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]

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.

But we know for a fact that they were not sequestered and were using MTA, because one juror was late arriving one morning due to the MTA delay.

 

[Tresir]

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?

Maybe because they will already know beforehand how many were on the jury that answered yes to the sex abuse question. Eg. Maybe only one or two got thru the questioning and they are not the ones who have gone to the press.

 

[kdg411]

But we know for a fact that they were not sequestered and were using MTA, because one juror was late arriving one morning due to the MTA delay.

True, they were not sequestered.

 

[Guess Who]

Maybe because they will already know beforehand how many were on the jury that answered yes to the sex abuse question. Eg. Maybe only one or two got thru the questioning and they are not the ones who have gone to the press.

but how would they know that the ones that answered no on it were lying about it?

 

[Tresir]

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

The courthouse news article is a little out of date as Wexner was scheduled to give evidence in secret in December just past I believe. Not sure if that happened. Also Wexner was involved in the incident with Maria Farmer. The Victoria Secrets underwear was used by the victims, and evidence came up in Maxwell's trial about that. I am not even sure why Wexner gave evidence in secret anyway. Epstein association runs deep. I am not surprised he has stood down. Epstein was his power of attorney for a time.

 

[Tresir]

but how would they know that the ones that answered no on it were lying about it?

Because, like Scotty, they have opened their mouths about being on the jury. As I said before they are either lying now or lied on the form and it is looking like they lied on the form in my opinion.

 

[Guess Who]

Because, like Scotty, they have opened their mouths about being on the jury. As I said before they are either lying now or lied on the form and it is looking like they lied on the form in my opinion.

but that article you are basing your information on this says absolutely nothing about them talking to anybody about anything to anybody. So again, how would the defense know they answered incorrectly?

 

[Tresir]

but that article you are basing your information on this says absolutely nothing about them talking to anybody about anything to anybody. So again, how would the defense know they answered incorrectly?

In my opinion, they wouldn't need to talk to anybody, because they will already know how the questionaires were answered. Apart from what I have already opined, then I don't know how else they would know. Perhaps they have phoned all the jurors to ask them? That would be another way, especially as there is going to be an inquiry.

 

[Guess Who]

In my opinion, they wouldn't need to talk to anybody, because they will already know how the questionaires were answered. Apart from what I have already opined, then I don't know how else they would know. Perhaps they have phoned all the jurors to ask them? That would be another way, especially as there is going to be an inquiry.

why wouldn't they have just lied again though if they just called to ask? I think the defense is just trying to sway the public so they can claim she could never get another fair trial.

 

[Tresir]

why wouldn't they have just lied again though if they just called to ask? I think the defense is just trying to sway the public so they can claim she could never get another fair trial.

We don't know how many could have said yes on the forms do we? The other juror who called NYT is anonymous. So the lawyers would not know who that is if more than two answered yes on the forms. They would have to contact all those who answered yes, to determine who this anonymous one actually is. In fact they may have called all the ones who said no as well, just to double check, especially if they discovered Scotty answered no. The AG is going to be conducting an enquiry so I would expect the court to be proactive to get to the bottom of it before the inquiry begins. Maybe after all the shenanigans and publicity, she may not be able to get a fair or speedy new trial. MOO.

 

[kdg411]

We don't know how many could have said yes on the forms do we? The other juror who called NYT is anonymous. So the lawyers would not know who that is if more than two answered yes on the forms. They would have to contact all those who answered yes, to determine who this anonymous one actually is. In fact they may have called all the ones who said no as well, just to double check, especially if they discovered Scotty answered no. The AG is going to be conducting an enquiry so I would expect the court to be proactive to get to the bottom of it before the inquiry begins. Maybe after all the shenanigans and publicity, she may not be able to get a fair or speedy new trial. MOO.

The NY Attorney General is Letitia James & I haven't seen any MSM yet of her being involved with this case. If you have would you link it so I see what she, or her office, has stated?

The US attorney General is Merrick B. Garland so if you find any information about his statement I'd appreciate it.

 

[Tresir]

The NY Attorney General is Letitia James & I haven't seen any MSM yet of her being involved with this case. If you have would you link it so I see what she, or her office, has stated?

The US attorney General is Merrick B. Garland so if you find any information about his statement I'd appreciate it.

It was one of the three letters in the DM link that I posted initially I think. I will look back.

Post 906 but here's the link again. If you click on the first picture there are 15 items. The letter is number 11 and 12. It is the US Attorney for the southern District of NY. The signature page is not included so it is not evident who signed the letter. There is a document number on the letter though to be able to locate the original if needed.

Attorney General requests probe into Maxwell juror

Scotty David, a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, was one of the 12 men and women who convicted Maxwell on five of the six counts of sex-trafficking.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[kdg411]

I've attached a complete copy of the letter that the Prosecuting Attorney's submitted to Judge Nathan. The brief excerpt in DM may have inadvertantly led people to believe that the US Attorney General's office was looking into it however that doesn't appear to be the case.

The article didn't publish page 3 which shows that it was Maureen Comey who submitted the letter to the court.

I hope this isn't confusing so please let me know if I need to state it differently.

 

[kdg411]

It was one of the three letters in the DM link that I posted initially I think. I will look back.

You did post the article Attorney General requests probe into Maxwell juror

 

[kdg411]

Until Judge Nathan issues a ruling I don't think it's bewho of us to hash out legal references that my or may not be applicable. It's frustrating & derails the topic that brought this discussion forward. I will respect the ruling once it's made & hopefully this issue can be put to rest. I'm still optimistic that we'll get a ruling on Andrew's case 'soon'.

 

[Tresir]

I've attached a complete copy of the letter that the Prosecuting Attorney's submitted to Judge Nathan. The brief excerpt in DM may have inadvertantly led people to believe that the US Attorney General's office was looking into it however that doesn't appear to be the case.

The article didn't publish page 3 which shows that it was Maureen Comey who submitted the letter to the court.

I hope this isn't confusing so please let me know if I need to state it differently.

This isn't the letter. There is a third letter document 568 I think it is. Document 570 is the Defence letter, 569 is the Prosecution letter and 568 is the US Attorney SDNY letter.

 

[kdg411]

Is this the other letter? See attached. If not then I'll keep digging for it.

 

[kdg411]

I see Document 568 as the attachment in post 993. If that's not what you were seeing then I'll pull up the records via the Federal court system to verify what we have it correct.

 

[Tresir]

I see Document 568 as the attachment in post 993. If that's not what you were seeing then I'll pull up the records via the Federal court system to verify what we have it correct.

There are three documents included in the 15 various images at the beginning of that article. Documents 568, 569 and 570 . The letter from the US Attorney for SDNY is the image numbered 11 and 12 at the beginning of the article and is asking for the court to perform an inquiry. Again, page 3 is not shown so we cannot see who has signed it.

 

[Tresir]

Is this the other letter? See attached. If not then I'll keep digging for it.

No this isn't the letter but is useful as it is Judge Nathan's reply to all three letters 568, 569 and 570. Thanks for posting in full. The schedule listed in this ( your ref 571 ) indicates this will continue until March 4th.
Don't worry about it as the numbers do appear muddled in the article on the three separate documents and this may drag on till March so plenty of time. It's late here for me so goodnight FTB.