Following a crowded day of defense witness testimonies including the questioning of Ms. Espinoza (a former Epstein and Maxwell assistant) and Dr. Loftus, (a false memory expert) Friday’s session would commence rather differently. A lengthy clarification from Judge Nathan pertaining to prior deposition documents (which are related to a defense witness) would open proceedings. Nathan would also inform the defense that they would be required to produce specific documents if another witness is to testify. Maxwell’s lawyer suggested they may call a witness from the UK and a law enforcement witness at a later time.
Morning proceedings would continue with numerous attempts from defense representatives to revisit issues that had already been ruled upon by the court (a point made by the prosecution; expanding that the defense will have an opportunity to revisit these issues during closing arguments). Defense would call their first witness to the stand, First Special Agent Jason Richards. Defense attorney Everdell would also explain the defense’s intention to call witnesses Agent Young and Eva Dubin (wife of disgraced hedge-funder Glenn Dubin) afterwards. Questioning would begin at roughly 10:32am as the jury poured into SDNY Courthouse chambers.
Defense attorney Pagliuca asked First Special Agent Richards “Did you interview Carolyn?” Richards replied, “I did.” Pagliuca expanded “did you recall Carolyn saying she obtained Epstein’s number from a phone book and that Epstein returned her call?” Richards responded, “If that’s what’s in the 302 reports.” Prosecution would proceed to cross examine “Do you show your 302’s to those you speak to?” Richards responded “No.” Richards was dismissed.
The day’s second witness would be Amanda Young. The defense’s first question would be “was your partner Detective Burns?” Young would respond “Yes, we both check the 302.”
Maxwell’s lawyer proceeded “You just heard Ms. Comey’s questions to Agent Richards, 302’s are not transcripts, right?” Young would respond “they are not.” Maxwell’s lawyer inquired further, “You interviewed Annie Farmer, about the boots, right?” Young responded, “Yes, the boots were obtained by law enforcement this year. I don’t remember the month”.
Maxwell’s lawyer would ask Agent Young to read an exhibit. Young relayed “In the beginning, Jane would be with her mother and brothers at the Epstein house.” Defense lawyer Menninger would reference page seven of the exhibit; stating that Young had written that Jane did not recall specific abuse in New Mexico.” Defense lawyer Menninger continued “Just to emphasize, the boots were discussed recently?” to which Young responded “Yes.”
Cross examination from prosecution proceeded as Young was asked “What did you do before?” Young responded, “I interviewed children about child abuse”. Judge Nathan called a sidebar telling the jury to disregard the previous statement.
Prosecution would continue, “Did Jane need more than one meeting to say what happened?” The defense would object claiming the “basis of questioning was beyond the scope of inquiry.” Prosecution would attempt to re-phrase, but the defense requested a redirect to establish context. Menninger would ask Young, “You used these notes with the grand jury, right?” Young responded, “some of them” Menninger inquired further “did you show her the 302’s?” Young responded “No, it’s unethical, it’s not appropriate.” Menninger questioned “You don’t record them?” Young responded, “Only those in custody, those witnesses or victims.”
Menninger would continue questioning “Are you familiar with the DOJ’s Obtaining Evidence Protocols?” Prosecution attorney Pomerantz would object but would be overruled by Judge Nathan. Menninger would attempt to show the witness a document, but Judge Nathan called a sidebar. Agent Young would be dismissed. The next witness called to the stand was Eva Anderson-Dubin, who stated “I live in NY, and I am 60.” Defense attorney Menninger would ask “You are married to Glenn Dubin?” Eva responded “Yes, for 28 years, we have 3 children aged 27, 25 & 20” (also confirming their genders as female, male, female respectively, when requested to by Menninger).
Menninger would also ask “What does Mr. Dubin do for employment?”, Eva responded “He is self-employed. I was also previously employed as a medical doctor, I went to medical school in Stockholm, then UCLA, then Lennox Hill Hospital in NYC.”
The defense continued “Did you know Mr. Epstein?” Eva responded, “We dated on and off from 1983 until 1991.” Menninger would attempt to ask Eva if she had ever witnessed any sexual contact between her children and Epstein or Maxwell; but would be interrupted by prosecution’s sudden objection. Menninger instead presented an image (under seal) to Eva Dubin (believed to be a photo of Epstein with a young child on his lap on a private plane flight) asking if she could identify Epstein with one of her children. Dubin responded “Yes, it’s the 20-year-old one” stating she had not seen the picture before.
Menninger’s questioning progressed; guiding Eva to review exhibit “GX662r, the redacted flight logs of Dave Roberts.” These flight logs displayed JE (Epstein), Eva Andersson and Ms. Francis Jardine.
Eva mentioned she had remembered Epstein dating Francis. Menninger would reference another page of the flight log. Eva acknowledged that she recognized the name “Sophie Biddle, a massage therapist” and her husband’s name on one of the log entries. Menninger would end questioning by asking Eva to acknowledge if she could see a redacted name on the list, to which she responded “Yes”, asking if she had ever been in a sexual encounter with “Jane”. She responded, “I have not.”
Prosecution attorney Moe would commence Dubin’s cross-examination with a series of broad questions relating to Eva’s relationship with Epstein (which would be objected to by the defense). Moe would re-frame “with respect, do you have issues with your memory?” Eva stated, “I can’t remember what happened last month” (apparently related to an undisclosed medical condition). Eva was dismissed.
The day’s next witness would be Michelle Healy, who explained she was 47 and lived in Dallas. She also testified that her husband was an architect and her sister (named Sharon) lived in Albuquerque. She elaborated, stating she grew up in Long Island between 1974 and 1999. Menninger would ask Healy “Where did you work in 1996?” to which Michelle responded, “J. Epstein & Company”. She continued “I went to Zorro Ranch; my sister was working there.” Menninger would ask “Were you ever involved in any group sexualized massages with Jane?” Healy responded, “Absolutely not.”
Cross examination commenced with Prosecution Attorney Comey asking Healy “Are you the only Michelle in the world?” She responded, “I hope not.” Comey expanded “Never flew on Epstein’s plane?” to which she responded “No.” Healy was excused.
This would be followed by discussion from Judge Nathan and defense council pertaining to a possible witness scheduling for this coming Monday. Maxwell discussed with her defense team for several minutes. Judge Nathan would announce that stipulations had been reached.
Judge Nathan would proceed to allocution. Ghislaine Maxwell addressed the Judge directly when asked by Judge Nathan if she would be testifying. She responded, “Your honor, the government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, so there is no need for me to testify.”
Stipulations were read into record to close proceedings; these included an addendum to testimony; to display that Annie Farmer’s boots were seized by the FBI June 29, 2021. The defense announced their intention to rest their case completely, setting sights for Maxwell to face charges after closing arguments of Monday. If anything, the defense mounted an incredibly weak defense effort that does little to exonerate Maxwell of several alleged child sex crimes.
Saturday & Monday’s proceedings will be documented by Free Press Report; available following SDNY courthouse events.
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.
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.