Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two of the anonymees were actors so they wanted their public identity and reputation protected imo. The third used her first name only as she was not a public figure.
I haven't had a lot of time lately so it is known we have two actors and one that is not a public figure? What is the one who is not a public figure's reason for anonymity? If you know.

If there is legitimate reason, I can see it but this has all been very vague or secretive or I have missed it (very possible) to know if they deserve anonymity any more than any person in any case anywhere.

Not trying to argue at all, it just shows what cloaking things and secrecy does. It brings more questions and doubt to anyone watching the justice system and trying to understand the reasoning.
 
I haven't had a lot of time lately so it is known we have two actors and one that is not a public figure? What is the one who is not a public figure's reason for anonymity? If you know.

If there is legitimate reason, I can see it but this has all been very vague or secretive or I have missed it (very possible) to know if they deserve anonymity any more than any person in any case anywhere.

Not trying to argue at all, it just shows what cloaking things and secrecy does. It brings more questions and doubt to anyone watching the justice system and trying to understand the reasoning.
I think on the stand she said she has a daughter to protect didn't she ? Which would make sense she was not using her surname for that reason.
 
I think on the stand she said she has a daughter to protect didn't she ? Which would make sense she was not using her surname for that reason.
I am totally confused and admit it.

So they have testified and do have anonymity or it is still being decided? She was on the stand?

I haven't kept up or been able to and freely admit that too because I thought the last I knew we were talking that it was attorneys testifying asking for protection and not actors and whoever this is.

In fact I thought just yesterday the judge had not decided yet as it was said you thought it would be granted (anonymity) as the prosecution was granted that with some witnesses.

Anyhow, I will stop commenting as I apparently do not have things straight. My remarks are meant in general anyhow with the info provided here re secrecy, not testifying without protection, etc. I clearly missed something as to who is testifying and that one at least has already taken the stand.

Interesting case but beyond confused I am. :(
 
I am totally confused and admit it.

So they have testified and do have anonymity or it is still being decided? She was on the stand?

I haven't kept up or been able to and freely admit that too because I thought the last I knew we were talking that it was attorneys testifying asking for protection and not actors and whoever this is.

In fact I thought just yesterday the judge had not decided yet as it was said you thought it would be granted (anonymity) as the prosecution was granted that with some witnesses.

Anyhow, I will stop commenting as I apparently do not have things straight. My remarks are meant in general anyhow with the info provided here re secrecy, not testifying without protection, etc. I clearly missed something as to who is testifying and that one at least has already taken the stand.

Interesting case but beyond confused I am. :(
Sorry we are at cross purposes. I was talking about the 3 anonymous prosecution witnesses who already testified last week and their known reasons for anonymity.

Update from Sky below. I guess we will have to wait till the trial begins this morning to find out about the defence witnesses anonymity and the prosecution objections.

 
Last edited:
Trial is restarting. I recommend you listen to this short video report from Inner City Press which partly explains the 3 day break in this case.

 
Sorry we are at cross purposes. I was talking about the 3 anonymous prosecution witnesses who already testified last week and their known reasons for anonymity.

Update from Sky below. I guess we will have to wait till the trial begins this morning to find out about the defence witnesses anonymity and the prosecution objections.

We surely aren't on the same page nor was I following you I guess. I assumed you meant the upcoming witnesses, the one for which the decision is pending.

This one would be confusing even if I had time to follow it all lol. You are beyond better informed about it and up on it than I am.

All is good :)
 
Motion denied for the anonymity. Now we will see if those witnesses decline to give evidence publically. I think this could be grounds for appeal if they do not give evidence but what do I know.

 
Also denied is the calling of the 3 lawyers as witnesses except for one - Glassman - who may be asked one question only.

See previous tweeters for source.

(Why not just deny all defence witnesses and be done with it, like they do in places like Iran.)

Cimberley Espinosa called as first witness. Live tweeting Adam Klasfeld and Inner City Press. Also
@MartaDhanis
News Buff. Polyglot. Former business reporter in Europe turned U.S. correspondent. Now NY fed & state courts press corps Links&RTs do not = endorsmts
foxnews.com/person/d/marta…Born 14 October 1982Joined November 2012


Marta Dhanis
@MartaDhanis
 
Last edited:
I'd really still like to know if they can subpoena these witnesses and just logically I imagine they can.

I don't know enough about the grounds for anonymity of these three or evidence (if any) they had supporting the reasons it was requested but I do think each such request is determined and should be on its own basis. One would hope and think the judge had a valid basis to deny the request and even if they appeal that the decision may well be upheld? Even though this is not televised, the judge is well aware it is being watched and the judge's decisions will be analyzed...
 

Attorney Lisa Bloom, an admittedly embattled figure in the world of sex crimes litigation, has worked on both sides of cases like this. She has represented eight Epstein accusers, and also, it was revealed in 2017, advised disgraced movie mogul and MeToo supervillain Harvey Weinstein, who is serving a 23-year prison sentence for a rape and sexual assault, on how to launder his reputation. She has been following the trial in person and remotely and thinks the state is coming out on top so far. “The prosecution did a very good job,” Bloom says. “They chose four accusers who were credible….They, I assume, had a lot of accusers to choose from and they chose these four.”

I have been observing the trial most days from the overflow courtrooms for Rolling Stone and came away with a similar impression. It seems that while the defense is doing its duty of attempting to pick apart testimonies based on minor inconsistencies, the big-picture stories told by the women — that Epstein abused them and Maxwell helped him, by, for example, showing them how he liked to be touched — are what will probably stick in the minds of jurors. Here are four takeaways from the prosecution’s case.

Epstein was the chief abuser — but according to witnesses, Maxwell helped

Sometimes the caliber of Epstein’s crimes can feel overwhelming by comparison, and Maxwell’s defense has repeatedly suggested their client is a scapegoat for Epstein. But the fact is her alleged actions are inextricable from his, so credibly presenting the details of Epstein’s abuse is an essential part of the case. “The jury will be suspicious if they leave something out, so they have to tell about what Epstein did,” Bloom says. “But they also have to tie it to Ghislaine every time.” Through testimony from former employees about Maxwell managing Epstein’s properties and planes, and from women claiming she instructed them on how to touch Epstein when they were minors, the government has kept Maxwell in the picture at every turn.

Shipping addresses didn’t prove Maxwell sent gifts, but backed accusers’ testimony

The government hoped to use shipping receipts to back up witnesses’ claims. Last Thursday, for instance, the government spent several minutes going through FedEx invoices of packages Epstein sent to Carolyn, who had testified two days earlier about receiving lingerie from Epstein and Maxwell. They pointed to packages sent from Epstein’s New York City office to Carolyn’s address in West Palm Beach. On cross-examination, the defense pointed out that Maxwell’s name was not on the return address of packages sent to Carolyn — it had been mostly Epstein, and once included assistant Sarah Kellen. Other entries on the same invoice papers showed Maxwell sent packages to other people, but never to Carolyn.

The intended impact was to sever Maxwell from Epstein, but what it really did was show her busily shipping packages from a shared FedEx account. And as Bloom points out, Epstein’s former Palm Beach house manager, Juan Alessi — as well as two pilots — testified that Maxwell would have outranked other staff, including an assistant like Kellen, and could have directed her to send a package. The exchange lent credibility to Carolyn’s claims that she’d received lingerie after falling into Epstein’s ring of abuse, which testimony suggested included Maxwell as a top-ranking member. “Her name is not going to be on each piece of evidence. I don’t find that particularly significant,” Bloom says. “I think overall, there’s been enough tied to her that the jury can come back with a guilty verdict.”

The prosecution wants the jury to look at the aggregate total of the evidence, Bloom says: Four accusers who say Maxwell was involved in their recruitment and abuse. And bolstering Carolyn’s claim that she received lingerie from Epstein by FedEx as a 14-year-old adds to her credibility as a witness. Maxwell’s name missing from the return address doesn’t let Maxwell off the hook. After all, Carolyn also claimed Maxwell had been the person who asked her for her address.

Witnesses consistently linked Maxwell closely to Epstein

The testimonies of each alleged victim were the prosecution’s strongest way of tying Maxwell to Epstein. In the stories each woman told, Maxwell was never excluded from the scene. The defense has pointed to inconsistencies in prior interviews and paperwork where some accusers left Maxwell out of their retellings at the time. But the testimony the accusers gave at the trial painted pictures that linger, and Maxwell is in them all. Sometimes, she’s a supporting character, lurking nearby Epstein and a young girl to apparently make the child feel more trusting. Other times she’s an active participant, the witnesses say, coaching a girl on how to rub Epstein’s feet, or worse.

Witnesses who worked closely with Maxwell under Epstein’s employ also emphasized the close ties between him and Maxwell. Alessi and pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers all referred to her as Epstein’s second in command and described oftentimes taking instructions from her rather than Epstein himself or anyone else below him. “I understood she was the lady of the house,” Alessi said, and claimed Maxwell gave him a booklet of rules for how the house should be maintained.

Annie Farmer helped the state finish on a high note

Ending with Epstein accuser Annie Farmer was one of the strongest choices the prosecution made. While Bloom, who referred to Farmer as a “badass,” emphasized that there is no perfect witness, especially to childhood sexual abuse, Farmer came close. She was willing to testify under her full name; she had repeated her story mostly consistently in prior interviews; she had kept a diary from the time of her allegations; she came armed with a PhD, which, even it shouldn’t, probably increased her credibility in front of a jury; and she was lucky enough to have a strong and enduring social support system: her mother and her high school boyfriend both came to testify, as well. “I thought calling her last was really a stroke of genius,” Bloom says. “Even though her allegations were milder than those of the other accusers, she has a lot of corroboration to her story. She reported him to the police in 1996. She told her boyfriend and her mother contemporaneously. I always want backup witnesses like that in my cases, and she had that.”
 
I don't think sharing a FedEx account or sending lingerie is going to cut it when it is known that Epstein worked for Wexner (Victoria Secrets) and was even his power of attorney at one point. Employees would send packages on direction of Epstein.

If Annie Farmer is the strongest witness, then I think that will create reasonable doubt because of the jurisdiction for consent being age 16 in NM.
 

Court opened Thursday with the judge weighing in on whether several defense witnesses could testify using pseudonyms — an unusual request given that they weren’t claiming to be victims or under any threat or danger. They were instead citing “unwanted attention.”

✂️

The judge disagreed with the premise, denying the request on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan wrote that the request was “unprecedented” and rejected several arguments Maxwell’s team had made to justify the anonymity.

“It is notable that the defense does not cite in support of its motion a single case in which a court granted the use of pseudonyms to defense witnesses,” Nathan wrote in denying the request.

BBM
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,032
Messages
243,892
Members
981
Latest member
Alicerar
Back
Top Bottom