I think they might be right; Ghislaine's name simply does not show up much in the various court filings (lawsuits etc.) from years past, and none of Jeffrey's inner circle has been called to testify, even though their names seem to be floating around in the testimony of others. Virginia Giuffre is spoken of often, and yet she is not even on the witness list, and Ghislaine herself was overlooked in an earlier "non-prosecution agreement" that mentioned four "other" female "handlers/influencers," by name and she was notably overlooked a couple of other times as this "case" has meandered through the various courts.
It simply looks as if the prosecutors have tipped-toed around so many connected and influential people populating the margins of this case, that they may have gutted their own case.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
Here is the online article:
"
Y GABRIEL SHERMAN
DECEMBER 8, 2021
ILLUSTRATION BY QUINTON MCMILLAN. PHOTO FROM GETTY.
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. Pagliuca noted that Carolyn didn’t mention Maxwell’s name once during her first interview with the FBI in 2007. Neither did Carolyn include Maxwell’s name in subsequent lawsuits she filed against Epstein and alleged coconspirator Sarah Kellen. Here’s how one tense exchange unfolded:
Pagliuca: Your two lawsuits involving Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen say nothing about Ms. Maxwell; correct?
Carolyn: Correct.
Pagliuca: Your deposition testimony in 2009 says nothing about Ms. Maxwell, other than the two words that Ms. Comey read, correct?
Carolyn: Correct.
Of course, the absence of Maxwell’s name doesn’t mean Carolyn’s story isn’t true. Victims of sexual abuse or rape often change their stories as they process trauma. This fact is often spun by defense lawyers to undermine a victim’s testimony. But prosecutors should have prepared Carolyn to address the issue head on. A similar dynamic played out last week during the testimony of a victim identified as Jane. Another Maxwell lawyer, Laura Menninger, pressed Jane to comment on why her testimony differed from her prior interviews with the FBI. Jane seemed rattled by the questions, at one point alleging that the FBI incorrectly transcribed her comments. On Tuesday, the government suffered another embarrassing setback when Maxwell’s defense revealed that Jane called her brother, who is also a government witness, and complained about the cross-examination. It was a possible violation of the judge’s rules, and now her brother will no longer testify.
The weakest plank in the prosecution’s case, however, has been the lack of testimony from Epstein’s innermost circle. Prosecutors haven’t called Epstein’s highest-profile accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, to the stand, even though her name has been mentioned numerous times by other witnesses. Meanwhile, Epstein’s controversial 2007 nonprosecution agreement listed four alleged coconspirators: Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova (Notably, Maxwell’s name wasn’t included). These women conceivably could testify about Maxwell’s role in the alleged sex trafficking operation. Why didn’t the government gain their cooperation against Maxwell? And if the women didn’t cooperate, why didn’t the government charge them too? (The women have denied any allegations.) It’s possible that the government may call one or more before resting.
Of course, it’s impossible to predict how members of the jury will rule—especially since cameras in the viewing room don’t show their faces. But given the stakes of the trial, the government surely hoped for an open-and-shut case. They had more than 500 days to prepare one, and they didn’t.
It simply looks as if the prosecutors have tipped-toed around so many connected and influential people populating the margins of this case, that they may have gutted their own case.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
Here is the online article:
"
Y GABRIEL SHERMAN
DECEMBER 8, 2021
ILLUSTRATION BY QUINTON MCMILLAN. PHOTO FROM GETTY.
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. Pagliuca noted that Carolyn didn’t mention Maxwell’s name once during her first interview with the FBI in 2007. Neither did Carolyn include Maxwell’s name in subsequent lawsuits she filed against Epstein and alleged coconspirator Sarah Kellen. Here’s how one tense exchange unfolded:
Pagliuca: Your two lawsuits involving Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen say nothing about Ms. Maxwell; correct?
Carolyn: Correct.
Pagliuca: Your deposition testimony in 2009 says nothing about Ms. Maxwell, other than the two words that Ms. Comey read, correct?
Carolyn: Correct.
Of course, the absence of Maxwell’s name doesn’t mean Carolyn’s story isn’t true. Victims of sexual abuse or rape often change their stories as they process trauma. This fact is often spun by defense lawyers to undermine a victim’s testimony. But prosecutors should have prepared Carolyn to address the issue head on. A similar dynamic played out last week during the testimony of a victim identified as Jane. Another Maxwell lawyer, Laura Menninger, pressed Jane to comment on why her testimony differed from her prior interviews with the FBI. Jane seemed rattled by the questions, at one point alleging that the FBI incorrectly transcribed her comments. On Tuesday, the government suffered another embarrassing setback when Maxwell’s defense revealed that Jane called her brother, who is also a government witness, and complained about the cross-examination. It was a possible violation of the judge’s rules, and now her brother will no longer testify.
The weakest plank in the prosecution’s case, however, has been the lack of testimony from Epstein’s innermost circle. Prosecutors haven’t called Epstein’s highest-profile accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, to the stand, even though her name has been mentioned numerous times by other witnesses. Meanwhile, Epstein’s controversial 2007 nonprosecution agreement listed four alleged coconspirators: Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova (Notably, Maxwell’s name wasn’t included). These women conceivably could testify about Maxwell’s role in the alleged sex trafficking operation. Why didn’t the government gain their cooperation against Maxwell? And if the women didn’t cooperate, why didn’t the government charge them too? (The women have denied any allegations.) It’s possible that the government may call one or more before resting.
Of course, it’s impossible to predict how members of the jury will rule—especially since cameras in the viewing room don’t show their faces. But given the stakes of the trial, the government surely hoped for an open-and-shut case. They had more than 500 days to prepare one, and they didn’t.
Last edited:
