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...
Tresir said:
Bringing this forward as a reminder for myself.
Victim 1 "Jane"
Victim 2 Annie Farmer
Victim 3 "Kate"
Victim 4 Carolyn

Counts/charged
1 victims 123&4
2 victim 1
3 victims 123&4
4 victim 1
5 victim 4
6 victim 4

If Kate is not a victim and Annie is also deemed not a victim then they will be removed from counts 1 and 3.
That leaves Jane and Carolyn only. Jane's testimony has holes regarding dates and several victims testified she looked 18. Her testimony does not agree with the FBI notes written on their 302's. That would cause reasonable doubt.
That leaves Carolyn who is a felon and was pimped and transported by her BF, who is a felon. VR was also involved in the pimping and received payment. The testimony of felons may be doubted enough to cause reasonable doubt. Carolyn did not travel due to her age (no ID) and she also lied about her age.

My opinion is that these points may be enough to cause reasonable doubt in all the charges.

Hopefully this should not go past a second day.
Click to expand...
Bringing my reminder post forward plus below is a tweet summary from
Ben Feuerherd
https://mobile.twitter.com/benfeuerherd
@benfeuerherd
·
27 Dec

Count 1 - Multiple alleged victims, '94-'04
Count 2 - Solely to Jane '94 - '97
Count 3 - Multiple alleged victims, '94-'04
Count 4 - Solely to Jane '94 - '97
Count 5 - Multiple alleged victims '01-'04
Count 6 - Solely to Carolyn '01 - '04



Ben Feuerherd
@benfeuerherd
·
27 Dec

A handy guide as to which allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell correspond to each count was included in Judge Nathan's jury charge.
Image
 
Last edited:
So there is conspiring to entice to travel and enticement to travel by interstate commerce.
Plus conspiring to entice and enticement to transport by interstate commerce

What is the difference between travel and transport in these charges? Also, by interstate commerce, does that mean commercial means?
 


@KlasfeldReports
·
3m

The remaining (unread) name was apparently illegible. Judge Nathan is seeking clarification from the jury. The jury also wants to know whether they're being asked to deliberate on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.


Show this thread
https://mobile.twitter.com/KlasfeldReports
Adam Klasfeld

@KlasfeldReports
·
5m

Of note: This appears to be the first time they requested transcripts of defense witness testimony. Espinosa was an ex-assistant at J. Epstein & Co. Young and Richards are FBI agents called by the defense. Shawn was Carolyn's ex-boyfriend, called by the prosecution.





Show this thread



Adam Klasfeld

@KlasfeldReports
·
13m

Judge Nathan reads a new Ghislaine Maxwell jury note. "May we please have the following transcripts:" * Shawn * Cimberly Espinosa * Amanda Young * Jason Richards Also one name she didn't read.
 
Does this happen often? (Jury requesting most of the witness transcripts )

I have never heard of this before in a trial.
 
Tresir said:
Does this happen often? (Jury requesting most of the witness transcripts )

I have never heard of this before in a trial.
Click to expand...
It's not common to have court transcripts redacted & certified for a jury to use in deliberations.
 
Tresir said:
So there is conspiring to entice to travel and enticement to travel by interstate commerce.
Plus conspiring to entice and enticement to transport by interstate commerce

What is the difference between travel and transport in these charges? Also, by interstate commerce, does that mean commercial means?
Click to expand...
Travel by personal or public transportation. ie private or public airline
 
I don't think they are redacted for a jury generally. They have already heard their testimony. That's my thought anyhow, if they are transcripts from this trial at least.
 
I'm surprised a bit at their refusal or at least they declined the deliberating until 6 p.m. It is unusual to me that jurors would not just go along with a judge in such a case, especially a federal one, feeling it a part of their duty, the schedule, etc. of deliberations.

Not an important point to mention, it just surprises me. Maybe they have one that the 5 p.m. time is a big deal to for some reason, or a hardship to go later.

Or they are being fed fresh beignets and gourmet coffee, lobster and caviar, etc. and the more days, the more meals lol. Meant just in humor of course, not really. This entire case has been unusual right down to the questions from and time the jury is taking. Not a bad thing, just something not often seen to this extent.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I'm surprised a bit at their refusal or at least they declined the deliberating until 6 p.m. It is unusual to me that jurors would not just go along with a judge in such a case, especially a federal one, feeling it a part of their duty, the schedule, etc. of deliberations.

Not an important point to mention, it just surprises me. Maybe they have one that the 5 p.m. time is a big deal to for some reason, or a hardship to go later.

Or they are being fed fresh beignets and gourmet coffee, lobster and caviar, etc. and the more days, the more meals lol. Meant just in humor of course, not really. This entire case has been unusual right down to the questions from and time the jury is taking. Not a bad thing, just something not often seen to this extent.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that. One of the jurors was late one morning due to the MTA. Is it safe travelling by MTA after that time? I certainly would not fancy travelling on my own by public transport in NY after 6 pm.
 
Tresir said:
I very much doubt that. One of the jurors was late one morning due to the MTA. Is it safe travelling by MTA after that time? I certainly would not fancy travelling on my own by public transport in NY after 6 pm.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was mostly joking. And the public transport, I entirely agree and failed to think of that. Especially in NYC.

The food remark was meant in jest :)
 
GrandmaBear said:
Yes, I was mostly joking. And the public transport, I entirely agree and failed to think of that. Especially in NYC.

The food remark was meant in jest :)
Click to expand...
No problem.

Just saw this. So far they have requested approx 40% of the total witness transcripts.


Adam Klasfeld

@KlasfeldReports

Replying to
@KlasfeldReports
and
@KatiePhang
The government has called 24 witnesses in total. The defense called nine witnesses. So of 33 total witnesses, jurors have requested 13 transcripts—to date.

4:56 pm · 29 Dec 2021·Twitter Web App
 
GrandmaBear said:
I'm surprised a bit at their refusal or at least they declined the deliberating until 6 p.m. It is unusual to me that jurors would not just go along with a judge in such a case, especially a federal one, feeling it a part of their duty, the schedule, etc. of deliberations.

Not an important point to mention, it just surprises me. Maybe they have one that the 5 p.m. time is a big deal to for some reason, or a hardship to go later.

Or they are being fed fresh beignets and gourmet coffee, lobster and caviar, etc. and the more days, the more meals lol. Meant just in humor of course, not really. This entire case has been unusual right down to the questions from and time the jury is taking. Not a bad thing, just something not often seen to this extent.
Click to expand...
Child or elder care could be an issue for some
 
Tresir said:
No problem.

Just saw this. So far they have requested approx 40% of the total witness transcripts.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Replying to
@KlasfeldReports
and
@KatiePhang
The government has called 24 witnesses in total. The defense called nine witnesses. So of 33 total witnesses, jurors have requested 13 transcripts—to date.

4:56 pm · 29 Dec 2021·Twitter Web App
Click to expand...
I'm going to guess they are lining things up, comparing and seeing what makes the most sense and is the most believable/beyond a reasonable doubt. And deciding truthfulness based on that.

Of course I know nothing of the kind lol, all we can do is guess.
 
Guess Who said:
Child or elder care could be an issue for some
Click to expand...
Yeah, actually that's what crossed my mind. Someone ill at home or care of someone. Public transport though too does make sense. I wouldn't want to take it in daytime much less after dark.
 
RoundPeg said:
Why are they being redacted? I'm just reading along but this whole trial as far as procedure has me confused.
Click to expand...
I may have stated that incorrectly. Court transcripts do have to be certified though prior to being released to the jury.
 
If they are looking at the testimony of the memory expert then they are clearly looking into the length of time since the incidents. 25 years ago in some of the cases.

It will clearly go into another day at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,032
Messages
243,987
Members
982
Latest member
TonyGutter
Back
Top Bottom