Ghislaine Maxwell's Defense Seeks Mistrial Over Juror

I watched this on the news this morning. Another trial? It could be a possibility, I guess. Though I know nothing about the law.

When I went to jury duty selection, the one and only time (I've since sent in a permanent MD excuse) one of the questions verbally asked was "have you or a family member ever been the victim of a crime" My answer was yes and I was eventually excused later in the day but not at that time. It was an interesting process to watch but I sure don't want to serve on a jury and don't have what it takes anyway.

But perhaps if you get selected you fill out a paper questionnaire which is what the news implied and that is where this person didn't tell the truth. From what I could gather from the news report this jurors history of abuse came out in deliberations?

And isn't one of the reasons Scott Peterson got his death sentence changed to life was one of the jurors was also untruthful? I think that redhead they called strawberry shortcake.
 
Pepper said:
Was he asked that question in voir dire? I wonder.
Click to expand...
According to the article:

"Prospective jurors were given a questionnaire in which they were required to disclose any past experience of sexual abuse.

Mark Stephens, of U.K. law firm Howard Kennedy, told Newsweek that Scotty David would have been removed from selection had the jury selection system operated as it should have."
 
Apparently from what I've read he was asked the question as to whether he'd suffered sexual abuse as part of a 50 question questionnaire... ..he denies any recollection of answering the question
 
We don't know anything about the circumstances of her position,
maybe she was also a victim, controlled, a modern day slave!

I am not on any side as I have no idea what happened, other than
what the media want us to know, but acting as devil's advocate,
anything is possible.

When the jury couldn't decide before Christmas, her defence thought
that she had won.

Mike.
 
hollydolly said:
Apparently from what I've read he was asked the question as to whether he'd suffered sexual abuse as part of a 50 question questionnaire... ..he denies any recollection of answering the question
Click to expand...
That's interesting. The case I was at, they were doing jury selection for some kind of crime/altercation in a parking lot, I guess that's why the question about being a crime victim was asked. I'd have to assume for this trial the question would have been verbally asked also. But since this is a much more personal thing to admit in front of a room full of strangers, perhaps it was just on paper?
 
Remy said:
I watched this on the news this morning. Another trial? It could be a possibility, I guess. Though I know nothing about the law.
Click to expand...

Well, you are correct on that point. If appealed, and it will be, the Federal Appeals Court could very well vacate the decision and Remand, or let it stand!
 
Looks to me that they didn't vet anybody OneEyedDiva, or
maybe they did and wanted some victims in the hope that
they wouldn't be found out!

Maybe half were victims and only two slipped up.

Mike.
 
Mike said:
We don't know anything about the circumstances of her position,
maybe she was also a victim, controlled, a modern day slave!

I am not on any side as I have no idea what happened, other than
what the media want us to know, but acting as devil's advocate,
anything is possible.

When the jury couldn't decide before Christmas, her defence thought
that she had won.

Mike.
Click to expand...
you do realise she was married to someone else... ?
 
I didn't realize that when the FBI raided Epstein's home they discovered a huge trove of evidence in a safe they cut open with a saw. There were hard drives, CDs, photos, diamonds, a fake passport, and $70,000 in cash. The CDs supposedly showed prominent men having sex with these underaged girls.

The FBI agent in charge left the evidence unattended (their warrant apparently allowed them to cut open safes but not seize evidence), and it "disappeared". Epstein's lawyer later brought two suitcases to the FBI that supposedly contained the missing evidence.

I'm not making this up.

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-agents-used-saw-open-004401080.html

I think this is really the crime of the century. Everyone from Bill Clinton to Trump to Bill Gates is involved. And as you know, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. But this is really weird.
 
JimBob1952 said:
I didn't realize that when the FBI raided Epstein's home they discovered a huge trove of evidence in a safe they cut open with a saw. There were hard drives, CDs, photos, diamonds, a fake passport, and $70,000 in cash. The CDs supposedly showed prominent men having sex with these underaged girls.

The FBI agent in charge left the evidence unattended (their warrant apparently allowed them to cut open safes but not seize evidence), and it "disappeared". Epstein's lawyer later brought two suitcases to the FBI that supposedly contained the missing evidence.
Click to expand...
I read the facts and it seems like a very strange circumstance legally? Leaving fair probability inculpatory evidence like was done was very sloppy. If they had authority to cut open the safe they had a right to seize any evidence they had PC to believe was the product of criminal offenses, regardless of the particulars of the warrant! If they then applied for a SW, they must have believed that to be true, or why didn't apply for one by phone/fax right then? They could have detained anyone from entering without escort until it was approved, within a reasonable time frame of course! Sounds like a pre-planned move to purposely have evidence destroyed/stolen?
 
ohioboy said:
I read the facts and it seems like a very strange circumstance legally? Leaving fair probability inculpatory evidence like was done was very sloppy. If they had authority to cut open the safe they had a right to seize any evidence they had PC to believe was the product of criminal offenses, regardless of the particulars of the warrant! If they then applied for a SW, they must have believed that to be true, or why didn't apply for one by phone/fax right then? They could have detained anyone from entering without escort until it was approved, within a reasonable time frame of course! Sounds like a pre-planned move to purposely have evidence destroyed/stolen?
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Look, if there are videos of ex-Presidents and others with teenage girls, then it's in a lot of peoples' interest to cover it all up. That's why Ghislaine's trial is a sideshow to a main event that will never happen.
 
It is like a bad episode of the keystone cops or the three stooges join the FBI.
Why do these "failures" always happen when prominent people are involved seems fishy to anyone.
FBI has a credibility issue that they EARNED all on their own.

I think the sloppiness of the whole deal and his death that had too many coincidences that tape was not recording the guards slept or Forgot to check every 15 minutes no roommate etc.
I had read that some observers did not think she would be convicted because the evidence was more on HIM then her.

I wonder why this jury was given a questionnaire.
i know many people just breeze through barely reading paperwork like that.
questioning each one would have probably shown body language or hesitation when responding ... hope they do not use same process with new jury.
 
JimBob1952 said:
Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Look, if there are videos of ex-Presidents and others with teenage girls, then it's in a lot of peoples' interest to cover it all up. That's why Ghislaine's trial is a sideshow to a main event that will never happen.
Click to expand...
If they had PC to seize/confiscate the items, and it was determined later to be seized unconstitutionally, it would be returned, and the Federal Exclusionary Rule would be triggered, can not be used as evidence in Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top