The Ghislaine Maxwell trial finishes testimony after a short 12 days! Let’s talk about it, including:
🔹 Mindmap: https://mm.tt/map/2105681969?t=Q999Oc3TcG
🔹 Ghislaine Maxwell chooses NOT to testify (good call).
🔹 Judge Nathan issues ruling that cut the defense case short and Joe Nierman @GoodLawgic explains!
🔹 Maxwell defense lawyer Christian Everdell makes a last minute change to Ghislaine's case.
🔹 Remember Jane? She identified several people who participated in group activities.
🔹 Epstein’s Ex-GF Eva Andersson-Dubin testifies that she did not engage in group activities.
🔹 Michelle Healy, a former employee at the J. Epstein Company, also testifies.
🔹 Defense lawyers call Michelle Healy who also testifies that she did not participate in group activities.
🔹 Who is Eva Andersson-Dubin and how did she get involved with Jeffrey Epstein?
🔹 Maxwell’s defense team talks with her about testifying at trial as stipulations are entered into the record.
🔹 When was The Lion King playing on Broadway? When did the movie come out?
🔹 Your comments and questions!
COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS:
CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:
MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):
👮♂️ 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!
🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq
#WatchingtheWatchers #GhislaineMaxwell #MaxwellTrial #Epstein #EpsteinDidntKillHimself #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwellTrial
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 and sunny Scottsdale Arizona. Today. We're talking about Maxwell trial day 12 and the last trial day of testimony that we're going to see they're done the Def fence , rested their case today, caught a lot of people by surprise. And so we're gonna break down what happened. It was actually a very short day. They wrapped up early this afternoon, the defense rested, and that was it. Two days of presentation from this defense, they told us that they were gonna be presenting 35 witnesses, give or take. And they didn't. It was just a handful of people and that the end of it. And so we've got a lot to get to and break down. We're gonna start off by maybe trying to identify why this was such a quick resolution, a quick presentation of the defense case in chief. This was supposed to be a multimillion dollar defense. They were supposed to be bring out people that were gonna be ripping this prosecution apart, where were , are all those people. And we're gonna find out because the judge came out with some interesting rulings this morning, we're going to review them. Christian ever was out in court today and good logic. Joe Neman is gonna give us an update. Of course, he was there in court today, boots on the ground doing the good work reporting. And he gave a little bit of a , a rundown on what happened in court. After of the judge, judge Allison , Nathan gave a ruling. We have now another witness that we're gonna check in with this is somebody that raised a lot of eyebrows. We've got Epstein's former ex-girlfriend Ava Anderson and Ander . Sean . I think something like that. Dubin, former miss universe of Sweden. We have a clip of that, which is fun. <laugh> so we're gonna talk about her because they brought her in here to ask her if she participated in adult activities of a group variety, multiple people participating in activities, they asked her, did you do that type of stuff? Were you fr around with Epstein and Maxwell and Jane and Kate and Kate Caitlin and all these other women. She is going to answer that for us today in court, we have another individual, somebody named Michelle Healy who worked at the J Epstein company. She got the same question. Were you a part of that little entourage over there? Yes or no. So we'll see what she had to say. And then the big question of course comes out was Golin Maxwell gonna testify? Turns out she didn't obviously was never going to happen. Good call on that. One could have been a big , uh, can of worms there. No reason for her to do so really seems like no reason for the defense to do much of anything, because they didn't do much of anything. We had two days really like one and a half days, maybe like one in a quarter days, if you really calculated a all up and there wasn't much to go on, we have some stipulations that got read in at the end of the day to day , we're gonna take a look at that lion king movie versus the lion king play. Remember we talked about this yesterday. If Jane saw the movie and not the play, then maybe she was a minor, but if she saw the play and not the movie, well, she's probably over the age of consent, therefore, no conviction. So we've got a lot to get to there. We're going to be, as I mentioned, talking about this is the order from judge Allison , Nathan, I forgot. I put the preview slides here today. This is the next wi witness we're gonna talk about. This is Ava Anderson Dubin. And then our last segment, we're gonna be hearing about Maxwell. You can see a preview of that. There she is in court today, along with her attorneys, if you wanna be a part of the show, we're taking questions over we're at watching the watchers.locals.com looks just like this. There's a form right there that is available. If you want to ask a question and you're a supporter over there, we'll take those. We also take of course, super chats. If you send anything in via YouTube, they pop up on the screen, just like that. We appreciate your support there. YouTube. We also have a Clipse channel clips channel is here, and this is where you can share segments or little splices of the show with friends or family. And we appreciate a subscription over there. We also have the poll form, which is now available. It is pinned up in the YouTube comments in the chat box . Let's see what people have to say about it. So this is the comment form. These are the questions that we're asking today. First of all, verdict, how about a response? Do we have a verdict? Do we have a response? And we do. We've got some people who are saying that it's looking like there will be a guilty verdict. 20% of people say there will be a guilty verdict. 18% of people say that there will be a not guilty verdict. We have 50% say that there's gonna be a split verdict. So maybe one per, you know, sort of she'll be convicted on some and acquitted on the others. And then we've got 12, 12% saying it's a hung jury. We're not gonna get a verdict. Asked if the trial is rigged. Yes or no. 95% say, yeah , it's rigged. Trial's rigged. <laugh> all right . And then of course the question that has been on here for a long time, we've got a lot of responses out of this. We have did Epstein kill himself 16, 62% of people say, yeah, he , no, he was killed 10% say, yeah, he killed himself 61% say, no , he was killed 3% . Say he was still alive actually. So , uh, yeah. And there's just a small sliver that say, we don't know. So keep those votes coming in verdict, looking like still looking like it's about 40, 46% looking like a split verdict. And so we'll keep our eyeballs on that one as this show unfolds. So let's get into to it. Shall we go in Maxwell trial day 12, we've got the final day of testimony. The final day of both sides presenting any evidence. The case in chief for the defense has now come to a close, but not without a little bit of contention this morning, we have the defense, they kind of didn't wanna finish today. The judge issued some rulings and they had to get this thing wrapped up because they couldn't get their witnesses here. There were a lot of people, including an 81 year old guy from the UK that used to sort of run a pub that was across the street from Galin Maxwell's residence. He's in the UK. And the defense said , Hey, we need to get this guy here. The judge says, well, clock stick in there. If he's not here by the end of the day today, while you're running outta time. Aren't ya . And so the defense kind of is, is making a , a claim that they want this guy here. But we also have to be thinking like defense attorneys, which I happen to be. And so you can see what they also may be trying to do, which is to etch something in the document. That's something in the ground, draw a line in the sand and say, we have not been given the opportunity to have a fair trial. We wanted to bring in our key witnesses for crucial issues. And the judge didn't allow us to do that. What does that sound like? A violation of somebody's right ? To do process or a right to a fair a trial. This judge sounds pretty impartial. We couldn't even present our entire case because this judge wouldn't let us have a witness here from the UK and he was critical. And so this was something that was fought over a lot this morning. You can see, as a quick reminder, this is gal Maxwell supported by her defense team. And we're checking in with inner city press reporting. Of course the , they telling us that the defense first thing this morning was arguing. They wanted to keep this case open until Monday. They say, we've got this 81 year old witness who we're gonna learn about in a minute. And he's not even here yet. The judge said, all right , hold off a minute. Let's take a look at some of these other issues that are bandied about, okay. I judge Nathan says, I'm gonna be letting in the documents about residents versus the documents about ownership. Okay ? We're talking about different properties. We're talking about Epstein. Now he's got a place in Palm beach. He's got a place in New Mexico. He's got a mansion in New York. He's also got a place in London. And so Kate, if you recall, was talking about that mansion in London, that apparently she went to. And so we're talking about all these different documents, residents and, and ownership, and there's a lot of questions there. So judge Nathan asked Maxwell's lawyer, you know, is this a deposition transcript? Is this new to you? And so they talk about a transcript and they move on. So they are, are fighting about these issues about what witnesses can be called. And now judge Nathan says, well guys, listen, I know you're kind of running out of witnesses in court, but I have a rule. She says, you have your next witness or you rest. If otherwise the case closes today , it closes today. See what she says, if there is no next witness you're done. So line 'em up, bring 'em in set. 'em up one after the other. And you saw we've covered it here. How judge Nathan runs her courtroom . She'll take a witness at 4 52 , I think was yesterday, maybe 4 54. I don't remember how late it was, but it was late next witness. And so if you don't have your next witness, what her rule is in her courtroom, you're done get 'em lined up. We're not gonna be waiting around forever to be, you know, hauling witness . Okay, well you can have three X extra days to get your people here. You knew when the trial was, get your witnesses in order and get 'em here. Now the problem, the corollary to this is that you've got the judge who hasn't ruled on a lot of these issues. Yet. Remember previously this week we spent a lot of time talking about the defense, trying to get other witnesses in, in particular, those three different attorneys that represented some of the victims still didn't really know whether they were gonna be called , allowed to be called or not. Is the judge gonna allow them to call these key witnesses? If the answer is yes, well then they gotta get 'em here like right now, because that's the judge's rule. So are all these people ready and on standby because you know that these, these memos and these letters are being submitted to the court, hashing these issues out sometimes at 10:00 PM at night. So it's all hands on deck. Everything is a last minute. Yes. Get here. Whatever, because the judge issued a ruling. So Maxwell's lawyer. They say, look, if the Marshalls can produce another witness, we've subpoenaed. We've sent Marshalls out. We've went and subpoenaed somebody. If the , if the Marshalls can go get that person, well, we need more time. But we have another witness who we've actually issued a subpoena for who is not here. If they bring them here, well, then we can continue on. But if they don't bring them here, we're in trouble. Now, again, this is setting it up again in, in the case of the 81 year old gentleman who we're gonna learn about judge Nathan is kind of saying, well, you know, he's too far, he's far away. We're , I'm not gonna let you let this witness come in. That's a little bit different. Now this is a judge saying you can't have access to a key witness that you say you need, this is a judge violating due process. Now let's say she, the , the Maxwell's defense team issued a subpoena for somebody else, a lawful order. The judge signed off on this. You have to come to court. Now you serve that subpoena to somebody. And somebody says, I'm not coming to court. And you say, as a defendant, I need that person to come to court. Their testimony is critical to my case. They've got a lawful order. They're here in the country. Judge told them to be here. They're not here without their testimony. I can't proceed. Sounds like a due process violation. Sounds like maybe she's not getting a fair trial uhoh and now, because they're missing another key witness, not only the bar guy from the UK, but also this other witness that got a lawful subpoena, the Marshalls, even the us law Marshalls, can't get this person here. All right . So they're just gonna Chuck that one up on the list of appealable issues. Just put that in the old , uh , memory bank for them, other witness from the UK , they said they want him to come in. If they will stipulate to it, if they will just agree to it, they , they don't need the witness to come in from the UK. We don't need this guy to actually come here and talk. If the government will agree to the data that we wanna get in Us , attorney says no stipulation have no idea what they'd said . Now, the judge turns back over. They spend a lot of time talking about these prior inconsistent statements. This is a big, this is kind of an important thing, but it can get very technical very quickly. So I wanna just kind of , um , cover the concept generally, right? A prior inconsistent statement would be something that you would not to prove anything, but to show somebody was sort of being dis uh , dishonest or, or to impugn their credibility, we call it impeachment. And so there's a lot of back and forth about this this morning, and we're gonna listen to Joe Neman. Who's gonna tell us a little bit more about that. And so put a pin in this section right here. We're gonna , we're gonna come back to this in a minute. Talking about Chris gene Neel , and really the, the prior inconsistent statements of law enforcement about the government's investigation about this entire prosecution. Because remember we talked about this previously on the mine map, you remember that there was that expert witness Bennett Gershman, who was the prosecutor of the prosecutorial misconduct expert with this guy wrote the treatise on, you know, why prosecutions, why prosecutions are bad essentially. And they were gonna bring this guy in to , you know, re uh , rebut several different claims or several different allegations by the defense that the prosecutions were attempting to manipulate Jane's memory, essentially, by having her flip her testimony from saying that she went and saw the lion king Broadway show to say, no , that's not what I saw. I actually saw the movie. They were alleging that the prosecution was trying to get her to change her story. And Ben Gershman was gonna be the expert to come in and just blow that out of the park. And we're gonna see that, that doesn't really happen here. The defense is done. It's all rested . Why? So put a pin in that. We're gonna get back there before we do. Let's talk little bit more about this pub guy. This guy was going to be that 81 year old witness that they were talking about. There's a little bit of an interesting story here. So we didn't actually hear from this guy, but here's what he would've come. And, you know , presumably talked about the judge did not let him, he was a landlord back at a London pub. It's called the nags head . And it's in an exclusive part of London. It's in Belgravia Valvia and it is located directly opposite a house where Maxwell used to live. So earlier this morning, he was expected to fly out there. You can see in this article, they said it he's expected to fly out to testify on behalf of Maxwell. He didn't comment when they reached out to him, but he had this, or he was at least running this place. It's called the nags head. And you can see it's sort of this exclusive pub, I think in the UK, in London, in a very exclusive town, gal , Maxwell apparently owned this property right next door. And so she was living there. And so if you remember way back earlier on in the trial, when the government was presenting their case, we heard from Kate and Kate during her testimony, she said that Maxwell called her quote , a good girl, where did this happen? It happened right there in London. It was when Epstein was there in London at his mansion in Belgravia Grava . And she was a teenager. Epstein brought a , her there Maxwell, brought her there during her direct exam. When the government called her, she said she was just 17. Apparently according to Kate, she said that Maxwell let her up there. Maxwell committed some sort of an act on her. And then Maxwell came out afterwards and said, how'd it go? Do you have fun? It good. Remember that line of testimony? And so if Kate comes out and says, this all happened in London and the government comes out and says, yeah, Maxwell was in London, why do we need this guy to come out and testify? Well, Mr. Moran , the pub guy is gonna come out and he's going to, to say that he knew the previous owners of that home. And he could verify she didn't live there until 1997, when she bought the property, she wasn't there. Right? So when Kate is alleging that all this took place, Maxwell wasn't even anywhere near there ever Dell . Now Maxwell's defense attorney said, this is a critical issue. He was supposed to be flown out at 11:00 AM, but the judge seemed annoyed at the latest attempt to call a new witness. The previous night Maxwell's lawyer said they wanted to call three other women named Ava Kelly and Michelle , but their plants fell apart. Why Kelly Fu to show up didn't respond to the subpoena that was issued two and a half weeks ago. So you can see here, the defense is laying out a couple different violations, right? Couple of different, or they're gonna make these arguments. I'm not saying that they are justified arguments, but they're gonna make the arguments. Number one, that Moran couldn't be here. The judge got annoyed. The judge didn't want this last witness to come in here. And I don't know specifically what happened in court, but maybe the judge did not allow him said, Nope, you're done. You ran out of time. You got arrest . He's not here. He's still on the airplane. Maybe it was 11:00 AM. And so they're done. So Moran violation didn't get to hear from him. Okay? We got a pressed or, you know, whatever. The , the , the prosecution didn't allow us to present our case. That's a violation of due process. Same type of thing is gonna happen here with this other witness. This is Kelly. Kelly got delivered a subpoena. Laura Menninger said we sent it two and a half weeks ago. She still has not shown up. Therefore violation us . Marshals couldn't even find this person. She was also integral to our case. Now you'll notice that they were also wrapping up these two other women, Ava and Michelle. And we do hear from both of them today. But before we get there, let's back in with judge Nathan inner city press is reporting. This is still during the morning session before the jurors are even brought in Annie, according to judge Nathan said that she didn't remember a chef being there on Zoro ranch, but that it made sense to her. So it's not inconsistent talking about these impeachment issues. Okay . Can we impeach Annie? Remember Annie farmer . She was the fourth victim who testified, you know, she said something about not recalling that a chef was there. And then Epstein's attorneys are saying, well, there was a chef, there was one on payroll. See this guy, there were three of them . So she's a moron. All right . And we wanna show that we wanna show the jurors that she's an idiot because, and she doesn't remember anything. Cuz there are a bunch of chefs right here. And the judge is saying, look, she didn't say that there were not any there. She said she didn't remember them being there, but it made sense if they were error and it wasn't like that. So no, I'm not gonna let you do that. Right? It's not, it's not on point enough. And they're saying the same thing about horseback riding, you know, Annie got up there and testified about horseback riding, whatever it is she said in the reality and the truth of the matter. This is how it is. We want to tell the jurors that she's a liar about that too. And the judge is saying, look, it's not even relevant. It collateral issue. Sometimes they ride horses. Sometimes they don't move on. Maxwell's lawyer continues. Well, judge, you know, I know those are your rulings, but I think impeachment is for the truth of the matter asserted. And the judge just starts laughing. What that's way too metaphysical for me to handle right now there Maxwell lawyer way too metaphysical for me, you think impeachment is for the truth of the matter asserted. Now you're sort of talking about a hearsay rule on top of the impeachment rules on top of , uh , stipulated or uh , on the judge says I've had enough. I just got done. She goes, do you know where I was yesterday? Do you have any idea? Yeah. The judiciary committee I'm exhausted. I can't think about hearsay impeachment proceedings right now. Laughs it off. Maxwell's lawyer says, okay, listen, judge, listen, we'll have a law enforcement witness. And we'd like to ask leading questions. Remember yesterday we heard from the customs and border patrol officer and today they wanna bring out somebody else, a law enforcement witness that they want to ask leading questions about judge Nathan says, well, well , well , well , well, you know the truth comes out on the direct. So start with that. No leading questions, you know, don't, don't ask yes or no questions or questions that will deliver a yes or no response. Ask the open ended questions. No special rules with these people. But Maxwell's lawyer says yeah , I know. Okay . But judge, I wanna get to the absence of evidence. Okay. I , I can't ask specific questions about something that there is an absence of. So for example, I want to ask about the lack of GPS given the age of the allegations. Right? So, so what she's saying is I want to go in there with a leading question and say , uh , officer or special agent or whatever your name is Johnson, special agent Johnson. Isn't it true that back in 1994, there were no GPS records involved in this case. And he's gonna say what? Yes or no response. Right ? That's a leading question. Yes, that's true. Yes. And the judge is saying , well, you can't do that. You know, this is a direct exam. And so you need to just kind of go out there and start with open ended questions on your next witness. And she says, well, I can't do that because that would look like me saying, okay, officer, you know, is there anything , uh, anything missing in this case that you might have in a current case in 2020 anyone ? And the officer's like, what the heck are you talking about? Is there anything missing in this case that could have been around in 19 ? What are you talking about? Because you can't , it's hard to ask an open. Is there any type of , um, technology now that would have helped you pinpoint a location in back in 1994 and oh yeah. Well GPS and he , so she wants to lead him down there without having, making him explain it all. And the judge, you know, starts to get into that a little bit. That's what they're talking about. So she says the absence of evidence Maxwell's lawyer says, you know, I wanted to ask the agent more specifically that the complaint first one on a timeframe was the first one on the timeframe. Then there was a more recent one with Carolyn . She says, I think that's relevant prosecutor, chime in, sorry, judge court has already ruled on this. Okay. Follows the path of the investigation. We don't need to rehash this out again. It follows the path of the investigation. The, the defense is not allowed to just sort of circumvent the path of the investigation. They don't get to ask questions about whatever they want. You've already ruled on this. We follow the path of the investigation. We're gonna follow it chronologically. If they have any problems about any of this stuff, they can raise it in closing. And Joe is gonna explain what is happening right there in that segment. We're gonna see it, but I wanna show you this as well . The court is denying the motion for the remaining witnesses. The government seeks to preclude. So we've got sort of a , a , a , like a double negative, multiple different, you know, the court is denying the motion , which I think was the motion to preclude, or this could have been the defense motion that, that the , that the government was responding to the point here, the judge is denying the motion for the remaining witnesses. Now what's happening. Do you remember that? When we go back over to the mine map, we spent a lot of time talking about the defense, calling a number of different witnesses to buttres several people that the government proffered forth, and we didn't get any of them to date it's because of motions like this. And it's because of what Joe is about to explain talking about one of the defense's main strategies sort of being cut out from under them. Here is Joe Neman, good logic over on YouTube. His dis link is down in the description below. Please go subscribe. He's amazingSpeaker 2:
Blocked in closing arguments for this Monday. And for those of you who were wondering, how did we get here? So fast earlier in the week, we heard that the defense had 35 witnesses. And that seems like it would take a couple of weeks to get through. And sure enough, we heard from under a dozen witnesses in two days are gonna closing arguments. Well, part of the answer lies in legal arguments that were held before the court this morning, Christian Adel on behalf of the , of the defense was stating that they wanted to bring forward various FBI agents and question them about what happened with evidence. The defense feels that the government intentionally omitted itching in certain areas out of fear, that they would end up coming across evidence that would exonerate Maxwell. And the court responded saying, I previously issued a ruling consistent with second circuit decisions. And the way we, the way we, we operate things here in New York saying that you cannot make this case and you about what the government did or did not do in their investigations. You can only make it about did the government prove its case. And that's more of an appropriate thing to do in closing argument than to do via questioning a witness. So for example, in closing arguments, the defense is permitted to say, there's no emails. We don't see any emails here, the approve their case. We don't have phone records that prove their case. We're lacking in this testimony. We didn't hear from these other people that they're permitted to do, but they cannot come forward and say, why didn't the government ask for emails? Why didn't they ask for phone records? They cannot. They can't say, why didn't you talk to this person or that person, because that is using the method of the government's investigation as a form of impeachment. And that is not appropriate in the second circuit. Now the defense counted and said, we're looking to ask these questions, not to attack the way that they approached their investigation, but to show how all the cases and the , and the judge saw through that. She said, no, you can ask them what period of time they ended up checking you. You don't need to, to try impeaching through that method, which is inappropriate in the second circuit. And as soon as Christian ever heard this, he said, well, my case just got a lot shorter. So that's part of your answer right there. Oh ,Speaker 1:
Very good explanation. There that's Joe Neman, good logic over there on YouTube. His link is down in the , in the description. Good guy. And he was, we had a long , uh , talk about a lot of this over on Viva's stream. I think that was on Wednesday this week. So if you miss that and you're looking for more analysis, certainly go check that out, down, over at Viva's stream. And so Joe gave us a very good breakdown of what's happening, right? If the judge is not gonna allow you to go down a certain line of questioning, that's it? I mean, that's it, there's nothing else. There's no reason to call that witness. You're kind of cut off from that. And so a big part of this that we talked about previously and like, this is a big point. A lot of people I think are kind of glossing over this issue, but there's an allegation here that a prosecutor was emailing another lawyer for the attorney, for Jane and sort of encouraging him to convince her, to change her story. <laugh> and it's like a big deal. A prosecutor sending an email to that, the defense Maxwell's defense say that we've got this. We , we have, we have records that this happened. They know the name of the guy. It's us attorney Ross Miller. We talked about this. It's in , uh , Jeff pale Yuca . The G is silent lasagna . It's in their motion, it's in their disclosure. And they wanted to bring in an expert witness. Basically the guy who wrote the book on prosecutorial misconduct, not like he did all of it, but he analyzed it. He wrote the book on it, wants to come out and say that what they did was problematic. That is a pretty big detail in a case, if they, or something to appeal, that's one of them, one of your strongest victims, Jane is potentially somebody who changed her story at the behest of the prosecution, because the prosecution was communicating with her a civil lawyer in a different situation. Whoa. So that they're not gonna get into any of that. And so Christian ever comes out and says, yeah, yeah, it looks like the , my case just kind of , uh , closed up pretty quickly. And it did. We had two days of defense case in chief . That's all that we got before we jump into the testimony today from law enforcement officers and Glenn Maxwell trial day . Well, we do have to take a look at a government letter, went into the court on December 17th, the same day that the government and the defense both concluded both case in chief cases in chief, they send a letter over to judge Nathan, and we're gonna get a couple different law enforcement individuals who come out very briefly. Next today, a during trial government prosecutors send a letter, they say, judge, we've talked to the defense. They're expected to call law enforcement agents in here today. Normally we're only allowed to call them. They're calling them . We've talked to them. And we understand that the defense intends to ask questions of at least one law enforcement witness be on those questions that elicit prior inconsistent statements. So see those again in particular, they say in advance of the agent's testimony, the government writes about the boundaries about what is in scope and what is not in scope court already issued a ruling on November 1st that the government will object to any questions about the failure to utilize some of the particular techniques and training. And so this is a little bit more about what Joe Neman in the prior segment talked about. They don't want these people to be able to comment on the length of the investigation, the techniques use or any of those other variables. They want the government, the government is notifying the court that this is forthcoming. And so the first witness that we get here, who is a government law enforcement official, this is Jason Richards. He's a special agent and like all good at FBI agents, especially the special ones. He's got two first names. We've got judge Nathan starting off the day says, who's the first defense here. Uh , Mr . Who's the first witness today, defense Maxwell's lawyer pale Yuca stands up and says, we got special agent Jason Richards. And again, I made this comment yesterday. It's a little bit unusual when a defendant, somebody who is being charged with crimes calls in law enforcement officials to their case, to testify on their behalf. And they've done several , you know, they they've, they're doing this with several different individuals. And like , what I mean is active agents. My understanding is this guy is , he's still an active agent, right? A lot of the defense will call former agents, former expert witnesses and things like this, but not this guy. All right . So he comes in, judge Nathan calls the case, all rise. Jury stands up there. 10:30 AM. Now they're an hour late as usual. Paka starts off. All right , Mr. Special agent, where are you from? Where are you based? He says, well, Miami, before that Palm beach Paka says perfect Palm beach is exactly what I wanna talk about. Let's go back to 2006. What were you doing back then? Richard says I was in unit PV two. Uh , what did the PV two unit do there says we investigated Epstein. Paka says, oh yeah, I know. And back when that happened in Palm beach, I gotta ask, did you interview Carolyn ? Don't say her name, you know, Carolyn you know that one, the one that we have all , uh, anonymized agent Richard says I did UCA says, do you recall when you were talking to Caroline, do you recall saying that she obtained Epstein's number from a phone book and that Epstein returned her call? Richard says, if that's what's in the 3 0 2 report, <laugh> , he's totally not cooperating. Look , I don't know if that's what's in the report. It's in the report. So as I said, you're calling law enforcement agents to defend a defendant or calling them as a witness in the defense of a defendant. Not that they want to be there defending a defendant, but they're being used to defend a defendant. And so he gets a little bit snarky with it. Jeff Paka says, all right . All right . So when you were back there, back in Palm beach in 2006, and you were investigating all of this and you interviewed Carolyn and you talked to Carolyn , did she tell you that she had a phone book and was a phone number and she called and Epstein called her back. He goes, is it in the report? If it's in the report, then that's what it is. That's what I said. Did you read it? Paka says no further questions. <laugh> because guess what it is in the report. So he doesn't care. So he says he , yep , there you go. It is in the report. So probably, you know , get that admitted as an exhibit, got exactly what he needs out of him . Even though he was a little bit grumpy with him, no further questions cross-examination comes out and boom done . Prosecutor says, you show your 3 0 2 S to those you speak to Richard says, no, I don't. So do you see what's happening here? What's in this 3 0 2 report is very useful to the defense. It's saying that Carolyn obtained Epstein's number from a phone book and that Epstein returned her call kind of sounds like Carolyn sought out Epstein, not like Epstein was grooming her and you know, creating this whole scheme and , and putting her through this. No, she got Epstein's number from a phone book. She called him and he called her back. Okay. He said, it's in the report. The defense says, that's great. He's not a grooming and you know, whatever. And he just called her back. That's all he did. And so the prosecutor says, well, look, I know you wrote this. Did you show that to Carolyn ? Like, did she approve that 3 0 2 report? Did she give you the thumbs up on that? Did you show it to her at all? He says, no, I didn't. There you go. Next question, Amanda. Young, next special agent comes out. Maxwell's lawyer don't know who it is. Might be manager. We'll see, agent young was your partner back then detective burns. Young says, yeah. And we both checked those 3 0 2. Those summaries. We both read the summaries. And you just heard miss Comey's question to agent Richards. Didn't you? She says, yeah. And you heard him say that the 3 0 2 S they're not actually transcripts, right? They're not that's cuz their summaries aren't they that's right. So it's your interpreter. Okay. Yeah. Maxwell's lawyer continues. Says, and you, when you were completing these 3 0 2 S you're the person who actually interviewed Annie farmer , didn't you? Yeah, I did. And you talked to her about the boots, right? The boots that Laura Menninger admitted into evidence as exhibits, special agent young says yeah, I did. Yeah. The boots. We got those boots, law enforcement obtained those this year. I don't remember which month, but definitely this year we got 'em Maxwell's lawyer says, okay, well I've got something else I'd like to show you here. Special agent. Why don't you go ahead and read this young, picks it up. Starts reading says quote . In the beginning, Jane would be with her mother and brothers at the Epstein house and quote manager, then chimes in and says, all right , thank you. I want you to turn to page seven. You wrote, Jane did not recall specific abuse that may have occurred in New Mexico. Didn't you? So back when you wrote this in your 3 0 2, can you read this for me? In the beginning? She says Jane would be with her mother and brother at the Epstein house. Okay. Thank you. Flip it over to page seven. Now it says here, let me read this for you. It says you wrote, Jane did not recall specific abuse that may have occurred in New Mexico. You wrote that, right? Yes I did . Thank you. Maxwell's lawyer says just to emphasize the boots, those were discussed recently, right? Yes. They were the boots which have been, which have been admitted as evidence in this case. They're coming back in cross examination comes out, might be Comey . All right , Ms. Young . You're a special agent. Now you're on boot duty. What'd you do before that? She says, well, I actually interviewed children about child abuse. Hard pause right there. They walk up to the judge's bench. There's a sidebar. We watch a Amanda Young , the special agent, just sitting there in the Plexiglas. She's wearing a blue shirt, little dark black jacket, which coincidentally happens to look exactly like that. FBI agent, dark blue shirt, black jacket. <laugh> that I picked off of Google images. Nice judge. Nathan says, all right , jurors , uh, disregard that's statement about agent Young's previous job interviewing children. Okay. We're not gonna be talking about any of that. It's not relevant. So prosecutors still continues talking about Jane. She says, did Jane need more than one meeting to say what happened? Maxwell's lawyer scream, objection and beyond the scope. What does that mean? It means that during the direct exam, they didn't ask her about any of that. When Maxwell's lawyers were asking Amanda Young about her interviews, or I should be more clear, they didn't ask about interviews. They asked about one interview, that one interview, and now the prosecution wants to ask about all the other interviews. Well, they didn't ask about that. So how can they cross examine them about something that they didn't ask about? It's not a free for all . You don't just get to come in there and just talk about whatever the heck you want. It's gotta be within this scope of what came out on the direct exam. So the defense was very careful with this. They asked her about one interview and one interview you only. And as soon as the prosecution went off into the other interviews, objection beyond the scope. Prosecutor says, well, I'm gonna try this another way then that's probably true. It probably is beyond the scope. Let me just try it again. Okay. Who was there for the interviews? Boom. Maxwell's lawyer again ? Objection beyond the scope. I didn't ask about that. I didn't talk about who was there. I didn't say anything about that. There's a short redirect that comes through manager comes back out and says, okay, Ms . Special agent young, you know, notes that I was just reading you from the same one that you said that Jane didn't report any abuse. You know those notes, you used these notes with the grand jury. Didn't you? When you signed off on that indictment, young says yes. Some of them manager says, did you show her the 3 0 2 S I think she's referring to Jane. Young says, no, it's not ethical. It's not appropriate. And manager says, and when you have these conversations with these people, like you're sitting there talking to Jane, right? You did the interview with her. You wrote down that she didn't have any recollection of abuse back there in New Mexico. You don't record these interviews. She says, no, only the people in custody. So only the people that we arrest, we don't record the victims. We don't record the witnesses. Only those in custody, not the other people. And you also don't show them the 3 0 2 S she says, no, it's not ethical. It's not appropriate me . Continues. Are you familiar with how the department of justice obtains evidence and what their protocols are? Prosecutors screams out. Objection, judge. Nathan. Overruled. Mening says I've got a document. I can show it. Okay . And so it sounds like what we have here is a little bit of sort of impeachment going on here. You don't record them. You don't record these witnesses, you don't. And , and then , so what she's doing is she's saying, let me show you the actual protocols. You say you don't do things a certain way. Let me show you the protocols that say something different. I've got a document. I can show you. Here's what it says about recording victims. Here's what it says about recording witnesses. Did you do that? Oh, Hmm . Weird. Weird. If you didn't do any of those things, I wonder what that might mean. Don't know we get a nice summation of this over from the New York times, we know that this was Jane. Remember Jane, who was the first one that we heard from crying on the stand, very upset. There was an allegation back then that came out of Jane specifically. Jane said during her directs that Maxwell and Epstein would summon people up into that room. And there would be a group activity going on in there. Wild group activities. Defense lawyers had asked Jane back during cross examination . So remember rewind back to this. Jane's the first victim who comes out here. She tells the whole story. Where'd they take you? What'd they do where'd they buy you? What ? You know, all of these things, she says, they'd walk into a room. One thing would turn into another next thing. You know, there's five people in there, all just going at each other. And what happens here is she's asked by the defense, okay? You keep talking about these , um , little events that take place in the Epstein mansion, who was there, who was with you during all of these things. And she rattles off a bunch of names. She says, oh, Sophie was there. Obviously , uh , Ava, Ava was there. She was crazy. Emmy was there, Emmy who ? Michelle and Kelly. They were all there for all of these , uh, these activities. They all participated. And in fact, she says, Jane says, if you call them and they're gonna be able to corroborate that. Yeah . They can remember that nobody is gonna forget those affairs. And so that came out during Jane's testimony. And so what did the defense do? Easy . They just said, Izzy , we can do this. No problem. So you say that Sophie, Ava , Emmy , no , Michelle and Kelly, they were all there. Perfect. Well, we're just gonna go find them. And we're gonna ask them about this. Since you said that they were there, we're just gonna go round them up and ask them about these little events. Cuz certainly they would remember these, right? This is what the scene looked like. This was Ava Anderson Dubin. Here is a little bit about her over from Wikipedia. She is now a sweetest physician. She's a doctor, she's the founder of the Dubin breast center and the cancer Institute of New York city. She's married to a hedge hedge fund. Billionaire guy name is Glen Dubin. So I think she took that last name there. She worked as a model and she won the miss Sweden contest back in 1980, she was a fourth runner up of miss universe . She was miss Sweden in 1980, worked with Ford models agency. Let's see, they donated 19 million since 2011, they processed a number of different patients. Let's see, she was a model Eileen Ford. There was a , a model agency said she was excellent. Oh this is funny. Yeah. Ava Anderson. She was into the MIS Sweden contest without her knowledge. And then she won. It's nice. It's very nice. When you can just be entered into a contest without anybody without even knowing about it and you just win here . Here's here's a little , uh , little video I found on YouTube of AvaSpeaker 3:
Ave yourself , Sweden and miss Sweden . Ava and Sean followed by two Scandinavian view . Two is miss Sweden . And now miss SwedenSpeaker 4:
Agne is a brown eye crew . She's 18 years old . She pounds and she's five feet , eight inches tall .Speaker 1:
Oh right. All right . So, so you know, I , I think that was a little bit before my time, cause I was born in 1985 and I think that was like back in the 1980s. Right. She won back in the 1980s. Were they rating women like on the screen back then, did you see that like 7.6, five? Like they were actually rating these women on screen. Woo man. You know. All right . That's interesting. You know, interesting things times have changed. So a little bit about this woman's personal life. You can see here that she did. In fact date, Jeffrey Epstein uhoh . And guess what else? Folks, even after Epstein was in jail, after he pled guilty in 2008 , she still continued to socialize with him. See that Ava Anderson even continued to socialize with Epstein after his time in jail <laugh> after he had already been convicted for pro procuring prostitution. All right . Back in the early 1990s, she was seen by her future husband, Glen Dubin for the first time via a modeling photo in the page six section. And I guess when you're a billionaire like Epstein or like , uh , maybe Glen Dubin, you just see somebody on New York post page six or on a stage like that. And you say 7.6. Yeah. That's a good one. Uh , I'll take that how much? And they just insane. I , I guess I don't know how that works anyways. So this woman you can see here now, happily married and has the entire Epstein saga beyond her. Well, except for today, when she was hauled into court to testify for this thing, looks like a very nice family. Now, if you recall, if you've been with this channel for some time , you know that we've looked at this photograph before. Why is that? Well, here you can see Ava Anderson Dubin. You can see Mr. Glen Dubin in the middle there, and then you can see their nice daughter there on the right. Who is that daughter? Oh, that was Jeffrey. Epstein's prospective fiance. What? Yeah, that's right. He wanted to marry the daughter of his ex-girlfriend. Okay. <laugh> this guy. Jeffrey Epstein wanted to marry this girl. Okay. Let's let's back this up for a case. We missed this. He had already dated mom for a long time back in the 1980s already dated mom, Jeffrey Epstein. According to this article, once wanted to marry an ex-girlfriend's teenage daughter who called him uncle Jeff <laugh> according to the report. Okay. Epstein openly declared his plans to wed ele Dubin. That's this gal right here. Remember he already dated mom . He's the daughter of former miss Sweden , Ava Anderson, who had dated Epstein for 11 years until the early nineties, the pair had developed quote on especially close relationship. When Selena was just 12 with quote , uncle Jeff at times, having substituted for her dad, the Palm beach post has previously reported, citing a profile made by Epstein's lawyers. Epstein was telling associates in 2014 that if he ever married, it would be to sele who was 19 at the time sources told business insider. Okay. Now listen to this. Now this article came out from December 18th, 2019 . All right . 10:45 AM. Just over two years , just under two , uh , two years ago tomorrow. How about that? Two years ago to tomorrow , this article came out and you notice it here in this article. They quote this uncle Jeff thing here. Weird uncle Jeff, weird uncle. Jeff comes over and he's just gonna substitute. He dated mommy for 11 years. Now. He wants to marry daughter, Glen . The multi-billionaire uh, apparently was okay with uncle Jeff being substituted for her dad. What the effing F is? What, what is going on? I have no idea. What the heck is that is happening right now? What? <laugh> what? Okay. So uncle Jeff comes over, hangs out with mom dated for 11 years. She's married to a billionaire, wants to marry the, her she's only 19 back in 2014. And the whole thing I guess is just , uh , just , uh , okay, so, so that's who comes in and testifies. So now she's up here. Ava . DUBT Dubin is in the house. Maxwell's lawyer calls her up into the stand and says, can you tell me your name? She says, yes, I'm Ava Anderson. And I go by Ava Anderson Dubin. I live in New York city. I'm 60 years old. Thank you. Maxwell's team says a and you're married to Glen Dubin, right ? Ava says yeah. 28 years happily married three kids, 27, 25 and 20. How about the genders of those kids? Ava says female, male, female. Wonder which one? Selena is Maxwell's lawyer. Now what is Mr. Dubin for employment? She says he's self-employed <laugh> cause he's a billionaire. She says I was previously employed as a medical doctor. Oh, a medical doctor. Tell me more about that. You must be very credentialed. You must be somebody who's very reliable and credible. Tell me more doctor. Ava says I went to me . I went back in Stockholm and then I went to UCLA. And after that I went to Lennox hill. It was a hospital in New York city where I saved many people's lives. Well , that's great. Thanks for being here today. And Ava, can you tell us a little bit more about Epstein? How did you know him? Ava says, well, we dated, oh, how well , how long was that for? She says, oh , you know, off and on 1983 to 1991, you know how these things are? You break up, you get back together, you break up again. We all know how that goes. It continues. Maxwell's lawyer says, and you know, that's a long time from 1983 to 1991. My goodness throughout that entirety. Let me ask you, did you ever witness any particular contact between Mr. Epstein and, and us prosecutor? Allison Moe is so angry. She stands up and she screams. Objection, judge. Can't ask that judge says, hold up, hold up. You can't ask about, did you ever witness any contact between Epstein and somebody else? They go up there. They have a sidebar. They come back. That question doesn't sound like it comes back in Maxwell's lawyer continues. All right , Ava , I wanna show you some photographs here under seal is one person Mr. Epstein. And the other one of your children. Ava says, yeah, it's the 20 year old. I've never seen this picture before. Scary thought for a mother Maxwell's lawyer says, all right , well, let me ask you about these flight records then Ava and Ava says not much because it's all redacted. Don't get to see any of this stuff. Remember the flight records, we've heard a lot about these from Viki . We've heard about these from the other pilot. His name escapes me, but he is on the mine map, going through the flight logs, talking about people being on there and off of there . We know that Jane identified somebody named Ava is part of these group activities that took place all over the world. And Ava's now looking at the flight logs. Hmm ? Judge Nathan gives the jurors a break. We're still in the midmorning here. But remember we started late. There were a multiple objections from the government talking about, excuse me, publishing the flight logs and the judge, the sustains, those objections doesn't allow certain documents to come in. So testimony continues. They come back after a short break, we still have Laura Menger and she's still doing the direct exam. Remember this is the defense case in chief . And so we're listening to Ava Anderson Dubin, who was Epstein's former ex for 11 years. Talking about these flight logs manager says to Ava , I want you to look at this exhibit it's gov it's , uh , GX 66, 2 R . These are the redacted flight logs of Dave Roberts. Can you see this? Dr . Dubin judge, Nathan says, can we make sure that that's redacted? And if it is, then we can publish it. And remember that we have seen these. These were the ones that had huge blacked out , just, just in whole swaths of this page were just, it was just a BA basically a big black page on the screen. Then we see the flight. It says J it says Ava. And, and it also says Ms. Francis Hardeen so you see those three names. Ava, do you remember Francis Hardeen? Ava says, well, I remember Francis , I didn't know her last name, but Hey , I remember I definitely remember Francis and Meger says, and you knew that Epstein dating her and Ava says, yeah, I did. Yeah. Epstein and Francis and Jeffrey and Francis two little love birds . Hey, if I wanna show you another exhibit, this is GX 12. And now only for the witness in the court, the unredacted exhibit, this has been sealed. So of course, nothing gets shown on the screen. Can't see any of it. Do you recognize anybody in this? Ava says, yeah, I recognize Sophie Biddle . Who's Sophie Biddle . Oh, she's a massage massage therapist. Yeah. And I see my husband's name. So now I think we can glean what we're looking at might be a law. It might be a record, an invoice. She's looking at something that has her husband's name on it. We see a massage therapist named Sophie Biddle was Sophie. One of the names that Jane talked about being in those group activities, maybe Maxwell's lawyer continues. All right . Don't say the name. Don't say it. Do you see that name on this list? She says, yes. That name is Jane's real name. Jane's real name is on the same list as Sophie Biddle , a massage therapist and her husband's name. So must be just a pretty benign list. Jane's name is on there and Ava can see it. Maxwell's lawyer says, have you ever been in a group activity with Jane and Ava says, I have not names on the list, massage. The whole thing. I have never participated. We get a different interpretation of this from the New York times. And they're telling us that this is directly contradicting Jane's testimony. Remember Jane back then said she was abused by Maxwell and Epstein. This all took place when she was 14 or 15. She said that there would be this thing that would happen, where they would summon them up into this room, up into Epstein's bedroom. And they would turn into this big group affair. And then while cross examining Jane, the defense said, who else was there? Jane said, when she was testifying, when Laura was asking her questions that Ava joined in on the party. But, but Ava here says I never did. Ava. In fact says, I don't recall ever meeting this person. So Jane is saying that Ava was a part of these affairs, Ava saying, I don't even know who you're talking about. And I was never a part of any of that. Now, something else came out. Remember we were talking about Ava and her daughter that Epstein wanted to marry sick. Epstein's one time, a long time girlfriend was questioned about this. And she said that they remained. In fact, they viewed him as someone akin to an uncle. She said that today, after she split in the nineties, we were close and he was kind of like an uncle. In fact, they called him uncle F. She said of her kid's relationship. So even to this day, that same article that we read from back in 2009 , two years ago, two years to the day still calling Epstein, uncle F. Now she comes out, says I never witnessed anything. Never saw any abuse from a child, nothing from 1994, nothing to 2004, nothing listed in the Maxwell indictment at all. Good old uncle F Or uncle Jeff Cross examination now happens. Allison Moe government prosecutor comes out pretty simple. Hey Ava. Uh , quick question. Are you the only Ava in the whole wide world? Maxwell's lawyer scream. Objection, that's irrelevant. What kind of a ridiculous question that and judge Nathan says, no, that's overruled. You can ask that <laugh> and so that gets allowed to be answered, right? And so what Allison Moe is doing with a little bit of spice, I gotta say Ava, you know , uh , Jane said that there was somebody named Ava who was a part of these group at activities. Uh, you said that wasn't you do you think, and this is could be crazy. Do you think that there could be other AVAs out there that maybe Jane was talking about that wasn't you and the defense says you can't ask that question. That's irrelevant. And so the judge overrules that and Ava says , uh , no, I'm sure there's other AVAs out there, cuz it's a pretty common name. And so Mo then continues. Did you ever discuss with Epstein his relationship with Maxwell? Objection, hearsay. That's an out of court statement. You can't talk about that. Judge sustains the at , so that question goes, bye bye . Mo though continues and asks her about her memory a little bit. This is interesting. Mo says , uh , Ava , I'm sorry to do this respectfully. I gotta ask you though. You have any issues with your memory? She says, you know, I , I , I can't remember things from last month. I mean, honestly, Maxwell's lawyers says, Hey, you know, look, this doesn't need to be discussed. Okay. All that got out in front of the jury, Ava can't remember anything from last month. So prosecutor Mo says, all right , that's it. I got nothing further. New York times gave us a little bit more detail here. Ava said specifically, quote . It's very hard for me to remember anything far back. And sometimes I can't things from last month, my family notices it . I notice it. In fact, it's been an issue. So what do you take from that? Here? You bring in a witness who is supposed to be testifying about what she remembers. Guess what? She doesn't remember anything about these group activity affairs. She doesn't remember Jane. He doesn't remember any of those introductions apparently, but she also can't remember what happened last month, sometimes. So good or bad. Remember we talked about this. The defense said it. Memory, memory, memory, memory, money, and manipulation. We have another memory. So that was Ava Anderson, Dubin. Epstein's former girlfriend, testifying Maxwell trial day 12. Our next witness is another person named Michelle who also didn't participate in any group activities. So she says Laura, Meger called her to the stand. Michelle Healy , a former Epstein employee, somebody who worked at the J Epstein. And co-organization, she's called up to the stand is Healy . Can you tell me a little bit about yourself? Well, I'm 47 years old. I live in Dallas. What kind of work do you do? Well, I'm a housewife. No, that's nice. Well, what does your husband do? Well, he's an architect. And uh, how about family? You have any family anywhere? Well, my sister , uh , Shannon she's in Albuquerque and I grew up in long island. I've been living in New York for a long, 1974 . I'd say back all the way up to 1999 manager says thank you. If we rewind the clock back to 1996, where did you work back then? J Epstein and company. Oh, thank you. And when you were working for Epstein, what kind of work did she says? Well, I went to Zoro ranch. Oh , what brought you there? Well , my sister had a job there and I was working there and so , uh , I went to go there and work with my sister manager says. And when you were there at the Zoro ranch, were you ever involved in any group activities with Jane and Heely says absolute? Not absolutely not. Not just, no. I mean, absolutely not. Which you know, makes it that much more true. We get cross examination here. So Moe comes back out. No, it's Comey's back out and asks this same question. Uh , Michelle Jane said that there was a Michelle participating in all of these affairs. You say you did not participate in those that's right? Absolutely not . I did not do any of that. Okay. Well they say Jane said that there was a Michelle there, could it be possible that there are other Michelle's in the world? Or are you the only Michelle in the world? And Michelle says, well, I certainly hope not. And Mo says, and you never flew on Epstein's plane either. Heely says no, and that's it. Nothing for where they're from Healy . And so now we're wrapping this puppy up and we're trying to figure out what's happening with these next witnesses. Are we going to be done? Yes or no. Both attorneys are in front of the court talking with judge. Nathan judge says, listen. I always say I have so many bridges to cross. I only cross the bridge that is in front of me. Maxwell's lawyer is still pushing to have this nags head pub witness come in and testify. We talked about him at the start of the show. Maxwell says, listen, all I wanna do is put in the property records about these property that we're talking about. These are self-authenticating don't even need to have any conversation about it. They authenticate themselves. Don't need a witness. And so judge Nathan says, well, listen, what do we have after lunch? We're gonna let the jurors go for a break. Maxwell's attorney says, well , we're gonna get together. We're gonna work on the stipulations. We're gonna work on these factual agreements that we can come to and get admitted in front of the juries. So judge Nathan says, whoa, are you saying that there's no more defense witnesses? I'm gonna be spending my remaining lunch hour then reviewing Kelly. It's probably a different case. Prosecutor says, if not Monday morning, it's too late. Judge says it's gonna be a long break for the jury. Try to confer. And , and guess what that happened. They were out basically all day until 2 25 comes and goes, inner city press is there, Joe Neman is there Addie ads on Twitter? Is there all of the good journalists who are covering this case are sitting there wondering what the heck is going on out there. And it turns out the attorneys are conferring. Inner city press says jury's still out 2:25 PM. Nothing's going on? Jury's still not back. It's 2:42 PM. This is a very long lunch that's taking place. But now inside the courtroom, judge Nathan is saying, that's it. Clock is ticking. We're out of time. If you don't have anything to present, I'm gonna be doing the allocation. I'm gonna be asking Golin and Maxwell. If she intends to testify, we're getting to a close on this thing. We remember what judge Allison Nathan's rule was at the start of this. You get your next witness lined up or you rest. We're not playing this game. So Maxwell now has to make a decision. Do we test , do I talk? Do I take the stand and tell my side of the story? Yes or no. Maxwell is talking at length with her lawyer, Bobby stern , Heim, and everybody else. You can see what that looked like in court today . You can see on the left, we have Bobby stern Heim in a purple mask leaning over Glen Maxwell. Of course, in the center, getting advice from and four different sides looks like Laura Menninger on the top, right? Very likely Jeff pale Yuca they're in the center and Christian ever CRO crouching down on the floor, having conversations with Glenn about what to do, what to do, what to do testify. Yes or no. And they make a decision. Trial continues. Judge Nathan has now returned. And prosecutor Comey says we've reached some stipulations while they're talking. The judge says, how long do we have to read these stipulations? Comey says it's about 10 to 15 minutes. I mean, there's kind of a lot of these things. And what are we talking about? Manager wants them to take judicial notice of a 1996 case. This had to do with a least bill holding to Epstein. And so they're going to talk about that. Getting some documents in admitted, judge Nathan comes out with another ruling and says specifically, I'm gonna be sustaining an objection, given the posture of that case. So that it sounds like that document is not gonna be coming in. There was an old deposition of Epstein. It sounds like in the old deposition, the government's goal. Wasn't what it is here. Yeah. So they're gonna keep this excluded. Sounds like that was from a different civil case. The defense wanted to get that in. Judge is saying no. Now Maxwell's lawyer is not happy about this. It sounds like it sounds like managering is , is getting a little bit agitated. It, it says, judge, listen, Jane said that Epstein was living at nine E 71st street back in 1994. But this case says different. I'm trying to show you. We have another case from a civil lawsuit that says something differently. Okay ? Your witness Jane, who we've already shown, you know, really can't remember much of anything is highly problematic. Her testimony doesn't match what we know to be true. That came out of a different lawsuit. Judge Nathan says, listen, I have already ruled on this. Okay. It is not coming in. And I heard no arrest warrant for Kelly. No need to arrest Kelly Bo . Okay. So I , it's not coming in. And I heard no arrest warrant for Kelly. So Kelly Bino , would've been that other person that they issued a subpoena for. So that third person that they're alleging participated in those group activities is also not coming in. And the government says we're done too. We don't have any rebuttal case. Yeah. We got everything we needed in our seven and a half or eight days testimony. So that's all that we've got. So what happens next? The allocution Maxwell speaks. Judge Nathan says, Ms. Maxwell , please rise. Ms. Maxwell . The decision to testify or not is your decision. Nobody can force you to test. Nobody can force you not to testify. Nobody can promise you anything to get you to. You have a right to tell your side of the story it's guaranteed in the constitution. Do you understand these rights? Do you understand what happens if you give up these rights, do you wish to give up these rights? Maxwell says, your honor, the government had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So there is no need for me to testify. Here's what that looked like. As she stood up and received the allocution, you can see her there with her multimillion dollar defense team, New York post gives us a different read here. This is Ben fewer herd . Who's also boots on the ground due in great work. She said in court, she's not gonna testify. She told judge Allison , Nathan, your honor, the government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Nathan had asked her, I wanna make sure you understand this. You have , you know, you have the right to testify decision not to do it is your decision. Even if your attorneys say you should not testify, you know, you have the right to do that, right. And you really don't wanna do this. Maxwell says, your honor, that is correct. New stipulations are now coming in. We've got Laura Menger and some of the other attorneys are reading stuff into the record. These are agreements. A stipulation is an agreement between both parties, both sides, the defense and the prosecution. One stipulation one agreement is that the boots were seized by the FBI on June 29th. Okay . They're agreeing that date, those boots. They came from from the FBI in June of this year, like a couple months ago. So they needed to determine that and agree upon that. And they've done that also when the lion king opened, they agreed on that. Remember , that's a big issue. We'll take a look at that. And they also agreed that Dominic Hitite would testify that the Palm beach school maintains records. Right? And , and we knew that, that we actually heard from that witness a little bit. Now remember that lion king issue we talked about, remember Jane said that F Epstein said that, I'm sorry. Jane said that she went and saw the lion king, the Broadway play. Remember when that happened, we looked this up here and it looks like when it was on in Broadway, Wikipedia says this took place in 1997. And so of course Jane was born in a certain year. And so if she went and saw this, the lion king, the movie, well, this came out in 1994. And if she went and saw that on an opening day or something, you know, when it was still in theaters or when she had , when we would have to go into it a , a location to see it, she would obviously be younger in 1994 than she would be in 1997. But from her conversations with her attorney, she was pretty dang adamant that she saw the play, not the movie because she said she was sitting in the pews in the play, looking up at the actress and Epstein was saying, I know that lady or whatever, she's came . You know, she came to my Christmas party. So there's a big discrepancy there. And they just agreed about that. And so the jurors are gonna be playing with that. That's another tool that they're gonna have in their toolbox to play around with, as they're going through their deliberations, we're getting close to the finish of this day. We've got now inner city press reporting that the boots were seized. And as soon as those stipulations are over, guess what happens? The defense rests, not even two full days of a defense, maybe a day and a half a light start and an early close prosecutor also stands up. The us has no further case they're done to. So judge Nathan stands and says, jurors, you're gonna hear closing arguments, and then I'm gonna instruct you on the law. And you're gonna begin deliberations Monday. I ask that we start at 9:00 AM. It's possible. We're gonna be going until six. Don't forget, continue to follow my instructions, communications with the , uh , each other or anyone else about the case. Keep an open mind and tell summations and my instructions and be cautious out there. I wanna see everybody back here Monday at 9:00 AM sharp, all rise, and the jurors are on their way. They're out. It's Friday, they're home. They're getting a cocktail, they're getting some GrubHub. They're going and watching Netflix and they're chilling. And they, they have a tall order for them when they return back on Monday, because we're gonna hear closing arguments and then we're gonna turn it over to the jurors for a verdict. And a lot of people are sort of calculating the timelines on this thing. Could we get a verdict before Christmas? Could there be a Christmas miracle for somebody in this country? What about for Maxwell? You know, there's lists of naught or nice . What happens if Maxwell gets a Christmas miracle and she's exonerated? What if on Christmas morning, you wake up and Maxwell's a free woman. While somebody would be celebrating two things that day, not only would Maxwell be celebrating a Christmas miracle, but Galin Maxwell would also be celebrating her birthday because her birthday is on December 25th, 1961. So this Christmas season, when everybody's sitting around the Christmas tree, singing Christmas carols, you might also want to throw in a happy birthday going while you're there with your family. <laugh> , uh , I'm gonna vomit my guts up. This is , this case is the most insane CA like what, what is happening? Why is all of this <laugh> oh, I saw it and I was just like the timing. And then it's her birthday. The whole thing is just, it'll just make you , it'll make you just , uh , it'll make you go crazy. All right . So , uh , don't you don't actually have to sing her happy birthday. Okay. I was joking about that. Let's see what you have to say about this case and more from our friends [email protected] . And we had some super chats come in, shout out to our friends on YouTube. Uh , dry Ann is saying, how are folks getting from the trial? It's not on video. Well , uh , we're reading it from Twitter. Dry in . Yeah, you're right. It's not on video. It's not on audio. It's federal court. So a lot of this stuff is , uh, prohibited from even being rebroadcast. Even when you have those call in phone numbers and you can actually call in and listen, the federal courts are typically not allowing you to rebroadcast anything. So you might be able to call in and listen in which you cannot do for Maxwell. The only thing you can do Forline is actually go down to the courthouse guys like Joe Neman , uh , good logic here on YouTube guys, like add ads guys, like , uh , Adam class field . A lot of other journalists are there, but inner city presses there. Of course we talk about him, but he's tweeting from the courthouse. I mean, he's there, you know, watching it on the monitors and actually , uh, tweeting that out. So , uh, so yeah . Thank you for that. That was from dry Anne . We have another one from Mark Owen says support. Thank you, Mark Owens . I appreciate that. No question there, Jay says wrapped up before Christmas and the public will , will move on sick, sad, and rife with corruption. Thanks for all your work. Right? Right, right. In the middle of Christmas, you get a verdict right in the middle of Christmas. Nobody cares everybody's home with their families. <laugh> it ? It couldn't have timed it more perfectly. All right . Risk rise . Jones says an idea. You cultivate a few high profile people over 30 years, and anytime you abuse a child, you make sure they only use the name of the clean ones. I, I'm not sure I'm following that, but okay. I think I, I think I see what you're saying. Yes. I see what you're saying. That's really a horrific thought. Thank you for sharing , for sharing that like this. I see what you're saying. You're sort of like, it's like swapping a license plate on a car. Awful thought. Uh , oh my God, this is awesome. Says, can we see the less redacted flight logs now? Not from this court. No, we're not gonna see any of that. It's all sealed. Not gonna see any of it. Now, a lot of this stuff has been floating around the internet. And so if you dig into it, you know, you can find documents. Whether you believe them to be authentic or not, that's up to you. They certainly would not be authenticated in the court of law, but they might actually be authentic, you know, not legally authentic, but actually authentic. Just use your judgment of course, Anisha with no question, but a nice, super chat. Thank you, Anisha. I appreciate you supporting the show and let's jump over to watching the watchers.locals.com where, oh, let's take a look at the polls first. Shall we? So the poll here, we can see now we've got 33% saying split verdict. We have 12% saying it's a hung jury. Let me drop that poll link one more time. If you're there, we'll drop that in there. I think you've got that. Yeah . Okay. So the poll is there again, we'll check it one more time before you wrap up, but you can see 12% hung jury. So not gonna get a decision 24%. So , uh , a 32% say guilty on all counts. 20% say not guilty on all counts, 80, 20 rigged versus not rigged on the trial. And then we have whether Epstein killed himself or at , uh , 62% say he was killed only 10% say that he actually killed himself. <laugh> oh my goodness. Okay. So, all right . So let's jump over to watching the watchers.locals.com . See what kind of questions we've got here. I see a handful of them . We have first one up is from former L EEO says nice curve ball by the, to shorten the trial from six weeks to two weeks, with all the COVID travel problems that could get a conviction overturned. That was from former L EEO . Yeah . Six weeks to about two weeks and a day and a half, really like 11 days of trial day , 12 days. But it was really like 11, because day 11, I'm sorry, day. There was one of those days that was like a sick day. And we counted that as a day. So it was really like 11 days of trial. Insane. Kincaid says, Rob is live, chat down. Did I fever the ire of a cyber deity? I think it's working Kincaid. You might have , uh , anger, the I of a cyber deity. I'm not sure about that. All right . We've got some more, let's see. Falcon ho says, Rob show the pie chart again. All right . Here it is. So we've got verdict. We've got 33 30 6% split. 32% guilty, all counts. 21%. Not guilty. All counts. 9%, no verdict. Yeah. I mean, that's look, that's pretty fair. Like between these three here, guilty, not guilty and split . I mean, there's no real sort of clear majority. There voted 102, which is not that much. Not that, not that much. So this one has a lot more 5 28 that Epstein kill himself. So go vote. If you haven't voted, voted , voted , voted up. All right . So you can see actually them come in in real time as people are voting. All right . And so we got some more questions from watching the Watchers. Let's see. That was from kingcade our cyber deity question. Hopefully you didn't anger. Anybody too badly. Thunder seven says prosecution, the defense and the judge can go celebrate over the weekend. Mission accomplished. They got to throw out Trump's name. Didn't question. The real victims never talked about any trafficking kept the global elites like Clinton gates, Bezos, Branson, everybody else outside of trial, corrupt, rigged, and an insult to the minors who have been abused from thunder seven. I think a lot of people feel that way. Kincaid says did not misconduct happen in the Floyd case. However, the judge's decision does seem to lend to a stronger appeal. It seems like some want this to vanish at all costs. After things calm down, couldn't the appeal be handled in a manner that considers Epstein's agreement out of court quietly. Uh , well, I mean the appeal will be public. So it sort of depends on how loud and aggressive the public is with whatever outcome that is. But yeah, I mean, I think that it's gonna probably follow the same trajectory that the bill Cosby case did remember everybody, you know, when he got convicted, everybody's like, yeah , finally, me too hashtags all over Twitter. It's it's it's morning in America, again, bill. Cosby's going to jail. Okay. So everybody forgot about it. Bill Cosby is , you know , I , I was talking to somebody else about this, you know, bill Cosby's like free now. Right? He's like out what they said, what? And this is a person who knows a lot of things. Yeah. Because they got the story that they wanted. The other, story's not that interesting. So same thing could happen with, okay, we get her convicted. What are you convict her on Jane? Cuz it sounds like Annie farmer and Kate were neither , uh , were , were not actually allowed to be victims here. So you're already sort of two , you know, two , you already sort of one , two Daniel David says, I notice sometimes the live chat on locals is hard to reach. Thank you for that feedback, Daniel. I didn't know that, you know, I did have, I did have some , uh, some issue I was trying to livestream earlier this week and I had some problems with it. So hopefully that is not the same thing, but thank you for that question. Kinkaid, we got a few more from watching the watchers.locals.com. Another one from Kincaid says agent Young's report was cherry picked like text volt . We all know how that can go. I would imagine that it has to be frustrating when a judge refuses or doesn't see your point as a lawyer. Are there any modern examples of a judge's conduct being officially challenged? Oh yeah. I mean, that happens all the time. Yeah. I mean all the time, right? I mean, judges are, you know, judges are people just like the rest of us. They make mistakes, stuff goes up to a superior court, a higher level court. They get , you know, you can't do that and goes back down, okay. Sorry, I won't do that again. And so, you know, all of that is sort of normal and a lot of that can happen without, without a lot of animosity, like our, like our, our law firm, you know, we just had a case that we lost. We took it up on appeal. We won the appealable issue. It wasn't a dismissal of the case, but we do get to go back and do the trial again. Right. So it's sort of like that because the judge's decision at a lower level was not correct. Uh, and so we get to do the whole thing over. So it's like that, you know , so that judge, you know, experienced a new issue, we experienced a new issue. The prosecution experienced a new issue, you know, went a certain way. It wasn't really the right way. And so we get to kind of all go do it again because it was a new novel issue. But it, you , yeah . I mean, judges are , are , you can file a , a complaints against judges. There's, you know, judicial codes of conduct and judicial cannons that they have to follow. Yeah. They're, you know , they're highly regulated just like everybody else. Thunder seven says, Rob I've been included. I've included a link, which you probably have it's testimony from Dubin Butler who stated that he met a 15 year old Swedish girl at the due Dubin whom home who was absolutely terrified and told him her passport had been taken by Maxwell. And she was forced into activities at the island. And Eva Anderson Dubin was a participant Guffy . JRE also testified in 2016, the Dubin was a part of it as well. Well , that sort of corroborates the uncle Jeff thing, doesn't it? Oh, uncle Jeff is just around and um, yeah, just marry my daughter. All right . We have some more grouchy old cat lady says, is uncle Jeff doing a Woody Allen movie? <laugh> he's terrible. All right . A couple more before we wrap it for the day we've got thunder. Seven says the marriage of uncle Jeff to the daughter of Ava Dubin was a way to pass. Epstein's vast fortune to the Dubin without paying the estate tax. It's about money. Nothing else. Epstein only attracted to people younger than her. Horrible. All right. We have another one from jumping . Jeff says X well is guilty, but in the state's effort to protect bad actors, the state proved nothing. Just a big waste of time, except for the judge who got promoted. Yeah. The state proved nothing except their ineptitude sounds about right there , jumping Jeff. And I think my friends that was it for the day Daniel David said, locals can at it's a little bit hard to reach. So, all right . I'll take a look at that. Daniel. Thank you for that. And then over on YouTube share says, so will the issue of the Epstein funded document go public sooner? It's a good question. Yeah, we really didn't get into much of that. Remember that when we talked about the, the , uh, the mine map here, we had a couple issues. Let's, let's take a quick look at the mine map . Since we have , uh , a little bit of time. Now this is not up to date . As of today, I'm gonna update this. We'll have a final version of this come , uh , Monday, because we're, you know, trial is done, but we had a couple outstanding issues. And uh , this mind map of course, is pinned up in the chat. And it's also down in the description below, but we had a couple of these questions, the birth certificate stipulation. Yeah. The black book portions of that got admitted. So that's done. We had , uh , expert witness testimony that was pending. So , um, so a lot of the, this was we can call this , uh , denied, got denied legal witness testimony. So like when I'm talking about expert witness, that would've been , uh, yeah. And this was denied also. Cause we didn't hear from these guys. Okay. So remember these two, the legal witness testimony was denied. They were gonna bring in lawyers from , uh , Robert Glassman was Jane's lawyer and Scarola and Edwards represented , uh , two of the other victims here and they didn't get called. Right? So all of these legal witnesses, they didn't get called. Robert Keso did not get called. We did not see John Lopez, Gerald deport , Jennifer NASO was called Ben Gershman was not called. This was the prosecutorial integrity guy . We didn't see him. Ryan Hall. I can't believe we didn't hear from Ryan Hall. This guy was supposed to be like a key witness. He interviewed somebody in this case for six and a half hours, he wrote 108, eight page detailed report. He based his review on documentary evidence, medical records, court files. He did a six and a half interview. Didn't hear from him. Who did he talk to? No idea who he talked to, but we didn't hear from him park deets . One of the, like the world renowned experts in psychology, psychiatry, behavioral science, forensic psychiatry, nothing didn't hear from him. We heard from Loftus, but very briefly. And so we'll clear we'll clean some of that up, but I mean, this whole thing has just, just been it . Part of the reason we made this mind map is so I could put out 35 witnesses over here. I wanted 35 witnesses to fill , look at this is blank. I'm very, I'm very upset about this right now. I wanted to fill this out with all sorts of different nodes and different branches and trees. And we're not gonna be able to do that cuz they arrested their case. Ridiculous. But my friends that is it for the show for the day. I wanna thank you for being a part of the program. Him throughout this entirety of the week, we've been spending a lot of time on Maxwell. We're almost done with this. I know that a lot of people, myself included, you know, it's kind of a hard topic to just keep talking about all the time, but we're almost done. We've got closing arguments that are taking place on Monday. We're gonna hand this off to the jury. And while the jury's deliberating, we're gonna have a lot of time to talk about some other of things. And then we'll move back into some of the other , uh , less gruesome cases. Probably not. They're all pretty bad that we talk about here, but uh, at least we'll move on from this one, but we still need to get some closure on this. We've got a little bit of work left to do before we get to a final outcome. We've invested a lot of time in this. Some very, very high profile people are involved in this case. We've got Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein. We've got a number of victims, sort of this gigantic explosion of , uh , you know , evil or criminality that happens. And so we're gonna keep our eyes on this through the conclusion and we want you to be here with us. So my friends that is it for the show. Everybody have a tremendous evening sleep. Nope, we've got some , uh, I forgot. We've got some , uh, some new supporters to welcome to our community [email protected] . How could I possibly forget that? Big welcomes to Falcon Falcon , us New York. Welcome Falcon. We also have. Yeah . Well who joined up? We have, Rene is here. We have not R WC one 10. Chuck David , we got mark on w is here. Shindo nosy, Texas Rosie , TAs , mom, cookie monster, AJ DHA . MoPOP Inc. We got guitar . Terry Randy J Westworld equestrian girl, Richie DC , red Jersey is here. Nikki dragon things and stuff. We've got Donna 1 0 7, the vez Jimmy w big brother bites, Kimmy cat three, Kevin AZ. Antar 24 queen of Tennessee is here. Rey Lee music box lady Bry F MC Gloria Black cat Meow Nick McCloud , Dr . Brenton T Blakemore and Patriot minute are all a part of our community [email protected] And I have not forgotten, but are incredible MOS. All the people in the ranch over on YouTube, the people who help over on locals, the people who are a part of the show and help kind of keep the community thriving. We've gotta talk about, you know, some mod rules and some things about , uh, you know, encouraging free and open conversations on the channel. And so I'm not real sure how to, how to do this quite yet, but uh , keep your eyes peeled. If you are a supporter over at watching the Watchers dot locals dot come , very likely we'll have a live stream that we'll do. Um, at some point as , as soon, of course, as whenever is convenient for the moderators and we'll have a conversation about the future of the show. And so I'm looking forward to that. Keep your eyes peeled. If you're a supporter over there, we'll have some more conversations, but that my friends is it for us for the day, have a tremendous evenings sleep very well. Spend some time with friends and family. And I will see you here next week. Bye-bye my friends.