Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges

Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and heiress who became a confidante of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and was later implicated in his alleged sexual crimes, has been arrested by the FBI. She was arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire, around 8:30 a.m. Thursday on charges she conspired...

www.nbcnewyork.com

 

[Tresir]

Am looking for dates when Maxwell stopped being with Epstein and it looks like it could be around 2006. The flight logs in 2004/5 do not have her on them anywhere near as much as previous years, eg maybe once or twice per log rather than on every flight as previously. This article has some info re dates and says that she has a handwritten letter from Epstein that he would pay her fees. It says she worked for him from 1999 to 2006. He paid for the Roberts lawsuit.

Ghislaine Maxwell sues Jeffrey Epstein's estate to pay her legal and security fees | CNN

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, filed a civil claim against his estate in the US Virgin Islands because she says he promised to always support her financially -- and she says she has it in writing.

edition.cnn.com

If this is true, she is no idiot.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Three of the defense witnesses have asked to testify under their first names or a pseudonym, but the prosecutors oppose this, Maxwell’s lawyer Bobbi Sternheim said in a filing late Sunday. Maxwell’s four accusers were allowed to testify against her over the first two weeks of the trial with pseudonyms or using only their first names. “The Court’s ruling on this issue may impact the willingness of these witnesses to testify, thereby compromising Ms. Maxwell’s right to present her defense, and may affect the witness order,” Sternheim wrote to the judge. The prosecutors had complained to the judge that the defense didn’t tell them the order in which the witnesses will be called. Sternheim wrote that the defense has provided a tentative order, but that it is “still trying to make travel arrangements for defense witnesses, many of whom are coming from locations out of the district and abroad.”

Read more at: Ghislaine Maxwell’s Lawyers Plan to Call 35 Defense Witnesses
Copyright © BloombergQuint

If it is on her behalf, why should they need to testify anonymously? And they are comparing it to victims having anonymity, that's hardly the same. What danger would they be in? They are not victims. As far as affecting witnesses being willing to testify, then they truly aren't very committed to testifying on her behalf are they? Aren't there subpoenas for federal court? Are they going to lie or take the fifth if they can't use a pseudonym? I'd question their honesty anyhow if that is the case.

As far as order of witnesses and travel arrangements, I would think that would have been taken care of prior to trial.

 

[Tresir]

If it is on her behalf, why should they need to testify anonymously? And they are comparing it to victims having anonymity, that's hardly the same. What danger would they be in? They are not victims. As far as affecting witnesses being willing to testify, then they truly aren't very committed to testifying on her behalf are they? Aren't there subpoenas for federal court? Are they going to lie or take the fifth if they can't use a pseudonym? I'd question their honesty anyhow if that is the case.

As far as order of witnesses and travel arrangements, I would think that would have been taken care of prior to trial.

Are you are suggesting witnesses are going to lie in a federal courtroom before you even know any details? It is primarily because of media and other harassment necessitating security if they are non anonomized, from reading the attorney request. There has been talk on here and everywhere about Epstein being bumped off in jail, so I can fully understand the witnesses worries.

How could the travel and witnesses be prior arranged when prosecution said they would take three weeks? That would mean the jury would have to go home for two weeks till after Christmas.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I am speculating that these could be the ones who want anonymity. What do you think? This article is from May. They did not testify for the prosecution anyway. Will they come to her rescue I wonder.

Epstein co-conspirators set to testify against Ghislaine Maxwell

In a filing obtained by DailyMail.com, prosecutors said that Jeffrey Epstein's alleged co-conspirators will testify against his alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Why would they be set to testify for the prosecution but now want to testify for the defense? That makes absolutely no sense to me and if that was the case, again, I would question their honesty if they can flip sides--truth is truth. This case is one big headache to follow in some respects with the "secrecy".

Here's my possibly simple take on it. If Epstein committed suicide, there are no murders or attacks in this case of anyone through years now. So WHY would anyone other than victims need protection and anonymity? I don't care if they are monied, powerful or famous, the justice system is supposed to be the same for one and all. Heck there are children that are scared to testify that are not protected from doing so at times. It is why cases are sometimes dropped because the family does not want to put the child through it.

It just maddens me that she expected or so it sounds different treatment in jail than others, that her defenders don't even want to give their names to defend her, etc. and that this trial should be different than any other?? In the standard senses I mean...

I'm sure I don't understand the scope or complexities of such a big case and the federal legal ins and outs but I think my simple take on it would be the same as most average people meaning when there is secrecy, people feel something is corrupt or going on AND get disgusted "important" people are treated differently.

Sorry all, I think my caffeine from my coffee has not hit my bloodstream yet.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I have a hard time believing any of Epstein's former assistants will testify for Maxwell. Until now they've been pleading the 5th. Besides her family has anyone spoken publically on her behalf? Her own husband hasn't even been in court so I'm doubtful these witnesses need to be anonymous.

No kidding. Who and what are they worried about? Being seen sticking up for an alleged "madam"?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Are you are suggesting witnesses are going to lie in a federal courtroom before you even know any details? It is primarily because of media and other harassment necessitating security if they are non anonomized, from reading the attorney request. There has been talk on here and everywhere about Epstein being bumped off in jail, so I can fully understand the witnesses worries.

How could the travel and witnesses be prior arranged when prosecution said they would take three weeks? That would mean the jury would have to go home for two weeks till after Christmas.

We don't even know who they are so there is no accusation by me at any individual and even if there was, I am giving an opinion and saying that requesting anonymity and for all, not one, isn't someone whose testimony I'd give total weight to as a juror if I knew it. Why can't they subpoena them if they become unwilling?

Let's say an anonymous witness says something another person sitting at home hearing about the trial would know was untrue if they knew who they were. Let's says the house manager was sitting at home and an anonymous witness said they were at the home in a certain year or on a certain day or at a certain party and he knew it to be untrue. He could then come forward and say that witness is lying. I am giving a total hypothetical. Anonymity is not just fear of publicity, etc., one can also infer they have something to hide. And one of those things is people could lie on a defendant's behalf but know if they are lying others out there involved know better BUT anonymity means they could get away with it.

I'm cynical after some years of cases. I am not a juror. And I don't like Maxwell or Epstein. And I don't like secrecy in any of our legal systems except for certain very valid reasons.

You yourself said Epstein is a suicide and we know that is the ruling. So to me any fear of murder goes out the window as an excuse. They an say they are scared and they may be but there is no validity behind it. Now I have no problem with protecting jurors for instance, that's a totally different story. Or undercover agents in some circumstances maybe. These are defense witnesses and are no more special than any other witness who has had to give their name, like the house manager. He had to face Ghislaine and say some not nice things about her. Where was his protection?

Sorry and all in good discussion but I don't like it. I hope it is not granted and in no way should that be a reason to appeal, dismiss, etc. It's a witness for goodness sakes. And I don't believe they can't subpoena a witness.

 

[Tresir]

We don't even know who they are so there is no accusation by me at any individual and even if there was, I am giving an opinion and saying that requesting anonymity and for all, not one, isn't someone whose testimony I'd give total weight to as a juror if I knew it. Why can't they subpoena them if they become unwilling?

Let's say an anonymous witness says something another person sitting at home hearing about the trial would know was untrue if they knew who they were. Let's says the house manager was sitting at home and an anonymous witness said they were at the home in a certain year or on a certain day or at a certain party and he knew it to be untrue. He could then come forward and say that witness is lying. I am giving a total hypothetical. Anonymity is not just fear of publicity, etc., one can also infer they have something to hide. And one of those things is people could lie on a defendant's behalf but know if they are lying others out there involved know better BUT anonymity means they could get away with it.

I'm cynical after some years of cases. I am not a juror. And I don't like Maxwell or Epstein. And I don't like secrecy in any of our legal systems except for certain very valid reasons.

You yourself said Epstein is a suicide and we know that is the ruling. So to me any fear of murder goes out the window as an excuse. They an say they are scared and they may be but there is no validity behind it. Now I have no problem with protecting jurors for instance, that's a totally different story. Or undercover agents in some circumstances maybe. These are defense witnesses and are no more special than any other witness who has had to give their name, like the house manager. He had to face Ghislaine and say some not nice things about her. Where was his protection?

Sorry and all in good discussion but I don't like it. I hope it is not granted and in no way should that be a reason to appeal, dismiss, etc. It's a witness for goodness sakes. And I don't believe they can't subpoena a witness.

The butler and the pilots were employees not victims so did not need anonymity. Some of these witnesses for the defence may also be victims so why shouldn't they have anonymity as the prosecution witnesses were given? I think the letter from the defence to the judge mentions 3 want anonymity, which is not many out of 35.
Below is a link about one accuser suing another accuser for defaming her and accusing her of being a recruiter. Now they are arguing against each other. I am not suggesting this person will be one of the possible "anonymees" but it could be someone like her. Goodness knows there are more than 100 that have claimed from Epstein's fund so plenty are out there but they were in planes and at locations with very influential rich and famous people so if they put their head above the parapet, it will be dangerous for them. Not just from Epstein, as he is dead now, but many others too IMO.

New suit: One Epstein accuser says 2nd accuser defamed her

A woman who says financer Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused her has sued another Epstein accuser for defamation, citing a series of tweets.

apnews.com

It is also pretty easy to work out who the anonymees are. The anonymity is really to stop the media publishing the name primarily and to put the victim/witness at ease knowing their name and picture will not be splashed on the front pages of the Sunday papers and all over the internet for their exploitation.

 

[Tresir]

No kidding. Who and what are they worried about? Being seen sticking up for an alleged "madam"?

Innocent till proven guilty. I bet there will be quite some surprises coming from these witnesses and I bet there are some people wringing their hands ATM.

 

[Tresir]

Why would they be set to testify for the prosecution but now want to testify for the defense? That makes absolutely no sense to me and if that was the case, again, I would question their honesty if they can flip sides--truth is truth. This case is one big headache to follow in some respects with the "secrecy".

Here's my possibly simple take on it. If Epstein committed suicide, there are no murders or attacks in this case of anyone through years now. So WHY would anyone other than victims need protection and anonymity? I don't care if they are monied, powerful or famous, the justice system is supposed to be the same for one and all. Heck there are children that are scared to testify that are not protected from doing so at times. It is why cases are sometimes dropped because the family does not want to put the child through it.

It just maddens me that she expected or so it sounds different treatment in jail than others, that her defenders don't even want to give their names to defend her, etc. and that this trial should be different than any other?? In the standard senses I mean...

I'm sure I don't understand the scope or complexities of such a big case and the federal legal ins and outs but I think my simple take on it would be the same as most average people meaning when there is secrecy, people feel something is corrupt or going on AND get disgusted "important" people are treated differently.

Sorry all, I think my caffeine from my coffee has not hit my bloodstream yet.

The line between victim and abuser is narrow I think, because victims are recruiting more victims. Someone said it is like a big Ponzi scheme. It is not unusual for sex abuse victims to stay anonymous, no matter who they testify for. We have to trust the decision of the judge in matters like this.

If it is true that they took the fifth, then they must be worried about some aspects of what they did and are worried they may be next to be prosecuted. I understand one of them is in hiding in Italy. Don't know if that is true or not as I read it on the internet so my opinion.

 

[Tresir]

This article discusses the defence witnesses and states that the witnesses for Thursday and Friday should be known by 10a.m. Monday with the remaining witnesses known by Tuesday.

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Defense's Lengthy Witness List Includes Some Coming from 'Abroad,' Others Seeking to Testify Under Pseudonym

A lawyer for accused sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has indicated that the defense intends to call 35 witnesses, some of whom will look to testify under either their first name or a pseudonym.

lawandcrime.com

 

[kdg411]

This article discusses the defence witnesses and states that the witnesses for Thursday and Friday should be known by 10a.m. Monday with the remaining witnesses known by Tuesday.

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Defense's Lengthy Witness List Includes Some Coming from 'Abroad,' Others Seeking to Testify Under Pseudonym

A lawyer for accused sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has indicated that the defense intends to call 35 witnesses, some of whom will look to testify under either their first name or a pseudonym.

lawandcrime.com

if Maxwell is innocent then why would anyone who believes that is true want to testify with hiding their identity, regardless of the media?

 

[Tresir]

if Maxwell is innocent then why would anyone who believes that is true want to testify with hiding their identity, regardless of the media?

Lots of reasons i expect but they may have moved on with their life and want it to stay that way. The oldest case is more than 25 years ago. Sounds like three won't testify without anonymity.

 

[Tresir]

The defence want to call "Jane" lawyer Glassman but the prosecution are objecting citing lawyer client privilege. Judge will be deciding that.

In Maxwell Trial Maurene Comey Wants to Block Call of Jane's Lawyer Glassman as Witness

InnerCityPress.com is engaged these days in investigative journalism from the United Nations, including the World Bank, the IMF, the UN Development Program and the five continents.

www.innercitypress.com

 

[kdg411]

The defence want to call "Jane" lawyer Glassman but the prosecution are objecting citing lawyer client privilege. Judge will be deciding that.

In Maxwell Trial Maurene Comey Wants to Block Call of Jane's Lawyer Glassman as Witness

InnerCityPress.com is engaged these days in investigative journalism from the United Nations, including the World Bank, the IMF, the UN Development Program and the five continents.

www.innercitypress.com

What does the defendant gain by this testimony, if it was to be allowed?

 

[kdg411]

 

[Guess Who]

That doesn't sound like the argument of an innocent man.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The line between victim and abuser is narrow I think, because victims are recruiting more victims. Someone said it is like a big Ponzi scheme. It is not unusual for sex abuse victims to stay anonymous, no matter who they testify for. We have to trust the decision of the judge in matters like this.

If it is true that they took the fifth, then they must be worried about some aspects of what they did and are worried they may be next to be prosecuted. I understand one of them is in hiding in Italy. Don't know if that is true or not as I read it on the internet so my opinion.

Oh yes the pyramid scheme, both victims and perps both in some positions. I think like some do it is more vast than we are aware.

I don't in general believe in anonymity as I said for all sorts of reasons, except in some cases, children being a big one. And it is far from clear the reasons or necessity for it, if there really are any legitimate ones. "Maybe" this would happen or that would happen really doesn't seem much of a legal basis imo to grant it. Now the power and influence does have people with murder on their mind or could have so there is danger you mean? There is no murder in this case and many names are already known. Epstein was a suicide as you said. So now though people would be in danger if not anonymous?

Why would anyone in high places want to take the anonymous down if they are testifying on Maxwell's behalf. That is not "outing" them, just the opposite, it is saying more likely it did not happen.

We don't have to agree but if a witness is bold enough or wants to do the right thing, tell the truth and testify, then generally one gets up there and stands behind their statements, you don't hide. Just saying that I think it takes away from credibility of a witness. And again, why can't they be subpoenaed?

 

[Tresir]

What does the defendant gain by this testimony, if it was to be allowed?

I just post the link. I have no idea what the witness is going to say. However, I think Jane's is probably the strongest of the prosecution's evidence with Carolyn as the next strongest. They must know something in Jane's testimony that they can challenge. Eg. Did she take part in any civil or other cases and has she made differing depositions, for example. The other two have basically already been discounted due to the age of consent in the jurisdictions of NM and UK and I think Carolyn was pimped by her BF and VR, in my opinion. We can possibly search for Jane info using her real name to find info, but if we find it, maybe we cannot post it because she has the protection of the anonymity. I have not searched for anything under her real name.

 

[Tresir]

Oh yes the pyramid scheme, both victims and perps both in some positions. I think like some do it is more vast than we are aware.

I don't in general believe in anonymity as I said for all sorts of reasons, except in some cases, children being a big one. And it is far from clear the reasons or necessity for it, if there really are any legitimate ones. "Maybe" this would happen or that would happen really doesn't seem much of a legal basis imo to grant it. Now the power and influence does have people with murder on their mind or could have so there is danger you mean? There is no murder in this case and many names are already known. Epstein was a suicide as you said. So now though people would be in danger if not anonymous?

Why would anyone in high places want to take the anonymous down if they are testifying on Maxwell's behalf. That is not "outing" them, just the opposite, it is saying more likely it did not happen.

We don't have to agree but if a witness is bold enough or wants to do the right thing, tell the truth and testify, then generally one gets up there and stands behind their statements, you don't hide. Just saying that I think it takes away from credibility of a witness. And again, why can't they be subpoenaed?

Well think of it this way. If the 3 who are testifying and want anonymity were from the 4 that were protected by Epstein's immunity, and/or took the 5th, what if the anonymity was denied but they still decided to testify, then something happened to one of them due to that? We have already discussed how many big names are involved, and the Brunel case is possible going to link to this as well. These witnesses will likely now have family as the events were some time ago, so they will have to be considered also. This is what the judge will have to decide - ie are they/could they be at risk? The judge and the lawyers from both sides will know the risks if there are any.

Of course the prosecution are against the anonymity because that could mean the witnesses may then not testify, which will help their case. As the defence were given protection for three witnesses, then I expect it will likely be granted by the judge as reciprocal to the prosecution.

 

[Tresir]

What has NY got to do with it if the assault took place in UK? Was there also incidents in NY too?