Jane seemed to be “probably 18” when she met her, Espinosa stated, and Jane’s mom informed staff that Jane was Epstein’s goddaughter. Espinosa testified that Epstein handled Jane properly, so far as she may see.
Jane testified earlier within the trial Epstein sexually abused her — and that Maxwell at occasions joined in on the abuse — each in Palm Beach, Florida, and Manhattan when Jane was 14, 15 and 16 years previous.
Espinosa additionally testified that Maxwell and Epstein had been a “little flirty” and seemed to be in a romantic relationship. In the early 2000s, although, she believed that they had stopped courting and had been now not touring to and from the workplace collectively.
The assistant stated she revered Maxwell, who handled her pretty and properly, and he or she praised Epstein as beneficiant. She stated she’d by no means seen something to counsel Maxwell or Epstein ever behaved inappropriately with underaged women.
Judge Alison Nathan stated she expects closing arguments to happen Monday, with the case going to the jury afterward.
This would give the jury two full days to deliberate forward of the Christmas vacation.
Prosecutors launched pictures of Maxwell and Epstein embracing and smiling for the digicam through the years, together with a number of exhibiting her massaging his foot. The protection objected to exhibiting the jury these pictures, however the prosecution insisted their shut relationship was central to the case, and the decide agreed.
“Their relevance is self-apparent, given the contents of the photographs,” prosecutor Alison Moe stated. “The relationship between Maxwell and Epstein is central to this case.”
Defense attorneys have argued Maxwell is being scapegoated for Epstein’s actions and have attacked the recollections and motivations of the ladies who say they had been abused.
Maxwell, 59, has pleaded not responsible to 6 federal prices: intercourse trafficking of minors, engaging a minor to journey to interact in unlawful intercourse acts, transporting a minor with the intent to interact in legal sexual exercise and three counts of conspiracy.
Doctor explains science of reminiscence
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist and professor on the University of California Irvine, testified about false recollections as a part of the protection’s try to broadly undermine the reality of the accusers’ testimony. She testified Thursday that people could be uncovered to misinformation about an occasion after the very fact and incorporate it into their reminiscence, making it inaccurate.
“Even traumatic experiences can be subjected to post-event suggestion that can exaggerate, distort or change the memory,” Loftus stated.
She stated that exterior elements equivalent to substance abuse, marijuana or in any other case have been present in research to impair an individual’s capability to create a reminiscence on the time of an occasion.
She testified that false recollections could be expressed with a excessive diploma of confidence and emotion isn’t essentially an indicator of credibility. “Emotion is no guarantee that you’re dealing with an authentic memory,” she stated.
On cross-examination Thursday, she at occasions turned a bit of flustered when questioned about her motives and the suggestion that she was profiting off legal defendants. She turned her head and spoke on to the jury when requested if her work and the media consideration she obtained from testifying for well-known and high-profile defendants raised her profile. She seemed on the jury and stated, “I wouldn’t put it that way.”
Loftus stated she has solely testified as soon as for the prosecution facet within the roughly 300 occasions she’s given knowledgeable testimony for the reason that 1970s.
On cross-examination, prosecutor Lara Pomerantz requested Loftus a few e book she wrote referred to as “Witness for the Defense.”
Pomerantz learn a quick excerpt from the e book that stated, “Should psychologists in a court of law act as an advocate for the defense or an impartial educator? My answer to that question, if I’m completely honest, is both.”
Loftus stated that quote was out the context and there was no additional questioning on the topic.
Judge rejects nameless protection witnesses
Three potential protection witnesses who wished to testify anonymously won’t be allowed to take action, the decide dominated Thursday.
Judge Nathan rejected that request. She stated an order increasing on that ruling can be posted to the docket later within the day.
CNN’s Kara Scannell contributed to this report.