As evidence has mounted against Ghislaine Maxwell in her trial for allegedly aiding Jeffrey Epstein in his serial sexual abuse, the picture has gotten dimmer and dimmer for the defense team.
When the trial returned Thursday, the team did not do themselves any favors.
According to Law and Crime editor Adam Klasfeld on Twitter, the defense asked Judge Alison Nathan to allow some of their witnesses to remain anonymous.
They argued their witnesses should be afforded the same rights as the prosecution’s witnesses, but Judge Nathan said she “disagreed with this basic premise.”
The defense’s motion was rather disgusting on its face because there is a clear reason why their witnesses should not be given the same protection as the prosecution’s witnesses.
In the case of the prosecution, many of the women testifying were alleged victims of the sexual abuse committed by Epstein and Maxwell. Because of the trauma they went through, it is common for them to be allowed anonymity.
For the defense, there is no clear reason as to why the witnesses would need anonymity. Presumably, the witnesses are concerned about receiving backlash for aiding the defense of an alleged abuser.
If the witnesses are not even willing to attach their names to their testimonies because of the evils the defendant allegedly committed, that should say something in and of itself.
This is far from the first slimy action the defense has taken. Earlier in the trial, the defense attempted to cast doubts on the credibility of alleged victims, the Financial Times reported.
On Dec. 3, the outlet reported that the defense had been questioning an alleged victim in her early 40s identified as “Jane.”
“You are an actor who convincingly portrays someone else for a living,” defense lawyer Laura Menninger told the witness. “You are able to cry on command.”
The implication was that since Jane was an actress, she may have faked her entire story about being sexually assaulted. This was a gross and unfair equivalency because Jane’s profession should not mean she is inherently untrustworthy.
The defense continued their unsavory games on Thursday by calling a “false memory expert” named Elizabeth Loftus.
According to Klasfeld, Loftus argued the prosecution had an “agenda” because they did not consult with her often enough. She then attempted to cast more doubt on accusers.
“One thing we know about memory is that it doesn’t work like a recording device,” she said.
For the past few years, we have been told to “believe all women” when it comes to abuse allegations. It will be interesting to see if the same leftist outrage comes down on Loftus.
Overall, the Maxwell defense has proven to be just as slimy as one might expect. In a trial where the odds are stacked against them, this attitude does not bode well.
Maxwell Trial Returns: Ghislaine’s Shameless Defense Attorneys Demand Anonymity for Their Witnesses
As evidence has mounted against Ghislaine Maxwell in her trial for allegedly aiding Jeffrey Epstein in his serial sexual abuse, the picture has gotten dimmer and dimmer for the defense team.
When the trial returned Thursday, the team did not do themselves any favors.
According to Law and Crime editor Adam Klasfeld on Twitter, the defense asked Judge Alison Nathan to allow some of their witnesses to remain anonymous.
They argued their witnesses should be afforded the same rights as the prosecution’s witnesses, but Judge Nathan said she “disagreed with this basic premise.”
The defense’s motion was rather disgusting on its face because there is a clear reason why their witnesses should not be given the same protection as the prosecution’s witnesses.
In the case of the prosecution, many of the women testifying were alleged victims of the sexual abuse committed by Epstein and Maxwell. Because of the trauma they went through, it is common for them to be allowed anonymity.
For the defense, there is no clear reason as to why the witnesses would need anonymity. Presumably, the witnesses are concerned about receiving backlash for aiding the defense of an alleged abuser.
If the witnesses are not even willing to attach their names to their testimonies because of the evils the defendant allegedly committed, that should say something in and of itself.
This is far from the first slimy action the defense has taken. Earlier in the trial, the defense attempted to cast doubts on the credibility of alleged victims, the Financial Times reported.
On Dec. 3, the outlet reported that the defense had been questioning an alleged victim in her early 40s identified as “Jane.”
“You are an actor who convincingly portrays someone else for a living,” defense lawyer Laura Menninger told the witness. “You are able to cry on command.”
The implication was that since Jane was an actress, she may have faked her entire story about being sexually assaulted. This was a gross and unfair equivalency because Jane’s profession should not mean she is inherently untrustworthy.
The defense continued their unsavory games on Thursday by calling a “false memory expert” named Elizabeth Loftus.
According to Klasfeld, Loftus argued the prosecution had an “agenda” because they did not consult with her often enough. She then attempted to cast more doubt on accusers.
“One thing we know about memory is that it doesn’t work like a recording device,” she said.
For the past few years, we have been told to “believe all women” when it comes to abuse allegations. It will be interesting to see if the same leftist outrage comes down on Loftus.
Overall, the Maxwell defense has proven to be just as slimy as one might expect. In a trial where the odds are stacked against them, this attitude does not bode well.