It wouldn't matter. But the juror himself is the person who publicly reported what he said during the deliberations. It's hard to believe he would lie, then call attention to it.
Ghislaine Maxwell
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
It wouldn't matter. But the juror himself is the person who publicly reported what he said during the deliberations. It's hard to believe he would lie, then call attention to it.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
That happens though.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
"The constitution says a jury of my peers, not a jury of the victims of my peers!"
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Not necessarily his reputation.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Maxwell is showing signs of cooperating or, at least, no longer being a roadblock.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/17/us/ghislaine-maxwell-john-does/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/17/us/ghislaine-maxwell-john-does/index.html
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The pressure is beginning to tell.
Can you explain? I am not quite certain what the issue is? This seems not to be a criminal issue? This just seems to be that Giuffre wants to breach an agreement with Maxwell? I assume that since in the Giuffre vs Windsor trial the agreement that Giuffre would not pursue other 'defendants' has been ruled not valid for Windsor, she now wants to identify other potential 'abusers' to sue?
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
It's about revealing the real the names of the eight people identified only as "John Doe" in the 2015 lawsuit. Maxwell is no longer objecting to revealing the names. At least some of those 8 people are continuing to object to their names being revealed.
There is no agreement between Giuffre and Maxwell at issue here. Giuffre, her lawyers, the judge, and presumably any relevant authorities already know these names.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And as a result, some of those named could be exposed to legal jeopardy!
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
How?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The same way Epstein and Maxwell were exposed... by victims making police complaints!
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
You're thinking new (either new or previously unknown) victims might come forward? I suppose that's possible but it would seem to me that all the publicity around Epstein and Maxwell would have shaken all that out already.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps.
I'm thinking more like some of these Johns could be "second level famous", like state legislators or entrepreneurs who might not be widely famous... (like, who knew anything about John Kuczwanski before a Prius driver offed him in a gunfight?)
These girls might not necessarily know exactly who they were trafficked to - they were just introduced by Epstein and Maxwell as "friends & associates", but the girls didn't really know who they were. Once their names come out and their pictures get published, there could be a few "aha, that's him!" moments. I admit its not very likely, but it also not impossible either.
Last edited:
Wherein comes the apparently acceptable assumption that self-described victims of sexual abuse are incapable of serving as impartial and objective members of the jury?
It seems quite strange given that many of the arguments for having a jury at all is that they supposedly have "real life experience" and "common sense" that judges may lack.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed. As I said earlier, "Where are you going to find 12 people to comprise a jury that will be able to deliberate on ANY case without any recall to their own life experiences?"
What if the prospective juror has a child, or a father, or mother, or brother or sister, or other close relative, or best friend or work colleague or teammate who had suffered sexual abuse. Wouldn't all those be disqualifying too?
Last edited:
Giuffre presumably knows the names as she signed the non-disclosure agreement in return for money? So she is not seeking information she is not aware of? What she is presumably seeking to do is put into the public arena the names of these individuals she previously agreed not to?
I am not sure about US law, but in UK law a civil agreement can not prevent a person notifying the relevant authorities about a crime. So I assume it is not that she seeks to report to e.g. the FBI that an individual raped her when she was under the age of consent.
There does seem to be an important principle here, Giuffre alleged certain persons abused her (I use alleged because these claims have not been tested in court). Maxwell acting in some ways as an employer agreed to compensate her for the alleged harm and she agreed not to disclose the names of those who she alleges abused her. Similar deals are probably struck between many employers and employees, regarding bullying etc. Such agreements are supposed to close the issue and prevent the victim from pursuing subsequent action against other employees. It would seem in general a 'bad thing' if after a few years these deals are reneged on and further civil action follows.
Perhaps Giuffre's intent is just to name and shame. This is entirely understandable, but she previously entered into an agreement not to do so. Perhaps she has been advised that she can seek further settlements against these individuals if she can threaten to name and shame them, again very understandable, but that is what she agreed not to do in return for a large amount of money.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
In 2015, Giuffre filed a defamation case against Maxwell. That case was eventually settled. But before that there were thousands of pages of documents and depositions entered into the docket. Maxwell had the court partially redact some of those documents. There are still 8 people mentioned in those documents as non-parties who are identified only by number.
Giuffre is asking that those documents be unsealed, includes the identities of those unnamed non-parties. One of those parties could be Andrew or could be people they can connect to Andrew or who could be witnesses in the current case against Andrew.
It appears that at least a partial reason for Maxwell asking for the partial redaction was because the information would not be relevant to the defamation case but could be used in a criminal case against her. Now that Maxwell has been convicted, she has said she will no longer object to the documents being unsealed. That leaves it to the 8 individuals to object on their own behalf.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Huh? These two things aren't linked.
Giuffre presumably knows the names because it's her lawsuit. She probably named the people in the first place, or her legal team discovered them. At least one of them is suspected of being a person she had sex with, Andrew. I've forgotten what the roles of these people are/were. I'm not sure if enough of the documents are public to even know what their roles are.
Right. These names are already known to the court. The court knows them. It was the court that sealed them.
No, she didn't and this has nothing to do with the settlement. This was a judge's decision and the judge is not bound by the Giuffre settlement.
ETA: I think the main point you're confused about is who this action and decision belongs too. This is the judge's action and decision.
Last edited:
Thank you. As I said I do not understand the issue here. If the decision was made by the judge, why was Maxwell's consent needed? I feel I am missing something very obvious. However seems a trivial issue and not worth pursuing any more. Thanks to those who tried to enlighten me.