| Page 2 of 4 < > |
'D.C. Madam' Case Generating More Winces Than Thrills
Deborah Jeane Palfrey contends that her company was "a legal, high-end erotic fantasy service" with clients "from the more refined walks of life."
(By Jay Mallin -- Bloomberg News)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
"A subject more appropriate for a private venue" was how prosecutor Catherine Connelly described the case in her opening statement to the jurors in U.S. District Court. "You may find some of the topics embarrassing."
If they do, they're not showing it. They listen patiently, expressionless much of the day, as if they've heard all this before.
Prosecutor: "Did you ever have a discussion with Julia about your menstrual cycle?"
Ex-call girl: "Yes."
Prosecutor: "Could you tell us a little about that, please?"
Palfrey, 52, who ran her Washington area business, Pamela Martin & Associates, from 1993 to 2006, contends that the company was "a legal, high-end erotic fantasy service" with clients "from the more refined walks of life." Her escorts, who were supposed to engage only in "quasi-sexual" game-playing in homes and hotels, were required to be college-educated, well-mannered, conversant in current affairs and tastefully dressed for appointments, Palfrey says.
While running the service from her Northern California home, she says, she was unaware that her escorts were performing sex acts with clients for money. But the U.S. attorney's office alleges that she knew all about it, that it was the true nature of her business.
The escorts collected fees from the clients and mailed Palfrey a percentage of the money in postal money orders. A postal inspector testified that authorities began investigating Palfrey after noticing a suspicious pattern of money orders being mailed to her in California from the Washington area.
Another postal inspector said investigators seized documents at Palfrey's home showing that she employed 132 women as Washington area escorts over the years. Thirteen have testified, two more might be called as witnesses this week, and Judge James Robertson is considering allowing prosecutors to enter hundreds of money orders into evidence, which would put the other 117 names on the public record.
How the unfortunate ones were chosen to appear publicly in the case is unclear. They were issued subpoenas and given immunity that prevents them from invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declining to testify.
They weren't happy.
Courtroom clerk: "Ma'am, please state your name."
