VERDICT WATCH NY - Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein confidante, arrested on Sex Abuse charges, Jul 2020 #3

[grammieto5]

It would be fair and just.

And very very long.

 

[sds71]

The case goes to the jury.

 

[PrairieWind]

And very very long.

We will never know the full story.

 

[citygirl]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
26m

Judge Nathan: "Members of the jury, you may begin your deliberations." It officially begins.

 

[BUF]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Judge Nathan says jurors can deliberate as long into the evening as they agree to—

—[internal monologue: Whew!]

 

[otto]

Just an opinion, but this instruction to the jury seems to eliminate all possibilities for a not guilty verdict. That is, if the jurors cannot find her complicit in Epstein's actions, they can guess that she may have "consciously avoided" knowing the details of Epstein's interactions with his victims and find her guilty. It's impossible to know what she consciously avoided knowing, but the possibility that people consciously avoid knowing is always in play. I'm wondering whether this opens the door for an appeal.

"Judge Alison Nathan had said over the weekend that jurors would be instructed that they may choose to convict Ms Maxwell if they conclude she either ignored or "consciously avoided" knowledge of Epstein's underage sexual encounters.

Her lawyers criticised the judge's move as a "backup option" in case the jury does not find Ms Maxwell was an active participant."
​

Ghislaine Maxwell trial jurors begin deliberations

 

[MrsWatson]

I think it would be pretty incredible, if the jury bought that Madame Maxwell had no idea what was going on and wasn't an active participant. That's an awful big stretch. All the young women had very similar experiences and initial encounters with her. She made it clear she was the lady of the house. Although she was the lady of the house, she didn't know what was going on around her, in the same house? The defense offered no explanation for that. I understand that you don't have to prove your innocence, it's up to the prosecution to prove your guilt, but I don't feel like the defense had much to offer at all. Their expert witness was a professional defense witness who actually wrote a book about it, I mean, come on. That's the best her defense could find?

All MOO of course

What is everyone else thinking? I thought it was a very strong closing argument. I see guilty on all charges.

 

[sds71]

@MarlonEttinger

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarlonEttinger/status/1473065646623711239
Jury deliberated until 5:30 PM before going home for the night - the note they sent to the judge took about 15 minutes to get to her though. Deliberations will resume tomorrow at 9.

 

[sds71]

@corinne_perkins

https://mobile.twitter.com/corinne_perkins/status/1473054305443794953
Maurene Comey points at Ghislaine Maxwell as she delivers the rebuttal argument for the government during the trial of Maxwell, the Jeffrey Epstein associate accused of sex trafficking, in a courtroom sketch in New York City.
Artist Jane Rosenberg

 

[ellyvantelli]

Just an opinion, but this instruction to the jury seems to eliminate all possibilities for a not guilty verdict. That is, if the jurors cannot find her complicit in Epstein's actions, they can guess that she may have "consciously avoided" knowing the details of Epstein's interactions with his victims and find her guilty. It's impossible to know what she consciously avoided knowing, but the possibility that people consciously avoid knowing is always in play. I'm wondering whether this opens the door for an appeal.

"Judge Alison Nathan had said over the weekend that jurors would be instructed that they may choose to convict Ms Maxwell if they conclude she either ignored or "consciously avoided" knowledge of Epstein's underage sexual encounters.

Her lawyers criticised the judge's move as a "backup option" in case the jury does not find Ms Maxwell was an active participant."
​

Ghislaine Maxwell trial jurors begin deliberations

Not trying to take issue with you so only quoting you for context because I also wondered about this aspect

If you actually read the Judge's instructions on this aspect (and I admit they are pretty dense and tedious to wade through) - it makes it pretty clear what does & does not consitute "ignoring" or "consciously avoiding" knowledge and it does seem to be based on what a 'normal person' could have understood/assumed. It does seem that this is not requiring mind reading but actually asking the question could she realistically have not understood what was happening [and it doesn't ask for acceptance that she is what afterall the defence's argument was that she was an Oxford educated savvy woman]

MOO of course

 

[ellyvantelli]

For anyone trying to fight their way through to making sense of my previous post the fab sds71 posted this link to the Judge's summing up aka jury charge:

Here’s the jury charge 83 pages

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21165303/finaljurychargeicp.pdf

Docket for United States v. Maxwell, 1:20-cr-00330 - CourtListener.com

The bit that talks about Conscious Avoidance is page 55/56 or pages 54/55 - gotta love uploads

 

[otto]

Not trying to take issue with you so only quoting you for context because I also wondered about this aspect

If you actually read the Judge's instructions on this aspect (and I admit they are pretty dense and tedious to wade through) - it makes it pretty clear what does & does not consitute "ignoring" or "consciously avoiding" knowledge and it does seem to be based on what a 'normal person' could have understood/assumed. It does seem that this is not requiring mind reading but actually asking the question could she realistically have not understood what was happening [and it doesn't ask for acceptance that she is what afterall the defence's argument was that she was an Oxford educated savvy woman]

MOO of course

Thank you. I have not read the complete instructions. On the surface, it seems that Maxwell is to be found guilty of sexually abusing teen victims. If that doesn't work, she should be found guilty of recruiting teen victims to be abused by Epstein. If that doesn't work, she should be found guilty of consciously avoiding knowing that teens she recruited for massage were abused by Epstein.

It doesn't seem to leave much room for being found not guilty except if the jury decides that she unconsciously avoided knowing Epstein's relationship with the victims. I'm not convinced that a jury can determine whether someone consciously or unconsciously avoided knowledge.

I'm also not convinced that university education has any relationship to someone's consciously, or unconsciously, avoided thought. I might even go so far as to suggest that more education presents more possibilities for finding alternate explanations for events.

 

[citygirl]

I think it would be pretty incredible, if the jury bought that Madame Maxwell had no idea what was going on and wasn't an active participant. That's an awful big stretch. All the young women had very similar experiences and initial encounters with her. She made it clear she was the lady of the house. Although she was the lady of the house, she didn't know what was going on around her, in the same house? The defense offered no explanation for that. I understand that you don't have to prove your innocence, it's up to the prosecution to prove your guilt, but I don't feel like the defense had much to offer at all. Their expert witness was a professional defense witness who actually wrote a book about it, I mean, come on. That's the best her defense could find?

All MOO of course

What is everyone else thinking? I thought it was a very strong closing argument. I see guilty on all charges.

I feel the same way. Found the defense's closing arguments rather insulting. Having said that, not sure the jury will concur. We just don't know.
MOO.

 

[sds71]

Jeffrey Epstein private plane flight logs
118 pages

DocumentCloud


https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/crime/article256740662.html

Jeffrey Epstein Flight Logs, Showing Detailed Passenger Lists, Entered into Evidence at Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

Trump flew on ‘Lolita Express’ with Eric, Tiffany and Clinton adviser


@kbriquelet
Catching up on more exhibits, including some slides the defense presented to the jury during closing arguments today. Note the typo in their "money, manipulation, memory" theory

here is one of Maxwell's demonstratives shown to the jury but not the public while Menninger trashed victims

 

[Kemug]

I am wondering if a guilty verdict may/will loosen GM's tongue, when she has nothing left to lose - there may be some very important feet quaking in their boots right now!

 

[Chelly]

This isn't like one or two mysterious weekends! This was years-and-years worth of SA. GM knew what was happening!

 

[citygirl]

I am wondering if a guilty verdict may/will loosen GM's tongue, when she has nothing left to lose - there may be some very important feet quaking in their boots right now!

By all accounts, as I read media reports online, many pundits have suggested just that. One can only hope. MOO.

 

[LaborDayRN]

I am wondering if a guilty verdict may/will loosen GM's tongue, when she has nothing left to lose - there may be some very important feet quaking in their boots right now!

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if convicted I wonder if she will meet a similar fate to JE. There may be someone out there (or more likely many people) that would rather their name not be mentioned.

 

[citygirl]

Jeffrey Epstein private plane flight logs
118 pages

DocumentCloud


https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/crime/article256740662.html

Jeffrey Epstein Flight Logs, Showing Detailed Passenger Lists, Entered into Evidence at Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

Trump flew on ‘Lolita Express’ with Eric, Tiffany and Clinton adviser


@kbriquelet
Catching up on more exhibits, including some slides the defense presented to the jury during closing arguments today. Note the typo in their "money, manipulation, memory" theory

here is one of Maxwell's demonstratives shown to the jury but not the public while Menninger trashed victims

 

[citygirl]

Why didn't the defense call these witnesses?