Re the call for a retrial for Ghislaine Maxwell

[FluffyBooBoo]

Apparently the defence are calling for a retrial because one of the jurors was a victim of child sex abuse - they had to answer questions, one of which was (I am paraphrasing) 'have you, your family or friends experienced sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual assault'

AIBU to think that there are very few women out there that haven't experienced some form of sexual harassment, and the chances of anyone (male or female) not knowing someone affected by one of these things is highly unlikely? And that the people on the jury therefore are likely to be men that don't talk about these things? Not convinced that's ideal tbh.

@girlmom21,

Yes, I think a deal could massively benefit her (although not really what this thread is about). Ambitious U.S D.As want big scalps. I am not a real expert but their position seems a combination of legal and political (and something that does not seem a good idea to me).

If Ghislaine could deliver up some famous scalps on a platter, she might get her sentence considerably reduced and negotiate serving it in a ‘club fed’ jail, rather than serving any ‘hard time’.

Not doing this makes one either admire her loyalty or think she is more frightened of those she might give up than the jail time.

@Alexandra2001

If i were GM i would be seeking a tell all deal and get a reduced sentence, its inconceivable she acted alone nor that JE was the only abuser.

I wonder if she regrets not giving evidence herself.

I suspect like most of the people involved, she doesn’t accept that she’s done anything wrong.

I remember a similar case in the US, where a juror used his experience of sexual abuse to convince the jury that a daycare owner and his wife were guilty of mass sexual abuse, I think it was in North Carolina.
The owners were found guilty and sentenced to years in prison.
Later the charges were dismissed: there were a lot of problems with the prosecution case.

GM should certainly have the right to appeal her conviction if something similar has happened here.

@girlmom21

Who knows? but knowing who else was involved and also her side of the events can only be a good thing.

For too long the rich and powerful have treated laws and not applying to them.

Why seek a retrial just hear the same evidence presented and get the same result? it wasn't a split verdict.

@TheReluctantPhoenix she'll be killed when she gives evidence against the wrong person

@ZenNudist

Well it's not true that most people have experienced sexual abuse as a child. Or necessarily know anyone who has. If the juror lied that's bad news.

1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused. If it hasn't happened to you, you definitely know someone it has happened to, although they might not have told you.

YANBU and I've seen this brought up as an issue in rape trials before.

The potential jurors are often asked if they have been the victim of rape/sexual assault, and excluded if they answer yes, but they are not asked if they have perpetrated or enabled rape and sexual assault, making it more likely that the jury will be comprised of people who identify themselves with the defendant.

@appleturnovers

YANBU and I've seen this brought up as an issue in rape trials before.

The potential jurors are often asked if they have been the victim of rape/sexual assault, and excluded if they answer yes, but they are not asked if they have perpetrated or enabled rape and sexual assault, making it more likely that the jury will be comprised of people who identify themselves with the defendant.

Nobody who hasn't been convicted will admit to it and nobody who has been convicted is allowed to serve on a jury

I don't think the wording on the pre=trial questionnaire would eliminate a lot of people (especially women) from being on the jury in these kind of trials.

There was another thread on here a few days ago, about how most women have been harassed at some point, and it had a list of things that would define harassment.

Have I been cat called and wolf-whistled at, and been looked up and down by men when out before? Yes. Have any of these men ever continued to approach me, and harass/pressure me to perform sexual acts on them? I'm incredibly grateful to be able to answer no to that question.

Whilst, I am no belittling the looks and cat calls (and agree these should not happen), but there is a difference between those happening, and a man then coming up to you and trying to persistently persuade you to have sex with him (and by consistently, I do not mean long-term, this could happen at a single event, say in a pub, where the same person keeps trying to com over and approach you).

I also think that abuse and assault are a bit more clearer in the statement, than harassment is.

However, I would have answered no to that question, based on how I interpreted it.

One good thing about this dragging out longer is that it might give the media a chance to do their job and start asking questions about other famous British and American politicians who seemed to have very close relationships with Epstein.

I don't think the wording on the pre=trial questionnaire would eliminate a lot of people (especially women) from being on the jury in these kind of trials

Don't you? You don't think most people have a friend or a family member that has been subject to some form of sexual assault, abuse or harassment? You are very fortunate. I wish I thought the same.

I doubt anyone would be able to say no to that.

@Littlecaf

I thought in the States jurors are allowed to share their experiences once the verdict is given?

Good god this is depressing.

I agree with the OP as well. A lot of women I know have been assaulted as a child, even if they dont categorise it as such.

As was the case before the trial, her defence team will look for every opportunity to appeal her case or get it thrown out. However small the opportunity an appeal will come. There are real risks in this. Cosby was released on a technicality and rich and powerful people have opportunities to subvert justice. What I would say sadly is that the US does better in bringing the rich and powerful to justice. I fear in the UK a) she would never have come to trail b) if she did she would have been acquitted.

A juror was perverting and coercing the jury during deliberations. She 100% has the right to a retrial with an impartial jury.

Yes, most women have experience of sexual abuse, harassment or know someone who does. I work in mental health and have found that it is so so common.

For the jurors - as well as the form, in the states both sides get to question potential jurors and reject them - this is what jury consultants get paid a lot of money to advise on. Maxwells team used all their challenges when the jury was being selected.

Of course her defence will try to use this.

@GrimDamnFanjo

It's very frustrating that her lawyers appear to have found a reason to appeal the verdict.

They’ll find any reason —— there was a y in the day, one of the jurors wore glasses / had curly hair / straight hair/ was tall/ short. They don’t care what the reason is, or how far fetched it is, it keeps their payments coming, keeps them in work.

@AdmiralCain

A juror was perverting and coercing the jury during deliberations. She 100% has the right to a retrial with an impartial jury.

But is it possible to have an impartial jury, if impartiality is based on neither them nor any friend or family member having experienced sexual abuse/assault/harassment?

I don't get why jury members are giving interviews to the daily mail - the source of this - a short while later TBH! Should have known it could jeapordise it

Is it ever possible to have a completely impartial,Jury ,in a cross section of society ,all the jurors are going to have, their own experience,s ,and their own morals etc particularly in such a high profile case.

OP I said exactly the same thing: "Aren't there any women on the jury, then? Because if there are, they will almost certainly have been sexually assaulted at some point"

I don't know any women who haven't been subject to some form of vile sexual behaviour from men.

IMO having the victims of sexual assault represented on the jury is par for the course, given how common it is. I'll be disgusted if she ends up with a mistrial over it.

The answers the jury gives don't prevent them being selected. Just because someone says "yes I've been raped" doesn't bar them from being chosen, it just leads to further questions to assess their suitability - whether they can judge a case on its merits, not on their own personal opinions.

From what I've heard the Maxwell case is clearly deserving of a retrial. A juror has to judge a case on the evidence, nothing more. Experience or opinion (e.g. that victims often get facts wrong or forget things) is not usually relevant. The jury listens to the evidence and decides what the truth is most likely to be.

A juror who is a victim of abuse might have behaved in a certain way or have certain gaps in their memories. That doesn't mean that every victim's experience is the same.

If the prosecution call an expert witness who testifies that victims often forget things, that's evidence and can be used by the jury.

If a juror could use their own personal experience in their deliberations there would be no reason to bar someone connected to the defendant from being in the jury. "I've known the guy for years and he's never attacked me, so he must be innocent."

@Tobleroney

I don't get why jury members are giving interviews to the daily mail - the source of this - a short while later TBH! Should have known it could jeapordise it

In America jurors are free to discuss the case afterwards. With a high-profile case being on the jury can lead to life-changing sums, especially if the other jurors don't want to speak.

The juror in question knows that he needs to cash in as soon as possible. One, the issue is hot and he needs to sell his story whilst people are interested. Two, if all the other jurors sell their stories, he will earn less.

This contrasts to the British system for example where jurors are not allowed to discuss a case in this manner.

If having previously experienced sexual abuse or harassment caused jurors to influence verdicts routinely, we'd see a much higher conviction rate of rape cases here.

This sounds like the juror was completely unable to separate their experiences from the facts of the case and attempted, if not succeeded, to unduly influence his peers. In that situation, a retrial is absolutely appropriate.

And so it begins ....