Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

0_Epstein.jpg

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What an idiot.


The juror in question, who asked to be identified by his first and middle name, Scotty David, was given immunity from prosecution earlier on Tuesday.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake."
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
After the conviction of Maxwell he had told reporters that he had shared his own experience of sexual abuse with jurors after some had questioned the recollections from two of Maxwell's accusers.
This admission immediately prompted Maxwell's lawyers to demand a retrial.
They argued that him sharing his experience with other jurors could have made them more sympathetic to her accusers and meant she never got a fair trial.
 
For me there is a lot about Victoria's Secret that doesn't and hasn't sat quite right for years... I don't know what it is but kind of even like the Playboy thing where it is glamorized to youth as is their calendar and runway events. The connections, different rumors and those in it or close to it including what is mentioned here...

They have some beautiful things and are definitely a popular store but....

I guess when we see so many false fronts and facades with modeling, trafficking and more and the glamorization of young females and looks, underwear/lingerie, etc., it just brings certain thoughts to mind...
He was employed by Wexner as a financial advisor and was a signatory for Wexner's wife at one point, so he was pretty closely tied to Wexner's business dealings.
 
He initially pleaded the fifth. Then the judge gave him immunity from prosecution so that he would speak. This guy didn't think his media interview would be big news at all.



The abuse had occurred when he was nine or 10 years old, and was committed by a relative and their friend, he said. The relative was no longer a part of the family, he said.

He told his mother about the abuse a few years later in high school, and she reported it to the police. But no charges were ever brought.

Earlier, he was asked whether he had followed an instructional video Judge Nathan had taped that was shown to jurors on 4 November.

“Were you concerned with following my instructions?” the judge asked.

“Absolutely not,” he replied, drawing gasps from the courtroom.

Scotty David said he first became aware that there had been questions about sexual abuse in the jury form after an article came out written for The Independent by Lucia Osborne-Crowley.

He said he only mentioned the abuse during the interview because he had wanted to describe his understanding of how historic sexual abuse could have effected the victims’ testimony.

Scotty David said he didn’t like talking about his abuse, and that he didn’t think his family would ever see the interview.

Judge Nathan quizzed him about how he could “reconcile” telling media about his history of abuse when he said he hadn’t told many people about it.

Scotty David replied that he didn’t think a “little article about a juror would be record breaking or really in the news at all”.

Scotty David denied he had tailored his answers to try to get on the jury, or that his experiences had affected his deliberations in any way.

“Were you thinking you’d personally benefit by being on the jury?” Judge Nathan asked.

“No,” Scotty David replied.

“I didn’t think this would happen. I didn’t lie to get on this jury. If I lied deliberately, I wouldn’t have told a soul.”

All potential jurors in the case had been asked to fill out a screening form during Voire Dire that asked: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?”

Scotty David checked “No”, and later said in interviews he did not remember being asked that question.
 
Last edited:
Inner City Press has a thread on the Scotty David appearance where the questions and answers are detailed.





Right at the end of the thread are these two tweets below - so we should see more by 15 Mar.


Judge Nathan: And you heard my summary of the case, including Jeffrey Epstein -- Juror 50: I did. Judge Nathan: Counsel? Assistant US Attorney: Let me find a date... Letter briefing by Friday? Maxwell's counsel: I am starting a trial. So 2 weeks.





Inner City Press

@innercitypress

·
8 Mar

Judge Nathan: No, one week. 15 pages maximum. Your submitted questions have Juror 50's identifying information that must be redacted. The rest, docket it. Or, we'll handle it. The briefing, submit with redactions.
 
Last edited:
"Rogue" juror? And then that song "if she is freed"? Nothing means she will be set free that I'm aware of. She was in jail until this trial and very well may be until the next if that is what occurs. This doesn't mean she will be set free even if they find it needs to be retried. Media smh.
 
"Rogue" juror? And then that song "if she is freed"? Nothing means she will be set free that I'm aware of. She was in jail until this trial and very well may be until the next if that is what occurs. This doesn't mean she will be set free even if they find it needs to be retried. Media smh.
Methinks he might have also just been propping himself up into a higher importance in his interview that caused all of this and it blew up in his face. I would need to hear from other jurors to see if what he "supposedly" said had anything to do with their decisions.
 
Methinks he might have also just been propping himself up into a higher importance in his interview that caused all of this and it blew up in his face. I would need to hear from other jurors to see if what he "supposedly" said had anything to do with their decisions.
That's a good possibility. A bit of media attention and maybe like many he did that and it backfired. Influence or not on the other jurors, I think it is still a serious issue even though I don't buy that it was likely intentional.
 
I think all the jurors should be asked if what he said changed their decision. He himself states that they did.

Documents unsealed in the retrial motion confirms a second juror also lied.

 
Well one thing is for sure - this is certainly keeping lawyers in work.

Just read there is new footage discovered of Ghislaine's father on his yacht during his last days. Not sure why this has not surfaced before, based on his mysterious death but there is a new documentary out.

 
Well one thing is for sure - this is certainly keeping lawyers in work.

Just read there is new footage discovered of Ghislaine's father on his yacht during his last days. Not sure why this has not surfaced before, based on his mysterious death but there is a new documentary out.

She and her father meowed to each other? Smh.

I didn't get to read it all, the article locked my computer up but I saw that part.
 

A federal judge Friday denied granting a new trial to British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who had argued that her conviction for procuring underage girls to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein was tainted by the presence of a juror who failed to disclose he himself had been sexually abused as a child.

Judge Alison Nathan said Maxwell's lawyers had failed to satisfy the requirements for granting a new trial in a criminal case.

Nathan wrote in her ruling that the juror had credibly testified during a hearing in March that he "skimmed way too fast" over a questionnaire before Maxwell's trial last winter that asked prospective jurors if they had been the victims of sexual abuse.
 
Sentencing in June. Can they actually give her more than Epstein himself got in Florida ? She has already been in jail way longer than he was.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,014
Messages
242,051
Members
974
Latest member
elimortonslywir
Back
Top Bottom