Ghislaine Maxwell trial

[BikeBikeBIke]

IAmTheWalrus said:

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??

Well yeah, we're almost all biased against criminals, so in that sense every juror is biased and that's fine.

I guess whoever designs these questionaires figures that some crime victims might to so biased by their terrible experiences that they can't put it aside for the purposes of the verdict.

[anonymous-user]

BikeBikeBIke said:

IAmTheWalrus said:

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??

Well yeah, we're almost all biased against criminals, so in that sense every juror is biased and that's fine.

I guess whoever designs these questionaires figures that some crime victims might to so biased by their terrible experiences that they can't put it aside for the purposes of the verdict.

But you surely have to assess whether the person in the dock is guilty of the crimes that they are accused of? In that respect you are looking at the evidence presented and are asked to cast aside your prejudices.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Newarch said:

But you surely have to assess whether the person in the dock is guilty of the crimes that they are accused of? In that respect you are looking at the evidence presented and are asked to cast aside your prejudices.

I've no idea what the reasoning is, but in this case my own personal reasoning was there's overwhelming evidence in the public domain that Maxwell was trafficking party girls for Epstein. However, the evidence for a) Her trafficking these specific two girls and b) These specific two girls being under age was a bit weak

So the concern is this guy really hates Maxwell because she obviously traffics. And he's so overcome by that hatred of her that he decides (perhaps unconsciously) that these two girls were under age and trafficed by Maxwell.

FWIW all the comment I've seen says miss-trials over jurors getting their questionaires wrong are vanishingly rare so this whole issue is probably going nowhere.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 6th January 13:28

[parabolica]

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.

Juries are supposed to be a fair representation of society; there is technically nothing untoward with one of the jurors being the victim of sexual abuse in the past even in cases that focus on sexual abuse. The issue is if said juror did not disclose this to the court prior to being selected to the jury.

Source: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1478925...

[anonymous-user]

spikyone said:

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.

Or they were bought to create a miss trial.

[Cold]

As previously suggested, a second juror has claimed they were abused as a child.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/seco...

[JeffreyD]

parabolica said:

Juries are supposed to be a fair representation of society; there is technically nothing untoward with one of the jurors being the victim of sexual abuse in the past even in cases that focus on sexual abuse. The issue is if said juror did not disclose this to the court prior to being selected to the jury.

Source: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1478925...

There are a lot of strange things in the US legal world but the fact they can ask a question that specific seems totally bizarre to me.

As does being able to sell your story to the press after sitting as a juror.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Cold said:

As previously suggested, a second juror has claimed they were abused as a child.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/seco...

Only matters, in terms of the trial, if it wasn't disclosed in the questionnaire.

[andyA700]

jsf said:

spikyone said:

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.

Or they were bought to create a miss trial.

Umm, I have just said as much on another forum. I sometimes wonder what makes us so cynical about this case???????

[IAmTheWalrus]

BikeBikeBIke said:

IAmTheWalrus said:

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??

Well yeah, we're almost all biased against criminals, so in that sense every juror is biased and that's fine.

I guess whoever designs these questionaires figures that some crime victims might to so biased by their terrible experiences that they can't put it aside for the purposes of the verdict.

Indeed and of course its inevitable that you will get people perhaps with criminal history too as a juror so they might feel biased against the case as they might be in a position to sympathise with the crook.

[edusa]

The trial was about the abuse of young girls.
Trial may be derailed or rerun because of the abuse of a jurors when a minors.
Peadophiles are hugely damaging cancer in society.

Edited by edusa on Friday 7th January 12:38

[GT3Manthey]

Get Mummy to make it go away……


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-h...

[Byker28i]

Alan Dershowitz lobbied trump to preemptively pardon Ghislaine Maxwell after speaking to her family
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ghislaine-maxwe...

He was also accused of abuse by Virginia Guiffre, which he denies, so why would he seek a pardon for her if her allegations are made up as he claims?

We know Dershowitz was Epstein’s lawyer and also represented trump during impeachment trial. We also know he successfully persuaded trump to pardon around a dozen of his clients, many of them paying.
We also know from Michael Wolff’s book, Landslide, trump is reported to have taken sudden interest in Maxwell case during the end of his presidency, remember the "I just wish her well, frankly" message, that would have been around the same time.

[Piginapoke]

GT3Manthey said:

Get Mummy to make it go away……


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-h...

I wonder what would happen if the Queen dies before this is concluded; would Charles be so supportive of his brother?

[Stuart70]

Piginapoke said:

GT3Manthey said:

Get Mummy to make it go away……


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-h...

I wonder what would happen if the Queen dies before this is concluded; would Charles be so supportive of his brother?

As she most likely will?

[Deep Thought]

Piginapoke said:

GT3Manthey said:

Get Mummy to make it go away……


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-h...

I wonder what would happen if the Queen dies before this is concluded; would Charles be so supportive of his brother?

Would it take that much to pay her off?

Surely he could rustle up a seven figure sum if needs be?

I'd also say it would be in the monarchy's interests to "make it go away", so even if the Queen is no longer with us, i'd say Charles would use monarchy funds if needs be.

[IAmTheWalrus]

What does the questionnaire ask jurors? Surely it won't ask if they were abused. Even if it does ask if they have any reason to believe they might not be appropriate for the selection they could still genuinely believe they were despite abuse in their history..

[pquinn]

IAmTheWalrus said:

What does the questionnaire ask jurors? Surely it won't ask if they were abused. Even if it does ask if they have any reason to believe they might not be appropriate for the selection they could still genuinely believe they were despite abuse in their history..

All that has been reported in fine detail.

[Panamax]

Deep Thought said:

Would it take that much to pay her off?

I suspect there are two catches,
1. She's already wealthy and doesn't really need the money.
2. Her lawyers are almost certainly engaged on a "no win, no fee" basis and that means it will be up to them to decide whether an offer is sufficient. They're probably on for something between 30% and 50% of any compensation received, so it's potentially big bucks for them and no risk for her.

I think they'll just keep the train rolling so long as they don't think they're going to lose. If you're essentially suing the British Crown you'd probably be expecting a pretty generous offer, sooner or later.

The flip side is one or more offers may already have been made and rejected. AW's name has already been trashed so that can't get any worse for him - unless he loses. AW can probably afford any amount of expensive legal fees - so he can just keep the case running unless he thinks he's going to lose very heavily indeed. But even if he does lose heavily it's not as if he's going to have to sell his house to pay the damages. And even if he was cleaned out there's sure to be a palace somewhere with a spare bedroom, room service and 24 hour police protection.

[Welshbeef]

Panamax said:

I suspect there are two catches,
1. She's already wealthy and doesn't really need the money.
2. Her lawyers are almost certainly engaged on a "no win, no fee" basis and that means it will be up to them to decide whether an offer is sufficient. They're probably on for something between 30% and 50% of any compensation received, so it's potentially big bucks for them and no risk for her.

I think they'll just keep the train rolling so long as they don't think they're going to lose. If you're essentially suing the British Crown you'd probably be expecting a pretty generous offer, sooner or later.

The flip side is one or more offers may already have been made and rejected. AW's name has already been trashed so that can't get any worse for him - unless he loses. AW can probably afford any amount of expensive legal fees - so he can just keep the case running unless he thinks he's going to lose very heavily indeed. But even if he does lose heavily it's not as if he's going to have to sell his house to pay the damages. And even if he was cleaned out there's sure to be a palace somewhere with a spare bedroom, room service and 24 hour police protection.

Had to sell his ski chalet yesterday. Tick tock