List could be released as soon as Tuesday after deadline for objections to unsealing of names passes midnight Monday
Nearly 200 names connected to the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking conspiracy could be released by a New York judge as soon as Tuesday, exposing or confirming the identities of dozens of associates of the disgraced financier that until now have only been known as John and Jane Does in court papers.
A deadline for objections to the unsealing of the names passes at midnight on Monday, nearly nine years after victim Virginia Giuffre filed a single defamation claim against Maxwell, daughter of the late British press baron Robert Maxwell, in 2015, that in turn produced the names in legal depositions.
A year later, in 2016, US district court judge Robert Sweet rejected Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that “the veracity of a contextual world of facts more broad than the allegedly defamatory statements” and that Guiffre “was a victim of sustained underage sexual abuse between 1999 and 2002”. The parties settled out of court in 2017.
You’re piling fear-based assumption on top of assumption.
Your point is that if something bad you’re imagining happens, bad things might happen?
What a deduction. Good thing you spread that out over several paragraphs.
No, I don’t think we should further procrastinate pursuing an alreadt delayed critically important investigation out of respect for hypothetical, indirect risks.
From the article you clearly haven’t read;
I realise that, to you, it’s much more important to gloat over the names of people you don’t like you hope are on there. My perspective is that, if there are indeed names of victims amongst these 200 names as seems at the very least a distinct possibility, in order to prevent them being re-victimised , it might be better to take the time to do everything that can be done to stop that happening because, I assure you, to a rape or abuse victim, the risks are neither hypothetical or indirect.
Pull as many false claims from the air as you want, equating the hypothetical disclosure of names with actual rape is wildly irresponsible equivocation and is not a good reason to protect rapists.
Which is all you’re advocating for.
Yeah, just me and a well respected national newspaper.
Who on earth is talking about protecting rapists? The other names are still going to be on there so you can have your little moment of glee seeing all those people you hate named and shamed.
You’re not interested in the rights of victims whatsoever - you’re one of those people who loves to air their righteous indignation as publicly as possible, never giving a thought to the fact there’s actual people, actual victims who this man and his friends raped and abused and just possibly it might be an idea, to prevent them having to relive that trauma, to ensure that their names don’t become fodder to every internet mob and tabloid editor in the world.
Wow, you projecting that hard is going to burn-in your screen, be careful.