input who could have said something interesting and I thought one or two of the people that did speak, I thought were truthful and did a good job – but they weren’t particularly speaking about Ghislaine.”

 

“So, my, I don’t think this was one of the great, the BBC have not covered themselves in glory here.”

 

“As for other, er, films and so on, I mean, you know, the Netflix, in particular stand in my book, very low, er, in my esteem because they just presented a completely one shot, one dimensional, one point of view, er, and, you know, and they’re just wrong.”

 

Beecher pipes in and speaks about “eerie music” on Maxwell documentaries and offers:

 

“The ITV and even Piers Morgan interviewed a ‘very close friend of Ghislaine,’ erm, who you know, gave these long accounts. She wasn’t questioned, wasn’t fact-checked. We later found out she had no relationship with Ghislaine whatsoever.”

 

“When I contacted her to ask why she lied, erm, she said no, blah blah blah. ‘I did know Ghislaine’ and in the end I said: ‘Look, I can prove, we already know it’s already come out, you did not speak to Ghislaine. You did not know her’ and then she said: ‘I wasn’t in it for the money.’”

 

“You know, anyway, her next statement to me was: ‘OK, I admit, you know, I had no relationship with Ghislaine. Erm, I’ll happily do the interview, how much are you going to pay me?’ So…”

 

Maxwell bounces back:

 

“Yes, ha ha ha, so.”

 

Turning to Virginia Giuffre, Beecher asks: “Why wasn’t she chosen to give testimony in Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial?” and Ian Maxwell answers:

 

“My own view of that is because, I think, you know, they realised she’d have a very difficult time under cross-examination and that she could have done more damage than have helped the prosecution’s cause.”

 

“It stands to reason, er Jay, that if you have a powerful witness who you believe is telling the truth and whose combination of the truth and the way they can tell that truth. Sincerely, hand on heart, look the jury in the eye and say ‘this happened to me and I did this or I did that,’ you’re going to use that person because it’s going to be very effective.”

 

“The fact that they didn’t, not use her, tells both of us all we already know. They could not stand her up under cross-examination because of the tremendous, multiple inconsistencies in her prior accounts on, er, almost every subject for years.”

 

“That is why, I believe, they did not run with this particular witness.”

 

Jay Beecher interjects:

 

“I am the only who has covered it [a suggestion regarding Paris Hilton’s father Rick Hilton], yet Prince Andrew still settled the lawsuit.”

 

Ian Maxwell continues:

 

“Look, erm, I suppose, we’re never really going to know because he’s Prince Andrew and it’s all, erm, been swept away.”

 

“However, this is the Jubilee Year of his mother. He is a dutiful son. This really caused, causes her, it’s obvious, any mother, it must cause her immense pain.”

 

“He’s just exceptionally embarrassed. He doesn’t want to do anything to upset that year. Er and I think that he had to fold his tent. Really, er and er, do the best he could by the Crown.”

 

“Er, ah, do I think that he wished he’d gone, gone the other way and given evidence, I don’t know. I think he would not been, I think it would have been a very difficult evidence for him to have give.”

 

“We know that he’s, you know, we have the example of his performance at his Emily Maitlis interview in, erm, 2019, so he’s not good in that kind of one-on-one situation and in a court where he’s fighting for his life, it would have been very difficult.”

 

“However, I also think that, er, the, er, it would have been just as difficult for Giuffre as it would have been for him. I mean, you know, he said produce the original of the infamous photograph in, er, London, where allegedly the events that she says happened, er, and, er, she couldn’t produce it.”

 

“Never been able to produce that particular photo, so at one level I suppose it suited both parties that ultimately it went the way that it went. Erm, but I think, erm, I think, erm, that he, erm, he may well have wished to take his chance and, erm, you know he may have got home on it, but he had to fold his tent and that was that.”

 

Beecher remarks:

 

“Virginia’s team were going to the press and saying they would depose Meghan Markle… She accused 18 people. This is the only person she took to court for money.”

 

Maxwell responds:

 

“I think [Prince Andrew] is a relatively, certainly very high-profile target and, er, so on. You know, but I mean, er, erm, but we’re just not going to know how this has came the way it came and, er, I think it is panic.”

 

“I think it’s very interesting that he ended up paying, er, what seems like a large amount of money to her non-profit – which is, er, which is, er, unusual. I think that happened the way that it did, maybe she didn’t want to have too much money coming to her personally because it makes her rather wealthy and attackable by other parties, but we’ll never know.”

 

Beecher pontificates:

 

“That’s a good point”

 

Maxwell continues:

 

“The key to this is going to be, er, the fact that [Virginia Roberts Giuffre] is facing a court case from one of the men that she is alleged to, er, alleged to be abused by namely Professor Alan Dershowitz, the American lawyer.”

 

“Now, he’s not letting go and he’s not settling up. His reputation has been trashed and he’s determined to have her deposed and put in the court. So, it’s quite obvious if that happens and I think it will, logically it will happen, that and she is, er, unable to deal with the questions that are posed by Mr Dershowitz and it turns out that he wins his case, then I think she is in trouble.”

 

“And I think, at that point, those inquiries of her could, maybe should be undertaken. So, I think the jury is out on this lady and, er, let’s see how it plays out.”

 

Victim shaming, Beecher comments:

 

“It has already proven that [Virginia Roberts Giuffre] has lied and made false allegations.”

 

Clinging to straws, Maxwell offers:

 

“[If Virginia Roberts Giuffre is proven to have lied], I think it will have to be reported and people will have to reconsider their positions and the, erm, and, of course, she wasn’t a witness at my sister’s trial, but then if what you [Jay Beecher] happens, actually comes to happen, that’ll, it’ll show why she was never called as a witness.”

 

“Whether that can then be used in any appeal process, erm, I don’t know enough about the law. However, there was also the matter of perjury that my sister was accused with at the civil action against Giuffre – which is still hanging and which may potentially be dismissed and as a result of which any findings against Miss Giuffre could well be dismissed for good, we don’t, it’s too far out.”

 

“But I, I would expect that all these matters are ultimately, will come out in the open sometime in the remainder of this year and in the early part of 23.”

Beecher whines:

 

“A lot of this would already have have been out there if the press had done their job and reported facts from both sides of the argument.”

 

“Social media dominates the narrative and it’s a massive thing and people can often act with the mob-like mentality. I’ve seen your account your account, the @RealGhislaine account run by your family, it’s a siblings of Ghislaine, it’s been attacked constantly.”

 

“I get attacks, nothing in comparison to yourself but what sort of abuse have you and your family received?”

 

Maxwell answers:

 

“Well the thing about social media, I don’t need to tell you, is, erm, those people that choose to write foul things and horrible ideas and they want to kill you are anonymous so it’s very easy to say anything you like as long as your name is not going to come out and so we’ve had quite a bit of that, ha ha ha, kind of abuse.”

 

“You know, the family might put a statement out or I might make an interview like this and that interview is taken out and if you look at all the social media comment on it, it’s, ha ha ha, makes pretty tough reading without a doubt.”

 

“That comes with the territory and, erm, so I just roll with it. I don’t think my brothers and sisters have been individually called out.”

“I happen to be the member of the family that has had to have had media duties to carry out in connection with Ghislaine so I have been more called out by these trolls than anyone else, but, erm, otherwise, that’s it, I’ve had no physical threats and so on.I consider myself quite fortunate.”

 

“Ghislaine, of course, has been the subject of immense, terrible, terrible social media comments – some of which has been shared with the police and so on as it’s just that bad.”

 

 

Answering of the current situation, how Ghislaine Maxwell is and whether he is worried about his sister, Maxwell observes:

 

“I think we all have to be worried about [Ghislaine Maxwell’s current situation and health] as she’s now been banged up two years coming and she’s had this terrible rollercoaster.”

 

“Arrest, she lost three bail and four, five bail applications and consistently turned down for reasoning which is really just wrong. Just because the court was not gonna [sic] find itself on the wrong side of public opinion and, er, so she’s really had a dose of it.”

 

“The way in which treatment has been dished out in jail has been really shocking. Notwithstanding all of that, through her lawyers who are in daily contact with her and daily video calls with her, that she remains resolute. She is determined, er, to see this through. She believes in, er, innocence completely of the charges that she faces here. Notwithstanding the verdict and she’s getting on with preparing her appeal.”

 

“Obviously the next thing that is coming is sentencing on the 28^th June. It’s about 50 days out from here and, erm, I obviously, we’re not holding our breath that there’s not going to be some incredibly savage sentence I suspect, but nor is she.”

 

“But we are absolutely determined that justice will prevail for Ghislaine and that however unpopular that it is and however much it is, the counternarrative to the prevailing narrative, er, may be to peoples’ ears who don’t want to hear it, this is about the justice system doing what it should do and, er, and, er, that’s the basis of why we have appeal courts and we may have to go to the Supreme Court.”

 

“There are big, big issues involved here and I can just close by saying that the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers in American, the NACDL, a really serious body comprising forty or fifty thousand lawyers for the defence in the United States, highly unusually, weighed into this case, er, right at the depth of it.”

 

“Er, just before the inquiry into Juror 50, which we discussed earlier, to say that, to ask permission from the court to be involved and to be able to put a statement down and that statement said broadly this: ‘That, er, that it’s very unusual for the NACDL to get involved at the, erm, District Justice level, normally it only ever deals with Appeal or Supreme Court – where issues of real importance are being decided upon, but because this issue chosen by this judge to decide whether or not a juror had been impartial or not was so fundamental to the justice system, they chose to get involved at the District level.’”

 

“And they said in their brief, that given what had happened in the words of the juror, no one was interpreting, what he had said himself that he did and said during the deliberations, meant that the trial had been structurally lost. That’s a powerful statement, so regardless of what this court has decided and on the basis of which it has decided, we are confident that on that central point of the appeal and not to mention the many others that comprise the full appeal that Ghislaine will be successful and she will be, whether we end up with a retrial or indeed that she’s cleared and cleared in the sense that the non-prosecution agreement, erm, that she was, erm, benefitted from was, erm, wrongly interpreted and that’s the end.”

 

“Can I finish like this and just to say that Ghislaine has hope and she knows she has a strong and supportive family. She has many friends despite how it seems.”

 

“All the so-called ‘former friends’ of Ghislaine who are busy helping the BBC make their programmes or Netflix are not, I don’t regard and I don’t think Ghislaine will ever regards them as ‘former friends.’ In some cases, they were not friends as you and I would regard them, but she has real friends who can’t come out and shout from the rooftops because of the cancel culture that we live in and they’re worried about their livelihoods and children and all the rest of it.”

 

“But we know who they are, they know who they are and so, Ghislaine knows who they are. And so, we have hope, we’re going to fight and that’s where it is so let’s pick this up in a few months time and maybe post-trial, post-sentencing or maybe next time when there’s a development, er, with the Dershowitz or whatever you like.”

 

Concluding, Beecher ends:

 

“Really appreciate it.”