loader image

Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. Today we’re talking about Ghislaine Maxwell. We’re in trial day three, and we’ve got a lot of activity going on. We’ve got, uh, picking up with Jane. Remember we talked about the first victim in the case. This was victim number one. This is Jane. She is now somebody who was being called back to court. Today. We wrapped up with her cross-examination yesterday. Laura Menninger was the defense attorney from Ghislaine Maxwell’s team that finished cross-examination with her at the close of court yesterday, but they picked it back up with her. And so we have a cross exam from her. We also have a redirect from the government prosecutor Mo came back out and we had a, a redirect exam. And then we flew through a couple of other witnesses, very quickly, the government called forward a person who’s going by the pseudonym, Matt, Matt is out here and he’s actually Jane’s ex-boyfriend so he gets called into court.

He’s another witness that the government brings forward and his testimony is quick. The defense does not even cross examine him. So we’re going to check in and see what’s going on there. And then we have another witness, a guy by the name of Bessel men, I believe is his name. He was somebody who got called in at the very last minute, like half an hour left in today’s court proceedings, and very short introduction from him. But he’s a guy who works over at the, in art school, the same school that the first victim Jane says that she went to, that was funded by Epstein. And so what we’re going to do is we’re going to sort of bounce around and take a look at the mind map and see how all this stuff interconnects with itself, because it is interesting before we get into all of that, let’s make sure that we have everything pulled up that is necessary and good to remind you that as we go through the trial today, we’re in day three.

As I mentioned, uh, if you have any questions, those are available. You can go to our community over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. Questions are coming in here hot, and we’ll make sure that we get to them. We also would ask that if you want to share the show, we appreciate it. Clips are available to show as being clipped up in by witnesses and by the different highlights. And so if you’re interested in sharing this, or if you want to just go in and find a key bit of the testimony, check out our clips, channel Robert ruler, Esq clips, and all of your support is much appreciated yesterday. We had a good show talking about day two of Glen Maxwell and YouTube demonetizing, the whole video. And so I’m starting to, you know, running into this again, we’ve had this problem before on the channel where we have these live streams.

And if you get into a little bit of dicey territory or some stuff that maybe YouTube doesn’t want to talk about, you get the instant demonetization and ordinarily what happens is I appeal it. And then about 24 hours later, they say, okay, your video is fine. And so we’ll let you talk about that. And so they’ll allow you to re monetize it. The problem here when you’re doing the live stream is by the time that happens, all your views are already gone. Everybody’s already watched it. And they’re on to the next day, day three day, four day five. And so this time when I appealed the demonetization, YouTube said, now we’re just going to keep it demonetized. So we’re not even going to turn it back on and you can sort of understand that. I mean, yesterday we were talking about some, you know, some, some very touchy subject we’re talking about the Glenn Maxwell Epstein trial.

So there is some, you know, some borderline stuff going on there, but just so you know, as we’re going to go through the show, I’m going to try to do my best to, uh, you know, not use that direct language. And we’ll see if YouTube, uh, lets us continue to talk about this without any of sort of the soft censorship, the videos that are demonetized, they, you know, they don’t, they don’t have as much reach in my experience. And so it’s sort of this soft censorship, you know, these videos are kind of a no-no. So your support is always appreciated. Thank you for subscribing. Thank you for sharing the content. Thank you for supporting us with your super chats, which we’ll get to of course, and thank you for supporting us over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. Okay. So with that background out of the way, let’s jump into it.

Glen Maxwell, day three, but we can’t start with day three until we finish up the day two and day two, we wrapped up with this happening. We saw that this was Jane. This was victim. This is a courtroom sketch. Of course, none of this can be rebroadcast. And so what we have now is a photograph of a sketch of Glen Maxwell. Looking at Jane. Jane is victim number two, I’m sorry, victim number one, I believe. And she’s the first victim that we’ve heard for from and at the close of court yesterday, Jane was on the stand. The direct examination had finished. So the prosecution had called her. They said, she’s the victim we’re representing her. We want to convict Ghislaine Maxwell for all the harm that she did to you, Jane, they call it it’s their witness. And so at the close of testimony yesterday, it was not the government’s witness anymore.

It was the cross examination being conducted by miss Laura Menninger, Glynn Maxwell’s defense lawyer. And so you can see sort of the stage that the, this photograph is showing us kind of a dark background. You know, she’s sobbing her eyes out. Very dramatic testimony comes out of her. This woman she’s 14 years old and she’s got Colin Maxwell. Who’s abusing her and Jeffrey Epstein who were taking her and doing these massages and all sorts of very disgusting things. So it’s very, very intense testimony at this time. And so what happens now after the government calls her, the defense is going to come back out and they’re going to cross examine her. And what’s the defense number one sort of theme here. We’ve already talked about this. They had the triple M pneumonic and one of them was memory and memory. If that is fallible, if there’s problems with somebody’s memory, you want to exploit that if you’re a defense attorney, especially if this is something that happened almost two decades ago, this has been happening.

This happened a long time ago, memories, fade, things change. And so during the cross-examination, after we get done, listening to Jane, cry your eyes out, Laura Menninger, a female comes back out and says, yeah, but you were kind of lying or at least mistaken about all of these other things. And so she starts trying to impeach her or cross examine her to say, you said this in 2019, but now you’re saying this, when the prosecutor asked about that, you said this, but in 2018 19, you said that didn’t you. And so your memory is not accurate. It’s it’s problematic, isn’t it? It’s not 100% accurate. It’s fallible. And so yesterday at the close of the cross-examination Laura Menninger was, was kind of going at it. And she started to introduce exhibit. She started to say, oh, Jane. So I want to show you this. You just said this.

I want to show you this here. And the prosecution objected through the ceiling. They said, now we’re not going to talk about any of that. They were saying that the defense was violating the rules. They wanted to show Jane something that wasn’t disclosed to the state. In other words, the state didn’t know about this. When Laura manager started asking Jane about these questions that we never saw, that that wasn’t disclosed to us. Judge. They’re not allowed to talk about that. And so yesterday when we wrapped up, judge Nathan said, all right, we’ve got a couple of things we’ve got to talk about. Uh, the defense never showed up these documents as the prosecutor. So they violated the rule. They didn’t show us these things we ever seen these before. And Maxwell’s lawyer, Laura manager says, well, that rule doesn’t apply. And the prosecutor said, okay, then it’s not admissible those images that they’re trying to show Jane.

And so now we’re fighting over what the witness here, the victim can see, judge Nathan turns it over. She says, oh, it’s one page of what? J 36. So how does it impeach Jane if it’s just one page. And so Maxwell’s team says, well, it shows the street that she lives on the street that she lives on. If she’s claimed that she didn’t live on a certain street and she lives on his street, I’m going to show her that she’s lying. It’s impeachment evidence. Judge Nathan says, it’s a current photo. So it’s not impeachment. It impeaching us. A prosecutor says, well, it’s a violation of the rule. And so we have a big, you know, a big, a big fight about it. Yesterday. Defense says, we’ve already seen this. You admitted a photo of Epstein’s home and whatever judge says, all right, everybody, before we get out of here, I want you to brief this by the close of business today, send me your stuff by 10:00 PM.

Brief it. And so both sides, the defense and the prosecution, they race back to their offices. They’ve got trial the next morning at eight o’clock and the judge wants a brief on her desk by 10:00 PM. So they’re good. No problem at all. We’ll get to it. We’ll get right to it. And they did. They showed up on the court docket. Here’s what it looked like. And so we have a couple different, uh, letters that made it in. We see 5, 18, 5 17. Let’s take a look at these. It’s a letter by Glenn Maxwell that went into judge Alison Nathan. And we have another letter by the USA as to Glen Maxwell, also going to the judge. So both sides present their evidence, their briefs to the judge. And remember what we’re talking about here. Very important issue. We have a key witness in this entire case, a victim, her name is Jane, and she’s telling us all this stuff about everything that she experienced throughout this terrible ordeal.

What the defense is, is memory and manipulation and money. Three M pneumonics that are very, very strong pneumonics. And so we got to get to the, to the bottom of all this. If this victim comes out and says a bunch of stuff that I lived here, and I went to school here and Epstein paid for this, and I saw Glen in a beach house on Sunday, uh, of 2000 and whatever, all very important, any of those minor tweaks to the memory, any areas where you can say, that’s not exactly how it happened. The car wasn’t beige, it was blue. Beige is not like blue is a little bit different there. And so if you can start poking holes in a person’s memory, then you can start to really get them to crumble in front of the jury. This person doesn’t even know what the hell they’re talking about.

They can’t remember anything. Everything that they just told you is inaccurate because we’ve got evidence that shows that in 2021, you just heard her take the stand and say X, Y, and Z. But in 2019, she said something entirely different. And so anything that she’s talking about now, you should just throw it right out the window because it’s irrelevant. It’s not based in reality because the memories are constantly changing. So the defense here is now saying, listen, we’re going to beat her up with all this stuff, all this stuff that we possibly can, that we can get introduced here. And we’re not going to tell the government about this. We’re not going to show them all of our impeachment documents and say, here’s what we plan to beat your witness up with so that you can use it. So the defense now starts to try that Jane is on the stand and they say, you said this, but you’re kind of a liar because of this.

Or at least you don’t remember the government flips out and they should, they should be trying to protect their, their victim. They’re saying defense. You can’t use that. You never told us that you were going to use that. Totally irrelevant outside the rule. And judge don’t let them do it. So they submit their brief. They send this over to the court. This comes skidding in last night and says, all right, judge, you asked for the briefs here it is. The government submits this response in response to the question about whether the defense, whether Glenn’s team is required to disclose exhibits, that they intend to introduce into evidence through the government’s witness as impeachment. Okay. So what they’re saying is the government is essentially trying to get, trying to sneak this evidence in using this rule. They’re going to call it impeachment material, but they’re saying it’s not really impeachment material while the defendant need not disclose exhibits being introduced solely for impeachment, which they acknowledge. They say the defendant may not circumvent the rule by describing the defense exhibits as being used for impeachment. When in fact they’re really part of the defendant’s case in chief. In other words, you can’t try to get a bunch of stuff into evidence in on the record without disclosing. It is what the government is saying.

He’s saying what the defense is trying to do is, is do that. Using this impeachment, prohibits this impeachment rule as a way to sneak that evidence in. And he’s saying you can’t do that, that evidence really, if they want to get those exhibits, those photographs or whatever, Laura was trying to show them. If they want to get that in as an exhibit, they can do it during their case in chief. It’s not their turn, it’s our turn. And so they didn’t tell us about it. It’s it’s substantive evidence. That should be a part of their case. Judge don’t let them get it in. They start talking through the rules. You can see rule 16, B requires disclosure of the items of the defense that they intend to use. In the defendant’s case in chief at trial case-in-chief is not a formalist term. So they’re going to start mincing words over that. We see a lot of case law. We’re going to skip over all of this, but if you’re somebody who wants to read it, hit the pause button. The prosecutor’s here, say the defendant’s rule, 16 disclosures. They were due on November 8th and they didn’t give us the stuff by November 8th, therefore, well, they shouldn’t be allowed to use it. Absent a showing the new defense exhibit should be precluded at a minimum or ordered to be disclosed. And so that the prosecution can then see what they’re using for their impeachment materials.

Government continues to the extent that defense anticipates offering exhibits for impeachment. As a general matter, we get back into the federal rules. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the character for truthfulness. But there are exceptions that they talk about. And so now we’re getting really into some thick weeds here. We’re going to explain this when we get into the testimony, but I just want to show you what’s happening here. They’re arguing about this government does not want any of that external evidence to come in here. This is going to make a lot more sense using outside material to disprove what somebody said previously. So let me frame this out, actually using a, an example that’s coming up. So they’re going to ask this victim about seeing a movie, seeing a I’m sorry, a Broadway play on Broadway.

And what was the name of that? Was it, was it the lion king? Oh, well, if she said it was the lion king and that she went to a Broadway play and we know that this happened about, you know, 1994 ish was the lion king on Broadway back during that time. Hmm. And so if a victim tough talks about that and they say, I went to a Broadway play and I saw the lion king back in the 1990s, can the defense then say, no, you didn’t because there was no lion king on Broadway back in 1994. When you said you went there, that’s external evidence that the defense wants to bring in to disprove what a witness said.

There are certain times when that can happen and when it can not happen, the defense here wants it to happen. They full range. They want the door wide open so they can drive a truck through it. The prosecution does not don’t bring out any of that extrinsic, external evidence. It’s not relevant. Who cares what place she saw, it’s all the same. So the government, obviously you can see here represented by comi Pomerantz Moe and Rohrbach, they all signed off. They say the defense should be precluded from offering further exhibits that have not been turned over to the government, absent a showing of cause for the delayed disclosure. In other words, you should make them show why they didn’t give this to us, or they want to articulate a theory on which they are admissible impeachment, not withstanding the rule. All right. So prosecution says, and this is a little fight, but this is, this is sort of, you know, these are, these are little slivers in a case.

And if you, you know, if you, if you get a thousand slices, you might have death by a thousand cuts. So you gotta be very careful. You know, these, these mice might seem minor, but they’re, they’re talking about really a bigger issue. That’s going to be prevalent throughout the entire trial, which is this external evidence. And right now, as I talked about it yesterday, both sides are sort of probing for weaknesses. We have a defense team that is extremely skilled. We have a prosecution team, which is very young, but also full of very bright people from some of the best law schools in the country. And you know, they’ve got the entire weight of the U S government behind them. And so, you know, we’ve got both sides, sort of probing for weakness, weaknesses yesterday. The analogy was the velociraptors back in Jurassic park. When that Australian guy was, you know, saying they’re probing for weaknesses, be prepared, turns out he was right.

And it’s the same thing here. So they say, we’re trying to draw a line in the sand on this extrinsic evidence stuff, the defense they’ve already shown a pattern. They’re going to continue to try to do this. We want it stopped right now. So they filed this motion. They raised the objection, as soon as the defense, uh, during their, their second cross exam, really with the key witness. So it goes over to the defense. Now they have to brief the same issue and they do. We see paly, Yuca, Jeffrey, paleo Yuca. The G is silent like lasagna, Laura Menninger. We’ve got Bobby stern, Haim and Christian ever Dell. They all sign off on this motion. This was prepared on the Hadden Morgan foreman out of the Denver Colorado office, which is where both Jeffrey and Laura reside. And so we’ve got the government now contends that Ms.

Maxwell should be precluded from admitting into evidence, a photograph that was offered while cross-examining Jane. During the government’s case in chief, the government says that Ms. Maxwell did not disclose the photograph as part of their discovery obligations. They violated the rule and he just says, no, listen, uh, the rule of 16 BA it’s, plain and unambiguous, the discovery obligations apply only to material Ms. Maxwell intends to use during her case in chief. So he flies through the rule, takes a look. It says a case in chief is X, Y, and Z here, Ms. Maxwell has not even called her first witness. So it’s not her case in chief. It’s your case in chief only the government is called witnesses. The case is currently the government’s case in chief, Ms. Maxwell’s case in chief has not yet started. Okay. And so what he’s doing here is he’s writing like a five-year-old right.

Let me explain to you, uh, Mr. Prosecutor, what a case in chief means. And so he actually goes back through Black’s law dictionary and he says, uh, intern, a party’s case in chief is quote, uh, the evidence presented at trial by a party between the time the party calls, the first witness and the time the party rests. All right, well, by definition, it’s not the defendant’s case in chief, it’s yours. And he just beefs that up. No, she hasn’t called her witness. Uh, the case is currently the government’s case in chief, which means it’s not ours. So he’s sort of rubbing their noses in it because Ms. Maxwell has not begun her case in chief. She had no obligation under the rule to disclose the photograph. And he continues on big, big, long documents as there is no doubt that rule does the rule. 16 does not apply to material.

A defendant offers into evidence while cross-examining witnesses gives us more language from the rule, says the government is also wrong to suggest that even if Maxwell did not have to disclose statements used as impeachment while cross-examining, she did have to exclude those other exhibits. So he goes on a lot of, a lot of technical rule stuff. He, uh, Jeff says the government is doubly wrong to say that impeachment evidence is limited to inconsistent statements. Ms. Maxwell can impeach a prosecution witness testimony with any admissible exhibit. The decision in United States versus Hatfield makes that clear because Ms. Maxwell offered the exhibit while cross-examining Jane, during the government’s case in chief, not as evidence in chief during her own case in chief, she didn’t violate the rule and there’s no basis to preclude her from that. And he just keeps going, man. And he just it’s a long, long motion.

He says, even if the reading of the rule, according to the government, we’re right in parentheses, which it isn’t. And even if Ms. Maxwell had violated the rule 16 in parentheses, which she didn’t exclusion would still not be the proper remedy. He gives us some additional language there. The government is saying, well, they didn’t disclose this to us. So they shouldn’t be allowed to use this. They violated the rules rule 16. They’re like hall monitors. They didn’t disclose it in time. So they can’t be allowed to use it. Oh, your homework’s not on my desk by 5:00 PM. That’s it? Sorry. Hard deadline. 5:00 PM. Not there. So they’re saying the penalty for that is no credit for their assignment. And the defense is saying, uh, it’s not our case. Why are you, why are you applying rule 16 to this? It’s not our turn dumb, dumb. You’re going, it’s your witnesses.

You’re presenting your evidence. Rule 16. Doesn’t apply to us because it’s not our case in chief. So yeah, so he says, uh, they’re not right. Nobody violated rule 16. There’s no prejudice here. The government did not attempt to identify any governments, not harmed by any of this. Uh, any conceivable prejudice can be remedied by giving the government additional time to review the photograph if they want, they can just take a look at it. And so we go into more constitutional confrontation clause problems. Ms. Maxwell has no obligation going forward to disclose the government, any evidence, so on and so forth. All right. And so then we get back into some testimony. Now, before we get there, let’s take a look back at who we’re following along. One of the people we’re following is at inner city, press on Twitter, doing an amazing job, actually there in the courtroom, give them a follow on Twitter.

Judge Nathan says this morning about those issues in what the defense bring in is impeachment of a witness. It’s not a rule 16 issue. So both parties brief those issues. They come back out and judge Nathan says, not rule 16, sorry, prosecutors, you lose. Prosecutor says it should have been disclosed. It’s about a collateral matter. Judge. These are all taking place outside of the presence of the jury. Prosecutor says the witness couldn’t even recognize the photo. It wasn’t impeachment of what she said on the stand. And so judge Nathan says, uh, well, what is the U S his understanding of when the witness lived in the address and the FBI 3 0 2, which is a, uh, an interview summary document prosecutor. Most as at 14, she was living in a pool house. So Maxwell’s lawyer then says, oh, sorry, judge. In her application to the music school that she listed yesterday, she showed her address on that.

She already said on the record that she lived in the same place after she met Epstein until she moved to New York. So that’s how we’re impeaching her. I know this is complicated right now. There’s a lot of three oh twos and rural sixteens and fourteens and all this stuff. Got it. Here is what’s ultimately happening. Glenn Maxwell’s defense attorney, Laura Menninger was cross-examining her yesterday. She said something about where she lived, turns out. We’ve got some evidence about that. She didn’t actually live there at the time. So it’s a con contradictory statement, many jurors trying to get evidence of that admitted. That’s what the briefs we were fighting about. This is extrinsic evidence. That’s net that’s net to that. That’s intended to undermine future witnesses and their credibility moving forward. So it’s a big fight. It’s an important one. And it sounds like Menninger is using it to impeach her because Jane talked about her address previously, we get some more details.

Judge. Nathan says, is there anything that we can discuss at a non-public sidebar before the jury comes in? Us? Attorney says, well, some issues can and we’ll deal with those. When they come up, judge Nathan comes back. Jury’s ready. We have one issue to raise it. Sidebar. Judge Nathan says, hold on to that. We’re going to leave it for the break. Before the defense shows the jury, the confidential binder, raise it here. So we’ve got some more confidential stuff that’s going to be coming out. Assistant us. Attorney don’t know who this one was says a judge. We have an objection to tabloid articles from the internet being introduced as evidence. They don’t want stuff from the internet coming in, especially tabloid articles. So they’re objecting to it. Judge Nathan says, uh, you have a general internet. Objection. Like you’re just, you’re just like objecting to the internet.

All of the exhibits that come from the internet and in general, prosecutors now will raise them one by one. Sorry for, uh, speaking out of line there, judge judge says, all right, let’s bring out the jury all rise. And so everybody stands up. Now that is the preliminary activity that took place before we even got into testimony in the Glen Maxwell trial. We’re in day three, before we dive into day three testimony, it’s pretty important that we take a look at what exactly is going on in the Glen Maxwell case. And so it’s important that we take a look at the mind map so we can get our bearings straight. This is the mind map that we have been using to keep tabs on the trial and its entirety. You can see here that we’re still talking a lot about Jane. We’ve got Jane age 14.

We learned a little bit more about her yesterday, but let’s start off with Lawrence Paul Masaki. This was the pilot yesterday. We learned he is somebody who identified Galane. He met Jane. We can see victim who who’s Jane number 14, back in the late nineties, he brought Epstein, brought her to the cockpit and he said that she was mature, had big blue eyes and big breasts. Now the thing that the defense got out of him was that he never saw any sexual activity on the plane. He was actually free to leave the cockpit and all of that stuff. And so I want to show you these relationships because Lawrence Paul Wysocki here was the person who actually identified Jane for us. Then when Jane got brought in yesterday, we learned a little bit more about her and what she had to say and turns out that there was testimony from her that a lot of very important people were, you know, were sort of in the wheelhouse of the Epstein Maxwell sphere.

Maxwell specifically touched her Maxwell was in the room when Epstein touched her Epstein, pleasured himself, you know, all over her, but she was 14 years old. When this all started. Also somebody that got a lot of money out of this whole thing, Epstein victim’s compensation fund paid 2.9 million out to her. Actually it was a total of 5 million, you know, taxes probably ate into some of that. And so we finished with some of her testimony today in court as well. And we were done with her. So we had the direct exam, cross exam and a redirect exam. And so we’ll break that down. And then we also have these two other fellows who came in and testified today. Number one was Matt. Matt is Jane’s ex boyfriend, and he’s going to talk really, really quick testimony. He’s going to talk about the, kind of the financial relationship that existed.

They are still friends, Matt and Jane. They still work together today. And so I don’t have a sketch of Matt. He’s using a pseudonym, but he testified today. The defense attorneys did not even cross examine him at all very, very quick. And then we just started with closing testimony today or at the close of testimony today with Daniel Bessel Besson. Now this guy works over at the interlocking art boarding school, and this is exactly where Jane went. And so he’s going to come in and talk about Epstein, who was a big donor who actually funded some of this, and we’re going to pick that up starting tomorrow. So now that we’ve got our bearing straight and we’ll just, we’ll zoom out quickly, just so we can get a, a giant overview of all of this today. We heard mostly from Laura Menninger. She’s the defense attorney representing Glen Maxwell.

She, I think did almost all of the cross exams today. So she was prepared for that prosecution today. Mostly we heard from Alison Mo, if I’m not mistaken, we had some letters and stuff that were previously written by comi earlier on in the day, but that’s it, we’re still sort of living in this wheelhouse. And a lot of this may change based on how many additional victims, I’m sorry, how many witnesses testify per victim. So you can see how this can start to get very messy soon. And so we’re just going to want to keep this all organized. Okay. And so now let’s jump back into the direct testimony. We talked about the examination that was being completed by Laura manager. This is what the scene looked like in court today. This image comes over from Reuters. And so once again, federal court, no photographs, no audio, no video.

This is all that we’ve got on this thing. And so you can see Laura manager, I actually getting pretty, pretty close to her, you know, actually walking right up there, reading from a piece of paper, you can see that the, the defining features of this woman’s face are, uh, totally blanked out and blurred out and say, you’re not going to able to see anything there, which is something that the judge has been ordering. And so what we’re going to do today is we’re going to sort of check in and out to the way that I think about us covering this trial is to sort of start out and kind of zoom in and out of the day’s proceedings. And so we’re going to start out sort of at a low resolution, high overview from the daily mail. And they give us some very nice sort of transcript reporting where we can take a look at what Jane said, what Menninger said.

And so I liked their format, but they give us a breakdown. You can see back during the cross-examination. This is Laura Menninger, she’s the defense lawyer. And she is, she’s trying to undermine Jane’s testimony. She’s trying to show her memory’s bad. She is manipulating all of this and it’s all about money. The M’s the three M’s money manipulation and memory Glenn Maxwell was the first accuser. She started testifying again. Laura Menninger questioned the alleged victim who was using the pseudonym Jim Jane. And what Laura manager was trying to do is highlight the differences between the account that Jane gave in court. When she told prosecutors back in 2019 and 2020. So differences met with prosecutors 19, met with them again in 20, met with them again in court, we just heard her testimony. And so if you see differences between those three different accounts yeah. That might show that somebody’s memory is not so good or at least compromised.

She said that during a 2019 interview, Jane said she could not remember a specific time when she first had intercourse with Maxwell. Couldn’t remember, that was back in 2019. Don’t remember in her evidence the previous day Jane described in vivid detail, how Maxwell and Epstein let her upstairs to the bedroom of his Palm beach mansion. Oh, that’s weird. So in 2019, she couldn’t remember it, but yesterday vivid detail manager said you came up with that memory in the last two years. Uh, the one you told the jury yesterday, Jane said, I don’t believe I came up with a memory. No. You gave a memory to the jury yesterday that you didn’t have in 2019. Didn’t you? Jane says, I don’t recall. I don’t recall.

Oh, I don’t recall. All right. And we’re going to hear that a lot. In fact, that’s the title of the thumbnail recall because she doesn’t recall much. And this is a case, as we heard in the opening statements from the defense, all about memory here is more from the daily mail earlier in her testimony. Jane said that a different discrepancy could be explained by quote, a typo Hm. In the write-up of her interview with the FBI. So I’ve got a typo there, which is weird, that might account for the memory problem that might account for the contradictions in your testimony. It’s just the typo manager said that speaking to the FBI in February, 2020, she said there were other women involved. The first time that she had intercourse activity with Maxwell. Another difference from her testimony. Another difference. Wow. Interesting. So February and December, all different managers said sarcastically, oh, that must be another typo by the government.

Huh? And Jane says, yes, it is manager challenge Jane on multiple aspects of her testimony, including the claim that Maxwell called her house to ask her to come to Epstein’s home in her 2019 interview that Jane gave, Jane said Epstein or his office would call your home to which Jane replied. Uh, I guess so somebody asked him from the FBI, asked her. Yeah, I guess so manager said so two years later, you remember that Glen used to call your home to make appointments. Right. And Jane says, right. Manager then said, witheringly that memory has come back to you in the last two years. Huh? Interesting. Jane says, memory is not linear, which is perfect. That’s exactly what they want from her. Yeah.

Yeah. Memory just kind of just is a mess. Isn’t it? It’s a big jumbled mess. And who knows what happens in when, and you can sort of go back and insert things in a non-linear fashion. That’s exactly right. Yeah. And you saw over here, the daily mail was reporting that Maxwell did not appear to react to any of the women’s testimony, including when Jane pointed her out in the court to identify our government admitted this exhibit exhibit one 15, here’s a photograph of Glenn that is now of course, part of the official record got to make sure you identify somebody. We get more testimony from the daily mail. And before we’re going to dive in and get more details on all of this, but we’re going to start here. Laura challenged Jane on her claim. That Maxwell was there. The first time she met with her at the Interlochen arts camp in Michigan.

And we’re going to hear from the director of finance later on in the show, Jane didn’t tell her two brothers about Maxwell and also didn’t tell a journalist about her either. Hm manager says, um, uh, so you didn’t say anything to the reporter about Glen being there, correct? She says they break for the morning manager, press Jane repeatedly on some of her claims about their episodes with Maxwell. She said that when Jane spoke with prosecutors, December, 2019, Jane told them she was not sure where Maxwell ever touched you during these encounters. Right? Jane said, I don’t recall. Managers said, you told the government that you’re not sure that Maxwell ever kissed you. Right. Jane says, uh, I don’t recall. Manager said, you told the government that Galane never used toys or any other items on you. Right. Jane says, that’s right. Manager said, you told the government that Glen never saw you perform any other activities on Epstein’s body.

Right. Jane said, that’s right. And you told the government that Galane never saw you perform another type of activity on Epstein. Correct. And Jane says, yeah, I don’t recall. Okay. So just from this one transcript you’ve got, I don’t recall one time there. I don’t recall another time there. We’ve got a couple times where she says that’s correct. That she never saw anything bad happening really at all. And then we finally get one final. I don’t recall. And if you’ve been following us for some time, you know that when Rittenhouse was on trial, that a prosecutor kind of used the same technique when he was trying to get after Kyle, remember Tom is binger, biggie, binger over there who was always coming out there during his direct and cross examination saying you never saw Rosenbalm with a gun. Did you? And you never saw Rosenbalm with a knife and you never saw him with the machete and you never saw him with a bazooka or an Apache attack helicopter or any of those other weapons did you?

And he was kind of, you know, really trying to extend that out. And, and so you’re seeing the same thing happen here. Laura is doing the same thing. Well, you didn’t see that type of activity or that other type of activity or that other type of activity digit. And for all of those other activities that maybe you think you’d saw, you don’t recall much about any of that period. Right? Kind of, kind of looks like that. Lots of I don’t recalls and it doesn’t stop there. It continues. A manager said that Jane told prosecutors that Maxwell was not involved in self-pleasuring with Epstein. She told them, that manager said that you told prosecutors that Maxwell was not involved in self-pleasuring with Epstein. Right. Jane says, I don’t remember. And you told the government that you have no memory of Galane being present when you claim Epstein engaged in any contact with you.

Right? I don’t recall what, as you sit here today, you’re not sure whether you were ever in a room alone with Ghislaine and Epstein, correct? No. She says you are not sure whether you ever were ever alone in a room with Glenn and Epstein, correct? No, you’re not sure. No, I’m not. Earlier in the day, Jane confirmed that a letter of application she sent to interlock and made no mention of Epstein or Maxwell. The glowing letter from the head of the art school in Palm beach said that Jane and her brothers were so talented that singing and musing and acting that they could be the rebirth of the Von Trapp family referring to the Austrian singers. So you get some interesting stuff. Now that is the high level overview stuff. Let’s zoom in a little bit. Let’s go back to that school, the interlock in art school, because we’re going to hear from the finance advisor over there, that apparently was getting a bunch of money from Jeffrey Epstein.

As part of this scholarship program that Epstein was running. In fact, they had a whole lodge that was completed there. They had to rename it. Good idea. After Epstein didn’t kill himself. So inner city press is once again, reporting we’re zooming back in. We’re still with Jane. We’re looking at Maxwell’s lawyer, Menninger asking her questions. This is, cross-examination talking about this art school that apparently Epstein was sort of funneling these people to Laura says, did you turn 17? And your final year at Interlochen age is important here. We’re talking about minors. No, I was 16. She says, okay. Hmm, 16 huh? Manager says, all right, jurors, pick up your smaller binder under your chairs. And I want you to turn it over to J three.

Hmm. Manager says, and your application said that you came from a quote long and loving family writes. Well, that’s what it says. Do you recognize the document? And I do not recognize it per se, but I see my signature. It’s your application to Interlochen. Hmm. And yesterday, remember how hard up she was? Family bankruptcy. Everything was really a troubled times. Mother was abusive to her mother was pimping out to Maxwell and everybody, and you know, you’re on your own and don’t bring shame to our household and go, you know, sell yourself out on all of that. But, uh, that’s weird. Why did you put in your application that you came from a long and loving family? Well, that’s weird. Huh? Seems like maybe it doesn’t add up. Okay. So they move on. Manager says when you spoke to your younger brother, you didn’t mention that there was a woman, right?

I don’t think so. And you told the news source that you were approached by Ghislaine? Uh, no mention of Glenn, right? I don’t remember that. And when you got to Epstein’s house with your mother, your house was in west Palm beach, right? No, no. It was in Palm beach. You didn’t cross any state lines to get there, did you? No. No, I didn’t. And there were only three of us having tea. And so you can see that each one of these is sort of a different pod of questions manager. When you spoke to your younger brother, you didn’t mention there was a woman. Uh, so why don’t you, you know, why don’t you tell your other brother about all this stuff? Like if all of this was important, why don’t you talk about it and you didn’t cross any state lines? No. And so manager says, oh, well, all right.

So you didn’t tell your brother and you didn’t travel across state lines and you didn’t really report it for the last 25 years. So have you ever spoken with your sisters about your boyfriends? Jane says I didn’t have any boyfriends. Us attorney is like, ah, jumping out of their seats. They say, judge, judge, judge, can we talk about this? Can we have a brief sidebar about this? Sidebar is when all the, of the attorneys, everybody goes up to the judge and they have a, you know, a, sort of a private conversation outside of the ears of the court reporter, outside of the ears of the jurors. And you’re just having a quick look, you know, this is I’m, I’m a concerned about this. Well, you know, are you going that way? Defense counsel? No, I’m not going them. Okay. Well, don’t be concerned about it. Okay. But watch it right. Go back. Let’s keep moving forward, but be careful. So they have a sidebar, it looks like it’s kind of a long one. Sidebar is finally over Maxwell’s lawyer manager comes back out and says, all right, look at the last line in the top paragraph on that application that I’m showing you a U or whatever document they’re looking at now, you know, this, this may not be the same application. You told the agents that Epstein would decide where everyone set prosecutor. Objection.

Y prosecutor says, well, she should only ask, does it refresh your recollection? Okay. So it’s really to the form. These prosecutors are being very, very nitpicky with the rules and they should, because if they don’t, then the defense is going to probably walk all over them. If they give them an answer, they’re going to take a mile. There’s no question about it. So you can see what’s happening. They probably have a prosecutor. I don’t know if it’s the same prosecutor who is just there with a buzzer and it’s just spring loaded objection. Every time that they can possibly get one in and they do here. And so what, you can see many things you’re doing, trying to sort of trying to get, get the witness, to talk about this, trying to get her, to refresh her memory and kind of skip that step. Skip the refresh, your recollection parts.

Remember, I think we talked about this yesterday and we did talk about it in the Glynn case because the defense wanted to be able to put a lot of this stuff up on the screen. And the judge said, I kind of prefer paper, and this is all about impeachment and about refreshing recollections. And if you’re refreshing your recollection, that’s what you’re doing. You’re refreshing your recollection. You don’t get a piece of paper and then read from it. That’s reading from a piece of paper. It’s not refreshing your recollection, refreshing your recollection is reading something and going, ah, oh yeah. Now I remember now I can testify about it. I don’t need this thing anymore. Take that away from me. And I’ll just go off my memory. So here what’s happening is manager is just saying, can you just read that for me here? And the prosecutor is like, objection.

And so they’re saying that’s, that’s not the proper way to do it. You have to ask the question first. And so manager says, oh, it’s like dealing with a bunch of whiny. Children says, judge, Nathan says our rights, go ahead and ask. So then manager says, okay, Jane, uh, does it refresh your recollection of Jane? And Jane says, yes. And so she moves on right into the next question. And there was nothing sexual in the theater is where I’m going with this. Right? And so then they just continue on. And so, you know the prosecution right now, you know, ordinarily in a case, you gotta kind of be careful. I think with your objections, you can be overly objectionable. You’re objecting over everything. And you look like a jerk and you can see how this can play out. We saw in the, uh, Kyle Rittenhouse case at Mark Richards and his defense team, they didn’t really object to anything.

And one of the bases for that is cause you don’t want to sort of hide stuff. You know, you don’t want to hide the ball and you want to look nice to the jurors and all that stuff here. The prosecution, I think that they have written that off, that they know that these defense attorneys are going to be the ultra slick, super Hollywood ultra, you know, incredible presentations, just highly polished. And so they’ve just seated that ground. They don’t care how they look to the jury. They are weighing the scales. Should we object? Should we like overly aggressive with our objections or pare those back a little bit. Now pair those back a little bit so that we can look good for the jurors, no object to stink in everything. I don’t care what it is, how minor object. And they did. They did that right here.

They’re saying that this is basically not a proper refreshing of a recollection. So it just throws it up just a little bit and then says, okay, we’ll get right back to business. So they go, they turn right back into it. So Laura manager continues. All right. Uh, Jane yesterday, it said it was shortly after the pool house that you had this incident with Epstein and Glen, right? Again, prosecutor, objection as to form one of those objections again. All right, judge. Nate. Okay. Specify what you’re talking about. Manager says, this is foundational manager says, uh, back to Jane says, you told the government that you don’t have a specific memory of your first time with Ghislaine. Objection, probably misstatement of what she said. Don’t know what the specific objection was, but it’s a misstatement. So then manager just RASKS it says, okay, you’ve come up with a memory in the last two years.

Right? Rephrases it. You can see the difference there. The first question, she’s sort of putting words in her mouth. You told the government, you don’t have a specific memory and objection. She didn’t say that fine. Okay. You’ve come up with a memory in the last two years, which she did say, we just heard her say that Jane says, I don’t believe I’ve come up with a memory. No, I didn’t make it up. So then manager says, well then why am I reading this on this form here? Uh, why does this form differ from what? Just came out of your mouth. I’m looking at this from 2019. I’m looking at this from 2020. And what you said here, you don’t remember back then and you don’t recall back then. And now you do yesterday on the stand. You remembered everything. Color, the smells, the whole thing.

Isn’t that convenient. Why does this not match what you said? She says, well, it’s not typed up right on the form. All that’s why another typo by the government? Objection, argumentative. Yeah. Okay. You told the government, Colin never use toys on you. Right? And manager went on to ask if Ghislaine ever saw her perform any of those other activities that we talked about and they go right back to that page. We get the refreshment of the recollection. We take a look at the document. Judge. Nathan sends us for a break. 10 minute break. We come back. Maxwell’s lawyer continues. We’re still with Laura manager. She’s the defense lawyer doing the cross exam of Jane. Uh, Jane, you testified yesterday, your first, you first had intercourse with Epstein back in the pool house, right in Florida. But you told the government that it was in New York.

Oh, huh? So yesterday you said Florida previously, you said New York. Jane says, those are not my notes. I did not write that down. And it was not recorded. I have nothing to do with any of those notes manager says, well, you told them that you only remember one incident in New York when Glen was present. Right? Uh, I don’t recall. All right. Well, let me refresh your recollection, Jane. This is a trial about memory after all. So let me refresh your recollection yet. Again, look at pages 3 0 5 0 9 to 0, 0 3. Look at it. Has your story changed from what you wrote down in those documents? Jane says, I don’t understand the question. What I don’t understand manager then says, Hmm, you told the government, you flew to New York with Epstein and you flew with Ghislaine to see the lion king. Didn’t you? I said that. Yeah, but I was incorrect in my timeline. I was 14 manager. You were a student of theater and arts at the time, right? There’s an objection, judge. Nathan calls. Another break says that Jane needs a drink of water. Now, now she’s going to come back to the stand manager, goes back. All right, let’s go back to your conversation. February, 2020 about the lion king manager says, I know Ms. Moe would like to come and do this for me. Don’t know what that’s all about.

Mo says, I object to that and manager says, but the lion king on Broadway, didn’t start until you were 17 years old. Did the government or miss Glassman suggest to you that you might have meant the lion king movie object shed from the prosecution? That’s the prosecution saying, are you implying that we were coaching this witness? So they’re just outraged about this. So what is happening here? Turns out Jane told the government that they went to a Broadway play. Lion king turns out though. Hm? Lion king on Broadway. Didn’t actually start until the age of 17 for you. We did the math on that. So my question did the government point that out to you? Did they know that this was going to be a problem and that they tell you to talk about lion king, the movie, not lion king, the Broadway, because if it’s lion king, the Broadway, then you were 17 at the time because that’s when it came out.

This is that extrinsic evidence that we’re talking about. This is what the defense wants to bring in to impeach the heck out of these people. Now I went to the play on Broadway. Epstein was there and Maxwell was there and I was 14, but there were no Broadway plays when you were 14. So you are now mistaken badly. And they’re trying to get that in. And so when they are implying that the government sort of was a maybe fit, maybe helping them fit around the margins about some of this stuff, they call an objection. We jump over. We change channels. We check out what Adam class field has to say. So he gives us a little bit more details on what’s going on with this manager pivots to the first time that Jane says Epstein abused her. She testified that when Epstein pleasured himself at the beach pool house, the lawyer says, she told the government in 2019, it was in New York, says it wasn’t correct.

Jane Adam is noting. He’s in the he’s in the courthouse. Now he says many jurors confronting her with notes from unrecorded interviews with the government. Jane has repeatedly said, during cross examination, the notes were inaccurate. She says, ah, this is just someone writing down notes. There’s a lot of dispute about whether the note suggests that Jane told the government, she went to see the lion king on Broadway with Maxwell in New York. If so, when they were purportedly sought. And whether James purported a chronology conflicted with its opening date, he gave us a nice explanation here. The questions to Jane about her alleged prior inconsistent statements are governed by the federal rules. The witness can be questioned, but the judge has discretion about whether to allow the extrinsic evidence of those prior statements like the FBI 3 0 2 is those are those FBI interview summary statements. He says, ordinarily FBI 3 0 2 specifically.

Recites is not a verbatim record of the interview for the reason of avoid being placed into evidence. But so now they had a conversation about whether the judge will allow that extrinsic evidence to come in and impeach Jane. And it doesn’t sound like it did come in. It doesn’t sound like that. They were able to go into any more of that lion king stuff because they come back and they change gears. Now manager says, all right, we’re going to change gears. So you recall going to the New Mexico range, right? It’s a giant, huge home, right? Jane? Yeah. Like all the homes that he had, you know, they’re big and that Jeffrey Epstein’s brother went with you. Right? Jay? I don’t, I don’t recall. Uh, all right. So another one you don’t recall fine. You weren’t asked to sleep with any of Epstein’s friends. Were you Jean? No. No, I wasn’t. And did Epstein introduce you to people in the arts? Not really. Uh, how about to the Dean of the interlocking at a cocktail party with Jane? I don’t recall. I don’t remember. I don’t know.

Okay. So how about, uh, Donald Trump? Did you meet him? Look at pages 35 0 9 0 0 1. You said that you met Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago before the pool house incident, right? I don’t recall manager set up. You said Epstein took you in a dark green car to Mar-a-Lago to meet Donald Trump. Right? Us attorney is now objecting asked and answered and also misleading. You already asked them that, right? You said you met Donald Trump. I don’t recall. And then he’s asking him, well, Epstein took you in a green car to meet Donald Trump already asked that she already answered that you can’t Badger the witness, leave it alone. Don’t know how the judge ruled irrelevant. They moved on manager says you also had some recollections about flying on the private plane with Epstein. Right? You just talked about that yesterday. Yes. And you said you were asked your weight when you got on the plane, correct?

Yes. And, okay. And manager says in 2019 before Epstein was arrested, you were contacted by the government also weren’t you? Yes. And you said you were not interested in getting involved back then, didn’t you in 2019, right? Right. Then you hired this guy named Mr. Glassman. He’s a personal injury lawyer and he’s got ads. Objection, all over the place. Prosecutor’s objection. Uh, you know, and she continues, um, a pro uh, personal injury lawyer with ads, probably going to be all over the place. Now they move on. Manager says, did you see his ads? You know, touting his big verdicts. Jane says, oh, he’s a friend of mine. Now. I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Those are just a, those are billboards all over the place. No idea what you’re talking about. And he’s a friend of a friend, okay. He’s just a friend of a friend.

Got it. Didn’t see any of those signs, money had nothing to do with it. Just a friend of the friend. So manager pulls out, she shows up the contract says, is this your contingent fee agreement just pulls that puppy right up Mr. Glassman, that personal injury lawyer, the guy says in a wreck, need a check. We’ll give recover. You don’t pay that guy. Is this the agreement that you signed with him? We have a copy of that right here. It says that it’s a contingency fee agreement, which means that you don’t get paid unless he wins the case, right? He takes a percentage of whatever your winnings are and was she had a car accident or, or not? Hmm. So we continue forward. Now line of questioning moves forward manager, defense attorney for Ghislaine says, and you talked to your ex-boyfriend. Matt writes and Matt’s coming up next.

Max, Matt is our next witness. And a judge, Nathan apparently says that there’s some issue with the jurors lunches. So this may go a little bit while, but Matt’s coming in next. It’s still a pseudonym. So we don’t know who it actually is. But manager says when you were 15 Jane, did you take a trip to Italy for a singing competition? Uh, I may have, I don’t remember. I was 15. And at 16 you traveled for a sibling, maybe what? So this woman doesn’t remember 15 or 16 traveling with a sibling, traveling with anybody to Italy, for a singing competition. But she remembers being 14 and everything that happened with Maxwell Hmm. Manager says, and you were in a beauty pageant sponsored by Donald Trump. Where are you? Yeah. And do you recall crying that Jeffrey Epstein only gave you $2,000 for a dress? No. And you were on a reality TV show with Matt too, right?

Yeah, I was. And there was tension and you cried didn’t you? Well, reality shows are not reality. Manager says so. And you claimed that you were putting a roof over your family’s head. I don’t know if I used those words. Well, you told that to Matt says, she says they were living in my house manager says, and then you demanded money from Ghislaine Maxwell. Didn’t you? I have a lawyer. And you sought money from the Epstein compensation fund. Also. How much did you get? Jane says $5 million. Judge. Nathan says, all right, well, we’re going to take a break there on that one. I hope all your lunches are back there. Now they go have lunch and we continue. Lunchtime is delicious. They have sandwiches. They all hit the spot. They come back a little sleepy though. And cross examination continues. Manager says again, defense lawyer for Glenn.

So you went to a specialized entertainment school, didn’t you? And since then you’ve played roles like a cancer patient. Yeah. Right? Yeah. And a prostitute, for example? Uh, no, no. I’m never a prostitute manager says, oh, well, that’s good. So you can cry on command though, right? Hmm. You can cry on command. We’re going to see how that goes. Uh, manager says your accusations in this case include that you were 14 when you were abused don’t date. Yup. But you first told the government that you were 13, right? I might’ve said 13 going on 14. It’s a small technicality on a prostitute. She said it was not. My favorite role is what she said. So she didn’t say no. She said not. My favorite role is the correction manager says, you talk about the lion king. You say you were 14, but it only came out when you were 17.

Right. And you said you were 15 when you met Mike Wallace at his 80th birthday. Right? Jane says, I don’t know how old I was. You don’t know what his birthday is. Look at J 33. Look at that document. Does it refresh your recollection? Prosecutor’s objection, judge. Nathan’s now sustained. There’s no basis for refreshing your recollection on that. Then lay the appropriate foundation. Sustained manager says in your civil case, now that you hired Mr. Glassman for it, you got those interrogatories. Right? Do you know what those are? Jane said, no, I don’t know what those are. So, uh, your lawyer answered for you under your oath and you didn’t know. I don’t know. She says, Jane says, I don’t know.

What is she talking about? Jane hired a lawyer to Sue Glen Maxwell. It sounds like. And the Epstein family or a state or whatever lawyer completes what are called interrogatories. These are formal questions that are completed under oath in a civil case. It’s sort of like discovery here. A lot of the time we talk about police reports and officer’s notes. Interrogatories are those questions exploring the case and both sides complete them under oath. And they exchange them with one another. So here, Jane apparently hired somebody doesn’t know what the hell they did. They filled out a bunch of interrogatories for her. Presumably she signed them. And that was it. And so she doesn’t know anything about it. Your lawyer answered for you under oath and you had no idea. I don’t know. I don’t recall. I don’t remember. Could have been 14, 15. I don’t know.

It’s a small technicality. Everything’s very complicated. We had a different take on the closing. This is what Adam class Phil told us happen. He said, you consider yourself an actor, right? Yeah. And an actor portrays a fictional character, right? Yes. And, and you’ve been playing an actor for a very long time, right? Yes. And, and you’re able to cry on command aren’t you know, not always. That’s not really how it works. Nothing further, your honor. Thank you. You’re able to cry and command aren’t you? And she starts answering no, nothing further yet. Okay. So basically telling the jurors that this is an actress, this is a woman who just gets out here and can just cry on command. Doesn’t remember anything might’ve been 13, might’ve been 14. Don’t remember saw the lion king, but it wasn’t a thing yet travel all over the place. Mike Wallace, his birthday when he was 80. Saw this person over here when you know no idea. And can you recall what you said in 2019? Why does it differ from 2020? And why does that differ from your testimony yesterday?

And memory’s not even linear. She says, I don’t recall. So the government obviously is a little bit concerned about this, so they have to come back out and do a redirect and they do that. They bring out Alison Moe, once again, assistant us attorney for the Southern district of New York and says, yeah, you were asked about the notes. And before I jump in, Alison Moe is trying to rehabilitate this witness. She just got beat up a little bit by the prosecution, by the defense. And now she’s trying to rehabilitate her, bring her back up a little bit. Okay. It says, you were asked about the notes of the meetings with the U S the ones that you know, that she was saying had typos and weren’t her notes and all of that. She’s trying to repair that damage. Did you speak about everything all at once? And Jane says, no, it was too difficult. I mean, emotionally on every level

Prosecutor says that, then there were fewer of us in the room. Um, do you know why she must’ve been in there? Jane says to make me more comfortable changing gears, prosecutor says, well, why did you speak to that tabloid reporter? Jane said, well, he basically blackmailed me. He said he would publish unredacted documents, judge Nathan corrects this and says, okay, okay. Yeah, that’s a hearsay statement. Okay. That’s an out of court statement. He said something that took place outside of the courtroom. Judge. Warren’s the jury. Okay. Okay. That’s not for the truth of the matter asserted. Okay. Don’t listen to that for the truth of this case here, it’s just the impact on the listener. It’s not, it’s not implying that this guy was actually going to blackmail her. It’s just saying that it’s just for her impact, how she felt about hearing that. So then prosecutor says, well, all right.

So did you make an agreement with that reporter? Jane says, yeah. I mean, I, I talk about meeting Jeffrey Epstein. The reporter would keep my name out of it. I was working on a TV show. So she’s actually sharing all of this with a reporter and the U S attorney says, okay, reasonable. Do you know the difference between acting on TV and testifying in court? She says, yeah, this is real. I am seeking closure. I’ve been running from this my entire life. I want to help in whatever way I can. And maybe find some healing. Jane is sobbing now bawling her eyes out in court. Prosecutor says, do you have any financial interest in this trial? Ms. Jane Jane weeping says, no, judge Nathan Jane, you may step down. We’ll take a break. Jurors. Your snacks are here.

Go get your hot pockets. Again, all rise thread will continue. So that’s the end of Jane’s testimony. Now the other channel is reporting. It says from Adam class field says the prosecution asked the defense about the $5 million settlement that she got Jane and your own words. Can you tell the jury what that meant for you? She says she cries wiping her eyes with a tissue. Jane says, quote, I wish I never received that money in the first place because of what happened. Testimony concludes. So you can see both sides are trying to get that mic drop moment. They’re a little bit trying to walk on out and leave the jurors wanting a little bit more.

All right. And so that was the end of the testimony for Jane. Jane has done. We got a direct exam, cross examination, and a redirect all took place within two days. That’s the end of our first victim. Then we change gears. Remember that Jane talked about her boyfriend, somebody that she was dating at the time or off and on throughout the period that we’re talking about in this case, his name is Matt for court purposes. They worked together on the same TV show. Very, very quick testimony that took place today in court. Alison Moe is the prosecutor. We don’t have a good image for Matt yet. I’m sure the sketch artists were dropping him, uh, drawing him up, but nothing quite yet. We go back to inner city, press. They say, uh, prosecutor mode. We call up the next witness mats. Now in town Mo says, all right, Mr.

Matt, how do you know Jane? He says, well, she’s my ex-girlfriend. We dated from 2006 to 2014. Did you have to live together? Yeah. From 2007 to 2014. Are you still friends? Yes. And in fact we work on the same TV show. Hmm. Okay. Well, thanks for that there, Matt, what did Jane tell you about her home life? Maxwell’s lawyers object. What the heck you asking about home life for where are you going with this? Uh, any foundation Maxwell’s lawyer also says we’re all. I mean, it’s hearsay also. It’s what’s what Jane said. It’s all hearsay out of court statements. They, they go up and talk to the judge. There’s another sidebar. So they’re trying to hash this stuff out. They don’t want to fight about these objections in front of the jury. So they go up there. They’re there for about two minutes, 10 minutes.

This gets posted eight minutes later. They returned. Judge. Nathan says, uh, all right, Ms. Mo, I’m going to ask you to narrow the question. You don’t get to just talk about her home life, you know, narrow that puppy up. What are you talking about here? So she says, all right, fine. All right, Matt, tell me, did Jane ever speak about her family finance? When she grew up her money situation? Matt says, yeah. That when her father got sick, they went broke. Mother was working a small job and they were in the same bed. I’m like absolutely destitute. Matt says, uh, you know, started talking a little bit about FC. And they told me that she had a godfather later. She told me it was Epstein. I said, he’ll pay your bills. And she said, yeah. When did she tell you that she met Epstein? Uh, Maxwell’s lawyers.

Objection. Got to narrow that puppy in there a little bit, ask more specific questions. Says the judge class field gives us a different reading. Says Matt says that Jane originally talked about Epstein. As the godfather said that they was just looking out for her family. That’s why he was paying their bills. Did there ever come a time when she told you why Epstein gave her money? Yes. Asked about what she said. He said, well, I mean, she never went into detail. She just said that it wasn’t pretty. Did she ever use the word massage defense? Objection. Leading, leading. But Nathan allows it in. Judge allows it in, says, oh, overruled. I’m going to allow that allows it in answers. Yes, she did use the word massage. She was getting paid for. Massages is what he’s implying. Prosecutor. Moe goes back, says, did Jane tell you what happened between her and Epstein?

Nope, not specifically. Did she say why he gave her money? No. She just said it was not free. All right. Did they tell you about a woman who was involved in this case? Yeah. How about her name? They gave you that? No. Okay. Well, what was her demeanor like when Jane told you about Epstein? Matt says she was feeling shameful. Shameful prosecutor continues and says, okay, well, what did Jane tell you about her mother? Matt says that the money was not free. That, uh, and prosecutor Energex. I don’t say what the mother said. Good God told don’t say that. Just say what Jane said. All right. That’s hearsay. Matt says, okay, sorry. Woo. Oh, sorry. Jane told her mother that the money was not free and that it should not have been allowed most as well. Okay. Uh, did you learn that Glenn Maxwell was arrested?

Yeah. I saw it on the news. I asked Jane, is that the woman you told me about? And she said, yes, it’s Ghislaine prosecution says no further questions. Another identification Maxwell’s lawyer. Any questions? No. Nothing. No. Cross-examination no. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Epstein was in her life and yeah, he gave her money. Yeah, no question. He cared about her or cared about her family, all those things. Yeah. Right. No, we don’t have any questions for him at all. Next witness kind of surprising, but you can see why all he’s doing is sort of confirming that FCA was involved in this woman’s life and that she got money from him, but no specifics about what she did. Massage, maybe no cross examination from the defense. We move on government calls the last witness of the day. And we get to him very, very briefly because we stop sharp at five o’clock.

In fact, judge Nathan today was upset that they went over two minutes late, very, very tight timelines. The government next calls this guy, Daniel [inaudible]. So he is the assistant vice president of finance over at the Interlochen center for the arts. And you can see he is there on their website as the assistant vice-president of finance been there for quite some time. He was the controller from June, 2005, all the way up to 2012. And then, uh, ever since then, he’s been the assistant vice-president of finance. Who’s been there for nine years, plus seven years, 16 years, plus eight months, whatever law, you know, that’s a long time been there for a long time. So he gets called in, of course, we’ve just got done listening to Jane, talking about going to this school and, uh, you know, being paid for by Epstein. And so they call this guy out now, what is this arts academy?

You can see here. Here’s a nice picture of a woman painting a hand or whatever. I don’t know an ashtray or something. Creativity and confidence take root. It’s an art boarding school and you can apply it since 1928. They’ve offered immersive arts experience. A generations of artists have come through their students, grades three through 12 should go through there. And so they’ve got a lot of different things going on, uh, Interlochen arts, camp, arts academy, online public radio, college of creative arts, blah, blah, blah. So this guy gets called in. We get very, very short testimony from him. Uh, w where, where is, uh, Interlochen, Michigan near Travers cities. And how do you keep fundraising records? Well, we use software. It’s called Salesforce CRM, which is really big and bloated. We looked at it for our law firm and I don’t like it. So we didn’t pick that one, but that’s what they use.

Uh, a USA. The prosecutor says, okay, well, we’re going to offer government exhibit 74 for under seal. Now 7 41 under seal, uh, Mr. Vessels and vessels. What are you seeing over here? He says, this is a letter to Mr. Epstein about the scholarship lodge, about how much money he’d give. So Epstein is going to be a big fundraiser, chunking a lot of money towards this school. And then the prosecutor says, okay, well, what’s this the vessel and says the lodge formerly known as the Jeffrey Epstein scholarship lodge, formerly known, they changed the name, which is a good thing. Now at 5:49 PM, one minute left, the cross examination starts. This judge is crazy. She starts cross-examination at 4 59 and it might be over, I think, yeah, it’s done. He’s done. So when they finish it, Maxwell’s lawyer says, uh, you don’t have records for the individual and the individual siblings, right?

You don’t have any records for these people. Do you know? I don’t ask her direct manager says, uh, Mr. Epstein was a major donor also, right? Yeah, he was all right, nothing further, judge. We’re done. Judge. Nathan says, uh, sorry. We’re two minutes late. Everybody have a good night. Clerk says all rise. And that is day three of the Glen Maxwell case wrapped up. Let’s see what you have to say about all of this and more from our friends over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. We’ve got a form over there where you can participate in the show. As soon as I pull it up, we’re going to read some of those things. Let’s see what we have here.

Oh no, I was, I did it again. I did a locals live livestream today and I went backwards on the questions. Cause we were talking about a question from Rassie. And so now I’ve got to re scroll all these up and we don’t have a lot of questions. So it might be a short show, but here we’ve got Kincaid says evening all. Thank you, Rob. For that quote. I’m so glad someone like Musk is in the ranks of the elite. I would love to see a gas lit and bear her soul, calling all the demons of pray by the name for the world to witness. May God be forgiving because the hand of man is callous and cold during dark tides. If an outburst did happen, could it legally be used Kincaid? I don’t really know what you’re talking about there. What kind of outbursts are you talking about in court?

I’m not real sure. Uh, what you’re seeing, but we’ve got Lama. Brad’s good to see you Kincade. Maybe you can clarify that for me, llama, Brad says gotta be a fine line for a defense attorney going after a possible victim of a crime like this. Yes, exactly. Right. And so that exactly right. Lama Brad, he’s talking about Laura Menninger, you know, sort of going after a victim. Yeah. It’s a very fine line. That’s why Laura Menninger is do, is doing it. It’s why it’s not Christian ever Dell doing it. Or Jeff Paley, Yuca. They’re not doing it. They’re going to put a female up to go and be gentle as possibly can be. And I don’t know how her demeanor was when I read it. I was sort of aggressive with it. She could have been very, very, very, very kind. I don’t think so though, because some of her statement was a little bit, oh, another typo.

Huh? It’s just another typo. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, it was sort of, I think probably a little bit condescending to her to, to really, you know, it’s about shattering her credibility. And so yeah, you’ve got to have a, you gotta have a walk, a fine line on this because now you have a victim who just started sobbing uncontrollably in the middle of the courtroom and jurors don’t want to see somebody sitting there in pain and you as a defense lawyer causing it, they might punish you just for that, just because you’re a jerk and they don’t like what you did to that poor woman. So it’s a very good point. And we’ll see.

And we’ll see, we have another one from VNC kiss says, okay. When it comes to memories, generally memories that are stronger and clearer have a more associated with them. One thing I would explain to students on occasion we’re techniques to remembering material, the way that people associate information to other information like life experiences is one way to maintain a Chris’ memory. The other thing that people can do to remember things as well is utilizing that information through different senses, hearing it, seeing it, writing it down, practicing with it, et cetera, the different things that people do allow information to get more and more solidified in a network of information in their brains. It’s all about how many different parts of your brain get activated in relation to that piece of information. This is why PTSD causes such huge issues. Traumatic experiences, activate many different areas of the brain.

This is what causes the experience to be stuck. So clearly in a person’s memory and why a person can be easily triggered into reliving or at least putting into the mindset of their traumatic experience. This is all just some food for thought human brain is fascinating. Thanks for joining me on this little side journey, thanks to BNT KIS for sharing that the brain is fascinating and there’s something to that. There’s a book. There’s a phrase called the issues is in the tissues. I think the book is called the issues are in the tissues. I think there’s a book called, um, the body keeps score. The body keeps score. Let’s see if this is it. Yeah. The body keeps score brain, mind and body of the healing of trauma. So yes, when you’re, when you’re experiencing things like PTSD is it’s sort of reprogramming your brain largely, uh, reshaping it.

We got a knucklehead in the chat over there, but K beans on it. Thanks K. Being a king. Kate says it is very frustrating to see the legal system attack one’s memory. Every professional in that situation knows precisely how memory works. Shaming Jane, for being an average untrained. Human is unjust. Also one might forget what they wore that day, years ago. However, a couple of rich pervy creepers, dangly parts would erode much from her psyche. Another one from Kinkaid. Uh, let’s see what else we’ve got. Objection. Oh, objection is here. Says I didn’t attend the Rittenhouse trial because I was clearly saving myself for the Maxwell trial. Objection gets tired. You know, you can’t all the places at once. And so objection took the Britain house trial off. It was okay. It turned out all right. Not a big deal. Hope you got your rest.

Cora says, uh, already mentioned in the chat, but it is difficult for survivals of survivors of sexual abuse and assault to withstand brutal questioning on the stand. And it is agonizing to watch the tactics used to trip a witness up in their very answers is common, but particularly brutal. In my opinion, with dealing with witnesses like Jane, as a trauma response, it is common to disassociate while on the stand, which can be interpreted as lying. I’m somewhat glad that this trial is not televised. Imagine the outrage and gut wrenching sadness with which the general population would respond. I don’t know if there is a way for a lawyer to prepare their witness for such a barrage of questioning with matters this sensitive, not to put you on the spot rod, but have you ever had to prep a witness like Jane? How difficult was it?

No. Cora, I have not because I’m a defense attorney. I’m typically representing people on the other side of that equation. Jane is a victim. She’s going to work with people as part of the victims. She’s a prosecutor type of witness. Uh, I’m the person doing what you just described as the difficult stuff. And I have had to do that. Yes. I have had to cross examine, uh, women who have been brutally beaten. Yeah. It’s not a fun thing to do, but remember that we still live in America and the presumption of innocence, reigns Supreme. And so it’s part of the process, even though I know it makes a lot of people’s stomachs churn, but I’ve, I’ve had to do it. Um, and so yes, it is hard. It is gut wrenching and listen by the way, folks, not every single woman who claims to be the victim of a crime is actually the victim of the crime. Just say it, it happens all the time. All the time. You’d be shocked at how much it happens. Lots of lies around this world. So just because the government says she’s a victim and she’s associated with some, with some very disgusting people or, or the allegations are disgusting, doesn’t automatically mean that she’s truthful.

Okay. Uh, that was from Lama Brad. Uh, another one says isn’t discrepancies and statements and memory being used against a witness, like in this case, exactly why Nathan DeBruin in the trial was correct. And not adjusting his statement in the prosecutor’s office, his assertion, if he had allowed binger to quote, refresh his memory and make a new adjusted statement, they could have damaged his credibility on the stand. Uh, yeah, they could have. Yeah. I mean, well, so I think what you’re talking about, so listen, uh, you know, I don’t know what Nathan DeBruin was specifically talking about. Okay.

His argument here was that they were asking him to change his statement. What the prosecution was saying is they were saying essentially, is this your final statement? Would you like to make any changes to it? Any additions? Correct? Is this the full thing? All right. You done? Okay. And so one sounds like is very nefarious. The other sounds like it’s very innocent. That’s not what I’m talking about, making a change in those statements. That would, if he, if he made a change right there, that’s fine. Okay. Oh, I forgot to mention the blue car. Okay. Put the blue carpet, no problems. This is different. This is a 2019 conversation compared and contrasted to a 2020 conversation compared and contrasted to what she said yesterday. Those are all very different. And that’s the impeachment process they don’t match. The Antica says, I just wanted to make sure I’m up on my recent history.

COVID got Epstein, right? Yeah. COVID got Epstein or it got Epstein. John Haugen, Sal says, uh, you sound like there’s some doubt about the Maxwell involvement with Jane. Her testimony seemed questionable. Well, John, I mean, I’m a defense attorney, you know, there’s, there’s, uh, there’s one contingent of this country. That’s, you know, believe all women. I’m not in it now. Am I trying to make excuses for Glen or SDN? No. I mean, there’s enough evidence there that they should, uh, be held accountable for it. I’m not trying to disassociate that at all. What I am saying is that Glen Maxwell is not the only problem in this entire equation here. So for us to just say, well, all of these problems, it can all just conveniently be hyper-focused on to Ghislaine Maxwell. And as soon as Ghislaine Maxwell gets convicted, we don’t have to talk about international pedophile rings anymore. Interlace with our government and world leaders. Uh, no, not so fast. So I’m a lot more interested in, uh, putting up a strong defense for Ghislaine because I don’t really know what she’s going to do. I mean, if she, if she, if she walks on this case, if she is acquitted, the country’s going to be, you know, in shock and rightfully so.

Uh, which I don’t think is probably going to happen, but she’s got some pretty good appealable issues. And so you might see this come back two, three years down the line, it would be a Cosby situation, a bill Cosby situation, exactly like that because he had a non-prosecution agreement that was found to be valid. That was, I think, less strong than Epstein’s was. So what if Epstein, what if, what if Glen is convicted and then loses her appeal and she’s not Epstein in jail now she’s got a bone to pick. That’s a good question, John. And quite frankly, folks, I’m also being just antagonistic and, uh, what’s the word, uh, sort of devil’s advocate. You know, if the whole world is, is finding the Colin Maxwell is, uh, you know, beyond any defense, I’ll have to pick that up. It’s just my nature. That’s how I operate.

Italia hand of nods says, will this trial rely on witness testimony? That’s perceived through the lens of long-term recall. Is it too much to ask for physical evidence? I’m this far confused. If the government is attacking Epstein or Maxwell, I get it. Their lives were intertwined. It’s a shame. Epstein didn’t kill himself while in the custody of the state. It is a shame. Isn’t it? I’m curious if the jurors are hardened or more open to victim testimony during the me too movement, the impeachment seems less than perfect, but enough for doubt, I’m not sure entirely sure. If the, if I want the government to succeed, I think there’s a difference between what is good for justice and what is good for the government stay vigilant. That’s from hand of nod. Great question. Yeah, it’s a great, it’s a great, it’s a great, great thoughts.

Hand of nod it. Look, I’m not in favor of any of the alleys of any activities that are even remotely connected to anything that Epstein and Maxwell did at all, obviously, but there’s a lot more to this story a lot, and it’s going to be very, very convenient for the government if they can just, oh no, it’s just a conviction. And we’re just going to put a bow on this. And on next case, what’s next on the docket judge. That’s exactly what they want. And so if Maxwell and her $20 million defense team can, can screw that up a little bit and we get to see more of this disgusting facade crumble in front of our very eyes. Um, for that, even if it means that she’s not convicted on all counts. Okay.

All right. That’s from hand of nod. All right. Let’s see what else we got. Sweet. Potato says, so I’m looking forward to the celebrity name drops on the pedos. Uh, but can we talk about the cyber whistle? What is the cyber whistle? Somebody was telling me about that earlier. I don’t know what that is. What is the cyber whistle? Tesla announces the launch of a cyber whistle. What the hell is this? Elon Musk presented as cyber whistle, a whistle that costs $50 medical grade stainless steel blow the whistle on Tesla from Elon. Oh, it’s out of stock already. I mean, I’d probably buy it. So, you know, he’s, he’s a billionaire for a reason. All right, good to see you. Sweet potato. Glad that you’re here with us, forcing me to buy other things. We have another one from monster. One says, are you going to do Kim Potter taser, taser, taser lady watched a little bit of the jury selection on Nick’s channel.

It’s a real snooze Fest. The judge has a voice that would put an insomniac to sleep. Now, maybe I’ll listen to it tonight. The last juror was obviously a far left activist trying desperately to get on the jury. We’ll cover it. We’ll cover it when it gets into full gear. I’m not going to, I’m not going to spend a lot of time on the, on the details on the Kim Potter case when there’s some good activity going on, probably like her direct exam and stuff like that will, she’s going to testify. So it’s going to be a very interesting case, but we’re just going to let it firm up a little bit. We’re going to let it cook a little bit longer and then we’ll chime in on it. We got a lot of, a lot of stuff to cover here on Glen’s case. Uh, but yeah, and you’ll notice for those of you who only tune in for the live show.

I am trying to do a little bit more non live content. So you’ll notice now that these shows are really sort of going down to one topic and some other topics are now going to be prerecorded and released earlier on in the day or later in the day yesterday, we released a chancellor video this morning, we released a Darryl Brooks video. He’s got a six charge coming for homicide, and we also released a Chris Cuomo video. So be sure to check those out, just trying to, you know, sort of, uh, uh, differentiate a little bit more between the lives and the pre-records monster. One says, oh, great, state lines are back. I thought we had enough of them after the Rittenhouse trial. Not anymore there, state lines are now important. We have Jeremy says, Rob, the more I listened to you analyze cases, the better I understand how the justice system works.

The lawyer appears to be a key piece of justice. A great lawyer. Mux must be an expert at arguing. Yes, there are laws. But the only thing that seems to matter is how well the lawyers argue their desired points to convince the jury, to accept and believe their side of the case. This is an accurate assumption, thanks for all your shared insight. So it depends who you talk to Jeremy, you know, and I think it’s probably a mixture of the two. You know, you have those lawyers that are, uh, you know, nuts and bolts, the law, they write all day, they research all the time. They’re, uh, you know, mincing, different appellate briefs and concocting all these things and, you know, very, very detail oriented law lawyers. On the other side, you’ve got these lawyers who are just sort of, you know, fly by the seat of their pants.

They just go in, they talk with a silver tongue. They, they, it’s a smooth game that they play kind of kind of guys like Mark Richards, right? Not a lot of substance in terms of legal filings and objections and motions and eliminate and motions to suppress. And all of that, he was just more like it’s a Wisconsin jury. I got to talk about Wisconsin problems up there and I’m going to get him acquitted. And so it’s just more of a human communicative approach, which is highly rooted in persuasion and argument. And, and, um, I think logic and personal human humanity, you know, connecting with people, empathy. And so you kind of want to find a balance, I think, in the middle. And you want to be able to be a little bit dynamic, move from one side to the other, become very, very aggressive. Technically when it’s appropriate, become very persuasive and charismatic and charming and, and convincing when that’s necessary and be able to live in both worlds.

And we’ve actually thought a lot about this at our firm and built a team that sort of fills out. I think our, our roster very well. We’ve got a very strong team because we put a lot of thought into that. Great question. Thunder seven says, I’ve got to admit, this is not a good witness for the state. She received a whole bunch of coin. Yeah. 2.9 million bucks. She went back to Epstein over and over again. As she grew older, what happened with the initial abuse? It sounds like Jane went back willingly into a prostitution scenario and Maxwell is not guilty of anything illegal. If that’s the case, Jane’s need to be charged. That’s from thunder seven, which not a bad read their thunder seven J he says, totally off topic. Rob, can you do a video on the bad Popo who shot the man in a wheelchair in Tucson? I just saw the footage today. And I’m really curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks buddy. Oh my gosh. What Tucson police shoot man in a wheelchair.

Oh, look at this stinking story right in my backyard. I was just in Tucson for the Thanksgiving holiday Tucson police officer Ryan Remington fired nine shots at 61 year old Richard Lee Richards during the incident. Oh yeah. We’re going to definitely make a video about that one. Thanks for the flag on that one. That’s from Jay Heath, a wheelchair nine times outstanding. Oh, the Antica says being devil’s advocate is the bestest. In my opinion, things that only survive on challenged or not worth keeping around. I told you I’ll defend anybody. I don’t care. Ghislaine Maxwell. No problem news now says a few big differences between the Cosby agreement and Epsteins Cosby went against his own interests for the depositions. Epstein’s protected other people, not the same thing. That’s a good point. And this is the big one for me. It was a federal decision Cosby’s with state feds violate all the rights.

No big deal. That’s a good, that’s a good point also. Oh, that’s hilarious. That’s so funny. Feds violate all the rights. No big deal. So the feds can do it. Not even, not even the thing. Uh it’s it’s it’s a great question. I’m very curious to see if she is convicted. I think it goes right up to the court of appeals and Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement is pretty, pretty dang solid, and they’re not prosecuting anybody else. As far as I know, they’re just prosecuting Ghislaine so it seems very, very interesting. I think they have a good argument. We have another one from Greg Morat says okay. To tackle rape myths. Our state government are implementing new laws next year. So if a sexual offense matter went to court, it would be up to the accused person to prove consent was confirmed before they engaged in a sexual act with someone else, rather than the accuser proving, they did not give consent.

Also removing a condom during sex without the other person’s knowledge or consent is to be made a crime. Isn’t this going to land innocent people in jail? How would you be able to disprove it? Yes, Greg. Yes, it is. It is. It’s going to end up with innocent people in jail. I’ll tell you why, because we already, currently under our current system have innocent people in jail for false rape allegations and false sexual assault allegations and false domestic violence allegations happens all the time. So they’re just making it easier to happen. It already happens. It’s going to get worse. So just, you know, be aware of this. And if people don’t think that this doesn’t have consequences, you know, look around at like birth rates around the world. I don’t, you know, look, there are a lot of single young men out there who are scared to death about having intercourse with a woman because of this whole, me too stuff. Not even to deal with it. And in Australia, what they’re saying is what do you need? Like an app you need to like, add both, turn your keys to have intercourse. We both turn our keys. Let’s codify this thing. I’m going to send you a DocuSign. And it’s going to come from my IP address. And it’s going to say on Tuesday, November 27th, we’re going to have intercourse. And I need your email address because I need you to authenticate it and send it back so that it’s all, you know, chain of custody is an order.

That’s how it is, Greg. It’s not good. Miss Danny is here, says after listening and reading carefully, I wonder why is the judge suppressing so many questions and allowing so many? I don’t recall from Jane, what she has been saying, doesn’t really add up and all the hidden information makes this trial very suspicious. I was just an outsider. Look, hope you’re doing well. Robert hope you’re doing well to Ms. Danny. It’s good to see you. I haven’t seen you in a little while. It’s nice to have you back here. It is question a lot of, I don’t recall from Jane. Now we have some people here in the chat and in locals who were saying, well, it’s PTSD, Rob. She was sexually abused. She was 14, 15 years old. Her brain is scrambled. So of course she’s not going to remember anything. It’s PTSD.

Take it easy on her. That’s what explains all the, I don’t recall. She’s sobbing in court. She can’t keep it together. She’s been dealing with this thing, her whole life. And the defense says, look, we feel really bad for her. No doubt about it. Uh, but she went to a great art school that Epstein paid for flew to Italy, with Epstein and got paid $2.9 million for it never made any complaints for the last 20 something years. When she applied said she came from a loving family. Doesn’t remember anything can’t even place herself in the same room is Ghislaine her testimony as recently as 2019, 2020 differ tremendously from what she said here yesterday. So we’re not calling her a liar. We’re just calling her inaccurate and mistaken and a liar. So don’t believe her jurors news now says, uh, for more on the Cosby argument, Supreme court has ruled in case law that if police are searching for Brian and they go to Chad’s house and illegal enter that house to arrest.

Brian, Chad has no civil rights case because he wasn’t harmed. And anything found in the arrest against Brian is able to come into evidence because his rights weren’t violated Chad’s work. Yeah. We have all sorts of ridiculous, ridiculous criminal legal procedure justifications. The Supreme court has twisted itself up into a pretzel pretzel in order to make happen. Like things like inevitable discovery in, uh, you know, uh, we had a good faith basis. We were going to find it anyways. And so they just make all sorts of excuses for the police. And that was it from our friends over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. We had a couple of questions come in from a YouTube vena VNO pieces. How many victims are involved in this trial? So we have four that are officially a part of it. You can see them down here in the mind map. You can see we’ve got our first one who testified here today.

Uh, actually starting yesterday, that was Jane. We’ve got two others who have been identified in the superseding indictment. You can see here, these are the different counts. So count one is for victims. One through four count twos, just for one, one through four, again for count three victim, one victim four for counts, five and six. So that is how this is all broken down. So we’ve got about three other victims that we’re going to hear from. We’ve got a whole slew of other government witnesses that are coming out and we’re going to continue to build this bad boy up as the trial unfolds. That was from [inaudible]. And then our last one from Eyelea says, Rob, you just shared my exact sentiments. Believe all women. I’m not it. There needs to be a level of accountability for all look and I look and I don’t like domestic violence or abuse or any of that stuff, but I’m telling you, I’ve seen it so much from the other side guys come in, I didn’t do anything.

And you’ve got some lunatic X person who’s just going bananas. And guys are crazy too. You know, guys, guys will do it too. They’ll make up a bunch of stuff happens a lot less frequently, but it does happen. All right, my friends. So those were the amazing questions over from watchingthewatchers.locals.com from our friends over on YouTube. We’ve got big shout outs over to our community. That’s growing every day on Twitch. Hello, my friends over there. I, um, I’m stalemated on Metroid dread. I can’t beat the final boss. I haven’t sunk a lot of time into it cause I know it’s going to be like a multi hour deal, but it’s just a big, it’s a lot. It’s a big one on the switch, you know? So we’ll have to check that out at a later date. Shout out to my friends over on rumble.

We’ve got no pants, Joe, over there, hiking. Mary’s in the house, Angela. K’s over there. We’ve got a little activity over on rumble, which is super cool. And so everybody thank you once again, for your support, for your super chats, for your support at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. YouTube is demonetizing, the Epstein videos. So, uh, and the Maxwell video. So we’ll see if that continues. So I certainly appreciate your support. Now, before we get outta here, we gotta remind ourselves that we’ve got a monthly locals meeting meetup coming up on Saturday, December 11th. That is going to be one week from this Saturday, I think. Is that right? Yeah, it should be right. What the hell day? Yeah, that’s right. One week from this Saturday, uh, Saturday, December 8th, 11th from seven to 8:00 PM. Come join us. It’s going to be the very special, ugly sweater edition of the meetup. And so come prepared.

Get your ugly sweater. You’re still going to be allowed in, but we’re not going to be happy about it. And if you, uh, well, no, we’ll see you there. We’ve got music box lady who joined up. Hope you join us. We’ve got big. Re is here. Love that one. Test her 16 T Lama. Brad. We’ve got Kenny HCFC. We’ve got starfish. Aloe, Apache Kerry. See, we got Gino’s Rajab rugger bugger J marquee, Cantonese Brody son squirrel Ono five O P Palin, red beard, Monique Nicole, Dr. Facebook law hobo Jim mom, Bino WV Ridge rider, mayhem studios. We’ve got Ben Tomlinson, Laurel seven 20 and sheath Techer grubs. Tommy nukes is here. We’ve got Fantasma. Gloria Black cat Meow, Nick MacLeod, Dr. Brenton T Blake. More Patriot minute. Chris C Dr. Sammy D pub crawl. Julie fluffers woods. Oh eight and karaoke princess all in the house and my friends.

That is it for me. One final donation came in from John CUNA’s in the house. Thank you for that, John. No question, but I certainly appreciate your support and that my friends is it for me. We’re going to be back tomorrow to cover it all. Again, it’s going to be trial day four for Maxwell, and we’re going to start off with Bessel min to talk about the Epstein scholarship fund. Very generous guy just wanted to help the young, the youth out there in Interlochen, Michigan. So we’ll pick back up with that. See how much money Epstein was funneling over there. I hope you can join us, probably going to be the same time. 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM in Texas, 6:00 PM on the east coast and in central, which means is 3:00 PM for the people on the other coast, we will see you. Then everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I’ll see you tomorrow. Bye-bye everybody.