Closing Argument by the Defense

MS. MENNINGER: Good afternoon. Ghislaine Maxwell is an innocent woman wrongfully accused of crimes she did not commit. The government has failed to prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the just and only correct verdict in this case is not guilty on each and every count. The evidence presented at trial has established exactly what we told you it would during openings, that the stories relied on by the government are the product of erroneous memories, manipulation, and money. But, in this case, the order is reversed. The money brought the accusers to the FBI with their personal injury lawyers sitting right there next to them. The lawyers manipulated their stories and the government accepted those stories at face value without ever testing them or corroborating them or checking with other witnesses to see if they were accurate. And suddenly, the women recovered memories years later, they recovered memories that Ghislaine was involved, that Ghislaine was there, that Ghislaine is the culprit.

Just as we predicted in our opening statement, the government spent a lot of time focusing you on Epstein, on his character, on his lifestyle, on his flaws, and they certainly proved to you that Epstein had abused his money and his power. They proved to you that he was a master manipulator. That has nothing to do with Ghislaine and everything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. We are not here to defend Jeffrey Epstein, he is not my client. The government played you a montage of Epstein's houses, his bank accounts, his artwork, his cars, his planes, his helicopters, his bank accounts, his message pads, just like a sensationalist tabloid would. His private island, his photos, and those, ladies and gentlemen, are for things that Epstein did, things that Epstein had, and perhaps Epstein's crimes, but as we told you in our opening, Ghislaine is not Jeffrey Epstein. The government in this case has now pivoted because Epstein is not here and they said: Her, too; her, too.

Ghislaine was there, she must have known. They said, let me show you a bunch of photos of them together, undated photos from unknown times with unknown hairstyles. You've seen them together. She must have known. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you heard that the government seized somewhere near 38,000 photographs, and they brought you a handful of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell together. Where are the other 37,960 photographs? Who were in those photographs? Was it other girlfriends? Was it other women? Who was it? You don't know. They didn't bring you those photos. You saw in the drawers, where these photos were kept, the binders. You saw the discs where they were kept. And they brought you the most innocuous photos of a couple that once was together, and they didn't even tell you when. This is proof of nothing. Do your former boyfriends or girlfriends still have some photos of you somewhere in their drawer? Does that make you a sex offender if they are?

This is straight up sensationalism, your Honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Judge Nathan will instruct you at the end of this case that you are to consider the evidence and you are also to consider the lack of evidence presented to you by the government to meet the highest standard of proof we have in our system, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Those two concepts are equally important, the evidence and the lack of evidence. What you heard, and more importantly, what you did not hear over the last three weeks is going to convince you that the only correct verdict is not guilty. These accusers in this case had stories to tell about Jeffrey Epstein and, decades later, they inserted Ghislaine Maxwell into their narrative. There were FBI interviews, civil complaints, depositions, interrogatories, settlements, all came and went over those decades. Jeffrey Epstein died and then everyone lawyered up.

Every one of the accusers got themselves a lawyer before they first walked in, in September of 2019 in connection with this case, to talk to the FBI. You don't need a lawyer to go talk to the FBI unless you want to get money. Those lawyers sat down with their clients, they met with them, it's all shielded by privilege what they talked about, but we know that the clients talked to each other. You heard that from the witnesses. You know they emailed each other, you know they met up after court appearances with Jeffrey Epstein, and you heard, for example, about Jane's lawyer, Robert Glassman.

MS. MENNINGER: He told her, before this case was ever charged, that Glassman stated before the government charged the case, Jane had discussed whether to cooperate -- and reminding you, she didn't want to cooperate before Epstein died, but he advised her that, to cooperate, would quote, help her case, meaning her civil case. She hired Robert Glassman two weeks before she first talked to the FBI in September of 2019. So these women, with their lawyers, walked into the U.S. Attorney's Office, they filed their civil lawsuits at the same time, and the lawyers, like Boies Schiller, helped set up the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund. Annie told you that. On that fund application, it asked you, are you cooperating with a criminal investigation, have you filed a civil suit, because if you are, we'll just assume you're a real victim, even though we, the fund, aren't going to ask you any questions or put your story to the test.

And all of these ladies had lawyers, went to the FBI, and filed a civil suit and filed a civil claim with the fund and they each took home millions, and now they are stuck with the stories that they told. That's the money piece. Now for the manipulation, a manipulation of the truth and the evidence. As we go through the stories of each of these accusers and each of the witnesses, you need to keep your eye on the thing that the government hasn't, how these stories have changed dramatically over time. Carolyn, you heard, had a lawyer back in 2008, and she started out giving a very clearcut story about Jeffrey Epstein and also about a woman named Sarah Kellen, who she also sued. She had no trouble articulating her claims. She had a lawyer, she filed a lawsuit, a lawsuit that didn't mention, in 290 paragraphs, Ghislaine Maxwell one time. The same is true with Jane. She told stories about Epstein. Initially, she said she wasn't sure that Maxwell was ever in the room.

And don't be fooled about this difficulty in disclosing the details of it. She had two male lawyers. She had no difficulty disclosing it to them before she ever met with the government. And when she walked in to talk to the government, she told them she wasn't sure if Maxwell was ever in the room. But her lawyer told her it would help her with her case if she cooperated with this prosecution, and so she did, and the lawyers kept asking, the FBI kept asking, are you sure that maybe the person who had a foreign accent was perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell? Are you sure maybe he groped your breasts instead of massaging your upper chest? Are you sure there wasn't sexual abuse in New Mexico? Perhaps you met him when you were only 14? Perhaps you didn't just meet Epstein then, maybe you met Ghislaine Maxwell there, too? Every last one of the government's interviews with these accusers — and there were dozens you heard — was not recorded. There is no transcript.

There is no record of the exact questions that were asked or who asked what questions or whether the lawyers suggested maybe their clients had something more to add or another person to add, and that was by design so none of us have a transcript of what actually took place in these interviews with the FBI. So it was left to us, the defense, to ask the hard questions of these witnesses when they took the stand. And it's not easy to ask someone, well, that's not exactly what you said before, is it, when you told your story the first time, you didn't mention Ghislaine, and you only added that later. Why would you go decades without mentioning Ghislaine Maxwell and suddenly when you have your personal injury lawyer, you add her to the mix. The government never asked them, wait a second, you said you were traveling with Epstein and Maxwell when you were 14 and 15 years old. We have these flight logs, there's not a single record of you traveling with them when you were 14 or 15 years old.

How could that be? Where did you live when this was going on? There is two different addresses and maybe we, the FBI, should go check out the house you were living in. You said you were poor, is that true? Or, where are your boots that you said they bought you? The tough questions weren't asked by the government, so they had to be asked by us, and what you learn is that the truth was manipulated and changed over time. You also heard the manipulation of other storylines, and I'll go through them, that Ghislaine is at the center of all this, she's the right-hand woman, she's Cruella Devil and

MS. MENNINGER: the lady wears Prada all wrapped into one. This is a manipulation of the truth as old as Hollywood, your Honor, and ladies and gentlemen, and don't be fooled by it. With the money on the line, the accusers' goal of holding someone accountable for Jeffrey Epstein, who was dead at the forefront, and the tape recorders turned off, the accusers' memories started to shift. Earlier, Carolyn said it was Sarah Kellen, now she's says it was Ghislaine Maxwell. Before Jane said she met only Epstein on a park bench at Interlochen, now she saw Ghislaine walk by and then, oh, by the time she got to trial, it was Ghislaine who stopped and talked to her. Before it was, I have no specific recollection of Ghislaine being in the room when it happened. That became, I remember it being once or twice or all the time. Before it was, I can't remember anything about a sexualized foot massage. Now Annie hears Jeffrey moaning with pleasure. Professor Loftus explained to you that's not how memory works.

You don't acquire a memory, retain it, retrieve it with a few details, and then decades later, acquire new details, acquire new people who were there. That's called post-event suggestion, and that's what happened in this case. Each of these women had talked to numerous individuals, had watched media, shared their stories, talked to their lawyers, and we're talking about events that supposedly happened 25 years ago. In Jane's own words, she said memory is not linear, or how would I know, I was only 15. Memories have been manipulated in aid of the money. The government made a lot of promises to you on opening, promises that they broke. The story of Jane didn't pan out the way they opened. They told you she started spending time alone with Epstein at his house as a 14-year-old, but it turned out she told them years ago that when she first started going, she went with her mother or her mother and her brothers, exactly as Juan Alessi told you.

And as Juan Alessi and Larry Visoski told you, she wasn't 14 or 15 when she started coming, she was older, a fully grown mature young woman. Ghislaine didn't target Jane as a predator, as the government promised you. Jane's original story in 2015 to the press is that she was sitting on a park bench when Jeffrey Epstein came up and talked to her. Ghislaine didn't invite Jane over for tea, she wasn't even there when she and her mother went. Ghislaine didn't arrange for Jane to come to Epstein's house. She told you it was other people in Epstein's office. And Ghislaine didn't encourage Jane to travel with Epstein. You heard not one single word out of Jane's mouth that Ghislaine encouraged or enticed her to travel anywhere. The government's biggest promise that they repeated to you over and over again with respect to Jane is that she was, quote, sometimes in the room when it happened.

But when Jane got on the stand, she admitted, finally, that what she told the government several times is she wasn't sure and had no recollection that Ghislaine was ever in the room when Epstein abused her. She said it in February 2020, and what she said on the stand in front of you is, as you sit here today, you're not sure whether you were ever in the room alone with Ghislaine and Epstein, correct, and she said, no. The government also promised you an array of witnesses, another promise they broke. They said these witnesses would back up the accusers' claims. They told you, for example, that there were relatives from the victims that you would hear from, and that those relatives would tell you about the victims spending time with the defendant and Epstein and traveling with them and receiving phone calls from them all when they were between the ages of 14 and 17. Let's break that down. What relatives came to tell you about Jane spending time with the defendant and Epstein?

What relative was that? You didn't hear from one. Jane said she went to Epstein's house hundreds of times, once every week or two, for three years. She lived with a mother and two brothers, and no one, not one relative came and got on that stand and told you that she spent time with Ghislaine and Epstein from the ages of 14 to 17. No relative of Kate's came to tell you that. No relative of Carolyn's came to tell you that. Who are these relatives that are going to come and tell you about the victims spending time with the defendant and Epstein? Annie's mom came. Annie's mom came and told you she only spoke to Epstein.

MS. MENNINGER: She never met or talked to Ghislaine Maxwell. She has no idea. The government also said that these relatives would come tell you about all the phone calls these females got. Did you see those phone calls? Did you hear from those relatives? Did you see a phone record? I didn't. These are broken promises from the government in their opening. Lack of evidence. The government also told you that they were going to tell you, you are going to hear from a bevy of employees who would back up the accusers' stories, and again, the government failed to deliver the goods. Instead, what you did you get? You got some pilots. They told you the pilots would tell you about flying some of the victims. We did hear from pilots. We heard from Larry Visoski, who said he never saw a woman on a plane who looked under 20 unless she was there with her parents. He met Jane once. He remembered her striking eyes. He said she was fully mature when he met her.

And by the way, does it make any sense to you that if Epstein is showing off Jane, he keeps her undercover when she's 14 and 15 to put her on a flight log as a female and all of a sudden, when she's 16, takes her up to introduce her to the pilot? Does that make any sense based on the evidence that you heard? No. No pilot came and told you they saw Carolyn on a plane or Kate or Annie. And no flight logs show any of those three women either. What about the multiple promised Palm Beach employees who would tell you about this culture of silence? They bombed on this promise, too. There was no culture of silence. You just got the sound of silence, ladies and gentlemen. You heard from one employee from the Palm Beach house. You know there were many, there were chefs, there were landscapers, there were gardeners, there were assistants, assistants to assistants, and you got a two-time burglar, obviously with an ax to grind because you know he wasn't getting along with the boss.

He had a deeply flawed memory, Juan Alessi did. He couldn't remember whether dates happened in '94 or 2000. He couldn't remember the number of times he robbed a house. He couldn't remember the ages of girls, whether they were 20 or 14. Where are all these Palm Beach employees who are going to tell you about a culture of silence? I didn't see them. They told you you'd hear from law enforcement witnesses and they promised photographs of the search of the Palm Beach house, and that search in 2019 of the New York mansion that would show that Epstein lived in mansions filled with photographs of naked women with a massage room in each one of those houses. You didn't see a single massage room with naked women in it. I didn't. You saw a closet with photos of friends and family in Palm Beach where the massage table was stored, but there were no nude photos in the New York residence, there were no massage rooms in New Mexico.

Kate said she saw a massage room in Ghislaine Maxwell's house in London, but Cim Espinosa said she was there and there was no massage room there. So law enforcement witnesses failed to deliver on that promise. And you might have also noticed the government didn't even call to the stand the two case agents in charge of this investigation. Why would that be? The government promised you evidence from these searches, a massage table, a schoolgirl outfit, and nude photographs. You saw the 20-year-old massage table sitting up here in the courtroom. What did that tell you? You didn't see a schoolgirl outfit, you didn't see all these nude photographs. You saw some artistic drawings around a rich man's house. You saw FedEx records that showed Ghislaine Maxwell didn't send any underage girl anything. The same FedEx records that had packages going to Carolyn from others showed Ghislaine sending things to her family. That proves no involvement of Ghislaine Maxwell in this enterprise.

And you saw no phone records. The government promised you a playbook. It's an old gimmick. You get an expert on the stand to tell you the stages of grooming and then you try to build your evidence around what they said. But here, again, the evidence didn't back up the government's promise. Their headline read, Ghislaine targets daughters of single struggling moms. What did you get instead? Maria Farmer introduced her sister to Jeffrey Epstein and told her that he might help pay for her college. Where was Ghislaine targeting Annie Farmer in that storyline? Epstein met Jane alone at Interlochen camp. At least

MS. MENNINGER: that's the way she told it for years. Where is Ghislaine targeting her? Carolyn was introduced to Epstein by Virginia Roberts, not Ghislaine Maxwell. And Kate was dating Ghislaine Maxwell's classmate from Oxford, that's who introduced her to him. They promised you that these girls would tell you about all of these discussions of sexual topics that normalized the behavior. What did you get instead? Carolyn talked to Virginia about making money going over to massage an older man. Ghislaine wasn't even there. Jane recalls one joke about grandfathering in old boyfriends, and Annie didn't say any sexual topics were involved? Where's the normalizing going on there? And by the way, this story about normalizing and making it seem casual, Jane told you when she was first abused she was taken alone into a pool room -- pool house where Epstein masturbated on her.

Ghislaine wasn't even there and she's trying to make it seem like she thought that was normal because she got one joke about boyfriends? Use your common sense. Then again, there's that promise that you would learn that sometimes Ghislaine was in the room when it happened, except Jane can't actually remember any one of those times or what happened during those times. Finally, the government promised you a motive, and the motive that they came up with was that Ghislaine, a happy, educated, beautiful woman in her 30s would just start and end her career as a facilitator of sexual abuse for one man, Jeffrey Epstein, because they said he was a means to support her lifestyle and she needed to stay in a lifestyle to which she had become accustomed. That's why they claim she became a facilitator of sexual abuse, and where was the evidence they delivered to you about that? First, it was clear Epstein was a manipulator of everyone around him.

He's having Juan Alessi take down photos of Ghislaine when he brings other women to the house. He's dating women behind her back. But in terms of Ghislaine Maxwell's lifestyle, do you know what it was before she met Jeffrey Epstein? No, because the government didn't tell you about that. Do you know what it was after she left Jeffrey Epstein? No, because the government didn't tell you about that. Do you know her financial situation? Do you know whether she had luxury in her life? You saw photos of her that they showed you wearing tartan or hunting with dogs in the U.K., it looks from the pictures. So maybe it was Jeffrey that needed Ghislaine and her connections and not the other way around. And does that motive even make sense for a woman in her 30s, that she needs this lifestyle, so she's just willing to drag 14-year-olds in for sexual abuse? Use your common sense.

And if that's the case, your Honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, then why wouldn't Eva Dubin be telling you the same thing? She dated Jeffrey Epstein for a decade. She saw nothing abnormal. She let her kids hang around with Jeffrey Epstein. She went on to marry a billionaire. Not one witness came in to tell you that Ghislaine Maxwell needed Jeffrey Epstein's lifestyle so bad she was willing to perpetrate on young females. I'm going to take some time now, after talking about the promises the government did not keep to you in their opening, and go through each one of these women's stories and then I want to talk about the lack of evidence that corroborated each one of their stories. Let's start with Jane. The government started their opening with, this is the story of Jane, and it was just that, quite a story, like an actress who forgot her lines.

She was supposed to place Ghislaine Maxwell in the middle of Epstein's sexual abuse ring, but she doesn't actually have a clear recollection of anything that Ghislaine did. Time and time again, she couldn't remember whether Maxwell ever touched her, kissed her, or even was in the room when Epstein was supposedly abusing her. When actually asked on the stand to retrieve memories of whether Ghislaine Maxwell was in the room, they had to ask her that specific question, were there times when Ghislaine was in the room when it happened. She said yes to the government's questions, but her body language said hesitation, I don't remember it, I can't remember the details. Indeed, when I asked her on the stand, as you sit here today, isn't it true that you don't remember being alone in the room with Epstein and Ghislaine, and she said, no. In February 2020, they asked her if there were times

MS. MENNINGER: it was just her, Epstein, and Ghislaine in the room, and she said she was not sure, she doesn't recall that now. I asked her when she was talking to the government whether she ever told them that she, Ghislaine, and Jeffrey were alone in the room together, she was not sure that ever happened and she doesn't recall that now, no. But now, as she sits on the stand, she can't recall whether she was ever alone in the room. And as we talked about in her interrogatory response, she was asked in 2020 to identify all other persons, other than Epstein, who had ever committed or attempted to commit sexual misconduct. This is notable not only because she doesn't identify Ghislaine, but she also doesn't identify all these other women who were supposedly in these orgies with her when she was 14 over a three-year period. She'd given names to the government, like Eva and Michelle and Sophie, but she doesn't tell them here in her sworn pleading.

You've seen this before, but I just want to bring up Jane's actual birthdate as we talk through some of the timeline so you can remember when she was 14, 15, or 16, and I want to talk about the story of Jane, the one that's actually backed by documents and facts. It is true that her father died when she was 13, which is a tragedy and is sad. She went on to tell you, though, that she was so stricken by poverty that she had no lunch money at times, and she was homeless. That's not the way it looked to the outside world. She's applying to go to an arts camp with her two brothers every summer for three years. That arts camp costs $4,000 per person, per summer, so $12,000 per year, all three of them go all three years. They don't even apply for financial aid. She went to public school. She was obviously talented and performing well, and that sentiment was echoed in the supporting materials to her applications, which you will have with you in the deliberation room.

That guidance counselor, you know, the one that she supposedly had confided in the year earlier, the one that she said she told about how she was struggling with talking to her mom, that's the guidance counselor that wrote her a letter of recommendation saying she came from a loving and supportive family. She received glowing reviews from people who were well positioned in the community, a board member from the Palm Beach school system who was formerly on the board of the professional children's school where she ultimately went. You see from her applications that she had two different addresses, one that she lived in a house from '94 to '95, and a third one in her application from 1996 when she was 16. She told you she lived in a two-bedroom house and she moved into a three-bedroom house, and the three-bedroom house was in a gated community in Bear Lake Estates. That's someone who just described for you that she was destitute and homeless.

She recognized the street she lived on, but not the house with her house number. In 1995, she filled out the application again. And by the way, this is in October of '94, she filled out the application for the summer of '95. Again, she doesn't mention that Epstein is providing her any support or paying for her to go. By this point, in her budding career, she has been in commercials, she has been in a Broadway production of Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat on the touring group that came to Palm Beach. She's got more prestigious letters of recommendation, still no application for financial aid, still no mention of Epstein. And after her second year at Interlochen, we see her customs and border protection records which show how many times when she was a teen that she was traveling internationally. This person who said she didn't have lunch money, she's going to Italy for an international trip she told you about, a vocal competition with her school.

And she's going on an international trip to Europe with her family to see other family back there. And in 1996, she applies for Interlochen again. And on that one, they actually go so far as to ask her, in this yellow highlighted area, not only are you applying for financial aid, which she says no, but does the student expect to be the recipient of any funds from any individual specifically for attendance at Interlochen Arts Camp, and she says no, while she came in here and told you that Epstein was paying for her. The government touted, touted the trips in August to Interlochen on the flight logs. And you should take a look at

MS. MENNINGER: those, because Epstein went every year, pretty much, including with Itzhak Perlman, a famous musician himself. And not only did Epstein and Maxwell go to Interlochen in '94, they also went in '96. And actually, they both went in 1996. And so, while they claim the flight log from '94 establishes that Jane met Epstein and Maxwell in '94, in fact, it's just as possible that she met them in '96. And if she met them in '96, it certainly makes a lot more sense given the rest of the evidence, which we'll talk about now. Because the next thing that happened is there is a flight in November of 1996 which the government showed you, and I'll show you again in a minute, that has Jane going on a flight from Palm Beach, when she's 16, to New York. That's the very first time someone with Jane's first name flies on a flight, when she's 16, while she came and told you all that she was flying repeatedly when she was 14 and 15, but there is no records, miraculously, of those flights.

In March of 1997, Jane and her mother, when she's 16, file a lawsuit against her voice teacher, her principal, and her guidance counselor. That lawsuit went on for two years. Jane said she remembered her teacher pulling her hair one time, but she had no idea that her mother and she had sued her own principal, guidance counselor, and voice teacher. Is that credible, that a 16-year-old doesn't know she's in litigation with the three most important people to her at her school? Is that credible? It is not credible, I submit to you. And if Jane is unable to tell her mother about sexual abuse, but she's able to tell her mother that she got her hair pulled one time and she gets a lawsuit out of it, what makes her think her mother is not going to get her back. This sounds like a whole lot of hindsight changing the stories around. And where is her mother? Why didn't her mother come to testify about this?

Oh, I kept that lawsuit from Jane, I didn't want her to know we were in a lawsuit for two years. And by the way, if you're getting wads of cash from Jeffrey Epstein every time you go over there, why do you need to file a lawsuit? There's a flight log entry with Jane's first name in May of '97 that goes from New Jersey to New Mexico. She's almost 17 at that point. And then in August of '97, she turns 17. Before that, though, while she's still 16, she takes another international trip. She doesn't remember that trip either when I asked her. She turns 17 in the fall of '97, The Lion King is released. She told you originally her first trip to New York was when The Lion King was released. It turns out she was 17 when that happened. She got her dates wrong in a case that's about dates and about travel. She got her dates wrong by three years. And then in January of '98, she goes to Europe again with her family.

You can see the cities that she goes to when you look at these flight logs because they're on there. This destitute, homeless, penniless Jane. In May of '98, she says she's singing to Mike Wallace for his birthday, his 80th birthday, and she estimated she was 15 or 16 years old, but it turns out he turned 80 when she was 17, almost 18 years old. So she got that date wrong by a few years, as well. Upon graduation, she left for LA, but before that, she went to high school, and this is the only document from 1998 when she's 18 that shows Mr. Epstein paying for anything for her. High school, not Interlochen. She attends the professional school and when she goes off to LA, she writes back to Epstein, as you see on these photos, Jeffrey, thanks for rocking my world, you're the best, love, Jane. She said her mom made her send that photo, but again, you didn't hear from her mom. She continues to fly on Epstein's planes when she's 19 and 20 and 21.

I asked her about those flights that were paid for by the Shoppers Travel witness you saw, and she didn't remember that she kept taking flights on his dime when she was 20 and 21. And then you will see and hear from on the flight logs, in a moment, that she said she was on numerous flights with famous people. You may recall she said she flew with Prince Andrew, for example, and Mark Epstein, and Epstein's mom, that there is not a single flight log entry with her flying with those famous people. And we'll get back to her memory being tainted by those flight logs in a second. Let's talk about her memory. She demonstrated a very poor and inconsistent memory about things that if were true,

MS. MENNINGER: she would have remembered. Her memory is the underpinning of this entire case, because the government has to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that she was traveling, enticed to travel, encouraged to travel, transported while she was under the age of 17 in order to find Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of counts One through Four. And the government overlooks each one of these significant memory gaps. They try to tell you, and I expect on rebuttal Ms. Comey will tell you, she was too scared to disclose the facts about what happened to her. Or, you know, we overlooked that she's telling her male lawyers all these facts for purposes of her civil suit. They brought up they had to reduce the number of people in the room so she would feel comfortable enough talking to them about it. You could judge for yourself, her lack of discomfort and talking about it on the stand. But what she said in December of 2019 and in February of 2020 was, I don't feel comfortable talking about this right now.

She said, I have no specific recollection of that or I don't remember. If she doesn't remember something, the government didn't confront her about it. The one time they did, they brought up the lack of memory about The Lion King date, and that certainly backfired. And so what they did was say, okay, we'll just assume that wasn't your first trip to New York, because your dates don't match, and then they stop looking for other evidence that would corroborate her claims, like, where are you on these flight logs. Her lapses of memory pervade this case, and as Dr. Loftus told you, very traumatic things one is unlikely to forget, the where it happened, the who was there, the when it happened, the how it happened, those would be core parts of her story. So, for example, a core part of her story would be when and where was the first time you were sexually abused. That's not something you forget. She told you that it was when she was in a pool house in Florida, and she told you about that.

But remarkably, back in December of 2019, that's not what she told the government. She said the first time she experienced abuse was when she was about 14 years old in New York. She met Epstein to take headshots and that is when he masturbated. Those are two totally different stories, in a pool house in Florida or in New York when you go to get your photos taken. When I asked her about it, she said the FBI got it wrong, I didn't write any of this, I've never read this document before. What is beyond dispute, because the FBI agent came in and told you that that is what she told them back in 2019, and that's a core detail you're not likely to forget if it's true. Let's take another example, whether there was ever abuse in New Mexico. Jane told you, told the government repeatedly, she had no specific recollection of abuse in New Mexico. So what did the government do?

They kept asking her over and over again — remember, they're trying to prosecute a case about transportation and enticement to cross state lines — are you sure there was no evidence? There was no abuse in New Mexico? I have no memory of abuse in New Mexico. Are you sure? Maybe there was some abuse in New Mexico? And finally, after they asked her four times, she suddenly got back a memory of abuse in New Mexico that she testified to here on the stand, that she said someone came to get her, she doesn't know who, and that her heart sank when she was taken to Epstein's room for the abuse. That's not how memory works. That's suggestion. And clearly, for purposes of this case, the most important thing is what did Ghislaine know about what was going on, if anything, between Jane and Jeffrey Epstein. Was she ever in the room as the government told you over and over? And when I asked her, she does not recall if she was ever alone in the room with Ghislaine and Jeffrey for any of the abuse.

And not only does she not remember being in the room specifically, she's not sure -- you heard the government say their stories were all remarkably similar because they each had their breasts touched. In the trial testimony, she told you she was not sure that Maxwell ever touched her during these encounters. She does not have a recollection, she said in December of 2019, if Ghislaine touched her during these encounters. At trial, she said she doesn't remember that, but it's written here and the government notes, she's not sure Maxwell ever kissed her. She also, the government told you in their closing,

MS. MENNINGER: that Ghislaine was giving her directions about how to massage Jeffrey Epstein, but that's not what she said on the stand. She said she doesn't recall Ghislaine ever giving her a talk about how to massage Jeffrey. And what other things does she say she doesn't know that Ghislaine ever saw? Never saw this oral sex she said she had to perform in the orgy, she said she never saw hand jobs, she said he never used sex toys on her, she said Ghislaine never saw her have intercourse, and, in fact, she has no memory of Ghislaine being present when Epstein engaged in sexual contact with her. She told me, I don't remember. If she doesn't remember ever being alone in the room with him, then she also doesn't remember the story that she told you on direct about the first time with Ghislaine. And that's also what she confirmed to me on the stand, she had no specific memory of the first time with Ghislaine until she got up on the stand and told you one.

So the government kept asking her, was Ghislaine ever in the room when it happened. I asked her, how many times, and she said I don't know -- I'm sorry. The government asked her how many times, and she said I don't know. Was it once, no. Was it twice, no. How many times, I don't know, but more than twice. That's the evidence they want you to convict Ghislaine Maxwell on? I don't know? I don't remember? She also told you the thing that happened more frequently was being in these group sexualized massages, and because that involves other witnesses, you have a right to evidence about this. She said that this group sex massages — she called them orgies — happened frequently, and that Epstein would just summon people up to a room and they would all follow him up there. And she said she was a 14-year-old girl when these orgies were going on in his house, and she wasn't sure how often Ghislaine was ever present for these orgies, but she gave other names.

Apparently none of these other women thought it was unusual that a 14-year-old was in an orgy with them and they didn't call the police or report it, but naturally, being the FBI when they got names of these other women, they ran right out to try to corroborate those stories and be like, hey, sounds like maybe you were in a group orgy with a 14-year-old back in the '90s, can we talk about that. No. No, they didn't do that. Jane told about a woman named Sophie. She gave a description. She was blond and pretty. She said Sophie married a racecar driver and Sophie joined in these sexual massages. And then she told the government about a woman named Eva, correct, she did not use a last name, but Eva. And this wasn't just some disconnected Eva that showed up in an address book from some unknown time in the future, jane said that Eva joined in with Sophie. She joined in with Sophie. Those were your words, yes, Eva joined in with Sophie.

So where would Jane have gotten these names, Sophie and Eva, if the massage didn't really happen and she was trying to come up with some names? Well, let's look. Sure enough, on her very first flight log entry that has her name on it from November of 1996, she's on a flight with Sophie and Eva. What are the odds that the very first flight she takes is with two women who she claims are on a group sexualized massage? Let's look at Eva. Eva is flying with her child and her nanny. She told you on the stand that she just had a baby. Do you think that Dr. Eva Dubin that you just saw on the stand with a child and a nanny who's on a flight with Sophie, she joined in with Sophie was in a group sexualized massage. Eva told you she knows Sophie. Sophie was a professional masseuse. They know each other. This isn't some Eva that the government's now gone back and scrambled and found a name in an address book. The next group of people she talks about is Emmy.

She remembers Emmy was British and she was in the group sexualized massages, and there was a woman named Michelle. And now the government wants to suggest that Michelle is some random Michelle and we don't know who Michelle is, and Michelle could be any old Michelle, and look at this address book with Michelle's name. There is Michelles everywhere. But Jane told you from the stand it wasn't just any old Michelle, it's the Michelle that she hung out with her and Emmy. So it's Emmy's friend, Michelle, and she said it was Emmy's friend, Michelle, that she hung out with. And you heard Michelle on the stand say that's the Michelle, I'm the Michelle

MS. MENNINGER: that hung out with Emmy. I don't know any other Michelles that Emmy hung out with. And no, we weren't involved in any group sexualized massages. I'm a housewife. What you see here is a pattern, you see a pattern of Jane picking names out of people she knew she met in Epstein's world at some point in time. The receptionist, the first person you see when you come into his office, and she came in there with her mom. That's the one now she remembers she was in a group sexualized massage with or a person she saw in the flight log with another person in a flight log. Did the government show Jane photos of any of these women that they got in their address book now and say, hey, is this the one you were in a group sexualized massage with, they haven't done it, they haven't done it since they got those names two years ago. And just because I point out a few big problems with the big parts of the story, don't be confused, Jane's story is wrong, wrong, wrong on many, many points.

She gave you a description of the Palm Beach house. She said this massage room that she went to hundreds of times, hundreds of times was in the massage room that was off the master bathroom, and that the house itself had creepy looking animals. We all sat through the floor plan discussion that went on and on, and you know what, there's not a massage room off the master bathroom. The master bathroom was the massage room. So if she had been there hundreds of times, do you think she would have gotten that wrong? She said it had a light beachy feel. It was light because it was off the master bathroom and it had like a beachy feel. What was in the room, I don't think I saw anything past the massage table. You recall a massage room that was attached to the bathroom, correct, that's my memory, yes. We saw the room attached to the bathroom, it's a closet. We saw the floor plan. There is no massage room off the master bathroom.

And we saw the bathroom, which is hardly a light beachy feel with its white marble. She was asked about the New York house. Now, by the way, on the floor plans, as Juan Alessi told you — and you'll have these exhibits back with you in the deliberation room — this whole entire room has floor plans that were major reconstruction being planned in 1994 with walls being torn down. She never told you about any reconstruction or being there during reconstruction or Epstein moving out, as Larry Visoski told you he moved out for six to eight months for the renovation, she didn't remember any of that. What about the New York house? She did talk about the room being dark, an old building and lots of stones, but she also told you artwork, paintings of orgies, creepy animal head things. And you know the government didn't show her any photographs to try to match up her memory with any of those photos.

And the government staff members from the New York house to come in and say, yeah, that was a little weird when a 14-year-old was staying here alone at our house. Not one. All this staff that you know is there, their chef, the doorman, the assistants to assistants. You did hear, however, from Cim Espinosa, who worked in Epstein's office and she kept the calendar for the apartments that Epstein had and he lent out to guests. And Cim Espinosa told you she specifically booked Jane and her mother and her brothers to stay in those apartments. Nothing about Jane staying in Epstein's house. And the same is true with the Santa Fe property. She told you she stayed in this big grand house, a big, big structure, big house. Annie told you she was there at roughly the same time and there was no big ranch. It was a small residence.

Larry Visoski told you that big ranch wasn't built until the late '90s, and guess what, there is a flight log entry showing that Jane went there when she was 21 when the big house was there. That's when Jane went to Santa Fe. She didn't remember her other trips, her trips abroad. We know her memory was contaminated post-event because she was talking to her family members, her exboyfriend, Matt. She was reading the news, she hired a lawyer to cancel all the news about her, not to report this claim. She was reading the news and now she's incorporating all of those facts into her head and trying to make some kind of sense out of it. She has deliberately, however, attempted to move the timeline back to make herself younger when she was with Epstein. She did that, first, by telling the government that

MS. MENNINGER: she was in the same house for three years when she met Epstein until the time she moved to New York. She was in the same house. She lived in the same house. It was in a gated community in Bear Lake Estates, the same house, a three-bedroom house, but that house doesn't show that she was homeless, so now she doesn't remember saying that, what she said to the FBI. She said it might be a typo. Does that sound like something the FBI can write a typo about, I lived in the same house in Bear Lake Estates in a gated community? That's a really big typo. And the Interlochen records show she didn't move there until she was 16, and the flight records show that she could have met Epstein in 1996. She got the date wrong for Mike Wallace's birthday. She told you she met Donald Trump when she was driven there in a green car by Jeffrey Epstein before any of the abuse happened, and you heard from Larry Visoski that Mr. Epstein didn't get that car until the later '90s.

She's tried to explain why her mom's not here essentially by telling you her mom was mean and oppressive, but that doesn't square with what happened with her lawsuit and the glowing recommendation of her guidance counselor who talked about how great her family was and loving and supportive. And you'll look at her grades. Her grades stayed the same all the way through before she met Epstein until after she met Epstein. She didn't miss a beat when she says all this is going on. But most importantly, she's trying to insert Ghislaine into this story well after the fact, and she's doing that because she got this personal injury lawyer, Mr. Glassman, and she promised -- he promised her that it would help her case if she participated with the government, so she did and she got $5 million. No one corroborates her story. There were people everywhere — brothers, mother, friends from high school.

And she's just secretly flying all over the country, no one knows, no one remembers her going to a commercial airport, there is no record of her going on any commercial flights. That's just a coverup for the fact that she's not on flight records until she's older. None of her flight memories check out. The people she said she flew with were not on those planes. Let's turn to Annie Farmer now. Annie Farmer is a psychologist who primarily works as a therapist. Before Annie testified, the Court gave you this instruction, I instruct you that the alleged physical contact Annie says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. So what she told you is not illegal conduct as charged in the indictment, despite the fact that the government wants you to think that this shows a pattern of targeting of young women.

What you heard is that Annie's sister, Maria, is the one that introduced her to Epstein, that Epstein purchased a ticket for Annie to come to New York as a gift to her sister who was working with Epstein, and while she was in New York, she spent 99 percent of her time with her sister doing sisterly-type things. They went to see a play, they went to the Blue Man Group, they went to the Met, they went to a New Year's party, they went to thrift stores, and she got a dress. There were two instances she met Epstein while she was in New York, and during those events, she and her sister sat had in his office across a desk and discussed her college applications. She told you she thought Epstein's home was under renovation at the time, and she told you that there was no sexual activity that occurred whatsoever in that home.

She told you Ghislaine Maxwell was not in the home, never came to the home, no physical contact happened in the home, she wasn't present, she wasn't there, and she didn't see anything that had to do with Ghislaine Maxwell while she was in New York. So how did Ghislaine target her somehow to come into New York to see her sister? Where is Ghislaine Maxwell's role in any of that? The second contact she had was in the movie theater when they went to see a movie, she said she remembers was called Five Monkeys. There isn't a movie called Five Monkeys, there is a movie called 12 Monkeys, but that's what she remembers. And while she was in Five Monkeys, Epstein caressed her hand and held her hand, and as creepy as this is, what she told the Victims Compensation Fund was that him holding her hand was sexual abuse.

MS. MENNINGER: She was awarded one and a half million dollars for that. But there's no dispute Ghislaine Maxwell had nothing to do with getting her to New York, and nothing to do with touching her in a movie theater. And there's no dispute that the reason she went to New York was to see her sister. So the purpose of her trip was to see her sister. Ghislaine wasn't at the movies. She didn't meet Ghislaine during the trip. She didn't fly her to the trip, she didn't arrange for the travel, she didn't call her mother before she traveled, she didn't encourage her to travel to New York. She never even, as you know and I know, heard of Ghislaine Maxwell when she went on that trip to New York. Ghislaine was simply nowhere around. And so Ghislaine couldn't have been making her feel more comfortable or normalizing sexual talk. She wasn't even there, as Annie's diaries confirm. Ghislaine is never mentioned in those diaries.

Even though we don't have all of the diaries, she's clear that there is no mention in any entry of any journal about Ghislaine Maxwell. And that's true from the journal you saw some photos of, and that's true for the ones she didn't show you. She admitted that reviewing those journals helps her remember things that happened in hindsight. She said her memories are colored by hindsight, and that what happened to her later affects how she perceives what happened to her in New York, like the sexualized hand-holding. She doesn't know how the trip to New Mexico was planned, but she's clear that Ghislaine is not the one who called her. And her mother is clear that Ghislaine never called her. So what Epstein did, Epstein, who's hiding things from women around him, including Ghislaine, is the one that called Annie's mom. You know that Ghislaine had no role in any of her travel because she told you that.

And she also told you her original purpose or the original thought behind this trip to New Mexico was that her sister was going to be there. That's what she told the government in 2006. She's conveniently forgotten that in the last 15 years. But what she told them in 2006 is her sister was supposed to accompany her on that trip. She said she doesn't know whether Ghislaine saw Epstein trying to hold her hand in the movie theater; she just thought it was more blatant. She talked about the foot massages. But she told the government in May of 2020, she didn't remember those foot massages being sexualized. She testified that Ghislaine gave her a massage; she wasn't sure if she was topless or had her underwear on, excuse me. But what she told you from the stand is that Ghislaine massaged her chest and upper breast; and she confirmed for you that that is where your pectoral muscles are. That's where she got the massage.

But then she turned around a month later and told the victims' compensation fund that that was groping her breast. Ghislaine never touched her nipples or never touched around her nipple area. But on her victims' compensation fund, she told them that was groping her breast, and that's exactly the language that Ms. Moe adopted here today. You heard about an incident where she says that Epstein entered her room and Ghislaine was not in that room when it happened. Epstein was not in the room when she got the massage. And she told the compensation fund that she was sexually abused in the movie theater. She told them her breasts were groped. She told them that she had Mr. Epstein's genitals pressed against her; and she, for that story, got one and a half million dollars. But what is the evidence about what Ghislaine Maxwell knew about this trip? Originally, Maria was supposed to go on the trip.

And so Ghislaine had no role in planning the trip, aiding, abetting the trip, conspiring to make the trip happen. We only know that Epstein called Annie's mom and talked to her about Ghislaine being there. Imagine for a minute that you're Ghislaine Maxwell, and you fly out to Santa Fe because you're going to meet with some architects and plan the building of a new house. And all of a sudden, some high school student shows up, was supposed to come with her sister for some kind of trip, and then the sister is not there, and you have no idea what's going on. Imagine that. What are you going to do? Are you going to take them on a tour of the ranch, spend a significant amount of time taking them horseback riding, helping her get cowboy boots so she can go horseback riding, talk to her about school? This isn't

MS. MENNINGER: Ghislaine Maxwell targeting someone. This is Annie showing up at the ranch without Ghislaine's knowledge. Annie told you about reconstructing her memory of when this trip occurred. She said it was in April of '96, and she said she thinks that because she thinks she saw Primal Fear, which came out in 1996. She researched that on the internet. And then she talked to her friends about how prom was later that year. And it happened before she went to prom, so she's pretty sure it happened in April of '96. I mean, she's a doctor. She knows how to go back and research things and put it together. And she reconstructed that memory. But when you look at the flight logs, she told you also it was a weekend trip, mind you, and her mother confirmed it was a weekend trip. But when you look in April of 1996, there is no weekend in April of 1996 that Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are in New Mexico. It doesn't fit.

There is a March trip where just Jeffrey is in -- goes to Santa Fe for like a day, and then there's a trip in the middle of May where they both go to Santa Fe, but that's in the middle of the week. There's no weekend trips in April or May of 1996. Okay. So it doesn't work. She tried her best to reconstruct the time. She's wrong. That's just the way it is. So if we had her journals, we might know, but we don't. So then if you look a year later, in April of 1997, there is a trip where Jeffrey and Ghislaine go about that time of year together to New Mexico in March or April of 1997. Annie Farmer is 17, almost 18 years old. And there is a flight log that shows them going at that time. So maybe she just got it wrong by a year, meaning she's 17 when she went there. She also says that trip to New Mexico happened right before she went to Thailand.

So naturally, one would look at her border patrol records and figure out when did she go to Thailand, because that would help us figure out when she actually went. So when you look at those records, it shows her very first trip out of the country and coming back into the country was in July of '97, not in '96, when she was 18. And you see she's coming back through a city called Düsseldorf in Germany, which is not Thailand, I understand that. But then you remember I asked her mom, Weren't you in Germany when she was in Thailand? And she said, Yes, I was. So Annie flies back from Thailand to Germany, where her mother is, and then they fly back together when she's a senior, not a junior, in 1997, and not 1996. That's what the documents show. And don't let the government tell you these records -- I mean, the government is going to tell you that their own Customs and Border Patrol records are not accurate. Okay. Well, that's kind of silly.

But if you look at Jane's records that come in the same exhibit number, you'll see that they go back to January of '96. So the records go back that far. There just isn't a record of Annie going to Thailand in 1996. And so the government didn't bring you the Customs and Border Patrol records. And finally, I want to consider one other piece about Annie's story. She's saying that she wore -- she was bought these boots by the people who sexually abused her; Epstein bought her these boots. And she said that she kept them in the closet, and then the government didn't ask for them in 2006, excuse me. And you'll have the boots with you back in the jury room, and you can see for yourselves how worn those boots are.

And so when the government finally got those boots in June of 2021, even though they'd met with her repeatedly, and she never told them anything about wearing these boots, she just said they bought her these boots, and then when they finally got them and looked at them and saw that she's been wearing boots from the people that she says sexually abused her, she came up with a new story, and that story was that she resided to reclaim the boots. And that's the story she told for the first time right before trial and what she told you on the stand. Again, the government promised you relatives who were going to come corroborate these stories. Where was Annie Farmer's sister? Where were the people at the ranch? Where was the chef? Where's the rest of her diaries? What you got was a photograph of the front and back of a diary, and you got photographs of several of the pages from the diary. What you didn't get was the rest of the diary. You don't even get to take the diary back into the room with you.

MS. MENNINGER: And she told you that she had diaries from Thailand. Why didn't she share those diaries? Why didn't she give this diary to the government? Also, Ms. Farmer is the one who explained a lot of the intersection of these lawyers and the witnesses. She told you she first met with the Boies Schiller firm when they were representing Virginia Roberts, and she was going to be a witness. And then she hired them. And she told you that Jane, who told you she had talked to Kate's lawyers, Brad Edwards -- and Brad Edwards was here in the courtroom when Kate was testifying, Jane talked to him as well. And then Jack Scarola, who represents Carolyn, and brought her to the government, he also talked to the same other witnesses, and they all talked to their family members and saw the media. That's the contamination of memory that we were talking about.

Finally, with respect to Annie's story and the money piece, she told the FBI that all of this was not sexualized when she talked to them in May of 2006, and then again in May of 2020. But then the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund opened, her lawyers had helped set it up on June 25th of 2020, and the very next day she was first in line with her application to get the money in saying that it all was sexualized. Let's talk about Kate. I'm not really sure why Kate testified here because, once again, the judge instructed you that any sexual conduct she says occurred was not illegal activity. And you may not convict Ms. Maxwell on the basis of Kate's testimony regarding any sexual contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein. Again, the government told you that Ghislaine Maxwell targeted a woman who had a single parent, and her mother was sick, I think they said. That's not what she told you. She told you she had a wealthy stepfather who lived -- had his own plane.

She lived in the South of France before moving to Ghislaine's -- close to Ghislaine's home in the Tony section of London known as Belgravia. She admitted to being fiercely ambitious, spending 90 percent of her time thinking about her next move. And when she was 17 and in Paris, she met Ghislaine, who was with an Oxford classmate of hers, of Ghislaine's. She was dating him. So she was dating a man that was Ghislaine's age at the time that Ghislaine met her. And then she said, basically, she wanted to be Ghislaine. Kate told you, I was quite excited to be friends with her. And she was friends with a man I was dating. And she seemed very exciting; and she seemed everything that I wanted to be. So Kate traded up from the one prominent gentleman to the next, Jeffrey Epstein. Kate told you about her life in this time period where she was abusing cocaine and sleeping pills and alcohol for more than ten years. She was an international model, she was in a movie with a prominent English actor.

She had a relationship with Epstein that spanned decades. She was a billboard model, a lingerie model, she was in tabloid magazines. She helped set up a man in a tabloid magazine for asking him to get drugs in a conversation that was recorded. That's the kind of information that Kate shared with you about her life. And whatever she did Epstein was above the age of consent. She maintained contact with Epstein into her thirties. He was in prison, and she was writing and sending him emails offering to send him pictures while he was in prison, while she was in her thirties. Use your common sense. Is that someone who was abused by Epstein? She signed those emails, and these are Exhibits K-8 and K-10. Best love always, Kate. When confronted with a 2011 email she sent to Epstein asking if she could stay at his place, she told you that she felt compelled to contact him. She emailed Epstein for decades, and there's not one single proof of her ever contacting or being in touch with Ghislaine.

At the time she met with the government, her lawyer provided a U visa form and asked if they could help with it. A U visa is for people who are exceptional. And she said that she is exceptional. She's a music therapist. And she was starting a foundation, which opened right before Epstein died -- after Epstein died, excuse me, and closed right after she got her $3.25 million from the fund. She claims she was using a fake name during this trial because of her child. But she had used her real name in repeated media appearances and publicly in court about Epstein after her -- after his death. What Professor Loftus tells us about post-event

MS. MENNINGER: information and suggestiveness would suggest that Kate made her own choices to engage with Epstein when she was over the age of consent. And she made her own choice to blame Ghislaine. And her memory is affected by a decade or more of substance abuse. What I really want to emphasize about Kate though is that she told you she met Ghislaine Maxwell at Ghislaine Maxwell's home in London, and the address is 44 Kinnerton Street. And she said that she met her in 1994. In order to be awarded money from the victims' comp fund, you had to be 17 or younger. So it was important to her story that she say that she met Ghislaine in 1994, when she was younger than 17. And so Kate was firm that that's the address she went to, the house with the red door. It's actually Government Exhibit 702. So when you see that house, you'll know that's the one that Kate was talking about. It's across from something called The Nags Head Pub.

But the problem is Ghislaine Maxwell didn't own that home until 1997, not 1994. She owned that home when Kate was 20 years old, not 16 years old, not 17 years old. You will see those exhibits, A-5 -- and A-5 refers you to MG-12 and MG-1. And what these show is that Ghislaine Maxwell owned a home, another home, at 69 Stanhope Mews; and that she sold that home, and then she bought the next home at 44 Kinnerton Street. And the purchase of that home, purchased from another family, occurred in March of 1997, when Kate was 20 years old. So the entire story about going to that home and there being a massage room in that roam at Kinnerton Street is just wrong. If it happened at all, it happened three years after Kate said it happened. Now, the government showed you an offhand remark made in another property dispute from 2019 that Ghislaine Maxwell gave under oath when it was talking about a totally different property. And they asked her in 2019, When did you start living at Kinnerton Street?

And she said, 92, '93. She didn't have any documents in front of her. And she's talking about a totally different property. The property records show when she owned the home, and they showed that Kate's story is wrong, something the government didn't want you to see. I still don't know what Kate's story brings to this prosecution. Carolyn. Let's talk about Carolyn. Carolyn talked to two FBI agents in 2007, Agents Kuyrkendall and Richards. And you saw Special Agent Richards, he testified here last week.

And he told you that he's trained at Quantico on how to interview people; and when he talks to people, he's taking down notes carefully; and he's writing down what they say; and he's not limiting them in what they can talk about; and that all these agents review their notes for accuracy, and they check their other agents' notes, and they are all making sure that what they are writing down is accurate because, who knows, 14 years later, you might have to get on a witness stand and talk about what someone told you in an interview, right. So you've got to be pretty careful when you work for the FBI and you're taking notes. So he said he met with Carolyn and asked her what happened. And Carolyn told him a whole long list of things that happened. And she told Special Agent Richards that she was recruited by Virginia Roberts. Virginia Roberts told her how much money she would make. Virginia Roberts brought her inside. She saw a lady inside who had an unknown accent.

She told you that she knows what a British accent was. And she didn't identify this person as Ghislaine back in 2007. And it was Roberts who instructed her how to massage Epstein. And Roberts and Epstein had sex while Carolyn watched. And Epstein paid Carolyn. And Carolyn and Roberts left. And Carolyn looked up Epstein's number in a phone book. And she called Epstein. And either Epstein or Kellen would call her, she said. And on the second visit, the chef asked her if she was hungry. And she was greeted by someone named Sarah. And Sarah is the one that placed towels on the massage table. And Sarah called to tell her about concert tickets. And Epstein sent her gifts. And Kellen took pictures of her. That's her story from 2007. Not one mention of Ghislaine or Maxwell or Maxwell calling her or Maxwell trying to touch her breasts. I mean, that would be something you would tell the FBI who was there investigating you -- investigating a sex assault inquiry, right? She didn't mention anything about Maxwell or Maxwell touching her breast.

MS. MENNINGER: And one year later, she files not one, but two civil lawsuits. And exactly like her statement to Mr. -- Special Agent Richards, she has lawyers, they draft up these long lawsuits. And not one thing in those civil lawsuits, that go on for 70 pages and 209 paragraphs, is there one mention of Maxwell or Ghislaine. Twelve years ago she was asked under oath to answer questions about who was involved in the trafficking of her or the sexual abuse of her. And she had lawyers who helped her answer those questions. And again, she didn't say anything about Ghislaine Maxwell. And then she even updated her answers again. So she's looking at her answers to make sure that they are accurate. And once again, she does not mention anything about Maxwell. She had a third opportunity to talk about who was involved in this operation at the Epstein home. She gave a deposition. And the deposition went on for hours. And she was asked in that deposition, Are all of the things in your civil complaint accurate?

Do they include everything? Are they complete? Are they true? And she said, Yes, they are. Not one mention of Ghislaine Maxwell in hours of deposition testimony back in 2009. She may have mentioned that Maxwell answered the phone once. But guess what? The government grabbed all of those message pads which they talked to you about, and there are message pads and there are message pads, and you will get all these message pads back in the jury deliberation room. And you will see there's not one single message for Ghislaine Maxwell having to do with Carolyn. She's calling for Epstein. And look at the name on GX-2T in the upper right-hand corner. It's a French woman taking a message for Mr. Epstein about Carolyn, a French woman with an accent. We're talking about the 2000s now. So one might imagine that there are phone records. There might be phone records about all of these phone calls, right? But there's not.

There's not a single phone record showing any calls from Ghislaine Maxwell's cell phone to Carolyn or from Carolyn to Ghislaine Maxwell. And then Carolyn doesn't talk to anyone between -- in the government between 2007 and 2020, okay. She gets a settlement with Epstein, several hundred thousand dollars, that money gets used up, and then she doesn't talk to anyone about Maxwell. And so then in 2019, her lawyer, civil lawyer, Jack Scarola, calls up the government and says, Hey, let me put you in touch with my client, because he's no dummy. And he knows Epstein is dead; and he knows Epstein left behind a pile of cash. So she responds through her lawyer in July 2020, right after the victims' compensation fund was opened. And that's when her lawyer puts her in touch with the government, because again, it helps you with your claim if you're cooperating in a prosecution.

And in those 12 years when she wasn't saying anything before about Ghislaine Maxwell, all through 2007, eight, and nine, she didn't say anything about Ghislaine being there, introducing her, taking her upstairs, anything like that. She gave extensive testimony about it. And it happened shortly in time after the events. She didn't say anything about Ghislaine Maxwell. She had a therapist, Susan Pope, she met with for years. She didn't tell her therapist about Ghislaine Maxwell. She didn't tell the other doctor that she met with. And soon after she files these lawsuits, she starts mentioning Ghislaine. And that's the story that you heard from the stand. For the first time in 17 years, all of a sudden, her too; Ghislaine Maxwell's involved too. And she gets several million dollars. Is that the kind of evidence you would rely on in a matter of importance to yourself? She told you that she saw a photograph of Ghislaine pregnant. There's no evidence that Ghislaine was ever pregnant.

No one so Ghislaine Maxwell pregnant, and there's no photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell being pregnant. But that's what Carolyn told you, that she saw a photograph of her pregnant. Money. The first time that Maxwell is accused of anything by Carolyn is during this victims' compensation fund, where she ultimately got $2.8 million. The government argues that Carolyn has no financial incentive to stick with her story here, but that's not supported by the facts. The new story is the one she told the fund. And the fund tells you, if you don't tell the truth, they can prosecute you. So it's much easier to just stick with her story here to keep the cash she's already gotten.

MS. MENNINGER: Carolyn, 17 years later, now claims that Ghislaine Maxwell called her. There's not one phone record showing you that. She claims that Ghislaine sent her things. There's not one FedEx record telling you that. The message pads don't show any contact between Ghislaine and Epstein. She wasn't taking messages for Carolyn, Evelyn was. And they show that Carolyn was calling and her calls were not being returned. There would be evidence if her story were true. Let's talk about Shawn, her boyfriend, with his felony convictions. He says that their visits happened in 2002 and 2003, not 2001 or 2004. He testified in response to questions by the government that Carolyn never talked about Ghislaine. They never talked about Maxwell. Carolyn tried to minimize her drug abuse. But Shawn told you that they were abusing -- let me find it, sorry -- were abusing marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and other pills during that time period.

According to Shawn, he and Carolyn shared a phone, and he identified three callers. It would either be Epstein or Sarah Kellen calling; correct? Correct. Yes. He knew it was Sarah, because Sarah told him she was calling on behalf of Epstein, right? And he claimed to remember some of what he thought was a French accent. And in that meeting, he identified Sarah and then another European with an accent that wasn't British that you couldn't identify; correct? Correct. He met with the government five times. And in a fifth meeting, he said he couldn't identify the accent. The truth of the matter is Shawn never talked to Ghislaine Maxwell and never heard her voice. I want to turn to the other witnesses that came and testified here. The government talked to you about Dr. Rocchio, the ultimate victim apologist who tried to explain away why these accusers continued to have contact, including traveling with Epstein or offering to send photos to him in jail 30 years later. And to Dr.

Rocchio, that's just proof that they are victims. She's not trained as a treating therapist to question accusers' accounts. She's not a lawyer or a judge or a juror. She's a treating therapist. The government has spent a lot of time and money on Dr. Rocchio talking to you about grooming. There was no evidence that Ghislaine Maxwell groomed anyone. Carolyn was recruited by someone else. Annie met Ghislaine Maxwell one time in her life. Kate was a sophisticated adult above the age of consent who was dating a man Ghislaine Maxwell's age. And Jane came from a prominent musical family with supportive brothers and sisters and a mom and two older siblings as well. She had a singing and acting career, and there's no evidence whatsoever that Ghislaine Maxwell's chitchat with her, as she called it, was grooming. The government brought you these pilots. But the pilots said they didn't see anyone underage.

And nothing ever once hinted to them that there was sexual activity going on with underage girls. You heard Larry Visoski talk about how he left his daughters -- he was happy to have his daughters go horseback riding with Ghislaine Maxwell all the time. You heard from the FedEx records custodian, Tracy Chapell was her name. And again, she told you that there were no packages from Ghislaine Maxwell to Carolyn or any other underage girls. The government only showed you a few that went to Carolyn, but she had gathered hundreds, and we provided with you the rest of those, which just show that Ghislaine Maxwell sent FedExes to her family. Not one of the accusers got a package from Ghislaine Maxwell. The government brought you some law enforcement specialists. Kelly Maguire said she searched the 71st Street residence and located hundreds of hard drives and tons of photographs.

Kimberly Meder said she scoured those 40,000 photos, and all they came up with were some old girlfriend/boyfriend looking photos of Ghislaine and Jeffrey. Stephen Flatley. Let's take a minute on Stephen Flatley. He's the computer forensic guy. And he's the one that pulled the metadata that the government just showed you on their closing. And they are trying to argue that these documents, because they came from a computer that was loaded up originally by Ghislaine Maxwell, that she wrote every document on that computer. You know what's easy as can be, doesn't take the FBI to do it? You just pull up the dates of that metadata when those documents were created, and you look and see from the flight logs where Ghislaine Maxwell was when those

MS. MENNINGER: documents were created. And she's in about four or five different places. So whoever had that desktop computer Stephen Flatley told you about wasn't carrying it with them on airplanes. And if other people could use that Ghislaine Maxwell computer, what on earth makes the government think that Ghislaine Maxwell was writing an essay about herself in the third person with Jeffrey Epstein? You don't know about that document. Not one single person told you what that document is, where it came from. You got some metadata from a computer that's clearly being used by a number of different people, because Ghislaine Maxwell is not in the house when documents are being created. But the FBI didn't put that together for you. They want to just say, This is Ghislaine Maxwell's document because it's got her name in the metadata. Please. They've got a list of massage oils. Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't in town when that list of massage oils was created.

They've got a household manual that wasn't on Ghislaine Maxwell's computer, by the way. No one's explained where that thing came from, but it's dated in 2005. There's an email between Ghislaine Maxwell and another woman talking about the household manual and also about what a terrible job Juan Alessi was doing. That's the one email off of those hundreds of hard drives you saw and the pictures, one email the government brought you for a ten-year conspiracy, complaining about Juan Alessi's job performance. What a smoking gun. The Palm Beach detectives came and they told you about their walk-through at the Palm Beach house, the one that showed the massage room, which was really the master bedroom -- bathroom, excuse me. There is no creepy animals that she talked about or orgy paintings on the wall. They brought you the massage table which proved nothing to you. They showed you that photo up close of the girl with her pants being pulled down that was on the wall.

Go back and compare that with the other photos. That's the same girl that Eva Dubin identified as her daughter in the other photos in the house, okay. This isn't child pornography. This is a photo that was given to Jeffrey Epstein by Eva Dubin of his goddaughter. Photo doesn't prove anything. They talked to you about sex toys that were found on a shelf in a guest room closet. What does that prove to you? Then there's Virginia Roberts. The government wants to try to claim that Virginia Roberts was also a victim. Where is Virginia Roberts? Why didn't Virginia Roberts come and get on the stand and tell you that she was a victim? Use your common sense. If she could corroborate Carolyn, you think they might have had her come in and do that? What the government just told you is that Ghislaine Maxwell basically picked her up off the side of the road. That's not what you heard.

Juan Alessi told you he -- Ghislaine Maxwell went to get a treatment at the spa at Mar-a-Lago, and Virginia Roberts came out wearing a white uniform, as though she worked there. And Juan Alessi also told you and said in a deposition in 2009, she was a masseuse. He understood her to be a masseuse. This isn't picking up a girl off the side of the road. And look at the records, okay. We put in Virginia Roberts' school records. She was going to Survivor Charter School from 2001 to 2002. She was 18 years old. That's where Shawn says he met her. And in 2002 is when Virginia introduced Carolyn to Epstein, when she was 18 years old. So Virginia is the one who's taking underage girls to meet Epstein, not Ghislaine Maxwell. Virginia's presence on a flight log when she was 17, rather than 18, tells you nothing about what she did or didn't do. And if the government had proof to back up Virginia's claims, they could have brought it to you and put her on the stand.

As I said at the beginning, the government has really struggled to explain why an Oxford-educated, proper English woman would suddenly agree to facilitate sex abuse of minors. And they told you it was to maintain her jet-setter lifestyle. They've also suggested at least three other reasons. One is this culture of silence theory, which is dependent entirely on Juan Alessi and the mysterious household manual. Now, Juan Alessi told you he threw that manual away and never used it, so we don't actually have a single employee who came and testified that they used this household manual. The pilots didn't use it. The office people told you they were never given directions like that and didn't know about it. No

MS. MENNINGER: one was told not to look anybody in the eye. Larry Visoski did tell you he signed a nondisclosure agreement. He told you that was common for people of wealth; that he had signed it for other people of wealth because they don't want them -- their pilots writing about the famous people who are flying on their planes, like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump or Senator John Glenn or any of the other famous people who you will see on the flight logs. Nondisclosures aren't to hide illicit sexual activity; and not one witness told you that it was. Secondly, the government makes a big show of these big dollar transfers. And they claim it's the finances; that Ghislaine Maxwell was basically being purchased to facilitate sexual abuse because she got big dollar transfers of money that you can see from bank statements. That is some thin testimony. What they are asking you to do is to speculate. And speculation is not evidence.

Putting up a bank statement that shows transfers tells you nothing about what was going on and, in fact, it's not even clear that Ghislaine Maxwell knew that these transfers were being made in her name. You saw evidence that Epstein bought a helicopter, and he owned it through a company called Air Ghislaine. Dave Rodgers told you that's totally common for wealthy people to own their private planes through companies, because it limits their liability. And that's exactly what the $7.4 million would have corresponded with, because the bank records show it was Air Ghislaine. It's not like Epstein put all his assets in Ghislaine's name. Larry Visoski told you that he put several -- that Epstein put several of the cars in Palm Beach under Larry Visoski's name. You also heard that Epstein was generous with a number of people. He donated to numerous charities. He was a sponsor of the arts and individual artists. He gave money to build a lodge at Interlochen.

He paid for his employees' kids to go to college. He gave Larry Visoski 40 acres of land on a ranch free of charge so he could build a house there. He didn't ask anything in return for this generosity. Education was important to him, and he did it for a number of employees. Everyone knew that Epstein was doing this. The employees knew about the tuition payments. Everyone knew he was building a lodge at Interlochen that was handicap accessible. So to everyone, including Ghislaine, it looked like Epstein wanted to use his money to further the ambitions and education of those around him. As far as these bank records, where they showed you these big numbers, and Ms. Moe just argued that's essentially buying off a sex abuse case, you saw that for all those records, the person who signed for the accounts was Harry Beller, who Cim Espinosa told you was Epstein's accountant. He was signing all the checks. Beller had control over the account, and he's the one signing for the accounts. Who knows what that money was for. Did anyone from the bank tell you what that money was for? Certainly no one from JPMorgan did. What about all these other people around Epstein who made the wire transfers or paid for it? Did they come and testify? The government wants you to speculate over and over, and they want to put up big dollar signs and make you believe that that turns someone into a sex abuser.

MS. MENNINGER: You heard from the government that Ghislaine was Epstein's right-hand woman; that she controlled everything in his life; she knew everything, she saw everything, she did everything, she's to blame for his sins. That's not what the evidence showed you at all. Everyone knew that Jeffrey was keeping secrets from Ghislaine, except Ghislaine. The pilots knew it when they were flying Epstein with other women. Her own assistant, Cim, was sending flowers to other women for Mr. Epstein. Mr. Alessi told you that when Epstein was coming with other women, he was ordered to take the photos down off the walls of Ghislaine. We can see the flight logs -- you'll see the flight logs and the testimony of other witnesses like Dr. Dubin, Nicole Hesse, Larry Visoski, that Mr. Epstein had many other women in his life: Frances Jardine, Celina Midelfart, Sherry Lewis, and who knows how many more. There are trips over and over on those flight logs with these women and without Ghislaine going to Palm Beach.

Check out the flight logs for yourself. Someone like Jeffrey Epstein is always trying to control the people around them. He used his position to manipulate people and play them off against one another. Juan Alessi told you -- despite their one quote the government showed you about Ghislaine being the lady of the house when she first started, that, in 2016, Mr. Alessi testified it was Epstein who was his direct supervisor. And if Epstein was in the house, he would never go to Ghislaine, he would go directly to Epstein. And let's talk a little bit about Mr. Alessi. Mr. Alessi worked for Epstein for many years. But you can tell from the one email exchange, Government Exhibit 424, between Ghislaine and Sally Markham that Mr. Alessi was not doing a very good job. In fact, I think she called it a truly awful job. So we know the two of them weren't getting along. But does being a tough boss make you an enforcer of a code of silence? Mr. Alessi is simply not credible.

He said he didn't follow the household manual, which is dated years later. He threw it away. Not one employee told you they followed this household manual. He's also the one that the government tried to get in this little black address book from, right? He's the one. He said he recognized it; it looked like the one he had seen. He has no idea what year it's from. He doesn't know how accurate it is; that people get added every year and taken away every year. So somehow in 2021, a black address book shows up on the stand with some names in it, and not one single person says that that black address book is from the time we're talking about and not Epstein's own address book from years later after Ghislaine had nothing to do with it. Not one. If all these employees are around the house all the time seeing these address books laying everywhere, where are those employees and where are all those address books?

So Juan Alessi is the sole guardian who can tell you about this black address book from which the government wants to build their case. What do we know about Mr. Alessi? During his direct examination, the government asked him about his burglary of Jeffrey Epstein's home. And he turned on the stand and he looked at you in the eye and he said, I will tell the truth. And then he proceeded to not tell you the truth. He told you a story that he concocted to make himself look better. He told you that he broke into Epstein's home one time to try to help someone because he was out of money. But he told the police back in 2003 that he broke in to steal a gun. He told you he stole the money because he needed it, but then he told you he owned multiple rental properties. He told you he broke in once. But the truth was, as he told the police in 2003, he broke in twice. He went in, stole some money, and then he came back a few weeks later and stole some more money.

So the man who turned and looked you in the eye and said, I will tell you the truth, turned and didn't tell the truth. You cannot trust this man's word, certainly not as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of anything. And on top of that, his memory is all over the place. He told different stories at different times. He couldn't remember if he met someone in '94 or '99. He has no business being the one corroborating witness for Jane. But even there, he testified that he met her later in '98 or '99, when she would have been 18 or 19. He told you that he picked her up a few times, not the

MS. MENNINGER: hundreds of times she claims. He thinks he drove her to the airport once, not the dozens of times she claims. And who drove her to the commercial airport or back? Was that her mom we didn't hear from? He did tell you he'd worked in construction, and that the plans that he was shown demonstrated that there was renovation that was about to start taking place in the summer of '94. Mr. Alessi does not have credible or complete or accurate information. You should not rely on him in reaching a verdict. I want to talk a little bit about the defense case. As you know, we called Dr. Loftus to the stand. She's a prominent memory scientist. And she gave us a user-friendly master class on how the brain works and how human memory works. And I understand the government wants to minimize her significant body of research and work because she wrote one book called Witness for the Defense.

But you will have her CV and you can look at her eminent qualifications and all of her research on how people can develop memories of things that didn't happen or remember things differently from the way they actually were and how people can develop false memories. And what she told you is that memory is malleable. Memory weakens over time. And memory can be impacted and corrupted by post-event contamination. She talked about times when false memories can be planted in a person's mind, and that the person could then become just as emotional about these created memories as other individuals who truly had the experiences. And contrary to what most people think, memory doesn't work like a recording device; you can't just push play and it all comes back later. Memories can be impacted by post-event information that comes from all different sources. Interviews that use words that are suggestive. You'll recall that she talked about the study where they used the word "smashed."

How fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car; and that people gave much higher rates of speed when they heard that word, because it was suggested to them that it was fast. And then think back about how none of the interviews of these accusers were recorded and we don't have transcripts and we don't know the words that were used in those interviews. We know that the accusers talked to their lawyers; we know that many talked to the media; we know that they saw the media; we know that they talked to other accusers; we know that they all had at least a plan of recovering money through their lawsuits and the victims' compensation fund, and that works on your memories. She told you about the three different stages of memories, and that one thing that can happen is what's called autosuggestion.

Basically, when people suggest things to themselves, and then they start to remember things and they start to draw inferences, and then they start to feel as if those things are actual memories. But memories come from the acquisition of the event, the retention of the information, and the retrieval. And post-event information can impact a memory at any one of those stages. If you're under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time you acquire the memory, that affects the quality of the formation of the memory in the first place. The older a memory gets, the more susceptible it is to post-event information. A little bit can come in, the older the memory is, and it can cause a contamination or a distortion or a supplementation. And news media in whatever form can include re-dramatization. Sometimes there's pressure to provide more and more details about some particular subject. I don't know.

Like the government asking you four times, Are you sure there was no sexual abuse in New Mexico? Could that possibly be pressure to give more information that sometimes leads to corrupt memories? And she explained to you that memory is a constructive process; that we often takes bits and pieces of experiences and try to put them together to make sense, which is exactly what Annie Farmer told you she did when she figured out the April 1996 date and she happened to be wrong. How vivid a memory seems does not make it more accurate. She talked about false memories being planted in people's minds. You remember things like being attacked by a vicious animal or nearly drowning; and that people can have rich false memories that have been planted in their minds. She also talked about confidence malleability; that the more confident a person gets if they receive confirming information

MS. MENNINGER: like from their lawyer or another accuser, then they go up in their confidence. Dr. Loftus has consulted with the Department of Justice, the bosses of these prosecutors; the FBI, the people who interviewed in this case; and the Secret Service. So to be telling you that she's only a defense witness is simply not true. And if the government had called her, she would have told them the same information, it's just information they didn't want to hear. You remember the government asking questions of Dr. Dubin to try to suggest that maybe her memory wasn't so good because of a medical condition. But she was quite firm in the one thing, she absolutely did not take part in sexual abuse with Jane. Science is science. And Dr. Loftus, Professor Loftus, would say the same thing, no matter who called her to the stand. You can look at her CV. You can't compare it to Dr. Rocchio's, because Dr. Rocchio's is not in evidence. But Dr. Rocchio told you she hasn't done any research.

And you don't even need an expert to tell you some basic facts. Memory fades over time, manipulation can alter memories, and money is a powerful manipulator. Any claim to truth must be accompanied by the proof. And here, these women are claiming to be telling you true stories and true memories; but in many cases, if not most, they are contradicted by the actual documents we have from the time period. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the law, as the government did. As you heard, Ghislaine Maxwell is charged with six counts, and you're going to have the opportunity to acquit her of all of those. I'm going to walk you through this. Counts One, Three, and Five are the ones that accuse her of participating in a conspiracy. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to violate the law. It's not mere presence around someone else who is violating the law; it's an agreement to help that person. It's different from an actual violation yourself of the law.

And Counts Two, Four, and Six are the ones that charge her with actually being the one to violate the law. So it's a little confusing, but these come in pairs, as you see from the color coding. One and Two are the conspiracy and the substantive count for enticement or persuading someone under the age of 17 to travel to engage in a legal sexual activity. Count One is the conspiracy, Count Two is the substantive count. The same is true for Counts Three and Four; they are the substantive and the conspiracy counts for transportation. And Five and Six are the same for sex trafficking. It's very important that you understand that certain counts relate to certain accusers. So, for example, Counts Two and Four are entirely based on Jane. If you don't believe Jane, you just acquit Ms. Maxwell right away of Counts Two and Four.

MS. MENNINGER: And Count Six only relates to Carolyn. So if you don't believe Carolyn or if you have a reasonable doubt about Carolyn adding Ghislaine to the story, you just acquit her on that charge, as well. And there are numerous reasons why you should have substantial reasonable doubt in this case. But before I get to that, let's talk about conspiracy. Judge Nathan will explain to you that conspiracy is an agreement to accomplish something unlawful, and the government's theory is that Epstein and Maxwell agreed that they would encourage or arrange for females under the age of 17 to travel to New York to engage in sex acts with Epstein, and New York law provides that an adult of someone under 17 cannot legally consent to have sexual contact. So, what did Annie Farmer and Kate and Carolyn have to do with that violation of New York law? Nothing. Carolyn never went to New York. She never traveled anywhere.

Any suggestion that she was asked to travel was something she added in the last year after her first lawsuits were over and her money was gone and she was adding Ghislaine Maxwell to the case. Annie came to New York through no involvement of Ghislaine Maxwell. As she told you, quite clearly on the stand and after she went to New Mexico, nobody asked her to travel anywhere. While she went to New York the one time before New Mexico, Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't there, had nothing to do with it. And Kate, as we've already told you, nothing illegal happened with Kate. Counts Five and Six, the sex trafficking counts, these are the counts that relate to Carolyn. Now, the government wants you to believe that because Ghislaine Maxwell traveled to Palm Beach at some points in that period and helped to manage Epstein's properties, she was the one orchestrating massages, despite the fact that you've seen no proof of that, no message pads, no phone records, nothing. You've seen Sarah Kellen was there.

The Judge is also going to explain to you that mere presence is not enough -- mere presence at the scene of the alleged crime does not, by itself, does not make someone a member of the conspiracy. And she will also, I expect, instruct you that knowledge without participation in the unlawful plan is also not sufficient to convict. In other words, you cannot conclude Ghislaine was a member of the conspiracy simply because she visited Palm Beach in the 2000s, nor can you convict her because you have some nagging sense that she must have known. She must have known is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The law presumes, as you sit here today, as I stand here today, that Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent of all the charges against her. And Ms. Maxwell does not have to prove her innocence to you. You already know it to be true as you sit there. It is the government's burden to prove each element of each of these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those of you that have worked in regulatory jobs or banking or finance will be familiar with regulations and how there are knit-picky rules. The Judge is going to give you the law. That's the law that you'll follow. You'll get those instructions and you need to follow those rules, each one of them, very carefully, because if the government has failed to prove any element of any count beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter how silly or small it might seem to you, the Judge will instruct you, you have to acquit. You only convict if you find the burden of proof has been met as to each element of each count. Reasonable doubt is something I've talked a little bit about and the Judge, I expect, will give you the instruction that you see here. So I'm just trying to point out a couple of pieces of it, but obviously you'll need to read the entire instruction and listen to all of the Judge's instructions because they're all important.

But when you're weighing the credibility of the witnesses that you've heard from and you're evaluating whether the government has met its burden of proof as to each element of each count, you are to weigh whether or not the government has satisfied their proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And what does reasonable doubt mean? I expect the Judge will instruct you reasonable doubt is a doubt based in reason in arising out of the evidence in the case or the lack of evidence. It is a doubt that a reasonable person has after carefully weighing all of the evidence in the case or the lack of evidence. So every witness you didn't hear from, every piece of document that you didn't see, every piece of evidence

MS. MENNINGER: that you didn't see, you can take that into account and decide whether the government has met their awesome burden. In other words, if you have such a doubt as would reasonably cause a prudent person to hesitate to act in matters of importance in his or her own affairs, then you have a reasonable doubt, and in that circumstance, it is your duty to acquit Ms. Maxwell of that charge. What does that mean? It means something different to every person. But what is a matter of importance in your own affairs or someone else's own affairs? Is it whether to get heart surgery? Is it whether to buy a house? What major events in your own affairs do you need highly trustworthy information to make a decision about? And then ask whether the quality of the evidence, the lack of the evidence, the evidence that you did get, the evidence that you didn't get was of such a standard that you would not hesitate to act in a matter of importance to yourself.

Would you hesitate to act in a matter of importance to yourself based on the word of Carolyn? Would you hesitate to act in a matter of importance to yourself based on the word of Jane? Did they demonstrate to you that their stories were credible? I submit to you that they did not. All of these witnesses have changed their stories many times. Why? Was it a lack of memory? Was it a motivation to change their story? And each change of story should cause you to hesitate to act, and should evidence, the lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many reasons to hesitate and many reasons to doubt. You have to use your common sense. Money is a powerful motivating factor. The time that has elapsed has made it very difficult for people to go back and reconstruct their memories, and their memories are highly flawed. How easy is it for someone to get on the stand and say, okay, well, I know I told you many times that I don't remember her being in the room, but now I do.

It's pretty easy because no one is here to confront her. Epstein is dead. No one can say that they're lying except asking them questions and pointing out that their stories are not accurate. But Eva and Michelle came in and they told you they absolutely did not participate in sexual orgies that Jane said they did. That should make you hesitate about all of Jane's story. Carolyn swore many times to tell the truth, and all of her depositions and in her civil complaints and then she added someone else decades later. That should make you hesitate. They all changed their stories when the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund was opened up. That should make you hesitate. Mr. Alessi turning and looking at you and saying he's going to tell the truth and not telling the truth, that should make you hesitate. The lack of evidence should make you hesitate. Where is one photograph of Ghislaine with any one of these accusers or any underage girl? That should make you hesitate.

What are all the rest of those photographs show? That should make you hesitate. The absence of one other employee to come in here should make you hesitate. The absence of relatives who were living in the house, mother and brothers who supposedly saw their sister go over to a middle-aged man's house hundreds of times at the ages of 14, 15, and 16, they didn't come here, and that should make you hesitate. No phone records, no thank you notes, no proof that Epstein gave money to Interlochen for Jane, that should make you hesitate. Certainly, if it was a matter of importance to yourself, because I assure you this a matter of great importance to my client, Ghislaine Maxwell, that hesitation is reasonable doubt. As we have said from the beginning, Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. She's being tried here for being with Jeffrey Epstein. Maybe that was the biggest mistake of her life, but it was not a crime. Please only consider the evidence against her, don't be fooled by the government's smoke in mirrors and big fancy houses and bank accounts. What was the evidence that pertains to her? The evidence on the law, the burden of proof, justice, demand that you acquit Ghislaine Maxwell of every single count with which she is charged. Thank you for your time.