Ghislaine Maxwell trial

[Welshbeef]

edusa said:

I thought jurors were not identified or should indentify themselves as it can only bring trouble particularly when this one reveals the crappy thought processes that they applied.What if he says joe bloggs wanted this or that,identifying other members?There is no good in the public doing an autopsy on the jurors decisions.

I think you’ll find HE went to the media for some reason and shared all.

[edusa]

Welshbeef said:

edusa said:

I thought jurors were not identified or should indentify themselves as it can only bring trouble particularly when this one reveals the crappy thought processes that they applied.What if he says joe bloggs wanted this or that,identifying other members?There is no good in the public doing an autopsy on the jurors decisions.

I think you’ll find HE went to the media for some reason and shared all.

I realise that and its alarming,how can that be allowed ? Pretty sure in the UK you would be banged up.

[TonyToniTone]

toohuge said:

I imagine the defence (GM's lawyers) would have had an opportunity to review the questions / process and presumably this was signed off.

This problem seems to be that 2 jurors may not have answered the questions honestly.

[Byker28i]

TonyToniTone said:

toohuge said:

I imagine the defence (GM's lawyers) would have had an opportunity to review the questions / process and presumably this was signed off.

This problem seems to be that 2 jurors may not have answered the questions honestly.

SDNY prosecutors flag to the court a Maxwell juror who has given press interviews stating he was a victim of sexual abuse in the past that are inconsistent with his answers on the jury questionnaire, and they suggest a hearing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

[RB Will]

When I did jury duty we were all given a brief run down of the case and interested parties and asked if we had anything that may lead to impartiality.
All answered no. We got 2 days into into it through the prosecution evidence and one woman on the jury asked to speak to those in charge. Turns out she knew the accused. Why she couldn't figure that out on day one I don't know. She got sent home and a new juror brought in but it was a pain in the arse for the rest of us to sit through the first 2 days again with one new juror.

[Digga]

RB Will said:

When I did jury duty we were all given a brief run down of the case and interested parties and asked if we had anything that may lead to impartiality.
All answered no. We got 2 days into into it through the prosecution evidence and one woman on the jury asked to speak to those in charge. Turns out she knew the accused. Why she couldn't figure that out on day one I don't know. She got sent home and a new juror brought in but it was a pain in the arse for the rest of us to sit through the first 2 days again with one new juror.

Some people are colossally stupid. There is zero filter for that in jury service selection.

Add in the anxiety or fear some have of jury service, and possible also factor in the novelty and enthusiasm 'free holiday' mentality that some see it as, and you can see the conflicts of interest.

[edusa]

Byker28i said:

TonyToniTone said:

toohuge said:

I imagine the defence (GM's lawyers) would have had an opportunity to review the questions / process and presumably this was signed off.

This problem seems to be that 2 jurors may not have answered the questions honestly.

SDNY prosecutors flag to the court a Maxwell juror who has given press interviews stating he was a victim of sexual abuse in the past that are inconsistent with his answers on the jury questionnaire, and they suggest a hearing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

Good I hope they throw the book at him!!!!

[anonymous-user]

edusa said:

Good I hope they throw the book at him!!!!

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

[edusa]

Newarch said:

edusa said:

Good I hope they throw the book at him!!!!

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

It says one of them mentioned to the jury on DAY 3 of the trial their experiences of abuse,and no one thought hang on should we speak to the judge.

[Blackpuddin]

edusa said:

Newarch said:

edusa said:

Good I hope they throw the book at him!!!!

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

It says one of them mentioned to the jury on DAY 3 of the trial their experiences of abuse,and no one thought hang on should we speak to the judge.

They didn't want to endanger their metaphorical 15 minutes of fame by being dismissed.

[anonymous-user]

Blackpuddin said:

They didn't want to endanger their metaphorical 15 minutes of fame by being dismissed.

That's the problem with victims of abuse, they're only in it for their 15 minutes of fame.

[Castrol for a knave]

edusa said:

Byker28i said:

TonyToniTone said:

toohuge said:

I imagine the defence (GM's lawyers) would have had an opportunity to review the questions / process and presumably this was signed off.

This problem seems to be that 2 jurors may not have answered the questions honestly.

SDNY prosecutors flag to the court a Maxwell juror who has given press interviews stating he was a victim of sexual abuse in the past that are inconsistent with his answers on the jury questionnaire, and they suggest a hearing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

Good I hope they throw the book at him!!!!

Would that necessarily be a precluding question? It also depends which side asked that question.

Jury selection in the US is not like the UK. It's a business over there. People make a good living being Jury Selection Consultants. One might argue that having a juror with experience of sexual assault would be adding to the overall balance.

Edited by Castrol for a knave on Thursday 6th January 13:06

[spikyone]

Newarch said:

Blackpuddin said:

They didn't want to endanger their metaphorical 15 minutes of fame by being dismissed.

That's the problem with victims of abuse, they're only in it for their 15 minutes of fame.

Are you being deliberately stupid?

Juror lied on the selection questionnaire and then ran to the press afterwards. I sympathise with them for the abuse, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that they lied for the ability to sell their story.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Newarch said:

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

He needlessly went public and put the verdicts in doubt.

I'm not sure any level of wokeness (or lack of wokeness) excuses or explains that.

[RobinOakapple]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Newarch said:

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

He needlessly went public and put the verdicts in doubt.

I'm not sure any level of wokeness (or lack of wokeness) excuses or explains that.

Good point. If he was biased against anybody accused of anything related to that kind of abuse then keeping his mouth shut would have been a better strategy.

[BikeBikeBIke]

RobinOakapple said:

Good point. If he was biased against anybody accused of anything related to that kind of abuse then keeping his mouth shut would have been a better strategy.

Yup.

I'd love it if he made that point at the investigation with a look of affronted outrage on his face. "I can't possibly be biased, I've potentially wrecked the whole trial for a £75 interview fee."

[IAmTheWalrus]

RobinOakapple said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Newarch said:

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

He needlessly went public and put the verdicts in doubt.

I'm not sure any level of wokeness (or lack of wokeness) excuses or explains that.

Good point. If he was biased against anybody accused of anything related to that kind of abuse then keeping his mouth shut would have been a better strategy.

To be fair putting aside the 15 minutes of fame accusation, if we as a developed and evolved species don't want to see child abuse as part of the behaviour in modern society is there any real difference in having said abuse victim on the jury when they are supposed to be going on the evidence presented??

[Blackpuddin]

Newarch said:

Blackpuddin said:

They didn't want to endanger their metaphorical 15 minutes of fame by being dismissed.

That's the problem with victims of abuse, they're only in it for their 15 minutes of fame.

Eh? I was talking about the other jury members.

[RobinOakapple]

IAmTheWalrus said:

RobinOakapple said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Newarch said:

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

He needlessly went public and put the verdicts in doubt.

I'm not sure any level of wokeness (or lack of wokeness) excuses or explains that.

Good point. If he was biased against anybody accused of anything related to that kind of abuse then keeping his mouth shut would have been a better strategy.

To be fair putting aside the 15 minutes of fame accusation, if we as a developed and evolved species don't want to see child abuse as part of the behaviour in modern society is there any real difference in having said abuse victim on the jury when they are supposed to be going on the evidence presented??

I don't think there is any real difference there, the issue is why he would make it public knowing that it would have a real bearing on the case. My best guess is that he is attention seeking.

[edusa]

IAmTheWalrus said:

RobinOakapple said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Newarch said:

Yeah, victims of sexual abuse are so woke and anti paedophile (unlike 'normal' people).

He needlessly went public and put the verdicts in doubt.

I'm not sure any level of wokeness (or lack of wokeness) excuses or explains that.

Good point. If he was biased against anybody accused of anything related to that kind of abuse then keeping his mouth shut would have been a better strategy.

To be fair putting aside the 15 minutes of fame accusation, if we as a developed and evolved species don't want to see child abuse as part of the behaviour in modern society is there any real difference in having said abuse victim on the jury when they are supposed to be going on the evidence presented??

My take is that "justice must not only be done,but it must be seen to be done".I doubt they could be impartial and the one speaking out shows that to me.