The judge made another slimy claim made by Ghislaine’s defense attorneys

As evidence turned against Ghislaine Maxwell during her trial for allegedly aiding Jeffrey Epstein in his mass sexual abuse case, the picture grew increasingly blurred for the defense team.

When the trial returned on Thursday, the team didn’t have any favors for themselves.

According to Law and Crime editor Adam Klasfeld on Twitter, the defense asked Judge Alison Nathan to allow some of their witnesses to remain anonymous.

They argue their witness should be given the same rights as prosecutors’ witnesses, but Judge Nathan said she “disagrees with this basic premise.”

In response to attorney Ghislaine Maxwell’s comments that defense witnesses deserved anonymity like the prosecution, Judge Nathan wrote:

“The Court disagreed with this basic premise and rejected the Defense offer.”

How her rule began. pic.twitter.com/4VC4tFOR8y

– Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) December 16, 2021

The defense’s actions look pretty disgusting on their faces because there’s a clear reason why their witnesses aren’t given the same protection as the prosecution’s witnesses.

In the prosecution case, many of the women who testified were alleged victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell. Because of the trauma they’ve been through, they’re normally allowed to remain anonymous.

For the defense, there is no clear reason why witnesses should remain anonymous. Presumably, witnesses are concerned about receiving backlash in support defense of an alleged abuser.

If the witnesses are not even willing to attach their names to their testimony because of the evils the accused accused have committed, then that must say something in itself.

This is far from the first smooth action the defense has taken. Earlier in the trial, the defense attempted to cast doubt on the reliability of the alleged victims, Financial Times reported.

On December 3, the newspaper reported that the defense had questioned an alleged person victim in her early 40s was identified as “Jane.”

Defense attorney Laura Menninger told the witness: “You’re an actor who convincingly plays someone else for a living. “You can cry when you give the order.”

The implication is that since Jane is an actress, she may have fabricated her entire story of being sexually assaulted. This is a crude and unfair equivalence because Jane’s profession does not mean that she is inherently unreliable.

The defense continued their poor run on Thursday by calling in a “false memory expert” named Elizabeth Loftus.

According to Klasfeld, Loftus argued that the prosecution had an “agenda” because they did not consult her often. Then she tried to raise suspicions about accuser.

“One thing we do know about memory is that it doesn’t act like a recording device,” she said.

Loftus: “One thing we know about memory is that it doesn’t act like a recording device.”

– Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) December 16, 2021

Over the past few years, we’ve been told to “believe all women” when it comes to allegations of abuse. It will be interesting to see if the left-wing outrage hits Loftus.

General Maxwell defense has proven to be as flimsy as one might expect. In a test where the odds were stacked, this attitude did not bode well.