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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Yeah I think it's a stretch that it was orchestrated aswell. But I also think this whole post-trial-mess is just so absurd so I find myself thinking all kinds of weird options.
I don't think that the juror was bought off until maybe in the end or after the trial IF that is an option. I truely don't know. But the guy sure likes the attention so it's probable he just didn't really think it through before opening up to everyone.

But about the jury dynamics I sort of disagree still (of course there is a limit in that too, if it is over the top). I just think it is the same as the ones saying (maybe there were only like two of 12 who didn't know if they believed the witnesses, we don't know) that "I think she remembers too little details, since in my experiences in life that has correlated with dishonesty". But thanks for getting me to think things more through. I get your view though!

edited to say: Yeah if he actually lied that is the real problem. No way around that.
 
Last edited:
MessyLee said:
Yeah I think it's a stretch that it was orchestrated aswell. But I also think this whole post-trial-mess is just so absurd so I find myself thinking all kinds of weird options.
I don't think that the juror was bought off until maybe in the end or after the trial IF that is an option. I truely don't know. But the guy sure likes the attention so it's probable he just didn't really think it through before opening up to everyone.

But about the jury dynamics I sort of disagree still (of course there is a limit in that too, if it is over the top). I just think it is the same as the ones saying (maybe there were only like two of 12 who didn't know if they believed the witnesses, we don't know) that "I think she remembers too little details, since in my experiences in life that has correlated with dishonesty". But thanks for getting me to think things more through. I get your view though!
Click to expand...
High profile cases usually attract disturbed people.

Paradise for egomaniacs.
 
Last edited:
One thing is interesting for me.

If the jurors had to rely on one of them to explain things concerning SA (rogue juror's task) it means - in my opinion - that Prosecution didn't do their job well.

Or maybe the Judge should have explained the matter more clearly while giving advice to the Jury.

Just my observation.

As a teacher I have to explain everything clearly to my pupils, I would be ashamed if they sought help while doing homework :)
 
Last edited:
 
investikater said:
Accuser says she saw photos of Ghislaine Maxwell nude and pregnant at Epstein’s home
:eek:

What happened to Maxwell and Epstein's love child? Questions swirl about a possible secret baby | Daily Mail Online
:eek::eek:

Five mysteries of Ghislaine & Epstein from ‘pregnancy’ to baby-making ranch
:eek::eek::eek:

Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA (Published 2019)
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

me: that rabbit hole i just went down escalated quickly :eek::confused::oops:
Click to expand...

I looked into it a couple of weeks ago and my understanding (links upthread) is that Maxwell has not been pregnant. If Epstein and Maxwell seriously wanted a surrogate to make a baby, wouldn't they select a candidate with a an uncomplicated life and clean-living lifestyle?
 
Dotta said:
One thing is interesting for me.

If the jurors had to rely on one of them to explain things concerning SA (rogue juror's task) it means - in my opinion - that Prosecution didn't do their job well.

Or maybe the Judge should have explained the matter more clearly while giving advice to the Jury.

Just my observation.

As a teacher I have to explain everything clearly to my pupils, I would be ashamed if they sought help while doing homework :)
Click to expand...

The issue seems to be whether the witnesses were understood to be credible. That's the point that the dishonest juror has made - that he used his personal experience to convince jurors that the witnesses were credible.

I'm not convinced that a Judge can influence whether a jury views witnesses as credible. That should be established by the prosecution, in my opinion.
 
otto said:
The issue seems to be whether the witnesses were understood to be credible. That's the point that the dishonest juror has made - that he used his personal experience to convince jurors that the witnesses were credible.

I'm not convinced that a Judge can influence whether a jury views witnesses as credible. That should be established by the prosecution, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
True - the most important task of Prosecution.
 
It seems that there are several grounds for an appeal. Two points that stand out are juror dishonesty and the Judge repeatedly commenting that jurors should deliberate beyond scheduled hours and on holidays. Additionally, there's the issue of the prosecution wrapping up a couple of weeks early and the defence having difficulties producing witnesses on short notice.

In most cases where there is a hung jury and a retrial, it is to the advantage of the prosecution. This is because trial is quite often the first time the prosecutors hear the defence strategy.

In this case, I think a re-trial might favour the defence, as they now know the prosecution strategy and can produce witnesses to specifically refute/discredit witness statements.
 
I'm a bit late to the party here, and perhaps I watch too many crime shows both true and fictional.

Let me just say that if it turns out that this juror was bribed by Team Maxwell, I won't be surprised.

And I have to wonder why an adult man would go by Scotty and not Scott.
 
IzzyBlanche said:
I'm a bit late to the party here, and perhaps I watch too many crime shows both true and fictional.

Let me just say that if it turns out that this juror was bribed by Team Maxwell, I won't be surprised.

And I have to wonder why an adult man would go by Scotty and not Scott.
Click to expand...

Bribed by Maxwell to do what? To lie on the questionnaire, craftily introduce his history of sexual abuse during juror deliberations, influence jurors regarding witness credibility and then proudly claim that he played an important role in influencing the verdict?

I can't see where a bribe could have played a role in the trial process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 144 more.
Total: 376 (members: 145, guests: 231)

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
231
Total visitors
376
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,894
Messages
18,247,205
Members
234,486
Latest member
BreNobody
Back
Top