Ghislaine Maxwell got some bad news in court this week when it was revealed that one of her accusers will be allowed to testify in court about a “repugnant” sexual act by the late billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Court documents obtained by Daily Mail show that the woman, identified only as “Minor Victim 3,” will be describing the “morally reprehensible” encounter with Epstein as evidence of his sexual preference for young women and underage girls.
Maxwell’s lawyers had fought against the decision to include the testimony, arguing that the witness was over the age of consent at the time. They added that there is a danger that the jury may convict Maxwell based on a “moral judgment of sexual activity which was entirely legal.” Her specific sexual act was redacted in the letter from Maxwell’s lawyers.
Minor Victim 3, who is believed tore British, reportedly met Epstein and Maxwell in 1994 when she was around 17 years old. The indictment states that Maxwell “groomed and befriended” the girl in London and arranged for “multiple” sexualized messages with Epstein.
Prosecutors alleged to the court that they believe the woman “can reasonably be characterized as a ‘victim of alleged sexual misconduct” and that her testimony supports conspiracy charges. Maxwell’s attorneys fired back by arguing that the woman’s testimony should not be included because it could unfairly sway the jury since she was over the age of consent in the United Kingdom, where it is 16.
< Sign the petition: Ban Federal Vaccine Mandates! >
Maxwell’s lawyers wrote that prosecutors “frequently pointed to a particular anecdote in Accuser-3’s testimony in which she claims that…” followed by a redacted section.
“While some may find this morally reprehensible, or even repugnant, it is perfectly legal and does not in any way establish a ‘sexual preference’ for underage girls,” they added. “Moreover, to the extent, the government is seeking to introduce Accuser-3’s evidence to show Epstein’s sexual preference for ‘young girls’ – which would include women who are young, but still above the age of consent like Accuser-3 – that would mislead the jury and invite them to convict Ms. Maxwell based on a moral judgment of sexual activity which, in the case of Accuser-3, was entirely legal.”
Prosecutors, however, were not having any of it. They argued that the woman’s testimony should be included because it shows the “core of the conspiracy” for which Maxwell is charged.
“Epstein and the defendant were not checking victims’ identifications at the door to ensure they were above the age of consent in whichever location they were at the time,” they wrote. “Just as Epstein’s prurient interest in girls did not switch off at midnight of their 17th birthday, neither did it toggle on and off as his plane crossed into jurisdictions with different ages of consent. Rather, Epstein and the defendant were engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to recruit girls for sexual abuse in multiple jurisdictions with differing ages of consent.”
MORE NEWS: Stew Peters Extra: Tyrant Trudeau Flees In Fear – Over $6 Million Raised For World Record Convoy
Maxwell’s trial is set to begin this month.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
All I wanna see is Jizzlane’s Little Black Book!!!!
Exactly. She knows where the bodies are buried. And Slick willy is up to his thigh high stockings in it, no question about it. I’m guessing we’re going to find judges and so much more too. I’m thinking of one SCOTUS judge in particular that apparently has shown up on flight logs…..
Agreed- pos John Roberts.
I think that she will be found guilty. Just how much time she gets to serve depends on how good these lawyers are. I aso think that Ghislaine Maxwell needs to accept responsibility for her role. She was completely comfortable with what she was doing and felt untouchable or had no reason for worry because she was doing these perverted unlawful things in the company of a billionaire with unlimited resources, who had many other socialite friends that enjoyed the same.
Thank you for covering this case Stew!
More prejudicial than probative. There was no crime if true. Admission of this just prosecutorial misfeasance.
Don’t they have any witnesses to a crime or is this another schiffshow.