NonceUponATimeInEpsteinAndAndyLand

Fluctuation0161 said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

I am interested in the Judges decision on whether the legal case should be thrown out because of the release agreement.
But whatever that outcome, I would definitely prefer Andrew to go on trial and a jury decide whether he really is innocent or not.
It should not be stopped going to court because of a financial settlement.
And if he is really innocent, why is he fighting so hard to prevent a court case proving that he is...
But we all know the answer to that.
 
Buster15 said:
I am interested in the Judges decision on whether the legal case should be thrown out because of the release agreement.
But whatever that outcome, I would definitely prefer Andrew to go on trial and a jury decide whether he really is innocent or not.
It should not be stopped going to court because of a financial settlement.
And if he is really innocent, why is he fighting so hard to prevent a court case proving that he is...
But we all know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
I think the problem with that is that this is a civil case... if she had filed criminal charges then I'm pretty sure this agreement wouldn't hold up?

I'm not sure why she hasn't filed criminal charges - or is that in process as well?

Personally I am looking forward to seeing him sweat on the witness stand talking about how its impossible for him to sweat... gut feel though if the judge allows it to proceed somebody from his legal cuts a deal to kill the case (probably a lot more than the half million as well... no doubt at UK tax payers expense)

Ms Giuffre's legal action is a civil case filed by a private party for monetary damages, as opposed to a criminal case filed by the state.
Arick Fudali, a partner at New York legal firm Bloom, which has represented nine of Epstein's victims, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that "very few" of such cases ended up going to trial but there was a "small chance" this could.
The alternatives are that it is settled beforehand, it is struck out by a judge, or the complainant ceases the action.
Melissa Murray, professor of law at New York University, said Prince Andrew "could be on the hook for significant money damages".
"This is not about whether or not Prince Andrew will go to jail - he has no criminal exposure from this particular case,"
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58153711
 
sun_tzu said:
I think the problem with that is that this is a civil case... if she had filed criminal charges then I'm pretty sure this agreement wouldn't hold up?

I'm not sure why she hasn't filed criminal charges - or is that in process as well?

Personally I am looking forward to seeing him sweat on the witness stand talking about how its impossible for him to sweat... gut feel though if the judge allows it to proceed somebody from his legal cuts a deal to kill the case (probably a lot more than the half million as well... no doubt at UK tax payers expense)


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58153711
Click to expand...

She didn’t file criminal charges because Epstein paid her off when she was young and naive. The statute of limitations has run out on Andy for criminal charges hence the civil case.
 
Pexbo said:
She didn’t file criminal charges because Epstein paid her (and her lawyers) off when she was 26. The statute of limitations has run out on Andy for criminal charges hence the civil case.
Click to expand...

To be accurate...

Hope it goes to trial but fully expect some deal to be reached between the legal teams that will see her drop the case (assuming the judge allows it to proceed which I think he will)
 
Buster15 said:
I am interested in the Judges decision on whether the legal case should be thrown out because of the release agreement.
But whatever that outcome, I would definitely prefer Andrew to go on trial and a jury decide whether he really is innocent or not.
It should not be stopped going to court because of a financial settlement.
And if he is really innocent, why is he fighting so hard to prevent a court case proving that he is...
But we all know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
I think we all know also, that nothing will come from this. The crown won't let Prince Andrew go on trial, if it is forced there is no way he will be convicted.
 
It appears like she doesn't really want a trial and conviction just permission for it to go to trial so her and her legal team can get a large settlement to kill it. I don't really blame her for this as not being able to submit a criminal case and everyone knowing you don't beat the crown, this is probably the best result they could achieve.
 
lilcurt said:
It appears like she doesn't really want a trial and conviction just permission for it to go to trial so her and her legal team can get a large settlement to kill it. I don't really blame her for this as not being able to submit a criminal case and everyone knowing you don't beat the crown, this is probably the best result they could achieve.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think whatever happens there will be a settlement (to prevent her going on talk shows etc)... but with the threat of a trial and specifically a videoed deposition of Prince Andrew under oath (sweating as he testifies he cant sweat) would certainly make Andrews side look to settle quicker and probably at a far higher amount.

Very little chance it actually makes it to court.
 
Jippy said:
Everything about this whole case is grubby. Jurors giving Daily Mail interviews feels wrong. Jury duty shouldn't be some ticket to low level reality TV celebrity.

EXCLUSIVE: 'Ghislaine was a predator as guilty as Epstein': Maxwell juror describes moment he 'locked eyes' with sex trafficker and reveals his own abuse ordeal

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html
Click to expand...

"I was actually on the Jury for the Scranton Strangler case"
 
Jippy said:
Everything about this whole case is grubby. Jurors giving Daily Mail interviews feels wrong. Jury duty shouldn't be some ticket to low level reality TV celebrity.

EXCLUSIVE: 'Ghislaine was a predator as guilty as Epstein': Maxwell juror describes moment he 'locked eyes' with sex trafficker and reveals his own abuse ordeal

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html
Click to expand...

  • Scotty revealed that he was not the only juror to share a story of sexual abuse and that it did not affect his ability to view Maxwell as innocent until proven guilty
Click to expand...
Legal experts said that if David failed to disclose his past experiences before the jury deliberations, Maxwell could have grounds to claim a mistrial and have her convictions quashed.

However, the question of whether a potential juror was a victim of sexual abuse or a relative or friend of a victim was asked in the 50-question survey completed by each juror ahead of selection.
Click to expand...

Suspect Lawyers are reviewing all the questionnaires pretty quickly
 
2 man midfield said:
He didn’t think it was a good idea to mention that before?
Click to expand...
perhaps he did... and perhaps the other person he mentioned did... I'm sure the defence is busy checking the paperwork right now ... 2/12 =16.66% of the jury (at least) suffered sexual abuse and used this experience to persuade other jury members (according to his statement) - which if not declared I suspect would give grounds for an appeal?


Especially as he has also said

Addressing why they found Maxwell not guilty on one count, which alleged she enticed accuser “Jane” across state lines, he said: “We simply didn’t see enough direct evidence to convict on count two.

“It wasn’t about not believing Jane.

“I personally was willing to find her guilty on count two.

“But we all decided in the end that there wasn’t enough evidence.”
Click to expand...

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...mony-showed-pattern-of-grooming-41210760.html

So he's also said he was happy to find somebody guilty without evidence...

Really strange interview and certainly enough for a lawyer to cast concerns about impartiality?
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
perhaps he did... and perhaps the other person he mentioned did... I'm sure the defence is busy checking the paperwork right now ... 2/12 =16.66% of the jury (at least) suffered sexual abuse and used this experience to persuade other jury members (according to his statement) - which if not declared I suspect would give grounds for an appeal?


Especially as he has also said



https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...mony-showed-pattern-of-grooming-41210760.html

So he's also said he was happy to find somebody guilty without evidence...

Really strange interview and certainly enough for a lawyer to cast concerns about impartiality?
Click to expand...
Very strange.
 
sun_tzu said:
Lawyers now want a retrial

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59884806
Click to expand...
They have good grounds.

40 hours of deliberating shows it wasn't a straight forward decision and the Jura starting that his past experiences help to convince some to give a guilty verdict.

Pexbo said:
The entire thing sounds so contrived
Click to expand...
It's Hollywood, they love a good story and this hasn't run it's course yet.


I feel sorry for the victims. Maybe having to go through it all again.
 
Sounds like a good way to engineer a mistrial to me. Pay a juror to go singing to the tabloids after you've been found guilty.
 
diarm said:
Sounds like a good way to engineer a mistrial to me. Pay a juror to go singing to the tabloids after you've been found guilty.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but that’s my thinking too. It even provides a super easy way to pay off the juror without a paper trail with the Daily Mail paying a premium for the interview.
 
Jurors talking to the press is always shitty. There should be some kind of NDA rule to prevent it.
 
Isn’t this a prison term level offence in the UK?, I had the impression anything the jurors talk about can never ever be shared?
 
Pexbo said:
Honestly, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but that’s my thinking too. It even provides a super easy way to pay off the juror without a paper trail with the Daily Mail paying a premium for the interview.
Click to expand...

Considering most people think Epstien was murdered in prison, this is pretty basic step to take in comparison, before they have to resort to extremes.
 
Anyone seen Epstein: Filthy Rich on NETFLIX, it’s quite stunning. Justifies the conspiracies.
 
sun_tzu said:
perhaps he did... and perhaps the other person he mentioned did... I'm sure the defence is busy checking the paperwork right now ... 2/12 =16.66% of the jury (at least) suffered sexual abuse and used this experience to persuade other jury members (according to his statement) - which if not declared I suspect would give grounds for an appeal?


Especially as he has also said



https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...mony-showed-pattern-of-grooming-41210760.html

So he's also said he was happy to find somebody guilty without evidence...

Really strange interview and certainly enough for a lawyer to cast concerns about impartiality?
Click to expand...

Perfect excuse to get the case thrown out of court, trial deemed a mis trial and Maxwell to have justified grounds to appeal her sentence?
 
dal said:
Isn’t this a prison term level offence in the UK?, I had the impression anything the jurors talk about can never ever be shared?
Click to expand...

It is yes. It is covered by both the common law and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It prevents jurors speaking of anything that went on in the juror room, without a time limit. Equally it is an offence to ask a juror anything about a trial.

Jury research in the UK has to involve fake trials and interviewing fake jurors on what they thought and how they reached a verdict. Cheryl Thomas has done loads of studies which are publicly available if you want to read any.
 
Considering 40% of women and 1 in 6 men have suffered sexual abuse in their lifetime (depending on the sources you look at) having 2 of the 12 jurors have past experience of it is actually less than expected.

The entire thing is dodgy. I don't think anyone can really be blamed for thinking there's a big conspiracy afoot when the first person in this entire shitstorm apparently "killed themselves".
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Considering 40% of women and 1 in 6 men have suffered sexual abuse in their lifetime (depending on the sources you look at) having 2 of the 12 jurors have past experience of it is actually less than expected.

The entire thing is dodgy. I don't think anyone can really be blamed for thinking there's a big conspiracy afoot when the first person in this entire shitstorm apparently "killed themselves".
Click to expand...
40% of women have suffered abuse? I googled it but couldn't find a source.
 
VorZakone said:
40% of women have suffered abuse? I googled it but couldn't find a source.
Click to expand...
Yeah, surprised me as well. Maybe suffered was the wrong word but "encountered".

Over 40% of women in the US have encountered sexual violence.
Sexual abuse, as shown by rape and sexual assault statistics, has affected 41.8% of women in the US who have been victimized by sexual violence other than rape

https://legaljobs.io/blog/sexual-assault-statistics/
Click to expand...

Although I'm now struggling to find the source for the evidence, and it says halfway down that the number for women is 1 in 6. So now I'm confused.
 
VorZakone said:
Not to discredit it (hopefully there's a source somewhere) but I've become a bit wary of brazen claims after learning the Super Bowl stat has been debunked: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/domestic-violence-super-bowl-sunday/
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was a bit jumpy to start off with. Finding proper statistics on the subject seems impossible, but IF the numbers turn out to be similar to the number of jurors who have experienced sexual abuse then surely that means the jury were representative of society as a whole?

Moving my goalposts a little bit whilst admitting I was wrong...
 
What is the non-conspiracy/rational take on Judge sealing the names of other who travelled in Epstein's private planes with him to the islands?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.