Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges

[postman1782]

As much as I love bashing on Trump, a lot of powerful democrats were also in bed with them. This is a bipartisan snake pit who are getting away with this, the only reason she won't be dead soon is because it would look bad.

But no one had the accessibility that Trump and Barr had. You can't claim that Hillary or Bill had them killed without some sort of evidence and ability to get that to go through.

[Draco-Onis]

But no one had the accessibility that Trump and Barr had. You can't claim that Hillary or Bill had them killed without some sort of evidence and ability to get that to go through.

But that's even worse because we don't know how far this rabbit hole it goes, presidents change but that's just the wall paint. A lot of the structure in both parties and their influence remains for example left or right you can't turn a corner without bumping into someone from Goldman Sachs.

[Egomaniac]

As much as I love bashing on Trump, a lot of powerful democrats were also in bed with them. This is a bipartisan snake pit who are getting away with this, the only reason she won't be dead soon is because it would look bad.

If "they" wanted her dead...she'd have been dead before there was even a trial...hell... she'd have been dead before she was even charged.

I don't think anyone considers her to be enough of a threat to kill. If she had information that she could use to cut herself a deal...it's clear she didn't use it.

[Breccia]

Possibility of a mistrial?

I read about this, one of the jurors was themselves abused. I'm not sure how that will go, but if you lie on your juror questionaire, it's a problem.

But I don't see why the next attempt wouldn't also get a guilty finding.

[Forogil]

I read about this, one of the jurors was themselves abused. I'm not sure how that will go, but if you lie on your juror questionaire, it's a problem.

That's what happens when you select 12 persons whose only qualification is that they haven't found an excuse to get out of jury-duty.

We don't know if the juror lied on the questionnaire - but it seems there was a question about prior personal knowledge of abuse; and the juror didn't state that they remember answering it with details.

But I don't see why the next attempt wouldn't also get a guilty finding.

That juror alleges that they convinced other jurors that witnesses somewhat spotty recollection of abuse is normal.
So that juror might have been crucial - or just exaggerating.

As for those facts - they make sense - there's a misconception that traumatic events would stick like a photographic memory, but eye-witnesses testimony is not very reliable even for such things; mixing up things is quite normal.

Added: Even if the juror lied that may not be sufficient grounds for a mistrial - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/no-...ay-2022-01-07/

[cubby]

Possibility of a mistrial? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59884806

Um, yeah. If that juror lied on his Questionnaire it will put him in jail and pretty much guarantee a mistrial. In the article, the juror states that there weren't any questions about previous sexual abuse. I would be a little shocked if there weren't questions like that, but I am NOT a voir dire expert. The article doesn't mention if those type of clearing questions were on the Jury Questionnaire; one, I would think that would be an important thing to include, and two, getting a copy of the Jury Questionnaire shouldn't be that hard.

So far nothing in the news about if there were questions about previous sexual abuse.

For those that don't swim in the legal field, a juror using past experiences to make their point in jury deliberations is NOT grounds for mistrial. The issue would be whether the juror claimed not have been abused in the pretrial Jury Questionnaire. It would be the lie that would cause the mistrial, not the experience nor the use of that experience to persuade.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if the juror lied that may not be sufficient grounds for a mistrial - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/no-...ay-2022-01-07/

Nice find. From the article:

But not all instances of jurors failing to disclose information are significant enough to merit a new trial, experts said, noting that cases where verdicts were overturned largely involved jurors who deliberately omitted information to try to get on the panel.

Regardless, sentencing should go forward as Maxwell's attorney argue in appeals for a mistrial. Just as a note, a retrial usually goes better for the Prosecution, because they have now seen the Defense's case, and now know what to expect.

[Egomaniac]

Regardless, sentencing should go forward as Maxwell's attorney argue in appeals for a mistrial. Just as a note, a retrial usually goes better for the Prosecution, because they have now seen the Defense's case, and now know what to expect.

Not just that...but they now know exactly what they need to do to persuade another jury... call a witness that can testify about what the trauma of abuse can do to memory.

[Flarelaine]

For those that don't swim in the legal field, a juror using past experiences to make their point in jury deliberations is NOT grounds for mistrial.

And yet whenever I dive into coverage of some high-profile case, it seems to be attorneys are dead bent on disqualifying anyone who might have even on inkling of what may have been going on.

[cubby]

Not just that...but they now know exactly what they need to do to persuade another jury... call a witness that can testify about what the trauma of abuse can do to memory.

Great point - indeed, if it goes back to a retrial, they'll know what to do better on their side, too.

[Iliena]

Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages

The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.

Prince Andrew will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935

[jonnysensible]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935

have to call him 'his grace' instead of HRH now. The horror.

[JohnBrown1917]

His grace, the royal pedophile.

[Flarelaine]

I wonder if things can get vicious enough to get his peerages revoked.

[gondrin]

Well, Maxwell is ready to give up her fight to keep her Johns list confidential. I really wonder who is on it. Shall we see? This might be as big a news story as the Ashley Madison breach, except this is for illegal acts, not just a bunch of people who are looking for hookups while in relationships.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...cid=uxbndlbing

A whole lot of John Does are likely more nervous this morning.

At issue? Virginia Giuffre’s request to unseal documents that name names in her since-settled civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, which led to a lengthy and ongoing open-records battle.

In December of last year, a Manhattan jury in Maxwell’s trial returned guilty verdicts in five of the six charges against her after six days of deliberations. Maxwell faced federal charges that included conspiracy, violations of the Mann Act, and sex trafficking a minor for her role as Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime confidante and now-convicted accomplice, related to what prosecutors described as Epstein’s “Pyramid scheme” of sexual abuse of minor girls.

Depending on what lies underneath the redactions, the unsealed information could make waves inside the same courthouse, and around the world.

Giuffre, one of Epstein’s many alleged victims, filed a federal lawsuit in New York in August of last year accusing Britain’s Prince Andrew of sexually abusing her on multiple occasions when she was 17 years old. Her lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz—and his countersuit against her—are also playing out in the Southern District of New York.

In a legal brief filed on Wednesday, Giuffre requested that the judge unseal the names of the John Does currently kept out of the public eye, in part due to their complaints of how disruptive the media attention would be to their lives.

“Upon review of the objections of those Does, it is apparent that their objections essentially mirror objections to unsealing that this Court has already rejected,” Giuffre’s lawyer wrote, as cited by the producer of the Prince and the Pervert podcast that is chronicling the events of this case.

Maxwell has previously fought the unsealing of the legal names of the John Does revealed in the still-sealed court documents, but a letter from her lawyer dated January 12th notes that Maxwell “does not wish to further address” detailed objections submitted by Non-Party Does 17, 53, 54, 55, 73, 93, and 151. You can read the full letter below.

The fact that Maxwell is no longer interested in keeping the names sealed doesn’t mean, of course, that they will be revealed. That decision will be left to Judge Loretta Preska, who is presiding over the case. What it does likely indicate, however, is that now that Mawell is a convicted felon, she doesn’t really care about protecting the names anymore.

[Kathandira]

Well, Maxwell is ready to give up her fight to keep her Johns list confidential. I really wonder who is on it. Shall we see? This might be as big a news story as the Ashley Madison breach, except this is for illegal acts, not just a bunch of people who are looking for hookups while in relationships.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...cid=uxbndlbing

I would love to see that list. And honestly, the public deserves to know.

[cubby]

Well, Maxwell is ready to give up her fight to keep her Johns list confidential. I really wonder who is on it. Shall we see? This might be as big a news story as the Ashley Madison breach, except this is for illegal acts, not just a bunch of people who are looking for hookups while in relationships.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...cid=uxbndlbing

A whole lot of John Does are likely more nervous this morning.

At issue? Virginia Giuffre’s request to unseal documents that name names in her since-settled civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, which led to a lengthy and ongoing open-records battle.

In December of last year, a Manhattan jury in Maxwell’s trial returned guilty verdicts in five of the six charges against her after six days of deliberations. Maxwell faced federal charges that included conspiracy, violations of the Mann Act, and sex trafficking a minor for her role as Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime confidante and now-convicted accomplice, related to what prosecutors described as Epstein’s “Pyramid scheme” of sexual abuse of minor girls.

Depending on what lies underneath the redactions, the unsealed information could make waves inside the same courthouse, and around the world.

Giuffre, one of Epstein’s many alleged victims, filed a federal lawsuit in New York in August of last year accusing Britain’s Prince Andrew of sexually abusing her on multiple occasions when she was 17 years old. Her lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz—and his countersuit against her—are also playing out in the Southern District of New York.

In a legal brief filed on Wednesday, Giuffre requested that the judge unseal the names of the John Does currently kept out of the public eye, in part due to their complaints of how disruptive the media attention would be to their lives.

“Upon review of the objections of those Does, it is apparent that their objections essentially mirror objections to unsealing that this Court has already rejected,” Giuffre’s lawyer wrote, as cited by the producer of the Prince and the Pervert podcast that is chronicling the events of this case.

Maxwell has previously fought the unsealing of the legal names of the John Does revealed in the still-sealed court documents, but a letter from her lawyer dated January 12th notes that Maxwell “does not wish to further address” detailed objections submitted by Non-Party Does 17, 53, 54, 55, 73, 93, and 151. You can read the full letter below.

The fact that Maxwell is no longer interested in keeping the names sealed doesn’t mean, of course, that they will be revealed. That decision will be left to Judge Loretta Preska, who is presiding over the case. What it does likely indicate, however, is that now that Mawell is a convicted felon, she doesn’t really care about protecting the names anymore.

If the list actually gets out, and published, you can bet the people on there will begin a smear campaign that the list is a "lie", etc.

[Zan15]

If the list actually gets out, and published, you can bet the people on there will begin a smear campaign that the list is a "lie", etc.

i would love for them to release a page at a time.

Let it be Clinton on the first page and watch fox/trump/magats explode about how real the information is...

then a week later release page two with trump on it and watch it flip....

[Draco-Onis]

i would love for them to release a page at a time.

Let it be Clinton on the first page and watch fox/trump/magats explode about how real the information is...

then a week later release page two with trump on it and watch it flip....

It's weird that we live in a world where 1/3 of republicans are Qanon believers and they are not all over this.

[Xyonai]

It's weird that we live in a world where 1/3 of republicans are Qanon believers and they are not all over this.

Because it's just like These wingnuts to not actually care or do anything about real problems when they can cry and panic about shit they made up instead.

[Edge-]

It's weird that we live in a world where 1/3 of republicans are Qanon believers and they are not all over this.

It didn't happen at a pizza shop, so I assume it doesn't count.