The court may possibly disclose nearly 200 identities affiliated with the dismal saga of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the notorious sex trafficking duo, as early as Tuesday. By this date, the anonymity previously granted to these individuals in court documents, named only as John and Jane Does, could vanish, unveiling the extent of their involvement.
The revelation follows after the deadline to contest the exposure of these identities lapses at the end of Monday. This all started when Virginia Giuffre, a victim, instigated a solitary defamation case against Maxwell, the offspring of the deceased British publisher Robert Maxwell, back in 2015.
This single case led not only to identifying other possible participants in the depositions but also triggered many other civil lawsuits. Guiffre’s character assassination lawsuit, filed in 2015, proved to be a significant event.
The following year, a US district court judge denied Maxwell’s attempt to strike off the accusations, validating that the details around the events stretched far beyond the ‘defamatory statements’ and insisted on Guiffre’s experiences as an underage victim of systematic sexual exploitation from 1999 to 2002.
In 2017, the parties reached an extrajudicial resolution incognito. From this juncture followed not only the notable names now on the verge of disclosure but also a swath of civil lawsuits. Among these was Guiffre’s suit against Prince Andrew of the UK for ‘imposing sexual assault and deliberate infliction of emotional misery.’
While the acknowledgment of accountability remained absent, a settlement was reached outside the court pegged at a conjectured $12 million. All along, the royal maintained rigorous denial of engaging in any unacceptable conduct.
Maxwell found herself at the heart of a federal sex trafficking indictment due to the lawsuit’s implications, which eventuated in a guilty verdict on five of the six laid charges in December 2021, leading to a crushing punishment of 20 years incarceration.
The assumption that the impending disclosure of names in the older defamation lawsuit might segue to criminal indictments appears to be an overstated view. Epstein opted for self-infliction in 2019 while under detention, and his partner Maxwell’s conviction appeared to conclude the federal prosecutors’ pursuit.
Regardless, the elaboration by US district judge Preska spanning 51 pages on her judgement to disclose or keep secret roughly 180 John and Jane Does will undoubtedly cause discomfort to multiple persons of significance. Many would already have been associated publicly in some form or another with Epstein and Maxwell or identified as passengers on his private fleet of airplanes.
The full reveal might also cover alleged victims of Epstein who were escorted to his lavish properties, such as the grand villa in New York, a Palm Beach mansion, a secluded island in the US Virgin Islands, and a ranch located near Santa Fe. Principally, the highly anticipated identifying information of the John Does will be inspected meticulously for its contents, which may list a former US president, actors, illustrious scholars, and the controversially discredited British prince.
ABC news network on Monday hinted that ‘Jane Doe 162,’ who affirmed that she was 17 when she was in the company of Prince Andrew, Maxwell, and Giuffre at Epstein’s New York residence, may feature.
In another revelation, ANC news named former US President Bill Clinton as ‘Doe 36,’ citing his mention in more than 50 redacted filings, as per court documentation. Although Giuffre never demarked Clinton for any misconduct, she insists that they indeed met at Epstein’s tropical island getaway – a claim that the former head of the nation ardently refutes.
Abetting these assertions, flight logs maintained by one of Epstein’s pilots indicate extensive travels involving Clinton aboard Epstein’s private aviation fleet, including international ventures to Paris, Bangkok, and Brunei following the completion of his presidential stint in 2001. In response, Giuffre’s legal team reportedly reached out to Clinton’s attorneys for a deposition, however, the response received was a dismissal of his testimonial being beneficial.
A similar inflection was seen from Maxwell’s attorneys who dismissed the intent as an obvious attempt by Guiffre to ramp up press coverage for her riveting accounts through a ‘deposition side-show.’
Even so, Clinton’s name in relation to Epstein came up repeatedly, including in a 2002 article in New York magazine where he lauded Epstein as a ‘successful financier’ and a ‘philanthropist with an acute sense for global markets and deep understanding of 21st-century science’.
Clinton stated distancing from Epstein in 2005 following Epstein being accused of involving underage girls in sexual activities at his Palm Beach residence. Epstein evaded a federal investigation and pled guilty at the state level to procuring and soliciting prostitution involving an underage girl, leading to a lenient sentencing and compulsory sex offender registration.
Post Epstein’s arrest in 2019, Clinton once again articulated his detachment from Epstein, stating he had not communicated with him in over a decade and denying any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal acts. He also denied ever visiting Epstein’s island, ranch in New Mexico or his home in Florida.
While the depositions may yield deeper insights into Epstein and Maxwell’s actions prior to Epstein’s conviction, much of the current focus lies on Epstein’s conduct following his release from detention in Florida, as he sought to rehabilitate his image in New York. Diaries recovered during Epstein’s subsequent litigation unveiled the extent to which the financier actively sought to reestablish his influential network.
High-profile figures who emerged from these diaries included the then-director of the CIA, William Burns, and Kathryn Ruemmler, White House counsel under Barack Obama, amongst others. An associate of Maxwell and Epstein last year suggested that Epstein’s conduct did not significantly change post his convictions. The source added that Epstein, armed with ample resources, saw no error in his behaviour, and remained unremorseful.