Ghislaine Maxwell Found Guilty

It’s obvious why she kept the photograph

That’s very interesting Avalon. I have never believed the stories she’s come out with, though I don’t believe PA’s statement that didn’t meet her either. The harm’s been done to his reputation whatever the truth of it all.

Yes you would think he’d have better teeth!

Interestingly one of the witnesses, Caroline, has come out to say Virginia was boasting about meeting PA and thought it cool. She took a copy of the photo to show off and as proof. She certainly wasn’t traumatised. She also procured other girls of which Caroline was one and told them to lie about their age.Not the little miss sexually abused by PA she would like us to believe. Doesn’t help PA much when he denies even meeting her.
Btw anyone noticed his crooked bottom teeth? You would have thought as royalty with access to the best dentists that would have been rectified

Yes Blondiescot you have no need to tell me about photographs of people who took their lives.

Giuffre’s eyes are sparking and she kept the photograph for years, she was proud of it , ‘me with Prince Andrew’ .

As she allegedly met him in Tramps nightclub, the photograph
must have been taken after her alleged night of fear.

Anniebach

Yes the three in the photograph are smiling ,

Which proves nothing. I could point you to numerous photos of well-known people and celebrities laughing and smiling - who then took their own lives the next day. A smile can hide a multitude of emotions.

If it was photoshopped, it would have been pounced on straight away.

Yes the three in the photograph are smiling ,

If the photograph was photoshopped, it’s unlikely PA’s legal team wouldn’t have said so. Of itself it doesn’t prove VG’s allegations but it does seem to show PA standing close to arm round her waist, she with a bare midriff. GM smiling on.

Elegran

Sorry, the Swiss chalet is on sale for about £17 million so you won't get it for a song at £17.

Oh, I'd just bid £18.25p

The judge has made up his mind

Whatever happens with Giuffre Andrew is done for. I did read if he doesn’t settle then members of his family could be called to court which he won’t want guilty or not. Dh was saying Maxwell is the only other person who can confirm if PA was there with Giuffre and if the photo is genuine or not. But who’d believe her?

I still don’t believe her. When is this blessed judge going to make up his mind on the agreement?

An American lawyer said Giuffrie wouldn’t settle for an out of
court settlement she has already received several million, she wants to go to court,

Sorry, the Swiss chalet is on sale for about £17 million so you won't get it for a song at £17.

The Mirror has an item saying that the Duke ofYork is selling his £17 Swiss chalet (that must be some cute little chalet! ) ^ that "A source said that the Queen would not assist Prince Andrew in paying the bills,." and that Prince Charles and Prince William "are both of the opinion that Andrew can sort out his own mess.” www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-sell-17m-swiss-25876715

They don't name the source, so the accuracy of this is not certain. It is believed that he will come to a settlement out of court, which will be expensive.

I think trisher makes a good point. Juries are made up of 12 citizens which means their belief systems and life experiences contribute to the discussion.
I hope we never go down the route in the USA where defence and prosecution get to select jurors they believe will lean their way.

I was a juror in a historic child abuse case, it was very odd, it was based on one event 30 years previously and despite a considerable trawl the police were unable to find any one else who was a child at the time and lived in the area who had any complaint against this man and the event was a brief touching that happened once only. I do not say this to diminish the mental suffering of the woman concerned. The evidence was his word against hers.

However, none of us were asked anything about our own experience of sexual abuse, if any, before being selected as jurors. All we were asked was whether we knew the defendant or his family and if we lived within 10 miles of the town he lived in or visited or shopped there.

I have done jury service. The case was one about drugs, there was a young man on ours who admitted he had quite a lot of experience of drug use. I think his comments probably influenced the rest of us. In other cases experience of the subject of the case is regarded as very valuable, but apparently child abuse isn't? I suppose it shows how although we insist we support those abused as a child we actually think they are different and not to be trusted.

As an aside, I remember Lord Denning saying many years ago that he and his fellow senior judges didn’t read newspapers. It meant they lived in a rather rarefied world but they had no media-induced preconceptions about cases. How very different from the US system.

I think all those men who used the services of these very young women should also be prosecuted. The whole rotten lot of them.

I agree with your comments regarding the US not having sub judice as we have here GSM, it always astonishes me when major witnesses to criminal cases are seen being interviewed on ghastly chat shows, it surely makes it nigh on impossible for any juror to not have an opinion on guilt before the case even starts. We do have jury pre-selection in this country where both sides can reject a certain number of potential jurors I believe, but I am not sure on the criteria for the requests.

I’ve not done Jury service but I’ve experience of jury trials, including a number where sexual offences , often against minors or other vulnerable people were involved
Our system isn’t perfect but perfection is impossible
I dislike the way it happens in the states, where defence and prosecution can rule prospective jurors in or out
I agree in the Maxwell case a challenge is inevitable. This man seems to have wanted publicity - I’m not usually wanting people imprisoned but here this would be contempt of Court and I hope he’d get some kind of sentence.

I agree that it is wrong for jurors to be allowed to speak publicly about their deliberations, however in this case it seems that he may have lied during the selection process and influenced other jurors who may otherwise have made different decisions so a potential miscarriage of justice has been revealed.
The US also seems not to share our sub judice principle, with the result that the media have already tried the victim before they reach the courtroom. How can any juror not have preconceived ideas based on what they have heard, read, discussed?

The USA system is thankfully, different than our own. I was disappointed to see reports a couple of days ago, various news media outlets interviewing a juror called Scotty. He gave detail of discussions in the jury room. He claimed that he told jurors of his own experience of sexual abuse, saying he believed that influenced their decision making. The articles on line included photographs of him in his home.
The US jury selection process allows potential jurors to get questioned. He can’t remember the question on a form they completed, that asks have you or a family / friend been sexually abused.
What a mess. Maxwell’s defence team’s request for re-trial is being considered. Huge public expense involved, more pressure on the convicted perpetrator and witnesses/victims.
How can any system allow jurors to discuss a case in this way.

Looks like Maxwell's defence team are going for a retrial:

Lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell say she deserves a new trial after a juror told media that he used his own experience of being sexually abused to persuade other jurors who doubted witnesses.

Prosecutors also asked the judge to open an inquiry into the statements.