From the prosecution yesterday: “All you need to do is follow the mail. The crimes that are charged here are financial in nature,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Connolly said.
From the defense yesterday: Palfrey made her employees sign contracts, which stipulated that they would be fired for engaging in illegal sexual activities. Preston showed jurors a copy of the contract and said: "That's not what illegal businesses do."
Day two of Palfrey's trial. Four witnesses for the prosecution testified today:
Three self-described call girls testified in federal court today that they engaged in sex for money with male clients on dozens of occasions after being dispatched to homes and hotel rooms in the Washington area by the escort service run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
An Arlington County man also appeared as a government witness in Palfrey's trial, testifying that he used the escort service about 50 times and had sex with female escorts on all but about five occasions.
All four of today's witnesses were compelled to testify after being subpoenaed and being granted immunity from prosecution by the government.
The women testified that they answered ads for Palfrey's now-defunct business, Pamela Martin and Associates, and were employed after submitting photos and biographical information and meeting with longtime clients of the firm who served as "testers," as prosecutors described them.
On cross-examination, her attorney, Preston Burton, asked the women whether they and Palfrey ever explicitly discussed engaging in sex acts for money. Each replied no.
All four of today's witnesses were compelled to testify after being subpoenaed and being granted immunity from prosecution by the government.
The women testified that they answered ads for Palfrey's now-defunct business, Pamela Martin and Associates, and were employed after submitting photos and biographical information and meeting with longtime clients of the firm who served as "testers," as prosecutors described them.
On cross-examination, her attorney, Preston Burton, asked the women whether they and Palfrey ever explicitly discussed engaging in sex acts for money. Each replied no.
But they said the alleged illegal nature of the business was implied. "This was a criminal enterprise," one of the women testified. "We knew why we were there."
The trial in U.S. District Judge James Robertson's courtroom is expected to last three weeks.
2 comments:
Mr. Kitty let's make a bet and when I win you can get the money from MaMa to send me.
Now this case will turn into a circus with Vitters crying and others. Now the trial will be short because the case ended with the contracts. Now any American knows people go out side their jobs for extra money. As I see it the girls did their job but when clients wanted sex they went the extra mile for personal profit. Yes the girls still met with the clients per the contract but when they followed up with having sex well they kept that money for themselves. They did give Jean her fee but for the amount paid for sex yes the girls kept that for themselves. Now here we have educated woman so being dumb is out of the question. I visited Maryland when I was younger. My sister asked me to go to a store while she looked for a parking space. I saw young pretty girls standing on the corner. Like a dummy I asked them what they were waiting for. The three girls said they were prostitutes. I asked by such pretty girls wanted to do this for a living. All three said they were college students one was even a graduate student all paying for their tuition for college. Now if that was back in the 60's nothing has changed today. Men have been hiring prostitutes from the time of the bible so let's get real. As for the Rico Act when the trail shows payments from employees for Jeans share that ends the Rico charge. As for prostitution we have the signed contracts.
So Mr. Kitty I need about 25 million to settle this matter I hope the certified check is in the mail if not you'll be hearing from my lawyer Bill Biloxi.
Jackie's scenario sure does make sense-why else they have been granted immunity-all FOUR of them? C'mon, this isn't a Gambino family operation we're talking about here. RICO for this kind of case was always a stretch, a "liberal" interpretion of the law, if you will. lol
Post a Comment