I’ve always wondered what compels attorneys to represent people accused, with substantial evidence, of grisly things like abuse, rape or grisly murder.
Do they really believe their customers are innocent? Or are they really willing to give the false impression that a guilty person is innocent for the sake of their work?
I think this is why so many people have such a skeptical view of lawyers, because in the end it’s their job to argue that their client is innocent, regardless of the facts.
This is what attorney Laura Menninger was tasked with as she represented alleged abusers and traffickers Ghislaine Maxwell. Does she honestly trust her former notorious girlfriend and alleged hostess Jeffrey Epstein indeed innocent, she is not ashamed to suggest that a victim allegedly lied and faked crying in the courtroom.
This week, Maxwell’s much-anticipated trial began in federal court. An anonymous whistleblower, identified only as “Jane”, provided testimonies with pictures sexually abused, she says she suffered at the hands of Maxwell and Epstein starting when she was 14 years old.
As ABC News reported, Menninger countered the inconsistency between notes in interviews Jane gave to agents and federal prosecutors in 2020 and the testimony she provided to the court this week. , as well as her career as an actress.
In her testimony, Jane detailed how the notorious couple allegedly lured her into their inner circle and Epstein began abusing her, often under Maxwell’s close supervision.
According to ABC, Jane showed little emotion when recounting the encounters graphically, but when confronted Wednesday afternoon about the $5 million settlement she received as part of a compensation fund for the victims. Epstein’s victim, she broke down.
During cross-examination, Menninger revisited Jane’s history as an actress and pointed to the roles she’s played, including a bullied mother, a woman murdered by a killer. stalker, a cancer survivor and a prostitute.
She then targets Jane’s ability to portray insincere emotions.
“Can you cry when you give orders?” Menninger questioned her, ABC reports.
“Not always,” Jane replied. “That’s not how it works.”
Assistant US Attorney Alison Moe then asked Jane if she knew the difference between acting and providing testimony in court.
Jane said she did. “Acting on TV is not real. Witness is. ”
Moe asked if she acted during her testimony, or if anyone had told her what to tell the court.
“No,” Jane answered each of these questions.
I don’t know what effect Menninger’s tactics will have on the jury, but I can certainly guess that in court of public opinion, Maxwell’s attorneys are not supporting his client by maligning his face. brutally and systematically against a woman who says she is. sexually abused by Maxwell and Epstein during her years as a vulnerable and innocent little girl.
As a conservative woman, I have a lot of criticism about #The MeToo Movement and the notion that we should #BelieveAllWomen, but this treatment of a woman accused of mass sex abuse is precisely why such stories exist.
Maxwell has every right to be presumed innocent. This lawyer’s job is to argue that she is indeed innocent. Menninger’s questions to Jane, however, are blatant satire, and again I have to agree with feminists that this is precisely why so many women are terrified of abuse. sexual use.
It’s hurtful enough to be violated and abused in one of the most sinful and heinous ways imaginable; What would the victim want to approach if she knew she might be publicly accused of not only lying but also using her acting skills to cry fake tears?
I can imagine that Harvey Weinstein’s Attorney is taking notes somewhere, as most of his accusers have stage skills.
I’m not a trial attorney, but from where I am, I don’t quite see why this attorney can’t try to argue and stay within the bounds of basic respect and courtesy. people towards victims of sex. abuse.
It’s true that at the end of the day we don’t know if Jane is telling the truth, but her testimony certainly fits the bill. everything we know about Maxwell and Epstein, so you can guess my opinion on the veracity of her story.
This attorney is ruthless and couldn’t be more concerned with the moral impact of her line of questioning. She just wanted to entice her rich, privileged clients, so she smeared and slandered the character of a completely innocent woman – and in a representative way, all women with Hard stories to tell – in the process.
I don’t know about you, but I’m willing to guess that she just inadvertently made Maxwell look much more despicable and callous in the process.
Source link Ghislaine Maxwell’s Shameless Lawyer Charges Allegedly Rape Crocodile Tear Survivor on Stand