Good morning to all 52,765 readers. Thank you for the support and readership during these dark times when big tech continues to censor independent journalism.
If you want to further support The Free Press Report, consider becoming a premium subscriber. For the cost of only one coffee per month, you can help support the right of free speech and the freedom of press. We are a reader-supported publication focused on exposing the truth that the mainstream media fails to report on. With the support from our readers, we can fight back against the censorship of big tech.
Day Nine of the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
Shortened day nine SNDY courthouse proceedings would begin with witness Tracy Chappell of FedEx, who would confirm a purchase statement from Epstein’s FedEx account. Although possibly unintentional from the prosecution, this witness’ testimony aided the defense during cross examination when admitting that Ghislaine Maxwell was not present on the document, nor could she be associated (through any documentation) as being the sender of that package.
Day nine would be adjourned by Judge Nathan after she announced that a key prosecution attorney (thought to be Lara Pomerantz) had fallen ill, delaying proceedings until the next day.
Day Ten of the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
Day ten proceedings would begin with Prosecution attorney Rohrbach requesting the testimony of William Brown, NY State DMV. Rohrbach would enter sealed exhibits, asking Brown to verify the age of an individual, stating the person referenced (born 1986) was 11 years old in 1996. Brown would be dismissed without cross examination.
The second witness to take the SDNY courthouse witness stand on Friday would be Annie Farmer. Judge Nathan would reference the New Mexico age of consent laws to the jury claiming the following testimony did not reference “illegal sexual activity” but may be relevant. Prosecution attorney Pomerantz would begin by referencing a sealed exhibit, asking Annie to confirm her state of birth and which college she had attended. When asked about her meeting of Maxwell and Epstein, Annie stated that Maxwell had given her a massage for the first time when she was 16 years old. Annie would continue to testify that her parents were divorced at that time in her life, and she was concerned about how she would pay for her future education.
Attorney Pomerantz would inquire to Annie if she had an older sister, which she replied to with “yes, Maria Farmer, she’s 9 years older than me, she was living in NY and working for Epstein”. Annie would continue to explain she travelled to NY with a plane ticket purchased by Jeffrey Epstein. Annie attempted to explain that she was traveling to NY to see her father however, the defense attorney objected to it on the grounds of hearsay; it was sustained by Judge Nathan. Numerous objections would continue from Maxwell’s defense as Pomerantz asked who Annie had “thanked for her ticket”.
Pomerantz would proceed by asking Annie “did you meet Jeffrey Epstein?” Annie would reply “Yes. Twice during this trip.” Annie would also recall Epstein telling her he had connections at UCLA, and she should take an international trip to “boost her application”.
She continued to explain her, and Maria went to see a movie with Epstein, and that he had sat in between them. Annie stated that Epstein rubbed her leg causing her to be “sick to her stomach” and shocked, explaining “when Maria looked over, he would stop, then begin again”. Pomerantz asked “did you tell your sister?” Annie responded “No. I was confused. I knew she was protective; I knew she would be upset; she might lose her job, so I decided not to say anything.”
Pomerantz would request for Annie to read writings from her journal. Annie would proceed by reading entries that discussed attending a showing of Phantom of the Opera with Epstein, also reading an entry about Epstein’s non-consented touching, reading aloud that she “felt weirded out, he let go of my hand when talking to Maria.” Pomerantz would ask her “how did you feel about Epstein as you wrote this?” she responded, “I was conflicted, I knew it was not normal or right’.
Attorney Pomerantz would ask Annie when the next time she saw Epstein would be. She responded saying she saw Epstein in New Mexico next, describing a man with a sign waiting for her when she got off the plane who drove her to the ranch. She continued to recall meeting Ghislaine Maxwell there and identifying her British accent. Annie’s mother had told her that Maxwell would be present in New Mexico, making her feel more comfortable being around Epstein once more.
She would recall Maxwell buying numerous gifts for her when she arrived at NM, including cowboy boots worth $100 (which Annie states she was grateful for at the time).
Annie would also recall seeing a movie with Epstein and Maxwell, stating she did not want to go after her previous experience in New York, but thought Maxwell’s presence would deter Epstein from acting inappropriately. Attorney Pomerantz would ask Annie “For how much of the movie did he touch you?” she responded “most of it, he didn’t hide it, afterwards back at the ranch Maxwell told me to rub his feet; that she would show me how.
Later Maxwell told me to get undressed and started touching my breasts. I wanted to get off the table, I wanted out of there. The door was open, and I had the sense Epstein could see. The next morning, Epstein came into my room and said he wanted to cuddle. He climbed into bed with me. I didn’t like it”. Attorney Pomerantz inquired “what did you do?” Annie responded “I went into the bathroom and shut the door. I waited.”
Pomerantz would continue by asking Annie where she had travelled in 1996. Annie would respond “Thailand and Vietnam. Cultural immersion” explaining that Epstein had paid for the trip. Prosecution would end questioning by asking if Annie had any further contact with Epstein or Maxwell or had told anyone else about these events. Annie would say there was no further contact with either Maxwell or Epstein, and that she had only told her boyfriend about it.
Annie would continue to detail a number of interviews she had given to the FBI (2006-2007) and several discussions she had with media entities (2002, 2016 and 2019) regarding her experiences with Epstein. Annie would also state she was compensated by the Epstein Victim’s Fund to the sum of $1.5 million.
Cross examination of Annie would begin with Maxwell’s defense lawyer Menninger inquiring as to if it was normal for Annie to fly alone when she was younger, Annie responded “I usually had my younger sister with me when I flew to see my father.” Menninger would continue by asking “Maxwell had no role in your travel to NY, correct?” Annie responded, “she did not”.
Annie would also acknowledge that Maxwell had not taken her to a showing of The Lion King. Meninger referenced different entries from Annie’s journal stating, “you seem to have written about having a great time in NY”. To which Annie responded, “I was struggling”. Meninger challenged stating rhetorically, “so you’re saying that in light of what happened in NM after NY?”
Menninger would reference another journal entry asking Annie if she had messaged a journalist saying she would “research the release date of Primal Fear”, which she acknowledged with “yes”. Both of these questions are designed to try and encourage doubt in the witness’s memory. This is in line with employing a “false memory” expert that Maxwell’s defense plans to present to the court.
Menninger would present Annie’s boots (purchased by Maxwell) positing why she had continued to wear these boots after her trip to NM. Menninger would also ask Annie if Epstein touched her genitalia when in the theatre, to which she replied “no”. Defense responded, stating that Annie had ticked a box during a 2019 FBI interview reporting sexual abuse in NY. Menninger claimed this displayed Annie “considered hand holding sexual abuse” (although Annie also described Epstein touching her body without consent). Menninger would also reference another interview given to the FBI in 2019 where she stated she had removed only her bra in the presence of Maxwell.
Menninger would receive a stern warning from Judge Nathan when asking Annie if she was aware of how much money her representing firm (David Boies and Co) had recovered by way of litigation for Epstein’s victims. Cross examination would conclude with the defense confirming from Annie that she was an Epstein victim What’s App, and she had emailed Virginia Roberts prior to giving testimony.
Pomerantz would request a re-direct in efforts to further clarify details from Annie regarding her experiences with Epstein. Annie would state that before her trip to New Mexico she had planned to travel with her older sister but stated Epstein and Maxwell canceled her trip. Annie would conclude her testimony by saying “I believe they were trying to confuse me as to the boundaries, as to what was right and wrong, in order to sexually abuse me.” Maxwell’s defense team desperately attempted to object to this statement but were overruled by Judge Nathan. Annie was dismissed.
The day’s second witness would be one David Mulligan, now a baker, who would testify as to Annie telling him that her Thailand trip was paid for by Jeffrey Epstein. Pomerantz proceeded “what did Annie tell you about NY?” Mulligan responded, “that Epstein had touched her leg, she didn’t like it but didn’t say anything since Epstein was helping her sister with her art career”. Mulligan would also state that Annie had told him that Maxwell had touched her breasts during the massage. Pomerantz asked “did she tell you why she didn’t speak up?”, Mulligan responded “yes, she didn’t want to jeopardize her sister’s opportunities with Epstein”.
Cross examination would begin with Defense lawyer Bobbi Sternheim asking Mulligan “You’ve seen things in the news about this?” Mulligan responded, “I’m not much of a news watcher”. Sternheim continued with misguided inquiry “you know she made $1.5 million?” Mulligan responded, “I did not”. Sternheim then asked, “and she attended your recent wedding?” to which Mulligan answered affirmatively. Sternheim would yield.
Attorney Pomerantz would take one more opportunity to redirect asking Mulligan “why do you remember what Annie told you about New Mexico?” to which Mulligan responded, “these were big moments, which we discussed while being physically affectionate with each other”. Pomerantz dismissed Mulligan.
The Prosecution’s final witness would be one Janice Swain who stated her age as 71, the mother of Annie Farmer. Pomerantz would open questioning by inquiring as to when Janice had met Epstein. Janice responded “when he wanted to take Annie on his plane to Florida for a work trip, then Epstein told me about a meeting of students at his ranch in New Mexico, to talk about college plans. I asked who would be chaperoning? He said his wife Ghislaine would be.” Swain would continue “Annie returned with a pair of black boots. She said Jeffrey Epstein bought them for her. She seemed very tired. Later I asked what happened in New Mexico.”
Cross examination would begin with Menninger asking Swain “You don't know if Maxwell was aware whether Maria would travel to New Mexico, do you? And when Annie was in Thailand you were in Germany, correct?” To which she would respond with “yes”. Janice was dismissed. Attorney Pomerantz would quickly show intent for U.S prosecution to rest.
Prosecution Rests Their Case
Indeed, today’s proceedings would conclude with prosecution resting their case; leaving many concerned about the honest effort made by prosecutors to seek justice at the full extent of the law for the survivors of Epstein and Maxwell’s crimes. It’s hard to think evidence present in this case would not lead to further inquiry into Epstein associates, and the lack of effort given on this front is particularly troubling. The defense will begin their rebuttal next Thursday, full coverage available from Free Press Project.
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.