Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: For former socialite Glaine Maxwell, the moment of reckoning is
Speaker 1: at hand. This week in Manhattan federal court, jury selection
Speaker 1: began for her trial on trafficking underage girls for sexual
Speaker 1: abuse by her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein. The fifty nine
Speaker 1: year old faces six felony charges. All four alleged victims
Speaker 1: are expected to testify. If convicted of the most serious crimes,
Speaker 1: Maxwell could face as long as forty years in prison.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who's covering
Speaker 1: the trial. Patty. For those who don't know, tell us
Speaker 1: who Glaine Maxwell is. Gleam Maxwell is a British socialite,
Speaker 1: Oxford educated born in Paris, daughter of former British publishing
Speaker 1: baron Sir Robert Maxwell. She is his youngest child and
Speaker 1: she's allegedly was a former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein's and
Speaker 1: the government argues that Maxwell conspired with Epstein in the
Speaker 1: six trafficking scheme, accused of alluring underage girls to Epstein's
Speaker 1: so he could sexually abuse them, and also for participating
Speaker 1: some of the abuse. The defense she's been mounting all
Speaker 1: the lawyers, all the motions is expensive. How much money
Speaker 1: does she have now? It's about two million, and the
Speaker 1: government has previously alleged that she got twenty million was
Speaker 1: transferred from accounts tied to Epstein to her accounts offshore accounts,
Speaker 1: and so the government says that she's got at least
Speaker 1: twenty million dollars, which is the reason why they said
Speaker 1: she had the money and the ability to flee. She
Speaker 1: has a French passport and if she fled to France,
Speaker 1: they don't extradsee. So she's been in custody since she
Speaker 1: was arrested in July of So, looking at the prosecution's case,
Speaker 1: what is the prosecution expected to present? But the government
Speaker 1: already promised they're going to have four They were underage
Speaker 1: women under the law that it was illegal for Epstein
Speaker 1: to have sex with them at the time he sexually
Speaker 1: abused them. They're going to have these four underage women
Speaker 1: who are now older. Some of the accuse went back
Speaker 1: as far as when one of the accusers was about
Speaker 1: thirteen or fourteen years old. So they're going to call
Speaker 1: these victims who they say are victims. Maxwell wanted to
Speaker 1: argue they're not victims, and they should just be called accusers.
Speaker 1: So the government is going to call these four people
Speaker 1: to testify, including some of them may testify under pseudonyms
Speaker 1: or nicknames because some of the testimony is incredibly embarrassing
Speaker 1: and it happened to them when they were younger. What
Speaker 1: other witnesses are we likely to see? They've also promised
Speaker 1: that they're going to call other witnesses who may have
Speaker 1: been present or known about the Epstein sex trafficking. So
Speaker 1: it sounds like what the government wants to do is
Speaker 1: call additional victims, although it's not clear yet. Also, there
Speaker 1: was a two thousand eight search by Palm Beach Police
Speaker 1: and they went to Epstein's home and they seized evidence,
Speaker 1: including photographs as well as a massage table. There's apparently
Speaker 1: some sex toys. Also, interestingly, there's been discussion of seizure.
Speaker 1: Somehow the government got ahold of what's called Epstein's Little
Speaker 1: Black Book, and it's an addressed book with names and
Speaker 1: telephone numbers. But there's apparently also another book tied to
Speaker 1: going Maxwell. It's some kind of addressed book and one
Speaker 1: of these books the government has says they have evidence
Speaker 1: that include the names of these underaged young women, as
Speaker 1: well as telephone numbers for their parents. So I guess
Speaker 1: the idea is they were so young they didn't have
Speaker 1: cell phones at the time, and their moms or dads
Speaker 1: that so there was contact information for their parents in
Speaker 1: these phone books. And there's also listings about names under
Speaker 1: massages for these girls allegedly, So the judge hasn't ruled
Speaker 1: on how much evidence the government's going to be allowed
Speaker 1: to show the jury. Of course, the defenses are doing
Speaker 1: vociferously than strongly that some of this information is too
Speaker 1: prejudicial and can't be tied to Maxwell. Are there emails
Speaker 1: or texts that are tied to her? Yes? There apparently
Speaker 1: are also email exchanged between Epstein and Maxwell. We know
Speaker 1: of at least one of them that came out as
Speaker 1: part of evidence in Virginia. Guffre is that Epstein Maxwell
Speaker 1: at user who sued Maxwell for defamation, and they settled
Speaker 1: the lawsuit, but the documents tied to that later got unsealed,
Speaker 1: and so one of them is an email that Epstein
Speaker 1: and Max all exchange that showed they were still in
Speaker 1: contact after he had his non prosecution deal with federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors in two thousand eight, and basically Epstein is telling
Speaker 1: Maxwell to keep your chin up and don't act like
Speaker 1: a criminal. So we definitely have seen some emails, and
Speaker 1: the government has promised more evidence. The defense lawyer said
Speaker 1: he intends to ask the alleged victims why they failed
Speaker 1: to come forward sooner, if substance abuse impaired their memories,
Speaker 1: and also wants to question them about their sexual behavior.
Speaker 1: Those sounds like questions from years ago, before the Me
Speaker 1: Too movement, blaming the victim. You got it there. I
Speaker 1: agree with you. I've covered courts for years now, and
Speaker 1: I cover State Court in Brooklyn, and there were many
Speaker 1: occasions that caused outrage back then where defense lawyers wanted
Speaker 1: to question a witness. I can remember one of prostitute.
Speaker 1: She had witnessed a murder or an attempted murder, and
Speaker 1: the lawyer wanted to question her about her sex life
Speaker 1: and her sex history. So that was not allowed and
Speaker 1: that caused If you're at least twenty years ago in
Speaker 1: Brooklyn State Supreme Court, it's hard to believe it's and
Speaker 1: we're having this discussion again. The judge, it's unclear what
Speaker 1: she has ruled. She had an in camera hearing with
Speaker 1: the lawyers about that testimony and how much the defense
Speaker 1: is going to be allowed to raise the sexual background
Speaker 1: of these complaining witnesses, these four women. I mean, you
Speaker 1: could argue it's not out of the realm of the
Speaker 1: possible that even if someone is sexually active, they can
Speaker 1: still be victimized by someone else and it's still going
Speaker 1: to be a crime. Now, I don't know whether that's
Speaker 1: to raise reasonable doubt. Seems like that's what the defense
Speaker 1: is trying to do, and it's unclear that's still on
Speaker 1: the table, and the judge hasn't officially said what her
Speaker 1: ruling is on that. Besides attacking the victims, are trying
Speaker 1: to discredit them. Do you have a sense of what
Speaker 1: the defense is going to be. It sounds like the
Speaker 1: defense there's kind of a hodgepodge of things. But there
Speaker 1: was a defense filing a couple of weeks ago which
Speaker 1: was they'd like to call these two experts their forensic psychiatrists.
Speaker 1: Is one of them is an expert on false memory,
Speaker 1: and it's a woman who testified at Harvey Weinstein's trial
Speaker 1: that people can have false memories of some traumatic event
Speaker 1: like a sexual assault. And she testified at Harvey Weinstein's
Speaker 1: trial that maybe these women were making up these stories
Speaker 1: and the jury did believe it and rejected that and
Speaker 1: convicted Harvey Weinstein. The prosecution says that this doctor and
Speaker 1: this expert has never been allowed to testify in federal court.
Speaker 1: That's also a pending request. They also want to call
Speaker 1: an expert that says there's no such thing as grooming
Speaker 1: in a sexual abuse case. You know, we've heard, now,
Speaker 1: I guess in the common nomenclature that someone was being
Speaker 1: groomed for abuse by getting presents and gifts and being enticed.
Speaker 1: And I guess the defense is trying to blunt that
Speaker 1: with suggesting there is no such thing as grooming. This
Speaker 1: is just a concoctive theory or concoctive terminology. It's kind
Speaker 1: of psycho babble, and that it's really just being nice
Speaker 1: can be misinterpreted as grooming. So they were trying to
Speaker 1: keep the testimony about grooming out of the case. It
Speaker 1: sounds like the judges willing and favor the government and
Speaker 1: not allowing this claim that grooming doesn't exist. They're also
Speaker 1: arguing that Epstein had the halo effect, and they argue
Speaker 1: that they want to have an expert that he had
Speaker 1: a personality trait he was able to exploit the halo effect,
Speaker 1: like surrounded by this aura of wonderfulness that automatically attracted
Speaker 1: people to him, and that people were attracted to his wealth,
Speaker 1: some people seeking some of the wealth that he had
Speaker 1: and his aura of attractiveness, if you will. It sounds
Speaker 1: like the defense wants to argue that, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: perhaps Maxwell fell into that lore of Epstein's halo effect
Speaker 1: and that she too came under his spell. So is
Speaker 1: there any chance that she'll take the stand in her
Speaker 1: own defense. I don't think so, mainly because she's are
Speaker 1: also charged with perjury and she's charged with wine under
Speaker 1: oath during depositions she gave in that Virginia Gufrey defamation lawsuit.
Speaker 1: So grew Fris lawyers David Boy's question x well, and
Speaker 1: the government says that based on her answers claiming that
Speaker 1: she didn't know anything about sexualized massages involving teenage girls
Speaker 1: under the age of consent, that she was lying, and
Speaker 1: so they charged her with two counts of perjury. So
Speaker 1: the judge has ruled that those perjury counts will be
Speaker 1: tried later, and so Maxwell would be opening herself up
Speaker 1: to basically getting confronted about whether or not those were
Speaker 1: wise before that perjury case can go forward. I don't
Speaker 1: think her lawyers want to put her in that position.
Speaker 1: So how does she appear You've been sitting through jury selection.
Speaker 1: How does she appear in the courtroom? Well, it's been
Speaker 1: an interesting transformation. I mean we all had seen her
Speaker 1: with that great short Bob's black haircut, you know, shining
Speaker 1: black hair, dangling earring, dressed at gala's and going to
Speaker 1: events smiling, you know, as a British socialite. She's even
Speaker 1: photographed going to the Ascot Races, the Royal Ascot Races
Speaker 1: with Prince Andrew in a giant hat and beautiful clothes.
Speaker 1: She came to court earlier this year and she was
Speaker 1: just you know, drawn out, pale, wearing prison guard like
Speaker 1: prison fatigues, and she was shackled like Marley's Ghost, wearing
Speaker 1: a chain around her waist and she was handcuffed to
Speaker 1: that chain, and then she had shackles around her ankles.
Speaker 1: The first day she came in for the hearings this week,
Speaker 1: they started individual questioning of jurors. She was wearing a
Speaker 1: black turtleneck and a pair of gray slacks and like
Speaker 1: black ballet flats. She had a huge smile on her
Speaker 1: face and she hugged all of her lawyers and seem
Speaker 1: very chipper and happy, and she's been very animated. She's
Speaker 1: also been irritated, apparently by the court artists. So she
Speaker 1: has turned around and they have, you know, court sketch artists,
Speaker 1: because photography is not allowed in federal court. So there's
Speaker 1: these professional artists that come to court and they draw
Speaker 1: the scene, and they may draw the witness that they
Speaker 1: draw the descendants, and they draw the judge. In this case,
Speaker 1: they're not going to be allowed to draw some of
Speaker 1: these witnesses, these women accusers. But Maxwell seemed irritated. And
Speaker 1: I was sitting next to one of the court artists
Speaker 1: and Maxwell shot a look at me and then went
Speaker 1: over and started scribbling madly on her pad. She had
Speaker 1: like a notepad, so she was drawing the court artists
Speaker 1: as they drew her. And she looked very fierce. Oh,
Speaker 1: I guess everyone deals with it in their own way
Speaker 1: of the pressures of being on trial. How is jury
Speaker 1: selection been going, What kinds of concerns has the judge
Speaker 1: been addressing. The judge has basically tried to find out
Speaker 1: what they know about the f Stein case and what
Speaker 1: do they know about Maxwell if they seen the Netflix series.
Speaker 1: You know, I think there's been three different up for
Speaker 1: a television series. Of books have been written about this.
Speaker 1: The Miami Harold reporter Julie Brown investigated it for The
Speaker 1: Miami Harold into the multi part series. She wrote a
Speaker 1: book that just come out. So the judge needs to
Speaker 1: find out what they know about Epstein Maxwell case, and
Speaker 1: they have any biases or prejudice based on what they've
Speaker 1: known or read. And so there was even a guy
Speaker 1: today we had that actually met Epstein, which seems like
Speaker 1: if you've got a jury that comes from the southern
Speaker 1: district of New York's five Counties, which includes Manhattan, the Bronx, Westchester,
Speaker 1: Putnam and Rockland County, you would think that somebody in
Speaker 1: Manhattan in all these decades where Epstein lived might have
Speaker 1: had some interactions with him. I've certainly covered trials since
Speaker 1: the descendants, neighbors, you know, show up on the jury
Speaker 1: or something. But in this case, there was only one
Speaker 1: guy out of dozens of people interviewed, and he said
Speaker 1: he had had a business feeling with Epstein, who was
Speaker 1: an investor in his fund, and that he met Epstein once,
Speaker 1: very briefly for thirty seconds. So um, the judge asked,
Speaker 1: having met Epstein, did that caused him to follow the
Speaker 1: case more closely, which he said yes, So he was
Speaker 1: actually excused our opening statements on Monday. No. Actually, they
Speaker 1: went through questionnaire with like about six hundred people that
Speaker 1: they summoned. Of those six hundred, they brought in two
Speaker 1: hundred thirty one that qualified based on their answers, there
Speaker 1: was nothing really apparent that you know, disqualified them from sitting.
Speaker 1: And then the judge interviewed uh, almost sixty people starting
Speaker 1: on Monday, and she's been doing whole day sessions of
Speaker 1: nine hours at a time interviewing, so she's got about
Speaker 1: sixty and she's allowing the lawyers they know who these
Speaker 1: potential jurors are, and they have the names, they're going
Speaker 1: to be allowed to see if there's any conflict or
Speaker 1: they have any objection students people. So she's giving them
Speaker 1: time him to do the research and figure out who
Speaker 1: they want on the jury, and they're going to actually
Speaker 1: come into court on November twenty nine. They're gonna pick
Speaker 1: the jury and do peremptory challenges and they're going to
Speaker 1: pick a jury of twelve and six alternates on and
Speaker 1: then they're going to do opening statements. So, and the
Speaker 1: judge herself has made some news recently. Yeah, it was
Speaker 1: kind of surprising. Uh, she was very corey about it.
Speaker 1: But she announced everyone after it came out in the
Speaker 1: New York Times that Senator Charles Schimmer was recommending her
Speaker 1: to be on the federal appeals court called the Second
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals. So she told everyone she wanted
Speaker 1: to give them comfort that she intended to stay with
Speaker 1: the case and keep the case till it was done.
Speaker 1: And we have had judges in the past that have
Speaker 1: kept cases, like Denny Chin, federal judge in the Southern District,
Speaker 1: and he got nominated to the Second Circuit Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals while he still had the made Off Turning made
Speaker 1: off case, so he kept it even after he was
Speaker 1: on the Circuit. Thanks for being the Bloomberg Gloss Show, Patty.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. The prosecution is wrapping
Speaker 1: up its case against Elizabeth Holmes, arguing that Holmes was
Speaker 1: remarkably deceptive and building blood testing start up there a
Speaker 1: nose into a nine billion dollar company, dazzling partners and
Speaker 1: investors with the expectation they would profit from a revolution
Speaker 1: in healthcare, even though she knew her blood analyzers were
Speaker 1: failed technology. Holmes is now at the point in the
Speaker 1: trial where she'll have to decide whether she'll testify in
Speaker 1: her own defense. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Joel Rosenblatt,
Speaker 1: who's been covering the trial. During the prosecution's case, what
Speaker 1: have jurors been learning about theorophns? What are the big takeaways?
Speaker 1: A big take leader a number of recurring themes that
Speaker 1: the prosecution has just kind of hammered away at One
Speaker 1: would be former THEOS employees, including the highest level lab director,
Speaker 1: having deep misgivings about the accuracy of fairness blood testing machines,
Speaker 1: raising those concerns to Elizabeth Homes and eventually being pressured
Speaker 1: to kind of find a way around the results, and eventually,
Speaker 1: because of those misgivings, because they so deeply offended, these
Speaker 1: employees sense of scientific integrity, you know, their integrity as scientists,
Speaker 1: but also their own personal morality, quitting the company. Oftentimes
Speaker 1: they're not lasting more than a year or so, but
Speaker 1: very committed, high level, very highly educated employees, just not
Speaker 1: wanting to stay, unable to stay. That was kind of
Speaker 1: the first piece of what they've heard. Then the prosecution
Speaker 1: moved into investors and how investors were misled by Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Holmes about the accuracy, which you know from the previous
Speaker 1: testimony that just described you knew wasn't there. And then
Speaker 1: also the work that she was doing with pharmaceutical company.
Speaker 1: So early on, Saranos did indeed have some contracts with
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical companies who were interested in her blood analyzer, but
Speaker 1: eventually they didn't see the results that they thought were
Speaker 1: accurate enough for them to continue that relationship. What George
Speaker 1: have seen is that in some instances Elizabeth Holmes presented
Speaker 1: reports showing that her analyzer was was accurate, but lifting
Speaker 1: the logos of Fiser, for example, onto this report, and
Speaker 1: those reports were essentially falsified to show that her analyzer
Speaker 1: was accurate, when in fact these companies walked away from
Speaker 1: it precisely because it wasn't accurate enough. So that's a
Speaker 1: level of just kind of fabrication, of falsification, of plagiarism
Speaker 1: that was It's rather blatant, it's pretty shocking. The third
Speaker 1: one is that is part of her promotion of the
Speaker 1: analyzer to investors, she told investors and kind of the
Speaker 1: world rather widely that her blood test analyzer was being
Speaker 1: had been adopted by the U. S. Military, and was
Speaker 1: being used on the battlefield in combat on Metavac helicopters.
Speaker 1: This was proven to be not true. It was never true.
Speaker 1: There was one small contract she had with the U. S.
Speaker 1: Army very early on, but it was never adopted by
Speaker 1: the military, it was never used in any way in
Speaker 1: what she described, and this was refuted by no less
Speaker 1: than former Secretary of Defense James Maddis, who took the stand.
Speaker 1: So that was another example of just a blatant lie
Speaker 1: really that she's telling investors, who also factored that heavily
Speaker 1: in their decision to give her hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like a pretty powerful prosecution case. So far.
Speaker 1: Was the defense able to make any inroads with these witnesses.
Speaker 1: The inroads that they've made have been on cross examination.
Speaker 1: In my estimation, it's it's been hard to follow. Uh.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's difficult. It's just difficult to kind of,
Speaker 1: I think overcome that testimony and where they are. It's
Speaker 1: been a kind of scatter shot approach. And so now
Speaker 1: what we've seen is long, long cross examinations that are
Speaker 1: beginning to irritate the judge. They're irritating everyone else, including
Speaker 1: one presumes the jury. And I think it's an effort
Speaker 1: to draw out the trial, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: the short answer to your question is the cross examinations
Speaker 1: have not been particularly effective, at least as far as
Speaker 1: I can tell. They're hard to follow. Their their scatter shot,
Speaker 1: and they're they're long. Has there been any mention of
Speaker 1: Sonny Belwani and his part in this, Well, Sonny is
Speaker 1: a co conspirator, He was charged as a co conspirator.
Speaker 1: Their trials were severed, so he's going to be tried
Speaker 1: tried separately starting in January. And he comes up a lot.
Speaker 1: So he's been mentioned a lot. I mean, they were,
Speaker 1: according to the prosecution, partners in crime here. So he figures,
Speaker 1: he figures prominently. It's a kind of careful dance prosecutors
Speaker 1: have to do there because it's Elizabeth Holmes who's on trial,
Speaker 1: and they've taken extraordinary efforts to show that while they
Speaker 1: were co conspirators, that she was in charge. So for
Speaker 1: the purposes of this trial and trying to get her conviction,
Speaker 1: they've had to show that she was in charge. And
Speaker 1: they've raised numerous instances elicited testimony in which former employees
Speaker 1: or business partners said that in meetings that they both attended,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Holmes was really in charge. You know what the
Speaker 1: defense is going to be. Did they say they're opening
Speaker 1: statements what the defense would be? Well, this is the
Speaker 1: big question war and and we're nearly at the crossroads.
Speaker 1: The prosecution has said it will rest this week. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure if that's going to happen. But your question
Speaker 1: is the big question, because she indicated before the trial
Speaker 1: that she may raise a defense pointing to Sunny Baul
Speaker 1: Wahani as having been so uh psychologically in some instances
Speaker 1: even physically abusive, that she was in fact controlled by him,
Speaker 1: that her that his abuse was so so strong and
Speaker 1: so forceful and so formative that she was essentially doing,
Speaker 1: you know, the things she's accused of under his control.
Speaker 1: So that has not been raised so plainly yet at trial.
Speaker 1: Before the jury in opening arguments, her lawyer did hint
Speaker 1: at it that that this relationship she was in a
Speaker 1: romantic relationship with Sunny while they were both at para nose.
Speaker 1: He was, he was the president. Lance Wade, her lawyer,
Speaker 1: indicated in opening arguments that this relationship was one of
Speaker 1: a number of bad choices that Elizabeth Holmes made, So
Speaker 1: he has hinted at it. It's just not clear. We
Speaker 1: just don't know what her defense is going to be yet.
Speaker 1: We don't know if she's going to pursue this unprecedented
Speaker 1: defense to a you know, a white car criminal fraud case. Right,
Speaker 1: it is unprecedented in this kind of a case. And
Speaker 1: then we've heard that kind of defense coming from battered
Speaker 1: women as a self defense, usually to some kind of
Speaker 1: criminal act, but not in this context. So has the
Speaker 1: prosecution been anticipating it in any way? Well, yes, I
Speaker 1: mean the short answer is yes. You can see there
Speaker 1: have been kind of preemptive strikes. I think this, this
Speaker 1: effort that I explained earlier to show that she was
Speaker 1: in charge, can be seen as a preemptive strike to
Speaker 1: this type of defense. In other words, if she's in
Speaker 1: charge and she's running a company, not only is she
Speaker 1: kind of superior, not only is she Sunny's superior, and
Speaker 1: she was in fact entitled his superior as chief executive,
Speaker 1: but she was running the show. And so the idea is,
Speaker 1: how could she possibly be so highly functional and so
Speaker 1: in charge and and yet at the same time being
Speaker 1: so manipulated by Bye Sonny Bowani. The defense is a
Speaker 1: is a real stretch because you know, essentially what they
Speaker 1: have to prove is that she was so under his
Speaker 1: control that she couldn't tell right from wrong. That's that's
Speaker 1: what they have to prove. And I think that's a
Speaker 1: real stretch. She has the benefit of Balwannie not being
Speaker 1: in the courtroom, not being on trial with her. As
Speaker 1: you said, his his trial was severed, so she can
Speaker 1: say what she wants to and no one will be
Speaker 1: able to check with him. Well, that's right, That's exactly
Speaker 1: why the trial was severed, because Sonny Bowani made the
Speaker 1: point that he can't possibly defend against the government's allegations
Speaker 1: and hers at the same time. So she has yea
Speaker 1: wide latitude and lee way to to to blame him
Speaker 1: and point to him. She's under oath, right, so if
Speaker 1: she testifies or whoever testifies on her behalf, she has
Speaker 1: she does have an expert lined up as a as
Speaker 1: a potential witness as psychological expert. You know, everybody, everybody
Speaker 1: who's understand is sworn to tell the truth. So she
Speaker 1: can say what she wants. But unless she's willing to
Speaker 1: just lie under oath and risk being in contempt of court. Uh,
Speaker 1: it has to be truthful. So she's been painted as
Speaker 1: very charismatic. I mean, we've all seen the interviews she did.
Speaker 1: What is she like in the courtroom? Well, in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: you know, she hasn't had a chance to speak yet,
Speaker 1: and again it's not clear if she's going to. Most
Speaker 1: criminal defense players will tell you that they don't want
Speaker 1: they don't want their defendant to understand. So so she's
Speaker 1: she hasn't had a chance to speak even if she
Speaker 1: wanted to. In the courtroom, she sits perfectly still. She's
Speaker 1: dressed very well, um, not in the in the black
Speaker 1: sweater that she wore as CEO, but generally in skirts
Speaker 1: and dress coats and dressed very carefully conservatively, and she
Speaker 1: sits remarkably to me, perfectly upright in her chair between
Speaker 1: her lawyers. Her back doesn't touch the back of her chair,
Speaker 1: and she's looking just directly at witnesses the whole time,
Speaker 1: and on Breakes. She's very friendly. I've run into her
Speaker 1: numerous times. She's friendly to everybody. She's with her here
Speaker 1: with her mother every day, her partner, and I believe
Speaker 1: husband now has oftentimes been here. So she has family
Speaker 1: here and she's um. She seems retentive and relaxed. And
Speaker 1: I'll just add that jury consultants I've spoken to have
Speaker 1: said that in this case, this might be a case
Speaker 1: where the defendant should testify, just given how dynamic she
Speaker 1: she is and how she was as as CEO and
Speaker 1: presumably still is al kind of nimble and intelligent and
Speaker 1: carefully spoken she is. I've wondered one thing, she's a
Speaker 1: new mother. Is the jury aware of that. I have
Speaker 1: seen press accounts where um, this is kind of explained,
Speaker 1: UM myself a father. But I haven't seen no indication
Speaker 1: of Elizabeth Holmes showing the jury that she is a
Speaker 1: new mother. There is no indication of that to me.
Speaker 1: I've not seen it. I mean I've personally seen it
Speaker 1: when the jury is out of the courtroom. In other words,
Speaker 1: she appears to seems to have a nanny who's here, um,
Speaker 1: who's visiting, and she is taking breaks periodically. Um, presumably
Speaker 1: to either be with her child or just taking the
Speaker 1: breaks of that a new mom needs um. But I
Speaker 1: have not seen the jury seeing evidence of that. They
Speaker 1: will if she takes the standard. Yeah, yeah, and I'll
Speaker 1: add and all that that Lance Wade, her lawyers had
Speaker 1: pointed out an opening remarks that she lives, you know,
Speaker 1: nearby with her husband, and and he did mention her
Speaker 1: child going to be very interesting if she testifies. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, Joel. That's Joel Rosen Black, Bloomberg Legal Reporter,
Speaker 1: and that's if the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Blash
Speaker 1: Law and John Brasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg