Speaker 1: 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 off shore as far as bank accounts go
as llces, 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 assistants to Epstein and that it
was and 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 Kelln Vickers more towards the end
of her tenure, and that she also worked with Taylor
as well. When asked about the office and what the
layout looked like, Espinoza described the floor plant, 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 you know, 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 audac need 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
fail safe 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 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 messuses. 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
probably eighteen. After a pause. Yeah, pretty uh self serving
for you to say that, right, talk about protect Janick.
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,
bringing them across 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, reponds 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 Galynne 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 common Bramont 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 compromise.
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.
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 firemen, 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, etc. 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
took 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 as well. Now, the
she Elly 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 co founder 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 her. 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 agreement 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 Everdell 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 SEA. 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 explain a drawing of a barbelle
that is laid 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 patience. 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 loft 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 loftus 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 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 prosecution, 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 painter 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 either 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 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 Weinstein, mom asking her if she testif fight 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 the 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 at 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 way 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 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 hoped 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 a lot 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 c I at ProtonMail dot com. You can also
find me on Twitter at Bobby Underscore c ap U
c CI