January 2, 2026 • 65 mins
In her testimony at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, “Jane Doe” described being recruited as a minor into Jeffrey Epstein’s world through what initially appeared to be benign social contact and promises of money. She testified that she was drawn in at a young age, gradually groomed, and made to believe the abuse was normal or expected. According to her account, Epstein’s homes functioned as controlled environments where rules were unspoken but rigid, and where fear, confusion, and dependence were deliberately cultivated. Jane Doe explained that she was repeatedly directed, pressured, and maneuvered into sexual encounters, often under circumstances that made refusal feel impossible, especially given her age and lack of power.
Jane Doe’s testimony also emphasized the long-term psychological impact of the abuse and the power imbalance that made resistance or escape feel impossible at the time. She explained how fear, confusion, and manipulation kept her compliant, and how the trauma followed her well into adulthood. Crucially, her account aligned with those of other accusers, strengthening the prosecution’s argument that this was a coordinated system rather than a series of isolated acts. By the time Jane Doe testified, her words served not just as an individual story, but as part of a larger evidentiary mosaic showing that Ghislaine Maxwell knowingly participated in sustaining Epstein’s abuse network.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Jane Doe’s testimony also emphasized the long-term psychological impact of the abuse and the power imbalance that made resistance or escape feel impossible at the time. She explained how fear, confusion, and manipulation kept her compliant, and how the trauma followed her well into adulthood. Crucially, her account aligned with those of other accusers, strengthening the prosecution’s argument that this was a coordinated system rather than a series of isolated acts. By the time Jane Doe testified, her words served not just as an individual story, but as part of a larger evidentiary mosaic showing that Ghislaine Maxwell knowingly participated in sustaining Epstein’s abuse network.
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):
And welcome to the Epstein Chronicles. Yesterday mark day one
(00:06):
of the Galain Maxwell trial, and I have to tell
you I was caught a bit off guard. I wasn't
expecting Larry big Dog Vasasky to be put on the
stand right away like that. I figured there would be
some opening statements from both sides and then we'd get
into the meat and the potatoes, a little bit of
(00:27):
the meat on the bone in the coming days. But
they got right to it yesterday. And Larry Vassoski is
a major cock within the Epstein realm. He was Epstein's pilot.
He was flying all of these people all over the world,
(00:48):
and obviously, according to him, he'll tell you that he
didn't know who was on all of those flights, especially
the domestic ones. But you have to think that the
government believes that he has something to add if they're
calling him as their first witness. And it also makes
me wonder if he cuts some kind of deal with
(01:09):
the government. Now, again, there's zero evidence that Larry Vasosky
was ever going to be indicted or anything like that,
but it's pretty interesting that he's working with the government here.
I mean, we're talking about a guy that Jeffrey Epstein
gave a plot of land to right over there in
(01:31):
his own ranch down in Stanley, And when I went
down there to New Mexico, it is almost hard to
explain just how vast this property is and just how
desolate this property is. Jeffrey Epstein set up a nice
little home away from home down there at Zoro Ranch,
(01:54):
and the things he was doing down there were very secretive, right,
It wasn't something that would well publicized. There was a
reason he chose that spot in New Mexico. I mean,
obviously one of the reasons is the age of consent there,
but there were other reasons why Jeffrey Epstein chose New Mexico.
(02:16):
And the fact that he was able to get away
with the things he was able to get away with
in New Mexico is just mind boggling to me. But
the point is, you don't give somebody a big fat
chunk of land in a place that you're hoping to
keep relatively private or at the very least under a
(02:37):
shroud of secrecy, a piece of land there if you
don't trust them. So my question is what enticed him
to offer up information for the government. Now, again, I
don't have any lead saying that he had a profit
agreement or he was in any jeopardy of being indicted.
(02:58):
But I just find it interesting that he is talking
with the government now, and not only just talking with
the government obviously, but taking the stand as a government witness.
Usually that kind of thing doesn't just happen organically, right.
The government is uh, you know, they find ways to
get people to do what they want them to do.
(03:20):
Especially if you have something that might be criminal hanging
over your head, they will definitely leverage that, they'll use
it in their favor, and they'll get you moving in
a direction that they want you to move in. So
the Larry Vosasky on the stand, it's definitely very interesting.
But as I ruminated on it last night and I
(03:41):
let it marinate, I had some more questions, right, like
did he get a profer agreement, Is he working with
the government because he doesn't want to be charged himself,
or did they just turn him as a witness. So
it's going to be very interesting to see all of
the details, right, all of the specifics as we move forward,
(04:04):
and with something like this a trial, a case with
just so much information, it's going to be very fluid.
Things are going to happen quickly, and things are going
to happen on a daily basis. Every single time that
you have this jury impaneled and the trial going on,
you're going to have, you know, significant things coming out
(04:27):
of those sessions. So getting right off to a jump
with Larry Vassoski as a witness number one, it just
tells me that there's going to be some more surprises
coming down the old shoot here. And I'm very curious
to see who else the government offers up as witnesses.
(04:49):
And on the flip side of that, I'm wondering who
the defense is going to pony up as a witness. Besides,
they're paid for specialists. Are they going to have any
one show up and uh, you know Polish Glane Maxwell's reputation.
Is anyone going to step into that box and say, hey, look,
(05:10):
Glan Maxwell's a good person, she didn't do this and
I think that she's innocent. Now, I haven't heard that
they're gonna have anybody up there to do that, but
you would think, right if you're the defense, one thing
you want to do is try to establish that your
client has, you know, as a person of character, is
somebody who this is below and somebody who would never
(05:33):
engage in behavior like this. And if your client is
somebody like that, it stands to reason that you'd be
able to find a few people that are willing to,
you know, go on the record and testify that she's
a good person or that she's somebody of upstanding character.
So I'm interested to see what sort of trick the
(05:56):
Maxwell team pulls out of their hat when it comes
to a statablishing her as a credible person or somebody
who should be believed, because you know that the prosecution
is they're coming hard. Obviously, if Vasoski is the first witness,
you gotta think that there's gonna be a litany of
people trotting up to that box that have damning statements
(06:20):
about Glene Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and the way they
were conducting themselves. And who better situated than the guy
that was flying them all around the world. Now, last
night I updated and I uploaded an episode about the
other pilot that was brought up at this child David Rodgers,
(06:42):
you might want to check that out as well. But
with Larry Vassoski taking the stand here, it's pretty significant
for those of us who have been following the case especially.
I was talking with some of my colleagues who follow
the case yesterday and it was pretty much unanimous consensus that,
you know, this is probably going to lead us to
(07:04):
even more explosive witnesses hitting that stant. So I'm very
interested to see where things go today, and I'm interested
to see what sort of strategy the defense is going
to use when it comes to cross examining Larry Vasaski.
We can definitely expect more of Asaski today and you know,
(07:28):
we'll see what comes of it. But I think it's
very very interesting that he was the first witness, and
I think it's going to be interesting to see how
it all breaks down from here. So today, what we're
going to do is we're going to take a look
at some of the headlines from overnight and yeah, to
(07:50):
take a look at what's going on. We have a
headline over here from Slate and this is an article
that was published by Seth Stevenson. The headline, Glenn Maxwell's
trial opens with her lawyer diving straight into the muck
and he goes into what's going on like outside of
(08:11):
the courthouse and all of that Jazz from the article.
Outside the Thurgood Marshall Federal Courthouse in Lower Manhattan this morning,
the media throng assembled to cover day one of the
Glene Maxwell trial. Print reporters, newsletter writers, podcasters, and television
crews coalesced into the strangely glamorous frenzy that seems to
(08:31):
accompany the launch of every high profile criminal proceeding. Now.
The reason I bring this headline up is I talk
a lot about how it's Carnival Barker City right now,
and you're definitely seeing it out in front of the courthouse.
There are people of all stripes showing up and making
(08:51):
their voices heard, and you know, you have a lot
of misinformed people as well. But one thing is very
apparent to me, and it is that there is a
lot of anger on both sides of the political fence,
and it's not very often that you see that. Now.
(09:12):
Of course, there are the yahoos that are using this
as a political cudgel to beat their political opponents over
the head. And I'd be very cautious of any of
these pundits that are talking about this case from either
side of the conversation. I'd be very cautious about what
sort of rhetoric they're spinning towards you, Because this is
(09:36):
much bigger than that. This is so much bigger than
Republican and Democrat, This is so much bigger than left
and right. You have to understand that this was people
at all levers of power from both parties who were
enabling this and facilitating this for decades. So to try
(09:58):
and pin it on one part or the other is
a great disservice to those who were actually abused by
this scumbag. So while the circus like atmosphere is to
be expected, I think that it is one of the
most gross ways to go about things when you're using
this as a political cudgel. Now, of course there's a
political angle to it, right, Definitely. A lot of the
(10:21):
people involved had ties to politicians or were politicians themselves.
But it's very apparent when someone's trying to harness this
as a political weapon, and I would just caution you
to be very very aware of that. He goes on
(10:41):
to say, I've seen it before. It always starts this
way in mystery and frision, and it always ends in
the squalor. That's the reality of crime, no matter the trial,
when it comes to a high profile one, it's always
going to have a cast of characters, right, So I
(11:01):
just it's one of those things where I just I
witness and I observe and shake my head. You know,
you have like like he says here, When Michael Jackson's
trial for child sexual abuse charges was getting underway, the
media revved up to cover the bizarre tale of an
eccentric global superstar. And then the trial began and we
(11:23):
met a dim, lonely drunk who liked to show porno
maags to little boys. So I guess what he's trying
to say here in this article is the perception of
what a trial is going to be and then the
reality of it are usually two very very different things,
and I think we'll see a lot of that in
this case as well. There are a lot of misinformed
(11:46):
people when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein case, the
Galainne Maxwell trial and all of the players on the stage,
and hopefully when we're done here on the podcast, we
can try and clear a little bit of that up.
And my suggestion would be to all of you out
there who are new to this case, who have just
found the Glen Maxwell trial or have just gotten interested
(12:08):
in this. I would suggest that you go on to
social media and you seek out some of the survivors
from this case and follow them on social media and
listen to them in their own words. That way, there's
no background noise, there's no middleman. And one thing that
these survivors did that was pretty much groundbreaking was they
(12:33):
skipped the legacy media and they went directly to social media,
to independent content creators and independent journalists to get the
story out. And once there was such a swell from
all of you people out there who have been following
this case, they were forced to act right. And it's
been pretty crazy to watch it all unfold because it
(12:59):
has been in time and time again where not only
were these girls women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein and allegedly Maxwell,
but by our very own justice system, by the people
who were put in place to make sure that the
(13:20):
most vulnerable amongst us are protected. Those very people failed
these girls. And you heard it yesterday in the trial,
and it's something I've been punching home for a long time. Here.
They chose girls from broken homes, girls who come from
low income families, girls who don't have as many prospects
(13:42):
on the horizon, and they specifically search these kinds of
girls out, And that just makes it even more draconian too.
Me as if it's not hard enough being broke, being poor,
coming from a broken home, now you have this multi
hundred million dollar predator and his co associate, his underboss
(14:07):
bringing you in to groom you and molest you. And
it's absolutely horrendous to think about. And the fact that
they preyed on the most vulnerable amongst us, it just
makes me so mad. I really dislike bullies, and I
really like people who punched down. I really dislike people
who punched down. And Jeffrey Epstein was all of that,
(14:30):
and Glane Maxwell, she went right along with it. She
was right there making decisions with them and helping him
facilitate all of this, according to multiple multiple survivors. He
goes on to say that he suspects that the trial
of Glenn Maxwell, who stands accused of helping Jeffrey Epstein
(14:51):
sexually abuse minors, will follow a similar similar arc to
those other trials, meaning you know, the whole entire circus, atmosphere,
et cetera, etc. He says the media has revved itself
up to cover the story of a stylish, jet setting
socialite who broke fantastically bad. But over the coming long
courtroom days, chances are will hear less about how she
(15:13):
graduated from Oxford, speaks several languages and can pilot helicopters,
and more about how she allegedly took teenage girls on
Florida shopping mall excursions as a means of prepping them
form a less station. Yeah. Well, anyone who's showing up
here thinking that Glaine Maxwell is just some you know,
shrinking violet socialite, you're in for a rude awakening, because
(15:36):
that is not the case. Glaine Maxwell is not that. Okay,
she knew exactly what she was getting into. Well educated lady,
comes from money, comes from power, and to think that
she was just along for the ride is absolutely ridiculous.
(15:58):
And you know, again, when we talk about the overall
atmosphere around this trial, oh there's going to be some wildness,
there's no doubt about it, and there's going to be
a ton of carnival barkers and a ton of disinformation agents.
But one thing that is going to be constant, one
(16:20):
thing that you can guarantee is the profile that's going
to be painted of Glenn Maxwell is going to be
less than flattering by the prosecution. And not only that,
but those assertions, well, they're going to be backed up
by evidence and the statements from the survivors themselves. So
(16:46):
it's going to be a very very interesting few weeks
to see which way Maxwell's team goes with all of this. Now,
we already know that their strategy so far has been
to come out and blame the girls basically right saying
that you know, Maxwell was a just someone who was
(17:11):
around for Epstein's run. She didn't have anything to do
with it. And you know the girls are liars. They're
really above the age of consent. So you know how
it goes. This is the typical defense when you see
a case like this. You know, they try and impune
the reputation of the accusers. They try and set them
(17:34):
up as if they're money hungry or they're prostitutes or
whatever it may be. But it's the age that they've
been doing this forever. It's like when you're in the
NFL and you fire your coach and you think it's
a good idea to bring in Wade Wilson again, Bro,
why are you bringing in the same guy with the
same playbook, and that's what the Maxwell team is doing here.
(17:57):
And I've been pretty steadfast in my opinion that it's
not going to work out. You're not gonna paint Maxwell's escapegoat.
She's not a stand in for Epstein's crimes, none of that.
And I really hope that the prosecution punches at home now. Again,
not very confident in the prosecution in America. The prosecutors
(18:20):
in America. When they're going after high profile people. Oh sure,
when the federal authorities are going after you or me,
it's a home run for them, right slam dunk City.
But when they're going after their own friends, the other
members of so called elite society, terry usually turns out
a little bit different, doesn't it. But hopefully there's enough
(18:43):
interest and enough anger around this case that they can't
pull any of those nonsensical moves that they usually like
to pull. So I hope that the prosecution continues to
beat home the fact that Glen mac Well was not
a passenger on this ship. She wasn't just somebody who
(19:05):
was stowing away. She was in fact piloting the ship.
Sometimes she was in the navigation room. She knew how
the engine worked, and she certainly most certainly knew what
was going on, and for her to set it up
(19:25):
as if she had no idea what was going on,
you know that she was just completely taken off off
guard by what happened. Here is just an absolute ridiculous
leap that they're asking people to take, and I honestly
doubt anyone's going to be willing to take that leap.
(19:46):
So there you have it, folks for the morning. Now,
trial's getting ready or is back underway as we speak.
It's six am here in Las Vegas as this episode's
about to be dropped, So so we got a whole
day ahead of us. We're gonna keep an eye on things.
I'm pretty much locked into the studio watching the live
(20:08):
streams happen with the updates, live updates, not phone or
you know, digital or anything like that. But there's a
lot of live threads on like Twitter from Inner City Press.
Adam Klasfeld has a real good live feed that he's
been doing, So I'll be following those all day and
preparing to come back tonight and do a wrap up
(20:29):
show and talk about what occurred throughout the day and
the trial and what if any surprises or curveballs or
thrown our way. If you'd like to contact me, you
can do that at Bobby Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com.
That's b O b b y c ap you c
c I at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find
(20:52):
me on Twitter at bo bb y underscore c ap
you c c I. The links that we discussed can
be found in the description box. All right, everybody, I'll
be back later on. What's up everyone, and welcome back
to the Epstein Chronicles. Day three of the Glen Maxwell
trial just wrapped up a little bit ago, and we
(21:15):
saw three people take the stand. One was a continuance
from yesterday and that was one of the four accusers Jane.
Number two was her ex boyfriend, someone being called Matt.
And the third person was an executive from Interlochan School
(21:38):
who talks about some of Jeffrey Epstein's donations and stuff
like that. Now, for those of us who have been
following this case, this doesn't come as a surprise to us.
We all knew about this cabin, and in fact, Epstein
donated so much money to this school that the cabin
was named after him. Now, think about that for a minute.
(22:05):
Should this man be anywhere near all of these young
teenage be tween girls. Probably not the right place for
this guy. But what they'll say is, as an organization,
the Interlocan School, oh well, we had no idea, We
had no idea that Jeffrey Epstein was a predator or
(22:26):
Jeffrey Epstein was this sick, disgusting human being. But shouldn't
they know better? If you're going to give somebody access
to your campus and you have a bunch of children
running around, isn't it a good idea to properly vet
those people? And if not, at what point is there
(22:50):
some accountability for this school? Now I'm certainly not an
investigator or a lawyer, and that's just a genuine question.
At what point do we say, all right, well, this
school is the one that welcomed Jeffrey Epstein with open
arms onto its campus and then this happened. So while
(23:11):
they're not directly responsible for the abuse, right, the school
didn't do it. Jeffrey Epstein did, but they opened the door.
And I think that that's a point that needs to
be discussed a little bit more so, these organizations that
were with Epstein, helping Epstein, helping Maxwell. They need to
(23:32):
have their part of the responsibility for enabling all of this,
and we've seen it throughout this case. There has been
some responsibility from at least the social aspect of this.
We know that Glenn Dubin has lost his status, We
know that Les Wexner had to step down, Leon Black
had to step down. Prince Andrew is absolutely disgraced, but
(23:57):
it's not far enough, right. It's one thing to be
disgraced and still go home and swim around in your
billions and billions of dollars, and a whole other thing
to be held responsible for your alleged role in Jeffrey
Epstein's criminal enterprise. And we have to remember, though, that
(24:17):
the scope of this trial specifically is only in regards
to the behavior of Maxwell in the time period. So
people who are expecting a bunch of other stuff to
be brought up here, I think they're going to be
a bit disappointed. Now we're going to hear names of
(24:38):
people who were in Epstein's circle. Again. We heard about
Trump today, we heard about Clinton, and you know, these
are reoccurring names that if you've followed the Jeffrey Epstein case,
You've seen these names pop up over and over and
over again. And if it was just one tabloid, say
who was talking about it, it's easy to shrug your
(24:58):
shoulders and say, oh, come on, what a bunch of
ludicrous nonsense. But when you get story after story after story,
it is a little harder to ignore it. And that's
what we have seen. We have just seen time and
time again, story after story about the culpability of all
(25:18):
of these people around Jeffrey Epstein, whether it be enabling
him and Maxwell or outright participating. It's the same story
for all of these people. And Campus is like this
school campus up in Michigan. They need to have some
kind of penalty when stuff like this happens. Because you're
(25:45):
a school, right your job is to raise and nurture children.
You would think probably to keep them safe is a
big part of that as well. So I hope that
there is some kind of repercussions, but I'm doubtful. You see,
there's never repercussions for the enablers, and it certainly doesn't
(26:07):
seem like there'll be serious repercussions for the enablers here
in this case as well, at least not in this
portion of the trial. So we're gonna jump into some
of that testimony today and we're gonna go through the
testimony from Jane, from Matt, and then from the executive
from Interloking. So let's dive in and let's start with
(26:32):
the testimony from Jane. So obviously they got ready to
go in the morning. There were some issues. They had
some issues about a Rule sixteen issue about it went
into some things that could be disclosed or shouldn't be
disclosed if it's an impeachment of the witness, blah blah blah.
(26:53):
So they had this whole entire discussion before the jury
even came into the room. So they got that all
square it away, they had a sidebar, got it all
locked in, and then the jury comes into the room
and we get ready to go. Now, the questioning from
Meninger stayed in the same ballpark that it was in
(27:16):
yesterday and what we expected, very combative and trying to
set Jane up as somebody who has a problem remembering things. Also,
of course there's the money angle. Oh, this is about money,
this is about this, this is about that, when in reality,
it's about the abuse that Jane suffered at the hands
(27:38):
of Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. They want to make it
about everything but that, and hopefully the jury doesn't bite.
So Meninger starts off the questioning by asking did you
turn seventeen in your final year at Interlogan. Jane answers, no,
I was sixteen. Menager directs the jurors to pick up
(27:58):
a small binder under their chairs and turned to j three.
So obviously I have no idea what Jay three is.
We none of us know. It's evidence that was introduced
to the trial and discovery, I'm guessing, and now they
want the jurors to take a look at that as
(28:19):
far as the testimony that Jane is giving here. So
you'll see that from time to time they'll have things
pre prepared as part of their questioning strategy. Menager goes
on to say, and your application said you came from
a long and loving family, right. Jane says that's what
(28:40):
it says. Menager says, do you recognize the document? Jane
goes on to say, I do not recognize it per se,
but I see my signature. Meninger advises her that it's
your application to Interlogan manager, then goes on to say
when you spoke to your younger brother. You didn't mention
there was a correct Jane says, I don't think so.
(29:04):
Manager goes on to say, and you told a new
source that you were approached by Glaine. No mention of Glane. Correct.
Jane says, I don't remember that. And again, remember this
is their strategy. They want to try and make it
seem like she has no idea what she's talking about,
like she has no real memories of this or a
recollection of this. And you also see why they're bringing
(29:27):
the memory expert in that they were able to call
as a witness, or they're going to be able to
call as a witness. So it all lines up. Now
their strategy really starts to make sense. It's a two
pronged approach, right, A you misremember basically calling her a liar,
but in a nice way, and b oh, you're motivated
by money. That has always been their strategy, and that
(29:51):
has always been the way that they were going to
go about this. Really, what it all comes down to
is is the jury going buy it or are they
going to see through it and understand what really happened here?
A Meninger goes on to say, when you got to
Epstein's house with your mother. Your house was in West
(30:12):
Palm Beach, right, Jane says, no, it was in Palm Beach.
Meninger says, you didn't cross any state lines, did you? No?
I didn't. There were only the three of us having tea.
So she's trying to establish that this didn't happen over
state lines, but which is ridiculous because maybe this one
instance didn't, But what about the trips to New Mexico?
(30:34):
And then shouldn't that enact the man Act right away?
You would think that there would be the man Act
being thrown around in this case, but we haven't seen it,
and we certainly haven't seen Rico. That's what really this
should have have fallen under. This is a criminal conspiracy
put in place by numerous people, so it should be
(30:56):
a Rico case and a huge umbrella, but unfortunately it's not.
But what Menager is trying to do here is to
establish that this didn't happen over state lions, and she's
trying to conflate it and cause some confusion. Meninger goes
on to say, have you ever spoken with your sisters
about your boyfriends? Jane goes on to say I didn't
(31:19):
have any boyfriends. Then the US attorney called for a
brief sidebar. So I'm sure that they had to confer
about the line of questioning or about some of the
other particulars going on, so they called for the sidebar.
And you'll see this in trials, obviously. I'm sure you're
all aware. In the middle of a trial, one of
(31:39):
the defense or the prosecution will call for a sidebar
with the judge. So after the sidebar ended, Maxwell's lawyer
comes back and she says, look at the last line
in the top paragraph. You told the agents that Epstein
would decide where everyone sat. And as Meninger was pursuing
(32:00):
this line of questioning, there was an objection by the prosecutors,
and the objection was she should only ask does it
refresh your recollection? So Judge Nathan says, go ahead and ask,
and Menager, with those exact words, says, does it refresh
your recollection? Jane goes on to answer yes, Menager says,
(32:22):
and there was nothing sexual in the theater. Jane goes right.
So what she's trying to do is again build a
timeline where she is showing that Jane doesn't remember or
that this doesn't happen, or that it was all just,
(32:42):
you know, very innocent what Jeffrey Epstein and Glene Maxwell
were up to. And this obviously is going to be
the line of defense as we move forward. Menager goes
on to say, yesterday it said it was shortly after
(33:03):
the poolhouse that you had this incident with Epstein and Glaine. Right.
Prosecutors objection, as to form, Judge Nathan says, specify what
you're talking about. Prosecution objection. Menager says, this is foundational.
So what Menager is saying is that this is a
very important part of all of their defense here. Right,
(33:26):
this is foundational to our defense. It has to be admitted.
Menager goes on to say, you told the government you
do not have a specific memory of your first time
with Glaine. Prosecutors objection, Menager, you have come up with
the memory in the last two years. Jane says, I
don't believe I have come up with the memory. No,
So again, you see the memory, right, We're gonna go
(33:48):
after the memory. She doesn't know what she's talking about.
She forgot, this never happened. She misremembered, and that's how
they roll. And you know, so once we saw the
witnesses that Glaine Maxwell was going to call, once we
saw the memory experts and all of that, we should
have been aware that this was going to be a
(34:12):
key component. Jane says, it is not typed up right
on this form Maxwell's lawyer Manager another typo by the government,
you know, an unneeded dig. But again, it's gonna get
testy in this courtroom. This is one of those explosive cases.
Manager is making a boatload of money and it's going
(34:34):
to get explosive at points. What I think is interesting
as well. You notice that Everdell isn't doing the cross today,
that it's Manager who took over because they wanted to
get into the slime and the crime, so they figured
if they had another woman performing the cross it would
go over better. Prosecution objection. Manager says, you told the
(34:55):
government Glaine never used sex toys or a vibrator on you.
Jane said, correct. So again what they're trying to do
is establish Jane as a liar. Well, you said one
thing fifteen years ago or twenty years ago, and you're
saying another thing now, And that's definitely what they're going
to do. And I know it's frustrating for people to watch,
(35:18):
and it's gross. The behavior is gross, but this is
what these lawyers do. There is no rock left unturned
by these lawyers, especially when you're paying this kind of money,
and it's just gonna get grimier, folks. Unfortunately, I just
want to prepare you all for a real disgusting few weeks,
(35:39):
especially those of you who haven't followed this case and
might only have a skin deep idea about what happened here.
This is some of the most sadistic brutality ever and
performed by people in the most highest of positions. Menager
(36:00):
goes on to say, you said Glane never saw your
perform oral sex on Epstein. Jane says, I don't recall.
Meninger replies, look at the document. Judge Nathan says, let's
take a break. So that was the first session this morning,
when Jane first got on the stage on the stand
and the questioning started. Now they had a break, and
(36:23):
then after the break, obviously they came back, so we'll
dive into that part of the testimony now. So after
they came back from the eleven o'clock break, Meninger's lawyer continued,
I mean Maxwell's lawyer manager continued with the same line
(36:43):
of questioning, again attacking the memory of Jane. She goes
on to say, you testified yesterday your first sex with Epstein,
and you first had sex with Epstein in his poolhouse
in Florida, but you told the government it was in
New York. Jane says, those are not my notes. I
did not write that down and it was not recorded.
(37:05):
So she's trying to once again act like Jane is
basically lying here, saying that she told she testified yesterday
that the first time her and Epstein had sex, the
first time she was assaulted by Epstein, was in the
poolhouse in Florida. But she goes on to say that
(37:25):
she told the government that it was in New York,
and Jane disputes this. She says that that's not the case.
Those weren't her notes and she did not write that down.
So it'll be interesting to see what the Jerry makes
of that. Menainger goes on to say, you told them
you only remembered one incident in New York when Galane
was present. Jane goes on to say, I don't recall.
(37:48):
Meninger says, look at document three five zero nine dash
zero zero three. Hasn't your story changed? Jane replies, I
didn't understand the question. So the hammering continues, and you
see her dog at approach here. She's not giving up
an inch Menager. And as I was following along with
(38:08):
some of the comments today in some of these threads,
people were not very happy with Menager. And it is
a gross tactic. But that's what these lawyers do. Lawyers
like Menager. This is her specialty, right. She enjoys it. Now,
I'm not saying she enjoys, you know, going hard on victims.
(38:29):
I'm talking about she definitely enjoys her job, you can tell.
And she might even enjoy that part of it. Who knows.
I don't know the lady, but I'll tell you this much.
I don't think, when all said and done, that this
is going to be the right strategy. Menager goes on
to say, you told the government you flew to New
York with Epstein in Glane to see the Lion King. Jane,
(38:50):
I said that, but I was incorrect in my timeline.
I was fourteen, So The Lion King came out in
nineteen ninety four, and that's when she was fourteen. But
they're talking about again time frames. They're also brought up
(39:13):
that the Broadway show The Lion King, which started in
nineteen ninety seven, which would have had the timeline incorrect.
But Jane here is saying she was fourteen. Menager goes
on to say, you were a student of theater and
the arts at the time. Correct prosecution objection as to form.
(39:33):
So you know what that means, right, She's trying to say,
she's an actor. So you're a student of theater and
arts at the time, right, so you know how to act?
You had you know, you got acting chops, You're the
next insert great actress here. That's how Menager is going
to frame it. That's what she's going to try and infer. Meanwhile,
(39:53):
we know she was a young kid at the time.
How many of you out there took theater classes. How
many of you out there were thespians. I know I
was in technical theater growing up, and I highly doubt
anyone was as good of an actor to pull off
a whole acting performance here. I mean, it's just ridiculous,
(40:15):
and it just goes to show you that the whole
entire plan is scorched earth for Maxwell. It also in
my opinion anyway shows that they're desperate. If they weren't desperate,
I highly doubt they'd be going this route now. At
this point, Judge Nathan called for another break because Jane
(40:37):
needed some water. Then they get back on the stand
and Menager continues with her peppering of Jane. Let's go
to your conversation in February twenty twenty about the Lion
King prosecution. No objection. Menager says, I know, miss Mo
would like to come and do this for me. Another
dig at the prosecutors, and Menager is you know, skating
(41:02):
on thin ice with that kind of stuff. I mean,
it's kind of expected for the snarkiness to happen, but
this early in the trial, boys, like I said, she's
bringing out all the artillery. Obviously, Alison Moe objected to that,
and then Menager goes, but the Lion King on Broadway
didn't start until you were seventeen years old. Did the
(41:23):
government or mister Glassman suggest to you that you might
have meant the Lion King movie. Prosecution goes on objection,
so again bringing up the Lion King and trying to
point out that there's a lot of misremembering going on. Here,
(41:44):
and it's was left at that. After the objection, Menager
then changes her tactic or line of questioning to talk
about New Mexico. So you recall going to the New
Mexico Range, a giant, huge home, correct, Jane replies, like
all the homes, Meninger says, and that Jeffrey Ups, Epstein's
(42:05):
brother went with you. Correct. Jane says, I don't recall now,
that would be interesting. Huh. We really haven't heard too
much about Mark Epstein. He's been kind of a enigma
throughout all of this, but we know that he's an
owner of the building on sixty sixth Street where a
lot of these trafficked girls were being housed. And again
(42:26):
it raises the question, how is there not a rico
case here? How are all of the people who are
financially connected to Epstein and Maxwell not being forced to
sing a song? And unfortunately, what it shows you is
that the government just doesn't have the backbone to do
what is really needed to be done here. Meninger went
(42:48):
on to say, you weren't asked to have sex with
any of Epstein's friends, were you? Jane says no. Meninger says,
did Epstein introduce you to people in the arts. Jane
replies not really, then goes on to say to the
dean of Interlogan at a cocktail party, Jane, I don't recall.
And this is a shrewd tactic by Menager. What she's
(43:08):
trying to do is to get her to say I
don't recall as many times as possible, so she'll ask
like vague questions, do you remember meeting people in the arts?
Did you ever meet the dean of inter Logan at
a cocktail party? Mind you, this is back in nineteen
ninety four, so it is the strategy that is very
apparent at this point, and I wonder what the prosecution
(43:32):
is going to have up their sleeve to answer it.
Menainger then goes on to say, in Document three five
zero nine Dash zero zero one, you said you met
Donald Trump at mar A Lago before the poolhouse incident. Jane,
I don't recall, Menager, you said Epstein took you in
a dark green car to mar A Lago to a
(43:53):
meeting with Donald Trump, and prosecution says asked An answered
and also misleading. So very interesting that they bring that
up again, right, and what I think they're trying to
do is establish the fact that there are a lot more,
if you want to say, bigger fish involved in all
(44:13):
of this. So they keep pointing out things like Trump, etc. Etc.
And again another good tactic from Menager. But I don't
think it's gonna be enough to throw people off of
the ball here. And I think that the main point
for the prosecution and for this trial, remember, is Maxwell
(44:34):
and the crimes that she's being accused of. So they're
going to try and conflate it with all kinds of
other things. But it's gonna be up to the prosecution
to keep the jurors eye on the ball. Menager says,
you also had some recollections about flying on the private
plane with Epstein, right. Jane says yes. Menager goes on
(44:56):
to say, you said you were asked your weight when
you got on the plane. Correct. Jane says yes. And
there was a lot of weird stuff that happened within
Epstein's circle. He had a lot of things like that
go on. For instance, the Core four all would go
get their haircuts down at Frederick Facai's shop. He had
a tab there when they'd all go down get the
(45:16):
haircut that he liked, and it was, you know, a
very weird situation in the whole Epstein circle, Very very
very much not what is being presented by the media.
Meninger says, in twenty nineteen, before Epstein was arrested, you
were contacted by the government, right, Jane says. Yes. Defense
(45:40):
goes on to say, but you said you were not
interested in getting involved. Jane says, right, So you're gonna
hold that against her. Why would anyone want to get
involved of testifying against Epstein before he was dead, considering
the fact that he was caught literally with his pants
down and nothing happened to him. You're somebody from a
(46:01):
broken home, You're somebody from a disadvantaged background, somebody who
and you have this man with all of this power
and all of this influence. What are you supposed to
do go and tell on him? Well, how'd that work
out for Maria Farmer? How did it work out for
all the girls in Palm Beach? So again this part
of the defense falling flat in my opinion. The defense
(46:25):
goes to say, then you hired mister Glassman, a personal
injury lawyer with ADS. Well, yeah, of course, he adds ads,
he's a lawyer. What does that even mean, who is
she supposed to go and hire some high profile lawyer
like you, missus Meninger. She didn't have that kind of money.
She was living in a poolhouse, remember, But all of
a sudden everybody should go and hire miss Meninger and
(46:45):
Christian Everdell God forbid a lawyer has some ads on
a billboard. Menager redirects her question and changes reform and
then goes on to say did you see his ads
touting his big verdicts. Jane responds, he's a friend of
a friend. Manager goes a manager's response to that is
is this year contingent fee agreement? Showing her a document obviously.
(47:09):
Jane replies, yes, it is, So they're setting it up
like Glassman. Here was the one who talked Jane into
going to the government about Epstein. Again, all about money,
all about motivated by money, and I don't really buy that,
to be honest with you, it's ridiculous. Again, who is
she supposed to reach out to? Not all of us
(47:31):
have millions and millions of dollars. Not all of us
have a big bank account where we can hire an
all star team of lawyers. After that exchange, Menager changes
tax again and starts asking about the ex boyfriend Matt
who we heard about yesterday and I told you would
be a witness today. You've talked to your ex boyfriend
(47:55):
Matt Right. Jane says right. Menager goes on, and you
were in a beauty pageant sponsored by Donald Trump. Jane
says yes. Menager says, do you recall crying that Jeffrey
Epstein only gave you two thousand dollars for address? Jane
(48:18):
says no. Then Menager goes on to say you were
on a reality TV show with Matt Right, and Jane
responds yes. So there's a lot there. First of all,
you were in a beauty pageant sponsored by Donald Trump. Okay,
Trump sponsored a ton of beauty pageants, So that doesn't
shock me one bit. We talked about that a little
bit yesterday. Trump has had his hands in all kinds
(48:39):
of you know, beauty pageants and that sort of a
scummy part of the world. That's why it cracks me
up when anyone expects this, you know, this guy to
be like some great guy or something. News flash, he's not.
None of them are, none of these people, these politicians,
and they're all gross. All of these people who were
hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein and I don't care, I
(49:02):
don't I don't care if it's oh, it's my favorite politician. Well,
I don't know what to tell you. The hero worshiping
is really weird to me, and especially when it comes
to these guys who have been outed as absolute scumbags.
Menager says, and there was tension and you cried. Jane responds,
reality shows are not really reality. Then Manager says, you
(49:25):
claimed you were putting a roof over your family's head.
Jane responds, I don't know if i'd use those words.
You told that to Matt. Jane responds, well, they were
living at my house. So you see what she did
here with the reality TV show. She throws that in
there to once again to try and point out to
the the jury that she's a looking for money. She's
(49:49):
an actress, she wants to increase her profile, and this
is all they really have. This is what they're going
to continue to do. Menager continued, And you demanded money
from Glean Maxwell. Jane says, I have a lawyer. Menainger says,
and you sought money from the Epstein compensation fund. Look
(50:10):
at exhibit j eighteen at six you were offered how much?
Jane says five million, So that's significant right there, folks.
And you know, people don't talk about this enough, but
they should. Once Epstein's a state paid that money out
to these girls, they're accepting liability that this happened. So
right here in court with Epstein paying out that money,
(50:33):
Menainger pointing it out, Well, Epstein is taking responsibility and
culpability here because they're paying for it, aren't they If
this never happened, do you really think that Epstein's estate
would be paying out this money. So they're taking responsibility
for it. And what Glan Maxwell and her team are
trying to do is push it all on to Epstein
(50:57):
and act like Galan Maxwell had no part in any
of this. So after those questions, Judge Nathan said that
it's time for lunch. Everybody heads out to lunch, you know,
goes and does their thing, and then they get back
in you know, roughly an hour, and the questioning continues.
(51:22):
So after lunch when they came back, Menager again kept going.
So you went to a specialized entertainment school, right manager,
And since then, you've played roles like a cancer patient Jane, yes, Menager,
prostitute Jane, no, Menager, you can cry on command. That
(51:42):
line is just a prostitute. You have to throw that
in there. Right, Let's just go ahead and throw that
in there, shouldn't we And ridiculous Again, she says no,
and then you can cry on command. Ridiculous. So basically,
again trying to establish that she's that this is all premeditated,
it's all made up, and it's all in act. Menager says,
(52:06):
your accusations in this case include that you were fourteen
when you were abused, right, Jane, yes, Menager. You first
told the government you were thirteen, right, Jane, I might
have said thirteen going on fourteen. It's a small technicality,
And she's right, that's a long time ago. There's a
lot of trauma and a lot of research that goes
into all of this that talks about how there's repressed
(52:29):
memories and all of that. Again, I am not a psychologist.
I won't even begin to act like I understand all
of that science. Also, Jane said, on the prostitute role,
not my favorite role. Manager goes on to say, you
talk about the Lion King and you say you were fourteen,
(52:51):
but it only came out when you were seventeen, right,
and you said you were fifteen when you met Mike
Wallace at his eightieth birthday party. Right again bringing up
other people. Very shrewd move by Menager. She wants to
take the spotlight off of her client and put it
on some of the other names that have been in
Jeffrey Epstein's atmosphere. She goes on to say, Jane says,
(53:15):
I don't know how old I was. This one cracked
me up. Menager goes, you don't know when his birthday is?
Look at j thirty three. Does it refresh your recollection?
Breaking news? Meninger, who the hell knows when Mike Wallace
was born? Who the hell knows when Mike Meetloaf Wallace
was born? I mean, really, you expect this young lady
(53:36):
to know when Mike Wallace was born? Holy? Really? Obviously
the prosecutors object to this and it was sustained, Nathan
saying there was no basis for refreshing. Meninger goes on
and says, in your civil case, you got integration interrogatories.
(53:59):
Do you know what those are? Jane says no. Manager says,
so your lawyer answered for you. Under your oath and
you didn't know. Jane says, I don't know very honest
about what occurred here, right, And I think at this
point it's rather obvious to the Jerry what's going on here? Now? Again,
I don't have a line to the Jerry. I certainly
am not a mind reader, but you would think that
(54:22):
it's obvious where they're going with this. Now it's uh
moved on and the redirect starts with assistant prosecutor asking
the questions, did any of US prosecutors ever tell you
(54:44):
what to say at this trial? Jane responds, no, Prosecutor,
you were asked about notes of meetings with the US
Did you speak about everything all at once? And Jane
goes on to say no. Then she goes on to say,
why did you speak to the tabloid reporter? And that
(55:05):
was a big mistake by Jane, right. Speaking to a
tabloid reporter is never a good idea. These people don't
have any kouth. They're just trying to get a story
out in a headline out. Jane says, he basically blackmailed me.
He said he would publish unredacted documents. Judge Nathan says
this is not for the truth of the matter asserted,
(55:27):
but impact on the listener. Prosecutors go on to say,
did you make an agreement with the reporter? Jane says, yes,
I talk about meeting Jeffrey Epstein. The reporter would keep
my name out of it. I was working on a
TV show. And this is the scummy moves that a
lot of these reporters are up to. A lot of
these so called legacy media journalists are up to, and
(55:47):
that's why people don't have any faith in them or
any trust in them. When somebody tells you something in
confidence like this, I don't care if you're a reporter
or not. If something is off the record, it should
stay off the record. But there's no oh dignity, right,
there's no more moral compass. It's all about who can
get the headline out first and who can move the
most units. And it's rather gross, honestly. The prosecution says,
(56:13):
do you know the difference between acting on television and
testifying in court? Jane now sobbing, crying, answers, Yes, this
is real. I am seeking closure. I have been running
from this my entire life. I want to help in
whatever way I can and maybe find some healing so
(56:33):
again she's sobbing now rough for her, obviously reliving all
of this, talking about all of this, putting it all
out there for everybody to see. The prosecutor goes on
to say, do you have any financial interest in this trial?
Change response, No. Prosecutor is done with her line of
(56:54):
questioning and says nothing further. Judge Nathan says that Jane,
you can step down, and then they take another break,
and after the break they go on to the next
two witnesses, and they weren't on the stand very long today,
so I'm guessing we'll pick up with that line of
questioning tomorrow as far as the gentleman that they ended
(57:20):
with here, the man from Interlogan. So after their break
they come back and now the ex boyfriend Matt is
on the stand. Now, Matt, we talked about a little
bit yesterday when he was brought up. I was wondering
who he was gonna be, and then it came to light,
obviously that it was the ex boyfriend of Jane. So
(57:40):
let's jump into this line of questioning from the prosecutors.
How do you know Jane, Matt responds, she's my ex
girlfriend from two thousand and six, to twenty and fourteen prosecution?
Did you live together Matt yes? From two thousand and
seven to twenty and fourteen prosecution. Are you still friends?
(58:01):
Matt yes, and we work on the same TV show.
So that's a pretty cool thing to see. Huh that
her ex from all these years ago is willing to
step up to the plate and take the stand in
a trial as hyper sensitive as this prosecution. What did
(58:22):
Jane tell you about her home life? To this question,
Maxwell's lawyers objected? Nathan responds, any foundation, and Maxwell's lawyers
say it's hearsay, So another sidebar commences. After they return,
Nathan says, miss Mo, I'll ask you to narrow the question. Mo.
Did Jane speak about her family finance when she grew up?
(58:44):
Matt yes that when her father got sick, they went broke,
the mother was working a small job. They were in
the same bed. So what he's doing here is corroborating
what Jane had said, telling the court what he knows
about this, what Jane had told him and revealed to
him in their time together, and it corroborates the story
(59:06):
that Jane has been telling. Matt goes on to say,
she told me she had a godfather. Later she told
me it was Jeffrey Epstein. I said he helped pay
your bills. She said, yes, Prosecution. When did she tell
(59:26):
you she met Epstein. Maxwell's lawyers object to this, and
Nathan goes on to tell the prosecution that they have
to ask more specific questions. Alison Moe, did Jane tell
you what happened between her and Jeffrey Epstein? Matt not specifically, Prosecution.
Did she say why he gave her money? Matt said,
(59:46):
she just said it was not free. That's pretty chilling.
Imagine this young girl has to do whatever Epstein wants,
if she wants a new instrument for school, or if
she doesn't want her mom thrown out on the street,
or she doesn't want her family not to be able
to eat. Prosecution. Did they tell you about a woman
(01:00:07):
who was involved? Matt said yes. Prosecution then says, did
she give the woman's name? Response from the witness, Matt no.
Back to the prosecution. What was her demeanor like when
Jane told you about Jeffrey Epstein? Shame, Matt responds, and
that's a typical emotion when it comes to this sort
(01:00:28):
of thing. Unfortunately, a lot of shame and that's because
there's a big stigma on all of this, right, you know,
these girls that come forward a lot of times, they're
dragged through the mud. They have their reputations just completely destroyed,
and it's almost not worth it unfortunately for these girls,
especially with high profile people like this. The prosecution says,
(01:00:54):
what did Jane tell her money? Matt goes on to
say that money was not free. That and before you
could finished the prosecution they cut him off and prosecution goes,
don't say what the mother said, Just what Jane said.
Matt continues his statement. Jane told her mother that the
money was not free and that it should not have
been allowed. And the profile that we have painted of
(01:01:19):
Jane's mom is not good. You know, Jane's mom. It
seems like she was looking in the other direction here,
and it's kind of disturbing the way Jane was explaining
it and how her mom was kind of, you know,
trying to shame her about this kind of thing, and
really pretty sad to read that. So after the questioning
(01:01:40):
was done, Maxwell's lawyers didn't even bother with the cross
of Matt, so he was sent on his way. And
then the next witness who was brought up was Daniel
Vesselsen of Interlogan. Now he's one of the executives over there,
one of the money men, and he was brought in
(01:02:01):
to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and the fundraising aspect of this.
So he gets into the witness chair and prosecution starts out.
Where is interlog in Michigan? Vesselson responds, near Traverse City Prosecution,
how did you keep fundraising records? Vesselson Salesforce prosecution. We
(01:02:24):
offered GX seven forty four a document under seal. Now
GX seven forty one. Vesselson responds a letter to mister
Epstein about the scholarship's lodge. How much he'd give? So
obviously we don't know what the seal documents have to say,
but I'm guessing it has to do with the amount
of money Epstein gave to this lodge, which was a
(01:02:46):
lot of money. Prosecution, what's this? Looking at the document
and Vesselson says, the lodge formerly known as the Jeffrey
Epstein Scholarship Lodge. Can you imagine the law on property
was named after Jeffrey Epstein? And we've we've been talking
(01:03:07):
about this for years. You would think this is something
the legacy media would have been all over. You would
think that this would have caused at the very least
some questions to be asked. But silence. So now the
cross examination starts, and it's very short because it's obviously
(01:03:30):
almost time to wrap up. So Maxwell's lawyers, you don't
have records for the individual and the individual's siblings. Correct.
Vesselson goes on to say, correct, Maxwell's lawyer, mister Epstein
certainly was a major donor. Correct Vesselson. Yes, And with that,
that's the end of it for today. Now tomorrow they're
gonna bring Vesselson back up and they'll finish this cross
(01:03:53):
examination and we'll see what else they have in store
for us as far as witnesses and all of that jazz.
But if you're looking to follow this case, and you're
looking to do it in like real time on like
Twitter or whatever, you got to check out Inner City Press.
They're doing a great job of providing transcripts for all
of us to go through and dig into. And yeah,
(01:04:14):
I'm very thankful for those guys over there and the
work that they're doing. It's you know, being a good
journalist is almost a lost art at this point. So
got to make sure you give them their props. And
if you haven't followed them already on Twitter, if you
use Twitter, I don't blame you if you don't, definitely
give them a follow and think about contributing to their
work because it's real solid and it's providing a huge
(01:04:36):
benefit for all of us, right and there's other people
doing it as well. I just think that his work
is very, very good. So that's going to wrap it
up for today, folks, And that's where we stand as
far as the trial. As day three comes to a
close and we await day four, we'll just have to
(01:04:57):
see what sort of twists and turn burns are in
the road ahead of us. If you'd like to contact me,
you can do that at Bobby Kapuchi 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 b O B B Y
(01:05:18):
underscore c A p U C c I. The link
for the thread what we talked about here from Inner
City Press will be in the description box.
And welcome to the Epstein Chronicles. Yesterday mark day one
(00:06):
of the Galain Maxwell trial, and I have to tell
you I was caught a bit off guard. I wasn't
expecting Larry big Dog Vasasky to be put on the
stand right away like that. I figured there would be
some opening statements from both sides and then we'd get
into the meat and the potatoes, a little bit of
(00:27):
the meat on the bone in the coming days. But
they got right to it yesterday. And Larry Vassoski is
a major cock within the Epstein realm. He was Epstein's pilot.
He was flying all of these people all over the world,
(00:48):
and obviously, according to him, he'll tell you that he
didn't know who was on all of those flights, especially
the domestic ones. But you have to think that the
government believes that he has something to add if they're
calling him as their first witness. And it also makes
me wonder if he cuts some kind of deal with
(01:09):
the government. Now, again, there's zero evidence that Larry Vasosky
was ever going to be indicted or anything like that,
but it's pretty interesting that he's working with the government here.
I mean, we're talking about a guy that Jeffrey Epstein
gave a plot of land to right over there in
(01:31):
his own ranch down in Stanley, And when I went
down there to New Mexico, it is almost hard to
explain just how vast this property is and just how
desolate this property is. Jeffrey Epstein set up a nice
little home away from home down there at Zoro Ranch,
(01:54):
and the things he was doing down there were very secretive, right,
It wasn't something that would well publicized. There was a
reason he chose that spot in New Mexico. I mean,
obviously one of the reasons is the age of consent there,
but there were other reasons why Jeffrey Epstein chose New Mexico.
(02:16):
And the fact that he was able to get away
with the things he was able to get away with
in New Mexico is just mind boggling to me. But
the point is, you don't give somebody a big fat
chunk of land in a place that you're hoping to
keep relatively private or at the very least under a
(02:37):
shroud of secrecy, a piece of land there if you
don't trust them. So my question is what enticed him
to offer up information for the government. Now, again, I
don't have any lead saying that he had a profit
agreement or he was in any jeopardy of being indicted.
(02:58):
But I just find it interesting that he is talking
with the government now, and not only just talking with
the government obviously, but taking the stand as a government witness.
Usually that kind of thing doesn't just happen organically, right.
The government is uh, you know, they find ways to
get people to do what they want them to do.
(03:20):
Especially if you have something that might be criminal hanging
over your head, they will definitely leverage that, they'll use
it in their favor, and they'll get you moving in
a direction that they want you to move in. So
the Larry Vosasky on the stand, it's definitely very interesting.
But as I ruminated on it last night and I
(03:41):
let it marinate, I had some more questions, right, like
did he get a profer agreement, Is he working with
the government because he doesn't want to be charged himself,
or did they just turn him as a witness. So
it's going to be very interesting to see all of
the details, right, all of the specifics as we move forward,
(04:04):
and with something like this a trial, a case with
just so much information, it's going to be very fluid.
Things are going to happen quickly, and things are going
to happen on a daily basis. Every single time that
you have this jury impaneled and the trial going on,
you're going to have, you know, significant things coming out
(04:27):
of those sessions. So getting right off to a jump
with Larry Vassoski as a witness number one, it just
tells me that there's going to be some more surprises
coming down the old shoot here. And I'm very curious
to see who else the government offers up as witnesses.
(04:49):
And on the flip side of that, I'm wondering who
the defense is going to pony up as a witness. Besides,
they're paid for specialists. Are they going to have any
one show up and uh, you know Polish Glane Maxwell's reputation.
Is anyone going to step into that box and say, hey, look,
(05:10):
Glan Maxwell's a good person, she didn't do this and
I think that she's innocent. Now, I haven't heard that
they're gonna have anybody up there to do that, but
you would think, right if you're the defense, one thing
you want to do is try to establish that your
client has, you know, as a person of character, is
somebody who this is below and somebody who would never
(05:33):
engage in behavior like this. And if your client is
somebody like that, it stands to reason that you'd be
able to find a few people that are willing to,
you know, go on the record and testify that she's
a good person or that she's somebody of upstanding character.
So I'm interested to see what sort of trick the
(05:56):
Maxwell team pulls out of their hat when it comes
to a statablishing her as a credible person or somebody
who should be believed, because you know that the prosecution
is they're coming hard. Obviously, if Vasoski is the first witness,
you gotta think that there's gonna be a litany of
people trotting up to that box that have damning statements
(06:20):
about Glene Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and the way they
were conducting themselves. And who better situated than the guy
that was flying them all around the world. Now, last
night I updated and I uploaded an episode about the
other pilot that was brought up at this child David Rodgers,
(06:42):
you might want to check that out as well. But
with Larry Vassoski taking the stand here, it's pretty significant
for those of us who have been following the case especially.
I was talking with some of my colleagues who follow
the case yesterday and it was pretty much unanimous consensus that,
you know, this is probably going to lead us to
(07:04):
even more explosive witnesses hitting that stant. So I'm very
interested to see where things go today, and I'm interested
to see what sort of strategy the defense is going
to use when it comes to cross examining Larry Vasaski.
We can definitely expect more of Asaski today and you know,
(07:28):
we'll see what comes of it. But I think it's
very very interesting that he was the first witness, and
I think it's going to be interesting to see how
it all breaks down from here. So today, what we're
going to do is we're going to take a look
at some of the headlines from overnight and yeah, to
(07:50):
take a look at what's going on. We have a
headline over here from Slate and this is an article
that was published by Seth Stevenson. The headline, Glenn Maxwell's
trial opens with her lawyer diving straight into the muck
and he goes into what's going on like outside of
(08:11):
the courthouse and all of that Jazz from the article.
Outside the Thurgood Marshall Federal Courthouse in Lower Manhattan this morning,
the media throng assembled to cover day one of the
Glene Maxwell trial. Print reporters, newsletter writers, podcasters, and television
crews coalesced into the strangely glamorous frenzy that seems to
(08:31):
accompany the launch of every high profile criminal proceeding. Now.
The reason I bring this headline up is I talk
a lot about how it's Carnival Barker City right now,
and you're definitely seeing it out in front of the courthouse.
There are people of all stripes showing up and making
(08:51):
their voices heard, and you know, you have a lot
of misinformed people as well. But one thing is very
apparent to me, and it is that there is a
lot of anger on both sides of the political fence,
and it's not very often that you see that. Now.
(09:12):
Of course, there are the yahoos that are using this
as a political cudgel to beat their political opponents over
the head. And I'd be very cautious of any of
these pundits that are talking about this case from either
side of the conversation. I'd be very cautious about what
sort of rhetoric they're spinning towards you, Because this is
(09:36):
much bigger than that. This is so much bigger than
Republican and Democrat, This is so much bigger than left
and right. You have to understand that this was people
at all levers of power from both parties who were
enabling this and facilitating this for decades. So to try
(09:58):
and pin it on one part or the other is
a great disservice to those who were actually abused by
this scumbag. So while the circus like atmosphere is to
be expected, I think that it is one of the
most gross ways to go about things when you're using
this as a political cudgel. Now, of course there's a
political angle to it, right, Definitely. A lot of the
(10:21):
people involved had ties to politicians or were politicians themselves.
But it's very apparent when someone's trying to harness this
as a political weapon, and I would just caution you
to be very very aware of that. He goes on
(10:41):
to say, I've seen it before. It always starts this
way in mystery and frision, and it always ends in
the squalor. That's the reality of crime, no matter the trial,
when it comes to a high profile one, it's always
going to have a cast of characters, right, So I
(11:01):
just it's one of those things where I just I
witness and I observe and shake my head. You know,
you have like like he says here, When Michael Jackson's
trial for child sexual abuse charges was getting underway, the
media revved up to cover the bizarre tale of an
eccentric global superstar. And then the trial began and we
(11:23):
met a dim, lonely drunk who liked to show porno
maags to little boys. So I guess what he's trying
to say here in this article is the perception of
what a trial is going to be and then the
reality of it are usually two very very different things,
and I think we'll see a lot of that in
this case as well. There are a lot of misinformed
(11:46):
people when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein case, the
Galainne Maxwell trial and all of the players on the stage,
and hopefully when we're done here on the podcast, we
can try and clear a little bit of that up.
And my suggestion would be to all of you out
there who are new to this case, who have just
found the Glen Maxwell trial or have just gotten interested
(12:08):
in this. I would suggest that you go on to
social media and you seek out some of the survivors
from this case and follow them on social media and
listen to them in their own words. That way, there's
no background noise, there's no middleman. And one thing that
these survivors did that was pretty much groundbreaking was they
(12:33):
skipped the legacy media and they went directly to social media,
to independent content creators and independent journalists to get the
story out. And once there was such a swell from
all of you people out there who have been following
this case, they were forced to act right. And it's
been pretty crazy to watch it all unfold because it
(12:59):
has been in time and time again where not only
were these girls women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein and allegedly Maxwell,
but by our very own justice system, by the people
who were put in place to make sure that the
(13:20):
most vulnerable amongst us are protected. Those very people failed
these girls. And you heard it yesterday in the trial,
and it's something I've been punching home for a long time. Here.
They chose girls from broken homes, girls who come from
low income families, girls who don't have as many prospects
(13:42):
on the horizon, and they specifically search these kinds of
girls out, And that just makes it even more draconian too.
Me as if it's not hard enough being broke, being poor,
coming from a broken home, now you have this multi
hundred million dollar predator and his co associate, his underboss
(14:07):
bringing you in to groom you and molest you. And
it's absolutely horrendous to think about. And the fact that
they preyed on the most vulnerable amongst us, it just
makes me so mad. I really dislike bullies, and I
really like people who punched down. I really dislike people
who punched down. And Jeffrey Epstein was all of that,
(14:30):
and Glane Maxwell, she went right along with it. She
was right there making decisions with them and helping him
facilitate all of this, according to multiple multiple survivors. He
goes on to say that he suspects that the trial
of Glenn Maxwell, who stands accused of helping Jeffrey Epstein
(14:51):
sexually abuse minors, will follow a similar similar arc to
those other trials, meaning you know, the whole entire circus, atmosphere,
et cetera, etc. He says the media has revved itself
up to cover the story of a stylish, jet setting
socialite who broke fantastically bad. But over the coming long
courtroom days, chances are will hear less about how she
(15:13):
graduated from Oxford, speaks several languages and can pilot helicopters,
and more about how she allegedly took teenage girls on
Florida shopping mall excursions as a means of prepping them
form a less station. Yeah. Well, anyone who's showing up
here thinking that Glaine Maxwell is just some you know,
shrinking violet socialite, you're in for a rude awakening, because
(15:36):
that is not the case. Glaine Maxwell is not that. Okay,
she knew exactly what she was getting into. Well educated lady,
comes from money, comes from power, and to think that
she was just along for the ride is absolutely ridiculous.
(15:58):
And you know, again, when we talk about the overall
atmosphere around this trial, oh there's going to be some wildness,
there's no doubt about it, and there's going to be
a ton of carnival barkers and a ton of disinformation agents.
But one thing that is going to be constant, one
(16:20):
thing that you can guarantee is the profile that's going
to be painted of Glenn Maxwell is going to be
less than flattering by the prosecution. And not only that,
but those assertions, well, they're going to be backed up
by evidence and the statements from the survivors themselves. So
(16:46):
it's going to be a very very interesting few weeks
to see which way Maxwell's team goes with all of this. Now,
we already know that their strategy so far has been
to come out and blame the girls basically right saying
that you know, Maxwell was a just someone who was
(17:11):
around for Epstein's run. She didn't have anything to do
with it. And you know the girls are liars. They're
really above the age of consent. So you know how
it goes. This is the typical defense when you see
a case like this. You know, they try and impune
the reputation of the accusers. They try and set them
(17:34):
up as if they're money hungry or they're prostitutes or
whatever it may be. But it's the age that they've
been doing this forever. It's like when you're in the
NFL and you fire your coach and you think it's
a good idea to bring in Wade Wilson again, Bro,
why are you bringing in the same guy with the
same playbook, and that's what the Maxwell team is doing here.
(17:57):
And I've been pretty steadfast in my opinion that it's
not going to work out. You're not gonna paint Maxwell's escapegoat.
She's not a stand in for Epstein's crimes, none of that.
And I really hope that the prosecution punches at home now. Again,
not very confident in the prosecution in America. The prosecutors
(18:20):
in America. When they're going after high profile people. Oh sure,
when the federal authorities are going after you or me,
it's a home run for them, right slam dunk City.
But when they're going after their own friends, the other
members of so called elite society, terry usually turns out
a little bit different, doesn't it. But hopefully there's enough
(18:43):
interest and enough anger around this case that they can't
pull any of those nonsensical moves that they usually like
to pull. So I hope that the prosecution continues to
beat home the fact that Glen mac Well was not
a passenger on this ship. She wasn't just somebody who
(19:05):
was stowing away. She was in fact piloting the ship.
Sometimes she was in the navigation room. She knew how
the engine worked, and she certainly most certainly knew what
was going on, and for her to set it up
(19:25):
as if she had no idea what was going on,
you know that she was just completely taken off off
guard by what happened. Here is just an absolute ridiculous
leap that they're asking people to take, and I honestly
doubt anyone's going to be willing to take that leap.
(19:46):
So there you have it, folks for the morning. Now,
trial's getting ready or is back underway as we speak.
It's six am here in Las Vegas as this episode's
about to be dropped, So so we got a whole
day ahead of us. We're gonna keep an eye on things.
I'm pretty much locked into the studio watching the live
(20:08):
streams happen with the updates, live updates, not phone or
you know, digital or anything like that. But there's a
lot of live threads on like Twitter from Inner City Press.
Adam Klasfeld has a real good live feed that he's
been doing, So I'll be following those all day and
preparing to come back tonight and do a wrap up
(20:29):
show and talk about what occurred throughout the day and
the trial and what if any surprises or curveballs or
thrown our way. If you'd like to contact me, you
can do that at Bobby Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com.
That's b O b b y c ap you c
c I at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find
(20:52):
me on Twitter at bo bb y underscore c ap
you c c I. The links that we discussed can
be found in the description box. All right, everybody, I'll
be back later on. What's up everyone, and welcome back
to the Epstein Chronicles. Day three of the Glen Maxwell
trial just wrapped up a little bit ago, and we
(21:15):
saw three people take the stand. One was a continuance
from yesterday and that was one of the four accusers Jane.
Number two was her ex boyfriend, someone being called Matt.
And the third person was an executive from Interlochan School
(21:38):
who talks about some of Jeffrey Epstein's donations and stuff
like that. Now, for those of us who have been
following this case, this doesn't come as a surprise to us.
We all knew about this cabin, and in fact, Epstein
donated so much money to this school that the cabin
was named after him. Now, think about that for a minute.
(22:05):
Should this man be anywhere near all of these young
teenage be tween girls. Probably not the right place for
this guy. But what they'll say is, as an organization,
the Interlocan School, oh well, we had no idea, We
had no idea that Jeffrey Epstein was a predator or
(22:26):
Jeffrey Epstein was this sick, disgusting human being. But shouldn't
they know better? If you're going to give somebody access
to your campus and you have a bunch of children
running around, isn't it a good idea to properly vet
those people? And if not, at what point is there
(22:50):
some accountability for this school? Now I'm certainly not an
investigator or a lawyer, and that's just a genuine question.
At what point do we say, all right, well, this
school is the one that welcomed Jeffrey Epstein with open
arms onto its campus and then this happened. So while
(23:11):
they're not directly responsible for the abuse, right, the school
didn't do it. Jeffrey Epstein did, but they opened the door.
And I think that that's a point that needs to
be discussed a little bit more so, these organizations that
were with Epstein, helping Epstein, helping Maxwell. They need to
(23:32):
have their part of the responsibility for enabling all of this,
and we've seen it throughout this case. There has been
some responsibility from at least the social aspect of this.
We know that Glenn Dubin has lost his status, We
know that Les Wexner had to step down, Leon Black
had to step down. Prince Andrew is absolutely disgraced, but
(23:57):
it's not far enough, right. It's one thing to be
disgraced and still go home and swim around in your
billions and billions of dollars, and a whole other thing
to be held responsible for your alleged role in Jeffrey
Epstein's criminal enterprise. And we have to remember, though, that
(24:17):
the scope of this trial specifically is only in regards
to the behavior of Maxwell in the time period. So
people who are expecting a bunch of other stuff to
be brought up here, I think they're going to be
a bit disappointed. Now we're going to hear names of
(24:38):
people who were in Epstein's circle. Again. We heard about
Trump today, we heard about Clinton, and you know, these
are reoccurring names that if you've followed the Jeffrey Epstein case,
You've seen these names pop up over and over and
over again. And if it was just one tabloid, say
who was talking about it, it's easy to shrug your
(24:58):
shoulders and say, oh, come on, what a bunch of
ludicrous nonsense. But when you get story after story after story,
it is a little harder to ignore it. And that's
what we have seen. We have just seen time and
time again, story after story about the culpability of all
(25:18):
of these people around Jeffrey Epstein, whether it be enabling
him and Maxwell or outright participating. It's the same story
for all of these people. And Campus is like this
school campus up in Michigan. They need to have some
kind of penalty when stuff like this happens. Because you're
(25:45):
a school, right your job is to raise and nurture children.
You would think probably to keep them safe is a
big part of that as well. So I hope that
there is some kind of repercussions, but I'm doubtful. You see,
there's never repercussions for the enablers, and it certainly doesn't
(26:07):
seem like there'll be serious repercussions for the enablers here
in this case as well, at least not in this
portion of the trial. So we're gonna jump into some
of that testimony today and we're gonna go through the
testimony from Jane, from Matt, and then from the executive
from Interloking. So let's dive in and let's start with
(26:32):
the testimony from Jane. So obviously they got ready to
go in the morning. There were some issues. They had
some issues about a Rule sixteen issue about it went
into some things that could be disclosed or shouldn't be
disclosed if it's an impeachment of the witness, blah blah blah.
(26:53):
So they had this whole entire discussion before the jury
even came into the room. So they got that all
square it away, they had a sidebar, got it all
locked in, and then the jury comes into the room
and we get ready to go. Now, the questioning from
Meninger stayed in the same ballpark that it was in
(27:16):
yesterday and what we expected, very combative and trying to
set Jane up as somebody who has a problem remembering things. Also,
of course there's the money angle. Oh, this is about money,
this is about this, this is about that, when in reality,
it's about the abuse that Jane suffered at the hands
(27:38):
of Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. They want to make it
about everything but that, and hopefully the jury doesn't bite.
So Meninger starts off the questioning by asking did you
turn seventeen in your final year at Interlogan. Jane answers, no,
I was sixteen. Menager directs the jurors to pick up
(27:58):
a small binder under their chairs and turned to j three.
So obviously I have no idea what Jay three is.
We none of us know. It's evidence that was introduced
to the trial and discovery, I'm guessing, and now they
want the jurors to take a look at that as
(28:19):
far as the testimony that Jane is giving here. So
you'll see that from time to time they'll have things
pre prepared as part of their questioning strategy. Menager goes
on to say, and your application said you came from
a long and loving family, right. Jane says that's what
(28:40):
it says. Menager says, do you recognize the document? Jane
goes on to say, I do not recognize it per se,
but I see my signature. Meninger advises her that it's
your application to Interlogan manager, then goes on to say
when you spoke to your younger brother. You didn't mention
there was a correct Jane says, I don't think so.
(29:04):
Manager goes on to say, and you told a new
source that you were approached by Glaine. No mention of Glane. Correct.
Jane says, I don't remember that. And again, remember this
is their strategy. They want to try and make it
seem like she has no idea what she's talking about,
like she has no real memories of this or a
recollection of this. And you also see why they're bringing
(29:27):
the memory expert in that they were able to call
as a witness, or they're going to be able to
call as a witness. So it all lines up. Now
their strategy really starts to make sense. It's a two
pronged approach, right, A you misremember basically calling her a liar,
but in a nice way, and b oh, you're motivated
by money. That has always been their strategy, and that
(29:51):
has always been the way that they were going to
go about this. Really, what it all comes down to
is is the jury going buy it or are they
going to see through it and understand what really happened here?
A Meninger goes on to say, when you got to
Epstein's house with your mother. Your house was in West
(30:12):
Palm Beach, right, Jane says, no, it was in Palm Beach.
Meninger says, you didn't cross any state lines, did you? No?
I didn't. There were only the three of us having tea.
So she's trying to establish that this didn't happen over
state lines, but which is ridiculous because maybe this one
instance didn't, But what about the trips to New Mexico?
(30:34):
And then shouldn't that enact the man Act right away?
You would think that there would be the man Act
being thrown around in this case, but we haven't seen it,
and we certainly haven't seen Rico. That's what really this
should have have fallen under. This is a criminal conspiracy
put in place by numerous people, so it should be
(30:56):
a Rico case and a huge umbrella, but unfortunately it's not.
But what Menager is trying to do here is to
establish that this didn't happen over state lions, and she's
trying to conflate it and cause some confusion. Meninger goes
on to say, have you ever spoken with your sisters
about your boyfriends? Jane goes on to say I didn't
(31:19):
have any boyfriends. Then the US attorney called for a
brief sidebar. So I'm sure that they had to confer
about the line of questioning or about some of the
other particulars going on, so they called for the sidebar.
And you'll see this in trials, obviously. I'm sure you're
all aware. In the middle of a trial, one of
(31:39):
the defense or the prosecution will call for a sidebar
with the judge. So after the sidebar ended, Maxwell's lawyer
comes back and she says, look at the last line
in the top paragraph. You told the agents that Epstein
would decide where everyone sat. And as Meninger was pursuing
(32:00):
this line of questioning, there was an objection by the prosecutors,
and the objection was she should only ask does it
refresh your recollection? So Judge Nathan says, go ahead and ask,
and Menager, with those exact words, says, does it refresh
your recollection? Jane goes on to answer yes, Menager says,
(32:22):
and there was nothing sexual in the theater. Jane goes right.
So what she's trying to do is again build a
timeline where she is showing that Jane doesn't remember or
that this doesn't happen, or that it was all just,
(32:42):
you know, very innocent what Jeffrey Epstein and Glene Maxwell
were up to. And this obviously is going to be
the line of defense as we move forward. Menager goes
on to say, yesterday it said it was shortly after
(33:03):
the poolhouse that you had this incident with Epstein and Glaine. Right.
Prosecutors objection, as to form, Judge Nathan says, specify what
you're talking about. Prosecution objection. Menager says, this is foundational.
So what Menager is saying is that this is a
very important part of all of their defense here. Right,
(33:26):
this is foundational to our defense. It has to be admitted.
Menager goes on to say, you told the government you
do not have a specific memory of your first time
with Glaine. Prosecutors objection, Menager, you have come up with
the memory in the last two years. Jane says, I
don't believe I have come up with the memory. No,
So again, you see the memory, right, We're gonna go
(33:48):
after the memory. She doesn't know what she's talking about.
She forgot, this never happened. She misremembered, and that's how
they roll. And you know, so once we saw the
witnesses that Glaine Maxwell was going to call, once we
saw the memory experts and all of that, we should
have been aware that this was going to be a
(34:12):
key component. Jane says, it is not typed up right
on this form Maxwell's lawyer Manager another typo by the government,
you know, an unneeded dig. But again, it's gonna get
testy in this courtroom. This is one of those explosive cases.
Manager is making a boatload of money and it's going
(34:34):
to get explosive at points. What I think is interesting
as well. You notice that Everdell isn't doing the cross today,
that it's Manager who took over because they wanted to
get into the slime and the crime, so they figured
if they had another woman performing the cross it would
go over better. Prosecution objection. Manager says, you told the
(34:55):
government Glaine never used sex toys or a vibrator on you.
Jane said, correct. So again what they're trying to do
is establish Jane as a liar. Well, you said one
thing fifteen years ago or twenty years ago, and you're
saying another thing now, And that's definitely what they're going
to do. And I know it's frustrating for people to watch,
(35:18):
and it's gross. The behavior is gross, but this is
what these lawyers do. There is no rock left unturned
by these lawyers, especially when you're paying this kind of money,
and it's just gonna get grimier, folks. Unfortunately, I just
want to prepare you all for a real disgusting few weeks,
(35:39):
especially those of you who haven't followed this case and
might only have a skin deep idea about what happened here.
This is some of the most sadistic brutality ever and
performed by people in the most highest of positions. Menager
(36:00):
goes on to say, you said Glane never saw your
perform oral sex on Epstein. Jane says, I don't recall.
Meninger replies, look at the document. Judge Nathan says, let's
take a break. So that was the first session this morning,
when Jane first got on the stage on the stand
and the questioning started. Now they had a break, and
(36:23):
then after the break, obviously they came back, so we'll
dive into that part of the testimony now. So after
they came back from the eleven o'clock break, Meninger's lawyer continued,
I mean Maxwell's lawyer manager continued with the same line
(36:43):
of questioning, again attacking the memory of Jane. She goes
on to say, you testified yesterday your first sex with Epstein,
and you first had sex with Epstein in his poolhouse
in Florida, but you told the government it was in
New York. Jane says, those are not my notes. I
did not write that down and it was not recorded.
(37:05):
So she's trying to once again act like Jane is
basically lying here, saying that she told she testified yesterday
that the first time her and Epstein had sex, the
first time she was assaulted by Epstein, was in the
poolhouse in Florida. But she goes on to say that
(37:25):
she told the government that it was in New York,
and Jane disputes this. She says that that's not the case.
Those weren't her notes and she did not write that down.
So it'll be interesting to see what the Jerry makes
of that. Menainger goes on to say, you told them
you only remembered one incident in New York when Galane
was present. Jane goes on to say, I don't recall.
(37:48):
Meninger says, look at document three five zero nine dash
zero zero three. Hasn't your story changed? Jane replies, I
didn't understand the question. So the hammering continues, and you
see her dog at approach here. She's not giving up
an inch Menager. And as I was following along with
(38:08):
some of the comments today in some of these threads,
people were not very happy with Menager. And it is
a gross tactic. But that's what these lawyers do. Lawyers
like Menager. This is her specialty, right. She enjoys it. Now,
I'm not saying she enjoys, you know, going hard on victims.
(38:29):
I'm talking about she definitely enjoys her job, you can tell.
And she might even enjoy that part of it. Who knows.
I don't know the lady, but I'll tell you this much.
I don't think, when all said and done, that this
is going to be the right strategy. Menager goes on
to say, you told the government you flew to New
York with Epstein in Glane to see the Lion King. Jane,
(38:50):
I said that, but I was incorrect in my timeline.
I was fourteen, So The Lion King came out in
nineteen ninety four, and that's when she was fourteen. But
they're talking about again time frames. They're also brought up
(39:13):
that the Broadway show The Lion King, which started in
nineteen ninety seven, which would have had the timeline incorrect.
But Jane here is saying she was fourteen. Menager goes
on to say, you were a student of theater and
the arts at the time. Correct prosecution objection as to form.
(39:33):
So you know what that means, right, She's trying to say,
she's an actor. So you're a student of theater and
arts at the time, right, so you know how to act?
You had you know, you got acting chops, You're the
next insert great actress here. That's how Menager is going
to frame it. That's what she's going to try and infer. Meanwhile,
(39:53):
we know she was a young kid at the time.
How many of you out there took theater classes. How
many of you out there were thespians. I know I
was in technical theater growing up, and I highly doubt
anyone was as good of an actor to pull off
a whole acting performance here. I mean, it's just ridiculous,
(40:15):
and it just goes to show you that the whole
entire plan is scorched earth for Maxwell. It also in
my opinion anyway shows that they're desperate. If they weren't desperate,
I highly doubt they'd be going this route now. At
this point, Judge Nathan called for another break because Jane
(40:37):
needed some water. Then they get back on the stand
and Menager continues with her peppering of Jane. Let's go
to your conversation in February twenty twenty about the Lion
King prosecution. No objection. Menager says, I know, miss Mo
would like to come and do this for me. Another
dig at the prosecutors, and Menager is you know, skating
(41:02):
on thin ice with that kind of stuff. I mean,
it's kind of expected for the snarkiness to happen, but
this early in the trial, boys, like I said, she's
bringing out all the artillery. Obviously, Alison Moe objected to that,
and then Menager goes, but the Lion King on Broadway
didn't start until you were seventeen years old. Did the
(41:23):
government or mister Glassman suggest to you that you might
have meant the Lion King movie. Prosecution goes on objection,
so again bringing up the Lion King and trying to
point out that there's a lot of misremembering going on. Here,
(41:44):
and it's was left at that. After the objection, Menager
then changes her tactic or line of questioning to talk
about New Mexico. So you recall going to the New
Mexico Range, a giant, huge home, correct, Jane replies, like
all the homes, Meninger says, and that Jeffrey Ups, Epstein's
(42:05):
brother went with you. Correct. Jane says, I don't recall now,
that would be interesting. Huh. We really haven't heard too
much about Mark Epstein. He's been kind of a enigma
throughout all of this, but we know that he's an
owner of the building on sixty sixth Street where a
lot of these trafficked girls were being housed. And again
(42:26):
it raises the question, how is there not a rico
case here? How are all of the people who are
financially connected to Epstein and Maxwell not being forced to
sing a song? And unfortunately, what it shows you is
that the government just doesn't have the backbone to do
what is really needed to be done here. Meninger went
(42:48):
on to say, you weren't asked to have sex with
any of Epstein's friends, were you? Jane says no. Meninger says,
did Epstein introduce you to people in the arts. Jane
replies not really, then goes on to say to the
dean of Interlogan at a cocktail party, Jane, I don't recall.
And this is a shrewd tactic by Menager. What she's
(43:08):
trying to do is to get her to say I
don't recall as many times as possible, so she'll ask
like vague questions, do you remember meeting people in the arts?
Did you ever meet the dean of inter Logan at
a cocktail party? Mind you, this is back in nineteen
ninety four, so it is the strategy that is very
apparent at this point, and I wonder what the prosecution
(43:32):
is going to have up their sleeve to answer it.
Menainger then goes on to say, in Document three five
zero nine Dash zero zero one, you said you met
Donald Trump at mar A Lago before the poolhouse incident. Jane,
I don't recall, Menager, you said Epstein took you in
a dark green car to mar A Lago to a
(43:53):
meeting with Donald Trump, and prosecution says asked An answered
and also misleading. So very interesting that they bring that
up again, right, and what I think they're trying to
do is establish the fact that there are a lot more,
if you want to say, bigger fish involved in all
(44:13):
of this. So they keep pointing out things like Trump, etc. Etc.
And again another good tactic from Menager. But I don't
think it's gonna be enough to throw people off of
the ball here. And I think that the main point
for the prosecution and for this trial, remember, is Maxwell
(44:34):
and the crimes that she's being accused of. So they're
going to try and conflate it with all kinds of
other things. But it's gonna be up to the prosecution
to keep the jurors eye on the ball. Menager says,
you also had some recollections about flying on the private
plane with Epstein, right. Jane says yes. Menager goes on
(44:56):
to say, you said you were asked your weight when
you got on the plane. Correct. Jane says yes. And
there was a lot of weird stuff that happened within
Epstein's circle. He had a lot of things like that
go on. For instance, the Core four all would go
get their haircuts down at Frederick Facai's shop. He had
a tab there when they'd all go down get the
(45:16):
haircut that he liked, and it was, you know, a
very weird situation in the whole Epstein circle, Very very
very much not what is being presented by the media.
Meninger says, in twenty nineteen, before Epstein was arrested, you
were contacted by the government, right, Jane says. Yes. Defense
(45:40):
goes on to say, but you said you were not
interested in getting involved. Jane says, right, So you're gonna
hold that against her. Why would anyone want to get
involved of testifying against Epstein before he was dead, considering
the fact that he was caught literally with his pants
down and nothing happened to him. You're somebody from a
(46:01):
broken home, You're somebody from a disadvantaged background, somebody who
and you have this man with all of this power
and all of this influence. What are you supposed to
do go and tell on him? Well, how'd that work
out for Maria Farmer? How did it work out for
all the girls in Palm Beach? So again this part
of the defense falling flat in my opinion. The defense
(46:25):
goes to say, then you hired mister Glassman, a personal
injury lawyer with ADS. Well, yeah, of course, he adds ads,
he's a lawyer. What does that even mean, who is
she supposed to go and hire some high profile lawyer
like you, missus Meninger. She didn't have that kind of money.
She was living in a poolhouse, remember, But all of
a sudden everybody should go and hire miss Meninger and
(46:45):
Christian Everdell God forbid a lawyer has some ads on
a billboard. Menager redirects her question and changes reform and
then goes on to say did you see his ads
touting his big verdicts. Jane responds, he's a friend of
a friend. Manager goes a manager's response to that is
is this year contingent fee agreement? Showing her a document obviously.
(47:09):
Jane replies, yes, it is, So they're setting it up
like Glassman. Here was the one who talked Jane into
going to the government about Epstein. Again, all about money,
all about motivated by money, and I don't really buy that,
to be honest with you, it's ridiculous. Again, who is
she supposed to reach out to? Not all of us
(47:31):
have millions and millions of dollars. Not all of us
have a big bank account where we can hire an
all star team of lawyers. After that exchange, Menager changes
tax again and starts asking about the ex boyfriend Matt
who we heard about yesterday and I told you would
be a witness today. You've talked to your ex boyfriend
(47:55):
Matt Right. Jane says right. Menager goes on, and you
were in a beauty pageant sponsored by Donald Trump. Jane
says yes. Menager says, do you recall crying that Jeffrey
Epstein only gave you two thousand dollars for address? Jane
(48:18):
says no. Then Menager goes on to say you were
on a reality TV show with Matt Right, and Jane
responds yes. So there's a lot there. First of all,
you were in a beauty pageant sponsored by Donald Trump. Okay,
Trump sponsored a ton of beauty pageants, So that doesn't
shock me one bit. We talked about that a little
bit yesterday. Trump has had his hands in all kinds
(48:39):
of you know, beauty pageants and that sort of a
scummy part of the world. That's why it cracks me
up when anyone expects this, you know, this guy to
be like some great guy or something. News flash, he's not.
None of them are, none of these people, these politicians,
and they're all gross. All of these people who were
hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein and I don't care, I
(49:02):
don't I don't care if it's oh, it's my favorite politician. Well,
I don't know what to tell you. The hero worshiping
is really weird to me, and especially when it comes
to these guys who have been outed as absolute scumbags.
Menager says, and there was tension and you cried. Jane responds,
reality shows are not really reality. Then Manager says, you
(49:25):
claimed you were putting a roof over your family's head.
Jane responds, I don't know if i'd use those words.
You told that to Matt. Jane responds, well, they were
living at my house. So you see what she did
here with the reality TV show. She throws that in
there to once again to try and point out to
the the jury that she's a looking for money. She's
(49:49):
an actress, she wants to increase her profile, and this
is all they really have. This is what they're going
to continue to do. Menager continued, And you demanded money
from Glean Maxwell. Jane says, I have a lawyer. Menainger says,
and you sought money from the Epstein compensation fund. Look
(50:10):
at exhibit j eighteen at six you were offered how much?
Jane says five million, So that's significant right there, folks.
And you know, people don't talk about this enough, but
they should. Once Epstein's a state paid that money out
to these girls, they're accepting liability that this happened. So
right here in court with Epstein paying out that money,
(50:33):
Menainger pointing it out, Well, Epstein is taking responsibility and
culpability here because they're paying for it, aren't they If
this never happened, do you really think that Epstein's estate
would be paying out this money. So they're taking responsibility
for it. And what Glan Maxwell and her team are
trying to do is push it all on to Epstein
(50:57):
and act like Galan Maxwell had no part in any
of this. So after those questions, Judge Nathan said that
it's time for lunch. Everybody heads out to lunch, you know,
goes and does their thing, and then they get back
in you know, roughly an hour, and the questioning continues.
(51:22):
So after lunch when they came back, Menager again kept going.
So you went to a specialized entertainment school, right manager,
And since then, you've played roles like a cancer patient Jane, yes, Menager,
prostitute Jane, no, Menager, you can cry on command. That
(51:42):
line is just a prostitute. You have to throw that
in there. Right, Let's just go ahead and throw that
in there, shouldn't we And ridiculous Again, she says no,
and then you can cry on command. Ridiculous. So basically,
again trying to establish that she's that this is all premeditated,
it's all made up, and it's all in act. Menager says,
(52:06):
your accusations in this case include that you were fourteen
when you were abused, right, Jane, yes, Menager. You first
told the government you were thirteen, right, Jane, I might
have said thirteen going on fourteen. It's a small technicality,
And she's right, that's a long time ago. There's a
lot of trauma and a lot of research that goes
into all of this that talks about how there's repressed
(52:29):
memories and all of that. Again, I am not a psychologist.
I won't even begin to act like I understand all
of that science. Also, Jane said, on the prostitute role,
not my favorite role. Manager goes on to say, you
talk about the Lion King and you say you were fourteen,
(52:51):
but it only came out when you were seventeen, right,
and you said you were fifteen when you met Mike
Wallace at his eightieth birthday party. Right again bringing up
other people. Very shrewd move by Menager. She wants to
take the spotlight off of her client and put it
on some of the other names that have been in
Jeffrey Epstein's atmosphere. She goes on to say, Jane says,
(53:15):
I don't know how old I was. This one cracked
me up. Menager goes, you don't know when his birthday is?
Look at j thirty three. Does it refresh your recollection?
Breaking news? Meninger, who the hell knows when Mike Wallace
was born? Who the hell knows when Mike Meetloaf Wallace
was born? I mean, really, you expect this young lady
(53:36):
to know when Mike Wallace was born? Holy? Really? Obviously
the prosecutors object to this and it was sustained, Nathan
saying there was no basis for refreshing. Meninger goes on
and says, in your civil case, you got integration interrogatories.
(53:59):
Do you know what those are? Jane says no. Manager says,
so your lawyer answered for you. Under your oath and
you didn't know. Jane says, I don't know very honest
about what occurred here, right, And I think at this
point it's rather obvious to the Jerry what's going on here? Now? Again,
I don't have a line to the Jerry. I certainly
am not a mind reader, but you would think that
(54:22):
it's obvious where they're going with this. Now it's uh
moved on and the redirect starts with assistant prosecutor asking
the questions, did any of US prosecutors ever tell you
(54:44):
what to say at this trial? Jane responds, no, Prosecutor,
you were asked about notes of meetings with the US
Did you speak about everything all at once? And Jane
goes on to say no. Then she goes on to say,
why did you speak to the tabloid reporter? And that
(55:05):
was a big mistake by Jane, right. Speaking to a
tabloid reporter is never a good idea. These people don't
have any kouth. They're just trying to get a story
out in a headline out. Jane says, he basically blackmailed me.
He said he would publish unredacted documents. Judge Nathan says
this is not for the truth of the matter asserted,
(55:27):
but impact on the listener. Prosecutors go on to say,
did you make an agreement with the reporter? Jane says, yes,
I talk about meeting Jeffrey Epstein. The reporter would keep
my name out of it. I was working on a
TV show. And this is the scummy moves that a
lot of these reporters are up to. A lot of
these so called legacy media journalists are up to, and
(55:47):
that's why people don't have any faith in them or
any trust in them. When somebody tells you something in
confidence like this, I don't care if you're a reporter
or not. If something is off the record, it should
stay off the record. But there's no oh dignity, right,
there's no more moral compass. It's all about who can
get the headline out first and who can move the
most units. And it's rather gross, honestly. The prosecution says,
(56:13):
do you know the difference between acting on television and
testifying in court? Jane now sobbing, crying, answers, Yes, this
is real. I am seeking closure. I have been running
from this my entire life. I want to help in
whatever way I can and maybe find some healing so
(56:33):
again she's sobbing now rough for her, obviously reliving all
of this, talking about all of this, putting it all
out there for everybody to see. The prosecutor goes on
to say, do you have any financial interest in this trial?
Change response, No. Prosecutor is done with her line of
(56:54):
questioning and says nothing further. Judge Nathan says that Jane,
you can step down, and then they take another break,
and after the break they go on to the next
two witnesses, and they weren't on the stand very long today,
so I'm guessing we'll pick up with that line of
questioning tomorrow as far as the gentleman that they ended
(57:20):
with here, the man from Interlogan. So after their break
they come back and now the ex boyfriend Matt is
on the stand. Now, Matt, we talked about a little
bit yesterday when he was brought up. I was wondering
who he was gonna be, and then it came to light,
obviously that it was the ex boyfriend of Jane. So
(57:40):
let's jump into this line of questioning from the prosecutors.
How do you know Jane, Matt responds, she's my ex
girlfriend from two thousand and six, to twenty and fourteen prosecution?
Did you live together Matt yes? From two thousand and
seven to twenty and fourteen prosecution. Are you still friends?
(58:01):
Matt yes, and we work on the same TV show.
So that's a pretty cool thing to see. Huh that
her ex from all these years ago is willing to
step up to the plate and take the stand in
a trial as hyper sensitive as this prosecution. What did
(58:22):
Jane tell you about her home life? To this question,
Maxwell's lawyers objected? Nathan responds, any foundation, and Maxwell's lawyers
say it's hearsay, So another sidebar commences. After they return,
Nathan says, miss Mo, I'll ask you to narrow the question. Mo.
Did Jane speak about her family finance when she grew up?
(58:44):
Matt yes that when her father got sick, they went broke,
the mother was working a small job. They were in
the same bed. So what he's doing here is corroborating
what Jane had said, telling the court what he knows
about this, what Jane had told him and revealed to
him in their time together, and it corroborates the story
(59:06):
that Jane has been telling. Matt goes on to say,
she told me she had a godfather. Later she told
me it was Jeffrey Epstein. I said he helped pay
your bills. She said, yes, Prosecution. When did she tell
(59:26):
you she met Epstein. Maxwell's lawyers object to this, and
Nathan goes on to tell the prosecution that they have
to ask more specific questions. Alison Moe, did Jane tell
you what happened between her and Jeffrey Epstein? Matt not specifically, Prosecution.
Did she say why he gave her money? Matt said,
(59:46):
she just said it was not free. That's pretty chilling.
Imagine this young girl has to do whatever Epstein wants,
if she wants a new instrument for school, or if
she doesn't want her mom thrown out on the street,
or she doesn't want her family not to be able
to eat. Prosecution. Did they tell you about a woman
(01:00:07):
who was involved? Matt said yes. Prosecution then says, did
she give the woman's name? Response from the witness, Matt no.
Back to the prosecution. What was her demeanor like when
Jane told you about Jeffrey Epstein? Shame, Matt responds, and
that's a typical emotion when it comes to this sort
(01:00:28):
of thing. Unfortunately, a lot of shame and that's because
there's a big stigma on all of this, right, you know,
these girls that come forward a lot of times, they're
dragged through the mud. They have their reputations just completely destroyed,
and it's almost not worth it unfortunately for these girls,
especially with high profile people like this. The prosecution says,
(01:00:54):
what did Jane tell her money? Matt goes on to
say that money was not free. That and before you
could finished the prosecution they cut him off and prosecution goes,
don't say what the mother said, Just what Jane said.
Matt continues his statement. Jane told her mother that the
money was not free and that it should not have
been allowed. And the profile that we have painted of
(01:01:19):
Jane's mom is not good. You know, Jane's mom. It
seems like she was looking in the other direction here,
and it's kind of disturbing the way Jane was explaining
it and how her mom was kind of, you know,
trying to shame her about this kind of thing, and
really pretty sad to read that. So after the questioning
(01:01:40):
was done, Maxwell's lawyers didn't even bother with the cross
of Matt, so he was sent on his way. And
then the next witness who was brought up was Daniel
Vesselsen of Interlogan. Now he's one of the executives over there,
one of the money men, and he was brought in
(01:02:01):
to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and the fundraising aspect of this.
So he gets into the witness chair and prosecution starts out.
Where is interlog in Michigan? Vesselson responds, near Traverse City Prosecution,
how did you keep fundraising records? Vesselson Salesforce prosecution. We
(01:02:24):
offered GX seven forty four a document under seal. Now
GX seven forty one. Vesselson responds a letter to mister
Epstein about the scholarship's lodge. How much he'd give? So
obviously we don't know what the seal documents have to say,
but I'm guessing it has to do with the amount
of money Epstein gave to this lodge, which was a
(01:02:46):
lot of money. Prosecution, what's this? Looking at the document
and Vesselson says, the lodge formerly known as the Jeffrey
Epstein Scholarship Lodge. Can you imagine the law on property
was named after Jeffrey Epstein? And we've we've been talking
(01:03:07):
about this for years. You would think this is something
the legacy media would have been all over. You would
think that this would have caused at the very least
some questions to be asked. But silence. So now the
cross examination starts, and it's very short because it's obviously
(01:03:30):
almost time to wrap up. So Maxwell's lawyers, you don't
have records for the individual and the individual's siblings. Correct.
Vesselson goes on to say, correct, Maxwell's lawyer, mister Epstein
certainly was a major donor. Correct Vesselson. Yes, And with that,
that's the end of it for today. Now tomorrow they're
gonna bring Vesselson back up and they'll finish this cross
(01:03:53):
examination and we'll see what else they have in store
for us as far as witnesses and all of that jazz.
But if you're looking to follow this case, and you're
looking to do it in like real time on like
Twitter or whatever, you got to check out Inner City Press.
They're doing a great job of providing transcripts for all
of us to go through and dig into. And yeah,
(01:04:14):
I'm very thankful for those guys over there and the
work that they're doing. It's you know, being a good
journalist is almost a lost art at this point. So
got to make sure you give them their props. And
if you haven't followed them already on Twitter, if you
use Twitter, I don't blame you if you don't, definitely
give them a follow and think about contributing to their
work because it's real solid and it's providing a huge
(01:04:36):
benefit for all of us, right and there's other people
doing it as well. I just think that his work
is very, very good. So that's going to wrap it
up for today, folks, And that's where we stand as
far as the trial. As day three comes to a
close and we await day four, we'll just have to
(01:04:57):
see what sort of twists and turn burns are in
the road ahead of us. If you'd like to contact me,
you can do that at Bobby Kapuchi 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 b O B B Y
(01:05:18):
underscore c A p U C c I. The link
for the thread what we talked about here from Inner
City Press will be in the description box.
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 Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.