Click on video.
In court Thursday, Rebecca Dickinson described her six months of being paid for sex. For a 90-minute appointment, she received $275. She said she kept $130 and $145 went to Palfrey. She didn't like it, so she quit. Dickinson said she tried to go back to the service but declared bankruptcy instead.
Another former escort, Amanda Hardaway, testified Thursday about her job interview with Palfrey. Hardaway said Palfrey told her it was not just having dinner with men. Hardaway said it was understood what was meant.
In court Thursday, Rebecca Dickinson described her six months of being paid for sex. For a 90-minute appointment, she received $275. She said she kept $130 and $145 went to Palfrey. She didn't like it, so she quit. Dickinson said she tried to go back to the service but declared bankruptcy instead.
Another former escort, Amanda Hardaway, testified Thursday about her job interview with Palfrey. Hardaway said Palfrey told her it was not just having dinner with men. Hardaway said it was understood what was meant.
So far, the prosecution has been unable to produce any witnesses who can straight out say or prove that Palfrey knew her escorts were performing sex acts.
And here are some of testimonies and bizarre questioning from the trial presented by the government that would make you wondering why is the government wasting taxpayers' money on a weak case? Here is a snippet the prosecution's treatment of their own witnesses.
Testimony of Rhona Reiss:
The prosecutor, Daniel Butler, had the woman spell her name slowly and clearly, then had her talk about when she was "aggressive" with a client, when she was "more submissive," when she had a difficult client ("he tried to remove the condom") and how often she got "intimate."
"What do you mean by 'intimate'? "
The soon-to-be-former naval officer looked at him in disbelief. "Touching, caressing," she explained.
"What happened" after that? he demanded.
"Sex."
"What type of sex?"
"Sometimes it was oral sex; usually it was normal."
"Normal?" Butler persisted.
"I'm not sure what you're getting at," the stricken witness pleaded.
"What's normal sex?" Butler again demanded
Butler pressed on with more humiliating questions until the judge cut him off. "That's enough," Robertson said. Minutes later, the dazed woman was helped out of the room.
From the audience, it appears that prosecutors have presented a solid case that the alleged Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, did indeed run a prostitution ring. A better question, however, is why they bothered. Prosecutors say the prostitution ring generated all of $2 million over 13 years -- small potatoes for a federal racketeering and money-laundering case that could ruin the lives of 132 women.
It's a question that evidently has occurred to the judge. Yesterday, prosecutors unpacked eight binders full of money-order receipts that reveal the identity of most, if not all, of the Madam's escorts. "You want to make public the names of all the employees?" Robertson asked prosecutor Catherine Connelly. "Is there no limit to the collateral damage?"
It's a question that evidently has occurred to the judge. Yesterday, prosecutors unpacked eight binders full of money-order receipts that reveal the identity of most, if not all, of the Madam's escorts. "You want to make public the names of all the employees?" Robertson asked prosecutor Catherine Connelly. "Is there no limit to the collateral damage?"
Evidently not. Connelly said the names had to be released. "Unfortunately."
It's particularly unfortunate when considering what the former escorts earned for this public disgrace: $130 for their 90-minute "calls." Add in travel time, and these sex workers toiled for perhaps $40 an hour.
Yet prosecutors act as if they've caught a major organized crime figure. An IRS agent yesterday showed the jury photos of her home -- a mop and cornflakes box in evidence -- and recited Palfrey's sewer bill, electricity payment, car maintenance and check to Office Depot. One juror's eyes closed, and her head dropped. Others yawned. "I'm not sure why the jury needs to see any of this," the judge pointed out. "Waste of time."
The same might be said of the rest of the case.
Wednesday, Connelly was grilling the 63-year-old former escort. "Did you specifically discuss what happened when you went in the shower?" the prosecutor wanted to know.
The witness explained, "I was having sex."
The witness explained, "I was having sex."
"What would happen if you were menstruating?" Connelly asked.
The prosecutors also asked the women how many calls they went on and how many resulted in sex. Kristen testified that she had sex on 80 percent of her calls. For Mary, it was 75 to 80 percent. "I'm referring to both intercourse and oral sex," a prosecutor clarified. "Does that change your number?"
Understandably, the women were in a wretched state as they took the stand. A young former escort on Wednesday broke down in tears; the court clerk handed her a box of tissues. The defense lawyer, Preston Burton, noticed how miserable another witness looked. "You're not particularly happy to be here," he observed kindly.
The prosecutors also asked the women how many calls they went on and how many resulted in sex. Kristen testified that she had sex on 80 percent of her calls. For Mary, it was 75 to 80 percent. "I'm referring to both intercourse and oral sex," a prosecutor clarified. "Does that change your number?"
Understandably, the women were in a wretched state as they took the stand. A young former escort on Wednesday broke down in tears; the court clerk handed her a box of tissues. The defense lawyer, Preston Burton, noticed how miserable another witness looked. "You're not particularly happy to be here," he observed kindly.
"Who would be?" she answered.
Yesterday, the naval officer struggled to compose herself as she entered the room. The prosecutor suggested a glass of water. "Move a little closer to that microphone, please," coaxed the judge.
"Take two deep breaths and relax. Everything's going to be okay."
My thoughts and summation of week one of Palfrey trial will be posted for Saturday.
5 comments:
This is a sad day for Justice but then again we have no Justice System anymore. Even the Judge knows this is a fake case. The jurors are getting tired of listening to and what's so sad is these Prosecutors were allowed to destroy all these people's lives. The questions that were asked to these ladies was against the Values of any human. What sicko would ask about a woman's period until their sick. Not one word about how Rico fits in this case. The Prosecutors can't even find guilt. These ladies saw the money they made wasn't enough and give sex to the clients for self profit. Some woman even left and had their own services. One lady left and then wanted to come back. Yet in 13 years of business these educated woman signed a contract saying they would only follow the instructions in the ad.
I do understand why the Prosecutors did this. They had to have the trial or dismiss the case. So much evil in this Justice System that these people would destroy so many people. I really do hope God comes in and handles this one and make sure that those who did this pay.
I don't know if it is a sad day for justice or not, but it is a showcase for stupid, self-centered, ass of a prosecution team.
This looks and smells like a religious zealot using his position to rid the universe of morals he disagrees with. His actions turn his own words into lies:
--The prosecution statement is that this is about money laundering and RICO. What do these kind of degrading questions have to do with this? 'Did you have sex?" "Did palfrey expect it as part of your employment with her?" fine. After that it is nothing more than a conscious move to injure everyone he can even after "granting them immunity". For that alone he should rot 100 years in some forgotten dungeon.
--Release the women’s' names?!? What possible point does that make except punish them? Too bad the judge didn't tell him straight away "NO! And you are an evil person."
I suspect palfrey is indeed guilty. But this trial is obviously not about that at all.
Does anyone know the e-mail or court address of the prosecutors. I have no illusions, but nevertheless I would like to send them some questions whether it was worthwhile to have this trial for two people dead in exchance. I think many people should ask them.
Post a Comment