Ghislaine Maxwell trial

Epstein was in London and may not have the network of girls he'd be able to access freely in the United States whilst in London so she may be bought over with them to satisfy his own sexual needs for the few days he was in London.i doubt she was bought over specifically to service Andrew in his hometown but maybe given the opportunity to do so...he may have took advantage of this opportunity.

Reports indicate she was an adult when this is alleged to have happened.

Am I the only one that is confused that if Virginia Guiffre is not claiming she was underage at the time of the alleged encounters how she can avail of legislation which sets aside the statute of limitations based on child sexual abuse to enable her bring her case in a New York court?

Yes ....but Epstein had compensated Virginia Roberts for all his misdemeanors with her in every way in 2009 and she accepted the settlement This is solely between Virginia Roberts and prince Andrew having sexual contact especially in London and the prince may have believed it to be consensual on Virginia Roberts part .....if it did happen..she not suing Epsteins estate again based on the assumed handing over by Epstein the 17 year Roberts to prince Andrew .....I was reading on sky news website that Virginia Roberts case against prince Andrew included her saying that it was MAXWELL who ordered her to do with Andrew what she does with jeffrey..so in effect the consensual part was already made happen by Maxwell to Roberts and Andrew may or may not took advantage of Roberts then which does look bad for the prince if he did.... but the principle probably is the same.she seems to imply a collaborative agreement that Maxwell and Andrew which would allow Andrew to have sexual contact with roberts at his discretion.

what kind of idiot talks to the press like that, only use my first and middle name but sure plaster pics of me and my cat all over it

so somebody who has been mugged in the past couldn't sit on the jury for a mugging trial? do you think they should extend it so that any victim of a crime is barred from serving on a jury because they might be impartial?

So anyone who's got a kicking at pub closing time can ever sit on any jury relating to assault? Anyone who had their lunch money stolen can ever sit on any jury around theft or burglary?

We're going to start running out of jurors. People may or may not be impartial, regardless of their past experience. If you want to start measuring impartiality, you're going to need to look further than what crimes they may have been a victim of.

This will certainly be added to Maxwell’s grounds for appeal. Her lawyers will scrutinise every word. Odd that this juror doesn’t remember that he was asked if he had been a victim of sexual abuse.

I was ridiculed on this thread when I said that jurors would be courted by the media after the trial. My point was that the jurors would face a very different media response if they had acquitted her. Here we have a sympathetic story in the Daily Mail (!) of the juror/victim. Imagine the media stories if Maxwell had walked!

I’m not saying she’s innocent, I’m not saying the jury conspired to convict her. I simply say that the jurors knew they would get a very hostile reaction if they acquitted.

The issue is not that victims of crime are automatically barred from being jurors in trials of people charged with a similar crime; it's that having been a victim of crime might raise the issue of whether your experience leaves you less able to be dispassionate. The defence is entitled to know about this so that they can explore the possiblity that you might be biased and, if appropriate, challenge you as a juror. In the Maxwell case, as is routine, all the prospective jurors filled out a questionnaire designed to bring to light any issues that the defence might wish to consider, including this one. It seems that the juror concerned didn't disclose in answering that questionnaire that they had been a victim of sex abuse, so the defence never got the opportunity to consider whether a challenge was warranted.

I thought it was prince Andrew who requested the interview so the line he used of 'dragging out what was required' was bizzare alright...he also said he wanted to talk person to person to Epstein in 2010 so as he says himself he is a engaging person!.

He certainly disclosed his abuse to his peers in the jury room, so they were in a position to raise any concerns they might have had. Disclosure of sexual abuse is an extremely sensitive issue. You may have people who haven't disclosed their abuse to their partner or kids, and now they're expected to give details in a forum which may end up plastered all over tabloid news sites.

Maybe they should be asking everyone if they've ever carried out any sexual abuse to see if they are dispassionate? Or if they've ever been accused of sexual abuse?

In the interview,he definitely wanted to get across it was Ghislaine was the reason for all the invitations to the royal occasions they were invited as guests....that would be truthful...more than likely he then received invitations from Ghislaine more so than Jeffrey to occasions/events in their US homes...incl parties where young girls were in attendance and that she most likely organised in the United States which he attended...now that she has been convicted of being a "madam" in procuring girls in the states... she'll be the cause of his ultimate downfall this time even though she certainly wouldn't want that to happen her best friend and her his best friend,the agreement that Epstein and Virginia Roberts have won't protect Andrew in this instance....it did protect Maxwell in any civil case being dismissed..if Maxwell and Virginia Roberts had the same agreement written up with the same conditions, he'd be better protected from the allegations....I wouldn't be surprised if Maxwell really was prince Andrews real love interest and the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his life with.....like his brother prince Charles who always wanted to be with camilla.

It's not just about this one juror though. I'm talking in general - that expecting people to disclose their sexual abuse history in a public forum is very problematic. It also seems misguided, to just ask people if they have been a victim of abuse. If you're going to ask those questions, you'd want to ask them if they have every carried out abuse, or been accused of abuse, or had a friend or relative who has been through abuse. Honestly, it's a bit of a pointless question on its own.

Not only is she a scapegoat for Epstein, she's now a scapegoat for a jurors past trauma.