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.

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.”

Maxwell’s trial is set to begin this month.

This piece was written by James Samson on November 23, 2021. It originally appeared in RedVoiceMedia.com and is used by permission.

 

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.