Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell's Legal Team And The Allegations Of Juror Misconduct (9/19/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell's Legal Team And The Allegations Of Juror Misconduct (9/19/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles so this situation
0:05
Speaker 1: with juror number 50 is still yet to be decided
0:09
Speaker 1: well now Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers have come out and they're
0:13
Speaker 1: saying that Scotty David juror number 50 should have never
0:17
Speaker 1: even been on this jury now that is the point
0:19
Speaker 1: of contention isn't it should he have been on this
0:22
Speaker 1: jury or shouldn't he have been on this jury well
0:26
Speaker 1: That's what they're trying to figure out as we speak.
0:29
Speaker 1: And the decision is going to come down to what
0:32
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan makes of all of this. So if she
0:36
Speaker 1: thinks that Maxwell deserves a new trial, that's where we're
0:39
Speaker 1: going to end up. On the flip side of that,
0:42
Speaker 1: if Judge Nathan rules that, you know, Scotty David just
0:47
Speaker 1: misremembered here and didn't lie. Well, there'll be no mistrial
0:50
Speaker 1: and we'll move on to the sentencing phase. Now, I
0:54
Speaker 1: hope that that is the route that we go, right?
0:58
Speaker 1: I don't want to deal with another trial here. I
0:59
Speaker 1: know none of you want to deal with another trial.
1:02
Speaker 1: And I certainly know that the survivors don't. And really,
1:06
Speaker 1: that's what it comes down to for me, right? Those ladies,
1:09
Speaker 1: those women, they don't deserve to go through this nonsense again.
1:12
Speaker 1: To relive all of this, this nightmare. So I hope,
1:16
Speaker 1: beyond hope, that the court finds that things might have
1:21
Speaker 1: been a little wonky. But not out of line. That
1:25
Speaker 1: is my hope. But we'll have to see what Judge
1:28
Speaker 1: Nathan has to say. And you know that Maxwell's lawyers
1:31
Speaker 1: are going to be forceful as they try and request
1:33
Speaker 1: this new trial, try and request a new hearing to
1:36
Speaker 1: get their client off. So let's jump into this article
1:40
Speaker 1: from The Guardian and let's see what Victoria Bekempis has
1:46
Speaker 1: to say. Headline. Glenn Maxwell lawyers say Scotty David should
1:51
Speaker 1: never have been on the jury. attorneys reject explanation that
1:55
Speaker 1: juror 50 flew through the screening questionnaire, which would have
1:59
Speaker 1: flagged he had been sexually abused. And if I was
2:02
Speaker 1: the lawyers, I'd be saying the same thing, right? Hey, look,
2:05
Speaker 1: this guy obviously lied. We need a new trial. What
2:07
Speaker 1: the hell's going on here? And from my seat in
2:10
Speaker 1: the peanut gallery, that seems to be a pretty strong argument, right? Look, again,
2:15
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer and I don't, you know, I
2:17
Speaker 1: don't know the ins and outs on how these kind
2:20
Speaker 1: of things usually work, but I know that if it
2:23
Speaker 1: was me and this juror might have lied and I was,
2:27
Speaker 1: you know, looking at 80 years, I'd be doing everything
2:30
Speaker 1: in my power to try and get a new trial
2:31
Speaker 1: as well. Now, we all know that that doesn't work
2:35
Speaker 1: out so well for people in the justice system, right?
2:38
Speaker 1: When the court makes a decision, more times than not,
2:41
Speaker 1: that's the decision that stands. And we've seen that over
2:46
Speaker 1: and over in this Maxwell case, especially how many times
2:49
Speaker 1: has she taken it to the appeals court only to
2:52
Speaker 1: have the appeals court flip it right back down to
2:54
Speaker 1: judge Nathan. Glenn Maxwell's lawyers have said the juror who
3:01
Speaker 1: did not disclose childhood sexual abuse provided a dubious explanation
3:05
Speaker 1: for the omission as they once again requested a new trial. Hey,
3:10
Speaker 1: look again, I don't find his explanation to be very
3:13
Speaker 1: powerful or to be very convincing either, to be honest
3:16
Speaker 1: with you. And I really think that this guy threw
3:21
Speaker 1: a wrench in things here. You gotta be an honest person, right?
3:26
Speaker 1: Especially in a situation like this. When you know that
3:29
Speaker 1: if you're out here bullshitting around, screwing things up, mucking
3:32
Speaker 1: things up, you could start the process all over again.
3:36
Speaker 1: And like Maria Farmer said last night during the interview,
3:39
Speaker 1: how many more roadblocks do these ladies need? The juror,
3:44
Speaker 1: Scotty David, was questioned in court on the 8th of
3:48
Speaker 1: March about his lack of disclosure. David, who was juror 50,
3:52
Speaker 1: told the judge, Allison Nathan, that he was distracted when
3:55
Speaker 1: he flew through a screening questionnaire for potential panelists. The
4:00
Speaker 1: court has now heard from juror 50 in his own words.
4:03
Speaker 1: If there is one thing we learned from Juror 50
4:05
Speaker 1: at the hearing, it is this. He should have never
4:08
Speaker 1: been a member of this jury, Maxwell's lawyers said in
4:12
Speaker 1: court papers. And again, they don't have a weak argument here, right?
4:18
Speaker 1: But we have to remember and frame the argument up
4:22
Speaker 1: against the backdrop of what precedent has to say. And
4:27
Speaker 1: for Team Maxwell, they're going to sink their teeth into
4:29
Speaker 1: anything they can sink their teeth into at this point.
4:33
Speaker 1: They're like a drowning man, right? Any piece of debris. So,
4:37
Speaker 1: of course, they're going to latch on to this and
4:39
Speaker 1: hope beyond hope that they can finagle this some way
4:42
Speaker 1: and manipulate this some way to make it really look like,
4:45
Speaker 1: you know, there was a lot of malfeasance done here
4:50
Speaker 1: so that they can get that new trial. That is
4:51
Speaker 1: their goal. Moreover, his answers to the court's questions, which
4:58
Speaker 1: he gave after careful preparation by his attorney... And under
5:02
Speaker 1: the protection of government granted immunity. Alternated between inconsistent. Implausible.
5:08
Speaker 1: And contradictory. And at all times. Lacked credibility. Yikes. That's
5:13
Speaker 1: pretty harsh. That's a pretty harsh statement from Maxwell's team.
5:18
Speaker 1: But you shouldn't expect any less from these people. You
5:20
Speaker 1: saw the way they went after the survivors. You really
5:23
Speaker 1: think juror 50 is going to be spared. From their wrath.
5:26
Speaker 1: Zero chance. But look. This guy made his own bed,
5:30
Speaker 1: let's not forget. Nobody told him he had to lie
5:33
Speaker 1: or fly through the questionnaire. Nobody forced him to do
5:36
Speaker 1: any of that. He chose to do all of that.
5:42
Speaker 1: Juror 50's explanation that he flew through the questionnaire does
5:46
Speaker 1: not hold water. and is repeated after the fact assurances
5:50
Speaker 1: that the sexual abuse he suffered as a child did
5:53
Speaker 1: not affect his ability to be a fair and impartial
5:56
Speaker 1: juror were self-serving and simply not believable. So basically, they're
6:01
Speaker 1: just calling this dude a straight-up liar. That's what Maxwell's
6:04
Speaker 1: team is asserting. This dude's a liar, and he is
6:07
Speaker 1: the reason why Maxwell got convicted. That is what her
6:10
Speaker 1: team is trying to say, and that's how they're trying
6:13
Speaker 1: to frame their argument. that this dude can't be believed,
6:15
Speaker 1: he's an absolute liar, not a trustworthy guy, lied to
6:18
Speaker 1: get on the jury, lied about this, lied about that,
6:22
Speaker 1: and they're really trying to drive that point home. Like
6:27
Speaker 1: anyone in his position, Juror 50 does not want to
6:29
Speaker 1: be responsible for the retrial of Ghislaine Maxwell, so he
6:33
Speaker 1: attempted to give innocuous explanations for his false questionnaire responses
6:38
Speaker 1: and his decision to tell his story to the international press,
6:41
Speaker 1: following the trial. Well, yeah, who wants to be that person?
6:45
Speaker 1: Imagine going down in history as the moron who caused
6:48
Speaker 1: a retrial for Ghislaine Maxwell. Talk about going down in infamy. But,
6:53
Speaker 1: you know, look, that is definitely a possibility here. Is
6:57
Speaker 1: it likely? Look, I don't know, all right? But it's
7:00
Speaker 1: definitely a possibility here. And if Maxwell's lawyers can find
7:05
Speaker 1: a way to finagle this conversation and bend it more
7:09
Speaker 1: to their will, Then who knows what will happen. But
7:13
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be a tough road for
7:17
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell to get another trial here. David said in
7:25
Speaker 1: court that his omission had been an honest mistake and
7:29
Speaker 1: he had not lied to serve on Maxwell's jury. David
7:33
Speaker 1: was granted immunity to answer Nathan's questions, having previously stated
7:37
Speaker 1: that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
7:41
Speaker 1: And again, look, that is certainly within your ability, right?
7:45
Speaker 1: It's your right to plead the Fifth. But it doesn't
7:49
Speaker 1: look good in a situation like this, especially. You know,
7:52
Speaker 1: there's already questions about what this guy is up to.
7:55
Speaker 1: And then all of a sudden, well, you know what?
7:56
Speaker 1: I'm not going to answer any of these questions. I'm
7:58
Speaker 1: going to plead the Fifth. Uh, what? So, of course,
8:04
Speaker 1: people who are paying attention or watching what's going on
8:07
Speaker 1: here scratch their head and say, well, why are you
8:09
Speaker 1: pleading the Fifth? Why don't you just tell the court
8:10
Speaker 1: what happened? Be honest. Be truthful. But he didn't want
8:14
Speaker 1: to incriminate himself, right? He understands that, you know, he
8:17
Speaker 1: could have been in jeopardy of some legal trouble. So
8:21
Speaker 1: he's like, you know what? I'm going to just plead
8:23
Speaker 1: the Fifth here and hope the government gives me a
8:25
Speaker 1: little immunity. We had to be at the courthouse super early,
8:34
Speaker 1: David told Nathan, and I got here early and it
8:37
Speaker 1: took 45 minutes just to get through the security line.
8:40
Speaker 1: All of these little excuses that he's given, they all
8:42
Speaker 1: fall flat to me, honestly. I really don't have any
8:46
Speaker 1: time for that kind of stuff. Oh, it was busy. Well,
8:48
Speaker 1: what did you think was going to happen? Oh, I
8:50
Speaker 1: got there super early. Well, yeah, that's what you're supposed
8:53
Speaker 1: to do. What is this guy even talking about? When
9:00
Speaker 1: they finally got the questionnaires hours later, David heard papers
9:03
Speaker 1: being ripped off the questionnaire packets and people asking questions. Oh,
9:07
Speaker 1: so people asking questions and paper being ripped off of
9:11
Speaker 1: packets causes you to answer questions incorrectly or fly through
9:16
Speaker 1: the questionnaire? What does that even mean, man? All of
9:20
Speaker 1: these reasons, all of these excuses he has given are ridiculous, honestly.
9:24
Speaker 1: If I'm being real, they're ridiculous. We just sat there
9:30
Speaker 1: for three hours. I didn't have a phone. I didn't
9:32
Speaker 1: have a book, David said. I was just sitting, sitting
9:35
Speaker 1: there twiddling my thumbs, thinking about the breakup that just
9:38
Speaker 1: happened a few weeks prior and sitting in my feelings
9:41
Speaker 1: and not very focused. Well, you should have been, you
9:43
Speaker 1: should have asked to been excused then. What are you doing?
9:46
Speaker 1: Why are you sitting around there? If that's the sort
9:49
Speaker 1: of state of mind you're in, go tell the jurors,
9:51
Speaker 1: go tell the judge, hey, look, I can't do this.
9:53
Speaker 1: I just had this bad breakup. I can't focus correctly.
9:56
Speaker 1: I think somebody else would be better served to serve
9:59
Speaker 1: on this jury. But no, he didn't do any of that,
10:01
Speaker 1: did he? A jury convicted Maxwell on the 29th of
10:07
Speaker 1: December of sex trafficking and related charges for procuring girls,
10:12
Speaker 1: some as young as 14, for the now deceased pedophile,
10:15
Speaker 1: not financier, Jeffrey Epstein, to sexually abuse. Maxwell maintains her innocence. Oh,
10:21
Speaker 1: I'm sure she does. You know, according to Ghislaine Maxwell,
10:24
Speaker 1: nothing illegal ever occurred. What she did was on the
10:26
Speaker 1: up and up. That's how people conduct themselves in their world,
10:29
Speaker 1: isn't it? Oh, it's no big deal. Just come over
10:32
Speaker 1: here and give Jeffrey a massage. Sick people. The whole
10:36
Speaker 1: lot of them are a bunch of sick, disgusting animals. Epstein,
10:41
Speaker 1: a convicted sex offender who once counted powerful people, including
10:45
Speaker 1: Prince Andrew and his circle, was arrested in July of
10:48
Speaker 1: 2019 for sex trafficking. He killed himself while awaiting trial
10:53
Speaker 1: in New York federal jail. Allegedly. Right? Look, again, with
10:57
Speaker 1: the Epstein death, we don't have enough information one way
11:01
Speaker 1: or the other to say what happened in that jail cell. Right?
11:04
Speaker 1: At least I don't. Certainly not for me. And Bill
11:07
Speaker 1: Barr coming out and telling me, oh, well, You just
11:10
Speaker 1: have to believe what I'm telling you here, guys. Jeffrey
11:13
Speaker 1: Epstein killed himself. That certainly is not enough for me.
11:18
Speaker 1: Maxwell's watershed conviction was hurled into possible disarray following David's
11:24
Speaker 1: post-trial interviews, in which he mentioned being sexually abused as
11:28
Speaker 1: a child. David said that he told his fellow jurors
11:31
Speaker 1: about this to help them understand facts from a victim's
11:34
Speaker 1: point of view. Again, Have we talked to the other jurors?
11:38
Speaker 1: Are they going to come out and say that, yeah,
11:39
Speaker 1: this is the truth. I was swayed by this guy.
11:41
Speaker 1: So who knows what Nathan is up to behind the scenes,
11:44
Speaker 1: but I would think that that would be the right
11:46
Speaker 1: way to go. Did this guy really, you know, massage
11:50
Speaker 1: you one way or the other? What's, you know, what's up?
11:59
Speaker 1: David's statement spurred controversy as potential jurors were queried about
12:04
Speaker 1: past abuse during jury selections. Have you or a friend
12:07
Speaker 1: ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or
12:12
Speaker 1: sexual assault? Was one such prompt on the questionnaire. Who
12:16
Speaker 1: can really answer no to that, though, honestly? Does anyone
12:18
Speaker 1: know somebody who hasn't been sexually harassed, sexually abused, or
12:21
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted at this point in time? And that's really
12:26
Speaker 1: just a telling narrative on society in general, isn't it?
12:32
Speaker 1: After David's comments emerged, prosecutors asked Nathan to conduct an
12:36
Speaker 1: inquiry into his statements, a request that was quickly echoed
12:40
Speaker 1: by Maxwell's lawyers. Maxwell's legal team has repeatedly asked for
12:44
Speaker 1: a new trial over David's comments. And that's where we're at, right?
12:48
Speaker 1: We're trying to figure out what the next move is here.
12:51
Speaker 1: Are we going right to sentencing, or is it going
12:54
Speaker 1: to be a mistrial, and we're going back to the
12:56
Speaker 1: starting line to start this thing all over again? And
13:00
Speaker 1: I really, really hope that that is not the case.
13:04
Speaker 1: In paperwork filed on Tuesday, prosecutors argued against a new trial,
13:09
Speaker 1: pointing to David's insistence that he did not omit anything intentionally.
13:13
Speaker 1: Even if David had disclosed his past abuse, that would
13:17
Speaker 1: not have outright disqualified him from serving on the jury,
13:20
Speaker 1: they said. And that is the truth, right? When you
13:23
Speaker 1: come out and say, hey, look, I was abused, you
13:25
Speaker 1: answer honestly, that doesn't automatically mean you're not going to
13:29
Speaker 1: be on the jury. Chances are the defense is going
13:32
Speaker 1: to say, nah, let's get rid of this guy. Bring
13:34
Speaker 1: somebody who's a little more neutral in. Chances are that's
13:37
Speaker 1: going to happen. But we don't know. Nobody knows the future.
13:40
Speaker 1: Nobody knows what would have happened. After the thoughtful and
13:47
Speaker 1: thorough hearing held by this court, it is crystal clear
13:50
Speaker 1: that the defendant received a fair trial, prosecutors wrote. Juror
13:54
Speaker 1: 50's sworn testimony at the hearing made evident that he
13:57
Speaker 1: did not deliberately lie in completing that questionnaire, but that
14:01
Speaker 1: he instead made an honest mistake. And if it's determined
14:04
Speaker 1: that it was an honest mistake by Judge Nathan, then
14:07
Speaker 1: it's a wrap, folks. Put a bow on it. Let's
14:09
Speaker 1: move on to sentencing. And that's the point we're at, right?
14:13
Speaker 1: Everyone's made their arguments. All the facts as we know
14:16
Speaker 1: them have been put forth. Now Judge Nathan is going
14:20
Speaker 1: to make a determination one way or the other. The
14:25
Speaker 1: defendant cannot demonstrate that Juror 50 was biased. At the hearing,
14:29
Speaker 1: Juror 50 repeatedly denied that he harbored any bias or
14:32
Speaker 1: feelings one way or another with respect to the defendants
14:36
Speaker 1: or the government, prosecutors also wrote. To the contrary, Juror
14:40
Speaker 1: 50 consistently testified that he was fair and impartial in
14:44
Speaker 1: this case and that he rendered a verdict consistent with
14:47
Speaker 1: the evidence and the court's instructions of law. Well, that's pretty, uh,
14:52
Speaker 1: powerful statement by the prosecution and maybe a little bit overblown, right?
14:57
Speaker 1: But hey, look, let's be clear. The prosecution has a
15:00
Speaker 1: job to do. They don't want this to be a mistrial,
15:03
Speaker 1: more than we do even. Go back and start all over.
15:06
Speaker 1: It looks really bad for them. So they're going to
15:09
Speaker 1: do everything they can to make sure that this conviction
15:12
Speaker 1: sticks as well, as they should, by the way. Because
15:15
Speaker 1: let's be honest, does anyone really think Ghislaine Maxwell didn't
15:20
Speaker 1: deserve to be convicted here? I mean, come on. All
15:23
Speaker 1: of that evidence that we heard, and then at the
15:26
Speaker 1: very end for Annie to come out and drop the
15:29
Speaker 1: hammer with her testimony, it was a wrap, at least
15:32
Speaker 1: in my opinion anyway. It is unclear when Judge Nathan
15:37
Speaker 1: will rule on the attorney's latest arguments. Long-time attorneys have
15:41
Speaker 1: previously told The Guardian that a retrial is unlikely. Again,
15:46
Speaker 1: who knows in the world of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn
15:48
Speaker 1: Maxwell what's likely and unlikely at this point. But it
15:51
Speaker 1: certainly seems like Judge Nathan is leaning towards this verdict
15:56
Speaker 1: being upheld. And if that's the case, we'll move on
15:58
Speaker 1: to sentencing. And Maxwell's team, while they'll be focusing on sentencing,
16:03
Speaker 1: they'll be moving on to trying to get this appealed.
16:06
Speaker 1: So we'll have to see what happens here and we'll
16:09
Speaker 1: see which way the ball bounces. But, you know... It's
16:13
Speaker 1: my opinion that we're going to see the sentencing phase
16:16
Speaker 1: very soon. That's what my gut is telling me right now,
16:19
Speaker 1: especially after Scotty David had his little talk with Nathan.
16:23
Speaker 1: She didn't seem to be swayed too much as far
16:25
Speaker 1: as what the defense was trying to go for. So
16:29
Speaker 1: we'll have to see. But it doesn't look too promising
16:32
Speaker 1: for Ghislaine Maxwell and her legal team. All right, folks,
16:37
Speaker 1: that is going to do it for this morning's update.
16:40
Speaker 1: Last night, I spent some time with Maria Farmer. And
16:43
Speaker 1: we had a fantastic conversation for about an hour. Talked
16:46
Speaker 1: about Epstein, obviously, Maxwell, obviously. But the main portion of
16:51
Speaker 1: the conversation revolved around Les Wexner. So if you haven't
16:54
Speaker 1: checked that episode out yet, go back to last night,
16:57
Speaker 1: the evening update, and definitely download that one. As for me, well,
17:01
Speaker 1: I'll be back later on, like usual. Some more episodes
17:04
Speaker 1: are certainly on their way. If you'd like to contact me,
17:07
Speaker 1: you can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I
17:14
Speaker 1: at protonmail.com. You can also find me on Twitter at
17:19
Speaker 1: B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The links that go with this episode
17:25
Speaker 1: can be found in the description box. Welcome back to
17:29
Speaker 1: the Epstein Chronicles. We've been talking about juror number 50,
17:34
Speaker 1: Scotty David, for the past couple of days, since the
17:37
Speaker 1: revelations came to light that dude might not have been
17:42
Speaker 1: honest when he was answering the questions on the questionnaire.
17:46
Speaker 1: And last night, when we left off, there was news
17:50
Speaker 1: breaking from a lot of reliable sources that he did,
17:54
Speaker 1: in fact, lie on that questionnaire. And it would make sense,
17:58
Speaker 1: considering he retained outside legal counsel, bringing on Todd Spodek,
18:04
Speaker 1: and not accepting the legal counsel that was offered by
18:08
Speaker 1: the court. Now, what this means, well, there's a lot
18:15
Speaker 1: of speculation from a lot of different legal experts, but
18:21
Speaker 1: for us here in the peanut gallery, I find it
18:25
Speaker 1: hard to believe that if this is the case, that
18:29
Speaker 1: Scotty David did lie on this questionnaire portion that they
18:33
Speaker 1: won't get a mistrial here. Now, on the flip side
18:37
Speaker 1: of that, if he was honest and, uh, on the
18:41
Speaker 1: questionnaire and he answered it correctly and all of that,
18:44
Speaker 1: then it would, the, the onus would be on the
18:47
Speaker 1: defense then. And it would be their fault for letting
18:50
Speaker 1: it slip through. I have a hard time believing that
18:53
Speaker 1: happened though. As much as I've, uh, you know, busted
18:58
Speaker 1: the chops of Glenn Maxwell's defense team, I highly doubt
19:02
Speaker 1: that they would let something like that slide by. That's
19:05
Speaker 1: like remedial type stuff, right? Very basic, the most, one
19:10
Speaker 1: of the most important parts of your job is to
19:12
Speaker 1: make sure you vet that jury correctly to make sure
19:15
Speaker 1: that your client's getting a fair shake. So I find
19:19
Speaker 1: it hard to believe that they would have missed that
19:21
Speaker 1: on a questionnaire. But, You know, according to old Scotty David,
19:27
Speaker 1: he says, well, I flew through the questionnaire, but I
19:30
Speaker 1: know I was honest when I was answering the questions.
19:33
Speaker 1: Not very reassuring, is it? So with the people who
19:37
Speaker 1: are reporting that he lied on that questionnaire, like I said,
19:42
Speaker 1: it's a pretty reliable reporters, uh you know so i
19:49
Speaker 1: would think that with all of the circumstances we see
19:52
Speaker 1: popping up around this him getting the the outside counsel
19:57
Speaker 1: um prosecution calling for the inquiry i would think that
20:00
Speaker 1: he did play games on this questionnaire and that he
20:05
Speaker 1: was not truthful that is my guess and my speculation
20:10
Speaker 1: As I look at the evidence... That's available to us...
20:13
Speaker 1: And look at all of the... Picture... As a overall
20:19
Speaker 1: piece here... Rather obvious to me... That something is amiss...
20:23
Speaker 1: Rather obvious to anybody... That something is amiss... And... To
20:28
Speaker 1: be honest with you... I really think that... If he
20:32
Speaker 1: wasn't honest... That we're certainly headed for... Another long road... Folks...
20:39
Speaker 1: But again, that's just my opinion. I don't have any
20:43
Speaker 1: kind of legal precedent to back that up or anything
20:46
Speaker 1: like that. It's just the feeling that I get. And
20:50
Speaker 1: when you look at Judge Nathan's behavior in the past
20:52
Speaker 1: and the way she's admonished the government and prosecutors and
20:55
Speaker 1: stuff previously, you would think that somebody like Judge Nathan
20:59
Speaker 1: would probably lean towards granting a whole new trial here.
21:03
Speaker 1: But again, we'll have to see what really comes out here.
21:08
Speaker 1: And until we have... you know, 100% confirmation one way
21:13
Speaker 1: or the other. We're just speculating. And when it comes
21:17
Speaker 1: to something like this, you can't help but speculate because
21:20
Speaker 1: it's such an important issue. It's such an important matter
21:24
Speaker 1: moving forward, right? Literally everything hinges on this at this point. Now,
21:30
Speaker 1: with that said, I don't want it to sound like, oh, well,
21:33
Speaker 1: it's a mistrial. That's going to be the end of it.
21:36
Speaker 1: I think that she'd get convicted all over again. And
21:39
Speaker 1: in fact, if I was the federal government and this
21:41
Speaker 1: did go to a mistrial, I would come harder next time.
21:45
Speaker 1: I would bring other charges against her and I would
21:48
Speaker 1: make it even more difficult for her to challenge those
21:52
Speaker 1: charges the same way they would do to any one
21:54
Speaker 1: of us. I know people personally who have been hit
21:58
Speaker 1: with like a hundred predicates from Rico over sports gambling.
22:03
Speaker 1: You know, sports gambling that's legal all around the country now. Yeah,
22:07
Speaker 1: that same thing. 100 counts of Rico. House raided. Door
22:11
Speaker 1: kicked in. Dragged out of the house like they're John Gotti.
22:15
Speaker 1: The whole nine. Embarrass them in front of their neighbors.
22:18
Speaker 1: You know how it goes. Not here though, right? Nah.
22:22
Speaker 1: We'll just hit her with a few charges in this
22:23
Speaker 1: small little scope here. And, you know, we'll keep it moving. Well,
22:27
Speaker 1: this might be a chance for them to re-evaluate that.
22:31
Speaker 1: And maybe hit her with another superseded indictment. We know
22:35
Speaker 1: the information's there. We know the evidence is there. The
22:37
Speaker 1: question is, does the federal government have the willpower to
22:42
Speaker 1: proceed how it's necessary to proceed here? And thus far,
22:48
Speaker 1: they haven't been willing to do that at all when
22:50
Speaker 1: it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and his enterprise specifically. They've
22:56
Speaker 1: had numerous chances to go after these people and really
23:01
Speaker 1: drop the hammer on them. But instead, they've never done it.
23:06
Speaker 1: They'll give you the impression that they're going after them. Like,
23:09
Speaker 1: you know, when the prosecutors tell us, oh, the co-conspirators
23:13
Speaker 1: should not rest lightly. Oh, okay, yeah, sure. Where are
23:16
Speaker 1: all the co-conspirator indictments then? The only one we got
23:19
Speaker 1: here is Maxwell. Where's Sarah Kellen Vickers? Where's Leslie Groff?
23:23
Speaker 1: Where's Indycan Khan? So, they'll tell you one thing, meaning
23:29
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's office and, you know, the people who parrot
23:32
Speaker 1: their narrative. Oh yeah, we're really, we're still investigating the
23:36
Speaker 1: co-conspirators and this is far from over. And meanwhile, this
23:39
Speaker 1: is the case that they bring us. Scope of 10
23:44
Speaker 1: years when we know she was active for much longer
23:46
Speaker 1: than that. That's all you guys could come up with.
23:51
Speaker 1: And now I don't want to seem like I'm. piling
23:54
Speaker 1: on the prosecutor here it's not really their fault that
23:56
Speaker 1: scotty david wasn't truthful allegedly on this questionnaire but that
24:02
Speaker 1: said i haven't been a fan of the way the
24:04
Speaker 1: prosecution has went about this from the very beginning and
24:08
Speaker 1: anybody who gives them you know just uh complete uh
24:15
Speaker 1: run of the mill here let them do whatever they
24:17
Speaker 1: want meaning the federal government without questioning what they're up
24:20
Speaker 1: to then you obviously have not been paying attention to
24:23
Speaker 1: what's going on in this case and others the department
24:28
Speaker 1: of justice is pretty much just an embarrassment at this
24:33
Speaker 1: point in my opinion and it's been like that for
24:35
Speaker 1: quite some time at the very least since the bush
24:38
Speaker 1: regime And yet we continuously see these kinds of people
24:47
Speaker 1: like Elaine Maxwell, her friends, the rich, the bankers, the
24:52
Speaker 1: so-called aristocracy, all of these people, we see them avoid
24:57
Speaker 1: jail charges. We see them avoid going to prison. No
25:02
Speaker 1: matter what they do. Just take a look back at
25:05
Speaker 1: the financial collapse and how many of those bankers went
25:08
Speaker 1: to prison. Now flip that around and how many of
25:12
Speaker 1: you or your parents or family members had their life
25:16
Speaker 1: savings wiped out? I'm sure a lot of us. Now,
25:23
Speaker 1: on the other side of that, the bankers, none of
25:25
Speaker 1: them went to jail. It's okay. No big deal. You
25:28
Speaker 1: guys are too big to fail. And so the story goes.
25:33
Speaker 1: And then finally here with Glenn Maxwell, we get the
25:37
Speaker 1: conviction after all of these years. And then this sort
25:40
Speaker 1: of nonsense pops up right on the back end of it.
25:44
Speaker 1: Not even enough time to have a victory celebration, right?
25:47
Speaker 1: Before this shit pops up. And Ghislaine Maxwell, all the
25:56
Speaker 1: people like her, all of the associates that worked with them,
26:03
Speaker 1: all of these people who have avoided justice for so long,
26:08
Speaker 1: It's time for each and every one of them to
26:12
Speaker 1: sit down and be interrogated under oath, give depositions, and
26:17
Speaker 1: then to be indicted if necessary. How is that so difficult?
26:22
Speaker 1: Isn't that the job of these prosecutors? What is it
26:26
Speaker 1: that they're actually doing all day? Because these are the
26:31
Speaker 1: sort of people they should be prosecuting. These are the
26:33
Speaker 1: sort of people they should be chasing down. These are
26:36
Speaker 1: the sort of people that should be behind bars. But somehow,
26:41
Speaker 1: they always avoid going to prison, don't they? And just
26:46
Speaker 1: when you think that the jig is up, and that
26:50
Speaker 1: Maxwell is on her way, well, another roadblock pops up.
26:57
Speaker 1: And like I said, unfortunately, all this is going to do,
26:59
Speaker 1: in my opinion, is drag things out. Even if she
27:02
Speaker 1: gets another trial, it's going to be the same result
27:05
Speaker 1: in the end. She's going to get convicted. And I
27:09
Speaker 1: think that even though you have all of this nonsense
27:17
Speaker 1: now surrounding this conviction, I think that even without Scotty
27:23
Speaker 1: David giving his story to the jurors, I think that
27:26
Speaker 1: they would have come to this conclusion anyway. And I
27:29
Speaker 1: think that's another thing that has to happen. Before any
27:31
Speaker 1: sort of mistrial is declared or anything like that, all
27:35
Speaker 1: of the jurors should be talked to. And there should be,
27:38
Speaker 1: you know, a full-on investigation in that regard as well.
27:42
Speaker 1: And I'm guessing that's going to occur with this inquiry
27:44
Speaker 1: that they're doing. Now, what are they going to find
27:49
Speaker 1: from that? I have no idea. But I would think
27:52
Speaker 1: that Mr. Scotty David's, you know, talk with the other
27:58
Speaker 1: jurors wasn't the thing that absolutely swung them. So... There's
28:03
Speaker 1: still a lot to work out. There's still a lot
28:06
Speaker 1: of information that we need to find out. There's still
28:10
Speaker 1: a lot of things that we need to see happen
28:13
Speaker 1: before we really know what's what here. But until we
28:17
Speaker 1: get there, why don't we jump into this article from
28:20
Speaker 1: the Washington Post and let's see what author Shana Jacobs
28:25
Speaker 1: has to say. Juror revelations may jeopardize Ghislaine Maxwell convictions,
28:31
Speaker 1: experts say. Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking and conspiracy conviction, a
28:37
Speaker 1: little more than a week old, may not be salvageable,
28:40
Speaker 1: legal experts said Thursday, after two jurors publicly disclosed past
28:44
Speaker 1: sexual abuse that they might not have included on pretrial questionnaires.
28:50
Speaker 1: And now we know, again, from sources that came out
28:53
Speaker 1: yesterday and this morning, that they're saying that he was
28:57
Speaker 1: not truthful. On that questionnaire. At least Scotty David wasn't.
29:02
Speaker 1: So that's going to be what all of this hangs upon, right?
29:07
Speaker 1: Was he truthful? Or wasn't he truthful? Attorneys for the
29:13
Speaker 1: former longtime paramour... Really? The longtime paramour? How about convicted
29:17
Speaker 1: sex trafficker? Of disgraced financier, pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein... Are preparing
29:23
Speaker 1: to seek a new trial on the grounds that Maxwell...
29:26
Speaker 1: Maxwell's first was fundamentally unfair. A judge will consider the
29:31
Speaker 1: issue later this month. So now with him coming out
29:36
Speaker 1: and saying what he did, does that make this fundamentally unfair? unfair?
29:40
Speaker 1: I don't know. I guess if I was in Ghislaine
29:43
Speaker 1: Maxwell's shoes, I would think so. But legally speaking, that's
29:48
Speaker 1: the question that has to be answered. Does it meet
29:51
Speaker 1: the terms of it being fundamentally unfair? And that's what
29:59
Speaker 1: they're going to have to work out during this inquiry.
30:02
Speaker 1: Defense lawyers made the request Wednesday based on news articles
30:05
Speaker 1: that quoted one juror saying he used his past to
30:08
Speaker 1: convince others on the jury to believe Maxwell's accusers despite
30:13
Speaker 1: some gaps and inconsistencies. So again, let's hear from the
30:17
Speaker 1: other jurors. Let's see what they have to say. Was
30:19
Speaker 1: this guy the thing that convinced them? Or was it
30:23
Speaker 1: the reams of evidence that they went through throughout the
30:27
Speaker 1: whole entire proceedings? Because remember, everybody wants to be the
30:31
Speaker 1: hero in their story, right? So you got Scotty David
30:34
Speaker 1: out here talking about how he's the one that made
30:37
Speaker 1: everybody come around inside of the jurors room. When in reality,
30:41
Speaker 1: it could be something completely different. What I'm saying here
30:45
Speaker 1: is all we have to go on so far is
30:47
Speaker 1: Scotty David's word himself. And if we can believe the reports,
30:53
Speaker 1: that's not what I would call a reliable narrator at
30:57
Speaker 1: this point. Photos included with some of the articles indicate
31:08
Speaker 1: the juror is a 35-year-old executive assistant in the finance
31:12
Speaker 1: sector who was referred to as Juror 50 during anonymous proceedings. So,
31:18
Speaker 1: should it shock anybody that this dude works in finance?
31:21
Speaker 1: How long have I been telling you that finance is
31:23
Speaker 1: riddled with people that are disturbed? I mean, the whole
31:28
Speaker 1: entire sector is just crazy. Now, don't get me wrong,
31:31
Speaker 1: not all the people who work in finance. I'm talking
31:34
Speaker 1: about the corporations and the big dogs. You know, the
31:37
Speaker 1: Leon Blacks of the world, the Jess Staley's of the world,
31:40
Speaker 1: those types of scumbags. And when you take a look
31:44
Speaker 1: at the financial sector and the way that they enable
31:47
Speaker 1: and help people like Epstein and other scumbags, it's just
31:51
Speaker 1: mind-blowing what they get away with. All they get hit
31:54
Speaker 1: with are fines. All they get hit with are, you know,
31:56
Speaker 1: a little slap on the wrist. Oh, you owe us
31:58
Speaker 1: $ 150 million. Nobody ever goes to prison. Ever. Maxwell, 60,
32:07
Speaker 1: was found guilty on December 29th after four women testified
32:10
Speaker 1: that she groomed and recruited them as teenagers to give
32:13
Speaker 1: sexualized massages to Epstein and, in some cases, groped them herself.
32:20
Speaker 1: The disclosure that juror number 50 was abused as a
32:23
Speaker 1: child would not have automatically disqualified him from serving on
32:26
Speaker 1: Maxwell's jury. But, the defense would have almost certainly used
32:31
Speaker 1: one of its challenges to dismiss him had he made
32:34
Speaker 1: it past a 30-page, 50-question survey to an interview process
32:39
Speaker 1: in open court. So... That's what I was talking about
32:42
Speaker 1: a little bit ago. It would be very difficult for
32:45
Speaker 1: me to believe that Maxwell's team would miss something like this. Now,
32:49
Speaker 1: is it impossible that they missed it? No, it's not.
32:51
Speaker 1: They're human. Shit happens, right? People mess up at work
32:54
Speaker 1: all the time. The smartest people amongst us have screwed
32:57
Speaker 1: up on a project before. So it wouldn't be the
33:00
Speaker 1: first time, but I would be shocked if that is
33:03
Speaker 1: the case. So the most likely outcome here is that
33:07
Speaker 1: Scotty David was not truthful on this questionnaire. The answers
33:14
Speaker 1: to the questionnaire are sealed and jurors' names have not
33:17
Speaker 1: been made public. It is unclear whether juror number 50
33:21
Speaker 1: revealed his history of abuse when asked on the questionnaire
33:24
Speaker 1: if he, or a friend or relative, had ever been
33:28
Speaker 1: the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault.
33:33
Speaker 1: In the transcript of his questioning, however, he is not
33:36
Speaker 1: asked about his answer to the sexual abuse questioning, suggesting
33:40
Speaker 1: a disclosure had not been made. So if he would
33:44
Speaker 1: have made the disclosure, if he would have said that, yes,
33:49
Speaker 1: this happened to me or a friend or whatever, then
33:51
Speaker 1: during the questioning process, they would have brought it up
33:56
Speaker 1: and tried to get a bit deeper so that they
33:58
Speaker 1: could get rid of the juror, right? But that doesn't
34:01
Speaker 1: seem to have occurred. So that leads me to believe,
34:04
Speaker 1: if we're following the evidence anyway, that he was not
34:07
Speaker 1: truthful on that questionnaire. The sexual abuse and sexual assault
34:15
Speaker 1: question on the survey was considered vital to the process
34:19
Speaker 1: of picking a fair panel in a high-profile case that
34:22
Speaker 1: centered on the abuse of underage victims. At issue now
34:26
Speaker 1: is whether juror number 50 omitted his own history from
34:30
Speaker 1: the questionnaire despite written and verbal warnings that he was
34:34
Speaker 1: under oath and was instructed to tell the truth. So
34:38
Speaker 1: he's facing big trouble if he was not truthful. If
34:41
Speaker 1: he was lying here and he didn't answer truthfully on
34:44
Speaker 1: this questionnaire, he's definitely in jeopardy of getting slapped with
34:48
Speaker 1: perjury charges. In the printed packets, jurors were warned with
34:55
Speaker 1: capital letters and underlying notations that they were sworn to
34:58
Speaker 1: provide truthful responses. The final page is a declaration requiring
35:04
Speaker 1: a signature to the fact that under penalty of perjury,
35:08
Speaker 1: all of the above answers were truthful to the best
35:11
Speaker 1: of my knowledge and belief. So I think that he
35:16
Speaker 1: really is up against it here. Because if he remembered
35:20
Speaker 1: enough of his alleged abuse when he was younger to
35:23
Speaker 1: talk about it, then he must not have been truthful
35:27
Speaker 1: when he was answering these questions. So he finds himself
35:31
Speaker 1: in quite the situation here, in my opinion. And if
35:34
Speaker 1: it comes back that he was not truthful, he's probably
35:37
Speaker 1: going to be prosecuted. Former federal prosecutors watching the matter
35:43
Speaker 1: unfold have said U.S. District Judge Allison J. Nathan has
35:47
Speaker 1: tough questions to consider, including whether what has transpired has
35:52
Speaker 1: resulted in a material prejudice against Maxwell that can only
35:55
Speaker 1: be cured by a trial do-over. And that's going to
35:58
Speaker 1: be the argument put forth by Maxwell's people, right? That
36:01
Speaker 1: the only way that this can be fair, the only
36:04
Speaker 1: way this process can be right, is if we have
36:07
Speaker 1: a do-over. Now... I don't know what the result's going
36:13
Speaker 1: to be. I'm not going to sit here and make
36:15
Speaker 1: pretend I have any idea what's going to happen from
36:18
Speaker 1: this point on. I have no idea. But what I
36:21
Speaker 1: will tell you is this. I would not be shocked
36:23
Speaker 1: to see Judge Nathan grant this request. I would not
36:28
Speaker 1: be shocked in the least. And in fact, I'm preparing
36:30
Speaker 1: myself for that kind of long haul. Because if that's
36:35
Speaker 1: the case, we're right back at the grind, folks. It's
36:37
Speaker 1: going to be a long, long, long process. So hopefully
36:42
Speaker 1: that's not the case and we don't have to begin
36:45
Speaker 1: back at square one here. But I'm definitely preparing myself
36:49
Speaker 1: for it. This juror has no idea what kind of
36:55
Speaker 1: a chaotic chain reaction he has unleashed, said Jason P. W. Halperin,
37:01
Speaker 1: a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan,
37:04
Speaker 1: which handled the investigations of both Maxwell and Epstein prior
37:08
Speaker 1: to Epstein's death by suicide, allegedly, while awaiting trial in
37:13
Speaker 1: August of 2019. After written motions are filed in the
37:17
Speaker 1: coming weeks, and Nathan very likely holds a hearing on
37:20
Speaker 1: the matter, there is now a very real possibility that
37:24
Speaker 1: there will have to be a new trial, Halperin added.
37:27
Speaker 1: And can you imagine for a second how the survivors feel?
37:31
Speaker 1: Sitting around thinking that, you know, alright, this is one
37:34
Speaker 1: door closed. I can start to, you know, maybe pick
37:37
Speaker 1: the pieces up to my life here and move on
37:40
Speaker 1: to the best of my ability. And then not even
37:43
Speaker 1: a week later, this happens. It's really agitating to think
37:49
Speaker 1: how every single time these women think that, you know, alright,
37:54
Speaker 1: here's the beginning of my healing process, something like this
37:57
Speaker 1: pops up and ruins everything. Pushes, you know, the progress
38:02
Speaker 1: back a hundred steps. In 2015, a federal appeals court
38:10
Speaker 1: in New York granted a new trial to a former
38:13
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank broker in what was considered the biggest tax
38:17
Speaker 1: fraud case in history on the grounds that a juror
38:20
Speaker 1: in the case lied about substantial matters in her background.
38:23
Speaker 1: So there you go with a little bit of precedent
38:25
Speaker 1: right there. And you know that Maxwell's team is working
38:28
Speaker 1: in overdrive right now to get that precedent stuff all
38:32
Speaker 1: locked in. They're going through case study after case study
38:35
Speaker 1: right now. In Maxwell's case, questioning spanned several days, and
38:40
Speaker 1: dozens of jurors were released from service based on their
38:43
Speaker 1: questionnaire answers. Juror number 50, who could not be reached
38:47
Speaker 1: by the Washington Post, told Reuters that he didn't recall
38:50
Speaker 1: being asked about sexual abuse history and that he breezed
38:53
Speaker 1: through the questionnaire. Again, who the hell breezes through a
38:57
Speaker 1: questionnaire in a situation like this? That's concerning right off
39:00
Speaker 1: the bat. You don't have enough... Patience to go through
39:07
Speaker 1: a questionnaire line by line, letter by letter, and make
39:10
Speaker 1: sure you don't miss anything in something as crucial as
39:13
Speaker 1: being a juror? Todd Spodek, an attorney representing the juror,
39:20
Speaker 1: did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. Spodek
39:24
Speaker 1: filed notice with the court that he was representing the
39:26
Speaker 1: juror on Wednesday within hours of the U.S. So, again,
39:20
Speaker 1: that's when we try to read the tea leaves and,
39:22
Speaker 1: you know, look behind the scenes here. You got to
39:43
Speaker 1: look at things like that. When the prosecution is suggesting
39:48
Speaker 1: that the court appoint an attorney for the juror, it
39:52
Speaker 1: signals to me that there's some severe jeopardy here for
39:54
Speaker 1: him legally and therefore to the case as a whole.
40:03
Speaker 1: The juror undoubtedly has exposure for perjury, said Lindsey K. Gerdes,
40:07
Speaker 1: a former federal and state prosecutor who until recently served
40:11
Speaker 1: in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Brooklyn. That's why not
40:14
Speaker 1: only did the government ask for an attorney to be appointed,
40:17
Speaker 1: the judge, in fact, agreed that was appropriate. And now
40:21
Speaker 1: this juror has decided to retain their own attorney. So
40:24
Speaker 1: that tells you everything you need to know right there.
40:27
Speaker 1: In my opinion, that tells you where we're headed here.
40:30
Speaker 1: That tells you that he was not honest on the
40:32
Speaker 1: questionnaire and that we're all getting ready to have a
40:37
Speaker 1: bite of this shit sandwiched. Gerdes said the legal issues
40:44
Speaker 1: at play in Maxwell's case stand out. Most of these
40:48
Speaker 1: motions for a new trial are dismissed out of hand,
40:51
Speaker 1: but this is one that is getting immediate attention and
40:54
Speaker 1: very well may have a positive outcome for the defendant here,
40:58
Speaker 1: she added. And that's really what it comes down to.
41:02
Speaker 1: You know, I've heard pretty much a split of experts
41:06
Speaker 1: and lawyers and ex-prosecutors who say that this is grounds
41:10
Speaker 1: for a mistrial. And then the other half say, maybe not.
41:14
Speaker 1: So like everything else, we're just going to have to
41:16
Speaker 1: see how it plays out and see what happens here.
41:21
Speaker 1: Because it really is a gigantic, gigantic situation looming over
41:28
Speaker 1: this whole entire thing. Juror number 50's experience during questioning
41:33
Speaker 1: was mostly unremarkable, according to the transcript. He was asked
41:37
Speaker 1: about his social media habits, replying that he had deleted
41:40
Speaker 1: his accounts because I just got out of a relationship
41:43
Speaker 1: and didn't want to see anything regarding them. Last week, however,
41:47
Speaker 1: he appeared to announce his participation on the jury in
41:50
Speaker 1: an Instagram post, calling it incredible, surreal experience and an
41:54
Speaker 1: honor to serve our country. He also posted a selfie
41:58
Speaker 1: taken in front of the federal courthouse in early November
42:01
Speaker 1: in which he is playfully sticking out his tongue. Well,
42:05
Speaker 1: I don't really care about any of that. What is that?
42:07
Speaker 1: That doesn't prove anything. The thing that gets me is
42:10
Speaker 1: if he lied during the questioning. That's what we should
42:13
Speaker 1: be focused on. I don't care if he made an
42:15
Speaker 1: Instagram post while he was drinking a Slurpee and having
42:18
Speaker 1: a dirty water dog down in Central Park. I don't
42:21
Speaker 1: care about any of it. Did he lie or didn't
42:23
Speaker 1: he lie? In another twist that could influence the outcome
42:28
Speaker 1: of the future proceedings, a second juror told the New
42:31
Speaker 1: York Times they had also been abused and that their
42:34
Speaker 1: experience had played into deliberations, which lasted five full days
42:38
Speaker 1: and concluded in late December. As with juror number 50,
42:42
Speaker 1: it is not clear whether that person divulged the information
42:46
Speaker 1: on the questionnaire. Now you got two people. So it's
42:51
Speaker 1: either A, we have a bunch of people who were
42:53
Speaker 1: telling fairy tales to get on the jurors table here,
42:58
Speaker 1: or the defense just missed all of it. Those are
43:00
Speaker 1: the only two options at this point. Maxwell faces up
43:05
Speaker 1: to 65 years in prison based on her conviction. Her
43:08
Speaker 1: trial spanned four weeks and featured nearly 30 witnesses, including
43:12
Speaker 1: the four accusers, unfolding in pandemic conditions with the Omicron
43:17
Speaker 1: variant bearing down. It would be both expensive and complicated
43:22
Speaker 1: to launch a new trial. And some legal observers said
43:25
Speaker 1: Thursday that they were skeptical that Nathan would order a redo. Boy,
43:29
Speaker 1: that would be nice. Imagine Judge Nathan didn't order a
43:32
Speaker 1: new trial here. I just have my doubts considering how
43:36
Speaker 1: high profile it all is. So... Look, I would love
43:40
Speaker 1: for there not to be a new trial here, folks.
43:42
Speaker 1: I would love for this inquiry to take place for,
43:45
Speaker 1: you know, Nathan in the court to do their investigation
43:48
Speaker 1: and to come back and say that she's convicted and
43:50
Speaker 1: that's the end of it. But I'm preparing myself for
43:55
Speaker 1: the alternate possibility. Considering what we've dealt with in this
43:58
Speaker 1: case so far, I think it would be prudent for
44:01
Speaker 1: all of us to prepare as if we're going to
44:03
Speaker 1: a new trial at this point. For one thing, they said,
44:09
Speaker 1: It is rare for a judge to overturn a conviction
44:12
Speaker 1: after making careful rulings and decisions to ensure a fair trial.
44:16
Speaker 1: Judges tend to be wary of wading too much into
44:18
Speaker 1: the jury process, which is secret and generally protected. Yeah,
44:23
Speaker 1: but I think this might be the exception here considering, look,
44:27
Speaker 1: if he was not truthful on the questionnaire, then you
44:30
Speaker 1: have to think about what else he might not have
44:32
Speaker 1: been truthful about, right? Seth Ducharme, a former Justice Department
44:37
Speaker 1: official and former acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District
44:40
Speaker 1: of New York, said precedent allows jurors some leniency, but
44:44
Speaker 1: that jury conduct becomes improper when, for instance, a juror
44:48
Speaker 1: conceals having a personal relationship with a party in the case.
44:53
Speaker 1: Outside of egregious examples, there's a certain acceptance that jurors
44:57
Speaker 1: bring personal experience into deliberations, Ducharme said. Juries are generally
45:02
Speaker 1: not attorneys and judges... So conversations in jury rooms... Are
45:05
Speaker 1: amongst people that come from the community... He added... If
45:08
Speaker 1: you were going to disturb every jury verdict... Because somebody
45:11
Speaker 1: brought their own personal experience... Into that process... Then you
45:15
Speaker 1: would have to disturb every jury verdict... And I agree
45:18
Speaker 1: with that... And I don't disagree with the fact that...
45:21
Speaker 1: People should be able to talk about their life experience...
45:24
Speaker 1: Inside of the room... But if you were not truthful...
45:27
Speaker 1: From the very beginning... I just find it hard to
45:31
Speaker 1: think that Judge Nathan is not going to make a
45:34
Speaker 1: move here. Now again, these people who are lawyers and
45:38
Speaker 1: prosecutors and who have been doing this for their whole lives,
45:40
Speaker 1: they probably know a lot more than we do. And
45:43
Speaker 1: they've experienced a lot more than we have when it
45:45
Speaker 1: comes to this sort of thing. So I guess we'll
45:48
Speaker 1: just rely on what they have to say until we
45:51
Speaker 1: get to a point where Judge Nathan makes a ruling.
45:54
Speaker 1: And we'll continue to talk about this and see what
45:56
Speaker 1: comes of it. Because... I'll tell you. I don't know
46:03
Speaker 1: anybody that would have come up with this at the
46:05
Speaker 1: end of the trial here. This is like one of
46:07
Speaker 1: these movies that you see that has like the cliffhanger ending, right?
46:12
Speaker 1: It goes into the credits and then the credits stop
46:14
Speaker 1: rolling and you get another piece of the movie at
46:16
Speaker 1: the end. That's what's going on here. And it's just
46:19
Speaker 1: crazy to me. And really what it comes down to
46:25
Speaker 1: Is the fact that these survivors. These women. Are going
46:28
Speaker 1: to have to go through all of this. Potentially once again.
46:32
Speaker 1: And frankly I just. I find it horrible. And. The
46:38
Speaker 1: stuff that these ladies have dealt with. Leading up to
46:41
Speaker 1: this point. And then to think that this is. You
46:44
Speaker 1: know this chapter of it was over. And to have it.
46:46
Speaker 1: You know the band-aid yanked off again. It's just terrible. So.
46:51
Speaker 1: We'll see what comes of it. We'll see where it goes.
46:54
Speaker 1: And I'm sure as the day goes on today, we'll
46:57
Speaker 1: get some more information and some more context about all
46:59
Speaker 1: of this. But I really hope that it comes back
47:05
Speaker 1: that dude didn't lie, right? And that the defense was
47:09
Speaker 1: the ones who missed the boat here. Do I think
47:12
Speaker 1: that that's likely? No. But a guy can hope, can't he?
47:17
Speaker 1: All right, folks, that's going to do it for this morning.
47:19
Speaker 1: I'll be back later on, obviously, as usual. We'll have
47:22
Speaker 1: some more context episodes and all of that. And then tonight,
47:26
Speaker 1: be back with the evening update. Hope that all of
47:29
Speaker 1: you folks have a great Friday. And hopefully, a great
47:34
Speaker 1: weekend follows that. If you'd like to contact me, you
47:38
Speaker 1: can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com.
47:47
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I.
47:54
Speaker 1: The link that we discussed can be found in the
47:57
Speaker 1: description box.