Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Day three of the
Galain Maxwell trial just wrapped up a little bit ago,
and we saw three people take the stand. One was
a continuance from yesterday and that was one of the
four accusers Jane. Number two was her ex boyfriend, someone
being called Matt. And the third person was an executive
from Interlochan School who talks about some of Jeffrey Epstein's
donations and stuff like that. Now, for those of us
who have been following this case, this doesn't come as
a surprise to us. We all knew about this cabin,
and in fact, Epstein donated so much money to this
school that the cabin was named after him. Now think
about that for a minute. Should this man be any
where near all of these young teenage be tween girls.
Probably not the right place for this guy. But what
they'll say is, as an organization, the Interlocan School, oh well,
we had no idea. We had no idea that Jeffrey
Epstein was a predator or Jeffrey Epstein was this sick,
disgusting human being. But shouldn't they know better If you're
going to give somebody access to your campus and you
have a bunch of children running around, isn't it a
good idea to properly vet those people? And if not,
at what point is there some accountability for this school?
Now I'm certainly not an investigator or a lawyer, and
that's just a genuine question. At what point do we say,
all right, well, this school is the one that welcomed
Jeffrey Epstein with open arms onto its campus and then
this happened. So while they're not directly responsible for the abuse, right,
the school didn't do it, Jeffrey Epstein did, but they
opened the door. And I think that that's a point
that needs to be discussed a little bit more so,
these organizations that were with Epstein, helping Epstein, helping Maxwell,
they need to have their part of the responsibility for
enabling all of this, and we've seen it throughout this case.
There has been some responsibility from at least the social
aspect of this. We know that Glenn Dubin has lost
his status, We know that Les Wexner had to step down,
Leon Black had to step down. Prince Andrew is absolutely disgraced,
but it's not far enough. Right. It's one thing to
be disgraced and still go home and swim around in
your billions and billions of dollars and a whole other
thing to be held responsible for your alleged role in
Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise. And we have to remember, though,
that the scope of this trial specifically is only in
regards to the behavior of Maxwell in the time period.
So people who are expecting a bunch of other stuff
to be brought up here, I think they're gonna be
a bit disappointed. Now we're going to hear names of
people who were in Epstein's circle again. We heard about
Trump today, we heard about Clinton. And you know, these
are reoccurring names that if you've followed the Jeffrey Epstein case,
you've seen these names pop up over and over and
over again. And if it was just one tabloid, say
who was talking about it, it's easy to shrug your
shoulders and say, oh, come on, what a bunch of
ludicrous nonsense. But when you get story after story after story,
it is a little harder to ignore it. And that's
what we have seen. We have just seen time and
time again, story after story about the culpability of all
of these people around Jeffrey Epstein, whether it be enabling
him and Maxwell or outright participating. It's the same story
for all of these people. And campus is like this
school campus up in Michigan. They need to have some
kind of penalty when stuff like this happens. Because you're
a school, right your job is to raise and nurture children.
You would think probably to keep them safe is a
big part of that as well. So I hope that
there is some kind of repercussions, but I'm doubtful. You see,
there's never repercussions for the enablers, and it certainly does
seem like there'll be serious repercussions for the enablers here
in this case as well, at least not in this
portion of the trial. So we're gonna jump into some
of that testimony today, and we're gonna go through the
testimony from Jane, from Matt, and then from the executive
from Interloking. So let's dive in and let's start with
the testimony from Jane. So obviously they got ready to
go in the morning. There were some issues. They had
some issues about a Rule sixteen issue about it went
into some things that could be disclosed or shouldn't be
disclosed if it's an impeachment of the witness, blah blah blah.
So they had this whole entire discussion before the jury
even came into the room. So they got that all
squared away, they had a sidebar, got it all locked in,
and then the jury comes into the room and do
we get ready to go? Now? The questioning from Meninger
stayed in the same ballpark that it was in yesterday
and what we expected. Very combative and trying to set
Jane up as somebody who has a problem remembering things. Also,
of course there's the money angle. Oh, this is about money,
this is about this, this is about that, when in
reality it's about the abuse that Jane suffered at the
hands of Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. They want to make
it about everything but that, and hopefully the jury doesn't bite.
So Meninger starts off the questioning by asking did you
turn seventeen in your final year at interlogan? Jane answers, no,
I was sixteen. Menager directs the jurors to pick up
a small binder under their chairs and turned to J three.
So obviously I have no idea what Jay three is.
None of us know. It's evidence that was introduced to
the trial and discovery. I'm guessing, and now they want
the jurors to take a look at that as far
as the testimony that Jane is giving here, so you'll
see that from time to time they'll have things pre
prepared as part of their questioning strategy. Menager goes on
to say, and your application said you came from a
long and loving family, right. Jane says, that's what it says.
Menager says, do you recognize the document? Jane goes on
to say, I do not recognize it per se, but
I see my signature. Meninger advises her that it's your
application to interlogan manager then goes on to say, when
you spoke to your younger brother, you didn't mention there
was a woman, correct. Jane says, I don't think so.
Menager goes on to say, and you told a news
source that you were approached by Glaine. No mention of Glane, correct.
Jane says, I don't remember that. And again, remember this
is their strategy. They want to try and make it
seem like she has no idea what she's talking about,
like she has no real memories of this or a
recollection of this and you also see why they're bringing
the memory expert in that they were able to call
as a witness, or they're going to be able to
call as a witness. So it all lines up. Now
their strategy really starts to make sense. It's a two
pronged approach. Right, A, you misremember basically calling her a liar,
but in a nice way. And b Oh, you're motivated
by money. That has always been their strategy, and that
has always been the way that they were going to
go about this. Really, what it all comes down to
is is the jury going to buy it or are
they going to see through it and understand what really
happened here? A Meninger goes on to say, when you
got to Epstein's house with your mother, your house was
in West Palm Beach, right. Jane says, no, it was
in Palm Beach. Meninger says, you didn't cross any state lines,
did you? No? I didn't. There were only the three
of us having tea. So she's trying to establish that
this didn't happen over state lines, but which is ridiculous
because maybe this one instance didn't, but what about the
trips to New Mexico and then shouldn't that enact the
Man Act right away? You would think that there would
be the Man Act being thrown around in this case,
but we haven't seen it, and we certainly haven't seen Rico.
That's what really this should have have fallen under. This
is a criminal conspiracy put in place by numerous people,
so it should be a Rico case and a huge umbrella,
but unfortunately it's not. But what Meninger is trying to
do here is to establish that this didn't happen over
state Lions, and she's trying to conflate and cause some confusion.
Meninger goes on to say, have you ever spoken with
your sisters about your boyfriends? Jane goes on to say,
I didn't have any boyfriends. Then the US attorney called
for a brief sidebar. So I'm sure that they had
to confer about the line of questioning or about some
of the other particulars going on, so they called for
the sidebar. And you'll see this in trials, obviously, I'm
sure you're all aware. In the middle of a trial,
one of the defense or the prosecution will call for
a sidebar with the judge. So after the sidebar ended,
Maxwell's lawyer comes back and she says, look at the
last line in the top paragraph. You told the agents
that Epstein would decide where everyone sat. And as Meninger
was pursuing this line of questioning, there was an objection
by the prosecutors, and the objection was she should only
ask does it refresh your recollection? So Judge Nathan says,
go ahead and ask, and Menager, with those exact words, says,
does it refresh your recollection? Jane goes on to answer yes,
Menager says, and there was nothing sexual in the theater.
Jane goes right. So what she's trying to do is
again build a timeline where she is showing that Jane
doesn't remember, or that this doesn't happen, or that it
was all just, you know, very innocent what Jeffrey Epstein
and Glaine Maxwell were up to. And this obviously is
going to be the line of defense as we move forward.
Menager goes on to say, yesterday it said it was
shortly after the poolhouse that you had this incident with
Epstein and Glaine. Right. Prosecutors objection as to form. Judge
Nathan says, specify what you're talking about. Prosecution objection Manager says,
this is foundational. So what Menager is saying is that
this is a very important part of all of their
defense here, right, this is foundational to our defense. It
has to be admitted. Menager goes on to say, you
told the government you do not have a specific memory
of your first time with Glaine. Prosecutors objection, Menager, you
have come up with the memory in the last two years.
Jane says, I don't believe I have come up with
the memory. No, So again, you see the memory, right,
We're gonna go after the memory. She doesn't know what
she's talking about. She forgot, this never happened. She misremembered,
and that's how they roll. And you know, once we
saw the witnesses that Glaine Maxwell was going to call,
once we saw the memory expert and all of that,
we should have been aware that this was going to
be a key component. Jane says, it is not typed
up right on this form. Maxwell's lawyer Manager another typo
by the government, you know, an unneeded dig. But again,
it's gonna get testy in this courtroom. This is one
of those explosive cases. Manager is making a boatload of
money and it's going to get explosive at points. What
I think is interesting as well. You notice that Everdell
isn't doing the cross today, that it's Manager who took
over because they wanted to get into the slime and
the crime, so they figured if they had another woman
performing the cross it would go over better. Prosecution objection.
Manager says, you told the government Galaine never used sex
toys or a vibrator on you. Jane says correct. So again,
what they're trying to do is establish Jane as a liar. Well,
you said one thing fifteen years ago or twenty years ago,
and you're saying another thing now, And that's definitely what
they're going to do. And I know it's frustrating for
people to watch, and it's gross. The behavior is gross,
but this is what these lawyers do. There is no
rock left unturned by these lawyers, especially when you're paying
this kind of money, and it's just gonna get grimier, folks. Unfortunately,
I just want to prepare you all for a real
disgusting few weeks, especially those of you who haven't followed
this case and might only have a skin deep idea
about what happened here. This is some of the most
sadistic brutality ever and performed by people in the most
highest of positions. Menager goes on to say, you said
Glane never saw your perform oral sex on Epstein. Jane says,
I don't recall. Menager replies, look at the document. Judge
Nathan says, let's take a break. So that was the
first session this morning, when Jane first got on the
stage on the stand and the questioning started. Now, they
had a break, and then after the break, obviously they
came back, so we'll dive into that part of the
testimony now. So after they came back from the eleven
o'clock break, Meninger's lawyer continued, I mean Maxwell's lawyer manager
continued with the same line of questioning, again attacking the
memory of Jane. She goes on to say, you testified
yesterday your first sex with Epstein, and you first had
sex with Epstein in his poolhouse in Florida, but you
told the government it was in New York. Jane says,
those are not my notes. I did not write that
down and it was not recorded. So she's trying to
once again act like Jane is basically lying here, saying
that she told she testified yesterday that the first time
her and Epstein had sex, the first time she was
assaulted by Epstein, was in the poolhouse in Florida. But
she goes on to say that she told the government
that it was in New York, and Jane disputes this.
She says that that's not the case. Those weren't her
notes and she did not write that down. So it'll
be interesting to see what the Jerry makes of that.
Menager goes on to say, you told them you only
remembered one incident in New York when Galane was present.
Jane goes on to say, I don't recall. Menager says,
look at document three five zero nine dash zero zero three.
Hasn't your story changed? Jane replies, I didn't understand the question.
So the hammering continues, and you see her dog at
approach here. She's not giving up an inch Menager. And
as I was following along with some of the comments
today in some of these threads, people were not very
happy with Menager, and it is a gross tactic. But
that's what these lawyers do. Lawyers like Menager. This is
her specialty, right, she enjoys it. Now, I'm not saying
she enjoys, you know, going hard on victims I'm talking about.
She definitely enjoys her job, you can tell. And she
might even enjoy that part of it. Who knows. I
don't know the lady, but I'll tell you this much.
I don't think, when all said and done, that this
is going to be the right strategy. Menager goes on
to say, you told the government you flew to New
York with Epstein in Glane to see The Lion King. Jane,
I said that, but I was incorrect in my timeline.
I was fourteen. So The Lion King came out in
nineteen ninety four, and that's when she was fourteen. But
they're talking about again time frames. They're also brought up
that the Broadway show The Lion King, which started in
nineteen ninety seven, which would have had the timeline incorrect.
But Jane here is saying she was fourteen. Menager goes
on to say, you were a student of theater and
the arts at the time. Correct. Prosecution objection as to form.
So you know what that means. Right, She's trying to say,
she's an actor, So you're a student of theater and
arts at the time, right, So you know how to act,
you had, you know, you got acting chops, You're the
next insert great actress here. That's how Menager is going
to frame it. That's what she's going to try and infer. Meanwhile,
we know she was a young kid at the time.
How many of you out there took theater classes. How
many of you out there were thespians. I know I
was in technical theater growing up, and I highly doubt
anyone was as good of an actor to pull off
a whole acting performance here. I mean, it's just ridiculous,
and it just goes to show you that the whole
entire plan is scorched earth for Maxwell. It also, in
my opinion anyway, shows that they're desperate. If they weren't desperate,
I highly doubt they'd be going this route now. At
this point, Judge Nathan called for another break because Jane
needed some water. Then they get back on the stand
and Menager continues with her peppering of Jane. Let's go
to your conversation in February twenty twenty about the Lion
King prosecution. No objection, Menager says, I know miss Mo
would like to come and do this for me. Another
dig at the prosecutors and Menager is, you know, skating
on thin ice with that kind of stuff. I mean,
it's kind of expected for the snarkiness to happen, but
this early in the trial, boys, like I said, she's
bringing out all the artillery. Obviously, Alison Moe objected to that,
and then Menager goes, but the Lion King on Broadway
didn't start until you were seventeen years old. Did the
government or mister Glassman suggest to you that you might
have meant the Lion King movie. Prosecution goes on objection,
so again bringing up the Lion King and trying to
point out that there's a lot of misremembering going on here,
and it's was left at that. After the objection, Menager
then changes her tactic or line of questioning to talk
about New Mexico. So you recall going to the New
Mexico Range a giant, huge home, correct, Jane replies, like
all the homes, Menager says, and that Jeffrey ups Epstein's
brother went with you. Jane says, I don't recall, now
that would be interesting. Huh. We really haven't heard too
much about Mark Epstein. He's been kind of a enigma.
Throughout all of this, but we know that he's an
owner of the building on sixty sixth Street where a
lot of these trafficked girls were being housed. And again
it raises the question, how is there not a rico
case here? How are all of the people who are
financially connected to Epstein and Maxwell not being forced to
sing a song? And unfortunately, what it shows you is
that the government just doesn't have the backbone to do
what is really needed to be done here. Meninger went
on to say, you weren't asked to have sex with
any of Epstein's friends, were you? Jane says no. Meninger says,
did Epstein introduce you to people in the arts? Jane
replies not really. Menainger then goes on to say to
the dean of Interlogan at a cocktail party, Jane, I
don't recall. And this is a true tactic by Menager.
What she's trying to do is to get her to
say I don't recall as many times as possible, so
she'll ask like vague questions, do you remember meeting people
in the arts? Did you ever meet the dean of
inter Locan at a cocktail party? Mind you this is
back in nineteen ninety four, so it is the strategy
that is very apparent at this point, and I wonder
what the prosecution is going to have up their sleeve
to answer it. Menager then goes on to say in
Document three five zero nine dash zero zero one, you
said you met Donald Trump at mar A Lago before
the poolhouse incident. Jane, I don't recall, Menager, you said
Epstein took you in a dark green car to mar
A Lago to a meeting with Donald Trump, and prosecution
says asked, an answered and also misleading. So very interesting
that they bring that up again, right, And what I
think they're trying to do is establish the fact that
there are a lot more, if you want to say,
bigger fish involved in all of this. So they keep
pointing out things like Trump et cetera, et cetera. And
again another good tactic from Menager. But I don't think
it's gonna be enough to throw people off of the
ball here. And I think that the main point for
the prosecution and for this trial, remember, is Maxwell and
the crimes that she's being accused of. So they're gonna
try and conflate it with all kinds of other things,
but it's gonna be up to the prosecution to keep
the jurors eye on the ball. Menager says, you also
had some recollections about flying on the private plane with Epstein. Right.
Jane says yes. Menager goes on to say, you said
you were asked your weight when you got on the plane. Correct.
Jane says yes. And there was a lot of weird
stuff that happened within Epstein's circle. He had a lot
of things like that go on. For instance, the Core
four all would go get their haircuts down at Frederick
Focai's shop. He had you know, a tab there when
they'd all go down get the haircut that he liked.
And it was, you know, a very weird situation in
the whole Epstein circle, very very very much not what
is being presented by the media. Meninger says, in twenty nineteen,
before Epstein was arrested, you were contacted by the government, right,
Jane says yes. Defense goes on to say, but you
said you were not interested in getting involved. Jane says, right,
So you're gonna hold that against her. Why would anyone
want to get involved of testifying against Epstein? Before he
was dead, considering the fact that he was caught literally
with his pants down and nothing happened to him. You're
somebody from a broken home, You're somebody from a disadvantaged background,
somebody who and you have this man with all of
this power and all of this influence. What are you
supposed to do? Go and tell on him? Well, how'd
that work out for Maria Farmer? How did it work
out for all the girls in Palm Beach? So again
this part of the defense falling flat in my opinion.
The defense goes to say, then you hired mister Glassman,
a personal injury lawyer with ads? Well, yeah, of course,
he adds ads, he's a lawyer. What does that even mean?
Who is she supposed to go and hire some high
profile lawyer like you, missus Meninger. She didn't have that
kind of money. She was living in a poolhouse, remember,
But all of a sudden everybody should go and hire
miss Menager and Christian everdell God forbidd a lawyer has
some ads on a billboard. Manager redirects her question and
changes reform and then goes on to say, did you
see his ads touting his big verdicts? Jane responds, he's
a friend of a friend. Menager goes. Manager's response to
that is is this year contingent fee agreement? Showing her
a document obviously. Jane replies, yes, it is. So they're
setting it up like Glassman. Here was the one who
talked Jane into going to the government about Epstein again,
all about money, all about motivated by money, and I
don't really buy that, to be honest with you, it's ridiculous. Again,
who is she supposed to reach out to. Not all
of us have millions and millions of dollars. Not all
of us have a big bank account where we can
hire an all star team of lawyers. After that exchange,
Menager changes tax again and starts asking about the ex
boyfriend Matt, who we heard about yesterday and I told
you would be a witness today. You've talked to your
ex boyfriend Matt, right. Jane says right. Menager goes on,
and you you were in a beauty pageant sponsored by
Donald Trump. Jane says yes. Manager says, do you recall
crying that Jeffrey Epstein only gave you two thousand dollars
for address? Jane says no. Then Menager goes Han to say,
you were on a reality TV show with Matt Right,
and Jane responds, yes, so there's a lot there. First
of all, you were in a beauty pageant sponsored by
Donald Trump. Okay, Trump sponsored a ton of beauty pageants,
so that doesn't shock me one bit. We talked about
that a little bit yesterday. Trump has had his hands
in all kinds of you know, beauty pageants and that
sort of a scummy part of the world. That's why
it cracks me up when anyone expects this, you know,
this guy to be like some great guy or something.
News flash, he's not. None of them are. None of
these people, these politicians, and they're all gross, all of
these people who were hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein. And
I don't care, I don't I don't care if it's oh,
it's my favorite politician. Well, I don't know what to
tell you here. Worshiping is really weird to me, and
especially when it comes to these guys who have been
outed as absolute scumbags. Meninger says, and there was tension
and you cried. Jane responds, reality shows are not really reality.
Then Manager says, you claimed you were putting a roof
over your family's head. Jane responds, I don't know if
i'd use those words. You told that to Matt. Jane responds, well,
they were living at my house. So you see what
she did here with the reality TV show. She throws
that in there to once again to try and point
out to the jury that she's a looking for money.
She's an actress, she wants to increase her profile, and
this is all they really have. This is what they're
going to continue to do. As we see these witnesses
get on the stand, continued, and you demanded money from
Glean Maxwell, Jane says, I have a lawyer. Meninger says,
and you sought money from the Epstein compensation fund. Look
at Exhibit J eighteen at six you were offered how much?
Jane says? Five million? So that's significant right there, folks.
And you know, people don't talk about this enough, but
they should. Once Epstein's estate paid that money out to
these girls, they're accepting liability that this happened. So right
here in court with Epstein paying out that money, Menainger
pointing it out, well, Epstein is taking responsibility and culpability
here because they're paying for it aren't they if this
never happened, do you really think that Epstein's estate would
be paying out this money? So they're taking responsibility for it.
And what Glan Maxwell and her team are trying to
do is push it all on to Epstein and act
like Galan Maxwell had no part in any of this.
So after those questions, Judge Nathan said that it's time
for lunch. Everybody heads out to lunch, you know, goes
and does their thing, and then they get back in
you know, roughly an hour, and the questioning continues. So
after lunch when they came back, Menager again kept going.
So you went to a specialized entertainment school, right, manager,
And since then you've played roles like a cancer patient.
Jane yes, Menager, prostitute Jane no, Menager, you can cry
on command that line is just a prostitute. You have
to throw that in there, right, Let's just go ahead
and throw that in there, shouldn't we And ridiculous Again
she says no, and then you can cry on command. Ridiculous,
So basically again trying to establish that she's lying, that
this is all hemeditated, it's all made up, and it's
all in act Menager says, your accusations in this case
include that you were fourteen when you were abused, right, Jane, Yes, Menager,
you first told the government you were thirteen, Right, Jane,
I might have said thirteen going on fourteen. It's a
small technicality. And she's right, that's a long time ago.
There's a lot of trauma and a lot of research
that goes into all of this that talks about how
there's repressed memories and all of that. Again, I am
not a psychologist. I won't even begin to act like
I understand all of that science. Also, Jane said, on
the prostitute role, not my favorite role. Manager goes on
to say, you talk about the Lion King and you
say you were fourteen, but it only came out when
you were seventeen, right, And you said you were fifteen
when you met Mike Wallace at his eightieth birthday party, right, again,
bringing up other people. Very shrewd move by Menager. She
wants to take the spotlight off of her client and
put it on some of the other names that has
been in Jeffrey Epstein's atmosphere. She goes on to say,
Jane says, I don't know how old I was this
one cracked me up. Menager goes, you don't know when
his birthday is? Look at j thirty three. Does it
refresh your recollection? Breaking news? Meninger, who the hell knows
when Mike Wallace was born? Who the hell knows when
Mike Meetloaf Wallace was born? I mean, really, you expect
this young lady to know when Mike Wallace was born? Holy? Really?
Obviously the prosecutors object to this, and it was sustained,
Nathan saying there was no basis for refreshing. Meninger goes
on and says, in your civil case, you got integration interrogatories.
Do you know what those are? Jane says no. Oh.
Manager says so your lawyer answered for you under your oath,
and you didn't know. Jane says, I don't know very
honest about what occurred here, right, And I think at
this point it's rather obvious to the Jerry what's going
on here? Now? Again, I don't have a line to
the Jerry. I certainly am not a mind reader, but
you would think that it's obvious where they're going with this.
Now it's uh, moved on, and the redirect starts with
assistant prosecutor asking the questions, did any of US prosecutors
ever tell you what to say at this trial? Jane responds, no, prosecutor.
You were asked about notes of meetings with the US.
Did you speak about everything all at once? And Jane
goes on to say no. Then she goes on to say,
why did you speak to the tabloid reporter? And that
was a big mistake by Jane, right. Speaking to a
tabloid reporter is never a good idea. These people don't
have any kouth. They're just trying to get a story
out in a headline out. Jane says, he basically blackmailed me.
He said he would publish uneradacted documents. Judge Nathan says
this is not for the truth of the matter asserted,
but impact on the listener. Prosecutors go on to say,
did you make an agreement with the reporter? Jane says, yes,
I talk about meeting Jeffrey Epstein. The reporter would keep
my name out of it. I was working on a
TV show. And this is the scummy moves that a
lot of these reporters are up to. A lot of
these so called legacy media journalists are up to and
that's why people don't have any faith in them or
any trust in them. When somebody tells you something in
confidence like this, I don't care if you're a reporter
or not. If something is off the record, it should
stay off the record. But there's no dignity, right, there's
no more moral compass. It's all about who can get
the headline out first and who can move the most units.
And it's rather gross, honestly. The prosecution says, do you
know the difference between acting on television and testifying in court? Jane,
now sobbing, crying, answers, yes, this is real. I am
seeking closure. I have been running from this my entire life.
I want to help in whatever way I can and
maybe find some healing. So again, she's sobbing, now rough
for her, obviously reliving all of this, talking about all
of this, putting it all out there for everybody to see.
The prosecutor goes on to say, do you have any
financial interest in this trial? Change response? No. Prosecutor is
done with her line of questioning and says nothing further.
Judge Nathan says that Jane, you can step down, and
then they take another break, and after the break they
go on to the next two witnesses, and they weren't
on the stand very long today, so I'm guessing we'll
pick up with that line of questioning tomorrow as far
as the gentleman that they ended with here, the man
from uh inter logan. So after their break they come
back and now the ex boyfriend Matt is on the stand. Now, Matt,
we talked about a little bit yesterday when he was
brought up. I was wondering who he was gonna be,
and then it came to light, obviously that it was
the ex boyfriend of Jane. So let's jump into this
line of questioning from the prosecutors. How do you know Jane,
Matt responds, she's my ex girlfriend from two thousand and
six to twenty and fourteen. Prosecution. Did you live together Matt? Yes,
from two thousand and seven to twenty and fourteen prosecution.
Are you still friends? Matt? Yes? And we work on
the same TV show. So that's a pretty cool thing
to see, Huh, that her ex from all these years
ago is willing to step up to the plate and
take the stand in a trial as hyper sensitive as
this prosecution. What did Jane tell you about her home?
Life to this question, Maxwell's lawyers objected. Nathan responds any foundation,
and Maxwell's lawyers say it's hearsay, So another sidebar commences.
After they return, Nathan says, miss Mo, I'll ask you
to narrow the question. Mo. Did Jane speak about her
family finance when she grew up? Matt yes, that when
her father got sick, they went broke. The mother was
working a small job. They were in the same bed.
So what he's doing here is corroborating what Jane had said,
telling the court what he knows about this, what Jane
had told him and revealed to him in their time together,
and it corroborates the story that Jane has been telling.
Matt goes on to say they she told me she
had a godfather. Later she told me it was Jeffrey Epstein.
I said he helped pay your bills. She said, yes. Prosecution,
when did she tell you she met Epstein? Maxwell's lawyers
object to this, and Nathan goes on to tell the
prosecution that they have to ask more specific questions. Alison Moe,
did Jane tell you what happened between her and Jeffrey Epstein?
Matt not specifically, prosecution, did she say why he gave
her money? Matt said, she just said it was not free.
That's pretty chilling. Imagine this young girl has to do
whatever Epstein wants, if she wants a new instrument for school,
or if she doesn't want her mom thrown out on
the street, or she doesn't want her family not to
be able to eat. Prosecution, did they tell you about
a woman who was involved? Matt said yes. Prosecution then says,
did she give the woman's name? Response from the witness,
Matt no. Back to the prosecution, what was her demeanor
like when Jane told you about Jeffrey Epstein? Shame, Matt responds,
and that's a typical emotion when it comes to, uh,
this sort of thing. Unfortunately, a lot of shame. And
that's because there's a big stigma on all of this, right,
you know, these girls that come forward a lot of times,
they're dragged through the mud. They have their reputations just
completely destroyed, and it's almost not worth it, unfortunately for
these girls, especially with high profile people like this. The
prosecution says, what did Jane tell her money? Matt goes
on to say that money was not free. That and
before he could finish the prosecution. They cut him off
and prosecution goes, don't say what the mother said, just
what Jane said. Matt continues his statement. Jane told her
mother that the money was not free and that it
should not have been allowed. And the profile that we
have painted of Jane's mom is not good, you know,
Jane's mom. It seems like she was looking in the
other direction here, and it's kind of disturbing the way
Jane was explaining it and how her mom was kind of,
you know, trying to shame her about this kind of thing,
and really pretty sad to read that. So after the
questioning was done, Maxwell's lawyers didn't even bother with the
cross of Matt, so he was sent on his way.
And then the next witness who was brought up was
Daniel Vesselsen of Interlogan. Now he's one of the executives
over there, one of the money men, and he was
brought on to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and the fundraising aspect
of this. So he gets into the witness chair and
prosecution starts out, where is Interloch in Michigan. Vesselson responds,
near Traverse City prosecution, how did you keep fundraising records,
Vesselson Salesforce prosecution, we offered GX seven forty four a
document under seal. Now GX seven forty one, Vesselson responds
a letter to mister Epstein about the scholarship's lodge, how
much he'd give. So obviously we don't know what the
seal documents have to say, but I'm guessing it has
to do with the amount of money Epstein gave to
this lodge, which was a lot of money. Prosecution, what's this?
Looking at the document, and Vesselson says, the lodge formerly
known as the Jeffrey Epstein Scholarship Lodge. Can you imagine
the lodge on property was named after Jeffrey Epstein and
we've we've been talking about this for years. You would
think this is something the legacy media would have been
all over. You would think that this would have caused
at the very least some questions to be asked. But silence.
So now the cross examination starts and it's very short
because it's obviously almost time to wrap up. So Maxwell's lawyers,
you don't have records for the individual and the individual's siblings. Correct,
Vesselson goes on to say, correct, Maxwell's lawyer, mister Epstein
certainly was a major donor, correct Vesselson. Yes, And with that,
that's the end of it for today. Now tomorrow they're
gonna bring Vesselson back up and they'll finish this cross
examination and we'll see what else they have in store
for us as far as witnesses and all of that jazz.
But if you're looking to follow this case, and you're
looking to do it in like real time on like
Twitter or whatever, you got to check out Inner City Press.
They're doing a great job of providing transcripts for all
of us to go through and dig into. And yeah,
I'm very thankful for those guys over there and the
work that they're doing. It's, you know, being a good
journalist is almost a lost art at this point. So
got to make sure you give them their props. And
if you haven't followed them already on Twitter, if you
use Twitter, I don't blame you if you don't, definitely
give them a follow and think about contributing to their
work because it's real solid and it's providing a huge
benefit for all of us, right and there's other people
doing it as well. I just think that his work
is very, very good. So that's gonna wrap it up
for today, folks. And that's where we stand as far
as the trial. As day three comes to a close
and we await day four, we'll just have to see
what sort of twists and turns are in the road
ahead of us. If you'd like to contact me, you
can do that at Bobby Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com.
That's b O B B Y c A p U
c c I at ProtonMail dot com. You can also
find me on Twitter at b O B B y
underscore c A p U c c I. The link
for the thread what we talked about here from Inner
City Press will be in the description box. All right,
F