Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Day 11: Contaminated Memory, Dr. Loftus, Epstein’s OTHER Assistant​

December 19, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Day 11: Contaminated Memory, Dr. Loftus, Epstein’s OTHER Assistant​
Show Notes Transcript

Ghislaine Maxwell trial is back in session after a brief hiatus while Judge Alison Nathan sat for her Second Circuit Judicial Confirmation hearing. On Day 11, Maxwell’s defense started presenting their case-in-chief, including:​

🔹 Mindmap: https://mm.tt/map/2105681969?t=Q999Oc3TcG​
🔹 Maxwell defense attorney Christian Everdell called former Epstein assistant Cimberly Espinoza to the stand as their first witness.​
🔹 Ms. Espinoza detailed her relationship with Maxwell and said she never saw her with any young girls.​
🔹 Defense attorneys call world renown memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus to testify about contamination of the mind.​
🔹 Who is Dr. Loftus and how can she claim to implant memories? We look at her background.​
🔹 Dr. Loftus rebuts Dr. Rocchio, discussing memory as a barbell: Acquisition – Retention – Retrieval ​
🔹 Michael Aznaran, an agent with the United States Customs and Border Protection, to the stand. ​
🔹 Agent Aznaran details travel records for the four named victims which are offered into evidence.​
🔹 Finally, the defense calls Dominique Hyppolite, who performed subpoena responses for the Palm Beach County School District.​
🔹 Your comments and questions!​

COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):​

👉 https://www.mindmeister.com/?r=1185699​

Channel List:​

👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

✂ Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 January 2022 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #GhislaineMaxwell #MaxwellTrial #Epstein #EpsteinDidntKillHimself #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwellTrial

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live . My name is Robert grr . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group in the always beautiful land , sunny Scottsdale, Arizona. And today we're talking about Maxwell trial day 11. We've been on a hiatus for the last three days. Of course, today is Thursday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. We had no trial. We just finished with the government's case in chief, they went for about eight days, give or take presenting all their evidence that they had against gal Maxwell. Then we had a little hiatus because the judge Allison and Nathan had to go and appear in front of the Senate judiciary committee to get confirmed for the second circuit. And so she got interviewed yesterday. We talked a lot about that on the show today, though was the beginning of the defense case in chief , the Maxwell defense team called their first witness. And we're gonna talk about all the witnesses that they called today. We're gonna , of course start off with this woman. Her name is miss ES Espinoza and she was one of Dean's assistance . You can see the courtroom here. She's gonna be somebody that we talk about in the first segment, before we jump into the next witness of the day, which was a very interesting witness. This is Dr . Elizabeth Loftus . And so she's gonna be coming up second. We've got a little bit of preliminary stuff that we need to get out of the way, but you can see here, look at all the books. This woman has written. She has a lot to say about memory. And so we heard a lot from her today. And so we're gonna spend a lot of time listening to the direct exam and the cross examination . And then we're going to finish with what happens next. The defense team, you can see here, Laura Menninger and Jeff Paka . They may be done this week with the entire her case with Maxwell's entire defense. They told us that they were gonna be calling 35 witnesses, but are they gonna finish today? We're gonna find out we've got a lot to get to on the show. We're back in trial, and we're excited about it. If you wanna be a part of the show, the place to do that, he's [email protected], which is our home base, our little community over there, where there's a form , the , just like this. And if you want to participate in the show, you can use that form and we'll get to your questions here at the end of the show, super chats also come in and they show up on the screen just like that. Bing. And that's pretty cool. We appreciate it when you support us that way and we'll make sure we get those questions as well. And if you're looking for clips of the show, so you can send little individual segment to your friends or family, we'd very much appreciate that we have eclipse channel. Robert gr Esq clips , Glenn Maxwell trial day 11 brings us the defense case in chief , meaning that the defense is presenting their evidence. Now prosecution has finished. They took a measly about eight days, 10 full trial days, two weeks, 14 days in two weeks, 10 trial days for weekdays, one day for opening arguments, one sick day, they started at nine or nine 30. They finished at five. You consolidate all that down about eight days is what the government presented. And they were telling us it was gonna be something like four weeks. So a lot of people were scratching their heads about that one, but now they're done. Okay. Some people have , uh , say there's a lot to be desired there, but they're done. The defense team is now on the field. So we've talked about a lot of these people already, but quick refresher, this is the Golin Maxwell defense team, Bobby stern Heim . She's sort of been the, the , the , I would say the, the main attorney on the case, who's been kind of consolidating and organizing the rest of the team. We've got Jeff Paka , Christian ever, Dell , Laura Menninger . And then somebody we haven't really seen in the courtroom is this guy. This is REA bile . And he's somebody who does focus groups. And so, you know, if, if you're talking about themes in a case, and you're sort of testing different messaging, that's what that guy does. So a lot of the work was done before, obviously the trial started and that's what he was a part of. So before we get into any testimony, judge Allison , Nathan had some business to attend to. We've been out of court for three days. And so when you come back in, you gotta warm up little bit as usual. We're following inner city , press one of the sources for great reporting on the Glenn Maxwell case. He says, judge Nathan came out, they've got some questions about Dr. LTI . Now Dr. LTI is the memory expert. We're gonna get to the us government. We were talked about this yesterday on the show, or maybe as the day before that, but the us prosecutors, they wanted to limit her testimony. They wanted to stop her from saying certain things. And the court came out today and said, I deny the government's motion to preclude that type of testimony. I've ruled that these types of leading questions and these types of therapists techniques, she says they're generally admissible. And so Dr. LATI can come out and talk about it . And she did Maxwell's lawyer also brought up another issue. They were talking about. Sounds like it might be a , a positive COVID test or something like that. Talking about that. They're gonna anonymize the actual person that might actually have been testing positive for COVID. And so there may be a little bit of a COVID outbreak who knows Bobby though , is talking to the judge about this judge. Nathan says, well, if there is a COVID outbreak, there was a prior case where I let a juror deliberate remotely, see that there. So a juror deliberating remotely, doesn't that introduce a very curious little rub into this whole case. If any, anybody thinks that there's been nefarious activities thus far, can you imagine how much the volume goes up? If you say now we've got individual jurors who are deliberating in their homes and Epstein didn't kill himself. What's gonna happen to those jurors who are deliberating in their homes. Yikes. Not sure I'd want to be one of those people having to decide, go a lid Maxwell's fate when you have international MOSAD agents after you. Okay. So here we can carry on. The judge came out and issued a ruling on that one Loftus testimony can come right in and we're gonna get to that later on in the show, the judge also had a prior ruling today. Remember that in this case, we've been talking a lot about pseudonyms and sort of , uh , you know, fake names and, and you know, real first names, but not using the last name and making sure that we're protecting everybody's identity and privacy. This is a very high profile case. A lot of people are concerned about the testimony. A lot of people wanna that they're not in the bullseye of somebody who wants to get after 'em . And so when the prosecution got permission to do that, the defense raised their hand and said, well, if they're using pseudonyms, well, we wanna use pseudonyms. Well, why can't we judge? And they're using it. Then they're using these fake names and they're hiding everybody behind their veil of secrecy. We wanna do that too. And so the defense submitted a motion about that, judge, it's just not fair. So the judge came back out and said, well, I don't really care about your fairness. Judge Nathan issued in a ruling, says the defense here on December 12th, just about a week ago, they moved to permit three expected witnesses to testify under a pseudonym or their first names. Only. This is what Maxwell's team wanted. The government prosecutors, they filed a letter. They opposed this request back on the 14th. The defense Maxwell's team is saying that they want anonymity for the same reasons that the court permitted the government witnesses to testify under pseudonyms, judge Al and Nathan says the court disagrees with this basic premise and denies the defense motion. No pseudonyms for you. Judge continues says these reasons for granting the government's prior motion do not apply to the defense's present request. Government request is different than the defense. Nathan says, while based on what the defense has shown us, none of the defense witnesses intend to testify about sensitive, personal, or other type of conduct. Rather they're all anticipated to deny the misconduct by Epstein and Maxwell. And therefore they're not actually victims. So there's no similar concern for victims of abuse for these victims here. If they, so here , here , what the judge is saying is there's a , a reason we do it this way. If you are a victim and you are forced to identify yourselves, then what that might create is a disincentive for victims to come forward because they have to publicly identify themselves and then face whatever repercussions come from that publicity here, though, when somebody is saying, I will , wasn't abused. Is there still a risk to them saying that? Or is it different? In other words, don't sexual assault victims deserve special protections. The judge is saying, yeah, it kind of makes sense. These other people who are gonna take the stand, they're gonna say that there was nothing that wrong that happened to them. So why do they need any protection or anonymity? Judge says they don't. So we're gonna see how that unfolds. Now, the first witness of the day. And remember this is Maxwell's defense team. They're calling these people out is Kimberly Espinoza . And it's Kimberly with a C , not a K . And it's Kimberly to the best of my knowledge, not ly . Like it looks, here's what it looked like in the courtroom today. Kimberly Espinoza , former Epstein, executive assistant. He had many of them. You can see the judge, Allison , Nathan is in the court room, adjusting the mask. Those things are so annoying. Court clerk or bailiff or whoever that is, has her Palm over her forehead, buried in the computer screen. And to the left, you see Christian ever. That's one of Maxwell's defense lawyers. And so this is their case. They called her. They say simply you were Epstein's former executive assistant. You've probably got some juicy details for us. Don't you ? Here's another sketch. This one's a little more flattering, I think versus that one. But you can take your pick testimony starts off again. We're checking in with inner city press today and class failed reports over from Twitter. If you wanna follow them, testimony starts Christian ever. Dell Maxwell's defense attorney. He is up at the podium. Kimberly Espinoza takes the stand. Ever. Dell says Kimberly in October, 1996, where were you living? She says, I started out on the upper east side, New York Maxwell's lawyer says I was hired as a lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein's company. Maxwell's lawyer says, would you recognize Ms . Maxwell today? Espinoza says, of course, yeah, she's right over there. Looks like she's wearing a purple or a maroon sweater. I don't know. Judge says , uh , a pro or defense says, let the record reflect. Judge says so noted. Maxwell's lawyer says, where else did you work there? She says, well, I sometimes went to go's residence as well. I was there for Epstein. I also went to Goins , miss Espino. Did you have any other personal assistance come through like Sarah ke or did you see Emmy Taylor gets into that line of question? Yeah, we did. We saw them come through. When did you see Sarah ke says, ever Espino said more towards the end. There were a lot of different assistants that came through, but I saw Sarah Kellen towards the end of my tenure there. So then they transition. They get into the Manhattan office, the office there. Can you describe that Ms. Espinoza ? She does. She says, well, I go up there you go in the front lobby and you go up the elevator and you turn around and you come out of the elevator. You get off there , there are restrooms. Jeffrey's office was in the corner over there. And I sat to the left of his assistant. My office was Glenn's office. So we shared it. So you Andin shared an office? Yeah. Maxwell's lawyer says, okay, well, when you work there, did you sign a nondisclosure agreement, obviously high profile position. Did you sign a , you know, NDA ? She says, yes, I did. Uh , tell me about what Maxwell did when she was there. Espinoza says, oh , she ran the properties for Epstein and okay, so she was running properties. Can you describe for me, where did she sort of fall in the hierarchy of importance? You know, it's like Epstein, is it like Maxwell number two or three ? Tell , describe that for us. Espinoza says, well, I mean, she was obviously very important to me. I put her up to the top and to Jeffrey , I mean, given his personal residences. Yeah. She was important talks about some other properties Espinoza says. Yeah. And , and , you know, speaking to these proper Jeffrey acquired a Paris apartment, then he got an island. It was called little St . James. It got renamed over to little St Jeff's. Oh, and did you help there at little? St Jeff's says Dale . She says, yeah. I mean, there was construction. There was a lot going on there. I did a , I did a bunch of stuff. I furnished the house, sort of made it a resort style required a lot of work. She says, I mean, you know, there was so much work going on. We even had to ship in sand and Adel says you shipped in sand to a tropical island. Espinoza says, yeah, he wanted more sand on the beach. And he wanted Palm trees too. We even had a fire truck and firemen on the island in the middle of an ocean. Believe it or not Espinoza says before Jeffrey would visit one of the residences. We would fly in the bread. He liked, I think we did the butter too. It's good to be a billionaire Maxwell's lawyer says, what about Emmy Taylor? Somebody else was there. What did Emmy Taylor do there? Kimberly says, oh , she would take care of the dog. And she would Carry's handbag. And she did all that type of stuff. So we have Emmy Taylor. Now we have Kimberly Espinoza. We have butter and bread being shipped into little Saint Jeff's. Along with sand on an island in the version islands, Adam CLA field tells us a little bit more says , uh , Kimberly, did you know if Jane remember Jane? She was the very first victim who testified. Do you know if Jane ever traveled on Epstein's planes? Kimberly says, I don't know prosecution objects because ever dealt asked Kimberly about the relationship between Maxwell and what'd you think of their relationship? Overruled. Kimberly says, I thought it was a loving relationship. She goes on, continues talking about Jane. She says, I saw Jane on a soap opera, and I was actually a fan of that show, not talking about the show, not identifying Jane. She says that Jane sent her signed headshots from the cast of that soap opera rep , Christian ever says, I'm gonna have you an exhibit here. That's been marked as defense exhibit 37 5 . What are these here? Kimberly says, oh, well these are headshots of three of the cast members . And uh , this one is a group cast member shot. He says from that soap opera, correct? That's correct. The one that Jane wrote a note to you on, right? Yes. Those are them. Okay. Espinoza then confirms the authenticity of those exhibits. How do you recognize these documents? How do you recognize these photographs? She says, well, no , they're they're mine. Boom authenticated. And can you, Kimberly , can you just read what the inscription here on this photograph exhibit, whatever says she says yes , certainly be happy to it says, it says , uh , dearest. Kimberly, thank you for always being so sweet and such a great help. Take care. Signed Jane. Oh, okay. Okay . So Jane was having conversations with Kimberly. Thanks for being so sweet and such a great help. So we now have conversations. We have some timelines and we have a signed photograph and we have a soap opera and somebody who's on a soap opera probably looks a certain way. And those photographs get admitted. We also are narrowing in on some timeline, getting some more details. Testimony continues ever. Dell says , uh , Kimberly, did Glen ever live with Jeffrey Epstein? Did they live together? She says, no. What about when they were in London? Over there at 44 Kenton street? Did they live there or have you there? She says, yeah, I've been there about three years ago. Any idea who owned that residence? No, no idea. And so you were his assistant for a long period of time. Can you tell me, did Epstein ever receive female visitors in his office? She says, yeah. All right . Well, I'm gonna show you this document and this person is called Jane, right? Yeah. Do you recall seeing her in the office? Espinoza says, yeah, I do. And when you saw her in Epstein's office, how old did she seem to you? Espinoza says 18 ever continues. And do you know if Jane traveled in the Mr . Epstein's planes? She says, I don't know. She moved to California to be in a soap opera. It's my favorite soap opera. I have head shots . She sent me. And that's where we get back into the other testimony that we've already gotten. They introduce these copies for the jurors, read the envelope. And you heard what that said, <affirmative> all of that stuff gets admitted. So if you're a person observing this from the outside, what are you expecting? The defense is doing by introducing these photographs? Why might they want them in? Probably because Jane doesn't look like she's 17 or 16, cuz she's in a soap opera and she probably looks very old. And so what they're trying to do is show the jurors. This is not somebody who looked under the age of 18, getting those dokey admitted. So they skip over this. Now they're done with Jane, they turn back over to go and Epstein. And remember that this has been a theme that we've been battling back and forth. Victim versus villain is go Maxwell. Villain. Is she she's somebody who was the mastermind? Was she in cahoots with Jeffrey Epstein? Did she want to abuse everybody as badly as he did? Or was she sort of a subservient individual? Was she subordinate to him? Was there a hierarchy here? Was she a victim to Epstein? And is now the government manipulating this prosecution? They couldn't get Epstein. So they have to get Golin . But in reality, the defense says she's a victim here. So is it villain or victim? The defense is saying victim, let's talk about this relationship. We know that the prosecution came out last week and we covered about, I don't know , 25 different photographs of Epstein and Maxwell, just , uh , uh , Joe Neman from good logic yesterday said at best they were canoodling all over the place. It was like a stinking, Viagra commercial. They were Fring in the Hills going through the Dewey meadow, sniffing flowers and stuff all over the place, all over the world while they were abusing, you know, allegedly a bunch of people looks like they're in cahoots. Looks like they're both villains. The defense is trying to rebut that. They're trying to say, no, this wasn't anything serious. They weren't really in cahoots. They weren't in a real relationship. He was dating a bunch of other people. He was sleeping around all over the place. What kind of woman would like to be with a man like that? Were they really boyfriend and girlfriend or something else ever Dell asks says, can you tell us about their relationship there? Kimberly Kimberly says, well, I thought they were a couple actually, you know, just their interaction together. They were a little flirty stuff like that. And Everett says, well, did their relationship change? Espinoza says, yeah. Maxwell started dating other men. Whoa, is she two time in on Epstein? Espinoza continue says they would show up at the office around the same time. And they would leave together. You know, things like that. Random guys not Epstein, which show up Golin Maxwell would get on the back of their Harleys. And they would go out for ice cream class field continues, says the attorney asks Espinoza about masks Well's relationship with Ted wa the billionaire co-founder of gateway. You know, she starts to have a little can noodle Fest with him now. And so do you see what the, a defense is doing? These are not two peas in a pod. These are not ying and yang fracking together, down the Hills. Maxwell's dating other people Epstein as we're gonna see is dating other people. And they've just moved. They're just not even together. Here's it ? How it continues. She said that. Yeah, they were at the time behaving like a couple flirty, but it seemed likely moved on. I know she started dating. Boom, objection, us attorney. Objection, Nathan sustains that one. That was probably the gateway guy . Maxwell's lawyer Adel says. And who came to visit Epstein at the office? Uh , he says Gwen and Beck . Shelly Lewis. She was British other British women coming in. Maybe they're getting them confused with goly very, very hard to say. Moving on. Says ever when went to Florida, was it only Palm beach? No. She went to Miami too. She had a friend there too. And then they stopped for the mid morning break. They come back ever Dell continues. Do you know if Ms . Maxwell got married? Kimberly and soon as she starts to answer, you have a government prosecutor. Objection, judge. Nathan sustains it ever . Dell says, okay. When did you have a video conference with the government? About this case? Kimberly says November, 2020. They reached out to me. They lay some more foundation. We have another their conversation ever . Dale says you were working there for a long time. Why did you leave? Kimberly says after nine 11, I wanted to go back to California. I feel like was a good resource for my own career and what I learned and had to handle multiple projects at any one time. It really helped me get where I am today. That's why I left and ever Dell finishes. He says, did you ever see Epstein involved with young girls? Kimberly Espinoza says no, no further questions. Mic drop . Adam PLA field says the same thing. Final direct examination questions. So Kimberly, did you ever see her age in any type of inappropriate activity with underage girls? Kimberly says never. And did you ever see Epstein engaged with any inappropriate activity with underage girls? Kimberly says never. And nothing gave her the impression that anything of the sort what's going on. So Kimberly then wraps it up. Sounds like Jeffrey and are just a regular old couple. You know, they were kind of flirty from time to time. Had a little bit of a breakup. Oh, well she dates other people, a billionaire founder of gateway computers. He goes around and continues to frolic around in , uh , global trafficking schemes and Glenn Maxwell know anything about that. You know, poor , Lynch's just , uh , kind of , uh , caught up in this whole rub here. And so the defense is now making that argument. So the prosecutors come back out here and say very little, they say, all right , uh , Kimberly, you never went to Palm beach. Right? She says, no, no further questions. There you go. Never worked there. Whether she worked in any of his Epstein's home, including his Palm beach house. No. Did she ever work in the homes? No, I didn't work in the homes. She says no. So what was all that testimony for? She was talking about a bunch of stuff. But did you work in the home? No. All right . So obviously you couldn't see anything. One question you kind of wrecked the whole credibility of them or you don't right. She worked hand to hand says never saw anything, never speculated anything. Everything was above board. Didn't even seem like they were a real couple for a long time, kind of flirty kind of together, but then not. And so that's Kimberly Espinoza. That was the first witness of the defense team. We have a quick second witness before we get into the real juicy witness of the day expert witness Dr . Loftis . We have a travel agent who comes up next though. First, this is Raghu sued. I believe it's Christian ever. Who's also examining him. This is very quick one slide. He works for shoppers travel. He's basically a travel agent. He's gonna come out and authenticate some invoices, some travel receipts. So ever Dell says, all right , Raghu , where do you live? Well, I can live east Windsor, New Jersey. I work at shoppers travel, been there since 1988. I'm a vice president over there was Epstein a customer of yours. He says, yeah. And can you authenticate these travel records? And he says, yeah. And the prosecutor comes back out and says, these records are they from 2006? And he says, yeah. And that's it. He's done. So we have some records that come in that are from a flight , from a series of flights that were scheduled, obviously through this travel company, it's all we know, traveling back and forth. Okay. This is the defense people, right? They're trying to pin some dates down and some movements down. This is not the government trying to prove, you know , uh , trafficking, this isn't the government trying to that there was a flight that happened. This is the defense team coming in and submitting invoices that detail travel and who hired and paid for travel and who was flying around and all that stuff. Back from 2006 , it looks like then we get to our next witness. Dr . Elizabeth Loftus is the big witness of Maxwell trial day 11. She's a memory expert and a pretty world. Renowned one actually has written a number of books on it and comes out and is gonna try to convince the jurors that memories are contaminated, that these things get implanted in your brain and what happened or what you think happened. Didn't actually happen in reality. Very, very interesting line of questioning. Let's take a look. Inner city press reminds us that Elizabeth LTI was somebody who testified for Harvey Weinstein. She comes out first testimony that she gives us and we're gonna watch several videos from her, but she tells us I've been consulted by everybody, DOJ, CIA, and she's published a number of different memory studies. I found a speech from this woman at a college university where she's describing how memory is so fluid in how, what we think happened actually typically doesn't happen. And we're contaminated by all sorts of different sources of information. Some of them are intended to contaminate your brain. We're gonna learn more about her before we take a look at the testimony here . She is speaking about memory to a group of people.

Speaker 2:

Do you think I , I could make you remember if it did not happen to you. Could I make you remember that when you were a kid, you saw a cat stuck in a tree and you went and rescued that cat. Could I make you remember that? Could I make you remember that when you were a kid, you were attacked by a vicious animal. If it never happened, I give you a memory of that. Could I make you remember that as a teenager, you committed a crime and it was serious enough that the police actually came to investigate. Could I make you remember that just a week ago you played a card game and you, you cheated in the game and you took money out of, out of the bank, the game bank that you weren't entitled to take. Could I make you remember these things? If they didn't happen? Could I pour them into your memory bank? And, and I can tell you that lots of lay people say, I , I don't think so. I don't think you could ever make me remember. I was attacked by an animal , uh , if it didn't happen, but we'll see how you feel in another , uh , 45 minutes or so. <laugh>

Speaker 1:

So, and she does, she goes through a series of studies and she shows a number of different ways that people's memories are manipulated. And this is exactly why the defense called her in. They disclose this to the us government back on November 1st, 2021 . This is a little bit about her. She's a distinguished professor, psychological science and law, UC, California, Irvine nations, leading experts in the science of memory. In addition to her experience as an academic and clinical researcher expert witness on hundreds of cases, she's a psychologist. Who's gonna specialize in the study of memory based on her training and all of this. She's gonna come in here and talk about the mechanisms of creation of false memories. Memories are actually created. She will describe the scientific research showing that false memories can be described with confidence can be described with detail and emotion, just like true memories. This can occur. When people come to believe in these experiences and are not deliberately lying, they believe it's true. She would identify some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case. And we're gonna take a listen to her. She's gonna explain this back to that group of students. What might some suggestive activities be? It might take a person from no memory of any abuse, even denying abuse to later having memories for numerous abusive acts. If the memories are false, she's gonna explain the mechanism by which false and or distorted memories can happen. Post information with post information, she's gonna testify about the characteristics of false and distorted memories. Memories can be described with confidence, even when they're false. There are suggestive activities that occurred in this case. Things like the media coverage, publications, magazine articles, documentaries, you saw 'em on Netflix news reports all over the place. She's gonna explain how, in a case like this one suggestion can lead individuals to construct distorted memories. And this woman is very well published . You can take a look at this, the myth of repressed memory, which I bought, and I have a clip of it here. We're gonna read through it, but she wrote witness for the defense, and you're gonna see that the prosecution kind of beats her up over this. What do you mean a witness for the defense? You're not a witness for the prosecutor. You seem pretty biased. Aren't you? What about this book? Eyewitness testimony. And she's got a whole stack of these books. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, right . Do you remember, remember the guy in the Derrick CHN case who was, I think he invented the lung. Remember that guy? I think it was Dr . Tobin. I think he like invented lungs, you know, 2.7 billion years ago. And so he knew I was everything about him . He wrote a book, this thick about it, and then testified, I think for a full day in the Derek Chauvin trial, this is kind of that version. But for the mind written everything, some of this stuff is for consumption. Like the myth of the repress memory. This is , this is an easy read right about , you can flip through other stories, but some of these are also, you know , very, very detailed civil and criminal eyewitness testimony. You've got cognitive processes, heavy, thick stuff that's used for technical cases. Here's the book that she wrote, the myth of repressed memory, false memories and allegations. And here's what she says. According to many clinical psychologists, when the mine is forced to endure a horrifying experience, it has the ability to bury the entire memory so deeply in the unconscious that it can only be recalled in the form of a flashback triggered by a C cider , a San on, you know, what a flashback is. This book though reveals that despite decades of research, there is absolutely no controlled scientific support for the idea that memories of trauma are routinely banished into the unconscious. And then reliably recovered years later, since it is not actually a legitimate physic PHY psychological phenomenon, the idea of quote , a recovered memory and the moment and the movement that has developed alongside it is more closely related to a dangerous fad or a trendy witch hunt. So you can see what her perspective is on this. She talks about this in her book. She says the problem for both the accuser and the accused is how to determine when a recovered memory is a reasonably accurate representation of past reality. Whether it's a mixture of facts or fiction, or it's a complete fabrication, is it actually real? Is it a mixture of real and fake, or is it all fake? Because we know that the mind doesn't remember things, all that well, how does this work in practice? Here's Dr. Loftis explaining this to us saying there is misinformation everywhere. Some of it's good information, some of it's inform some of it's disinformation that's information that is intentionally bad. Misinformation is information that is wrong. Disinformation is information that is knowingly wrong, but is put out there to try to make people believe it. You have billions of dollars every, every year that are spent trying to win your mind and provide you information and get you to think a certain way, buy a certain product, or click a certain link or follow a certain person. There's stuff that is fed to you everywhere. You turn on Netflix, your cell phone people tell , did you see that happened the other day, it's everywhere. And she's saying that people even through the process of counseling and therapy and group session, if you're somebody who thinks maybe I was abused and you go sit in a group and a bunch of the people say, yeah, you were absolutely abused. And you sit there for a year getting healing and treatment and trauma is that reinforcing a memory, maybe that memory that it's reinforcing is not actually reality. Maybe it's being manipulated. Here's how that works. This is Dr. Latis . So

Speaker 2:

The missing inform effect , you feed people misinformation, it depresses their memory performance because they will often adopt that misinformation. And it causes an alteration, a transformation, a distortion in their prior memory. And, and why is this important? It's a important, because out there in the real world, misinformation is everywhere. We get misinformation. When we talk to other witnesses or over here, other witnesses talk who jointly have had an experience, we get misinformation. When we are interrogated by a biased interrogator, who's got an agenda or a hypothesis about what happened and communicates that to the person being interviewed. We get misinformation. If we see a high publicity event, for example, and there are, is television coverage or newspaper coverage in which other witnesses are interviewed and perhaps utter misinformation, all of these provide an opportunity for new misinformation to enter the consciousness of a witness and to cause this kind of distortion or contamination

Speaker 1:

Contamination of the mind and of the memory. So you can see that's pretty powerful. And I think a lot of people sort of instinctually understand this, you know, you kind of go well , yeah, there's some truth to that, you know? Cause you remember back and you go, yeah, maybe I, maybe I'm kind of thinking myself , uh , in a better light or a worse light, you just kind of misremember certain things. I mean, if you're honest with yourself, you know what I do with my keys? Didn't I do that thing. It's not as perfect is we all like to think it is. And, and so if you listen to that full 45 minute presentation, she gives several examples where this happens. And so, you know, people are sort of persuaded to go a certain way by group think . And this is just something that we've all experienced. Naturally people will fib and manipulate the truth because other people are going that direction, whether it's real or not. So we know that the prosecution real really wanted to keep a lot of this out, right? They did not want Dr. Loftis to come in here and talk about any of this stuff, cuz it's pretty powerful. And it's also pretty damning, especially when on the direct exam from the prosecution, we talked a lot about it. Every one of these women, one of these victims were, were a number of times in their testimony repeating over and over again. I don't recall. I can't recall. I don't remember. There were all sorts of problems with their recall ability . And so Dr. Loftis is gonna be able to come in here and then slam dunk that to some degree. So when the prosecution is trying to keep this out, Bobby stern Heim defense attorney says not happy about that. Judge. She responded. This was yesterday, late at night says , uh , dear judge Nathan, the government's limitation on Dr. Loft this's testimony is a desperate attempt to restrict relevant testimony. Accusers in this case were asked a, were asked suggestive questions during an interviews and prep sessions with the government. See what they're saying? That these victims were asked suggestive questions during the interviews they're calling agent young. They say, we anticipate agent young that he's gonna be testifying about the form of the questions asked during these interviews and these prep sessions. So they're gonna call their own go an agent agent young. And he's gonna say, yeah, these are pretty problematic. A review of the disclosure material and Jane's testimony show exactly the type of questioning the government posited during their investigation, when they were going and interviewing Jane they're going Jane, are you the victim of a crime? Tell us what happened. Uh, where did Epstein touch you while I didn't say anything about at Epstein. I know, but where did , uh , I'm sorry, where did Maxwell touch you? Well , I didn't say anything about Glen either. Yeah, but did touch you though. Well, maybe she did, right? And it's like these, obviously that's a bad example. It's overly suggestive, but you get the point of this. This is what Bobby is saying. That when they're being questioned, they're shoving thoughts and facts into their minds. She carries on. Let me give you you an example. She says, judge, by way of example, you remember that back during cross examination . Remember when Jane was on the stand, she was asked about the government's repeated questioning about that abuse in New Mexico. They asked her during two separate interviews and during one of those interviews, three separate times, she's referring us over to the transcript. Jane has been asked about this abuse at New Mexico, multiple times. Also Bobby says the government challenged Jane's recollection that she had seen the lion king on Broadway during her first trip to New York at age 14 outright suggesting instead that she saw the movie when Jane's counsel confirmed that she had seen the Broadway show, not the movie, a us prosecutor, Ross Miller told her lawyer that the government would just quote , assume that the lion king trip was not her first trip to New York. Even that is what Jane had reported to them. True to form at the very next call with the government. A few weeks later, she followed their lead and then suddenly quote remembered that the lion king trip had not been her first trip to New York. Isn't that convenient. Bobby is saying here. Remember when Jane took this stand ? And she said that the first trip to New York was back when she went and saw the lion king, it was a Broadway show on Broadway in New York. Defense says, well, that's neat because that happened three years later than when you said that you were there, which makes you three years older. So you're no longer a minor then. So when the prosecutor Ross Miller is now trying to figure this out, going, uhoh trying to pin down some timelines on this. She told her lawyer and everybody else that she saw the play, not the movie movie came out. First play came out afterwards. So if she actually saw the play and not the movie, she it's three years after the, he is older . She's not a minor, it's not illegal . And so the prosecutor came back and said, well, we're gonna have to just fi this whole thing. Maybe , maybe let's say that your first trip to New York was actually not the play. You came further, even though you , you , you told us previously that your first trip was in fact the play. So this prosecutor is as about as unethical as you can get, because he was in encouraging this person to change her story. She did. She conveniently remembered. Oh yeah. Sorry. All that, everything that I told you previously forgot about that I must have gone to New York previously. So they're wanting to attack that memory. Her memory's obviously pretty fi kind of a big difference. Isn't it? She says with regard to response pressure, professor Loftus may discuss the many different forms of suggestive processes that can have a witness memory can have on a witness's memory, Dr. Rocko , this was the grooming expert witness at the government proffered. She testified about parental factors that have no foundation in the record of this case. She , so your expert came out and talked about some irrelevant stuff. We let it go. She discussed violence between parents and she discussed quote , the extent that the parents themselves have experienced any form of abuse in their own backgrounds. So Bobby is saying that now the government's attempt to limit expert testimony contradicts the testimony that came out from their own witness. You're trying to stop our expert witness from talking about something. Your expert came out and I already talked about it. Stern Heim finishes says loft this's testimony on the effect of suggestive post event information. And the response pressure is relevant to within her area of expertise. Suggestions. She says can come from a variety of sources. There is no reason at all to restrict expert testimony on the science of memory and the factors that impact memory, the government puts forced no legal basis for stopping this. The government's extreme efforts to restrict Maxwell's rights should not be countenance by the court. Very truly yours, Bobby stern Heim . And so that of course is the defense is trying to open up her line of testimony. They wanted to be able to talk about basically whatever she wants. She's gonna be a great witness for the defense because these cases are multiple decades old and every single one of these victims has had a lot of memory problems from their own testimony. So the prosecution by contrast wants to keep this as narrowed as possible. They don't want this world renowned expert to come out here and start poking holes in their case. Bobby stern Heim says, well, it's too bad. It's appropriate court lets a lot of this in. So testimony starts again today and I believe it's Christian ever who starts us off before we switch over to Bobby stern Heim , it starts Loftus continues. Uh , miss ever , uh , uh , ever says miss Loftus rather, can you tell me , um , what's your experience testifying in court says , well I've testified 300 trials. I've only consulted with the prosecution. Yeah . Maybe five times. And I've testified , uh , only once for the prosecution, my research into false memory doesn't really fit into their agenda. Ooh , <laugh> , you know, I'd be happy to, to uh , work with the prosecutors, but they don't like reality. They don't like science their basis, their , their understanding of memory. My interpretation of it doesn't suit their interest. So they never call me because they don't like what I have to say. Loftus says you , your honor, can I use this equipment here to show the jurors the three stages of the memory we're gonna get into this a little bit more. The Pran us prosecutor. No objection, go ahead. You can use that equipment. Get up, do whatever you need to Loftus says the media is a source of post event , false memories and contamination, the media. We all know that media's garbage. She calls it a source of contamination, which is absolutely true. She starts bragging a little bit and she says, and you know, when I was with the secret service and when I was consulting for them and she gets up and she draws this diagram, it's a Barb belt. Like what you lift weight with. And on one end of the barbell , you have acquisition on the other end of the Barb bell, you have retrieval. And in the middle of the Barb bell , the bar connecting both ends. You have retention. So it goes acquisition retention, retrieval. Now she says some people might remember something as a dumbbell and labels it as such. Now Loftus is draw out a box under the bar of the Barb bell and has written the word in it time. Then they take a lunch break. Class field gives us a little bit more here. Yeah. She's only been called to the prosecution about five or six times. She says she's been an expert for a long time, but the prosecutors don't appreciate it. She says specific. One thing we know about memory is that it doesn't work like a recording device. She starts diagramming this out. She calls the acquisition phase. The first phase set phase two is the retention phase. She says, after some time is passed, a person maybe asked to remember the event or the event she notes . Then we get to the retrieval stage. She says the media is a source post event suggestion because what you see after the fact might cause you to change your thoughts. This is a running theme of the defense case. And now Bobby stern Heim takes over questioning. She admits I'm not a practicing therapist, but I do sometimes study patients. She says that when your brain is actually working, we're actually constructing our memory while we retrieve our memories. So in the act of going and getting your memory from your memory bank, you're actually creating it. So it's not like a , like a perfect recording device. It's changing as you're accessing it. Bobby says, all right , miss Loftus, Dr. Loftus, you know, outside of the laboratory, is there any way to prove this ? Someone had an actual memory prosecutor objects to that and sustains it. Judge sustains it. Don't get to ask that question. Stern Heim then moves on says, can you tell me about your research? How about the confidence in memory? You know, when you, when you're studying memory or are people confident in their memories? She says, well, people are a little more accurate when they're C then when they're not confident, but she says people can only get quote very confident or she says, people can get quote very confident about wrong answers in cases of post event suggestion, she testifies. It continues. Are you familiar with the concept? Confidence is malleable right now. She's talking about people having confidence in their beliefs. And remember that this idea of false memories is, is that people don't necessarily know that they're false. They don't even think that they're lying. They think that these are real and accurate and they can't tell the difference between a real and a fake memory. So now that people have these memories, what is their confidence level with these memories? Is it, does that change? She says, yes, people can express a level of confidence. And if they then get new information, it can artificially increase their confidence in what they are saying. So it can buttress it up. You can support it. It's like building a house. Stern Heim asks Loftus about prestige enhancing memory distortion. What happens after the fact? She says, we humans frequently remember ourselves in a better light than perhaps is accurate. Yeah. We sort of fi right. You're like, yeah, I look good, man. I look really good today in this mirror. Look great. Well maybe not so much, but maybe it continues. Now cross examination begins. Maureen Comey is out. I don't know who the actual person was doing the cross nation, but we're done with ever Dell government prosecutor comes out and says, all right , you've testified hundreds of times of those 100 times, you've consulted with the prosecution five or six times, that's it right? Yep . About 150 criminal trials. Only one of which was for the prosecution and a book called witness for the defense prosecutor says, well, that's very interesting. You haven't written a book called , uh , impartial witness. Have you? Objection. She says, no, I don't have a book by that title. No, I didn't write that book. Pran is now doing the cross examination , says, let's talk about your consultant thing . Uh , and , and your book specifically in the book witness for the defense, you wrote that you should be an advocate. Loftus says, well, hold on a minute, that leaves out some context, prosecutor cuts her off. Obviously this is a cross examination . You don't want to give an expert witness like this. A lot of room. So Palmer ran is gonna keep cutting, cutting her off. Pran says you don't sit in a courtroom. I mean, you weren't present for testimony in this case, right? No, I was not present in this courtroom. And right now you're charging the defendant here, Dylan Maxwell . You're charging her what? 600 bucks an hour for your time. Right now Lofta says. Yeah. And Pran says, and you were also paid for high profile defendants, right? Like millions of dollars. You rep headed Harvey Weinstein. Didn't you, you were paid millions. Lofta says I don't . I mean , I don't know how much. Well, in 1975, you didn't charge $600 an hour. Right? She says, no, I did it for free back then. But now you market yourself by testifying, right? She says, actually, no, I don't market myself at all. Palmer ran says, but you give list of your cases to defense attorneys, right? She yeah. Went asked and you testified for Harvey Weinstein. Didn't you judge? Nathan says, oh , whoa , whoa , whoa , whoa , whoa , whoa , whoa . There , Laura Palmer ran pump the brakes there. They have little bit of a break. They come back. Guess what? That Harvey Weinstein question. Doesn't come in. No more mention of the Harvey Weinstein stuff. Palmer ran says. And when you testify for high profile defendants, it brings you more business. Doesn't it? She says maybe it does. Prosecutor came out and says, okay, Ms . LATI , you know, you were out here, you showed fake photos of B bugs bunny at Disney. Right? Lofta says, yeah, she's talking about this study where people are asked, whether they saw bugs bunny at Disneyland and people say, yeah, yeah , he's there. Of course he is it's bugs, bunny, Mickey house goofy. All of the Disney characters. Mini is Donald duck. One of them , I'm not sure, but you also have bugs bunny. Obviously who's a Disney character, right? 16% of people say, yeah. Yeah. Abso obviously clearly, although that's not the case. Bugs bunny is Warner brothers. And so he's not gonna be there. Disneyland. That's ridiculous bugs bunny is Warner brothers says the prosecutor, but 16% misremembered that you get an objection from the defense. They come up, there is a sidebar. They come back. Loftus says, all right . Yeah. Some falsely remember touching bugs, Bunny's head and him saying, what's up doc. And this, this is a science museum experiment. Right? And there was another study that you talked about, something like a lost in the mall study, something like 25% of people misremembered on that one, right. Pro says , uh , I'm not going to ask you to describe a rectal en but it's a painful procedure, right? Loftus says, yeah . And the prosecutor says, and this memory about these , uh , rectal en that could not be easily implanted <laugh>. So I'm not real sure what they were getting into there process was asked if she ever conducted a study to try to implant false memories of abuse, Loftus replies, no prosecutor gets Loftus to concede that those who experience trauma may forget peripheral details, but core memories tend to be stronger. So you see the difference here prosecution is saying, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. People have problems with memories. Those are peripheral memories. Those are like, what was the color of the couch? Right? Not , uh , him forcefully inserting his thing into something. I not , I'm not forgetting that part of that. Okay . I remember that. Yeah. The color of the couch, the date, the time, the year, the location. Yeah. Look, you know exactly the specifics I don't remember was 20 years ago, but I can remember other things that were a little bit more , uh , penetrating into my brain and the prosecution gets that out of Dr. Loftis . Yeah, that's true. Yeah. The core stuff, the core memories, they do tend to be stronger, but the peripheral stuff certainly goes away. We get a brief redirect inner city press reports on this Maxwell's lawyer comes back out and says, okay, look, inner city , press , uh, I'm sorry. Bobby stern Heim. Remember where we finished off with the government? They said , uh , you've never done any studies on childhood trauma of this type. Right. You've never done anything like that. And so you can't really speak to any of this stuff cuz you've never done a study about that. So obviously you don't know, you've done all these studies about people remembering stop signs versus yield signs, but not this one. Why not? And Maxwell's lawyer comes back out and says , uh, aren't there restrictions on the kinds of studies that you can do. Like you can't actually go and, and test those types of things on abuse victims. Can you prosecutor objects? But the judge judge allows it. Loft is says, yeah, we can't implant memories of abuse unethical. So yeah. That's why we don't have studies about that. So that was Dr . Elizabeth LAIs . That's our memory expert. Now she was in a doctor who was a , a specific, you know, analyst in this case, she didn't interview any of these victims or give a , you know, a summation of their memory. But she's doing the same thing that Dr. Lisa Rocko did when she came out and talked about the us government for the us government. She talked about the five stages of rooming here. Loftus is giving us a different framework, an opposing framework, rather than saying that Galin and Epstein followed steps one, two, and three to groom these women, something else happened. They're misremembering. They've got prestige, memory bias. They're remembering themselves in, in an old light, they are creating ideas that are being buttressed by the media. It's being contaminated and it's not reliable. These are very old cases and you can see it through the different framework that she laid out tomorrow. And with other witnesses, we'll see if they fill in those gaps, use her framework to say, oh, this is exactly why victims one through four are all missing key bits of their memory they're being manipulated. And a lot of this is being funneled and fueled by money. The three themes that Bobby stern Heim delineated for us at the start of the case, the next witness that the defense four Maxwell called is a border patrol agent. Very interesting witness to call his name is Michael Anne as Noran . He's a border patrol agent. We can see Maxwell's lawyer. We have cross examining him or I'm sorry, direct examining him. Is Christian ever dealt ? I think I'm not sure who exactly did it. Very short witness. We call Michael William Aran . Your honor, Christian ever asked for a sidebar right away. Judge says, will you wait for the break? He says, fine. Ever Dell says, all right , Mr. Anand , where do you work? He says, I work for the customs and border protection. We check incoming people. Now we have to pause on this one for a moment. The defense is calling sounds like an active customs and border patrol person to come in and testify . This is interesting on a couple different levels. Number one, this is an official government employee, right? This is somebody who is sort of operating under the veil of authority. When a defendant is being prosecuted. One of the very difficult things to overcome is the fact that the government is the government. It's just that simple fact. It's sort of the, the , the , the moral authority, the legal authority that everybody has delegated a lot of their decision making too. So if you have a situation where you've got a, a defendant, who's being prosecuted by a bunch of people in uniforms office, sir , FBI agent, I'm special agent. Here's my badge. I'm an officer. I've got my full uniform on. I've got a badge, I've got a gun I'm official, I'm authoritative. And they just bring in one after the other one, after the other, it really makes it look bad for the defendant because you have all these government officials that everybody trusts and, and respects and thinks are heroes. And they're out here just badgering this defendant. Who's just this poor person who has nobody on his side to come out and speak up for him here, though, the defense is bringing out a government employee. This is a customs and border patrol person. Uh , my question is, is he showing up in uniform? Is he gonna show up in civilian clothes or is he gonna show up in his official uniform in customs and border patrol, sitting there on the stand? Just like a police officer would testify in any criminal trial, if it does. Do you see how this sort of flips the narrative? It's like the gov it's like, it's almost taking the government's authority away from them. Oh, you have your government special agents and border patrol people. And you've got all your officials who did their investigation. Well, we're gonna call our own government officials and we're gonna bring them out and they're gonna sit there in their uniforms and they're gonna test five out what they did. And we're gonna use that to show that your investigation isn't so hot because your own government is presenting conflicting information. We have official government employees who are coming out and providing evidence that we're using. We're not hiding from anything. We'll bring the government right out here and put 'em on the stand. In fact, they did that. So this continues on Maxwell's lawyer says, all right there, Mr. Asner ran . Can you take a look at this exhibit it's government exer or it's uh , GX 12. We're gonna call her Jane. Did you do a search for this one? He says, yeah, I did. And , uh , how about Kate and Annie farmer ? Did you search for them too? He says, yeah, I did. I did the searches. So judge , uh , now we need the sidebar says, all right , well, get the jurors their afternoon break jury leaves. Judge doesn't mention snacks or hot pockets. Nathan says , uh , Mr. Aran , can you step out? Please? Prosecutor comes up and says, listen, judge, there are 15 years of records here, including outside, all sorts of stuff. That's outside that charges timeframe. And we don't wanna see any of this stuff. Come in. They're going through a bunch of records there. Prosecutor says we don't want any of this stuff coming in, but he comes back. Now they bring as Noran back onto the stand. He's this exhibit , he's looking at this massive document. He's been reciting border entry records for three of Maxwell's accusers. So talking about, I don't know , Kate and Annie and Carolyn and Jane. And when they're coming across the border, when is it? Well , okay, Jane's here on, you know, September, whatever, whatever, whatever all of these records appear to have date of birth information, birth, date information, interesting class felt says, he's watching this. He says, it's unclear to what end the defense wanted this information. And they don't really know why that they wanted this information in, but it seems like they're trying to establish ages at particular times. In other words, when people are coming across the border and it's being entered border of patrol into the records, they bring Michael Asner Randy to come out here, read, authenticate the records. Yeah, this is an official document. This is what it says. This is the time and date. And this is the birth date . And remember we're talking about minors, class filled notes that often the purpose of the evidence is going to become more revelatory when we get to closing arguments. So now we're on cross examination . All this witness did is talk about some basic stuff about some basic records. Prosecutor comes back out, asks the witness. The difference between border patrol records before and after nine 11. Oh , they changed as Iran says, well, you know, prior to nine 11, there was a little bit of a difference between how the records were submitted back then. And the reliability of the airlines was , you know , it wasn't as good as it is now. So records are a little bit better. Now. Now this is , uh , about all we get out of this witness. It's just a transactional guy. We've seen a lot of these from the prosecution. We talk , we had bank records. We had , uh , school records. We had lot , a lot of records, a lot of transactional witnesses. They're all in the mind map, which is linked down in the description below the mind map as of today is not updated with today's witnesses, but I will do that tonight. We have more testimony here. Now trial wraps up today with this witness. His name is Dominic. I think it might be her name. Dominique hippo light . Now it's at 4 52 in the afternoon. We're almost done with trial judge Nathan, man. She runs a tight ship. It's 4 52. Everybody's like, oh my God, can we just get outta here? She says, no defense. You can call your next witness. They do . It's Dominique hippo, light Maxwell's lawyer. Everal says, all right , Dominique, where do you live and work? Well, she says, I work in the Palm beach school district. I coordinate the processing of subpoenas and I represent the district as the records custodian. So we get another transactional person. She comes in at 4:52 PM. Looks like we got like one question outta her. Maxwell's lawyer walks up. How may I approach the witness with a document? Judge, judge says, Nope, 5:00 PM. We're done done for the date . Prosecutor says we could just stick stipulate to this. You know, like what , what are we trying to in here? Records of what? Palm beach schools we could just stipulate to the we're just gonna agree to this judge. We don't even need to show this document or authenticate it. We'll just stipulate to this meaning. We'll just agree to it. Defense then identifies the remaining witnesses. We've got Eva , we've got Michelle and we've got Kelly. Judge says else has left. She identifies three people, depending of course on your rulings judge. Now, remember yesterday we talked about another motion that was submitted. The defense wants to interview three different or they want to call his witnesses. Three different lawyers who represented a number of the different victims of this case. Saying that as we talked about earlier with Jane, that a prosecutor was essentially trying to manipulate the investigation or the facts of this case by convincing Jane that she had already been to New York previously, or that she didn't in fact see the Broadway place . She saw the movie, which is different than what she reported originally. So if the defense is able to interview her lawyer about that conversation with the pro , the judge allows that in. We may see some additional witnesses. If the judge does not allow that in, then it sounds like we may be done with this very soon. Nathan says, letters are due by tonight at 7:30 PM. We'll see if those ultimately get docketed. Laura Menninger tells the judge we might even end tomorrow or on Monday could be done. Soon. Nathan says, oh, it's fine. No problem. Then we're gonna have closing arguments on Monday. Then we're gonna charge and then it's gonna be off to the jury. So before Christmas, it sounds like Nathan says, well, usually at this point in time is when I allocate the defendant. When I ask if they'll testify and then read them, you know, all the warnings there, but the defense says, well , hold off, judge. Let's do that tomorrow. We're gonna make a final decision on this thing and we'll come back and we'll make, we'll do the allocution tomorrow. Judge Nathan says, all right , well, we'll do the closings and we'll do the charge on Monday. Meaning deliberation starts on Tuesday, December 20 for Nathan excuses, them we're done. They're gonna draft the charge tomorrow. The defense agrees to closings on Monday seems Maxwell. It seems clear that Maxwell will not testify. So the judge will then be demanding the letters by 7:30 PM. Tonight trial ended for the day. Laura mening says, I think we will be done your honor, maybe a short witness on Monday, but that might be it for the trial. And so that was day 11 of the Glenn Maxwell trial saw a lot of activity today, but may not see much more sounds like Laura Menger and the Maxwell defense team are saying tomorrow might be the last day with maybe a very short witness on Monday. And so let's see what you have to say about this over from our [email protected] and see what we've got here from oh , from our community over there. And by the way I saw V kiss , I think sent our first rumble rant of all time. V Antica prime over on rumble says, let's test my memory. Is this your first rumble rant? I think it is TICAS . I'm pretty sure it is. I think you're right about that. And I also see some other people chatting away over there. We have COI . We've got , uh , who else is there? Elucidation station? V's prime is as well, shout out to everybody on rumble growing over there as well. And so let's take a [email protected] . First one in the house was from yesterday. Oh, that's right. Because , uh , yesterday we couldn't take any questions. That's that's right, because we were on Viva show. All right . So maybe we'll get to some of these today. Let's see here. Uh , we've got Kevin and AZ says, Hey Rob, what did we expect from the prosecution? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. That's from Kevin and AZ . Uh , talking about Comey , Maureen Comey , daughter of James Comey, James Comey , obviously kind of a disaster for the FBI . Did you see that news story from the FBI? Apparently they were sleeping with prostitutes all around the world. I feel like that happens every like 10 years or so. Maybe it's like every 20 years as an FBI story of them sleeping with a bro bunch of prostitutes in some third world country. Ridiculous. Okay. We have Kincaid says , Hey Rob, good evening and great discussions at, I have camera questions. I'm guessing a pretty low F stop . So what kind of lens and brand have you decided to use your video seems real clear, perhaps Sony below the 3,200 ISO. It's a good question there. And you know, your , you know, your, your stuff. So , uh , let's see what I've got here. I've got ISO 1000 that I'm looking at , uh , F 1.8 . It's AIG my lens , 16 millimeter . I believe the camera's a Sony, a 6,400, but I'm upgrading. I've decided to spoil myself. I'm gonna be getting the Sony a seven four. Oh my gosh. Don't even look that camera up. I'm gonna get it. I never, you know, I never splurge on anything. And since YouTube is kind of a thing for me now, we're gonna get a nice, a nicer new camera, but it's a lot more expensive. The Sony, a 6,400 is really all you need. I mean, honestly, it's overkill even for probably streaming. I mean, I think it looks great, but the, the stream, you know, compresses the quality so much, so live streaming, you know, it's gonna condense it down to 10 ADP and it's gonna be, you know, not real great, but if you're gonna be recording this, camera's perfect. You get be full crisp 10 ADP . You also get a good Boca effect with the it's a Sigma lens Sigma. Uh , I think it's Sigma 16 millimeter. I have a whole list of all my gear, a whole list in a spreadsheet on monday.com if you want it. So , uh , I can post that in locals. I think other people have asked for that, but it's a good question. Kincaid . Good stuff. Let's see. We've got another one T Blakemore says, have you ever experienced a prosecutor? Just phoning it in because they weren't invested in the trial. Yeah, of course. Of course. Yes, of course happens all the time. Typically it happens when you have a cop who's being charged with a crime. We had that here in the state of Arizona. I think that that was a travesty of justice that, that involved , uh , Matthew Brailsford , uh, yeah, Brailsford. I just can't imagine having the amount of abuse that's happened with Epstein and only a few people testify while the defense has 35 also, wasn't it just way too convenient that the judge testified before the Senate at its time when she could not comment on the case. She is currently presiding over. Seems like she's in the middle of the biggest and most notable case of her career. And nobody can question her on it. Four of this promotion. So many conveniences. Yeah. Very, very, very convenient . Isn't it? T Blakemore I'm with you. I agree. We have a couple more, we've got Kincaid says since you explained the battles of realities in the courts against the socially constructed reality agreed upon. I was reminded of research that rips images directly from the brain, the link below no more experts fighting over into whose interpretation wins. N N N scientists extract images directly from the brain. I think I might have seen stuff like this. Yeah. I think I might have seen this. Let's see if we can pull this up, see what this looks like. Okay. So this is a technology company. Yeah. So I think I've seen some images where there was AI software that would sort of scan the brain and then try to guess what you were thinking. I think I saw like, and it , it , it kind of was weirdly like, right . Like somebody was thinking of the Mona Lisa and this brain scan like assembles the Mona Lisa . You're like what? This is weird. So , uh , stuff like that is probably coming. So get ready for it. Elon is trying to implant it into your brains. Kincaid says when it comes to court instructions regarding only a yes or no. If a lawyer can argue for expand ended response, can a witness do the same? So , uh, typically not right. I mean, if, if, if a , if a , if a defense attorney is conducting the cross examination and you are a , you know, asking for yes or no's, you can, you know, push back on a witness and ask questions that are only yes or no's now, if, you know, if it becomes too combative and you're not allowing the witness to answer, the judge may say, well, let 'em answer, right? It's not , it's not that simple. Your question is in artful or it's not clear. And so you're gonna give them the opportunity. You know, it's about communicating, but you're not, but you also wanna make sure that people aren't getting squirrely on you. And just start , you know, if you give an expert, witness an open question, an open forum, they'll just forever and they'll steal the whole , the whole show. And they're typically pretty good at it. VI antique , his prime says victim and villain let's split the difference and call her VIIC just because it'd be fun to say it's true. It is kind of fun to say VEIC sounds kind of gross though. <laugh> Sergeant Bob says , uh , dangerous territory. If one extrapolates, this no witness is credible in any case. Well, that's true. Yeah. Sergeant Bob, that's true. That's a defense attorney's dream come true. Yeah. They're all, they're all full of it. Yeah. <laugh> Bob does not establish expertise. Yeah. But she's got 20 of 'em there. Sergeant psychology is so subjective. Not really scientific experts will take either side. Having said that eyewitness identification can be a bit problematic, but that is another story. And that's from Sergeant Bob <laugh> who? Yeah . I understand your , your point there. Sergeant Bob . And of course we're on opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. But I do like the concept of exploring the idea, right? People, I think, I think people sort of instinctually recognize that memories , not that great. And when you start to sort of flush it out on these , uh, studies and you start to see really how malleable it is, people, I think, you know , their eyebrows raise up a little bit. Speech unleashed says regarding false memories. There's something called the Mendela effect where tons of people were called the name item, falsely, the named item falsely, for instance, Darth Vader never said, Luke, I am your father. He actually said, no, I, I am your father, which is true. Another one is that the most people remember C three POS being all gold, but he actually had a silver lake , which I didn't know that one. <laugh> what the site has. 48 more false memories that a lot of people have entity mag Mandela effect. Yeah. Look, memories is not, it , it is not like a recording device. There's no question about that one. That's a great, thank you for that speech. We have John Hagin says memories, traumatizing events, and the way we handle them can never be looked at as a science where there's a right or a wrong way to analyze each individual. We've learned that just because someone doesn't react the way we think they should is proof that we shouldn't make assumptions in , in this area. Example, why isn't she crying or upset? This news is so terrible. People have been convicted because of their initial reactions to trauma. And then later released when other evidence found exonerating them bottom line for me, use facts and steer away from emotions. Yeah, it's a good question, John. You know, it , it it's, it's, it's a , it's a eternal battle because both are pretty powerful. You know, emotions are very powerful. You know, we've talked a lot about Joe Neman, good logic. He's down there. I didn't get a clip from him today to, I , I didn't ask him for one, but I was gonna clip something from his postings today. And I spaced that, sorry, Joe, but Joe is doing great work over there. We had a long talk with him yesterday on VI channel. And he is a , a master storyteller. He tells about the emotion he was talking specifically about. I think it was, it was either Caroline or one of the victims. And on his channel, he talked about how Maureen Comey actually came out and was just almost abusing her, treating her as almost a hostile witness. And it was extremely emotional. And this woman is breaking down on the stand and crying and screaming. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know, but I know that I was abused. I know that crying and sobbing and it was very emotional on the way Joe tells the story. You're like sitting there thinking, how could I be a juror and not , and watch that and go the opposite direction. But that's all emotion, John is exactly what you said. Right? It's all emotion. If you think about it logically, she doesn't remember anything. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. I remember . Okay. But she's very emotional. She's very sad about it. And if you listen to Joe, tell the story, it sounded like it was powerful and very effective emotionally, but factually who's garbage. Doesn't remember anything. If you read a transcript of this, you'd say this witness is terrible. She doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Who called her to the stand, but because of the emotions, right? And , and this is why a lot of people, you know, in law, they'll say, well, the law says this, that and the other, you know , so what, it's great. It's neat. What does the jury say? What does the judge say? What does a prosecutor say? That's where practice comes into play. And that's why it's fun to be a defense attorney because we get to make those arguments. If you have bad facts, then you pound the law. If you have bad law, then you pound the facts. If you have, you know, neither of those, you pound the table, that's the emotion you just, ah , and it can work. As you can see, it's very persuasive people buy it. All right . We have monster. One says, so miss Loftus, you were in the secret service. What doesn't happened to have been in the mid nineties, you know, when a certain slick Willy was in the office. Oh my God , that's a good question. We have another one. VICA says the problem with this expert's testimony on false memories is that in her little experiment, there's other factors that come into play. Some people will say yes, because of the same techniques that an attorney uses to develop a cadence with a witness. If you get someone to be agreeable, they'll just try to agree. Sometimes people will try to agree just to fit in. So while I would agree that this would lead to the creation of false memories, I argue that those memories would be as ephemeral as the relevancy as to , to this conversation. Another thing that comes into play is the phrasing of the idea to take the question quote , if I had 13 cookies and I ate all but eight of them, how many do I have left? The F the answer is the question eight. I ate all, but eight of them, how many you have left eight, the phrasing of the question in specific ways, elicits specific responses, especially if someone is not being attentive. There are many ways to manipulate and unsuspecting people on the spot to do little things. Just some thoughts that I have. Well, thank you, Bian , cuz that's a good one. Yeah. And you know, you see this all the time in , um , in these rids and these puzzles and things. Sometimes your mind just looks right over stuff. Or sometimes it focuses on certain things. And a lot of this is by design. I mean, a lot of this, you know, they know how the mine works. You marketing companies and politicians, they spend billions of dollars to try to get you to do certain things and believe certain things and vote a certain way and buy a certain product and show up at a certain time. And there are entire industries geared towards that. And they've got computer algorithms that are trying to make you kill each other over in the comment section. So yeah, memories fluid Kinkaid says, oh wow man, nice being , uh , being legally. I love to take night shots. Your new camera has the ability to see the Milky way in the camera. Well, that's amazing. I didn't know that. What I like about it is it's , uh , it's got just a really high sensor and so it's should be able to shoot 4k video like boom, and this camera, you know, kind of struggles with that. This camera's a , this camera's a great camera, but it's, it's a few years old, right? It's an older model. And so that new camera it's gonna be brand new. It's gonna be great. Kinkaid says we care talking about soft sciences models in the scientific mess methods should reign Supreme via the crowdsourced open discussion, which is not true in courts or the media. Yeah. Yeah. More, more openness in courts, more transparency and accountability would all be very good. I would be very supportive of that and looks like that. My friends is it for us for the day, no other questions and no other super chats. And so we're gonna leave it there. I wanna thank everybody for joining us and for being a part of the show Friday, but we've got Maxwell trial day 12, and that means we might be done with it. We might be done with the whole trial means we might come back on Monday, have the charging, which is the handing off of the case over to the jurors. And they may be deliberating on this thing. Could we get a ruling before Christmas? Because if it goes to the jurors on Monday or Tuesday, then we've got the 23rd, 22nd. Maybe is the judge gonna make him deliberate on Christmas Eve? I don't know, but it's gonna be fun. And we're gonna continue to follow it along one final reminder to subscribe and leave us a light before you get outta here. If you left us a comment also, I appreciate that mind map is available down into the description. If you want to share that or poke around, I am gonna update that today , tomorrow as the rest of this trial finishes up. And so we're grateful to have you here and a part of the program. We are gonna be back here to do it again tomorrow. Let me give some shoutouts to some new supporters we've got [email protected] We've got welcoming big welcomes to not our WC. One 10. Welcome. We've got Chuck Davids here. We've got mark on w we've got Shinda . We've got nosy, Texas Rosie , and I've got the best nosy rosy story for my college days. I'll have to tell it at some point. Welcome nosy. We've got TA. Mom is here. Cookie monster two . We've got a J DHA , Molly pop Inc guitar . Terry we've got Randy J 98 Westworld here. Equestrian girl, Richie, DC , red Jersey, Nikki dragon, things and stuff. We've got Donna 1 0 7, the vez Jimmy Ws in the house. Big brother bites. Kimmy cat . Oh Kevin AZ. Antar 24. The queen of Tennessee is here along with re Lee music box lady. We've got big re in the house. FTA Gloria Black cat Meow, Nick McCloud , Dr. Bretton T Blakemore and Patriot minute all apart of our amazing community [email protected] And I hope to see you over there. My friends, otherwise I'll see you back here tomorrow. Same time, same place Maxwell trial day 12, 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM central in Texas, seven , 6:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man , my friends, I hope to see you here because I need your help so that together we can shine that big , big , beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system. With the hope of finding justice. I'll see you tomorrow. My friends have a great night. Bye bye .