Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
Today marks the fifteenth day of the Glane Maxwell trial
and the last day of the recess as we prepare
and wait for the defense to begin to mount their case. Now,
on our way here, we have heard some powerful testimony
by the survivors, by people corroborating their stories, and by
people who have put Glane Maxwell right in the center
of Jeffrey Epstein's operations. Now, the goal of the defense
is going to be to poke holes in all of
that testimony. They're going to try and go after the
credibility of not only the witnesses, but the specialists that
were brought up, doctors that were brought up, you name it.
And we're hearing now after a late night filing that.
Not only that, but the defense is looking to bring
three lawyers who have represented survivors in as witnesses, one
of them Jack Scarola, the other mister Glassman, and then
the third Bradley Edwards. Now, those of you who have
been following the Epstein case, you're pretty familiar.
Speaker 2: With Jack Scarola and Bradley Edwards. For sure.
Speaker 1: Bradley Edwards has been at the forefront as a lawyer
battling Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts for a very very,
very long time, so much so that Jeffrey Epstein had
his goons putting the press on Bradley Edwards, going through
his trash all kinds of wild shit. So the defense
is now looking to call these three lawyers up to
talk about the motivations of their clients. Would be my guests,
And I find it kind of weird, right, what about
lawyer client privileged? So you're gonna call these lawyers up
and ask them what them and their clients were talking about.
That's a little odd no. And furthermore, if I'm the defense,
I don't know if I want Bradley Edwards up there
talking about anything. Because if you want to see somebody
who has, you know, a map to where all the
bodies are buried that we know about, it's Bradley Edwards.
Nobody has been at the forefront of this case as
far as lawyers go, for longer. The guy has been
in a tooth and nail, bare knuckle scrap with Jeffrey
Epstein's people since pretty much this all began, and now
they're trying to call him as a witness up to
the stand to try and punch holes in his credibility
or to try and make it seem like there's some
sort of financial motivation for these ladies. Now again, this
has been their strategy from the beginning, and anyone who
thinks that they're going to deviate from the course, they
have not been paying attention. They have been striking home
this message since before the trial started, and they're going
to continue that with their witnesses that they're going to
be bringing up, namely Elizabeth Loftis.
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Loftis is.
Speaker 1: A memory expert, and according to an article in I
believe The New Yorker, the woman who changed what memory
is or some such nonsense. Guess what, I'm not buying it. Okay,
they brought her out in the Weinstein case.
Speaker 2: Few other cases. How how did those cases.
Speaker 1: Turn out for Weinstein and his friends?
Speaker 2: Not so good?
Speaker 1: Right, Because guess what, you can bring out a pig,
and you can put some lipstick on that pig, but
guess what, at the end of the day, the pig
is still a pig. So she's gonna come out and
attempt to frame it as these survivors misremembering. These survivors
not really knowing what happened to them, the whole thing,
And I've got to think that the jury is going
to be able to see right through it the same
way they were able to see right through it with
Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby and the rest of them.
I would think that with all of the evidence present here,
all of the testimony provided by the witnesses previously, would
go a long way in disputing what Elizabeth Loftis has
to say. Now. She is an.
Speaker 2: Expert in her field, There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: She's worked for the Robert Durst, OJ Simpson, and Harvey Weinstein.
As I just stated, and in the words of a
New York profile on the controversy surrounding her expertise, Elizabeth
Loftis has changed the meaning of memory, and her life's
work is collided with the Me Too movements moment of
cultural reckoning. In particular, Loftus has questioned the reliability of
memory and how she believes suggestion can mold it. She
has also testified about her research during the trials of
Jerry Sandusky, Ted Bundy, and Paul Shanley, a now deceased
priest who served twelve years in prison following his conviction
for raping a child. So basically, if you're a scumbag
and you've been accused of sexual misconduct or abusing somebody
or raping somebody, Elizabeth LOFTI should be on your speed dial.
You know, it's crazy right to think that all of
these people use the same experts, and then you look
at all of these people who use these experts and
none of them get off.
Speaker 2: So how much of an.
Speaker 1: Expert are these experts really? That little excerpt we were
just talking about is from the Law from Law and Crime,
by the way, and it goes on to say that
in a two page order Monday morning, blah blah blah,
Judge Allison Nathan granted Maxwell permission to call loftus. So
that's looking back a little bit on the decision to
allow Loftis to be called. She is, like I said,
a specialist in memory, and she is somebody that they're
going to bring forth to try and punch holes in
the testimony given previously. They're going to try and make
it seem like the whole grooming allegation is bs bunk,
like it doesn't exist. They're going to talk about how
there is not enough science to back all of that up,
and these are the witnesses that they're going to use
to lay out their case. You're also going to hear
from Park Deats, a forensic psychiatrist who rose to national
prominence during the case of Ronald Reagan's would be assassin
John Hinckley Junior, and he was ultimately acquitted obviously by
reasons of insanity. Deets is being called here to question
the prosecution's claims that Maxwell groomed or alleged victims. So
again they're going to be calling Deets here to go
after those claims that there was grooming involved, and Park
Deets is going to make the case that there's no uh,
there's no theory that has gained any acceptance, let alone
general acceptance in the relevant community. It has not been
peer reviewed, it is not and cannot be tested, and
there is no known or potential.
Speaker 2: Rate of error.
Speaker 1: And that is about grooming by proxy, which obviously Maxwell
is being charged with. So what they're trying to say
here by bringing Park Deets in to back up their
assertions is that there was no grooming done here. Maxwell
wasn't grooming anybody. She was just playing the role of
concerned citizen. You know, basically her own boys and girls club.
She's just there to help people out. She would never
be involved in anything sinister. Meanwhile, the testimony from these
survivors tell us a completely and opposite story. And as
far as Park Deets goes, remember during the Andrea Yates case,
he had a hit to his reputation after it was
discovered that part of his testimony wasn't true and when
the first Texas Court of Appeals concluded that Deet's mention
of it, as well as a prosecutor's subsequent claim that
it inspired Yates to commit a desperate act, could have
had an impact on the jury's verdict. So basically, he
was up there making up nonsense and it affected the
Andrea Yates case. Now I'm certainly no expert in that field,
but when it comes to experts like this, like this
Park Dats guy, you gotta think that the prosecution is
going to bring that up during cross right to punch
some holes into his testimony. You know, if it's gonna
be a game of credibility, then the prosecution better get
on board during cross here and hammer these folks for
their credibility and for what they have said and done
in the past, right if it's good for the goose
and all. So those are a couple of the specialists
that we can expect to be called for Gala and Maxwell,
and obviously there's going to be a lot more. And
like I mentioned earlier, they're also pining to get those
three lawyers that I mentioned, Bradley Edwards, Jack Scrolla and
mister Glassman in as witnesses as well. Now I'm not
too sure how that's going to land for them, how
it's going to work out, but we'll keep our eye
on it and key and see where it ends up, because,
like I was saying, brad Edwards has been a foreign
in the side of the Jeffrey Epstein criminal conspiracy enterprise
for quite some time, and I think they might be
getting a little bit more than they bargained for trying
to get Bradley Edwards up on that stand. So today
we're going to finish off the episode by talking about
this article from Reuters and the author is Luke Cohen,
And what they're talking about here is how Maxwell's lawyers
are going to focus her defense on memory, manipulation and money.
Now set the groundwork here about that with the two
experts that are going to be their quote unquote star witnesses,
and we know what the game plan is. So let's
jump into this article from Reuters and let's see what
they've come up with. Glenn Maxwell's attorneys will likely focus
on portraying the British socialite co conspirator, general all around scuzbag,
alleged child abuser and you know, bipedal serpent accusers as
untrustworthy and motivated by money when they start presenting their
case in her sex abuse trial on Thursday. According to
legal experts and court filings, now what other pathway do
they have to try and get Maxwell off, folks.
Speaker 2: They don't have.
Speaker 1: Any other path to victory here. All they can hope
for is that they do enough of a job with
their bombing runs to punch enough holes in the testimony
of the survivors and the experts brought forward to back
up the testimony of the survivors so that it looks
like there's enough doubt there that Maxwell gets off. That's
what they're trying to do. They don't have any receipts.
They can't prove that Maxwell is innocent here, and obviously
the burden of proof is not on them, but they're
going to continue to try and punch holes in the
testimony that we have heard for the last two weeks,
and they're going to bring these specialists along like Park
Deats and Elizabeth Loftis to try and further those goals. Now, remember,
it's going to be up to the prosecution to slap
back and make sure that they're asking the right questions.
Now from the previous behavior and the previous way the
prosecution has won about things, I'm not all that confident
here that they're going to be able to handle the
cross correctly, because let's be real, they haven't shown to
be some great office of prosecutors so far. They've had
a mountain of evidence. Sure seem to be making it
a little bit more difficult than they need to know.
But it's going to be up to them to try
and make sure they blunt the testimony that's going to
be provided by the so called experts for the defense.
Prosecutors rested their case on Friday after two weeks of emotional,
often explicit testimony from four women who said Maxwell recruited
and groomed them for abuse by the late financier pedophile
Jeffrey Epstein. When the women were teenagers. The women portrayed
Maxwell essential to their abuse by Epstein, a globe trotting financier,
pedophile who died by suicide allegedly in twenty nineteen in
jail while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges. So we're
still calling her a socialite, and we're calling Epstein a
globe trotting financier. Come on, legacy media, get with it already,
a globe trotting financier. How about a convicted sex offender
in pedophile, that's probably the right way to talk about.
Jeffrey Epstein No. Maxwell fifty nine has pleaded not guilty
to eight counts of sex trafficking and other crimes in
federal court in New York. During cross examination, her lawyers
tried to undermine the women's credibility by asking about inconsistencies
in their accounts and about awards they received from a
fund for Epstein's victims. Now, again, I think that that's
going to backfire for the defense. You're bringing up the
money that was paid out by Jeffrey Epstein's estate to
these women. Now, what that tells me is that Jeffrey
Epstein's estate has taken responsibility for the behavior of the
late Jeffrey Epstein, and they've admitted that he committed these
acts abuse these girls. So you're bringing this up is
just strengthening the case, telling everybody, yeah, that these girls
were abused so much so that they were paid out
by Epstein's estate. So you mean to tell me during
all this time that Maxwell was with them, Maxwell was
hanging out, Maxwell was grooming them. She had nothing to
do with it. So I think that's a folly as
far as the defense goes. And I would hope that
the prosecution would press that advantage a little bit, but
they don't seem to be doing that. This case is
about memory, manipulation and money. Maxwell's attorney, Bobby Sternham said
in her November twenty ninth opening statement, And they told
us from Jump Street what they were gonna do, right,
memory manipulation and money. And they've stayed on course the
whole entire time. They've pounded it home. Now have they
done a good enough job thus far to sway the jury.
I don't think so. But they have stayed on target,
they've stayed on message, and they have continued their full
scale bombing run over the witness's credibility, and they have
not strayed from that kind of strategy this whole entire time.
One of Maxwell's expected expert witnesses is Elizabeth loftis a
psychologist who studies how people can be manipulated into having
false memories. She has testified in or consulted for hundreds
of trials, including those of OJ Simpson and Harvey Weinstein.
So what they're trying to say here is that these
girls were manipulated into having these false memories by lawyers
and other people who are looking for a payday. That's
their defense. When you break it all down and you
crush it down to the basic neurons of it, that
is what it is. That these girls were manipulated. These
girls were steered in this direction by lawyers. There was
no abuse here, just some lawyers trying to get rich.
That's basically what the defense is. But undermining the accuser's
credibility remains an uphill battle, said Duncan Levin, managing partner
at Tucker Levin PLLC. It's straight out of the playbook,
Levin said, but it's a heavy lift to ask jurors
to discount what the accusers may be saying because they
got money. Look At the end of the day, it
comes down to this. Jeffrey Epstein was dead and gone.
How else are these girls supposed to get restitution from
Jeffrey Epstein? If he's dead and gone, should they have
him dug up and put on trial as a corpse?
The only restitution, the only way to get any payback
here was to sue the estate or to get money
out of the compensation fund. And once you get that money,
you're also getting the admission that Epstein did this to you.
So while they continue with the money, I would think
that the prosecution and jurors are going to see right
through that ploy. The defenses said its case will last
between two and four days. Calling Maxwell given the women's
compelling testimony, the defense's best bet maybe calling Maxwell herself
to testify, said Zachary margulis Onuma, principal attorney at ZMO
Law PLLC. The Jerry is going to believe the gist
of what the witnesses are saying, margulis Unuma said. The
only real counter to that is Maxwell coming back and saying, no,
I didn't intend that boy. That would be something. If
they put Maxwell up on the stand, that will be
something to see I have my reservations about thinking that's
going to occur, But again, maybe they feel like that's
their only hope little hell Mary time. But I wouldn't
be too confident in having Maxwell get up on that stand.
Now we'll see, right, we'll see what her defense decides
to do, But man, that would be something else. Maxwell's
attorneys have not indicated whether or not they plan to
call her to the stand. According to prosecutors, Maxwell's team
also intends to call Robert Glassman, an attorney for a
woman known as Jane, who testified that she was first
abused by Epstein in nineteen ninety four when she was fourteen,
and Maxwell took part in some of the encounters. At
issue is whether Glassman told Jane that cooperating with prosecutors
would assist her claim with the fund, which the defense
says could taint her testimony. Jane testified that she was
awarded five million dollars from the compensation fund established by
Epstein's estate, So again trying to manipulate the situation, trying
to turn it into something that it's not. Oh well,
the lawyer told her that this would make her her
case better. So I mean, come on, really, you mean
to tell me if this was your daughter or your sister,
you wouldn't tell her to go for the Monty and
go after whatever sort of financial restitution is available. It's ridiculous.
It's totally re ridiculous. During cross examination, Maxwell attorney Laura
Meninger pressed Jane on why she did not mention Maxwell's
alleged role in the abuse during her night her twenty
nineteen conversations with law enforcement. Sternham said Jane only tagged
Glaine when money was on the line, and that all
four women enhanced their claims by cooperating. So again, it's
all about the money, right, all about the money. God,
there's no way that any of these girls could have
been abused. Maxwell is just a pillar of the community.
It's obvious that they're all just going after the vast
fortune of Gallaine Maxwell. Jane testified that she did not
believe helping prosecutors would boost her claim. The fund considered
whether a claimant's assertions matched up with any law enforcement findings.
But it is a stretch to say that cooperating enhanced
the woman's claims, said Laurie Levinson, a professor.
Speaker 2: At Loyola Law School.
Speaker 1: There is no requirement that a victim cooperator testify for
the prosecution, said Levinson, who reviewed the fund's protocol at
Reuter's request. So basically, Laura Levinson, who is a professor
at Loyola, shoots that claim down right away, saying that
these witnesses didn't even have to testify. They could have
took their money and forgot about it all and not
put themselves on the firing line here, not had their
credibility attacked, not had their persons attacked by Maxwell and
her team. But they didn't do that, did they. Here
they are testifying an open court, testifying against Maxwell and
hopefully trying to bring her to justice for what they
say she did to them. In a sign that undercutting
Jane's testimony is important to the defense, prosecutors said last
week that Maxwell's team also sought a subpoena for Jane's
Brotherane testified that her brothers also knew Epstein during the nineties.
So again, that's what it comes down to, folks, and
that's what we can expect tomorrow when the defense begins
to mount their case. It's gonna be about the memory.
It's gonna be about manipulation, and like everything else, it's
gonna be about the money. We'll have to see where
it goes from there, and we'll have to see what
the prosecution does to try and counter that. But there's
an outline on what to expect in the next couple
of days few days, and I'm really interested to see
if Maxwell herself takes the stand. I think we'll know
a little bit more as tomorrow commences and we kind
of get a feel for how the trial's going. I
guess we'll see if the defense feels it necessary to
go for the big guns and put Maxwell on the stand.
I think that if we see Max we'll take the stand,
that will signal that things are not going the way
that the defense wants them to go.
Speaker 2: But we'll have to see, because.
Speaker 1: One thing I have learned in the past three years
of covering the Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell case is
that every single time you think that there's an answer
an answer to a question, what you're left with are
more questions. If you'd like to contact me, you can
do that at Bobby Kapuci at ProtonMail dot com. That's
bo bbuy cap you Cci at ProtonMail dot com. You
can also find me on Twitter at Bobby Underscore cap
you Cci. The links that we discussed can be found
in the description box. I'll be back later on folks
with the evening update. So I hope all of you
have a great day. What's up everyone, and welcome back
to the Epstein Chronicles. While our folk has been on
the Gallaine Maxwell trial, and rightly so, there are other
things occurring in the overall scheme of things when talking
about Jeffrey Epstein and Gline Maxwell. Now, one of those
issues that's going on right now is the lawsuit between
Virginia Roberts and Prince Andrew aka the Joe Exotic of
the Winsor Family. Now, remember, Virginia Roberts claims that she
was trafficked to Prince Andrew in England by Gallaiine Maxwell
and Jeffrey Epstein. Now we have a picture of Virginia
Roberts with the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family at
Gallaine Maxwell's Belgravia Mews house. Up until this point, you've
heard from the Joe Exotic of the Winsor family and
the five or six people who are still supporting him that, oh,
this picture was fake and all this other nonsense how
it could have been doctored. Well, now, all of a sudden,
fast forward to today, after that horrible car crash of
an interview he did with Emily Maitliss over there at
the BBC in regards to all of this, well, now
he wants all of this thrown out because you know,
it's over the age of consent thing. So hold on,
wait a minute, pump the brakes real quick.
Speaker 2: Hold up.
Speaker 1: I thought you had never met Virginia Roberts. I thought
you had no idea who she was. Now all of
a sudden, you might know who she is. And it's
an age of consent issue. And it's not that you
didn't have contact with her or sexual contact with her.
Now she's just over aged. So as we continue to
watch people like the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family
blunder around and continuously shoot themselves in the foot, I
have to ask myself how anyone can believe anything this
guy has to say, especially with this big bombshell, because
remember it was how he had no idea who Virginia
even was. He had never met her, had no idea
she even existed. Meanwhile, he sent Glenn Maxwell an email
in twenty fifteen, saying that he had some questions about
Virginia Roberts. We have the picture that is front and
center as far as the evidence goes. We have Steve
Scully's testimony about what he saw on the island, and
we have a slew of other things that go into
proving what Virginia has to say.
Speaker 2: Here is the truth.
Speaker 1: Now, this is a defense I wasn't expecting from Prince Andrew.
Oh she's over the age of consent. I mean that
probably should have been your first defense, right, Hey, look,
she was over the age.
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 1: Nah, I don't know her, I never met her, none
of that stuff. But all of a sudden, she's over
the age. So I would hope that Virginia's lawyers would
latch onto that and you know, use that to their
benefit because it's obvious that this guy's bullshitting around you
just listen to his story. I mean, come on, really,
you're in Woking with your daughter at a pizza party. Sure,
that's what the Prince of England does, goes to Woking
to a pizza party with his daughter. You know, last
week I was down at Chuck E Cheese Pizza and
Barack Obama and his family. They were all just you know,
hanging out. Come on, man, give me a break already.
Who buys this nonsense. That's why you have servants. That's
why you have all of your grooms and your cooks
and all the other nonsense you so called elite have
around you.
Speaker 2: You're not going to know.
Speaker 1: Pizza party with the common folk out and woking. Give
me a break, And where are all of the people
that saw you out of this pizza party? That's something
people would remember. No, the Joe exotic of the Windsor
family having a slice might be something people remember. But
he's going to try and get the whole entire lawsuit
thrown out because he says that Virginia was older than
the age of consent, so she filed the case under
the New York Child Victims Act, and that allowed victim
survivors to sue their abusers if they were younger than
eighteen when it took place. And at the time, Virginia
said she was holding Prince Andrew accountable for what he
did to him. But now Prince Andrew says that he
is asking a judge if they'll throw out the lawsuit.
And now it's all well it's the legislation is unconstitutional
and the issue of consent is unsettled. And you see
how they've pivoted. And here in this article from the Sun,
his lawyers go on to say the Child Victims Act
is not a reasonable mechanism to address the injustice of
child sex abuse in New York as classifies those under
the age of eighteen as miners, even though the age
of consent in New York is seventeen. Well, they need
to figure out the confusion with the law. There's no
doubt about it. It needs to be clear. And once again,
as Jensaki likes to say, we always end up circling
back to the lawmakers, don't we the people that are
supposed to put laws on the books and you know,
all of that good stuff. They can't even figure it out.
They can't even get like basic wording correct. And this
is the result. I mean, check out the dude down
in Florida who just walked because of the detectives violating
his his constitutional rights. Dude was down there, shot up
a whole entire party or some shit, twenty three people, shot,
three people dead. And this dude's gonna walk now because
the prosecutors had Noah. I mean the detectives screwed things.
Speaker 2: Up, his lawyers wrote. The act revives.
Speaker 1: Claims for those who allegedly suffered harm as a result
of certain sexual offenses they claim were committed against them
when they were under the age of eighteen, even though
the age of consent in New York is seventeen. And
this is what you get when you have a high
profile legal team, Right, They're gonna dig into it, and
they're going to try and find any kind of hole
in the armor and any way to exploit wording in
these laws. His lawyers go on to say, here the
only witnesses to the purported implied threats under which Roberts
allegedly engaged in unconsented sex acts with Prince Andrew or
Epstein deceased, Maxwell incarcerated, and Prince Andrew the accused and
Roberts herself. Okay, so it comes down to who do
you believe, and where is the evidence and which way
does it go. Now, it's always been a very very
large ask to think that there's going to be criminal
charges brought against the Joe exotic of the Windsor family.
I'm not very confident that will ever happen. But I
think that if we're talking about a civil penalty here
and even in front of a Jerry, I think that
if it ever got that far and a Jerry heard
what Virginia has to say about these people in open court,
it'd be a wrap for them as far as them
paying up. Especially the way Jerry's have been handling people
like this for the past few years, you gotta think
there'd be a serious payday and reparations coming from Prince
Andrew if this ever got before a jury. Considering everything
that we know about this now, obviously all we have
is circumstantial evidence, right none of us were there, We
don't know.
Speaker 2: Comes down to who do you believe and like For me.
Speaker 1: Throughout this whole entire thing, I've tried to follow the
evidence as much as possible and to the best of
my ability, and in doing so, I have been led
to a point where I believe what Virginia has to
say about these people, and I think that her story
is very powerful and her testimony it'll sink somebody like
Prince Andrew. If it gets to a civil portion where
they're actually in front of a jury, I think it
would be a rap for Prince Andrew. So, like usual,
like we've talked about for a while, he's going to
continue to try and get this so it doesn't ever
get to the point of being in front of that jury, right.
Her lawyer goes on to say her complaint is ambiguous
at best and unintelligible at w Robert's refusal to include
anything but the most conclusiory allegations is puzzling given her
pattern of disclosing to the media the purported details of
the same allegations. Perhaps it is Robert's tendency to change
her story that prompted her to keep the allegations of
the complaint vague so as not to commit any specific
not to commit to any specific account.
Speaker 2: And why I'm.
Speaker 1: Bringing this up and talking about it here in the
opening is because it's pretty familiar, isn't it. Isn't it
the same way that Maxwell's attorneys are looking to destroy
the credibility of witnesses who have taken the stand against
her in this opening salvo, what Prince Andrew's attorneys are
attempting to do is the same thing. Oh, she's misremembering,
she's leaving things out. She's only speaking.
Speaker 2: To the media.
Speaker 1: So the story goes. Now, we'll see how successful they
are with this strategy. But up until this point, it
has not been a strategy that I would like to
hang my I had on if it was for all
of the marbles, that's for sure. In the lawsuit that
was filed by Virginia, she said that she feared death
or physical injury to herself or another and any other
repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew because of
their powerful connections, wealth and authority. And that was a
common theme. A lot of these girls were very scared
of the people Epstein knew that people Epstein was around
all the time, and you know the fact that Epstein
had the ability at least they thought to ruin their
lives or their families lives, or you know, make things
very difficult on them, set them up as a drug addict,
whatever it may be. So there was legitimate concerns. And
when it comes to Virginia Roberts, her ordeal was a
lot more rocky, shall we say, than some of these
other girls. And it's just crazy that all of these
years later, she's still waging this battle against these people
and it's still the same old tactics they've been using
against her for decades, So that's getting ready to crack
off January fourth. I believe we're going to get some
more movement as far as the court goes, and obviously
there's going to be filings and whatnot before then, and
we're going to keep, you know, covering all of that
and keep following it because it's a huge part of
this story overall. And the fact that Prince Andrew, the
Joe exotic of the Windsor family, was so close to Maxwell,
so close to Epstein, and is fingered as not only
an enabler, but somebody who took part in the abuse.
I think this story has a lot left to go,
and we have a lot more to learn before, you know,
we get to the end point. But I know that
a lot of you who have just found the Glenn
Maxwell case or trial or this story in general are
trying to play catch up now and eventually, maybe this weekend,
I'm going to try and do a I don't know,
a kind from the beginning kind of episode where we
condense what has happened in I don't know, a way
where it is a little more digestible. Perhaps obviously it
won't be a deep dive into all of the other
moving parts, but just the basic story and then obviously
you'll have all of these context episodes and stuff. But
it's it's a very big story. There's a lot as
far as the scope of it, and it's very far reaching,
and it's confusing, there's no.
Speaker 2: Doubt about it.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of questions where do you even start,
and even there, there's a million different starting points when
it comes to this story. So I'm going to try
and get something like that out this weekend, a more
digestible way of understanding the core principles of what went
on here and what occurred. So that's a quick update
there as far as Prince Andrew and what that knucklehead
is up to. Now let's move on to Glenn Maxwell.
Speaker 2: Tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Obviously, her defense is going to take the stand and
they are going to try and present their case to
show the jury that their client is innocent, that she
is not guilty of the things that she's being accused
that she has done, and that all of the testimony
that they have heard has been wrong. That's what the
defense is going to do, right, That's what they're going
to try and do anyway, And they have a couple
of things that they are going to focus on. They're
going to try and make sure that Jeffrey Epstein is
not Glenn Maxwell, right. They want to make sure that
they're separate. They want to make sure that they're letting
the jury know that Epstein's crimes aren't Maxwell's crimes. That's
going to be their they're tall task. And for the
past two weeks, we have heard the other side of
that story, right. We have heard that Glenne Maxwell was
an integral part, an integral part of what went on here.
We have heard that Glainne Maxwell was chief in the
abuse of at the very least these four girls. We
have heard that Glainne Maxwell was used to make it
more comfortable of a situation for some of the parents,
her being the quote unquote chaperone. And we know that
they're going to try and hammer that home during cross examination. Meanwhile,
the defense is also going to continue to go after
the memory of the survivors and the witnesses who have
been put on the stand. That's going to be their
two pronged assault starting tomorrow. I think think that it's
going to be a rough go for the defense. I
think that it's going to be hard for them to
continue on their path here with the memories and all
of that stuff. I just don't know how the jury's
going to take it. Again, I'm not there in the court,
so I'm not seeing the facial expressions or how things
are hitting when there's you know, information dropped on the
jury's lap. But from following it the way we have been,
it seems to me that the prosecution has made a
pretty solid case as far as the witness testimony, setting
Glene Maxwell up as a key part of all of this.
So tomorrow you know that the defense is going to
try and hammer the hell out of that and set
it up as the complete opposite. These memories were faulty,
all of these people were on drugs, None of them
are reliable witnesses, YadA YadA, as they would say in Seinfeld. Now,
one of the most interesting parts of this for me
is going to be how the prosecution handles these witnesses
that are brought up by the defense. Tomorrow, we saw
how confrontational it was with the defense when they had
the witnesses on the stand, and I wonder how hard
the prosecution's going to go. I would guess that it's
going to be a bit confrontational with some of these experts,
but it's certainly going to be interesting to see how
they press and what sort of game plan the prosecution's
going to have. And I guess we'll have that more
revealed to us tomorrow morning when they get the first
witness during cross. But that's going to be very interesting
for me. And I think that these expert witnesses that
come up to question the memory and some of the
other things that they have planned, I think they're going to.
Speaker 2: Play a pretty crucial role.
Speaker 1: Right They're going to offer up some testimony as far
as their expertise, and then just like when the prosecution
brought up their experts, it's going to be up to
the prosecution now on cross to punch holes in what
these experts said, so they should have a pathway to
doing that. We talked a little bit about park Deets earlier,
we talked a little bit about Loftis earlier, and both
of them have long careers, long history of being witnesses
for people like Jeffrey Epstein, Glenn Maxwell, Harvey Weinstein, you know,
some of the worst of the worst. So these aren't
people who are just showing up with no track record,
and you would think that the prosecution is very familiar
with them and the way they go about themselves and
conduct themselves inside of the courtroom. But I think that
for me anyway, is going to be the most interesting
thing tomorrow to get a feel for. And when we
see how the prosecution handles themselves during cross I think
that will lay more of a pathway to you know,
the rest of these witnesses and what their strategy is
going to be, because I really hope that they go
hard on them. I want to see some you know,
some good hard lawyer work here during the cross examination.
Don't let these people off easy, you know, it's I
think it's an important part of it, right to make
sure that the prosecutors come out swinging. The defense certainly
came out swinging. Now it's going to be do the
prosecutors come back just as hard or you know, what
do they have planned? And I guess for me that's
the most interesting part as far as the you know,
technicals of this at this point, I want to see
what they have in their tour box, what they have
in store for these witnesses, and you know, it's gonna
be twelve hours thirteen hours from now, and I guess
we'll have our answer. So until then, we're gonna wrap
it up for now, folks and leave it here. We'll
be back tomorrow morning right around the same time, try
and get things started before the trial commences, and then
obviously tomorrow night will do the wrap up as far
as the testimony in the courtroom throughout the day and
some of the happenings around the headlines involving the case.
So I hope that all of you have a great night,
and i'll be back tomorrow morning. If you'd like to
contact me, you can do that at Bobby Capuci at
ProtonMail dot com. That's bo bb Y c ap you
c Ci at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find
me on Twitter at bo bby underscore cap you c Ci.
The links that we discussed in this article can be
found in the description box.