Connect with us

*Headline

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Trial Judge Makes Shocking Announcement After Defense Witnesses Abandon Trial

Western Journal

Published

on

This week, defense attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell, who has long been accused of recruiting and grooming girls for her late former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein to abuse, got a chance to call witnesses to the stand to testify in their client’s favor.

However, on Friday, the defense claimed that several of their witnesses had fallen through all at once as one refused to testify despite a subpoena, one planned to plead the Fifth and a third will no longer provide virtual testimony, citing “technical issues.”

What’s more, a fourth elderly English man — who Maxwell’s lawyers say could verify that the British socialite had not lived in a London mansion that one of the witnesses had pointed to as the scene of the abuse she was subject to — has not yet been able to fly stateside to do so and would not be able to sooner than Monday, as the U.K.’s Daily Mail reported.

This prompted federal District Court Judge Alison Nathan to impatiently tell the defense she would not delay the trial if they could not produce their missing witnesses.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“You have your witnesses, or you rest,” Nathan said with what The New York Times reported sounded like “a note of exasperation.”

“If this case closes today … it closes today,” the judge also reportedly said.

Ultimately, the defense did indeed rest their case on Friday afternoon, after producing two witnesses who contradicted testimony from “Jane” who alleged they’d been involved in “orgies” with her under Epstein and Maxwell’s guidance when she was underage.

Before the jury was brought in, however, Epstein’s attorneys told the court that one “Kelly,” who they had hoped to bring in to testify, had “refused” to comply with a subpoena and requested that U.S. Marshalls force her to do so.

Nathan, however, was skeptical.

“Why am I hearing about it for the first time now?” she asked, according to the Mail.

Attorney Laura Menninger replied that the defense team for the alleged madame of America’s most notorious pedophile had had “a lot going on.”

“To be honest your honor, it’s a lot of work,” she said.

“A non responsive witness is not a little thing,” the judge said, to which Menninger replied that her client’s “life was on the line” and that they’d only had a day and a half to mount a defense.

Of course, Maxwell was arrested in the summer of last year, so they’ve had a year and a half to mount a defense, which is what prosecutors argued.

Meanwhile, a second witness planned to plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand, which, of course, means that they would depend on the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves.

This is a rather inconvenient move for someone who was presumably going to be able to testify that they didn’t commit sex crimes with the defendant.

The third missing witness was Alexander Hamilton, an Englishman who claimed to have been told by the pseudonymous witness “Jane” that the case had fallen “into her lap.”

He was set to testify as much via video link, but somehow, despite the fact that it’s 2021 and it’s easier than ever to arrange video relays across the world at any point in time, technical difficulties presented this as an impossibility, apparently.

So, to recap, three witnesses who were supposed to be able to undermine claims that Maxwell recruited and groomed underage girls for her wealthy, sex-crazed boyfriend to sexually abuse have either refused to testify or suddenly found a way out of doing so, all at once, forcing the defense to rest.

Now, recall, Epstein and Maxwell have been accused of this illicit business for years, and much attention has been paid to their wealthy and powerful friends who may or may not have also abused the underage girls that Maxwell recruited into their allegedly very sick extracurricular activities.

One of the witnesses called to the stand on Friday before the defense rested was Eva Andersson-Dubin, a former Miss Sweden, wife to the hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, who has been accused by one of Epstein’s accusers of abusing her when she was underage — claims which he has denied.

Andersson-Dubin, along with former Epstein employee, Michelle Healy, both denied claims from “Jane” that they’d been involved in “orgies” or “sexualized massages” with the then-teenager, Epstein and Maxwell.

Do you believe Maxwell is guilty?

On Thursday, another former Epstein and Maxwell employee, Cimberly Espinosa, gave a glowing account of the two, yet when pressed by the state admitted she’d never been to Palm Beach, where “Jane” and others have alleged that their sexual abuse largely occurred.

The defense has largely relied on claims that, somehow, all four witnesses called by the state who allege they were groomed by Maxwell fabricated or exaggerated their claims to pin Epstein’s crimes on their client, who is alive while her shadowy and infamous former boyfriend, inconveniently for everyone involved, is not.

Yet three of their own witnesses seem to have gotten cold feet. Hmmm.

Remember, this is probably one of the most significant and closely watched sex abuse cases in a long time, and we can’t forget that many powerful people, including the Clintons and the U.K.’s royal family, have a lot at stake should more of the Epstein sex crime racket come to light.

This is, in fact, what many expected of the case, but it does not appear that anyone wealthy and famous will be named after all.

No one seems to want to go near Maxwell in her defense with a 10-foot pole.

But the only question that really matters now is what the jury will make of all this.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

*Headline

Report: Jeffrey Epstein’s Lawyer Ordered Ex-Staffers to Say Bill Clinton Never Visited ‘Pedo Island’

Western Journal

Published

on

When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton and won the United States presidency in 2016, many on the left were unwilling to accept defeat. Multiple investigations were launched into Trump’s victory, but none were able to undermine the result.

If a new report is any indication, it may have been the Clinton family who deserved investigation.

According to the U.K.’s Daily Mail, Miles and Cathy Alexander worked as residential managers at Little St. James, the infamous private island of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but they left their positions sometime around 2006.

Nearly 10 years later, Hillary Clinton was running for president. Given her husband Bill Clinton’s alleged ties to Epstein, it would stand to reason that she would be afraid of bad press regarding that connection.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Darren Indyke, a lawyer for Epstein, contacted the Alexanders during the time of Clinton’s campaign, the Mail reported.

Indyke reportedly requested they sign a sworn affidavit he had drafted saying they never saw Bill Clinton on “Pedo Island,” as Little St. James had come to be known.

It is unclear whether the Clintons contacted Indyke, but the Mail noted his intention was to ask the Alexanders “to do something that would be of particular benefit to Hillary Clinton and her campaign” by signing the affidavit.

Bill Clinton has not been proven to have set foot on the island, but alleged Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre said she had seen Clinton with “two young girls” on the island, the Mail reported.

Clinton has denied ever visiting the island or having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

It is certainly possible that Clinton never visited the island, and Indyke’s request to the Alexanders was only to confirm this. It is also possible Clinton did visit the island, and Indyke asked the Alexanders to lie. That question may never be answered.

However, if the Mail’s reporting is correct, it is at least true that Indyke asked the Alexanders to sign the affidavit for the purpose of bolstering Hillary Clinton’s campaign. That would seem to warrant some concern.

In addition, it has been proven that Bill Clinton had numerous connections to Epstein. According to the Mail, White House visitor logs show Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times from 1993 to 1995.

In Epstein’s infamous “little black book,” Clinton’s name appears beside 21 phone numbers and “several” emails, the outlet reported.

According to the Mail, Clinton was listed as a passenger on Epstein’s aircraft at least 26 times from February 2002 to November 2003, and former Epstein pilot David Rodgers testified in court he had flown Clinton on Epstein’s plane.

“I have a picture of me and the crew with Bill Clinton on the plane,” Rodgers said, according to the Mail. “To the best of my knowledge it was the first time that we had flown him.”

Again, none of these facts prove Clinton ever visited the island or had knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. However, they do suggest the two had a close relationship, which is concerning in and of itself given Epstein’s history.

Indyke apparently knew how politically damaging this connection could be for the Clintons. Why else would he request a sworn affidavit from two employees who had not worked on Little St. James for nearly a decade in an attempt to clear Bill Clinton’s name?

The Daily Mail’s report may not prove Clinton committed any crimes, but the lengths to which Indyke reportedly went trying to help the Clintons should and will raise some eyebrows.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton and won the United States presidency in 2016, many on the left were unwilling to accept defeat. Multiple investigations were launched into Trump’s victory, but none were able to undermine the result. If a new report is any indication, it may have been the Clinton family who deserved investigation. According to the U.K.’s Daily Mail, Miles and Cathy Alexander worked as residential managers at Little St. James, the infamous private island of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but they left their positions sometime around 2006. Nearly 10 years later, Hillary Clinton was running for president. Given her husband Bill Clinton’s alleged ties to Epstein, it would stand to reason that she would be afraid of bad press regarding that connection. Darren Indyke, a lawyer for Epstein, contacted the Alexanders during the time of Clinton’s campaign, the Mail reported. Indyke reportedly requested they sign a sworn affidavit he had drafted saying they never saw Bill Clinton on “Pedo Island,” as Little St. James had come to be known. It is unclear whether the Clintons contacted Indyke, but the Mail noted his intention was to ask the Alexanders “to do something that would be of particular benefit to Hillary Clinton and her campaign” by signing the affidavit. Bill Clinton has not been proven to have set foot on the island, but alleged Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre said she had seen Clinton with “two young girls” on the island, the Mail reported. Clinton has denied ever visiting the island or having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. It is certainly possible that Clinton never visited the island, and Indyke’s request to the Alexanders was only to confirm this. It is also possible Clinton did visit the island, and Indyke asked the Alexanders to lie. That question may never…

Continue Reading

*Headline

Breaking: Maxwell Will No Longer Protect Names of 8 Men Allegedly Tied to Epstein’s Underage Trafficking

Western Journal

Published

on

To many, the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell set a precedent.

It meant that even the elite can be held to account for their crimes.

Now, it appears that eight more men possibly involved in the crimes of convicted sex offender and accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein will be held to account.

On Dec. 29, Maxwell was convicted on various sex trafficking charges related to her involvement in her longtime companion’s crimes.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A wealthy financier with ties to various politicians and celebrities, Epstein died in a federal prison in New York in August 2019.

The New York Post reported Saturday that Maxwell’s attorney had sent a letter to federal Judge Loretta Preska saying the convicted sex trafficker would no longer be protecting the identities of eight “John Does” in a lawsuit brought against Britain’s Prince Andrew by Virginia Giuffre.

“After careful review of the detailed objections submitted by Non-Party Does 17, 53, 54, 55, 73, 93, and 151, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell writes to inform the Court that she does not wish to further address those objections,” read the letter from Maxwell attorney Laura Menninger, dated Jan. 12.

“Each of the listed Does has counsel who have ably asserted their own respective privacy rights. Ms. Maxwell therefore leaves it to this Court to conduct the appropriate review.”

According to WLS-TV, Giuffre’s lawsuit suggests “the men were involved in Epstein’s sexual abuse of minor girls between 1994 and 2004.”

On the same day the letter was written, a Manhattan federal judge refused to dismiss the 38-year-old woman’s case against Andrew, the Post reported.

Giuffre alleges that Epstein and Maxwell made her have sex with the British royal three times, starting when she was just 17.

He has denied the allegations.

On Thursday, however, Queen Elizabeth II chose to strip Andrew of his royal titles.

“With the Queen’s approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending the case as a private citizen,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement.

Given the number of high-profile individuals who have ties to Epstein, there’s no telling how prominent the soon-to-be-named John Doe accomplices of Maxwell might be.

Regardless, this is great news that we should all be celebrating right now.

Let us hope that many more women and girls will soon see their victimizers face justice.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

To many, the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell set a precedent. It meant that even the elite can be held to account for their crimes. Now, it appears that eight more men possibly involved in the crimes of convicted sex offender and accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein will be held to account. On Dec. 29, Maxwell was convicted on various sex trafficking charges related to her involvement in her longtime companion’s crimes. A wealthy financier with ties to various politicians and celebrities, Epstein died in a federal prison in New York in August 2019. The New York Post reported Saturday that Maxwell’s attorney had sent a letter to federal Judge Loretta Preska saying the convicted sex trafficker would no longer be protecting the identities of eight “John Does” in a lawsuit brought against Britain’s Prince Andrew by Virginia Giuffre. “After careful review of the detailed objections submitted by Non-Party Does 17, 53, 54, 55, 73, 93, and 151, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell writes to inform the Court that she does not wish to further address those objections,” read the letter from Maxwell attorney Laura Menninger, dated Jan. 12. “Each of the listed Does has counsel who have ably asserted their own respective privacy rights. Ms. Maxwell therefore leaves it to this Court to conduct the appropriate review.” According to WLS-TV, Giuffre’s lawsuit suggests “the men were involved in Epstein’s sexual abuse of minor girls between 1994 and 2004.” On the same day the letter was written, a Manhattan federal judge refused to dismiss the 38-year-old woman’s case against Andrew, the Post reported. Giuffre alleges that Epstein and Maxwell made her have sex with the British royal three times, starting when she was just 17. He has denied the allegations. On Thursday, however, Queen Elizabeth II chose to strip Andrew of…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week