As grubby grabber Ghislaine Maxwell is moved out of solitary, her bashful brother moans about those leading “a lynch mob against” the clearly evil convicted sex trafficker
Mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell, her soppy siblings and her pointless prattling PR peddlers do like to moan. Aside from telling clear porky pies in banging on about this witch having been subjected to “torture” in prison – yet never referencing the torture she so cruelly put the victims she was involved in the sexual abuse of – this wicked wastrel woman still has to learn the art of silence or develop the sense to say sorry.
With news that this creepy cretin is being moved out of solitary and into the general prison population – something the idiots still supporting this monstrous sex fiend and favoured daughter of a pension pot plunderer have been long demanding – one would have thought, finally, that the one-time lover of the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and he who paid £12 million to a woman he’d never met, Prince Andrew, might show some gratitude.
Instead, as is always the way with this mendacious Moaning Minnie, of course that was never going to be the case. Still housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, but no longer with a floor to herself, the former chief of the decidedly dodgy TerraMar Project will now have to accept her fate and learn to muck-in. Having been to boarding school, it wouldn’t be that hard, but the difficulty is that here is a woman whose arrogance frankly knows no bounds.
Yet again showing himself as completely out of touch with the public disdain for his spoilt sister, Ian Maxwell bleated: “There are nasty Internet trolls out there continuing to lead a lynch mob against her.” He then predictably wailed that her “once-close friends have only disowned her because of ‘cancel culture,’” the New York Post reported.
Previously, Scott Borgerson’s now unsurprisingly estranged wife has complained about the food in prison, wailed about being forced to clean the cell she made filthy with a broom and even barricaded herself in a cell in August 2021 just because – diddums – she was “forced to carry materials from her cell to the [prison] conference room.”
When not sharing stories about her playing “peek-a-boo” and making “monster moves” with prison officers – whom she variously contradictorily claims to have shared laughter with and variously contradictorily claims to have been abused by – this petulant paedo’s brothers, sisters and nutcase representatives continue to use their ridiculous @RealGhislaine Twitter account to pile yet more misery on those that she so sickeningly put through hell.
Aside from sharing a Daily Telegraph article about the prison move yesterday, on the 21st April, the deranged controller of the account put up a picture of the sea and shared: “The color [sic] of oxygen is blue. No Blue, No Life. Protect the Oceans.”
Naturally, the majority response was in the negative to both tweets. Of the ocean related tweet, one user asked: “Is that where you buried the kids that did not survive you and Epstein?” whilst another suggested: “The oceans are full of sharks (other predators are available) and is STILL less dangerous than her.”
Responding to yesterday’s news, ‘Admiral Kevin III’ correctly surmised: “Quick tip for anyone looking to avoid that fate: don’t be a horrific sex pest.” “We wish her well,” Max Greene amusingly concluded. Long may this heartless horror rot.
Pictured top – The French born 60-year-old convicted sex offender used to enjoy the high life with her evil associates including Jeffrey Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel. This evil abuser should jolly well now get used to the place where she will deservedly see out the rest of her days.
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 TimesPeter 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.
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.
Ghislaine Maxwell in happier times on 5th June 1991 at the Epsom Derby with the actor George Hamilton – who had just starred in the 1990 hit film ‘The Godfather Part III.’ Her father died just 153 days later on the 5th November 1991 and then she shifted her attentions from one monster, him, to another monster, Jeffrey Epstein.The mucky madam aboard the vessel her pension pot plunderer father named after her shortly after his death.In the 49:59-minute interview, shared on YouTube and watched just 209 times since being uploaded 24 hours ago, Jay Beecher sits on a leather office chair that one can only assume he thinks makes him look sophisticated. He barely interrupts his subject, Ian Maxwell, but when he does he simply exhibits the qualities of a shameless suck-up.
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 28th 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.”
Now she’s been denied a retrial after her conviction for sex trafficking, when will U.S. prosecutors announce whether they’ll definitely now drop Ghislaine Maxwell’s second trial for perjury?
“Our family is profoundly shocked and troubled by the denial of a retrial for our sister, Ghislaine Maxwell” arrogantly began a statement from the Maxwell family issued via Twitter on Thursday following Judge Alison J. Nathan’s decision that ‘Juror 50’ [AKA ‘Scotty David’] was “not impliedly or inferably biased.”
In her opinion and order on 4th April, Judge Nathan added that the juror “testified credibly and truthfully at the post-trial hearing… harbored no bias towards the defendant [Maxwell]” and “served as a fair and impartial juror.”
Responding, the Maxwell family declared they’d be seeking another retrial and raged: “The court’s ruling in this matter is as tainted as the original verdict is unsafe” and added:
“The court – having pre-determined the very narrow parameters of its own post-trial inquiry of Juror 50 about the untruthful answers he provided in the pre-trial juror questionnaire and, further, at the start of that inquiry approved his immunity from prosecution for perjury – effectively ensured the loading of the dice.”
“Relying on a contentious interpretation of “controlling law” the court then required 40 pages to justify its decision to deny the defence’s motion for a retrial stating that ‘…the limits on the nature of the post-trial inquiry serve the important interest in the finality of judgments,’ rather than the upholding of the paramount interests of justice.”
“The fact remains that due to Juror 50’s failure to disclose his own alleged sexual abuse as a child in the pre-trial questionnaire, the Defence was denied the opportunity to question him on these matters at that time or during the recent hearing.”
“This strong issue – the impartial consideration of which is of critical importance in the interests of all Defendants – among many other issues pre-, in- and post-trial, will be presented to the Court of Appeal and, like her legal team, our family is optimistic about Ghislaine’s success on appeal.”
Described later in The List as a family that was “sounding off,” here again we see evidence that both Jeffrey Epstein’s lover turned recruiter of minors and her siblings fail to accept that they are deservedly beat and also that they share the same arrogance as their pension pot plundering papa.
Aside now from sentencing on 28th June – where the mucky madam could get upto 65 years and thus die in the clink – it must be remembered that since she isn’t getting a retrial, Scott Borgerson’s estranged wife will now no longer likely face a second trial for perjury.
Shared via the mocking ‘REALGhizzy’ @MaxPhacts account on Twitter – whose handle is amusingly captioned: “Yes, it’s the REAL me. I’ve just rigged the underwire of my bra and some tin foil to a burner phone so I can add MY side. #Satire” – the government’s position in January was stated as:
“In the event the defendant’s post-trial motions are denied, the government is prepared to dismiss, the government is prepared to dismiss the severed perjury counts at the time of sentencing, in light of the victims’ significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and the trauma of testifying again.”
Of this ‘REALGhizzy’ remarked: “Hmmm? Now that my new trial has been denied, I am going back over fine print. When will we hear if the perjury charges will be dropped? Inquiring, nervous, and shocked minds want to know?”
REALGhizzy’s account regularly mocks the incarcerated mucky madam’s antics.The juror who goes by the name of ‘Scotty David’ most certainly caused havoc through his inattention to the questions he was asked prior to becoming involved in the trial in December last. However, Judge Alison J. Nathan determined that his did not affect his ability to be fair and just.Responding to last week’s BBC ‘House of Maxwell’s’ failure to examine other criminal investigations connected to Prince Andrew’s now incarcerated and convicted criminal and supposed lover, Matthew Steeples again asked why the Metropolitan Police never proceeded with a 1994 investigation where they surveilled the then South Kensington home of Ghislaine Maxwell. At their time, their officers used neighbouring residences to watch the comings and goings of women presumed to be prostitutes and their management by the ‘lady of that house.’
Why has not one single co-conspirator of Ghislaine Maxwell been arrested in the 82 days since her conviction? It is time for the other powerful and privileged participants in this rotten saga to answer for their crimes in the 99 days before the mucky madam is sent down
It’s been 82 days since grubby groper Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted on 29th December 2021. In the time since, amongst other things we’ve had the suicide in France of her chum Jean-Luc Brunel, the ‘Jurorgate’ saga of the man who goes by the name of Scotty David and Prince Andrew’s supposed £12 million payout to the woman he claims he hadn’t met, Virginia Roberts Giuffre. What we haven’t seen, however, is the arrest of a single co-conspirator on American or British soil.
Highlighted quite rightly by Ms Giuffre herself in a tweet on 29th December last – which read: “I hope that today is not the end but rather another step in justice being served. Maxwell did not act alone. Others must be held accountable. I have faith that they will be” – this important matter is one that must be resolved given without such, it will once again seem that there’s one rule for the powerful and the privileged and another for the ordinary populous.
Whilst the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ deviant daughter – who once most aptly described his favourite child as being “just like me” – still has time to sing like a canary and cough up names prior to her sentencing in 99 days on 28th June 2022, it thus far seems that she’s decided to take a gamble and keep schtum. Clearly arrogant to their core, Maxell’s siblings continue to make out this wicked wench as a patsy, but if she is that, then now is the time to talk.
With her husband Scott Borgerson having not even having bothered to turn up for her trial and now run off with a sexually saucy “yoga enthusiast” with an “ass that could crack open a walnut” and most of her friends turned on her, some might echo Rachel Johnson’s “batsqueak of pity” for a mendacious mucky madam alone, betrayed, cuckolded and isolated, but frankly this current course of action simply shows her yet again as nothing but a self-serving sap.
Tellingly, as he faces his own woes in the American court system, Donald Trump – who previously stated that “I wish her well” of Maxwell and suggested her former lover Epstein was “killed or committed suicide in jail” – is keeping remarkably quiet, whilst the paranoia of Maxwell about being “suicided” was again highlighted in recent days in interviews by her former dog walker and houseboy, a 31-year-old named Rasmus Alpsjö.
Rasmus Alpsjö with one of the mucky madam’s dogs, a Vizsla named Captain Nimo, in 2015.Cowardy custard who didn’t understand the concept of “for better, for worse” when he married for a second time Scott Borgerson has been described by Alpsjö as “intimidating” and once told his employee that he’d teach him “how an alpha male treats a dog.”As ‘The Steeple Times’ exclusively reported in December 2020, the then home of Jeffrey Epstein’s mucky madam lover in South Kensington, London was put under surveillance by the Metropolitan Police in 1994. Of this a businesswoman who lived opposite told us: “I was visited by officers from the Met Police in 1994 whom asked to use a bedroom in my property and to install a camera at the window to monitor the house diagonally opposite, 69 Stanhope Mews East. I was not told at the time who the person concerned was, but I now realise it was Ghislaine Maxwell who was the owner of that house. I recall seeing very young girls coming and going from that building very often. The officers remained for a week and then I heard no more about what happened next. All I knew was that a brothel was being operated from there and that the police wanted to close it down. They could have caught this evil woman then, but maybe her friendships with powerful people like Prince Andrew helped ensure her criminality was swept under the carpet.” In spite of the pension pot plunderer’s daughters high ranking connections – including the fact that she went to the same school and Oxford college as the until recent Metropolitan Police chief Dame Cressida Dick – why was this investigation shut down?
Speaking in video footage shared on YouTube, Alpsjö claimed that his employer for three months in 2015 had gone ballistic after he’d let a deliveryman into her then home on the Upper East Side in New York.
Last night, the Daily Mail reported that the Swede – whom also very tellingly described Borgerson as “scary” and “militant” – commented:
“She had some friends over and the doorbell rang. She asked if I could take it. There was a delivery guy and he asked if he was at the right address.”
“I thought it was and I invited him in. Ghislaine came and asked ‘What is this?”
“Maxwell went on to ask for the deliveryman’s ID card and even took a copy of it before dismissing him out of her home.”
“She sent him away and then actually screamed at me: ‘It could have been anyone, somebody could have been out to kill me.’”
“‘It made me feel so bad,’ the former employee said. ‘I didn’t think it was such a big deal, but she made a huge deal out of it.’”
“She said: ‘I might have to send you home. I have to think about it,’ he added.”
“On the day after the incident, Maxwell reportedly told Alpsjo that what he did was ‘really stupid, but I thought about it and you can stay. But you have to learn that you cannot open to anyone.’”
“Now, looking back at the moment, Alpsjo says that Maxwell’s reaction was ‘crazy’ and that the entire situation was ‘just insane.’”
Likely abused-turned-abuser Maxwell’s siblings have repeatedly suggested they fear that she could be next to die in jail. She, herself, is of the firm belief that her pension pot plundering father was himself killed on the gin palace named after her on the fateful night of 5th November 1991.
Like father, like daughter – These two peas in a pod were clearly connected by more than just blood. Both deviant and dodgy, both were crackpot conspiracy theorists.
With the arrest of a 60-year-old woman, will the fugitive son of a billionaire alleged killer of Martine Vik Magnussen finally be brought back to Britain to face justice?
The Steeple Times has featured the story of the rape and murder of 23-year-old Martine Vik Magnussen on 14th March 2008 on three occasions – March 2014, March 2016 and March 2017 – and in the time since her suspected killer Farouk Abdulhak has remained at large and disgracefully continued to stick two fingers up to the British justice system. Now, finally, with the arrest of a 60-year-old woman – described as a “significant development” by Scotland Yard – could progress to justice now finally be underway?
Son of a Yemeni business magnate nicknamed ‘The King of Sugar,’ Abdulhak (and himself vulgarly nicknamed ‘DP’ because of his penchant for consuming vast amounts of Dom Perignon champagne) and Norwegian former Mulberry employee Vik Magnussen, both then students at the private Regent’s Business School had spent the evening with friends at the ritzy Maddox Club in Mill Street, Mayfair – a then haunt of what was subsequently described as “the hip Eurotrash cool crowd” by then club promoter Hugo Campbell-Davys.
At around 2am that fateful night, Abdulhak and Vik Magnussen were seen leaving together on CCTV and two days later, on 16th March, the body of the latter was discovered in rubble and rubbish in the basement area of the Great Portland Street serviced apartment building where the former lived.
A post-mortem examination gave Martine Vik Magnussen’s cause of death as compression to the neck. In November 2010, an inquest recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. On a website seeking justice, her friends paid tribute to her life in a video shared on YouTube that also included a contribution from a Yemeni Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Martine Vik Magnussen (6th February 1985 – 14th March 2008) was last seen leaving the Maddox Club, 3 – 5 Mill Street, Mayfair, London, W1S 2AU with Farouk Abdulhak (born February 1987 and also known as Farooq) around 2am on 14th March 2008. Her body was found in the basement of a residential building at The Armitage Apartments, 222 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5QR – where he rented a serviced apartment – two days later at 10.30am on 16th March 2008. She had been raped, beaten, strangled and attempts had been made to conceal her body in rubbish and rubble.Both the suspected rapist-murderer and his innocent, tragic victim were students at Regent’s Business School – known also as ‘RBS.’Martine Vik Magnussen was a bright, attractive 23-year-old lady whose life was so reprehensibly taken from her. The courage and tenacity of her family in campaigning to bring her rapist-killer to justice is to be saluted.Farouk Abdulhak (also known as Farooq Abdulhak) lived a playboy lifestyle in London and no doubt lives in luxury courtesy of his family’s wealth. His alleged victim’s life was cut short when she was just 23 and it is beyond disgraceful that this spoilt tyke has not yet been prepared to assist police as they seek to solve the rape-murder that at occurred in the property where he lived in 2008.The arrogance of this scion of a billionaire is clear. Here is someone who lived off his father and was clearly never taught anything about developing a moral compass or the concepts of right, wrong and taking responsibilities for your own actions.Items missing from the victim’s body that were with her when she left the Maddox Club but not with her body when it was discovered, according to Scotland Yard, included: Christian Dior earrings, snakeskin shoes, a Marc Jacobs handbag, a Guess watch, a silver costume diamond ring and her jeans (described as blue and of a ‘skinny’ fit).
Whilst the grieving parents of a young lady with a promising future were left to deal with the grim task of organising a funeral for their beloved child, the only suspect in the case, Abdulhak, had headed to the airport to meet his father’s private jet. He returned via Egypt to his native Yemen and since Yemen has no extradition agreement with Britain has been able to live-it-up there still to this day.
In the 14 years since, the suspect – whose now late father was said to have a net worth of an astonishing £8.6 billion and thus clearly the resources to protect his clearly spoilt brat – is believed to have married and clearly has taken the view he has gotten away scot-free, but the victim’s father, Odd Petter Magnussen has never given up in his quest for justice.
With the help in the UK of amongst others William Hague MP as Foreign Secretary first and Tobais Ellwood MP later, as Minister for the Middle East and Africa, attempts have been made to find a way to bring the suspect back to Britain for questioning at the very least. They sadly have not achieved anything as of date.
Yesterday, in a possibly more promising development Scotland Yard announced they had taken into custody a woman in her 60s on suspicion of assisting an offender in connection with the rape-murder. A previous arrest of a 50-year-old man in connection of “assisting the murderer” (according to Wikipedia) on 30th April 2008 sadly led to nothing further, however, it must be noted.
Speaking of yesterday’s arrest, Scotland Yard Detective Chief Inspector Jim Eastwood commented:
“Martine’s family has never given up their fight for justice and, in the 14 years since her death, they have campaigned tirelessly to keep her in the public consciousness.”
“Martine’s family has been informed of this latest development. Though it represents a positive step, there is still much more work for us to do. Most importantly, Farouk Abdulhak should be aware that this matter has not, and will not, go away.”
“My team and I will continue to seek justice and use all opportunities available to pursue him and bring him back to the UK. His status as a wanted man will remain and we will not cease in our efforts to get justice for Martine’s family. I’m appealing to Farouk Abdulhak directly: come back to the UK. Come back to face justice.”
“Since Martine’s death, her family has shown true determination, together with my investigation team, as we want to provide some closure for Martine’s family.”
Last year, following up on many appeals prior, Odd Petter Magnussen, remarked:
“In today’s globalised world, you [Farouk Abdulhak] cannot hide forever from the oldest and most serious crime known to man – the rape and murder of a woman.”
“I appeal to you to return to the UK to assist the police in finding out what happened to Martine. I regard you as a coward unless you take responsibility for your actions.”
The last heard of Farouk Abdulhak – whose frankly reprehensibly overprotective billionaire father managed to travel without any legal hinderance to Germany to seek out cancer treatment prior to his death on 2nd October 2020 – was in 2008. At that time, his lawyer Mohammed Al Bakwli announced that he had advised his client not to speak to the media and added:
“He is not happy about being described as a criminal, as a murderer, when there is no such accusation against him. He is not an escapee. Things were written like he was the last man to see her alive.”
“It is not true [that his father] would disown Farouk. Whatever he has done or not done, he is still his son. But he has said he will not protect him if he has done wrong.”
Of the case, shared in a video uploaded to YouTube in October 2014 that has been viewed 6,000 times since, the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakkol Karman, a Yemeni human rights activist, said:
“All Yemeni people, all Arab people are so angry about what happened to Martine. All the people who care about human rights values are so angry about what happened to Martine.”
“We are so angry because why the criminal until now hasn’t faced justice?”
Going further the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer, former judge and human rights activist, added: “I hope we can witness justice in this case and that the suspect will answer for his wrongdoings and actions.”
Rather arrogantly, just days after the senseless slaying, a “representative for Maddox Club” insensitively blabbed to “society journalist” William Cash – reporting for The Guardian – “This guy was a good friend, so it wasn’t like she was picked up or anything. People get killed for all sorts of reasons, it just so happens she was last seen at Maddox – she could have been last seen having dinner at Cipriani. Sadly, that’s just life sometimes.” The club continued, business as usual and remains open still now.
Shame on this filthy piece of toerag “representative” and shame on the cretinous Farouk Abdulhak and his equally cowardly late father. It is time for this case to be resolved and perhaps 2022 might just be the year for that.
Update: Wednesday 9th March, 3pm: The suspect, aged in her 60s, has been released by the Metropolitan Police on bail today after being held since Tuesday morning.
As before, anyone with additional information that may assist in achieving justice for the Vik Magnussen family should telephone the Metropolitan Police on +44 (0) 20 8358 0300 or Crimestoppers anonymously on +44 (0) 800 555 111.
To support the Justice for Martine campaign, click here, or join the 72,000 followers on Facebook, here.
Shaher Abdulhak (1938 – 2020) was a prominent Yemeni businessman and the founder of Shaher Trading. Nicknamed the ‘King of Sugar,’ this “media shy” individual “held a great deal of political influence” and “never granted interviews.” He died in Germany from cancer and is buried in Cairo, Egypt and in the wake of his son being accused of rape and murder in London, quite rightly amongst others Daimler AG ended their relationships with a man who harboured and protected a fugitive alleged killer.In 2016, it was reported that the victim’s father had “received an offer of the arrangement of Abdulhak being handed over to Interpol on the eighth anniversary of her death in exchange for Norway hosting peace talks when the Yemeni civil war was at its height.” Though this was unsuccessful, Mr Magnussen later remarked: “I found this encouraging. This was a strong message to the suspect that he can no longer rely on the total support of his own people. I hope he is not sleeping so well these days.”The funeral of Martine Vik Magnussen – a young lady whose life should not have been cut short at 23 and whose rapist-killer must be brought to justice.
As President Putin invades Ukraine, we highlight some of the worst apologists for Russia in Britain and what they’ve had to say about this tyrant and his rotten regime – amongst them Arron Banks, Bernie Ecclestone and Nigel Farage
“With friends like these, who needs enemies?” comes to mind of three British born buffoons right now. Those buffoons? Disruptive businessman Arron Banks, former head honcho of Formula One Bernie Ecclestone and ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage.
As the Russian tanks role into Ukraine and countless thousands are killed and injured by the tyrannical aggressor Vladimir Putin, it must be remembered that there are some in the United Kingdom who actually are fans of the current regime’s monster-in-chief.
Mildest of the three in his offerings past on Putin’s Russia is surprisingly Banks – who happens to be married to a Russian – who blames the West for having “humiliated” a country that covers 11% of the landmass of the world, but for Ecclestone and Farage, “the 21st century Hitler” is something of a hero.
In July 2019, Ecclestone remarked: ““If someone had a machine gun and was prepared to shoot Putin, I would stand in front of him because he’s a good guy. He’s never done anything that isn’t doing good things for people” and going further added:
“Honestly, I think the guy who be running Europe, impressed me more than anything, is Mr Putin because he’s a guy that says he’s going to do something and does it… [He’s] a first-class person.”
“He does what he says he’s gonna do, he gets the job done. I mean people don’t understand exactly what he wants to do… He wants to put Russia back to what it was.”
In March 2014, the fruitcake that is Nigel Farage – who in the last 24 hours ludicrously claimed the invasion of Ukraine has been entirely caused by the EU and NATO trying to “poke the Russian bear with a stick” and suggested: “If Vladimir Putin’s one demand is that we state clearly that Ukraine is not going to join Nato, why don’t we do it?” – said of Putin: “As an operator [I admire him]. The whole way he played Syria. Brilliant.”
Bernie Ecclestone has met the Russian leader on numerous occasions and the two clearly are birds of a rotten feather.Aside from expressing admiration for Putin, Nigel Farage is rather a fan of another nutjob politician, Donald Trump.Arron Banks clearly is more concerned about himself than the situation in Ukraine. The crackpot crazy businessman clearly thinks the war is a bit of a laughing matter also.
ARRON BANKS’S WORST MOMENTS
Once quite rightly termed a “nobody” by William Hague, Arron Banks is currently in a legal suit with the courageous crusading columnist Carole Cadwalladr. He was expelled from two schools – once for stealing the lead off the roof – and is married to a Russian he met at a Britney Spears concert.
Of the war Russia is raging on Ukraine:
“Enjoy the war… Of course, it’s complex… Russia needs to cool its jets but people need to understand… The West humiliated Russia after the Cold War, ransacked its borders and behaved very badly. NATO and the EU on the Russian border was always going to provoke them.”
“The EU decided to play politics on Russia’s border, I don’t agree with the aggression but it’s a predictable reaction.”
On Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir Winston Churchill’s grandson:
“Tommy Two Belts Soames… Soames is a pompous old bore whose blind Europhilia would make Juncker blush. The only thing he and his fine ancestor have in common is their waistline.”
On President Donald Trump:
“[He] represents a new kind of politics and I think it’s coming [to Britain].”
Of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II:
“I am convinced the Queen secretly loves [Farage] and would welcome him as a knight of the realm.”
On the late Duke of Edinburgh:
“A man with a great sense of humour.”
On New Labour and Bernie Ecclestone and other donors:
“Didn’t New Labour take a million pound bung from Bernie Ecclestone or promise British passports to a couple of Indian brothers?”
On Russian interference in the Brexit referendum:
“There was no Russian money and no interference of any type.”
On a meeting with a Russian ambassador with British-Belizean political activist Andy Wigmore:
“We’d been invited by a shady character called Oleg who we’d met in Doncaster at the UKIP conference… Our host wanted the inside track on the Brexit campaign… We shook hands and promised to meet again.”
Asked by the Electoral Commission about his involvement with Russians:
“My sole involvement with ‘the Russians’ was a boozy 6 hour lunch with the ambassador.”
On Cambridge Analytica:
“They devise psychological profiles of the electorate, using thousands of pieces of data to filter population into 150 personality types. With this information, you can tailor campaign material to particular groups… It may sound a bit creepy, but these days it’s how most political parties work.”
On the EU:
“A closed shop for bankrupt people.”
“[Membership] is like having a first-class ticket on the Titanic.”
Of how he perceives his personal importance in helping Brexit happen:
“I helped bankroll freedom & the biggest electoral shock of all time. Brexit will work out brilliantly. Dry your tears and move on.”
Of the Civil Service:
“They won’t be missed.”
On his and Andy Wigmore’s campaigning style:
“Wiggy and I like winging it.”
“Let’s play the ball, not the man.
On the coronavirus lockdown:
“A total waste of time.”
On facts:
“What [the American lobbying firm and referendum specialist Goddard Gunster] said early on was: ‘Facts don’t work,’ and that’s it… It just doesn’t work… It’s the Trump success.”
On Conservative to UKIP turncoat and now ex-MP Douglas Carswell:
“Borderline autistic with mental illness wrapped in.”
“Slanty-jawed, boggle-eyed bellend.”
On the climate change activist Greta Thunberg setting out in a zero-carbon yacht:
“Freak yacht accidents do happen in August.”
On fellow Brexiteer Sir Bill Cash MP:
“[A] Eurosceptic corpse.”
On former Labour MP Chuka Umunna:
“[A] self-appointed spokesman for political correctness.”
On Jeremy Corbyn MP:
“He’s our greatest ally. Long live Jezza!”
Of actor Hugh Grant commenting on ‘PartyGate’ and Boris Johnson:
“Shagging hookers in the back of your car in public probably ranks worse than tea and cake in a boring office do.”
On the Conservatives he likes:
“The only two people I trust with carrying out the peoples’ wishes are Andrea Leadsom and Liam Fox.”
On spending limits in British elections:
“We’re supposed to be Great Britain, not a banana republic!”
On the Electoral Commission:
“The Electoral Commission should wind their necks in.”
On what he wants next for Britain:
“Immigration cap of 50,000, with a £5,000 deposit. The economy would explode. Singapore on steroids.”
Of himself:
“I form my own opinions and ignore the crowd… I’m capable of independent thought… I’ve got my own opinion.”
On where he has been known to go late at night:
“I’m sorry to report that our last stop was a sleazy gay bar in Soho, the only place still open.”
BERNIE ECCLESTONE’S WORST MOMENTS
A poisonous penny-pinching dwarf and well-known as a “coffin dodger,” Bernie Ecclestone – a bestie of the man who paid £12 million to a woman he claims never to have met Prince Andrew – couldn’t give a damn about anything other than money. He’ll mouth off in support of anyone who might help him get just a little bit more.
On President Vladimir Putin:
“[He] should be running Europe… He should be in Brussels running Europe… We should get rid of Brussels and he should just be in charge.”
“Honestly, I think the guy who be running Europe, impressed me more than anything, is Mr Putin because he’s a guy that says he’s going to do something and does it… [He’s] a first-class person.”
“He does what he says he’s gonna do, he gets the job done. I mean people don’t understand exactly what he wants to do… He wants to put Russia back to what it was.”
“I was with [Putin] after the [2014 Sochi Winter] Olympics on the top of the bloody mountain… We had a meeting, just the two of us, and we came out and we were walking along and people were coming up to him asking for an autograph… That’s what people think of him.”
“If someone had a machine gun and was prepared to shoot Putin, I would stand in front of him because he’s a good guy. He’s never done anything that isn’t doing good things for people.”
On President Putin’s intolerance to gay people in Russia:
“When I was at school, if you did something wrong, the teacher used to say: ‘Go and get the punishment book and the cane. Go to your headmistress and get a few whacks or something.’ That’s what he does.”
On President Donald Trump:
“I think he’d be fantastic [as President of the United States of America]. I’m sure he’s much more flexible than most of them. If he’s made a mistake, he’s more likely to say: ‘It was a good idea at the time.’”
“He has done a lot of good things for the world.”
On Adolf Hitler:
“Apart from the fact that Hitler got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not, he was in the way that he could command a lot of people, able to get things done… He wasn’t a dictator.”
On Jewish people:
“They have a lot of influence everywhere.”
On black people:
“In a lot of cases, black people are more racist than what white people are.”
Of democracy in the United Kingdom:
“If you have a look at a democracy it hasn’t done a lot of good for many countries – including this one.”
Of his crackpot suggestion that the now late Max Mosley, son of the late Fascist Oswald Mosley, might have been Prime Minister of Great Britain:
“[He would have done] a super job… I don’t think his background would [have been] a problem.”
On Brexit:
“I’m 100% an outer.”
On his wealth:
“I’ve got enough I can do with my money.”
On following the rules:
“I never stopped breaking the rules.”
Asked if immigrants had made a contribution to the UK:
“They have not.”
On who is worth speaking to:
“Anyone who doesn’t speak English isn’t worth speaking to… I’d rather get to the 70-year-old guy who has a lot of cash.”
On journalists:
“I can’t remember a single occasion when I have been kind to a journalist.”
On social media:
“I think the change that is currently taking place is very short-lived, as these social media people are starting to think it is not as good as they thought.”
On waiters and prostitutes:
“Waiters are like hookers, never around when you want them.”
On women:
“You know, I’ve got one of those wonderful ideas… Women should be all dressed in white like all the other domestic appliances.”
“What I would really like to see happen is to find the right girl, perhaps a black girl with super looks, preferably Jewish or Muslim, who speaks Spanish.”
On women participating in Formula 1:
“I don’t know whether a woman would physically be able to drive an F1 car quickly, and they wouldn’t be taken seriously.”
On Lewis Hamilton:
“I don’t find him particularly engaging… He’s not particularly you would say black.”
On the corrupt criminal and disgraced banker Gerhard Gribkowsky:
“Dear old Gribkowsky… I don’t blame him because I would have probably done the same if I could have done it. He found the weak spot, found some leverage and used it. You can’t blame somebody for doing that.”
On the individuals who kidnapped his mother-in-law:
“If I get upset, how could it help?”
On his business career and his family’s Bambino Holdings offshore trust:
“I’ve got the highest position there is. So high that when I look down, I can’t see anything.”
“Maybe the most serious thing I regret was giving my shares to my ex [Slavica Radić], because when she them all in a trust for her and the kids, I lost control.”
NIGEL FARAGE’S WORST MOMENTS
Though he thinks himself a “man of the people,” this big-mouthed braggart is actually more of a “man of the elite.” Prone to hanging around in Belgravia and Knightsbridge with his old convict chum ‘Posh George’ Cottrell – jailed in America in 2016 for wire fraud – Nigel Farage is prone to pontificating on almost any subject and supposedly, according to one of his school teachers, “marched through a quiet Sussex very late night shouting Hitler Youth songs” as a child.
On President Putin being his political idol:
“As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant.”
On President Barrack Obama:
“[A] loathsome individual.”
On President Donald Trump:
“A good President.”
“Dominated [Hillary Clinton] like a silverback gorilla.”
Reacting to a poster showing Adolf Hitler promoting the single currency:
“Politics needs a bit of spicing up.”
On the then European Union President Herman van Rompuy in 2010:
“You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk… The sooner you are put out to grass, the better.”
On the problems caused by immigration:
“[The M4] is no longer as navigable as it should be.”
On who should be allowed into Britain:
“People who do not have HIV, to be frank.”
On Romanian immigrants:
“Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.”
On Muslim immigrants:
“[They are] coming here to take us over.”
On a UKIP candidate called a Chinese person a “Chinky”:
“If you and your mates were going out for a Chinese, what do you say you’re going for? … A lot would [say ‘Chinky’].”
On Scotland:
“A pretty ugly nation.”
On the Swiss:
“We wouldn’t want to be like the Swiss, would we? That would be awful. We’d be rich.”
On politics in general:
“We are the turkeys who have voted for Christmas.”
On people speaking in languages other than English on public transport:
“[Makes me feel] uncomfortable.”
On gun laws:
“Ludicrous.”
On global warming and climate change:
“A scam… We may have made one of the biggest and most stupid collective mistakes in history by getting so worried about global warming.”
On gay marriage:
“I think we’re opening up a very big can of worms here and I think there some very, very big risks… I do not support the idea of same sex marriages.”
On breastfeeding women:
“[They should] sit in the corner, or whatever it might be.”
On the banking crisis:
“The banking collapse was [not caused] by greed.”
On women in the workplace and maternity leave:
“A woman… is worth far less to her employer… Working mothers are worth less than men.”
“Maybe it’s because I’ve got so many women pregnant over the years that I have a different view.”
On being chased out of a pub in Kent by protestors:
“I hope these ‘demonstrators’ are proud of themselves. My children were so scared by their behaviour that they ran away to hide. At the time of writing this a relative has gone to look for them, and they are not yet at home. These people are scum.”
After being in a plane crash:
“Looking at the picture of me in the wreckage, note that I’ve still got my top button done up and my tie on.”
On the extra £350 million per week for the NHS Vote Leave claim:
“A mistake.”
On whether Brexit could be a failure:
“I never promised it would be a huge success.”
On what he’d do if Brexit fails:
“If Brexit is a disaster, I will go and live abroad. I’ll go and live somewhere else.”
On himself:
“I’ve been called a great many things in my time.”
In giving “right snob” Lady Victoria Hervey airtime “deeply unpleasant” peddler of poison Dan Wootton brought new shame on GB News; elsewhere deranged “Devil’s Advocate” Alan Dershowitz’s rant about acknowledged victim of sex trafficking Virginia Giuffre just proves he’s onto yet another sticky wicket
That acceptance, however, was not enough for the noxious nitwit that is the daughter-of-a-thief Lady Victoria Hervey – a wastrel wack job previously shamed for running a nasty knicker flogging boutique in Knightsbridge that closed with debts of £350,000 and for stating “f*ck BLM” in spite of her ancestors having been abolitionists – and still now she’s peddling piffle and claiming that the victim now known as Virginia Giuffre is a “scam artist” who is “playing you all for fools” and “deserves” a “prison cell full of rats.”
Last night – in an utterly disgraceful move that shows GB News well and truly as a channel suited only for the spreading of crackpot conspiracy theories – the “deeply unpleasant” Dan Wootton furthered this outrage by inviting the thick toff “you’ll never see on Mastermind” that is known in some circles as ‘Lady Herpes’ onto his show and giving her airtime to parade yet more of her poison.
Featuring this birdbrained batshit bonkers berk’s trademark “you knows” and “ums” and “ers” – which indicate only how truly mentally challenged this nasty piece of toerag who also believes Ghislaine Maxwell to be a “scapegoat” truly is – in a diatribe of disgrace lasting 10 minutes or thereabouts, grubby grifter Lady Victoria claimed Prince Andrew “wanted to prove his innocence in court.” She added that she believed he was “pressurised” by his family into settling for a “mixture of reasons,” yet couldn’t quantify what those reasons might have been. No surprises there.
Going further, this pugnacious party crasher told Wootton: “It was a setup over twenty years… Of course, it’s financially motivated. As soon as [Giuffre] runs out of money, she’s suing someone else and she’ll probably do it again. There will be another story when she blows this money… I think she’s shown her real colours… I hope Prince Andrew can put these false allegations behind him.” As was the case with Maxwell, when asked if she’d spoken with the prince, this threesome loving fruitcake most curiously declined to comment.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, Alan Dershowitz took to Rumble to join in the firestorm and also had a pop at Virginia Giuffre. After banging on about the unfathomably dumb Sarah Palin, this lawyer – who has, without showing an ounce of shame, represented “taxes are only for the little people” believer Leona Helmsley and rapists including Harvey Weinstein and Mike Tyson previously and variously has described Giuffre as “serial liar,” a “prostitute,” and a “bad mother,” who could not be believed “against somebody with an unscathed reputation like me” – bleated of a lady taking him to court for defamation: “She was pressured into accusing me.”
Worked up like a crazed hyena on heroin, Dershowitz turned to Winston Churchill and stole a great quote from the revered politician: “A false story makes it halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on.” He then concluded: “There is absolutely no evidence in my case… [Virginia Giuffre] is a child trafficker [herself]… Now, my case becomes the big case because it is the only case left where Virginia Giuffre’s credibility can be tested… My hope is that everyone will agree that this was a made-up story. I have to fight and will continue to fight.”
Of the Internet, Alan Dershowitz himself once remarked: “There is a permanent record today, and it’s called the Internet… [It] knows no national borders.” Now, today, we must also remind him, Prince Andrew, Lady Victoria Hervey and Dan Wootton that their attempts to use the media to attempt to shame acknowledged victims of abuse will forever remain on permanent record. A curse on the houses of all four of these reprehensible ratbags.
“Devil’s Advocate” and “Demon of Evil” Alan Dershowitz’s not-so ‘finest’ moments…
On truth: “There are many levels of truth… The law is agnostic to the truth. It’s very sceptical of ultimate truth.”
On telling lies to the media: “There’s no federal crime that says it’s illegal to lie to the media.”
On convicted mucky madam sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell: “She must be presumed innocent.”
Asked about his one-time friend and client, the since croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein: “I’m a very strong supporter of the MeToo movement… I think of myself like a doctor or a priest. If they whell Jeffrey Epstein into the emergency ward, the doctor is going to take care of him… Every honest criminal lawyer will you that he defends the guilty and the innocent.”
On Virginia Roberts Giuffre (who he is currently in litigation with): “I have been falsely accused.”
On another victim of Jeffrey Epstein known simply as “A.H.”: “She, herself, has chosen to go by the nickname of ‘pimp juice’… [She has an] an apparent fascination with marijuana… and a long record of lying, theft, and blaming others for her crimes.”
On trials and truth (clearly said before considering his own situation and that of his old muckers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell): “All sides in a trial want to hide at least some of the truth.”
On justice: “A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty… Well, you know, all law is about injustice.”
On famous people and justice: “Every celebrity… The one thing you can be sure of is they don’t get the same justice as everybody else.”
On judges: “[They] are the weakest link in our system of justice.”
On good and bad people (in spite of his associations with some truly repugnant individuals): “Good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell.”
On money: “I never do anything for money; I get paid a lot of money as a by-product.”
On guns: “It is bigoted to say guns are quintessentially American… There’s no evidence that I’m aware of that guns reduce crime.”
On what interests him most: “I’m not a single-issue person, but I spend so much time on Israel.”
On insane people: “Well, many insane people and seriously mentally ill people seem very reasonable.”
On those that dislike him: “I’ve thought of publishing a book of my hate mail, but I don’t own the rights to the letters.”
On how he lives: “I love discomfort. I mean, my whole life is discomfort.”
On his reputation: “My reputation is more important than my book.”
On whose views matter most: “I’m never satisfied unless I get the last word.”
Alan Dershowitz didn’t do a very good job of trying to not look decidedly deranged on his Rumble channel on Tuesday.Eton and Cambridge educated financier Euan Rellie accurately summed up Alan Dershowitz after the latter wrote an article for ‘Spectator USA’ about Ghislaine Maxwell in July 2020. Of the former lawyer of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, Rellie quite correctly observed: “This guy @AlanDersh is protesting way too much.”
Alan Dershowitz was played by Ron Silver in the spectacular 1990 American drama film ‘Reversal of Fortune’ with Jeremy Irons as Claus von Bülow (1926 – 2019) and Glenn Close as Sunny von Bülow (1932 – 2008). The 111-minute film grossed £12.3 million at the box office and was deservedly lauded for its “exceptional performances” and “cunning script.” At that time, he came across as a crusading advocate and decent man, but in the years since he’s clearly moved to the dark side.‘GB News’ presenter Dan Wootton is a deservedly disliked television presenter. Pictured here with the late Caroline Flack, here is an import into Britain that the country could clearly do without. There’s nothing good about him and there’s nothing British either.
“Deeply Unpleasant” Dan Wootton’s not-so ‘finest’ moments…
On Tatler magazine: “A repulsive… bible for the elite… that makes my skin crawl… Tatler should be shunned because of the vile way it perpetuates a class system that does so much damage to society. Not Quite Our Magazine, Darling.”
On Eurovision: “We are too cool for it, but I’ve got passion for it.”
On Dominic Cummings (who’d probably have preferred even Katie Hopkins as a defender): “Make no mistake, the establishment is out to get Dominic Cummings… I despair.”
On footballer David Beckham and his singer turned fashion designer wife Victoria (whose fans responded with fury): “Weird and creepy.”
On singer George Shelley (whose fans got equally upset): “[He’s] done a Tom Daley and come out as bisexual.”
On singer Susan Boyle (whose management hit back with denial): “Volatile… Forced to shop at Tesco and travel by bus.”
On political activist and Novara Media editor Ash Sarkar (before he “shut her down” during a “fiery conversation”): “Grasping.”
On Celebrity Masterchef winner Emma Kennedy (who reported him to Ofcom and threated to sue him with the help of Carter Ruck): “Deranged Boris hater.”
Lady Victoria Hervey would now do well to stick to hanging around with washed-up wannabes like Christabel Milbanke and disgraced television presenter Angus Deayton.Lady Victoria Hervey will never go down in history as a brainbox. Instead, she will be remembered as a peddler of piffle and for sharing sordid secrets of threesomes. She’d do well to shut her almighty trap and keep clear of ticketed business and parties that she would never in an eternity ever actually be invited to.
“Anything But A Lady… More Like A Slag” Lady Victoria Hervey’s not-so ‘finest’ moments…
On herself: “I’m not stupid. I’m not a dumb model… “[I aim to become] the next Kate Winslet – but with class… I’ve had Botox of course… I suddenly thought, I’m just Victoria Hervey… Horrible.”
Of her “past lives” in crackpot clear fashion: “I have had four past lives, three of them as a man. I was a composer in 17th-century Paris, I made materials in India and in Ancient Greece I was a famous politician. In Ancient Egypt I was keeper of the oils for the Pharaoh’s wife, and I love oils so it all kind of fits.”
On working: “I do have a day job… My career always goes much better when I haven’t got a man.”
Of other people and work and money: “What annoys me is when these families have got like 12 children and we’re paying for these kids… They work out that they make more money being on the dole than having a job, they just laze around… The real irony of this is that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.”
On what she drinks in Dawn Ward-like fashion: “Unless it’s champagne, I can’t handle it.”
On the Black Lives Matter movement (in spite of her ancestors being abolitionists): “F*ck BLM.”
On having children (thankfully she’s not yet had any): “A baby is very easy – you hand them over to a nanny… I’m kind of into star signs and I want my baby to have a sign that’s compatible with mine. It’s to plan though… We’ll just have to see… We’ll do the embryos and then I’ll figure out which month I’d like the baby to be born.”
On coronavirus: “I believe in natural immunity… It’s completely hyped! The biggest worldwide conspiracy that has ever happened… [Its’] Bill Gates’ goal to bring out this vaccine to depoluate the world. I’m not going to be a lab rat.”
On being told to wear a face mask: “I storm out of any shop [that asks me to put one on].”
Of Prince Andrew’s sexual antics: “At the end of the day, he’s only a man, and he’s male, right? I don’t think anyone can expect him to just be a monk in a monastery.”
On why even Jeffrey Epstein rejected her: “I was too old for Jeffrey Epstein… [He seemed] very charming… He was a very well-liked guy… Jeffrey was a very charismatic man.”
Of the one-time mates she happily took hospitality from: “Ghislaine and Jeffrey were like Batman and Robin.”
On why Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell invited her to their gatherings: “I was pretty much used as bait.”
On hanging around with paedophiles: “For me, it just seemed like fun at the time.”
Of why she falsely thought Ghislaine Maxwell was going to disappear forever: “I haven’t seen [Ghislaine Maxwell] since September [2018] at a friend’s baby shower… I don’t think anyone is going to find her. She’s gone far away. She’s a bit like a James Bond character. She’s quite a unique person and I don’t believe anyone is going to find her… I don’t think we will ever see her again, it’s going to be like Robert Maxwell continued; she will continue that family mystery.”
Of Ghislaine Maxwell after her conviction: “[Ghislaine] unfortunately now is a scapegoat. There’s no one else to blame… It is not quite as fair as it could be.”
On Virginia Giuffre: Amongst her many tiresome tirades against an acknowledged victim of sex trafficking, this privileged pillock – described by the by-contrast lovely, late fellow ‘It Girl’ Tara Palmer-Tomkinson as “unpleasant” and “a right snob,” – has remarked:
“This was about to go Live on Lorraine last week. Please can someone let me know what the age of consent is in the UK. I thought it’s 17. Some of these stories sound like a case study of Regret turning into Revenge. This story has been so blown out of proportion. Or has it. Nobody knows.”
“People are literally murdering people in LA and getting out of jail. It’s a real life gotham city blood bath. I know Ghislaine is obviously not a saint and should pay back the trauma caused to her ‘victims’ but lifetime in jail for touching a girls tit 20 years ago and taking them on yacht, private jet and shopping trips. Come on. This has become a witch hunt. Thoughts on this? What does she deserve?”
“And while I’m here I may as well let out some other thoughts. That Virginia Roberts is a complete whore. She was no innocent girl. At 15 she ended up in hospital with alcohol poisoning. She’s just a ghetto opportunist whose seriously mixed up. I really genuinely wanted to feel bad for these girls but the trial gave us nothing.”
“And yes, drinking yourself into hospital doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a whore but it shows how mentally unstable you are.”
“I just can’t with the sob stories. Virginia was a classified train wreck. She wanted to go on those trips. In fact she’d do anything to be invited. During the recent trial her friend said she texted her after prince andrew and was boasting about it. Money hungry girls like her do not help the real people going through human trafficking.”
“You cannot compare Virginia to the character in my friends movie totally different girl was literally kept in a cage. Virginia was living the high life. I’m so sick of these me too girls cashing in and ruining it for the girls that really do need help and are desperate that are being killed and tortured.”
“Basically, you cannot question a victim in today’s climate. So even though Virginia was of age and clearly became a co-conspirator herself, we in the public are not allowed to question her or her motives.”
“Would she be suing these people if they were broke and molesting her in a trailer park? Which by the sounds of things she was dropping her knickers in all sorts of places. I also knew one of the other ‘victims’ who was also a total money hungry drug addict slut and a f*ck up. I’m so over this.”
As Prince Andrew becomes an ideal case study for Jon Ronson’s ‘So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed’ after his £12 million settlement with Virginia Giuffre, we ask: “Where next for this non-sweater and his spendaholic live-in ex-wife?”
Unsurprisingly, after it was announced he’d reached a preliminary settlement with Virginia Giuffre on Tuesday afternoon, Prince Andrew was yet again slammed for his poor judgment and poor choice of friends.
Totaling a sum of “more than £12 million ($16.2 million, €14.3 million or درهم59.7 million)” if The Telegraph’s Victoria Ward and Josie Ensor are to be believed, the undisclosed out of court settlement awarded to a trafficked lady who claimed to have been forced into having sexual relations and been raped on three occasions when she was just 17 marks a remarkable turnabout.
They say: “A picture paints a thousand words” and this picture, taken on 10th March 2001, at the home of the since convicted mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell did that all over the world for the “chubby fingered” grabber Prince Andrew. It went viral and in spite of the claims of lascivious loons like Lady Victoria Hervey about it being Photoshopped, it has never been discredited.Ironically, in March 1999, Prince Andrew was referenced in an article in ‘The Sun’ about “a crusade about child abuse.” At the time, he declared: “It’s an outrage we must end. We must act and should our responsibility. Failure isn’t an option.” Only two years later, he found himself in the company of a 17-year-old sex trafficked girl in the form of Virginia Giuffre courtesy of his child abuser mates Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. What did he do? He subsequently denied having even having met her, yet now has paid her in excess of £12 million. Strange that, strange that.An email sent by the Duke of York on Saturday 3rd January 2015 at 5.50am to Ghislaine Maxwell was definitely key to his undoing. For a man who denied having met his accuser, it seems strange that he messaged his alleged one-time lover Maxwell and stated: “Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts.”A subsequent email, sent to Ghislaine Maxwell by lawyer and Jeffrey Epstein associate Alan Dershowitz – who is currently involved in a defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre – a week later on Saturday 10th January 2015 at 3.14pm, read: “Dear G, Do you know whether the photo of Andrew and Virginia is real? You are in the background.” Clearly considering the matter important, Robert Maxwell’s deviant daughter responded within 11 minutes at 3.25pm and answered: “It looks real. I think it is. Warmly, G.” That very relevant email surfaced only recently and after being leaked was published in the ‘Daily Mail’ yesterday; if it had been seen by Prince Andrew it most certainly would have influenced his decision to settle. The Duke of York will go down in history as one the royal family’s most notable laughing stocks. Pilloried across the globe and mocked up as the late paedophile Sir Jimmy Savile even, here is a playboy prince whose painfully pathetic excuses eventually quite deservedly brought his privileged world crashing down.
In predictably out-of-touch form, the BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell – once derided by Prince Charles who commented of him: “I can’t bear that man. I mean, he’s so awful, he really is” – suggested Prince Andrew could possibly “find a route back to public life” by campaigning for the victims of sex trafficking. Though clearly Witchell has visions of the Queen’s second son redeeming his reputation from rotten and reviled to once again revered in the fashion of John Profumo, this seems extremely far-fetched and predictably cack-handed comment outraged many on social media.
In a joint statement issued by power broker lawyer David Boies, it was declared:
“Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew have reached an out of court settlement.”
“The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Ms Giuffre’s receipt of the settlement (the sum of which is not being disclosed). Prince Andrew intends to make a substantial donation to Ms Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights.
“Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms Giuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.”
“It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years.”
“Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others.”
“He pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims.”
Responding to the statement, Los Angeles trial attorney Christa Ramey tellingly remarked: “The prince definitely had something to fear from the case moving forward, that’s why it was settled essentially without lawyers conducting any discovery,” whilst councillor Darryl Smalley of York Council added: “Following the news that Prince Andrew has reached a financial settlement in the sexual abuse lawsuit brought against him, we are reiterating our calls for his title as the Duke of York to be removed.”
Going further and totally slamming the renegade royal, media lawyer Mark Stephens told the PA news agency: “[Prince Andrew] is reputationally toast and will never appear on a royal balcony ever again and has effectively been airbrushed from polite society and the royal family.”
Pictured top – Mouthy mouse-not-a-man Prince Andrew claimed that he never went out in London without a jacket and tie, this picture proved that claim a lie (left); Prince Andrew might now do well to read Jon Ronson’s ‘So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed,’ it might offer him a little hope as he tries to forge a new life (centre) and Prince Andrew pictured guffawing in military regalia, he won’t be doing much of that in the coming years (right).
SO YOU’VE BEEN PUBLICLY SHAMED – WHERE NEXT FOR ‘RANDY ANDY’ AND ‘FARTING FERGIE’?
Given he’s well and truly pissed off Prince Charles and Prince William, aside from likely losing his position as a Counsellor of State – as was suggested by the Daily Mail’s Richard Eden in January – shamed Prince Andrew may well also soon find himself turfed out of the Grade II listed mansion where he’s lived since 2003.
The freehold of Royal Lodge – said to have an “open market value of at least £30 million ($40.6 million, €35.8 million or درهم149.2 million)” – is owned by the Crown Estate and if Prince Andrew and his live-in ex-wife (resident there since 2008) are asked to disappear into obscurity by the royal family, instead, this pair of national embarrassments could instead:
Move in with ‘Ginge & Cringe’?
Given this demanding duo like to live large and spend big, living in ‘La La Land’ in the £10.3 million ($14 million, €12.2 million or درهم51.4 million) mansion of his equally tiresome exiled nephew might well appeal to the disgraced Duke of York.
Whilst ‘Randy Andy’ could busy his days ogling Californian blondes and playing golf with the drip Prince Harry at the Jack Nicklaus designed Montecito Club, it’d be a delight for ‘Fergie’ to be close to her old mucker Oprah Winfrey. Maybe they could team up with the former Meghan Markle and make some scones and wonga together. That’d solve a few financial woes and pay for a Bentley or two.
The price:
Well, who knows, but you can guess your bottom dollar that ‘MeGain’ would want as much as she could get for her guest cottage. She is a broad, after all, with a penchant for raking in millions from Netflix and Spotify.
We reckon:
Whilst very appealing in many ways as Americans do love royals of any kind, Prince Andrew might well to do well avoiding America for the rest of his life. He wouldn’t want a visit from the FBI and a potential criminal case after all.
Buy themselves a private island off Scotland?
Helicopter loving Prince Andrew could instead whisk his live-in ex-wife off to live on the currently uninhabited 61.77-acre Holm of Huip private island in the Orkney Isles.
Complete with its own pod of seals and once occupied by Vikings, selling agents Vladi Private Islands remark of it: “The island can certainly be described as well-connected” and emphasise that the remains of three stone houses could be “renovated and made habitable.”
The price:
Given the prince and his ex-wife are no doubt now of much reduced means, they’d welcome the thank the price has moved from £350,000 ($474,000, €417,000 or درهم1.7 million) in January 2015 to “offers welcomed.”
We reckon:
Given this island has been on the market for so long, the ‘No Longer So Grand Old Duke of York’ could probably do a part exchange on the island and trade in his Bentley for it.
However, though it’d suit the public a treat to see this pair of grubby grabbers castaway, the local wildlife may not be so welcoming of witnessing Fergie having her toes sucked on the island’s long, sandy southern beach.
Head back for a non-sweaty encounter in the Falkland Islands?
Given he didn’t totally disgrace himself and was even lauded as a hero for his actions there by some after he fought there in 1982, returning to the Falkland Islands could be a good way out for Jeffrey Epstein’s former bestie.
Joining a total population of around 3,400 people might well also appeal to the chatterbox ‘Fergie’ since it is “a very social place” and “stopping for a chat is a way of life.” She could get the locals involved in her Fergie & Friends YouTube channel. Wouldn’t that be swell?
The price:
There are no estate agents on the Falklands and to acquire land, you do require a licence from the Attorney General. A brand spanking new timber framed kit house might seem like a veritable bargain to the Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York as one could cost them just £80,000 ($108,000, €95,300 or درهم398,000), but there’s one major issue: Given there’s no Pizza Express in the territory, what would ‘Randy’ do when he wanted a good old Sloppy Giuseppe?
We reckon:
Andrew Windsor claimed in his 2019 BBC interview with Emily Maitlis that going to the islands caused him “a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time and that was… was it… yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at and I simply… it was almost impossible for me to sweat.”
Going back wouldn’t require the pair taking a container load of deodorant, but according to The Guardian: “In a place where everybody knows everybody’s business, there’s no hope of minding your own.” That might prove a bit problematic if ‘Randy’ gets a bit handy with any young lady down at the local in the capital, Stanley.
Perform a coup and take over the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s empty ‘Paedo Island’ or the incarcerated awaiting trial alleged paedo Peter Nygard’s Nygård Cay home?
Both the Duke of York and Sarah, Duchess of York liked holidaying in luxury residences owned by the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the alleged and currently incarcerated paedophile Peter Nygård. On occasions, they even took their daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.
Despite being scenes of disgusting depravity on an epic scale, we’re certain the most rotten royal ratbags since the late Duke and Duchess of Windsor would be willing to gloss over that and focus on “livin’ la vida loca.” Fergie’s most definitely rather good at that; well, she’s actually rather spiffingly good at that until a ‘Fake Sheikh’ comes along.
The price:
Neither paedo property is likely to be in the price range of a couple who’ve lived beyond their means for most of their lives. Jeffrey Epstein spent circa £19.2 million ($26 million, €22.9 million or درهم95.5 million) on Little St James and Great St James islands whilst Nygård allegedly sought £43.6 million ($59 million, €51.9 million or درهم216.7 million) for his crib.
We reckon:
Despite lapping it up in luxury they’d never have to pay for, the ‘Rotten Old Duke of York’ and his ex-wife missus would find themselves on a hiding to nothing with these properties. After all, they wouldn’t even be able to find the coppers to keep the electricity meters running for half a day given the bills Prince Andrew’s now facing.
SO YOU’VE BEEN PUBLICLY SHAMED – WHAT TWITTER MADE OF PRINCE ANDREW’S SETTLEMENT WITH VIRGINIA GIUFFRE…
Amongst those commenting on Tuesday’s development were Nazir Afzal OBE, former Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England and Richard Eden of the ‘Daily Mail.’ Mr Afzal remarked: “He is willing to pay [Virginia Giuffre] large sums of money for something he denies. Make of that what you will” whilst Mr Eden added: “Prince Andrew should be banned from public events.”The BBC’s ‘Have I Got News For You’ brought up two-for-one offers at Pizza Express whilst others condemned the rotten royal as a “toxic asset both to the royal family and the UK.”Others enquired: “Who exactly is paying for Prince Andrew’s settlement?” whilst plenty suggested: “If he was entirely innocent and had never met [Virginia Roberts], he wouldn’t have settled.”Art expert Dr Bendor Grosvenor declared: “We hereby award Prince Andrew the Order of the Moron” whilst the actor Hugh Osborne brought the Britain’s equally loathed lothario Prime Minister into it. He concluded: “War in Ukraine. Prince Andrew. Fair do’s to Boris Johnson: he knows how to lay his hands on a dead cat.”
THE DASTARDLY DUKE OF YORK’S MUCH DESERVED DEMISE…
The new world for the Queen’s second son is not going to be pleasant. Graffiti labelling him a “sweaty nonce” has been scrawled on a number of walls across Britain already and there will be likely even more of the same to come.The Duke of York’s downfall was most definitely speeded up at the behest of Prince Charles and his son Prince William. They, unlike the overprivileged prat forced into a climbdown on Tuesday, realised the importance of concluding this most disgraceful and embarrassing chapter.In January 2015, after the allegations of Virginia Giuffre against the Duke of York were revealed, the then Mayor of London Boris Johnson responded by commenting: “Prince Andrew, let’s be very clear, is a guy who does a huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country and people, they go on and on about air miles and so on – actually, I’ve seen that guy get out there and sell this country, try and help British firms to get business around the world. He does a huge amount of good and a huge amount of hard work. So, if you ask me whether I have sympathy for him, of course I do.” At that time, the prince’s live-in ex-wife ‘Feckless Fergie’ added: “He is the greatest man there is.” Perhaps it is now time for this disgraceful pair to eat their words.Whilst Prince Andrew has pretended not to remember hanging out with Ghislaine Maxwell and President Bill Clinton at Buckingham Palace, this recently surfaced picture showed him up yet again. In it, a young girl (face blurred) is shown wearing a “God Save The Queen” T-shirt.Regular ‘Lolita Express’ flyer President Bill Clinton (pictured here in 1999 golfing with the Duke of York) could be next on the target list for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. He certainly has a lot of questions to answer.Will the Duke of York and his live-in ex-wife be forced out of Royal Lodge, Windsor? If they remain there in close proximity to the Queen, they will undoubtedly remain under scrutiny and it is likely that Prince Charles and Prince William will attempt to have them moved on.Equally troublesome for Prince Andrew right now is the fact his name is due to be mentioned in another court case, a High Court money laundering case involving his former marital home, Sunninghill Park. Though the house constructed for the royal couple has been demolished and replaced, the ghosts of the House of York are coming back to haunt.
“Very unkind” windbag writer Rachel Johnson, a sympathiser of convicted mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, offers sympathies windbag ball and cat kicker Kurt Zouma
“Poundland muckspreader” and “associate of two dirty dildo floggers” Baroness Brady of Knightsbridge CBE has been deservedly slammed for not firing Kurt Zouma, an overpaid kicker of bags of wind for West Ham, after he giggled as he got his brother to film him kicking and slapping a cat in his kitchen.
Now, the Prime Minister’s somewhat off her merry rocker sister, windbag writer Rachel Johnson, has decided to stick her claws in and on her LBC radio show yesterday suggested:
“Listen, I mean I know, thank God it’s after the watershed. I am not a cat person… However, I do think we are in danger of overreacting and cancelling Kurt Zouma for one misguided kick in his kitchen which his silly brother posted on social media.”
“He’s 27, clearly he’s old enough to know better, but do we really want to live in a world where one silly mistake can lead to the end of somebody’s career? I think we don’t.”
“I think he’s taken his punishment, his cats are no longer in the house. I think he should apologise and move on. I think there are bigger issues at stake.”
As we said of Baroness Brady – who pathetically excused this animal abuser and even suggested he could “turn something negative into long-lasting positives” – yesterday and we repeat again to Rachel Johnson today: “Try telling that to the poor abused cat.”
Previously, in November 2021, ‘Rabid Rachel’ penned another ‘excuse article’ for The Spectator that was rightly condemned as “sickening.” In it, the daughter of Stanley Johnson – a man whose first wife declared: “He hit me many times, over many years… He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it” – offered her thoughts on the trial of the since convicted mucky madam sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell and disgracefully declared:
“It’s hard not to feel a batsqueak of pity for Ghislaine Maxwell – 500 days and counting in solitary confinement.”
“I intersected briefly with her at Oxford. As a fresher I wandered into Balliol JCR one day in search of its subsidised breakfast granola-and-Nescafé offering and found a shiny glamazon with naughty eyes holding court astride a table, a high-heeled boot resting on my brother Boris’s thigh.”
“She gave me a pitying glance but I did manage to snag an invite to her party in Headington Hill Hall – even though I wasn’t in the same college as her and Boris. I have a memory of her father, Bob, coming out in a towelling robe and telling us all to go home.”
“I’m sure fairweather friends would not reveal they went to a Ghislaine Maxwell party: as Barbara Amiel’s brilliant memoir Friends and Enemies proves, you only know who your real chums are when you’re in the gutter.”
Clearly Rachel Johnson – who believes being “called unkind… really cuts to the quick” – is a woman with a moral compass as warped as not only her buffoon brother Boris Johnson, but also a woman who’ll excuse the activities of both the abusers of animals and humans. Perhaps it is now time for this blonde bozo to reassess her recent remarks and realise that the cats and victims of a sick sex trafficker are the ones she’s most definitely been most unkind to.
Pictured top – West Ham’s cat abuser Kurt Zouma, convicted sexual abusers Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and continually abusive of power and privilege siblings Rachel and Boris Johnson.
Rachel Johnson got her breasts out against Brexit in February 2019. The LBC presenter with her father and siblings.Karren Brady – another defender of cat abuser Kurt Zouma – got elevated to the House of Lords by her guffawing chum David Cameron in spite of claiming to “have no interest in politics.” She also likes bumping fists with Carrie Johnson’s puppet, Boris.
“Very Unkind” Rachel Johnson’s Most Ridiculous Remarks
On boozy lockdown breaking parties in Downing Street:
“I didn’t see much of the Prime Minister and his family during lockdown, but the times I did see him, he was completely compliant: he dotted every ‘I,’ he crossed every ‘T.’”
“If it was rule of six, there were six. And what I didn’t see were all the things you’ve been reading about.”
“To my mind, if he did go out into the Downing Street garden – and he’s told us he did – for him, that would have been work. He may have had a drink, I don’t know. Is that one of the key questions? But that would have been work.”
“For example, at his birthday, it was me, my three brothers, Carrie and Wilf. That was six people. And I have to tell you something about my brother’s character.”
“You’ve been seeing the front pages which couldn’t have been worse: suitcases of booze going into Downing Street from the Co-op.”
“I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that he has never once turned to me or any member of my family and said: ‘I tell you what, let’s have an office party’ or: ‘I tell you what, let’s have a party.’”
“If anything, he would say: ‘Let’s play reading,’ when we were growing up, or even in our twenties, or: ‘Let’s play, who can memorise the most poems from the Oxford book of verse’’ And, of course, it was always him.”
“Look, I’m just telling you what I saw over lockdown and what I know of my brother’s character.”
On her own character:
“Of course, I’m naughty.”
“Without my Johnson trademark mop of yellow hair, I think I would be nothing.”
On politicians:
“If you tell the truth you get into trouble and that’s why politicians are extremely dull.”
On the sex trafficker and daughter of a thieving murderer Ghislaine Maxwell:
“It’s hard not to feel a batsqueak of pity for Ghislaine Maxwell.”
On food and coffee:
“In Germany, salads are assemblies of ham and mayonnaise.”
“I am a total coffee snob and bore. If anyone makes the mistake of offering me ‘a coffee’ they tend to regret it. I’m worse than Mariah Carey and the hot milk rider is completely non-negotiable.”
On her work:
“I used to sit at home in my tracksuit bottoms and the real excitement of my day would be going out to get a copy of Private Eye and a latte.”
“It’s often discouraging sitting working at home, wondering whether to put the heating on, answering the doorbell to the gas board, feeling it’s all utterly pointless.”
“The Lady [which she was the 9th editor of between 2009 and 2013] is a piddling little magazine that no one cares about or buys.”
On what others think of her:
“I’m worried about looking like a bad person… I don’t like the public image I’ve been dressed with and it worries me.”
“When I’m called unkind, that really cuts to the quick. You can say anything else that you like about me.”
“I don’t mind being called snobbish, a pain and a social climber, but being called unkind really hurts.”
WORLD EXCLUSIVE – Ghislaine Maxwell’s Belgravia bonk pad – where Prince Andrew allegedly shockingly had it off with Virginia Roberts in the bath in 2001 – is relisted for £2.6 million just months after it sold for £1.75 million in April 2021; we share the first ever seen photos of that famous tub and ask: “Does its presence add value?”
Everybody in the world has now seen the infamous snapshot of Prince Andrew with his chubby fingers wrapped around the waist of his alleged victim Virginia Roberts at the Belgravia home of Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001. Nobody has ever discredited that photograph and nobody has proven that the bathtub in the bathroom that adjoined the first floor landing where they were snapped was anything other than a full-sized 5-foot-6-inches long.
Everyone in the world has also seen the floorplan of the first floor of Miss Maxwell’s former London home, but now, today, The Steeple Times can exclusively share an image of that very bathtub in which the lady now known as Virginia Giuffre claims the Duke of York supposedly had sexual relations with her on 10th March 2001. That still unrenovated home, 44 Kinnerton Street, is now on the market for the sum of £2.6 million – a sum £850,000 higher than it sold for less than a year ago.
Whilst everybody in the world now knows that the now convicted mucky madam daughter of the pension pot plunderer Robert Maxwell faked a photo of herself at an In-N-Out burger joint in August 2019, photographs of the now somewhat tired bathroom in London, SW1 prove it to be a space where two people could easily have cavorted. In sharing them, they show Prince Andrew’s porky pies for exactly what they are. Two people could very easily have fitted into that rotten tub.
Offered by an exotically named firm of real estate hawkers who go by the name of Wellbelove Quested, the 1,573 square foot, three-storey former home of the mucky madam Miss Maxwell is marketed as “charming” and having “plenty of potential.” It is described as “requiring updating,” but unsurprisingly no mention is made as to its tawdry past. A photograph of the very bath where ‘Randy Andy’ allegedly bonked on that fateful night bizarrely features in the marketing material, but somewhat more carefully imagery of the landing area has been left out.
Asked by The Steeple Times for comment, a leading local estate agent – whom wished to remain off the record – remarked:
“Any previous sale at either £1.45 million or £1.75 million seems suspiciously low. At £1,653 per square foot today, it sounds about right in terms of an asking price, although some buyers might be deterred by The Nags Head being so close.”
“As for the activity that may have gone on inside there, I am of the view it adds a bit of interest to the marketing, but neither adds to nor detracts from the value.”
“Equally, now I see these pictures, it looks to me that Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Roberts were all standing in the doorway of the front bedroom of the first floor that day. It begs the question: ‘Why?’”
Contacted earlier in the day by a reader of The Steeple Times who alerted us to the sale subsequently, Andrew Quested of Wellbelove Quested somewhat lackadaisically opined in response via email:
“My clients made a good purchase. I think you will find a lot of properties have a past resident that is not always good… I do understand your thoughts [about the links to Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein and the Duke of York], but these things pass.”
Occasional contributor to The Steeple TimesJack Hine, however, took a different view. When approached Friday, the Hove, Sussex and Belgravia, London based dealer in vintage memorabilia stated:
“That bath, whatever it’s murky heritage, has royal pedigree and it’s got a grimy, unrestored appearance. ‘Where there’s muck, there’s bloody brass,’ I say.”
“There’s always going to be ghouls out there with a desire for such, so I advise whoever buys 44 Kinnerton Street to most certainly not to put what could become one of the most costly bathtubs in history ever in the skip.”
“Prince Andrew’s antics in this tub may well cost him well north of £10 million and I’d suggest that the new owner of this house will get tens of thousands for that tawdry tub. I’d definitely put in a bid.”
This photograph of the first floor bathroom at 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia proves one thing – those that said that the tub is too small for two are nothing but loopy liars.When asked about what occured on the night of 10th March 2001 in the first floor bathroom at her Kinnerton Street mews house, Ghislaine Maxwell responded: “[Virginia Roberts] then characterized [sic] things took place in my bathroom in the bathtub itself. The tub is too small for any kind of activity whatsoever.” The picture of that very same tub used in marketing material by Wellbelove Quested proves exactly to the contrary.The floor plan shared by the likes ‘The Daily Mail’ and ‘The Sun suggested the first floor bathroom at the house to be 7-foot, 4 inches by 7-foot, 2-inches. Floor plans shared by Wellboved Quested suggest that the room is actually 8-foot, 4-inches by 8-foot, 2-inches. There was most definitely plenty of room for two…Why did they stand on the first floor landing when the only entertaining areas were downstairs? Were they progressing upwards? Was Ghislaine Maxwell leading her friend Prince Andrew and a concubine to a bedroom? Who took the photograph? Many questions remain unanswered, but it’s now clear that the bathtub could easily have fitted two.A floorplan of 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia. In it, mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s home is clearly shown to be a place where ‘public’ entertaining took place on the ground floor, whilst ‘extracurricular’ activities took place on the upper two floors.These photographs of 44 Kinnerton Street, taken in July 2021, provide proof that the bannisters seen in the March 2001 photographs remain inside said property. The setting in which Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts were captured was indeed most definitely genuine. In the same month, the new owners of the property displayed a poster at 44 Kinnerton Street for a festival that was to be held in East Anglia from 31st July 2021 to 1st August 2021. The event, the EA Festival, was hosted at Hedingham Castle – home to Jason and Demetra Lindsay – in Essex and had a line-up that included model and advocate Arizona Muse, film director Mike Figgis, ‘Countdown’s’ Susie Dent, sex commentator Rowan Pelling and comedian Josh Berry. The same open doorway also showed something else… The very same bannister that was shown in the photograph Prince Andrew, Virginia Robert and Ghislaine Maxwell appeared in.In November 2020, ‘The Steeple Times’ featured bathtub mats featuring Prince Andrew’s face and the caption “nonce” that were available for sale through Redbubble.com. Priced then at £23.61 ($32.30, €28.29 or درهم118.61), these 61cm by 43cm polyester microfiber items clearly proved very popular as they are no longer on the site. Clearly, there is a market for bathtub memorabilia that references the Queen’s supposed favourite son.
14th January 2022 – Property website TheMoveMarket.com values the house at £2.11 million ($2.88 million, €2.53 million or درهم59 million), a sum 19% lower than the current asking price for the unrenovated property.
January 2022 – Estate agents Wellbelove Quested offer the mews house for £2.6 million ($3.6 million, €3.1 million or درهم1 million), an extraordinary increase of 49% on the sale price just 270 days earlier. The house is offered on a lease of 127 years that commenced on 24th June 2014 and previously on their website Wellbelove Quested had marketed the house for a higher price of £2.75 million ($3.738 million, €3.283 million or درهم13.731 million).
July 2021 – The Steeple Times reports on repainting work to the outside of the house being underway. An open door reveals the infamous staircase bannister to still be in-situ.
19th April 2021 – Records confirm the house to have been sold for £1.75 million ($2.39 million, €2.09 million or درهم79 million).
March 2021 – Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyer offered cash from the “pending sale of her £1.45 million ($2 million, €1.74 million or درهم28 million)” home as part of a package when they sought bail for the mucky madam for a third time, the Daily Mail reported. This sum was 44% lower than the September 2020 asking price and 400% higher than the January 1997 purchase price.
March 2021 – A Knightsbridge estate agent told The Steeple Times: “Knowing the street as I do, 44 is one of the smaller houses which I assume it to be a little over 1,000 square foot in size. Depending on the condition, I estimate the freehold value to be circa £1.8 million to £2 million ($2.5 million to $2.7 million, €2.2 million to €2.4 million or 9درهم million to درهم10 million).”
December 2020 – Members of the Maxwell family attempted to raise finance on the property but are not successful, The Steeple Times learns from a financier with connections to the Maxwell family and their representatives. They were rejected, were rejected on the basis of the “toxicity” of their familial name.
September 2020 – Estate agents Aylesford list 44 Kinnerton Street for sale for £2.6 million ($3.6 million, €3.1 million or درهم1 million) on (it was claimed) a freehold basis, a sum 797% than the January 1997 purchase price. They subsequently later reduce the asking price to £2.1 million ($2.9 million, €2.5 million or درهم10.5 million) “according to a leading property expert.”
August 2019 – According to Insider, a woman with “long hair [who] appeared to be in her 60s” was seen entering the property. She “denied that the socialite owns or lived in the house, claiming instead that the elusive socialite lived elsewhere down the street.”
10th March 2001 – Prince Andrew allegedly had sexual relations with 17-year-old Virginia Roberts in a bathroom in the property. He continues to deny this occurred whilst claiming that a photograph of himself with Miss Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell on the first floor of building is a fake also.
22nd January 1997 – Ghislaine Maxwell paid £290,000 ($396,000, €347,000 or درهم5 million) for the three-storey leasehold mews house. It is situated at the heart of the Duke of Westminster’s Grosvenor Estate.
1989 to 1995 – Ghislaine Maxwell is known to have resided at 69 Stanhope Mews East, South Kensington, London, SW7 5QT. Her father bought it for her two years before his mysterious death and she reportedly “groomed and befriended Minor Victim 3 in London, England, between approximately 1994 and 1995… Maxwell introduced Minor Victim 3 to Epstein and during those interactions, Maxwell encouraged Minor Victim 3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim 3. During those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim 3” at that very property. It was sold for £267,000 ($365,000, €320,000 or درهم3 million) on 15th March 1995 and then again for £1.75 million ($2.39 million, €2.10 million or درهم8.77 million) on 30th August 2019.
And finally… Some other images of the ‘Mucky Madam’s’ crib
The ground floor sitting room has a somewhat sadistic quality about it. Rather like a doctor or dentist’s waiting room in its styling, here is a room where the mucky madam no doubt just prepped her victims for their prey upstairs. How many chairs does one need for such a purpose?This place is anything but homely. It is, in fact, scary.A kitchen that wasn’t for a coffee and a chat; a kitchen where saintly types like Delia Smith and Mary Berry most definitely don’t belong. Ghislaine Maxwell is personified as a woman as clinical to her core.The mucky mistresses’ master bedroom. God only f$%king knows went on in this creepy crib.Another supposedly innocent looking room that was likely a torture chamber.The bedroom Andrew, Ghislaine and Virginia posed next to. It is currently set up as an extra sitting room rather conveniently, but doesn’t look like a place anyone has bothered or would even to sit.The house even has a roof terrace. It looks f$%ing rotten, just like its former owner, mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of murdering pension pot plunderer Robert Maxwell.And finally, back to that bloody bathroom… It even has double shower. It’s hardly small, is it? It’s perfectly feasible that Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts could have very easily fitted in there also.
