Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / MADAME PERV GHISLAINE MAXWELL GUILTY VERDICT IN JEOPARDY

Transcript

MADAME PERV GHISLAINE MAXWELL GUILTY VERDICT IN JEOPARDY · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime stories with Nancy Grace, Gilaine Maxwell, Madame Herb, the henchman,
0:17
Speaker 1: the pimp for billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, literally trolling the school
0:23
Speaker 1: yard to put little girls and bring them in for
0:27
Speaker 1: Epstein to molest. All done and said, right, case closed, guilty,
0:34
Speaker 1: Not so fast, take a listen to our friend Tom
0:38
Speaker 1: Winter and me see tonight. In a trial that's centered
0:42
Speaker 1: on sexual abuse, two jurors revealed they too have experienced
0:46
Speaker 1: abuse their own personal experiences, now pushing Gallaine Maxwell's attorneys
0:50
Speaker 1: to ask for a new case at issue. Legal experts
0:53
Speaker 1: say whether or not the two were adequately forthcoming about
0:57
Speaker 1: their experiences before trial, and identifying himself as Scottie David,
1:02
Speaker 1: was one of the jurors. He spoke to several media outlets,
1:05
Speaker 1: including the Dailymail dot com. I don't want to call
1:07
Speaker 1: her a monster. A predator is the right word, David,
1:12
Speaker 1: known as Juror Number fifty, says. Other jurors voiced out
1:16
Speaker 1: about some of the accusers. Some people were like, how
1:18
Speaker 1: can they keep going back? Like why would their moms
1:21
Speaker 1: allow them to do that? And I was like, we
1:23
Speaker 1: can't judge them based on what they did or didn't do.
1:26
Speaker 1: They they're fourteen. They don't really have the wherewithal to
1:31
Speaker 1: know really what's right and wrong. A second juror who
1:34
Speaker 1: requested anonymity, told The New York Times they were sexually
1:38
Speaker 1: abused as a child, and that they had also discussed
1:40
Speaker 1: the experience during deliberations. Is the Elane Maxwell guilty vernict doomed?
1:48
Speaker 1: I say no for legal reasons. I mean, see Grace,
1:52
Speaker 1: this is crime Stories. Thank you for being with us
1:55
Speaker 1: here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM one eleven got
1:58
Speaker 1: an all star panel to make sense of what we
2:00
Speaker 1: are learning. As the minutes take by, are there more
2:04
Speaker 1: Gerar stating that they have also been victims of molestation?
2:08
Speaker 1: And will that jeopardize the guilty verdict? Will there have
2:12
Speaker 1: to be a new trial? With me? Doctor Teresa Guil,
2:15
Speaker 1: professors psychology, has spent years working with child abuse and
2:20
Speaker 1: trauma victims. Joseph Scott Morgan, Professor Forensics, Jacksonville State University,
2:25
Speaker 1: author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon and host
2:28
Speaker 1: of Bodybags with Joe Scott Morgan on iHeart. Special guests
2:33
Speaker 1: joining us, Charlie Langston, editor at Daily Mail with Female
2:39
Speaker 1: and Wendy Patrick, California, prosecutor, author Red Flags at Wendy
2:42
Speaker 1: Patrick PhD dot com, and host of Today with Doctor
2:45
Speaker 1: Wendy on KCBQ, first year Charlie Langston. Before I get
2:50
Speaker 1: into the legalities of whether this requires a whole new
2:56
Speaker 1: trial for Gillaine Maxwell, who no doubt did it over
3:01
Speaker 1: and over and over, even molesting some of the little
3:04
Speaker 1: girls herself, tell me what's happening this, does you know, Charlie?
3:10
Speaker 1: I find that's really hard to believe because I never
3:13
Speaker 1: tried a case ever without asking the entire panel. Do
3:19
Speaker 1: any of you know anyone, even if it's yourself, a neighbor,
3:25
Speaker 1: a family member, that have been a victim of a crime?
3:29
Speaker 1: Have any of you been a victim of a crime?
3:34
Speaker 1: And the converse to that is, have do you know
3:38
Speaker 1: anybody that's been convicted? Anybody? Hint, hint, have you been convicted?
3:43
Speaker 1: So I find it really hard to believe that these
3:46
Speaker 1: high profile lawyers and veteran prosecutors did not ask that question. Well,
3:51
Speaker 1: I think it's worth pointing out that we don't actually
3:55
Speaker 1: know for sure right now that that question was not asked.
3:59
Speaker 1: What we do know is that jurors have said that
4:04
Speaker 1: they were not asked specifically whether they were victims of
4:09
Speaker 1: sexual abuse. So the question is whether they interpreted the
4:13
Speaker 1: question of have you ever committed a crime? Have you
4:16
Speaker 1: ever been the victim of a crime. It may be
4:20
Speaker 1: that they did not interpret that question correctly and did
4:23
Speaker 1: not feel that their experiences with sexual abuse were the
4:27
Speaker 1: correct answer to that. So, you know, if they were
4:31
Speaker 1: the victims of sexual abuse and their abuses were never convicted,
4:34
Speaker 1: they may not have felt that it was a crime
4:36
Speaker 1: that was committed. If that makes sense. Yes, I see
4:40
Speaker 1: what you're saying. They could have been molested or abused
4:45
Speaker 1: and not realize that that was a crime if it
4:48
Speaker 1: were never prosecuted, exactly. Think long story short, do you
4:53
Speaker 1: know that song? Winny Patrick, California prosecutor. I feel a
4:57
Speaker 1: bad moon coming. I felt by rising. I feel a
5:02
Speaker 1: bad moon rising. You know there's trouble on the way.
5:08
Speaker 1: Charlie Langston with US dailymail dot com. How many jurors
5:12
Speaker 1: do we think we have right now that are coming out?
5:14
Speaker 1: We believe that there are at least three. However, there
5:18
Speaker 1: is a fourth juror whose sources tell us is also
5:22
Speaker 1: under question and may have also been the victim of
5:26
Speaker 1: sexual abuse. So, as we heard the first jura who
5:29
Speaker 1: said that they were a victim of sexual abuse with
5:31
Speaker 1: Scottie David, he spoke to us about his experiences. A
5:36
Speaker 1: second juror, who is remaining anonymous, has spoken to The
5:39
Speaker 1: New York Times, and we reported over the weekend that
5:43
Speaker 1: a third juror has been found by Gee Lane's legal
5:47
Speaker 1: team to have experienced sexual abuse. And the really big
5:51
Speaker 1: issue here is that both Scottie David and the second
5:55
Speaker 1: anonymous jura have admitted that they spoke about their own
5:58
Speaker 1: experiences with actual abuse during deliberations, and both of those
6:03
Speaker 1: jurors have said that they believed that their stories helped
6:07
Speaker 1: to influence the way that the other jurors went about
6:10
Speaker 1: their deliberations. Okay, hold on just a moment. I want
6:14
Speaker 1: you to hear Gurr Scotty David speaking to dailymail dot
6:19
Speaker 1: com ERICATC. You decided to share your story. Presumably that's
6:24
Speaker 1: something that you'd yes to in the questionnaire. It was
6:28
Speaker 1: something that the people were aware of when you were
6:30
Speaker 1: selected as a juror. No, they don't ask your sexual
6:34
Speaker 1: abuse history. They didn't ask it in the questionnaire. I
6:37
Speaker 1: thought in the questionnaire there was a question that asked
6:39
Speaker 1: if you were a victim, or if you were a
6:41
Speaker 1: friend or a rest a victim. I'm pretty sure it's
6:45
Speaker 1: not for forty eight. I don't remember somebody said to
6:52
Speaker 1: the questionnaire it's is hey, and there was a question interesting.
6:57
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess when did you say them that questionnaire?
7:00
Speaker 1: Definitely on the first day of jury selection. I would
7:04
Speaker 1: have definitely marked yes. But I honestly don't remember that question.
7:08
Speaker 1: You're all the sun frighting No. No, I mean, I
7:11
Speaker 1: know my face is rags. I can fill the blood,
7:12
Speaker 1: but I honestly that's why I answered it that way.
7:15
Speaker 1: I don't remember it being there, but I did answer.
7:19
Speaker 1: I definitely remember a family or relative or something, but
7:23
Speaker 1: being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions. Okay,
7:27
Speaker 1: so he sounds a little unclear on what he remembers. Okay,
7:33
Speaker 1: back to you, Wendy Patrick, California prosecutor. Jurors always talk
7:38
Speaker 1: about their own experiences and jurar deliberation jury deliberations. That's
7:42
Speaker 1: not uncommon. We expect that to happen. So tell me
7:46
Speaker 1: what you see as the big issue here, Wendy Patrick.
7:50
Speaker 1: I think the big issue is how these jurors were
7:52
Speaker 1: interpreting sexual abuse. You know, I know that if we
7:56
Speaker 1: don't break down that term as we often do in deliberations,
8:00
Speaker 1: that's actually part of what's charged. If we simply ask
8:03
Speaker 1: them in voidear and let it hang out there, I
8:05
Speaker 1: can tell you many jurors think it means forced intercourse.
8:08
Speaker 1: They don't think about it as being touching, masturbation some
8:12
Speaker 1: of the you hate to say, lesser forms of abuse,
8:15
Speaker 1: but we have to put them on a spectrum somewhere
8:17
Speaker 1: because if jurors are honestly envisioning the rape scenarios, when
8:21
Speaker 1: they hear a word like sexual abuse, that kind of
8:23
Speaker 1: a term, they're not going to disclose some of the
8:26
Speaker 1: types of abuse until they get in the deliberation room.
8:30
Speaker 1: So this may be legally significant because it wouldn't necessarily
8:34
Speaker 1: indicate dishonesty during the voidear process. Okay, what I'm trying
8:39
Speaker 1: to get at is is there going to be a
8:41
Speaker 1: brand new trial for Madam herv. Gillay Maxwell, or will
8:49
Speaker 1: the state take a cheap plea rather than retry the
8:54
Speaker 1: case if it rises to that. Now, the fact that
8:57
Speaker 1: jurors during jury deliberations talk about their own personal experiences,
9:02
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong with that that always happens. You expect
9:05
Speaker 1: that to happen. You want people to draw on their
9:08
Speaker 1: past experiences as they reach a verdict. That's not going
9:12
Speaker 1: to be a problem. I want you to listen to
9:15
Speaker 1: our cut be our friends at CBS News. Before the trial,
9:20
Speaker 1: potential jurors were asked to fill out this questionnaire, including
9:23
Speaker 1: this question have you ever been the victim of sexual assault?
9:27
Speaker 1: One juror, using only his first and middle names, Scottie David,
9:31
Speaker 1: told Reuters he can't remember if he disclosed his own
9:34
Speaker 1: claims of sex abuse, saying he flew through the initial questionnaire.
9:38
Speaker 1: He told Reuters he would have answered the questions honestly.
9:41
Speaker 1: Prosecutors told the judge overseeing the trial the statements merit
9:45
Speaker 1: attention by the court. Maxwell's lawyers then told the judge
9:49
Speaker 1: she can and should order a new trial. A separate
9:52
Speaker 1: juror told The New York Times they spoke of their
9:54
Speaker 1: own sexual abuse during deliberations, which the paper says appeared
9:58
Speaker 1: to help shape the jury discussions. And that is absolutely
10:04
Speaker 1: all right under the Constitution when yours talk about their
10:07
Speaker 1: own past experiences, prime stories with Nancy Grace for all
10:28
Speaker 1: of you just joining us bombshell and the Galaine Maxwell conviction.
10:33
Speaker 1: This woman, according to a jury, according to multiple child victims,
10:39
Speaker 1: went out even on school playgrounds, trolling for little girls
10:44
Speaker 1: around fourteen that we know of, to bring back to
10:48
Speaker 1: her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire that hangs out with
10:51
Speaker 1: Clinton and Shrump and all sorts of millionaires and very
10:55
Speaker 1: wealthy influential people for him to molest over and over
11:00
Speaker 1: and over until they aged out and he wanted somebody
11:03
Speaker 1: even younger. Yes, this is her. She just gets convicted
11:08
Speaker 1: finally after a massive federal trial. And now only now
11:13
Speaker 1: do the jurors decide they're gonna come forward, And it's like, oh, say, oh, yeah,
11:17
Speaker 1: I was molested. Well, what about that juror questionnaire? Did
11:20
Speaker 1: anybody hear what I just heard? The question number forty
11:25
Speaker 1: eight specifically asked, have you ever been the victim of
11:29
Speaker 1: sex assault? According to CBS News, now here's the reality
11:36
Speaker 1: when you're talking about a jury trial. Back to you,
11:41
Speaker 1: Wendy Patrick, A lot of people may have been a
11:44
Speaker 1: crime victim. But the issue is can you listen to
11:48
Speaker 1: the facts and evidence brought in at trial, not what
11:52
Speaker 1: you may have read the paper and render a verdict
11:54
Speaker 1: that speaks the truth. That's the question. Doesn't matter if
11:59
Speaker 1: you've been a victim, not a victim, if you're black,
12:02
Speaker 1: if you're white, if you're a man, if you're a woman,
12:04
Speaker 1: if you're a Christian, if you're an atheist, and that
12:06
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. It's can you render a verdict that speaks
12:10
Speaker 1: the truth? Yes, no, Wendy Patrick, Yeah, absolutely, the answer
12:14
Speaker 1: is yes. And so the jurors that are talking out
12:18
Speaker 1: afterwards are basically saying what they said influenced the other
12:22
Speaker 1: juror's ability to be fair and try the case on
12:24
Speaker 1: the facts they heard from the witness stand No, no, no, no,
12:29
Speaker 1: that's not what they said. They said it, Charlie Langston.
12:34
Speaker 1: Aren't they saying that them recounting their experiences affected the
12:39
Speaker 1: jury deliberation? Is not that it made them unfair or
12:44
Speaker 1: or partial. If they didn't say that it made them
12:46
Speaker 1: unfad what they said, I mean, what the second juror said, specifically,
12:50
Speaker 1: was that that experiences of sexual assault had helped to
12:55
Speaker 1: shape the jury's discussion so effectively. What the two jurors
12:59
Speaker 1: who have can out have said is that in them
13:02
Speaker 1: sharing their recollections of sexual abuse, it made the other
13:06
Speaker 1: jurors understand more how victims of sexual abuse may continue
13:11
Speaker 1: to recall their experiences, and I think in doing so,
13:14
Speaker 1: the jury was maybe able to realize a little bit
13:17
Speaker 1: more clearly just how well the trauma of abuse sticks
13:22
Speaker 1: with you throughout the years. So Maxwell's legal team one
13:27
Speaker 1: of their big arguments was to try and say that
13:29
Speaker 1: these women were coming forward because they wanted money, that
13:32
Speaker 1: they couldn't really remember what had gone on, and these
13:35
Speaker 1: jurors who spoke of their own experiences of sexual abuse
13:38
Speaker 1: were effectively helping the other jurors to realize that, no,
13:42
Speaker 1: these recollections do really stick with you, and you know,
13:45
Speaker 1: you are still able to recall a lot of details
13:49
Speaker 1: in very kind of specific ways. However, other you know,
13:52
Speaker 1: facts might be a little bit more blurry as time
13:55
Speaker 1: goes on. Wait wait, wait, wait, white, White, Okay, this
14:01
Speaker 1: happens when you're a crime victim. I will never forget
14:04
Speaker 1: for years and years and years, even when I was
14:05
Speaker 1: a prosecutor, I would not reveal, did not they want
14:09
Speaker 1: to talk about it to other people. That my fiance
14:12
Speaker 1: had been murdered just before our wedding, and that changed
14:15
Speaker 1: the course of my life in my career and That's
14:18
Speaker 1: why I became a prosecutor. It was nobody's business. I
14:20
Speaker 1: didn't want to talk about it, but I remember it
14:23
Speaker 1: very well. And then I finally am publicly telling my
14:27
Speaker 1: story at request of Larry King. And do you know
14:32
Speaker 1: he asked me, when did this happen? And I said
14:34
Speaker 1: August sixth, and I screwed up the year. I don't
14:39
Speaker 1: remember what year, I said, but I screwed up the
14:42
Speaker 1: year Keith was murdered. Why did I do that? I
14:45
Speaker 1: don't know now. I remember so many things vividly. And
14:51
Speaker 1: then of course I was attacked like crazy about just
14:55
Speaker 1: everything because I screwed up the year on national TV.
15:00
Speaker 1: Now one thing, correct me if I'm wrong, and then
15:02
Speaker 1: everybody jump in. Charlie, this guy, Scottie David explained to
15:07
Speaker 1: the jurars some aspects of his abuse had been easier
15:11
Speaker 1: to recall than others. Quote, I remember the color of
15:14
Speaker 1: the carpet, the walls. Some of it could be replayed
15:16
Speaker 1: like a video. I'd do that too, but I can't
15:19
Speaker 1: remember all the details. There are some things that run together.
15:23
Speaker 1: And in his talking to the jury, according to him Charlie,
15:28
Speaker 1: he says that the jurors were going Wow, Why didn't
15:31
Speaker 1: the parents let this happen? Didn't they notice their children
15:34
Speaker 1: weren't home at the right time? And because of what
15:38
Speaker 1: he had gone through, he told the jars, wait, minute,
15:41
Speaker 1: you can't judge them victims like that or their parents.
15:43
Speaker 1: They were just fourteen years old, for Pete's sake. So
15:47
Speaker 1: do I have that right, Charlie links yes. Effectively, he
15:50
Speaker 1: was helping the jury to understand, as a victim himself,
15:54
Speaker 1: why some of these women might be able to recall
15:57
Speaker 1: sudden details, as you said, in a very specific way,
16:01
Speaker 1: but not be able to remember other things, as you said,
16:03
Speaker 1: like dates or times, or you know, even the location
16:07
Speaker 1: of where the abuse happened. Because that, you know, I'm not,
16:10
Speaker 1: unfortunately an expert, but that's the way the human brain works.
16:13
Speaker 1: You when you go through an incredibly traumatic experience, sometimes
16:18
Speaker 1: you do try and block out the more painful aspects. Okay,
16:21
Speaker 1: I heard everybody jumping in. I heard I know, I
16:24
Speaker 1: just got Morgans hit me. Yeah, listen, I got to
16:29
Speaker 1: tell you, you know, I'm hearing the words molestation and
16:33
Speaker 1: sexual abuse being thrown around a lot. I got to
16:35
Speaker 1: remind everybody here that she was not charged or accused
16:39
Speaker 1: of those things. Officially, from a legal perspective, she's charged
16:44
Speaker 1: with enticement of a minor, transportation of a minor, sex,
16:48
Speaker 1: trafficking of a miner, and three counts of conspiracy. So
16:53
Speaker 1: you know, if abuse or molestation is an element of
16:57
Speaker 1: that crime, which you know, for those that don't understands
17:00
Speaker 1: it's a building block of the chrome, maybe that's the case.
17:04
Speaker 1: But you know, to the other point, here were these
17:08
Speaker 1: you know, during this questionnaire, were they actually ask well,
17:11
Speaker 1: do you have any experience with trafficking? Do you have
17:14
Speaker 1: any experience with enticement? Do you have any experience with
17:17
Speaker 1: the transportation of a minor? You know, you know to
17:20
Speaker 1: for tat, you know, is that the case because right
17:23
Speaker 1: now all I'm hearing is molestation and abuse, and she
17:26
Speaker 1: wasn't charged with us things. Nay, Doctor Teresa Gill joining
17:30
Speaker 1: US professor's psychology and author way in, doctor Well. In
17:34
Speaker 1: terms of memory, we know that the hippocampus is important
17:38
Speaker 1: for memory formation and recall. However, people understress, such as
17:45
Speaker 1: children who are experience in abuse, the body goes into
17:48
Speaker 1: fight flight. Adrenaline and cortisol are released, and all of
17:52
Speaker 1: a sudden, the hippocampus is switched off and it goes
17:56
Speaker 1: into the amygdala, and the amygdala is not good from
17:59
Speaker 1: the memory recall, formation or retrieval. And that's why a
18:06
Speaker 1: lot of the people who were on trial and his
18:11
Speaker 1: victims don't have really clear memories. And that's why they
18:15
Speaker 1: can do what you did, particularly if they're understress during
18:19
Speaker 1: the trial. They go back to the amiddaler and they
18:23
Speaker 1: can remember feeling and body memories, but they can't remember
18:27
Speaker 1: particular facts. And that's actually what Elizabeth Loftis was bringing
18:32
Speaker 1: out in the trial was why there is false memories,
18:36
Speaker 1: and that's what the juror said that he tried to
18:40
Speaker 1: clarify to the jury when they're in deliberations, because many
18:45
Speaker 1: of them said that they were confused. Why in twenty eighteen,
18:50
Speaker 1: nineteen and twenty they gave one story. The victims gave
18:55
Speaker 1: one story to the federal government, and now they're giving
18:58
Speaker 1: another story. Tom in the in the Trial Crime Stories
19:17
Speaker 1: with Nancy Grace Charlie thanks to joining me female editor
19:24
Speaker 1: with The Daily Mail. I don't think that the victims
19:28
Speaker 1: gave different stories. I think that under the appropriate questioning,
19:34
Speaker 1: more facts came out on the stand. Because when you
19:40
Speaker 1: ask somebody okay, what happened, and then they tell you, Well,
19:43
Speaker 1: then you may want to ask, well, do you remember
19:45
Speaker 1: what time of year it was, do you remember what
19:47
Speaker 1: the part was wearing. Do you remember what you were wearing?
19:49
Speaker 1: Do you remember who let you into the home? Do
19:52
Speaker 1: you remember if there were any maids there, anybody else
19:54
Speaker 1: at Epstein's home. I mean, there are a million questions
19:58
Speaker 1: that you can ask where the victim would add to
20:01
Speaker 1: the story, not necessarily change the story. Charlie, No, and
20:04
Speaker 1: I don't think, I mean, you know, from my experience
20:07
Speaker 1: of kind of reading through everything that went on with
20:09
Speaker 1: the trial, I don't think that any of the victims
20:13
Speaker 1: were particularly doubtful in any of their you know kind
20:18
Speaker 1: of testimonies. I think that all of the victims spoke
20:21
Speaker 1: very clearly about what they had been through and ge
20:26
Speaker 1: Lane's part in that, which, you know, as we've pointed out,
20:30
Speaker 1: we aren't kind of looking here at a charge for
20:33
Speaker 1: sexual abuse at the hands of Gui Lane. What we
20:35
Speaker 1: are looking for is kind of these charges of trafficking
20:39
Speaker 1: and enticement, and every single one of the victims was
20:42
Speaker 1: able to give very clear testimony about the part that
20:46
Speaker 1: Gui Lane played in you know kind of Epstein's trafficking
20:51
Speaker 1: ring effectively. So when it comes to a jura like
20:56
Speaker 1: Scottie David explaining to his other jurors what it is
21:00
Speaker 1: like to be the victim of sexual abuse and what
21:02
Speaker 1: it is like to kind of try and recall those memories,
21:05
Speaker 1: I don't think that he in any way kind of
21:09
Speaker 1: made jurors completely changed their minds about witness testimonies. I
21:14
Speaker 1: think what he was trying to do was offer what
21:18
Speaker 1: some of the victims weren't able to say, which is
21:21
Speaker 1: sometimes my memory is a little bit blurry. Sometimes I
21:24
Speaker 1: can't recall certain facts. But what I can recall and
21:28
Speaker 1: what I know to be true, is what I went through.
21:31
Speaker 1: Just because I can't remember whether it happened on a
21:33
Speaker 1: Tuesday or a Wednesday doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
21:36
Speaker 1: I takulos to Erica d This is Joe Pipe the Skynese.
21:40
Speaker 1: This juror says that he quotes flew through the questionnaire.
21:45
Speaker 1: He doesn't remember answering a question about abuse, but if
21:49
Speaker 1: he did answer it, he answered it honestly. Certainly, both
21:53
Speaker 1: sets of lawyers on the prosecution and on the defense
21:55
Speaker 1: side recognize as a problem here. The first lawyers to
21:58
Speaker 1: get in touch with the judge rights. The asking for
22:00
Speaker 1: an inquiry a call hearing a month's time was the
22:03
Speaker 1: government lawyers, but since there in the last hour or so,
22:05
Speaker 1: Gilly Maxwell's team have also been in touch with Judge
22:08
Speaker 1: Nathan saying that the interviews and the fact that Scottie
22:13
Speaker 1: David was a victim of abuse presents quotes incontroversible grounds
22:18
Speaker 1: for a new trial. He could potentially be in some
22:21
Speaker 1: legal trouble if he has misled the court, although I'm
22:24
Speaker 1: sure he would deny that. Anna. What we could potentially see,
22:27
Speaker 1: although it is early days, is the judge declaring the
22:31
Speaker 1: first trial a mistrial and starting again from scratch. That's
22:35
Speaker 1: something I'm sure that the government, the prosecutors here in
22:38
Speaker 1: the US I would want to avoid. But that is
22:40
Speaker 1: what Gillay Maxwell's lawyers are now calling for. Ah. The
22:45
Speaker 1: potential of a brand new trial, putting the victims back
22:49
Speaker 1: up again doing it all over would be devastating to
22:53
Speaker 1: the state. But the reality is to Wendy Patrick, California prosecutor,
22:58
Speaker 1: host of Today would doctor Wendy on CACBQ, the reality
23:02
Speaker 1: is that what must be shown is not that a
23:07
Speaker 1: jurr or multiple grs had been molested in the past,
23:11
Speaker 1: not that, but that that information was either not requested
23:17
Speaker 1: by the state, that the state has some type of misconduct,
23:20
Speaker 1: and we see in question number forty eight the state
23:23
Speaker 1: did ask that question, So we don't have any prosecutorial misconduct.
23:28
Speaker 1: Did ajar lie that would be an issue? And if so,
23:34
Speaker 1: did that lie? Maybe it jurar impartial and would it
23:41
Speaker 1: have changed the outcome of the trial? Otherwise? That is
23:46
Speaker 1: a very steep burden. Wendy Patrick, No, it is, and
23:51
Speaker 1: I won't say that I haven't had to try cases
23:53
Speaker 1: twice due to during misconduct, because I have. But that
23:56
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that it is a slam dunk, as the
23:59
Speaker 1: defenses contend. Not only is it a steep hill to climb,
24:03
Speaker 1: but it also involves something courts really don't want to do,
24:06
Speaker 1: which is really invading the purview of jury deliberations. I mean,
24:11
Speaker 1: that's why we have the jury system, is they're entitled
24:13
Speaker 1: to get together and talk and share and to go
24:16
Speaker 1: beyond that veil and then start what poland jurors to
24:19
Speaker 1: see if in fact, this did make the months fair
24:21
Speaker 1: when they heard this. That's not something a judge is
24:23
Speaker 1: going to do lately. So I do think that this
24:26
Speaker 1: judge todays take a very thoughtful view as to whether
24:29
Speaker 1: or not what's being raised here actually will cause her
24:34
Speaker 1: to even think about going down that road. And this
24:37
Speaker 1: occurring the potential of a new trial being ordered for
24:41
Speaker 1: Dalaie Maxwell. If there was prosecutorial misconduct, the whole thing
24:45
Speaker 1: could be over, the commission could be thrown out, and
24:49
Speaker 1: the case may be barred from rey trial. I do
24:52
Speaker 1: not see any prosecutorial misconduct, but will there have to
24:56
Speaker 1: be a new trial? That would be a huge for
25:00
Speaker 1: the defense. But statistically, when there is a second trial,
25:03
Speaker 1: the state usually wins, but it will be painful. While
25:08
Speaker 1: all this is happening, another bombshell in the case of
25:12
Speaker 1: another Epstein Elaine Maxwell victim, Virginia Jeffreys and Epstein victim
25:18
Speaker 1: that is take a listen to Aricut fifteen. This is
25:23
Speaker 1: the BBC's Emily Metlas interview with Prince Andrew Julia. This year,
25:30
Speaker 1: Epstein was rested on charges of sex trafficking and abusing
25:33
Speaker 1: dozens of underage girls. One of Epstein's accuses, Virginia Roberts,
25:39
Speaker 1: has made allegations against you. She says she met you
25:43
Speaker 1: in two thousand and one. She says she dined with you,
25:46
Speaker 1: danced with you at Tramp nightclub in London. She went
25:50
Speaker 1: on to have sex with you in a house in
25:52
Speaker 1: Belgravia belonging to girl and Maxwell. Your friend your response,
25:57
Speaker 1: I have no recollection of meeting this lady, none whatsoever.
26:03
Speaker 1: You don't remember meeting her? She says she met you
26:07
Speaker 1: in two thousand and one. She dined with you, she
26:11
Speaker 1: danced with you, You bought her drinks. You were in
26:15
Speaker 1: Trump nightclub in London, and she went on to have
26:19
Speaker 1: sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to
26:23
Speaker 1: girl in Maxwell. Didn't happen? Do you remember her? No? Okay?
26:30
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew says he has no recollection of meeting Virginia
26:35
Speaker 1: Roberts underage at that time, much less having sex with her.
26:39
Speaker 1: But there's a picture of him with her and one
26:43
Speaker 1: of the homes that she describes. Now, brace yourself. They
26:48
Speaker 1: go listen to our cut nineteen again our friends at
26:52
Speaker 1: BBC with Prince Andrew. Do you recognize yourself in It's
26:57
Speaker 1: pretty difficult not to recognize yourself. Your friend suggested that
27:01
Speaker 1: the photo is fake. I think it's from the investigations
27:07
Speaker 1: that we've done. You can't prove whether or not that
27:11
Speaker 1: photograph is faked or not because it is a photograph
27:16
Speaker 1: of a photograph of a photograph, so it's very difficult
27:19
Speaker 1: to be able to prove it. But I don't remember
27:24
Speaker 1: that photograph ever being taken. But it's possible that it
27:27
Speaker 1: was you with your that's me, but whether that's my
27:30
Speaker 1: hand or whether that's the position, but I don't. I
27:35
Speaker 1: have simply no recollection of a photograph ever being taken. Okay,
27:41
Speaker 1: well we have the photograph, so it happened. Now brace
27:44
Speaker 1: yourself one more time, our cut twenty one, our friends
27:49
Speaker 1: at BBC. So why would somebody have put in another hand?
27:53
Speaker 1: You think it is you next to her in the photo?
27:56
Speaker 1: It's definitely me, that's a that's a picture of me,
28:00
Speaker 1: not a picture of I don't believe it's a picture
28:01
Speaker 1: of me in London because when I would go out
28:03
Speaker 1: to when I go out in London, I wear a
28:06
Speaker 1: suit and the tie. That's what I would just grow as.
28:10
Speaker 1: Those are my traveling clothes if I'm going to go,
28:13
Speaker 1: if I'm going overseas, I've got plenty of photographs of
28:17
Speaker 1: me addressed in those sorts of that sort of kit,
28:22
Speaker 1: but not there. Okay, mystery solved. Those are his traveling clothes,
28:26
Speaker 1: all right, Charlie Lyne's enjoining us at dailymail dot com
28:30
Speaker 1: Female editor F A M A I L Editor Charlie.
28:37
Speaker 1: That settles the whole thing, of course, that live because
28:41
Speaker 1: those are his traveling clothes which he would not have worn.
28:43
Speaker 1: Then I he molested a teen girl in the last day.
28:48
Speaker 1: Let us not forget the claims that he also is
28:50
Speaker 1: not able to sweat and therefore could not have been
28:52
Speaker 1: sweaty while dancing with a teenage girl. Time stories with
29:09
Speaker 1: Nancy Grace for those of you just joining us. Another
29:14
Speaker 1: bombshell in the case relating to Gilane Maxwell and now
29:19
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. In the last hours, we
29:24
Speaker 1: learn a judge has dealt a major blow to Prince Andrew.
29:29
Speaker 1: Don't you know the Queen is doing a back flip
29:32
Speaker 1: right now to you, Charlie Langston tell us about the
29:38
Speaker 1: decision that has been made in the last hours regarding
29:42
Speaker 1: Andrew's attempt to stop Virginia Jeffrey's case. Well, I first
29:47
Speaker 1: would like to point out that we have had a
29:50
Speaker 1: huge blow to Prince Andrew talking about the Virginia Roberts
29:53
Speaker 1: picture because a witness at Gilaine Maxwell's trial who was
29:57
Speaker 1: one of the victims, has waived her amity and has
30:01
Speaker 1: come forward to say that she remembers Virginia Roberts telling
30:05
Speaker 1: her at the time that she had not only gone
30:08
Speaker 1: out with Gilaine, Jeffrey and Prince Andrew, but that she
30:12
Speaker 1: had had sex with Prince Andrew. She then returned to
30:15
Speaker 1: the US, picked up this friend from school and showed
30:19
Speaker 1: her the exact same picture that Prince Andrew was just
30:23
Speaker 1: talking about in those clips. So that is a major
30:28
Speaker 1: blow to Prince Andrew because this is the first time
30:31
Speaker 1: that we have heard someone else claiming to have an
30:36
Speaker 1: account of what Virginia Roberts is saying. Previously, we haven't
30:40
Speaker 1: had anyone else say I was there at the time,
30:43
Speaker 1: Virginia told me at the time what had gone on.
30:46
Speaker 1: So the fact that there is another person coming forward
30:49
Speaker 1: saying I heard Virginia tell me this when it happened,
30:52
Speaker 1: that's a major blow to Prince Andrew's case. In the
30:57
Speaker 1: last hours, the Prince Andrew lost a major legal battle.
31:04
Speaker 1: There had been a settlement, so to speak, between Epstein
31:09
Speaker 1: and certain victims, and in that settlement some victims were
31:15
Speaker 1: paid off and they agree to never prosecute. Now, Prince
31:20
Speaker 1: Andrew had hoped that that settlement would have covered him,
31:24
Speaker 1: that he could not be prosecuted for underage sex as
31:28
Speaker 1: it related to Jeffrey Epstein. Think about it, the Prince
31:32
Speaker 1: of England, Queen Elizabeth's son, allegedly her favorite son. We
31:38
Speaker 1: all knew he slept around gaining the name Randy Andy.
31:42
Speaker 1: But with Miners, they have tried everything possible to stop
31:49
Speaker 1: this case. A judge unseals the sealed settlement and in
31:54
Speaker 1: the settlement, Prince Andrew is not mentioned. He's not part
32:01
Speaker 1: of the settlement. There is no reason that a case
32:04
Speaker 1: against him cannot go forward. That's the big bottleshell that
32:10
Speaker 1: has happened in the last hours. Guys. When it comes
32:14
Speaker 1: down to the picture that you hear Charley Lankston from
32:18
Speaker 1: delhimail dot com talking about, you know Andrew, just he
32:23
Speaker 1: keeps trying, it wasn't me. I wasn't there, I didn't
32:26
Speaker 1: have sex. I don't remember. Oh, okay, that is me
32:30
Speaker 1: in that picture. But I would never have done that.
32:33
Speaker 1: And that's not my hand, it's my body. I was
32:37
Speaker 1: there at that location. But that's not my hand around
32:40
Speaker 1: this underage girl. Plus those aren't the correct clothes. I
32:43
Speaker 1: would never wear that to a party. All right, Take
32:46
Speaker 1: a listen to our cut twenty two. Just to clarify,
32:50
Speaker 1: say you think that photo has been faked. Nobody can
32:56
Speaker 1: prove whether or not that pograph has been doctored. But
33:01
Speaker 1: I don't recollect that photograph ever being taken. And you
33:05
Speaker 1: don't recollect having your hand around her waist in girl
33:10
Speaker 1: and Maxwell's house on any occasion, even if it was
33:13
Speaker 1: a different Sorry, but if I as a member of
33:16
Speaker 1: the royal family and I have a photograph taken, and
33:19
Speaker 1: I take very very few photographs, I am not one too.
33:25
Speaker 1: As it were, hug and public displays of affection are
33:29
Speaker 1: not something that I do. So that's the best explanation
33:36
Speaker 1: I can give you. And I'm afraid to say that
33:38
Speaker 1: that I don't believe that photograph was taken in the
33:43
Speaker 1: way that has been suggested. Okay, wait for it. Take
33:48
Speaker 1: lost to our cut twenty seven again. The BBC Epstein's
33:51
Speaker 1: housekeeper also in a Florida court legal deposition, so that
33:54
Speaker 1: you visited the Palm Beach residence around four times a year,
33:58
Speaker 1: you've got a daily mass four times a year. That
34:01
Speaker 1: was what he said in a Florida called legal deposition.
34:05
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering, when you look back now, is there
34:08
Speaker 1: a chance that those massages might have been the services
34:12
Speaker 1: of someone who is being sexually exploited or trafficked by Epstein? No,
34:20
Speaker 1: I don't think. I mean, I know, definitely not, definitely not.
34:25
Speaker 1: And I definitely did not visit his Palm Beach house
34:30
Speaker 1: three or four times a year, Absolutely not. How many
34:34
Speaker 1: times would you say visited are in total? Probably four
34:40
Speaker 1: times in total throughout the time that I knew him. Okay,
34:47
Speaker 1: you may ask why would the son of Queen Elizabeth
34:53
Speaker 1: hang out with a pedophile who had been convicted why? Well,
35:01
Speaker 1: what it boils down to, according to sources. Charlie Langston
35:04
Speaker 1: joining us with from daling on dot com is it's
35:07
Speaker 1: all about money. Is it true that Prince Andrew had
35:12
Speaker 1: a lawsuit leveled against him, he needed money and he
35:15
Speaker 1: went to Epstein to get money. I mean, I think
35:19
Speaker 1: so much of this is all revolving around money. And
35:24
Speaker 1: what we know about Prince Andrew's friendship with Epstein is
35:29
Speaker 1: that no matter how many people came forward and no
35:33
Speaker 1: matter how many scandals were leveled at Epstein, Prince Andrew
35:37
Speaker 1: did not end his friendship with this disgraced financier. You know,
35:42
Speaker 1: we have those famous pictures of the two of them
35:45
Speaker 1: in New York together after Epstein had been accused of
35:49
Speaker 1: sexually assaulting several women. You know, Prince Andrew has since
35:53
Speaker 1: said that he felt as though he needed to speak
35:55
Speaker 1: to Epstein in person to tell him that they could
35:58
Speaker 1: no longer be friends. But that, to me is just
36:01
Speaker 1: absolutely ludicrous. How on earth, as a senior member of
36:05
Speaker 1: the royal family, as the son of the Queen, how
36:09
Speaker 1: can you think that it is okay to even give
36:12
Speaker 1: this person any face to face time. An email would
36:16
Speaker 1: have sufficed saying I'm sure you can understand, in light
36:20
Speaker 1: of everything that's going on, we can no longer be
36:23
Speaker 1: seen together, be seen to have any form of relationship whatsoever.
36:27
Speaker 1: But of course, when it came to Epstein, one of
36:30
Speaker 1: the reasons that he was able to continue his relationships
36:34
Speaker 1: with so many powerful people, not just Prince Andrew, was
36:38
Speaker 1: because of the wealth and the power that he himself had,
36:41
Speaker 1: and he was able to use that in order to
36:44
Speaker 1: form very close friendships with a very high number of
36:48
Speaker 1: high profile and important people. And what we're learning is
36:51
Speaker 1: that the money that Andrew allegedly owed was not that
36:57
Speaker 1: much when you think about royalty, I mean, has this
37:01
Speaker 1: guy ever worked a day in his life? I mean,
37:03
Speaker 1: I know he was with the Navy, correct, the Royal Navy. Yeah.
37:08
Speaker 1: Is he about to be stripped of all of his
37:10
Speaker 1: military titles? There is a huge amount of pressure right
37:15
Speaker 1: now on the Queen to strip Andrew of his honorary
37:19
Speaker 1: military titles. And you have to remember Prince Harry was
37:23
Speaker 1: very recently stripped of all of his honorary military titles
37:27
Speaker 1: and the reason for that was because he stepped down
37:31
Speaker 1: as an active member of the royal family. He is
37:34
Speaker 1: no longer an official member of the working Royal family. Well,
37:37
Speaker 1: neither is Prince Andrew. You know, it was made very
37:39
Speaker 1: clear by the Queen and by Prince Charles after this
37:43
Speaker 1: whole scandal broke that Prince Andrew would no longer be
37:47
Speaker 1: an active, working member of the Royal family. So if
37:50
Speaker 1: Prince Harry lost his military titles for that same reason,
37:54
Speaker 1: surely Prince Andrew also needs to be stripped of his titles.
37:59
Speaker 1: Even if the family is you know, kind of standing
38:02
Speaker 1: by him. Defending him, you know, paying no mind to
38:06
Speaker 1: these accusations against him. The fact that he is no
38:09
Speaker 1: longer a working member of the royal family would give
38:12
Speaker 1: them enough reason to remove his military titles. Take a
38:16
Speaker 1: listen to our cut thirty five. This is Virginia Roberts
38:20
Speaker 1: Jeffrey speaking to NBC. Virginia says the abuse moved from
38:25
Speaker 1: the bathroom to a bedroom. He wasn't rude or anything
38:29
Speaker 1: about it. He said, you know, thank you and some
38:33
Speaker 1: kind of soft sentiments like that, and left. I just
38:38
Speaker 1: couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe that even Royals Hue
38:41
Speaker 1: were involved, She says. Prince Andrew abused her two more times,
38:46
Speaker 1: once in New York in Epstein's mansion and again at
38:49
Speaker 1: his Virgin Islands estate. Prince Andrew, of course, denies that
38:53
Speaker 1: this ever happened. He denies that had ever happened, and
38:58
Speaker 1: he's going to keep denying that had ever happened. But
39:01
Speaker 1: he knows the truth, and I know the truth. We
39:04
Speaker 1: wait as justice unfalls. Nancy Grace comes story, signing off
39:09
Speaker 1: goodbye friend.