loader image

Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R&R Law Group. We’re located in Scottsdale, Arizona, and today Ghislaine Maxwell trial day four. We’ve got a lot to talk about. We had some very interesting witnesses. We’re going to start off with somebody named Paul Kane. Who’s just kind of a background financial guy. He’s the director of finance over for the professional children’s school. And so he came out today just to kind of talk about Epstein, being the person who funded some students school, essentially. That’s all that we really got from him. And then we get into some more interesting stuff. We’re going to hear from Dr. Lisa Rocchio. This is a forensic psychiatrist, somebody who’s going to come in and talk about grooming for the government.

Explain what the Epstein Maxwell cabal was doing with these young women, as they were sort of trafficking them all around the country in the world. And we’re going to get an update from good logic, Joe Nierman over at, uh, at good logic, uh, YouTube channel, good logic law GIC he’s there he’s boots on the ground at the federal courthouse there in New York. And so he’s actually, you know, posting updates from outside the courtroom. And so we’re going to check in with him. He recorded a little segment for us and we’ll play that here because there’s a lot that we’re missing. You know, we don’t get to watch any of this stuff on TV or listen to the audio. And so we’re just reading transcripts and looking at sketches from sketch artists. And it’s like killing me because there’s so much body language and some good, you know, good stuff that you just can’t really piece together.

And so we want to check in with people who are actually there and watching it. So we’ll check in with good logic. Awesome dude, go follow him on his channel. Good law GIC, check them out, him out there, but we’re Lisa Rocchio. So this woman is going to talk about grooming Maxwell’s defense attorneys. We’re going to see a little bit of cross examination from them. They’re asking her specifically about, uh, con fabulation ever hear about this. The idea that the mind just creates its own memories and sort of just insert them in the timeline, the historical record you’re creating memories, confabulation. It’s a thing. And we’re going to learn a little bit more about that as well. And then we get to some really juicy spicy content because we have Epstein’s former bodyguard, a guy I’m sorry, not a body guard, a housekeeper. I don’t know why he said because somebody sent me an email.

I think about Rittenhouse his body bodyguard with it. It’s not a bodyguard, he’s a housekeeper. His name is Juan Alessi. And he came to the stand. He was max Maxwell and Epstein’s housekeeper. He was somebody who did a lot of the things for him when all this stuff was going on. When they would go back into the massage room, guess who went and cleaned up after them one, a lessee. And so he came up onto the stand today to talk about, you know, plastic, cucumbers and hotdogs and all sorts of cylindrical objects and oils and massages. And it’s, you know, it’s, it’s gruesome as is this case. And so we’re going to get into that with one Alessi. And then we’re also the daily mail came out and they had this breaking exclusive. They say they got their hands on a lot of the white house, visitor logs back from the bill Clinton era when he was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

And so they published this apparently Epstein was 13 times at the white house back during the Clinton era. And so they published some new, you know, new D D details about all that. And it just goes to show you how interconnected the Maxwell Epstein cabal really was 13 times visiting the white house back during the Clinton era, while all this is going on under all of our noses. Now it’s out in the spotlight. And so we’re going to cover it. If you want to be a part of the show, the best place to do that is over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. There’s a form looks just like this, where if you’re a member, you get access to the link as a Google form, you can just go and ask a question and we’ll do our very best to get to them at the end of the content today. Also taking super chats, of course, YouTube de monetizes, some of these videos because of the, uh, nature of the subject matter.

And so if you submit a Superchat sport to show, of course, I appreciate that a lot. And you are popping up on the screen just like that. So, uh, certainly appreciate any which way you want to participate in the live stream. It’s more fun when we do it together, shouldn’t say that on an Epstein show, and if you’re looking for clips, then there is a second channel called Robert Mueller Esq clips, where all of this is being sliced and diced up by individual witnesses. And so if you want to go back and say, what did, uh, what did the housekeepers say? What did the pilots say? Check it out over at the clips channel, Robert ruler, Esq clips, all right, without any further ado, let’s get into it. Ghislainen Maxwell trial day four. This is what the ominous photograph. The sketch artist looked like as she was making her way into court today, you can see the courtroom sketch shows her entering followed by two us marshals.

And so they are making sure that, you know, there aren’t any, um, massaged agents or anybody jumping out of the rooftop to parachute her out of, uh, oblivion, uh, you know, and, and just, you know, kind of do a Italian job in the Southern district of New York. Don’t want that to happen. So we see a lot of the individuals don’t know what, you know, what counsel table this is, if this is her council, or if this is just, you know, reporters or clerks or whatever. But, uh, to us marshals, making sure that Ghislaine Maxwell dressed in full black, it looks like very interesting outfit today making her way into court. And so we start off the day with a very quick witness. And so we’re just going to kind of fly through this guy. Not a whole lot juicy comes out of him. And, and why would he, he’s a finance guy.

He’s the director of finance. He’s a spreadsheet guy. So you can take a look at him. And he’s over with this organization called the professional children’s school. And so they brought him in to testify. Not because he’s going to do too much, you know, about, uh, what happened in Epstein’s massage rooms or anything like that. Hopefully not, but Epstein was very involved and, uh, sort of this pseudo benefactor, this person who was, uh, really involved in children’s activities, we saw this with the interlock and school of arts yesterday. We’re seeing it back here again, the professional children’s school. And so, yeah, you know, it’s really nice that you care about the children and you want to help them and donate money to them and support their schools. But not if you’re a secret pedophile, that’s not good. And so now we have, uh, allegations, right?

That Jeffrey Epstein has this, this system. He’s got this plan, this organized scheme, this conspiracy almost, he finds these young women and he sends them to these schools yesterday. It was interlocking school of arts. Now it’s the professional children’s school. And you can just see what his Mo is, get some, all right, I’m gonna Mo you know, uh, abuse them. And then I’m gonna put them up in these schools and I’ll just sort of pay my debt. So this place has academics. It’s got flexibility, flexible schedules. It’s got communities, and it’s located right there in the heart of New York, New York, New York director of finance, Paul Kane. So they bring him out here pretty quick testimony. They say, okay, Mr. Kane, I, and I don’t know who was asking him questions today. It might’ve been Alison, Mel. I’m not sure who this one was such a quick witness.

Nobody really made note of who the prosecutor was, but a prosecutor comes out. All right, Mr. Cain, can you look at this exhibit? Do you recognize it? Yeah. It’s uh, uh, an enrollment application for a student, for a student. Okay. So we don’t know who that is. Prosecutors says are, don’t say the name, don’t say the name, but just tell me this. Is it an accurate copy? Cain says, yeah, it is. Maxwell’s lawyer jumps up. Objection, hearsay. You can’t talk about that. That document is an out of court statement that can’t come in. It’s hearsay. And the U S attorney says, well, there’s an exception to that rule. It’s a business record. So even though it might technically be hearsay, it is a business record. And the judge says, overruled, no problem. That can come in. So that application now comes in government exhibit. So Maxwell’s lawyer then says, well, I hold on a minute here.

Uh, you know, before we, uh, before we jump into this judge, before you finish up with your ruling and let this come in, can I just ask this witness a question? I want to verify the foundation of this. If they’re saying that this is a legitimate business record, and that’s the exception that they’re using to get this in over the hearsay rules. Well, hold on, judge. I want to probe this for a quick minute. Can I question the witness? Judge? Nathan says, all right, go ahead. So Maxwell’s lawyer says, okay, so Mr. Cain, the professionals children’s school, it doesn’t verify the accuracy of the info on this form here. Does it? Cain says, well, I mean, I, I think they do all of it well that I, you know, that I don’t know. I mean, you know about Bubba hems and Haws, so try and undermine the document.

It’s not really a business record, cause it’s not really verified. You know, it’s all just sort of a loose form that they just fill out. And so, because it’s not a business record, they’re trying to say it doesn’t overcome the hearsay rules a lot going on here in two tweets, it continues Maxwell’s lawyer then says, okay, so they don’t verify all of it. And so Maxwell’s lawyer says, okay, so the info prosecutor jumps back in. Okay, your honor, may I now, may we got a little bit more out of him? Hold on. Now we’re still probing this application. Is it hearsay? Excludable? Is it a business exception that can come in anyways? Prosecutor jumps in. Can I, your honor, can I hop back in here, judge? Yeah, you may. All right. So Mr. Cain, what happens to the info coming in Cain says, well, contact the family by phone.

Then we invite him to the tour and schedule a conversation. And prosecutor says, okay, so the school relies on that form. Does it? Cain says, yeah, it does. All right. So they’re relying on it right now. This is a business document. It’s an actual form. People fill it out before they come to the school school uses it. School relies on the form. Sounds sort of like it’s a business record. So they go up to the sidebar, which means they go up, talk to the judge about this outside the presence of the jury. And they come back out, goes right back to the prosecutor. Sounds like the document is now in. So they’re asking about the document again. Prosecutor says, what grade was that person applying for? What grade were they in? 12th grade due to quote, moved to New York. So they’re moving. And 12th grade is where this student is going to end up.

Who’s listed now as the person of financial responsibility. This is that mic drop moment that they always want. Oh, okay. 12th grade. Huh? Moving to New York who signed off on financial responsibility. Cain says, Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, dune prosecutor says, thanks. No further questions. Turns around, drops the mic heads right back to their table. So then Maxwell’s defense attorney gets up and says, okay, so Mr. Kane, uh, you have no idea if Mr. Epstein actually paid for this, right? Yeah. Right. I don’t. I do not. And for the mother, does it say unemployed? Cain says no, it’s self-employed uh, as an interior decorator is what it says. Okay. And who is the listed agent? We get an objection there. And then it says, just make the jurors look at it. The judge Nathan says, well, just make the jurors look at it. Prosecutors objecting because there’s a name on there that listed agent’s name.

Who is that agent? What’s their name? Prosecutor. Objects. You can’t say that name. This is all sealed and redacted. It’s all super private. So don’t say the name of that person. So judge Nathan says, don’t look, don’t say it. Just tell the jurors to look at it. So Maxwell’s attorney says, okay, guys, just look at the name in the corner and the name of the prior principal. You don’t have to say them for the record. Just look at the name in the corner. Okay. Don’t say it. Just look at it and look at the name of the prior principal. Okay. Don’t have to say them for the record. Don’t even have to say, are you looking at them all? I need no further questions. There you go. And that’s the end of Mr. Cane. So it’s a talking about this application conversations about, uh, who this student was, who paid for the student, uh, who was the principal at the school, who was the principal prior to that all under seal, but Jeffrey Epstein listed himself or was listed as the financial representative, the person who is going to be footing the bill.

So that’s all we get out of Paul Kane. And he’s kind of making the connection that we’ve got Jeffrey Epstein paying for people to go to these types of schools. Why it’s all part of this plan. It’s all part of this conspiracy. It’s part of grooming. It’s part of nurturing individuals to be abused, a system of control and slow compounding, worsening abuse over time, starting little small, little abuses, and then progressively getting worse day by day. So we need somebody to come and educate the jurors about this. If you’re a prosecutor, you can’t just come in here and say, well, they did all these things and it kind of looks disgusting and we’d all feel as disgusting. And everybody thought it was disgusting. And a lot of people knew that there was a lot of smoke there, but nobody rang the alarm bell or called the fire department.

But is there an actual framework? Is there an actual checklist? Like, oh, if you have these five things, it’s grooming. If you have these ingredients, you can bake a cake. But if you don’t, you’re not having dessert here. We have Dr. Rocchio, who’s going to come in and communicate this to us. This is what she looked like in court. Kind of looks like that skeptical mean guy. I think there’s a meme that kind of looks like that, but she’s, uh, you know, obviously somebody who we know she’s very credentialed. She’s got a lot of background. We’re going to learn about that here in a minute, but I wanted to show you this. The caption says Dr. Lisa Rocchio clinical and forensic psychologist took the stand as the prosecution’s expert witness on Thursday. And her big testimony is all coming about as all talking about grooming, you know, she didn’t actually interview any of these people, but she’s going to lay out the framework.

Now we have good logic. Uh, Joe, who’s going to give us a little bit of background here. And as I mentioned, here he is, he’s outside the courthouse, as you can see. So he’s outside, uh, at SDNY and he’s going to give us a quick update. This is about two, two minutes or so. He’s going to start laying out a little bit of the framework that judge, I’m sorry that, uh, Dr. Lisa Rocchio is going to lay out for the jurors. This is some good background. And like I said, pay attention to sort of his, his descriptions, because we can’t get much of that reading texts. You know, we can get people’s filter and their perception, but it all comes filtered through their lens. And so you get to, you know, you get to see somebody who’s actually there in the courthouse. This is Joe, really good guy. He’s over on YouTube. So make sure you go and subscribe. The channel’s name is good logic here. He is

Mean from good logic. I just wanted to give you an update from inside the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. So today is day four. And this morning we began the battle of experts as the state called upon Dr. Lisa Rocchio, who is a clinical and forensic psychologist with 30 years of experience in the industry. After she spent a great of time to telling her expertise, she was qualified as an expert that gave her the opportunity to express her opinion. Now, she’s not a psychologist who as actually looked at any witnesses were testifying she’s actually referred to as a blind expert. And that she’s just testifying about the nature of psychology in general, without specifically applying it to any witnesses or testimony. In fact, she attested that she had absolutely no knowledge of any of the, of the underlying facts of this particular case, but the point of bringing her in there, it was really to give a psych class to the jury so they can understand what the state is trying to prove here with respect to, uh, Galanes role in baiting and preparing these girls to engage in illicit conduct with Jeffrey Epstein.

So she introduced certain terms to the jury and among them key among them was actually the term grooming. And she was subscribed to there’s five steps entailed in grooming. The first step is that you would select a victim. And the second step is that after a victim is selected, and they say that the perpetrator would try to find a population, which he feels is going to be a suitable population that finds a victim. Then they try to obtain access to the victim and begin to isolate them from other sources. Other outside influences. The third step is that they begin with lies, deceit manipulation. And then the fourth step is that they would desensitize the victim to sexual situations and activity basically expose them to various forms of, um, closer touching and movies that are more and more risque, if not pornographic for the purpose of getting them comfortable in that realm. And finally, they try to establish control and the purpose of obtaining control over them is to ensure,

All right, so he, uh, I think we ran out at a time on the, he sent me that through a Twitter message. And I think at the time, uh, the time expired on the Twitter message. So he was going to go into the fifth explanation of what that is, and we’re going to check back in and we have another clip from him explaining the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio, but a really good dude. So check them out. I think VNT KIS shared his link. Yep. There it is in the chat. So go give a subscription over to him and support his work. He’s there he’s boots on the ground, and that’s what we need more of to keep tabs on. Exactly what’s going on in there. But you saw his analysis was I thought it was spot on. He’s saying that she’s coming out to teach a psych class.

And really that’s what a lot of the transcript read like to me today, a lot of people saying that she’s going out there and she was detailing exactly what Joe was talking about. Those five different elements is what we would call them in the law that would complete a grooming analysis. You know, we talk about this, Andrew Bronca talks about this, you know, the five, the five requirements for self-defense, you know, you have different elements that are in order to prove a crime and the government is trying to do that. Right? They’re trying to show that all of these elements exist. You need all of these ingredients. If you want the cake to turn out, right. Same type of concept here. And so what they were doing previously is bringing out the victim, Jane, and they were laying some foundation from her and from some other individuals to justify bringing out Dr.

Lisa Rocchio, then she testifies. And she’s going to lay out the framework, these five steps that the government is going to try to fill in. It’s like these pieces of a puzzle. And so they’re going to use Jane plus the other three victims to say, okay, perfect. We’ve got this situation that Dr. Lisa Rocchio laid out for us early in the trial. And remember we are in the early stages of this puppy. This is the first week, got five more weeks at least of this thing up until next year. And so she’s laying out just the initial framework of this five things. And we’re going to see this just beaten into the ground by the prosecutors as they should. This is the whole goal here. Every other single victim that comes out is going to add meat to this. And we’re going to be able to see, oh, step one, oh, step down.

Oh, step number three and follow it all the way through. So let’s take a look now at Dr. Lisa Rocchio and see what her credentials are. Cause she’s got a lot of them. You can pull this right over from her website down there at Dr. Lisa Rocchio.com. You can see what she looks like. Here’s a bio multi-disciplinary mental health practice, psychotherapy, adults, families dedicated staff since 1997, helps everybody improve their quality of life and our personal skills, all that stuff, good stuff. How we can help things like psychological trauma, complex trauma, grief, and loss, anxiety, and stress. Big one here post-traumatic stress disorder. We also see a G B L T stuff. We’ve got eating disorders, women’s mental health, but the big stuff that we’re really interested on is this stuff right here, forensic practice. This is what she was brought in on this case for she provides legal consultation and expert witness services.

Now she’s working for the government here, specifically relating to the traumatic stress. The disassociation intimate partner violence assault involving intercourse starts with the word are, and the focus may be generic. She’s conducted forensic evaluations of plaintiff’s civil litigation. Criminal matters. Yes. Okay. Understanding. Yeah. Right. There you go. So understanding this is the key part, Dr. Rocchio has also provided attorney consultation in order to assist the attorney with understanding the mental status of the defendant at the time of the alleged defense. Okay. Ordinarily, she might be brought in to talk about the defendant, the person who’s being charged with the crime. In this case, that’s Ghislainen Maxwell. She’s not testifying for Ghislainen Maxwell. She’s testifying for the government. And so she’s coming in to talk about the opposite of this, right? Maybe she’s often brought in by the defense. She might even be a regular defense expert witness.

Most of the time. I don’t know she’s talking about it on her homepage, but now she’s talking the government, she’s representing the government talking about grooming. We need these five things. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the government’s just going to go check those up. They’re going to go shopping and complete the list. So we start off with testimony from her judge. Nathan says, all right, next witness. It’s Dr. Lisa Rocchio. Who are you? And we just heard from her, she says, I got a master’s. I got a PhD, got Rhode Island. Uh, this could take a while. This is, uh, uh, is what he says. We have a long presentation of credentials. We’ve already talked about what they are so we can skip over all of that. Yes. She’s an expert. Yes. She’s qualified. Yes. She gets to come in. All right. And so the prosecutor says, okay, Mr. Uh, Ms.

Uh, doctor, did you interview anybody in this case? Like, do you have any relevant material to anybody like a victim? No. And how about your pay? Does your pay depend on the outcome of this trial? No. Okay. Right into it. Prosecutor says, so what is grooming? Tell me about it. She says, well, it’s strategies to get children to have intercourse. Rocchio says I’ve seen it all over the place. I’ve seen grooming in the boy Scouts through a special camping trip or a jewelry, anything to make the children feel like they’re appreciated during the Dobber hearing he notes before trial Maxwell’s lawyer asks, does this mean the grandparents are grooming interesting. So we, I don’t think we, I don’t think I read that anywhere else. So a Dobber hearing is an expert witness hearing. Uh, we should talk about this real quickly. So a Dobber hearing is an expert witness hearing, basically it’s to, to, to verify that an expert witness is in fact, an expert.

If somebody comes in and says, well, I’m an expert witness, I know everything about, uh, uh, DNA evidence. And you say, well, it requires a lot of knowledge and a lot of school, and it’s pretty complicated stuff there are you sure you’re an expert? Yeah, I am. I’ve got a website and everything, and I’ve got a plaque that I hung on my wall. Well, they need a little bit more than that. So we’re going to haul your butt into court. We’re going to ask you a bunch of questions. And if you pass the Dobber hearing, if we can qualify you as an expert, then you can come in and testify. So that’s what they’re talking about here. That Dr. Rocchio when she was being pre-qualified, apparently Maxwell’s lawyer said, oh, so like, if they take you to the zoo, they’re grooming you. Well, that’s kind of a broad definition.

Isn’t it? Anyways, a little bit of a digression there. Let’s go back. Prosecutor says, all right. So, uh, doctor, how common is it for a child to be repeatedly abused by the same perpetrator? Oh, it’s very common. It’s by people close to the child. And, uh, tell me a little bit more about this. What does a grooming environment? What does that look like? Uh, the perp developed tr develops trust with people around the trial. So for example, like with their parents, oh, probably things like their schools, their friends, their acting classes, their to Italy, all that stuff. Huh? So we get a very long explanation about this. And the daily mail gave us a sort of a play-by-play on the breakdown of the state did the different stages that Dr. Rocky was talking about. So we already know this 30 years, she’s an assistant professor at brown university runs her own practice.

She defines grooming officially for us as quote, a series of deceptive tactics, strategies, or emo that are used by perpetrators for the purpose of engaging a child in abuse. The first stage was identifying a victim. So singling out somebody and predators look for quote, vulnerable people, such as those from disadvantaged homes. Now you remember that, that is what some of what Jane’s testimony was. Okay. So you know that the prosecution knows what doctor, I’m sorry. The defense knows what Dr. Rocky was going to talk about. They know what these five elements are. They’re not surprised by this. So when victim number one, Jane comes out and says a broken home, very poor destitute father went bankrupt. We had to, you know, died, uh, cancer. We went bankrupt. Mom had to, you know, the whole thing. And every time I told my mom that I was being abused, she says, don’t you bring that shame home in our family, get back out there in other words.

And so the defense is coming out and saying, Hey, you weren’t so disadvantaged. Where are you? And they’re showing all of these other ways to undermine that claim. Why? Because that claim goes to that element. The first stage, they’re trying to show that she came from a disadvantaged home. The defense is saying, no, she did not because they got to check that element off. They got to undermine that stage. Number two is obtaining access to the victims, putting themselves in situations where their access to children is not likely to be questioned. Epstein did that we already heard from that was funding the children’s schools in New York, also the school of arts over there in Interlochen, Michigan. And he’s just a, he’s just a nice man who just cares about the arts and children, not likely to be questioned. So they’re trying to check that one off, check that one off prosecutors have claimed that Epstein and Maxwell first met Jane first accuser.

When she was at a camp in Michigan, he donated 200 grand to have a lodge named after him. Well, it kind of sounds creepy show stage three was about engaging in lies and deception, building a relationship like giving fancy clothes and jewelry. We heard about that from Jane. Even the defense asked her about that. Hey, were you very upset when you were not giving more than $2,000 by Jeffrey Epstein member? Jane said that Epstein was giving her $2,000 for her performance. She was upset. It was only 2000. Hmm. That sounds like stage three, right? And such presence are intended to make the victim feel special. She didn’t feel special when she didn’t get that much money. Prosecutors claim that Maxwell bought one of her accusers lingerie and a pair of boots. Final two stages are a process of desensitization to physical and other touches, hugs, touching, giving a massage, starting off very slowly.

And then moving on into the final touch. The actual sexual touches, Adam class fields breaks this down for us. Now he is on a different channel. And so I’m following along with both of these fellows. And he had a very interesting observation when he was sitting there in court today, he said, this is what she was testifying about too. And she spent the whole time today detailing each one of these things. We’re going to just fly right through them. But you know, she would have talked about what happens here. Well, w well, w when they’re selecting and identifying victims, you know, probably happens at schools, places where children’s congregate, you know, parks, activities, the ordinary stuff, but just spends hours talking about each one of those details, but class field notes for us. Very interesting thing happens when you get to number three. Yeah. One female juror.

As soon as she hears the words, lies, deception and manipulation. She nodded her head. She’s like, oh yeah, that’s the one. I know that one. Well, jerks out there lies deception and manipulation. She’s like, yes, go to him. I knew it. Right? Because you know, it’s, it’s identifying with the framework. Juror says, I got, yep, got that one, got that one right down in her evidence. Then Maxwell’s first accuser Jane. She claimed Maxwell instructed her on how to give a massage. Right? That’s that fourth stage that touch there it is. And in the final stage was a process of coercion to ensure the abuse continues. And the victim did not tell anyone. There it is. Stage five. We heard about all that from Jane. So now they’re going to check those boxes for all of the other victims. And you can see that in the government’s testimony, they’re trying to draw the sting.

They’re trying to get the sting out right now. Hey, we know that this is going to sting us when we come back, uh, the, the sting is why did these people wait two decades to bring this up? Why did they wait so long to make this a common claim? Why are we just prosecuting this case in 2021? When this has been going on for a long period of time, where have you been? Well, she says, oh, it’s very common. I mean, it’s very common, very common for the victims to delay, disclosing the abuse. I mean, especially if they’re young and they’re more likely to disclose it to a friend than law enforcement. That’s why, and we heard about this yesterday. People saying, Rob, you’re being a little insensitive to these female victims of sexual abuse, which is probably true, but also probably going to continue.

But they had a reason for delaying this. They had a reason for it. And I understand that, right. I’m kind of being jokey about it, but it’s not really jokey. She says, this is very common. Happens all the time. She’s an expert. I deal with people who are the victims of abuse. It takes them time to come forward. The defense is going to turn right around and say, yeah, yeah, yeah. So what, so, so, so she got paid $2.9 million. She had her on the stand two days ago and she couldn’t recall. Couldn’t recall. Couldn’t recall. Couldn’t recall. Yeah. So how about, it’s not a fear of disclosing delay. It’s a other reason, right? There’s some other bias or prejudice here, so you can see how they’re going to mince words. All right. So a prosecutor comes back and says, listen, our victims of child sexual abuse, likely to report it to the police.

No prosecutor says, okay, well, so how do they talk about it? Then Maxwell jumps up. Objection, no foundation judge says, all right, I’ll sustain that a prosecutor. Can you go ahead and rephrase that, please? What is the long-term impact of grooming prosecutor asks Rocchio while they are at higher risks for adverse outcomes, they are at higher risk for adverse outcomes. Prosecutor says, boom, nothing further. Let’s take our break. So that is the end of the direct examination of Dr. Lisa Rocchio Joe. Nierman good logic over here gives us another update. Very, very briefly about the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio, which we’re about to jump into next. Here’s what Joe has to say.

Cross examination. It was actually a bit comical. There was a whole issue with respect to a dabber hearing. That’s a little more complex, which then I want to keep this somewhat short. So that’s my clip for you today and I’ll catch it.

There you go. So that’s Joe. So that was the Dobber hearing that I was talking about. So the Dobber hearing is what he was saying was a little bit comical because they were sort of, uh, it sort of looked like this is what Joe is, I think is referring to, uh, we come back out here. I don’t know who the, who the defense attorney was, who was representing, uh, uh, the defense here other than it’s just Maxwell’s lawyer. So I just put Laura manager up there could be, could not be, I’m not sure, but, uh, this is what it looked like. And you can see sort of the pattern of what, uh, what Joe was talking about. You see, we see objection. Sustained. Objection. Overruled. Objection. Sustained. Objection, sustained. It was like this. It was like this fire shot of, you know, this back and forth of objections and sustaining all this stuff.

And they’re talking about the idea that Dr. Lisa Rocchio, she doesn’t really have the qualifications to, to opine on a lot of these other things. So let’s, let’s break this down for a minute. So Maxwell’s lawyer comes back out. All right, Dr. Rocchio let me just be clear. Let’s clear this out of the way you have a $45,000 contract for this case, correct? Rocchio says, yeah, I do. I do. I got a $45,000 contract for this, which is wild. I mean, basically what she’s doing, I, I think is just testifying about the general. She didn’t interview anybody. She’s just coming to testify, which is a lot of money for, for that. We heard the prosecutor told Esther, did you interview anybody here? No. So she’s just showing up and talking about grooming, I guess, for a couple of hours on a, on a morning for 45 grand and I’m, and I’m kidding about this.

I’m sure she sunk a lot of time and effort into the government’s case, but she’s not a really a, you know, she’s not a testifying expert. She’s not going to be like the pulmonologist who came in and testified during George Floyd’s case, who reviewed all sorts of details. She just is talking generally so far. Maybe she’s involved in other ways. We’ll see. So here, here, it goes. $45,000 doctor. Yeah. And Maxwell says, all right, well, look, if one had a brain injury, it might be hard to remember things, right. Prosecutor says, objection, judge Nathan says, sustained objection could be a number of things, you know? So she doesn’t have to answer that question. And so Maxwell says, all right, so a brain injury might make it hard to remember. Uh, how about alcohol? Alcohol would harm recall too? Wouldn’t it? Prosecutor? Objection, judge. Nathan sustained backs.

Wells lawyer says, all right, let me try again, judge. Um, doctor, are you familiar with, uh, confabulation? Objection. The prosecutor says, judge says, overruled, we’re going to let this one go on for a minute because it’s filling in the gaps. Uh, no Maxwell’s lawyer says, uh, oh, it’s filling in the gaps is what confabulation means. Prosecutor screams again. Objection again. Dang it. Judge says, find sustained. And so it’s this back and forth. It’s like just back and forth. And what they’re basically what the objection I believe is I can’t see what officially is on the record, but it’s the idea that Dr. Lisa Rocchio, she can’t really, you know, speculate to these things. She’s not a brain surgeon, you know, brain trauma. She’s maybe she’s not qualified to talk about what a brain injury would do. You know, maybe she’s not qualified to speculate about what alcohol would do would harm recall confabulation objection.

Right? So we have a lot of that back and forth. It goes on Maxwell’s lawyer says my grandfather liked to take me to the Bronx zoo. Was that grooming. This is confabulation. So we have, that was, I think it was Laura manager. I don’t know if it was, if she was actually testifying, but she, she drops this phrase here. Very interesting phrase. She gets that word out in front of the jurors. A lot of jurors probably never heard that word before. Uh, maybe you have heard it. Maybe you have not heard it, but confabulation, what does that mean? She says it’s filling in the gaps. Prosecutor says you better watch it, but their sister objection, judge sustains that. You can’t say that, but guess what happened? Both those words got into the juror’s brains, filling in the gaps. Confabulation is now defined in the juror’s brains as filling in the gaps.

Oh, interesting. And so now this has come out. This is a conversation that we’re going to have in this trial, Dr. Rocchio comes out and is talking about grooming and all of these things, the defense expert is going to come in and talk about memory and talk about how a lot of Dr Rocco’s observations might be erroneous and be mistaken and misidentified for confabulation filling in the gaps, creating memories, inserting them into the timeline, going back to the historical record and creating something that never existed. And then believing that it did is this just some lunacy that, you know, crazy defense attorneys came up with? Is this like a, like a fake thing that people are playing around with because it gets people like Ghislainen Maxwell out of criminal charges, or is this a real thing, huh? Well, I took a look over at a medical journal website.

We see here, there’s a recent medical journal talking about confabulation. It’s a guide for mental health professionals from a journal of neurology and neurotherapy to review article volume four issue two looks like a lot of doctors are on this puppy citation. We’ve got PhDs, mam. S’s we’ve got university of Houston, uh, American Institute for the advancement of forensic studies out of St. Paul we’ve got counseling, Concordia university out of St. Paul is on this thing. We get an abstract from this article, says confabulation is the creation of false memories in the absence of intentions of deception individuals who confabulate have no recognition that the information being relayed to others is fabricated. Okay. Individuals who confabulate, individuals who communicate the information in their brains to others, they have no recognition that that information is fabricated. Can’t even tell confabulating individuals are not intentionally being deceptive. They sincerely believe the information.

They are communicating to be genuine and accurate. Confabulation ranges from a small distortions of actual memories to the creation of bizarre and unusual memories. Often with elaborate detail, although confabulation can occur in non impaired populations. The aim of this article is to bring the focus into unique people involved in the mental health systems, right? And this is the purpose of the article. Mental health professionals must remain vigilant about it’s identification to gather accurate information from a client and to provide optimal treatment strategies. Therefore, this article provides information about confabulation and how to handle it. Okay. This is a guide for mental health professionals. Okay. And what is it saying? It’s saying this is a real thing, and we have to write this guide because other medical health professionals are missing this.

They’re not able to identify it. We have to put a guide together. So people like Dr. Elisa Rocchio who come out and they talk about this as being a grooming situation, all she’s doing is to help support and buttress somebody else’s confabulation. They’re making it up. They’ve been in the shadow of a billionaire. These are women who have fallen head over heels or lost something. And they’re making it up. They’re creating these stories in their minds and it’s confabulation. It’s filling in the gaps. Other things have happened to them, has nothing to do with anything that Epstein or Maxwell did. And so we have, this is a real thing. And yet, of course, look, you can’t blame Dr. Rocchio for missing this. She probably has not read this guide, but now that this guide exists, maybe somebody can email it over to her. And all of that. Talk about grooming. The defense can just show now it’s just somebody else creating memories.

And that is the testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio Ghislaine Maxwell trial day four. We have our next witness is up. We have Juan Alyse, Jeffrey Epstein’s, former housekeeper was next to testify in Ghislaine Maxwell, trial day four. Here’s what it looked like when he took the stand. Here’s what it looked like when he identified a picture of Jeffrey Epstein up on the computer screen and Ghislainen Maxwell in her black outfit, black mask, looking on. So one Alessi, this is what he actually looks like. He is a maintenance worker. He was a house manager for Epstein back at his Palm beach mansion in 1990 and between 1990 in December, 2002. So that’s what, 12 years, 12 years he was working there at Palm beach. Now he gets called into court to testify. Obviously Epstein’s housekeeper, the Palm beach location was sort of the epicenter of a lot of this.

So where he was, I think residing most of the time, he sort of, if you, if you think about it geographically, it’s kind of the centerpiece of all of his properties. Isn’t it? He’s got his, a disgusting island down there in the Caribbean. He’s got the place up in New York with the massage room. And then he’s kind of got that baby-making factory over outside of Santa Fe, New Mexico back in, uh, uh, in the west. And so the, the location in Florida was kind of the main hub. It’s the center of the wheel, the spokes go out to all of the other properties around the place. And so this guy was the house manager at that location. I mean, he was there for 12 years, long time. And so he probably saw a lot of stuff. And if there was any funny business going on, you kind of would imagine that a guy like this, who was the property manager or the maintenance worker, kind of a person who, you know, who handles it all.

And if you’re not familiar with this, um, I wasn’t either. When I was in college, I, I was a caterer. I used to cater parties. And one of the first events that I went to, I did that when I was, uh, on the weekends, I was also a construction worker and pool boy. But when I was a, a, a caterer, I catered an event one time that had a house manager, the house was so big, it had a house manager. I’m like, what is this? This is crazy. Who is this guy? Oh, he’s the house manager. And we’re talking to him, we’re not talking to any of the property owners or anybody. There didn’t even know who the people who owned the place was. It was so big. And they had a, they had a dedicated person who was like this very professional person, full-time job just to manage the property, just to make sure everything’s working full-time all day.

And I was like, this is crazy. And so that guy, he lived there and as the party went on, you know, he asked to be excused. So he could go back to his house. I’d never seen anything like it. I didn’t even know it was a thing. So that’s what this guy was apparently. And I imagine if that guy, you know, is, is really that intimately involved kind of lives on the property, handles every single thing. He’s going to notice trafficking of hundreds of women over the course of 12 years, you would think so the government thinks that they call him up and we get some interesting testimony out of him. The inner city press once again, reporting, be sure to give them a follow over on Twitter. Next witness one Patricia Alessi. Where do you come from? Prosecutor, Maureen comi. James Comey’s daughter is now up.

Haven’t seen her, I think, since opening arguments, uh, where do you come from? Quito. Ecuador. He says. And when did you move to Florida? He says early 1984. I worked for a wealthy family in Palm beach. I was a maintenance guy. Then I worked for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. How did you meet Epstein while I was working on Mr. Wexner? His mother’s house? Not sure who that is, but he gives us a exclamation point. Mr. Wexner, who the heck is that prosecutor says, all right, well, so who’s in this photo and he says, well, that’s Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. And that’s this photo that we were talking about. Yeah, that’s him. That’s him. All right. Certainly does look like him. And so identifies Epstein gets that admitted. We changed the channel. We go over, we see what Adam class field has to say. And this was interesting.

I saw this, you can see a photograph of this exhibit, which is being admitted. This is a, this is an exhibit that is a picture of that Palm beach property. Alessi is here. Now he’s describing the Palm beach house. And so he’s got to describe it. He’s got to lay the foundation. So if lessee is going to be talking about the massage room and going over to the phones and going over to all this stuff, and if he’s going to try to get government exhibit 52 in and talk about this little black book and you know, the, the, all of the details about the house manual and all of that, we’ve got to make sure he knows what he’s talking about. So we’ve got to work our way inside the property. They do that. So they start with this picture out so that you recognize this a 3 58, whatever.

Yeah. Okay. Uh, yes. It’s Epstein’s house. Yes. I recognize it. I can recall it. I can walk you around it. I have great memory of the whole ordeal. Got it. Gets admitted and they actually then use a blueprint of it. So they must’ve gone to the, uh, you know, the property records at the county office or whatever, and actually gotten the architectural drawings of it. Okay. So we now have a blueprint of this thing. Can you walk us through the blueprint? They moved from the drawing of the first floor of the house to the one on the second floor. So they just got, you know, maybe these big blueprint sheets, and they’re opening them up and they’re opening them up and okay. So what’s here. What’s that office and what’s that room. And, uh, where’s the massage room and he’s just walking him around and he knows it. Well, he’s been there for 12 years. This is all foundational testimony.

Some of the highlights from, okay. So he, he carries on, it goes forward. Prosecutor asks him referring to Maxwell. Uh, how was your relationship with Maxwell? What does she have to say? Juan Alessi? Epstein’s housekeeper says, well, she called me John, Mr. Epstein called me John, but my name is Juan jerks. 12 years got his name wrong. I’d be pretty upset about that too. Uh, and LSE says about Maxwell. Now she’s a pretty girl, tall brunette. He said Maxwell was with Epstein about 95% of the time, always together. He described the relationship with Epstein as cordial. When Maxwell came in, it turned professional. She came in and everything changed. Don’t you hate that? Maxwell told him Jeffrey doesn’t like to be looked at in the eyes. Ghislaine goes up to one. John is she called him and says, don’t you look at Jeffrey and the eyeballs look somewhere else.

Ours were long. He describes them as being between 5:00 AM and nine to 10:00 PM. He testified when he first identified Maxwell this morning, he appeared to struggle for a moment. Maxwell’s face was obscured by a face mask, but as their eyes met, she nodded at him all. I think she is with the black sweater. He said correctly. So prosecutor asks one, not John is Ms. Maxwell in the courtroom here today. And he’s kind of struggling a little bit. No, I, uh, and a tall blonde brunettes, pretty and Maxwell’s inner mass black suit and sort of nods at him. It’s me. I’m right here. And he says, I, I think she is with the black sweater right there. And that’s right.

Uh, less, he continues. They go over to the second floor, pull up exhibit 2 97, says the prosecutor, Maureen comi, uh, one, what do we have here? He says, well, that’s the second floor that is toward Mr. Epstein’s bedroom. There was a huge bathroom. He says, and what’s that other bedroom bathroom? Comi says, oh, that’s Ms. Maxwell’s bathroom. But they both came off the master bedroom. Is that right? Yes, it is. Okay. Uh, and tell me this one. Where did Ms. Maxwell sleep in the Palm beach house? Where was that? Maxwell’s lawyer says, objection. Judge says, overruled. Where did Ms. Maxwell sleep? One Alessi says, well, she slept in Mr. Epstein’s bedroom. Of course. Huh? Prosecutor says, all right, well, let’s move on. Then Ghislainen was sleeping in Epstein’s bedroom. So she must be pretty close to a lot of the activity going on there. She must have seen a lot of this stuff. The nefarious is going on in that room. Prosecutor moves on says, all right, one, let me ask you this. You were out by the pool a lot, right? How many times did you see females by Mr. Epstein’s pool? Hundreds? He says, oh, okay. And often were they topless about 75% of the time? I mean, three quarters of the time, hundreds of women topless, 75% of the time says one.

That sounds like a lot of women. And Ghislaine Maxwell is around there all the time. We now know that according to him, she’s with her she’s with Epstein about 95% of the time. And she sleeps in the same room as Epstein. Hmm. And she told him, don’t look at Epstein and Epstein and her Epstein. And Juan had a very nice working relationship. It was cordial until Ghislaine got there. And then she cracked the whip and said, don’t you look at him. And also it’s time to be professional. And so it went from cordial to professional and they still didn’t get his name. Right. So they ask him about this hundreds of women, 75% of the time topless, Juan. How about on little St. James? You know that island? What about that? He says, well, I was on a cruise with my wife to St. Thomas. They picked us up and they showed us little St. James. It was huge. Nothing little about it. Did you visit any Ms. Maxwell property prosecutor S well, yeah, I did. I visited her townhome townhome in London. She invited us. It has a nice red front door on it. And, um, moving on. So you’ve been to her homes and all that. Got it. And tell me about this. What conversations did you have with Ms. Maxwell about this booklet?

Juan Alessi says, well, I told her that I could not do this checklist. Well, I mean, with all my other work and all prosecutors says, all right, show them government, exhibit number 6 0 6, we get 6 0 6 admitted, uh, shown to the jurors. Prosecutor says, all right, we got 6 0 6 here. Tell me about this. Uh, how long is this book? Juan says it’s 58 pages. And what is it? It’s a list of what we’re supposed to do to maintain the house. It’s a property. He’s the property manager. He’s the maintenance guy. Epstein’s worth billions of dollars. And so he needs it all to be maintained. They’ve got a book it’s 58 pages. It’s a manual of all the stuff he’s got to do a list of what we’re supposed to do to maintain the house. We’ll come back to that. Maxwell’s lawyer jumps in now and ask him about the book of instructions, because we’re going to have sort of a, what we’re going to see happen here is interruptions in the direct exam to talk about these specific issues.

We’ve got a lot of questions about this book and about the house manual and about whether this can even be admitted or not. So the judge is allowing both sides to kind of probe this a little bit. They’re just not going to let the prosecutor just, you know, just Ram it in here. Like we saw in any of the other trials we’ve watched really, but here, they’re going to probe it a little bit. So they’re asking him about this, the prosecutor, how long has the book? 58 pages. What’s in it. It’s the house manual. Got it. Maxwell’s lawyer then jumps in. She’s going to question him about the book. Okay. So when you left then one back in 2002, you did not have this in your possession. Did you? One says, no, I did not. Okay. But this book was created after you left, at least by the date on it.

Right? One says a yeah. Maxwell’s lawyer says, well, on that, on that basis, then we object, okay. The book came out after he left. This book was created after he left. He didn’t take a copy of the book. When he left, we object, he’s got no basis for this document. He’s got no foundation for it. It’s not even the book that was there when he was there. So how can we possibly let this in prosecutor says while he did identify the pages though, and this is the same argument that we talked about previously, it’s a house manual. And we talk about how often one is refreshing the manual. When does it change? There’s a director. There’s all sorts of stuff in there.

The defense does not want this to come in. Government certainly does. The defense is saying this specific book that you’re talking about, it was created after you left, look at the dates. This one we’re talking about here, you left in 2002, this wasn’t around when you were there. The prosecution says maybe true, but the pages in the book about the manual, those were there. Those were in the book that he had when he was there back before tooth, before he left in 2002. So he saw the same stuff that was inside the book. So maybe because this book, even though it was created after he left the guts of it, portions of the book were the same as when he was working there. So they’re showing him those pages and he’s saying, yeah, I identified those pages and those were there and got it. And so defense says, well, we got to keep this out.

Judge says, nah, I’m overruling it. 6 0 6 is coming in. So that whole thing comes in and it’s the house manual prosecutor says. And would you recognize the address at the bottom? He says, yeah, it’s Epstein’s residence. It was there for 12 years. Prosecutor says there’s a reference to the G J E and the GM telephone directories. What were those? Uh, LSE says, well, those were books. There were hundreds and hundreds of names in there. Directions and addresses, unless he says they were two inches thick. I mean, full of names, like full prosecutor, for some reason, turning away from the two black books, at least for now it says, okay, well, let’s turn to page 23 about miss Maxwell’s desk. What does it say on page 23? So they’re looking at the house manual now. They’re still going through the book of all of his responsibilities.

Juan Alessa has got 58 pages. They keep calling him. John he’s busy. They gave him work for like four guys. It’s only him and somebody else. He’s busy. All right. Turn to page 23. What does it say you’re supposed to do with Mac with Ghislaine’s desk? It says the directory to the right of the phone, which I think is what the transcript is, is placed. The directory to the right of the phone house manual now says put a directory to the right of the phone. Oh, what’s that directory that we’re talking about? Could it be government exhibit 52? The same one that we made a video about previously? Well, by golly, it is, this is the directory. This is the black book that we’ve been fighting so much about one Patricia Alessi is laying the foundation for this puppy. How can we talk about this black book?

Prosecutors just can’t walk in and say, oh, this is Ghislaine’s book. And there’s some pretty gnarly stuff in here. Can we talk about this? Judge know they’ve got to lay a foundation for it. Where the black book come from? Well, it came from the right of the phone. It says it right there in the manual. It says it came from the right of the phone. Okay. And who put it there? Well, somebody who used to work there who read the directory. Well, who used to work there? Who read the directory? This guy, Juan Patricia Alessi. And so Juan Patricio, Alessi, how do we get to him while we followed everybody else here? Epstein, he’s a, he’s a witness. He knew a little bit about victim corroborates, a lot of her testimony. And so we go back to it. Prosecutor then picks up, what is this?

Well, these are instructions for serving breakfast sometimes at 5:00 AM. Who else worked there? Uh, chefs, my wife, uh, Maxwell’s assistant. And then there was also Sarah Kellen. Sarah Kellen was one of the unindicted co-conspirators that was named back in the 2007 non-prosecution agreement from Jeffrey Epstein. He was, she was his assistant and she can’t be prosecuted for crimes because she was named in there back in 2007. That very, very nice sweetheart deal that was executed under everybody’s noses. So he is defining who else is there? We also have the identification of two females and they seem to be under age. Oh, prosecutor says, okay, don’t say their names. Jurors, look at the binders under your chair’s government, exhibit 12, unless he says, can I have a cup of water? Prosecutor says, is that the name of the person we’ll call Jane first victim. We heard about, he says, yes, it is.

I met Virginia Roberts too. Who was filing a, another lawsuit against him. Going back to Jane. When you met Jane, Juan, how old was she? I mean, she appeared 14 or 15. She was beautiful, beautiful eyes, long brunette hair, very pleasant. Three times. She was there with her mother. Then without her mother, many times, three times was there with her mother. Remember those stages of grooming that we talked about? Hm. Keep mother around, create a very soft, warm environment with mom three times and then boot mama and out of there. And then the full abuse can continue.

Prosecutor comes back in. How would Jane get to the house? One once as I would pick her up and the direction of Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell at their order. When did you meet Ms. Virginia Roberts? I was at Mar-a-Lago with Ms. Maxwell. I waited in the car like the driver. He says it was a hot day. Ms. Maxwell said, stop John stop. I did. And Ms. Maxwell went up to this girl. Where was this girl? When she was coming down the ramp. How did she look young? That’s what he says. Then by 5:00 PM, I saw Virginia Roberts back at the house. Prosecutor says, all right, I’ll show exhibits 1 13, 1 14 to the witness and to the parties. How old did you think Ms. Roberts was? Juan says, uh, 14. 15. And what did Ms. Maxwell ever instruct you to pick up Ms. Roberts? Yes, she did. Did you ever see Ms. Roberts at Mr. Epstein’s home with luggage? Yeah, I mean, I drove him to the plane. And how many massages would Mr. Epstein get a day before I left three a day, I called whoever they told me to call it’s. A lot of massages.

Prosecutor continues. Did the phone books that we discussed. Did they have the name for massage therapists in there for people who come in to do massage? You know, that book that we talked about, that directory, that the house manual said that you have to place by the phone specifically on Ms. Maxwell’s desk. You know, that phone book did that phone book have the name of four, four massages in there. You can see what they’re trying to do here. Epstein got a lot of massages. The people are going to talk about what happened during those massages. That phone book was placed on Maxwell’s desk because it was required to be pursuant to the house manual one, Patricia executed the house manual duties, and he can talk about all the massages three a day. Whew. The book had the names in it. Did you see James named in it? Yeah, I did. Yeah. And the books were updated twice a year. So we constantly had names rotating through them. What did you do with them? When the new ones were made, when you had updated all the names and the directories while we would just throw the old ones away, prosecutor says I have physical exhibit 50, your honor. This is the little black book that we’ve talked about. They’ve laid the foundation for it. They’re doing their very best to get this in. This is the book with all the names.

Prosecutor says, judge, may I approach the witness? Yes, you may. Uh, Mr. Alessi, do you recognize this? Yes I do. What is it? It’s the directory. The one that I placed by the book by the, by the telephone. Did you review it last night? I did every single page. Yes. How many names are in there? Many. He says many, many, many, three times, many, many times, many names. And he says a prosecutor says, let me ask you this though. Is this the same version that you saw when you were there when you were working at Epstein’s place? Cause you left there in 2002. Is this the same version or is this a later version? He says, oh, this is a later version. Huh? Prosecutor says, okay, fine. Pull up exhibit 52 8. It’s a sealed exhibit at that moment, judge takes a break.

They come back. Prosecutor says, uh, judge, we’re not offering the full exhibit 52. Now the break has taken. Okay. So they come back, they come back a is back on the stage. They say on the, on the stand, how often was the directory updated? Unless he says twice a year. And the names of new employees were added and that the names of those who left were taken out. So they had a little bit of high turnover there. About two times a year. They would update the directory. Jeff Paley, Yuca now jumps in. And as I said, we’re exploring some of these issues. So prosecutor Comey says, okay, so in this version, we’re talking about this black book, it’s got all these names in it. It’s different version. The one that we’re looking at is different than what was existing when you were working there. Now is Sarah Kellen. Epstein’s assistant. Is she in this version? Objection. Leading Jeff Keighley who stands up, says, no, you can’t talk about that. You’re you’re giving them a yes or no question. Objection. Leading overruled long sidebar. They go up there talking to the judge. They’re hashing this stuff out. Then paleo comes back out and Maxwell’s lawyer Pagliuca now he goes after Juan. And he says, okay, Juan, as you sit here today, 19 years later, you have no idea where exhibit 52 has been. Right?

Answer is obviously yes. Maxwell’s lawyer also says, and you said the book was two inches thick, but exhibit 52 is a quarter inch thick, right? Unless he says yes. And the book that you were talking about was New York, wasn’t it? Unless he says yes. So this book is not really quite the same at all. Is it? Adam Kinzinger says cross examination begins. Paly Yuca also clarifies the date that he left employment. That was in 2002 long time ago. And Maxwell’s lawyer also says, and you know, those post-it notes, they weren’t there either. Were they? Right? And the post-it notes were some other things that were there that are maybe outside of what the manual calls for. So it continues redirect. Now that’s the end of the cross examination. So the defense lawyer comes back out and that’s about all we get out of him. And then we get redirect, which is when the government prosecutor comes back out and they have to rehabilitate their witness.

It goes prosecution in this right now. It’s the government’s case in chief. So they’re presenting their evidence and they’re calling their witnesses. So Maureen comi does a direct exam. Then cross-examination happens by the defense we saw that was very brief today by paleo Luca. And then they come back out to rehabilitate them and she’s, she’s saved some good stuff for the redirect. She says, okay, a lesson. We were going back through the house manual that you described earlier, right? And there’s this one bullet point. What does that say? He says, it says, see nothing. Say nothing. Oh, well that’s a weird thing to put in a house manual. See nothing. Say nothing. One bullet point said kind of weird. And another bullet point said respect their privacy. Oh, well, I don’t know. I don’t have a house manager or a wait staff, but I may, maybe you want to put that in your house manual.

I guess, asked what he understood that to mean. Unless he replied, I was supposed to be blind deaf and to not say anything, say nothing. In other words, never disclose. He said, Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell’s whereabouts or activities. That was another bullet point. According to Alessi, another important bullet point. Check the fence for holes where max can get out. Now, why does that matter? Who is max? Oh, well it’s their little Yorkie. It’s Maxwell’s little Yorkie. Well, that’s cute. She’s got a little Yorkie now that sort of buttresses another person’s testimony. Remember Jane, when she testified, she said that she met Maxwell and she was Maxwell was walking with a cute little Yorkie. Oh, so now you’ve got some corroboration. You don’t have confabulation. We talked about confabulation being somebody, just making up ideas out of nowhere. There’s no corroboration. There’s nowhere that doesn’t exist anywhere. Nobody can verify that that happened. But here now we have a little bit of it. Oh, wait a minute. So if the victim Jane is really making all this up, why is she getting these key details? Right? Why did she talk about Maxwell’s Yorkie? And also one is talking about Maxwell’s Yorkie and the house manual is talking about Maxwell’s Yorkie. It’s even in there, check the fence to make sure there’s no holes where max can get out.

Did the manual. We have corroborations now prosecutor asked, did you take messages for Mr. Epstein? Well, if he didn’t want to take the call or if he wasn’t there, then yeah. I’d take a message for him. And what did you do after the massages prosecutor? Comi says, what did you see after the massages towels? Uh, yeah. Yeah, but not all the massages had towels. Huh? Do any incidents of these massages stand out in your mind? He says, yeah. I found a large plastic cylindrical device shaped like a cucumber. Hm. Call me. He says, what’d you do with that? While I washed it up, he says, Porose all right. What did you do with that big, hot dog? And he says, where did you put it? And Juan says, I put it in Ms. Maxwell’s bathroom in a basket. How did you know where to put it?

Well, I knew everything going on in that house. And what else was in that basket? And he said, pornography. Oh, tapes to tapes. Well, this was in the nineties. And how often did you see that big, giant rocket that you saw that plastic rocket over there? Because it’ll at least five times. And the other one, the massager did the, the ball at the end of that thing, then I think vibrate says, yeah. And I’d put that one at the top of Mr. Epstein’s dresser, just like, you know, putting away the dishes after the dishwasher call me then says, all right, what photos were in the house after you’re done cleaning up these hotdogs and cucumbers and rocket ships. What other photos were in the house? Unless he says there were photos of Epstein with important people. Ooh. Who do we have? Like who says comi Donald Trump?

You know the Pope. I think Fidel Castro, all these very important people, man, this guy is plugged in. Anything else going on around that property? Were there photographs of naked women? Yeah, there were, but you know, those were kept in Ms. Maxwell’s desk. Why did you actually leave Epstein’s employment? Juan says I was sick and tired. Yeah. Did you sign a nondisclosure agreement with them? Yeah, I did. About both of them, but I’m breaking it here today. Prosecutor finishes and says where you questioned by the police after you took $6,300 from Epstein. Yeah. Where you were arrested. No, thank you. On nothing further.

That’s the end of the day Maxwell’s lawyers say we’re going to start cross examination tomorrow. They’re coming back. We don’t know who is going to be cross-examining Juan. I’m going to guess. It’s Jeff Paley UCAB but that’s the end of the day. They close out at 4:48 PM, which is a little bit early. We know that judge Nathan is very rigid with time. And so I’m a little bit surprised she cut them early, but makes sense. So we’ll start with cross-examination tomorrow, before we move on, I want to make a quick point. Very astute observation here from Adam class field, Adam class field, of course, is there he’s in the courtroom. And so what we’re seeing here is there’s an interesting, interesting thing happening that I’m observing as we’re covering this case. And I just want to share with you sort of what I’m experiencing. So, you know, when you’re, when you’re listening to something or absorbing information, your brain is going to filter out stuff that it thinks is important.

And so when these people are, you know, like Adam class field, when, uh, uh, inner city, when Joe Nierman, when they’re, when they’re sort of observing stuff and they’re reporting on it, there it’s going through a filter. They think this is important. I’m going to tweet about it, but they’re gathering way more information than that. Right? The stuff that we see is just the stuff that hits the thumbs before it goes out on Twitter. And then when something, another witness testifies and they can corroborate it, something stands out like that. Yorkie Maxwell’s Yorkie, nobody tweeted about a Yorkie, never came up, nobody cares about her dog until it becomes a corroborating fact. And so nobody would have tweeted that nobody would’ve made that connection unless you’re there. And so people like Adam class field are there and they’ve, they’re doing some very good analysis here.

And so here’s what he says after Juan Alessi is done. Alessi has been corroborating, multiple part parts of Jane’s testimony on the witness stand. And remember yesterday we were a little bit critical of Jane because there was a laundry list of all of her responses. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall one after the other, which is exactly what the defense attorney was trying to do, because they’re going to bring out a memory expert, several of them, and they’re going to show, yeah. Her memory is all messed up. It’s totally screwed up. She can’t remember anything. You heard her, she can’t remember anything. It was almost textbook cross-examination. So how do you, how do you recover from that? When you have your own witness on the stand? I can’t remember. And I don’t recall. As a long time ago, I was 13.

I was 14. She said that many times I was 14. I was 15. How could I possibly remember? Well, you, you say that all of this other stuff happened. So if your memory is really bad about the lion king, is it all, maybe it’s also pretty bad about the allegations that you’re making against Ghislaine Maxwell. So if you’re a prosecutor yesterday, you’re going, oh man, that was pretty rough. And it was, it wasn’t good testimony. I mean, I wasn’t there, it wasn’t that great from what we covered here on the show. But now if you’re a government, you kind of do the old sandwich, you know that good compliment, bad compliment, good compliment sandwich, kind of the same thing happening here. You bring out a witness, you kind of get out some of the messy testimony that might hurt your case. That doesn’t seem like it’s corroboration.

It sounds like it’s confabulation. And then you bring out one and you say none or no, we’re going to corroborate all this stuff. One is going to fill in the gaps and he’s going to buttress and support Jane’s testimony. And here’s just a couple examples that Adam class field is pointing out for us says specifically asked if he remembers Maxwell, Epstein and Jane going to the movies. Alessi replies. Yes. They went to the movies unless he testifies about seeing GFI at Mar-a-Lago Trump’s club, unless he talks about Virginia Roberts, she looked young, had blonde hair, unless he talks about Epstein receiving up to three massages. A date Epps asked about when Epstein would get his massages. He replies the morning, the afternoon. And after dinner, after the movies he has, unless he testifies, he remembers seeing Jane’s name in the directory. Okay? So all this stuff is sort of weaving together the same language, the same testimony that we heard from Jane herself. And so it’s propping her up yesterday. All of her, I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall was kind of knocking her over now. Juan is supporting her again.

And you’re going to see this pattern continue to emerge. This is made up. This is supported because it’s about memory manipulation and money. According to Bobby stern, Haim Ghislainen’s defense lawyer, that’s the theme of the case. And so they’re going to continue the battle over that. A another exclusive came out from the daily mail. They’re showing us bill Clinton’s white house, visitor logs, talking about Jeffrey Epstein in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Of course, this is a new story that came out. They say that they have an exclusive, they obtained visitor logs and they reveal that Jeffrey Epstein visited the white house at least 17 times during bill Clinton’s first term existed between 1993 and 1995. They got these documents as part of a four year request. Epstein was a guest on 14 separate days. His visits were to the west wing. He went, he went there suggesting he was meeting with the president crimes did not become public knowledge until 2006.

And he was involved with the president’s economic advisors, all this stuff. Some interesting photos came out. So they assembled all of this. You’ve got Clinton Epstein. And look who’s back here. Look who this is. Oh, it’s Ghislaine Maxwell. Isn’t that? Her early nineties there they’re shaking hands. We had this report here 17 times and you can see 93. We had, this was a February, September, December. Another time in December, we go to 94 March, April, may, June, July, September, October, then again in 95. So who is this guy? Here’s another image. It looks like Ghislaine standing right there next to Epstein. Once again took place a month after his inauguration. And we also saw this photograph number of this one Clinton’s office previously issued a statement about his travels. Didn’t know anything about his crimes. See these two kind of yucking it up. Now they did acknowledge that Clinton went on a plane with Ghislainen over to Africa.

Remember this though? Clayton is pictured on an aircraft with Ghislainen Maxwell in 2002. And Clinton people just came through in this. Oh, this was just a trip to Africa. That’s all humanitarian aid. And then remember when this photo came out. Oh yeah. That photo photos previously published, showed Clinton being a massage, give giving, given a massage during his trip to Africa, by Shantay Davis who says that she was raped by Epstein there’s bill Clinton. Look at that face. Oh yeah, that’s good. He’s saying I like that. Sick Clinton sits comfortably in laughs as Davies a 22 year old massage therapist rubs her hands into his shoulders. That’s on a trip to Africa for humanitarian reasons. What a disgust. Oh God. And guess who was there at the wedding? There’s a good old Chelsea walking down the aisle. Look, who’s there. Good old Ghislaine Maxwell. Oh, isn’t that convenient?

So they asked, uh, they asked Clinton about this. Uh, today they, you know, they broke this. They said Clinton spokesman strongly denied any of the allegations. Speaking to vanity fair band has claimed that Chelsea Clinton was so close with Maxwell because she had access to yachts and nice homes. And Chelsea needed that. Indeed Maxwell was invited to Chelsea’s wedding and 2010, that was in Rhinebeck. New York show a photo with the event, shows her craning her neck down the aisle at the bride, in the wake of Epstein suicide. 19 Clinton issued a statement and an outrage at his friendship with Epstein spokesman at the time said that Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes that Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to in Florida. And those with which he has been recently charged in New York. No idea, no idea. In a statement set in 2002 in 2003, Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane, one to Europe, one to Asia, two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the Clinton foundation, which was a, which was that photo right there.

Lot of good work over there. Good work there. Clinton, the Clinton foundation saving world spokesman for Clinton did not return the request for comments when contacted by the daily mail. Of course not. All right. And so that was Ghislaine Maxwell trial date for a lot of activity, a lot of juicy salacious stuff. Tomorrow, we’re going to start and pick back up with one, not John like Epstein and Ghislaine kept calling him. One is going to be back and he is going to be talking with one of Ghislainen Maxwell’s defense attorneys don’t know who that’s going to be. Probably Jeff Paley Yuca. Cause we’re sort of matching the genders in this case as we are going to continue to see. So paleo guy I think is going to come back out. We’ll have a cross-examination and it’s probably going to be pretty rough. So we’ll see how that goes.

We’re going to follow it along. I hope that you stick with us, hit the subscribe button and join us as we continue to follow the Ghislaine Maxwell case. And before we jump into the questions, I just want to thank everybody for being here. I’d appreciate if you just hit the like button for us while you’re here, before we get on into the questions. And let’s do that now over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com and I saw we had a super chat from our unofficial sponsor in the house cbdx.com apparently has a promo code over there, a Gruler. That’s a pretty nice comp. That’s a pretty nice deal there. Well, thank you for that CBD x.com uh, for that super chat and John CUNA with the super chat. No question as well. Thank you, John. I appreciate that. We had Dr. Ian B’s in the house with a very generous one at the start of the show says, can a person give a one-time support on Watching the Watchers or does it have to be a monthly contribution?

I’d rather give money in an episodic fashion in the past. I had difficulty doing this. Thanks. Well, Dr. EMB, that’s just so generous of you. Thank you for, thank you for asking me about how I can enable you to make more efficient contributions. That’s that’s a really nice thing. I’ll tell you this doctor, don’t worry about it at all. Whatever you’re doing, whatever you’re doing is super, extremely generous. You’re already overly generous. What you’re doing right now is more than enough. Thank you so much for that. Um, what I would prefer, can you just give me your bank account number so I can just log in and just transfer funds at my leisure. Thank you for that. I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding. Thank you for that though. Very, very nice. Very generous. Okay, so let’s take a look at the questions over from watchingthewatchers.locals.com we have, uh, those were from yesterday.

Well, this one might be a good one. Let’s see here. Yes. Uh, here’s from Ms. Danny. She sent this one in yesterday, says I was abused at the age of nine and believe me, I have 60 and I can recall perfectly well, all the facts PTSD. Sure. But it doesn’t obliterate your memory. On the other hand, why does she put up with this practice for such a long time and the boyfriend put up with this too? Hmm. I guess I can identify with your devil’s lawyer points. LOL opinions. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s take miss Danny. I’m sorry to hear that you were abused, but it sounds like you remember it pretty dang. Well, I’m more curious as to what you think about her testimony. All of those. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. Do you buy that? Is the memory seared into your brain in a way that would preclude you from forgetting it?

I don’t know. Be brave said the question applies to witness. Jane sounds like she might be a celebrity at some level. She is she’s on a TV show. It makes me wonder how, or if that will affect the juror’s perception of her or her credibility. It’s a good question. Good comment. Because they are undermining that, right? She was sobbing on the stand and you saw Colin’s attorneys were saying, you’re an actress, aren’t you? So you can kind of cry on command. You played a prostitute, you played a teacher, you played all these people. So you can just turn on the tears, the flood gates whenever you want can’t you? Well, it doesn’t work like that. She says, okay. Yeah, yeah. No further questions. Oh, you’re right. I think it might actually undermine her credibility. Um, Molly with a nice donation. Thank you, Molly. No question on that one either.

And Ryan says, how is the guy getting the information to live tweets? Great question. So Jay Ryan, he’s in court. He’s actually there in the court building. He’s sitting there watching this, uh, or he’s in the media room more, more specifically. So they’re piping a lot of this into the media room and he’s probably watching it on a screen in the media room. So he’s not actually in the courtroom, but he’s watching the proceedings on a screen. Now that screen is not being rebroadcast. So he can just, he’s just tweeting in there. This is watching it tweeting, watching, tweeting, watching. He’s not allowed to rebroadcast any audio. He’s not allowed to re cord and re re retransmit anything. That’s all he’s got. And the sketch artists are doing the same thing. They’re scribbling away because they can’t take any pictures. So that’s the best that we’ve got.

Ms. Danny says, I don’t know if this will reach you, Robert. I found it very interesting. Not only for the accused people out there, but also there was again, testimony of a Jane DOE might be the same one within this trial. Check this out when you can. So yeah, I will take a look at this. Probably got to be careful about pulling it open. Yeah. This is a giant text file. Oh my goodness. It’s a huge text file. I don’t know what’s in it, but it is a gigantic text file. Lots of documents. So we’ll take a look at that. Thank you, miss Danny.

And we have some more questions here. We’ve got Ms. Danny. Another one says, Hey, Robert, hope you’re out on a nice date. I am. I hope you are too. Ms. Danny. I’m sorry if this isn’t strictly pertinent to this new trial yet, but I found it really interesting as this person is suing Epstein. Antra matches the girl sewing today in an age and within the Chronicle time, chronological time, perhaps you want to check this out. I love the way that you explain things to us. Well, thank you miss Danny. You’re very, very sweet. Let’s see what all documents, make sure all documents in the Jane DOE versus Trump. And oh, what is this one documents in the second Jane DOE versus Donald Trump. All right. So I’ll take a look at that. Thank you for that. Cause some good links here today.

Whole lot of good stuff here today. All right. And so that was from miss Danny, a couple of other questions. Rational gay says, I just heard that Cortez rice, the guy claiming to be George Floyd’s nephew was arrested for jury intimidation in the Rittenhouse case. Ooh, very interesting. I’ll have to look at that one too. Yeah. He was the guy who was saying that if there’s no justice, they’re going to start, you know, following the jurors around essentially. Uh, let’s see. Monster one says, I’m not really liking this trial. It’s focusing too much on Epstein. Epstein was never tried and it’s still presumed innocent because he was never convicted. It’s almost like they are trying Epstein and not Maxwell. It’s a great point. It’s a great point. And that’s exactly what Bobby sternum was trying to communicate during her opening statements. This is zap. This is an Epstein case, but they screwed that case up badly.

And this is a stand in for an objection. And they’re trying to do this because they couldn’t get the original guy. Objection. That happened twice during the opening arguments. She’s trying exactly to make that argument. They screwed up. There was a real monster out there and they let him kill himself. And so they’re trying to take it out. They know that America’s unhappy with this. They know that their political butts are on the line because they screwed up a, a elimination of an international pedophile ring. They botched it. And so they need to go get their pound of flesh. They need to go make sure that there is closure on this case and they’re taking it out on Maxwell. It’s not her fault. It’s Epstein’s fault. And so they’re just trying to punish somebody for their bad actions, which is exactly what Bobby certain time is going to argue.

And it’s, it’s a good point. Chairman of the board says, Hey, Rob, totally unrelated to the show. I want to tell you about a new business. I launched about 10 minutes ago. I’m now a confabulation expert. Wow, amazing man. That’s amazing. Congratulations says I can be an expert witness in any trial for a small fee of just $45,000. I mean, pretty reasonable. You have 10 minutes of experience. So if you do the math on that, yeah, that sounds about right case specific analysis is not included, huh? It’s void where prohibited past performance is not indicative of future result. Batteries not included. And as a member of FBIC. Well, I mean, you know, for $45,000, you can, I guess that’s a good deal. You can get your own batteries, I guess is what I’m saying. Stop complaining. Just get your double A’s and shove them in there.

Congratulations chairman. That’s a, that’s a nice new career. A little bit jealous of that. Maybe I’ll be a confabulation expert to your biggest fan says, sorry. If this was already asked or covered, I have a question about the prosecutors. Why would they ask Jane questions that were already asked two years ago that are on the record and for which the answers won’t help the prosecution’s case aren’t they allowing their witnesses to lie in the stand for the cross-examination to tear them apart. Do you think we should expect the same for future witnesses? The prosecutor, your biggest fan? Well, thank you for that. Um, so they’re, they’re not calling it lies, right? They they’re, they’re not saying that they’re liars. They’re just saying that their, their narrative is, is changing a little bit is, is really how this is going. So remember what we’re talking a lot are sort of summaries of the interviews.

And so, uh, yesterday when we were talking about Jane, a lot of the cross-examination was coming from the defense and they were pointing to these FBI three oh twos, which are summaries of the interviews. And so they’re saying, you told the FBI this, but the FBI summarizes them so that they’re not exact records so that there’s gray area there so that they can not be admitted. So what they’re asking about are, you know, not technically lies, they’re, they’re a different way of telling the same facts and the defense is going to take that and say, you’re lying, or your stories are changing or you have confabulation or you got hit in the head. I don’t know, but it’s not the same. And they’re going to say it is the same. I was abused. Yeah. But you said you were abused here, here, here, and here.

And you kind of were, but kind of not, you were kind of, you know, this doesn’t match the lion king movie. Wasn’t even around that. That’s a fake memory you have. So if that’s fake and this is fake and they’re saying, well, no, it’s, it’s, it’s about the lion king. Who cares? If it’s a Broadway play or a movie, what does that, what does that relevant to anything? It’s a minor detail. It’s not a lie. It’s a minor detail, years apart PTSD. She’s got a lot of trauma, man. So that’s what, it’s not a lie. And so they’re just sort of, you know, her, her stories changing. She tells it a little bit differently. Every time. If you tell the same story, you don’t tell it the same time twice. That’s all that is. The defense says, no it’s memory. She’s a, she’s a liar.

And she doesn’t have any idea what she’s talking about. So it’s a very good question, but yeah, we’re going to see the same pattern. You’re going to see the defense that the defense try to mince and mess up all the testimony and they have to re testify again. They can’t use prior testimony, uh, because it’s a new trial. This is a new set of charges. And Ghislainen gets to confront her accusers in court right now. She can’t confront your accusers in this trial. If they’re talking about a statement that came back from 2009 or 19, it’s the confrontation clause. You can’t cross examine a statement from 2019, you got to call that person into court. Ghislaine has the right to confront her accusers that has to happen through cross examination in the court of law. A couple of other questions news now says house manager is the American version of a British Butler.

Yeah. Which I also don’t really understand either. Miss Danny says, confabulation comes from Latin confabulate to you consist in a plan made between two or more people to spread a designed plot or lies to harm someone. It’s odd that the English language made such a different of a Latin word in Spanish confab, your last see own. Maybe this applies to a trial where there was a plan from a lawyers involved to aid each other aid, the witnesses or the accused. Ooh. Well thank you for that little, a little lesson there in some foreign languages. News now says off topic here, but if the Supreme court overturns Roe vs Wade, do you think it opens up the door to challenge all the other times they have created Willy nilly rights and doctrines like qualified immunity and gay marriage. Now I don’t think so. Uh, I mean, it, it might show you that they’re willing to do break from starry decisis, but I don’t think you’re going to see a floodgate of changes.

Remember what the Supreme court, one of the most important things that brings them power is their legitimacy. If they do anything to row, a big portion of this country is going to say the Supreme court is useless and they should be demolished. And the whole thing there’s going to be, there’s going to be a lot of salt that is produced. And we don’t have Thanksgiving turkeys for another 12 months now. So the court is not going to jeopardize its further legitimacy by waiting into other issues like qualified immunity or gay marriage or any of those other things. They’re going to let their, they’re not going to touch anything that is spicy for a while. Until that legitimacy aberration is corrected. Thunder seven says, I think the prosecutor’s case is very weak. This so-called grooming is quite irrelevant. As majority of the girls were picked up at high schools and taken to Epstein for one time or twice paid sexual encounters, you don’t think comi is trying to throw the case to protect bill Clinton.

Do you, you like the way her father through the email case to protect Hillary SDNY second, most corrupt judiciary after Washington, both are infested with certain individuals. Yeah. The under seven. I don’t know if they’re trying to throw anything. I mean, I doubt it, but it is a curious coincidence. Isn’t it? Monster one says, why the hell would she nod at John Juan? His credibility gets hurt if she can’t identify her, she’s trying to get convicted that they cut her a deal. Like take this conviction and keep your mouth shut or your end up like Jeffery. I don’t know. I think it might be kind of humanizing a little bit, you know, it’s sort of just like, yeah, I’m here. Yeah. One I’m here. Like we were friends one. Sorry about calling you John for 12 years.

Maybe. I don’t know. We have another one. Cora says, so I think this is more than a sexual abuse trial. It’s sickening. Yes. But what does this all ultimately about power? These are unfathomably high powered people, good logic repeats it over and over. They’re billionaires with a beat. We average folks can conceptualize an idea. Can’t conceptualize the idea of, of, of the opulence, that millionaires experience, but switch that from M to B, for these people, the laws of man do not apply from them to purify, paraphrase from him. Good logic. He’s right about that. Which is why I’m interested in this trial. This is the, this is a trial of their own. And you know, it’s sort of like one of those scenes it’s sorta like one of those scenes in game of Thrones, remember where little Tyrian Lannister would get in trouble. And they’re like, we’re going to have a duel with him.

Somebody is going to, you gotta, you gotta go fight for yourself. A trial by combat good luck, little guy. And guess what? He always lives. He survives the whole stinking show. Eight series, like, is this guy going to catch it or what? And he never does. He just keeps surviving and surviving and surviving. Cause he’s part of the ruling class. When there’s a trial by combat, they bring in some peasant, you do it. And he just always survives. That’s what’s happening here. And now this is one of their own on trial. And this person seems like she’s got some pretty good leverage over them, which is why they were able to escape immunity for so long. Now, man, we’ve got this, we’ve got two, two pieces of stuff coming to a head. We got two immovable forces coming to a head. It’s gonna be very fun to see how it goes.

So that was from Cora. We’re not done though. It says abuse and trafficking are simply tips of the iceberg of the control and the power that these people are capable of. This parade of witnesses to the stand is like pulling that strand at the fraying end of a sweater and sort of Weezer joke here. It’s all falling apart, Viva LA irritate long, live the truth. Also Rob, appreciate your respectful skepticism regarding the validity of the accusations from the alleged victims. I’ve also seen instances of women telling the truth and women lying about sexual abuse. Yeah. So, you know, I, I’m an automatic skeptic. I’m a defense attorney by heart and it’s just my, my gut instinct is to go that route. But I try and, you know, w w when I get jokey on the show and we’re having fun here, understand that I, I, I’m not trying to be overly jokey with that issue in general, but this is a live stream on YouTube.

And we have fun here. So, uh, just keep that in mind. Not one how green is here, not one John is here. It says as a casual observer, it seems like Epstein is on trial, not Maxwell. Well that played to the jury like that. When they should stop leading with Epstein and start using her name exclusively. I agree with you. Not one. I agree with you. And I think that was thunder seven or monster one also agreed with that. It’s it’s that feeling? It’s all. Epstein’s the centerpiece. They lost him. They got a slot Maxwell in that’s what it comes down to thunder. Seven says we can now see exactly the game they’re playing, trying to put Trump at the center of it all when he never wants flew on the Lolita express, never won once, went to Epstein island. Uh, there’s a lot of Trump pictures too.

A lot of Trump pictures with Epstein, no doubt. It was all Democrats, including bill Clinton who visited the island regularly. And Ghislainen attended Chelsea’s wedding. The Clintons remained close to Maxwell while Trump had nothing to do with any of them. And it severed his relationship with Epstein decades ago from thunder seven. Yeah. You know, there’s this, there’s this sort of back in, well, Trump did it too. And you know, even Elan has a picture with Ghislaine and Ilan said that she, he got photo bombed. He actually posted that on Twitter. Elan said never recognized her. I have no idea who that was. She just kind of got behind me, Ghislainen, and they took a picture. So, you know, photos, photos are, are fun and you can poke people with them, but you know, their photos monster one says to answer Ms. Danny, about why she stuck around it’s simple money.

She’s hanging around billionaires, getting pampered, expensive things brought for her. She probably thought it was worth it at the time. Yeah. Very valid thought. The Antica says you notice that the process of grooming isn’t too far different from other indoctrination methods like fraternities and militaries and brotherhoods, the only real difference is the use of deception or is it makes it all just a little fuzzy to look at? Doesn’t it, that’s from BNC kiss, who is moderating a way over there. Good to see you. The antique is thanks for your help on the show. And tar says, Robert been following you a while. Now I’m a subscriber to you. Well, welcome. And tar. Well, I’m glad you made it over here. I’m in the military school from oh 600 to 1200 or 6:00 AM to 12:00 PM for you civilians. So I really enjoy watching your streams to catch up since I can’t have my phone or any electronics on me for class.

Very informative as always. Well, thanks for being here and tar and thanks for tuning in. I’m glad that you’re enjoying the show and I appreciate you coming and joining our community. Hope to see you at our monthly locals meetup taking place December 11th. Hope you can join us over there. Feisty lady says regarding the differences in what Jane is supposedly told the FBI two years ago, versus what she was stating in court. I think any differences might be due to the specific questions the FBI was asking her since the defense was just referring to the notes the FBI took during those interviews. I believe there could easily be differences in how a question is asked. Even if the main topic is the same, those interviews, should it be recorded to verify the same questions were asked the exact same way in court? Yes or no from feisty lady.

Yeah. It’s a great point. Yeah. Ideally. Yes. Right? Ideally. Yes. So for example, what, what you would do. So we do this with police. Okay. Let me, let me explain how this works with police officers in a standard criminal case, somebody hires us for a DUI case happens January 2nd, 2022 probably actually will happen probably more than one. People will hire us at that time. By the time that everything comes through and we get police reports and blood results and officer’s notes and all this stuff, let’s say we want to take the case to trial. Well, Arizona says we got to do that within six months, they got to speed and they really want to get DUIs process fine. We say, we’ll, we’ll do a trial. It takes place five months and two weeks after the date of the offense. Oftentimes it’s longer than that. Seven or eight months after the fact.

So this officer has been working for nine months, maybe a year. By the time it goes to trial COVID we have our trial schedule is back. The courts are so backed up because of the COVID backlog from 2020, that may be a trial happens a year later down the road. So the officer, is he going to remember what happened in your client’s case on that day? A year ago? Probably not because he’s an officer, you’d expect him to continue to work and he’s probably going to make a lot more other DUI arrests, probably maybe a hundred other ones, by the time that your case goes to trial. In addition to all the other traffic stops, traffic tickets and criminal speeding, and your lights are out and all of the brakes are out. All those types of traffic stops. So what you do as a defense lawyer is you interview them and you interview them, you do it on a phone call, or you do it in person.

You record the whole thing. It’s recorded. You get that transcribed and you say, huh? Officer we’re in trial. Uh, today you said that my client was doing X, Y, and Z, but in your report or, or how about not, not even that. How about if the report differs from the interview? Now you say the officer reads his report on the stand and says, well, this is what happened. It’s a year later, that’s all he remembers. And you say, well, that’s not what you told me back in your interview. I have the recorded transcript. When I talked to you back in February, one month after this happened, after we scheduled our recorded interview together, you told me this, this and this and this and this didn’t you. Well, I don’t recall. Well, if I showed you a transcript of our interview, would that refresh your recollection?

Yeah. Would, okay, here you go. Look at it. Oh yeah. I did say that and it doesn’t match my police report. Oh, that’s curious. Okay. That’s impeaching that person’s statement. Now. Ideally you have the transcripts. You can say, you said in this sentence right here. And he said, well, I didn’t say that. You said, oh, all right, well, let me get the recording. Then pull the recording out. Get that admitted. Let’s listen in. Did you say that right here? And then he looks like a jerk. So it never goes that far, but that’s what you’re trying to do. Now here. It’s just a summary. So it’s not as effective because you can’t go. Let’s pull up the transcript and see exactly what you said. She’s got wiggle room and they’re using it, but yes, ideally you want the real transcript. Chairman of the board says Rob, as a confabulation expert, uh it’s it’s official.

Now, did we gloss over something in the testimony? One of the people pictured with Epstein was the Pope. I know it’s just a picture, but in my confabulation expert opinion. Wow. How far up does this thing go? Maxwell needs to turn state’s evidence and let’s start bringing down some of these powerful criminals I’m with you there, chairman I’m with you. I’d love to see that. I’d love to see Maxwell. Just start naming names. Oh, here’s the thumb drive. Plug that into your computer and see what’s on there. Um, for it, we’ve got chairman of the board. Uh, we already read that one. Good to see you. Chairman confabulation experts. Add that to my website, Jeremy, the, to says Rob, their actions were reprehensible. However, those billions of dollars had to come from the clients. Shouldn’t the clients be identified and tried as well. Or is there a statute of limitations for them?

By the way, a house manager Butler is in usually charge of the house staff. So yeah. So it’s, I don’t know. I’m just a simple, I’m just a simple boy. I don’t know how any of that stuff works. Sounds like a lot of trouble to me personally, but a Butler in the house, all those people got to manage. It’s a lot of work. So, but maybe if you have a billion dollars, you’ve got nothing better to do and you probably pay somebody to manage the people for you. So I think that, okay, got it. So, um, shouldn’t the clients be charged? Do you mean all of the like people like prince Andrew and people like Donald Trump maybe, or people like bill Clinton maybe or people like Kevin Spacey maybe, or, uh, Chris Tucker or any of the other people who went down there, do you think that shouldn’t those clients be identified and tried as well?

Shouldn’t they? Yeah, they should. Jeremy. Yeah, they should. They absolutely should. I’d love to see that. I’d absolutely love to see it if they would. That’s why we’re so interested in this case, because they’re trying to just make this all about Ghislaine Maxwell. Oh, it’s just going. We’re just gonna, oh, she’s convicted international pedophile ring involving all of the government world leaders. We’re just going to put a bow on that and just go, whoops. Kind of move on about that one. Not okay with me. Yeah. I want to know who all the clients are. I want to know who was involved. This is exactly the point. Oh yeah, exactly. You nailed the Jeremy. Okay. Three Gurley’s is here, says, okay, we’ve got a good comment here. Says, listen to everybody. I specialize in crisis response and trauma in my counseling master’s degree. I have one girl.

She has PTSD. She remembers every last bit of the abuse by her father and the rape from a stranger. My other girly reported abuse at the hands of her father at age of five, she doesn’t remember a thing. Trauma affects people differently, especially if it is a complex trauma like assault and abuse. Some people can’t remember a thing about it. Others can remember every detail, including the smell, taste, hearing everything, just because somebody has PTSD. Doesn’t mean they remember everything for some people. That’s a good thing. Like I posted before. Most kids do not report on their abusers, mostly out of fear or shame. And the ones that do the adults in their lives don’t believe them. Abusers are not brought to trial very often because the burden of proof has to be so enormous to bring it to trial. I know from personal experience and believing both of my girls, when they reported how much it takes for the police to do anything about it.

As far as Jane’s testimony and cross examination, I’m not sure where I sit with it at this moment, I’m having a harder time even parsing it because of not being able to see her body language. I hear you there. She could have memories of small little things and blocked out others, but it’s hard to determine this through a transcript. You’re exactly right. Three girlies. And we also have the added downside of it being filtered through me. You know, I’m reading these transcripts in a way. I don’t know if it’s right or not. I’m interpreting it in a way I have no, you know, I’m sort of shouting out the objections and dramatize the whole thing, but I don’t know. And I made this point often a lot of this I’ve made this point here on this show. Oftentimes, you know, people come here and they start screaming about the rules and the laws and the jury instructions and section three C sub ABI 35 that was passed in 19, whatever.

It’s all important. It’s all very, very critical to the practice of law, but it’s not all of it. A big part of this is body language. It’s persuasion, it’s communication style, it’s skill sets. It’s persuasion. It’s about communication and we don’t get to see any of it. So we’re all interpreting it. I agree with you, you know, so her testimony maybe, maybe crushing it. I don’t know, but I do think that we’re missing a big piece of the pie and it is frustrating. I can understand that. Thank you three girls for sharing that. And, you know, thank you for sharing that about your young daughters. You know, I know those are extremely difficult things to go through. And as you know, three girls, you’ve been a part of locals, you know, a little bit about my life, you know, and some of the trials and tribulations that we’ve been through in my family, nothing like that, obviously.

But you know, this is the, I think this is a really neat thing that you’re doing is you’re you’re talking about it and you’re sort of sharing those experiences. I think there’s a lot of healing in that and it sounds like you’re an amazing mom. So I just wanted to say that, and I’m grateful that you’re a part of our community. We’ve got V Antica says, I thought the point of talking about Epstein did this, that, and the other thing is all about showing that Maxwell was the very least aiding. Yeah, true. Right. She was aiding no question. Yeah. At the very least she was eating, she was a part of the conspiracy she was involved in at all, but she’s not really the crux of the whole thing. Right. And that’s what the defense is going to try to argue. They’re trying to make this into something that it isn’t and news now says, if you were a defense witness, would you wear a shirt to court that says Epstein didn’t kill himself?

Well, now that you mention it, I think you have to, I mean, once you have something like that in your back pocket is just so delicious, you gotta do it. Cause it’s just too good not to outright my friends. And those were the questions over from a watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And indeed true said, uh, sent in a Superchat, says I was sexually abused as a child. And there’s a whole lot, I can’t remember, especially timeline related details. See, so we get sort of a split here. You know, we’ve got different people saying, I remember everything. I can remember it all. I remember nothing, especially timelines. So, and then three girls says, yeah, I’ve seen it both ways. And has I a prime example of one going one way with one daughter and the other with another daughter. So it’s such a cool, powerful thing that happens when we live stream, we can get a whole multitude of thoughts in real time.

And I’m grateful for that. So thank you for being a part of that. That was from, I need truth. And we had Mia Carlisle with another donation. Thank you, Mia. No question, but I appreciate you sending that our way. It is a much, much, much appreciated. So thank you for that. And that my friends is it for us for the day. We have some new people to welcome to the community. You want to give some shout outs to Rebbie Lee music box lady. We got big re tester, 16 T are all in the house. Why are they joining the community? Well, one good reason, because on Saturday, December 11th, that is one week from this Saturday, seven to 8:00 PM. It often goes a little bit longer than that to be fair Eastern time. Is that right? Yeah. Seven. Yeah. So it’s gonna be 5:00 PM Arizona time, 6:00 PM, central Texas time, 7:00 PM on the east coast.

And so we’re hopeful that you’re there. Sign up over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com and I’m gonna post the locals. Uh, the zoom registration link when it’s available. It is the ugly sweater edition. And so we hope that you join us, get your ugly sweater. I want to say shout out to chip Vaughan shoulder chip on shoulder made a very nice donation over to Eric’s house.org in lieu of an ugly sweater. And so thank you for that ship Eric’s house.org is a nonprofit that I’m a part of it’s to help people. Who’ve lost somebody to suicide, tragic death, uh, overdose, where somebody has sort of ripped away from you too soon. A lot of grief that people go through after that happens, my family went through it. Eric’s house.org is a great organization to help people get through it. Chip on shoulder, donated it over there in lieu of an ugly sweater, which is also acceptable.

Thank you for that very much chip. I mean it a lot. I appreciate it. And if you want to join us either way, ugly sweater get one or don’t. But I do hope to see you Saturday, December 11th and big welcomes. Once again, Lama Brad, Kenny HCFC starfish Alto, the Apache Carrie. See Gino’s Rajab we’ve got rugger bugger J marquee, Cantonese Brody son squirrel. Oh, no, five. Oh, we got P pollen in the house. We’ve got Fantasma, Gloria back. Black cat Meow, Nick McLeod, Dr. Brenton T Blakemore, Patriot minute, Ben Tomlinson, Laurel seven 20 [inaudible] Tucker grip. We got Tommy nukes, red beard, Monique Nicole, Dr. Facebook law. One-on-one hobo Jim mom, Beano WV Ridge rider, 68 and mayhem studios are all in the house. And I want to thank everybody for being here, being a part of the show. We are going to come back next time.

I’m up tomorrow, not next week. We got one more day left in this week. We’ve got day five of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. We’re going to do it all again, and I hope that you join us. So before you get out of here, one final reminder to subscribe, give us a thumbs up and leave a comment on this video and our other videos when you were around, because we appreciate it. And I like to read your comments. I do read through them. And so I appreciate seeing what you have to say about all this. Cause it’s a wild time. A lot of cases, a lot of activity that we’re going through. I am probably going to be releasing a video tonight. I got to check YouTube and see what they say about it. Uh, that covers the shooting that took place in Tucson. There was an officer that murdered a guy in a wheelchair.

His name is Ryan Remington brutal case. And so I just made a video about that today. It’s uploaded on YouTube. I’m going to see what YouTube has to say about it before I schedule that puppy and turn it on live. So stick around, make sure that if you are somebody who only tunes in for the live streams that you’re coming back, or at least turning your notifications on, because I’m now recording other content outside the show, the show we’ve been going for almost two hours, there’s too much to talk about. We can’t talk about other topics. So I’m just recording those separately and publishing those. And so we’ve got one on Ryan, Remington, horrible thing. So stick around for that. Keep your eyeballs peeled for those. Otherwise my friends have a tremendous evening. It’s Thursday, one more day in the week and we’re going to wrap it out strong. And so I want to see you here have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I’ll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.

Loading...