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 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.
Epstein is not dead.. WHEN DO YOU PROSECUTE HILLARY CLINTON, TOM HANKS, ALL OF HOLLYWOOD?
And this is now a certainty: Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself.