A judge has revealed the identity of an anonymous “John Douz” in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
Some names were victims of Jeffrey Epstein rather than powerful allies.
One person, who was the subject of “heavy media coverage”, was allowed to pursue his appeal anonymously.
Judge agrees to release names of several ‘John Dowes’ who tried to keep their identities secret in long-running lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein colleague Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Giuffre did. Epstein victim.
But one of them, identified in court as “John Doe 183”, remained anonymous despite being the subject of “intense media coverage” and was repeatedly named in Maxwell’s sex trafficking trial. is mentioned.
Loretta A. Presca, the semi-retired federal judge overseeing the case, said at a court hearing Friday afternoon that John Doe 183’s name should have been made public, but that she would allow the person to appeal. He said he would uphold his ruling.
“Doe’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has been the subject of deliberate media coverage, and Doe 183’s name appears in many places in the unsealed portion of Ms Maxwell’s criminal trial records.” “There is no reason, in the court’s view, to redact Doe 183 from the document.”
Maxwell is sentenced to 20 years in prison after being Convicted in December Trafficking girls to Epstein for sex and sexually abusing some of them. (Epstein died in prison while awaiting trial on related charges in 2019.) Evidence presented at her trial drew on her connections with Epstein and many influential acquaintancesIncluding Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew (who settled a lawsuit with Giuffre), journalist Mike Wallace, and astronaut John Glenn.
Alan Dershowitz, another former acquaintance of the now-deceased pedophile investor, also Settlement in litigation with Giuffrealso has long sought to disclose materials from the lawsuit.
The public speculates that all 16 “John Douzes” who have objected to having their identities made public are powerful acquaintances of Epstein and Maxwell, but that is not the case.
The two whose identities were released on Friday include Epstein’s apparent victims, and Preska said they should no longer remain anonymous due to the public nature of their accusations. rice field.
One is Amy Taylor filed a lawsuit against journalists she said she misrepresented her experiences with Epstein and Maxwell this summer. Another is Sarah Ransom, who has written a book about her experiences and has been interviewed by numerous media outlets. Speaking at Maxwell’s sentencing hearingA third victim, Preska, ruled on Friday that their identities will remain sealed due to “ongoing trauma” from their experience.
Others, whose identities have not been disclosed, had only minor ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Preska said, including the hotel tycoon. Thomas Pritzker, Governor of Illinois JB Pritzker’s cousinPreska said his name came up in the context of a deposition that witnesses said did not recognize him.
The filing arises out of Giuffre’s lawsuit brought against Maxwell. in Manhattan Federal Court in 2015. A British socialite accused Giuffre of defamation when she called her a liar. Having tried to unseal it, it enjoys a long afterlife that spans over 1,200 docket entries.
With the exception of “John Doe 183,” Friday’s hearing will put an end to the anonymous “John Does” story.
After Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking with Epstein in December 2021, she Withdrew its objection to keeping the names of certain “John Doe” political parties secretHowever, 16 of these anonymous parties objected to having their names made public. Preska previously decided in April whether to break the seal on his eight others who initially challenged.
She ultimately did not redact the names of Epstein’s longtime friends, hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin and his wife Eva Dubin, as well as their butler Ronald Rizzo. According to Inner City Press. Ava Dubin Testifies in Maxwell Trialprovides details about her friendship with Epstein in the 1980s and 1990s.
Preska has determined that the others are irrelevant or only marginally relevant to the litigation.
Read the original article at insider