As Ghislaine Maxwell faces 30 years in prison, her lawyers have ludicrously countered suggesting she should serve just a minimum 4 years; her few “remaining friends” and family laughably blub about the mucky madam being a “fundamentally good and decent person” who “still has much to contribute to the world if she is given a meaningful opportunity to do so”
“Remaining friends (most having cut ties due to fear of association and the lure of ‘cancel culture’) attest to Ghislaine [Maxwell]’s character; each offers a first-person narrative of some aspect of her life in sharp contrast to her characterisation as a villain, rich heiress, and vapid socialite” is a telling paragraph in Bobbi C. Sternhein, Christian R. Everdell and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca’s latest submission to the United States District Court Southern District of New York about their convicted sex offender client.
In a 77-page document accompanied by another of 29 pages, the word “victim” is very tellingly only referenced 4 times and not one of those mentions expresses any regret on behalf of the mucky madam Maxwell about what she has been deservedly convicted of doing to young women. They go as far to claim: “Probation essentially makes the sweeping assertion that a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell is necessary to deter rich people from exploiting poor people,” but ludicrously seek to blame “main offender” Jeffrey Epstein alone for this instead.
“Nor should she be sentenced as if she were Harvey Weinstein” is another laughable point made by the attorneys – Maxwell and the disgraced film mogul ironically partied together at the birthday party for Prince Andrew’s daughter on 15th July 2006 – in an attempt to bring down the “correct sentencing range” to a minimum of 51 months or 4.25 years “not the 292-365 month [30.5 years] range calculated by the U.S. Probation Office.”
A “whirlwind of emotional turmoil caused by the relentless demands of her father” and an absent mother who ignored her are also cited as factors in Jeffrey Epstein’s co-collaborator’s downfall and whilst he isn’t actually named, her estranged husband Scott Borgerson is referenced. Of him, the attorneys remark:
“In 2013, Ms. Maxwell began a new relationship with the man she would later marry. She was with her husband for over seven years and became a devoted stepmother to her husband’s two youngsters, who were ages three and four and a half at the start of the relationship. Sadly, the marriage could not survive the negative impact of this case nor a husband’s association with his dishonoured wife.”
Lauded as “warm hearted, generous, kind, funny, thoughtful and loving” by friends and relatives, here is a portrayal of someone quite at contrast with what a court found of her in December. This wicked wench might think she can pull the wool over the courts with this barrage of bilge, but we simply conclude: “Now, go and pull the other one; it is time for this wholeheartedly evil conniving ratbag to rot and to deservedly rot in hell.”
Ghislaine Maxwell will be sentenced on 28th June in New York. She deserves far more than the minimum asked for; in fact, she deserves to live out of the rest of her days in the clink to prevent her assisting in the abuse of a single further person.
A graduate of the London School of Economics, Matthew Steeples is a writer and marketing consultant. He conceived The Steeple Times as a media arena to fill the void between the Mail Online, The Huffington Post and such organs as the New York Social Diary in 2012.
As Ghislaine Maxwell’s former business partner Jemma Kidd takes part in a car rally that raises money for victims of sex trafficking, we again call out the ridiculous vanity project of rich-not-robust women that is Cash & Rocket.
Hypocritical Duke and Duchess of Sussex deserve condemnation for indulging in £320,000 worth of private jet flights for their Jubilee trip; just who paid for these unwanted wastrels’ travels remains unknown.
Please subscribe, like and share this unique site, it helps us tremendously. The Steeple Times in return will send you an email at noon each and everyday, that we sincerely hope you will enjoy & look forward to seeing in your inbox.
The BBC, MailOnline and The Times ought to explain why they don’t want to discuss Carrie Johnson and alleged corruption at the heart of government; that the PM thought he could get the state to pay his now wife £100,000 per annum is an outrage and the cover-up over it should be called out as such.