I’ve been following Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial somewhat over the past two weeks. Considering all of the energy put into reviewing and reporting on the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell saga in recent years, I wasn’t surprised that the trial didn’t seem to be breaking new ground. We all know that Epstein was a serial rapist and sexual predator. We all know that Ghislaine groomed girls and women for Epstein, and that she was a huge part of the human trafficking organization. The trial was simply supposed to prove all of that explicitly, given the mountain of evidence the federal authorities have gathered on Maxwell over the years. Except that people who have actually been paying close attention to the trial are somewhat taken aback by how poorly the prosecution’s case has been going. From Gabriel Sherman at Vanity Fair:
Ghislaine Maxwell is on trial, but the case has always been about more than her. In seeking to put the disgraced British heiress behind bars for a possible 80 years, prosecutors are aiming to redress serial failures by the justice system to punish the crimes of her partner: the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Which is why it’s shocking—and tragic—that the prosecution’s case against Maxwell appears far weaker than many people expected. The list of prosecutorial missteps is long. Victims have appeared unprepared for cross-examination. High-profile coconspirators have not yet been called to testify about Maxwell’s alleged role in Epstein’s child sex trafficking operation. On Tuesday, prosecutors stunned reporters in the courthouse viewing room by announcing the government intends to rest its case before Friday—weeks earlier than anticipated. It all raises the painful question: Will Maxwell go free?
Before the trial opened, I counted myself among the pessimists who expected the case wouldn’t provide a full accounting of Epstein’s alleged crimes or expose the powerful men that allegedly participated in his depraved lifestyle. My view has held throughout the trial. I was dismayed, for instance, that prosecutor Lara Pomerantz’s opening statement ran a short 35 minutes (roughly 10 minutes less than the government’s opening argument in the Elizabeth Holmes fraud trial, for comparison). I was also underwhelmed that prosecutors didn’t first call an alleged victim as their first witness and instead lead off with Epstein’s pilot Larry Visoski. The perception in the viewing room was that Visoski testified more like a defense witness, claiming he never saw sex acts with underage girls or sexual activity on Epstein’s planes.
Testimony from Maxwell’s alleged victims has been harrowing. On Tuesday, the third accuser testified that Epstein sexually abused her more than a hundred times starting when she was a 14-year-old. The woman, identified by her first name Carolyn, recounted that Maxwell often scheduled her massages with Epstein and once groped her while she was naked and said she had “a great body for Mr. Epstein and his friends.” (Carolyn said Maxwell knew she was under the age of consent.) In one heartbreaking moment, Carolyn broke down and said, “my soul is broken” because of Maxwell’s alleged abuse.
Unfortunately, prosecutors didn’t follow up and ask Carolyn to name Epstein’s friends. Carolyn’s gut-wrenching testimony was also undermined by a seeming lack of preparation by the prosecution. Under cross-examination, one of Maxwell’s lawyers, Jeffrey Pagliuca, exposed inconsistencies in Carolyn’s prior comments on the case.
Sherman also notes what he sees as the “weakest plank in the prosecution’s case,” which is the “lack of testimony from Epstein’s innermost circle.” There were other people involved in – or with knowledge of – the human trafficking ring, people who have a standing “nonprosecution agreement.” None of them have been called.
Now, is this prosecutorial incompetence or something else? It could be that the case against Ghislaine Maxwell is so big, so long-running, so involved, that the prosecution is just trying to simplify the case to the point where they can just put Maxwell in prison forever. The other option is… the government isn’t actually trying to win this case. People within DOJ and the FBI are actively tanking the case against Maxwell.
The prosecution also dumped a lot of old photos of Maxwell and Epstein together, including a photo taken at the Queen’s favorite log cabin at Balmoral.
A photo of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein lounging in the Queen's Balmoral log cabin has been shown at her trial in NYC today, Dec 8. The image (circa 1999, when Prince Andrew hosted Epstein there) was presented alongside others to illustrate the pair's close relationship. pic.twitter.com/Nb7sOELBuP
— Omid Scobie (@scobie) December 8, 2021
Photos courtesy of Backgrid.
Please, PLEASE say it ain’t so. This woman is a lying, evil monster.
I bet she’ll walk. That’s American “justice” for the wealthy and connected.
Yes. And GM is not just wealthy and connected. She is connected to the Tippity Top of the world’s richest and most powerful men. The Lolita Express flight logs tell all. Remember when the Epstein arrest happened FBI was sent in first thing to remove all the evidence? I assume most of that evidence was destroyed, unless it is being held somewhere as blackmail currency. These elites operate on an entirely different plane than you and I, no pun intended. Sickening.
It seems obvious the goal of this trial is to ensure she walks.
Yes, only to protect the wealthiest and sleaziest people and families worldwide. Why kill Epstein when he probably could have walked too? Was he too much of a wild card, whereas GM is safe after committing to firmly deny, deny and deny? Did the prosecution make a deal with the devil to protect these families and protect their legacies and position within the world?
I agree and she’s very well connected, that’s for sure. I wonder who is really rooting for her in fear she’ll start naming names. I think at this point we’ll never know. Sad really sad. Sex trafficking is a growing crime and this case could have put a dent in it but now, doesn’t look likely.
one has to wonder if there’s a reason the prosecution is putting up such a weak case and if they’re screwing the pooch intentionally
Hit the nail on the head.
That’s it.
Too many powerful men *white men* would be exposed as abusers, so they are using their power to hide their abuses.
That the prosecution was not prepared for this just proves the point.
Damn
I am losing heart. I am losing faith. We are all losing democracy and “justice is blind” has never proven to be more wrong than this case.
That was my first thought aswell.
I think this could be the case. There are too many powerful people with reputations at stake. I’d suspect payoffs to the prosecution and maybe even the jury, a lesser sentence for Maxwell (a not guilty could create a backlash that might turn attention back to the powerful people). Maxwell will likely be “sanctioned.” Look for a “personal offing,” an “accident” of some kind. Her father was thrown off a yacht, right? Epstein was likely murdered, and I think Maxwell’s time is up. No one wants her to get a book deal, or go on talk shows. I think she knows she’s on borrowed time, and prison is actually keeping her alive. No one cares about the girls who were exploited and abused. We’ll forget about them again, and the entire sordid situation will be swpt under the rug. I imagine that this type of brazen abuse is going to go further underground, offshore. Powerful men seem to share the despicable need to lord their power over the powerless in the most egregious ways possible. How does one know one is powerful unless you actively proving it on the backs of the most vulnerable people? It’s toxic masculinity at its most poisonous. Absolute power is evil.
I’m not a tin foil hat person, but rather a person who studied poli-sci/international affairs and am extremely familiar with intelligence and national security sectors. And this is quite likely.
It’s not at all about protecting powerful people who happen to be pervs either, (that’s too simple, of course countries and the press love to out a sleazy high profile creep for the headlines and good press alone- I mean take a look at the Cuomo’s right now!) it’s simply that Ghislaine is likely some other country’s asset.
There’s strong evidence Epstein and her father Robert Maxwell were both intelligence sources for other nations. Israel and England’s names come up but as always with these things no one’s entirely sure and Maxwell’s odd possible homicide death suggests he could have been working for more than one country as these types sometimes do (and that’s a no-no).
And they both were not even sources for sexual blackmail per say (although that was likely noted for such purposes if it was found), like the popular assumption based on Epstein’s crimes would make you think, but for massive international financial crimes and tax evasion.
That’s what Epstein “did” to actually gain his wealth- helped rich people launder money out of countries to escape taxes or because it was obtain in dirty deals. Ghislaine was his international facilitator in that beyond being his private pimp. She used her connections from her dad with the upper crust to find him marks with money, her knowledge of how to act like an aristo to help him pull off deals, her multiple languages spoken to connect Epstein to broader international financial sources and do the direct negotiations.
And it all just screams that she too was facilitating intelligence generation through at least Epstein if not also her father as she was his right hand woman and that she is likely also considered some countries “asset”. Thus the US state department probably said we have to put her on trial because of the public, but wink, wink, and once it’s over we’ll send her back your way.
We’ll know for sure if she’s acquitted and ends up moving somewhere other than England or the US.
So the pedophilia/sex trade charges are distractions from the financial crimes? Is that why she is jailed with no bail, to keep her alive long enough to deliver her to her employer? Why not just charge her with financial crimes then.
this sounds very plausible, but can you pls clarify what you mean by “asset” and “money laundering”? are you suggesting that GM and JE were facilitating state-level money laundering? or that, in return for intelligence, they were allowed to do some money laundering and get rich? because, given the fact that trump has been allowed to walk free, i have a hard time seeing that they were helping states entrap money launderers.
They have actual eye-witnesses, how can their case be weak?
That’s what I want to know! At some point there are just too many witnesses/victims to ignore (see Cuomo, Cosby, Weinstein, etc.). The only thing I can think is that are purposefully not asking the right questions to make the case cut and dry? Super sus.
equality and FC, IIRC, the pilot has testified regarding his log book. Yes, they show how many times PA was on that plane. The “houseman” in Florida has stated clearly that Maxwell was the “Lady of the House” rather than just a friend/guest as she keeps saying. There was another employee at the house who also testified. There was the boyfriend of one of the (then) teenagers who would deliver his girlfriend and 2 others to the Florida (I think) house and when they left they had a $100 bill. He has linked Maxwell to those calls.
I keep thinking that she’ll be found guilty of something, but I don’t know that she’ll be in prison for very long. Let’s remember that when she is sentenced the amount of time she has spent in jail while awaiting trial will be deducted. She might just spend a few more months in jail rather than seeing the inside of prison.
I’m not a tinfoil hattist or conspiracy theorist sort, but this woman is so well connected to such high profile people that I wonder if the prosecution has been warned off.
If this evil woman gets to walk free, the whole of the law system is irretrievably broken.
I’m not sure this is incompetence. If the victims are unprepared on cross examination, yes. If there simply are some inconsistencies between statements they’ve made over many years, then that’s something that will come out on cross and can be dealt with by the prosecution in various ways.
It seems like the VF article mostly objects to the trial not being an expose of the entire ring, and I don’t think that’s a fair expectation of the prosecution of one person. It seems likely Epstein’s friends haven’t been called to the stand because they won’t cooperate and wouldn’t be helpful witnesses, and that the prosecutor didn’t ask the victim for more names because those people aren’t actually on trial.
I agree. He really sounds grumpy that there aren’t more people exposed, when the strategy appears (correctly) to be narrowly focused on Maxwell & her involvement with Epstein’s crimes. He even calls the testimony of the victims “harrowing.” Isn’t that the point–to drill down on what this woman did?
Sure, Maxwell could walk. That’s a risk for any prosecution, but something about his write-up feels…off. Like he’s less in touch with the reality of the prosecution’s aims than he is disappointed that he can’t get salacious stories. Sorry the reality of centering the victims’ experiences is a bummer, dude.
Also agree. I feel like so many people are focusing on the Maxwell trial as though there’s going to be some kind of treasure trove of newly disclosed information revealing all the wealthy/powerful people who came into contact with Maxwell, Epstein, and accepted “services” from the trafficked girls. This trial is very much not about that. This is about Maxwell trafficking minors. That’s it. It’s not about who she knows. It’s about HER crimes, not a judgment of her social circle. I looked at the original indictment (public version, there’s another that’s sealed) and she is accused of:
– Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts
– Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity
– Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity
– Perjury
This dude doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Also, just because a trial is long doesn’t mean it’s good. Sometimes the best statements are the shortest, instead of beleaguering a point for so long it’s rendered meaninglessness.
I believe that the court has limited the scope of the trial to the crimes allegedly committed by Maxwell against the the 4-6 complainants. This is to keep the focus on the victims and will also possibly make a successful appeal by GM less likely should she be convicted. Judges tightly control evidence, legal arguments, jury instructions (jury instructions are HUGE) and the lines of testimony both before and during trials.
What gets to me is he writes this:
“Unfortunately, prosecutors didn’t follow up and ask Carolyn to name Epstein’s friends.”
Because that is not the point of the case. The point is proving that Maxwell trafficked minors. Asking for Epstein’s friends detracts from her testimony and is ultimately irrelevant.
@Shoshone – the original Indictment only mentions Minor Victims 1-3, but then again I didn’t go through the docket to see if there’s a superseding Indictment.
Thanks Lara for explaining all of that. It seems like all Maxwell’s charges are quite specific – to do with soliciting and then facilitating the movement of victims from one place to another place where they would have crimes committed against them.
It seems to me that just having credible witness testimony from her victims would be almost enough to prove this. Epstein has already been tried and convicted for sexual assault against children, so the prosecutors in this case don’t even really have to examine if any abuse occured after Maxwell tricked and transported the children. All they have to show is that she brought them to Epstein knowing what would happen to them.
Thanks for looking up the indictment. I was going to look it up (great minds!) since I was pretty sure the list of charges wasn’t long. I know people want this to be a big takedown of Maxwell & Epstein’s vast criminal network, but even if one case could do that (no one case could), this was never going to do that. The prosecutors just focused on what they could have a chance at getting a conviction.
Some of the guilty will face justice; most will not. This scheme was supposed to be too big to fail & it very nearly was. The fact that it is being exposed is in & of itself a victory. There will be more ripple effects.
I agree. From these quotes, it seems like the author is looking for this trial to be more about gossip than evidence. The prosecution is dealing with a case of acts that took place years ago with multiple victims who were teenagers when they were abused and went on to have really hard lives, several of them turned to drugs to cope.
Of course their testimonies are going to have inconsistencies. That’s not a death knell for a conviction.
If so I truly will believe all the conspiracies regarding “the powers that be” controlling and protecting their own.
all the easier to “Epstein” her on the outside
Exactly my thought. They can’t get to her in prison, so to assure she keeps her mouth shut, they will get to her when she is out. Thus the fix to get her off.
Gov. working to tank it wouldn’t surprise me. I’m sure there are some VERY powerful, monied, political fingers plucking on the strings behind the scenes. Kind of like how Epstein got a veritable slap on the wrist when he was “arrested” initially in FL and got to spend the week at his “office” for his ONE YEAR sentence.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2019/08/10/epstein-had-sweetheart-deal-on-house-arrest/4475850007/
It wouldn’t surprise me either. I wonder who ended up with all the blackmail?
Another distraction story.. it is way to soon to predict anything with this trial. Shame on them.
Yep. Way too soon. The prosecution also made a point of explaining grooming to the jury, who were apparently very attentive. This is his clickbait piece because he couldn’t get a bigger story.
Stories like these are really, really frustrating.
Omg, I’d been following the stories in the media and had the impression that Ghislaine is an absolute monster. It never dawned on me that she wouldn’t be presented as being monstrous enough to be convicted of her crimes. I seriously hope that the VF article is mistaken.
@ML exact same
She needs to rot in prison for life
It’s sad but not unexpected, unfortunately.
It’s also cruel to put victims through the ordeal of testifying and being cross examined at a trial without preparing them properly. If they, with great courage, have faced one of their (“alleged”) abusers and then they have to see that abuser go free… it’s almost worse than not having a trial, I don’t know. This whole business is heartbreaking.
I know we are focusing on Maxwell and Prince Andrew, but what about all those apparently key people with non prosecution agreements? Who authorized those agreements and are they accountable to the public, to the electorate?
What’s the deal lately with the justice system? (Yeah I know it’s always been crap but I feel like it’s been highlighted recently.) Kyle Rittenhouse got off scot free. It looks like Josh Duggar might get acquitted. Now Ghislane Maxwell? Disheartening.
It’s ALWAS been this way. What’s slightly different is that they are actually bothering to bring charges against these monsters. In the past there would be no charges, and thus no trial for them to walk away from without a convinction. If you’re white and can sob loudly enough about how life is so unfair to you, you have a chance of winning regardless of being a person who should never walk the streets again.
Josh Duggar was just found GUILTY on two counts of possession of CSAM.
Yes!!! Good!!!! I’m sure he’ll appeal, but still.
I just saw that and was so grateful that the article I read was wrong!
I’ve been clinging to the guilty verdict in the Arbery case. That’s all I got. Also waiting to see what happens with Elizabeth Holmes. She’s another white woman who deserves prison time.
The fix is in.
I smell a trap. One of the lawyers tasked with examining an upcoming witness, the last of four accusers expected to take the stand, suddenly booked off sick. That could mean more information has come to light about the 4th accuser that could possibly sink GM so the lawyer in question faked illness to buy more time. Maybe I’m tin-foil hatting this morning but I really don’t trust any of her defense team.
Color me not-shocked that an international high-ranking pedo ring which un-alived Jeffrey Epstein would build the absolute weakest case they could in court. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist but this all feels very deliberate. And yes, I’m sure she’ll be “not guilty” and then very much disappear forever (continuing sex trafficking in another country no doubt)
Ugh wat a disgusting, evil woman. Hope she rots
Her list of powerful men must be very, very long. This is sickening.
The problem with this case isn’t the prosecution, it’s the journalist like Vicky Ward who are sitting in the courtroom following and reporting on the trial. They are acting like they are very sympathetic towards Maxwell depicting her as one of Epsteins victims and less of a threat than Epstein because she is a woman. Sometimes Gabriel Sherman does a good job reporting and other times, his take is off. In this case the press is allowing friends of Ghislane to control the narrative and the trial.
Chris Hayes did an interview with Vicky Ward, who has dedicated a podcast to Ghislane, and she was acting like she was Ghislane’s lawyer. One of Maxwell and Epstein’s victims sent Vicky Ward a C& D because of the Ghislane podcast, claiming that Vicky Ward is a close friend of Ghislane and that is why she didn’t run their 2003 interview about the abuse they suffered at the hands of Maxwell and Epstein. The first step the press needs to do is stop giving Vicky Ward air time and if they do address how she betrayed the victims by not running their stories.
VF is speaking too soon and sucking. (1) It doesn’t matter that the victims’ statements have changed over the years as much as VF claims. The prosecutors and one of the victims on the stand did a good job of pushing this point. Basically the original statements done years ago are very generalised notes not verbatim, this is intentionally done for legal reasons and to not hurt the victim. Imagine graphically explaining the worst abuse of your life as a vulnerable teen or young adult to a room of strangers. The team don’t want to say “Could you please repeat that?” And there are legal reasons to not include a tape recorder. Furthermore, the victims’ statements changed as they grew more comfortable and included more details. The victims may not recall all details perfectly now, but (to be graphic) one victim was asked by the prosecution when the first time she saw a man’s penis was and she said it was when she met Epstein and then went into detail. That kind of memory does not fade and many people can understand that. (2) It is just too soon. (3) I give VF a side-eye bc they have a long and mixed history with this case. Writer Vicky Ward tried to break it years ago for VF, pre Miami Herald, and even convinced two victims to speak (on the record, I believe). It took a lot for the victims to agree. But the editor backed off / got scared. They ended up publishing a more watered down story without the victims’ statements included. The full extent of the story was missing. I remember reading it and it was still shocking and horrific, but it was not the story Ward had in mind (and it largely was forgotten by the public until Julie Brown from the Herald started poking further). Ward was disappointed and the two victims, who trusted her, felt greatly let down. The editor and writer disagree on what went down. I just wouldn’t trust the VF on this.
@Huit – thanks for this detailed information. VF has lost my interest, it’s becoming more and more “tabloidy” and less and less a believable publication.
@Huit, thank you. I agree. From different news sources I’ve read, this VF’s writer, is not the collective point of view. This writer seems to be on the same level of Anna Pasternak’s in the Epstien documentary…stomach churning implying, Ghislaine Maxwell, as a grown @ss adult was victimized because of growing up wealthy and wanting to measure up and please her father who screwed people out of their hard earned money……that’s the f&cking excuse. No thanks. The human trafficking, false ocean passport selling biotch was not a victim.
Ghislaine Maxwell, is a sick, twisted individual that found her tribe leader in Epstein & cohorts like Pedo Andy and any other sick f^ck that participated in the sexual abuse of underage girls and women of any age being human trafficked. LOL at Andrew’s excuses. I hope (not really) for his sake that there isn’t someone willing to sell photographs of unrelated, underaged, non employees of the BRF entering palace properties the same time that Epstein/Maxell were spending time at. Sometimes, it only take one person to come out and speak their truth. Sadly, it doesn’t seem like there are any major British Media or investigative agencies to take on the task.
I would love to see Eugenie (maybe Bea) to quietly move to the US , and be like, FU, my life & children are worth more than the British Media/Cambridge bullshit. Run, Forrest, Run.
I’m questioning the source on this one, this sounds like a pre-emptive attempt at persuading the public that she will get off free.