Why did the government not call "one of Ghislaine Maxwell’s most prominent accusers," who is at the "forefront of the case?"
Why is such "a central player" so "conspicuously absent from the witness list?"
Why did the government leave such a "gaping hole that the jurors may find unsettling?"
Why "the empty chair?"
These obvious questions are being asked by the media and legal experts.
Still, many know the answer but refuse to share it publicly.
The answer should be obvious to anyone familiar with the facts: the government is not calling Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre because they don’t believe she is credible.
Additionally, according to the testimony of a witness, who they do believe, she herself was complicit in Maxwell’s alleged crimes.
Prosecutors don’t believe Virginia Giuffre because she has accused, in the media and under oath, many prominent people of having sex with her.
They include the late Sen. George Mitchell, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, billionaire Leslie Wexner, Britain’s Prince Andrew — and me.
All have categorically denied the accusation, but more importantly, her own lawyer, Bradley Edwards, in television and other interviews has said that, based on his 11-year investigation, no "high profile people would be implicated."
Edwards also said that Wexner was telling the truth when he said that he was not involved in any sexual activities related to Epstein.
Giuffre had sworn that she had sex with Wexner, the high-profile head of Victoria’s Secret, on many occasions. So, Giuffre’s lawyer was essentially accusing his own client of perjury.
Giuffre’s other lawyer, David Boies, in a conversation with me, said that significant parts of her claims against me did not stand up.
Moreover, Giuffre’s best friend and her best friend’s husband have both testified that Giuffre is not telling the truth.
And Giuffre’s own emails, which she tried to suppress, show that she never even met me.
Had Giuffre had been called as a witness, the government would have been obliged, under the Brady rule, to have provided all this information — and more — to the defense.
I know the government has this material because I gave it them.
But even if the government provided this information to the defense, it would have been precluded from calling Giuffre as a witness and vouching for her credibility, because they know she simply is not credible.
The other reason the government didn’t call her is that one of its key witnesses, using the name "Carolyn," testified that, when she was 14, Giuffre — who was nearly 19 at the time — received money to bring her to Epstein’s house for sexual massages.
Carolyn claimed Giuffre "would make a lot of money" from Epstein for doing so.
Carolyn also claims that when they arrived at Epstein’s massage room, Giuffre took off all her clothes, "got on top of Epstein" and had sex with him in front of the 14-year-old.
Carolyn said she was paid $300 but doesn’t know how much Giuffre received.
In order for Giuffre to testify at the Maxwell trial, she would have to be given immunity from prosecutors for her own alleged crimes. That would have made her a terrible witness.
The real reasons why Giuffre isn’t being called are obvious.
But her lawyer and the media are obscuring the truth.
Boies told The Miami Herald that he was "mystified" by the prosecution’s decision, but it probably related to the fact that it is only "bringing charges with women who were under the age of consent at the time."
But Giuffre initially swore she was 15 when she first had sex with Epstein and Maxwell.
She vividly remembered spending her "sweet 16 birthday" with them.
The age of consent in Florida is 18. When confronted with employment records, she changed her testimony and said she was 16 — still below the age of consent.
Moreover, one of the alleged victims — Kate — was well above the age of consent.
So Boies’ claim is nonsense.
Julie Brown, a reporter for the Miami Herald article, has relied on Giuffre as a major source for her prize-winning articles about Epstein and Maxwell.
But Brown won’t acknowledge Giuffre’s lack of credibility now because it would undercut the veracity of her "acclaimed" articles.
So, Brown has provided other implausible excuses, such as the age of consent — omitting to report that the age is 18 in Florida.
There is nothing mystifying about the government’s decision not to call Giuffre.
They don’t believe her nor does anyone who looks at the facts.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of "Guilt by Accusation" and "Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities." Read more of Alan Dershowitz''s reports — Here.
Follow Alan Dershowitz on
Twitter: @AlanDersh
Facebook: @AlanMDershowitz
New podcast: The Dershow, on Spotify, YouTube and iTunes
Dersh.Substack.com
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.