Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Ghislaine Maxwell Verdict Watch: Jurors Want Victim Details, Closing Argument Slides Review

December 21, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Ghislaine Maxwell Verdict Watch: Jurors Want Victim Details, Closing Argument Slides Review
Show Notes Transcript

Jurors are deliberating in the Ghislaine Maxwell case – and they have questions! 

🔹 Mindmap (updated today):
🔹 Judge Alison Nathan fields questions from the Jurors, who want specifics about Jane, Carolyn and Annie.
🔹 Government prosecutor Alison Moe ‘s slides from her closing argument are made available and we review.
🔹 Government slides contain more redactions but detail the story of Epstein and Maxwell’s relationship.
🔹 Alison Moe reads back testimony from transcripts of the trial.
🔹 Maxwell defense lawyer Laura Menninger delivered closing arguments, and we review her slides.
🔹 Defense lawyers use a diagram (mindmap?) details the connections between the lawyers and the victims.
🔹 Maxwell defense lawyer Menninger closes with the same theme: Money, Memory and Manipulation.
🔹 Your comments and questions!



MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):

Channel List:
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group -
✂ Clips Channel -

📌 January 2022 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.
🥳 Events exclusive to community supporters – learn more at 

Connect with us:
🟢 Podcast (audio):
🟢 Twitch:
🟢 Homepage with transcripts:

Or visit to schedule a free case evaluation!


#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 Scottsdale, Arizona. And today we're talking about Maxwell it's verdict. Watch time . Trial's over, testimony's over it's now deliberation time, the jurors are sitting back there going through a 80 pages of jury instructions, trying to make heads or tails about all the stuff or nonsense or testimony or whatever you wanna call it that we heard over the last 11 days or so. And so today we've got several different things we're gonna check in on. I know many people are probably wondering, Rob, how the heck are you gonna do a whole show about Glenn Maxwell when they were deliberating all the a there's not any testimony that came out? Well, fear, not my friends, because this is Jeffrey Epstein and goin Maxwell, because this is one of the biggest scandals, the , one of the biggest , uh, uh , most disgusting schemes that we've ever heard about. There's always something to talk about when it comes to goin . And so we're gonna do that. We're gonna check in with judge Allison , Nathan, the jurors to day, of course, we're deliberating. We had a couple interesting questions come out and recall how this works. They go back to deliberate and then they send a note out every now and then that goes over to the judges. And the judge has to communicate with the defense about the jurors questions. How do we answer it? What type of information can we give back to the jurors? And so we've got some , several conversations to break down about that, but the more interesting thing that we're gonna dive into today are the slides from the closing arguments that happened yesterday on yesterday show, we had the transcript provided by inner city , press amazing follow on Twitter. He's doing a great job. And we read through a lot of the testimony, but even inner city press and many people who were observing the trial guys like Joe Neman , good logic guys, like Addy ads . They could not see what was being presented by and large. A lot of it from what I gathered. And so that doesn't mean that there wasn't anything to see. Of course there were slides that both sides used. The prosecutors had an entire PowerPoint deck over a hundred slides. The defense had I think 129 slides, and those are all now publicly available. And so we're gonna go through those in detail, cuz there is some good stuff there. There's a lot of details in these closing arguments, summations that are gonna help us piece this all together. So we're gonna check in with Allison Moes, closing arguments and the slide that sheer to the jurors yesterday. Then we're gonna check in with Laura Menninger and her slides that she presented to the jurors yesterday. And so we've got a lot to get to. If you wanna be a part of the show, the place to do that is [email protected] They're chatting away over there. Shout out to Vient kiss . We've got BI speck is in the house. Let's see my mouse is uh, not on the screen. George Klaus is here. We've got Sason academy. We've got T Blakemore shout out to T Blakemore. Who's here. Tweak is here and they're all chatting [email protected] There's a form that looks just like this. If you're a supporter over there, you get access to that form. You can ask questions. Of course, we're also streaming on Twitch, shout out to Twitch and YouTube and rumble and everybody else out there, we appreciate your support. If you're looking for clips of the show, YouTube clips channel is the best place for those. And you can send those around various people. If you'd like to share the show . Of course, we appreciate that also. And so let's get into it. Maxwell verdict watch is starting and we have an update to the mine map . The mine map has been something that has been ever evolving. Of course we are now at the conclusion of trial, the conclusion of testimony. And so we can really see exactly how all the , this is piecing together. And so I updated this today, spent a little bit of time on it this afternoon. The mind map is linked over in the description and uh , basically wherever you're watching this. And so I wanna show you what the defense witnesses looked like since these are all flushed out now and we can see that there was a big gap. I mean , there was a ton of witnesses that were just not called and we can actually just go in here and close a lot of this up. So we know that Isabelle and Kevin Maxwell, we know Leah Sapian , uh , were never called. We know Kevin Moran, the guy who ran nag the, the nag, the nags head, I believe is what it was over in the UK. The nags had was a pub. He didn't testify. We had two very, very powerful witnesses, that expert witnesses, Ryan Hall, Dr. Park deets , didn't testify. We have all of these transactional people that didn't testify testifying about documents. And so we see now we're left with kind of a handful of law enforcement officials, Amanda Young, Jason Richards. We had Michael Aran . They all testified very, very briefly, not much came out of them. And then we heard from Michelle Healy , an employee over at Zoro ranch. We heard from Ava Anderson Dubin, who was Epstein's former girlfriend and Dominic hip Aite . Who of course was the school Palm beach school , uh , custodian of records. We have staff ly Espinoza and rag who SUD were the two people who were staff over there. And for some reason my Dr . Loftus has disappeared. I don't know where she went, but Dr. Loftus definitely testified for the defense. She was there this afternoon, but she disappeared. And so that's what we've got updated today. So we can , uh , sort of take a look at those. We'll we'll get rid of these not called witnesses. And the judge is now gonna be fielding question from the jurors and asking specifically about some of these people in particular spending some time asking questions about the different victims. And so let's see what judge Allison , Nathan had to say about this. She started off testimony the trial today, or the verdict watch today at 10, 10:00 AM a little bit of a late eight morning. So judge Allison , Nathan comes , takes , the bench, says, I've got a note. Jury has a question. What do they want? Inner city presses reporting. He says, they want transcripts of the testimony of Jane Annie and Carolyn , which is very interesting because you notice there's a name missing Kate Kate's name is missing. They don't really care what she had to say, but they do want Jane Annie and Carolyn . Now we're gonna break that down further, but you'll notice obviously one of the main reasons of course is that Kate wasn't or was a victim who was basically disqualified by the judge. Judge, Allison Nathan said that Kate is not a named victim of these charges. And so the jurors, they don't want anything to do with it. They just wanna see the testimony of Jane, Annie and Carolyn . So what happens is the judge says, no problem. We're gonna get those transcripts. We're gonna get 'em wrapped up. I'm gonna send them over to the court security officer who's been sworn in for this function. Okay? So this person is gonna come in here and get the transcripts. Now, apparently they're gonna have some conversations about redactions of transcripts. And of course, this takes a long time. And while that all is unfolding, inner city press tells us courtroom is empty. Again, three long transcripts are going back to jury . They are because those were the full transcripts of three witnesses for now. Inner city press has the objection and they've uploaded part of that. So then we get fast forwarding to 11:00 AM, three 18, still empty, but now there's several different defense lawyers sitting at Maxwell's table. Bobby stern . Heim is there at 1255, still no prosecutors at their table. Now they're counting two, maybe three. If you count Satan , who of course was , uh , sort of a family lawyer are theirs, no more notes for the jury and inner city press is just recording away. It's just sort of , uh , their reporting, no more notes for the jury. Then we get to the south afternoon. Jury is still deliberating 1 22 in the afternoon. Now Maxwell is brought out to the defense table. Other listed counsel scatter and Galin is talking one on one with Leah . Safian no in and out burger photo can be seen or taken in the courtroom. But inner city press says something is a foot, lot of activity Maxwell talking with Leah Sapian . We have the other attorneys, he says, scattering around what could possibly be going on here? He says , well, hold on a minute. Well just let me , let me clamp back down on that clamp, back down on the expectation of a foot Maxwell has actually been taken back into the holding cell . There's a burst of activity and sources, neither the prosecution or the defense say was only just to talk about redactions on the testimony given to the jury. All right . So you see what they're fighting over, what they're battling about. So I remember those transcripts that are supposed to be going back to the jurors. They came out. We want everybody except Kate , Carol and Annie. Well, there's a lot of conversations that are in those transcripts that court reporter's type , just typing up away on there and she's catching some stuff or that comes from here and over here and over here, some of it's objectionable, some of it has been redacted. Some of it really shouldn't go to the jurors. We objected to that. And so we wanna make sure that that's not part of the transcript. We gotta go back in there and cut that out. And so that's what they're arguing about. It's not like they can just open up a word file and just say, oh, oh, you want the transcript? We're just gonna print the transcript. Here you go. Jurors, you saw everything that happened to in here. No, no, no, no. Both sides are any of those objections that were sustained. Anything that came out of a sidebar, any other testimony that, you know, don't pay attention to that. Now we didn't get much of that here. We didn't see all of it, but you know how much that happens in the trial. And so they're just not gonna give 'em the Rob unadulterated transcripts. They're gonna wanna make sure that that thing is narrowly tailored and crafted to support their arguments. So they're gonna make arguments about that. We fast forward to this afternoon, same story. We're now at 2 51, the day's almost over, still deliberating away. Courtroom three 18 is now populating again. Jurors, come back . They've got a question. Glen Maxwell is now brought judge. Nathan says to everybody, I have a note. Here's what it says. We would like the FBI deposition 35 0 5 0 5 referred to by the defense. Huh? What is that document? Deposition? 35 0 5 that was referred to by the defense. So it sounds like this might be impeachment material. The defense is cross examining somebody and referencing a deposition that somebody else took one of the victims and was collaborating them over the head with this. Oh, in the deposition, you said this, but today you said that very convenient. Isn't that interesting? And so some jurors got notes of that and they said, Hey, we wanna see that. What is in that deposition document, prosecutors screams out. Well, that's not an evidence. Okay. So they don't get to see that the defense was using a prior FBI deposition, a prior recorded interview, not as an exhibit, that document was never admitted as evidence, but they were using it to impeach a victim or a prior witness. And they were saying, listen, you just testified when the government was asking you questions that X, Y , and Z happened, but you told the FBI in 35 0 5, that this happened didn't you. And so the jurors are saying, oh , you know , Hmm , it didn't sound credible there. So, you know, we'd like to see that 35 0 5. We'd like , uh , tell the judge, send him a note, write it down. We want 35 0 5 Senator the judge. And the prosecutor says, that's great. The defense used that, but that's not in evidence. So they don't get to see that prosecutor is objecting to that. Obviously it's impeachable it's it's impeachment material manager or one of Maxwell's lawyer said that, okay, well that 35 0 5 . What we're talking about here is impeachment of Carolyn . We remember Carolyn Carolyn was the third victim who came out and her story was pretty weak. If you have to rank them, I think she may have been the worst, very emotional lot of history with her lot of, you know, sort of weird lawsuits that were flying all over the place, history of drugs and abuse. And so she just didn't seem as credible. Some of the others now out there is impeachment material about her in that document. And they know that it's not in evidence. And so if they're having a conversation about how to answer the jurors, they've got a question. Well, what do we say to them? We tell 'em, it's not in evidence. So judge Nathan says, well, no , we can't tell them that it's not in evidence. How about we just say, how about we just say this , uh , all admitted exhibits are before you <laugh> , you know , cause they can't say no. So they have to say all exhibit, all admitted exhibits are before you prosecutor says, all right , that's fine with me. But then Maxwell's lawyer says, well, hang on a minute. Let's hold on a minute. Now hold on, says, well, why don't we say, rather than all admitted exhibits are before you let's say you have the admitted evidence about 35 0 5. Just don't say that it is not in evidence. Okay. Because if you say that it's not in evidence. Well that I have some concerns about that. If you tell the jurors, okay. That 35 0 5 is not in evidence. Well then maybe they don't consider it. And, and judge, that's a big part of my impeachment testimony. My cross examination was based on this. So I don't want you to say anything about it. Not being in evidence. Nathan says, well , they're asking for the document. And I presume because they have the testimony about it, right? Like they have the transcript that actually talks about this. They have Laura Meger or whoever was doing the cross examination at the time beating up on Carolyn saying, oh your your 35 0 5, your FBI depositions has something entirely different. Okay . All of that is in the transcript. That's all written down. It's, you know, sentenced by sentence in there. They don't care about that. They want the actual depo document. And so judge Nathan is saying, well, they want that document because they have the testimony about it. So they want to dive into it. So judge Nathan then pauses and starts to write something out by hand. It's kind of scribbling down there on the bench. So she writes something like this. She says up, it is not an exhibit. The testimony about it. You have, so I'll just send a note in for efficiency. I'll say this, I'll say 35 0 5 is not an admitted exhibit, but the testimony about it, you have how's that sound prosecutor says. Yeah. Yeah. That sounds right. And the defense says, yeah, yeah. Okay. I have that. Yeah. It's not an admitted exhibit. So you can't see that document, but you do have the testimony about it and you can consider that as evidence. Oh , okay. So the defense says, that sounds pretty good because the defense wants this to land. They don't want them to say , uh , no, you can't have that. Cuz then they say, well , why can't I have , or the prosecutors don't want them to say no, you can't have that. Then the prosecutors are looking like maybe they're trying to hide something. So they want to craft how this goes. Right? You see how important this is? It sounds so stupid. Maybe not, to me, it sounds like it's incredibly important. The jurors are giving you a hint. They're opening the door into their minds. They're saying, this is what we're thinking about. Uh , Carolyn kind of sounds like she might be a liar and there was a deposition that took place. We're reading it in the testimony. And we wanna look into that. And so the defense is going perfect. She is a liar and let's show you how. And so trying to craft a little bit of a statement to insert that right into the middle of the jury deliberations, how can we Conco this little note and use the power of persuasion and the manipulation of the language to get us an unfair advantage. Both sides are doing it. And so you can see that takes a long time. One question. Very important. We have another question now, after that happens before, get into that next question. What do we have now? Now that there was a note that came out Maxwell's lawyer want a copy of it. They say, you know what? We wanna see that note <laugh> because that's how important it is. They send a note out. Then we wanna see the handwriting. We wanna see the , uh, the font that this person used. Did they write in capitals, lower case ? So what's going on here, man, woman , guy, girl, what's going on? So they actually summon judge Allison , Nathan to come back out and she has, they say, judge, we want a copy of that note, judge. Nathan says, well, you know the foreperson signed it. So, all right , we're gonna have to redact it. I guess, if you want a copy of it. So we're gonna have to go through the redaction process. Let me read it to you again right here. So the judge reads it out again. They want copies of the depo . Well , they're not gonna get it. And so then judge Nathan clarifies this a little bit and says, well, you know, counsel, you're already aware of the identity of the jurors. So I'll just redact it for the public and the public can get the redacted version. So we don't see the name of the juror. How's that sound all good? All rise. Everybody stands up. Now we're back to verdict. Watch no verdict. At this time. We fast forward in time at 4:06 PM. We're coming to the close of the day. Judge Allison , Nathan reconvenes. I have received a note. She says the jurors say they want to end the day today at 5:00 PM. It's not even a question. It's just a note. And they're telling us that their schedule tomorrow really should be from nine to four 30 and then they wanna have lunch at noon. So they're setting terms, I guess the jurors are sending out to the judge. Uh, this is when we're gonna be deliberating and , and available tomorrow, just so that you know, so the judge says, okay, well it is possible for them to deliberate on Thursday. So we've got a full day of Wednesday. They technically could deliberate on Thursday. Then we've got Christmas Eve and then Christmas day. And so we have a little bit of a precarious position to be in don't. We we've got a hard clock coming up Christmas and we all know that Maxwell wants to get this thing wrapped up before her birthday on the 25th. She doesn't want this thing hanging over her head while she has to celebrate. And so the defense has to sort of gauge what they wanna do here. Do they want a quick verdict or do they want a long verdict? Do they want to encourage the jurors to just process all this information and get it over with? Or do they want them to really drag this thing out and slog it out and consider every little piece of detail? Every little piece of evidence don't know , but they give us a little bit of a hint. They tell us that Maxwell's lawyer, Bobby stern Heim ask the judge about that. Will you offer them Thursday? She says so that they can make arrangements. We'd actually prefer that. Yeah. Go ahead and give 'em Thursday and let 'em know you're here on Thursday. And so you better take that time off. Tell your family you're not coming home, whatever you're due for deliberations, judge Nathan kind of agrees, says, yeah, we could tell 'em that. And this is a little bit of a change. Remember yesterday, I'm sorry. Maybe it was not yesterday, but it was earlier when they were trying to scramble in their last witnesses. Remember the defense was gonna fly. That guy Moran over from the UK to come in here. He was over at the nags head . Couldn't get him. They got a couple bad rulings from the judge. They couldn't call in those other lawyers. They couldn't go into a lot of lines of questioning with those law enforcement officials. And so their case was just kind of cut out from under them. They couldn't talk about any of the prosecutorial integrity problems, none of that. So they rested very quickly, but not without a little bit of what felt like a little bit of panic there at the end. Like they wanted to extend this thing beyond Christmas because Bobby stern Heim and the defense said multiple times, we don't want them to feel rushed. We don't want them to go in there and just make a split decision and feel like go in Maxwell. She's gonna keep me home for my kids during the holiday season. It's Christmas week. And I'm very angry about this. And so I'm gonna take it out on somebody. I don't wanna sit here deliberating with these knuckleheads. Let's get this over with and just vote her guilty. The defense is saying we don't want that, but now it sounds like they kind of do want them deliberating. Maybe we cram it in there on Thursday and then they can just come, can make a ruling. Bobby stern Heim says they wanna do that. But then we get a very interesting question right before the end of the date , after the jurors dictate their schedule to the court, 4:30 PM. They have another note. And another question, very interesting. One they ask, can we consider Annie's testimony, conspiracy to commit a crime and counts one in three, the prosecutor Springs out of seat . Yes. Yes. You can say yes. Tell him yes. Tell him . Yes you can. Maxwell's lawyer says, hold on. Not so fast. Take it easy over there, buddy. Boy, they say, listen, if someone asks, can I drive? You could answer. Yes, but within the speed limit. And so judge Nathan just decides on this. Yeah, you may. Right? So Annie , that that's exactly what her testimony was really for. If we recall, remember the judge said that an , that , that the actual contact between Annie and Maxwell or Epstein the allegations weren't illegal. So as to that physical contact, that is not illegal. Kate is not a victim period. Annie is not a victim as to that type of conduct, but not about out the conspiracy. She was not excluded from that analysis. And so this is just very consistent with that. Now the jury, very interestingly, cut that, right? They saw a little bit of a disconnect in the rules they saw, you know, judge said that we can't consider Kate. So anything with her has to be gone. But now we're saying Annie, she was only for the other counts, but does that disqualify as a victim as to the other conspiracy charge? They asked that very good question. Same question I had, obviously the judge says no. Yeah, you can consider that the conspiracy from the , the conspiracy testimony from Annie can count for counts. One and three says the judge, now this is what they're looking at . This is why it matters because they're going through this and there's saying, huh ? We gotta check one of these boxes here. Count one, conspiracy to entice individuals to engage in travel and activity guilty or not guilty. We gotta note when they're asking about one and three, can we use what we heard from Annie in our analysis? Judge said, yeah, you certainly can. And so we're wrapping up here. There's a photo that was shared by inner city press. We just saw that. Now we get the conclusion. Jury comes back and they discuss the timing tomorrow. Yeah. Nine to four 30 is fine. You can have lunch at noon. Sounds like they're already pairing to deliberate all day. Like they're not even close. Your lunch order is on your already ordered. They're planted for a nice meal. They say, listen, if you have not completed your deliberations, it's possible for you to continue deliberation on December 23rd. So get ready if you people don't come do a decision. You're coming back here on Thursday, wear your masks, except when you're eating or drinking. Thank you. Jury leaves. So judge Nathan says, okay, you lawyers, did you people finally finish agreeing to the redactions on the transcripts? And the prosecutor says, yeah, we did. We spent the last , uh , all day going through the redactions and Nathan says, well, lemme tell you this, you know, it's pretty frustrating to have them wait for three hours while you two can work out these redactions. And then they're adjourned for the day inner city press reporting from the courthouse.

Speaker 2:

Okay, here we are , uh , fully not fully square. We're in, we're in Pearl street, just off fully square. Um, the first full day of deliberations has ended and it ended with a bang. It ended with a jury, a question, whether they can use the testimony of Annie to convict for conspiracy under counts one and three, as some have said, not a good question for the defense, but they didn't decide today. And in fact, they've already ordered up their lunch for tomorrow. Um, the lunch being at noon and they wanna work till four 30 tomorrow, which implies that they might go into Thursday. And that's what , uh , just what judge Nathan has said. I'm gonna flip this around so you can see the, we can do a real stand up here. Here you go. There's the door. There's the people waiting. I believe that the brother, Kevin, Kevin Maxwell, he should be coming out soon. Uh , maybe Leah Sapian maybe Leah , Sapian the legal mind in and out in out burger . Hang on. Is the door opening? The lights are on and we're ready to roll. We're gonna turn around this . This is one, rather than the question that we've asked before Kevin Maxwell, whether , uh , the UN ever responded to their petition, the UN, which of course supported Maxwell and also had a Epstein UN fellowship. But now we have a more serious question. What do they make of that question? And what do they think? Now? The jurors maybe reach a decision let's say on the 23rd, just before Christmas. Cause this will be this, will this be a , would that be a ground for appeal?

Speaker 1:

Isn't it ? Good question. Very good question. So that's inner city press and he's doing an amazing job. So please go follow him. You know, a lot of what we cover here would not be possible without guys like him and him in particular. So he's at inner city press on Twitter. Awesome follow. He's doing a great job, but he asked a very good question. You know, and this, this might be part of the reason why the defense has changed their tune a little bit. And they say, we wanna really we're okay. Sort of if the judge pushes this thing, because he's saying, well , maybe this is an appealable issue. Maybe iFLY Maxwell is convicted. The judge is gonna say well of I'm sorry. The , the defense is gonna say during an appeal, of course she was convicted. They forced this thing down. The jurors were not thinking about justice. In this case, they were thinking about going home and having their eggnog with their little Johnny by the fire treat fireplace <laugh> . So, you know, they , and they're gonna say that was a violation of her duke process. She didn't get the right to a fair trial. Part of a fair trial is the jury has a reasonable time to deliberate and come to conclusions. And so they're gonna of course raise this in their check boxes of appealable issues, which they have a whole slew of them. So now that we know what happened today, this is how deliberations are going to continue to look and will continue to cover of them. We now have to talk about closing arguments. Glenn Maxwell , closing arguments took place yesterday, and we didn't get to see much because there was redactions and blank screens everywhere you turn as has been the case in this proceeding for quite some time. But we do have some documents that came out the slides from both the prosecution and the defense are now available publicly inner city , press through them in a PDF and put them up on document cloud. And if you're over checking out the mind map and you wanna follow along, you're free to do that. Come over here to the important document section. And if you scroll into the important document section and you roll all the way down here, you're gonna see closing argument documents, closing argument documents. We've got three different documents here. We've got the jury instructions. We went through some of those yesterday, but they're now here on the mine map been available. There are 83 pages. So if you wanna see what the jurors are looking at, you can just click this PDF and it will open up. We also have the prosecution slides and we have the defense slides. And so you can actually take a look at all of the documents here, and we are going to do that. We're going to start off with the government slides. This is from their closing arguments. And you can see this looks exactly like a government slide. It looks like it was written on a 1980s, computer terminal or something like that. Okay . It's the Kalibri font on blue Blackground blue background. Yeah, that's the word? And so here's what we see now, a lot of these are exhibits. Okay. This is stuff that was submitted to the jurors that we have not seen till this point. Okay. Government exhibit 4 22. And look at this letter. Remember this letter was read in court. They're saying that this is written by Golin Maxwell, that she was writing this about Jeffrey ENGO Lynn and the third person. And sometimes people do this, right? They write in the third person, they write what their future lives look like. They sort of future self author , very powerful technique, actually. So she may have been doing that. I don't know Jeffrey and Galin . She says, allegedly, this is her. They've been together a couple for 11 years. They are contrary to what many people think rare apart. I almost always see them together. Glen , apparently writing about herself says goly is highly intelligent and great company with a ready smile and an infectious laugh who always puts one at one's ease and always makes one feel welcome Jeffrey , and goly share many mutual interests. They have a lot of fun together. They both have a keen searching inquisitive minds. She grew up amongst scientists and in an academic and business environment, they share a love of travel and art. She speaks five languages. She enjoys spending time visiting auction houses . She says that is the best way to learn about arts and antiques. You're expected to look in touch and asks questions. Glen also has her own interests and her own business pursuits independent. Strong-willed something which Jeffrey loves about her. She's adventurous. She flies helicopter, she's athletic. She rides horses, plays tennis skis and scuba dive . She's a serious photographer. Always has a camera in hand. Who's collaborating with some sort of leading people involved in the cutting edge of digital photography, Jeffrey and Galin compliment each other well. And I cannot imagine one without the other. She says on top of being great partners, they're also best friends in life. Very interesting. Now this is exhibit 22 and they submitted this in front of the jury. And if you recall from the testimony, they say that they went in there, they looked at the metadata and guess who wrote this document? GMAX did wonder who that could be. So this is exhibit 4 22 B. And when you dive into that a little bit further, they actually go into the registry software information and they show that G acts installed service pack . Number one on Microsoft windows 2000, which was probably very necessary at the time. And so the testimony continues and you can see they're highlighting this from the language 11 years. They're rarely apart . I almost always see them together. They're great partners. They're best of friends. And remember the conversation that we had a , a lot about this victim or villain defense, she's a victim. She had nothing to do with this. Jeffrey Epstein was the prime mover on all of this. And she was just a victim along for the ride. Who's really being abused. And part of his trail, his wake of destruction, prosecutors said not at all. They are partners. They are colleagues. They are compadres in this whole thing. And you can see that highlighted here. We went through a lot of these photographs. So did the government, evidently you can see here they are , uh , gonna be , uh , displaying these all around for the jurors as well. This was that scene, allegedly out by the Queen's , uh , cabin. Apparently the queen state over there. This is , uh , when they're fr looking around and he's got his red jumpsuit on, you can see a lot of these photographs. We spent some time on riding around on motorcycles, attending holiday parties , uh , going duck hunting with their P lots of hugs, lots of kisses. Now we're gonna see what the defense had to say about this. And they said that these are just selective photos. Remember that they just picked these out of the bucket. The worst photos that make them look like partners, but they're not really. Now we see some of these other photos. Remember exhibit 3 42, the old massage. Now, before these were released to the public, there's another photograph here. I think we have that one, but it might be the foot up in the Boso. In closer proximity. We see New York, the testimony went over to his residence there. We see the Zoro ranch out in the Hills of New Mexico, isolated from all society. We see the place in Palm beach that was rated by the FBI. Here's the place of over in London, exhibit 7 0 5 here's little St . James and the prosecutor was just going through each one of these one by one and showing the opulence of this guy, showing the scheme, showing everything that was happening all around and then recounts everything from Les's testimony. And remember, this is how the government started out. Alesi won , not John, even though those racist jerks go in and Jeffrey kept calling him John and told him not to have bulges in his pockets to the household manual. Only Epstein can have bulges. The manual says so. So we're going through the direct testimony of Alessi . And he said, Glen define herself as being lady of the house. Remember this household manual lady notepads were supposed to be everywhere. Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell cards and envelopes. They were all over the place. Three sizes of notepads letterhead stationary. It was Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and their guests. It wasn't Mr. Epstein and his guests notice how there's two people there they're together. They want a copy of the telephone directories placed next to the telephones. We have Mr. Epstein's breakfast preferences. He wants water, coffee, sweet and lower equal in his coffee creamer with half and half warmed in the microwave for 25 seconds. And then he's gonna tell you what he wants to eat. Okay . We Maxwell wants Maxwell house coffee, which is very interesting. <laugh> Maxwell, only drinks, Maxwell, house coffee, serve with milk and freshly squeezed or introduced and a glass of water. She also wants one Weeda bits with sliced banana, whatever that is, milk and sugar on the side. So these are partners. These are not, you know, this is not a victim. She's getting her Maxwell house coffee along with everybody else. All right . And so the house manual just keeps going through. If somebody calls for Maxwell, it's in the manual, she's not available. Can I take a message? And when you answer the residence , you say , uh , uh , good morning, this is the Epstein Maxwell residence. You say , uh , good morning. This is the Epstein residence, right ? There are a couple exhibit 6 0 6 household manual goes through all those different documents. We have shampoo and massage products. Yesterday. We talked about this on the show, all those tubes of Glo in the shower, whatever shower that was. I was wondering where , what is all Glo for ? How much stuff can you slather all over your face and body enough already? Well, this is the list. Allo mass body, mass oil cream , uh , all from keels. We got pH ology. We got pH to hum , four Toine with rum and eggs. <laugh> what does that cost? A thousand dollars an ounce, probably Ru eggs for fight or fortify, whatever. All right . So G max also documented, wrote this document. Apparently she said , I need 35 vials of gloop for my body. Then we are , then we start talking. <laugh> about poor one . Alessi has to , uh, clean up the torpedoes and put those back into certain areas. Part of the household manual also says, remember that you see nothing, hear nothing, say a respect. Everybody's privacy, mind your business. We continue to go through the closing documents. The closing slides, Mr. ESI , what did that mean to you? It meant I was supposed to be blind, deaf and dumb. I was supposed to say nothing about their lives. We have Dr. Rocko . Now we get into her testimony. And so they're giving us a breakdown of this. Remember Dr. Rocko , she gives us the five stages of grooming. First, you gotta select and identify. Then you gotta obtain access to them and isolate them. Then you have to engage in lies in deception. You have to manipulate them. You wanna build a relationship of trust and attachment. Once you have their trust, then it's very easy. We're gonna desensitize that person to certain types of contact. And then once they're desensitized, then guess what? We're gonna escalate that contact. And we're gonna coerce and try to continue the abuse and reduce the likelihood of disclosure. And then we see some photographs, government exhibit 1 0 1, who could that be? Well, we know that that was Annie farmer . And we know that there was another conversation here about Carolyn talking about what was being touched. And where did Maxwell ever touch you? She said, yes, said Jane Jane said that Maxwell did on her chest. And so you can see what's happening. Here we go through the five stages of grooming. And then the governor prosecutor Mo is now connecting every single victim. Talked about Jane talked about Carolyn . Now talking about Annie. Annie said I was very, I was fearful. I wanted it to be over with, we see exhibit 7 41. This is the $200,000 that was paid for by Mr. Jeffrey Epstein over to the interlock in school of arts. Remember that was for the scholarship lodge. And so we had a lot of the different transactional witnesses who were explaining how Dean was performing. All of these instances of grooming all the different steps, access. How do you do that? You're looking at it. The interlock in school of arts, 200,000 bucks, they're gonna gimme a lodge. Perfect. I'm gonna have an unlimited supply of access to young people. Perfect for a measly 200 gram . No problem at all. He does it. We see interlock in is exchanging, you know, messages back and forth. Jane says that when Epstein approached her that she was shocked, she was 14 years old, some pretty aggressive testimony here. Very embarrassing. You're 14. You have no idea what's going on. First time, anything like this has happened to me. And he even used torpedoes on a 14 year old. I've never seen anything like this. She says, we see government exhibit 9 0 4. And we've talked a lot about these photographs. All of these are redacted. And again, we don't know if these redactions are only public or what the jurors are gonna see. Okay ? The jurors could be seeing some of these photographs or they could not because the defense may have been successful in arguing that these were too bad. The photos were too damaging and that anybody who sees a photo like that would just resume that anybody who would have a photo like that in their house must be guilty of something. So the defense might say, look, it's, it's just too bad. They can't see it. It's too probative. I'm sorry. It's too prejudicial and not probative. Right? So the same concept over here, I, I have an idea of what that photo is. I , I want is that the bill Clinton photo right there, that might be the bill Clinton photo. I don't know. But prosecutor Moe continues with her testimony. Aless when you first met Jane, how old did he appear? Did she appear 14? He says Aless turns out to be a pretty big part of this testimony. We have Matt. Remember Matt . Matt was, I believe Jane's , uh , ex-boyfriend. Jane told Matt that she was 14 when she met him. So we have another witness. Who's going to support the Def the prosecution's case. Matt says that her mother said that the money wasn't free. Other words, the mother was almost kind of selling her daughter away. We go back to expert. Rocko . Rocky tells us Rocko is the , of course the grooming expert tells us a little bit more about the process. And then we go back to Jane. Ava joined in Michelle, joined in. Remember that testimony from Jane I , all these people joined in these group activities, Annie farmer , and a big redaction. Annie farmer wrote in the journal. We have a little bit from that. She says something, something, something in my dream dress. One night we went to the movies with Jeffrey Epstein. It was a little weird. One of those that is hard to explain. We were sitting next to each other. He put his hand four me to hold and we were holding hands, not weird, normal and fine. Then he kind of caressed and rubbed my arm and that shoe foot something can't read that . She says, it's one of those things that just gave me a weird feeling, but wasn't that weird and probably normal. The one thing that kind of weirded me out about it was he was let go of my hand when he was talking to Maria. Oh, well, I decided it was no big deal. It just made me mad because he, whatever he cared , rubbed my arm. Okay. Yeah. I mean, so that's fine. I mean, that's all about Jeffrey Epstein. Again, she continues. And are we gonna see anything about Maxwell? She says it just made me mad because he's being so amazing paying for a summer program for me and helping me with college. He's so nice and so generous with, and I just want to have any weird things about it. Weird feelings about it. I didn't couldn't say anything to Maria about it because she worships him. It would just be problems. I couldn't tell anyone else because it is still not a big deal. I didn't want to portray him in a bad light. I really don't think it is. I , we don't know what else there is. And so the prosecutors are showing this to the, to the jurors and saying, you can see what's happening here. This creep show is creeping on her slowly. Maybe at this incident, it wasn't all illegal, pretty normal at this point or not , not normal. Let me correct that right now. Not normal at all, but not overtly criminal. Oh , that's not sure either. If she's 14, I think this is all pretty much crossing the line. But what the defense has done here is they've tried to turn this into something that is more benign. Okay . So what if you recall, we're gonna see this in the defense's closing arguments, but they come out and you see this language specifically talking about holding hands and this not weird language. I wanna point that out before we move on, gave me a weird feeling, but it was also sort of not weird right here. The pro the , the defense is, is latching onto this. It's just handholding. It's not weird. You said it was not weird. You said it was normal and fine, but maybe you change your story, right. Is what they're saying. And so the prosecution is gonna say, that's not, that's not at all the AR that's not the point we're making here. The point here is that this is very early on in the grooming phase. This is like at second stage, okay . We've got three more stages to go before it really gets bad, but this is the warming up part. It started with the identification interlock, and now we're getting to the escalation phase. And so the defense is gonna say, yeah, right here, this isolated incident, the handholding thing, okay. Maybe that's kind of weird for an older guy or younger person or whatever. They're fighting about the age in general, but saying that this is all took place three years after the fact when Jane saw the lion king brought Broadway play when she was much older, 17, not 14. So they're, they're contesting that, but they're also contesting the fact that it's a feeling that's weird or not saying you said it, wasn't weird. Now you're saying it is because you've been manipulated and you've collected 5 million. So now we get to see what she's specifically talking about in exhibit 6 0 4, the closing argument slides continue. Annie talks about her experience about et steam , wanting her to rub his feet. We see some more photographs here from Kate's direct testimony. We have a little bit of conversation about squeezing him. We see some more exhibits here, traveling around, playing with elephants. We have a couple different law enforcement officers Mulligan and other employee ways are now testifying. We see a photograph. I believe that's Virginia Guffy conversations about Alessi , Ms. Maxwell saying, John stop his name's Juan Maxwell . But when they were driving down, Maxwell saw a girl and demanded that once stop the car so she could get out and go talk to her. She was recruiting. Here's a photograph of the bedroom with all the tubes of Glo that Maxwell demands. She has. We have a lot of conversations about setting up these massages. Remember Carolyn and her boyfriend would receive Eve calls. Sarah ke would be the person who would sometimes call Epstein. Never did it though. Sarah or Maxwell would reach out. And so you can see how they had a little procedure for actually setting up these massages. Carolyn told a woman's name said it was Maxwell. She was on , who was orchestrating the whole thing, government exhibit 6 0 6. We dive back into the manual. And this is where they're gonna spend a little bit of time. It looks like diving into government, exhibit 52, the phone book, the telephone directories, the black book J and GM telephone directories must be placed to the, of the telephones in all the bedrooms, except for the guest rooms to the right. Remember, this is back in the nineties. You don't have an iPhone where you can just scroll through and log all your , uh , massages. So a series of different exhibits, all showing that these should be placed to the right of the telephone. We see some more exhibits talking about some serious funds being transferred. And remember, this is part of the narrative that the government has been saying. You see this document. This is from JP Morgan , and it shows a transfer by wire for goin Maxwell in the amount of 18 million, $300,000 , 18.3 million bucks. Why a on earth, the prosecution says would Jeffrey Epstein being transferring be transferring 13, 18 million much more than that? I think it's like 30.3 million in some to Maxwell, why she was providing him something that he wanted very badly. And she was good at getting it for him. The documents continue 18 million bucks, another 5 million bucks transferred on September 1st, 2002 for gal Maxwell. You can see another here , uh , about a 7.6 million bucks wired over in exhibit 5 0 2, 7 0.4 million there shifting a lot of money around whoa. There it is. This is what I'm talking about. So you can see 7.4 million here and a lot of money. All right . And so they're showing, they're trying to show that Epstein was paying to provide him with females. She goes through the different counts, six different counts. And we're gonna explain specifically what the law says. Now pay close attention to this. Let's do a compare and contrast on this portion, right? During a closing argument, they teach you that one of the things you should be doing is communicating to the jury exactly what they should so that they know it's like a call to action, right? At the end of a sales call or at the end of a business meeting, it's book a meeting from a meeting, or what happens next or who does what? By, when you gotta tell the jurors need you to do this. You heard all the facts. This is what the law says. Here's exactly how to interpret them. So they have action items and the jurors I'm gonna go, you know , you're talking to a couple jurors, you , you know, go back and do this thing. And hopefully some people pick it up and they go do it. And they listen to you because they like what you had to say throughout the entirety of the trial. So they start to define the law for us. We're not gonna spend much time on this, very boring and drab . They have all of this in the jury instructions and a again, see how the defense does this versus how we're looking at this now, how the prosecution is doing it. They say, count two now. Okay. Uh , the defendant knowingly transported individuals recruited. It's the very nut and bolts law, right? So they're defining that for us. They're gonna go through some of the testimony, loft us during her cross examination said that sometimes people can remember the core event and the core details. Remember that. And so they're saying even the defense expert says that you , you know, you can take some testimony from her exam and use it in our favor. And so that's what we've got here. That's what they're leaving the with . It sounds like , uh , here's what the law says. Even loft disagrees, they say counts one, three, and five, two or more persons entered the unlawful agreement. They Knowle willfully became a member. All right . So this is all pretty, pretty boring, pretty bland stuff. If you're a juror, you can be asking yourself, what do I do with this? What are you supposed to do at the conclusion of this thing? Okay. So that is the government's closing arguments. They're closing slides. We saw a number of new exhibits. We saw a number of new sentences and transcripts. We got to actually read from Annie farmer's testimony. And so there was a lot there goin Maxwell's defense team also gave closing arguments and they also have slides that are now publicly available. And so we can see how they're going to be rebutting all the allegations of the government. And so the way that this goes, as we talked about yesterday, prosecution presents their closing argument. First, the defense goes second. Then the prosecution gets a rebuttal close because life's not fair for defendants, but that is what happens. Now. We're not gonna be , be able to see the rebuttal close, because really, I think from the same set of slides, but here we can see how the defense is now responding. Golin Maxwell's defense team delivers their closing arguments. And these are the slides. Remember Laura manger was the defense attorney who came out and delivered these. And the very first slide that we see the theme of the case, the beautiful theme it's done in triplets, a trilogy. We see that it also has some very nice alliteration there, money, manipulation and memory it's even symmetrical. Isn't it. You have the three syllable word that is spelled wrong manip that is spelled wrong. Actually very interesting. That is in the center. And then you have the two syllable words on either. No memories , three syllables. So why would money? Yeah . It's not , it's not symmetrical at all and it's spelled wrong. <laugh> okay. So nevermind. Okay. So they continue their closing arguments. And now this is interesting. You know, this is not something that I was expecting, but what they're showing is Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, look at all of Epstein's houses and you can see this. We see the place in New York top left. We see the place in London, another place, it looks like both of these places may be the same in Palm beach, several different photographs of that. We see several different photographs of Zoro inch in New Mexico, down here at the bottom. And we see a little bit more from him. We see his cars that he's got. A lot of them looks like an Escalade. We see Epstein's airplanes. A lot of them exhibit 3 0 1, 3 0 2, 3 0 3, 3 11 . He's got number of different models. Different makes several of them. I think he actually upgraded. So, you know , some of these may not still be around. In other words, he may not have owned these all at the same time, but he had a lot of planes and he also had helicopters too. And you can see we've got three, four slides that are all Jeffrey Epstein. Haven't even talked about Maxwell yet. This is a Maxwell trial. We're talking about Epstein. Yep . He's got planes. Yep . He's got properties. Yep . He's got helicopters. Yep . He's got money. Yep . 8 million here, 2 million here, 5 million there got all that. He's got message pads too. Yeah. So the government is really focused on these things. Yeah. He's got those several different versions, several different locations. And he's also got flight logs and we can see those too. And all of these of course are heavily redacted. We can't actually see the names on them. <affirmative> but he's got the flight logs and you notice Epstein Epstein Epstein. We're on slide eight. Now, still talking about Epstein. He's got private island that has a number of different, beautiful properties on that Epstein has in those properties. Binders. We have full drawers of CDs that have a lot of different photographs in them. And remember what the government said. Remember, mening came out here in her closing argument and said, the government came out and showed you a lot of photographs, but where are the 37,000 of the rest of them? It's interesting. They went through tens of thousands of photographs and they picked out the photographs that they wanted to show you that tell the narrative that they want to tell that these two are a little love bird . They're romantic partners in this affair, but what about the other photographs those were missing? And so the slides continue. And you can you that they're talking about very interesting relationships and they're building out. It looks like connections, Robert Glassman and Jane the lawyer. Remember this conversation. We had this previously, if we go back over to the mind map and we grow down to some of the witnesses that were not called in this case, we are going to see that Jane and Robert Glassman were in this list under legal witnesses. Robert Glassman is here and he represented Jane in a lawsuit. And the allege were that a prosecutor, a government prosecutor emailed Robert Glassman and said, you have a problem with your client. She said that she saw the Broadway play. Guess what? That makes her 17. If she saw the movie, the lion king, that would make her 14, maybe we should hint that she saw the movie and not the play. And so that may have been a email. If a us attorney was sending that and saying, maybe your witness needs to remember something a little bit differently, gigantic problem. And so manager is talking about that saying, yeah, you know, these lawyers were really behind. A lot of this Glassman told Jane that cooperating would help her case. There was a stipulation that Glassman the lawyer for Jane stated before the government charged the case that Jane had discussed with Glassman , whether to cooperate, should we cooperate with the government here? Jane is working with Glassman to file a lawsuit, to get a bunch of money. Glassman . The lawyer says Jane cooperate with the lawyer. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, but it's also going to quote , help with your case. So as we're going in collecting money from the victim's compensation fund. Yeah, yeah. If you prosecute her criminally, yeah. That will be useful because we went through and we talked about all those different documents from the Epstein victim's compensation fund and part of their analysis in D about whether to pay out a claim or not. Is there active litigation? Are we being sued? Is there an active criminal investigation? Is anybody being prosecuted? Is anybody filing criminal charges? If the answer is yes, that elevates your claim because they wanna resolve that. It's an open lawsuit. They wanna resolve it, pay you go away. And so here Glassman is saying, yeah, I mean, look , look , yeah. If you want collect a big fat payout. Yeah. You better say that you were harmed by a lot of people, Glenn Maxwell added to the list she says, should I cooperate? Yeah, of course. Sure. It'll help your case. And so what we see now here is Laura Menninger, just connecting all the dots, sea grid McAuley . We have Stan Pottinger , Richard Willits . And these are names that we have not seen before here. They're not even on the mind map, but we do have Brad Edwards. We have Jack Scarola all on the mind map . And these people were not called as witnesses. Jack Scarola same situation. He's, he's represented one of the victims and Brad Edwards, same thing. He, you probably saw him from, I think the Netflix movie, the Netflix series. So all of these people now are representing and closely intertwined with all of the different victims. And there's a lot of, you know, interesting conversations that are happening back and forth. And siegrid McCauley remember over from the mind map , she he's representing a ton of different victims all from the Epstein wing of the analysis. You can see here, where is seari ? Yeah. Seari McCauley's down here. So she's working with Virginia Guffy . I think she's representing several people. Uh, I believe there helm is being represented by sea McCauley. Yeah. So she's all over the place. David boys lawyers are everywhere. And so you can see folks, this almost looks like a mind map . If I can be so candid about it, not quite as detailed as ours, but you know, it's pretty good. And it's a lot more simple. It's very easy for the jurors to see there's a lot of activity going on. Robert Glassman had some connection with the witnesses in this case, Robert Glassman, boys Scher , Brad Edwards, Jack Scarola . These are, are all lawyers who are trying to get money. And they're all having conversations with all of these victims. And they're all having conversations with the media and the witnesses and with other family members. And everybody's telling them, there's this big bucket of money called the Epstein victims compensation fund. And if you have a real serious claim, you two can get paid. And guess what? The attorneys are taking a big fat cut of that. Aren't they? 40%, 50% they're getting paid a lot. We know that Jane got what, 2.9 million out of her five total. Where'd you think that rest of that money went? Where did the 2.1 million go? Yeah. It went to her lawyers, lot of money. And so if the lawyers are now hinting and , and sort of communicating and encouraging their of their own clients to change their stories, you're not gonna get paid unless you have somebody to go claim against Epstein's dead . Pick someone else. Oh, Maxwell. Yeah. She was there a lot. Pran was a us prosecutor is a us prosecutor. And she said during her opening statement or during the early onset of the case , says, you're gonna hear from relatives from some of the victims. And the defense is pointing that out. They say, let's talk about it. Here's Jane. Remember Jane's testimony. When Jane was testifying, she took the stand and we saw this, we called this out when it was happening. She had a whole lot of, I don't recalls. Remember this mening said, you know, when you spoke with the government in February, 2020, they asked you if Glen and Epstein were in the same room, you said, you're not sure. Right? So in February of 2020, just over a year ago, they asked you if there were at times just you and Epstein in the room, you said, I don't know you, you were not sure. Right? She says, I don't recall. Can't remember it. Okay. You don't recall that. Okay, fine. How about this? You said you don't recall whether or not the government told you that go and Jeffrey were alone in a room together. You were not sure that ever happened. Do you recall that testimony? No. I don't recall that either. As you sit here today, you're not sure whether you were ever in the room alone with and Epstein, right ? She says, no, she can't even pinpoint whether she was alone with, with Maxwell or Epstein. So yeah, her testimony is full of the, I don't recalls. There was a lawsuit that took place that Jane filed previously. There was an interrogatory that took place. This is a civil lawsuit. And you can ask questions of each other. Item, number nine in the interrogatory from Jane's lawsuit, identify all other persons. Other than the defendant. Who've tried to abuse you response from them none. So the argument is that they didn't identify Maxwell who committed misconduct or anything else. Now, then we go through, we see just redactions all over the place. You got GX, 12 redacted, J three , four, and five redacted. We've got, looks like customs and border patrol records showing Jane returning from an international trip at age 15. Remember that trip to Italy flight records. Now this is gonna be redacted, cuz obviously it has her name on it, but she was age 15. Apparently when she came back and border patrol reviewed that. Jane said that no individual was paying for her to go to interlock in . She told you that, but guess what not true at all. We have application info that shows that she did at 16. Guess what? Jane sued her teacher who Princip and her guidance <laugh> . So she sued a bunch of people when she was 16 years old. In fact, here's her court record. Okay . She also returned back from an international trip at 16 flight records, show that as well. So this poor, poor, you know, girl that had nothing going on for her flying all over the place. And then she said something about that lion king movie. We know the dates about this parties stipulate that the lion king, the Broadway musical opened in New York city on October 15th, 1997 official opening day at November 13th, 1997. That's a pretty important date because that's what Jane said that she saw the play, not the movie. So if she was in New York with Epstein in 1997, watching the play, she was three years older. Then she would've been, if she was in New York, watching the lion king, the movie which came out in 1994. Did she go to a movie theater or did she go to a play? It's obvious says the defense that she went to the play that makes her three years older. We have another flight record showing that she returned from a trip at age 17. We have another happy birthday song that Jane sang to Mike Wallace on a flight log showing her age, the party stipulate that Mike Wallace's birth date is on 1918, May 9th, 1918. So if she's sang a birthday song to him and we know what song that was, what age that was. And you can pinpoint all of these dates. Jane is 18 years old. The first time she indicates in a document that Epstein will pay for her. So apparently those other school payments were from maybe somebody, but as soon as she turns 18, she acknowledges Epstein's gonna pay for her. At age 19, she sends a headshot over to Epstein. Hey, look at me. Jane took several flights at Epstein's expense when she's 19 and 20, okay , we have the transactions. You can look at 'em . They've got her names. They've got the dates. We know her birth date . We know her age. She's 19 and 20. When all this is happening, more testimony comes out. As you sit here, you are not sure whether you were ever in a room with Glenn Epstein, right? She says no. So they summarize this for you. Very simply. We're gonna talk about Jane here. Very easy folks, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Jane can't remember anything because it didn't happen. It's obvious. All those I don't recall is all those. I'm not sure is . Well it's cuz she doesn't remember anything. Well, cuz it didn't happen. We have trial transcript that says she's not sure if Maxwell ever touched her quote during these encounters. She's not sure if Maxwell ever touched her and they're referencing the trial transcripts. They say back in December, 2009 , 18, she said she doesn't . She , she said she does quote, not have a recollection and is not sure if goly touched you during these encounters, said that in December at trial, now her , her story changed obviously at trial, she comes out and says, well, I don't remember, but it's written right here in the document. Jane's also not sure if Maxwell ever kissed her. We see that from a trial transcript and Jane from trial transcript also doesn't recall ever giving her a talk about how to massage Epstein. So all of that testimony seems pretty lacking, but Jane does seem clear about a number of other things that Glen never did see says that Glen never saw her perform something on Epstein. Glen never saw her perform something else on Epstein. Glen never saw , uh , never used toys on her. Glen never saw her have intercourse with Ja . So you see what they're trying to do here. They're trying to who they're trying to disqualify a bunch of other activities they're saying Jane said that she's not sure about any of these other things. Not sure iFLY was in the room. Not sure if this happened. Not sure. Not sure. Not sure, but she is sure about a bunch of other stuff she sure is . Heck that there was none of that type of activity. There was none that type of activity. There was no torpedoes being used. She's sure about those things. She's also sure that Maxwell never saw her sleep with Jeffrey Epstein. She's sure about that. She's also sure that there's she says that she has no memory of GoLine being present with Epstein engaged in contact with her transcript 4 77 don't remember Jane testified in court. How many times during the years you were 14, 15 and 16 was Maxwell in the room while you were being abused by Epstein. I don't know. She says was Maxwell in the room once while it was happening? No. Was it twice? No. Approximately how many times she says, I don't know, but it was more than twice. Something about marrying a race car driver and uh, Jane, remember this testimony, you also told the government about a woman named Ava who joined in. Right. And you said she joined in with Sophie, right? What's the exact question joined in with Sophie. You see a flight from November 11th, 1996 , Sophie and Ava Jane's testimony was that Sophie and Ava joined in on these group activities. So the defense digs this out 1996. We see a flight with Sophie and Ava having a conversation. Now with Jane during cross examination , we've got a and Sophie, you also talked about Emmy. You said she was a part of this. She was British. Right? She said she was nice and cool. Yeah. You said she was involved in this contact, right? Yes. And she was involved in the group contact, right? Yes. And there was a fourth woman you remembered, right? Yes. Her name was Michelle, wasn't it? Yeah, it was. And Michelle was short. Yes she was. And you also hung out with Emmy and you went out with them and you claimed that Michelle was also involved in some of this. Right. And she was also involved in the group massages. Yes, yes, yes. And yes. And yes. Involved in all of them. And you can just see, I mean, this goes on and on. They're spending a lot of time on Jane. It looked like maybe it was light. What was in the room? She says, I don't think I saw anything past the massage table. You recall a massage room that was attached to the bathroom, right? That's my memory. She says, yep . So we see a photograph. Now the defense is admitting bunch of redacted photographs on the wall, but it looks like a massage table. We see a little bit of a blueprint here in government. Exhibit 2 97, looks like it is a top down view of the master bath and the master bedroom, two different bathrooms. It looks like sort of adjoining, maybe a his and a hers. We see another photograph, 2 78 of the bathroom with the shower, with all the Glock. Then we have interlock in records that show that Jane did not move into the house until 1996. We have more records that no individual is paying for Jane to go to school. Jane's 18. The first time she says that Epstein's gonna pay for her. Lawyers told Jane that cooperating is gonna help her case. She said that nobody else abused her. And Jane was also awarded $5 million . Here's a copy of the general release form that she signed back in 2020 , her lawyer, it's gonna help her case. Guess what it did. She got awarded 5 million bucks for this thing. And that's just Jane. So now let's talk about Annie farmer says the defense. There's a limiting instruction about Ms . Farmer . And this is what the judge said. I instruct you that the alleged physical that she says occurred with Epstein and Maxwell in New Mexico was not quote illegal sexual activity. And quote says, you may not consider the testimony as any kind of reflection on Epstein or Maxwell's character or the propensity to commit any of the crimes charge in the documents. What the judge is saying is when Annie talks about any of this activity there in New Mexico, you are not to consider that to be harmful. That was not illegal. It's not being charged as being illegal in the indictment. So all of that testimony, the jurors are supposed to sort of put a mental blockade there and say that you can't consider those to be propensity, to commit crimes charged in the documents . In other words, you can't say that because of what you heard here about that conduct, that that's gonna influence your opinion on any of the other charges. We'll see if that works or not. So the judge limited that then we get into the direct testimony of Annie farmer says, Annie, you understood that Epstein was gonna help you get into college and pay stuff. Right? She says, yeah, we get a note. Now that in New York farmers spent 99% of her time with her sister doing New York visitor activities. And they highlight some of these. Apparently Annie wrote back in June, 1996 says it has been a couple of weeks since I got back. I've gotten back into the swing of things. Couple of quick details about New York. I didn't mention earlier, went to see the Dutchess . And I, it , uh , looks like a decent play and the blue man group takes off Broadway. Really cool production went to see something where I got some cool stuff, went to , uh , went to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion, went to the Mets, pretty fun. New year's Eve party went to ther stores, thrift stores, where I got an amazing dress for prom it's from the fifties, it's got pink flowers. It sounds beautiful. And do you know that there was no activity that occurred while you were in Epstein's home? Right? Says Annie, Annie says, yeah, that's a right. There was no activity that occurred while you were there. No physical contact that happened. No , uh , torpedoes or anything like that. She says. Right, right. And , uh , even if there were right. Maxwell was not there with you while you were there. Right. And he says, yeah, that's true. And you were told that the victim's compensation fund is that , uh, so what you told them, the victim's compensation fund that you were abused in a movie theater. Right. And Annie says, yeah, that's right. It happened at a movie theater. And so mening said, okay, but Glen Maxwell wasn't at that movie was she, she said that's right. Maxwell was not there at all. Okay. Did you meet Maxwell at all when you were in New York? Annie farmer says no. Andn max had no role in the logistics of your travel. She didn't fly you there? No. She didn't buy you a ticket. No. She didn't arrange for your travel. No. She didn't call your mother before you went to New York. No. She didn't encourage you to go there. Did she ? No. She didn't transport you there. Did she? No. Okay. And you had never seen her before you came to New York, right? Yeah. And you had never talked to her before you came to New York, right? Yeah. And again, Maxwell, wasn't a part of this conversation at Epstein's house. Nope. And he didn't even mention during her trip, he didn't even mention her at all Epstein or , uh , Annie says, oh , I don't really remember that one. But Maxwell was not there the entire time. And I wanna be very clear about this as manager , you know, those journals you were writing, there is no entry in any of your journals that relate at all Tolin Maxwell. Is that true? She says that's correct. And it's true that if you had other journals from your senior year , uh , no mention at Lynn Maxwell in there either. Right? She says, no . Talk about her. And when you wrote in your journal about that handholding thing, you said it was not weird. You said it was normal and fine, didn't you? Yeah. But I also said it weirded me out. And then you said, it's not a big deal. She says, yeah, I really didn't think it was a big deal. And so you used both versions, right? It's weird. And it's not weird, didn't you? She says, yes I did. But today, today your memories are colored by hindsight, aren't they? And she says, of course they are. And you are colored in your memories of hindsight, by what happened in New Mexico, for example. Right. Annie says, does that affect how I perceive what happened to me in New York? And she, yeah, it does. I'm sure it does in some ways. So you can see what she is getting her to admit. You can see right there. They're saying that Annie farmer may have been abused by Maxwell in New Mexico, in her understanding of abuse. Legally, maybe it's not abuse at all. The judge says , she's over the age of 17. It's not abuse at all. At least as charged, right? If you wanted to call it, you know, adult assault or adult criminality, that's fine, but it's not a minor cuz she's not technically a minor. So what's what the defense attorney is getting at here is that Annie farmer is conflating. The two stories, Glen Maxwell may have actually abused her to some criminal degree in New Mexico. And that is being transferred through her memory to a New York incident that Maxwell had no part of from the record. And because the judge gave the limiting instruction about Annie farmer as to the New Mexico charges, those are no longer relevant. So it has to sort of connect Annie's testimony back New York. Okay. So we go back here. The , the , the defense attorney is basically getting her to admit that the New Mexico incident may have tainted her memory. As it relates to New York, asks Annie, as this continues, you don't have any memory of how the New Mexico trip was planned. Right. She says, right . And that's because you don't have any journal entries from that time period, do you? She says, I have not had a journal to help me refresh my memories of how that was planned. But what you told the FBI in 2006 was that you were gonna go and accompany your sister , Maria. And that's what you told the FBI. Right? And she says, I don't recall that, but that's, what's written here. You have no knowledge that Maxwell made your travel plans, no personal knowledge that she encouraged you to travel to New Mexico. Right? I do not. I do not. So remember about that conspiracy, that Maxwell is supposedly involved, that she's, you know, helping to orchestrate and maneuver and fly these girls all over the place. We got two testimony from two people. Jane said no idea that Glenn Maxwell was encouraging her, signing her up. Didn't call her mom didn't book. The plane tickets didn't help her pack her bags. None of that same thing happening here. Annie farmer Glenn Maxwell had no idea about the travel plans, no knowledge. Didn't encourage you to travel to New Mexico at all. So how can she be a part of the conspiracy? You did not talk to miss max ever before you even arrived to New Mexico. Did you? That's correct. She says, and you don't actually know that Gill Maxwell saw Epstein holding your hand. Right? So she didn't see any of this stuff either. Nope . I don't. You just said that she was present on the other side of him, right? Yep . That's right. He was there. Didn't see it. Have no idea. And you testified on and direct Annie, that Glen massaged your chest, right? Yeah. In the area of your pectoral muscles. Right. And she says, yeah. I mean , I guess that's all part of the breast. Right. And did touch your nipples. She did not touch my nipples. And so let me just be clear. She also not touch your nipple area. Right? Right. Oh, well, there you go. It's a therapeutic massage. You know, sometimes when you're doing some serious bench press out there, your pectorals can get a little bit sore. You know, some it's a good feeling. It feels good. You feel like you did something that day and it's good. And that's all, this was obviously, it's just a little chest massage. She was sore from bench pressing or doing pushups. But Golin Maxwell did not touch the nipples, which is very, very important. Any nipple touching could be a whole different ballgame. We have another question here from Annie farmer to Annie farmer . You told agents back there in may of 2020 that the body massage was awkward and uncomfortable, but it wasn't explicitly sexual. Was it? Annie says, I don't believe those are my words. I think that's, what's noted here. I , it says no touching of the nipples, but I did clarify that, but not that it did not, not happen . Okay. But you have no memory of him seeing you, right. That's right. And he was not in the room for this massage. Right. That's right. Talking about Glen Maxwell Maxwell. Didn't enter your room. Remember that story about , uh , Jeffrey Epstein going into Annie's bed and kind of cuddling with her when that happened. Glen , didn't go in . Did she? No . And she was not in there the whole time that happened when Jeffrey Epstein just wanted us be a little cuddle bug with you. You Glen , was she involved at all? No, she wasn't. So let's get this clear. So what you told the victim's compensation fund is that you were abused in a movie theater, right? Yep . And you were abused in a movie theater in New Mexico, right? Yep . And both of those were related to handholding incidents that happened in those two locations, right? She says, yeah, that's what I put in my application to the compensation fund. I was abused for holding hands. Okay. So Annie, you're saying that handholding is abuse. Is that what you're saying? Annie says my experience was detailed in the application. Okay. Which included? Yes. Him hold anding my hands . I did not say that anything else happened to me in the movie theater. So you can see the defense is really trying to rub her nose in this one. But again, this is tactical because th they , they can't really talk about anything else. They can't talk about any of the other abuse that's in New Mexico, because it's not illegal as child under the indictment. And so, because her hands are tied because she can't say or get into that, the defense is gonna say, oh, it's just a hand holding . That's it? That's what this whole thing's about all of this, all your pain and horror and all your suffering for all these years. Cuz he was caressing your hands <laugh> is what they're saying because she can't talk about the other stuff because it was , it was, it's not illegal as charged under the indictment. And so they're just gonna continue to do that. Annie farmer's testimony goes on. Okay. So that little massage, all that stuff, what you were told , uh , the victim's compensation fund , you said that your breasts were groped, right ? That's what you wrote in there. Annie says, yeah, but I don't see that as significantly different, but okay. So you said rubbed, groped, massaged. Yes. But not your nipple area, right? Or any of that? Nope. Didn't touch the nipples. But you told them that your breasts were groped. Right? So how do you grope breast without getting the nipple ? And you said that the touching of the breast without the nipple contact was also abuse, right? She says, yes, it was. And so you also told the Epstein victims fund that Epstein rubbed his genitals , uh , uh , against your bed. Right. And that's all about, of course Epstein, not Maxwell. Annie said that her sister was gonna accompany her on the trip to New Mexico. Apparently she said that previously they go back to the FBI document page two year, 2006. This is what you said, isn't it? She says, yeah, I see it says that. And so you told the FBI in 2006, right? Well, I , she said I don't recall that, but yeah, that's, what's written here. So I guess it's true. So her member is a little bit bad also is , uh , another question who was the one responsible for canceling Maria's trip that Epstein or Maxwell was one of 'em . How long were you in New Mexico? She says it was a weekend trip, but it's very interesting. They say, because if you go back through Epstein's flight logs, no weekend trips to Santa Fe in April and may of 1996. So testimony is a little bit wrong there. Go back through the flight logs. Never landed there. Never flew over there. Can't prove that a farmer is mistaken. Has no idea what she's talking about. There were also no weekend trips to Santa Fe in April of 19 90, 97 , Annie farmer was 17, almost 18. In 1997. We can take a look at the flight logs, take a look at the birth dates. Take a look at the calendar. We have a customs list, date of birth. So this would be very similar to what we talked about earlier with Jane, right? Probably a document looks just like this, except Jane was redacted because her identity is hidden. Annie farmer , date of birth, Eastern time, 7/20/1997 is when she landed. We have a description , uh , department location. Duseldorf Germany. Annie was asked about that in that summer when Annie was in Thailand, you were in Germany, right? Yes. I was. Somebody else was, was brought in to testify, talking about the boots. Remember the boots you wore a lot of them . I mean, because that's the general term. I didn't wear them to work or anything, but I did wear them when I would go stepping. And you went dancing in the boots that Epstein brought for you, correct? Yeah. And you wore those so much to the point where the heels are worn down and the toes are scuffed. You the boots that your abuser bought you, she says, yes, I did. Well, that's a weird thing. You know, if you were so harmed by these people, why are you wearing walking around with their boots on? So we ask some other good questions here. As we get to the close of this thing, where was everybody else? Where were the other witnesses? Multiple friends listed in ire. The employees at the ranch, the driver. She was talking about the ranch chef. Where were they? We asked her about the chef. Couldn't remember employees at the ranch, the driver couldn't remember employees at the ranch, the ranch hand . Couldn't remember, we didn't hear from farmer , sister, Maria, why didn't the government call her or any of the other friends listed in the diary? We're also seeing a missing journal. We know that Annie farmer had a , a , had a journal, but all we get is the front and back a of it . We don't get to see all the different documents inside. And if you think about it says manager, this is the connection between everybody. The reason why all this is so messy is because there's an incentive to do that. Money changed farmer's story. That's it money. Back then when she was talking with the FBI, she said something differently than she said. Now you told the agents and the government in may of 2020, that the body massage was awkward and uncomfortable, but not exactly explicit, right? Well, that's what she said. But then it changes June 25th happens. Guess what happens in June, 2020 Epstein fund opens up in 2006. You can see here all the way up until the years leading up Annie farmer's story is that it was not anything that was explicit. But then guess what happens? June 25th happens. Epstein compensation fund opens up. Boom. The day after that, what happens ? Annie farmer submits a claim where everything is now explicit, including the hand holding that took place on the movie theater. One day after the Epstein victim's compensation fund opens up, boom, Annie farmer has a claim ready to go. Farmer then gets 1.5 million for her story about this in a movie theater, 1.5 million. The compensation offer is gonna resolve all of these claims. And so her story changes. Why? Because she needed it to fit the, the narrative in order to be compensated. We have a , a brief recounting of Kate. We get the instruction from the court. Any conduct is not illegal activity. I instruct you. This witness is not a victim of the crime charge in the indictment. We go back. We see some purchases of land, some transitions from certain people, proprietor, Noel, Marion Maxwell now gets title of this property. And so Kate, you just throw Kate out. Now let's talk about Carolyn . Carolyn only identified Epstein and ke as involved in her claim. Carolyn , you can see here wrote and signed off on a series of interrogatories in a civil lawsuit, says state the names of anybody else who might have abused. You guess what? She put there? None. Nobody else. She didn't Lilin Maxwell. Why is that? Well, that happened in February of 2009 . Yeah, she was filing lawsuits, but she said none. But guess what happened in 2020 , the Epstein victim's fund open up now. Guess what? Maxwell suddenly magically appears there previously only identified Epstein and ke here's what she said. I was introduced to Epstein in 2002, I was to give him a massage. I continued to provide massages until 2003. She names Epstein's house, yellow, Cal uh , Epstein, Virginia. Ex-boyfriend Sean mother, Dorothy brother. I was transported via private car by Epstein. Anyone else? Nope. Not Maxwell message pads. Show Carolyn calling for Epstein. So they go back through all the different message pads and they say, oh look, exhibit two P two U 2, 2 2 0 2 M two D two B Carolyn calls in she's calling for Epstein. Hey, I want you, I need you. What's up. Let's hang out. Can I get this? Whatever, but guess who she's not calling for Maxwell. All of those messages or for Epstein, there was an idea that Maxwell was pregnant. Never happened. They say was talking about Maxwell. You said that you saw max that she was pregnant, right? Yeah. She was PR uh , nude and pregnant. Lying on the, and she was pregnant. Carolyn says yeah. Multiple pictures, nude photos. Okay. You worked for gal from 1996. Did you ever see her pregnant? This is from simply Espinoza. Now another witness who's gonna smash Carolyn's testimony. No. Never saw her pregnant. Worked for her for a long time. Never saw her pregnant ever told she was pregnant. Nope. Sean . Now Carolyn's ex-boyfriend did you and Carolyn ever talk about Maxwell when all this was going down? Sean says no. And you and Carolyn were using , uh , cocaine, marijuana ecstasy, other stuff during that time, right? Yep . Sure. Were . And you would occasionally answer the phone wouldn't you? Yeah. And who would be calling? Well, be either be Epstein or Sarah ke not Maxwell. And you knew Sarah was calling because she was calling on behalf of Epstein. Didn't you Sean ? Sean says, yes. Wasn't Glen calling. It was Sarah. And in that meeting, the phone meeting, you identified people that called you, Sarah , another European woman. You said it was a British accent. You couldn't identify. Right. And he would tell you before he got there. Oh, this is from Juan lessi . That's from Sean . Yeah. So he couldn't identify Galin . Then we'd go over to wa lessi Juan lessi now would remove the pictures of Maxwell in the house. Juan says yes he did. When other people would come over to the Epstein residence, remember that the Maxwell pictures would come down and then when the guests would leave, the Maxwell pictures would go back up. And Lesi was part of that. Professor Loftis was the defense exhibit , uh , the defense expert witness. And you can see what the defenses doing here. Like, look how beautiful this slide is. Did you see anything like this in the government's slide deck? No you didn't. They had a blue background that was looked like it was typed up on one of those old computers I had in fifth grade says that she's a distinguished professor, a distinguished professor and a professor and faculty and education, BA M a PhD elected all over the place, numerous award and honorary degrees. She's just the best. Isn't she. Now here is what Dr. Loftus told us. And this is what they are communicating to the jurors. And this is how they're explaining to the jurors to decide the case. We just told you everything. Here's the problem with the memory. It weekends over time , it is malleable. You can change it. You can maneuver it. And it's impacted and corrupted by post event , contamination, media, different things can go in there and adjust your memory. Interviews. The act of having a conversation with somebody can skew your memory. Conversations can skew your memory. Lawyers can skew your memory, especially when there's lots of money on the line. Lot of incentives to change the story a little bit. And so you can see how these slides look now on direct examination. Dr. Loftus told us there are three major stages that we can study. When we're talking about the process of memory. Sometimes things can suggest things to themselves. People can just things to themselves. It's called auto suggestion . Somebody's not deliberately trying to suggest something to you, but you can draw your own conclusions. Then there is post event suggestion, little information. Misinformation can enter a , uh , witness's memory and cause some contamination, it can alter. Some of the little details can even supplement the memory. So if you've got some gaps and some holes, this will fill it in. Sometimes people are just trying to retrieve information and there's more pressure to provide more details. And so guess what? The memory constructs them. We take bits and pieces and experience and sometimes occurred at different times and places. And we smash 'em all together. And we construct what feels like a recollection, but it isn't. It's just an amalgamation of all these little bits of memories that we can COC into a recipe. And so now folks, this is where the defense leaves the jurors with a bunch of Xes , which is exactly perfect. Count one. We know four victims, Jane, Annie, Kate , Carolyn , not guilty as to all of them. Count two only Jane, not guilty for her. Count three, same thing, not guilty as to all four victims. Count four is Jane only not guilty. Count five Carolyn and unnamed others mere presence they say is not enough. The fact that was there is not enough and count six Carolyn and the unnamed others not guilty. They talk about, they leave the jurors with these calls to action presumption of innocence. When you go and you look at those jury instructions, take a look at page set . Uh , paragraph 12, the law presumes the defendant to be innocent of all charges. Ms . Maxwell does not have to prove her innocence. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And let us define reasonable doubt for you people. It is doubt based in reason and , and arising out of the evidence in the case or the lack of evidence. You can see, they underline that in red . If you have such a doubt as would reasonably cause a prudent person to hesitate in acting in matters of importance in his or her own affairs, then you have a reasonable doubt. And in your circumstances, in this circum, it is your duty to acquit Ms . Maxwell of that charge. So they leave them with this not guilty on all counts, right? And then that's it. We have a redacted slide. Now that's the end of the defense slides. This is the end of the government slides. So we see a bunch of texts over here. Here, we see some good language and we see a bunch of Xes . So you can determine which one is more effective, but that was the end of Glenn Maxwell . Closing arguments slides presented by the defense. And we have a short couple minutes to take a couple questions before we jump on outta here. I see, oh my God, this is awesome. Over on YouTube says, isn't there an exhibit GX 6 62 rrr with less redactions. We wanna see that one. I'm not sure which one that is. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but yeah, lot of redactions, we'd all like to see them. Thanks for the support there. Zone my God. This is awesome. We have Marion hold Smith with a very nice donation. No question on that, Mary . And thanks for being here for being a part of the show. I very much appreciate that. And because it's Tuesday, we have just a short couple time, a short time for a couple questions. Let's take a look at the poll form by the way, the poll form is now linked. And so I'm refreshing these from time to time. Ooh , this number has changed dramatically, not guilty on all accounts. Wow. That number has changed pretty badly. Uh, it used to be a lot more varied. Wow, interesting. So that has changed. Pretty dramatically. Trial is rigged. <laugh> , that's pretty consistent 90 . I should just get rid of that question. And then Epstein was killed <laugh> folks. These are all going in one direct. It's funny. They used to be, you know, the , the mouth of the PAC man used to be a lot bigger, but uh, but now they're all tightening up. Epstein was killed. Trial is rigged Maxwell, not guilty on all counts. <laugh> sounds like a lot of people as jaded as I am over this whole thing, which is just hysterical. Okay. Couple questions over from watching the I am already running late for my group, but that's all right . Juror 69 says honest opinion. This trial was more about Epstein rather than Maxwell. I think she walks free. The most intriguing thing about this trial is the discovery of the black book of clientele. The clientele will do everything in their power to suppress the information from it. Yeah, I think it's, it's it , it needs to be deeper than that. The black book itself is already out. It's publicly available. It's all you can actually, there's a website that has a whole thing indexed. So you can search for it. There are a all just gonna deny, deny, deny, deny, deny. The real stuff that I think is really, really problematic would be anything that Maxwell knows or that Epstein had in his little vault, which is different concept than the black book. But it's good to see you. Juror 69, we have another one from Nikki . Dragon says if found guilty, do you think the state or the feds are gonna go after anyone else associated with Maxwell and Epstein? I don't. I think that if Maxwell is convicted, they're gonna just say, oh, oh, we're just gonna put a bow on this and we're done. That's great. Oh, you know this international ring of , uh , global Ola Garca gold monsters. Yeah, no , no , we're done. We got it. All grouchy old cat lady says, why didn't the defense? Enter it into evidence. They probably wouldn't have been able to do that because it was only for impeachment purposes. It's not an actual exhibit. Good question. Sergeant Bob says very informative about cleaning up the transcripts appears the jury is very scrupulous in reviewing testimony. Having once testified as a defendant with other office serves and agencies in a federal district court, it seemed to me, well, that's an interesting story there. Sergeant Bob, whoa. It seemed to me that then the federal jurors are cut above the state level jurors. I can say that women, especially minors who have suffered abuse and sexual assault are the perfect victims for sexual criminals, like Epstein at all. They have no sense of self worth that's from Sergeant Bob. That's a good point. Right? And I think that is exactly what Dr. Rocko was talking about when she was talking about grooming. Kincaid says, greetings, Rob, I must apologize for yesterday. The joke was within the word torpedo. I didn't realize that perhaps you couldn't engage due to YouTube speech restrictions again. Sorry. It doesn't make you wonder how long it will be when even innocuous speech is restricted on mass. And all we can do is not an acknowledgement. The English language is expressive and allows people to communicate freely and relate. Regardless of background, when it dies, halls will not echo whispers shall lay still and all that'll remain as an empty speechless chill, so bad and wrong. It bong that's from Kung pal . Enter the fist, a Kung Fu comedy movie. I have not seen that one, but it does look funny. I seen the, the previews on that one , uh , a few more T Blakemore says, what would you do differently? If anything, if you were defending Maxwell, would you adopt the same strategy? And what would your expectations of the prosecution and the judge be going into such a trial T Blakemore. That is a meaty question. My friend, I'm gonna have to save that one for a locals stream. So let me do that right now because I'm running out of time. All right . But it's a great question. Uh , not much. Those are probably the best attorneys on the planet. Sergeant Bob says, perhaps Maxwell could enjoy Turkey flavored spam for Christmas. Sorry for the bad PPO for the moment. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, well it's, it's gonna be her birthday. Sergeant Bob, maybe she'll be lucky. Uh, Sergeant Bob says maybe one day you will personally be prosecuting a case Ms . Lucky , and I will attend and bring our own bucket of popcorn. I don't think so. Sergeant Bob, I'm a pure blood defense attorney. There's no going around that. Thunder seven says wasn't the 2016 legal S settlement with Virginia versus Maxwell going to be made open to the public. Uh, yeah, it is. It's gonna happen actually. That's the settlement is not Virginia versus Maxwell. It's Virginia versus , uh, Dershowitz and it's Virginia versus prince Andrew. Yeah. So if you go into the map on here, you'll see that both of these , uh , settlement agreements are, are , are going to be available. I think next year. Did I screenshot that? Yeah, I think next year they said, so we'll see , uh , back over to the questions. Uh , what happened to that? Yeah. It's gonna be made public. It's not gonna impact jury deliberations doesn't happen until next year. Can the jury continue deliberating act ? Yeah, they can. Yeah, they can deliberate after Christmas. If they , if they don't get to a, a , a , a verdict after Thursday, judge will excuse them on Friday. They'll have to come back for , uh , next week. Good to see you . See you thunder seven. Thanks for the questions. Monster one says prohibitive, like Epstein with the torpedo and a 14 year old. Is that too much? VCA says, does that shade of blue remind anyone else of the Commodor 64? Well, I guess I dated myself , uh , like the organ trail that was black and green. Wasn't it, there was another game that had the , uh , blue, like that grouchy old cat lady says money transfers. Why didn't the defense have as accounting, reco it to prove what the transfer was for every transaction normally has an account, went into at very least, most have documentation supporting the transaction, even if it was a gift. Yeah. And I think what the defense was doing is trying to sort of, it's kind , you know, that concept security by obscurity. It's like, it's like, okay, it's $7 million , right. To you and me. It's a , like my goodness, that's a lot of money, but the Jeffrey Epstein, it's nothing. It's like tip money. There's he's got planes, he's got boats, he's got islands. He's got properties all over the place. He's living lavishly. So what is 7 million bucks who cares? It's nothing. It's tip money. And so I think that's what they were trying to communicate. Sergeant Bob says, looks like the defense shows all the Epstein properties, planes to deflect away from Maxwell. Very true, good move. But I don't think the jury is gonna buy it. That's from Sergeant Bob. We'll see. We'll see. Soon. Uh , also says billable hours multiplied to the extreme by all lawyers. Just compensation is okay, but millions. Yes. Sergeant Bob attorneys should be making millions. All of them leafy bug says, just stopping by to say hello to you and the crew. Rob yesterday's show had me laughing out loud. I learned that if you see an all girls junior high school, that that looks like it has way too many wheelchair ramps, it could have been an Epstein favorite <laugh> Hmm . Might send my kids somewhere else. Sorry to ruin the surprise, but I got you the regular double Tor , uh , double torpedo for Christmas, with the remote. Did it have the remote or no, if you're gonna have a double torpedo, that's a lot to manage. You need to have remotes on those things. If you're gonna have a remote, you know, or, or if you have an option for a remote, you're gonna take the remote. No , no doubt about it. He says, don't worry. It's gonna be okay. I'll send the receipt so you can take it back to the shop and <laugh> swap it for the remote controlled model. Hope everyone gets what they want for Christmas. Well, thank you, leafy bug . Uh, I'm not looking forward to it, but that's gonna be a lot of fun when it arrives to biz , Jr says you're doing such an amazing job, helping us live through the case. I would love to see you in action in court. Are you ever in a case that is aired to the public? Uh, no . I mean, no, not , no, not, not currently. No. I'm not gonna be in any of those. My active caseload has come down and , uh, sort of, you know, the, the active litigation is done by the team largely here , uh , which are incredible team. We have an incredible team. I, I tell everybody they're much better than I am at what they do in the courtroom . So that is true. Good to see you to biz maybe one day in the future, maybe I'll get back into the swing of things, but largely my , uh , my skillset is being utilized in different ways around the firm. But thanks for thinking about that . I'm glad that you're enjoying the content and the conversation. I'm having a lot of fun as well. And that my friends is it for us for the day. I wanna thank everybody for the support final shoutouts to everybody over on locals on rumble, we've got freedom falls. We've got VTE kiss prime, TC T Y C H news is in the house. Angela, Hey , over there on YouTube shoutouts to pigs, pigs, 76, we've got playing hooky, new forest pony, Danette lean , K beans in the house, Zulu over there, Marine EO playing hook . And you know, I've got friends over on Twitch. I know that, but , uh, I can't see what the chat says over there. So, but I , but I love y'all and I , uh, I'm gonna try to figure out Twitch soon. I set up a second recording studio. Uh , not a recording studio, a second camera so I can play a game in there maybe one day. We'll see, but I love you Twitch. I love you too . I love your rumble. I love you . Locals. Everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I will see you all here tomorrow. Same time be, well , my friends bye-bye.