Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

www.nbcnewyork.com

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 www.nbcnewyork.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
I have found an additional source for all the trial details. There are 7 parts altogether. This is part 4. This source uses info from Adam Krasfeld and Inner City press.

frankreport.com

The Ghislaine Maxwell Trial - Part 4: A Victim’s Ex-boyfriend, School Officials and a Grooming Expert

FacebookXRedditLinkedInEmailby Paul Serran This is an ongoing series. To read the previous articles, click on the links below. The Ghislaine Maxwell Trial – Part 1 The Ghislaine Maxwell Trial – Part 2: The Pilot Testifies The Ghislaine Maxwell Trial – Part 3: Victim Jane’s Testimony Victim...
frankreport.com frankreport.com
 
kdg411 said:
Another perspective of the trial thus far.

Miss Sweden and Bugs Bunny add up to a bad day in court for Ghislaine Maxwell | Ghislaine Maxwell | The Guardian

The former socialite had nothing to say after the prosecution in her New York trial dispensed quickly with defence witnesses
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
Click to expand...


John Sweeney, who has a book to sell says "In the lift on the way out, I was holding forth to some other reporters, saying that the reason there is no defence is because there is no defence: that is, Ghislaine Maxwell is guilty."


That's not how justice works, she doesn't have to prove her innocence, the prosecution have to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as Sweeney is concerned it is trial by media and generally always has been.

I found some info that came up in the trial about Jane being at school in NY in the 12th grade, which would be in '97, the same year as the Lion King on Broadway. I completely missed that testimony and have not seen it in media at all.

(Here it is below. You can find it in the link I posted in my previous post.)

download-14.jpg
NYC’s Professional Children’s School.

"The following witness to be called was Paul Kane, of NYC’s Professional Children’s School.
The prosecutor shows him Government Exhibit 721. ‘Do you recognize it?’
Kane: An enrollment application for a student.
AUSA: Don’t say the name. Is it an accurate copy?
Kane: Yes.
Maxwell’s lawyer: Objection – hearsay!
AUSA: It’s a business record.
Judge Nathan: Overruled.
Some form of Voir dire took place, with prosecutors and defense asking questions alternatively.
Maxwell’s lawyer: Can I question the witness?
Judge Nathan: Go ahead.
Maxwell’s lawyer: The Professional Children’s School doesn’t verify the accuracy of the info on the form, does it?
Kane: I think they do.
Maxwell’s lawyer. All of it?
Kane: That, I don’t know.
AUSA: Your Honor, may I?
Judge Nathan: You may.
AUSA: What happens to information coming in?
Kane: We contact the family by phone, then invite them to tour the school and have a conversation.
AUSA: Does the School rely on the form?
Kane: Yes.
After sidebar/Voir dire, document was included.
AUSA: What grade was the person applying for?
Kane: 12th. Due to ‘move to New York.’
USA: Who’s listed as person of financial responsibility?
Jane: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein.
AUSA: Thanks. No further questions.
Cross-examination then took place.
Maxwell’s lawyer: You have no idea if Mr. Epstein actually paid.
Kane: I do not.
Maxwell’s lawyer: And for the mother, does it say unemployed [on the form]?
Kane: It says self-employed, as an interior decorator.
Maxwell’s lawyer: And who is the listed agent?
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Nathan: Just make the jurors look at it.
Maxwell’s lawyer: Look the name in the corner. And the name of the prior principal. You don’t have to say them for the record. No further questions."

Can we view Govt exhibit 721 ourselves anywhere?
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
John Sweeney, who has a book to sell says "In the lift on the way out, I was holding forth to some other reporters, saying that the reason there is no defence is because there is no defence: that is, Ghislaine Maxwell is guilty."
That's not how justice works, she doesn't have to prove her innocence, the prosecution have to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as Sweeney is concerned it is trial by media and generally always has been.

I found some info that came up in the trial about Jane being at school in NY in the 12th grade, which would be in '97, the same year as the Lion King on Broadway. I completely missed that testimony and have not seen it in media at all.

(Here it is below. You can find it in the link I posted in my previous post.)

download-14.jpg
NYC’s Professional Children’s School.

"The following witness to be called was Paul Kane, of NYC’s Professional Children’s School.
The prosecutor shows him Government Exhibit 721. ‘Do you recognize it?’
Kane: An enrollment application for a student.
AUSA: Don’t say the name. Is it an accurate copy?
Kane: Yes.
Maxwell’s lawyer: Objection – hearsay!
AUSA: It’s a business record.
Judge Nathan: Overruled.
Some form of Voir dire took place, with prosecutors and defense asking questions alternatively.
Maxwell’s lawyer: Can I question the witness?
Judge Nathan: Go ahead.
Maxwell’s lawyer: The Professional Children’s School doesn’t verify the accuracy of the info on the form, does it?
Kane: I think they do.
Maxwell’s lawyer. All of it?
Kane: That, I don’t know.
AUSA: Your Honor, may I?
Judge Nathan: You may.
AUSA: What happens to information coming in?
Kane: We contact the family by phone, then invite them to tour the school and have a conversation.
AUSA: Does the School rely on the form?
Kane: Yes.
After sidebar/Voir dire, document was included.
AUSA: What grade was the person applying for?
Kane: 12th. Due to ‘move to New York.’
USA: Who’s listed as person of financial responsibility?
Jane: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein.
AUSA: Thanks. No further questions.
Cross-examination then took place.
Maxwell’s lawyer: You have no idea if Mr. Epstein actually paid.
Kane: I do not.
Maxwell’s lawyer: And for the mother, does it say unemployed [on the form]?
Kane: It says self-employed, as an interior decorator.
Maxwell’s lawyer: And who is the listed agent?
AUSA: Objection!
Judge Nathan: Just make the jurors look at it.
Maxwell’s lawyer: Look the name in the corner. And the name of the prior principal. You don’t have to say them for the record. No further questions."

Can we view Govt exhibit 721 ourselves anywhere?
Click to expand...
Exhibit 721 is under seal because it contains an alleged victims information.
 
Vicky Ward has written some articles and this one was about Jane's testimony.

vickyward.substack.com

Maxwell Day Three: (Less Than) Total Recall

Dispatches from the Maxwell Trial
vickyward.substack.com vickyward.substack.com

Maxwell Day Three: (Less Than) Total Recall​


"In the past two years while I’ve been researching “Chasing Ghislaine,” my Audible podcast and discovery+ documentary series (airing in back-to-back episodes on ID starting at 8/7c this Friday, December 3rd), sources close to Maxwell’s defense team have told me consistently that they are unbothered by the fact that the Southern District of New York’s conviction rate is extraordinarily high—reportedly over 95 percent.
“I don’t care what the statistics are,” someone close to Maxwell and her lawyers told me nine months ago. “Ghislaine is innocent, and we will prove that.”
At the time, I thought this person was crazy.
The charges against Maxwell are so heinous, and the notoriety of the case so great. Plus, the fact that Jeffrey Epstein, who Maxwell is accused of aiding in his abuse and sex-trafficking of minors, died in jail pre-trial has led almost every New York lawyer I speak to to say they believe the government really, really doesn’t want to lose in the wake of that. There is just too much at stake.

Now, however, I’m beginning to see why the defense appears so confident in the way they handle themselves in the courtroom. ...."
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
Vicky Ward has written some articles and this one was about Jane's testimony.

vickyward.substack.com

Maxwell Day Three: (Less Than) Total Recall

Dispatches from the Maxwell Trial
vickyward.substack.com vickyward.substack.com

Maxwell Day Three: (Less Than) Total Recall​


"In the past two years while I’ve been researching “Chasing Ghislaine,” my Audible podcast and discovery+ documentary series (airing in back-to-back episodes on ID starting at 8/7c this Friday, December 3rd), sources close to Maxwell’s defense team have told me consistently that they are unbothered by the fact that the Southern District of New York’s conviction rate is extraordinarily high—reportedly over 95 percent.
“I don’t care what the statistics are,” someone close to Maxwell and her lawyers told me nine months ago. “Ghislaine is innocent, and we will prove that.”
At the time, I thought this person was crazy.
The charges against Maxwell are so heinous, and the notoriety of the case so great. Plus, the fact that Jeffrey Epstein, who Maxwell is accused of aiding in his abuse and sex-trafficking of minors, died in jail pre-trial has led almost every New York lawyer I speak to to say they believe the government really, really doesn’t want to lose in the wake of that. There is just too much at stake.

Now, however, I’m beginning to see why the defense appears so confident in the way they handle themselves in the courtroom. ...."
Click to expand...
It's so hard to get an accurate grasp on this trial since we can't watch the proceedings & aren't getting 100% of the testimony in MSM or twitter.

I don't know if either side has the advantage or not anymore. What do you think?
 
I don't know either. It seems a bit like a sham trial to me now, token victims and witnesses, no Victoria Roberts or any of the Epstein assistants. Most of the evidence is hidden from the public. Whatever happens, she is just a scapegoat for Epstein and all the powerful people lurking in the wings must be heaving big sighs of relief right now as they have been let off the hook completely.
 
Last edited:
kdg411 said:
Click to expand...

Give me a break. Sunbathing topless? Clearly Moe has never been to the South of France or seen the UK Sun daily newspaper page 3 girl. ( not sure if they still do it.). Also, one of the victims is a Playboy model and they are photographed completely starkers.

Interesting that the only flight records they mention are the original flight to Interlochen. They met as a chance encounter as Jane made a fuss of Maxwell's dog. They clearly have no flight records of Jane. I could not find her either when I searched the flight registers for her real name.
 
Last edited:
I have read this so far and prosecution is mixing and matching victims to suit the charges. Kate's father was a millionaire and her mother lived in Belgravia. Carolyn appears to be the only one who was paid and Maxwell did not procure her. Roberts and her boyfriend did. No evidence the others were paid or that Maxwell gave them money that I remember in the evidence. I admit I may not have seen all the evidence.
 
kdg411 said:
Click to expand...

Same could be said of at least 2 of the victims. The other two had enablers of their own - Jane's mother and Carolyn's felon boyfriend who was clearly getting a cut or free drugs. The defence will probably rebut.this.
 

Tresir said:
Give me a break. Sunbathing topless? Clearly Moe has never been to the South of France or seen the UK Sun daily newspaper page 3 girl. ( not sure if they still do it.). Also, one of the victims is a Playboy model and they are photographed completely starkers.

Interesting that the only flight records they mention are the original flight to Interlochen. They met as a chance encounter as Jane made a fuss of Maxwell's dog. They clearly have no flight records of Jane. I could not find her either when I searched the flight registers for her real name.
Click to expand...
Sunbathing topless isn't a crime in the US if it is done in the privacy of your own home. It has been suggested that Ghislaine helped 'normalize' this nontraditional American behavior by forgoing her top as well which fits the definition of grooming.

One of the witnesses who testified was a Playboy model? I missed that completely, however it doesn't negate responsibility of Ghislaine Maxwell.

I'm very lost when it comes to the flight records because we weren't privy to the entire testimony so I'll have to take your word about Jane & Interlochen. That part of the testimony would have beneficial to hear.
 
kdg411 said:


Sunbathing topless isn't a crime in the US if it is done in the privacy of your own home. It has been suggested that Ghislaine helped 'normalize' this nontraditional American behavior by forgoing her top as well which fits the definition of grooming.

One of the witnesses who testified was a Playboy model? I missed that completely, however it doesn't negate responsibility of Ghislaine Maxwell.

I'm very lost when it comes to the flight records because we weren't privy to the entire testimony so I'll have to take your word about Jane & Interlochen. That part of the testimony would have beneficial to hear.
Click to expand...

I think the defence mentions the logs. Kate is the Playboy model. The topless poolside sunbathing was in a private home wasn't it? Anyway this part of the defence closing mentions the log and also about which charges are for which victim. We know Kate and Annie were not legally victims. I will just copy paste the latest part of the defence closing but it is very succinct and clear. Page down the Twitter feed to read the rest.

AUSA: We want a curative instruction. Ms. Menninger read from an email that was precluded. Judge Nathan: The curative instruction you are asking for is in the charge.

Show this thread

https://mobile.twitter.com/innercitypress
Inner City Press
@innercitypress
·
7m

Menninger: Ghislaine is being tried here for being with Jeffrey Epstein. Maybe it was the bigger mistake of her life. But it is not a crime. Acquit her. Judge Nathan: Let's take a break. Soon: podcast & stories on http://InnerCityPress.com &

patreon.com
Matthew Russell Lee: Inner City Press is creating News and views, from SDNY, NYC, IMF & UN censor...







Show this thread

Inner City Press
@innercitypress
·
18m

Menninger: Counts 2 and 4 rely on Jane entirely. If you don't believe her, drop the counts Count 6 relies on Carolyn. If you don't believe her, drop the count.
 
The topless thing is totally relevant imo. It may not be a smoking gun but it shows several things. It shows the atmosphere/landscape, more than one witness corroborates it showing they saw the same things and were at the same place, etc.

It is not typical in the US that teen girls or even young woman see adult women (and older ones as well) in groups around a pool topless. At a hotel pool the guests would be thrown out or even arrested. Young women in general never see their parents with friends or alone around a pool topless or nude either. This isn't Europe.

There also seems to be a bit of a theme with breasts in this case, both the touching of them and baring of them.

Atmosphere, grooming, normalization, sexualization, corroboration. Imo.

I am way, way behind in posts in here on this case so just commenting on what I am more up on in the case and aware of.
 
The topless thing is very common in France especially. I had a friend who was a French stewardess with BA and went on several free holidays with her. She went topless on the beach and at the beachside bar. I was embarrassed and never followed suit but it was normal and natural for her. In France especially they have many public nudist beaches too. We went to a couple of them when the kids were young as the beaches were beautiful but it is not my thing at all but many see it as natural and certainly not grooming at all. Whole families were completely nude. We kept all our swimwear on but were in the minority.

While we are on the subject, may as well share my massage experiences too. Completely professional home massage who was a friend, bought her own table, oils etc. Full body massage, arms, legs, feet , back, neck and head, but definitely not boobs. However, it was normal to wear no bra but keep pants on (knickers/briefs to you). A small towel laid across the breast for modesty purposes when turning over.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,032
Messages
243,905
Members
981
Latest member
Alicerar
Back
Top Bottom