Yesterday a federal judge in New York ordered that deposition testimony of Jeffrey Epstein mistress and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, be unsealed and available to the public. There are a couple of interesting observations from the story to which I have linked. First, the headline says “Maxwell documents” leading one to think that there is no legal significance to them, i.e., that they cannot be used for evidentiary purposes. However, if you read into the story, you will find that these “documents” are really over 400 pages of deposition testimony, which can be used as evidence either to impeach a witness or for substantive purposes, such as statements of an opposing party. Furthermore, the deposition was given in a civil case that pertains to the exact same facts and circumstances from which Maxwell’s criminal trial arose, so, again, these “documents” can be offered as evidence. And one last thing before moving to point number two: depositions are given under oath before a court reporter and judge. This is what gets them over the hump of being merely hearsay.
Second, the stories–at least as the New York Post presents them–are in a slow, drip, drip style. This means that if you do not follow all of the stories released by the Post, you are likely not going to see the ones that detail who was participating in what. Here is an example: the story that I linked to above only mentions Prince Andrew and nothing more. However, the Post also has stories about Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz, but you are not going to see this unless you follow the story line, as laid out by the Post, down the rabbit hole.
Here are some other little tidbits of interest. The stories are written in such a way as to make this seem like the information is coming from statements given by Virginia Giuffre in 2011. But this is only slightly true. The information is coming from a 2015 deposition, in which Guiffre participated because it was her suit against Maxwell for defamation. The defamation suit settled. Legally speaking, you cannot infer from a settlement that the losing party is actually guilty of any subsequent claim filed after the settlement if that subsequent claim is related to the settled claim. (That is kind of lawyerly circular speaking, but that is really the best way to put it.) Simply put, Maxwell’s guilt in the present criminal case against her cannot be arrived at simply from the fact that she settled the defamation suit. Now here is the fun part: that settlement though, means that what was in those depositions are accepted as fact in that Maxwell did agree by virtue of the settlement to some level of culpability that arose out of the facts presented in the deposition. Maxwell settled for one of two reasons (or maybe both). One, that she new she did not have a solid case and was going to lose anyway. Or two, that a settlement could be garnered with the added bonus of sealing those depositions. The second option is only as good as the subsequent judges who agree to keep them sealed.
Well on Thursday, July 30, a judge decided it was time to let the public know what we already knew. It has been confirmed, to one extent or another, that the political elite in the Western world is comprised of sex crazed pedophiles willing to put themselves into compromising positions for use at a later date by intelligence organizations. This was one piece to that puzzle. You can read the intelligence angle here.