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.

The Court offered to appoint a lawyer; he turned that down and has hired Todd Spodek (of the Anna Delvey "fake heiress" case)

I wonder if they interview all the jurors to try and ascertain if they were actually swayed . The juror that has blabbed IMO, seems to want to take the glory for GM's guilty verdict and might not have had a much influence over the rest of the jurors as he thinks.

I believe it is actually the prosecution that has asked for the first juror to be assigned a lawyer. A perjury charge is certainly possible.

@prh47bridge 👍🏻Always happy to be corrected, you are doing a grand job with all these questions

According to the Daily Mail he said this. The bolding is mine. He should shut up now.

^At times, he said, 'I felt like she was watching what we were doing because there were times when some jurors, not during when the victims presented their testimony, but when certain other people presented on things that maybe they didn't feel mattered…some people would nod off.'

@KimikosNightmare

The Court offered to appoint a lawyer; he turned that down and has hired Todd Spodek (of the Anna Delvey "fake heiress" case)

Gosh he wasn’t wasting anytime - did he have him on speed dial!

All so odd.

Guessing a cursory look at the questionnaire has revealed some sort of discrepancy if he's felt the need to hire a lawyer.

Wonder who is paying for said lawyer and whether Mr David wishes he'd kept his trap shut.

Wonder who is paying for said lawyer and whether Mr David wishes he'd kept his trap shut.

The Daily Mail?

The Daily Mail?

Nah. Meghan's cleaned 'em out

Am I being dim or is there any indication on when the Judge will rule on the JE/VG agreement? For some reason I thought he would have by now.

@idiotfacelicker

Am I being dim or is there any indication on when the Judge will rule on the JE/VG agreement? For some reason I thought he would have by now.

No. He has simply said he will rule "very soon" but hasn't, as far as I am aware, given any indication as to what that means.

Re the juror, if this is accurate it's a comprehensive history of what happened.

No idea how they got sight of the letter from the Attorney General to the judge.

Either the juror didn't complete the questionnaire or the defence didn't read the responses properly as he wasn't challenged.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10372669/amp/Attorney-General-requests-probe-Maxwell-juror-admitted-flew-questionnaire.html

This is a mess , could there be any possibility that this juror was paid by the defense and the whole thing was set up ?

This is a mess , could there be any possibility that this juror was paid by the defense and the whole thing was set up ?

As far as I can see, when the jurors filled out that form, they didn't know what case they'd be assigned to - maybe didn't know this was coming up even. So if there's any funny business, it will be with whoever assigned them specifically to the Maxwell case - and that would need inside knowledge of the abuse suffered by the juror.

and that would need inside knowledge of the abuse suffered by the juror

How do we know he was actually abused ?

How do we know he was actually abused ?

Somebody hired a good actor? Is that what you mean?

@SpaceshiptoMars I'm probably entering into John Grisham territory , but an actor ? , possibly.

[quote Vapeyvapevape]@SpaceshiptoMars I'm probably entering into John Grisham territory , but an actor ? , possibly.[/quote]

Some of this speculation does sound a bit like the plot of The Runaway Jury

[quote Vapeyvapevape]@SpaceshiptoMars I'm probably entering into John Grisham territory , but an actor ? , possibly.[/quote]
Highly unlikely. If this guy hadn't influenced the other jurors to return a guilty verdict, I'm sure one or more of them would have spoken out by now. They haven't. All we have is a second juror saying much the same. So your scenario is that Maxwell paid a juror to pretend he was a victim of child sex abuse, convince the rest of the jury to convict her and then undermine the verdict. That isn't credible. If you are going to tamper with the jury, you want them to return a not guilty verdict. You don't want them to encourage a guilty verdict then undermine it. Even if it succeeds in getting a mistrial, you then almost certainly face another trial with no guarantee you will be able to tamper with that jury.

Just to add to the above, federal trials require a unanimous verdict. There are no majority verdicts. If Maxwell had tampered with the jury, all she needed was to get one to vote not guilty and she would have guaranteed that the worst outcome she would get was a hung jury and, if she was lucky, she might get an acquittal.

I don't think Maxwell herself is in a particularly good position to tamper with a jury! Is she even allowed a phone, locked up as securely as she is?

I did go off into the realms of fantasy there !

In other news, Maxwell is apparently trying to claim what she's spent in legal fees back from JE's estate :

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/8233152/ghislaine-maxwell-epstein-5million-court-costs/

Just

That's pretty disgusting given the guilty verdict.

And it's on record that he gave her $30million in the time he knew her.

SpaceshiptoMars
She has "friends" in high places who really wouldn't want their "friendship" to be put under further scrutiny.

What a very tangled web .