Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There could be a new trial?
She should be released till that happens after a cock up like this.
It should be declared a mis-trial really.


"Some jurors doubted the accounts of two of Maxwell’s accusers, David told Reuters.

All three disclosures raised eyebrows among legal experts who noted that jurors were made to fill out a questionnaire asking them directly: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?”

The query was followed by three separate boxes for “Yes (self),” “Yes (friend or family member),” or “No.”

It is unclear how David answered, as the jury was anonymous and their sensitive personal information was placed under seal. Both the government’s and the defense’s characterizations of David’s voir dire statements appear to be redacted.

According to Reuters, David said that he “flew through” the initial questionnaire and did not recall being asked about those personal experiences with sexual abuse on the form, but he added that he would have answered honestly."

I really cannot imagine that the victims want to be put thru that gruelling testimony again. Also, after all the coverage, there will be no way she could get a fair new trial now.
 
Last edited:
There is a Court Circular that provides details of all Royalty official public engagements going back till 1997.
These are Prince Andrew's official engagements between 5th and 12th March 2001.


12 March 2001

Buckingham Palace​


The Duke of York this evening attended the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme Graduation Dinner at Speaker's House, Palace of Westminster, London SW1.

5 March 2001

Buckingham Palace​


The Duke of York, Colonel-in-Chief, The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's), this morning visited the 1st Battalion at Mooltan Barracks, Tidworth, Hampshire
 
There could be a new trial?
She should be released till that happens after a cock up like this.
It should be declared a mis-trial really.


"Some jurors doubted the accounts of two of Maxwell’s accusers, David told Reuters.

All three disclosures raised eyebrows among legal experts who noted that jurors were made to fill out a questionnaire asking them directly: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?”

The query was followed by three separate boxes for “Yes (self),” “Yes (friend or family member),” or “No.”

It is unclear how David answered, as the jury was anonymous and their sensitive personal information was placed under seal. Both the government’s and the defense’s characterizations of David’s voir dire statements appear to be redacted.

According to Reuters, David said that he “flew through” the initial questionnaire and did not recall being asked about those personal experiences with sexual abuse on the form, but he added that he would have answered honestly."

I really cannot imagine that the victims want to be put thru that gruelling testimony again.
A retrial is at the discretion of Judge Nathan only after she reviews the arguments provided by the government & defense. Federal Judge's usually don't immediately rule on a mistrial rather than elicite both sides for their position first.

Just because a juror made this comment doesn't mean that the entire panel was influenced or swayed . That is why the Judge granted counsel to the juror.
 
There is a Court Circular that provides details of all Royalty official public engagements going back till 1997.
These are Prince Andrew's official engagements between 5th and 12th March 2001.


12 March 2001

Buckingham Palace​


The Duke of York this evening attended the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme Graduation Dinner at Speaker's House, Palace of Westminster, London SW1.

5 March 2001

Buckingham Palace​


The Duke of York, Colonel-in-Chief, The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's), this morning visited the 1st Battalion at Mooltan Barracks, Tidworth, Hampshire
WOW! So, everyone knows their every move in public.

Then this does raise a lof of doubts about the events at Tramp's however it doesn't negate that he was at Ghislaine's home because the picture shows otherwise.

We don't know, as of current that the lawsuit is specific to any one of the three locations she claims this occurred. It would be inteteresting to know what the burden of proof is in a case such as this.
 

Just came across this article. Pretty funny reviews.
Now that is hilarious!
 
He has also claimed he was with one of his daughters on the night of the tryst, having taken her to a Pizza Express restaurant, followed by an early night at home. But in 2020, witness Shukri Walker came forward and said she remembered Andrew being at the club that night, because at one point she apologized for stepping on his foot.
 
WOW! So, everyone knows their every move in public.

Then this does raise a lof of doubts about the events at Tramp's however it doesn't negate that he was at Ghislaine's home because the picture shows otherwise.

We don't know, as of current that the lawsuit is specific to any one of the three locations she claims this occurred. It would be inteteresting to know what the burden of proof is in a case such as this.
Yes, part of her story has always been that she danced with him at Tramp's but as the age of consent in UK is 16, it may be the NY incident that is being claimed as the sexual abuse. I guess we will have to wait to hear the specifics.
 
Defence requests a retrial in Maxwell case. Will it be just the counts on which she was found guilty?

Judge Nathan will determine if there is a retrial. If that were to occur then it would be a retrial on all charges. The Judge now has to determine if any jurors misrepresented themselves on the questionaire. And it will take at least a month to make that determination.
 
I think she has a good chance of claiming a mistrial over this. If this juror hadn't helped the doubters to convict her, she would actually be free now. After all, she is currently still incarcerated having been convicted under dubious circumstances, especially with the pressuring of the jury by the judge to hurry up or sit over the new year holiday.

 
IF he answered the question correctly and nobody for the defense or prosecution questioned this, it seems that there would be no excuse for a mistrial. That is a big IF though. It would also be important exactly how the question was worded in nuances of how it was answered.
 
IF he answered the question correctly and nobody for the defense or prosecution questioned this, it seems that there would be no excuse for a mistrial. That is a big IF though. It would also be important exactly how the question was worded in nuances of how it was answered.
He doesn't even seem to remember such a question.
 
He doesn't even seem to remember such a question.
depending on how many questions on it, I may or may not either. Even though I had to take a test, I sure can't tell you what every question was or every subject covered, but I know that I got a 98 on it. Another person that took it was asking how I answered a particular problem and I didn't remember that question. Doesn't mean I didn't do it though. I did know exactly the question that I got wrong though.
 
Last edited:
He doesn't even seem to remember such a question.
Since he retained an attorney rather quickly Judge Nathan might see this as his being proactive & not an intentional disruption to Federal court proceedings.

To say one juror swayed an entire panel after the amount of time they deliberated is questionable. moo
 
Since he retained an attorney rather quickly Judge Nathan might see this as his being proactive & not an intentional disruption to Federal court proceedings.

To say one juror swayed an entire panel after the amount of time they deliberated is questionable. moo
I'm just quoting the juror himself. It all sounds really strange that he would speak out about this and say how he made some jurors who had doubts about the testimonies change their minds. First, why even speak out about it, second, his personal experience appears to be what convinced them rather than the evidence from the trial, and third, who knows whether he has really remembered his experiences or they are false memories. His experience is not relevant as far as I can see. I think he got the lawyer because he knows he could be in trouble. Eg perjury maybe.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,032
Messages
243,997
Members
982
Latest member
TonyGutter
Back
Top Bottom