Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
Hope that everybody had a great weekend out there, and
hopefully your holiday week is off to an exceptional start.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Over the weekend, they had a charging conference for Galaine
Maxwell on Saturday.
Speaker 2: And at this.
Speaker 1: Conference, what they did is they went over all of
the different you know, methods for charging, the different language
in the charges, and all of that legalese type stuff. Basically,
the prosecution and the defense got together and they went
through all of the you know, odds and ends of
the case and figured out what was going to be admissible,
what wasn't going to be admissible, and basically getting prepared
for closing arguments, which are today now. The closing arguments
should take about five hours today. And then obviously after
the closing arguments, everything's given to the jury for deliberation. Now,
we know that there's a holiday coming up, we got
Christmas coming up, and we know that these jurors are
going to get this information right before that holiday. So
I'm interested to see how long it takes for them
to deliberate here and to see how, you know, oh
a timeframe that they come back and deliver a verdict,
because you would think that with the evidence that's been
provided and then the piss poor job that the defense
has done, that it won't take long to come to
a verdict here. To come to a decision, obviously, I
think that there's enough that's been presented to indict her,
I mean, excuse me, to convict her and make sure
that she's you know, punished for what she has done.
But I wonder how long it's going to take the
jury as as far as deliberations, to come back with
a verdict. A lot of time. You know, nobody wants
to wait around for the holiday, right, you know, you
sit around, you deliberate for a couple of days, go
home for Christmas, come back, deliberate for a few more days,
and get to a verdict. Now again, I'm not really
sure which way it's going to go, but my guess
would be that these jurors have seen enough and they
don't have to deliberate for very long. And I guess
we'll have to see what happens today in the closing
argument portion, But my guess would be, and again this
is just a guess, that we'll have the verdict before
the holiday. So today closing arguments. The jury should get
the information today, they should start deliberating today at some point,
and then that gives them two and a half days
to come up with the verdict. And I think that
should be plenty of time, a sufficient amount of time,
and hopefully we all slide into a Christmas holiday with
a conviction for Glean Maxwell. That would be nice, wouldn't it.
But before we get there, I have an article today
from CNN that's gonna go over some of the stuff
that has occurred recently as far as the case goes,
and also what to expect today with closing arguments. So
this is an article from CNN. The author is Lauren
de Valley and the headline closing arguments are set to
begin today in the Gallaian Maxwell trial. Closing arguments are
set to begin Monday morning in Manhattan in the federal
trial of Galline Maxwell, the longtime confidant, co conspirator, general
all around scusbag of Jeffrey Ebstein. Maxwell fifty nine, has
pleaded not guilty to six charges, including conspiracy, sex trafficking
of miners, and enticing a minor to travel to engage
in illegal sex acts.
Speaker 2: She faces up.
Speaker 1: To seventy years in prison if convicted on all six counts.
Speaker 2: I mean, what does that even mean?
Speaker 1: Enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts?
Wouldn't they all be illegal sex acts if it's a minor.
And furthermore, if you're enticing them to travel, shouldn't you
be slap with the man act? You know, I'm just
spitballing here. I didn't get a law degree or anything
like that overnight, but you would think that these laws
are on the books for a reason.
Speaker 2: And if R.
Speaker 1: Kelly's getting slapped with it, and Keith Rayniery's getting slapped
with it, and Allison mack is getting slapped with it,
why is Glenn Maxwell able to evade? The Prosecutor's closing
argument will be two to three hours in length, they
said Friday, and the rebuttal summation should last about forty
five minutes. Defense attorneys said their summation will not exceed
that timeframe. The jury will then have two days to
deliberate before the court is closed Thursday and Friday for
Christmas holidays. Jerrys can return to continue deliberating the following
week if necessary. So again again back to that uh,
you know timeframe, for the jurors, and we have to
be uh understanding of the fact that these are human beings, right,
Nobody wants to spend their holidays dealing with this nonsense.
Talk about leaving a bad taste in your mouth over
the holidays, sitting here going through all of this disgusting shit,
and then next thing you know, it's Christmas and all
your families at the house and.
Speaker 2: Bizarre, a world of bizarre.
Speaker 1: So I would think that the jurors want to get
this over and done with and get moving, and I
expect that to be the case. Pyramid Scheme of abuse.
Prosecutors said during opening statements in November that Maxwell and
Epstein used cash to lore underage girls into their Pyramid
scheme of abuse, where Prosecutor Laura Pomerants told jurors that
in the nineteen nineties, Maxwell would procure girls for Epstein
for sexual abuse via the ruse, the ruse of a massage.
And that's for sure, the massage was code word in
the world of Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts for sexual
behavior with these girls. If they wanted a real massage,
come on, they would call in a professional from one
of the sports teams. Or one of the massage therapists
that works on insert politician here. But instead they're going
out and looking for fourteen and fifteen year old girls
to come give them massages, because you know, that's normal behavior. Epstein,
who pleaded guilty in two thousand and eight to state
prostitution charges, was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges in
July twenty nineteen, but died by suicide allegedly in prison
a month later. Maxwell was arrested. In twenty twenty. Four
key witnesses testified for the prosecution against Maxwell, all women
who alleged Epstein sexually abused them when they were under eighteen.
Three of the four accusers used pseudonyms or only their
first names to protect their privacy. And you can't blame them.
I mean, when you look at the mo for Epstein
and Maxwell and their lawyers and the way they attempt
to destroy, discredit, and demean these girls, why would you
want to come out and speak publicly against them? Just
ends up bad for you, right ends up. You know
where you're dealing with a lot of nonsense you wouldn't
have to deal with, so coming out and being anonymous
for their testimony, I think that when you're someone who
has dealt with abuse, someone who has been abused. Yeah,
I think that your identity should be protected by the
law if that is something that you want to happen again.
You've been victimized enough at this point. Really the law
has to be involved in revictimizing you. Jane said on
the stand that Maxwell sometimes joined in on the sexualized massages.
Kate testified that Maxwell set up those sexual meetings. Carolyn
testify that Maxwell once touched her breasts, hips, and but
and told her that she had a great body for
Epstein and his friends. She was fourteen at the time.
She said, So think about that. You got Maxwell out
here touching this girl talking about how she's great for
Epstein and his friends. Which is interesting for anyone who's
been following the case when he says end his friends.
And then you look at what Virginia has said about
the trafficking of the girls to his friends, and the
whole mind all the pieces fit together right, And when
you look at this, if you looked at it just
in the vacuum, you would say, oh, wow, that's a coincidence.
But when you look at everything compiled together and you
look at all of the puzzle pieces that are on
the board. It's rather obvious that everything was happening for
a reason. These people, they had a whole entire situation
set up, and they had it running smoothly as hell.
And when you're being protected from on high, when you
have the kind of access to the lawyers that Jeffrey
Epstein had to elicit, the sort of deal that you
get when you're actually caught, well, you're looking at a
forty year run of molestation and abuse that Jeffrey Epstein
was on. The fourth woman, Annie Farmer, testified that she
was sixteen years old when Maxwell massaged her naked chest
at Epstein's New Mexico ranch in nineteen ninety six. Two
dozen witnesses were called across ten days of testimony before
the prosecution rested. In photo shown to jurors, Maxwell and
Epstein are seen embracing and smiling for the camera over
the years, including several showing her massaging his foot. Their
relevance is self apparent given the contents of the photographs.
Prosecutor Alison mo said, the relationship between Maxwell and Epstein
is central to this case, and it really is, it
really is the central pillar, right They were running around
together for all of these involved in this stuff together.
Wasn't one of them doing it, It wasn't the other
one doing it. It's not Maxwell taking the fall. She's
being held responsible for her part for what she did
to these survivors. According to them, don't you think it's
time for her to be held responsible all these years later?
And it comes back to that non prosecution agreement. If
it wasn't for that NPA, all of these people would
have been held responsible a long time ago. I'm convinced
of that. The defense rested on Friday. The defense rested
Friday after presenting its case over the course of two days,
arguing Maxwell is being scapegoaded for Epstein's criminal behavior and
seeking to dispute the accuser's statements. Attorneys called to the
stand Eva Anderson Dubin, who testified she dated Epstein on
and off from nineteen eighty three through about nineteen ninety one.
She confirmed that she and her now husband, hedge fund
billionaire Glenn Dubin remained friends with Epstein through the two thousands.
When she was asked about her memory and stuff like that,
she said, Oh, I don't have that grade of a memory,
So what are you doing on the stand anyway? What
sort of benefit are you to anyone? In fact, I'll
say it again, you should have been on the stand,
but not as a witness as somebody who's indicted here
as a co conspirator. In response to questioning by the defense,
Anderson Dubin said she had never participated in group sexualized
massages with one of the accusers, referred to as Jane,
who had earlier testified. She recalled a woman named Eva
had joined group sexualized massages with Epstein, and Maxwell asked
Friday if she had ever been involved in such a
scenario with Jane. She responded, absolutely not. Yeah, Oh, what's
she gonna say? Yeah, that was me.
Speaker 2: I was involved.
Speaker 1: We were having all kinds of sexual trists at my apartment.
Here's the idea, charge these people with RICO and let's
really get to the bottom of it. A prosecutor clarified
on cross examination that Eva Anderson Dubin is not necessarily
the only Eva to have interacted with Epstein, suggesting Jane
could have been referring to someone else, and that's very
possible as well. Again, we know that Jeffrey Epstein and
his buddy Jean Luke Brunell loved to bring girls in
from Eastern Europe. That was their thing. They loved it.
They had all kinds of Eastern European models that they
would bring in, girls from Croatia, girls from the Balkans,
right And it was anywhere that you could go where
it was war torn or a place where they're suffering
in strife, or a developing nation that might not, you know,
be where it needs to be as far as economically.
Those are the places where Jeffrey Epstein and his scumbag
friend John Luke Brunell used to love to go and
bring girls into the fault. You go and promise these
girls a modeling gig, and you show up with these credentials,
and you show up with all of these big dreams,
and then they get to the United States and none
of that happens. None of their dreams come true, none
of their wishes come true. Instead, they find themselves stuck
at that building over on sixty six and involved in
whatever the hell Brunel and Epstein have.
Speaker 2: Laid out for them.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, I'm sure there was another Eva, But going
back to Eva Duben Anderson, it's very obvious that there's
more there as far as the relationship with Epstein, her
kids called them Uncle Jeffy for God's sakes, So they
were very very close. And the fact that Glenn Dubin
is being credibly accused of raping Virginia is something that
should be brought up when we're talking about the Dubins. No,
So basically, the defense called as a character witness the
wife of somebody who is being credibly accused of raping
somebody else involved in this whole entire thing. That's how
scraping the bottom of the barrel Glenn Maxwell's defense team
is and was when it comes to finding character witnesses
for her. On Thursday, as part of the defense's effort
to undermine the accuser's testimony, a psychologist and professor at
the University of California, Irvine testified about false memories, telling
the court people can be exposed to misinformation about an
event after the fact and incorporate it into their memory,
making it inaccurate. So we've talked about Elizabeth Loftis and
her memory techniques and what she has to say about
creating memories afterwards and how unreliable memories can be and
all of that. Jazz and she flopped. Elizabeth loft Is
flopped on the stand for the defense. In fact, the
prosecution even got her to admit some damning stuff the
other way about trauma and the main body of the trauma,
meaning the actual abuse, and how that memory is strengthened
a lot of times. So they brought up Elizabeth Loftis
at six hundred bucks an hour, mind you, and she
absolutely was a non factor in my opinion. The whole
entire strategy of going after the girls memories, going after
the girls for their personal lives and all of that
stuff I had never thought was going to be a
winning strategy. The only way Maxwell was ever going to
win in a case like this, in my opinion, is
if she brought up some receipts. I wasn't there at
this time. I had nothing to do with this. I
wasn't even present here. But she had none of that.
All she had was innuendo and attempting to punch holes
in what these survivors had to say, and I don't
think they were able to do it. Even traumatic experiences
can be subjected to post events suggestion that can exaggerate
the stort or change the memory. Doctor Elizabeth Loftis said,
and again, the goal was to try and tell the
jury that these girls are misremembering. This didn't really happen
the way they think it happened. And afterwards, with the
media suggesting to them that other girls were abused, et cetera,
et cetera, well, that made their memories different. And that's
the point that she was trying to get across here.
And I just don't think that she did a good
enough job. And as much as I've been busting on
the prosecution, and it's been a lot, I think that
they did a good job cross examining her and getting
her to admit to a bunch of stuff. Maxwell declined
to testify on Friday, telling Judge Alison Nathan when asked
if she understood her rights, your honor, the government has
not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and so
there is no need for me to testify. The jury
was not present. So again with that, I can't even
understand that. Honestly, if I was innocent, especially, you better
believe I'm taking the stand. You better believe I'm getting
up there and telling my side of the story. I'm
not sitting around on my hands and letting uh, Elizabeth
Loftis write my fate. I'm not sitting around and having
Christian Everdell.
Speaker 2: Tell my story.
Speaker 1: I'm getting up there and I'm telling everybody I didn't
do this, I didn't hurt these girls, I didn't traffic anybody.
I wasn't involved in any of this. But we don't
see any of that dooey. We never see that from
these kind of people. They never get up on the
stand in their own defense because, let's be very clear,
most of these scumbags, well they're guilty, and when you're guilty,
you don't want to take the stand. You end up
getting absolutely hammered. But if you're telling the truth, and
you have the truth on your side, and you didn't
engage in any of this abuse, you didn't engage in
trafficking these kids, don't you think you'd want to get
on that stand and say, hey, whoa hold on a
minute here, I've been quiet for long enough, here's my
side of the story. I would think that the jury
would take note of that, would be receptive to that
a lot more than you just sitting around acting like
the defense hasn't made I mean, the prosecution hasn't made
its case because they have, even with them bumbling around,
they've made their case on the back of strong testimony.
And they're lucky they had that strong testimony by these
survivors because without that, well, the prosecution certainly was I
won't say anept, but they weren't great. There's no doubt
in my mind that they were not great. And it's
something I was concerned about the whole entire time. The
SDNY is not the powerhouse of a legal team like
they used to be. We're talking about the people who
brought down the mafia. Now they're all they want to
do is, you know, dick around and go after politically
expedient cases. And it's a joke. If this was to happen,
if this case was happening in the old days in
the sdn Y, they would have came.
Speaker 2: They would have just destroyed these people.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately the SDT, the sdn Y doesn't have the
teeth that it used to.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The closing arguments are set to begin here in a
little while and we'll be following it to see what happens. Tonight.
On the evening update, we'll talk about what went on
today during the closing arguments, and we'll take a look
at some of the back and forth in the courtroom,
as long as there's some out there for me to
go through and put together in some notes. But either way,
I'll be back tonight with the evening update and we'll
definitely be talking about what occurred today in the closing
arguments as.
Speaker 2: We prepare for the jury to deliberate.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
at Bobby Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com. That's b O
bbu y c A p U c c I at
ProtonMail dot com. You can also find me on Twitter
at bo bb y underscore c A p U c
c I. The link that we discussed can be found
in the description box. All right, folks, I'll be back
later on. Hope that all of you have a great day.
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Well, folks,
we're here closing arguments wrapped up today, and now the
fate of Glen Maxwell is in the hands of the jury. Obviously,
they have more time than just the two days before
the break if they need it, but there's been a
lot of talk that they're going to have their verdict
rendered by Wednesday. Now, obviously that's just scuttle. But I'm
not too sure anybody knows what the jury is thinking
or what they're going to do. But people who are
familiar with the way these things go and who follow
these kinds of cases on a regular basis, seem to
be moving towards this being done by Wednesday, them having
a verdict. Now, again, we'll have to see what the
jury comes up with. Maybe they'll need some more time
than that, but I would think that if they get
this verdict out that quickly, that it could only mean
bad news for Glen Maxwell. And boy, let me tell you,
in my opinion, if anyone's ever deserved Cole in their
Christmas stocking, it is certainly Glen Maxwell. This lady tried
to set herself up as the victim here. She's tried
to set herself up as somebody who is being taken
advantage of by Jeffrey Epstein and somebody who had no
idea what was going on in the very house she
was in control of. But reality is painted a different picture,
hasn't it. When you look at the testimony that we
have seen from the survivors, you look at the corroborating testimony,
that we have seen from the other witnesses, and it
paints a very clear pick of Glene Maxwell and her
role within Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise. This could have never
happened without Glen Maxwell, and that's the point that needed
to be rammed home. And I think the prosecution has
done a good enough job to make that point and
for there to be convictions here. Now I'm not again,
I'm not a mind reader, I'm not a nostradamis. But
from what I have seen and from the evidence that
has been heard, and then the weak limp ass risk
defense that was put on by Maxwell, it certainly leads
me to believe that there is an uphill battle to
be fought for Team Maxwell when it comes to getting
their client off. And I always figured it would come
down to the game of loopholes and technicalities. It was
never an well, our client is innocent thing. It was
always well, this trial shouldn't be happening. These allegations are
too old, These girls don't remember, and that's what it
always was from the very beginning with Glenn Maxwell, and
she's never exhibited the behavior of somebody who's innocent. In
my opinion, for all that's worth. But when you're somebody
who is wrongfully accused, you don't go skulking around in holes.
You don't hire private security to protect you, you don't
avoid being summoned by the court. That's not what innocent
people do. Innocent people want to go and defend their name.
They want to stand up and say, hey, look, you
got it wrong.
Speaker 2: This ain't me.
Speaker 1: I don't know who you're talking about, but it certainly
wasn't me. And we never saw any of that from
Glenn Maxwell. And that's why any attempt to paint her
as any kind of victim is just ludicrous at best.
And then you add on top of that already damning
bit of information you had, on top of that what
the survivors have said, and just the ones that were
on the stand here, never mind the literally hundreds of
other girls and women who have come forward. But you
look at just what was provided here as testimony, and
it's pretty much clear that Glenn Maxwell was a central
figure in this and she was not just some victim
or some shrinking violet that was along for the ride.
So with that said, we're gonna take a look at
a Rolling Stone article tonight that does a pretty good
job of wrapping up what went on inside of the
courtroom today. Now, it was a bunch of legalies and
back and forth about you know, different situations within the case,
what you know, information should be included, what shouldn't be included,
what should be redacted, and all of that jazz. And
this article from Rolling Stone does a really good job
of capturing all of that.
Speaker 2: So let's take a look at this article from.
Speaker 1: Andrea Marx over at Rolling Stone, and let's see what
they have to say. Closing arguments are done in Glenn
Maxwell's case, her fate is now with the jury. Lawyers
have completed their closing arguments in Glenn Maxwell's sex trafficking trial.
In the prosecution's final rebuttal on Monday afternoon, Assistant US
Attorney Maureen Comy winnowed the jury's charge down to single notion,
referring to the four women who came forward as accusers.
If you believe those witnesses, then that's it. The defendant
is guilty, she said. And that's pretty much gets to
the heart of it, right, cuts to the chase of it.
Speaker 2: And while I have been very.
Speaker 1: Let's say, critical of the prosecution and especially Maureen comy.
I am not a fan. I think she did a
very good job today with the closing arguments and hammering
things home. But the evidence in this case was much
more than he said.
Speaker 2: She said.
Speaker 1: Fiery final statement, Komi tried to demonstrate why it was
nearly impossible for the women to be lying. It was
powerful rhetoric, but also had the effect of once again
illustrating how easy it can be to dismiss sex crimes
allegations even when evidence supports them. And this is a
very big important part, right, this isn't he said? She said,
I've said that for years on this podcast. There's really
no gray area here, folks. We're not talking about a
nineteen year old and a sixteen year old. We all
know that a nineteen year old dude, his brain isn't
developed yet. That's a gray area. This is not a
gray area, okay. This is people in power who were
looking explicitly to exploit the most vulnerable amongst us because
they knew they could get away with it. That's what
this was. There was no gray area here. After that,
the judge gave the jerry their instructions to begin deliberations
and decide whether to convict Maxwell. Of six counts related
to sex trafficking and conspiracy for helping Jeffrey Epstein procure
underage girls. Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
So the jury has it now right. Maxwell's fate is
in the jury's hands at this point, And it always
has been. All of the rhetoric, all of the talk,
all of the talk here on the podcast too, everywhere,
it's all worth about as much as your opinion down
at the corner store when the chips are down. All
that's really going to matter at this point is what
the jury thinks. And frankly, I think that the case
has certainly been made that Glaine Maxwell was a huge
part of what went on here and that without her
this couldn't have happened. Earlier that day, assisting US Attorney
Alison Moe kicked off Monday's proceedings with the initial closing
statement for the prosecution, Ghlaine Maxwell was dangerous, said she
was a grown woman who prayed on vulnerable kids. Moe
highlighted Maxwell's closeness to Epstein after her complicitness and her
complicitness complicitness in his abuse. She called the testimony of
the defense false. Memory expert Elizabeth loftis a total distraction,
noting that Loftis herself said on cross examination that the
core memory of trauma is stronger than other types of memory.
And this was a point I was hammering home on
the podcast, Like you know, I was some kind of
genius and the prosecution wasn't going to go the same route,
but they definitely did. They saw the same opening there
and they punched in on it. You can't have your
trauma specialist admit to something that's helpful to the prosecution
if it's a defense witness and think that's a good day.
Speaker 2: It's not.
Speaker 1: And the fact that Alison Moe brought it up here,
I love it, very very good job bringing it up here,
letting the jury know once again that while her expertise
might be in the field, she knows little to nothing
about this specific case. And for those of you who
have listened to the podcast forever, you know that I've
really been a fan of Alison Moe as far as
prosecutors go, and as far as I trust any of them,
I've always felt like Alison Moe was kind of a
throwback kind of prosecutor, somebody who's looking to make their
bones here because they have, you know, higher visions in
the future. Epstein liked underage girls. Mo said he liked
to touch underage girls and Glenne Maxwell knew it. And
as the so called lady of the house, as former
employee want A Lessi had described her, Mo said, Maxwell
was not only aware of what was happening, but intimately
involved in the process of the abuse. This was illustrated
by the booklet of rules Alessi said she distributed to
how staff that instructed staff to see nothing, hear nothing,
say nothing, and including included a shopping list of thirteen
different massage oils and lotions. She managed all of the details,
Mo said, right down to the lotions and the oils.
It's damning stuff. And you can see why the prosecution
brought some of these witnesses forward now in the closing
arguments as they tie up some of the loose ends,
right using Juan Alessi's testimony to you know, backbone what
she has to say here to prove her point and
to drive it home to the jury one last time,
that Maxwell was playing a key role here. She was
the one getting the oils, she was the one getting
the lotions, she was the one getting the Massage for
Dummies books. It was nobody else. It was Glaine Maxwell.
As Mose spoke to the jury, her back was to Maxwell,
who busied herself shuffling papers and note taking for a
while before staring over her black mask into the middle distance.
More called the stages of grooming as expert prosecution witness
Lisa Rocchio had described them, and she claimed Epstein and
Maxwell had executed them. It is not an accident that
Jane and Kate and Carolyn and Annie came from single
parent households that were struggling in different ways.
Speaker 2: She said.
Speaker 1: Once they chosen, they're victims. She said, Maxwell and Epstein
would get the girls alone, desensitize them and desensitize them
to touch and sexual activity, and then control them to
continue abusing them. This is exactly what we have talked
about here for years, and it's nice to hear it
all get played out in court.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So all of those legacy media outlets that are late
to the party here, all of those legacy media outlets
that want to talk about, oh, conspiracy theories and this
that the other thing, you folks are late to the party.
You folks are the ones that were negligent in your
duty in educating the people about what was going on here.
And it's kind of gratifying that you see all of
this stuff come out in court now, and we were
over the target the whole entire time. It's no wonder
that the other podcast, the Jeffrey Epstein Show, was so
highly censored. When you're over the target like that, that's
usually what occurs. Details from the four accusers testimonies had
been corroborated by additional witnesses like Alessi, three of the
women's former boyfriends, and law enforcement officers who searched Epstein's
house and spoke to the witnesses. Mo said, beyond that,
the jury had seen phone message records, the household manual,
a little black book containing victims' names, FedEx invoices, and
bank records showing Epstein paid Maxwell thirty point seven million
dollars during and shortly after the years of the abuse
by alleged by the four victims. She knew she was complicit.
She is guilty, Mo said, And I don't know how
anyone can argue with that. She knew she was complicit
and she was guilty. I think Alison Mo is making
the argument that all of us have been hoping to
make for all of these years. Look, let's be very clear.
Somebody like Glaine Maxwell is use to getting off on
stuff like this not having to pay the price, and
now that her time has come, well there's a whole
big problem, isn't there. Her family talks about how the
system is all destroyed and how the legal system needs
to be fixed. And while I agree with that, we're
going to start talking about it now that Maxwell has
been arrested, that Maxwell sitting in jail. How about we
talk about Khalif Browder. Because guess what Glaine Maxwell, from
all of the evidence we have seen is complicit, was
complicit and was working with Epstein hand in hand. So
I don't care that she's had to sit in jail
for this whole entire trial. That's how it all works.
The accusers have already been awarded millions of dollars. Most
said their civil case uses are over. The witnesses have
testified they have no financial stake in the verdict, and
their stories are backed by documentation and other witnesses corroborating testimony.
She said, And again this goes back to some of
the witnesses that were called who were there to verify
paperwork that were there to talk about invoices and all
of that stuff. It was the foundational information that we
were talking about. And once all of that foundational information
was put out there and laid out, well, they built
the house on top of it. And that house certainly
seems to point to the lame Maxwell being guilty. That
didn't stop Maxwell's lawyer Laura Meninger from arguing that after
Epstein had died, everyone lawyered up. The women's stories changed
over time, she said, as they watched media, shared their
stories and talked with lawyers, their memories had been manipulated
in pursuit of money. Memory fades over time, she said,
It can be manipulated, and money is a great manipulator. Again,
it's always about the money for these people, right, It's
never about the actual crime that was committed. Oh, let's
totally make everyone focus on It was about the money.
And the only reason Epstein was even paying these girls
was so we had another level of insulation. Right, Well,
what do you mean, I didn't know how old they were.
They were prostitutes and that's what he got off on
the first time around this time, that's not going to
work out. I don't think you can't say that these
girls are prostitutes. There's no way. But when you talk
about how these memories were manipulated and all this other
jazz that they've been trying to pump, I think that
that whole entire narrative was tossed on its head and
destroyed by their own expert So I think this is
a losing battle for them to keep bringing it up.
She accused the prosecution of not presenting enough evidence to
support their case, and aimed once more to discredit the witnesses.
She called a lessi who confessed to stealing from Epstein,
a two time burglar, obviously with an axe to grind.
She reserved particular ire for the witness known as Jane,
telling the jury not to be fooled by claims that
Jane may have struggled emotionally to disclose details of her
abuse over the years, noting that she had two lawyers
who were men and seemingly no difficulty disclosing details to
them during a civil suit. That is just absolutely horrid
by a Menager. And out of this whole entire group
of lawyers, Menager has been the most condemnable In my opinion,
I am not a fan at all of this lady.
And she thinks because she's a woman, she can get
away with a little bit more. She can be more
aggressive with these females on the stand, and it's very transparent.
So someone like Laura Meninger is just a grade A
scumbag human being in my opinion. Now, don't get me wrong,
there's a need for people like her, right. We gotta
have people who are going to defend the scummiest amongst us,
because that's the way it works. We're all entitled to
legal defense, even sickos like Maxwell. But boy, Menager is
just she's on another level of gross. Jane had testified
like an actress who forgot her line, she said, adding
that when Jane had answered questions, her body language had
shown uncertainty and hesitation. So Menager is a body language expert.
Now she's somebody who knows what body language is. She
went to school for that. How many degrees do you
have in that, Laura Meninger, My guess is you have
as many as I do.
Speaker 2: That would be zero.
Speaker 1: So why are you giving us expert opinion? Stick to
defending your client and save the expert opinion. Meninger brought
up worthwhile questions like why the women allegedly taking part
in orgies with the fourteen year old Jane hadn't considered
calling the police. Menager suggested this was further evidence that
Jane was lying, rather than possible evidence of additional co
conspirators in the abuse. She also implied a defense witness
could not have taken part in orgies because now she
is a housewife. Yeah, I mean, you know, no housewives
have ever had orgies. No such thing as a swinger
community or people who have proclivities that they like to fulfill.
It's all ludicrous. The whole defense is ludicrous, and I
don't know how the jury could look at this and
not find it laughable. You're going to imply that a
defense witness could not have taken part in an orgy
because she is a housewife, or that the further evidence
that Jane was lying because there was a less evidence
that there's additional co conspirators. It just doesn't make any sense.
It's not a winning argument in my opinion, and I'd
be pissed if I was paying the kind of money
Glenn Maxwell is forget it. I want somebody like that dude,
Bruce Cutler, who was John Gotti's lawyer, Let that dude
come out and go ham. But these people, I don't
think she's getting her money's worth here, folks. I think
that they got their asses handed to them by a
junior squad. When Annie Farmer had visited Epstein and Maxwell
in New Mexico, where Farmer claimed Maxwell had rubbed her
breasts and showed her how to rub Epstein's feet, Meninger
suggested Farmer's arrival had been a surprise. Imagine being Glaine,
she said to the jurors, Maxwell gave Farmer a tour
of the ranch and bought her cowboy boots to entertain
the child, not groomer, she argued, No, she was just
a nice lady, this Gallainne Maxwell, and out of the
kindness of her heart, she wanted to buy Annie some
nice boots down at the old Boot Imporium. We all
know why Maxwell was there. She was there to make
it more comfortable so Epstein could unleash his disgusting plot
and do his disgusting deeds. That's why Maxwell was there,
point blank period. She argued that Maxwell hadn't targeted the
girls because they'd met Epstein through a sister, a friend,
a roommate, and on their own. Maxwell was too successful,
too beautiful, too educated a woman to fall into facilitating
sexual abuse for one man, she said. At the same time,
Menager said Epstein had manipulated Maxwell seeing other women behind
her back. Testimony had showed he had assistants send flowers
to other women and ordered a lessie to take down
pictures of Maxwell in the house when other women would
come over. Everyone knew Jepsky Jeffrey was keeping secrets from Glane.
Besides Glaane, she said, Oh, give me a break. They
were playing their hustle. They had their hustle game going,
and the hustle game was enacted and on and ready.
They were never a couple. Give me a break with
that shit. That hasn't been proven by now all of
the evidence we see, all of the testimony by survivors,
that shit was a ruse.
Speaker 2: She asked the.
Speaker 1: Jury to hesitate over factors like victims changing stories, absence
of more testimony from victim's relatives, and what the defense
views as a lack of evidence like no pictures of
Maxwell with the victims or proof that Epstein had paid
for Jane's summer camp sessions at interlock In, an elite
children's arts program to which he also donated large sums.
Justice demands you would quit, Gallaine Maxwell, She said, speaking
of interlock In, I received an email from somebody who
was poosed that we brought up the show here on
the podcast, or that the news brought up interlock In
in general, because you know they taught there at one point,
and you know this could have never happened at inter
lock In. My response was, perhaps you should be mad
at the institute and not mad at the people reporting
on it. Comy finished out the afternoon with her in
passion to rebuttal on behalf of the prosecution. The core
of the defense's argument is that you can't believe the
four women, she said, never mind that they corroborate each
other or the mountain of evidence that backs them up. Hey,
what is Comy listening to the podcast here using my
rhetoric about this mountain of evidence? I'm always talking about,
good idea. If she's listening to the podcast, get herself
nice and caught up. She said it was absurd for
Maxwell to claim she didn't know her boyfriend and best
friend of a decade had a thing for young girls.
Speaker 2: She knew her a.
Speaker 1: Boyfriend was spending time with teenage girls. She said he
was doing it because he was attracted to them. He
wanted to have sex with them, one hundred percent. That's
exactly why he was doing it. He wasn't doing it
because he wanted to hang out and talk about their
day at school. He wasn't doing it because he had
an interest in their lives. His sole purpose was to
get them into his web and then abuse them sexually
and physically.
Speaker 2: That was his goal.
Speaker 1: The millions of dollars Epstein gave Maxwell wasn't just a
standard bank transfer to his house manager to move money around.
She posited, the thirty million is we molested kids together money? Well,
you know what Marine called me? How about a Rico case.
Then let's really get it all wrapped up nice and solid. No,
if we're gonna start talking financial crimes, then I'm here
for it because we could get all of these people
caught up in the financial web. They were all connected
with ill gotten gains, every last one of these people.
And when you talk about thirty million, that is the
right way to talk about it, right. Thirty million is
we molested kids together?
Speaker 2: Money?
Speaker 1: Very powerful rhetoric for Maureen Comy. Right there, my friends,
the similarities among the victim stories is what makes their
testimony most credible. Comy continued, noting that three women said
Maxwell had touched their breasts, and all described massages that
escalated into sex acts. Each witness's testimony was a powerful
corroboration for the others, She said. She used a dark
analogy of Thanksgiving memories to ask the jury to understand
what it must be like to try to recall details
of recurring sexual abuse. Looking back on Thanksgiving during your
teenage years, you might not be able to remember which
year a neighbor visited or which year you ruined a pie,
but you know there was turkey because that has happened
every time. Difficulty remembering certain things doesn't mean it didn't happen,
she said. Carolyn remembers Maxwell as a fixture at Epstein's house,
like the stuffing on Thanksgiving there every time. And again,
powerful rhetoric from Maureen Comy, straight to the point and
launching Glenn Maxwell in the light of somebody who is
heinous and pretty much at the wheel driving this whole
entire car of nightmares. Further, Comy said, the defense theory
that the women all lied to make money didn't make sense.
Carolyn had named Maxwell as early as two thousand and
seven to the FBI. Besides, Comy argued it didn't add
up that four different lawyers had begun convincing their clients
to perjure themselves in a federal trial and service of
some payments that would already be made to them, And
when one was working pro bono, wouldn't the women take
their millions and skip out on the testimony. Plus plus
they'd have needed to get Farmer's mom and three of
the women's ex boyfriends in on the lie too, And
if you believed it, they were risking it all. Wouldn't
they have told a more elaborate lie. Why would Farmer
be careful to say Maxwell didn't touch her nipples? Why
would Jane specify that Maxwell had never witnessed intercourse or
oral sex with Epstein? They should have implicated her more deeply.
Cally argued, if these four women wanted to dirty Maxwell
up for a huge payday, they would have told way
bigger lies. She said, but they testified for justice, and
added in hopes that the defendant will be held accountable
for her role in shattering their lives. And that's really
what it comes down to for these survivors. I know
I have talked to a lot of the survivors in
this case, not in this specific trial here, but in
the overall case, and that's what it comes down to.
Speaker 2: Justice.
Speaker 1: They have all been deprived justice for so long that
they're not gonna stop until they get it at this point,
and this is a huch step moving forward. If Maxwell
goes down, Maxwell gets convicted, definitely a huge step. It's
a familiar believe women refrain and a compelling argument for
why on earth these women would be here if they
were liars, But that's often the case. Testifying about sex
crimes is grueling, but that doesn't stop people from disbelieving
victims over and over. The coming days will reveal what
this jury believes in this case, and that certainly is
a fact. We're gonna know in the next few days
or by next week at the latest, what Glen Maxwell's
fate is. And after looking at this whole thing as
a whole and listening to the closing arguments today, well
at least reading about them, and seeing which way the
wind was blowing, it certainly looks to me that there's
going to be a conviction here.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Again, I don't have any kind of crystal ball, but
it certainly it seems that we're on the path for
something like that to occur. And I highly doubt that
Maxwell is going to walk here, but weirder things have happened,
and when you're talking about the American justice system, well
we all know that anything is possible. All right, everybody
will start the process all over tomorrow morning with our
morning update, and we'll keep an eye on the deliberation
and see what happens overnight and catch up on the
headlines like usual. Between that time and now. There'll also
be a few more context episodes that I'm going to
be uploading. All right, folks, I hope that all of
you have a great night, And if you'd like to
contact me, you can do that at Bobby Kapuchi at
ProtonMail dot com. That's bo b b Y c ap
you Cci at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find
me on Twitter at Bobby Underscore c ap u Cci.
The link that we discussed is in the description chin
Box