Maxwell’s Fake Image

As her lawyer issues an image of her with a black eye, mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s history with fakery should lead anyone rational to question whether its current or genuine even

  • In the wake of its release yesterday, one has to ask: “When was the supposedly ‘new’ photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell with a black eye under her eye actually taken and is it actually genuine?”
  • Responding to the snap being shared on the official ‘RealGhislaine’ Twitter handle, one user remarked of the allegedly fake image: “Absolute trot!” whilst another added: “Perhaps she slipped manicuring her eyebrows with clippers.”
  • Miss Maxwell’s history with fake imagery and manipulation relating to such has previously illustrated her dishonesty in this area.
  • The photograph of alleged vegan Ghislaine Maxwell munching on a burger in Los Angeles in August 2019 that was released by her associate was widely debunked later as a fake.
  • A photograph that Prince Andrew claims to be faked – taken in Miss Maxwell’s house in 2001 – has never been proven to be anything other than real.
  • Like her fraudulent father, anything but honest Ghislaine Maxwell also has a history of using pseudonyms and called herself “Jen Marshall” or “Janet Marshall” when buying ‘Tuckedaway’ in November 2019.
  • Our conclusion: “Is Ghislaine Maxwell a woman whose word and images can be trusted in any regard or is she just an utter fake?”

Like the case of the boy who repeatedly cried wolf, grubby groaner Ghislaine Maxwell and those close to her also have a history with visual media that would make even the most sympathetic individual doubt what they have to say in that context. As a result, the latest potentially fake image – released by her lawyer and on her ‘RealGhislaine’ Twitter handle – of the incarcerated alleged teenage trafficker with a black eye should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

 

Aside from her and Prince Andrew having utterly failed in their efforts to get anyone to believe the 2001 photograph of the randy royal with his “chubby fingers” around the waist of the then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts at her Kinnerton Street house to be anything but genuine, the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ daughter has many other links to the misuse and manipulation of imagery.

 

Firstly, it must be remembered that the mucky madam was likely involved in leaking that infamous “too perfect” photoshopped image of herself at an In-N-Out Burger restaurant in Los Angeles in August 2019. Aside from this wicked woman – whom bangs on about being vegan constantly now – “planting herself for a double-double” burger, that image was subsequently debunked by The Cut. For them, Bridget Read stated:

 

“The intrepid Daily Mail checked out the location of the burger joint in Hollywood where Maxwell was allegedly spotted by a regular last week and found some odd discrepancies. Notably, a bus stop in the background of the shot shows an advertisement for the movie Good Boys – which the company that operates the ad space said has never been there. The bus stop currently displays an ad for a local hospital, which it says has been there since July 28. Maxwell was supposedly photographed at the In-N-Out on August 12.”

 

Fake Maxwell – Prior to her arrest at the curiously named ‘Tucked Away’ using the invented name ‘Jen Marshall’ or Janet Marshall,’ woman-of-multiple identities Ghislaine Maxwell’s associates allegedly released most likely faked images of her at an In-N-Out restaurant.
Fake Maxwell – This anything but fake photograph of “chubby fingered” Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell on the first floor landing of 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1X 8ES on 10th March 2001 quite rightly remains in the public domain in spite of the royal claiming it to have been a doctored creation.

“Questions about Maxwell’s lunch outing have fed into the already robust set of conspiracy theories around Epstein, his high-profile acquaintances, and his death. Why was a second smartphone on the In-N-Out table? Why did Maxwell never stick a straw in either her soda or her shake? Why did the diner who supposedly photographed her have such a nice camera, with a lens that took a very clear photo? It doesn’t help that the In-N-Out employees at that location have been forbidden, supposedly by their employer, to talk about Maxwell’s visit.”

 

“If Saffian did indeed leak the photo of Maxwell, it was likely to try and throw the FBI off her scent… If the In-N-Out photo is indeed doctored, Maxwell could be anywhere and could show up anywhere she pleases. What’s next? Some predictions: eating a hot dog on the steps of the Met, posing with a cactus at Joshua Tree, riding a unicycle at Burning Man, or painting her nails on the C train.”

 

Secondly, Miss Maxwell and her now deceased paedophile ex-lover have been repeatedly accused of covert surveillance of high-profile guests – including potentially the film director Woody Allen, President Bill Clinton, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Barclay’s chief Jes Staley and the Duke of York – at the homes they shared. With holes in ceilings where technology for such was installed found in Epstein’s Lenox Hill, New York townhouse, for example, the clear indication is that information gathered was used to blackmail those targeted into doing whatever this deviant duo wished.

 

Thirdly and most relevantly, the most ‘recent’ image of Miss Maxwell – a woman accused of having snapped sleazy images of naked people at Epstein’s now demolished Palm Beach perv pad in addition – shared by lawyer Bobbi Sternheim yesterday of the disgraced socialite allegedly sporting a black eye should now be questioned in the same way as that of the supposedly spurious In-N-Out snapshot.

 

Of the very dubious and potentially fake image of the “black eye,” Sternheim moaned in a letter to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan:

 

“Last night, she was confronted by MDC staff due a visible bruise over her left eye. The ‘black eye’ is depicted in Exhibit B. Despite 24/7 camera surveillance (except when guards elect to exert authority in an intimidating way off-camera, as they did in Saturday’s bathroom incident), no guard addressed the bruise until Ms. Maxwell, who has no mirror, caught a reflection of her aching eye in the glean of a nail clipper.”

 

“At that point, MDC staff confronted Ms. Maxwell regarding the source of the bruise, threatening to place her in the SHU if she did not reveal how she got it.”

 

“While Ms. Maxwell is unaware of the cause of the bruise, as reported to medical and psych staff, she has grown increasingly reluctant to report information to the guards for fear of retaliation, discipline, and punitive chores. However, there is concern that the bruise may be related to the need for Ms. Maxwell to shield her eyes from the lights projected into her cell throughout the night.”

 

“The MDC routinely places inmates in the SHU if they have engaged in physical altercation with other inmates or to protect inmates who are the subject of abuse. It would be ironic if the MDC follows through with its threat to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU: It would signal that Ms. Maxwell needs protection from the very staff so intent on protecting her, since she has no contact with anyone but staff.”

 

Frankly, given said image is unaccompanied by any kind of source information or date, it should be treated with the same skepticism as to anything related to a woman who once answered: “[I am a citizen of] TerraMar,” when asked what country she was from by the FBI.

 

Pictured top: The undated, unsourced, potentially fake image released by Bobbi Sternheim showing Ghislaine Maxwell sporting what they claim to be a black eye (left) and the subsequently debunked ‘fake’ image of Ghislaine Maxwell at a Los Angeles, California In-N-Out burger diner in August 2019 (right).

 

Brothers in Coats – Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

Elsewhere yesterday, a beady eyed reader pointed out to The Steeple Times something that surprisingly utterly everybody else has missed about the 2010 photograph of ‘Randy Andy’ walking in New York’s Central Park with the then already released from jail for two years already paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

 

Both men are clearly wearing identical coats and frankly anyone with half a brain will now enquire: “Why? What are they? Creepy, copycat blood brothers?”

 

What next? Perhaps ‘Mucky Maxwell’s’ PR peddler Brian Basham could launch a sideline fundraiser by selling a limited edition run of the coats on RealGhislaine.com. Cha-ching!

 

5 COMMENTS

  1. How does anybody get a photo of her in prison? If this is supposed to be genuine, surely the authorities should be asking that question. If it is real, why was it taken? Is it to make us all feel sorry for her doing hard labour inside. Hard labour, she wouldn’t know what that was if it jumped up and bit her on her pretty little ass.

  2. She has the face of someone whacked with a wrecking ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Slag!!!!!!!!!!! Slut!!!!!!!!!!!! Scum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Given she is in prison, she should be disciplined and given punitive treatment for posing for photos. Shame on Ghiz. Make her scrub the shitters.

    P.S. Picture is plainly fake.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Exit mobile version