Ian Maxwell says Virginia Giuffre “ruined lives” as calls mount for Donald Trump to make the Epstein files public.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother blasted her late accuser as a “monster” and declared he “shed no tear” over her suicide during a fiery interview Friday.

Ian Maxwell, the 68-year-old older sibling of convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, insisted his sibling was in jail because of what he called the lies of Virginia Giuffre.

Prior to her death in April, she had consistently alleged Maxwell had solicited her for sex with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his high society friends, including Prince Andrew, when she was 17.

“My sister’s been banged up for five years. It is very, very largely due to the actions, lies of this woman. I shed no tear for Virginia Giuffre,” Maxwell told British radio station LBC.

He went further still, “I think I know who the monster is here. It certainly isn’t my sister.”

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    81·
    2 days ago

    Not guilty in the legal sense, but it was a finding of fact that sealed his liability for defamation.

    • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.auEnglish
      10·
      2 days ago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

      renewing her claim of defamation and adding a claim of battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law allowing sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations

      A jury verdict in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, and ordered him to pay US$5 million in damages.

      Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York’s narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll’s accusation of rape is “substantially true”.

      The official finding of the jury was that he was “liable” for sexual assault. The rest of it, I think pretty much speaks for itself. I would summarize that as him being proven in court to be guilty of rape, other people might have other wordings or summaries. Whatever.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        41·
        2 days ago

        Ah ah - right, I failed to recognize that the suit in question was a civil suit seeking damages for battery.

        Still, my original statement is true: not ‘guilty’ in a legal sense (I added quotes here for clarity). ‘Guilty’ implies a criminal trial, which that one was not.

        • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.auEnglish
          4·
          2 days ago

          Like I say, other people might have other wordings or summaries. Honestly hair-splitting about it just pisses me off. A court proved that, by the normal-human definitions of these words, he’s guilty of rape. How’s that?

          That’s not to mention the many, many allegations of rape, sexual assault, and child rape that other people have credibly raised. That’s just the time that it’s been proven in court with him having every opportunity to vigorously defend himself against the allegation, and failing.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            42·
            2 days ago

            The legal system is all about hair-splitting.

            He was literally proven in court guilty of rape, in the defamation case.

            In court, he was found liable for sexual abuse. Colloquially and in reality, he is guilty of rape. It is important not to conflate the two.