Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think I can wait for another 4 days so I don't know how the accused must be feeling.

Another tweet explains why the jurors didn't want to sit tomorrow.

Victoria Bekiempis
https://mobile.twitter.com/vicbekiempis
@vicbekiempis
·
1h

Some no-news news. Jurors in #GhislaineMaxwell trial asked for testimony from Juan Alessi and Kate. Also, they had an answer to judge Nathan's question abt whether they wanted to delib tomorrow: "no thank you *jurors have made plans for tomorrow."
 
Last edited:
I don't think I can wait for another 4 days so I don't know how the accused must be feeling.
Well, at least they aren't rushing into a verdict and taking their role seriously. I applaud them, especially after reading those jury instructions several times.
 
A little more info. Maxwell team seem to think it is a good sign, high fiving each other.

From Adam Klasfeld -
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Remember when jurors wanted transcripts of every Ghislaine Maxwell accuser BUT “Kate”? Now, they want the testimony of “Kate” and Juan [Alessi, presumably]. They also want “Jane’s” transcript again—this time, in a three-ring binder.

As for those seeking a tea-leaf read on this one, the most that can seemingly be divined here is: They’re studious.

Also, with the caveat that we do not know the context of the gesture: Maxwell’s attorneys Laura Menninger and Bobbi Sternheim could be seen giving each other a high-five in court—before the brief conference to discuss plans for Thursday.
 
Obviously we are going to have four days to enjoy our Christmas. In the meantime I found this article from March, if anyone is interested in reading more about the Maxwell siblings.

Have a great Christmas everyone. I will catch up again Monday, unless I come across any other reading matter.

 
Here is an article about the FedEx packages, indicating that the sending of lingerie was never shown to be from Maxwell, but only from Epstein or his other assistants. Also FBI evidence is discussed plus the fact that VR was not called as a witness.

 
Last edited:
Here is an article about the FedEx packages, indicating that the sending of lingerie was never shown to be from Maxwell, but only from Epstein or his other assistants. Also FBI evidence is discussed plus the fact that VR was not called as a witness.

This article proves my point about the coverage being presented to the public. Reporters are cherrypicking what we get to hear & it's frustrating. I don't know how much weight the jury is going to give to the Fed-Ex testimony. They aren't rushing to convict/acquit so hopefully this panel takes all of the testimony & evidence that has been presented to them fairly.

As for Dershowitz, I have a problem believing him because he was Epstein's attorney who negotiated that 'deal' in 2008. jmo
 
This article proves my point about the coverage being presented to the public. Reporters are cherrypicking what we get to hear & it's frustrating. I don't know how much weight the jury is going to give to the Fed-Ex testimony. They aren't rushing to convict/acquit so hopefully this panel takes all of the testimony & evidence that has been presented to them fairly.

As for Dershowitz, I have a problem believing him because he was Epstein's attorney who negotiated that 'deal' in 2008. jmo

That is what I thought when I read this article. None of the tweeting reporters mentioned this important testimony. If it was on Court TV, then we could all listen ourselves, at our leisure.

From the article -

"Prosecutors haven't shown clear evidence that Maxwell sent accusers lingerie​

Before Farmer's anticipated testimony, prosecutors called Tracy Chapell, a FedEx paralegal, who testified about Epstein's invoices.

Prosecutors have accused Maxwell of trafficking girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and her defense attorneys have argued that the Justice Department went after her as a proxy for Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on similar charges.

Chapell seemed to prove the defense attorneys' point, and it was head-scratching that prosecutors presented her as a witness.


Throughout the trial, prosecutors have repeatedly referenced these FedEx records. In opening statements last week, Pomerantz told jurors that the records would prove "Epstein sent a gift to one victim when she was just 15 years old." And in testimony on Tuesday, an accuser who went by her first name, Carolyn, said she remembers receiving Victoria's Secret lingerie in the mail while living in West Palm Beach, Florida. It stuck in her mind, she said, because the package was sent from New York, where she grew up. Prosecutors even hauled in her ex-boyfriend, Shawn, as a witness on Wednesday. He also talked about the FedEx packages.

ghislaine maxwell carolyn

Ghislaine Maxwell listens as witness "Carolyn" answers question from prosecutor Maurene Comey. REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

But Epstein is dead, as Maxwell's attorneys' noted. If prosecutors wanted to prove to jurors that Maxwell facilitated Epstein's sexual abuse of Carolyn through those packages, they failed to do so.

Chapell testified that she dug up hundreds of pages of Epstein's FedEx invoices out of storage boxes kept in a warehouse, pursuant to subpoenas from prosecutors and Maxwell's lawyers.

She reviewed some of those pages, and indicated that packages were sent from Epstein's office at 457 Madison Avenue in New York to a person named "Carolyn" — though partially redacted copies shown to the public showed her name was often misspelled — in West Palm Beach in late 2002. The Carolyn who testified earlier this week said Epstein began sexually abusing her that year.


None of those packages were sent by Maxwell, according to the records. The records demonstrated that all the packages were sent by Epstein himself, a person named Cecilia Steen, or Sarah Kellen, another of the financier's assistants who several other Epstein accusers have also accused of misconduct.

tracy chapman fedex ghislaine maxwell trial

This courtroom sketch shows Tracy Chapell, a Federal Express employee, testifying on the witness stand during the Ghislaine Maxwell sex abuse trial, Thursday Dec. 9, 2021, in New York.Elizabeth Williams via AP

Things got worse for the prosecution when Maxwell's attorney, Christian Everdell, best known as a former prosecutor who helped bring down drug kingpin El Chapo, presented dozens more pages of FedEx records from the same time period.

The records showed that Maxwell did send FedEx packages from the very same Madison Avenue office on the very same days that Epstein's other employees sent packages to Carolyn. According to the FedEx records, Maxwell sent packages to investment banker Ron Burkle, to artificial intelligence scientist Danny Hillis, and to her sister Isabelle, who was in court Thursday morning and gave Maxwell a glance when her name was read aloud.

But Maxwell was not listed as a sender to Carolyn, nor "Caroline," "Cardine," nor any of the other possible misspellings for the West Palm Beach resident.


Everdell also pointed to a package that appeared to be sent to "Jane" — the pseudonym for another accuser in the trial — and indicated that Epstein, not Maxwell, was listed as the sender on the package.

At the end of Chapell's testimony, Everdell entered around 50 more pages of FedEx records into evidence for the jury to review. Presumably, those records don't show that Maxwell sent accusers any packages that would indicate she facilitated sexual abuse."

Regarding Dershowitz, I have been checking this out and he is suing Guiffre and Wexner is set to testify soon but I cannot find out exactly when. I think it is going to be a secret testimony. I will post the court case number on here for reference.

Here's the Guiffre v Dershowitz case (she is suing him actually but he is alleging she has got it wrong and that she has made a mistake when accusing him)


Here is the article stating Wexner is going to give a statement on Dec 17th. I don't know if this has taken place.

 
Last edited:
Here is another article that involves Boies, who represents Guiffre and some other victims pro bono. (Presumably he gets paid via part of the settlement). This appears to be a situation where lawyers were duped into believing there were tapes of victims having sex with rich clients. The lawyers thought that if they got hold of the tapes they could approach the rich clients in the tapes to obtain settlements. This appeared to sound a little like blackmail. Anyway, I am wondering if this is why the defence wanted to call some victim lawyers to be asked questions.

 
Here is another article that involves Boies, who represents Guiffre and some other victims pro bono. (Presumably he gets paid via part of the settlement). This appears to be a situation where lawyers were duped into believing there were tapes of victims having sex with rich clients. The lawyers thought that if they got hold of the tapes they could approach the rich clients in the tapes to obtain settlements. This appeared to sound a little like blackmail. Anyway, I am wondering if this is why the defence wanted to call some victim lawyers to be asked questions.

I'm not surprised because many accusers mentioned that Epstein's NY & FL home were filled with cameras. If there is more evidence then where is it?
 
I'm not surprised because many accusers mentioned that Epstein's NY & FL home were filled with cameras. If there is more evidence then where is it?
Maybe the FBI have it now? Everyone has wondered for years how Epstein got his money. Perhaps, protection/extortion was part of it. It would/does not surprise me at all.

Perhaps this is why Guiffre did not appear as a witness, because the defence would know about this and would bring it up in questioning, presumably. This also explains how Guiffre was able to afford to sue Maxwell, Dershowitz and now Prince Andrew as her lawyers are acting pro bono.

Might as well put the Prince Andrew document here too as that is coming up in January, I believe.

 
Last edited:
Ok, and this brings us right back to "Filthy Rich" and this DM story. Pretty sure that this is how he kept his victims, associates and employees quiet and compliant. The FBI must have these tapes now surely.

 
Markle can be relied upon to tell the truth apparently.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Meghan Markle was 20 years old in 2001 and was not involved in the royal circle when Virginia Giuffre claims she had sex with Price Andrew.
 
I'm not sure this is accurate. Meghan Markle was 20 years old in 2001 and was not involved in the royal circle when Virginia Giuffre claims she had sex with Price Andrew.
Maybe she had some knowledge from when she was on the modelling circuit, she fits the age group that would know about it. eg. not necessarily from the Royal Circle. I read this morning that her wiki was completely changed to remove all the model experience that used to be on it, once she began dating Prince Harry.

Also, Guiffre's accusation did not surface for many years.
 
Last edited:
This article proves my point about the coverage being presented to the public. Reporters are cherrypicking what we get to hear & it's frustrating. I don't know how much weight the jury is going to give to the Fed-Ex testimony. They aren't rushing to convict/acquit so hopefully this panel takes all of the testimony & evidence that has been presented to them fairly.

As for Dershowitz, I have a problem believing him because he was Epstein's attorney who negotiated that 'deal' in 2008. jmo
Just skimming to catch up here.

I HATE that this is not televised and we only get a picture from reporters of what they choose for us to hear along with their spin on it. The only way to be best informed of facts in any case is to read actual documents, testimony and watch the trial. Even then, there is often testimony not allowed, etc.

I see Dershowitz's name or opinion and pretty much dismiss it without even considering it as I feel the same.
 
Maxwell's lawyer Christian Everdell: There are cases defining enticement, I don't have then at hand -- Judge Nathan: I have one: US v. Almonte. Is that what you have in mind, Mr. Everdell? Everdell: I think we cited a case in our Rule 29 argument, on causation too



Show this thread


https://mobile.twitter.com/innercitypress
Inner City Press

@innercitypress

·
1h

Assistant US Attorney: On page 21 of your instruction, you defined enticement in its ordinary, every-day meaning. That's what they should be told. Judge Nathan stares into her computer.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,032
Messages
243,975
Members
982
Latest member
TonyGutter
Back
Top Bottom