Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges

Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and heiress who became a confidante of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and was later implicated in his alleged sexual crimes, has been arrested by the FBI. She was arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire, around 8:30 a.m. Thursday on charges she conspired...

www.nbcnewyork.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

O/T: Scott also remarks on other cases including Murdaugh and Potter so the whole video is worth a watch as his always are but posted here for the Maxwell comments.

 

[Tresir]

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.

Do you think making them stay till 6 pm is pushing them for a verdict?

Here's the report of yesterday's events from inews. They report the enticement to travel charge is for Jane only. They also state a mistrial could be the result if the jury cannot agree.

Ghislaine Maxwell jury requests transcripts and whiteboard as deliberations resume

Jurors ask for a definition of the term 'enticement' in reference to charge of “enticing a minor to travel”, as court reconvenes after Christmas break

inews.co.uk

"The “enticement” query, is in reference to two counts Ms Maxwell is charged with of “enticing a minor to travel to engage in sex acts” – an offence punishable by up to five years in prison.

Judge Alison Nathan directed the panel to legal instructions provided to them at the beginning of the trial, which said: “the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms Maxwell knowingly persuaded or induced or enticed or coerced an individual to travel in interstate commerce, as alleged in the indictment”.

“The terms ‘persuaded’, ‘induced’, ‘enticed’, or ‘coerced’, have their ordinary, everyday meanings,” the document read.

Judge Nathan added “entice means to attract, induce or lure using hope or desire,”and cited previous court cases.

The enticement charge relates to a witness who used the pseudonym “Jane” and claims she was first sexually abused by Epstein in 1994 when she was 14, and that Ms Maxwell participated in some of their encounters.

On Monday the jury asked for testimony transcripts from several witnesses – including Epstein’s former pilot, David Rodgers, and ”Matt”, a pseudonym for Jane’s ex-boyfriend.

In his testimony, Mr Rodgers – who worked for Epstein for almost 30 years between 1991 and 2019 – described Ms Maxwell as “number two” in Epstein’s hierarchy.

Jane claimed to have travelled aboard Epstein’s private jets on several occasions, including with Prince Andrew.

Last week, the jury requested transcripts of each of the accusers’ testimonies.

The jury must reach a unanimous decision on each count. If they cannot agree, then the judge could declare a mistrial."

 

[Tresir]

 

[Tresir]

The jury appear to be getting the counts muddled and the defence want the judge to correct them. This is explained in the Adam Klasfeld tweet below.

 

[kdg411]

In all honesty no one knows if the jury is confused. The defense attorneys are just doing their job. Hopefully we'll hear something today.

 

[Tresir]

In all honesty no one knows if the jury is confused. The defense attorneys are just doing their job. Hopefully we'll hear something today.

I think they are confused if they are equating Jane with New Mexico. There is no evidence (or count/charge) that Jane travelled to New Mexico.

Mind you I don't blame them as the 6 charges/4 victims/numerous jurisdictions would likely confuse anybody.

Presumably they may agree on some counts but not on others. What would happen then? Would it still be a mistrial on all the counts or just the ones they cannot agree on?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Since we can't see the note, there is no way to know for sure if they are confused. I think the defense is assuming they are but they may just be clarifying it for one juror that is confused and/or none may be confused but are ensuring they have it right. This trial is so selective in what we can and can't see or hear that I think it is one of the worst and most confusing I have ever "not seen".

 

[Guess Who]

looks to me like they might just need clarification in the actual law pertaining to the travel and if it could be included since they traveled to/from NY even though the actual action was in NM

The jury appear to be getting the counts muddled and the defence want the judge to correct them. This is explained in the Adam Klasfeld tweet below.

 

[Tresir]

looks to me like they might just need clarification in the actual law pertaining to the travel and if it could be included since they traveled to/from NY even though the actual action was in NM

I don't think any of the victims travelled from NY to NM. Annie is the only one in the counts who travelled to New Mexico and she travelled commercial ( paid by Epstein) from AZ, I believe. Carolyn did not travel, Kate was not a victim as she was in the jurisdiction of the UK. Jane travelled from Florida to NY and return, supposedly. However I have not found Jane in the flight logs so she may have gone commercial too. Hopefully it gets straightened out.

 

[kdg411]

 

[Guess Who]

I don't think any of the victims travelled from NY to NM. Annie is the only one in the counts who travelled to New Mexico and she travelled commercial ( paid by Epstein) from AZ, I believe. Carolyn did not travel, Kate was not a victim as she was in the jurisdiction of the UK. Jane travelled from Florida to NY and return, supposedly. However I have not found Jane in the flight logs so she may have gone commercial too. Hopefully it gets straightened out.

That we know of... we are missing so much info from this trial that we don't know everything that was testified to or not. They obviously got that info from somewhere.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Even though there are occasionally hung juries, as long as all is above board with jurors, they don't like not doing their job and coming to a conclusion or "failing". Most of us and jurors all know it takes a lot of time, money etc. to bring a case to trial and do not want to cost the victims more time, the taxpayers' more money, etc. I don't lean towards a jury generally being hung even with questions like this from a jury. Most want to do their job, it is how they got on the jury and what they aim for I believe. Jmo.

 

[kdg411]

Citing COVID, judge prods Maxwell jury to work overtime

The jury weighing the fate Ghislaine Maxwell’s fate has told a judge it is “making progress” in reaching a verdict after four full days of deliberations.

apnews.com

Late Monday, the judge told jurors they should expect to deliberate until at least 6 p.m. beginning Tuesday rather than stopping at 5 p.m., as they had earlier.

Fueled by the omicron variant, coronavirus cases in the city have rocketed from an average of about 3,400 a day in the week that ended Dec. 12 to 22,000 in the week that ended Sunday.

Laura Menninger, a defense lawyer, told Nathan on Monday that any suggestion that the jury stay later “is beginning to sound like urging them to hurry up.”

“We would object to trying to urge them to stay later if they are not asking to do so and aren’t expressing any difficulty in proceeding with the deliberations that they are currently undertaking,” Menninger said.

Menninger noted that the jury was continuing to request transcripts of trial testimony and other materials that indicate they are working diligently.

 

[Tresir]

The jury want to go at 5pm and resume tomorrow at 9. They don't want to stay till 6. See tweet below

 

[kdg411]

 

[GrandmaBear]

The jury want to go at 5pm and resume tomorrow at 9. They don't want to stay till 6. See tweet below

Well making progress is very positive news and shows there is no deadlock at all, at least so far.

 

[Tresir]

Well making progress is very positive news and shows there is no deadlock at all, at least so far.

Maybe a verdict tomorrow hopefully.

 

[Tresir]

2 hours ago

What happens if jurors can’t agree on a verdict?​

The jury is now nearly 30 hours into deliberation over the fate of Ms Maxwell.
Jurors must reach a unanimous verdict on each count to come to a conviction or acquittal.
Should they fail to agree, Judge Alison Nathan could move to declare a mistrial, which would force the prosecution to decide whether or not to retry Ms Maxwell.
Megan Sheets28 December 2021 20:00
3 hours ago

Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers file for retrial over juror’s revelations

Lawyers submit documents under seal requesting new trial after juror revealed he was victim of sexual abuse

www.independent.co.uk

From the same link, update on Guiffre v Prince Andrew below. Set for next week.

Hearing set for Prince Andrew to seek dismissal of sex abuse lawsuit​

A US judge on Thursday scheduled a 4 January 2022 hearing where lawyers for Britain’s Prince Andrew are expected to argue for a dismissal of Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit accusing the Duke of York of sexually abusing her when she was under 18.
US District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan issued the scheduling order one day after saying he expected Ms Giuffre’s civil case to go to trial between September and December 2022, provided it is not settled or dismissed.
Ms Giuffre, 38, sued Andrew for unspecified damages in August.
She accused Queen Elizabeth’s second son of forcing her to have sex more than two decades ago at the London home of British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and abusing her at two homes belonging to financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Andrew, 61, has denied Ms Giuffre’s claims, and accused her of trying to profit from accusations against Epstein, who Ms Giuffre says also abused her, and people who knew him. The prince has not been charged with crimes.
Reuters
Megan Sheets28 December 2021 19:

 

[GrandmaBear]

Maybe a verdict tomorrow hopefully.

We can hope it looks like anyhow or at least by New Year's Eve/end of week. Hard to say how many counts/charges are settled on, if any. Progress though is an encouraging word, whatever the verdict.

 

[kdg411]

Dropping this here for reference