 On Thursday, testimony given by Ghislaine Maxwell in a 2016 civil case between her and Jeffrey Epstein victim, Virginia Jeffrey was finally unsealed. Maxwell's lawyers had battled to keep the documents private, but a judge ruled against her. Now, there is not quite as much information in the documents as some of us had hoped. That's partly because so much of it is redacted, but also because Ghislaine Maxwell is very tight-lipped. She'd clearly been very well prepped and she's very good at wasting time. It has some very surreal results, which we're going to go through in a moment. It is fair to say she doesn't come across as someone with nothing to hide in these documents. And to avoid answering questions, she often used really bizarre diversionary tactics, claiming not to understand what really basic words mean. It's a 465-page document. It's a deposition which has now been unsealed. A judge demanded it be unsealed. And we're going to go through some of the choice bits. Now, the first bit we're going to go to is about a puppet. And to understand the context here, we need to go back to... I know what you're talking about. Why is he talking about a puppet? It will become apparent. To understand the context here, we need to go back to a document unsealed in August from the same civil case between Jeffrey and Ghislaine Maxwell. Now, this is explained in a mirror article from the time. Prince Andrew groped two girls in Epstein Mansion with spitting image puppet of himself. Now, this is obviously an allegation. This hasn't been confirmed. But it's an allegation by someone who's seen as a credible witness. We can go to the copy from that article for a bit of expansion here. Again, this is not from the deposition which was released today. This is the background. So they write, Joanna Soberg 40 has previously described the encounter with Andrew and his spitting image puppet. She testified in a 2016 deposition in Jeffrey's civil defamation case against Maxwell from which the newly released documents are taken. Soberg said, on oath, I sat on Andrew's lap. They took the puppet's hand and put it on Virginia's breast. And so Andrew put his on mine. After many crude jokes later, Jeffrey claims she was ordered to take Andrew to a dungeon massage room. So you've got claims from two women there. Jeffrey, which both relate to this spitting image puppet of Prince Andrew. Really gross. Really terrible. But let's look at the relevant section of the deposition. And you can see what I mean by the diversionary tactics used by Ghislaine Maxwell. I'll read this to you and you'll see if you trust this woman. Now, the questions are from a lawyer or attorney. And you can see Mr. Paglucia is Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer, and then the answers are from Ghislaine Maxwell. So were you ever in a room with, and from this redaction, we know it's Prince Andrew. You can sort of add that up from the later parts of this. Were you ever in a room with Prince Andrew in New York in Jeffrey Epstein's home where there was a puppet? The lawyer says objection. Ghislaine Maxwell says, what sort of puppet are you asking me? Any kind of puppet? Ghislaine Maxwell, you need to be more descriptive. I don't know what you mean by puppet. There is hand puppets, all sorts of puppets. Question, is there any puppet you've ever seen in Jeffrey Epstein's home in the presence of Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell? Again, puppet, you know, there is lots of types of puppet. Then the question from the lawyer, any type of puppet? Ghislaine Maxwell, if you want to give me a description of the puppet, I would perhaps be able to say, question, any type of puppet, answer. Can you be more detailed? Question, have you ever seen a puppet in Jeffrey Epstein's home in the presence of Prince Andrew? My understanding of a puppet is a small handheld item you have in a circus. I have never seen that. Then the question, have you ever seen a puppet which is defined as a movable model of a person or animal that is used in entertainment and typically moved either by strings or controlled from above or by a hand inside? She's made the lawyer look up the definition of puppet before she'll be willing to answer the question. Totally bizarre. I'd call this contempt of court, but whatever. Let's go to the next bit. Then Ghislaine Maxwell says, I have not seen a puppet that fits exactly that description. Question, have you seen any puppet that fits that description? And then she says, can you re-ask the question, please? It's Ghislaine Maxwell. Yes. Have you seen any puppet that fits any description in the presence of Prince Andrew in Jeffrey Epstein's home? This is really repetitive because it's a very repetitive interview. Now Ghislaine Maxwell here completely changes the line. So she says, I am not aware of any small handheld puppet that was there. There was a puppet, not a puppet. There was a, I don't know how you would describe it really. I don't know how you would describe it, not a puppet. I don't know how you would describe it, a caricature of Prince Andrew that was in Jeffrey's home. Did you use that caricature to put the hand of the caricature? Did you take on, I think, well, redacted breast objection from the lawyer? Ghislaine Maxwell, I don't recollect. I recollect the puppet, but I don't recollect anything around the puppet. You characterized a puppet, characterized it as it is. I don't know, as a characterization of blah. Do you recollect asking Virginia Roberts to sit on Prince Andrew's lap with the caricature of Prince Andrew? I do not recollect that. Now, this is not someone who is being open and honest. It's someone who is really trying to waste time, completely bizarre. The same thing happened with regard sex toys. Let's get this up now and then I'll go to you, Ash. So she's asked, do you recollect having sex toys at the Palm Beach house where Epstein lived? Answer, you have to define what you were talking about. Question, a sex toy meaning a vibrator of some kind. Sometimes they are called dildos of that nature, anything like that. Answer, I don't recollect anything that would formerly be a dildo, anything like that. Question, how would you define sex toys? Answer, I wouldn't describe sex toys. Question, did you have anything that was of an electronic nature that would be used during sex? Answer, I have no idea what you are referring to. Then you've got a lot of redacted stuff. Now, I mean, Ash, I want to bring you in on this because I don't watch many trials, but the idea that you've got someone who's accused of very serious things who is basically wasting the court's time by demanding everyone define the meaning of very simple words which she clearly knows the meaning of. I mean, what the hell is going on here? This is actually how the legal system ends up, so stacked in favour of people who have access to limitless legal resources, i.e. they've got enough money to just drag out procedures in lots of really high profile court trials. I mean, this is, of course, a deposition, but in a court trial like, for instance, the OJ Simpson case, he's got a legal team which is several people deep, right? Often has more staff working on it than the prosecutor's office and just objecting to every single form and foundation of any question or any line of inquiry, hoping to just slow things down, take the wind out of the prosecution cells and just muddy the waters, right? And that's the work of the defence. It's not to necessarily put up a credible defence to debunk the facts and the accusations being put to them. It's just to create so much noise and so much bilge that you can't really access the truth. So I think that's how you should make sense of this. The second thing, and I think that we should actually spend more time pups in another show talking about Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, is that we sometimes, and rightly so, we focus on the abuse as a way of explaining their relationship and connection to one another, the abuse that Epstein perpetrated on these trafficked girls and women. But I think that it's highly likely, and this is just my opinion, that there's a different story here, and it's to do with assets. It's been said that one of Jeffrey Epstein's roles as a financier was hiding ill-gotten assets for people. He also had an island in the tax haven, the other, he was good at moving money and assets around. When Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell, the disgraced press baron who had, they say he fell off his boat, which was named after the Lady Ghislaine after he'd embezzled pension funds from the mirror, I think it was, that they didn't recover all of the money that he'd embezzled and no one really knows what happened to it. And I wonder if, and this is just a theory, which other people have said might be true, that Epstein helped conceal those assets, and that's a big part of why Ghislaine's so protective of him. Well, the thing is here, Ash, or I'm a bit confused now, is there's two meanings of assets. So one of them is about the big wealthy stuff and he's good at hiding people's money. The other is he was an asset for a secret service, which is the theory I'm more in, I think they probably worked for the secret services of one for more another. Yeah, so this is from our friends at True and On, sort of explain why this is so plausible. I think it's probably true. Obviously I can't confirm that, but the idea is that there's a lot of elements missing in the story, especially of how Jeffrey Epstein got his money. So if you watch the Netflix documentary, which is kind of the official story, the official story is he was a powerful man who could get away with awful crimes because he was so powerful. And it fits into that Me Too narrative, which is obviously true, which is that powerful people can get away with awful things, especially powerful men can get away with awful things. But the alternative explanation is that the reason he was powerful is because he did awful things. So he was useful to elites and the establishment because he had these perversions and the point of his pedo island, as it's called, is that it was fitted with lots of video cameras and he would get compromise, basically on important people for the secret services. And then they could use that for whatever ends they wanted. I think it's kind of convincing. It hasn't been confirmed, but also it hasn't really been addressed properly by many people in the mainstream media because they prefer to go for the conventional narrative. I'm going to go to you on this as in one moment. First of all, I just want to go to two more sections from the deposition which are relevant to this particular theme. So question, do you know if Jeffrey Epstein had any relationship with the US government, either working for the CIA or the FBI in his lifetime? Then her lawyer says objection to the form of the foundation. She answers, I have no knowledge of that. Are you aware that Jeffrey Epstein has told people that he worked for the government to recover stolen funds? Galea Maxwell, I don't recall conversations about that. Has he ever told you he worked for the US government? I don't recollect that. Does Jeffrey Epstein have any affiliation with the Israeli government? Answer, I have no knowledge of that question. Do you know if he ever performed any work for the Israeli government? Answer, I have no knowledge of that question. Have you ever visited Israel with Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, I'm sorry, I don't recollect. Again, someone who's being very cagey with her answers. Clearly these ideas, which are very much under-reported basically, that there are some holes in the official story. There are quite a lot of things actually pointing to that they could have been working for secret services and isn't really explored by the mainstream media in the way that often they don't want to touch these things. Now, the relationship with the Israeli secret services, so Galea Maxwell, her father, Robert Maxwell, wasn't just disgraced because he stole money from the pension pot. He also is quite widely known to have, most probably, in all balance of probabilities, been an agent for Mossad. So there are sort of connections here. It could all join up. Galea Maxwell as well. Whenever anyone says they're a socialite, socialite isn't a job, you've got to remember. So whenever anyone is just famous as a socialite, what do they really do? You have to ask what they really do. And Jeffrey Epstein, again, what does he really do? He was, again, a financier in a socialite, but how did he make his money? They don't explain it. As for the Epstein money, right, how he generated that fabulous amount of wealth in quite a short period of time is contested. But one of the suggestions is that was actually a huge, like, securities fraud, which was investigated by the SEC. And it was his partner that went down for it and Epstein wasn't touched. And that also, again, a huge portion of that money was never recovered. Now, this might confirm your security services theory, which is the reason why he wasn't touched is because he'd become useful as an asset and blah, blah, blah, blah. But do you think that there are explanations for where that money came from? So, I mean, in the official story, he worked at a high-grade public school teaching maths, and then he got given a job by the dad of Bill Barr, who is currently prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein, who's currently in charge of his prosecution, and then in this financial firm. Like, the whole thing, it doesn't really stack up, but we'll go through it in detail soon. But, yeah, this deposition, I think, is showing you that Gilea Maxwell is on very, very shaky ground. And also that the mainstream media aren't asking the most interesting questions about this particular case because they don't want to touch it.