GUILTY NY - Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein confidante, arrested on Sex Abuse charges, Jul 2020 #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone has prejudices. Just sayin'. Not having experienced a sexual assault is a bias, too.
Hmmm
I always thought that a person cannot be a juror in a case treating a crime he/she was a victim to.

But then, in my country a Judge decides about guilty verdict.
2 jurors only give their opinions to the Judge.
 
Last edited:
Feeling the need to clarify this.
I don't think he is stupid.
Thought his analysis of the evidence and conclusion was solid and believable.
Leaning more to his lack of savvy but fully buying his sincerity.
Does that make sense?
Plain and simply, I wish he had never spoken.
In this day and age, especially, one needs to keep quiet and lay low.
Too many forces ready to take you down.
Thus, he now needs an attorney, which he's opted to pay for.
IMO, he ain't no high finance guy.
He's an administrative assistant.
Not to diminish his position.
It just is what it is.
MOO.


Could it be he won't be the paying for this lawyer?
 
Ghislaine Maxwell jurors who spoke to media about their experience with sexual abuse could be prosecuted if they lied under oath

Jury expert Jill Huntley Taylor, of Taylor Trial Consulting, told Insider that jurors are put under oath during voir dire, and also sign their questionnaires to attest that all of their answers are true.

She said defense attorneys typically use voir dire to try to weed out "stealth jurors," who often "hide experiences or biases with the intent of getting on the jury." Stealth jurors often go undetected, Huntley Taylor said — unless they speak to the press afterward.

Court records show that the questionnaire asked all prospective Maxwell jurors, "Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse or sexual assault?"

During voir dire, prosecutors and defense attorneys typically interrogate prospective jurors who answer "yes" to such questions. But CNN reported Thursday that transcripts showed Juror #50 was not questioned about his experiences with sexual abuse.

It's not immediately disqualifying for a juror to have previous experience with sexual abuse, Huntley Taylor said. However, she said that is something defense attorneys would have wanted to know "so that they can ask further questions to determine if that prior experience creates a bias against their client."

A second juror later told The New York Times on condition of anonymity that they, too, discussed their experience with sexual abuse during deliberations. This second juror also said that sharing their story seemed to help convince the other jurors to believe Maxwell's victims.

Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys have formally addressed the second juror's comments.

I find it interesting that the jury relied on two jurors telling personal stories in order to believe the witness' testimony. On the surface, it seems that jurors could have arrived at a different verdict without those personal stories.
 
Feeling the need to clarify this.
I don't think he is stupid.
Thought his analysis of the evidence and conclusion was solid and believable.
Leaning more to his lack of savvy but fully buying his sincerity.
Does that make sense?
Plain and simply, I wish he had never spoken.
In this day and age, especially, one needs to keep quiet and lay low.
Too many forces ready to take you down.
Thus, he now needs an attorney, which he's opted to pay for.
IMO, he ain't no high finance guy.
He's an administrative assistant.
Not to diminish his position.
It just is what it is.
MOO.


Could it be he won't be the paying for this lawyer?
 
I find it interesting that the jury relied on two jurors telling personal stories in order to believe the witness' testimony. On the surface, it seems that jurors could have arrived at a different verdict without those personal stories.
Not to mention a Judge who rushed the Jury.
Oh well, some things are doomed from the start.
 
I find it interesting that the jury relied on two jurors telling personal stories in order to believe the witness' testimony. On the surface, it seems that jurors could have arrived at a different verdict without those personal stories.

He did say they was finding it hard to come to a unanimous decision and then when the judge kept trying to hurry them up and said they would have to work through New Year I think they just went with it.
 
Wonder if GM will be released pending the outcome of the investigation??

Probably not but maybe she ought to be…..just saying.
 
He did say they was finding it hard to come to a unanimous decision and then when the judge kept trying to hurry them up and said they would have to work through New Year I think they just went with it.

Rushing the jurors was a dumb move on the part of the judge. Then, after reading her perfunctory interview with him, we hear she said she could "smoke out" a lying juror. She needs to lose her seat on the bench.
 
I find it interesting that the jury relied on two jurors telling personal stories in order to believe the witness' testimony. On the surface, it seems that jurors could have arrived at a different verdict without those personal stories.

It involved the memory expert testimony. The jury asked for this testimony evidently concerned with what the victims could or couldn't remember.

The jurors who experienced abuse - possibly decades ago - made it clear how memory of such events can be affected.
 
Oh Geez.... I sure hate reading this.

So a mistrial ??

OMG--- I was doing the happy dance last week and now we have to start all over because one douche of a juror couldn't keep his mouth shut.
Go figure.
The truth would be known sooner or later, so maybe it is better that it exploded now before sentencing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
1,848
Total visitors
1,938

Forum statistics

Threads
594,461
Messages
18,005,805
Members
229,401
Latest member
roseashley592
Back
Top