As an update to all dedicated followers. We are still banned from Twitter. I am guessing this is an indefinite ban. It is likely we never return. In the slim chance we return I am guessing it is after the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
If you want to keep in touch with me the only social media accounts I have are on Instagram and Gab. They are listed below.
Any other accounts on Twitter and other social channels are not me. There will be a significant number of copycats as I had over one million followers across multiple social channels. Let these accounts be and let them play their role. It is the nature of how the world works now.
If you want to support the freedom of speech and The Free Press Report, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter. As a paid subscriber you are supporting independent media and the right to the freedom of speech.
After the Ghislaine Maxwell trial is over we will be covering all forms of government and corporation corruption. This is just the beginning. Be ready and stay strong.
Addendum to Day Seven Coverage
During testimony given by Carolyn on Tuesday, she acknowledged seeing a picture of Ghislaine naked and pregnant. Maxwell does not have any known children.
Day eight’s proceedings would commence with Judge Nathan addressing the jury as to jurisdiction specifics pertaining to the context of state law relevant to Carloyn’s testimony.
First witness would be Janine Gill-Velez, a former Human Resources staffer at Mar-A-Lago (known as Florida Property Management) for 15 years. She would authenticate a personal action notice pertaining to the hiring of one Sky Roberts in the year 2000. Cross examination from Bobbi Sternheim would establish that the witness had “no direct knowledge of the hiring” but could still confirm the personal notice. Gill-Velez was dismissed.
The following witness was made known to the public as “Shawn”, a 38-year-old male. Shawn acknowledged assisting in the trafficking of witness Carolyn when she was 14 (Shawn was 17 at this time, saying they had “dated” for 4 or 5 years). Shawn would explain that he would receive a call from Sarah Kellen and a lady with a foreign accent (describing one as French and one as English) requesting him and Carolyn drive to Epstein’s Palm Beach address.
Shawn would disclose that Carolyn had received lingerie and a movie sent by FedEx from NY as gifts from Maxwell and Epstein. Shawn would also acknowledge trafficking Melissa (at the time aged 16) and Amanda Laslow (at the time aged 15) to the same location, claiming they returned to the car with “hundreds of dollars” after an hour in Epstein’s house.
Shawn would also acknowledge his later arrest in Louisiana for methamphetamine possession, also being charged as a felon in possession of a firearm. Shawn was dismissed.
Prosecution would present several public exhibits, including several photos of Maxwell and Epstein vacationing (Epstein appears with his hand over Ghislaine’s stomach in one picture, suggesting a pregnancy) and a photo of Epstein and Maxwell at the Queen’s cottage. Many of these exhibits released include photos that had not been available to the public previously.
Wednesday’s third witness would be Nicole Hesse, who worked as a housekeeper at Epstein and Maxwell’s Palm Beach home in 2003. She would testify to authenticate an exhibit, being asked by the prosecution “do you see here that Carolyn called Epstein’s house?” to which she answered “yes”. Nicole would also confirm a separate piece of evidence (believed to be a photo) sealed to the public displaying Carolyn's name.
David Rogers, Jeffrey Epstein’s former pilot, would be next to take the witness stand. Rogers would confirm that he had been Epstein’s pilot since 1995, when he was hired in Columbus, Ohio. Rogers would continue to explain “We mostly flew between his houses” mentioning several different jets owned by Epstein, specifically asking about a Gulfstream that had a divider installed; a door that Rogers explained was often closed.
Rogers would explain that he kept a logbook when flying Epstein’s planes. Prosecutors would present this logbook as a sealed exhibit, with an entire column of names redacted. Rogers would be asked to confirm if a passenger referenced as “GX12” had travelled on Epstein’s plane (not to be repeated aloud for the public), which he answered to the affirmative. Rogers would then be asked by the prosecution to review details of a previous flight made from Palm Beach to New Jersey. Rogers would respond stating Juan Alessi (Epstein’s Palm Beach housekeeper) had driven passengers to the airport; he would also recall Jane being present on this flight with several other passengers.
Rogers would proceed to recall a flight from Van Nuys CA to Sante Fe, NM, Epstein was the only passenger present. Prosecution would continue to ask Rogers how many times Jane had travelled on Epstein’s planes, Rogers responded “thirty-two times”. Inquiry progressed when Rogers was asked about the presence of Maxwell, Epstein, an unnamed passenger and Virginia Roberts on a flight to St. Thomas. To which he responded “yes”.
Prosecution would end their questioning of witness Rogers by confirming the presence of Maxwell and Epstein on a flight from Spain to Tangier, Mexico.
Cross examination by Maxwell’s defense attorney Everdell commenced by asking Rogers if the cockpit door was left open at times, allowing him to see the passengers, to which he responded “yes”. Everdell would inquire as to if Rogers ever found any sex toys or used condoms, to which he responded, “no I did not”. Maxwell’s defense would expand, asking “Isn’t it common to own private planes trough companies? One company per plane to limit liability, right? to which Rogers responded “yes”.
After a mid-day break, questioning continued with Everdell mistakenly addressing Rogers as “Mr. Visoski”, to which the Judge reminded him “it’s Rogers”. Rogers would be asked if he knew Jane’s legal first name, which he acknowledged responding “I do”. Everdell juxtaposed “but Epstein had an assistant with the same first name, didn’t he?” to which Rogers responded “yes”. Both of these questions are designed by the defense to reveal the witness’s identity; both the prosecution and Judge failed to remind Everdell of his duty. Everdell would continue “Eva Dubin was on this flight, her husband is a hedge fund manager who was a client of Epstein’s?” to which Rogers replied, “I don’t know”. Everdell would ask Rogers if the flight’s destination (Columbus, Ohio) was where billionaire Les Wexner lived; owner of The Limited (and client of Epstein’s); which Rogers would confirm affirmatively.
After a scattered cross examination from Everdell that focused solely on providing alternative narrative instead of responding to accusation directly, Rogers was dismissed. The same strategy of overall avoidance used once more by Maxwell’s defense team.
Wednesday’s SDNY Courthouse proceedings concluded at 4:58pm, when Judge Nathan announced charge scheduling (which must take place before the defense argues their rebuttal to prosecution’s case), stating that this upcoming Friday may be used for charging.
Further elaboration revealed Nathan is planning for Maxwell’s team to start their defense next Thursday (12/16). Judge Nathan also mentioned its possible jury members do not get called into court this coming Friday (without providing further reasons). As each day’s session ends, the time available for prosecution to deliberate their case has been significantly reduced; drawing scrutiny from journalists as to the legitimacy of the prosecutions efforts to secure justice (to the full extent of the law) for their clients.
Day 9 coverage will return tomorrow following SDNY courthouse proceedings.
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.