“Their Whole Lives Revolved Around Sex”: Epstein’s “Partner” Faces Scrutiny


English-born daughter of publishing magnet Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell, was already a woman sure to be examined closely by the FBI in relation to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking charges. His death only increases the pressure on Ghislaine, whom, if reports are proven to be accurate, knew of and assisted Epstein in the procurement of children as sex objects for powerful men, including allegations against Prince Andrew from the British Royal Family.

Maxwell was romantically linked to Epstein in the early 90s, but then (grew up?) and went on to become Epstein’s “assistant,” an assistant who seemed to specialize in pyramid schemes involving child sex-trafficking.

She had best get her black book out, because with Epstein now dead, the only answers as to the breadth of the operation will come from documents already obtained, and from Maxwell herself, who may well have done more than enough to earn herself a lifetime behind bars. She could find herself in need of a deal and a food taster.

According to documents unsealed in the Virginia Roberts-Giuthrie civil suit filed against Jeffery Epstein (which will continue on now as a suit against the estate), Giuthrie averred:

Along with Epstein, Giuffre claimed Maxwell groomed her to become a “sex slave.” Giuffre alleged that Maxwell directed her to travel and provide sexual services for high-profile men.

“There’s a whole bunch of them — it’s just hard for me to remember,” said Giuffre, according to the court filing. “My whole life revolved around just pleasing these men and keeping Ghislaine and Jeffrey happy. Their whole lives revolved around sex.”

Ms. Roberts-Giuffre, now aged 36, can be forgiven for “forgetting” just who was with whom, doing what and when. She lived every adolescent girl’s nightmare.

But I will bet that I know someone who does know who was with whom and when.

Given that it seems the entire Manhattan and Palm Beach social scene knew of Epstein’s sick habits, it would be impossible to believe that anyone both romantically linked to Epstein and then in a “working relationship” with Epstein would not know of and condone the criminal activity, even If Ghislaine is not yet named as a co-conspirator in this matter.

Need we also note that as a very rich woman herself, Ghislaine Maxwell may become another focus of plaintiff’s attorneys alleging damage to their clients?

Epstein’s death ended only Jeffery Epstein’s criminal liability. The death will likely make getting answers as to his enablers harder to get. However, we all know who represents the next best source of that information, and who likely faces the greatest current investigative scrutiny. One best learn how to spell “Ghislaine,” and ready to hold one’s nose upon hearing it.

Watch this space as facts evolve.


Peace, y’all.


[email protected]

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. Jason, I love your stuff and I read it every day, but PLEASE take a couple of minutes to proofread what you write! “Whom represents” and “whom likely faces” are really easy grammar errors to correct. Just sayin’!

    • Yeah, we are working on my inability to read my own writing. I could proof read your stuff, just fine. It is my writing that seems invisible to me, and we are working on a solution. I so appreciate you mentioning it bc it reinforces upon me the importance, and I love your loyalty. Thank you so much, it really does matter to me, even if that’s tough to tell sometimes. J

      • Also, in your very first line, “publishing magnet” should be “publishing magnate.”
        And — if it makes you feel better, it’s generally very difficult to proofread one’s own writing. That’s why there are writers and editors, editors and proofreaders. Keeping these tasks separate re the same piece of writing would go a long way towards reducing the prevalence of typos in any publication. Just a thought 😉

    • A lot of times mistakes like that are a form hypercorrection similar to the all-too frequent use of things like “just between you and I” and “those rules don’t apply to my husband and I” that one can hear in movies and TV shows. (It’s especially jarring when the speaker is supposed to be very intelligent and/or in a position–teacher or journalist–to know better.) The writers of these films and shows are, of course, responsible (though you’d think the actors reciting the lines would say “That doesn’t sound right” but . . . ) and they’re usually taking several proper uses of grammar (“who vs whom” or putting one’s self second–“Steve and I/Steve and me” rather than “I and Steve/me and Steve”–as a subject or object) where they’ve typically caught themselves and then turn around and “correct” other “mistakes” without double-checking. Like with “between you and I,” they don’t stop and think “between we” or “between us” and correct themselves. Now, of course, if the character is supposed to be a somewhat uneducated or unsophisticated person but is being pretentious and “too big for his britches,” then it’s a kind of shorthand so the audience is in on the joke but, far too often, the writers themselves seem to be exhibiting that themselves when they write these goofs (unless it’s a way of “getting back” at the actors because the person speaking the line is going to be “caught” with the goof).
      As for the whole proofreading thing, I think too many people are relying on their spellcheck and grammar-check programs they have installed so they miss goofs. Spellcheck, of course, will ignore valid words especially if there’s no way to check context; “to,” “too,” and “two” are all valid words but you wouldn’t write “I need to dollars two go too the movie” if you wanted it to make any sense. And most grammar-check programs are set only to catch egregious rules; my own Word program doesn’t catch verb tense errors (go vs went) but does catch subject-verb agreement errors (I go vs he goes); presumably you need to check the settings and can adjust them for strictly formal writing but that’s a bit much for my own use.

  2. Per some info I read on twitter today (and darn if I can find it now), Ghislaine comes from a family that seems only slightly less noxious and corrupt as the Trumps. Two brothers involved in nefarious family businesses, etc. etc. Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and so on.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here