Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction last month on sex trafficking charges is unlikely to be the end of her legal woes.
The disgraced socialite has long been accused of serving as a madam for the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial in 2019.
Many of the accusations against Epstein, who rubbed elbows with the likes of former President Bill Clinton, the U.K.’s Prince Andrew and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, included claims that Maxwell had lured girls into Epstein’s orbit, showering them with gifts and attention before serving them up for her ex-boyfriend to abuse.
Maxwell’s attorneys argued that she was being used as a scapegoat for Epstein, who will never stand trial for his crimes now that he is deceased.
Yet as her Dec. 29 conviction confirmed that she did indeed recruit and groom Epstein’s victims, it also suggested that she had committed perjury during a previous deposition, as the information she gave at the time was possibly contradicted by witnesses on the stand.
According to the New York Post, the judge who presided over Maxwell’s case asked prosecutors on Monday for a proposed schedule for a perjury case against the newly convicted sex offender.
“Maxwell faces two counts for allegedly lying under oath in a sworn deposition she gave in 2016 in a defamation case brought against her by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre in the Southern District of New York,” the outlet reported.
During the trial, witnesses testified that Maxwell would have seen sex toys at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion and that she was aware that Epstein was having sex with multiple other women at the time they were together.
But in 2016, Maxwell said she was not aware that Epstein kept the sex toys nor that he had slept with any other women, save two individuals.
“Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities?” Maxwell was asked in the deposition.
“No,” she replied.
“Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities?”
“I wasn’t aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself,” Maxwell said.
During the trial, however, a longtime housekeeper for Epstein testified that he used to clean up discarded sex toys in the Palm Beach mansion and place them in a basket that was kept in Maxwell’s closet.
While a witness identified as “Jane” testified that she and Maxwell had both participated in group sex with Epstein, “Kate” said that, as a teenager, Maxwell dressed her up in a schoolgirl outfit and sent her to wait on Epstein by the pool, where he then performed a sex act with her.
It is honestly refreshing that we can now say for sure that Maxwell was grooming and recruiting underage girls for Epstein. Maxwell’s attorneys tried to argue that she had nothing to do with Epstein’s sex crimes and was simply being blamed because he is now dead.
Yet she’s been named by accusers for years, and prosecutors were able to establish that she was heavily involved in his life; it’s absurd for anyone to believe that she didn’t know he was having sex with other women, much less the underage girls she befriended and basically brought to Epstein on a platter.
It’s about time there was a conviction in this sick scheme, and it’s certainly fitting that it was Maxwell who received it, but we can assume that Epstein’s victims will always regret that he never stood trial for what he did.
Prince Andrew has been sued by Giuffre in a New York court, and there are undoubtedly others who could be linked to the high-powered socialite’s sordid affairs.
If we know Maxwell is guilty, and we know she probably lied under oath about her relationship with Epstein, what else is she hiding? Who else did she know full well was abusing girls? Who else has she covered for?
The trials need to keep coming. Who knows what else will fall out if the arm of the U.S. justice system keeps shaking this tree?
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.