Trial Attorney Page Pate is interviewed on CNN about the release of court documents in a defamation case related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking allegations.

Jeffrey Epstein has been indicted on many counts of sex trafficking. One of his alleged victims, Virginia Giuffre, filed a civil suit for defamation against Epstein’s former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. In connection with this civil suit, the names of many men allegedly involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking activities were released.

In this interview, Page was asked about the allegations in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, as well as the recent release of documents in the related defamation case. With the report of the release of other men’s names who were allegedly involved, Page is asked if he would expect to see charges against some of the people named in the recently released documents. Page says “These allegations may be new to us because the court documents have just been unsealed, but they’re not new to the federal investigators. I mean, right? These allegations that were made by Miss Giuffre have been investigated before. Presumably, the investigators have met with her, they’ve met with other potential victims, they’ve taken their statements. These individuals have likely been identified, but perhaps there was no corroborating evidence to support the claims.”

In discussing the status of the criminal case, Page agrees that the case is still “a he said, she said” case, and emphasizes that it is very important to remember that. He says “In a criminal, sexual exploitation case, just like a rape case, the victim’s testimony that something happened is enough to bring a case. Now, a jury may decide, “We want more corroborating evidence. You need to prove it.” But look, when we’re talking about old allegations, especially, how do you prove things like that? I mean, maybe you have a picture, okay, that shows you were there with the guy, but it doesn’t prove sexual conduct. Page further explains that “it’s all circumstantial evidence” and says that to prove it, “it is the testimony and whether that testimony is credible. Now, the things Alan Dershowitz pointed out well, you know, “The testimony had been inconsistent. She didn’t identify me back when she identified the other people.” Those inconsistencies will be what the defense and these folks will use to attack her credibility. But it all boils down to that. Do you believe her?”

Despite the fact that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide the day after the release of these documents, we will continue to follow this matter for any charges that may be brought against any additional individuals.

TRANSCRIPT:

Christi: I want to bring in criminal defense attorney Page Pate. I just wanna get your reaction, initially, to all of this.

Page: It’s crazy, right? I mean, there are a lot of allegations. And at this point, it is important to remember these are just allegations. They’re allegations that were made by Miss Giuffre in a deposition, in kind of an unrelated civil suit, where she actually decided to file a defamation lawsuit because Maxwell said, “You’re lying about all this. It’s not true.” That’s a bold step. I mean, that means that she was confident in her claims, thinking there may be some corroboration.

But unless there’s corroborating evidence… I mean, all these inconsistencies, the fact that it wasn’t disclosed earlier, I think that’s gonna prevent it from being a very serious inquiry on behalf of these new folks. I don’t think they have to worry about criminal charges at this point.

Martin: What is the impact on the criminal case that’s already now ongoing against Epstein?

Page: Well, we don’t know. I mean, we know Epstein has been charged. We’ve seen the indictment. We know what the allegations involve. But we don’t, as Polo [SP] said, know the individuals who may be involved in that case. Now, presumably, Epstein’s lawyers have seen the discovery materials, the evidence. And in that material, you will see the individuals named, and they’ll know who they are.

But we don’t. That information has not been made public. Now, if the case goes to trial, I anticipate that some of these folks may testify at the trial. They’ll be of age, perhaps, now, when they weren’t back in the time period when he’s alleged to have undertaken these activities. But we don’t know a lot about the criminal case other than the charges.

Christi: So, because this was more of a past case, would you have anticipated that we would have seen charges against some of these people had there been something more substantive?

Page: That’s a great point. These allegations may be new to us because the court documents have just been unsealed, but they’re not new to the federal investigators. I mean, right? These allegations that were made by Miss Giuffre have been investigated before. Presumably, the investigators have met with her, they’ve met with other potential victims, they’ve taken their statements. These individuals have likely been identified, but perhaps there was no corroborating evidence to support the claims.

Martin: So, as it goes forward on this case, you know, it’s still, right now, a he said, she said, as much as these are just horrible claims that are being made, right?

Page: Right. But that’s enough, Martin. I mean, that’s really important to remember. In a criminal, sexual exploitation case, just like a rape case, the victim’s testimony that something happened is enough to bring a case. Now, a jury may decide, “We want more corroborating evidence. You need to prove it.” But look, when we’re talking about old allegations, especially, how do you prove things like that? I mean, maybe you have a picture, okay, that shows you were there with the guy, but it doesn’t prove sexual conduct.

Christi: Or she mentioned, look at the flights that I took, and that there were logs of that.

Page: Right, right.

Christi: Those things…

Page: But it’s all circumstantial evidence. Until you…

Martin: So how do you prove it?

Page: Well, it is the testimony and whether that testimony is credible. Now, the things Alan Dershowitz pointed out well, you know, “The testimony had been inconsistent. She didn’t identify me back when she identified the other people.” Those inconsistencies will be what the defense and these folks will use to attack her credibility. But it all boils down to that. Do you believe her?

Christi: What if she really did…? What if she really was taken to the hospital? I mean, clearly, there would be hospital records to show what she was treated for…

Page: Right.

Christi: …if she had, you know, had a very candid conversation with somebody there.

Page: That’s possible. But then, the defense will say, “Well, if it was a sexual abuse allegation, why didn’t she request a rape kit? And if a rape kit wasn’t done at the time, how can you now prove what happened?”

Christi: Could you argue that she didn’t request it because it was Epstein and Maxwell who took her to the hospital?

Page: You can argue that. And then we go down this rabbit hole. And that’s exactly the problem with these cases. Especially, when they’re brought years after the fact.

Christi: All right.

Martin: Oh, there’s so many challenges in this case. All right. Page Pate, great to see you. Thanks very much for…

Christi: Always good to have you.

Martin: …coming in this morning.

Page: Appreciate it.

Christi: Thank you.