Ghislaine Maxwell Verdict Takeways

Will she name names?

The jury was closing out its fifth full day of deliberations; the jurors asked for whiteboard, highlighters, colored Post-Its and multiple transcripts - which signaled that they may be there for the long haul.

Then the rumors started flying in the overflow courtroom:

Everyone is saying that this trial is just for show. There will be no justice. The jurors asked about the schedule for New Year’s Eve and New Years Day…I think we’re looking at a hung jury.

Ghislaine’s sister sent a pizza to journalists, and Ghislaine was talking to an ABC reporter in the courtroom…They seem confident. What do they know that we don’t?

But just before 5:00 p.m. yesterday, the jury sent back word that they had arrived at a verdict.

They found Maxwell guilty of five of six counts of sex trafficking - a massive victory for the prosecution - and for Maxwell’s victims.

Maxwell didn’t show visible emotion as she left the courtroom, stopping only briefly to glance at her two sisters and brother who had come to court to support her before being led away. She was not restrained.

Her lawyers have said that they will appeal - but the buzz among legal experts is that this will be for show, because she has virtually no chance of winning. The jury deliberated for days, asked questions and actually took the time to debate each charge.

Maxwell now faces a sentence of up to 65 years in prison, meaning that she will almost certainly spend the rest of her days in a tiny cell that’s a hell of a long way from the Four Seasons hotel.

Several journalists went out to celebrate the victory for Maxwell’s victims. I was one of them.

Today I took a walk past the deserted courthouse down the street from my apartment that, for the first time in weeks, was not packed with reporters, victims giving soundbites, Maxwell’s beret-wearing sister taking photos of journalists, and people killing time during deliberations in the press room by sketching anything: Maxwell, the spectators, and even the court reporter.

Now that my hangover has subsided, here are some thoughts on the verdict.

I think it’s extremely unlikely that she will name names.

Legal experts quoted by some newspapers have said that she could name names / cooperate with prosecutors, but I find this unlikely.

First of all, she has shown zero willingness to cooperate with prosecutors.

Secondly, if she planned to do so, she would have almost certainly had to do it before her sentencing. Elie Honig, who spent eight years as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, told the New York Post that it would be “very unusual, but not impossible” for the government to attempt to get her to turn on others after the conviction.

Finally, having read the sex trafficking charges in this case, I believe that charging others who had sexual contact with underage victims based on what we know so far could be very difficult.

Prosecutors were able to make a case against Maxwell by showing a very clear pattern of commercial sex trafficking - essentially, they followed the money.

They were able to show that Maxwell knew that the young women were underage, and that she groomed them and arranged to have them paid with hundred-dollar bills after massaging Jeffrey Epstein.

Maxwell had sometimes arranged the “massages” with Epstein, and sometimes gave money to the girls directly. Since some victims have stated in the past that Epstein and Maxwell would ask them to “take care” of VIPs, even if those interactions were against their will, I fear that following those money trails could be much more difficult. And proving the commercial aspect of sex trafficking was crucial in this case.

My prediction: Judge Alison Nathan will be a Supreme Court nominee.

This was a massive victory for Judge Alison Nathan. Throughout the trial, Judge Nathan was a star.

She took no crap from anyone - neither the prosecution nor defense. She was tough, no-nonsense, and seemed absolutely determined to get through the trial and do everything by the book.

Judge Nathan was fair and considerate to both sides - she repeatedly denied Ghislaine Maxwell bail (and her request to wait for trial at a five-star hotel) - but also intervened for Maxwell after her lawyers complained that Maxwell had been woken up at 3:45 a.m. for a court hearing and was not given enough food.

The judge ruled that Maxwell should be taken to court “in a way that is humane, proper and consistent with security protocols.”

Judge Nathan was just appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which is seen as a stepping stone for the highest court in the land.

Here’s hoping she goes all the way.

This case was all about something the prosecution mentioned during opening statements: Common sense.

In their closing arguments, the prosecution brought up something that had been their theme since the begininng: Common sense.

When you're with someone for 11 years, you know what they like," prosecutor Alison Moe said. "Epstein liked underaged girls. He liked to touch underaged girls. Maxwell knew it. Make no mistake, Maxwell was crucial to the whole scheme. Epstein could not have done this alone."

"A single middle-aged man who invites a teenage girl to visit his ranch, to come to his house, to fly to New York, is creepy," prosecutor Alison Moe said. "But when that man is accompanied by a posh, smiling, respectable, age-appropriate woman, that's when everything starts to seem legitimate. And when that woman encourages those girls to massage that man, when she acts like it's totally normal for the man to touch those girls. It lures them into a trap. It allows the man to silence the alarm bells."

It was not common sense, Moe argued, that two adults would travel with young teens, alone, for “mentoring”.

It was also not common sense that Epstein would pay Maxwell at least $30 million dollars and gift her a 7,000 square foot townhouse and a private plan just for being a PA.

Also, it was not common sense that each of the four victims would tell very similar stories. They all talked about how Maxwell was integral to every step in the process of grooming them to be abused by Jeffrey Epstein - how she approached them, how she taught them how he liked to be massaged, sent them to be abused, sometimes, she participated in the abuse herself.

Most news outlets focused on the false memory expert Elizabeth Loftus. But prosecution expert witness Lisa Rocchio, a clinical instructor at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University who has treated hundreds of victims of trauma and sexual abuse, was much more crucial to the case.

Rocchio provided the court with a masterclass in the psychology of grooming.

She explained in graphic detail how how Maxwell coerced these young women, step by step, in what Rocchio described as “a series of tactics and strategies used to engage children in sexual activities.”

She stressed that this was “a process” - and involved selecting a victim with vulnerabilities, then moving on to obtain access to them, isolate them manipulate them. Which is exactly what Maxwell and Epstein did by choosing young women from economically disadvantaged families, or problems at home.

Eventually, Maxwell used a series of measures to desensitize these young women to sexual touch - using the ruse of “massage”, which normalized touching Jeffrey Epstein.

She was able to explain that the women were not money hungry. If they accepted gifts from Epstein, the gift giving was part of the manipulation - and it’s totally normal for victims to have mixed feelings toward their accusers.

They internalized their shame for years - even decades.

Which is why, for example, Jane’s ex-boyfriend Matt testified that she told him, “the money wasn’t fucking free.”

The court believed the victims.

The jury rejected the defense’s claim that the case was about "[lapses in] memory, manipulation and money".

The guilty verdict was also a complete rejection of the defense’s strategy of blaming the victim.

For the four women, this case was absolutely not about money. They had already collected payouts from the victim’s fund and could have lived their lives in quiet anonymity.

They came forward for one reason: To get justice.

For Maxwell and Epstein’s victims, this verdict is not the end of their crusade for justice - but it’s a beginning.

My Brit journalist friends are focused on Prince Andrew - but there are many more names in Epstein’s black book.

And as we learned at the trial, Maxwell was “the lady of the house” who ran Epstein’s business and personal lives.

She knows a lot of dark secrets - and even though, as I said earlier, she may not name names and the cases may be tough to prove - there are other perpetrators out there.

And I hope that, wherever they are in the world, some part of them is running scared tonight.