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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spartygirl said:
I wish there was a legal rule to where they can't talk, but I am guilty of always wanting to hear what the jury thought, in the past and after a verdict.....so, there's that.

IDK, but I kind of feel this juror was "bought" after the fact.
JMO and I have no proof, obviously, but just a gut feeling.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking this also, but I wonder why him? And were others approached?
 
Spartygirl said:
I wish there was a legal rule to where they can't talk, but I am guilty of always wanting to hear what the jury thought, in the past and after a verdict.....so, there's that.

IDK, but I kind of feel this juror was "bought" after the fact.
JMO and I have no proof, obviously, but just a gut feeling.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking this also, but I wonder why him? And were others approached?
 
I've seen and read some other jury members give interviews after the trial but as interesting as I find reading about their process and thoughts, it seems clear that there should be a clear line.

At first I just thought the "Scotty-dude" was so overwhelmed and excited to get to finally share about that high profile jury duty. I just took him kinda naive and started wishing him to HUSH... or it's gonna get ugly. But I believed that he did answer honestly since the beginning to the questions or why would he talk now if he wasn't sure...

But now that the *advertiser censored* storm hit, all of the things are coming out about being dishonest about the SA- related stuff... I can't help but think he is either manipulated, as not being the sharpest pencil (sorry..), to get trapped in this net.

Or the lady criminal and her crew had a criminal approach to this trial and they had paid for a few more options, if the conviction came.
It also came to mind that they maybe did a psych profile of the jurors and chose to ignore certain things (sexual abuse past) if they could tell that person might be usable later as ...we now see... but if the dishonesty with that juror is valid. That might not be the case.

I wanted to say mostly about the " one juror making others think the certain way". Like that does happen in every jury always. Ain't that the point, that they share their views and make some decision that all are as much happy with as possible? I think the most affecting thing in the end, is that there is always gonna be dominant personalities in there. And like in every other situation, one is gonna talk more, another is gonna be withdrawn, some are black-and-white-thinkers, others can never decide on anything and just go along. All those days in that new group, you are gonna hear many tries to make someone understand something, mostly reflect to ones own life. So I would be concerned if this juror Scotty would be the only grown up in that jury and the others were small children. But adults who think these serious things and only have each other and their own life experiences to share and use as a helping hand. They can make up their own minds. If one of 12 says I can help you understand this part. It does not mean 11 adults on jury duty are just gonna go with: "aahh ok you know let's have you decide it all."

there is no way to remove influence in any jury ever.

All MOO just throwing in my messy 2 cents. Thanks for your all informative posts!
 
One thing that occurred to me is he has tried to make it clear it was hard to make a unanimous verdict and made out it was his words that helped swing it to Guilty. If he is being paid by Maxwell...why try so hard to convince the others to go for a conviction?
 
MessyLee said:
I've seen and read some other jury members give interviews after the trial but as interesting as I find reading about their process and thoughts, it seems clear that there should be a clear line.

At first I just thought the "Scotty-dude" was so overwhelmed and excited to get to finally share about that high profile jury duty. I just took him kinda naive and started wishing him to HUSH... or it's gonna get ugly. But I believed that he did answer honestly since the beginning to the questions or why would he talk now if he wasn't sure...

But now that the **** storm hit, all of the things are coming out about being dishonest about the SA- related stuff... I can't help but think he is either manipulated, as not being the sharpest pencil (sorry..), to get trapped in this net.

Or the lady criminal and her crew had a criminal approach to this trial and they had paid for a few more options, if the conviction came.
It also came to mind that they maybe did a psych profile of the jurors and chose to ignore certain things (sexual abuse past) if they could tell that person might be usable later as ...we now see... but if the dishonesty with that juror is valid. That might not be the case.

I wanted to say mostly about the " one juror making others think the certain way". Like that does happen in every jury always. Ain't that the point, that they share their views and make some decision that all are as much happy with as possible? I think the most affecting thing in the end, is that there is always gonna be dominant personalities in there. And like in every other situation, one is gonna talk more, another is gonna be withdrawn, some are black-and-white-thinkers, others can never decide on anything and just go along. All those days in that new group, you are gonna hear many tries to make someone understand something, mostly reflect to ones own life. So I would be concerned if this juror Scotty would be the only grown up in that jury and the others were small children. But adults who think these serious things and only have each other and their own life experiences to share and use as a helping hand. They can make up their own minds. If one of 12 says I can help you understand this part. It does not mean 11 adults on jury duty are just gonna go with: "aahh ok you know let's have you decide it all."

there is no way to remove influence in any jury ever.

All MOO just throwing in my messy 2 cents. Thanks for your all informative posts!
Click to expand...

The juror lied and denied prior history of being a sexual abuse victim. During deliberations, he used that personal history to convince other jurors that the witnesses were credible. That tells us that not all jurors believed the witness testimony.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that Maxwell orchestrated this type of dishonest persuasion. It's not really a question of whether a juror's personal experience should be introduced during jury deliberations, but whether a juror can lie about personal experience in order to be appointed to a jury where he or she may have strong personal feelings about a verdict regardless of facts.

"According to David his own sharing led a second juror to share their story. His experience, he said, allowed him to better understand the victims who testified and parlay that into a better understanding in jurors who were not convinced of the victims' credibility."
​
Will rogue juror set Ghislaine Maxwell free? Conviction is in chaos as juror lawyered up | Daily Mail Online
 
MessyLee said:
I've seen and read some other jury members give interviews after the trial but as interesting as I find reading about their process and thoughts, it seems clear that there should be a clear line.

At first I just thought the "Scotty-dude" was so overwhelmed and excited to get to finally share about that high profile jury duty. I just took him kinda naive and started wishing him to HUSH... or it's gonna get ugly. But I believed that he did answer honestly since the beginning to the questions or why would he talk now if he wasn't sure...

But now that the **** storm hit, all of the things are coming out about being dishonest about the SA- related stuff... I can't help but think he is either manipulated, as not being the sharpest pencil (sorry..), to get trapped in this net.

Or the lady criminal and her crew had a criminal approach to this trial and they had paid for a few more options, if the conviction came.
It also came to mind that they maybe did a psych profile of the jurors and chose to ignore certain things (sexual abuse past) if they could tell that person might be usable later as ...we now see... but if the dishonesty with that juror is valid. That might not be the case.

I wanted to say mostly about the " one juror making others think the certain way". Like that does happen in every jury always. Ain't that the point, that they share their views and make some decision that all are as much happy with as possible? I think the most affecting thing in the end, is that there is always gonna be dominant personalities in there. And like in every other situation, one is gonna talk more, another is gonna be withdrawn, some are black-and-white-thinkers, others can never decide on anything and just go along. All those days in that new group, you are gonna hear many tries to make someone understand something, mostly reflect to ones own life. So I would be concerned if this juror Scotty would be the only grown up in that jury and the others were small children. But adults who think these serious things and only have each other and their own life experiences to share and use as a helping
Click to expand...
otto said:
The juror lied and denied prior history of being a sexual abuse victim. During deliberations, he used that personal history to convince other jurors that the witnesses were credible. That tells us that not all jurors believed the witness testimony.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that Maxwell orchestrated this type of dishonest persuasion. It's not really a question of whether a juror's personal experience should be introduced during jury deliberations, but whether a juror can lie about personal experience in order to be appointed to a jury where he or she may have strong personal feelings about a verdict regardless of facts.

"According to David his own sharing led a second juror to share their story. His experience, he said, allowed him to better understand the victims who testified and parlay that into a better understanding in jurors who were not convinced of the victims' credibility."
​
Will rogue juror set Ghislaine Maxwell free? Conviction is in chaos as juror lawyered up | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
Symptom of Megalomania (Grandiose Syndrome).
He ticks many boxes.
MOO
 
Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers fought to ask jurors detailed questions about sexual abuse | Daily Mail Online


The final wording read, 'Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advances, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member).'

There were three boxes by way of answer: Yes (self), Yes (friend or family member) and No.

This is the question that juror Scotty David admitted to DailyMail.com that he cannot remember being asked.
 
sds71 said:
Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers fought to ask jurors detailed questions about sexual abuse | Daily Mail Online


The final wording read, 'Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advances, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member).'

There were three boxes by way of answer: Yes (self), Yes (friend or family member) and No.

This is the question that juror Scotty David admitted to DailyMail.com that he cannot remember being asked.
Click to expand...

Something about the photos of this guy :mad::mad::mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 145 more.
Total: 4,068 (members: 146, guests: 3,922)

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
3,922
Total visitors
4,068
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,528
Messages
18,025,913
Members
229,674
Latest member
rapper_physicist
Back
Top