c/o Inner City Press
1408GMT
[Note: These are the lawyers' arguments before the jury comes in]
Judge Nathan: If what the defense bring in is impeachment [of the Witness] material, it's not a Rule 16 issue.
AUSA Rohrbach: It should have been disclosed; it is about a collateral matter.
AUSA: The witness couldn't even recognize the photo, & it wasn't impeachment of what she said on the stand.
Judge Nathan: What is the US' understanding of when the witness lived in the address in the [FBI] 302?
AUSA Alison Moe: At 14 she was living in a pool house
Maxwell's lawyer: In her application to Interlochen [music school] she listed the address that he showed her yesterday.
Maxwell's lawyer Laura Menninger: She already said on the record that she lived in the same place after she met Epstein until she moved to NY
Judge Nathan: Is there anything we can discuss at [non public] sidebar, before the jury comes in?
AUSA: Some issues we can only do when they come up.
Judge Nathan: OK, then I'm going to step down for a few minutes.
Clerk: All rise!
1435GMT
Judge Nathan: The jury is ready.
AUSA: We do have one issue to raise at sidebar.
Judge Nathan: Let's see if we can get to the break without. Before the defense shows the jury the [confidential] binder, raise it here.
Assistant US Attorney: We have an objection to tabloid articles from the Internet being introduced as evidence.
Judge Nathan: You have a general Internet objection?
AUSA: No, we'll raise them one by one.
Judge Nathan: Let's bring out the jury.
Clerk: All rise!
Jury enters
Maxwell's lawyer Menninger: Did you turn 17 in your final year at Interlochen [art/music school]?
Pseudonymous witness "Jane" - No, I was 16.
Menninger: Jurors, pick up the smaller binder under your chairs and turn to J-3.
Menninger: And your application said you came from a "long and loving family," right?
Jane: That's what it says.
Menninger: Do you recognize the document?
Jane: I do not recognize it per se. But I see my signature.
Menninger: It's your application to Interlochen
Menninger: When you spoke to your younger brother, you didn't mention there was a woman, correct?
Jane: I don't think so.
Menninger: And you told a news source that you were approached by Ghislaine, no mention of Ghislaine, correct?
Jane: I don't remember that.
Menninger: When you got to Epstein's house with your mother - your house was in West Palm Beach, right?
Jane: No, it was in Palm Beach -
Menninger: You didn't cross any state lines, did you?
Jane: No I didn't. There were only the 3 of us having tea.
Menninger: Have you ever spoken with your sisters about your boyfriends?
Jane: I didn't have any boyfriends...
Assistant US Attorney: Can we have a brief sidebar about this?
1521GMT
Sidebar
1534GMT
Maxwell's lawyer Menninger: Look at the last line in the top paragraph. You told the agents that Epstein would decide where everyone sat --
AUSA: Objection! She should only ask, Does it refresh your recollection.
Judge Nathan: Go ahead and ask.
Menninger: Does it refresh your recollection?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: And there was nothing sexual in the theater.
Jane: Right
Menninger: Yesterday, it said it was shortly after the pool house that you had this incident with Epstein and Ghislaine, right?
AUSA: Objection as to form.
Judge Nathan: Specify what you're talking about.
AUSA: Objection.
Menninger: This is foundational.
Menninger: You told the government you do not have a specific memory of your first time with Ghislaine -
AUSA: Objection!
Menninger: You have come up with the memory in the last two years?
Jane: I don't believe I have come up with memory, no.
Jane: It is not typed up right on this form.
Maxwell's lawyer Menninger: Another typo by the government.
AUSA: Objection!
Menninger: You told the government Ghislaine never used sex toys or a vibrator on you, correct?
Jane: Correct.
Menninger went on to ask Jane if Ghislaine ever saw her perform oral sex on Epstein (no), hand job (no), intercourse (no).
Menninger: Look at 39-008 at Page 5, does this refresh your recollection?
Jane: No.
1555GMT
Menninger: You said Ghislaine never saw you perform oral sex on Epstein.
Jane: I don't recall.
Menninger: Look at the document.
Judge Nathan: Let's take a break.
Recess
1633GMT
Maxwell's lawyer Menninger: You testified yesterday your first has sex with Epstein in his pool house in Florida. But you told the government it was in New York.
Jane: Those are not my notes. I did not write that down and it was not recorded.
Menninger: You told them you only remembered one incident in NY when Ghislaine was present.
Jane: I don't recall.
Menninger: Look at 3509-003. Hasn't your story changed?
Jane: I didn't understand the question.
Menninger: You told the government you flew to NY with Epstein & Ghislaine to see The Lion King.
Jane: I said that but I was incorrect in my timeline. I was 14.
Menninger: You were a student of theater and the arts at the time, correct?
AUSA: Objection as to form.
1652GMT
Judge Nathan called another break, saying that Jane needed a drink of water.
Now she's back on the stand.
Menninger: Let's go to your conversation in Feb 2020, about the Lion King.
AUSA: No objection
Menninger: I know Ms. Moe would like to come and do this for me
AUSA Moe: I object to that.
Menninger: But the Lion King on Broadway didn't start until you were 17 years old. Did the government or Mr. Glassman suggest to you that you might have meant the Lion King movie?
AUSA: Objection!
Menninger: So you recall going to the New Mexico range, a giant huge home, correct?
Jane: Like all the homes.
Menninger: And that Jeffrey Epstein's brother went with you, correct?
Jane: I don't recall.
Menninger: You weren't asked to have sex with any of Epstein's friends, were you?
Jane: No.
Menninger: Did Epstein introduce you to people in the arts?
Jane: Not really.
Menninger: To the dean of Interlochen at a cocktail party?
Jane: I don't recall.
Menninger: In 3509-001, you said you met Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, before the pool house incident.
Jane: I don't recall.
Menninger: You said Epstein took you in a dark green car to Mar-A-Lago to meet Donald Trump?
AUSA: Asked and answered and also misleading.
Menninger: You also had some recollections about flying on the private plane with Epstein, right?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: You said you were asked your weight when you got on the plane, correct?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: In 2019 before Epstein was arrested you were contacted by the government, right?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: But you said you were not interested in getting involved.
Jane: Right.
Menninger: Then you hired Mr Glassman, a personal injury lawyer with ads-
AUSA: Objection.
Menninger: Did you see his ads, touting his big verdicts?
Jane: He's a friend of a friend.
Menninger: Is this your contingent fee agreement?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: You've talked to your ex-boyfriend Matt, right?
Jane: Right.
[Programming note: It seems "Matt" will be the next witness. Judge Nathan has said there is some issue with the jurors' delivered lunches. So this may go a while.]
Menninger: When you were 15 did you take a trip to Italy for a singing competition?
Jane: I may have. I don't remember. I was 15.
Menninger: And at 16, you traveled for a sibling?
Jane: Maybe.
1751GMT
Menninger: And you were in a beauty pageant sponsored by Donald Trump?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: Do you recall crying that Jeffrey Epstein only gave you $2000 for a dress?
Jane: No.
Menninger: You were on a reality TV show with Matt, right?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: And there was tension and you cried?
Jane: Reality shows are not really reality.
Menninger: You claimed you were putting a roof over your family's head?
Jane: I don't know if I used those words.
Q: You told that to Matt.
A: They were living in my house.
Menninger: And you demanded money from Ghislaine Maxwell?
Jane: I have a lawyer.
Menninger: And you sought money from the Epstein Compensation Fund - look at Exhibit J-18, at 6. You were offered how much?
Jane: $5 million.
1819GMT
Judge Nathan: We'll break for lunch, jurors. I hope all of your lunches are back there now.
Lunch Recess
1933GMT
Menninger: So you went to a specialized entertainment school, right?
Menninger: And since then you've played roles like cancer patient?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: Prostitute?
Jane: No.
Menninger: You can cry on command?
Menninger: Your accusations in this case include that you were 14 when you were abused, right?
Jane: Yes.
Menninger: But you first told the government you were 13, right?
Jane: I might have said 13 going on 14. It's a small technicality.
[Note: on "prostitute," Jane said "Not my favorite role."]
Menninger: You talk about the Lion King and say you were 14 - but it only came out when you were 17, right? And you said you were 15 when you met Mike Wallace, at his 80th birthday party, right?
Jane: I don't know how old I was.
Menninger: You don't know when his birthday is? Look at J-33, does it refresh your recollection?
AUSA: Objection.
Judge Nathan: Sustained. No basis for refreshing.
Menninger: In your civil case you got interrogatories, do you know what those are?
Jane: No.
Menninger: So your lawyer answered for you under your oath and you didn't know?
Jane: I don't know.
Cross examination of Jane peters out, with a final exhibit admitted. Unclear how press and public will get it.
Now re-direct.
AUSA: Did any of us prosecutors ever tell you what to say at this trial?
Jane: No.
AUSA: You were asked about notes of meetings with the US. Did you speak about everything all at once?
Jane: No. It was too difficult, emotionally, on every level.
AUSA: Then there were fewer of us in the room. Do you know why?
Jane: To make me more comfortable.
AUSA: Why did you speak to the tabloid reporter?
Jane: He basically blackmailed me. He said he would publish unredacted documents.
Judge Nathan: This is not for the truth of the matter asserted, but impact on the listener.
AUSA: Did you make an agreement with the reporter?
Jane: Yes. I'd talk about meeting Jeffrey Epstein, the reporter would keep my name out of it. I was working on a TV show.
AUSA: Do you know the difference between acting on television and testifying in court?
Jane: Yes. This is real. I am seeking closure. I have been running from this my entire life. I want to help in whatever way I can. And maybe find some healing.
[By the end, Jane is sobbing.]
AUSA: Do you have any financial interest in this trial?
Jane: No.
AUSA: Nothing further.
2028GMT
Judge Nathan: Jane, you may step down. And we'll take a break. Jurors, your snacks are here.
Clerk: All rise!
Recess
2109GMT
AUSA Moe: How do you know Jane?
Matt: She's my ex-girlfriend. From 2006 to 2014.
AUSA: Did you live together?
Matt: Yes. From 2007 to 2014.
AUSA: Are you still friends?
Matt: Yes. And we work on the same TV show.
AUSA: What did Jane tell you about her home life?
Maxwell's lawyer: Objection.
Judge Nathan: Any foundation?
Maxwell's lawyer: It's hearsay.
Sidebar
[CONTINUED IN COMMENT
Continuation ...
Part 2
Extra Details
I don't expect much from this trial. The judge is compromised, the prosecutor is compromised, the Southern District of NY has always been compromised. It is the wolves prosecuting the wolves. Complete BS.
But didn't Trump swap out the AG of SDNY at the last minute?
Hopefully the white hats got to them. Biggest surprise the cabal got since hildebeast lost. Or the fix stays in and it's further proof the judiciary is fully compromised.
You will have to explain to me sometime why Maxwell's and Epstein's 3 digit booking facility number included in their inmate number isnt MDC sometime...
[Extra Details c/o Adam Klasfeld]
Menninger tries to undermine "Jane's" account of her difficult family life through school records at Interlochen, like an application describing her "loving family."
Yesterday, "Jane" testified that her mother instructed her not to discuss her feelings and family. Menninger pivots to "Jane's" first meeting with Epstein and Maxwell in 1994, at the Interlochen arts academy.
The defense attorney says that she has given different accounts of the meeting. An ongoing defense strategy is undermining the women's memories of decades-old events. Menninger asks if "Jane" remembered testimony being by herself at Jeffrey Epstein's house in Palm Beach. "Jane" agrees.
The attorney says that she told the government something different and begins reading a document — drawing a prosecution objection. Menninger says that she told the government that she was with her mother and brothers in the beginning.
"Jane" says she doesn't remember that. "Jane," as the defense attorney tries to undermine her memory: "Memory's not linear."
Q: The dinner you had at your house was prior to any abuse.
A: That's not true.
Menninger tries to read from a document, sparking an objection from the government. "Your honor," the prosecutor says, she objects to Menninger "testifying."
Sidebar
Menninger says "Jane" does not recall whether Maxwell ever touched her. "That's not true," "Jane" says. Menninger asks whether she told the government she could not recall that. "I don't recall."
Menninger asks whether she told the government Maxwell never watched her perform oral sex on Epstein. "That's correct," "Jane" says. Same answer when asked to confirm she told the government Maxwell never used sex toys or a vibrator on her.
Recess
Menninger pivots to the first time "Jane" says Epstein abused her. She testified that's when Epstein masturbated on her in the Palm Beach pool house. The lawyer says she told the government in 2019 that it was in New York. Jane: "That is not correct"
Menninger is confronting her with notes from unrecorded interviews with the government. "Jane" has said repeatedly during cross-ex that the notes were inaccurate. "This is just someone jotting down notes," she said.
There's a lot of dispute about whether the notes suggest "Jane" told the government she went to see the "Lion King" on Broadway with Maxwell in New York;
if so, when they purportedly saw it;
and whether "Jane's" purported chronology conflicted with its opening date.
Q: You don't recall any abuse happening when you first came to New Mexico, correct?
A: That is not correct.
Under the rules of evidence, these notes can be shown to the witness to refresh her recollection because they cannot be entered as exhibits as verbatim transcripts (which they are not). Menninger is systematically contrasting "Jane's" testimony what these records reflect.
"Jane" says she was never asked to recruit other girls or directed to have sex with any of Epstein's associates.
Q: "Mr. Epstein introduced you to Donald Trump, correct?"
She says yes.
Pressed by Menninger, "Jane" agrees that she said Epstein drove her to Mar-a-Lago in a dark green car when she was 14. This line of questioning is not explored much further. Menninger pivots to unrelated allegations of group sexualized massages.
Q: You remember Prince Andrew being on a flight with you?
Yes.
Lunch Recess
Cross-examination resumes:
Q: You said that you were raised in a household where you'd get in trouble if you said something?
"Jane" asked for clarification about "something."
Q: Something personal.
She replies yes. Menninger asks if she recalled telling her mother about a teacher pulling her hair. "Jane" answers yes.
Asked if she recalled her mother filing a lawsuit against the teacher, "Jane" says she didn't know that. Showing her papers, Menninger asked if they refresh her recollection that her mother sued her teacher.
"No, I had no idea my mother did this," responds "Jane." "Jane" says that she met Mike Wallace with Jeffrey Epstein in New York. Menninger says that "Jane" said that was at Mike Wallace's 80th birthday party?
"Jane" agrees. There are no allegations made about Wallace, either, except a suggestion made by the defense attorney that the date doesn't match up with the account. Earlier in cross-ex—
Q: You consider yourself an actor?
A: Yes.
Q: An actor portrays a fictional character?
A: Yes.
[...]
Q: You've been an actor for a very long time?
A: Yes.
Q: “You’re able to cry on command.”
A: “No, not always. That not really how it works.”
Cross-ex ends.
Redirect begins.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe to "Jane"—
Q: Have I or any other prosecutor told you what to say on the witness stand?
A: No.
She asks "Jane" what they told her to say.
A: "Just tell the truth."
Asked whether she was able to tell all of the details in her initial meeting with the government, "Jane" emotionally says:
"Because I was standing in a roomful of strangers and telling them the most shameful, deepest secrets that I've been carrying around with me my whole life." She says a reporter "blackmailed" her:
"He said that court documents with my name was unredacted, and the Epstein 'little black book' was out—"
The defense makes a hearsay objection. The prosecutor goes about it a different way, eliciting her to testify that the reporter threatened to expose her if she didn't speak to him. She says she was worried for her career if the information became known. Asked by the prosecutor about the difference is between acting and testifying, she responds:
She responds: Acting on TV is not real, and testifying in court is. Asked why she remembers the first time she says Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused her more clearly than other events, she responds: "Because it's the beginning of when my life would change forever."
Q: How old were you when you first touched Jeffrey Epstein's penis?
A: 14.
The prosecutor asks about defense attacks of the $5 million settlement she got from the Epstein victims fund, of which she received roughly $2.9 million.
Q: Jane, in your own words, can you tell the jury what that money meant to you?
(She cries, wiping her eyes with a tissue)
"I wish I never received that money in the first place because of what happened," she says.
Her testimony concludes.
Recess.
The next witness, "Matt," is also testifying under a pseudonym because he's "Jane's" ex-boyfriend; disclosing his name could identify her.
From her testimony:
Q. While you were together, did you ever tell Matt that you'd been sexually abused by Maxwell and Epstein?
A. Yes.
"All rise."
The jury enters. Judge Nathan says courtroom sketch artists should not precisely draw "Matt's" features, either. (Sketches of "Jane" were obscured at the face.)
He's called to the witness box, is sworn in, and explains the use of the pseudonym. He tells the jury he's been employed on and off as an actor on a TV show for the past 15 years.
Q: "How do you know Jane?"
A: "She's my ex-girlfriend."
She says they were together between 2006 to 2014, approximately — moving into together one year into the relationship. "Matt" testifies that "Jane" initially referred to Epstein as her "godfather," who helped pay her family's bills and was "looking out for her family."
Q: Did there come a time when she told you why Jeffrey Epstein gave her money?
A: Yes.
Asked about what she said, he replies: "She never went into detail. She just said that it wasn't pretty."
Q: Did she ever use the word 'massage'?
Defense: Objection—leading
Nathan: Overruled. I'll allow it.
A: Yes.
Did she ever tell you that there was a woman in the house?
A: Yes.
Q: Did she tell you that the woman in the house made her feel comfortable?
A: Yes.
"Matt," about a comment by "Jane": "She'd just say to me: 'Matt,' the money wasn't fucking free."
Extremely fast testimony. Prosecution wraps shortly. Maxwell's lawyer, Bobbi Sternheim, declines to cross-examine him.
Next witness:
Daniel Besselsen, assistant VP of finance at Interlochen, the arts academy at the center of Jane's story. Besselsen confirms Epstein was a donor to Interlochen, describes the "Jeffrey Epstein Scholarship Lodge." A photo of the lodge is entered into evidence.
Court Adjourned
[Extra info from The Independent]
A British woman called Emmy was named by witness “Jane” as having taken part in “sexualised massages.”
Laura Menninger, Maxwell’s lawyer, asked Jane about Emmy: “You said that Emmy was British and that she was nice and cool. She was involved in the group massages with you? She was involved with the sexual contact?”
“Jane” replied: “Yes.”
She went on to describe four other women who took part in the massages and who she thought were models.
The “tall” and “thin” women were apparently called Sophie, Eva, Michelle and Kelly, the witness recalled.
Daniel Besselsen, the finance executive at the Interlochen Center for the Arts the nonprofit organisation behind the summer camp where witness “Jane” said she first met Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein will give evidence on Thursday.
Mr Besselsen provided records which comprised donor letters confirming Epstein and Maxwell’s relationship to the camp. These included one addressed to Maxwell saying that a lodge had been reserved for the use of Epstein’s in August of 1994.
It is thought that this is where the couple met Jane.
Epstein had funded a two-bedroom lodge, known as the Jeffrey Epstein Scholarship Lodge, at Interlochen in northern Michigan where parents, donors and other guests could stay.
The lodge’s name has now been changed to the Green Lake Lodge.
Great contribution, fren! Thank you!
Why do the questions jump around so much? You couldn't even say there is a "line" of questioning based on reading this. They are really counting on us getting bored and not continuing to follow it.
It's to discredit the witness. Jumping around to diverse times and events makes it harder for the witness to concentrate.
Also to confuse the jury....
Lawyer is badgering witnesses to try and discredit, that was why when he got smacked down he jumped to other questions.
"You said so and so. Why did you change your story?" "I never said that, your notes are wrong" "But but you said this other thing about having sex in new york" "I was 14"
Hes trying to discredit by nitpicking what cities she was sex trafficked to, but all goes doing is proving pedophile sex trafficking predation happened.
To confuse the witnesses
This reminds me of the Mueller team of leftist lawyers. "We have no law enforcement purpose here, so we'll just try to smear Trump."
They like to keep asking questions about Trump and not following up because there is no there there. Total smear campaign.
Don't forget that in the first Epstein trial, POTUS was the only one who stepped up with information. That can't have sat well with Epstein and Maxwell. Ghislaine likely sees this as payback.
Thank you for this
Love the Trump involvement again... it was Trump all along! Dun, dun dun!
Russiagate 1.0 & 2.0 failed, so it's on to Epsteingate 1.0.
[CONTINUED PART 2]
2116GMT
They return.
Judge Nathan: Ms. Moe, I'll ask you to narrow the question.
AUSA Moe: Did Jane speak about her family finance when she grew up?
Matt: Yes. That when her father got sick, they went broke. The mother was working a small job. They were in the same bed.
Matt: They she told me she had a godfather. Later she told me it was Jeffrey Epstein. I said, He helped pay your bills? She said Yes.
AUSA: When did she tell you she met Epstein?
Maxwell's lawyer: Objection.
Judge Nathan: Ask more specific questions.
AUSA Moe: Did Jane tell you what happened between her and Jeffrey Epstein?
Matt: Not specifically.
AUSA Moe: Did she say why he gave her money?
Matt: She just said, It was not free.
AUSA Moe: Did they tell you about a women who was involved?
Matt: Yes.
AUSA: Did she give the woman's name?
Matt: No.
AUSA: What was her demeanor like when Jane told you about Jeffrey Epstein?
Matt: Shame.
AUSA: What did Jane tell her mother?
Matt: That the money was not free. That --
AUSA: Don't say what the mother said, just what Jane said.
Matt: Jane told her mother that the money was not free and that it should not have been allowed.
AUSA Moe: Did you learn Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested.
Matt: Yes. On the news. I asked Jane, is that the woman you told me about? And she said Yes.
AUSA: No further questions.
Then Maxwell's lawyer: No cross [!]
Next witness: Daniel Vesselsen of Interlochen
AUSA: Where is Interlochen, Michigan.
Vesselsen: Near Traverse City.
AUSA: How do you keep fundraising records?
Vesselsen: SalesForce.
AUSA: We offer GX 744 under seal. Now GX 741.
Vesselsen: A letter to Mr. Epstein about the scholarship lodge, how much he'd give
AUSA: What's this?
Vesselsen: The lodge formerly known as the Jeffrey Epstein Scholarship Lodge. [Note: It was definitely time for a name change]
2200GMT
Cross examination starts.
Maxwell's lawyer: You don't have records for the individual and the individual's siblings, correct?
Vesselsen: Correct.
Maxwell's lawyer: Mr. Epstein certainly was a major donor, correct?
Vesselsen: Yes.
And with that, Vesselsen is done.
Judge Nathan: Sorry we're 2 minutes late. Have a good night.
Clerk: All rise!
Court Adjourned
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THIS!!!
Reality for me! What the Left don’t know is I’m awake! I don’t have to watch detail for detail to know she is guilty!
Since the time of Jesus Lawyers for the guilty try to entangle truth to make it hard to understand but Jesus never let them!
Matthew 22:15 (KJV) Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
So see the Lawyers who defend the guilty had to take counsel to try to tangle so you still can’t see truth!
18 ¶ But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Read the in between verses! These on the left are hypocrites!!! They are not after truth. KNOW YOU NOT THIS EVIL?
Menninger -> Meningitis!
this is like a fake kosher soap opera!
Thank you!!!
How do yall listen to this on your phone? My access code is no longer working.
That access code was for the court hearing on the jury situation right before this trial on Oct. 21st. u/#glowie
Is it unusual to have a lot of sidebars in a trial like this?
What is considered a lot of sidebars?
Not uncommon at all. Sidebars to resolve legal issues may take up a huge amount of time.
Too many sidebars spawn an AOC boss.
This boss takes many tanks with huge cocks to CC.
When I was a juror long ago, yeah, there were a lot of sidebars. And the whole thing was really boring. They have to introduce so much minutiae to get it all on the record. In my case it was a murder trial.
Thanks for the write-up! When I was on a jury, many years ago, we only got free lunch when we were in deliberations.
Perhaps someone who has been on countless trips, staying in hotel rooms, and not really caring much about details. She was 15.
To be fair, we should believe Christine Blasey Ford then.
Not the same thing. Ford's was supposedly a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence that was supposedly horrible. Jane's was possibly just one event in a series.
I've never been to many concerts, so I remember every detail of the few I attended over 50 years ago. Someone who has been to hundreds might not even remember attending one John Denver concert back in the 70s.
My thinking is when you've been abused multiple times, you do not remember the days (ie Friday March 17, 2009), you remember what happened to you or you can only remember so much before you block the rest out.
I did think this too, it’s very odd. However, if you’re sex trafficked then you get pushed around from pillar to post and I’d imagine she just tried to block it all out.
Jizzlain Snatchsmell
Is there a readers digest version?
Objection, objection, objection. The witness seemed unable to answer coherently because the US Prosecutor kept jumping in on low-ball questions. Thank you for this btw.
This is great, where can we watch the trial?
Can't Federal
That WILL be changed. Our only way forward is maximum transparency. On everything.
The concept of the right to legal counsel needs to be reevaluated. Or lawyers need to be placed under STRICT ethics guidelines that require them to seek out ths truth first and always. In smaller cases with more ambiguity, it's understandable to fight to win. But for things like this with many witnesses, there's nothing worthwhile to defend.
I'm still not ready to give up that Epstein is alive and hidden somewhere.
This is great, thank you so much for posting and doing this work.
Menninger is not doing themselves any favours for their side by constantly being an asshole and antagonistic of the prosecutor lol
If maxwell goes free, all hell will break lose and if it doesn't then we really are doomed
I appreciate these but can we just get an update when something worthwhile happens?
Do you really think if something big happened people wouldnt make noise? You do realize these notes are literally the only way anybody could know if something big happened right? Youre essentially saying "i appreciate you giving me all the info i need but can you go through it all and cherry pick what i might find important?" Lazy as fuck. Read it and learn whats happening yourself.
I did read it and so far nothing's really been worthwhile. Just asking for a highlight of worthwhile shit. Chill out my dude.
Oh im very chill. You say chill out to frame me as an agressor or acting in a manic way in order to make yourself seem like you were in the right. I see u. If you appreciate the info dump then leave it at that, dont say "yeaaah this is nice and all but can you spoon feed me the important bits?" Just using my freedom of speech to point out why your comment came of as asshole-ish.
I guess I could have asked more nicely. I'm just pointing out there are people here who may want to be informed but don't have the time to read through every wall of text. That is all.
I guess it seems odd that the witness is changing her story or appears to be.
Changing her story or being confused by prosecutors? Ill have to read it through again but wanted to hear your opinion.
I could be wrong. I just didn't understand what all the "I don't recall" answers were. Maybe they were asking her trick questions.
Yeah i would assume confusing or vague questions followed by her not wanting to say something contradictory.
I was thinking maybe she was threatened so that she would say "I don't recall" on incriminating questions.
I mean, you don't have to read it.
It's important so I read it, but it seems nothing overly important has been revealed yet
I'm sure someone will. I follow it oretty quickly and I'm sure it'll get its own posts as things occurr.
Please spoon feed me my info Daddy
u/#pleaseclap
The news isn't a filibuster.. it's a highlight of pivotal habbenings.. I'm just saying where's the tl;dr man. Don't get your panties all twisted
Why dont you write the tldr?
Because that usually indicates there was something worth summarizing..
Yup, only a bad thing if DJT is the pedo, the rest of hwood, politicians, sport stars and other [d]elites are okay though. They are showing their ass doing this.