Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team respond to victim testimonies during the trial?
Executive summary
Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense repeatedly sought to undercut the credibility of prosecution witnesses by emphasizing memory problems, substance use, possible financial motives, and by arguing she was being tried for Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct rather than her own; the defense called a “false memories” expert and several character witnesses and Maxwell did not testify [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting shows the strategy relied on attacking witness recollections and motives, but some critics and outlets said the defense case produced weak corroboration and risked backfiring when a defense witness admitted to memory trouble [3] [5].
1. The core of the approach: cast doubt on memories and motives
From opening statements through cross‑examination, lead defense counsel Bobbi Sternheim framed key witnesses as unreliable by highlighting past drug or alcohol use, diagnoses of mental illness, inconsistencies in accounts, and potential financial motives for alleging abuse; Sternheim told jurors that some witnesses “now suddenly… remember all this horror” only after Epstein’s death and legal counsel [1]. The team also brought in a psychologist to testify about false memories to undercut the testimony of four women who said Maxwell arranged them for Epstein [2].
2. Emphasizing “not Epstein”: shift blame and create separation
A recurrent theme in the defense narrative was that the charges were for “things that Jeffrey Epstein did” and that Maxwell was not Epstein — an effort to portray her as distinct from his conduct and to argue she was being treated as a scapegoat [6] [7]. Defense witnesses and counsel sought to show Maxwell and Epstein were not as close as prosecutors claimed, aiming to reduce the inference that she participated in or facilitated his crimes [4].
3. Tactics during cross‑examination: personal history and consistency
Defense attorneys pressed witnesses on past substance use, memory lapses, and inconsistencies, asking pointed questions intended to erode jurors’ confidence in specific recollections — for example, probing periodic drug use and whether it affected memory [1]. This mirrors classic “attack‑the‑witness” strategies seen in other high‑profile sex‑abuse trials, where defense teams seek to show that recollections are contaminated or motivated by money or attention [1].
4. The evidence the defense offered: character witnesses and a controversial expert
In putting on its case, Maxwell’s team called multiple character witnesses — including Eva Andersson‑Dubin, a former Epstein girlfriend, and other associates — and the false‑memory psychologist; the defense stressed testimonials that described Maxwell as a demanding boss or friend rather than a trafficker [3] [8]. However, Rolling Stone and other outlets flagged a contradiction when a defense witness admitted to having memory problems, undermining the central theme that prosecution witnesses’ memories were uniquely unreliable [3].
5. Strategic gamble and critiques: limited payoff, potential risks
Several outlets concluded the defense’s limited two‑day, nine‑witness presentation produced little that overwhelmingly aided Maxwell’s case and that the strategy risked appearing thin or self‑serving — Newsweek and the Daily Mail described witnesses as failing to provide substantial exculpatory evidence [5] [9]. Critics noted the defense’s focus on discrediting victims could backfire by appearing to attack survivors rather than building affirmative alternate explanations [5] [7].
6. Procedural choices: Maxwell did not testify and the defense rested quickly
Maxwell declined to testify, telling the judge the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt; her team rested after a short defense period, signaling confidence in their ability to leave credibility questions with the jury rather than submitting Maxwell to cross‑examination [3] [8]. Some reporting described the defense’s plans to call many more witnesses but acknowledged logistical and tactical issues during the defense phase [9] [5].
7. Limitations of reporting and competing perspectives
Available sources document the defense’s tactics and some reactions but differ on effectiveness: Reuters and NPR focused on the specific expert and theme of separation from Epstein [2] [4], while critical coverage in Newsweek and Rolling Stone highlighted weak returns and self‑inflicted contradictions [5] [3]. Available sources do not mention detailed internal deliberations of defense counsel beyond courtroom statements, nor do they provide juror‑level assessment of how persuasive these tactics ultimately were (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: Maxwell’s defense centered on attacking witness credibility, arguing she was being tried for Epstein’s crimes, and offering character testimony and expert opinions on memory; reporters and analysts agree those were central themes but disagree on whether the tactics succeeded, and they pointed to moments—like a defense witness admitting memory trouble—that exposed strategic risks [1] [2] [3] [5].