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

 

[Guess Who]

Third and possibly fourth juror lied about abuse, defence lawyers say.

Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers: 'Third juror in sex trafficking trial lied'

A source said Maxwell's legal team feel 'confident a third juror lied on their jury application. There are also questions over a fourth juror, so this thing is up in the air.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

How would they even know? Only a "feel confident" that they did.

Also how do they know that they didn't just try to "one up" each other and lie during proceedings?

 

[Guess Who]

Carlyle were a contact of Epstein. He should not have been on the jury. That would be like having an employee of Prince Andrew or President Clinton on the jury.

So the defense screwed up?

 

[Tresir]

How would they even know? Only a "feel confident" that they did.

Also how do they know that they didn't just try to "one up" each other and lie during proceedings?

Are you talking about the jurors wanting to "one up" each other? If so, that would mean they knew each other, which wouldn't be possible I don't think, would it?

 

[Guess Who]

Are you talking about the jurors wanting to "one up" each other? If so, that would mean they knew each other, which wouldn't be possible I don't think, would it?

Why would it mean they knew each other? Trying to "one up" each other's stories being told has nothing to do with knowing each other prior.

 

[Tresir]

So the defense screwed up?

I guess it depends on whose benefit it would be to have an undeclared abuse victim ( or 4 ) on the jury.

 

[Tresir]

Why would it mean they knew each other? Trying to "one up" each other's stories being told has nothing to do with knowing each other prior.

Because, so far only one has gone public. You said one upping during proceedings which I thought you meant during selection proceedings.

If the lawyers feel confident others on the jury lied, they must have now looked into all their histories since Scotty came out publically.

 

[kdg411]

Anything said during deliberations is confidential & out of the courts control. The discussions jurors had do not weigh in favor of a mistrial because all of them had to unanimously reach a verdict. I believe the jury reached the appropriate decision given what little testimony the public has been privy to. However, Judge Nathan will make a ruling & we'll have to wait for her dissemination based on U.S. Federal & NY State law.

 

[Guess Who]

Because, so far only one has gone public. You said one upping during proceedings which I thought you meant during selection proceedings.

If the lawyers feel confident others on the jury lied, they must have now looked into all their histories since Scotty came out publically.

I meant during deliberations. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[kdg411]

Third and possibly fourth juror lied about abuse, defence lawyers say.

Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers: 'Third juror in sex trafficking trial lied'

A source said Maxwell's legal team feel 'confident a third juror lied on their jury application. There are also questions over a fourth juror, so this thing is up in the air.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

The source of this information is only being presented by the Daily Mail. They are controlling a narrative that at this point is merely gossip & not substantiated. I'll refrain from going to much deeper because whatever Judge Nathan determines I will respect. It would be interesting to know if a mistrial does occur how the courts will be able to impanel an impartial jury.

 

[Tresir]

I meant during deliberations. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem. So you think they all were discussing their abuse during the deliberations. That is very likely I think. However, the lawyers are just talking about the anonymous questionaires, I think.

 

[Guess Who]

No problem. So you think they all were discussing their abuse during the deliberations. That is very likely I think. However, the lawyers are just talking about the anonymous questionaires, I think.

but how would they know that they lied on them? Have they interviewed them? Deliberations were supposed to be secret. I think they are just spewing garbage and seeing what sticks in the public's mind and want to enrage people unnecessarily to simply enrage people.

 

[Tresir]

The source of this information is only being presented by the Daily Mail. They are controlling a narrative that at this point is merely gossip & not substantiated. I'll refrain from going to much deeper because whatever Judge Nathan determines I will respect. It would be interesting to know if a mistrial does occur how the courts will be able to impanel an impartial jury.

No 2 juror went to the NYT not the DM. DM only broke the initial story with Scotty and this follow up.

but how would they know that they lied on them? Have they interviewed them? Deliberations were supposed to be secret. I think they are just spewing garbage and seeing what sticks in the public's mind and want to enrage people unnecessarily to simply enrage people.

They clearly know how many of the 50 declared any abuse of themselves or friends or family. If there were any who declared then they would presumably have been questioned during voir dire. Therefore, the lawyers and judge will know how many answered yes to that question so if more are coming forward now than mentioned it on the questionaires - that is how they will know.

If it is determined to be BS, then that will be known too.

 

[Tresir]

Dershowitz reveals his witnesses he plans to call in his case against Virginia Roberts Guiffre.

 

[Guess Who]

No 2 juror went to the NYT not the DM. DM only broke the initial story with Scotty and this follow up.

They clearly know how many of the 50 declared any abuse of themselves or friends or family. If there were any who declared then they would presumably have been questioned during voir dire. Therefore, the lawyers and judge will know how many answered yes to that question so if more are coming forward now than mentioned it on the questionaires - that is how they will know.

If it is determined to be BS, then that will be known too.

But how would they know the others lied if they haven't talked to them?

 

[Tresir]

But how would they know the others lied if they haven't talked to them?

Let's say that out of 50 questionaires, 10% answered the abuse question positively. That would be 5 that they would question during voir dire. Maybe 1 of those ended up on the jury of 12 and that 1 wasn't Scotty. This is how they would know that jurors had lied as now there is at least 3 or 4 that they did not know about during selection IMO.

 

[kdg411]

Jury selection starts for Jeffrey Epstein’s ex-girlfriend

Oral questioning of jurors begins mid-month, with opening statements scheduled for Nov. 29.

www.courthousenews.com

The possible jurors then filled out questionnaires and were sent home, the first of about 750 people over three days who are expected to answer the written questions. Oral questioning of jurors begins mid-month, with opening statements scheduled for Nov. 29.

When questionnaires were filled out, neither Maxwell nor the judge or lawyers were in the large room where people sat in chairs spaced out as a safety precaution to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the courthouse.

The 51 questions on the questionnaire focused largely on whether the personal experience of prospective jurors might make it impossible for any of them to judge the facts in the case fairly. Individuals were also asked to say what they'd heard about the case and whether it had caused them to form opinions about it.

“There is nothing wrong with having heard something about this case,” the questionnaire stated in bold print before prospective jurors were questioned about whether and how they might have heard anything about Maxwell and whether they'd already formed an opinion about her guilt or innocence.

It also asked whether they'd verbally stated or posted an opinion about Maxwell or Epstein on social media or online and whether they or a family member had ever supported, protested or worked for or against laws or regulations or organizations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse or sexual harassment.

The questionnaire also asked whether the sexually suggestive or sexually explicit conduct that will emerge at trial might make it difficult for a prospective juror to be fair and impartial.

 

[Tresir]

Jury selection starts for Jeffrey Epstein’s ex-girlfriend

Oral questioning of jurors begins mid-month, with opening statements scheduled for Nov. 29.

www.courthousenews.com

The possible jurors then filled out questionnaires and were sent home, the first of about 750 people over three days who are expected to answer the written questions. Oral questioning of jurors begins mid-month, with opening statements scheduled for Nov. 29.

When questionnaires were filled out, neither Maxwell nor the judge or lawyers were in the large room where people sat in chairs spaced out as a safety precaution to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the courthouse.

The 51 questions on the questionnaire focused largely on whether the personal experience of prospective jurors might make it impossible for any of them to judge the facts in the case fairly. Individuals were also asked to say what they'd heard about the case and whether it had caused them to form opinions about it.

“There is nothing wrong with having heard something about this case,” the questionnaire stated in bold print before prospective jurors were questioned about whether and how they might have heard anything about Maxwell and whether they'd already formed an opinion about her guilt or innocence.

It also asked whether they'd verbally stated or posted an opinion about Maxwell or Epstein on social media or online and whether they or a family member had ever supported, protested or worked for or against laws or regulations or organizations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse or sexual harassment.

The questionnaire also asked whether the sexually suggestive or sexually explicit conduct that will emerge at trial might make it difficult for a prospective juror to be fair and impartial.

Well this didn't happen did it?

"She said the final jury of 12 jurors and six alternates will be asked to render a verdict after a trial expected to last about six weeks based only on evidence they learn about in the courtroom.

Although jurors will not be sequestered, their privacy will be ensured because they will be referenced by numbers and will be transported to and from the trial each day, Nathan said."

 

[kdg411]

Well this didn't happen did it?

"She said the final jury of 12 jurors and six alternates will be asked to render a verdict after a trial expected to last about six weeks based only on evidence they learn about in the courtroom.

Although jurors will not be sequestered, their privacy will be ensured because they will be referenced by numbers and will be transported to and from the trial each day, Nathan said."

As far as I'm aware of this is the typical process. Once jurors are selected they have a designated meeting location and are escorted to the courthouse via shuttle. This process is followed in civil as well as criminal trials.

*Jurors don't walk themselves into court without a bailiff.

 

[Guess Who]

Let's say that out of 50 questionaires, 10% answered the abuse question positively. That would be 5 that they would question during voir dire. Maybe 1 of those ended up on the jury of 12 and that 1 wasn't Scotty. This is how they would know that jurors had lied as now there is at least 3 or 4 that they did not know about during selection IMO.

but my point is that how do they even know of any that lied besides the two now that have done interviews? If they haven't done any interviews how would they even know about any of it?

 

[kdg411]

Dershowitz reveals his witnesses he plans to call in his case against Virginia Roberts Guiffre.

Interesting, but not shocking, that he wants to depose two attorneys who originally represented Virginia Giuffre in the case against him. I don't see that happening. He's simply embarrassing himself at this point given that Wexner has already sided with Giuffre's position.

https://www.courthousenews.com/ex-victorias-secret-ceo-takes-center-stage-in-alan-dershowitz-fight/

Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 515 F. Supp. 3d 123 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 515 F. Supp. 3d 123, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com