Fogbow

Is it me, or is it bad manners to require the staff to clean your used sex toys?

Getting Juan Alessi to testify is a huge win for the prosecuion.

The Household Manual written by Maxwell for Epstein's staff.

ALERT: Maxwell's lawyer has just openly said the real name of one of the pseudonymous survivor witnesses.
Judge Nathan: Your are admonished to abide by my rulings.
AUSA: May we approach?
Sidebar begins...

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:34 am

ALERT: Maxwell's lawyer has just openly said the real name of one of the pseudonymous survivor witnesses.
Judge Nathan: Your are admonished to abide by my rulings.
AUSA: May we approach?
Sidebar begins...

I was just about to post this. I gasped out loud when I read this tweet. I've seen this happen in multiple trials. It always appears purposeful. Which disgusts me.

These "oopsies" are intended to threaten any other anonymous witnesses.

Please note that when I criticize/accuse lawyers of unprofessional/inappropriate/etc behavior I firmly understand that one lawyer doesn't represent all lawyers of that specialty.

ICP is saying that a witness name was slipped a *second* time.

Then there is this. IANAL, but I can't imagine how this sort of thing would help her client. If I were on the jury, it would only piss me off. It just seems so juvenile.

Notaperson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:40 pmThen there is this. IANAL, but I can't imagine how this sort of thing would help her client.

It is an attack on the witness's credibility. To suggest a deal has been cut for the testimony. Or to suggest the witness didn't consider the behavior criminal, so why should the jury?

Whether these are effective attacks is different.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:00 pm

Notaperson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:40 pmThen there is this. IANAL, but I can't imagine how this sort of thing would help her client.

It is an attack on the witness's credibility. To suggest a deal has been cut for the testimony. Or to suggest the witness didn't consider the behavior criminal, so why should the jury?

Whether these are effective attacks is different.

Looked at the tweet thread; no discussion of how the judge ruled, just another question.

I would have sustained the objection but allowed counsel to rephrase. It only would have been trafficking if the women were minors and enticed to travel across state lines.

If counsel had a good faith basis for eliciting facts about immunity or selective prosecution, that would have been permissible. But I would have required some specificity.

An interesting take on Prince Andrew's BBC interview. Basically this Dr has the same skepticism of Andrew's honesty in answering many questions, particularly the ones involving Virginia Giuffre. Anywho, posted here for anyone who is interested in his take.

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:52 pm An interesting take on Prince Andrew's BBC interview. Basically this Dr has the same skepticism of Andrew's honesty in answering many questions, particularly the ones involving Virginia Giuffre. Anywho, posted here for anyone who is interested in his take.

Take him with a grain of salt, perhaps?

Dr. Todd Grande
YouTube channel
Dr. Grande is a professional counselor, counselor educator, and content creator who specializes in personality disorders, addiction, recovery from trauma, psychopathology, and assessment.

Todd Grande - Unhooked Media

Rogers: I kept a log book. Including passenger names.
AUSA: We offer the log book - as a sealed exhibit.

Another pilot is testifying.

https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/trans ... 3-n1285398

HAYES: I guess first start with your big takeaways from this first week of testimony Vicky as someone who`s been in that courtroom every day.

VICKY WARD, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Chris, I think that the real sort of shocking story of the week is that the defense for Ghislaine Maxwell has really effectively knocked down the testimony from the government`s main witnesses.

You know, as you rightly pointed out, Jane, the pseudonym for accuser number one, whose testimony was really shocking about being abused for many years by Jeffrey Epstein.

And so, she said with Ghislaine Maxwell in the room, from the age of 14, was then, you know, the gut -- the defense really poked a lot of holes at that in their cross-examination by bringing up notes from interviews the FBI had taken in the last two years with this accuser, which directly contradicted what she said about Ghislaine Maxwell being in the room and directly contradict what she said about Ghislaine Maxwell participating in any of the abuse.

We saw the same thing this morning with the cross-examination of the butler, who yesterday really talked about the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell was "The lady of the house" that she and Jeffrey Epstein shared a bedroom.

And again, talked about the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell, he`d seen phoning and consorting with and traveling with two underage girls, one of them was Jane, he said.

But this morning, the cross-examination pointed out that he was a liar. He had under oath four years ago, given testimony, set admitting that he had stolen money from Jeffrey Epstein not once, but twice, which contradicted his testimony in court yesterday. Where he said, he`d only stolen money from Jeffrey Epstein once.

So, the credibility of the government witnesses is really coming under fire quite effectively from Ghislaine Maxwell`s defense. And I think a lot of journalists in the courtroom are quite surprised by this.

HAYES: Yes, I mean, in the case -- in the case of this prosecution, one of the things contextually about it, of course, is that these were events that happened quite a long time ago.

And of course, we went through this sort of strange situation in which Epstein had faced charges, he had been allowed to sort of play out. That was the scandal that brought this back, the Department of Justice again.

So, everything that`s being talked about here, right? We`re talking about in a timeframe of 10, 15, maybe 20 years ago, something on that order, is that right?

WARD: Longer, even longer. So, the indictment spans from 1994 to 2004.

HAYES: Right, that`s right.

WARD: That`s 25, it`s a really, really long time ago. And so, the defense`s argument, they`ve been very clear is about what they call the three M`s, or I call the three M`s, it`s about memory. They argue that those memories change over time. Manipulation of those memories by self-interested civil lawyers they say and money.

The fact that the witnesses, the victims, have changed their story according to the defense lawyers after Jeffrey Epstein died and big bucks were on the table from the Epstein compensation fund.

NEW: Ghislaine Maxwell flew as a passenger the first flight on Jeffrey Epstein’s newly purchased plane in 7/1991 — meaning she knew the financier at least 4 months before her father — Robert Maxwell — died. (More)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 420050001/

Fact check: False claim that 28 CEOs have stepped down during Ghislaine Maxwell's trial

Ghislaine Maxwell's federal sex trafficking trial has spawned a rash of misinformation on social media – including conspiracy theories about some of the country's top companies.

A Dec. 4 Facebook post includes a list of more than 20 CEOs that have purportedly stepped down during Maxwell's trial, which began Nov. 29 in New York.

"MORE TO COME!!!!" reads text in the post, which accumulate more than 4,000 shares in a week. "PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!!!!!!!"

Among those who have purportedly stepped down: the chief executives of Disney, Amazon, Nissan and Walmart. Similar versions of the list have also racked up thousands of shares on Facebook.

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:56 pm

NEW: Ghislaine Maxwell flew as a passenger the first flight on Jeffrey Epstein’s newly purchased plane in 7/1991 — meaning she knew the financier at least 4 months before her father — Robert Maxwell — died. (More)

Why is this significant?

No significance whatsoever, her father had purchased the "New York Daily News" with her as his point person in NY, so hardly surprising she was seen in the orbit of various of the glitterati of the time.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:53 am

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:56 pm

NEW: Ghislaine Maxwell flew as a passenger the first flight on Jeffrey Epstein’s newly purchased plane in 7/1991 — meaning she knew the financier at least 4 months before her father — Robert Maxwell — died. (More)

Why is this significant?

As I understand it, the significance was that Maxwell’s father’s death left her in financial straits, she already knew Epstein before her father died, and had a financial motive to procure underage girls.

ETA: It’s not a smoking gun; it’s just another dot in the connect-the-dots picture.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:37 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:53 am

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:56 pm

► Show Spoiler

Why is this significant?

As I understand it, the significance was that Maxwell’s father’s death left her in financial straits, she already knew Epstein before her father died, and had a financial motive to procure underage girls.

ETA: It’s not a smoking gun; it’s just another dot in the connect-the-dots picture.

Thanks. I didn’t understand the dot without context. I wonder how this economic class defines financial straits.

I'm glad M was able to connect the dots, last Wednesday was too long ago to recall the context

“Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Defence attorneys begin arguments”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59688787

“She is not expected to take the stand in her own defence, according to a family spokesperson cited by UK media.
The spokesman told the Mirror newspaper on Wednesday that Ms Maxwell's health has worsened and she is currently "too fragile" to testify.”

Uninformed wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:19 pm “Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Defence attorneys begin arguments”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59688787

“She is not expected to take the stand in her own defence, according to a family spokesperson cited by UK media.
The spokesman told the Mirror newspaper on Wednesday that Ms Maxwell's health has worsened and she is currently "too fragile" to testify.”

I suppose “too fragile to testify” is a euphemism for “likely to be eaten alive in cross-examination.” There’s no way the defense will make that comment in front of the jury, because it would open the door to comment by the government. Ordinarily the government can’t comment on the defendant’s invocation of the right to remain silent, but if the defense makes a comment like, “she’s too fragile to testify,” the government is allowed to respond with it’s own explanation for why she might to be testifying.

More breaking: Defense reveals that FBI seized Millions of documents, data & files from devices in 2019 search of Jeffrey Epstein’s home — only a fraction of which thd Govt has made public in the case. What are on those other files?

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:13 pm

More breaking: Defense reveals that FBI seized Millions of documents, data & files from devices in 2019 search of Jeffrey Epstein’s home — only a fraction of which thd Govt has made public in the case. What are on those other files?

“Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Maxwell won't testify as defence rests case”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59703611

“Defence attorneys in the federal sex trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell have rested their case after only two days and nine witnesses.”

“The trial was thrown into disarray after defence lawyers asked the judge for more time to produce their witnesses.
"We are flying people across the country, across the pond, our client's life is on the line, and we are given only a half a day to put on a witness," said attorney Laura Menninger.
Judge Alison Nathan rebuked the team for not having its witnesses ready and refused to delay the trial.
"I have a rule, you have your next witness or you rest," she said.
In all, only nine out of a proposed 35 witnesses ultimately took the stand.”

Haven’t they had months to line up witnesses and prep?