The saga of now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “fixer” Ghislaine Maxwell continues to grind on, generating headlines that the New York Post and the Daily Mail in the UK simply can’t resist. And let’s be honest… neither can many of the rest of us. The Daily Mail has uncovered (pun intended) yet another gem from the disgraced madam’s upcoming court proceedings. If the reports turn out to be accurate, the court now has videos of a very provocative, if not pornographic nature involving unnamed “individuals” who may have been with some of Epstein’s young victims. And until some names are attached to these purported films, there have to be a lot of people out there who are suddenly looking very nervous. But at least for the present, the public won’t be viewing the videos. They will only be made available to the attorneys involved in the case in closed rooms with no copies being offered.
Prosecutors who are putting Ghislaine Maxwell on trial for child sex trafficking may have incriminating ‘nude’ videos, DailyMail.com can reveal.
Documents filed on Monday in her New York criminal case say US Attorneys may have ‘Highly Confidential Information’, which includes ‘nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals.’
Prosecutors and Maxwell’s lawyers are currently hammering out an agreement on how sensitive documents in the high-profile case should be handled before they hand over to each other the evidence they plan to use at trial.
The highly confidential material in question “contains nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals.” But this still leaves many unanswered questions not addressed by the material the court allowed to be released to the media.
First of all, how did the prosecutors obtain these alleged videos? Did law enforcement find them during raids of any of the places Maxwell was living over the past couple of years, including her mansion in New Hampshire? Assuming any video evidence this potentially explosive exists but was somehow kept entirely secret for such a long time, it doesn’t seem as if Maxwell would be that sloppy. The other possibility is that she voluntarily turned them over as part of some sort of plea deal in the making.
But since her attorneys have already entered a not guilty plea on all charges, that brings us to the second question. Who would we be seeing in the videos? Surely not Maxwell herself, right? I mean, she wouldn’t turn over footage of herself abusing any minors if she’s going with a not guilty plea. But if she had video of some of Epstein’s more famous buddies in compromising positions with underage girls, that would undoubtedly be of value to prosecutors if they still plan to expand the scope of the investigation to include other alleged abusers. And if that bought Maxwell enough points with the prosecutors and the judge, her not guilty plea could be withdrawn and exchanged for some sort of plea that either keeps her out of prison or at least minimizes her time behind bars.
If the videos are indeed of “other individuals” and not Maxwell herself, we arrive at the final mystery that’s been nagging this tawdry tale from the beginning. Who are the other men involved? Could any of them be highly-placed titans of industry, elected officials or even members of the British Royalty? Thus far, most of Epstein’s more famous friends have managed to get by with flat denials, assuming that “he said, she said” stories that are past the statute of limitations wouldn’t pose too much of a risk. But having the evidence show up on film could change that situation considerably.