Sexual Abuse in Palm Beach: Day Seven of the Maxwell Trial

An Addendum to yesterday’s coverage:

Special Agent Kelly Mcguire verified multiple exhibits of evidence found in Epstein’s safe to conclude court proceedings on Monday. Included in these exhibits: a tub full of hard-drives, over 20,000 physical and digital photos, diamonds, cash, an Austrian passport listing a different name with a Saudi Arabian address. When FBI seized these hard drives and CDs (storing images), they appeared with corresponding FBI evidence tags already present on them, suggesting FBI and law enforcement officials had already been in possession of, reviewed and returned Epstein’s hard drives.

A Palm beach post article summarizes the specific items found during this 2019 FBI raid here.

This provokes further questions, the most troubling of which is what was Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with domestic and foreign intelligence? This evidence heavily suggests known and intentional participation from Florida State Government and FBI officials in enabling child sex trafficking. It can also be confirmed Epstein “cooperated” after a 2008 FBI child prostitution sting and was released “as long as he maintained his agreement with the state of Florida”.

Day Seven

Day seven proceedings would begin with a short testimony given by an FBI witness (name not provided to the public) who authenticated several photos found during the 2005 Palm Beach raid. The day’s second witness would take the stand, FBI Digital Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley. Flatley would confirm that a hard drive exhibit presented to him was linked to a computer registered to the organization “GMax”. He would also authenticate an email from Maxwell’s @MindSpring address that had been explaining grievances regarding trashed massage lotion bottles following the raid. 

Flatley would continue to authenticate a document showing an advertisement made by GMax that specifically referenced “massage lotion products”. He also authenticated a piece of written material produced by GMax that discussed Jeffrey and Ghislaine. “Jeffrey and Ghislaine really complement each other, they are great partners. They are boyfriend and girlfriend unlike what some may think”. The Defense’s Menninger would begin a short cross-examination, once again grasping at straws by suggesting witness Flatley couldn’t confirm if these images had been changed since he had seen them initially (without provide evidence of alteration). Flatley was dismissed.

The next witness would be called to the stand, being made known to the public under the pseudonym “Carolyn” who explained she had met Epstein after she had left seventh grade, at the age of 14. Carolyn mentioned her mother was an alcoholic. Carolyn continued “I was introduced to Epstein to give him a massage, I said yes.” describing she had been greeted by Maxwell. She would also disclose she was paid $300 by Ghislaine Maxwell after being raped by Epstein, stating she had later received concert tickets, lingerie and a book titled “massage for dummies”.

Carolyn would also remember Maxwell calling to request she travel with her and Epstein overseas and to his island. Carolyn declined telling Maxwell her “mother would never say ok”. Carolyn would also specifically state she mentioned her age to Maxwell as “14”. Carolyn’s testimony would continue to describe her sexual abuse at the hands of Maxwell and Epstein, stating Maxwell abused her before she had given Epstein a massage. 

When asked by prosecution “did you bring friends to Jeffrey Epstein’s house?” Carolyn replied “yes” mentioning she had recruited 3 other minors that were brought to Epstein at the direction of Maxwell. Carolyn continued to disclose that all three children were raped by Maxwell and Epstein, who paid them afterwards. Carolyn was asked what she would use this money for, to which she replied “I was buying drugs” as she started to tear up.

Testimony continued with Carolyn explaining she stopped seeing Epstein following a major event in her life, having a baby. She recalled returning to Epstein’s house during her pregnancy (when aged 18 years old) but said she “realized I was too old for him”. Carolyn would outline her history with drug use and a prior theft charge for which she did jail time, also stating that she is “constantly afraid of my children being trafficked.” She was also asked by prosecution if she had previously “worked for an escort service and had sex with men for money”, to which she answered “sometimes”. Carolyn’s testimony would conclude with her acknowledging that Maxwell took pictures of her while she was raped by Epstein.

A lengthy cross examination would begin when defense attorney Jeff Pagliuca approached the witness stand to employ the same technique that Maxwell’s defense team has used for each witness (since it’s clear her legal team has no legitimate defense). Pagliuca started by assaulting the accuser’s character asking, “you smoked marijuana and drank alcohol?” when referencing the night of alleged abuse, again an irrelevant line of questioning when the accusation involves to child rape. 

Pagliuca would continue by leading the witness to answer the question “Virginia Roberts told you could make $300?” to which she responded “no”. Pagliuca rephrased to reference a separate alleged occurrence “Roberts approached you about making the $500, Maxwell was not there, correct?” to which Carolyn responded “yes”. Questioning continued with a dissection of a 2007 FBI statement given by Carolyn that didn’t identify Maxwell and instead identified Maxwell’s assistant Sarah Kellen. 

Pagliuca continued with unrelated questions directed to Carolyn repeatedly, the prosecution nor the judge reminded the defense of their obligation. Judge Nathan’s transgressions became particularly evident when the witness herself said “what does this have to do with Ghislaine Maxwell? She fondled me and broke my soul”. This particular instance highlighted the immense failure of prosecution and Judge Nathan to protect the witness from unrelated badgering. The U.S court system is egregiously failing child sex victims once again.

The prosecution has continually failed to object at relevant moments calling to question their intent and ability to represent their client adequately, as a lack of willingness to further inquiry has also been observed at numerous times throughout the trial.

Jeff Pagliuca stated the last name of the witness aloud for the jury to hear before concluding. This is the third occasion that Maxwell’s defense team has shown such blatant disregard for witness safety. Lawyers that fail to maintain their duty as charged by the judge should be disbarred for such actions, since they are directly risking the accuser’s life. Even more troubling was failure of the prosecution to object and pressure the judge to advocate punishment of the defense. The discipline received for each incidence was nonexistent and shows a troubling trend noticeable in all U.S public institutions, the incompetence of those charged with ensuring due process (in this case, Judge Nathan).

Day seven concluded with news given to jurors that the prosecution would be resting their case at the end of this week, causing further scrutiny and shock from journalists in overflow rooms. How is it possible that a prosecution which initially needed five weeks to argue their case has now decided to reduce it? From public view nothing has changed but questions arise as to what conversations or warnings have been given out of public view (as Epstein and Maxwell are tied to multiple intelligence agencies and used blackmail to force compliance from world leadership to shape public policy, as will be explained in future coverage by Free Press Report). 

Throughout Epstein and Maxwell’s history, a trend of cover ups and rug sweeps can be observed. It is this writer’s opinion that prosecution has shown no intent to seek full justice, nor protect their clients so far.

Day eight coverage will be available following SDNY courthouse proceedings tomorrow.

Disclaimer: The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page.  All statements and expressions herein are the sole opinion of the author or paid advertiser.

The Free Press Report is a publisher of financial information, not an investment advisor.  We do not provide personalized or individualized investment advice or information that is tailored to the needs of any particular recipient.  

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS WEBSITE IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS INVESTMENT ADVICE, AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE AND DOES NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION AS TO THE PRICE AT WHICH THE SECURITIES OF ANY COMPANY MAY TRADE AT ANY TIME.  THE INFORMATION AND OPINIONS PROVIDED HEREIN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SPECIFIC ADVICE ON THE MERITS OF ANY INVESTMENT DECISION.  INVESTORS SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION AND DECISIONS REGARDING THE PROSPECTS OF ANY COMPANY DISCUSSED HEREIN BASED ON SUCH INVESTORS’ OWN REVIEW OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.

No statement or expression of opinion, or any other matter herein, directly or indirectly, is an offer or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities or financial instruments mentioned.  

Any projections, market outlooks or estimates herein are forward looking statements and are inherently unreliable.  They are based upon certain assumptions and should not be construed to be indicative of the actual events that will occur.  Other events that were not taken into account may occur and may significantly affect the returns or performance of the securities discussed herein.  The information provided herein is based on matters as they exist as of the date of preparation and not as of any future date, and the publisher undertakes no obligation to correct, update or revise the information in this document or to otherwise provide any additional material.

The publisher, its affiliates, and clients of the a publisher or its affiliates may currently have long or short positions in the securities of the companies mentioned herein, or may have such a position in the future (and therefore may profit from fluctuations in the trading price of the securities).  To the extent such persons do have such positions, there is no guarantee that such persons will maintain such positions.

Neither the publisher nor any of its affiliates accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss howsoever arising, directly or indirectly, from any use of the information contained herein.

By using the Site or any affiliated social media account, you are indicating your consent and agreement to this disclaimer and our terms of use. Unauthorized reproduction of this newsletter or its contents by photocopy, facsimile or any other means is illegal and punishable by law.

For Full Terms of Use Click HERE. For the Privacy Policy Click HERE.

patriotone.substack.com (“The Free Press Report”) is a website owned and operated by Substack. The Free Press Report is paid fees by the companies that make investment offerings on this website. Be aware that payment of these fees may put The Free Press Report in a conflict of interest with the investor. By accessing this website or any page thereof, you agree to be bound by the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, in effect at the time you access this website or any page thereof. The Terms of Use and Privacy Policy may be amended from time to time. Nothing on this website shall constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or subscribe for, any securities to any person in any jurisdiction where such an offer or solicitation is against the law or to anyone to whom it is unlawful to make such offer or solicitation. The Free Press Report is not an underwriter, broker-dealer, Title III crowdfunding portal or a valuation service and does not engage in any activities requiring any such registration. The Free Press Report does not provide advice on investments or structure transactions. Offerings made under Regulation A under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") are available to U.S. investors who are “accredited investors” as defined by Rule 501 of Regulation D under the Securities Act well as non-accredited investors, who are subject to certain investment limitations as set forth in Regulation A under the Securities Act. In order to invest in Regulation A offerings, investors may be asked to fill out a certification and provide necessary documentation as proof of your income and/or net worth to verify that you are qualified to invest in offerings posted on this website. All securities listed on this site are being offered by, and all information included on this site is the responsibility of, the applicable issuer of such securities. The Free Press Report does not verify the adequacy, accuracy or completeness of any information. Neither The Free Press Report nor any of its officers, directors, agents and employees makes any warranty, express or implied, of any kind whatsoever related to the adequacy, accuracy, valuations of securities or completeness of any information on this site or the use of information on this site. Neither The Free Press Report nor any of its directors, officers, employees, representatives, affiliates or agents shall have any liability whatsoever arising from any error or incompleteness of fact, or lack of care in the preparation of, any of the materials posted on this website. Investing in securities, especially those issued by start-up companies, involves substantial risk. investors should be able to bear the loss of their entire investment and should make their own determination of whether or not to make any investment based on their own independent evaluation and analysis.