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

[BUF]

I’m surprised the Post released his last name.

It’s the Post

 

[grammieto5]

One of the qualifications for being an executive assistant is to be thorough and pay attention to detail. I'm thinking Scotty did not pay attention to that one little detail that he lied about. Not good.

 

[whitelilac]

Re: Richelle Nice: Scott Peterson trial, a precedent of jury misconduct

The Supreme Court said the lower court should consider whether a juror had committed "prejudicial misconduct" by failing to disclose that she had been involved in prior legal proceedings. She had filed a lawsuit in 2000 to get a restraining order after her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend harassed her while she was pregnant.

Yet when the potential jurors were asked if they had ever been a victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit, the juror, named Richelle Nice, had said no to both questions. In fact, Nice had been 4½ months pregnant when she filed a restraining order.

Dean Johnson, a legal analyst who has followed the case closely, believes there will be a new trial.

"I think this is going to be ironic ... if it turns out that the juror who was most prominent in the post-trial proceedings and who is most adamant about Peterson's guilt, is going to turn out to be ... the very juror whose actions caused the reversal of the conviction and a new trial," he told NPR. "And I think there's a very, very good chance that we may see a second Scott Peterson trial."

California Supreme Court Orders Scott Peterson's Murder Convictions To Be Reexamined

Nearly two decades after Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son, a judge has ruled there will be a new hearing to determine whether there was juror misconduct. Arguing for a new trial, Peterson's defense team claims that juror Richelle Nice purposefully got on the jury to convict Peterson, because she had faced domestic abuse in her own life while pregnant, which they say she failed to disclose.

I have no idea what will happen in this Maxwell case, nor can I find out whether Richelle Nice was charged in the SP case. I know she pleaded the 5th unless she received immunity. Plus this was in CA, and after sentencing.

In any case, this is an almighty mess and it's certain defense is going to go for a mistrial.
Feel terrible for the victims who've already gone through so much, and finally had received vindication.

 

[citygirl]

Could it be he won't be the paying for this lawyer?

I have no clue!
MOO.

 

[Spartygirl]

Down here in Oz I don't recall any jurors ever giving interviews - maybe it's illegal, or maybe it's my memory.

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.

 

[UK Girl]

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.

I kind of think that too but apparently it wasnt just him who possibly didnt put down they had history of sex abuse. I guess he lied beforehand I guess to make sure he got on the jury but...this guy has flat out gone for publicity. He had to know what he was doing surely? which then makes you think that yes he was got at possibly

 

[Kemug]

Oh, but Im sure somebody would talk in the future!
And GM might be even acquitted because of a huge scandal.

I don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.

 

[UK Girl]

I don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.

the trial still needs to be above board...or you have problems.

 

[Dotta]

I don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.

Ok, I will try to explain as well as I can in foreign language as Im a foreigner

A person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Let's suppose GM is sentenced and in jail.

Then, after some years, somebody finds out that 1 juror lied.

So the trial was not fair.

She is acquitted.

Well, that is my opinion.

 

[Cool Cats]

Inside the messy effort to compensate 225 Jeffrey Epstein accusers

 

[Kemug]

Ok, I will try to explain as well as I can in foreign language as Im a foreigner

A person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Let's suppose GM is sentenced and in jail.

Then, after some years, somebody finds out that 1 juror lied.

So the trial was not fair.

She is acquitted.

Well, that is my opinion.

Yes, "double jeopardy". But I believe different countries have different laws about it. And in this particular case, we hadn't reached the sentencing part of the trial yet, so presumably that makes a difference?

 

[Dotta]

Yes, "double jeopardy". But I believe different countries have different laws about it. And in this particular case, we hadn't reached the sentencing part of the trial yet, so presumably that makes a difference?

Of course!
That is why I WROTE earlier that it is better that the lying juror was found NOW!!!!!

I hope all is clear now b/c every time I refresh the thread somebody is quoting my previous post!

 

[rjay]

What are the odds that this juror was paid off by the defendant (or someone associated with) to reveal this to the media?

My spidey senses are triggered. These are powerful and very wealthy people at the top of the food chain who will go to almost any lengths. I mean look at what she’s being accused of. Paying people off has been her (and the Epstein gang’s) modus operandi for decades, to keep victims silenced. It’s not beyond them to “encourage” someone to talk to media, or lie for them.

IMOO

 

[JDG]

What are the odds that this juror was paid off by the defendant (or someone associated with) to reveal this to the media?

My spidey senses are triggered. These are powerful and very wealthy people at the top of the food chain who will go to almost any lengths. I mean look at what she’s being accused of. Paying people off has been her (and the Epstein gang’s) modus operandi for decades, to keep victims silenced. It’s not beyond them to “encourage” someone to talk to media, or lie for them.

IMOO

Orrrrr, which very powerful, rich man/men want GM to never name names, so got her a ‘get out of jail free card’??

There are plenty to choose from IMO.

If she is released and never speaks about this again, someone other than her might think it’s money well spent. No???

Let’s see what the investigation turns up and whether or not GM is released or makes bail.

 

[Kemug]

Of course!
That is why I WROTE earlier that it is better that the lying juror was found NOW!!!!!

I hope all is clear now b/c every time I refresh the thread somebody is quoting my previous post!

Yes Dotta, I get it now, sorry to be so obtuse. How do you feel about maybe having more "judge only" trials, or maybe a panel of 3 judges, for example?

 

[otto]

I don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.

Since the two jurors have admitted that they used personal experience to convince other jurors that the witnesses were credible, that suggests that other jurors could have reached a different verdict had they not been influenced by those personal experiences. I think that means that we cannot be sure that Maxwell would have been found guilty if all jurors had been honest in juror interviews.

 

[Dotta]

Yes Dotta, I get it now, sorry to be so obtuse. How do you feel about maybe having more "judge only" trials, or maybe a panel of 3 judges, for example?

You are never that!!!!

Well, in my country a Judge or 2 Judges in high profile cases give verdicts.
There are 2 jurors who just give their opinions to a Judge.
It is a good system I think.

 

[whitelilac]

You know, in the beginning of this trial, it even crossed my mind that this kind of scenario would occur, in what manner I couldn't imagine.
Too many unnamed powerful big shots with a LOT to lose, too much money around, too many "connections", etc. Coming to my senses I said "Nah". But I was still nervous about it, even nervous for the testifying victims.
I don't know, but I'm mighty suspicious.

 

[investikater]

Use of the term ephebophilia would have required lengthy proof that JE or GM operated from that interest. It is not recognized as a psychological disorder, so I don’t think it would have gone anywhere. Minors (under 21) are children. When high school students in the age range of 15-19 (the period of late adolescence covered by ephebophilia) are gunned down, we call them children. GM’s victims were children.

As far as I'm aware this word use is a peculiarity that is generally a United States phenomenon.

In most of the world those between 18 and 21 are not even considered minors.

Seeing as this is a somewhat international case it's causing issues IMO.

 

[investikater]

Are the potential jurors checked in this aspect?

i still havent seen an answer to the question someone else (sorry i cant remember) asked;
did GM have a jury consultant? did the prosecution?

because if not i dont think jurors are psychologically screened or evaluated

correct me if im wrong?