In July 2022, as Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team prepared appeals, they fought to introduce testimony from three women who would say they gave non-sexual massages to victims. One of those potential witnesses was Eva Dubin, a physician and the wife of billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin. Documents reveal how Maxwell's attorneys tried to use Dubin's testimony to contradict a victim's account.
According to DOJ-OGR-00011256, Maxwell's defense wanted to call Dubin, along with Michelle Healy and Kelly Bovino, to testify "that they did not participate in group sexualized massages with Jane, Epstein, and the defendant." The prosecution moved to block this testimony.
The Witness List Battle
The government argued against allowing this testimony in a motion filed in the Southern District of New York. Document filings show that Maxwell's team planned to present Dubin as witness number 26 on their list, positioned between other proposed defense witnesses.
Prosecutors contended that Dubin's testimony about what she did not do "in no way contradicts Jane's testimony," according to DOJ-OGR-00011258. The legal argument centered on relevance: just because Dubin might testify that her own massages with the victim were not sexual does not disprove the victim's claims about separate, sexualized encounters.
The Relationship History
Dubin's connection to Jeffrey Epstein stretched back decades. She dated him in the 1980s, before she married Glenn Dubin. After her marriage, the Dubins maintained what they described as a social relationship with Epstein for years. This history placed her in a position to have observed interactions at Epstein's properties.
Her profession as a physician gave potential weight to any testimony she might offer. The defense strategy appeared to hinge on presenting educated, professional women who would describe innocent massage interactions, creating doubt about victim testimony describing sexual abuse during similar scenarios.
The Legal Strategy
Maxwell's attorneys were trying to establish a pattern of non-sexual massage activities involving victims and adult women in Epstein's social circle. The theory seemed to be that if respected professionals like a physician participated in group massage sessions that were purely therapeutic or social, it would undermine testimony about sexual abuse occurring during massages.
The prosecution saw through this approach. Their motion argued that the proposed testimony was irrelevant because the fact that some massages were non-sexual does not mean all massages were non-sexual. The court filings show prosecutors believed this defense tactic would confuse rather than clarify the issues at trial.
The Broader Context
The Dubin family's relationship with Epstein extended beyond Eva's former romantic connection. Virginia Giuffre alleged in other proceedings that she was directed to have sexual contact with Glenn Dubin, an allegation he denied. Their household employed a Swedish woman who became a key witness, someone who observed activities at Epstein's properties and later spoke to investigators.
The family appeared in Epstein's private calendars over many years, indicating regular contact. This wasn't a distant acquaintance from the past but an ongoing social relationship that persisted even after Epstein's 2008 conviction in Florida.
The Medical Professional Question
Dubin's background as a physician raises questions about what she observed or should have observed. Medical professionals receive training in recognizing signs of abuse and exploitation. If she participated in or witnessed massage sessions involving teenage girls and middle-aged men, her professional obligations regarding what she saw become relevant.
The defense wanted to present her as a normalizing presence, someone whose participation in massage activities would suggest innocence. But prosecutors appeared to argue that her testimony about her own experiences could not negate what victims described happening to them in separate incidents.
The Court Decision
Court documents indicate the judge had to weigh whether this testimony would be more prejudicial than probative. The standard question: would testimony from women like Dubin actually help the jury understand what happened, or would it create confusion by introducing evidence about different events involving different people?
The government's position was clear in their motion to preclude this testimony. They argued that attempting to use Dubin's account of non-sexual massages to contradict victim testimony about sexual abuse was logically flawed and legally improper.
The Witness Who Didn't Testify
Court records show that Maxwell was ultimately convicted without this testimony being presented to the jury. Whether the judge granted the government's motion to exclude it, or whether the defense chose not to call these witnesses for strategic reasons, the result was the same: jurors never heard from Dubin about massages with Jane.
Her name appears in the case files as a proposed defense witness, but the substantive testimony she might have offered remains a matter of legal arguments in motions rather than trial transcripts. She represents one of several people in Epstein's social circle who observed activities at his properties but whose full accounts have not entered the public record through sworn testimony.
The documents show how Maxwell's defense team tried to use professional women from Epstein's social world to create doubt about victim accounts. That Eva Dubin, a physician with a decades-long connection to Epstein, was central to this strategy reveals how the defense hoped to leverage respectable associations to counter criminal allegations.