Opening Statement by the Defense

MS. STERNHEIM: Ever since Eve was tempting Adam with the apple, women have been blamed for the bad behavior of men, and women are often villainized and punished more than the men ever are. The charges against Ghislaine Maxwell are for things that Jeffrey Epstein did, but she is not Jeffrey Epstein, she is not like Jeffrey Epstein, and she is not like any of the other men, powerful men, moguls, media giants who abuse women. Epstein is not on trial, but his name and his conduct, as you have already heard, will be mentioned throughout this trial. He's the proverbial elephant in the room. He is not visible, but he is consuming this entire courtroom and the overflow courtrooms that other members of the public are viewing. You will hear plenty of testimony, some of which the government has already previewed, which revolves around Epstein's conduct, not Ghislaine's.

But you are not here to judge whether Epstein committed the crimes, you are not here to judge whether the government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Epstein committed the crimes — you are here to determine whether the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ghislaine Maxwell has committed the crimes charged. When all is said and done, the evidence will show that the government cannot because Ghislaine did not. Now, together with my colleagues — Christian Everdell, Laura Menninger, and Jeffrey Pagliuca — I stand before you proud to represent Ghislaine Maxwell. This case is about memory, manipulation, and money.

As you will see, the accusations that you will hear from the mouths of four accusers — not like the hundreds that the government suggested you would hear from — you will hear from them and they will recount their memories, memories of a quarter century ago, memories that have been corrupted by things that have happened throughout the years, manipulated by a narcissistic man and self-interested civil lawyers, and a desire for a big jackpot of money. The government's proof, the government's story relies on the claims of four accusers, four who will say that Ghislaine prepared them or — to use a term that you will hear in this trial through expert testimony — groomed them to engage in acts with Epstein. Now, we're talking about events that took place 15 to over 25 years ago, and as we all know, memories fade over time, and in this case, you will learn that not only have memories faded, but they have been contaminated by outside information, constant media reports and other influences.

Manipulation. Yes, Jeffrey Epstein manipulated the world around him and the people around him. He compartmentalized his life, showing only what he wanted to show to the people around him, including Ghislaine. You will hear that the accusers themselves were manipulated by those around them, especially civil attorneys who saw Epstein and Ghislaine as easy targets for lawsuits and, of course, money. As you heard, Epstein's estate set up a victim's compensation fund to pay accusers who claimed to be of a certain age and have had contact with Epstein. But those claims met the most minimal requirements, and certainly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The fund did not challenge the accusers, did not check facts, didn't ask questions. Each accuser who applied to the fund — who will testify here — received millions of dollars from Epstein's estate, and it made it very easy for these women to include Ghislaine Maxwell when it really always was about Epstein. Now, Ghislaine Maxwell is on trial because of her association with Jeffrey Epstein. She is a scapegoat for a man who behaved badly.

MS. STERNHEIM: Four women will come into this courtroom and they will point a finger at Ghislaine Maxwell, but what they say and the evidence that you will see is not going to support these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. You've heard many negative things about Ghislaine Maxwell, and the evidence is going to show many exceptional things about Ghislaine Maxwell — well educated, well traveled, a graduate of Oxford. She socialized with extraordinary people, she can pilot a helicopter, she speaks numerous languages, and she has worked her entire adult life. She is being pegged as the rich girl, the socialite. But privileged background, comfortable lifestyle, status — they may be things that easily check the wrong box, but they are not crimes and nor should they factor negatively into your consideration of the evidence because, as you may recall, during jury selection, you all agreed and you all said that you would not be biased by affluence or opulence, and your word is your bond.

Now, in the '90s, Ghislaine met Epstein. As you will hear, he was a successful financier, a philanthropist, a patron of the arts and sciences, and a supporter of educational pursuit and artistic talent. He was a bright, fascinating man with wide ranging interests, and he had many positive traits, attractiveness, charisma, intelligence, status, charm. He gave generously and he shared his lifestyle with others. He radiated what's called a halo effect. He attracted people because of his charisma and his charm, but he also compartmentalized what he would disclose to people about his life. Now, you heard that he had a relationship with Ghislaine, they became friends, became companions, but she became his employee. She had the task, a time-consuming task of developing and administering his real estate portfolio, the multiple properties that each operated like small boutique hotels.

They were luxurious, they were vacation spots, and like many New Yorkers, Epstein wintered and spent weekends in Palm Beach. But unlike many New Yorkers, he did not summer in the Hamptons he went to his ranch in Santa Fe, and he also went to his home in the Virgin Islands. You heard about his house having staff and house managers because the houses required cleaning and maintenance, housekeeping, gardening, all kinds of upkeep, purchase of supplies, purchases of foods and sundries and meal preparation. You will hear that Ghislaine visited those properties with and without Epstein, and you will hear that Epstein spent time with other women and traveled without Ghislaine.

MS. STERNHEIM: Now, you heard about the private jets. Enviable as they are, in many ways they served like a Hampton Jitney in the air. They were used as commuter jets for Epstein to travel with family and friends, guy friends, past, present, and future girlfriends, and an array of other very, very interesting people, academics, politicians, scientists, musicians, celebrities, even a former astronaut who became a senator. And there were families on the flights and children on the flights, high-style commuting. But it was a way of getting back and forth from his properties and taking others along for the ride at times, for them to go to their own homes or to other destinations that were on the way. You'll also hear that Epstein worked out of his office in New York, as well as out of his homes; and that Ghislaine had worked out of his New York office, but then out of her own office in her own residence.

There came a time where the companionship part of their relationship ended, but she still remained an employee. She moved on with her life, but she still worked for Epstein. Now, I would love to be able to tell you a progressive once-upon-a-time narration, but the evidence is not conducive for that. I would also like to be standing right in front of you, but these times also are not conducive for that. What you are going to see and what you are going to hear basically center around four women. They are going to tell four different stories, they are four completely different people, and they are going to recount things that they claim happened to them decades and decades ago. They are not going to be able to pinpoint dates; they are going to tell stories that have changed over time and grown over time, stories that they have told for the first time after Epstein died. And Ghislaine has been inserted in those stories as they reframed their stories for a payday.

Now, they will come in here and they will point their finger at Ghislaine Maxwell. There is nobody else to point the finger at at this trial. And I ask you to consider, when you hear their testimony, those core themes that I mentioned before: Memory, manipulation, and money. Now, the four women who will come here -- and, as you heard, they are permitted to have pseudonyms or not have their whole names used -- are Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn. They don't have contemporaneous records, they don't have notes of the things they are going to say. Unlike you, as Judge Nathan said, you could keep notes to aid your recollection. They don't have those notes. Instead, they come before you and tell their stories purely from memory. Now, memory, as you will hear, changes. It is not like we take a picture and it is exactly the same as what happened.

You are going to hear expert testimony about how memories can be contaminated over time; how false memories can be created through suggestive activities, information, and influence; how people can testify seemingly convincingly about false memories that they believe to be true, even when they are not. It may seem like their personal truth, but, in fact, it is not the truth. You are going to hear stories from women who have absorbed many things, things they have heard and read, saw and said to others. And as the evidence will show and the expert testimony will show, these things can lead to memories that are untrustworthy, uncorroborated, and unreliable. Now, keep in mind the amount of time that has elapsed, the many versions of events that have been spun in the media, through talk, etc., and the incentive of personal monetary gain. All of these impact so-called memories into a retrospective interpretation that will be offered during this trial. Now, the four women that will testify were not initially interviewed by investigators experienced in the training of evaluating claims of sexual abuse.

MS. STERNHEIM: You are going to decide, when you hear these witnesses, if you find them reliable, credible, plausible. You are going to see, based on the evidence and, importantly, the lack of evidence, that they do not support the charges in this indictment, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be no eyewitnesses to their accounts, even when they claim there were all these other people involved in the activities that the government has alleged. There will not be documentation, even that which still exists some 25 years later, that is going to corroborate their testimony. Now, I said before that Epstein was a manipulator. He had the money and the means to create an exceptional world: Beautiful homes, beautiful surroundings, beautiful people. But he also was a mysterious man without attachment. He had no wife, he had no children, he had no boss; yet he attracted all these rich, powerful, famous people before and after his fall from grace back in around 2008.

In many regards, he was like a 21st century James Bond. His mystery has stirred interest and his accusers have shaken the money tree and millions of dollars have fallen their way. But Epstein wasn't the only one who manipulated, even though he was a man who, as I said, compartmentalized, had eccentricities, very specific requirements about his diet, his daily physical regime, he demanded perfection, he demanded solitude and silence; but he also surrounded himself with people and traveled at times with an entourage. Yet as open as that may seem, he kept parts of his life locked from others. But he isn't the only source of manipulation in this case. Lawyers, media, money, have impacted the memories that you will hear about. You will learn that these four women are all represented by civil lawyers who targeted clients, primed their clients, cultivated their stories, honed their accusations.

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. In bringing this case against Ms. Maxwell, the government has reached back almost a quarter of a century and they are looking through a rearview mirror with 20/20 vision, which you will hear is hindsight bias. And there will be experts who will explain that to you, what that means, how you look at something later and it has a different meaning. What we have here is lawful conduct that is going to be labeled grooming; it has been labeled grooming by the government, asking someone what they like to do, whether they like a movie, whether they like going shopping. The government wants you to put a sinister subjective motive in Ghislaine where the evidence will show none existed. Now, you heard about the fund, and that's where money comes in. Now, for individuals to collect under the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, they have to submit a claim. And their claim is enhanced if they cooperate with the government.

And the witnesses here have, by speaking with the government, testifying for the government, they have enhanced their claims. And each of the witnesses who will testify here have gotten money, a lot of money, from the Epstein fund. And part of the fund is making a claim against Epstein or others of his employees. Now, the fund, administered by some of the same folks that administered the September 11th compensation fund, is different in this regard: 9/11, there was hard proof of what happened to victims. Here, it is based on the memories which we think the evidence will show is unreliable and suspect, memories that will be the subject of this trial. But the claims that were made to the fund, as I said before, were not contested and they were not put before you, a jury, to decide whether they are credible. Let's talk about those four accusers. As I said before, it's Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn.

Here's what we expect the evidence is going to show about Jane: Yes, she was and is a talented musician and a singer from a musical family. And Epstein, a patron of the arts and a supporter of young talent, sponsored musicians and artists and actresses and others, and he offered to become her benefactor. He paid for her school, he paid for her vocal lessons, he paid or at least cosigned for a Wall Street apartment that Jane lived in with her mother and her brothers while she went to a prestigious professional school in New York City. Jane and two of her brothers, the ones closest in age -- she has three older siblings from her mother's first marriage -- she and the two brothers that she shares both a mother and a father, attended professional high schools and performed in Florida, like a von Trapp trio. And in the summers, they all attended the prestigious Interlochen summer program where Jeffrey Epstein was a sponsor.

He sponsored the building of a handicap-accessible lodge, he sponsored scholarships for talented youth, he sponsored many people who went through that program, as well as people who went to other programs and other schools. Now, you will learn that Jane was in a beauty pageant, singing competitions, including in Italy, she modeled, she performed in commercials, she sang, she was on Broadway shows that were in the local touring productions, she traveled nationally and internationally from a young age. She attended auditions, performances, and she even had an agent in New York. Now, you heard that she and her mother -- and you will hear her brothers as well -- went to Epstein's home in Palm Beach a few times. They talked about music and the arts. Nothing amiss happened. That's it. Now, Jane did take some flights on Epstein's dime, and she went to New York and some other places as well.

You will also learn that a month before Epstein's arrest in 2019, Jane did not want to be involved in any criminal case regarding Epstein. But after Epstein died, she changed her mind. When money was on the line, she changed her mind. She hired a lawyer, she became a client, they got in touch with the government, and said she changed her mind. Why? Because assisting the government would help a claim with the Epstein fund. Now, suddenly, after Epstein dies and she has a lawyer by her side, she now remembers all this horror that happened to her and places Ghislaine at the center of it all. Hundreds of things that happened to her that no one knew about, not her mother, not her brothers, not her teachers, not staff at the house, not her coaches, all of this that the government claims

MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. Let's go back to Annie for just a couple of minutes. Whatever you hear Annie claim happened there, Annie did not believe that she was a victim until later. People convinced her otherwise. And interestingly, she will tell you that she stopped writing in her diary before the events she will testify to concerning New Mexico. Now, Annie is a 41-year-old psychotherapist who met Ghislaine once in Santa Fe. Never saw her again. Never saw Epstein after that. Never traveled to New York after that. She now promotes herself as a victim and speaks publicly. Now, you should wonder why she is even a part of this case. Because from our perspective, what happened in New Mexico is not illegal conduct under the terms of this indictment. She will claim that she's scarred by what happened there.

Yet ask yourself, if it was so traumatic, why has she kept for 25 years the boots she claims Epstein purchased for her to wear in the snake-filled brush of Santa Fe, boots that have been well-worn over more than two decades. Now, Annie's lawyers helped to set up the fund, and she was awarded $1.5 million for whatever she claims and didn't believe was victimizing in Santa Fe. Now, here's what we expect Kate to talk about: Now, Kate has admitted that she's ambitious. She led a jet-setter lifestyle. Before meeting Ghislaine and Epstein, she was in a relationship with a man twice her age, a former Oxford classmate of Ghislaine, a friend of Ghislaine, a prominent older British gentleman. Kate was above the age of consent in Britain. And when she came to the United States, she was above the age of consent in New York and in Florida and anywhere else she claims she had been.

Now, she will tell you that she used drugs during the period of time that she will testify about, and that it fogged her memory. And you will learn that she eagerly spent time with Epstein and, at times, with Ghislaine. But what is really telling is the emails that she sent to Jeffrey Epstein, continuing a relationship with him for over a decade. She maintained contact with Epstein when he was in jail; she eagerly sent him pictures of herself. When his sentence was over, she contacted him, eager to visit with him and stay with him. Now, Kate is a 44-year-old former actress, model, and socialite from the United Kingdom. She has lived in the States for years, coming here on an entertainment visa. She is no longer in the entertainment business. When Epstein died, she pointed the finger at Ghislaine. And you should wonder why she's here. She is not alleged to be a victim in this case. Nonetheless, she settled her claim with the fund for three and-a-quarter million dollars.

She assisted the government and she will be here. And in turn, that assisted her claim. But she's also seeking assistance from the government to help her to get a visa, a special visa for government witnesses. Now, three and a quarter million dollars is a lot of money, but it cannot buy you a visa. And maybe her testimony will. You will evaluate that. Now, the last accuser is Carolyn. And admittedly, she had a troubled past, lived a dangerous lifestyle, was using drugs during the period of time that she interacted with Epstein. Let me just stop for a second. There's a different time period that we're in now. We are now in about 2002, whereas Jane, Annie, and Kate were in the mid to late '90s. Carolyn was introduced to Epstein not by Ghislaine, by a woman named Virginia Roberts. Roberts was paid by Epstein to recruit females for him to get massages. She offered the opportunity to Carolyn to meet Epstein, and Carolyn readily agreed.

The evidence that you will hear with regard to Carolyn, which relate to the trafficking charges in Counts Five and Six, counts that only relate to Carolyn, had nothing to do with Ghislaine. Now, like many of the other accusers, but even more startling here, Carolyn's story changed dramatically. Back in around 2007, she was interviewed by the FBI about Epstein. She did not have a lawyer at that time, but she answered their questions. And later, she hired an attorney and sued Epstein and his assistant, Sarah Kellen. She did not sue Ghislaine. She then brought another lawsuit in federal court in Florida. Again, she sued Epstein and Kellen. She did not sue Ghislaine. Ghislaine had not come up during that interview in 2007. Ghislaine was not identified as anyone who recruited Carolyn or groomed Carolyn or otherwise interacted with Carolyn

MS. STERNHEIM: in Palm Beach. As I said, two suits by Carolyn, none involved Ghislaine. You will see the length of the complaint against Epstein and Kellen. It doesn't include Ghislaine. Now, the evidence will also show that Carolyn actually groomed and trafficked other people to Epstein. And after Epstein died and there was money to be had, her lawyer contacted the government, and now her story included Ghislaine. And assisting the government enhanced her application to the fund, and she got three and a half million dollars, less the 40 or $50,000 that she had received in one of her lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen. Now, early on, the judge told you that the burden is on the government to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't even, as part of the defense, have to make an opening statement, but far be it for a lawyer not to want to talk. And you will hear that we will question witnesses, we will put in evidence, we will make objections for the judge to rule on.

But I ask you to keep in mind that in asking questions of witnesses that may make witnesses feel uncomfortable, there is no interest in asking those questions to shame anyone. The purpose of our job is to see whether the government has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and you do that through questioning. Now, the government went through the charges, and I'm just going to quickly wrap them up. Counts One and Three are conspiracy charges; One having to do with enticing minors to cross state lines, and Three having to do with transport of minors across state lines. And those pertain to all four of the accusers. Counts Two and Four, which are called substantive crimes, allege actual enticement and actual transportation. And those only pertain to Jane. Now, with regard to Counts Five and Six, the trafficking charge, charges conspiracy and the substantive offense. As I said before, that only pertains to Carolyn. I ask you to keep that in mind.

But with regard to any of the charges, the proof that the government has indicated they will put forth the stories of the witnesses on the stand will not establish beyond a reasonable doubt any of those six charges. Now, age of consent is an important factor that you will focus on. And you will learn that in New York, the age of consent is 17 years old. You will learn that there are witnesses, the accusers, some that never traveled to New York and some that did that were above the age of consent. And you need to listen to their testimony as to where they claim they were and what age they were when they were there, because that is critically important to the charges in this indictment. And with regard to the trafficking charges, the age of consent is 18. But regardless of what Carolyn's age was at the time of those charges, the evidence will not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those charges have been proven.

Now, the government has pinned its entire case on the notion that Ghislaine enabled Epstein's bad behavior. The evidence will not support that. There will be no eyewitnesses, there may be some secondhand and thirdhand witnesses, there may be witnesses who said she told me this, she told me that. They are not eyewitnesses. They are only repeating what was told to them, and you have to evaluate the credibility of who told them what. What you will hear are stories that are based on words, and words alone. There will not be the kind of corroboration, if any corroboration, to support the charges. There will not be substantive evidence that supports the charges. The exhibits that the government is going to claim corroborates, will not and will not overcome their burden. They will not overcome reasonable doubt. And the stories of the individual accusers cannot be used to corroborate other accusers' stories; they are personal stories to them.

The government is trying to stitch together stories of four different people, four different stories to support a pattern. The only pattern that you will see here is the success of those four people getting big money rewards from the Epstein fund. Each accuser's story is thin; it lacks support. It's like taking paper cutouts and putting them together, cutouts that can't stand on their own, even linked together cannot substantiate and stand and will not support the charges here beyond a reasonable doubt. I ask you to scrutinize closely all of the evidence, all of the exhibits, all of the documents, but pay particular attention to those four accusers. They have been impacted by