December 1, 2025 • 23 mins
Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense strategy tried to lean heavily on wealth and influence to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. Her lawyers attempted to present her as a scapegoat — someone prosecutors went after only because Jeffrey Epstein was dead and couldn’t stand trial. With substantial financial resources behind her, the defense worked to undermine survivor testimony, arguing the accusers were motivated by civil lawsuit payouts and media attention rather than truth. They suggested memories were unreliable, distorted by time, trauma, and the lure of compensation, pushing the narrative that these women were being manipulated by money and high-profile lawyers.
At the same time, the defense sought to manipulate perception by portraying Maxwell as fragile, targeted, and unfairly villainized. They tried to distance her from Epstein’s abuse despite years of association, framing her as an innocent socialite ensnared in his orbit rather than an active accomplice. They also attempted to weaponize procedural moves — delays, motions, sharp attacks on credibility — to chip away at the prosecution’s case. But the jury ultimately saw through these tactics, recognizing that money and manipulation were not mere elements of the defense — they had been central components of Maxwell’s crimes in the first place.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
At the same time, the defense sought to manipulate perception by portraying Maxwell as fragile, targeted, and unfairly villainized. They tried to distance her from Epstein’s abuse despite years of association, framing her as an innocent socialite ensnared in his orbit rather than an active accomplice. They also attempted to weaponize procedural moves — delays, motions, sharp attacks on credibility — to chip away at the prosecution’s case. But the jury ultimately saw through these tactics, recognizing that money and manipulation were not mere elements of the defense — they had been central components of Maxwell’s crimes in the first place.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Today, Mark's the fifteenth
day of the Glane Maxwell trial and the last day
of the recess as we prepare and wait for the
defense to begin to mount their case. Now, on our
way here, we have heard some powerful testimony by the survivors,
(00:22):
by people corroborating their stories, and by people who have
put Glane Maxwell right in the center of Jeffrey Epstein's operations. Now,
the goal of the defense is going to be to
poke holes in all of that testimony. They're going to
(00:42):
try and go after the credibility of not only the witnesses,
but the specialists that were brought up, doctors that were
brought up, you name it. And we're hearing now after
a late night filing that. Not only that, but the
defense is looking to bring three lawyers who have represented
survivors in as witnesses, one of them Jack Scarola, the
(01:08):
other mister Glassman, and then the third Bradley Edwards. Now,
those of you who have been following the Epstein case,
you're pretty familiar with Jack Scarola and Bradley Edwards. For sure.
Bradley Edwards has been at the forefront as a lawyer
battling Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts for a very very,
(01:31):
very long time, so much so that Jeffrey Epstein had
his goons putting the press on Bradley Edwards, going through
his trash all kinds of wild shit. So the defense
is now looking to call these three lawyers up to
talk about the motivations of their clients, would be my guests,
(01:53):
And I find it kind of weird, right, what about
lawyer client privilege. You're gonna call these lawyers up and
ask them what them and their clients were talking about.
That's a little odd no. And furthermore, if I'm the defense,
I don't know if I want Bradley Edwards up there
talking about anything, because if you want to see somebody
(02:16):
who has a map to where all the bodies are
buried that we know about, it's Bradley Edwards. Nobody has
been at the forefront of this case as far as
lawyers go, for longer. The guy has been in a
tooth and nail, bare knuckle scrap with Jeffrey Epstein's people
since pretty much this all began, and now they're trying
(02:40):
to call him as a witness up to the stand
to try and punch holes in his credibility, or to
try and make it seem like there's some sort of
financial motivation for these ladies. Now again, this has been
their strategy from the beginning, and anyone who thinks that
(03:01):
they're going to deviate from the course, they have not
been paying attention. They have been striking home this message
since before the trial started, and they're going to continue
that with their witnesses that they're gonna be bringing up,
namely Elizabeth Loftis. Elizabeth Loftis is a memory expert, and
(03:22):
according to an article in I Believe The New Yorker,
the woman who changed what memory is or some such nonsense.
Guess what, I'm not buying it. Okay, they brought her
out in the Weinstein case, few other cases. How how
did those cases turn out for Weinstein and his friends?
Not so good? Right, Because guess what, you can bring
(03:45):
out a pig, and you can put some lipstick on
that pig, but guess what, at the end of the day,
the pig is still a pig. So she's gonna come
out and attempt to frame it as these survivors misremembering,
these survivors not really you know, knowing what happened to them,
(04:08):
the whole thing, And I've got to think that the
jury is going to be able to see right through
it the same way they were able to see right
through it with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby and the
rest of them. I would think that with all of
the evidence present here, all of the testimony provided by
(04:28):
the witnesses previously, would go a long way in disputing
what Elizabeth Loftis has to say. Now. She is an
expert in her field, There's no doubt about it. She's
worked for the Robert Durst, OJ Simpson, and Harvey Weinstein.
(04:52):
As I just stated, and in the words of a
New York profile on the controversy surrounding her expertise, Elizabeth
Loftis is changed the meaning of memory and her life's
work is collided with the Me Too movements moment of
cultural reckoning. In particular, Loftus has questioned the reliability of
memory and how she believes suggestion can mold it. She
(05:14):
has also testified about her research during the trials of
Jerry Sandusky, Ted Bundy, and Paul Shanley, a now deceased
priest who served twelve years in prison following his conviction
for raping a child. So basically, if you're a scumbag
and you've been accused of sexual misconduct or abusing somebody
(05:34):
or raping somebody, Elizabeth Loft, this should be on your
speed dial. You know, it's crazy right to think that
all of these people use the same experts, and then
you look at all of these people who use these
experts and none of them get off. So how much
of an expert are these experts really? That little excerpt
(05:56):
we were just talking about is the law from Law
and Crime, by the way, and it goes on to
say that in a two page order Monday morning, blah
blah blah, Judge Allison Nathan granted Maxwell permission to call loftus.
So that's looking back a little bit on the decision
to allow Loftis to be called. She is, like I said,
(06:19):
a specialist in memory, and she is somebody that they're
going to bring forth to try and punch holes in
the testimony given previously. They're going to try and make
it seem like the whole grooming allegation is bs bunk,
(06:41):
like it doesn't exist. They're going to talk about how
there is not enough science to back all of that up.
And these are the witnesses that they're going to use
to lay out their case. You're also going to hear
from Park Deats, a forensic psychiatrist to rose to national
prominence during the case of Ronald Reagan's would be assassin
(07:04):
John Hinckley Junior, and he was ultimately acquitted obviously by
reasons of insanity. Deets is being called here to question
the prosecution's claims that Maxwell groomed her alleged victims. So
again they're gonna be calling Deets here to go after
those claims that there was grooming involved, and Park Deets
(07:27):
is going to make the case that there's no uh,
there's no theory that has gained any acceptance, let alone
general acceptance in the relevant community. It has not been
peer reviewed, it is not and cannot be tested, and
there is no known or potential rate of error. And
that is about grooming by proxy, which obviously Maxwell is
(07:49):
being charged with. So what they're trying to say here
by bringing Park Deets in to back up their assertions
is that there was no grooming done here. Maxwell wasn't
grooming anybody. He was just playing the role of concerned citizen,
you know, basically, her own boys and girls club. She's
just there to help people out. She would never be
(08:10):
involved in anything sinister. Meanwhile, the testimony from these survivors
tell us a completely and opposite story. And as far
as Park Deets goes, remember during the Andrea Yates case,
he had a hit to his reputation after it was
(08:31):
discovered that part of his testimony wasn't true and when
the first Texas Court of Appeals concluded that deets mention
of it, as well as a prosecutor's subsequent claim that
it inspired Yates to commit a desperate act, could have
had an impact on the jury's verdict. So basically, he
was up there making up nonsense and it affected the
(08:52):
Andrea Yates case. Now, I'm certainly no expert in that field,
but when it comes to experts like this, like this
Park Deets guy, you gotta think that the prosecution is
going to bring that up during cross right to punch
some holes into his testimony. You know, if it's gonna
be a game of credibility, then the prosecution better get
on board during cross here and hammer these folks for
(09:15):
their credibility and for what they have said and done
in the past. Right, if it's good for the goose
and all. So those are a couple of the specialists
that we can expect to be called for Glen Maxwell,
and obviously there's going to be a lot more. And
(09:35):
like I mentioned earlier, they're also pining to get those
three lawyers that I mentioned, Bradley Edwards, Jack Scarrolla and
mister Glassman in as witnesses as well. Now I'm not
too sure how that's going to land for them, how
it's going to work out, but we'll keep our eye
on it and key and see where it ends up, because,
(09:56):
like I was saying, Bradley Edwards has been a born
in the side of the Jeffrey Epstein criminal conspiracy enterprise
for quite some time, and I think they might be
getting a little bit more than they bargained for trying
to get Bradley Edwards up on that stand. So today
we're going to finish off the episode by talking about
(10:20):
this article from Reuters and the author is Luke Cohen,
and what they're talking about here is how Maxwell's lawyers
are going to focus her defense on memory, manipulation and money.
Now set the groundwork here about that with the two
experts that are going to be their quote unquote star witnesses,
(10:42):
and we know what the game plan is. So let's
jump into this article from Reuters and let's see what
they've come up with. Glenn Maxwell's attorneys will likely focus
on portraying the British socialite co conspirator general all around Scusbeck,
alleged child abuser and you know, bipedal serpent accusers as
(11:05):
untrustworthy and motivated by money when they start presenting their
case in her sex abuse trial on Thursday. According to
legal experts and court filings, now what other pathway do
they have to try and get Maxwell off, folks. They
don't have any other path to victory here. All they
can hope for is that they do enough of a
(11:28):
job with their bombing runs to punch enough holes in
the testimony of the survivors and the experts brought forward
to back up the testimony of the survivors so that
it looks like there's enough doubt there that Maxwell gets off.
That's what they're trying to do. They don't have any receipts.
They can't prove that Maxwell is innocent here, and obviously
(11:50):
the burden of proof is not on them, but they're
going to continue to try and punch holes in the
testimony that we have heard for the last two weeks,
and they're going to bring these specialists along like Park
Deats and Elizabeth Loftis to try and further those goals. Now, remember,
(12:13):
it's going to be up to the prosecution to slap
back and make sure that they're asking the right questions
now from the previous behavior and the previous way the
prosecution has won about things, I'm not all that confident
here that they're going to be able to handle the
(12:35):
cross correctly, because let's be real, they haven't shown to
be some great office of prosecutors so far. They've had
a mountain of evidence. Sure seem to be making it
a little bit more difficult than they need to know.
But it's going to be up to them to try
(12:56):
and make sure they blunt the testimony that's going to
be provided by the so called experts for the defense.
Prosecutors rested their case on Friday after two weeks of emotional,
often explicit testimony from four women who said Maxwell recruited
and groomed them for abuse by the late financier pedophile
(13:20):
Jeffrey Epstein when the women were teenagers. The women portrayed
Maxwell essential to their abuse by Epstein, a globe trotting financier,
pedophile who died by suicide allegedly in twenty nineteen in
jail while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges. So we're
still calling her a socialite, and we're calling Epstein a
(13:41):
globe trotting financier. Come on, legacy media, get with it already,
a globe trotting financier. How about a convicted sex offender
in pedophile, that's probably the right way to talk about.
Jeff Maxwell, fifty nine, has pleaded not guilt to eight
counts of sex trafficking and other crimes in federal court
(14:03):
in New York. During cross examination, her lawyers tried to
undermine the women's credibility by asking about inconsistencies in their
accounts and about awards they received from a fund for
Epstein's victims. Now, again, I think that that's going to
backfire for the defense. You're bringing up the money that
was paid out by Jeffrey Epstein's estate to these women. Now,
(14:27):
what that tells me is that Jeffrey Epstein's estate has
taken responsibility for the behavior of the late Jeffrey Epstein.
And they've admitted that he committed these acts abuse these girls.
So you're bringing this up is just strengthening the case,
telling everybody, yeah, that these girls were abused so much
(14:47):
so that they were paid out by Epstein's estate. So
you mean to tell me during all this time that
Maxwell was with them, Maxwell was hanging out, Maxwell was
grooming them. She had nothing to do with it. So
I think that's a folly as far as the defense goes.
And I would hope that the prosecution would press that
advantage a little bit, but they don't seem to be
(15:09):
doing that. This case is about memory, manipulation and money.
Maxwell's attorney, Bobby Sternham said in or November twenty ninth
opening statement, And they told us from Jump Street what
they were gonna do, right, memory manipulation and money. And
they've stayed on course the whole entire time. They've pounded
(15:30):
it home. Now, have they done a good enough job
thus far to sway the jury? I don't think so.
But they have stayed on target, they've stayed on message,
and they have continued their full scale bombing run over
the witness's credibility, and they have not strayed from that
(15:54):
kind of strategy this whole entire time. One of Maxwell's
expected the expert witnesses is Elizabeth loftis a psychologist who
studies how people can be manipulated into having false memories.
She has testified in or consulted for hundreds of trials,
including those of OJ Simpson and Harvey Weinstein. So what
(16:16):
they're trying to say here is that these girls were
manipulated into having these false memories by lawyers and other
people who are looking for a payday. That's their defense.
When you break it all down and you crush it
down to the basic neurons of it, that is what
it is. That these girls were manipulated. These girls were
(16:36):
steered in this direction by lawyers. There was no abuse here,
just some lawyers trying to get rich. That's basically what
the defense is. But undermining the accuser's credibility remains an
uphill battle, said Duncan Levin, managing partner at Tucker Levin PLLC.
It's straight out of the playbook, Levin said, but it's
(16:58):
a heavy lift to ask jurors to disco out what
the accusers may be saying because they got money. Look
at the end of the day, it comes down to this,
Jeffrey Epstein was dead and gone. How else are these
girls supposed to get restitution from Jeffrey Epstein? If he's
dead and gone, should they have him dug up and
put on trial as a corpse? The only restitution, the
(17:21):
only way to get any payback here was to sue
the estate or to get money out of the compensation fund.
And once you get that money, you're also getting the
admission that Epstein did this to you. So while they
continue with the money, I would think that the prosecution
and jurors are going to see right through that ploy.
(17:46):
The defenses said its case will last between two and
four days. Calling Maxwell. Given the women's compelling testimony, the
defense's best bet may be calling Maxwell herself to testify,
said Zachary margolis Onuma, principal attorney at ZMO Law PLLC.
The Jerry is going to believe the gist of what
(18:06):
the witnesses are saying. Margulis Unuma said, the only real
counter to that is Maxwell coming back and saying, no,
I didn't intend that boy. That would be something. If
they put Maxwell up on the stand, that will be
something to see. I have my reservations about thinking that's
going to occur. But again, maybe they feel like that's
(18:28):
their only hope little hell Mary time. But I wouldn't
be too confident in having Maxwell get up on that stand.
Now we'll see, right, we'll see what her defense decides
to do. But man, that would be something else. Maxwell's
(18:49):
attorneys have not indicated whether or not they plan to
call her to the stand. According to prosecutors, Maxwell's team
also intends to call Robert Glassman, an attorney for a
woman known as Jane, who testified that she was first
abused by Epstein in nineteen ninety four when she was fourteen,
and Maxwell took part in some of the encounters. At
(19:11):
issue is whether Glassman told Jane that cooperating with prosecutors
would assist her claim with the fund, which the defense
says could taint her testimony. Jane testified that she was
awarded five million dollars from the compensation fund established by
Epstein's estate, So again trying to manipulate the situation, trying
(19:31):
to turn it into something that it's not. Oh well,
the lawyer told her that this would make her her
case better. So I mean, come on, really, you mean
to tell me, if this was your daughter or your sister,
you wouldn't tell her to go for the Monty and
go after whatever sort of financial restitution is available. It's ridiculous.
(19:53):
It's totally ridiculous. During cross examination, Maxwell attorney Laura Meninger
pressed Jane on why she did not mention Maxwell's alleged
role in the abuse during her night her twenty nineteen
conversations with law enforcement. Sternham said Jane only tagged Glaine
when money was on the line, and that all four
(20:15):
women enhanced their claims by cooperating. So again, it's all
about the money, right, all about the money. God, there's
no way that any of these girls could have been abused.
Maxwell is just a pillar of the community. It's obvious
that they're all just going after the vast fortune of
Gallaine Maxwell. Jane testified that she did not believe helping
(20:42):
prosecutors would boost her claim. The fund considered whether a
claimant's assertions matched up with any law enforcement findings. But
it is a stretch to say that cooperating enhanced the
woman's claims, said Laurie Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.
There is no requirement that a victim cooperator testify for
the prosecution, said Levinson, who reviewed the fund's protocol at
(21:03):
Reuter's request. So basically, Laura Levinson, who is a professor
at Loyola, shoots that claim down right away, saying that
these witnesses didn't even have to testify. They could have
took their money and forgot about it all and not
put themselves on the firing line here, not had their
credibility attacked, not had their persons attacked by Maxwell and
(21:28):
her team. But they didn't do that, did they. Here
they are testifying an open court, testifying against Maxwell and
hopefully trying to bring her to justice for what they
say she did to them. In a sign that undercutting
Jane's testimony is important to the defense, prosecutors said last
(21:50):
week that Maxwell's team also sought a subpoena for Jane's brother.
Jane testified that her brothers also knew Epstein during the nineties.
So again, that's what it comes down to, folks, and
that's what we can expect tomorrow when the defense begins
to mount their case. It's gonna be about the memory.
It's gonna be about manipulation, and like everything else, it's
(22:13):
gonna be about the money. We'll have to see where
it goes from there, and we'll have to see what
the prosecution does to try and counter that. But there's
an outline on what to expect in the next couple
of days few days, and I'm really interested to see
(22:35):
if Maxwell herself takes the stand. I think we'll know
a little bit more as tomorrow commences and we kind
of get a feel for how the trial's going. I
guess we'll see if the defense feels it necessary to
go for the big guns and put Maxwell on the stand.
I think that if we see Maxwell take the stand,
(22:56):
that will signal that things are not going the way
that the defense wants them to go. But we'll have
to see. Because one thing I have learned in the
past three years of covering the Jeffrey Epstein in Glen
Maxwell case is that every single time you think that
there's an answer an answer to a question, what you're
(23:16):
left with are more questions. If you'd like to contact me,
you can do that at Bobby Kapuci at ProtonMail dot com.
That's b O B B Y C A p U
C C I at ProtonMail dot com. You can also
find me on Twitter at bo bb y underscore c
(23:37):
A p U c c I. The links that we
discussed can be found in the description by
Welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Today, Mark's the fifteenth
day of the Glane Maxwell trial and the last day
of the recess as we prepare and wait for the
defense to begin to mount their case. Now, on our
way here, we have heard some powerful testimony by the survivors,
(00:22):
by people corroborating their stories, and by people who have
put Glane Maxwell right in the center of Jeffrey Epstein's operations. Now,
the goal of the defense is going to be to
poke holes in all of that testimony. They're going to
(00:42):
try and go after the credibility of not only the witnesses,
but the specialists that were brought up, doctors that were
brought up, you name it. And we're hearing now after
a late night filing that. Not only that, but the
defense is looking to bring three lawyers who have represented
survivors in as witnesses, one of them Jack Scarola, the
(01:08):
other mister Glassman, and then the third Bradley Edwards. Now,
those of you who have been following the Epstein case,
you're pretty familiar with Jack Scarola and Bradley Edwards. For sure.
Bradley Edwards has been at the forefront as a lawyer
battling Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts for a very very,
(01:31):
very long time, so much so that Jeffrey Epstein had
his goons putting the press on Bradley Edwards, going through
his trash all kinds of wild shit. So the defense
is now looking to call these three lawyers up to
talk about the motivations of their clients, would be my guests,
(01:53):
And I find it kind of weird, right, what about
lawyer client privilege. You're gonna call these lawyers up and
ask them what them and their clients were talking about.
That's a little odd no. And furthermore, if I'm the defense,
I don't know if I want Bradley Edwards up there
talking about anything, because if you want to see somebody
(02:16):
who has a map to where all the bodies are
buried that we know about, it's Bradley Edwards. Nobody has
been at the forefront of this case as far as
lawyers go, for longer. The guy has been in a
tooth and nail, bare knuckle scrap with Jeffrey Epstein's people
since pretty much this all began, and now they're trying
(02:40):
to call him as a witness up to the stand
to try and punch holes in his credibility, or to
try and make it seem like there's some sort of
financial motivation for these ladies. Now again, this has been
their strategy from the beginning, and anyone who thinks that
(03:01):
they're going to deviate from the course, they have not
been paying attention. They have been striking home this message
since before the trial started, and they're going to continue
that with their witnesses that they're gonna be bringing up,
namely Elizabeth Loftis. Elizabeth Loftis is a memory expert, and
(03:22):
according to an article in I Believe The New Yorker,
the woman who changed what memory is or some such nonsense.
Guess what, I'm not buying it. Okay, they brought her
out in the Weinstein case, few other cases. How how
did those cases turn out for Weinstein and his friends?
Not so good? Right, Because guess what, you can bring
(03:45):
out a pig, and you can put some lipstick on
that pig, but guess what, at the end of the day,
the pig is still a pig. So she's gonna come
out and attempt to frame it as these survivors misremembering,
these survivors not really you know, knowing what happened to them,
(04:08):
the whole thing, And I've got to think that the
jury is going to be able to see right through
it the same way they were able to see right
through it with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby and the
rest of them. I would think that with all of
the evidence present here, all of the testimony provided by
(04:28):
the witnesses previously, would go a long way in disputing
what Elizabeth Loftis has to say. Now. She is an
expert in her field, There's no doubt about it. She's
worked for the Robert Durst, OJ Simpson, and Harvey Weinstein.
(04:52):
As I just stated, and in the words of a
New York profile on the controversy surrounding her expertise, Elizabeth
Loftis is changed the meaning of memory and her life's
work is collided with the Me Too movements moment of
cultural reckoning. In particular, Loftus has questioned the reliability of
memory and how she believes suggestion can mold it. She
(05:14):
has also testified about her research during the trials of
Jerry Sandusky, Ted Bundy, and Paul Shanley, a now deceased
priest who served twelve years in prison following his conviction
for raping a child. So basically, if you're a scumbag
and you've been accused of sexual misconduct or abusing somebody
(05:34):
or raping somebody, Elizabeth Loft, this should be on your
speed dial. You know, it's crazy right to think that
all of these people use the same experts, and then
you look at all of these people who use these
experts and none of them get off. So how much
of an expert are these experts really? That little excerpt
(05:56):
we were just talking about is the law from Law
and Crime, by the way, and it goes on to
say that in a two page order Monday morning, blah
blah blah, Judge Allison Nathan granted Maxwell permission to call loftus.
So that's looking back a little bit on the decision
to allow Loftis to be called. She is, like I said,
(06:19):
a specialist in memory, and she is somebody that they're
going to bring forth to try and punch holes in
the testimony given previously. They're going to try and make
it seem like the whole grooming allegation is bs bunk,
(06:41):
like it doesn't exist. They're going to talk about how
there is not enough science to back all of that up.
And these are the witnesses that they're going to use
to lay out their case. You're also going to hear
from Park Deats, a forensic psychiatrist to rose to national
prominence during the case of Ronald Reagan's would be assassin
(07:04):
John Hinckley Junior, and he was ultimately acquitted obviously by
reasons of insanity. Deets is being called here to question
the prosecution's claims that Maxwell groomed her alleged victims. So
again they're gonna be calling Deets here to go after
those claims that there was grooming involved, and Park Deets
(07:27):
is going to make the case that there's no uh,
there's no theory that has gained any acceptance, let alone
general acceptance in the relevant community. It has not been
peer reviewed, it is not and cannot be tested, and
there is no known or potential rate of error. And
that is about grooming by proxy, which obviously Maxwell is
(07:49):
being charged with. So what they're trying to say here
by bringing Park Deets in to back up their assertions
is that there was no grooming done here. Maxwell wasn't
grooming anybody. He was just playing the role of concerned citizen,
you know, basically, her own boys and girls club. She's
just there to help people out. She would never be
(08:10):
involved in anything sinister. Meanwhile, the testimony from these survivors
tell us a completely and opposite story. And as far
as Park Deets goes, remember during the Andrea Yates case,
he had a hit to his reputation after it was
(08:31):
discovered that part of his testimony wasn't true and when
the first Texas Court of Appeals concluded that deets mention
of it, as well as a prosecutor's subsequent claim that
it inspired Yates to commit a desperate act, could have
had an impact on the jury's verdict. So basically, he
was up there making up nonsense and it affected the
(08:52):
Andrea Yates case. Now, I'm certainly no expert in that field,
but when it comes to experts like this, like this
Park Deets guy, you gotta think that the prosecution is
going to bring that up during cross right to punch
some holes into his testimony. You know, if it's gonna
be a game of credibility, then the prosecution better get
on board during cross here and hammer these folks for
(09:15):
their credibility and for what they have said and done
in the past. Right, if it's good for the goose
and all. So those are a couple of the specialists
that we can expect to be called for Glen Maxwell,
and obviously there's going to be a lot more. And
(09:35):
like I mentioned earlier, they're also pining to get those
three lawyers that I mentioned, Bradley Edwards, Jack Scarrolla and
mister Glassman in as witnesses as well. Now I'm not
too sure how that's going to land for them, how
it's going to work out, but we'll keep our eye
on it and key and see where it ends up, because,
(09:56):
like I was saying, Bradley Edwards has been a born
in the side of the Jeffrey Epstein criminal conspiracy enterprise
for quite some time, and I think they might be
getting a little bit more than they bargained for trying
to get Bradley Edwards up on that stand. So today
we're going to finish off the episode by talking about
(10:20):
this article from Reuters and the author is Luke Cohen,
and what they're talking about here is how Maxwell's lawyers
are going to focus her defense on memory, manipulation and money.
Now set the groundwork here about that with the two
experts that are going to be their quote unquote star witnesses,
(10:42):
and we know what the game plan is. So let's
jump into this article from Reuters and let's see what
they've come up with. Glenn Maxwell's attorneys will likely focus
on portraying the British socialite co conspirator general all around Scusbeck,
alleged child abuser and you know, bipedal serpent accusers as
(11:05):
untrustworthy and motivated by money when they start presenting their
case in her sex abuse trial on Thursday. According to
legal experts and court filings, now what other pathway do
they have to try and get Maxwell off, folks. They
don't have any other path to victory here. All they
can hope for is that they do enough of a
(11:28):
job with their bombing runs to punch enough holes in
the testimony of the survivors and the experts brought forward
to back up the testimony of the survivors so that
it looks like there's enough doubt there that Maxwell gets off.
That's what they're trying to do. They don't have any receipts.
They can't prove that Maxwell is innocent here, and obviously
(11:50):
the burden of proof is not on them, but they're
going to continue to try and punch holes in the
testimony that we have heard for the last two weeks,
and they're going to bring these specialists along like Park
Deats and Elizabeth Loftis to try and further those goals. Now, remember,
(12:13):
it's going to be up to the prosecution to slap
back and make sure that they're asking the right questions
now from the previous behavior and the previous way the
prosecution has won about things, I'm not all that confident
here that they're going to be able to handle the
(12:35):
cross correctly, because let's be real, they haven't shown to
be some great office of prosecutors so far. They've had
a mountain of evidence. Sure seem to be making it
a little bit more difficult than they need to know.
But it's going to be up to them to try
(12:56):
and make sure they blunt the testimony that's going to
be provided by the so called experts for the defense.
Prosecutors rested their case on Friday after two weeks of emotional,
often explicit testimony from four women who said Maxwell recruited
and groomed them for abuse by the late financier pedophile
(13:20):
Jeffrey Epstein when the women were teenagers. The women portrayed
Maxwell essential to their abuse by Epstein, a globe trotting financier,
pedophile who died by suicide allegedly in twenty nineteen in
jail while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges. So we're
still calling her a socialite, and we're calling Epstein a
(13:41):
globe trotting financier. Come on, legacy media, get with it already,
a globe trotting financier. How about a convicted sex offender
in pedophile, that's probably the right way to talk about.
Jeff Maxwell, fifty nine, has pleaded not guilt to eight
counts of sex trafficking and other crimes in federal court
(14:03):
in New York. During cross examination, her lawyers tried to
undermine the women's credibility by asking about inconsistencies in their
accounts and about awards they received from a fund for
Epstein's victims. Now, again, I think that that's going to
backfire for the defense. You're bringing up the money that
was paid out by Jeffrey Epstein's estate to these women. Now,
(14:27):
what that tells me is that Jeffrey Epstein's estate has
taken responsibility for the behavior of the late Jeffrey Epstein.
And they've admitted that he committed these acts abuse these girls.
So you're bringing this up is just strengthening the case,
telling everybody, yeah, that these girls were abused so much
(14:47):
so that they were paid out by Epstein's estate. So
you mean to tell me during all this time that
Maxwell was with them, Maxwell was hanging out, Maxwell was
grooming them. She had nothing to do with it. So
I think that's a folly as far as the defense goes.
And I would hope that the prosecution would press that
advantage a little bit, but they don't seem to be
(15:09):
doing that. This case is about memory, manipulation and money.
Maxwell's attorney, Bobby Sternham said in or November twenty ninth
opening statement, And they told us from Jump Street what
they were gonna do, right, memory manipulation and money. And
they've stayed on course the whole entire time. They've pounded
(15:30):
it home. Now, have they done a good enough job
thus far to sway the jury? I don't think so.
But they have stayed on target, they've stayed on message,
and they have continued their full scale bombing run over
the witness's credibility, and they have not strayed from that
(15:54):
kind of strategy this whole entire time. One of Maxwell's
expected the expert witnesses is Elizabeth loftis a psychologist who
studies how people can be manipulated into having false memories.
She has testified in or consulted for hundreds of trials,
including those of OJ Simpson and Harvey Weinstein. So what
(16:16):
they're trying to say here is that these girls were
manipulated into having these false memories by lawyers and other
people who are looking for a payday. That's their defense.
When you break it all down and you crush it
down to the basic neurons of it, that is what
it is. That these girls were manipulated. These girls were
(16:36):
steered in this direction by lawyers. There was no abuse here,
just some lawyers trying to get rich. That's basically what
the defense is. But undermining the accuser's credibility remains an
uphill battle, said Duncan Levin, managing partner at Tucker Levin PLLC.
It's straight out of the playbook, Levin said, but it's
(16:58):
a heavy lift to ask jurors to disco out what
the accusers may be saying because they got money. Look
at the end of the day, it comes down to this,
Jeffrey Epstein was dead and gone. How else are these
girls supposed to get restitution from Jeffrey Epstein? If he's
dead and gone, should they have him dug up and
put on trial as a corpse? The only restitution, the
(17:21):
only way to get any payback here was to sue
the estate or to get money out of the compensation fund.
And once you get that money, you're also getting the
admission that Epstein did this to you. So while they
continue with the money, I would think that the prosecution
and jurors are going to see right through that ploy.
(17:46):
The defenses said its case will last between two and
four days. Calling Maxwell. Given the women's compelling testimony, the
defense's best bet may be calling Maxwell herself to testify,
said Zachary margolis Onuma, principal attorney at ZMO Law PLLC.
The Jerry is going to believe the gist of what
(18:06):
the witnesses are saying. Margulis Unuma said, the only real
counter to that is Maxwell coming back and saying, no,
I didn't intend that boy. That would be something. If
they put Maxwell up on the stand, that will be
something to see. I have my reservations about thinking that's
going to occur. But again, maybe they feel like that's
(18:28):
their only hope little hell Mary time. But I wouldn't
be too confident in having Maxwell get up on that stand.
Now we'll see, right, we'll see what her defense decides
to do. But man, that would be something else. Maxwell's
(18:49):
attorneys have not indicated whether or not they plan to
call her to the stand. According to prosecutors, Maxwell's team
also intends to call Robert Glassman, an attorney for a
woman known as Jane, who testified that she was first
abused by Epstein in nineteen ninety four when she was fourteen,
and Maxwell took part in some of the encounters. At
(19:11):
issue is whether Glassman told Jane that cooperating with prosecutors
would assist her claim with the fund, which the defense
says could taint her testimony. Jane testified that she was
awarded five million dollars from the compensation fund established by
Epstein's estate, So again trying to manipulate the situation, trying
(19:31):
to turn it into something that it's not. Oh well,
the lawyer told her that this would make her her
case better. So I mean, come on, really, you mean
to tell me, if this was your daughter or your sister,
you wouldn't tell her to go for the Monty and
go after whatever sort of financial restitution is available. It's ridiculous.
(19:53):
It's totally ridiculous. During cross examination, Maxwell attorney Laura Meninger
pressed Jane on why she did not mention Maxwell's alleged
role in the abuse during her night her twenty nineteen
conversations with law enforcement. Sternham said Jane only tagged Glaine
when money was on the line, and that all four
(20:15):
women enhanced their claims by cooperating. So again, it's all
about the money, right, all about the money. God, there's
no way that any of these girls could have been abused.
Maxwell is just a pillar of the community. It's obvious
that they're all just going after the vast fortune of
Gallaine Maxwell. Jane testified that she did not believe helping
(20:42):
prosecutors would boost her claim. The fund considered whether a
claimant's assertions matched up with any law enforcement findings. But
it is a stretch to say that cooperating enhanced the
woman's claims, said Laurie Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.
There is no requirement that a victim cooperator testify for
the prosecution, said Levinson, who reviewed the fund's protocol at
(21:03):
Reuter's request. So basically, Laura Levinson, who is a professor
at Loyola, shoots that claim down right away, saying that
these witnesses didn't even have to testify. They could have
took their money and forgot about it all and not
put themselves on the firing line here, not had their
credibility attacked, not had their persons attacked by Maxwell and
(21:28):
her team. But they didn't do that, did they. Here
they are testifying an open court, testifying against Maxwell and
hopefully trying to bring her to justice for what they
say she did to them. In a sign that undercutting
Jane's testimony is important to the defense, prosecutors said last
(21:50):
week that Maxwell's team also sought a subpoena for Jane's brother.
Jane testified that her brothers also knew Epstein during the nineties.
So again, that's what it comes down to, folks, and
that's what we can expect tomorrow when the defense begins
to mount their case. It's gonna be about the memory.
It's gonna be about manipulation, and like everything else, it's
(22:13):
gonna be about the money. We'll have to see where
it goes from there, and we'll have to see what
the prosecution does to try and counter that. But there's
an outline on what to expect in the next couple
of days few days, and I'm really interested to see
(22:35):
if Maxwell herself takes the stand. I think we'll know
a little bit more as tomorrow commences and we kind
of get a feel for how the trial's going. I
guess we'll see if the defense feels it necessary to
go for the big guns and put Maxwell on the stand.
I think that if we see Maxwell take the stand,
(22:56):
that will signal that things are not going the way
that the defense wants them to go. But we'll have
to see. Because one thing I have learned in the
past three years of covering the Jeffrey Epstein in Glen
Maxwell case is that every single time you think that
there's an answer an answer to a question, what you're
(23:16):
left with are more questions. If you'd like to contact me,
you can do that at Bobby Kapuci at ProtonMail dot com.
That's b O B B Y C A p U
C C I at ProtonMail dot com. You can also
find me on Twitter at bo bb y underscore c
(23:37):
A p U c c I. The links that we
discussed can be found in the description by
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Male Room with Dr. Jesse Mills
As Director of The Men’s Clinic at UCLA, Dr. Jesse Mills has spent his career helping men understand their bodies, their hormones, and their health. Now he’s bringing that expertise to The Male Room — a podcast where data-driven medicine meets common sense. Each episode separates fact from hype, science from snake oil, and gives men the tools to live longer, stronger, and happier lives. With candor, humor, and real-world experience from the exam room and the operating room, Dr. Mills breaks down the latest health headlines, dissects trends, and explains what actually works — and what doesn’t. Smart, straightforward, and entertaining, The Male Room is the show that helps men take charge of their health without the jargon.