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

[Cool Cats]

I am sorry I dont know that term as I am not American but basically tried to get on the jury PERHAPS by omitting relevant info? which in a way would make sense...because hes gone all out to make sure everyone knows possibly causing a retrial which can only be good for Ghislaine but...if he really has been sexually abused in the past why would he do that even?

I do not think he is a stealth juror or rogue juror at all.

I was just posting the definition in response to a post about that sort of thing.

I think he is a guy getting into something a bit over his head. Like a snowball rolling down hill you can't stop and it keeps getting bigger.



Snow Ball

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

So it has not been reported yet what he answered on the questionnaire? But presumably defense would have excused him if he said yes. But then there is another one saying they were a victim too. Could they have both answered yes and still been let on?

 

[BUF]

Can’t remember…did GM hire a jury consultant?

 

[BUF]

The juror has since hired attorney Todd Spodek, who represented fake heiress Anna Sorokin, according to a notice of appearance filed Wednesday.

Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers seek new trial after juror discloses he was sex abuse victim


He has a bunch of YouTube’s on his website…(he sort of looks like Mark Means)

 

[minusfour]

I remember in the Jodi Arias trial there was a juror who turned out to have some sort of history/problem with the prosecutor, (he had jailed a former partner of hers?), and she was the hold out on the death penalty deliberations. In the end Jodi was given a life sentence, and the prosecution blamed for not having checked the jurors history better.

I can understand that this could be a big problem. I mind that the experience of having being sexually abused, or being of a victim of other crimes, so common in our communities, might mean that a person is unable to sit on a jury, meant to be our peers. If I was the person facing trial, I wouldn't want them on my jury.

 

[sds71]

@benbwieder

The Maxwell juror who has come forward to say he was a victim of sexual abuse and convinced the jury to convict Maxwell was asked 46 questions to determine whether he could serve on the jury. None mentioned sexual abuse.
To clarify, this was during voir dire, after he had submitted his questionnaire
Here are the final two:


Maxwell’s team and the federal prosecutors had no additional questions for him.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21174133/voir-dire-maxwell-juror-50.pdf

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article257075567.html

 

[UK Girl]

@benbwieder

The Maxwell juror who has come forward to say he was a victim of sexual abuse and convinced the jury to convict Maxwell was asked 46 questions to determine whether he could serve on the jury. None mentioned sexual abuse.
To clarify, this was during voir dire, after he had submitted his questionnaire
Here are the final two:
View attachment 328864

Maxwell’s team and the federal prosecutors had no additional questions for him.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21174133/voir-dire-maxwell-juror-50.pdf

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article257075567.html

In theory if he had put yes to the sexual abuse question would he have gotten to this part?

 

[887sMtreme]

This whole tower of cards is built on the idea that child sex abuse is a rare thing, out of the ordinary. It's common. The odds are he wasn't the only one on the jury with a history of sex abuse. And why are we to believe someone with a history of sexual abuse is less reliable than, say, a bully victim, or someone with low income, or someone who can outrank GM in the social sphere, or someone who hates women.... We've all got our own experiences: that's kinda the point.

That isn’t really the issue, as I understand it, though knowledge of this juror’s SA history might well have caused the defense to dismiss him. It’s a matter of disqualifying the juror if he didn’t answer the question on the form accurately, isn’t it? IANAL, so really asking in order to be educated by those in the know.

 

[887sMtreme]

@benbwieder
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21174133/voir-dire-maxwell-juror-50.pdf

An executive assistant in finance who doesn’t read any newspapers? Not even the WSJ at work? Am I the only one here who finds that a little hard to believe?

That said, the judge’s questions didn’t touch on sexual abuse, which would have been the case if it had come up in the questionnaire. So maybe all this is just dust motes in a shaft of sunlight.

 

[mickey2942]

It seems that the juror used his own experience as a sexual abuse survivor to explain why specific memories of the abuse are imperfect.

Therefore, it is not any different INMO, as the lone black juror in the Jussie Smollett trial, re: "Noose Hate Crime Hoax", to state that based on his personal opinion as a black man, he would not have kept a noose around his neck for 45 minutes until the police arrived at Jussie Smollett's residence.
Andre Hope, lone Black juror in Smollett case, questioned why actor put noose on again

 

[887sMtreme]

So it has not been reported yet what he answered on the questionnaire? But presumably defense would have excused him if he said yes. But then there is another one saying they were a victim too. Could they have both answered yes and still been let on?

The transcript of the judge’s interview of Juror 50 did not touch on sexual abuse, suggesting that he may have answered “no” to Question 48. I’m worried.

 

[887sMtreme]

It seems that the juror used his own experience as a sexual abuse survivor to explain why specific memories of the abuse are imperfect.

Therefore, it is not any different INMO, as the lone black juror in the Jussie Smollett trial, re: "Noose Hate Crime Hoax", to state that based on his personal opinion as a black man, he would not have kept a noose around his neck for 45 minutes until the police arrived at Jussie Smollett's residence.
Andre Hope, lone Black juror in Smollett case, questioned why actor put noose on again

True, but that isn’t what’s at issue here. It’s if the juror failed to disclose prior sexual abuse on the questionnaire. If he’s answered “yes,” the defense might well have chosen to challenge him.

 

[RickshawFan]

Exactly. Who wants to go to something as simple as Weight Watchers and be counseled by someone who's never had a weight problem? Or AA for that matter? As you say, we all bring something to the table with our life's experiences.
IMO, this sincere man didn't have a clue that this would become an issue. He stated from the start he needed to be convinced that there was guilt. Went in with NO hidden agenda. Listened, reviewed the evidence and came to his conclusion.
MOO.

Defense wants to argue as though sexual assault survivorship is the clincher bias in the mix. Never mind the hundreds of other biases we all bring to the table.
Personally, I couldn't be impartial to GM for many reasons, but I can see someone else not particularly aware that they might be biased. Some of these are: her snooty accent; her indelible sneer; her poor ethics and values; the fact that she doesn't ever seem to have done any real work; her overtly sexual poses in her photos; taking advantage of everyone who wasn't in her clique; her obviously expensive lawyers (they prolly make more in a day than many people would in a year); she lived a life of the super rich; karma; getting to fly around in private jets..... so many possibilities!
And these may have been positives as well as negatives. Supposing, for instance, a jury member was an Oxford alum or had a "let them eat cake" attitude about lesser-income folks....

 

[RickshawFan]

I don't see it that way.
We don't know if he was remiss in his voir dire.
Let's wait and see.
Too me, he is an honest chap, almost naive. Didn't realize how this would play out.
Nor, do I think this will go anywhere in the whole scheme of things.
Too many wounded victims, whom only 4 have spoken on the stand, in this case.
The jury has spoken.
Ms Maxwell is guilty. I agree.
MOOO MOOOO and MOO.

The juror might also be incorrect in thinking he swayed the rest of the jury.

 

[RickshawFan]

What happens if the juror didn't realize he was sexually abused until he sat through the trial? Then, all of a sudden was, like, oh.....
This is what happened to so many of those gymnasts... They didn't know they were sexually abused until it was explained to them what that was.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'll just say it.
It looks staged.
I don't know that I believe it is, but it sure looks like it from where I sit.

jmo

 

[tayaway]

Doesn't everything depend on how he answered question #48?

Question #48 in the 50-question document reads:

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 advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)

There are then three boxes to tick: Yes (self) Yes (friend of family member) and No.

When DailyMail.com pointed this out to David he said that he definitely remembered filling out the questionnaire on day one of selection and said, "I would have definitely marked, Yes. But I honestly don't remember the question."

I only see a problem if he marked NO.

In theory if he had put yes to the sexual abuse question would he have gotten to this part?

It's statistically impossible not to know somebody who has been sexually harassed/abused/assaulted. This goes far beyond a juror and whether he truthfully answered this particular question. Societal attitudes silence so many that much of these incidents are normalized or, when it's exposed and clearly wrong, blamed on the victim. [edit: clarity]

 

[Cool Cats]

It seems that the juror used his own experience as a sexual abuse survivor to explain why specific memories of the abuse are imperfect.

Therefore, it is not any different INMO, as the lone black juror in the Jussie Smollett trial, re: "Noose Hate Crime Hoax", to state that based on his personal opinion as a black man, he would not have kept a noose around his neck for 45 minutes until the police arrived at Jussie Smollett's residence.
Andre Hope, lone Black juror in Smollett case, questioned why actor put noose on again

Good point

 

[JudgeJudi]

If juror Scotty David was truthful when he described himself as a survivor of sexual abuse, IMO the last thing he would have done would have been to disclose to the media what he said to the other jurors in order to reap some financial benefit. I believe he was quite excited that GM was going to be held accountable for what she’d done, whereas his abuser probably wasn’t.

He said that after some of the jurors questioned the accuracy of the two women’s memories, he decided to share his own experience of being sexually abused as a child. He said that he remembered most important elements of what happened to him, but not every single detail. I believe that rather than trying to “sway” them, he was trying to explain to other jurors how he felt at the time, why it took so long for these victims to come forward and that he understood their lapses in memory over some of the details. “When I shared that, they were able to sort of come around on … the memory aspect of the sexual abuse”. He added that coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn’t easy, to be honest.”

He said, “I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the colour of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video but I can’t remember all the details, there are some things that run together.” He told them that like these victims, he didn’t disclose his abuse until he was in high school. He believes this helped them understand the women’s delayed reporting.

A second juror told the others that like Carolyn, she too grew up poor and said had there been an Epstein or GM in her neighborhood, some of the girls would have fallen prey to them as well.

Unless you’ve walked in someone else’s shoes, it would have been hard for some to understand some of the aspects they deliberated over for days. There would have been many, “But she said …”, “So why didn’t she …” etc. Having two other jurors, one of whom was also a victim and the other who came from a similar background as one of GM’s victims, sitting amongst the jury could only have helped to enlighten them re aspects they had trouble coming to grips with.

In a piece for The Independent, SD said, “This verdict is for all the victims. For those who testified, for those who came forward and for those who haven’t come forward. I’m glad that Maxwell has been held accountable. This verdict shows that you can be found guilty no matter your status.”

Unfortunately for juror Scotty David, his happiness may be short-lived depending on how he answered the questionnaire.

Ghislaine Maxwell 'could file for mistrial' after juror reveals he suffered childhood sexual abuse

https://whbl.com/2022/01/05/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says/

 

[mickey2942]

Personally, I hope that it settles out, and GM gets sentenced for a long term.

And perhaps, jurors should sign a "non disclosure" agreement for keeping everything confidential. It should maintain confidentiality anyway. The entire process is part of the system. Let juries decide how and what they want behind closed doors. And keep it that way.