Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
Today marks the seventeenth day of the Glaine Maxwell trial,
and yesterday was the first day that her defense took
center stage. We heard from several witnesses yesterday, but I
think the most impactful witness or should I say cross
examination of a witness, happened when doctor Loftus was on
the stand. Now we know that Ghlaine Maxwell and her
team have had a specific strategy this whole entire time,
and that strategy has been to go after the memory
of the witnesses as well as go after their credibility
as a whole. And what they were hoping was that
doctor Loftis would further those ambitions. Yesterday she did not.
In fact, it seemed to me that the prosecution had
its best day, at least procedurally, since this whole entire
thing started. They had a couple of nice one liners.
A couple of times they got the room to laugh,
like when they were doing the cross examination of Kimberly
and when asked if she had ever been to Palm Beach,
she says no, and then they just you know, they
end their cross there. That elicited some chuckles from the courtroom.
And besides that, I think that they did a fantastic
job punching holes in doctor Loftis her testimony that was
supposed to be strong testimony for the defense, Glenn Maxwell's team.
They were hoping that doctor Loftis would show out and
make it seem like all of the stuff they have
been talking about false memory and the rest of it
is actually legit. But in reality, what happened was they
kind of got in their own way. Doctor Loftis seemed
to be more useful to the prosecution yesterday on the
stand than she was for the defense, and coming into
this I kind of thought the same thing was going
to occur. I mean, look, this is somebody, this lady,
she's a hired gun. She does this for profit, and
there is no scumbag scummy enough for her to avoid.
And I get it right, Look, if you have the
money and you're fighting for your life at a trial,
I would employ all the specialists that I could afford
as well, but maybe I would find some specialists that
aren't involved in people losing. You know, there got to
be a couple out there, right, But what it really
comes down to, and I know this is going to
be groundbreaking what I'm about to say. But here's an idea.
Don't traffic children, don't abuse children, don't hurt other people,
and don't commit crimes, and you won't have to worry
about any of this shit. Maxwell, her and her friends.
You know, they were able to get away with it
for so long that it was normalized to them. So
when they get caught and they find out they have
no friends left to protect them, well, it's a big
shock to the system. Meanwhile, the rest of us are
sitting around looking at each other, like, how weren't these
people arrested when Maria told the FBI about them in
ninety six? How aren't they arrested? Insert a million times here.
But now that Maxwell is finally facing a jury of
her peers, it's not looking good in my opinion for now. Obviously,
they still have today to go. And remember they said
they had a witness list of thirty five people, So
who knows what's coming down the old shoot here, But
they would have to have something earth shaking, like ground rattling, earthshaking,
existential world elimination event, because what has been provided so
far as testimony in defense of Glenn Maxwell I haven't
seen anything that would make the testimony of what those
survivors had to say look any less impactful or make
me question myself saying, ah, man, you know maybe none
of that. There has been no material witnesses, just a
bunch of what ifs, right, that's all that Maxwell's defense
has provided us. What ifs well, what if the memory
is faulty, what if this? What if that? Meanwhile, the
survivors are sitting there across the table from Glen Maxwell
and saying, this is what you did to me. So
I have found that to be way, way, way more
impactful than the honestly nonsensical witness list that was brought
forward yesterday. Now there might be something more to it, right,
some of the other witnesses that they brought up yesterday,
the guy from the supply company, and they might be
setting all of that up for some sort of closing
that they have prepared. But as of now, it just
doesn't really make all that much sense their witness lists
so far. If you're going to try and prove that
your client is innocent, shouldn't you have a couple of actual,
like character witnesses and people who are like, there's no
way this happened. I was there at the time. But really,
what you have, when it comes down to it, is
for women who were girls or young ladies when they
were in the clutches of Maxwell and Epstein, who are
now saying, look, this is what happened to us, this
is what she did. And to me, that is way
more powerful than some quote unquote expert coming up there
and telling me some what ifs or hypotheticals or about studies.
I don't need to see any studies, to be honest
with you. I've read what happened here, i have seen
the evidence. I have heard what the police department in
Palm Beach has had to say about this from the
very beginning. So I don't need a Misloftis to tell
me about false memories. And I think that the jury
is going to see it that way as well. Whereas
the jury just got done listening to the testimony from
the survivors, which was absolutely horrible and gut wrenching to
listen to, and then that anchored by the testimony that
Annie gave, you would think that the defense is going
to have to come correct because what the jury has
seen so far as far as ature being painted is
that Glenn Maxwell was at the nexus of all of this.
She had her dirty little fingers on the controls and
she was right there with Jeffrey Epstein for the whole
entire thing. And as far as the defenses go, so far,
we haven't seen anything from them that would make me
or I would think the jury take a step back
and say, oh, maybe we've looked at this the wrong way.
Maybe we've missed something throughout this whole entire thing. And
this has been the key piece of evidence that proves
that Maxwell had nothing to do with this. I've been
waiting for that piece of evidence for, oh, I don't know,
three years now, and I certainly haven't seen it yet.
So I really wonder what the plan's going to be
for the defense today. And if they don't have something monumental,
I honestly don't see how Maxwell's going to get off here.
The mountain of evidence is that high, folks. And remember
we're only talking about this small scope. If this was
the actual full scope of what went on, forget it,
absolutely forget it. This would be the trial of trials
with all of the people that would be wrapped up
in it, even just on the fringes, right, And I
think a lot of people were hoping that that's what
this was going to be. And I've tried to tamper
down those expectations because I knew exactly what we were
getting into here. This was never going to be the
full Monty, the full exposure of Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts.
That was never going to occur unless there was a
Rico case. Now, the only other way that this can happen,
where we can really get to the bottom of all
of this, is if that non prosecution agreement is thrown
out by one of the higher courts, which would have
to be the Supreme Court at this point. Now, if
that happens and all of those protections go away, then
it will be a brand new day, if you will,
in the world of bringing down the scumbags hanging out
with Jeffrey Epstein. But that non prosecution agreement, it was
put in place for a reason. They knew what they
were doing, and they were looking to provide themselves protection
in the future as well. And here we are all
these years later, and that non prosecution agreement still looming large.
When they were going through the process to try and
get that thing done away with it was. I was
very hopeful that they'd be able to do that, but
unfortunately the panel ruled seven to four not to do it.
What I'm gonna do later is I'm gonna post an
episode about that, that whole entire situation with the NPA
and what occurred, because it's a big deal and it's
a big part of the overall story. Right. But when
we moved back to what we saw yesterday and what
we're expecting to see today, I would hope that the
prosecution keeps up their good work that they really dove
into yesterday with the procedure. Anyway, it was nice to
see them handle business from their end, short and sweet.
They didn't get into any kind of like long drawn
out nonsensical bs, and they just hammered home their points
and getting doctor Loftis to agree about the memory stuff
at the end. That was a master's stroke, very very
good work. And just about everybody that I've talked to
who is hip to how these things happen in the
courtroom has said the same thing about what the prosecution
did yesterday and how well things went for the prosecution.
So I hope that we can see some of that
today as well. I hope that carries over. But before
we get there, let's take a look at some of
the headlines from overnight that have to do with what
we should see today. Now, one of the first headlines
we're going to look at is from ABC News, and
it's about how the judge, Judge Nathan she denied the
request for anonymity for the witnesses for Maxwell. Let's jump
in here and see what's what. Defense attorneys for Glean Maxwell,
the longtime associate of serial sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, began
to present their case on Thursday after a judge denied
their request to allow three of their anticipated witnesses to
testify under a pseudonym or using only their first names. Now,
when this was all first talked about, I said, hey, whatever,
who cares if that's the way the court rolls, And fine,
you know, look, I don't want to reinvent the wheel here, right,
and I don't want Glen Maxwell having any kind of
out because of procedurals. But it is a very odd
request when you talk to people who are in the
know here, and I'm certainly not a court reporter, folks,
I'm not even a journalist. But when you speak to
people who follow this thing, this is this kind of thing.
I mean, this is a very odd request, I guess,
and not something that is granted very often by the court.
So you could see why Judge Nathan wouldn't allow it.
This article goes on to say in her decision, Judge
Allison Nathan of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York wrote that the court, after significant
independent research, could not identify a single case in which
a court has previously granted the use of pseudonyms to
defense witnesses, leading her to believe that the request was unprecedented.
So there you have it, right, if it's never happened before,
certainly not bending any rules for Glenn Maxwell. Why would
anyone want to do that. The rules have been bent
for her for way too long anyway. So that's why
Judge Nathan denied that request. And that's why we're not
going to see any of any of these people come
and give their testimony anonymously. That's not going to happen.
So let's see what else do we got here. We
have about Glen Maxwell's ex assistant, Kimberly Espinosa, and how
she was called up and how she was gushing about
Maxwell and this that the other thing. You know, out
of all of the people that have worked with Maxwell
and Epstein, this is the only one that they have
found that could come up there as a character witness.
So Kimberly Espinosa, she was the first witness called yesterday,
and she told the Jerry about her time working side
by side with Maxwell from ninety six to two thousand
and two, and like we talked about yesterday, she at
first thought Maxwell and Epstein were a couple, according to
Espinoza's testimony, and then she worked at the Madison Avenue
office with Epstein, and then she worked as Maxwell's assistant
right now. Espinosa claimed that Epstein asked her to send
flowers to another woman, Selena Middlefart, during that time, behind
Maxwell's back. What that goes to show you, and why
I'm bringing that up is to just to punch home
the fact Maxwell and Epstein were never an exclusive couple,
right like you or I would be you and your
significant other where you would never think about being with
somebody else or hurting them or anything like that. That
wasn't what Epstein and Maxwell were. It was a business arrangement,
and I know the official narrative doesn't state that, but
the official narrative doesn't state a lot of things that
have been proven to be correct. And I would think
that after all of these years that people would be
hip to the fact that the legacy media is being
lapped when it comes to this story. The stuff that
they bring up, the stuff that they talk about we
have literally talked about years ago. For instance, Shelley Anne Lewis,
Gwendolyn Beck, those episodes. I uploaded those episodes a year
and a half, two years ago in some cases, So
we've been talking about these people for a very, very
long time. And to see that some of them are
being brought up here in the proceedings, it's certainly a
step in the right direction, but they need to go
further because there are so many other people that were
involved in this that it's insane to me that we're
not seeing people like Sarah Kellen Vickers, or Adriana Ross
or Leslie Groff. It's just almost impossible for me to
understand how people who had such a huge role in
what went on here, and people who have actually been
fingered by survivors have been able to stay out of
the firing line. And again it goes back to the scope, right,
but at the very least, these people should have been
called up by the prosecution, should have been hit with
some kind of indictment or pressure to come up and speak. Now,
that's not what this turned into, though. This is you know,
this is very specific when it comes to the crimes
that they're talking about, and the fact that it is
just being brought up now. The fact that Glenn Maxwell
was able to avoid prosecution for so long is really
one of the biggest issues with all of this, and
one of the biggest issues that has to be discussed
even after this case ends. This trial's over, because the
implications for what occurred here are gigantic. The fact that
there were so many people who were hip to what's
going on here and people that are in positions of power.
The fact that Acosta was left holding the bag when
there are so many people above him that should have
been clipped as well. The fact that the prosecutors in
Florida the first time around worked with the defense attorneys
to undercut the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses.
This is the kind of thing that has been happening
in this case since the very beginning. So when people
are worried that things are going to continue to go
that way, it's a legit concern, right. But what I
will say is this, folks, so far when it comes
to this specific trial, this specific case, I don't think
Maxwell has done enough as far as her defense team
and the legal arguments that they have brought forward. I
think that what they have so far is really nothing.
They're hoping that the playbook from the early two thousands
is going to be relevant now. But just like urban
Meyer found out down in Jacksonville, these are the pros.
This is in college anymore, and it's the same for Maxwell.
Things have changed. The whole landscape has changed. The way
people look at these kinds of crimes has changed. And
whenever there is a woman involved in a manner such
as this, people are not very happy about it, right,
and people are not willing to look the other way.
It becomes even more heinous when a woman is involved,
and a lot of times when the jerry sees that,
they go hard in the paint. So I'm expecting, unless
there's some sort of super bombshell that we can't anticipate
that we're going to get a little bit more of
the same today, and that the prosecution is going to
set themselves up for another great day. I just don't
see how any of these witnesses that Maxwell's going to
call are going to be enough or have enough knowledge
of what went on here to punch holes in the
argument of the four survivors and the testimony that they've
brought forward. Their stories are all locked in together, and
everything that they talk about, you can see the pattern
in each separate case, how it lines up. You could
see how Maxwell and Epstein groomed them, you can see
how they brought them into their orbit. And those are
those foundational blocks that have been built over the first
two weeks of testimony. And I think that as we
get close, Sir, to a judgment on Glenn Maxwell's future,
I'm getting a little bit more confident as these days
go by. Now, I'll tell you what, I really wasn't
all that confident last week when the defense, I mean,
when the prosecution rested their case. I really, uh, you know,
it took some time for me to sit down and
really say, all right, well, we'll see what's gonna happen here.
But now after yesterday and seeing how doctor Loftus's testimony
really didn't play well, I don't see how they're going
to be able to bring anyone forward to punch holes
in the memory argument here. If their doctor, their big
shot professional couldn't do it, I doubt any of these
other witnesses are going to be able to do it.
So today we're going to see what's up. We know
we have three witnesses that the defense is talking about,
calling one of them Eva, another Michelle, and I believe
one is Kelly, and for me, the most interesting out
of those names is Eva. I'm wondering if it's Eva Dubin,
but I highly doubt it, So we'll see in a
little while, I guess. Anyway, folks, I'll be here same
as usual, taking notes, getting ready for the evening update
so we can go over a little bit at least
of what went on in the courtroom. All right, everybody,
until then, I hope you all have a great day
and I will be back later. If you'd like to
contact me, you can do that at Bobby Kapuci at
ProtonMail dot com. That's bo bb Y c ap you
Cci at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find me
on Twitter at Bobby Underscore c ap you cci. What's
up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Today
Gallaine Maxwell's defense team wrap things up, folks. And it
was after only eight witnesses is were brought to the
stand in her defense. Now, usually we'd go through all
of the witness statements for the day and what they
talked about in the courtroom, but it was clunky as
hell today in the courtroom. They started and they stopped,
and really the only witness of note that was up
on the stand to give any testimony was Eva Dubin. Now,
Eva Dubin is the wife of Glenn Duben and Glenn
Dubin is not only somebody who was obviously in Jeffrey
Epstein's orbit, but according to Virginia Roberts, Glenn Dubin assaulted
her as she was being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. So
he's not only just an enabler and his wife isn't
just shouldn't just be a witness for the defense here,
he is actually somebody who has been credibly accused of rape.
So it shows you the bottom of the barrel that
Gallainne Maxwell is dredging when it came to witnesses. Now
there was the talk of thirty five witnesses that the
defense was talking about bringing up, and I thought that
was a bit extreme. So it certainly is not going
to be the case at this point. And you look
at the witnesses that they had and what they brought
to the table and the picture that they were painting,
and to me anyway, it certainly didn't move Gallainne Maxwell's
defense any further. It didn't push the goalposts, if you will.
It was pretty much them spinning their wheels. And what
happens here is you can see very much so why
Galline Maxwell and her attorneys played the game of loopholes
and technicalities the way they did. They knew that they
didn't have a chance in a courtroom trial. They don't
have any evidence on their side to push their story along.
All they can hope to do is punch holes in
the defense. And then when you see her not taking
the stand, well, for me, that says everything that I
need to hear to be honest. And I know people
will say, oh, well, a lawyer tells her not to
take a stan I don't care if it's my life
on the line going to prison for the rest of
my life. And I'm innocent, especially, you better believe I'm
gonna go up there, take the stand and give my
account of what happened and defend my name. So you're thinking,
for all of this money with Glenn Maxwell's defense, that
we're gonna end with a bang, and folks, we went
out with a whimper. Now they're going to be meeting
tomorrow as well. It's a bit of a conference and
then Monday will be the closing arguments. After that it'll
be the deliberation, and the jury will either make a
decision on Glenn Maxwell's fate right before Christmas or right
after the holiday. My guess is they're coming right back
to get back to work. But it's kind of ah
odd place for the Jerry to be right hard ended
by a holiday like that, and you would think that
they want to get home and get on with their holidays.
But I don't know. After only eight defense witnesses are
called here, you would think that it won't take the
jury all that long to deliberate. When we were first
talking about this case, they were saying that it's going
to go six weeks, and that's what my schedule was
based around, so you would think that there is going
to be more testimony from both sides. And when the
prosecution wrapped it up early, I figured that perhaps the
defense would try and push it home a little bit
and call maybe not thirty five witnesses, but certainly more
than eight. Especially like I said, when you look at
what they brought to the table, it was kind of ridiculous.
And I don't even know what sort of help any
of these witnesses were for Gleanne Maxwell. A couple of
the assistants talking about how Gleann Maxwell was nice to them,
but none of them were ever even in the area
when this stuff was going on. So just because Jeffrey
Dahmer's coworkers never saw him killing it anyone, does that
mean it didn't happen. So the whole group of witnesses
that have been brought forward I just haven't found to
be worthwhile as far as the defense. And if it
was me and I was sitting in that seat that
glean Maxwell is sitting in, I'd be freaking out at
my defense team right now and I would definitely be
taking the stant. But she's not gonna do it. She
says that in her opinion. The government has not yet
made the case and she's innocent, but I would think
that taking the stand would go a long way with
the jury. Especially we're not talking about somebody who's not
used to speaking in public, or somebody who doesn't have
a large vocabulary or doesn't know what they're saying. This
is somebody who's very highly educated, Oxford educated. She should
be able to get up there on that stand and
give an accounting of what went down and what happened
and refute the testimony of these survivors one by one. Now,
I guess her legal team probably took a look at
all of that, and they probably had some mock runs
previously on how a jury would react to her taking
the stand, and my guess is it didn't come back
very favorably. So they decided to just end today up
the case and hope that enough doubt was punched into
the testimony of the survivors and the witnesses brought forth
by the prosecution in the last two weeks or so.
I don't really believe that they've done that job. I
don't think that they have advanced their narrative to a
point where a juror is going to look at it
and say, up, yeah, not guilty now, is that, you know?
Set in stone? Of course not. There might be something
that we're completely missing here, But from what evidence has
been presented thus far, it certainly looks to me as
if the prosecution, which certainly didn't have a stellar display
throughout this whole thing either, by the way, it looks
like they have certainly done enough to make their case
at the very least. And when you see the defense
end like they did today, you know, you might want
to read a little bit into that and say, oh man,
they're really on their heels. But I'm not well versed
enough in these kinds of trials to say that or
to make those sort of assertions. From my position over
here in the peanut gallery, it doesn't look good for
the defense, But again, I don't follow these trials on
a day to day basis for the most part. In fact,
this is the first trial I have ever followed. I
usually have zero interest in the legalese because it's all
jumble soup, right, It's confusing and a lot of nonsense
and a lot of boring lulls in the action, if
you will. So this might be something that the defense
you know, does on a regular basis. And I have
read in these kinds of cases, sexual abuse cases, that
the defense does try to keep their presentations short and
sweet because they understand the fragility of things when you're
dealing with sexual assault. So what we're going to do today,
instead of diving all the way into you know, the
uh courtroom back and forth like we have been every
other day, considering we had hours and hours of that,
what we're gonna do today is just go through a
couple of articles and wrap up what happened in the courtroom.
Like I said, the Eva Dubin stuff is the most important,
But even then, there was nothing roundbreaking, nothing that was
missed as far as being reported by the articles in
the aftermath. Now, there was no like uh, you know,
little gems or anything like that, Eva Dubin getting up
there as a witness for Glenn Maxwell in this bizarro
world we live in. So with that said, let's take
a look at this article from CNN and let's see
what they have to say. This article was authored by
Lauren de Valley and Dacin and don Or and Dony.
Sorry I might have mispronounced that one way or the other. Headline,
Glen Maxwell's defense team rests its case after she declines
to testify. Glenn Maxwell's defense team has rested its case
in her sex trafficking conspiracy trial without Maxwell taking the
stand to testify. The defense rested after presenting its case
over two days in which nine witnesses were called to
testify in defense of Maxwell, a close confidant and longtime
associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutors said they would not put
on any rebuttal. So again, that shows you what the
prosecutors think about what the defense brought to the table.
They're not even going to put on a rebuttal. They're
ready to go with what they have. They think that
they've made a strong enough case, and they think that
their case is going to end up in a conviction.
Maxwell confirmed she would not testify in her defense Friday.
Asked by Judge Allison Nathan if she understood her rights,
Maxwell pulled down her mask and responded, your honor, the
government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt,
and so there is no need for me to testify.
The jury was not present when this back and forth occurred. So,
according to her, in her world, where remember all of
us are the hero in our own story. Right in
her world, nobody's made the case. I didn't do anything wrong.
I had nothing to do with any of this. I'm
not going to take the stand and testify on my
own behalf, which I find honestly crazy. Again, I'm not
a two thousand dollars an hour lawyer either. I'm just
looking at it from the average person perspective. And when
you know someone is accused of something wrongly, or somebody
is said to have committed a crime that they didn't commit,
a lot of times, you know, I'd say a majority
of times, a vast majority of times, most people want
to clear their name right, get up there, tell their
side of the story. But Maxwell has never done anything
like that. She's hidden behind the non prosecution agreement, and
she's hidden behind the fact that the media for the
most part, up until recently, has not cared one single
lick about this whole entire fiasco. Closing arguments are expected Monday,
and Judge Allison Nathan said she expects to instruct and
charge the jury the same day, giving jurors two days
to deliberate before a court closes next Thursday and Friday
for the Christmas holidays, so they have two days right
before Christmas to get their deliberation on. And obviously they'll
go back and forth in the courtroom and they'll discuss
all the all of the in the juror's room. I mean,
they'll discuss all of the evidence that they have received,
what they think, and they'll try and come to a conclusion.
The jury can return to continue deliberating the following week
if they have not reached a verdict. Maxwell has pleaded
not guilty to six federal charges, including sex trafficking of miners,
enticing a miner to travel to engage in illegal sex acts,
transporting a miner with the intent to engage in criminal
seens ctual activity, and three counts of conspiracy. I don't
see any Man Act in here. Very weird. Enticing a
minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, it's
pretty much what the Man Act was put on the
books for. No. The case against Maxwell fifty nine relies
mainly on the testimony of four women who say they
were sexually abused by Epstein when they were under the
age of eighteen, and that Maxwell facilitated and sometimes participated
in the abuse. Prosecutors rested their case last Friday, after
ten days of testimony and calling twenty four witnesses. So
we got a third of the witnesses called by the defense,
and again, like I said, they were not substantial. In
my opinion, I don't think any of the witnesses called
by the defense were of a substantial nature that made
you sit up and take notice or made you say
to yourself, holy shit. Maybe I've read this this whole
thing wrong, Maybe I've missed something, because I'm always looking
for evidence that's going to challenge my biases and challenge
my beliefs. And I've continued to do that throughout this
whole entire ordeal, at least since I've been following it
for three years. And to tell you the truth, folks,
it always ends up in the same place. Maxwell, Epstein
and all of their enablers. They were guilty of all
of this. Maxwell's defense attorneys have argued she is being
scapegoaded for Epstein's actions and have attacked both the motivations
and memory of the women who say they were abused. Now, look,
I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that Glenn
Maxwell should be the only one to go down for
this she shouldn't. Sarah kellen Vickers, Adriana Ross, Leslie Groff,
and the host of others who have been intimately involved
with Epstein throughout this whole entire thing, they all deserve
their taste. But that doesn't mean that we should just
be like, oh, well, since nowbody else is on trial,
nobody else is indicted, well we shouldn't worry about Maxwell.
What sort of nonsense is that Maxwell needs to go
to prison. So does Sarah kellen Vickers. In my opinion,
hopefully they'll indict her someday, but with the non prosecution agreement,
obviously it's going to be difficult. Epstein was indicted on
federal sex trafficking charges in July twenty nineteen, but died
by suicide in prison a month later. Allegedly, he'd previously
pleaded guilty in two thousand and eight to state prostitution charges,
and those prostitution charges, remember, all stemmed from the situation
of bringing the girls to the house four massages in
Palm Beach, all part of this sexual pyramid scheme he
was running, and only one of those girls was able
to give her testimony to the grand jury in Palm
Beach because the prosecutors. Barry Kirsher's office and the rest
of those dunces worked with the defense hand in hand, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz,
Kenny Starr, the rest of them to make sure that
the accusers little girls, by the way, had their credibility
ruined as well. Oh because they drank, or they had
pictures up on my Space with a boy, or they
here's the big one that's really going to knock you
out of your socks. They smoked a pot. I mean really,
And this is what was going down in Palm Beach
in two thousand and eight when all of this occurred,
it could have all been stopped. Then. The defense on
Friday called to the stand Eva Anderson Dubin, who testified
she dated Epstein on and off from nineteen eighty three
through about nineteen nineteen ninety one. She confirmed that she
and her now husband, hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin remained
friends with Epstein through the two thousands. Now I'm going
to post an episode about Eva Dubin and about her
and Jeffrey Epstein's relationship and her husband as well. Now
I've posted a few episodes about the Dubins previously, and
this one is going to be a little bit more
context considering she is the focal point basically of the
discussion today, and Eva Dubin as a witness bringing her
up here, I don't even understand what the defense is thinking.
You're gonna bring up the wife of a man who
is credibly accused of raping Virginia Roberts as a character witness.
In response to questioning by the defense Anderson, Dubin said
she had never participated in group sexualized massages with one
of the accusers, referred to as Jane, who had earlier
testified she recalled a woman named Eva had joined group
sexualized massages with Epstein and Maxwell. So again, we really
gonna use Eva Dubin as the pinnacle of truth here. Sorry,
not me. I've read way too much about these people
to even begin to trust what she has to say.
I think I'll believe Virginia and what Virginia has said
over what any of the Dubins ever have to say.
There's an article out there as well about a situation
at the Dubin's house that I have a episode on
that I'm gonna look for. I have it in my
archive somewhere, and I'm gonna post it. It's a disturbing
article and episode about how there's a situation at the
Dubin's house where one of the survivors who was brought
there with Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell was crying to
the butler about her situation. And it's just a whole
brutal deal. And we have account after account like this
of these survivors throughout this whole entire thing. And Eva
Dubin is called as a character witness. She should be
worried about getting her own defense attorneys, never mind being
a ca her witness for Gallaine Maxwell. Her and her
husband should be facing criminal charges, in my opinion. Asked
Friday if she'd ever been involved in such a scenario
with Jane, Dubin responded, absolutely not. A prosecutor clarified on
cross examination that Eva Anderson Dubin is not necessarily the
only Eva to have interacted with Epstein, suggesting Jane could
have been referring to someone else, and that's absolutely one
hundred percent correct as well, Eva was the only Eva
Jeffrey Epstein knows. Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell and their
buddy Jean Luke Brunel. They had a long list of
girls from Eastern Europe that they liked to bring to
America to traffic. So I'm sure there are plenty of
EVAs running around. And the prosecution again did a pretty
good job today. They were able to hammer home some
points and they were able to really cement some of
their narrative. On Thursday, as part of the defense effort
to undermine the accuser's testimony, a psychologist and professor at
the University of California, Irvine testified about false memories, telling
the court people can be exposed to misinformation about an
event after the fact and incorporate it into their memory,
making it inaccurate. She was up there with all kinds
of quackery yesterday talking all kinds of crazy stuff, But
when the chips were down and the lights were on,
she didn't perform, meaning the doctor. She showed herself to
be a hired gun, somebody chasing the dollar signs, looking
to get that bag and the millions of dollars she's made.
Giving testimony for scumbags tells the whole story that you
need to know now. That doesn't diminish her scholarly accomplishments,
right she is educated in her field and probably one
of the foremost experts. But I have if we're going
to question the motivation of the survivors who were abused,
we're not going to question the motivation of a hired gun.
Even traumatic experiences can be subjected to post event suggestion
that can exaggerate, distort, or change the memory, doctor Elizabeth
Loftis said. She also said, though that the core memories
are remembered, the core memories of the trauma, those aren't changed.
Tense exchanges over trial timing with looming holiday break, court
began Friday with back and forth between the judge and
the defense, who, prior to the jury being called in
indicated it had at least two potential witnesses that could
have carried their case into Monday, including one the defense
said had ignored a subpoena. Judge Nathan was visibly frustrated
by the news and asked the defense why she had
not heard of the issue earlier, saying a non responsive
witness is not a little thing. Yeah, you can get
arrested for not sir, for not showing up for a
subpoena that's been served to you. Pretty serious issue, right,
something that the court should probably be made aware of.
But one thing we definitely have learned throughout this is
that Maxwell's attorneys they play by their own rules. These
guys and gals they're out there, they're not messing around
for they're fifty million dollars an hour. They're docsing people
doing whatever the hell they want. The other potential witness
was an eighty one year old man who lives in
the UK and owns a pub across the street from
Maxwell's London town home. Per the defense, his testimony would
have helped prove the allegations by one of the accusers
Kate could not have taken place when she says they did.
So we got an eighty one year old man that
they want to bring up and they're talking about memory.
Are they Are they for real? This is what all
this money gets you. This is what Christian Everdell, mister prosecutor,
big shot from Harvard, hanging out over there with all
of his buddies from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Christian Everdell, this is what ad buys you. An eighty
one year old pub owner is what your defense hinges on.
I'm my own. Nathan also expressed concern about the pandemic
and indicated she was inclined to compel the defense to
rest its case Friday, according to our policy that parties
have a witness ready to testify or arrest their case. Well,
you know what, not for nothing, Judge Nathan. But if
you were so concerned about the pandemic, you would have
had phone lines for us to listen in on. Less
people showing up, less people around, less chance to catch
the crud. But nah, why have transparency right? No need
for transparency when you're running your courtroom like a mini fifetom.
Defense attorneys argued with the judge and prosecutors, with defense
attorney Laura Meninger stating, our client's life is on the line,
you know what. To be honest with you, I kind
of agree with that this shouldn't be a rushed process.
I don't want to leave any kind of weird legalese,
loopholes or danglies for Lane Maxwell, you know, wiggle off here.
I don't want any of that bs to happen. And
it happens more than you would think when it comes
to prosecutorial misconduct and screwery in the courtroom, all kinds
of nonsense. I don't want any of that to happen.
Prosecutors felt the defense at ample time to sort out
logistical issues. We strongly disagree with the suggestion that the
defense council has been unduly rushed here, prosecutor Maureen Comy,
said Defense attorney Bobby Stern. I'm previously expressed concerns about
the timing of closing arguments and potentially charging the jury
to deliberate with limited time before the holiday break. Yeah,
I kind of agree with that too. It's kind of rough.
I know that, Uh, as a juror, I'd be wanting
to get to my Christmas celebrations. For me, Christmas begins
way early in my family. You know, we have family
coming in early three weeks before the holiday, so you know,
it's a whole month ordeal for me. And I definitely
would be bummed if I had to sit on some
jury for it, no doubt about it. But that's the
way it ended up, and that's the way the cookie crumbled.
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, right. Really,
what it comes down to is like eighty percent of
the time we do what we have to do, and
only twenty percent of the time we get to do
what we want to do. Christmas this year is particularly celebratory,
she said, since people were not able to do that
last year. Our concern is that the jury might feel
we don't want to come back and rush to judgment. Ultimately,
on Friday, the defense opted to withdraw its request for
an arrest warrant for the witness who did not respond
to the subpoena. The parties also agreed to a stipulation
about Maxwell's property ownership in London in the nineties, so
the defense opted not to continue the push for testimony
from the pub owner. So that's what happened today in
the courtroom, folks, And you really we didn't miss much
when it comes to the transcripts. If you were following
along as it was happening today. There were so many
lulls and breaks and boring pauses that it almost felt
like I was watching some kind of procedural And it
was just one of those kind of days for the
defense that you want to put on the back burner
and forget about. Because they had witnesses that didn't want
to show up, witnesses that weren't allowed to testify because
of logistics, and when you add it all up and
you look at it from an overall perspective, it certainly
looks to me that we're going to get some guilty
convictions coming back. Now, I don't know exactly which charges
she'll be guilty on or not guilty on. I'm just
giving you my gut feeling here, and from what I
have seen from the prosecution, from the defense, and watching
it every single day for basically the last three years,
it certainly seems to me that there is enough here
for a conviction and that the jury will feel the
same way. Now, obviously we'll have to see what's going on,
and tomorrow they're gonna be in the courtroom for uh
some more proceedings to get ready for Monday, and obviously
I'll be taking a look at that as well, and
we'll do an update on that tomorrow night. But tomorrow
morning we'll be back with the same old morning updates
and we'll keep it rocking and rolling until this is
all finished out. But it was a an end with
a whimper here, folks. You know, like usually you go
to the fireworks show and then you have the grand finale.
There was no grand finale for Glenn Maxwell. In fact,
it was more like the Grand Fizzle. If you'd like
to contact me, you can do that at Bobby Capuci
at ProtonMail dot com. That's bo b b Y c
ap you C c I at ProtonMail dot com. You
can also find me on Twitter at bo O b
B Y underscore c A p U C c I.
The link that we discussed tonight can be found in
the description box. All right, folks, enjoy your Friday and
I will talk to you all in the morning.