Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell Calls For A Mistrial Due To Juror Misconduct (9/19/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell Calls For A Mistrial Due To Juror Misconduct (9/19/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: And we're going to talk a little bit more about
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: the possibility that Maxwell's conviction gets overturned and that her
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: trial is declared a mistrial. Now, we have heard from
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: several experts here on the podcast and elsewhere about the
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: eventuality of Maxwell's conviction and if it will be overturned
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: or not. And really, all anyone can do at this
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: point is speculate. So when we're in a situation like this,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: what I like to do is add as many opinions
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: from the experts as possible, as much context as possible,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: so that we get as clear of a picture as
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: we possibly can. So today, that's what we're going to do.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: We're going to hear from another expert, another legal expert,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: who's going to give us their hot take on the
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: current situation. But before we dive into that, we're going
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: to touch real quick on Prince Andrew and and his
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: sale of the ski chalet. Now, he is in a
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: big-time bind, right? He's going to owe a bunch of
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: money one way or the other, and it would lead
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: one to believe that selling off a property the way
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: he is selling off this property here in Switzerland, that
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: that money would be used to go to pay off
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: legal fees and and any kind of settlement with Virginia Roberts.
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: But according to Spencer Coven, who is one of the
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: lawyers for the survivors, he's been relatively outspoken as well,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: he says that it looks like a move of Andrew
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: just basically reorganizing his funds so he can protect that
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: money and those funds from being seized or having to
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: give access to his accuser. So that's a pretty interesting
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: development on that end of the case. And we're going
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: to wait for a little more context to be provided.
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: But it certainly is an angle worth exploring. We know
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: that Prince Andrew and his legal team are relatively shrewd
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: when it comes to things like this. And anytime you
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: have Singer and Brexler involved, you know that there's some
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: moves going on behind the scenes. So if they feel
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: like they can reorganize and, you know, get that money
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: protected so that Virginia has an even harder time getting
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: to it, you know that's what they're going to do.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: The more layers of insulation they can provide... Between old
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: princely old boy over here. And him getting the hammer
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: dropped on him. So much the better. From their perspective right.
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: So that's what they're going to continue to do. And
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: Prince Andrew. Look as much of a boob as he is.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: The guy has a lot of dough. He has a
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: lot of influence. And he has you know the royal family.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: They might be acting like they're not backing him. You
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: know for all intents and purposes. In the public view.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: But who knows what's going on behind the scenes. And
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: we know the Queen hasn't completely exiled him. We know
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: the Queen hasn't completely told him to get lost. So
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: behind the scenes, I would guess that he is receiving
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: support from the Queen as well. And you know that
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: this is going to cost a ton of money. So
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: Prince Andrew is going to really have to figure it out.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: And it's my hope that Virginia's legal team continues to
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: be super aggressive and keep him on his heels. Because
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: you know what? That's what he deserves. He deserves to
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: wake up every morning, have anxiety, not know what's coming next,
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: and worrying about the other shoe getting ready to drop.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Just like all of these survivors had to worry for
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: all of their lives, basically, after they were abused by Epstein.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: So it's shitty when the karma train comes around, huh?
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: real shitty when it makes a stop at your station.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: So that's a quick update there about Prince Andrew and
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: the ski and the ski house he had there for
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: sale in Switzerland. And when we get some more information,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: some more context, we'll dive in and do a full
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: episode about it if it's noteworthy enough. But with that said,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: today we're going to talk a little bit more about
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: juror number 50 Scotty David and the situation surrounding the
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: Maxwell conviction now I've said from the beginning it doesn't
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: look good for Mr. Scotty David certainly looks to me
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: like he lied obviously until we have confirmation of that
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: it's just a guess right but when you look at
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: the tea leaves and you look at how everything is
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: you know falling here certainly looks like he was loose
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: with the truth and didn't give all of the information
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: that is required up front. So if that's the case,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: then you would think that Maxwell's team would certainly have
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: merit for a mistrial. That's what the common man would think, right?
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: Someone in the peanut gallery who's not a lawyer, who
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: doesn't follow this stuff. Well, according to some of the experts,
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: as Lee Corso would say, not so fast, my friend.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: So today we have an article from the New York
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: Daily News, and it's authored by Jeffrey Abramson. Headline, How
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: a Ghislaine Maxwell juror compromised her right to a fair
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: trial and why that won't be enough to invalidate the verdict. Now,
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: this has me torn, right? Because I want to see
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: Maxwell go to prison for the rest of her life.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: But at the same time, I believe that there needs
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: to be a fair system that sends people to prison
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: or we're all screwed. We all know it's not fair
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: as it is, so are we going to make it
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: even less fair? It's a pretty important situation when we're
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: talking about a jury being selected. And as much as
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: I despise Maxwell, as much as I want to see
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: her rot in prison forever, I want to make sure
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: everything's on the up and up. And I've said that
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: from the very beginning here on this podcast. I didn't
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: want her to have any kind of wiggle room, any
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: way off the hook. And unfortunately... If what we're hearing
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: here and what I believe to be true is true,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: then that's exactly what we've given her. Or should I
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: say what Juror 50 has given her? Some wiggle room.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: A way to try and get herself off the hook. Fortunately,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: for the world at large and especially the survivors, I
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: don't think it's going to work. But it certainly gives
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: her a few breaths, right? A little bit of an
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: air pocket. as opposed to just suffocating under the weight
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: of 60 years in prison. Now, we're going to have
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: to see one way or the other what comes of this,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: and they're having their inquiry. But until we get there,
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: we're going to take another look here and see what Mr. Abramson,
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: another expert, what he has to say. Here is why
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: one juror's misconduct requires Ghislaine Maxwell's convictions to be tossed out.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: And here's why they probably won't be. The issue is
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: whether juror 50 failed to disclose he had been sexually
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: abused as a child. The jury questionnaire specifically asked him
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: about this. And you see, this is the issue I have, right?
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: As much as I despise people like Maxwell, as much
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: as I cannot stand them, we have to have a
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: system that works. We have to have a system that,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: at the very least, there's at least faith in the
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: jury selection process, right? So it's a big deal to me.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: And I think that it is a gross move by
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: juror number 50 if this all pans out and it's
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: proved to be that he did BS. I think it's
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: really a gross, gross move by this man. And it
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: really sets the survivors back and makes them have to
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: relive all of this. So I hope that It doesn't
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: have that effect, right? And I hope that we don't
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: get a mistrial here and they don't have to go
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: through all of this again. But juror 50 and him lying,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: if that's the case, certainly puts us in a position
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: where it is a possibility. Since Maxwell faced charges of
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking minor girls to Jeffrey Epstein, the relevance of
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: whether a potential juror had experienced sexual abuse as a
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: child was enormous. If juror 50 had made the required disclosure,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: the trial judge, Allison Nathan, almost surely would have asked
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: follow-up questions during the part of jury selection and the
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: questionnaire section. And instead, she asked the juror 48 questions,
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: none of which were about sexual abuse. So it certainly
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: looks like he wasn't truthful, right? When you look at
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: everything that we have looked at here on the podcast,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: everything you folks have read elsewhere, it's rather obvious that
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: he was not truthful on this questionnaire. And that's going
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: to be a big problem. Now, is it going to
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: be enough to get a mistrial declared? That's the question
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: we're all asking. And who knows? We're going to have
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: to see. We're going to have to see what Judge
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: Nathan thinks. And we're going to have to see what
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: kind of precedent has been set previously. The judge did
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: ask whether Juror 50 knew of anything that would keep
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: him from being fair, and he assured the judge there
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: was nothing. So it looks like that Juror 50 was
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: not truthful at all here, really, right? I mean, with
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the judge, the questionnaire, all of it. If Maxwell's lawyers
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: had known of Juror 50's history, they would have probed
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: the matter and probably challenged the juror for cause. They
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: likely would have argued that any juror who had been
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: abused as a child would identify with maxwell survivors and
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: could not be fair well that does sound like the
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: case right you would think that her lawyers would not
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: want somebody like this on the jury now with that
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: said we have to also Keep in mind that maybe
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: they made a mistake. Maybe he was truthful and her
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: lawyers missed it. Now, do I think that's the likeliest
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: of possibilities? I do not. But until we know, we
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: can't just say that that didn't happen. So that's why
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: that's why we're here digging through all of this. We're
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: trying to get to that gold, right? Swimming through the murk,
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: looking for some clarity. Nathan would then have asked juror
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: 50 whether he could put aside the past and decide
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: the case solely upon the evidence. If she were satisfied
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: with juror 50's assurances, she would have denied the challenge
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: for cause. If unsatisfied, she would have granted it. So
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: that's how it works, right? Both sides get to take
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: a look at the jurors, get to try and choose
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: potential jurors, and then if one of them objects to
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: a potential juror being selected, then the judge comes in
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: and she or he Will make that decision. But. I
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: would think that if. Mr. Juror 50 here. Scotty David
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: was honest. That Judge Nathan. Would have pursued that line
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: of questioning. And again. That's just my guess. Maybe Judge
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: Nathan missed it too. But Occam's razor and all right.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: Even if they lost a challenge. For cause against Juror 50.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's lawyers may have used. One of their preemptory challenges.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: To strike him. Within limits, peremptory challenges give either side
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: the right to strike any juror they suspect will favor
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: the other side. And that makes sense. That's the whole
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: point of trying to select a jury, right? As opposed
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: to just having a jury appointed. The process is jurors,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: potential jurors are brought in. Then both sides get to
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: question them, go through some, you know, different scenarios and
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: try and figure out who is going to be best
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: suited to sit and hear this case and potentially get
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: their client off. Or on the flip side, who's going
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: to be best to hear this case and give the
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: prosecution a conviction? In short, jurors 50's failure to disclose
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: his past kept the court and parties from making informed
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: decisions about his impartiality. As the Supreme Court noted, the
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors is to serve
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: its purpose is obvious. And again, the process has to
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: be followed. I know that if I was on trial,
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: I'd want as fair of a trial as I possibly
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: could have. And I certainly wouldn't want, I don't know,
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: say it was a financial crime, right? I certainly wouldn't
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: want a juror who has been swindled to be on
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: the jury. So you could definitely see where their objection
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: would come from. Now, is that objection going to be
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: strong enough? I don't think so, but who knows? There's
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: a lot of precedent that has to be done away
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: with if we get an overturned conviction here. And like
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: we've said several times here on the podcast, once the
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: court makes a decision, you really have to show it
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: some evidence for them to change that decision. In 1984,
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court set out guidelines for determining when a
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: juror's failure to disclose relevant information is serious enough to
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: violate a defendant's right to an impartial jury. To warrant
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: a new trial, the court ruled, a party must first
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: question during the questioning period, and then further show that
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: a correct response would have provided valid basis for a
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: challenge for cause. I mean, certainly looks to me like
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: that's right on pace with where we're at, right? Applying
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: that standard, Nathan should, with a reluctance most of us share,
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: grant Maxwell a new trial. This juror's silence denied Maxwell
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: the right to develop a valid challenge for a cause.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: And here's where I'm torn, right? I agree that her
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: rights as far as a fair trial need to be respected,
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: but Again, I don't feel like I am educated enough
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: in the legal realm to dive in hard enough one
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: way or the other here and state definitively if this
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: should be a mistrial or not. It's really out of
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: my lane, to be honest with you folks. That's why
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to compile all of these opinions from all
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: of these experts. And, you know, that way we can
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: come up, you know, to a conclusion. But... It certainly
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: looks like if we're just going by the standards set
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: here by the Supreme Court, that Maxwell would have cause
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: at the very least to petition the court for a
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: new trial. But Nathan may well find that the misconduct
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: does not require overturning the guilty verdicts. For starters, she
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: knows that courts have excused far worse juror misconduct. The
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court has let stand guilty verdicts returned by jurors
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: drunk or high on cocaine. Other courts have found verdicts valid,
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: even though jurors slept through the testimony. I mean, sheesh.
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: If I was a defendant in the court and it
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: was found out that one of my jurors was high
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: on coke or drunk and I still got convicted, boy,
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: I'd be hot as hell. Let me tell you that
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: much right now. I'd be fired up. Now, don't get
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: me wrong. You should be more mad at yourself for
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: committing the crime. But imagine if you're innocent. And you
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: get a juror who don't give a shit, comes in all,
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: you know, gacked up on blow. Forget that. That's terrible. But,
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: you know, the Supreme Court's got a Supreme Court. And
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: I guess the laws of the land are not for
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: mere peasants such as us to understand. After a trial
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: involving injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident, the Supreme Court
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: in 2014 let the jury verdict stand even though the
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: foreperson failed to disclose that her own daughter had been
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: at fault in a fatal motorcycle accident. So even though
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has on the one hand ruled that
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: a defendant is entitled to an impartial jury, its own
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: subsequent decisions have made it difficult to enforce that very right.
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: And that's what I mean about precedent. So Maxwell has
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: an uphill battle to climb here, folks. And it's never
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: easy to get something overturned in the court. But I
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: think it's important for us to have full context of
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: the whole entire situation, right? Because what it does, again,
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: is it just shows you how broken the system is
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: and how it needs to be reformed and fixed. In addition,
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: Nathan could find that any omission on juror 50's questionnaire
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: were cured during the questionnaire session when she had the
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: opportunity to look the juror in the eye and determine
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: whether he was honest when he said there was absolutely
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: nothing that would keep him from being a fair juror.
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: And again, this is why I talk about how important
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: it is with these judges, folks. Judge Nathan's going to
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: be the one who really, at the end of the day,
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: decides all of this. So if we don't have good
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: quality people sitting the bench, people who actually care about
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: the law and not promoting themselves for their next gig,
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: then we're going to continue to be in a situation
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: where the system is just broken and there's no one
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: there to guide it correctly and put it back on course.
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: You would think that these judges... would be, you know,
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: the final barrier, but a lot of times, you know,
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: they're too busy acting like a king in their own court.
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: It is the defense that bears the high burden of
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: proving Juror 50's bias. Nathan will probably not presume bias
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: simply because Juror 50 failed to disclose his child sexual abuse.
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: she is likely to require the defense to prove actual
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: bias and that the juror deliberately lied to get on
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: the jury. Juror 50 maintains that any omissions were due
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: to the length of the questionnaire and is rushing through it.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: So according to Scotty David, he didn't lie intentionally if
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: he lied. It was the questionnaire was too long and
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: he rushed through it. That's his defense. Legally speaking, it
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: should not matter whether juror 50's mistakes on the questionnaire
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: were intentional or inadvertent. Either way, his omissions deprive the
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: defense of its constitutional right to probe him for bias.
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: But don't bet on Jeffrey Epstein's procure winning on this issue.
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: The author of this article is also the author of
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: We the Jerry, The Jerry System and the Ideal Democracy.
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: And he's a professor of law and government at the
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: University of Texas at Austin. So just another perspective for
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: you folks to consider another legal voice adding his opinion
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: to the mix. And really, that's all we can do
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: at this point, right? Get as much information compiled as
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: possible and try and figure out what's what. So that's
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: what we're going to continue to do here. We'll continue
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: to try and make a little sense of all of
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: this nonsense. All right, folks, that's going to do it
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: for this morning's episode. I will be back later on,
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: like usual, with an evening update, context episodes certainly coming
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: your way in between. If you'd like to contact me,
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: you can do that at... bobbycappucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: at protonmail.com. You can also find me on Twitter at
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The link to the article that we
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: discussed can be found in the description box. Everyone and
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Hope that everybody out
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: there is having a great morning so far. You know,
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: I've lived in this city my whole entire life. First
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: I lived in New York, and then I moved to
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: Las Vegas. So I've never lived outside of the concrete jungle.
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: Well folks, that's going to change. Recently... My girlfriend and I, Carrie,
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: we have started looking at land in places like Montana, Wyoming,
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: Northern Nevada, Idaho. You get the drift. And it's about
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: time for us to make our escape out of the city.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: I used to love the city, folks. I used to
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: love the feel of it, you know, the excitement, the energy.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: But at least here in Las Vegas, that's not the
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: case anymore. Seems like every time I leave the house,
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: it's a whole entire ordeal. All kinds of morons everywhere,
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: rude people, people who are just so caught up in
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: whatever kind of nonsense they have going on that they
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: can't be concerned with being kind to other people or
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: showing even the littlest amount of respect. And frankly, I'm
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: sick of it. I can't deal with it anymore. I'm
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: tired of it. I'm tired of the vibe. And I'm
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: just tired of just all of the sadness and sorrow
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: that you see in the big cities. I know that
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: I could leave my house right now and drive for
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: five minutes, five, ten minutes tops and be at a
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: homeless encampment. And I don't live in the middle of
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: the ghetto or anything like that. But it's endemic everywhere
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: you go. And for me, I've had enough. Our local officials,
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: they can't handle the situation. They're way too busy, you know,
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: shoving money in their pockets, being greedy. Not doing the
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: right thing, playing tribalism. And meanwhile, the rest of us suffer.
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: So for me, I'm hitting the eject button, folks. I
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: am checking out and we're heading to the mountains, to
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: them thar mountains. Because it's crazy. Every single time I
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: go out. I mean, personally, I don't have to deal
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: with it for the most part. I just keep my
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: distance from people in general. I don't get caught up
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: in any kind of road rage types of situations. I'm
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: a leave me alone and I'll leave you alone kind
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: of person these days. But it's just the things that
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: I observe while I'm out. People fighting in line at
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: the grocery store. Oh, you're too close to me. Oh,
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: you're not wearing a mask. It's just all crazy to me.
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: And while we're busy... Dealing with that nonsense, arguing with
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: each other at each other's throats, the scumbags like Ghislaine
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: Maxwell and her friends, well, they're having a field day.
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: Have you taken a look at the transfer of wealth
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: throughout this pandemic from the bottom up? If not, I
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: suggest you do so to get some perspective about who
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: the true enemy really is. And I promise you, it's
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: not some dunderhead on Twitter who has a different opinion
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: than you do about vaccines or politics. Those aren't your enemies.
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: Your enemies are the people behind the scenes pulling the strings.
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: Those are our enemies. And for me, I'm not going
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: to play the game. I'm not playing that game where
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: I hate people or I'm rude to people who have
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: different opinions than me. I don't live in an echo chamber, folks.
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: And one of the things I'm proudest of about this
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: podcast is that there's so many people from so many
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: different walks of life who listen to it. hardcore socialists,
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: hardcore MAGA folks, and they all get it, right? People
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: out there who are listening to me, they understand. I'm
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: not somebody sitting here with an axe to grind. I
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: don't really care about either of these ridiculous political parties.
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: I spent way too much time carrying water for them
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: when I was younger. And now that the curtain's been
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: pulled back, I don't have any, I don't have a
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: dog in the fight, if you will. I think both
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: sides are absolutely harmful to us, and I don't think
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: either side has any good ideas at this point. So
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: for me, the best move is to just eject and
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: get out of that rat race. And that's my plan, folks,
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: to buy a piece of land and a couple of
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: animals and call it a day. So I've been doing
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: that the last couple of days while I've had a
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: little bit of downtime. And man, oh man, what a
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: bunch of beautiful parcels of land I've found. So hopefully
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: by the end of the year, I'll be able to
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: get out of Dodge and at the very least buy
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: my piece of land and start working on it. Plan
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: on also, while I'm there, benefit for everybody by the way,
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: having a studio built, a pretty self-contained studio right there
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: on the property so I don't have to leave anymore either.
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: That's the biggest plan. I want enough land where I
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: don't have to leave if I don't want to. I
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: can wake up in the morning, hop on my ATV,
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: go drive around, go fishing, whatever it might be. But
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: this city rat race that I've been living in for
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: 41 years? Yeah, that's over for me, folks. I've had enough.
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: I've had my fill. And with, you know, the perfect
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: storm upon us, the pandemic, and everyone being able to work,
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: you know, remotely for the most part, it's the perfect time. So...
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: I'm definitely putting up them sails, leaving the harbor, and
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: heading out into the open water. Alright, so, on to
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: our topic for the day. Now, we all know the
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: current situation with Glenn Maxwell. We all know that juror
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: number 50, Scotty David, threw a wrench into things. doesn't
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: mean there's automatically going to be a mistrial, but it
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: is something that has to be discussed now because of
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: the situation and him possibly lying about his circumstances. So
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: we all know that that is at the forefront right now. Well,
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: on the back end of all of this, let's remember,
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell still has to face trial for perjury charges.
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: So now the prosecution is dangling evidence dropping those perjury
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: charges if Maxwell just goes along with the conviction that
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: she's already been hit with. Now, I don't see any
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: way that she gets off on these perjury charges. And
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: she's looking at 10 years with those. So I would
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: think that it's maybe a bit of an enticement, but
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: is it enough? That's the question. And I guess we'll
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: have to see. But my gut feeling is that it's
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: not going to be enough to entice her To not
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: try and chase this mistrial. I think that her best bet.
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: And while it's still. I don't think it's likely to happen.
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: But it's her best bet. To chase that mistrial. Alright.
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: So with that said. Let's take a look at this article.
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: From the Daily Mail. And let's see what they have
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: to say. About this whole situation. Now this article was authored.
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: By Lawrence Dollimore. Headline. Prosecutors offer to drop perjury charges
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: against Ghislaine Maxwell if sex trafficking conviction is allowed to stand,
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: as her lawyers argue, compelling basis for retrial after jurors'
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: sex abuse revelation. Well, I will say this about the
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: Daily Mail. They lead the league in long headlines and
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: the world's longest headlines. Good Lord. Could the headlines be
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: any longer over at the Daily Mail? They give you
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: the whole story right there in the headline for the
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: most part. Prosecutors are willing to drop two charges of
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: perjury against disgraced socialite child trafficker. Ghislaine Maxwell, if a
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: conviction for sex trafficking is allowed to stand, court documents
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: showed on Monday. So there's always a flurry of court
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: documents going into the court trying to get a file
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: to the docket. And I try and keep up on
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: all of those as much as possible. So whenever they
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: come through, I'll do a quick read through and make
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: sure we're, you know, on the right page and, you know,
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: we're not navigating off into la-la land. And while I'm
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: talking about that, quick shout out to Lady H over
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: there on Twitter, who is always all over it and
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: always making sure that I have the proper documentation to
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: go through. And folks like that, like Lady H, boy,
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, they are very important to people
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: like me who are creating content. Because we're not superhumans, right?
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: There's things I miss all the time. And all of
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: you fantastic listeners who are locked into the case have
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: added so much that I can't even begin to explain
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: how awesome you all are. But Lady H over there
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: on Twitter has, I mean, since the jump, kept the
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: court documents fresh and coming. So a lot of props
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: to her and definitely a shout out. The 60-year-old could
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: spend the rest of her life behind bars after a
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: jury convicted her of recruiting and grooming young girls to
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: be sexually abused by the late American financier and pedophile
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein last month. Why do we have to call
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: him a financier? And furthermore, what the F was this
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: guy financed? He wasn't financing anybody. He wasn't a financier.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: He was a thief and a money launderer and a
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: child molester and a rapist, okay? That's what he was.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: She is due to be sentenced at a later date,
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: but there is ongoing disagreement over when a timetable should
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: be set. Prosecutors want the British-born Maxwell sentenced within three
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: to four months. But her defense team, as opposed to
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: setting a date, there is a compelling basis to overturn
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: her conviction. So her defense team doesn't want to set
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: this date yet because they're hanging their hat on, hopefully,
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: this mistrial. So they don't want to set this date
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: until they get the mistrial stuff set up and ready
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: to go. He demanded a new trial after a juror
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: revealed he had helped convict Maxwell by telling fellow jury
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: members about his experience of sexual abuse. And again, he's
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: allowed to rely on his past experiences as a human
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: being when he's making the case to the other jurors
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: in the room to try and explain his opinions and
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: how he came to his decision making. What he is
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: not allowed to do, however, is lie about those circumstances
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: during the questionnaire period. So, again, like we've been saying,
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: and it's a dead horse at this point, it's all
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: about that questionnaire and whether or not he lied on...
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: According to court documents dated January 10th, the U.S. government
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: has now offered to drop two perjury charges linked to
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: claims Maxwell made in 2016 deposition in a separate civil
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: lawsuit should the sex crime conviction stand. each perjury charge
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: carries a maximum five-year prison term. So she's cooked on
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: those perjury charges, no doubt about that. She's definitely going
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: to get convicted on those. So it would be a
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: good idea for her team to definitely consider this, in
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: my opinion, because she's going to get the time on perjury.
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: It's rather obvious she lied. So it's certainly something that
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: the team has to discuss, but at the end of
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: the day, is it going to be enough to entice
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: them to drop their thoughts of a mistrial. Of that,
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: I think it's going to be a hard sell. The
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: charges allege the convicted sex trafficker lied under oath by
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: hiding her participation in Epstein's offenses during separate civil case
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: brought against her by Prince Andrew's accuser, Virginia Roberts. And
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: kudos here for the Daily Mail finally getting on board.
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: The charges allege the convicted sex trafficker lied under oath
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: That is what she is, a convicted sex trafficker, an
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: absolutely horrendous human being, if you want to call her
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: a human being, I prefer bipedal serpent, but you get
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: the drift here. This lady should not be called a socialite,
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: an ex-socialite, any of that. She is a convicted sex offender.
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: You made that bed, Ghislaine Maxwell, now enjoy lying in it.
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: Confirming their position in the letter to Judge Allison J. Nathan,
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: the U.S. government said, In the event the defendant's post-trial
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: motions are denied, the government is prepared to dismiss the
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: severed perjury counts at the time of sentencing in light
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: of the survivor's significant interest in bringing closure to this
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again. And we
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: talked about this a little bit yesterday. It's got to
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: be traumatic, right? Coming back, got to testify again, relive
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: all of this, the nightmares, the night sweats, the anticipation
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: the day before. I mean, come on. Have any of
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: you ever had a big day that you had and
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: you were nervous about it? You weren't really looking forward
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: to it? Maybe like surgery or something like that? I
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: know I've had both of my shoulders fully reconstructed due
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: to injuries that I've picked up being a moron in
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: my life. And every single night that I was laying
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: there in bed before those surgeries, I was scared shitless.
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: So I can only imagine... laying there before a trial,
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: getting up there to air out your whole life in
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: front of the whole world, that there has to be
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: so much anxiety in the best of times. Never mind
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: if you were sexually abused or raped or trafficked by
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: sick fucks like this. So, in the interest of them
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: not having to revisit the trauma, I'm all for it,
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: as long as Maxwell is punished the right way. If
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: any of the defendant's post-trial motions are granted, the government
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: proposes that the parties be directed to promptly confer and
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: propose a schedule for further proceedings. That schedule may depend
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: on the manner in which the court resolves such motions.
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: So basically what they're saying there is we're going to
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: have to wait and see. We'll have to wait and
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: see what the court decides. We'll have to wait and
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: see what the defense brings to the table. And then
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: the negotiations will begin. The prosecution has also requested preparation
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: of a pre-sentence investigation report, but the defense argued anything
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: Maxwell said in the report could be used against her
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: at her retrial, and she's not wrong about that. So
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: that's a bit diligent on her team's behalf here. You
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: gotta be careful, right? You gotta really be careful when
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: you're dealing with the federal government. Setting out their position
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: in the letter, Maxwell's lawyer said the defense requests that
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: the court delay setting a schedule for sentencing because there
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: is a compelling basis for the court to overturn Ms.
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's conviction and grant her a new trial, based on
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: the disclosure of Juror 50 during deliberations. The defense, therefore,
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: objects to setting a schedule for sentencing until this motion
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: is resolved. So, again, what they're trying to do is
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: stop everything in its tracks until they can figure out
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: if they're going to get a retrial here. That's what
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: they're aiming for. That's what they're gunning for. That's what
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: they want. The question is, are they going to attain it? Furthermore,
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: requiring Ms. Maxwell to participate in the preparation of the
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: pre-sentence investigation report while she is awaiting a decision on
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: her motion for a new trial will adversely impact her
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: Fifth Amendment rights, the right to silence so as to
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: not incriminate herself. Ms. Maxwell will be forced into the
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: position of not cooperating with the probation department's investigation because
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: any statement she makes to probation and any document she
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: provides may be used against her at her retrial. So
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: they're really pining for that retrial, folks. They think they're
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: going to get it. They think that Maxwell is going
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: to get a chance to once again try and argue
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: her innocence here, if you want to call it that.
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: I would suggest that they didn't even argue her innocence
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: the first time around. But again, while it seems like
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: a mistrial is certainly a possibility, we're dealing with the
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: United States legal system where things that seem likely, well,
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: they never occur. Maxwell's conviction was first put in jeopardy
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: when juror number 50, Scotty David, admitted he flew through
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: a pretrial questionnaire and did not recall being asked on
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: the forum about his experience of sexual abuse. David claimed
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: he used his experience to influence other jurors, saying, when
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: I shared that, they were able to come around on
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: the memory aspect of the sexual abuse. And again, we
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: don't even know if that's the truth. Maxwell's defense has
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: insisted she not be made to expend resources on other
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: legal matters until a ruling on whether to conduct a
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: retrial is made. It comes after a second unidentified juror
• 37:24
  Speaker 1: told the New York Times that they, too, had been
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: abused as a child. They said they had discussed the
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: help shape the jury's discussions, the paper reported. Meanwhile, Maxwell's
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: lawyers told the Mail on Sunday that they believe they
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: have found a third juror in her sex trafficking trial
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: who lied about being abused. All right, so now we're
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: getting a bit silly, right? Everybody's a liar. Everybody told
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: a story. At what point do you look at Maxwell's
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: team and say, all right, come on now, stop it?
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: I think I'm at that point right now. All right,
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: enough with the BS. Your client's convicted. She's a human trafficker.
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: Stop being a moron. A source said Maxwell's legal team
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: feel confident a third juror lied on their jury application, adding,
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: there are also questions over a fourth juror. So this
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: thing is up in the air. So when they say
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: a source said, I'm guessing Maxwell's brother. He's the only
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: source that they've had. And boy, oh boy, he is
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: not a reliable narrator. Maxwell's trial and subsequent conviction for
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: assisting Epstein, who hanged himself in his jail cell in 2019, allegedly,
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: exposed a murky world of sex trafficking among the rich
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: and powerful. A New York judge last week said they
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: would decide pretty soon whether to dismiss a sexual assault
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: lawsuit against the UK's Prince Andrew by Virginia Roberts, also
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: a longtime abuse survivor of Maxwell and Epstein's. Roberts alleges
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: that Epstein lent her out for sex with his wealthy
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: and powerful associates, including Andrew, an allegation that Queen Elizabeth
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: II's son has repeatedly and strenuously denied. So, it's funny
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: how they say, oh, it opens up a world of
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: murky sex trafficking among the rich and powerful. What do
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: you mean? This has been going on forever. How do
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: you think the courts in the middle ages ran? And
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: when I say courts, I mean royal courts. They were
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: basically large-ass sex trafficking operations. In fact, we're going to
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: dive into that at some point as well, because it's
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: very interesting. how those courts for the kings and monarchs
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: in the old days were used as sex trafficking operations.
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: So this is as old as old could be, folks.
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: And when it comes to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein,
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: they're certainly not the only ones that are up to it.
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: So we're going to continue on this path. We'll continue
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: following the story, and we're going to see what comes
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: of this. But one thing I can definitely tell you
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: is there are definitely some more twists and turns ahead,
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: and there's certainly going to be some bumps in the road. So, folks,
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: my advice is buckle up. All right, that's going to
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: do it for us this morning. We'll be back later
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: on tonight with our evening update and context articles as usual.
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. You can
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: link that we discussed can be found in the description box.
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Tonight,
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: we're going to continue talking about the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: and specifically about the interview given by one of the jurors.
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: And now all of the fallout surrounding that interview. Now,
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: this all stems from his account of how he gave
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: his personal story inside of the jurors room to the
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: other jurors as they were deliberating Ghislaine Maxwell's fate. trying
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: to draw a picture for some of the other jurors,
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: I guess, about how memories of the real core issues
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: when it comes to trauma never change. And he tried
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: to paint a picture of that for the other jurors
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: using his own past experiences. And now the question is,
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: was he forthcoming enough During juror selection, when asked questions
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: about sexual abuse, that's really the main question here, right?
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: There's a lot of other things going on and, you know,
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: a lot of other background noise. But the main question is,
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: was this gentleman truthful when he was being selected to
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: be put upon this jury? So now the federal government, well,
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: they've decided that they're going to do an inquiry into this.
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: They have petitioned the court. And I'm going to read
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: to you the letter that the United States Attorney of
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York sent to Judge Nathan.
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: Dear Judge Nathan, The government has become aware that a
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: juror has given several interviews to press outlets regarding his
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: jury service in this case. While the court instructed jurors
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: that they were free to discuss their jury service with
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: anyone of their choosing, some of the statements as related
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: in the media merit attention by the court. In particular,
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: the juror has described being a victim of sexual abuse.
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: Assuming the accuracy of the reporting, the juror asserted that
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: he flew through the prospective juror questionnaire and does not
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: recall being asked whether he had been a victim of
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse, but stated that he would have answered honestly.
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: So right off the jump, I mean, you got to
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: say to yourself here, what the hell? Now, a lot
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: of this testimony was given under seal, right? The juror testimony,
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: I mean the questioning to get onto the panel. So
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: we really don't know what's going on and what's under seal,
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: but the government does. So the government calling an inquiry
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: here is a bit concerning in my opinion. And look,
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: I've said it from the beginning, folks. I have no
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: faith when it comes to the federal government prosecuting cases
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: like this. When it comes to them prosecuting me or you,
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: hell yeah, they're going to send us up the river
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: without a paddle, as the saying goes. But people like
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: this forget it. So, we'll have to see what comes
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: of it, but man oh man. Based on the foregoing,
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: the government believes the court should conduct an inquiry. The
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: government proposes that the court schedule a hearing in approximately
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: one month along with an appropriate schedule for pre-hearing briefing
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: regarding the applicable law and the scope of the hearing.
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: The government respectfully submits that any juror investigation should be
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: conducted exclusively under the supervision of the court. If the
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: court decides to schedule a hearing, the government respectfully suggests
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: that the court staff promptly contact the juror to notify
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: him of the hearing and inquire whether he would like
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: counsel to be appointed in connection with it. Yo. And
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: this is why I say all the time, there's no
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: need to run out and speak to the media and
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: get yourself in all kinds of trouble. You ever find
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: yourself in a situation like this? Best bet? Don't speak
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: to the media. The legacy media, they are not your friends.
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: They don't have your best interest at heart. You know,
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: they're not your local independent content creator that you talk
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: to on the internet all the time. These people are
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: looking to break that story. They want them clicks, whatever
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: drives the news. And now, you know, I don't really
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: blame them, right? That's their job and that's the culture
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: that we're in. But the reality of it is, If
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: you're ever somebody who, you know, is in a situation
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: like this, I would suggest not to speak to the
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: media at all. Because find yourself in a very difficult
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: situation sometimes. The government reached out to defense counsel last
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: night regarding the juror's statements. But defense counsel have not
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: yet responded and thus the government is not aware of
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: the defense position on this issue. So that was the
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: letter sent by Damian Williams, who is the U.S. attorney
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: for the Southern District of New York. That means he's
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: Maureen Comey, Alison Moe, Laura Pomerantz, Andrew Rohrbach, all of
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: their boss. So it's a pretty serious situation, obviously, right?
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: And the government here, again, remember, they're the ones who
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: know what's under seal. We don't. So them calling for
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: this investigation certainly is a bit concerning if you're asking
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: me from the peanut gallery. Again, remember, I am not
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: a lawyer or a prosecutor. I've never even been in
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: a court of law for something like this. So I couldn't,
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: you know, tell you the likelihood of mistrial or anything
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: like that. But the good news is, the article that
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: we're going to use today and talk about today from
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: Law and Crime... and Adam Clasfeld, they're going to get
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: into that a little bit more. So whenever we have
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: one of these sorts of issues, as far as real
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: legalese going on, I always like to use law and
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: crime and somebody like Adam Clasfeld because, you know, it's
• 46:32
  Speaker 1: kind of what they do for a living. Always a
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: good idea to, you know, if you want to get
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: ice cream to go to the ice cream shop, right?
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: All right, so that said, let's take a look at
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: this article and let's see what we have going on here. Headline.
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: Court inquiry requested after Ghislaine Maxwell juror goes public as
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: survivor of sexual abuse. Like I said, this is from
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: Law and Crime, and the author is Adam Classfeld. The
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: day after three interviews ran with a Ghislaine Maxwell juror
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: coming out as a survivor of sexual abuse, federal prosecutors
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: requested a court inquiry requested into how those accounts square
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: with the man's answers to a jury questionnaire before trial.
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: So if, for instance, okay, let's just speculate here, and
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: that's all I'm doing. If he answered that he had
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: never been sexually assaulted on that questionnaire, that's going to
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: spell big trouble for the prosecution. And this will probably
• 47:31
  Speaker 1: end up in a place of a mistrial at that point.
• 47:35
  Speaker 1: So really, like we said this morning, it comes down
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: to what he said during that questionnaire. And was he truthful?
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: Was he honest? Was he not? That's really what the
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: real question is here. And for me, you would think
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: that some of that has to fall on the defense though, right?
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: Isn't it their job to vet these jurors and make
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: sure that there's nobody that might be, I don't know,
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: somebody that harbors ill will towards their client? Isn't that
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: what the whole process is about? Even though they answer
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: the questionnaire, each juror has to be asked questions as
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: well by the prosecution and the defense as they're going
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: through the selection process. So you would think something like
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: this would have come up and... So that makes me believe,
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: at least a little anyway, that there might be much
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: ado about nothing going on here. And again, speculation. Whatever
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: he answered on that questionnaire is going to tell the
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: tale here, folks. And them calling for this inquiry, that's
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: what they're going to be trying to get down to
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: the bottom of. Did he? lie, right? Did he answer, no,
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: I have never been a victim of sexual abuse and
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: then come out in the jury room and have a
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: whole different thing to say? And if that's the case,
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: as much of a monster as I think Ghislaine Maxwell is,
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: that certainly would seem to me to be grounds for
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: a mistrial. There has to be a certain standard that's followed, right?
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: And you can't, as a juror, you can't be lying
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: and shit like that and sitting in a juror's box
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: and deciding the fate of one of your peers. So
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: we're going to have to see what this inquiry comes
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: up with. And I will say that it certainly is concerning,
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: but I'm not going to jump off of the deep
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: end just yet until we have all of the facts, right?
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: Shortly after the government's request, Maxwell's attorney, Christian Everdell, claimed
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: that the revelation regarding the juror presents incontrovertible grounds for
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: a new trial. Oh, you know he'd love that, right?
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell's lawyers? Not only the fact that, obviously, that
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: people don't like to lose, lawyers included, but they know
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: the meter is running. A whole new trial? Back up
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: the Brinks truck. We're gonna need new experts. We're gonna
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: need Elizabeth Loftus 2.0. You know how it goes. They're
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: going to do everything they possibly can to get this
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: call to mistrial and have things crack off once again.
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: And if you leave any leeway for these people, any
• 50:16
  Speaker 1: sort of loophole or technicality, you better believe these lawyers
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: are going to grab onto it like a pit bull
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: and not let go. And it's up to the prosecution
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: to make sure that that doesn't happen, by the way. Again,
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: like I've said from Jump Street, folks, the SDNY is
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: not what it used to be. In a separate letter,
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: his co-counsel, Jeffrey Pagluccia, argued that further investigation was unwarranted
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: and the court can and should order a new trial
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: without any evidentiary hearing. That's a pretty bold statement there, Mr.
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey P. Another one, he's like, yo, the meter is running.
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: We had a great year last year at the end
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: of the year as far as our financials go, considering
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: how long this trial was drawn out. Let's get another
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: trial locked in so I can secure another bag here. Alright, alright,
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: I'm being a wise guy with that. But, you know,
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: these lawyers are making a ton of money. And, again,
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: they don't like to lose. So if any sort of
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: technicality or loophole presents itself, they're going to dive in.
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: And to be frank, if it was me whose life
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: was on the line, I would be demanding a mistrial
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: here too, probably. Now, is it going to work? I
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: don't know. But I would be demanding it as well,
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: I'll tell you that much, because we know... The evidence
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: isn't there to get you out if you're Ghislaine Maxwell.
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: It's going to be a loophole or a technicality if
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: you ever walk as a free woman again. So you
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: better hope that it's something like this because short of that,
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: the party is over for her. The Supreme Court has
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: held that to be entitled to a new trial, a
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: honestly a material question and then further show that a
• 52:01
  Speaker 1: correct response would have provided valid basis for a challenge
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: for cause, Paglucci's letter states. The standard applies even if
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: the juror's conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. And again,
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: down to the legalese part of it, right? I don't
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: know what the precedent says of that. I haven't dug
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: into case study or anything like that, but you would
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: think that they have a valid argument here. And it
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: pains me to say that, but again, like I always say,
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: you got to follow the evidence, right? Even if it
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: leads you to a place that's uncomfortable or that you
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: don't want to be. But from what we see here,
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: it certainly looks like they at the very least have
• 52:41
  Speaker 1: an argument for this. And it's going to come down
• 52:44
  Speaker 1: to what Judge Nathan thinks. Before the end of the
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: day on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Allison Nathan set a
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: briefing schedule on Maxwell's request for a new trial. The
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: defense motion is due on January 19th. The government must
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: reply by February 2nd, and Maxwell will have every opportunity
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: to respond a week later. The judge reserved decision on
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: whether a formal court inquiry will be necessary. So we're
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: in a holding pattern here, folks. We don't know, right,
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: what's going to happen one way or the other. You'll
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: have some people that are going to talk about the
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: sky is falling and this is the end of it
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: all and she's going to get out. And who knows,
• 53:24
  Speaker 1: maybe that is the case. I'm not willing to hop
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: off of that bridge yet, though. There's a lot more
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: to see here. And really, it's going to come down
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: to the particulars inside of that sealed conversation, that sealed questionnaire.
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: In interviews with three news outlets on Tuesday, a juror
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: interviewed under his first and middle name, Scotty David, described
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: how his personal experience is with sexual abuse. This verdict
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: is for all the victims, David told The Independent, for
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: those who testified, for those who came forward, and for
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: those who haven't come forward. I'm glad that Maxwell has
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: been held accountable. And while I share your sentiments, probably
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: not the right thing to say to the media, right?
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: Probably a good idea just to keep your lips shut
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: and keep it moving. But this is human nature these days.
• 54:18
  Speaker 1: Everybody wants to be the hero of the story, right? And,
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: you know, Mr. Scotty David had a few things that
• 54:26
  Speaker 1: he wanted to get off of his chest, obviously. And,
• 54:29
  Speaker 1: oh boy, might have sunk the whole entire operation. David
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: declared to the Daily Mail, Ghislaine was a predator as
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: guilty as Epstein. Can't disagree with that. Can't disagree with
• 54:41
  Speaker 1: that at all. I agree 100%. But again, when you're
• 54:45
  Speaker 1: a juror for a case like this, I don't know,
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: it's probably a good idea just to tell your story
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: walking afterwards. You know, save the conversation for around the
• 54:56
  Speaker 1: campfire or when the family comes over for a Monopoly
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: game or something. I know personally, I certainly wouldn't be
• 55:03
  Speaker 1: talking to the media. I'd be pissed already that I
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: had to serve on a jury for all this time,
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: never mind wanting to go and speak to the media
• 55:11
  Speaker 1: and extend the misery, because this is some harsh, heavy shit, right?
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: I know if I was a juror here, I'd want
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: to put it behind me and just keep it moving. But,
• 55:23
  Speaker 1: you know, again, I'm I don't know what Scotty David
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: said on that questionnaire. So I'm not willing to, you know,
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: say that this guy lied or anything like that yet,
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: because we don't know that those are the facts. We're
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: speculating here and we're talking about the what ifs. But
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: certainly there's enough smoke that there might be fire. And
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: when the prosecutors call for an inquiry like this, you
• 55:48
  Speaker 1: know that there's something going on there. After all I've learned,
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: she's just as guilty as Epstein, David told the UK paper.
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: I don't want to call her a monster, but a
• 55:59
  Speaker 1: predator is the right word. Some jurors doubted the accounts
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: of two of Maxwell's accusers, David told Reuters. All three
• 56:08
  Speaker 1: disclosures raised eyebrows among legal experts who noted that jurors
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: were made to fill out a questionnaire asking them directly,
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: Have you or a friend or a family member ever
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: The query was followed by three separate boxes for yes,
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: yes friend or family member, or no. It's unclear how
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: David answered. as the jury was anonymous and their sensitive
• 56:35
  Speaker 1: personal information was placed under seal. Both the government and
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: the defense characterizations of David's statements appear to be redacted.
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: So again, we just don't know. I know that's not
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: the answer people want to hear right now, but I'd
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: prefer to go that route than sit here and blow
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: smoke up your ass or pump your tires and tell you,
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: oh yeah, this is this and that is that, when
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: really we don't know. And I prefer for us to
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: be correct and for us to be right as opposed
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: to us just to fire off and say be first
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: or whatever it might be. But when it comes to
• 57:12
  Speaker 1: something like this, we have to get all of the
• 57:15
  Speaker 1: information in. Because the crucial part is the stuff that
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: is redacted, the stuff that we don't have access to.
• 57:22
  Speaker 1: So we'll see what the inquiry finds, but... You would
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: think that if he... Now look, if he answered truthfully
• 57:29
  Speaker 1: on this questionnaire and said yes, and he was still
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: able to be part of the jury, then that's on
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: the defense. It's their job to vet these dudes. It's
• 57:38
  Speaker 1: their job to make sure that they have the right
• 57:40
  Speaker 1: jurors there to hear the case. So they have to
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: be responsible for that, right? Now, if he lied, well,
• 57:46
  Speaker 1: that's a whole different ballgame. And as I said earlier
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: in that letter, talking about him getting counsel, yeah, that's
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: the kind of shit that'll scare anybody. When you get
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: a letter like that from a federal prosecutor's office or
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: from the court asking if you have counsel, you know
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: you better gear up. It's time to go. Better call Saul,
• 58:06
  Speaker 1: whatever it may be, but you know you're in a
• 58:09
  Speaker 1: predicament there. So there certainly are some tea leaves that
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: you can read into a little bit, but I don't
• 58:15
  Speaker 1: think there is. David said that he flew through the
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: initial questionnaire and did not recall being asked about those
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: personal experiences with sexual abuse on the form, but he
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: added that he would have answered honestly. So I'm trying
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: not to go too hard on this dude, but what
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: do you mean you flew through the initial questionnaire? There's
• 58:34
  Speaker 1: not something to fly through. This isn't the terms of
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: service of your Pandora subscription. Talking about trying one of
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: your peers here. This is a very important and serious matter.
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: So I don't like hearing that whole, I flew through anything.
• 58:53
  Speaker 1: Based on the foregoing, the government believes the court should
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: conduct an inquiry, prosecutors wrote in a three-page letter. The
• 58:59
  Speaker 1: government proposes that the court schedule a hearing in approximately
• 59:03
  Speaker 1: one month, along with an appropriate schedule for pre-hearing briefing
• 59:08
  Speaker 1: regarding the applicable law and the scope of the hearing.
• 59:11
  Speaker 1: Government respectfully submits that any juror investigation should be conducted
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: exclusively under the supervision of the court. Well, who else
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: would it be done under? Brink Security Company? Who's going
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: to have discretion over that? Maybe you guys can go
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: dig George Mitchell back out of the old background and
• 59:31
  Speaker 1: have him oversee things because, you know, why not at
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: this point? I don't even know what that means, under
• 59:36
  Speaker 1: the supervision of the court. All jury questionnaires were submitted
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: anonymously under penalty of perjury and the government recommended advising
• 59:45
  Speaker 1: the juror of his right to an attorney for any
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: hearing addressing the matter. judge nathan granted that request so
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: again this dude uh scotty david by speaking to the
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: media really put himself in a position and put the
• 59:58
  Speaker 1: case in jeopardy if we're being honest as far as
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 1: we know now anyway at least in enough jeopardy where
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 1: they're forming an inquiry here so better lawyer up you
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: know my advice on this podcast i don't care if
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: you're getting busted for a jaywalking ticket if you have
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: to deal with law enforcement The answer is, I want
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: to speak to an attorney. Subject to the juror's right
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: to decline court-appointed counsel, the court will appoint the on-duty
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: CJA counsel to represent the juror, Nathan wrote. If counsel
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: for the juror wishes to be heard on the issue
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: of the appropriateness of an inquiry, briefing by the juror's
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: counsel may be filed by January 26, 2022. So this
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: is going to be, unfortunately, folks, a thing. It's going
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 1: to be drawn out and we're going to have to
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: be here every day discussing it. But guess what? We're
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: going to be here cataloging this because it's very important.
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: And it's important to make sure that we stay on
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 1: top of it every single day because there is so
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: much that goes on each and every day that if
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: you even miss one day, you're behind the schedule, right?
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: You're behind the eight ball. So this is going to
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: go on for a while, and it's going to be
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: very interesting to see what comes of this. If the
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: court were to conduct such a hearing, Maxwell's lawyers said
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: all of the deliberating jurors should be examined about David's conduct.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: Should the defense prevail on this motion, and we believe
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: the law and the facts are clearly on our side,
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: it would render all other post-trial motions moot, Everdell wrote
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: in a heavily redacted letter. Ms. Maxwell should not have
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: to expend precious time and resources briefing other motions when
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: this motion can and should be a disposition. So, excuse me, dispositive. Basically,
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: what he's saying here is that Maxwell shouldn't have to
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: fight and spend money and time and resources on this
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 1: stuff if this guy was BSing around and she should
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: be focused on more important matters. Maxwell was convicted on
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 1: five out of six federal crimes charged against her, including
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 1: conspiring to entice minors for Jeffrey Epstein's abuse and trafficking.
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Eppner, who led intake on sex
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: trafficking cases in the District of New Jersey between 2003
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: and 2004, said of the development, this is huge. Well,
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: no offense, Mr. Eppner, but that was a different time.
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: We're in a whole new era when it comes to
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: sexual assault Survivors and abuse... And how people look upon
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 1: these people... So while in 2003... And 2004... This might
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: have been a gigantic deal... And something that would really signal...
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 1: Getting someone off... Things are a little bit different nowadays...
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: And the landscape has changed a little bit... The question
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: was asked... And the government knows the answers that were given...
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: Said Ebner... Who is now of counsel for Rottenberg... Lipman
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: Rich P.C... I assume that he did not reveal past
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse or else there would be nothing to investigate.
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: This could easily result in a new trial. That is disconcerting.
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: Got somebody like Mr. Mitchell Eppner here, who has obviously
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: been a lawyer for a long time, worked on both
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 1: sides of the argument, the defense and the prosecution. Guy
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: like this thinks that this could easily result in a
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 1: new trial. I guess all we could say is stay tuned, right?
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 1: Ex-federal prosecutor Moira Penza, who helped convict NXIVM cult member,
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: cult leader, and sex trafficker, and human trafficker, and, you know,
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: insert other scumbaggery here, Keith Ranieri wrote on Twitter that
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's legal team would have to prove substantial prejudice to
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: disturb an otherwise sacrosanct jury verdict. And that is pretty important,
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 1: because it's true. Once the jury levels a verdict, it's
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 1: kind of hard to get that bad boy overturned and changed.
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 1: So even though we have old Scotty Boy's statements here,
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 1: it's going to be an uphill battle for Maxwell to
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 1: get this overturned, to get a new trial, and to
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: get all of that motion for herself. Now, they're going
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 1: to do a look, though. They're definitely going to take
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: a look at what went on here. If it progresses
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 1: any further than that is what we'll have to see.
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 1: Given jurors admission, prosecutors are right to ask for an inquiry.
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: But if he says it was a mistake and is
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 1: credited by Judge Nathan, that's probably the end of it,
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 1: tweeted Penza, who is now a partner at Wilkinson Steckloff.
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's attorney, Bobby Sternum, did not respond to an email
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: requesting comment. So that's an interesting statement. Given the jurors admission,
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 1: prosecutors are right to ask for an inquiry. Agreed. But
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 1: if he says it was a mistake and is credited
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 1: by Judge Nathan, that's probably the end of it. So
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: I guess that means it would be a judgment call
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 1: on Nathan's part. If she decides to credit him and
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 1: say it's a mistake, then that's the end of that.
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 1: I mean, I guess that's how it works in something
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 1: like this. Obviously, what this really does, no matter what,
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 1: is it gives Maxwell a grounds for appeal at the
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: very least. And I've been kind of looking forward to,
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: you know, not forward as in excited about it, but
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: looking forward in time to that possibility. And I think
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: that's what they're really gearing up for. I think they're
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: really gearing up for that appeal. I don't know if
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: this is going to work for them as far as
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: get her a mistrial or whatever. But I think they're
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: gearing up for the appeal here, folks. And that's just
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: a gut feeling I have. Nothing set in stone or
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: I didn't have a little bird fly over here and
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: tell me that. It's just my gut feeling. And when
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 1: you look at the way Maxwell's team has conducted themselves
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: throughout this whole thing, there was no chance that they
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 1: weren't going to latch on to this. And you got
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: the juror out here giving a bunch of interviews and
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: this is the result. This is what Maxwell's team is
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 1: going to do. This is what they're paid to do.
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 1: So really, as lame as the media are for being
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: the culture vultures that they are, basically begging these jurors
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 1: for interviews, it really comes down to the juror himself.
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: And the question that we asked at the very beginning,
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 1: did he lie or didn't he lie on that questionnaire?
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: Once that is answered, we will know much, much more.
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: Until then though, we'll be here trying to put the
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: context together, put a little more meat on that bone
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: and try and get to the clarity, right? As we
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 1: all swim through this murk and muck together, the idea
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: is to get to the clear water. Alright folks, that's
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: going to do it for tonight. I will be back
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: tomorrow morning as usual. A couple of context episodes coming
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: your way. Another That's Wild episode coming your way. And
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: we'll keep it rolling. And we'll keep our eye on
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 1: what's going on here especially. If you'd like to contact me,
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: you can do that at BobbyCapucci at ProtonMail.com That's B-O-B-B-Y
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 1: C-A-P-U-C-C-I at ProtonMail.com You can also... find me on Twitter
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 1: at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The link that we discussed, plus
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 1: the letter sent by the prosecutors to the judge, can
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.