Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
Earlier this morning, we talked about the strategy for the
defense and how the plan was going to be to
put some distance between Gleainne Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and
his crimes and also continue to keep punching at the
memory of the survivors themselves. So today we heard from
one of the defense's star witnesses, and she gave her
testimony as far as memory goes and her expertise in
the field. But before we get to that, we also
heard from Kimberly Espinoza, who was an executive assistant to
Jeffrey Epstein. She was somebody that worked with him up
until two thousand and three and somebody who speaks still
to this day glowingly of them. So that was the
first witness that came out, and that's where we're going
to start today. So let's just jump right in and
let's see what transpired in that courtroom, and let's see
if the defense did a good enough job doing those
two things. We talked about putting some distance between themselves
and Jeffrey Epstein and punching moreholes in the testimony of
these witnesses. So the day started off with the first
witness being called to the stand, and that was Kimberly Espinoza.
And her name is spelled with a C, not with
a K. Now, she was an executive assistant for Epstein,
and when they asked her who she was hired by,
she responds by saying that she was hired by the
Jeffrey by the Jay Epstein Company. Now that was one
of the companies that Jeffrey Epstein had that he was running.
He had several of them. He had several operations offshore
as far as bank accounts go as LLCs, so there
were several different entities that Jeffrey Epstein was running as businesses.
Asked by the defense about how she found out about
the job, she says that she responded to a newspaper
ad and then subsequently interviewed with a job aid agency
and after that she was, you know, given the job
over at Epstein's working with Epstein, and so the story goes.
She was also asked about her residence during this time
that she was hired, and she responds that she was
hired in October of nineteen ninety six and around that
time she was living on the Upper East side of Manhattan.
When asked if she would recognize Maxwell, she pointed to
her in the courtroom, the defense once again is trying
to make the case that there were multiple assists to
Epstein and that it wasn't just Maxwell working closely with him,
by bringing Sarah Kellen Vickers and Emmy Taylor up again.
So again you see what she's trying to do here.
They're trying to create that distance, They're trying to create
that buffer zone. They're trying to say that it wasn't Maxwell.
There was a lot of assistance involved here. How can
you just say it's Glenn Maxwell? How dare you there's
no evidence to prove that. Meanwhile, you have all of
these survivors themselves telling you it was Maxwell. But the
attempt here is to have that insulation right, to drum
up enough doubt in the mind of the jurors that
it is something that they can't convict her on. That
is what they're attempting to do here. She went on
to say that she saw Sarah Kellen Vickers more towards
the end of her tenure, and that she also worked
with Emmy Taylor as well. When asked about the office
and what the layout looked like. Espinoza described the floor
plan and where her office was in relation to Epstein's,
and how her and Glaine shared an office. So this
wasn't somebody who didn't know Glaine Maxwell. And we've talked
about Kimberly here on the podcast before. She was another
person that was entrenched in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit. And I
don't even understand how these people could be called as
defense witnesses. They should all be indicted at the very least,
they should all be put under oath and made to
talk about Epstein's criminal conspiracy and Maxwell's criminal conspiracy because
they were all in on it together for all of
these years. And the same goes for the pilots, the
same goes for Juana Lessi, all of these people that
were around Jeffrey Epstein so often for so many years,
and then have the audacity to talk about how, oh
I don't know nothing, I didn't see anything, I had
no idea. I just can't believe that. That is absolute
BS in my opinion. When asked if she signed an
NDA while working for Epstein and Maxwell, she declared that
she did. The NPA was a huge part of working
for Epstein, and it was a very common practice for
that to occur. Now, obviously, somebody like Jeffrey Epstein, he
needs silence. He needs people that are not going to
rock the boat, people who aren't going to talk to reporters,
people who aren't going to talk about what they see,
what they experience, what they're involved in. And Jeffrey Epstein
he had a way of doing that. And obviously it
always revolved around money. But these people that were in
his inner circle, they were all signing these NDAs, and
you see it in the business world a lot as well.
Look at Leon Black and the current issues he's having
with Miss Ganieva. He says that they were in a
consensual relationship. She says otherwise, well, she had to sign
an NDA, right, because that's how these people are, folks.
Everything's a business transaction to these people. It is. It's
just strange to me. All of these so called elite
and the way they're wired is absolutely bizarre to me.
It also offered him another layer, meaning the NDA, another
layer of protection when the walls came closing in. That
was always Jeffrey Epstein's plan, right to have as many
layers between him and the trouble as possible, and the
failsafe was his connections with his pals and intelligence. But
the idea was to set it all up so you
never got to that point, so that you had all
of these layers in front of you, all of these
different people acting as buffers, lieutenants, groomers, people going out
to get the girls, etc. Etc. And then Jeffrey Epstein
can sit back and say, what are you talking about?
I was just getting massages. According to her, she was
comfortable signing the NDA meaning kimberly considering the nature of
her work, and that she had signed them before. When
the witness was asked if she had ever booked massages
for Maxwell, she said that yes she had, but they
were always professional massuses that she booked, And when asked
about Epstein, she responded in kind and once again she
says that they were professional massuses. So my question is
why did they need fifteen and sixteen year old girls
to provide massages when they could have simply called any
number of professionals. And this is a question I have
asked from Jump Street. You don't look if you need
a massage and you need to get the kinks worked out,
you want a professional doing that, right, You're not looking
for your girlfriend to get in there with a couple
of elbows and maybe maybe work out half of a knot.
And the same goes here. You're gonna have a fourteen
or fifteen or sixteen year old untrained girl come over
and massage You're back as a billionaire, millionaire or whatever
the hell it is. It doesn't make any sense. You
have access to the best professionals in the world. You
could have your girl Kimberly call insert sports team here
and get the hookup for whatever their massage therapy people are.
But yet you're going around picking these little girls up,
bringing them to the house and it's for a massage.
That's what you want us to believe. Zero chance I
believe any of that. When asked if she ever saw
Jane around the office, she responds that she did, and
when asked how old she thought Jane was, she says
that probably eighteen. After a pause, yeah, pretty uh self
served for you to say that, right, talk about protecttion neck.
Oh yeah, they all looked eighteen, like Larry Vasaski says,
girl was fourteen. Oh well, she had a rather large
chest and she looked eighteen to me, Oh, okay, buddy, sure,
And again, unfortunately, you can't really deny that, right, How
can you prove that that's not what he thought. It's
his word against what reality really is. And while we
all might know that he's a scumbag and he's obviously lying,
how can you prove that he says, hey, look, I
thought she was eighteen. And he's not the one doing
the abuse, right, He's not the one involved in the abuse.
And again that's why it is just beyond me that
this isn't more of a larger umbrella as far as
the charges go. You mean to tell me, people like
Larry Vasaski, who was bringing these girls across state lines,
bring them a cross intercontinental lines, shouldn't have any sort
of penalty. Here comes gives a half assed testimony, and
then that's her app for him. He gets to go
back to the forty acres that Jeffrey Epstein gave him.
Must be nice to be on the other side of
that two tier justice system. This has been a tactic
of all the people who were close to Epstein and
Maxwell plausible deniability. The ol I had no idea. And
when the defense asks about Epstein's planes and if Jane
Ever flew on them. Kimberly responds she does not know.
The witness tells the court that she saw Jane on
a soap opera and that she, the witness, was a
fan of the specific show that Jane was on. She
says that Jane sent her autographed photographs of her since
she was such a fan, and to this Christian Everdell
hands her evidence that's the lawyer for Maxwell, provided by
the defense and ask her asks her to tell the
court what they are. After looking at the photos, she
responds that they are the headshots of three of the
cast members and a group photo of the whole cast.
When asked how she recognized them, she responds that they
are hers. One of the photos reads, dearest Kimberly, thank
you for always being so sweet and such a great help.
And this was given to her by Jane. But again,
I don't understand where the defense is going here. It
doesn't make sense to me trying to set it up
as Kimberly was a decent person or decent to this
young lady Jane. I don't know how this helps Gawayne Maxwell,
I guess, is my point. When the defense changes it
up again and asks about Epstein and Maxwell's relationship, Espinoza
says she always thought of them as a couple because
of their interactions with one another went together, they were flirty. This,
in my opinion, was all part of the grand ruse.
The cover of them being in a relationship was the
perfect reason for them to spend so much time together
while they're real motivations. The Compromott game stayed the priority.
So they have the cover of them being hey, look
we're in a relationship, we're dating, whatever it may be,
and they're spending all this time together when in reality
they're cooking up something behind the scenes. And we all
know at this point that Jeffrey Epstein wasn't doing this
in a vacuum. While he was a sick, disgusting man
with very gross proclivities, he was also building dossier's on people.
He was also collecting blackmail information on very powerful people,
well placed people, and that was always the main goal,
at least in my opinion, of Jeffrey Epstein and Glene
Maxwell and this whole entire criminal enterprise. The rest of this,
the sex trafficking and the abuse, while it fulfilled Jeffrey
Epstein's disgusting proclivities. It was a means to an end
to get this Compromont asked about the importance of Maxwell
to Epstein, Espinosa responds that she Maxwell was very important
to her, Espinosa and obviously very important to Epstein as well. Yeah, no,
shit right, she was the key cog. Epstein and Maxwell
go together like Tom Brady and Gronkowski. They're just inseparable, right,
And that's how it was with Maxwell and Epstein. They
were always together, always involved with each other. And it
wasn't just like it was one house. They weren't neighbors.
They were together all over the world. Espinosa goes on
to lists the different real estate acquisitions of Epstein, listing
the Paris apartment first and then the Island. After Maxwell's
attorney continue to ask about the properties and the construction
and asked if Espinosa was involved with any of it.
She responds that she was in charge of furnishing the
house at the island, and the idea was to get
it to look like a resort, like a five star hotel.
Tell She then goes on to tell the court about
how they literally ship sand to the beach because Epstein
wanted more sand at the beach and even brought in
more palm trees. Now think about the Hubris. Oh there's
not enough sand on my beach. I'm gonna need to
import some sand to my island beach. It again, the
thought patterns of these people absolutely absurd. Imagine having money,
it'll blow like that. Yeah, let me get to bring
some You know the old saying, right, why are you
gonna bring sand to the beach? Well, this idiot absolutely
destroyed that statement. Right, let me order some sand and
bring it to the island and add some to the
beach because there wasn't enough sand there already, not for nothing.
How about just dredging some sand up? Perhaps these people
she turns to the infrastructure and she explains that they
even went so far as to have a fire drug
ship to the island, and there were fire and I
guess on tuty whenever they were on the island. Now,
it's kind of interesting because at Zoro Ranch, when I
was there, you could see the mock firehouse, the farmhouse
they had set up there, a whole entire like mini town,
and a lot of the help stayed at this part
of the ranch, which is I don't know a mile
and a half or so from the main house. But
it seems to be a common theme at these bigger
properties that they have stuff like the fireman house, the
mock school house, et cetera. They have a bunch of
this weird stuff on the island and over at Zoro Ranch.
She goes on to tell the court that Epstein liked
to have his bread flown in before he arrived, sometimes
some special butter as well. Now turning back to some
of the other assistants that were in Epstein's orbit she Orbit,
the defense asks about Emmy Taylor. Espinoza explains that Emmy
to care of the dog, and she carried Maxwell's handbag.
And again I say to myself, what does that even mean?
Imagine being so ridiculous that you need somebody to carry
your handbag around. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm gonna do
with my wealth and my power. I'm gonna have somebody
follow me around and carry my wallet. Asked about Maxwell
and Epstein living together, she says that they did not.
Asked about the properties in England and if she ever visited,
she responded that yes she had. When asked who owned it,
she said she didn't know. Asked about others who visited
Epstein at the office. Espinoza says that Shelley Chocolate Sauce
Lewis and gwendolen Beck also came to visit. Gwendolen Beck
is a failed politician who was bankrolled by Epstein as
she pursued office. I'm posting an upload about gwendolen Beck
and one about Shelley Ann Lewis's. Well. Now, the Shelley
Ann Lewis story is very interesting, so we're gonna leave
that to the uploaded episode that's gonna be coming after this.
But she was somebody who was close to Epstein, very
very much in his orbit, and another person who somehow
has escaped all kinds of scrutiny as this thing is unfolded.
And same with gwendolen Beck. I have an article an
upload that I'm posting about her and her story as
far as her involvement with Epstein, So both of those
will be up later on tonight. When asked about Glaine
and her travels in Florida and if she was always
in Palm Beach, Espinosa answered that when she was in
Florida sometimes she went to Miami as well because she
has friends there. Now, right before they get ready for
the midboarding break, the questioning turns to Maxwell's relationship briefly
with Gateway Computer's cofeund Ted Waite, and when Espinoza was
asked if she knew Ted Waite or knew who he was,
she responded that she didn't, but it wasn't long before
she learned. Now, Ted Waite and Glenn Maxwell were romantically
connected and they had a thing for a little bit
of time together. Now, when they get back from the break,
the defense continues to try and insert Sarah Kelln Vickers
into the equation. I mean, it would have been nice
if the prosecution would have done the same by indicting
r Uh to try and fortify that layer of insulation
between Maxwell and Epstein in his behavior. Again, now, Sarah
Kelln Vickers is a member of what I have dubbed
the Corps four. These are the women in Epstein's orbit
that made the machine move for him. They were spoiled
with gifts, money, and access to the most powerful and rich,
and the cost of all this their loyalty and silence.
After Epstein was arrested the first time and granted the
Sweetheart NPA, it also protected Sarah Kellen Vickers from prosecution.
The defense also asks if Maxwell had ever been married,
and when Espinoza goes to respond, the prosecution objects and
Nathan allows it. So this NPA that was given to
Jeffrey Epstein and his associates the first time around is
a real big monkey in the wrench. And you'll notice
that I refer to it quite a bit because it's
a huge problem here. If that NPA would never came
into existence, or if that NPA got thrown out because
it's garbage, then the whole entire tone of this case
could change and will change. But unfortunately that is not
the case yet. Now the only thing left to the
survivors is to go all the way to the Supreme Court,
and it looks like they're going to do just that.
But as of now, that non prosecution agree that Epstein
weaseled out of the government, it just really looms large
in this whole entire thing. Espinoza is then asked about
when she departed Epstein's employ and she responds that she
left in two thousand and two so that she could
get back to her roots in Cali after the nine
to eleven attacks the year before. Before the defense team
turns the witness over for cross She has asked if
she ever saw Maxwell or Epstein engage in any inappropriate
activity with underage girls. She responds that she never saw
anything like that. Well, my question would be, how does
she know how all the girls were? Did she check
everybody's ID at the door like a bouncer. So you
can't just look at somebody and say, oh, this person's
this age, especially not these days. So I don't know
how she can be so confident in saying that the
cross examination was super brief, just one question basically asking
her if she was ever in Palm Beach, meaning the house,
and she says no, that she was not at that
pom Beach house. So we know that a lot of
these accusations have taken place down in that pom Beach residence.
And what the defense, I mean, what the prosecution was
trying to do there is say that her whole entire
testimony means squad. Really, she wasn't even down in pom Beach.
How does she know? The next witness that they call
up is a gentleman named Rogu sud. The questioning by
Christian Everdella of the defense team starts with the basics,
asking the witness where he lives and where he works.
To this, he says that he lives in East Windsor,
New Jersey, and that he works at Shoppers Travel in
the position of vice president and that he has been
with the company since nineteen eighty eight. Asking about Epstein
and if Epstein frequent in his frequented his business as
a customer, Mister sud answers that yes, Epstein was a customer.
Mister ragu is then asked to look at some records
by prosecution, to which he responds that they go until
two thousand and six. He responds that yes, that is
correct and there is no redirect. So the next witness
that they're about to call up is Elizabeth Loftis. But
what they were trying to do here is established that
Epstein was a customer at this establishment and that these
records were legit, and that was what the witness was
brought up to do to authenticate those documents. So moving
on to Loftus, this is where the meat and the
potatoes come in today. This is where the prosecution, dare
I say, had a bit of a shining moment. She
is asked to list her credentials for the court, and
she goes on to tell them about all the work
she has previously done and how she has testified in
about three hundred trials. She also tells the court how
she has been consulted by the Department of Justice and
the CIA. Well, that's nice, the CIA consulting you. That
can only bode well for somebody. When asked how many
times she has testified for the prosecution, she responds that
her field of study and research into false memories doesn't
exactly fit the narrative or agenda of the government. Thus,
she is less likely to be called as a witness
for the state, and that's why she is a witness
for the prosecution. So excuse me why she's a witness
for the defense so often? I think we have other
ideas about why she does it, and the prosecution definitely
gets to that a little bit further down here in
the testimony, Loftus launches into her explanation of memory by
saying that one thing we know about memory is that
it doesn't work like a recording device. She goes on
to a drawing of a barbelle that is labeled acquisition, retention,
and retrieval. Her testimony is an attempt for the defense
to establish once again that the memory of the survivors
cannot be trusted and that this diagram and that the
work that doctor Lofice engages in proves that. So basically,
she presented this diagram with the three steps of memory
in her field of study, and that's acquisition, retention, and retrieval.
So what she goes on to do is try and
prove that the memories of these girls aren't as stable
as they would want you to believe, that they perhaps
have embellish some of the trauma, forgotten, some of it,
got things confused. And this is the diagram how she's
explaining how that all occurs. She goes on to discuss
the media as a source of post event suggestion, attempting
to paint a picture that the media coverage of these
events have guided the memory of the accusers. And I
think that's ridiculous. Remember before they called her as a witness,
I said, I find that this field of study is
quackery anyway, I don't even really take it seriously, honestly.
But what she's trying to do is set it up
that the witnesses, because it's been so long and the trauma,
that they have forgotten a lot of major details, and
in fact, they've added details to it that didn't exist
because of the exposure from the media. When she was asked,
meaning the witness, if she was a practicing therapist, she
says that she is not, but that she sometimes studies patients.
When asked if there was a way to prove a
memory outside of a laboratory setting, the prosecution objects to this,
and Judge Nathan sustains it. When asked about the research
she doctor Loftis has performed on the confidence in memory,
she explains to the Jerry that people can get very
confident about wrong answers and have been affected by post
events suggestion. So what she's saying is you could be
very very confident in your answers and your memory of
it of the situation could still be wrong. And that's again,
it goes right to the heart of what the defense
has been trying to do the whole entire time here.
This has been the crux of their defense. They are
not going to let go, they are not going to
let off the gas, and they're going to continue down
this pathway. So after that they break for lunch and
then coming back from lunch, The questioning of doctor Loftis
continues as the defense continues to ask her questions about
memory retention and memory loss, as well as confidence in
memory and the accuracy of them. According to her testimony,
people it can express a certain level of confidence, and
if they then get new information, it can artificially increase
their confidence in what they are saying. She's basically saying
that everyone's the hero in their own story. And when
asked what her rate was, this is a preemptive move,
my guess would be by the prosecutor, I mean by
the defense, because they know the prosecution is going to
talk about this. She says that she makes six hundred
bucks an hour, and when asked if she was getting
paid for this testimony, she equipped she hopes so. So
with that framing things, they get ready to hand her
over to the prosecution. Right off of the bat, the
prosecutors come out swinging. They asked doctor Loftis about consulting
in her history of providing testimony for the defense at
trial over hundreds of times. Doctor Loftis responds to this
by answering, yeah, probably around that number. When asked about
her very limited number of times working with the prosecute
a number that totaled five. She answered that that is
correct also, and we all know the deal, right she
says that it doesn't fit the narrative, but really there's
no money in working for the state. And the point
that and that's the point that the prosecution is trying
to drive home here that there's no financial benefit for
her working with the state. So that's why you see
her working with the defense so often, and they're doing
it effectively, and it's about time. It is about time
that the prosecution bit down on their mouthpiece and went
a little harder in the paint here. Now they move
on to the book that doctor Loftus wrote called Witness
for the Defense, stating that in that book she wrote
that she should be an advocate, to which doctor loftis.
She took exception to this because she said that context
was being left out. When asked if she was sitting
in on this trial specifically or present for testimony for
this trial, she responded that she was not present in
the courtroom. So what they're establishing is her testimony is
about general case overall, not about this specific case, and
they want to hammer that point home to the jury
so that the jury. They understand that, well, she might
have expertise in this field, she hasn't been in the weeds.
She doesn't have all of the nuanced information about this case.
Now the prosecution starts in on the meat and potatoes,
and that is the fact that doctor Loftus is a
hired gun. She's being paid for this testimony, and the
prosecution is attempting to drive the point all the way home.
The prosecutor asks her how much he gets paid, and
the witness replies that she makes six hundred dollars an
hour for her testimony. Now, remember these girls that were
being abused by Epstein and Maxwell, they were given two hundred,
three hundred dollars for them being abused. That's ether her
four hundred or three hundred dollars less than this specialist
is getting for her testimony. Talk about absolutely gross. She
has then asked how much money she has made from
her testimony over her career and if it is in
the millions of dollars. The witness responds that she isn't
sure how much she has made throughout her lifetime. Then
the prosecutor frames the then and the now by asking
her how much she charged when she first started in
nineteen seventy seventy five. To this, she responds that she
did it for free. Now, this is again framing then
and now when she started it was for free. She's
trying to build her profile and become an expert in
her field. Well, now flash forward all these years later.
She's a hired gun and doing it for money. And
it certainly doesn't look like she has any interest in
doing it for the state ever. I mean, I'm sure
the state's not paying six hundred dollars an hour. Prosecution
asks the witness about how she markets herself and if
testifying helps with that. She answers that she doesn't market
herself at all, but that is obviously a bit of
a reach considering the list of people she has testified for,
and the prosecutor brings that up as well when she
asks if she ever gives a list of the cases
she worked a resume to the defense attorneys. She responds
that she does, and again it shows right, this is
all about building her profile. She's going to testify at
Harvey Weinstein's case because she knows the next time one
of these sickos gets caught literally with their pants down,
she's going to make six hundred bucks an hour. Again,
after the prosecutors drop a Harvey Wine Einstein mom asking
her if she testified on his behalf, there's a long
pause by Judge Nathan and then we don't hear any
more about Harvey Weinstein after that. As far as what
came out of the court today, we might hear some
of it later on, maybe somebody will talk about it,
but as far as I know, they completely left that
question hanging and they moved on. When prosecution then asked
her if she treats victims of traumatic events, and she
once again confirmed that she did not. The prosecutor then
asked her about the Bugs Bunny study. This was a
study where participants of this study thought that they saw
bugs Bunny at Disneyland, but that couldn't be possible because
Bugs Bunny is a Warner Brother character. So again the memory, right,
you could be completely convinced you have saw something, but
according to doctor loftis something like that even impossibility because
it's not even a character at this park. So that's
the study she's trying to use to act as a
bulwark to her her testimony and what she is attempting
to say happens to the memory of these survivors. The prosecutors,
after some back and forth, get the witness to agree
that sometimes some of the details about assaults, such as
the ones Maxwell is accused of, might get confusing, but
that the core details tend to be even stronger as
time goes on. Now, this is a huge admission from
what is supposed to be an expert witness on behalf
of the defense. Getting her to admit this is a
big deal. And the fact that she said this on
the stand, right under oath in front of the jury,
I think is going to go a long way. She's
basically working as a witness for the prosecution here. What
she's saying is that, Yeah, I'm a memory expert, and
I just gave you this whole litany of things of
how the memory can be screwed up. But with that
one stroke of genius here the prosecutor completely harpoon all
of it when they get her to admit that while
some of the outer memories, some of the you know,
lead ups and different things that were in the periphery
might get jumbled, the core memories of the trauma of
the abuse gets stronger as time goes by. In a
lot of cases, and they got her, meaning doctor loftis
the defense witness to admit that on the stand. Absolutely
fantastic job on behalf of the prosecutors in that case,
for sure. Prosecution then asks about studies that Loftus has
conducted and if any of those studies were involving girls
who were arranged to be sexually abused, and she emphatically
answers that she has not, once again establishing to the
jury that while she might be an expert in her field,
she most certainly is not an expert in the Galain
Maxwell case, the Jeffrey Epstein situation and what occurred here. Now,
that wrapped up the testimony from doctor Loftus, and I
thought it was the best day the prosecution has had
as far as their work since this whole thing started. Now,
obviously I believe that Annie's testimony was a hammer strike
against the defense, but I think that the prosecution had
a fantastic day to day. The next witness that is
then called is a man named Michael William as Narren,
and he works for the Customs and Border Protection Bureau.
Now this is relatively short because they run out of time,
but Maxwell's lawyers. They begin by asking him to do
a search for Jane Kate and Annie Farmer's border crossing records,
and he goes into all of that, you know, looks
at some of the evidence, and then tells them that, yes,
this happened, they did cross blah blah blah. But for me,
what I thought was a little odd is that they're
bringing up these flight record type things or crossing into
the country when we know on Jeffrey Epstein's planes, the
pilots did a lax, terrible job of keeping track who
was on those planes, and it's very secretive on private
jets in the first place. Now I know that Annie
and these talking about the commercial flights that they were on.
That's what they're talking about here, I'm guessing, but I
think it's a little weird for the defense to even
bring that up, considering how much interest there was around
those flight logs at the beginning of this trial. After
some more of this, the prosecutors then asked the witness
a few questions about the differences as far as entry
into the United States in the wake of nine to
eleven and how that compared to previously before nine to
eleven happened. So what they're trying to establish, I guess
is that these girls were flying commercially. Sometimes I'm not
too sure again what the defense is up to here,
but it certainly looks like they're going to be running
out of time. They say that tomorrow, maybe Monday, will
be the last day of their defense, and it's looking
like tomorrow might be the last day of their defense.
So no thirty five witnesses I could see here, only
several today, and I'm guessing several more tomorrow. Right now.
On the defense list witness list, we have someone named Eva,
maybe Eva Dubin boy that would be something someone named Michelle,
and somebody named Kelly. So that is the witness list
as we know, oh tomorrow, And if they do finish
up their defense tomorrow, like they say they probably will,
then that'll move into Monday and we'll be looking at,
you know, the charging conference and then sentencing. So the
jurors look like they might be up against a hard
holiday here as far as Christmas goes with the way
all of this has fallen into place. So we'll definitely
see what happens tomorrow. But I think it was a
good day for the prosecution today, folks, and I think
that Loftis, the memory expert, didn't do what the defense
hope that she would do, at least from what I'm
getting from the day so far, the notes that I've seen,
the tweets that I've seen, the different transcripts that are
coming out, it definitely looks like Loftis wasn't a great
witness for them. And at the same time, it looks
like the prosecution got the defense witness to go along
with some of the commentary that they were pushing, and
that's never a good thing on the stand. So we'll
see what tomorrow brings. We'll see what sort of witnesses
are brought up. And we're getting into the home stretch here, folks,
we are getting into the home stretch, and hopefully before
Christmas we got ourselves the jury's decision, we get the
the whole thing wrapped up, and hopefully when it's all
said and done, not only do we get the jury's decision,
but it comes back as convictions. If you'd like to
contact me, you can do that at Bobby Kapuchi 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 Bobby Underscore c ap you c
CI all right, everybody, I will be back tomorrow morning,
same time, and we'll start the process all over again.
I hope that all of you have a great night.