← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Shattered Hope At An Appeal (4/3/26)
00:40:48
Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal efforts looked less like a carefully plotted legal ascent and more like trying to scale Mount Everest barefoot—technically possible to attempt, but practically doomed from the first step. Appellate courts aren’t interested...
Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:01]
Podcast Host (Lapsed Fan)
Boss, what's the most dreaded question that you can get when you tell people you host a podcast called the Lapsed Fan? Ugh. It's what is it about? And why is that, do you think? Because to like pro wrestling is to lose the respect of others. Now what if we told you there's a podcast that explains exactly why that is and why it's kind of deserved? For over a decade, we've taken fact finding missions through the thicket of half truths that is wrestling history. We watch old matches, call out carnies, laugh at our own jokes, and have so much fun doing it that some people actually can't handle it. Think wrestling is an escape from real life? Think again. Same power games, same office politics, same people lying to your face. Just with entrance music and absolutely no company health insurance under any circumstances. All I offer is opportunity, not benefits. As do we, Vince. The Lapsed Fan Podcast. Come for the wrestling history. Stay for the uncomfortable truth about why it used to be better and why you still care.
- [01:01]
Bobby Capucci
What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to talk about Lucia Osborne Crowley, who was a reporter who was covering the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. And she was also the reporter who got the interview with Scotty David, who turned out to be juror 50. And that ended up triggering Ghislaine Maxwell in her attempt to get this appeal. So today we have an article from the Independent. And in this article, that's what we're going to talk about. Lucia Osborne Crowley and the part that she played with juror number 50. Headline my part in triggering Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal that could lead to a retrial. This article was authored by Lucia Osborne Crowley. In November and December of 2021, I spent five weeks as one of only four reporters allowed in the main courtroom for the federal sex trafficking trial. A of Glenn Maxwell and one time girlfriend and later assistant to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. That means I sat within a foot or two of her every day for five weeks. One day she started sketching me on her legal notepad alongside my press gallery colleague from the Times. Imagine Glenn Maxwell looks over at you and starts sketching you. Yeah, that seems like a fun time. On December 30, she was convicted on five out of six sex trafficking charges which resulted in her being sent to jail for 20 years. On March 12, Maxwell will appeal over her conviction and the high profile case will once again hang in the balance. And one of the bases for that appeal is me. And when this happened. Lucia Osborne Crowley here caught a whole bunch of flack from people because of this interview. I wasn't one of those people. That's her job. Right. Her job is to get us information, to provide as much of that information as possible to the general public. That way we have an understanding of what's going on. So when she got the interview with Scotty David, juror number 50, that wasn't a big deal to me. I thought that was a good piece of work, honestly. And it's her fault that he didn't follow the process. According to Maxwell's team, it's her fault that he wasn't forthcoming with information. Of course it's not. It's her job to get to that truth.
- [03:14]
Co-host or Guest on Epstein Chronicles
Right.
- [03:15]
Bobby Capucci
An interview I published here in the Independent revealed that a juror had failed to disclose, when asked on a written questionnaire, if he had any experience of sexual abuse. The thing is, though, Maxwell's team should have caught this one way or the other. They didn't. And then the real kicker here for Maxwell is that Judge Nathan is the one who already made this ruling. So now it's going to go to the appeals court, back to Judge Nathan, and we all know how that's going to go. As a result of this interview, it was revealed that two other jurors also failed to disclose similar information to the court, which may in certain circumstances, have disqualified them, depending on the outcome of further questioning by the court and Maxwell's lawyers. The question Maxwell's team wanted to know was, did they deceive the court? It's a pivotal question and it means that the trial result could be overturned. And look, there's no doubt you. If they find that they deceived the court on purpose, forget it. It's going to be a big problem. But I will say this. Look what we just watched happen over with Alec Murdaugh. Take a look at what happened over there, what went down over there, and how it didn't lead to Alec Murdoch getting a new trial. And we're not talking about a juror here. We were talking about the court clerk. So serious jeopardy there and nothing came of it. My journalism could be the trigger for that. I am, of course, extremely torn up over this. So let me explain how it came about. My reporting, maybe the evidence that contributes to a retrial forlayne Maxwell. This has been a trial that has obsessed me for years.
- [04:49]
Co-host or Guest on Epstein Chronicles
I will explain why.
- [04:50]
Bobby Capucci
Well, you're not the only one, lady. You are not the only one. In order to be reporting inside this courtroom, I had to queue from around 1am before because only the first four in line were permitted entry. On the first day I arrived at 3am this was too late. And the one day of the entire trial that I was not inside. Now I planned on going to the trial too, but when it got postponed that first time around, it just became way too difficult. Everything that was going on, the pandemic, and it just became way too difficult for me to even get there. So I'm thankful that we had people in that courtroom that were able to give us the really real from that day onwards. My latest arrival time was 2am the earliest I arrived was 11pm the night before, deciding to spend the entire night sitting on cold cement in the depths of the New York City winter, shivering to my bones. Hey, the things we do for love, right? Like Jaime Lannister said, and if you want to get shit done, you gotta get up early. The reason I decided to get up in the middle of the night every night for several weeks to cover this trial is is because I believed it would shed the light on some of the concepts that we as a society still deeply struggle to understand. Grooming, child sex abuse, delayed disclosure and traumatic memory. And as far as getting up at 2am, I'm up at 2:30 every morning in the studio. So good for you for getting up at 2am to go do your job, but try doing it every single day. And I was right in many ways. This trial, and I hope is if I've done my job, my forthcoming book about that trial, the lasting harm will help contribute to a better, truer and more scientific understanding of how grooming, abuse and disclosure works and importantly, the damage done to victims of abuse. Not only the harm caused by their abusers, but also by the way they are treated by society in its aftermath. This is true for all traumatic memories, but in particularly for those of us who have endured or organized child abuse. The term used to describe becoming trapped in the grips of a manipulative predator who has a playbook or playbook. And that playbook here means a carefully devised strategy that is repeated and known to work on selected victims for access to children and who enacts a repeated pattern of abuse on a number of victims. And there are so many Epstein's out there. That's the saddest part of all of this. There are so many people out there like this guy, still active right now as we speak and getting away with it. In the interest of full disclosure about why I covered the trial, I myself am a victim of organized child Sexual abuse in a setting that is alarmingly similar, although certainly not involving the same degree of wealth and power, to the trap Jeffrey Epstein and his associates developed over multiple decades. I was then violently sexually assaulted by a stranger in my later teens. And unfortunately, there's a lot of women out there who have been assaulted. If there's a lot of molesters out there, one would only assume that there's a lot of women out there who have been assaulted. And when it comes to Epstein, as I've said before, there are so many women out there that we've never even heard about, so many women out there that we have not heard about that have not come forward. And it's just all sad. I did not choose to be sexually abused beginning at 9 years old or raped at 15. And the only way I could approach a story with complete neutrality was, would be by writing about subjects that don't touch on any of my life experiences. But all journalists have a great deal of life experiences, and so this is a tall order. I get where she's coming from. She doesn't want to be, you know, painted by her own life experiences here. But at the same time, you gotta write about what you know. The idea of bias is exactly what I want to write about today, which is why I led with my own. I firmly believe that my experience of abuse should. Should not exclude me from reporting on it. But this question comes much more real and much more upsetting when I found myself, if not only an investigative reporter covering the Maxwell trial, but a key player in its final outcome. This is how a chance call, a midnight request. A night or two after the trial, I was back in England, and I was sent a link on Instagram for the contact details of one of the jurors. In the US it is allowed and encouraged for journalists to interview jurors about their decisions because it is in the public interest for the justice system to be open and transparent. Well, there's certainly no doubt about that. The more transparency, the better, right? I believe in this wholeheartedly. And so when I asked this juror, juror of 50, Scotty David, who I recognized immediately from the jury box for an interview, he agreed. Later that night, we ended up speaking
- [09:32]
Co-host or Guest on Epstein Chronicles
for the better part of five hours,
- [09:34]
Bobby Capucci
most of the night, London time, and most of the afternoon and evening for him in New York, I expected that we would discuss his interpretation of the evidence, which we did, in great detail. But what I did not know is that he would share with me that he himself is a victim of child sexual abuse. And that this lived experience helped him understand and explain to the jury the nature of traumatic memory. Now, look, certainly not something that is good for the prosecution, right? But is it gonna be enough? Again, we have to remember the the court has made a decision the other way already. So for them to go back on that decision and trample on precedent, I just don't see them doing it. I spoke with juror 50 for hours. I've met him many times. He told me that he walked into the trial believing wholly in the American justice system's founding principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. He told me that he believed Maxwell was innocent, but after hearing the evidence, his belief and his vote in the jury room was that she was guilty on all but one of the counts she was charged with. He was also adamant that there was not enough evidence to convict her on the one charge that the jury ultimately dismissed. As is their right. When my interview was published, Maxwell's team immediately called for a retrial over the potential issues of bias. I was quickly aware that my interview had resounding consequences. The court was immediately asked to find Juror 50's confidential court questionnaire and and determine whether he had answered yes or no to the following question. Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member. It transpired that he take no to this question, leading to more allegations of bias. However, as someone who knew the legal precedent, I was aware that there is a very strict three part test for bias, and in a situation like this, the first is whether the person intentionally lied on the questionnaire, which, as I said, Juror 50 swore he did not. But even if a person did not intentionally lie to prove bias, a judge must also find that that person did so for the main purpose of getting seated on that particular jury. The third test is whether the person was able to put their experiences aside and impartially decide the case. Judge Nathan questioned juror 50 fiercely under oath, and to determine these issues, she needed to find out by questioning him whether the lie was intentional or a mistake, and whether he was in fact biased because of his personal experience. She wrote a resounding judgment, saying that she believed his testimony that it was an honest mistake and said it was clear on the evidence that he examined the case fairly and impartially. Judge Nathan wrote to imply or infer that juror 50 was biased simply because he was himself a victim. Of sexual abuse in a trial related to sexual abuse and sex trafficking, and despite his own credible testimony under the penalty of perjury. Establishing that he could be an evenhanded and impartial juror would be tantamount to concluding that an individual with a history of sexual abuse can never serve as a fair and impartial juror in such a trial. That is not the law, nor should it be, and she's not wrong. So it really comes down to, did he maliciously lie? And according to Judge Nathan, that never happened. This is the precedent that is now being challenged on appeal by Maxwell's team. Of course, appellate judges have a right to overturn the trial judge's decision. If the three appeal judges decide that Judge Nathan misinterpreted the law on juror bias, they can overturn the hearing and the ruling and order a new trial. It is not open to them to vacate the conviction altogether. That is to set Maxwell free, but
- [13:21]
Co-host or Guest on Epstein Chronicles
only to order that the trial start
- [13:22]
Bobby Capucci
fresh with a new jury. That's what's at stake. Can Ghislaine Maxwell find a legal path to freedom? I felt conflicted. I wanted to get to the truth. I was unprepared for the consequences of my interview. Juror 50 wanted his story of abuse to be told. Once he disclosed it to me on the record and said he wanted his story to be told, it was my duty as a journalist to report the truth. She's not wrong 100%. That's her duty. However, of course, it was incredibly distressing as an abuse survivor to feel that my reporting of the truth may lead to a retrial. On the other hand, once again, I always intend to uphold the principles of the law seen through the prism of journalism. And so if something that I report does involve the ordering of a new trial, I respect and honor that decision. If I had spiked this story out of fear of its consequences, that would have been wrong. And as much as I hate to admit it, she's right about that. Nobody wants Maxwell to get a new trial.
- [14:18]
Co-host or Guest on Epstein Chronicles
Right?
- [14:19]
Bobby Capucci
But if there is something that was amiss, then that's something that's going to happen. But that's something that the appellate court is going to decide as part of the appeal. I have been asked to testify to the truth of my interview with juror 50 and its contents. Again, I'm happy to do this, as I know it is my solemn duty to the court. After hearing every single day of the evidence, I believe beyond any reasonable doubt that that Maxwell committed the sex trafficking crimes for which she was convicted 100%. Not even a doubt in my mind. But I also believe after my four year investigation that it is unjust that she is the only person who has been punished by the law for a sex trafficking ring that involved countless perpetrators and enablers who continue to walk free. I accept the jury's decision that the evidence proves the crime she herself committed. But justice has not been served if she continues to be the only person punished for a decades long organized crime ring man 100% there. This is a RICO case like you wouldn't believe. After poring over decades of case law on juror bias, it is my personal view that it is unlikely that any appellate judge could find an error of law in Judge Nathan's ruling. If the decision is overturned, which the appellate judges are entitled to do, then I will have to accept that outcome which with equanimity and grace, because that is the consequence and value of journalism. You must be willing to report the truth when you cannot control the outcome. And even if one possible outcome is distressing and turns the present truth on its head, I believe the jury reached a just verdict. I also firmly believe in every defendant's right to an appeal and I am happy to take responsibility for the role. I will plan that appeal based on the journalism I published in in the Independent. Justice is never an easy or straightforward path and I never expected to end up in its crosshairs. But appeals are part of how the justice system works. And so what is currently transpiring is what justice looks like. And it's no doubt going to be interesting to see what the court decides as far as an appeal. But like I've said from the beginning, I just don't see it coming. Alright folks, that's gonna do it for this one. All the information that goes with this episode can can be found in the description box.
- [16:28]
Co-host or Guest on Epstein Chronicles
What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. So Glenn Maxwell has hired Harvey Weinstein's lawyer to fight for her freedom during her appeal. Now I don't understand what draws all of these people to these lawyers that never win their cases, but here we are. You would think that you'd want a lawyer who actually, you know, gets their clients off. But it seems all of these rich people just go to the well all of the time and grab the same lawyer out. It's like the NFL owners who keep hiring the same coaches over and over and over again. I mean, how many times do we have to see a guy like Wade Wilson come in and screw up as coach? So we see the same thing with lawyers. The same people hiring the same lawyers over and over and over again. And for what reason? It's not like Harvey Weinstein got off here. It's not like Harvey Weinstein isn't going to be serving the rest of his life behind bars. So you go out and hire the same person, huh? Just bananas to me. If I had Ghislaine Maxwell money, there's only one person I'd be calling right now, and that's Andrew Brettler. But what you see here is more of the same. Another retread and another lawyer who doesn't seem to actually ever win anything. So from where I'm sitting, this is a great hire for Ghislaine Maxwell, but I don't understand the strategy behind it. Let's jump into this article from Page Six and see what's up. Ghislaine Maxwell hiring Harvey Weinstein's lawyer and planned appeal. This article was authored by Ian Moore. Attorney Arthur L A Dala, who is representing disgraced movie mogul Weinstein, is in his New York appeal confirmed to us that he has filed legal papers on Friday to represent Maxwell in her planned appeal. Well, Mr. Arthur L A Dolla, let me introduce myself. My name is D.J. go fuck yourself. And your client is as guilty as the day is long. And while the appeal itself has not been filed, a Dolla alleged in comments to page 6 that we believe the trial judge made mistakes in Maxwell's case and that Maxwell was mistreated during her incarceration, including being malnourished. So they're going to use the same exact that they tried while Maxwell was locked up. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now. Arthur Adala, this dude might as well just be pilfering this money from Maxwell or Maxwell might as well just go and light this money on fire in the rec hall because she's not going to win this appeal. There's no way. On what grounds? Now they might say that the juror issue with Scotty David, that might come back to rear its head a little bit. But besides that, they really have nothing to go on here. No tenable ground to stand on. So I don't know what their strategy is even going to be. He added that the appeals process would not be about Maxwell's guilt or innocence, but whether the judge who decided the case that made the correct legal ruling. And there you have it, folks, it's not about her innocence or guilt. We already know that Ghisne Maxwell is as guilty as it Comes this bipedal serpent, this child abuser, this human trafficker, is exactly where she belongs, right behind bars. And there's not a thing Arthur a Idola or anyone else is going to do to change that fact. He pointed out that there was a controversy in the case when one juror told the judge that he'd failed to disclose his own history of child abuse during jury selection. Now, of course, this is something that is a topic of interest for anyone who is a legal scholar. And there's certainly an argument to be made that what this juror did was way out of bounds. You can't lie during the questioning period. But that's not enough to make it a mistrial. And Judge Nathan already made that ruling. And the crazy part about that is she's now also on the appeals court. So when he does appeal this, it's going to go right back to Judge Nathan. The judge, he says, didn't know what she was doing. Sure, that's gonna work out well when it hits the desk of her colleagues. The judge in the case, United States Circuit Judge Allison J. Nathan, shot down Maxwell's request for a new trial. And she was convicted on five of six counts, including sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. She was sentenced to 20 years behind bars. And she got off light. That's right, I said it. She got off light. She should have been hit with a rico. Imagine if she would have got hit with RICO predicates, what that would have done for this whole case. How many other people would have got dragged in, would have seized everybody's money. It would have been a real shit show, exactly what it should have been. But way too many people were protected by way too many powerful people for that to ever occur. And the SDNY and all the tough talk they do down there, I find it laughable that they let Ghislaine Maxwell off with only a 20 year sentence. Adala claims there were other mistakes made in the case and that Maxwell was was so mistreated during her period of incarceration that it violated so many of her constitutional rights to defend herself. That's an absolute straight up bullshit lie, Mr. Idella Garbage. You know who was mistreated behind bars? Khalif Browder. Not Galan Maxwell. 14 hours a day to sit with her lawyers, all the court filings in the world that you could possibly have. You show me one poor person sitting in jail right now for a few crack rock that had even a bit of Ghislaine Maxwell's ability or Ghislaine Maxwell's privilege while she was in prison or in jail. So it's laughable when they come at us with that kind of bullshit. Especially for those of us who know people who have been to jail who have or have been to prison. I promise you, everybody I know who went to prison or jail, I promise you we're treated much worse than Ghislaine Maxwell can ever even imagine being treated. She was malnourished, Aldala said. And yet she's supposed to sit for a trial with her life on the line. He added that in the United States of America, anyone who's accused of any crime should not be abused by the US Government the way she was abused. While I'm saying she wasn't abused, Mr. Aydallah, she was treated the same way the justice system treats people on a daily basis inside of those archaic shitty lockups. So why should we care how Maxwell is treated? And all of a sudden she's this big proponent of cultural change within the Bureau of Prisons. Oh what, now that you had a little taste? Where were you when you were hanging out with the jerk offs who are making these laws in the first place? He said she did not get a fair trial and further added the judge ignored the many claims of malnourishment, living with vermin in her cell, lack of sleep and overall deplorable conditions. There were also issues regarding lack of access to her lawyers. That's a straight up lie, Mr. Ayadollah. That's a lie and I'll just. I'll straight up call it what it is. It's a lie. She had more access to her lawyers than anybody in that lockup. And in fact after the coronavirus became ban was was kicked out gain Maxwell was the se second person in the whole entire New York to sit down with her lawyer after that ban was lifted. So please miss me with the. You might be able to pump this on people who didn't follow this the whole time, but I got news for you Mr. Aid Dolla. We haven't went away. What you think your boy stop paying attention? And now that your bringing your appeal up, well you better be ready for them choppy waters. Ask Christian Everdell how those choppy waters feel. This is all in violation of her fundamental constitutional rights and will be powerfully brought to the attention of the appellate courts. You know whose rights were really stepped on? All of the girls and women who were abused by Ghislaine Maxwell and her pal Jeffrey Epstein. So you can save the whole woe is Ghislaine for somebody else, I don't want to hear it. A brief in the appeal, he said, is estimated to be filed weeks from now with the U.S. court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal would mark Idalla's firm representing two of America's most notorious cases in Weinstein and Maxwell. Perfect clients for you to represent, my man. And look, don't get it twisted. Everybody deserves representation. But if he thinks he's going to walk into this courtroom and start slinging around mud and acting like a complete jack off, he has another thing coming. Weinstein is serving 23 years for rape and sexual abuse, but he will have another shot at arguing that a judge made mistakes in his case. In New York, we previously reported that in August, the convicted sex offender's bid for an appeal was given the go ahead by the State of New York Court Court of Appeals. And that's completely fine. People should get that appeal processed and it should be a go. But once they get into the courtroom, the absolute beatdown should begin by the prosecution. The former producer also just had another criminal trial in Los Angeles, where he was found guilty of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault. Maxwell was given 240 months in prison for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple minor girls with Jeffrey Epstein over the course of a decade. Prosecutors said after her sentencing. And we all know it was many decades, she got off light. If anything, Ghislaine Maxwell got off light. And then you have people out here talking about, oh, her civil rights were stepped on. No, they weren't. No, they weren't. We went through the process. She had her trial. Her lawyers couldn't pass the ball and, and make a completion, and they ended up losing the game because of it. And you know why? Because Ghislaine Maxwell was guilty. That's why. U.S. attorney Damian Williams said in a statement at the time. Today's sentence holds Ghislaine Maxwell accountable for perpetrating heinous crimes against children. The sentence sends a strong message that no one is above the law and it is never too late for justice. Apparently, Maxwell's family reached out to Idella specifically because his firm, Idella, Bertuna and Cammins, worked on Weinstein's appeal. After her sentencing, her tribal, her trial team was done representing her, and her family, quite frankly, reached out to us. Obviously, we'd been in the headlines with Mr. Weinstein's case. Yeah, because it's worked out so well. Let me reach out to Idalla, because he got Weinstein off, said, nobody ever correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't Weinstein spending the rest of his life in prison? So let's not act like this is Johnny Cochran over here, right? If the glove don't fit, you have to acquit. Breaking news. Mr. Aidala, your client is guilty. She did this. And she's going to spend the rest of her sentence behind bars, no matter how many appeals you, her, or anyone brings to the court. So like I always say, Ghislaine Maxwell, enjoy those bologna sandwiches. All right, folks, that's gonna do it for this one. If you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobby capuchirotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U c c I@protonmail.com you can also find me on Twitter at B O B B Y Cap ucci. The link that I discussed can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Ghislaine Maxwell has formally appealed her sentencing, according to new reports. Now, this is not something that comes as a shock. Everybody expected her to do this, and most people expect her to fail miserably at this point, just like she did during the original trial. There's nothing here that is really even the basis for an appeal. Now, my guess is that they're going to try and use the juror 50, Scotty David situation as part of their appeal, but I don't think it's going to work out so well for them. We've seen previously that the New York appeals court, they're not too hip on this whole entire Jeffrey Epstein fiat fiasco. They have not ruled in their favor pretty much at all. And I would expect that to continue to be the way things go as Maxwell looks to appeal here. She's going to serve this sentence. Now, the only real questions left, in my opinion anyway, are a, how long of this sentence? Is she going to serve the full 20 or is she going to get a haircut on it and, you know, get time served good time and do about 15. And question number two in regards to Maxwell specifically, where is she going to do that time? We've heard a lot of talk about Danbury recently. And remember, while that is a possibility, I'm not saying it's not going to happen for sure. I just don't see it being a likely possibility considering everything else we know about Maxwell and what her crimes were. Why would they put her with a bunch, a bunch of other women who have been abused via sex crimes by sex traffickers that doesn't seem like the right way to go about it. But again, we're talking about the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Justice. I can't make heads or tails of their decision making. They make some of the worst decisions. And in the whole entire world, who the hell puts Tartaglioni in a cell with Epstein? Who. Who thought that was a good idea, right? So these are the people, remember, that we're relying on to place Maxwell. So it's possible she gets where she asked to go, and that's Danbury. But I just don't see it likely. I think she's going to end up in a place more like Allison Mack, a medium security facility, and we'll go from there. But the appeal process for Maxwell, that is now official, folks, and it is underway today. We have an article, a short, quick one from the Independent, talking about it. Headline, ghislaine Maxwell Launches Appeal against sex Trafficking Conviction and sentence. Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison last month. This article was authored by Bevin Hurley and it was published by the Independent. Ghislaine Maxwell has formally appealed against her conviction and sentencing for child sex trafficking offenses. You know, this is the first step for her, right? This was a foregone conclusion, but it is the first step in the formal process of getting these proceedings going. And if you're Ghislaine Maxwell, well, you want to think that you have a leg to stand on here, right? You want to think that you might have a little bit of hope of getting out. So the appeal, at the very least, if you're the convicted, it gives you that much, at the very least, something to hope for. Even if the hope is slim, it's better than having no hope whatsoever, right? And I believe after this appeal process ends, that's where Maxwell is going to be. The next thing she can hope for after this is good time and a little bit of a haircut. Because besides that, she's going to have a life full of prison and rules. Maxwell, 60, was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $750,000 for helping sex offender and billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein abuse teenage girls last month. You know, the $750,000 fine, that doesn't seem like enough to me either. How about we put a one in front of that? She was offering, what, $30 million for bail and she's only going to get clipped with a $750,000 fine. That doesn't seem like a. An equitable way to punish her, especially considering she only got 15. I mean, 20 years. So I would think a more,
- [33:22]
Bobby Capucci
I
- [33:22]
Co-host or Guest on Epstein Chronicles
don't know, oppressive financial crime penalty might be called for here. U.S. district Judge Allison Nathan handed down the sentence on June 28 in Manhattan, six months after Maxwell was convicted by a federal jury on five charges, including sex trafficking. And we all know how heinous these charges are. We're not talking about blue collar here, folks. We're not talking about somebody who made a crucial error in judgment. And hell, we're not even talking about someone who suffered severe abuse as a child. She tried to use that, the abuse she says she suffered anyway, as a crutch here, as armor. Well, I was abused, so I abused others. But it didn't work out for her. And seeing right through her ploy, basically, the judge, and most importantly, folks, the jury, well, they sent her upriver, didn't they? Judge Nathan described Maxwell's offending as heinous and predatory as she sentenced her to a term that exceeded her own maximum sentencing guideline of up to 19 years and eight months. Now, it was only a, a little bit over that, but it was over the sentencing guidelines. And for Nathan, that's a big step. She doesn't really sentence too critically. Right. She's not somebody who is going to throw the whole ass kitchen sink at you. When you're talking about sex crimes, you're talking about human trafficking and children being raped and molested. I think a judge should throw the kitchen sink at you. And if it was me, I would go as far above the guideline as possible. I would hit you with everything in my power to hit you with. Because this sort of thing is unacceptable in any sort of civilized society. Children being preyed upon, children being molested and raped and abused. And for all the people out there that want to talk about the statute of limitations, well, anybody who was crossing state lines with these girls, that's the Man Act. And there's no timetable when it comes to statute of limitations with the Man Act. So if you engaged in this shit as far as somebody involved with Epstein, that shouldn't give you any protection. So there again with the investigation, it should continue going on. And anyone who was even on those planes with girls who were molested and abused should be brought up on charges. The jury found her guilty of recruiting and grooming four girls between 1994 and 2004 for sexual encounters with her former boyfriend. You mean co conspirator. You mean former partner in crime former boyfriend? What? A cop out Epstein who took his own life behind bars in 2019, allegedly while awaiting his own sex trafficking trial. Her attorney, Bobby Sternum, filed the appeal with the US Federal court in Manhattan on Thursday. Her lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to have her conviction thrown out in January after a juror admitted that he answered parts of the jury selection questionnaire incorrectly. And now this is going to be the basis, in my opinion, they're going to try and bring this to the court of appeals and have the court of appeals rule on that. But because what else could it possibly be? There was nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to the trial. Nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever. At a hearing in January, the juror known only as Scotty David said he had done so inadvertently because he was super distracted and had skimmed way too fast, which was never a good quality excuse in my opinion, by the way. I was pretty critical of, of Juror 50 and his shenanigans, but I didn't think that it was the deciding vote. He didn't convince people, in my opinion anyway, to vote one way or the other. He just recounted his story. Judge Nathan agreed with prosecutors that Scotty David had not skewed the outcome of the trial and dismissed the appeal. And remember, there has to be, you know, a lot of evidence because they. There's huge precedent going the other way here. Very rarely is something like this overturned a jury's decision by a judge. Very rare does that happen. During her sentencing. The victim impact statements were read, including one from attorney Sigrid McCauley on behalf of her client, Virginia Roberts. For me and for so many others, you opened the door to hell, the statement read. Maxwell addressed the court in a carefully worded statement in which he stopped short of apologizing for the crimes, saying, I empathize deeply with all the victims in this case. No, you don't. You're the cause of all the grief and the suffering for a lot of these victims, a lot of these survivors. So for you to get up there with that shitty ass, weak ass, sorry ass, wannabe apology and, and mock people, basically, it's, it's offensive. And nobody on the whole planet, besides maybe a handful of people who have no idea who they're dealing with, thought that it was appropriate. I realize I have been convicted of assisting Jeffrey Epstein to commit these crimes. My association with Epstein will permanently stain me. It is the biggest regret of my life that I ever met him. So it's all Epstein, all Jeffrey has nothing to do with her. It's so ridiculous. A little self responsibility goes a long way. And Ghislaine Maxwell, she has no ability to find fault within herself. My association with Epstein will permanently stain me. It is the biggest regret of my life to that I ever met him. Not the biggest regret of her life that she ruined so many other lives. No, the biggest regret of her life is meeting Epstein. Which is ridiculous. Right? And again, a cop out, a fake ass apology. I believe Jeffrey fooled all of those in his orbit. His survivors considered considered him a mentor, friend and lover. No, they didn't. Which ones? Maybe a few of them did. But the majority of these girls felt violated, felt raped, felt taken advantage of. And Maxwell was there for all of it. Maxwell has requested that she see out her federal prison sentence at FCI Danbury, a minimum security prison in Connecticut that has hosted some of America's most high profile female prisoners. And most of them are on on financial crimes. If Maxwell was there for tax evasion, fine, that's one thing. But for what she's she's sentenced for and convicted of, she can't be around other sex offenders. Why? So she can offend more? If I was somebody who was trafficked and I might be in this jail, I'd have a big problem with all of that. And I'm sure a lot of the inmates are and do. So we'll see where this appeal goes. But. But my gut tells me it's not going to go anywhere. Not really. They'll go through the motions, but it's not going to get her where she's looking to go. And as far as placement, again, just my opinion, but I don't think that it's going to be Danbury. So we'll see how the chips all fall and we'll see what the tea leaves reveal when we see. But until then, we'll continue to keep on top of it and we'll continue to keep adding it to the catalog. If you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobbycapucciorotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U C C I protonmail.com youm can also find me on Twitter. Boy underscore Cap Ucci the link that we discussed can be found in in the description box. All right, folks, I'll be back later on with a little bit more. Hope all of you are having a good one.