Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

@Roussette I’m not sure, I think they’ve found a way around it, that he was influencing the jury, not sure

@Roussette

I thought he just spoke in an interview after the trial, did he bring this up during jury deliberations?!

Yes, he bought it up during deliberations. He also mentioned in the media how some jurors would 'nod off' (not when the victims were giving their statements) but where legal jargon was made by the Defense!!

That letter, obtained by DailyMail.com also filed in Federal Court Wednesday, came as a direct response to interviews given by David in which he revealed that his admission of being a victim of sexual abuse marked a sea-change in deliberations.

In interviews given by a second juror Wednesday they also expressed the view that sharing their story helped lead uncertain jurors towards a conviction.

David also claimed that the five guilty verdicts returned in New York last week, possibly condemning Maxwell to spend the rest of life behind bars, were for 'all the victims'.

It sounds like he viewed it as a bit of a personal crusade, so in no way unbiased.

It's crazy enough to to have a whiff of something else about it.

@Roussette www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/maxwell-juror-account-abuse-b1986478.html%3famp

I guess the juror could have been biased due to his experience but putting that aside , isn't that what jury deliberation is about, to discuss and put forward different points of view?

It sounds dodgy to me!

Could he have been offered a large sum of money to admit/say this or am I being crazy?

@Vapeyvapevape

I guess the juror could have been biased due to his experience but putting that aside , isn't that what jury deliberation is about, to discuss and put forward different points of view?

It is to discuss and put forward different points of view on the evidence, not introduce evidence of their own. Perhaps more significantly, there are suggestions he may have lied on the pre-trial questionnaire given to potential jurors.

@Vapeyvapevape

I guess the juror could have been biased due to his experience but putting that aside , isn't that what jury deliberation is about, to discuss and put forward different points of view?

I think the idea is it's different points of view based on what you have heard in court not what you have been through in your personal life which would naturally tend to skew your view (especially something as traumatic as sexual abuse). It's why potential jurors have to fill in the preliminary questionnaire before being chosen.

It's why for example in the U.K. if you have been the victim of a burglary/robbery you are not able to sit on the jury on a burglary/robbery case. Would imagine that's the same in US hence the questionnaire.

@Itsthemostrubbishtimeoftheyear

It sounds dodgy to me!

Could he have been offered a large sum of money to admit/say this or am I being crazy?

It is fairly normal in the US for jurors to give interviews, particularly after high profile cases. This is not allowed in the UK. I don't see any reason to suspect a bribe here, especially as this doesn't appear to be a slam dunk mistrial unless, perhaps, he lied on the pre-trial questionnaire.

From what I read though he wasn't using his experiences to sway them but to correct the sexual abuse myths the other jurors were biased by. For instance their expectation that memories of abuse should be like hitting replay on a video rather than the reality of how memory works.

Which frankly the court should have done so it is a poor reflection on the justice system that the jurors were bringing misinformation and myths into account.

Are jurors in the US interviewed by the attorneys before they are selected?

It seems both prosecution and defence have asked the judge to investigate. If he lied on the pre-trial questionnaire, as is being suggested, he is guilty of perjury and it is potentially a mistrial.

I don't see any reason to suspect a bribe here, especially as this doesn't appear to be a slam dunk mistrial unless, perhaps, he lied on the pre-trial questionnaire.

It's certainly an interesting development. Wouldn't the Defense have access and checked all questionnaires before the trial, paying particular attention to any answer that could identify someone not being a suitable juror with regards to their clients case?

@StormzyinaTCup

I don't see any reason to suspect a bribe here, especially as this doesn't appear to be a slam dunk mistrial unless, perhaps, he lied on the pre-trial questionnaire.

It's certainly an interesting development. Wouldn't the Defense have access and checked all questionnaires before the trial, paying particular attention to any answer that could identify someone not being a suitable juror with regards to their clients case?

Absolutely. Which is why it is a potential mistrial if he lied on the questionnaire as it took away the Defence's chance to identify him as unsuitable. The system relies on jurors being truthful.

I can’t see her ever in prison for some reason

@user114653217696248626

From what I read though he wasn't using his experiences to sway them but to correct the sexual abuse myths the other jurors were biased by. For instance their expectation that memories of abuse should be like hitting replay on a video rather than the reality of how memory works.

Which frankly the court should have done so it is a poor reflection on the justice system that the jurors were bringing misinformation and myths into account.

He definitely seems to have been using his experiences to sway them, apparently undermining the evidence of one of the defence experts in memory amongst other things. The experts in the case told the jury their view of how memory works, he contradicted them.

@prh47bridge That seems pretty weird in itself though, doesn’t it?

@Vapeyvapevape

Are jurors in the US interviewed by the attorneys before they are selected?

This always happens in federal cases - Maxwell's was a federal case. The jurors are questioned by the attorneys for both sides and the judge. I believe this is often in the form of an agreed questionnaire for the jurors to complete, which is what happened in the Maxwell case. Each side then has a number of peremptory challenges, allowing them to remove jurors without stating a reason. They can also challenge jurors stating a reason. The judge then has to decide whether to accept the challenge and remove the juror.

@user114653217696248626

From what I read though he wasn't using his experiences to sway them but to correct the sexual abuse myths the other jurors were biased by. For instance their expectation that memories of abuse should be like hitting replay on a video rather than the reality of how memory works.

Which frankly the court should have done so it is a poor reflection on the justice system that the jurors were bringing misinformation and myths into account.

However one member of the jury has disclosed his "testimony" in the jury room did sway them.

The process is meant to be unbiased, hence the questionnaire in the first place, to ensure the victim of any crime (or experience) does not deliberate on a similar case.

The premise is that might create a bias which should be avoided.

If you want to see justice done it has to be as fair as possible.

It's understandable why a juror who was a victim of a crime similar to that being prosecuted would feel sympathetic to the alleged victims - but the ideal is every member of the jury should be neutral.

It is imho pretty serious if the juror lied on his questionnaire and frankly the evidence of the other juror that he used his experiences to sway the rest of the jury is pretty damning.

I'm no friend to GM/PA in the sense I believe they have serious questions to answer, but I feel a bigger calling to justice being properly delivered by both judge and jury to suggest this is acceptable.

[quote Itsthemostrubbishtimeoftheyear]@prh47bridge That seems pretty weird in itself though, doesn’t it?[/quote]
I've heard stranger things from jurors. I remember seeing a case in which the defendant was convicted of murder. Interviews with jurors afterwards showed that one of them had persuaded the others to convict because the accused's fingerprints were found in the deceased's house (which is where the murder took place). However, the evidence was that the accused visited the house several times a week, so the fingerprints had no value at all as evidence.

Then there was a bribery case where the jury returned a verdict of guilty with a plea for clemency. The judge exploded - a plea for clemency is only appropriate in a capital case - and allowed the defence to question the jurors. It became clear that two of the jurors had convinced the rest to convict on the basis that the accused might have done it, with a plea for clemency as there was reasonable doubt! These two jurors apparently told the rest that a plea for clemency meant the judge could only give the accused a small fine.

I'm sure similar horror shows happen in UK jury rooms. We just don't get to find out about them.

[quote Itsthemostrubbishtimeoftheyear]@prh47bridge That seems pretty weird in itself though, doesn’t it?[/quote]

Why?

I've no idea what has cause this juror to go public or even if they realise the ramifications of what they have disclosed in the press.

I've no idea what has cause this juror to go public or even if they realise the ramifications of what they have disclosed in the press.

Reading what he has said, I suspect he has no idea that his comments could lead to the judge deciding it was a mistrial. He seems genuinely proud about what he sees as his role in making sure Maxwell was brought to justice.

Reading what he has said, I suspect he has no idea that his comments could lead to the judge deciding it was a mistrial. He seems genuinely proud about what he sees as his role in making sure Maxwell was brought to justice.

^This ^
He seems to be under the impression that he has done a good thing for all victims of sexual abuse whilst not realising that by speaking out publicly and saying what he has he could well have done the complete opposite.

I recall that in a British case some years back an ouija board was consulted in the jury room during deliberations. A juror subsequently informed the judge who (I think) discharged the jury and I assume declared a mistrial.

A repeated anecdote from friends who have served on juries is the juror who believes that the defendant must be guilty if the police say so. 😧

@prh47bridge

I've no idea what has cause this juror to go public or even if they realise the ramifications of what they have disclosed in the press.

Reading what he has said, I suspect he has no idea that his comments could lead to the judge deciding it was a mistrial. He seems genuinely proud about what he sees as his role in making sure Maxwell was brought to justice.

I think that's a reasonable assessment.

It does pose a number of questions though as to what instructions/guidance potential jurors were given.

That said, the saying you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink is so often apt when it comes to human behaviour.

It's the Zeitgeist, isn't it? Share your story, tell your truth. He's probably been commended for his bravery when talking about his ordeal in group or wherever, and doesn't see why now should be any different. What a plank.

If he has made her conviction unsafe and advertised that fact while getting his 15mins of fame now, what an own goal it would be if his real, enduring claim to fame was that he helped GM walk free.

And damn, it sounds as if he was biased against her and should never have been on that jury, let alone swayed other jurors with his pseudoscientific off-the-cuff expertise.