Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like Judge Nathan is struggling with the jury questions. If they are not sure what enticement is, do they know what trafficking and conspiracy are? Also do they know the definition of grooming, sexual assault, sexual abuse, consent, rape etc.
 
I'm not surprised because many accusers mentioned that Epstein's NY & FL home were filled with cameras. If there is more evidence then where is it?
I am muddled with all the info in this case but some time back on this thread, wasn't it said in an article there were tapes and evidence of and on people and it disappeared? It also rang a distant bell of something about this some years back I seem to recall hearing. I sure can't swear to it though as TMI to keep track of.
 
Parkinson was also called to Epstein's same Palm Beach home 2003, for a reported burglary. Reminder: That's the year Epstein's ex-house manager Juan Alessi testified that he stole money from his former boss. Jurors requested Alessi's testimony before the holiday break.


2

43

279

Show this thread



Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
1h

Ghislaine Maxwell's jurors now want the testimony of Gregory Parkinson, a retired police officer who told the jury about the Oct. 20, 2005, search of Jeffrey Epstein's house.






Show this thread

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
1h

In part, Judge Nathan has referred jurors to her instructions on page 21. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21165303/finaljurychargeicp.pdf…
Image


My comment - I don't even remember this testimony being reported. Will check. Was he the one who took the video?
 
Markle can be relied upon to tell the truth apparently.

No time to read this right now but what would Megan Markle have to do with anything in those years?

And this relates to the lawsuit not this case here, at first I thought it meant she would testify in this case.

I am beginning to think news sources are putting out all of this extraneous info just to confuse the case that is going on. This isn't the lawsuit trial, it is a criminal trial and even if things may intersect, hearing Megan Markle is going to testify in the civil suit helps determine nothing of a verdict in the criminal case here.

It is getting hard to tell the difference between tabloid news and real news these days and I wonder where the real news sources went to.

Not impressed with the media coverage whatsoever. Not in any way, shape or form.
 
It looks like Judge Nathan is struggling with the jury questions. If they are not sure what enticement is, do they know what trafficking and conspiracy are? Also do they know the definition of grooming, sexual assault, sexual abuse, consent, rape etc.
I sure don't know the legal definition of enticement but a neighbor's pool is an enticement to a child. I know this from various things in lawsuits through the years or insurance claims. So in some ways it is a homeowner's fault if a neighbor's child ends up in your pool. Not 100 percent your fault but there is enticement on a general basis.

Taking that and just logic, I see enticement as the jet setting, the clothes, the money, the lifestyle in this case... Paying for school, etc.

I am curious though to hear the specific federal legal meaning of enticement in regard to this case.

The jury is apparently being quite thoughtful, methodical and thorough.
 
No time to read this right now but what would Megan Markle have to do with anything in those years?

And this relates to the lawsuit not this case here, at first I thought it meant she would testify in this case.

I am beginning to think news sources are putting out all of this extraneous info just to confuse the case that is going on. This isn't the lawsuit trial, it is a criminal trial and even if things may intersect, hearing Megan Markle is going to testify in the civil suit helps determine nothing of a verdict in the criminal case here.

It is getting hard to tell the difference between tabloid news and real news these days and I wonder where the real news sources went to.

Not impressed with the media coverage whatsoever. Not in any way, shape or form.
The Dershowitz and Prince Andrew cases I posted are both real suits initiated by Guiffre's lawyer Boies, one of the lawyers that Judge Nathan would not allow the defence to call. If convicted, this could be reasons for appeal, in my opinion. Just scroll past as they may not be relevant if she is not convicted. This was Guiffre's lawyer saying this about Markle, just to get his case in the news before the 3rd Jan.

Also Guiffre (nee Roberts) is the person who actually introduced Carolyn (victim 4) to the Epstein household and subsequently had sex with Epstein in front of Carolyn (if I am remembering Carolyn's testimony correctly).
 
Last edited:
The Dershowitz and Prince Andrew cases I posted are both real suits initiated by Guiffre's lawyer Boies, one of the lawyers that Judge Nathan would not allow the defence to call. If convicted, this could be reasons for appeal, in my opinion. Just scroll past as they may not be relevant if she is not convicted. This was Guiffre's lawyer saying this about Markle, just to get his case in the news before the 3rd Jan.
I get that and I get they all intersect in some ways and it isn't your posts, it is that the media is full of extraneous stuff right now during this trial which I guess makes sense since it relates to the same people, etc. but it is a confusing enough case with players and time periods and victims. Just saying it makes it harder to follow in some respects. No big deal at all-- I don't have time to read it all anyhow. Not directed at you.
 
I get that and I get they all intersect in some ways and it isn't your posts, it is that the media is full of extraneous stuff right now during this trial which I guess makes sense since it relates to the same people, etc. but it is a confusing enough case with players and time periods and victims. Just saying it makes it harder to follow in some respects. No big deal at all-- I don't have time to read it all anyhow. Not directed at you.
Exactly! U.S. MSM isn't reporting on this story it's the European news that's keeping us somewhat informed. However, with that said some of those news agencies are known tabloids & sell sensationalism. It was one of these organizations that bought the rights to publish the photo of Virginia Giuffre with Prince Andrew.
 
Exactly! U.S. MSM isn't reporting on this story it's the European news that's keeping us somewhat informed. However, with that said some of those news agencies are known tabloids & sell sensationalism. It was one of these organizations that bought the rights to publish the photo of Virginia Giuffre with Prince Andrew.
Yep. Mostly tabloid stuff and the UK etc. is right up there or worse with tabloids and sensationalistic news than we are and imo our MSM has basically turned into that in some cases. I don't even know why I click into Daily Mail articles. I did so earlier today and I gave up with being able to scroll. I swear it is a good ten minutes of the page locked up loading b.s. before I can read an article at their links. I don't have that problem with every news site but theirs, count on it.

I am irritated at the lack of coverage here and the fact that a high percentage of the articles from over there don't even relate to the trial going on. I also see little excuse these days for almost all legal proceedings not being public or televised or media covered and at minimum recorded. The push should be for public and open proceedings and I swear sometimes it is going backwards and all progress is disappearing. Now that there is easy or cheap camera coverage, things like Zoom, etc., one would think it would be more open but not in all cases...

Without getting into politics but mentioning politics, why isn't it being covered well here? Too many presidents, big name people, and agencies etc., questionable deals and more...? I doubt we even know the half of the truth or facts or how big. And yet what we do know is big enough... Imo.
 
Now the jury want a copy of the pilot's testimony. I don't think they will be done today.
They seem to be using a fine tooth comb on this case. I don't think most people can knock that, they seem to be taking their job seriously. On the other hand, they could be trying to convince a hold out or two in one direction or another.
 
Quite a lot of tweeting regarding jury communications. This is the most recent tweet posted and there are quite a lot before this.

 
This is from Inner City tweets

In US v. Ghislaine Maxwell Case As Jury Asks Of New Mexico Flights Judge Says 6 PM is New Default​

Maxwell's lawyers said, Don't rush the jury. Judge Nathan replied, I used this language last week and will do so again, over your objection. #MaximumMaxwell​





On December 27 mid-morning the jury returned and sent out a note, asking for office supplies, "Matt's" testimony and a definition of enticement. Inner City Press live tweeted it here, 9 am live stream here, podcast here.

On December 27 near 3 pm, the jury sent out a note asking for the testimony of Epstein pilot David Rogers. Judge Nathan told the parties she is considering telling or encouraging the jurors to deliberate longer hours and "complete the task." Inner City Press live tweeted here, 2d podcast here.

On December 27 nearing 5 pm, there was a question from the jury, and an instruction by Judge Nathan. Inner City Press live tweeted it here:

Update of 4:30 pm - Judge Nathan is back, with a jury note, and lets / tells counsel to take a photo of it. (Photos banned in Federal courts?)

[Note: It's a convoluted note involving Jane, if if the jury can, if it makes certain findings, still render a guilty verdict.] Ghislaine Maxwell is back at the defense table; lawyers at both sides at studying their photo(s) of the jury note.

Judge Nathan: The jurors also say they want to end today at 5 pm. We'll take that up after we address responding to this note.

Prosecutors ask for "one more moment" before arguments on how to respond to the "Jane note." Assistant US Attorney: Our proposal would be to refer the jurors to the instructions. We find the question confusing. Defense lawyer

Everdell: We want the answer to be No .
Everdell: The jurors are clearly separating in their minds the flight to, versus from, New Mexico. There is no motivating purpose to the return trip. It was not for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity, the return flight. The flight there, maybe

AUSA: It's not clear what flight they are talking about. Everdell: The only evidence in the record we have is from the flight log. [It seems that has been left heavily redacted]

Judge Nathan: I'm inclined to reply, I can't response other then point to the count in the indictment and instruction. Everdell: Page 28, instruction 21. [Inner City Press put the jury charge online

Judge Nathan: Is it your contention that to convict on this count the jury would have to find that the defendant was involved in this aspect of this flight. It's difficult to parse this question

Judge Nathan: I don't know how much weight to put on that comma placement [in the jury question]. I can't answer this ambiguous question "No." The only solution here is to direct them to the full instruction on page 28.

Maxwell's lawyer Bobbi Sternheim: Your Honor needs to make clear to their juror what state comes after the word "New" - they need to find a violation of New York law. Judge Nathan: I do not know what this question means. So I will just direct them back to the count.

Judge Nathan: I am referring them to the instruction. Everdell: We reiterate our prior objection. Judge Nathan: I'll sent the response with the CSO [Court Security Officer]. Now, on extending the time? AUSA: You should tell them to expect an extended day tomorrow.

Defense: We think urging the jurors to stay late sends them a message that they need to hurry up and decide. AUSA: It is within the Court's discretion. Judge Nathan: I'll tell them if deliberation is not complete tomorrow, I'd like them to stay at least to 6 pm

Judge Nathan: I'll take them they could stay later than 6 pm... unless they indicate to Ms. Williams that it's a hardship. Defense: Any suggestion that they should complete their decision -- Judge Nathan: I used this language last week.

Judge Nathan: I clearly have discretion to set the default schedule. And I do it over your objection. Defense: We ask you not include that phrase. Judge Nathan: I'll use the same language I used last week. I'll add, Take all the time you need. Bring in the jury.
 
What is taking so long on this.
I think there will be doubt regarding both Jane (regarding what age she was when she went to the Lion King Broadway production, which began in Oct 1997) and Carolyn, who was recruited by Roberts and did not travel. There appears to be no evidence Maxwell sent any lingerie to the victims or organised any travel. Jane moved to NY with her family in '97 to attend school. The other two victims were not minors in the jurisdictions involved. Jury is going over the 6 counts for each victim and it has only been 3 days so far. My thoughts are that there are doubts about the evidence and the responses are not unanimous so far. 6 counts times 4 possible victim/witnesses x 12 jurors gives many permutations. It seems like it could be impossible to get agreement. So could it be a mistrial if they cannot get unanimity?
 
I think there will be doubt regarding both Jane (regarding what age she was when she went to the Lion King Broadway production, which began in Oct 1997) and Carolyn, who was recruited by Roberts and did not travel. There appears to be no evidence Maxwell sent any lingerie to the victims or organised any travel. Jane moved to NY with her family in '97 to attend school. The other two victims were not minors in the jurisdictions involved. Jury is going over the 6 counts for each victim and it has only been 3 days so far. My thoughts are that there are doubts about the evidence and the responses are not unanimous so far. 6 counts times 4 possible victim/witnesses x 12 jurors gives many permutations. It seems like it could be impossible to get agreement. So could it be a mistrial if they cannot get unanimity?
I too think there's some doubt however I don't think pushing the jury for a verdict is appropriate. Judge Nathan is giving them all the time they need to come to a unanimous decision. If this ends up as a hung jury I won't be surprised.
 
We are used to fairly quick verdicts within one to three days I would say in most cases but this is a multiple charge case with a lot of info and things to get straight. There have also been a lot of questions and requests for information.

I'm hopeful they are in agreement perhaps on many of the counts but maybe have a sticking point on a couple. They haven't indicated they can't reach a consensus so hopefully they are getting there slowly but surely.
 
Scott Reisch, who I think most respect, with comments on this case just shortly into the video a minute or two.

He says that it is almost unheard of that both sides agree on a transcript certified to be submitted to the jury on request but says he guesses when you are Ghislaine Maxwell and a high profile case, "exceptions" are made. I found this interesting as I did not know it was a rarity and I respect his opinion and as we know he is a practicing defense attorney. Paraphrased by me but that's the gist of it. He also says it sounds like someone is hunkered down on the jury quite possibly so they are going through everything, paraphrased by me again.

 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,032
Messages
243,975
Members
982
Latest member
TonyGutter
Back
Top Bottom