Decay said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

e cartman said:

---

Report I saw said records of her network would remain sealed.

Apparently our society is fine with pedophiles if they are rich & famous.

Sickening.

---

This appears to be a false report by Jack Posobiec.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/maxwell-sealed-court-documents-epstein/

---

"Far right conspiracy theorist falsely claims that the details of Epstein's network have been sealed. However the truth is that one person has been named and also there's tons of documents that have been released. There's no evidence at all for this ridiculous claim! Also unrelated but we have no idea who ****ed little girls on Pedo Island and never will. Oh well!"

---

My reaction exactly, the Daily Dot doesn't seem to have much credibility as a balanced "news" outlet.

When they use "far right" to describe anyone they don't agree with or like, it is a major "blue" flag.

Decay said:

---

So you're saying we do have the details on what went down on Pedo Island? Posobiec's point is that we should know because we have arrested Epstein and his organizer.

Are you saying we do know?

---

Didn't they video everything and everyone that was there? Wasn't the entire point of Epstein to honeypot important people?

suture_scissors said:

---

Decay said:

---

So you're saying we do have the details on what went down on Pedo Island? Posobiec's point is that we should know because we have arrested Epstein and his organizer.

Are you saying we do know?

---

Didn't they video everything and everyone that was there? Wasn't the entire point of Epstein to honeypot important people?

---

...yes?

So why the hell don't WE, THE PEOPLE know? Posobiec's claim is that these secrets are sealed. I sure don't see those details anywhere?

zephyr88 said:

---

I'm glad this thread is still running with updates.

It's funny how ALL the news outlets are mum on this one.







And by 'funny', I mean 'disgusting'.

---

Insane.

I laugh at those who think the Clintons are her biggest danger. They aren't a pimple on the butt of the powerful folks who have visited pedo island

P.U.T.U said:

---

I don't think the details will be revealed in our generation, it would take down a few countries and a lot of money will make sure it does not. Several kings/presidents/religious leaders are on the list. I wish they would release the list and lets watch the world burn, let the citizens handle it

---

It's all about to be memory-holed & become a figment of lib's imaginations (three weeks - tops).

Poof!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/just-federal-prosecutors-drop-case-epstein-jail-guards/

B-1 83 said:

---

I laugh at those who think the Clintons are her biggest danger. They aren't a pimple on the butt of the powerful folks who have visited pedo island

---

You're kidding yourself.

Are you saying the Clintons hold the same power as the Royal Brits or multi billionaires who have visited? If so, you're kidding yourself.

B-1 83 said:

---

Are you saying the Clintons hold the same power as the Royal Brits or multi billionaires who have visited? If so, you're kidding yourself.

---

I'm saying they're more than a pimple. Dead men tell no tales.

Everyone knows Clinton had a close releationship with Epstein, their name is already on the decline so it would not be shocking if the proof came out. But someone like Gates, Tom Hanks, or names like that would be a huge shock to a lot of people. Not to mention the current country leaders and politicians. Throw in a possible pope, sitting supreme court judge, and make yourself some popcorn to see what happens.

In terms of wealth the Clintons aren't ***** But in terms of political power... I think they have a lot of pull.

And when we're talking Marxists, pull = murdering power

https://instagr.am/p/CYH3nVfOzAU

Decay said:

---

In terms of wealth the Clintons aren't ***** But in terms of political power... I think they have a lot of pull.

And when we're talking Marxists, pull = murdering power

---

they work for the people that put them in office. they were bribed/compromised from the VERY start. From freaking college.

P.U.T.U said:

---

Everyone knows Clinton had a close releationship with Epstein, their name is already on the decline so it would not be shocking if the proof came out. But someone like Gates, Tom Hanks, or names like that would be a huge shock to a lot of people. Not to mention the current country leaders and politicians. Throw in a possible pope, sitting supreme court judge, and make yourself some popcorn to see what happens.

---

Gates and Tom Hanks. We meet again old foes.

Remember when the Panama Papers was supposed to bring everything down?

The elite are untouchable.

There's no question about that now.

Maxwell ended up exactly the way we thought it would.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Remember when the Panama Papers was supposed to bring everything down?

The elite are untouchable.

There's no question about that now.

Maxwell ended up exactly the way we thought it would.

---

I hate to break this to you but that's pretty much how it has always been. Until Jesus comes back it will always be the same. I do agree with your frustration.

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/federal-judge-orders-inquiry-into-whether-a-jurors-allegedly-false-answers-about-sexual-abuse-require-a-new-trial-for-ghislaine-maxwell/

Maxwell has a shot at new trial based on juror lying in voir dire about personal sexual abuse history.

Quote:

---

In an order on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan said that juror Scotty David's "direct, unambiguous statements to multiple news outlets" following Maxwell's convictions "cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection. Though he went public in press interviews under his first two names, his identity currently remains shielded in court documents as "Juror 50."

"Because of the important interest in the finality of judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high," Judge Nathan wrote in a three-page order. "The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse."

---

questions to be submitted tomorrow, hearing on 3/8

wow. Juror taking the 5th amendment at hearing next week.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/02/ghislaine-maxwell-juror-to-plead-the-5th-at-hearing-next-week/

Quote:

---

A lawyer for the juror, who was identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David, said in a letter filed Wednesday that David won't answer questions at the March 8 hearing.

"I write to inform the Court that Juror 50 will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing," the attorney, Todd Spodek, wrote in the one-page letter.

---

Maxwell getting a new trial is pretty much a done deal IMO if that happens.

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/ghislaine-maxwell-juror-who-didnt-disclose-sexual-abuse-on-questionnaire-testifies-he-made-an-inadvertent-mistake/?utm_source=mostpopular

Juror says it was an "oversight". Granted immunity for his testimony today. Motions for new trial due next week

BMX Bandit said:

---

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/ghislaine-maxwell-juror-who-didnt-disclose-sexual-abuse-on-questionnaire-testifies-he-made-an-inadvertent-mistake/?utm_source=mostpopular

Juror says it was an "oversight". Granted immunity for his testimony today. Motions for new trial due next week

---

I will never understand why people think a juror should be disqualified just because he might better understand the issues of the case.

Is the law all about picking the stupidest juries possible?

You really don't understand why someone accused of helping kids get molested would not want a person that was molested as a child on the jury? Really?

Did you consider it might be about picking a jury that does not have huge biases that directly pertain to the topic of the case?

BMX Bandit said:

---

You really don't understand why someone accused of helping kids get molested would not want a person that was molested as a child on the jury? Really?

---

Great. Let's go back and redo the Chauvin trial and let the defense attorney reject any juror who is not a police officer.

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/ghislaine-maxwell-juror-who-didnt-disclose-sexual-abuse-on-questionnaire-testifies-he-made-an-inadvertent-mistake/?utm_source=mostpopular

Juror says it was an "oversight". Granted immunity for his testimony today. Motions for new trial due next week

---

I will never understand why people think a juror should be disqualified just because he might better understand the issues of the case.

Is the law all about picking the stupidest juries possible?

---

Would you someone on a jury who hates all blog posters when you are charged with making a criminal post?

Flying Crowbar said:

---

Did you consider it might be about picking a jury that does not have huge biases that directly pertain to the topic of the case?

---

Originally, weren't juries valued for their knowledge? Now, it seems like they are valued only if they know nothing.

Bryanisbest said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/ghislaine-maxwell-juror-who-didnt-disclose-sexual-abuse-on-questionnaire-testifies-he-made-an-inadvertent-mistake/?utm_source=mostpopular

Juror says it was an "oversight". Granted immunity for his testimony today. Motions for new trial due next week

---

I will never understand why people think a juror should be disqualified just because he might better understand the issues of the case.

Is the law all about picking the stupidest juries possible?

---

Would you someone on a jury who hates all blog posters when you are charged with making a criminal post?

---

It would be more akin to whether or not to accept someone who has a blog or who doesn't have a blog.

The goal is to get fair jurors not knowledgeable jurors. Fair to BOTH sides.

eric76 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

You really don't understand why someone accused of helping kids get molested would not want a person that was molested as a child on the jury? Really?

---

Great. Let's go back and redo the Chauvin trial and let the defense attorney reject any juror who is not a police officer.

---

He had the ability to strike a set number of witnesses. If he wanted to strike people that were not police officers, he could have


Respectfully, you were really embarrassing yourself here

Bryanisbest said:

---

The goal is to get fair jurors not knowledgeable jurors. Fair to BOTH sides.

---

I used to know an electrical engineer who was on a jury panel for someone contesting a speeding ticket issued as a result of a radar reading.

The panel was asked if anyone had a special knowledge of radar. The electrical engineer thought about it -- he understood the physical principals of how radar worked and some idea of the electrical engineering of how one might build a radar unit but didn't consider that to be "special knowledge" since there are a great many with that same knowledge.

One guy did raise his hand. It turned out that he had worked with radar in the Air Force to watch the weather. He was dismissed from the jury because of that "special knowledge".

motion for new trial denied. because Maxwell could not establish the juror would have been struck for cause had he been honest, there was no constitutional violation.

Quote:

---

Under McDonough, a defendant seeking a new trial must show that "a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." 464 U.S. at 55556 (emphasis added). A desire to "wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process" is not enough. Id.; see also Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 816 (concluding that a defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of McDonough where the defendant "may certainly exclude such jurors by the use of peremptory challenges, but he has no basis for arguing that a district court is required to sustain such a challenge for cause"). That difference arises in part from the fact that "unlike challenges for cause, peremptory strikes are not constitutionally required." Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 n.4.

---

legally, this appears to be correct, but I'd like appellate courts to look at the peremptory challenge issue again. (The case cited is Rhenquist opinion from 1980s)

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/federal-judge-refuses-to-grant-ghislaine-maxwell-a-new-trial-following-sex-trafficking-conviction-finds-juror-testified-credibly-and-truthfully/

Apparently he and his past were a heavy influence on the other jurors. Authorities just want this all to go away.