After three days off, the sex trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell resumed on Thursday morning in federal court. As the third week of the proceedings kicked off, the defense team opened its case.
According to Maxwell’s attorneys, their presentation to the jury will take no more than four days. This, after the prosecution rested two weeks earlier than they had indicated they would. Long story short, literally, the end of this trial is coming much sooner than had been expected. A verdict could be reached by year’s end.
The first witness of the day was Cimberly Espinosa who was Maxwell’s executive assistant from 1996 to 2002. The very picture of a high end executive assistant, sharp dark hair and dress, Espinosa testified as to what her, and by extension, Maxwell’s responsibilities in Jeffrey Epstein’s organization were, and perhaps more importantly what they were not.
The former assistant said that while she and Maxwell focused mainly on managing Epstein’s properties, they would occasionally arrange flights for Epstein on his private planes, specifically telling pilots “when Epstein wanted wheels up.” Asked what other information about the flights she had, she responded, “that’s it, just the times.”
When specifically asked by defense attorney Christian Everdell whether they were told who the passengers or guests on the plane would be, Espinosa told the jury that they were not. This was a key piece of evidence for the defense, as the crux of the trafficking charges against Maxwell is that she arranged for the travel, across state or international lines, for Epstein’s alleged underage dalliances.
Espinosa also spoke to the nature of Maxwell and Epstein’s relationship. During their case, the government had gone to great pains to paint them as joined at the hip for two decades. Maxwell’s assistant told a somewhat different story. She testified that at the time she began working for Epstein and Maxwell in 1996, “I thought they were a couple.” Asked why she thought this, she mused, “Just their interactions together, they were a little flirty.”
But by 2000, Espinosa testified that she believed the romantic relationship had ended, saying, “They just kind of went their separate ways, Ghislaine moved on. I know she started dating.” Espinosa also pointed out that even while they were dating, Epstein was seeing other women. She testified to sending flowers to another such youthful paramour and tellingly added that Maxwell was not aware of the gift.
The cross-examination of Espinosa by the government was a brief affair — under 30 seconds. She was asked if she had ever been to Epstein’s Palm Beach estate, and she indicated that she never had.
After brief technical testimony from Rhagu Sud, the vice president of the travel agency used by the Epstein organization since 1988, the defense called expert witness Elizabeth Loftus to call into question the accuracy of the evidence given by Maxwell’s accusers.
A good 10 minutes was spent running down the various awards and honors listed on her 47-page curriculum vitae. This was all to say that Loftus is extremely credentialed and a veteran of many high-profile trials, including Harvey Weinstein’s.
A professor at UC Irvine and expert in memory, she testified, apparently for $600 dollars an hour, as to the fallibility of memories and how suggestion can alter even recollections of traumatic experiences. She noted that the potential source of such suggestion could be media coverage, the inference being that hyper-coverage of Epstein could have had an impact on witness memories.
Loftus also told the jury that “marijuana can affect the acquisition of memories.” This seemed to speak to the accuser who testified under her first name Carolyn who admitted smoking grass at the time she claims she was abused by Maxwell and Epstein.
The cross-examination by U.S. Attorney Lara Pomerantz was very aggressive, frankly as testy as the trial has seen. Essentially, she accused Loftus, who authored a book called “Witness for the Defense” in the 1990s, of being an unreliable hired gun. Pomerantz quipped that Loftus had never written a book called “Neutral Witness,” to some chuckles in the gallery.
Thursday’s proceedings, which saw Maxwell more animated than usual at the defense table, gave us a good indication of the basic framework for the defense. It seems to be a two-pronged approach. First, to impugn the testimony against Maxwell both through witnesses with direct personal knowledge of events and with expert testimony. Second, to show that the government has not proven its case with regard to trafficking.
Observers seem fairly unified in their opinion that this trial is very close. Did Maxwell behave in inappropriate, maybe even illegal ways? It looks that way based on the testimony. But did she entice underage girls into cross-state travel for Epstein? Or arrange such travel, as she is charged with? The evidence on that front seems thin. The defense will continue its case on Friday morning.