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

 

[Tresir]

Another MSM juror interview- a little more info about why they did not find Maxwell guilty on count 2, the enticement charge.

If there is a mistrial and another trial, presumably that count will not be charged again.

I do find it strange that out of the many underage victims, only Jane and Carolyn testified in this prosecution. Does anyone know why that was? Eg were there no other minor victims implicating Maxwell except for Carolyn and Jane? Did others not want to testify? Or were other victims not minors? We are talking about a period of time from 1991 till at least 2008, so 17 years by my estimate.

Sorry but I didn't post the link. Here it is. The Independent newspaper this time.

Maxwell juror opens up to The Independent: ‘This verdict is for all the victims’

‘For those who testified, for those who came forward and for those who haven’t come forward. I’m glad that Maxwell has been held accountable,’ a juror in Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial tells Lucia Osborne-Crowley

www.independent.co.uk

 

[kdg411]

Another MSM juror interview- a little more info about why they did not find Maxwell guilty on count 2, the enticement charge.

If there is a mistrial and another trial, presumably that count will not be charged again.

I do find it strange that out of the many underage victims, only Jane and Carolyn testified in this prosecution. Does anyone know why that was? Eg were there no other minor victims implicating Maxwell except for Carolyn and Jane? Did others not want to testify? Or were other victims not minors? We are talking about a period of time from 1991 till at least 2008, so 17 years by my estimate.

If there is a mistrial, the entire case would be tried again as it was before with the same counts charged in the indictment. No charges can or would be 'voided' (for lack of a better description).

I believe the government selected testimony from witnesses who could corroborate the charges that were handed down in the indictment.

 

[Tresir]

If there is a mistrial, the entire case would be tried again as it was before with the same counts charged in the indictment. No charges can or would be 'voided' (for lack of a better description).

I believe the government selected testimony from witnesses who could corroborate the charges that were handed down in the indictment.

But only 2 over all that period of time, 1 of whom was introduced by Roberts and the other was both Epstein and Maxwell with her dog being the attraction and initial conversation starter.

(BTW I neglected to post the link on my previous post. Have edited and added it now.)

 

[Tresir]

If there is a mistrial, the entire case would be tried again as it was before with the same counts charged in the indictment. No charges can or would be 'voided' (for lack of a better description).

I believe the government selected testimony from witnesses who could corroborate the charges that were handed down in the indictment.

Wouldn't that be considered double jeopardy on the charge on which she was found not guilty? I am sure they have no argument on the not guilty count. Presumably, if she had been found not guilty on all the counts, the defence would not even be asking for a mistrial.

 

[Guess Who]

Wouldn't that be considered double jeopardy on the charge on which she was found not guilty? I am sure they have no argument on the not guilty count. Presumably, if she had been found not guilty on all the counts, the defence would not even be asking for a mistrial.

Nope because a mistrial nixes that.

 

[Tresir]

Here is the Fox news link that states a " person familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity " stated the juror did not disclose his victim status.

Ghislaine Maxwell juror did not disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse during selection process

The juror behind Ghislaine Maxwell's bid for a new trial said he was not a victim of sexual abuse on a jury selection questionnaire – an omission which could lead to the British socialite's conviction being overturned, Fox News has learned.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Guess Who]

Here is the Fox news link that states a " person familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity " stated the juror did not disclose his victim status.

Ghislaine Maxwell juror did not disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse during selection process

The juror behind Ghislaine Maxwell's bid for a new trial said he was not a victim of sexual abuse on a jury selection questionnaire – an omission which could lead to the British socialite's conviction being overturned, Fox News has learned.

www.foxnews.com

If true and this info is supposed to be sealed, this person is most likely in more trouble than the juror.

 

[kdg411]

But only 2 over all that period of time, 1 of whom was introduced by Roberts and the other was both Epstein and Maxwell with her dog being the attraction and initial conversation starter.

(BTW I neglected to post the link on my previous post. Have edited and added it now.)

Thank you for the link.

What stood out in that article was the following statement.

David believes this helped the jury understand that it’s possible that these women were telling the truth.

 

[Guess Who]

Thank you for the link.

What stood out in that article was the following statement.

David believes this helped the jury understand that it’s possible that these women were telling the truth.

I'm not seeing it as he "convinced" them of anything, but simply opened their minds a bit.

 

[kdg411]

Maxwell Verdict Is Clouded After Juror’s Disclosure of Past Sexual Abuse (Published 2022)

The revelation, which the juror said figured in the deliberations at Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, led prosecutors to seek an inquiry and the defense to call for a new trial.

www.nytimes.com

One immediate question in an inquiry would most likely be how the two jurors responded to the questionnaires, sent to hundreds of prospective jurors in the weeks before the trial, in Federal District Court in Manhattan.
The form included questions on a range of topics, including whether prospective jurors or members of their families had experienced sexual abuse. The prospective jurors’ responses remain under seal.

The juror who was interviewed by the other news outlets told Reuters he “flew through” the initial questionnaire and did not recall being asked about his personal experiences with sexual abuse. He said he would have answered such questions honestly, Reuters reported.

He and the second juror both made it to the next round of jury selection, appearing in court in November. There, in a process known as voir dire, Judge Nathan, drawing on their questionnaire answers, asked them several follow-up questions. Neither was asked in that setting whether they had been sexually abused, nor did they say that they had been.

Judge Nathan’s questioning of several prospective jurors, including some who wound up on the panel, indicated that they had answered “yes” to a question about whether they or a loved one had ever been the victim of a crime.

*According to this article the two jurors who discussed their personal history during deliberations didn't in and of itself pose any legal issue.

What would essentially be a retrial is if Judge Nathan would have asked them on voir dire about any personal history of sexual abuse and they lied under oath. Then, this wouldn't be arguable. It would immediately result in a mistrial. However, per this article that question wasn't asked so the jurors did not perjure themselves.

 

[Tresir]

If true and this info is supposed to be sealed, this person is most likely in more trouble than the juror.

I figured it must be one of the lawyers. Who else would have seen the questionaire answers?

 

[Tresir]

Thank you for the link.

What stood out in that article was the following statement.

David believes this helped the jury understand that it’s possible that these women were telling the truth.

Except for count 2 which he couldn't convince them about.

 

[Tresir]

Maxwell Verdict Is Clouded After Juror’s Disclosure of Past Sexual Abuse (Published 2022)

The revelation, which the juror said figured in the deliberations at Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, led prosecutors to seek an inquiry and the defense to call for a new trial.

www.nytimes.com

One immediate question in an inquiry would most likely be how the two jurors responded to the questionnaires, sent to hundreds of prospective jurors in the weeks before the trial, in Federal District Court in Manhattan.
The form included questions on a range of topics, including whether prospective jurors or members of their families had experienced sexual abuse. The prospective jurors’ responses remain under seal.

The juror who was interviewed by the other news outlets told Reuters he “flew through” the initial questionnaire and did not recall being asked about his personal experiences with sexual abuse. He said he would have answered such questions honestly, Reuters reported.

He and the second juror both made it to the next round of jury selection, appearing in court in November. There, in a process known as voir dire, Judge Nathan, drawing on their questionnaire answers, asked them several follow-up questions. Neither was asked in that setting whether they had been sexually abused, nor did they say that they had been.

Judge Nathan’s questioning of several prospective jurors, including some who wound up on the panel, indicated that they had answered “yes” to a question about whether they or a loved one had ever been the victim of a crime.

*According to this article the two jurors who discussed their personal history during deliberations didn't in and of itself pose any legal issue.

What would essentially be a retrial is if Judge Nathan would have asked them on voir dire about any personal history of sexual abuse and they lied under oath. Then, this wouldn't be arguable. It would immediately result in a mistrial. However, per this article that question wasn't asked so the jurors did not perjure themselves.

What this indicates to me is that neither of those 2 could have answered the sexual abuse question truthfully, leading to no questions in voir dire about bias, presumably. If they are now saying they were sexually abused, either they are lying now or lied on the questionaire or the judge neglected to ask them about it if they answered yes on the form. Something has gone wrong, clearly, but we just don't know exactly what yet.

 

[kdg411]

I figured it must be one of the lawyers. Who else would have seen the questionaire answers?

The documents are sealed and only accessible by the Judge.

 

[kdg411]

What this indicates to me is that neither of those 2 could have answered the sexual abuse question truthfully, leading to no questions in voir dire about bias, presumably. If they are now saying they were sexually abused, either they are lying now or lied on the questionaire or the judge neglected to ask them about it if they answered yes on the form. Something has gone wrong, clearly, but we just don't know exactly what yet.

Correct! We don't necessarily know at this point where the issue is so we have to wait, again, for the Judge to make a ruling.

 

[Tresir]

The documents are sealed and only accessible by the Judge.

I thought both the prosecution and the defence see the questionaires as they can veto or question also. Is that not the case? Only the judge has that authority ?

 

[kdg411]

I thought both the prosecution and the defence see the questionaires as they can veto or question also. Is that not the case? Only the judge has that authority ?

They were able to view the questionnaires while jury selection was in process. Afterwards however, those are sealed in a vault by the courts to maintain jurors anonymity.

 

[Tresir]

They were able to view the questionnaires while jury selection was in process. Afterwards however, those are sealed in a vault by the courts to maintain jurors anonymity.

That is what I thought. The AG inquiry should get to the bottom of it . The article above quoted in your link also indicates there were others who answered yes but when questioned cannot have shown a bias, so just how many sex abuse victims were actually on this jury altogether, I wonder?

"Judge Nathan’s questioning of several prospective jurors, including some who wound up on the panel, indicated that they had answered “yes” to a question about whether they or a loved one had ever been the victim of a crime."

 

[Tresir]

Victim waives anonymity to back claim against Andrew.

Witness at Maxwell's trial waives anonymity and makes new claim

Carolyn and Virginia - then Roberts, now Giuffre - were members of the depraved couple's harem of vulnerable teens and young women, recruited by Maxwell to provide sexual favours for Epstein.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tresir]

Another DM article with more detail about the jury questionaire and how the questions were developed. I cannot really believe this guy about his questionaire answers. Surely you would remember this question and what you answered.

Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers fought to ask jurors about sexual abuse

Court filings obtained by DailyMail.com show that Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team mounted a vigorous effort to ask two questions about sexual abuse in

www.dailymail.co.uk