Rebuttal Closing Argument by the Prosecution

MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I want to start off by making one thing very clear, this case is about that woman, it's about the children that she targeted, the steps that she took to serve those children up to be abused. It's about her own participation in that abuse when she touched Jane's breasts and Carolyn's breasts and Annie's breasts. This case is about Ghislaine Maxwell, the crimes she committed. The defense just spent a whole lot of energy trying to get you to think about anyone other than the defendant, trying to get you to look away from the massive amount of evidence that Ms. Moe walked you through this morning. Now, to be clear, the defense doesn't have to do anything at all at this trial.

As Judge Nathan has instructed you, the government bears the burden of proof and we embrace that burden, but when the defense makes arguments like they just did, it is perfectly appropriate for you to think about whether those arguments make any sense at all and it is perfectly appropriate for the government to respond to those arguments. Here, the defense's theories just do not hold up. I'm not going to address all the stuff you just heard, I'm going to focus primarily on the core of the defense's arguments here, that you can't believe the four women you heard from, Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie. Never mind that they corroborate each other, never mind the mountain of evidence that backs those four up, the defense is desperate for you not to believe these women, so they're throwing up anything they can think of at the wall to see if anything will stick, but if you think about those arguments for just a little bit, you'll see they don't hold any water. Let's walk through them.

The defense tried to suggest that even if Jeffrey Epstein did engage in sexual contact with Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, Maxwell didn't know about it. She just had no idea that her boyfriend and best friend for more than a decade had a thing for teenage girls. Ladies and gentlemen, that suggestion is borderline laughable. Of course she knew. The defendant ran every aspect of Jeffrey Epstein's life for the better part of a decade. She traveled with him constantly. She shared a bed with him, inside a bedroom they can't get to without walking past a photo of a young girl pulling down her underwear. She had a bathroom off of that master bedroom. She referred to her homes as his home. She was the lady of the house. So of course she knew what was going on.

Of course she knew that her boyfriend, when he was spending time with teenage girls like Jane, like Carolyn, like Annie, like Virginia Roberts, she knew that he was doing it because he was attracted to them, because he wanted to have sex with them. The suggestion that she didn't know borders on the absurd. Think about that Palm Beach house filled with sexualized photos of girls around his desk, in the bedroom, in the closet where the massage table was kept, and think about that list of masseuses. Who needs that many masseuses? You saw that list from Government Exhibit 52-G. And who needs that many massages? Those were so obviously a ruse for sex. The defendant clearly knew what was going on, and she was complicit. She was in the room. So of course she knew. That $30 million is not just house-manager, hold-my-money-for-me money, it is, we-molested-kids-together money. The defendant was a crucial part of this scheme.

Now the defense talked a lot about what you don't have here, what's not in evidence in this case. See that for what it is, a distraction. It's a desperate attempt to get you to think about anything other than the powerful testimony you heard during this trial from Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie. Just a few points on this particular argument. First, Ms. Menninger talked a lot about where are the photographs or where are the hard drives. I expect that Judge Nathan is going to instruct you that the government is not required to use any particular investigative techniques. What is before you is whether the evidence that you heard in this courtroom proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it absolutely does. Second, I expect that Judge Nathan will instruct you that any witnesses who did not testify here were equally available or equally unavailable to both sides, the government and the defense. So when Ms. Menninger stands up here and says where is Virginia Roberts, where is Jane's mom, where are the employees, keep that in mind, it's just a distraction.

MS. COMEY: Third, your common sense tells you that the sexual abuse of children is not the kind of crime that leaves paper evidence. The victims are the evidence. Their testimony, their consistent accounts of Maxwell and Epstein and how they operated, that's how you know they were in those massage rooms. People who prey on children do not leave behind documents admitting to what they did. The defendant was not walking out of those massage rooms writing a memo to herself saying, today I touched Jane's breasts. But you do have powerful corroboration from three different victims who each told you compellingly similar accounts of their experiences, three different victims who remember the defendant touching their breasts, three different victims describing how the defendant used massage as a technique to move into sexual abuse. And by the way, you do have documents to back up their testimony. Ms. Moe walked you through them.

You've got the contact book, the message pads, the FedEx records, you have evidence on top of the witnesses. The defense spent most of their time attacking Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, and now it's obvious why they did that. Those four witnesses gave you the most damning testimony in this trial. If you believe those women, then that's it, the defendant is guilty. So of course the defendant is spewing out anything they can think of to attack these women. I'm not going to respond to every single sideshow that Ms. Menninger tried to lead you down about each of these women, but let me just address a few of the most obviously false ones. First, there is literally no evidence in this record of an age limit at the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. That's something Ms. Menninger just made up. There is nothing in the record to say you have to be a particular age to put in a claim to that fund. Second, the suggestion that Annie was 17, not 16 when she went to Santa Fe.

Three different witnesses, Annie, her mother, and her high school boyfriend all remember that Annie took that Thailand trip the summer between her junior and her senior year. David Mulligan remembered she had just gotten back when they started dating and that she went after they met at junior prom. They didn't just make that up. And remember, this trip to Santa Fe with Annie took place close in time to the trip around Christmas time to New York. Epstein wanted to get her back in his clutches as quickly as he could, and he wanted his right-hand woman there to help groom her. That's how you know it happened in '96. And this thing about flight records, also a distraction. If you want to take a look for yourself, go to Government Exhibit 662 at page 40, look at the flight on March 29th, 1996. You'll see Jeffrey Epstein flying to Santa Fe, New Mexico. The next flight is more than a week later, April 8th, 1996. Maxwell is on that next flight with Epstein.

That span of time of more than a week covers a weekend. Take a look at that, ladies and gentlemen. And third, Ms. Menninger talked a lot about Jane's testimony on cross examination. And to give you an example of some supposedly "aha" moment, she showed you a question that she asked Jane that was written like a riddle. Remember that question, it was, you don't recall Maxwell and Epstein being in the room, correct, and Jane answered no. What that means is, no, that's not correct. Ms. Menninger was trying to mislead you about what the answer to that riddle-like question meant just like she was trying to mislead you about what nothing has ever been difficult for me meant on that Interlochen application. Don't be distracted by that nonsense. I want to walk through the main arguments at the core of what the defense has said to you today about these witnesses. First, the defense tries to argue that Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie are all misremembering what happened to them.

They concede that the sexual contact happened with Epstein, but the theory is, Maxwell just had no part in it, wasn't involved. So the theory is that all four of these women had a massive false memory event that just happen to include details of the defendant grooming them in the same way using the same playbook. Your common sense tells you that didn't happen. The defense's own expert, Professor Loftus, confirmed that the core memories of trauma are solid. Peripheral details make it a little fuzzy, but those main memories, those events that are at the center are implanted. Some things you never

MS. COMEY: forget because they're seared into your brain forever. You remember keen moments, moments that change your life, like Jane remembering the defendant touching her breasts, Carolyn remembering the defendant touching her breasts, Annie remembering the defendant touching her breasts, Kate remembering the defendant standing right next to her in the doorway the first time she sees Jeffrey Epstein naked, frozen with fear. There was nothing peripheral about the defendant. She was the core memory, she was essential to this scheme. And to distract you from the remarkable clarity with which these women remember those core details, the defense primarily points to how Jane and Carolyn have described aspects of their experiences differently over time. They mixed up details, couldn't remember exactly when certain things took place.

But if you think about your own lives and your own memories, you will see that difficulty remembering certain things doesn't mean that they didn't happen, doesn't mean that you don't remember the core. Jane and Carolyn were both abused many, many times over a period of years. The abuse became routine, the same sickening process each time, these were recurring events. Now imagine you were asked to recall a recurring event from years ago in your own lives. Say something like a holiday, like Thanksgiving. There is a routine you follow each year, the same food, the same people attend. That event stands out in your mind because it's significant, it's a holiday, but you won't necessarily remember the specific dinner conversation you had each year. You're sure you had turkey because that happened every time, but some details are just not going to stand out to you because essentially the same thing happens every year. Now what might stand out is when a routine gets broken.

Say one year a neighbor came over to join who was unexpected or you switched up salt and sugar and a pie got totally ruined. You'll remember that different thing, but you might not be able to remember which Thanksgiving that thing happened. Did the neighbor come when I was 14, or 15, or 16? What year was it that I ruined that pie and it was salty? Just because you can't remember exactly how old you were, which Thanksgiving it was, does that mean it didn't happen? Of course not. The same is true of Jane and Carolyn. The abuse stands out in their mind because it was formative, but it happened so often that the details run together. They remember certain things like when someone else was in the room or going to get to see The Lion King during one of the trips, but those can be hard to place in time because of how frequent and similar their experiences were. Now, by contrast, Annie had a much smaller window of interactions with Maxwell and Epstein.

So for her, many more details stand out very vividly. It's less like Thanksgiving for her and more like a sweet 16 party, something unique that only happens once, so it stands out much more clearly in every detail. For Jane and Carolyn, even though some of those peripheral details got jumbled, they have solid memories of the core events. And you know from the defense's own expert that when an event you're remembering is traumatic, not just some holiday, the memory is going to be even stronger. Like Jane, she remembers Maxwell being in the room. The presence of a woman that she had looked up to like an older sister during this horrifying sexual abuse is a traumatic core event. And you know Jane was 14 when she met Maxwell and Epstein. She vividly remembers being 14 years old when that abuse began. It was within a year of her father dying. That's an anchoring way for her to hold onto that memory and know she was 14. It's also what she told Matt a decade ago long before this trial.

And there are documents to confirm she's right. You saw the Interlochen records putting her and the defendant and Epstein all at Interlochen the same summer of 1994. You saw the flight records putting Maxwell and Epstein there that summer. It is so clear that Jane was 14 when she met these predators. Now the defense tries to wiggle out of that by suggesting that Jane's estimation that she was approximately 15 on Mike Wallace's birthday somehow means that she got that date wrong. Ladies and gentlemen, which would stand out more in your mind, how old you were on Mike Wallace's birthday or how old you were the first time a middle-aged man molested you? It is obvious that Jane remembers these core events clearly, and

MS. COMEY: that is what matters. And hypothetically, let's just say the defense was right. Let's just say that she got the timing of her first meeting wrong, that it was actually that last summer when she turned 16 in 1996, and you know that she knew them by the time she was 16 because you saw the flight records putting her on those planes with defendant and Epstein going to New York when she was 16. So the best argument the defense has is she was 16, not 14, when the abuse happened. That is not a defense. It is still illegal. It is not a defense to say, oh, no, no, no, she was 16, not 14, when I touched her breasts. It's still a crime. Now Carolyn. Carolyn vividly remembers the first time she met the defendant. You saw her correct defense counsel on cross examination. Remember, he tried to skip over the part of meeting her and she said no, no, you forgot about when I met Maxwell.

That first day was a scarring memory for Carolyn, and she remembers Maxwell as a fixture in her experiences at the Palm Beach house, like the stuffing at Thanksgiving, there every time. The defense is very focused on the peripheral details that got mixed up for Carolyn between her earlier statements and her trial testimony more than a decade later. And they harped a lot on her memory of seeing a photo of Maxwell pregnant in the massage room. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd encourage you to take a look at Government Exhibits 286 and 287. Those show pictures that were on the wall in the closet where the massage table was kept in the Palm Beach master bathroom. You look at those and you'll see that there appear to be three different pictures that appear to show a pregnant woman in a two-piece swimsuit. So what if Carolyn mistakenly thought that one of those showed Maxwell?

What do you think stands out in her memory more, who the pregnant person in that picture was or the middle-aged man who was masturbating and touching her breasts inside that room? That is the definition of a peripheral detail. And why is the defense focusing so much on these peripheral details? Because they desperately want you to ignore the fact that Carolyn has consistently remembered Maxwell as one of the people involved in her experiences at that house. They want you to forget that she mentioned Maxwell not once, but twice in her 2009 deposition. Without prompting, Carolyn named Maxwell as one of the two people who would call her to schedule these massages with Jeffrey Epstein. She named her as one of the two people she would talk to when she called herself begging to come over because she needed the money. And Carolyn told Sean that she met a woman named Maxwell, whose first name she couldn't pronounce.

Now, back then there was no reason for Carolyn to go into more detail about what was happening with Maxwell, especially not in a lawsuit that was about Sarah and Epstein. But when she was asked more detailed questions, she remembered the core events, and she'd already mentioned Maxwell, without prompting, long before there could be anything to contaminate her memory. Next, the defense suggests that somehow these clear memories of Maxwell got implanted into the brains of Jane and Kate and Carolyn and Annie. The defense seems to suggest that this implantation happened from the media, greedy civil lawyers, and the FBI. None of those actually make sense and not one has support in this record. Starting with the media, you heard absolutely nothing at this trial about any of these witnesses consuming media in this case.

You heard that Jane and Annie gave some interviews themselves, you heard that Kate also gave an interview, but there is no evidence that any of these different witnesses saw each other's interviews, they weren't asked about it, they didn't say they did. There is no evidence that any witness saw each other's media or anything else about this case in the news. This is a distraction. Turning to the lawyers. There is not a shred of evidence that a group of lawyers got together, made up a story about Maxwell, and then implanted it into these witnesses' minds. Remember, each witness had a different lawyer. So for this theory to work, four different attorneys had to come up with this story and they separately manipulate their clients into perjuring themselves at a federal trial all so they could get a cut of the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. That makes no sense for a bunch of different reasons. For one thing, Annie told you that her lawyer is pro

MS. COMEY: bono, working for free. She doesn't get a cut of whatever Annie gets from the fund, so why would she need to make up a story about the defendant? And it makes no sense for the other lawyers to push this supposedly made up story about the defendant when they've already gotten paid. Remember, the payments have all been made, the lawyers got their money long before this trial started. And you know these lawyers didn't just implant the defendant into these victims' minds. Jane, Carolyn, and Annie all talked about Maxwell, remembered her as part of their experiences a long, long time ago. They all included her in their accounts before there was some supposed incentive for a payday. Annie mentioned it to Dave Mulligan, her high school boyfriend, and the FBI in 2006. She told both of them how Maxwell touched her breasts during a massage. Jane told Matt, her boyfriend from a decade ago, about the woman who would make her feel comfortable in the room.

Carolyn mentioned meeting the woman with short black hair and an accent to the FBI in 2007. She mentioned Maxwell twice in her deposition, and she told Sean that she saw Maxwell at the house at that time, way before there was a compensation fund or any incentive to add in Maxwell if it wasn't true. And that timing is crucial here because it completely guts the whole defense theory. The defense suggests that some lawyers made everything up about Maxwell to get money, but even if adding Maxwell in to get money could get you money, which is not true, there is no universe in which that was the case when Epstein was alive. Before he died in 2019, Epstein was the big fish, he's who you go after if you're going to make up a story. So all of the things that these witnesses said about Maxwell before 2019 were not part of some frame-job for the defendant. Even under the defense theory there was zero reason to make up her involvement when these disclosed years ago.

MS. COMEY: Finally, there is this, frankly, desperate suggestion that the FBI manipulated these witnesses; asked leading questions to fit a narrative. Let me be very clear here. There is not one shred of evidence to support that in this case. Ms. Menninger seemed to improvise, ad-libbed, made up, some theoretical questions that she'd like to think that the FBI asked some of these witnesses in their meetings with the government. But you didn't hear anything about that on the witness stand or the exhibits in this case. What you did hear was Special Agent Young. She told you how she values being ethical. She told you it matters to her that a victim's memory is her memory. Not a single witness at this trial suggested for even a moment that the FBI told them what to say. Remember, every single witness who was asked told you flat out, the only thing the governed asked of them was to tell the truth. And you know that's what they did here. Really the whole memory thing makes no sense at all.

There is no way that Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie just misremembered the defendant's core role in abusing them. So what does that leave the defense with? They are all liars. In order for the defense to be right, for the defendant not to have known about the abuse, for the defendant not to have participated in it, witness after witness after witness must have lied to you. Jane and Kate and Carolyn and Annie must have just stacked lie on top of lie on top of lie. That doesn't make any sense for a whole host of reasons. First, if these women are lying, then that means all of the witnesses who backed them up are lying too. The ex-boyfriends, Matt, Dave, Shawn, they must be lying. Juan Alessi must be lying. That's simply nonsensical for the ex-boyfriends. Matt, Dave, and Shawn have nothing to gain from testifying here. They have no reason whatsoever to lie. No motive. Why would they come here and lie to you? The same goes for Juan Alessi.

The defense spent a lot of time trying to dirty Alessi up. You know why they did that? It's because his testimony is incredibly powerful evidence that backs up so much of what these other witnesses say. But their arguments about him are really just silly. They spent time talking about the money and the gun. Remember, Mr. Alessi told you himself he stole money from Jeffrey Epstein and he paid it back. Some police report says that he was also looking for a gun. So what? Does that mean that he would make up an entire story about the defendant? No. And you know he told you the truth because he was corroborated by other evidence. Flight records confirmed that Jane and Virginia flew on Epstein's planes when they were minors, just like he told you. The pilots confirmed that Juan Alessi drove passengers up to the tarmac, just like he told you. The household manual showed you in black and white that Maxwell was exactly who Alessi said she was.

And just like the ex-boyfriends, Alessi has no reason to lie to you. Second. Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie have no motive to lie at this trial. The defense's only explanation for why they would perjure themselves on that stand is money. But the facts just do not support that. Remember, the victim compensation fund is finished; the civil cases are done. There's nothing pending. These women have already received millions of dollars. They are not getting a penny more. Now, the defense tried to point you to this stipulation about Jane's lawyer. I'd encourage you to take a look at it. Look at the whole stipulation. You'll see it doesn't change anything I've said. Jane's lawyer told the prosecutor that he remembered telling Jane that testifying would be the morally right thing to do and that it could help her case. But to be clear, that conversation with that prosecutor occurred in 2021, long after Jane's civil case was settled, long after she already received her award from the fund.

So there was no case to help. Whatever the lawyer meant by that, there is absolutely no evidence that Jane had any financial incentive to testify at this trial. There's no money to be had. You heard Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie each tell you unequivocally they have no financial stake in the outcome of this trial. This verdict will have zero impact on the money they received. Third. If Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie really believed that making up a story about Maxwell would somehow benefit them, you better believe they would have told much better lies. If they wanted to frame Maxwell, if they thought

MS. COMEY: doing so would somehow benefit her, they would put Maxwell in way deeper. They would have said that Maxwell was in the room every single time Jeffrey Epstein initiated sexual contact. Jane, Carolyn, and Annie would have said that Maxwell participated in all kinds of sex acts: Intercourse, oral sex, you name it. That's not what they did. Remember, Annie was so careful to make clear that the defendant touched the tops of her breasts, but not her nipples. Jane was careful to explain that Maxwell wasn't always in the room, and that the only physical contact she remembers is the defendant touching her breasts. Carolyn described oral sex and intercourse involving two other women, but with Maxwell it was just one time touching her breasts. Her memory is that Maxwell mostly talked with her, called to schedule appointments, invited her to travel. And how about Kate? She never put Maxwell in the room for a single sex act.

She just remembered Maxwell walking her to the door and leading her into that sexualized massage. And remember, she said she was 17 when this happened. If she was going to lie about her age, why wouldn't she make herself younger? 16, 15, 14. If these four witnesses wanted to dirty Maxwell up for a huge payday, they would have told way better lies. But, you know, let's just say the defense is right. Let's say these women are lying. Given how consistent their accounts are with each other and with the other witnesses in this case, that would mean that at least eight people -- Jane, Kate, Carolyn, Annie, Dave, Shawn, Matt, and Juan Alessi -- all are part of a massive conspiracy to frame the defendant. And then they just happened to be lucky enough that the FBI had documents to back up what they said: Flight records, FedEx records, message pads, contact book, household manual to back up their lies.

Beyond how implausible such a massive conspiracy of eight people to lie in a federal court is, the timing here makes it impossible. Remember, the defense's theory is that the incentive to frame Maxwell arose after Epstein died in 2019. So this supposed frame job was hatched in 2019, meaning Carolyn had to get in a time machine, go back to 2009 and sprinkle in a couple references to Maxwell in her deposition. And then Annie had to borrow that time machine, go back to 2006, and tell the FBI about how Maxwell touched her breast during a massage. Ladies and gentlemen, that's fiction. You know that did not happen. Annie told the FBI about Maxwell because it was the truth. Carolyn described Maxwell in her deposition because it was the truth. There is no massive conspiracy here to frame Ghislaine Maxwell. Finally, if these four witnesses really believed that lying and framing Maxwell would get them more money with the compensation, there is no way they would have testified at this trial.

No way. They got million-dollar payouts already. The plan worked. They got the money. Why on earth would they then take the huge risk of perjuring themselves in a federal trial? If all of this was just lies, made up to get money, why would they push their luck after they already reached their goal? If money is all they wanted, they would have walked away as soon as the check cleared. That's not what happened. These women put themselves through the hell of testifying at this trial, even though they have nothing to financially gain. They exposed the darkest, most traumatizing events of their lives to the world at this trial. They sat on that stand and went through excruciating and humiliating cross-examination. Did that look fun? Why would they put themselves through that when they already got millions of dollars? Why would they let themselves be attacked like that? You know why. They told you themselves and you could see it on their faces.

They did it for justice, for the hope that the defendant would be held accountable for her role in shattering their lives. The defendant never thought that those teenage girls would have the strength to report what happened to them. In her eyes, they were just trash, beneath her. Those girls would never stand up to a power couple like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And if they ever did, who would believe them? Who would believe Jane or Kate or Carolyn or Annie over Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, who rubbed shoulders with presidents and celebrities and business leaders? But the defendant didn't count on those teenage girls growing up into the women who testified at this trial; women