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.

Thank you to all of you for the interesting posts in the last couple of pages. My instinct about having 'professional jurors' is NO, but maybe I'm wrong. Just keep wading through the randomly chosen people from the electoral list.

@CaveMum

Regarding the Juror contradicting the defence “expert”, I highly recommend (yet again) listening to the RCP podcast episodes on the trial. They discuss this so-called expert who admitted that she had never carried out any of her research in real world situations and had no experience of working with victims of sexual abuse.

She also apparently contradicted her own testimony at one point but because the trial was behind closed doors it’s not known if she was pulled up on it.

That overstates things, and calling her a "so-called expert" is wrong. She has carried out real world research and is recognised as one of the leading experts on human memory. She herself is a victim of child sex abuse. However, she admitted that her research has not specifically covered whether it is possible to implant memories of abuse as that would be unethical - this was the point the prosecution tried to use to criticise her evidence.

She is rated as probably the most influential female psychologist of the 20th century. She is not popular with the "me too" movement due to her research-based evidence that memory is not fixed and that memories are reconstructed, not replayed. She has mainly appeared as a witness for the defence - prosecutors, understandably, don't want the jury to think that memory is malleable.

The trial was not behind closed doors. It wasn't televised as it was a federal trial, but that is not the same as the trial being behind closed doors. The press and public were still allowed to attend and you can find pretty much verbatim reports of the day Loftus (the psychologist) gave evidence on the internet.

[quote DuncinToffee]David Allen Green's detailed analysis of the agreement

davidallengreen.com/2022/01/a-legal-look-at-the-giuffre-settlement-agreement-on-which-prince-andrew-is-seeking-to-rely/[/quote]
What a good read - he's a skilled writer, being able to explain contract law in an interesting way!

Do they have 'professional jurors' for these cases? Say, a bank of retired lawyers, social workers, nurses etc? People who are sufficiently case hardened by the everyday horrors that they've seen as part of their professional lives.

No. Juries in the US are randomly selected from lists of registered voters and people with driving licenses.

I am sure the prosecution would love the idea of a pool of hardened professional jurors. Or a bevy of middle-aged battleaxes with their own "'Ang 'Im!" t-shirts.

There was a good discussion a few pages back about dodgy juries in the US. Has anyone ever read about the judges? There was one hearing, I think in Texas, in a death penalty case, where the judge was sitting cleaning his rifle while listening to arguments. And there was another who fell out with one of his brethren and hurled a firecracker into his chambers. I wish I could remember what book I read about this in.

I am sure the prosecution would love the idea of a pool of hardened professional jurors. Or a bevy of middle-aged battleaxes with their own "'Ang 'Im!" t-shirts.

Really wasn't suggesting professional jurors for standard jury cases. Just where it proves very difficult to find an unbiased jury for such a case as this. Nothing is fair here - to Maxwell, if she stays confined in solitary under suicide watch indefinitely, or to the women who stood up and gave harrowing testimony in the hope of convicting her.

@prh47bridge sorry my statement that the trial was "behind closed doors" was incorrect, I apologise for using the wrong terminology.

My point still stands in so far as people should listen to the discussion of her testimony on the podcast. They point out that she is a survivor of sexual abuse but that she did contradict her own statement by talking about how vivid her own memories of her abuse were whilst simultaneously stating that the victims in the trial had probably misremembered things.

My point on the "real world research" should have been expanded, and that was my error, she has carried out no real world research involving sexual assault, for the obvious reason that this would be unethical.

This is an interesting breakdown of Dr Loftus' testimony, actually saying that it did Maxwell little favour: roundtable.io/failed-state-update/reports/world-famous-memory-expert-on-the-ghislaine-maxwell-defense-team

I'm not trying to argue the point, just trying to unscramble my earlier post!

Just going back to @diddl's questions,

My thought would be did PA know enough to need protection?

If not, would JE care enough about him to protect him?

I think JE liked having Andrew and Sarah dangling on a string, just for the laughs and the benefits of their society. But I think he despised them. Their debts were chump change to him, but he never just paid them off - he 'negotiated' them down, made settlements on their behalf, that kind of thing. He kept them very obviously in his debt, and he made sure they and others knew it. He played with them like dolls, like a royal Ken and Barbie.

It really was untenable. But it was happening right up until JE's death.

she did contradict her own statement by talking about how vivid her own memories of her abuse were whilst simultaneously stating that the victims in the trial had probably misremembered things

Not sure how that is a contradiction. She did say that memory of traumatic events tends to be stronger than that in non-traumatic events. And as far as I can see, she didn't state that the victims had probably misremembered, although that is clearly the inference the defence wanted the jury to pick up. But I don't think she offered a direct opinion on the victims at all. She simply described how memory works and how unreliable it is.

it wouldn't surprise me if the defence tried to argue that publicity since her conviction has been prejudicial and a fair trial is no longer possible

Interesting. I also absolutely agree that keeping someone on suicide watch in solitary confinement for this long pre-trial is probably an abuse of their human rights. If there is a presumption of innocence at this stage, why is she being kept in those conditions? 🤷‍♀️

@PlanktonsComputerWife

And the Rittenhouse judge who kept talking about himself, as openly racist, and halfway through proceedings his phone went off and the ringtone was the music always played when Trumpy came on the stage at his rallies

*WAS openly racist

@twinklystar23

A friend of 20 years disclosed to me she was gang raped as a teenager. She is now in her early 60's another told me after knowing them for 10+ yes that she was sa by an older man. I've worked in the field/ or related for 30yrs + it is known that many victims speak about things much later or possibly never do. Sexual harassment is commonplace for women and girls, abuse often, is not that uncommon. The JE case like many others is showing that abuse to young girls is on an industrial scale. Personally, I think it depends on the individual. It can be more helpful to have someone who understands the process of manipulation and grooming as well as power imbalances between the perpetrator and the victim. For example many people as seen on this or other threads do not appear to understand that CONSENT to sexual activity is the key to deciding if abuse/rape took place. That and other evidence, forensic, independent witness(es) etc. So I would have an issue with people (mainly female) being excluded on this basis. Though I do understand the reasons for this basis, I think it could be better handled

I doubt it meant people are excluded- the issue is can they set their own experiences and views aside and be objective about the evidence.

I doubt it meant people are excluded- the issue is can they set their own experiences and views aside and be objective about the evidence.

I would humbly suggest that after a serious assault such as gang rape, that you absolutely are unable to be objective in a case like this. Also, for your own mental well-being, you should not be subjected to jury service for anything more troubling than simple fraud.

Frankly this latest development in the GM case stinks. Are jurors not told that they are not allowed to speak to the press after a case, whatever compelled him to do it (well I can guess).

If this means that the case is now voided he needs to be prosecuted especially if it comes out he lied on the form. Given that it will be now very difficult to have a new trial, the judge should just rule (that she is guilty as charged).

In reality I think we have reached the stage where it is nigh on impossible for a jury to be impartial. We all have our own views on this depending on experiences, how we are brought up, where we live, how we use social media etc and it is impossible to ignore these. Hands up, I thought and still think GW is as guilty as hell. If I had been a juror I would have gone in with this view and almost certainly taken and used any statements that met my views. Don't we all do this, even subconciously?

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.

That would literally (used in the correct sense) rule out everyone I know, including me.

The sexual harrassment / abuse / assault question - that would rule out every woman I know, and presumably all their families and friends?

I don't think my life and world is particularly unusual.

Sorry, not a particuarly useful comment - but juries are fascinatingly problematic imho.

If I were up on charges, though, I would rather take my chances with a jury than a judge alone.

Christ no! I did jury service once (only a couple of fairly minor cases) but it was enough to make me hope that I was never, ever accused of any crime that would see me being judged by my fellow men and women.

Overt racism and ignorance aplenty was very much on display. I was really shocked, and it was a real eye-opener.

Yes but BIWI, in a judge both ignorance and racism may be concentrated all in one person, who doesn't have to win over nearly a dozen others to his view.

@SpaceshiptoMars

I doubt it meant people are excluded- the issue is can they set their own experiences and views aside and be objective about the evidence.

I would humbly suggest that after a serious assault such as gang rape, that you absolutely are unable to be objective in a case like this. Also, for your own mental well-being, you should not be subjected to jury service for anything more troubling than simple fraud.

That doesn't contradict what I said. If a juror answered yes " I've been sexually harassed, a builder once wolf- whistled at me" that's rather different from the scenario you've suggested. Do you think both should be excluded?

Surely, he must be stupid

Very possibly, especially since the obvious answer's often the correct one

That said, there's so much dirty money swilling around the people involved, and the motive for getting a mistrial declared is so clear that I wouldn't want to assume the juror's doing all this off his own bat

Frankly this latest development in the GM case stinks. Are jurors not told that they are not allowed to speak to the press after a case, whatever compelled him to do it (well I can guess).

It’s bizarre but yes, in America, jurors are free to speak to whomever they like - including journalist - after the trial. Many go on to write books about the trial of it was a very high-profile case. Unbelievable to us perhaps, but that’s their system. It does indeed stink.

@PlanktonsComputerWife

If I were up on charges, though, I would rather take my chances with a jury than a judge alone.

In Scotland other than very serious crimes you would be dealt with by a judge alone.

@SpindleyCrow

Just going back to *@diddl*'s questions,

My thought would be did PA know enough to need protection?

If not, would JE care enough about him to protect him?

I think JE liked having Andrew and Sarah dangling on a string, just for the laughs and the benefits of their society. But I think he despised them. Their debts were chump change to him, but he never just paid them off - he 'negotiated' them down, made settlements on their behalf, that kind of thing. He kept them very obviously in his debt, and he made sure they and others knew it. He played with them like dolls, like a royal Ken and Barbie.

It really was untenable. But it was happening right up until JE's death.

That was my impression too, from the article about how the photo of Epstein and Andrew together, was taken. Epstein was playing the two of them, like the idiots that they were and are.

I was really shocked (by jury service) and it was a real eye-opener

Very much with you on that, BIWI. I've mentioned this before, but on mine there were three stand-outs among the rest of us ordinary folk - the woman who kept swinging between verdicts because she "just had this feeling", the one who insisted that even one not guilty view constituted reasonable doubt, and worst of all, the guy who swore that the accused wasn't even there (even though he admitted he was) because all police are pigs and they'd made it up