December 14, 2021 - 4:00pm
They gather outside the Thurgood Marshall courthouse in lower Manhattan. QAnonners, conspiracy podcasters, sceptics; private citizens who use their private time to make public placards about alleged sex traffickers. To them Ghislaine Maxwell is not a woman. She is an avatar of an elite that crushes the poor and the desperate with casual, contemptuous cruelty. They are watching Maxwell being tried on six counts of (essentially) conditioning girls and young women to satiate Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophilia. She denies any wrongdoing. The placards are waiting for an entire system of wealth and power to be indicted with her.
They may be waiting for some time. Maxwell’s experienced, fearsome, theatrical defence team has spent the first weeks of the trial shredding the prosecution’s witnesses and arguments. One reporter described Maxwell’s “brutal” attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca as “flaying the skin of a woman who left school at fourteen” when he questioned one of the alleged victims last week. “Pagliuca had great sport, crushing Carolyn’s spirit so that at one point proceedings had to stop while Carolyn just uttered heart-rending sobs.”
Then there is Bobbi Sternheim, another Maxwell attorney. On the first day of the trial her zingers had the court practically gasping as she launched the defence. The accusers had made Maxwell a “bullseye of anger”. Their emotions and accusations were misdirected. Epstein was dead; Ghislaine remained. She was “filling that hole and filling an empty chair.” Others had suffered a similar fate, Sternheim said. “Ever since Eve was tempting Adam with the apple, women have been blamed for the bad behaviour of men.”
And it was Maxwell’s other lawyer, Laura Menninger, who tore through another accuser’s — Jane — testimony on the third day of the trial. Jane, Menninger pointed out, in documents produced pre-trial, only named Epstein as her abuser, while making no mention of Maxwell. It contradicted Jane’s testimony. It strengthened the defence’s argument that Maxwell had been retconned into the case. That she was never part of the prosecution’s narrative until Epstein’s death. Jane disappeared into herself. She was left saying “I don’t recall” or “I don’t remember” over and over again.
So far, that is the story of the trial. Own goals from the prosecuting lawyers. Stumbles. And the grimly catlike toying of the prosecution’s witnesses by Maxwell’s expensive lawyers. When the defence starts up this week and begins to call up its own witnesses, it will do so from a position of strength.
Somehow the prosecution will need to make the jury see this case, and the world of wealth, power, and perversion it illuminates, in the same way the placards outside do. To see that coincidences are actually connections. That the higher people rise the more virtue they are capable of shedding. That sometimes what appears to be a conspiracy theory is actually a concrete fact.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI think it’s fairly obvious that 90+% of this trial is just Epstein round 2. An embarrassed justice department trying to put someone away for all the obvious crimes they ignored for years.
Though, to be honest, I’m not sure she’s guilty. Because if she did know anything, she’d be swinging just like Epstein was.
… and her father.
Yep, Gideon’s Spies – a good read.
to “visit the sins of the fathers upon their children is contrary to every principle of moral justice” (Thomas Paine) and to have a justice system that locks someone up for more than a year when accused of this very questionable crime is in itself criminal,.
Like you I’m not persuaded yet. Not because I sympathise with her, but because I am not happy about this new method of criminal conviction that treats the word of an accuser as proof.
If Maxwell is convicted I have the feeling it will partly be based on how Harvey Weinstein was convicted: he was accused of rape but convicted of it for being just bloody unpleasant and disliked by everyone. Maxwell is doubtless no saint either and is in the dock partly on the strength of being friends with a scumbag pervert. That’s a reason to dislike her, possibly, but not to implicate her in his crimes.
I know you’re going to hate that. I like facts.
No, you like anti semitism.
Im glad, though, that you provided an apt background to your bile-filled comments.
No, I like facts.
The book is now open on how long this comment stays up.
Far cough, anti-semitic scum.
We must ALWAYS believe the woman. No matter what. Some influential people–Senator Christine Gillibrand, if memory serves, have explicitly said something like, we must always trust the woman because even if it is later shown that an individual woman is “mistaken,” mostly women tell the truth so they must ALWAYS be believed.
Unless the woman makes accusations against Joe Biden.
In the context of the Maxwell trial (the subject of the article), what is the point of that remark, given that the defendant AND the complainants are all women?
My comment was related to the above comment re Harvey Weinstein. If that makes my comment a bridge too far, and it did not add value, so be it. Kindly disregard if you feel this way.
Duly noted that your comment was in respect of the Weinstein case.
As it happens, I am with you to the extent that the media and even sometimes the police, take a ‘victims must always be believed’ stance; implying that merely making a complaint establishes that the ‘victim’ actually is a victim. (For the avoidance of doubt, I intend this to cover complaints made by both men and women.)
In Britain, we have had some disturbing cases where malicious or disturbed persons have made grave accusations which proved utterly false, but the police and the media have prejudged the matter as proven-without-the-need-for-proof. I have more than once written to newspaper editors when articles risk going the same way.
I have personal experience as a prosector in exactly what you describe. A young dude was arrested for rape–RAPE–and when I got to the precinct he was not in cage but watching TV with the detectives. What’s going on?
Turns out that he was the son a storefront preacher. The “rape” accuser was his girlfriend. They had had sex, not supposed to so that in his church, father the pastor or not. But wait, there’s more. He had sex with another girl in the church and she got pregnant. The father/pastor told the son–Here’s the deal–you will marry the pregnant girl, the other girl (rape accuser) is done. Finished. Over.
She was quite upset. She taped some phone calls that she said elicited a “confession” to rape. Really? The conversations–which may have been illegal–were like this:
Q. Remember the time you raped me?
A. No, what are you talking about. When we had sex….
Q. Remember that time in the car when you raped me?
A. No, no we had sex, it was a mistake….
In other words, despite this complete setup, he certainly never admitted to rape, and likely wasn’t guilty of any crime. I deferred the arrest, meaning that he was released that night pending a more detailed investigation.
There were other cases like this where allegations of child molestation–hard to prove w/o physical evidence–were made under similar circumstances.
But always believe the woman, w/o asking questions….
Or a girl makes accusations against a Muslim
Harvey Weinstein–a vile, despicable person–was hard done by the legal system. As noted above, it’s not–or shouldn’t be–a crime to be bloody unpleasant.
Most of Harvey’s “victims” were clearly acting in what they thought were their own interests at the time.
That doesn’t mean though, that he didn’t use his power & influence to get his way with them. The fact that it was common doesn’t excuse it either.
Of course, they are both repugnant but immoral ≠ criminal.
Not excusing anything HW did–want that to be absolutely clear–most of which was vile, disgusting, evil, sickening. But, as noted, not every bad thing one does is a crime, and the US legal system did not treat him fairly.
“That doesn’t mean though, that he didn’t use his power & influence to get his way with them.”
As in, “he forced me to have sex with him by promising me fame and fortune and I couldn’t resist it”?
That’s not illegal. It’s not even wrong, not unless you have a particular objection to women granting sexual favours to get ahead of their better-qualified peers. But how could you make it illegal, even if it’s wrong?
Your tears prove more than real evidence ever could
Exactly. It has the same illogic that invading Iraq in 2003 because of something a bunch of lunatics from a neighbouring country did.
When you say “I’m not sure she’s guilty,” the Q is “guilty of what?”
She IS guilty of being Epstein’s factotum, but is that a crime? Should that be a crime? The charges seem largely made up as proxy for Jeffrey being dead. Look for an empty chair–literally–in summation.
For those new to the American court system, good lawyers ($$$) really matter. A few examples: Duke rape case, Kyle Rittenhouse, and The Line–a podcast and documentary film series on AppleTV+ that is absolutely fascinating. Well worth the time of UnHerd readers.
I have criticised you twice above; in the spirit of fairness, this comment of yours seems to me to be of greater interest.
Fair play.
OJ Simpson?
Nah, that was actually very different. The prosecution was terrible, but the defense lawyers sucked too. It was all racial. Johnny Cochrane–if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit–black church nonsense. OJ’s acquittal had little to do with “good lawyers.” He didn’t have any.
I was in the US during much of the case. I was impressed by Cochrane. He played the ridiculous US legal system perfectly. He won. All strength to him.
How you could be impressed by this race-baiting charlatan is beyond me. A complete fraudster.
He won, because he understood perfectly how the US legal system works.
Honestly I think stories about perverted law and perverted lawyers are just more evidence that America has led us – is leading us – down a slippery path to hell and damnation.
An alternative interpretation is that the prosecution is incompetent for a reason. Perhaps they were selected for their lack of skill, or are taking a dive on purpose. Epstein had to go because it was obvious he couldn’t be given any more get out of jail free cards. Maxwell still has plausible deniability. Epstein got off twice before he “hung himself.” Letting Maxwell off would fit the pattern. If she gets jail, only then is it time for Maxwell to become expendable.
She’s not swinging because she has made it clear she was not interested in a plea-bargain.
This “trial” has confirmed my view that no British citizen should ever have to appear before a kangaroo court.
“no British citizen should ever have to appear before a kangaroo court”
That’s why the trial is not being held in Britain.
You need to go down to the Old Baily and watch a trial or two, if you never have you must, it is very educational. I watched one where a drug addict hurt an old women stealing her money as she would not let go of it – he got no time. On my way out I talked to the security at the door and told him the verdict and asked him what is wrong with the Judges – he said that’s what they wonder too.
Get back under your rock, friend of Jeremy.
Interesting comment. The wife of an American dip is somehow being tried in the UK for driving on the wrong side and hitting and killing the motorbike rider.
The US has not waived diplomatic immunity (right call) though somehow this trial is going forward. I completely understand the grief of the family, their need to hold the driver accountable (doesn’t seem to be much dispute as to what happened and why), but these rules exist for a reason.
Is the court trying this woman in the UK a kangaroo court?
wrong call, and GB should never have agreed to the one-sided rules governing diplomatic immunity with the US, should never have supported Gorge W in 2003 and so on.
Diplomatic immunity is not one-sided. What could possibly make you think it is?
The USA supports prosecution of alleged war criminals, except its and its allies’. This means in effect international law does not exist, and all fake international courts should be boycotted. It’s not better than nothing that Milosevic was tried, but not Blair. It’s worse than nothing. Anne Sacoolas is similar – American war criminals and even their wives are immune from prosecution, even when they murder British civilians. She’s not a diplomat, just a dumb American who drove on the wrong side of the road.
I can’t help but wonder at this. I still remember that Russian diplomat hitting and killing a girl because he was driving while raging drunk, but he got to go home with no charges. Somehow that’s one-sided in the US’s favor?
The Birmingham Six anyone?
The Guardian journalist John Sweeney ,whom Will Lloyd is quoting ,is obviously terrified Maxwell will be acquitted .
He is writing a book and an acquittal will be ‘brutal ‘ on his finances , literally ‘flaying the skin’ of a journalist who bothered to remain at school till he was 18 .
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Schools and universities do not equate with education, at least not these days. And for the record, I hold a bachelor degree in law.
Sweeney seems to think Maxwell’s lawyers should go easy on the complainants because one of them left school at 14 .’
Click on ‘described’ and you get the whole guardian article ,
Everyone is entitled to the best defence they can obtain (afford).
And regardless of what anyone believes, she’s innocent until proven guilty.
As is so often the case in American courts, the defendant was overcharged, and this particular brand of prosecutorial zeal, this thirst for maximum punishment, could easily cause an acquittal. It usually does.
I would add that it’s also obvious, at least to me, that the prosecution team are a bunch of woolly losers. Overweight middle-aged women, with long hair. What do you expect ?
Or maybe it just shows why the untoucable elite are the elite in the first place.
The entire case shows the depravity of absolute power corrupting absolutely. That Q has a point maybe – that once the elites get their super human power normal pleasures pale, and so they will seek greater and more prohibited perversions, as they are jaded to normal pleasures.
Much like Roman Emperors, and their kind throughout history. Epstein was part of that world.
Self-pleasuring after a massage . Not exactly Emperor Tiberius is it .
Several times per day, by an endless stream of under age girls.
Firstly only a minority were under age and , as many of them seem to have been already working as prostitutes , working for Epstein many have been regarded as relatively easy money by the girls themselves
Therein lies the problem with most legal systems in the western world. If you’re a top class legal brain you’ll make it in the commercial world.
If you’re mediocre & settle for a comfy life then you’ll end up in a safe comfortable reasonably well salaried public sector job – like the prosecution office.
Even if the state does hire in lawyers to prosecute its cases, the bean counters will ensure the best won’t get hired – because they charge too much.
The only people who get second rate defence lawyers are to poor. That’s how it’s always been.
This is not quite how it works and is definitely not how it is in the SDNY, the federal office prosecuting Lady Ghislane. They think they are the A-team, with impeccable credentials, so-called top schools and law schools. The prosecutors there get their ticket punched and move on to more lucrative work, often after a major trial such as this.
But just because one has great credentials does not mean one is smart or even competent. These prosecutors have made a pig’s breakfast of it with very many questionable decisions and pathetic execution.
Your general comments merit more discussion, but these particular prosecutors and this particular office is wildly inconsistent with your second paragraph.
In your experience, would racial and gender quotas at elite universities come into play at all? Or are all potential attorneys vetted equally?
We’re talking about human beings. When a candidate for the Supreme Court comes up, what gets most talked about is whether they went to Yale or Harvard. Of course colour matters and of course elite universities matter. Why do you think so many people kill themselves to get into the top 10 b-schools (one of which I attended) ?
By the way, I learned about criticism from Americans in 2002/3, when I posted comments online about the illegality of American behaviour at the United Nations, and in attacking Iraq, and got a lot of hate messages from Americans in reply. It’s water off a duck’s back.
Ha, ha! Good one, mate. You can’t be serious!
racial and gender quotas determine who gets in. Period. after letting the rich and connected in, though sometimes they check all boxes.
I’m a former prosecutor and I know that office well. The prosecutors here are incompetent hacks–one is Jim Comey’s daughter–Yes, that Jim Comey. Pathetic losers who made many mistakes in both theory–calling the pilot first–and execution–everything else.
I agree with the comments that Lady Ghislane is an evil, entitled person, but that is not necessarily a crime. I was expecting a lot more from this trial. Perhaps we will get more, if Lady Ghislane can’t hold herself back from testifying. She seems to be much smarter than these C-team prosecutors–my instinct says that her instinct will be to tell her story. We’ll know soon.
But don’t forget, Lady Ghislane will face a trial for perjury after this one–as Jessie Smollett should.
Finally, the other major trial of interest is in California–Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. The prosecution there has done a decent–though not great job, and there is a mountain of evidence against her. Her defense has been beyond pathetic: I was just a little girl and bad men forced me to do it. Absolutely disgusting. As with the timing of Lady Ghislane’s trial, I worry about the jury giving each of them a Christmas present.
I agree entirely with one small caveat. Her pathetic little girl routine might have some impact in a place as morally confused as California.
Quite right. I did not mean to suggest that it might not be effective–the BEST they can hope for is one sympathetic juror who goes against the facts and the applied law.
In fact, there was one such juror, who essentially said she didn’t want to be there mid-trial (she was excused) because EH is so young, a new mother, and she (the juror) didn’t want to send her to jail. I wonder how many others remain on the jury with similar thoughts.
Also, as an aside–in “sophisticated” places like NYC and CA, some people want to be on these juries–for their 15 minutes of fame. They can easily get TV, book deals, publicity for their website, whatever they are selling, book, movie deals, etc.
This is significant when most Americans strive mightily to avoid this civic duty.
Interesting how your mind works. You have three times referred to the defendant as ‘Lady’ Ghislaine, mentally foisting some sort of aristocratic identity on her … as a member of some decadent Versailles-style court of your own imagination, perhaps?
As you are a former prosecutor, it would be preferable to see you sticking to the facts, not to mention refraining from public judgement of a defendant while the case is in progress.
I think so–thanks for noticing. And let me help you with an even deeper insight: Lady Ghislane is the moniker that I have given GM. I use it to mock her. She is a public figure, a seemingly vile and evil person, fair game for mocking. Certainly her “rulebook” for the staff proves that to any jury. I hate, hate, hate the posh, the people with a sense of birthright entitlement, and Lady Ghislane fits the bill. You may agree, disagree, doesn’t matter to me.
That being said, I’m keeping an open mind as to whether or not Lady Ghislane is guilty of a crime. There are many people I don’t like, people who exhibit bad behavior, who are not guilty of crimes. Not everything I don’t like is a crime, though in the US, there are far, far too many things that are criminalized. In the UK, the criminalization of so-called “hate speech” is beyond disgusting, i.e. the chav in jail for racially abusing a footballer. I don’t approve, wouldn’t do it, but it is not and should never be a crime.
A good point about the criminalization of “hate speech”. Scarily subjective. A case is brought, for instance, for grievous bodily harm. The victim is no more or less harmed, no matter what thought was in the attacker’s head. One might find correlations, but how could one actually prove causation? “Hate crime” seems to me a bankrupt notion, and presupposes thought police. There is no such thing as coercive morality. I suspect Ms. Maxwell has been weak and wicked, but on the other side we have mob mentality of daytime TV hags. What an unappealing spectacle.
Lady Ghislaine was a boat, she’s just plain Ghislaine.
Plain Ghislaine? Thanks for the laugh!
Yeah, mate, heard that before. I actually think it’s a yatch, not a boat. No matter. I am using the term to mock her. Would you find it more acceptable if I referred to her as G-Max–as she referred to herself while on the run? Since I’m mocking her, don’t I get to pick the moniker? G-Max would be my second choice, though. I reached for Lady Ghislaine because I liked the posh implications.
Thank you for informing me about the water craft–knew it already mate–but I infer that you had kindness in your heart.
I’m frankly baffled that someone, even a pervert of the highest order, would find it stimulating to take their clothes off multiple times a day, and have cream or oil spread all over their bodies. I assume they have to shower after that. Sounds very boring.
Of course Weinstein, Charlie Rose and Louis CK, didn’t bother to undress but just hung out all day starkers, sometimes in dressing gowns.
Why do I have this feeling that if I were accused of something like this, I wouldn’t be getting nearly as many sympathetic articles, even if basically all the facts supported me having no involvement or even aware that something bad had happened? There are certainly advantages to being a rich socialite* who is the daughter of a former media mogul. They’ll get the benefit of the doubt that few others will.
Which is not me claiming she is guilty or not guilty. I don’t know, but it’s crazy rare to see someone accused of this particular crime have so much defense from the media. There are only a couple others I can think of right off, and those involved the accused being part of a particularly peaceful religion. I suppose if I’m ever falsely accused I’ll need to hurry up and convert right away; since I can’t match the ‘rich socialite’ part that’s about the only way to keep the whole world (especially the media) from convicting you in advance. But let the accused be rich or religiously peaceful and suddenly we shouldn’t rush to judgement. I guess among the few exceptions was Weinstein–the media didn’t hesitate to vilify him–but he had the bad judgement to commit his crimes on famous women, who of course deserve better protection than ordinary ones.
*yes I’ve heard she lost the family fortune after her father’s death. But she seems to have been living the high life for quite a while now.
Anyone else notice the disparity in how the accusers in this trial are treated versus any of the articles about adult entertainment stars or escorts? For adult stars and escorts who are of legal age and consensually enter the business, the usual media line is that they can’t possibly understand what they are doing. For so many articles about these accusers, who were underage when the events allegedly happened, a shockingly large number of articles seem to imply that they knew exactly what they were getting into and wanted it. Kinda weird how being of age and making a decision on your own means you’re secretly helpless, but being underage and encouraged into it by someone (whether or not it was Maxwell) means you knew what you were doing and shouldn’t be upset about what happened.
No, Maxwell is presumed guilty by many BECAUSE she’s rich. The FBI’s statements read like the anarchist paper Class War.
As a society we must NEVER forget the cardinal rule…” Innocent until found guilty”
Lawyers are paid to wrangle the law, as bowyers shaped bows, and sawyers cut wood. A good team of attorneys is obscenely expensive. But they and we all know — they’re priceless when you need them!
People I know are convinced that Ghislaine and prince Andrew are guilty because they are rich. The FBI took advantage of this prejudice when they said Maxwell “hid” in her huge estate. But she wasn’t on the run. I predict she will walk. The case against Andrew is even weaker.
The media can so easily give you a one-sided picture of a court case. Kyle Rittenhouse is an obvious recent example. Perhaps the Maxwell case is another. I’d never heard of Eva Dubin before today, and she appears to be able to cast doubt on some of the allegations. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/17/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-defense-finish-arguments-sex-trafficking
I was wrong. She was found guilty.
Shocking. Utterly shocking. It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that G Maxwell is an evil person, drawn to Epstein (as she was drawn to her father) by his wealth, ruthlessness and sadistic maltreatment of other people – in Epstein’s case, of very young vulnerable people. I hope to God that the jury can see the truth for what it is, and not be blindsided by the many millions of dollars which are being spent on Maxwell’s defence. If Maxwell goes free, I don’t think she will last long, because someone will get her. At least, I hope they will.
I’ll take your word for it that Maxwell’s guilt is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
For those of us with the full item, it’s not that simple: there are serious contradictions in the narrative that would try to justify locking this woman up for so long that she’ll die in prison if convicted.
In short, the trial has to play out before moral certainties are appropriate or indeed possible, and even then it may be less clear than a rational person may like.
Plausible? You’re obviously not old enough to remember him.
I am,sadly. I am 70.
Luckily we have the rule of law to decide criminal guilt, and don’t rely on the overheated imagination of someone like you.
Luckily she’s being tried by a jury and not in absentia by G Chance
I’ve flagged his two most disgusting comments.
Sad.
Yes you are. A sad and nasty little friend of Jeremy.
Not sure why his comments merit flagging. He has an opinion, different from mine, why the flag? Just because you or someone else views a comment as “disgusting” (a bit vague, mate) does not mean it should be flagged, deleted, slowed down.
Let’s not be an echo chamber, let’s hear different, even colorful voices.
G.Chance doesn’t have opinions. He’s just a Jew-baiter.
That is not true. One of my closest friends, who I have known for more than 50 years, is Jewish. But I do like the truth and I like facts.
If you like truth and facts, then surely you would like to hold judgement until the facts are known? The quintessential example of judgement before the facts are now the Smollet and Rittenhouse cases.